Why I Do Capitalize God

Here’s another short one. Again, this isn’t some huge, pressing issue I’m tackling today. I’m not sticking it to the man this time, just ranting about a minor pet peeve of mine. The object of my ire right now is the atheist community. This might appear odd to some of you, given that I myself am a nonbeliever. But I’ve called out the atheists numerous times, both on this blog and in the real world, and I’m doing it again today. Buckle up, everyone. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Okay. Why the fuck do some atheists not capitalize the word God? I’ve heard some people say that it’s because he’s fictional, and that’s the argument I’m addressing here today. Most atheist, particularly the outspoken variety found on the internet, say that they don’t capitalize God because they believe he’s fictional. Not capitalizing his name is a way of rejecting the mass delusion their culture has bought into.

There are a couple of things wrong with that line of thinking. Firstly, Having a capitalized name and being fictional are not mutually exclusive. Nobody believes in Harry Potter, and yet we all capitalize his name. Fictional characters are still proper nouns, so the rules of correct grammar still apply. This includes God, at least according to atheists.

Now let’s look at that bit about shattering the mass delusion or whatever. To that end, I say, “REALLY?” Do you honestly believe that by not capitalizing the name God, you will break down the hold that religion has over society? Are you really that fucking dense, guys? If you really want to separate church and state, or encourage empiricism, then I’d agree with you. We all go by the same label, we have the same goals. But you cannot further those goals by just choosing not to capitalize a word. In the grand scheme of things, that’s inconsequential. Maybe instead of whining about trivial bullshit, you would work to improve science education or fight for social justice. Do that, please, and stop acting like such petulant children. Do it for me, so we can actually improve the world. Please?

And maybe obey the rules of proper grammar while you’re at it.

Just something to think about.

Fuck The Libertarians Episode Five: The Slippery Slope of Religious Freedom

In the wake of many recent events, the American public has initiated a discussion about religious freedom, particularly as the concept relates to business owners and the conduct thereof. That's what I'd like to talk about today.

In Indiana, there was a bill proposed called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would make it legal for business owners  to refuse service to anyone if serving them violated their 'sincerely held religious beliefs." Proponents of the bill stated that the bill was a response to religious liberty. It was about affording theistic business owners the right to practice their faiths, even during business transactions.

I call bullshit. Let's not kid ourselves here, the RFRA and other bills like it are not about liberty or freedom. It isn't about making Christian business owners feel comfortable. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to push discrimination against the LGBT community, pure and simple. This is a form of modern segregation, and nothing more.

And yet, many people, including those on the left, are in favor of such bills being made into laws. They support the right of private business to choose how they conduct said business, even if it means enforcing discriminatory policy. To them, it isn't a matter of bigotry. It's about workers' rights, apparently.

These people go on to claim that it's okay for bakeries to not serve gay couples, so long as there is a separate bakery where the couple can go to be served. That way, both the bigot and the couple can remain comfortable, having never crossed paths with one another in the first place. That would be fine, except for one small problem. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have already had this discussion. We ruled that, under the fourteenth amendment, segregation is unconstitutional. There. This discussion is over.

Wait, no it isn't. So-called pro-freedom individuals will say that we have to empathize with Christian business owners. After all, if you believe that serving a gay couple will result in you burning in Hell for eternity, then isn't it wise to not serve that couple? Again, it's about the feelings of the business owners.

But that's a slippery slope. The irony of me invoking this argument is not lost on me, but I feel it makes sense in this context. If Christian bakers can refuse service to business owners based on their feelings about Hell, what's stopping Christian landlords from doing so? There are many states where it is completely legal to fire someone for being gay. This is again based on the feeling of the business owner. The point is, should laws like these become the norm, you will eventually see gay people being turned away from vital services, such as, again, housing. The RFRA sets a very dangerous precedent.

If the goal of the RFRA is to prevent the eternal torture of a significant subset of the population, then by all means, sign it into law immediately. I might disagree with your views, but I certainly don't condone torture. But here's the problem with that line of reasoning. Nobody fucking knows what happens after we die. Many of us like to pretend we do, but at the end of the day, we have no clue. At a certain point, we're going to have to be pragmatic and make decisions based on the here and now, instead of some hypothetical scenario that, in all likelihood, will probably never come to pass.

Just something to think about.

Humanists Behind Bars

Recently, an inmate in a correctional facility in Oregon sued the prison for the right to practice his 'religion of humanism.' The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognized his plea. This means that, for the purpose of the prison system, humanism is considered a religion. This new designation affords humanist prisoners the right to form study groups, hire chaplains, and speak to philosophers.much in the same way that Christian inmates would be allowed to hire priests.

This seems to be following the US Army's example of recognizing humanism as a 'religious choice.'

Now, many atheists, most of whom refer to themselves as secular humanists, take this as a mixed blessing. And, honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from. After all, humanism is not a religion, and recognizing it a such might contribute to the collapse of the already tumultuous relationship between outspoken atheists and conservative Christians. After all, we've spent years correctly denying the claim that atheism is a religion, and now it is being recognized as such. At least it is in one specific context.

So, doesn't this designation sort of undermine our push for scientific literacy and reason? We claim that said push is not about furthering a religious agenda, and this law seems to be in direct opposition to that claim.

In this context, I don't think it does. See, this isn't really about the classification of humanism. It isn't a religion, but I don't think designating it as such here will actually contribute to misinformation among theists. At least, not among those theists who still have functioning brains. There aren't many, but they're out there. My point here is that calling humanism a religion is a means to an end. If there were a way to get around that, I'm sure prison officials would have taken that path. But I don't know. Maybe I'm giving these people too much credit.

Or rather I would be, were it not for the fact that this case does not designate humanism as a religion. It explicitly calls it a religious choice, as the US Army did. This is not the same as a religion. I think it can best be summed it with a quote from Bill Maher. "Atheism is religion like abstinence is a sex position." Yes, these two things are very different, but they're on the same spectrum. Opposite ends of it, sure, but the same spectrum nonetheless.

This case is not about religion. It's about whether or not secular humanists are entitled to the same protections under law as religious folks. Quite simply, this is a matter of human rights. The FBP was sued by the American Humanist Association, and they agreed to acknowledge humanism as a worldview, rather than a religion. So, really, the argument against this is meaningless.

This decision allows humanists in prison to request time and space for activities, the right to form study and debate groups, and many other things. Before, only theists had these rights. This breaks down the barrier between special religious rights and opens the door for debate and discussion. This is about equality. We have to focus on that, rather than the technical label.

Just something to think about.

Are Babies Atheists?

I've seen an info-graphic circulating around the Web recently, particularly in atheist spaces. It depicts an infant, and then below that, the words: 'you don't become an atheist. You go back to being one.'

That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.

This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"

Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.

That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.

Just something to think about.

The Reagan Question

"Sometimes when I'm faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I like to take him to the most delicious gourmet dinner I have ever served, and then when he's done, ask him if he believes there's a cook."

That's aQUOTE concerning God from president Ronald Reagan, or at least it's been attributed to him. Whether or not that is really the case remains to be seen. I don't want to spend too much time on who actually said this, though. Frankly, it's irrelevant to what I want to talk about right now. I'm far more interested in addressing the substance of the argument. Yes, trust me. There isn't a lot of substance to this, but it is there. Just squint and look real close, you'll find it.

This is essentially another way of wording the Argument from Design. That is to say, the world looks so complex, it must have a creator. Reagan uses a cooking metaphor to drive this pointHOME. Every meal has a cook, so every universe has to have a designer. God must exist, or the universe would not.

This is a fallacious assertion for a number of reasons. The first is that a meal and a universe are not one and the same. That's shocking, I know, but just bear with me for a moment. This will all make sense in time. See, the universe is essentially a series of naturalPROCESSES working in tandem with one another, whereas a meal is guided by a human hand. I am not aware of an natural processes that can create a gourmet dinner. If you are, let me know. That sounds tasty as fuck. Anyway, because there are no natural processes that are known to result in a meal, the only reasonable assumption one can make is that it was created by a human.

Conversely, we know of nothing that can create a universe other than the natural processes that science has observed. There is no evidence of an ethereal sky-daddy, whether you like it or not. Because there are natural processes in place, the existence of the universe just isn't enough to reliably say that a deity exists. If we could not observe evolution, for instance, then you might be able to say that there is a god. But we already know how the universe functions, for the most part. Therefore, the god claim holds no water.

The above refutation is not an endorsement of the God of the Gaps argument, however. That, too, isINCORRECT. The God of the Gaps assertion, for the uninitiated, goes something like this: "You cannot explain everything about how the universe works, so there must be a god." I have seen this defense used in almost every context imaginable, including the existence of hummingbirds. No, seriously. According to the theist in question, hummingbirds are too small to be able to fly under their own power, therefore God must have created them.

This is bullshit as well, and here's why. InORDER to make a positive claim about anything, you must be able to provide positive proof. Not knowing the cause of something doesn't mean you can just plug God into the equation and be done with it. That's not the way these things work. When you don't know something, you must work harder to find the answer. That's the only intellectually honest course of action.

Just something to think about.

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

Chris Costello

I am an atheist and, as anyone who’s spent any amount of time with me will tell you, I am also a feminist. This is kind of an odd combination, given that many outspoken internet ‘anti-theists’ have also devoted their time to ranting about the evils of feminism. The Amazing Atheist is an example of this. I’d call him an excellent example, but nothing about TJ Kirk is excellent. But, hey, nobody said that atheists all have to think a certain way, especially because the only thing uniting the atheist community is our lack of belief in magical sky people. So while atheistic feminists are certainly unusual, they still exist. Let’s move on, then, because there’s something else I wanted to discuss today.

If for some reason the title didn’t clue you in already, the subject of today’s article is the hypocrisy that is found within the atheist community, particularly as it pertains to feminism. I am speaking, of course, about cherry-picking.

Outspoken atheists, myself included, will often berate religious people for cherry-picking their beloved holy texts. In my experience, this is mostly a Christian tactic, but I am positive that people of all faiths employ it. The exchange below is a common example of the sort of thing I’m referring to here.

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON. THEIST AND ATHEIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING RELIGION)

THEIST: The Bible (or the Quran, or the Torah, or whatever), is a book of purely good things. It is an ironclad moral code. God is entirely good, as is His word.

ATHEIST: But what about the part where it advocates the murder of gay people? The KKK and the Sovereign Citizens are both right-wing, Christian terrorist groups, you know.

THEIST: I don’t believe in those things, so they don’t count. Not all Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots. Don’t lash out against an entire group of people based on the actions of a very loud minority. Stop painting with such a broad brush.

ATHEIST: All right, I get that. You aren’t an asshole, so that must mean that Christianity can be a force for good. It does often encourage people to aid the poor, after all.

THEIST: Precisely.

(THERE IS A PAUSE)

THEIST: Incidentally, did you know that Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists? That must mean that you’re a violent, oppressive dictator, right? All atheists are evil!

ATHEIST (ANNOYED): You realize that’s the same thing you told me not to do, right? Painting with a broad brush?

(THEIST BEGINS TO WALK AWAY)

That’s a perfect example of both hypocrisy and cherry-picking from religious people. Every atheist has been on the receiving end of something like that at one point or another, and it pisses us off, mostly because it’s fucking asinine. The anger that arises from stuff like this has caused most atheists to rally against hypocrisy and cherry-picking, in any context. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment that these two things are always bad.

So why, then, do antifeminist internet atheists regularly engage in both of these practices, often at the same time? To illustrate my point, I’ve included another scene. Consistency for the win!

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON ANTIFEMINIST AND FEMINIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING FEMINISM. FOR THE SAKE OF THIS SCENARIO, BOTH ARE ATHEISTS.)

FEM: My definition of feminism is equality for all genders. We seek to elevate women to standards men have already archived, thereby furthering equality for everyone. It’s an intersectional movement.

ANTI: But what about Sydney Greenheart, who believes that we ought to control the population on men in America by killing them. She calls herself a feminist, so she must be one, right? That means that the entirety of feminism is evil and obsolete. It should be eradicated, man.

FEM: The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, but we know that it’s really a communist dictatorship. Just because somebody uses a label doesn’t mean that label actually applies.

ANTI (NODDING): Okay, that makes sense.

FEM: See, now you’re getting it. Also, though, hold on. You just cherry-picked the most extreme example of feminism you could find to straw-man my argument. You wouldn’t want somebody doing that to you, right?

ANTI (NERVOUS): Well, no, I guess not.

FEM: Exactly. What you just did there is exactly the same as a religious person saying that all atheists are evil because Pol Pot and Stalin used the label. It makes even less sense in this context, given that Ms. Greenheart doesn’t meet the definition of feminism that I use. She’s a misandrist, pure and simple. I thought you were against hypocrisy. Whatever happened to that?

ANTI: Uh, um, uh, that’s different.

FEM: How is it different, exactly?

(ANTI BEGINS TO WALK AWAY.)

Just something to think about.