Friday, July 31, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

We're the Immoral Ones?

Posted: 31 Jul 2009 02:56 AM PDT

Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via Flickr

Christians are fond of reminding atheists that we are immoral because their god provides the basis for all morality. I wonder how many atheist parents hit their children in the head with concrete for refusing to attend church? How many atheists decapitate their 3-year-olds because a "devil" made them do it? How common is it for atheists to kill their diabetic daughters by praying instead of seeking medical attention?

And yet, we are the immoral ones. Why? Because we dare to criticize this absurd religion?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Five Twitter Tools You Should Try

Posted: 30 Jul 2009 02:46 AM PDT

Image by oneblackbird via Flickr

I have found that Twitter is an excellent way to interact with readers of Atheist Revolution and learn about what is happening outside the U.S. But I am always on the lookout for new ways to add capabilities or simplify Twitter-related tasks. In this post, I'll introduce you to five Twitter tools you should be using.

In no particular order, here are five Twitter tools I use regularly and recommend to others:

1. TweetLater

TweetLater provides many functions, everything from automatically sending tweets on a predetermined schedule to automatically following users who follow you. I do not use all of the many functions, and in fact, there is one that I will caution you to avoid like the plague, but I do regularly use TweetLater's auto-follow and follower vetting functions.

First things first, I strongly caution you against using TweetLater (or any other service) to send automatic welcome direct messages to those who follow you. I made the mistake of doing this before I knew any better, but it is considered bad Twitter etiquette and will lead people to unfollow you.

I use TweetLater to automatically follow anyone who follows me, however, I always use the "vet new followers" function. Whenever someone follows me, TweetLater gives me 72 hours to visit the TweetLater page and decide whether to approve (i.e., follow) the new follower, ignore them, block them, etc. This prevents me from following spammers, Christians who want to convert me, or people who have not been on Twitter long enough for me to be able to evaluate whether they are worth following. I also use TweetLater to automatically unfollow anyone who unfollows me.

2. Tweepular

Yes, Tweepular has one of the most unattractive interfaces imaginable (unless you are a 13 year-old girl), but it is another tool I use regularly. Remember how I said that I vet new followers in TweetLater and that one of the groups I tend not to automatically follow are those who are too new to Twitter for me to evaluate? With Tweepular, it is easy to give them another chance and to make sure I haven't missed any good folks.

With Tweepular, I can see all followers with whom I have a reciprocal relationship, those who I'm following who aren't following me (I do keep a small number of news sources in this category), and those who are following me but who I'm not following. This last category is the one I pay the most attention to. By merely holding the cursor over their name, I can see their Twitter bio, last tweet, location, etc. Tweepular allows me to follow them individually or all at once. Very handy.

3. Mr. Tweet

Simply put, Mr. Tweet is about helping you find relevant people to follow. Mr. Tweet provides you with daily updates listing Twitter users you might be interested in following. It lets you recommend others that you find worth following and get recommended by others. I caution you against spamming requests for people to recommend you and simply trust that it will happen if you continue to use Twitter effectively.

One of the coolest things about Mr. Tweet is how much information it gives you about the people it recommends you to consider following. For each recommendation, it shows you which of your friends are following them and how often your friends interact with them. This is extremely useful in helping you figure out whether to follow someone by showing you what sort of user they are.

4. Twibes

Twibes is one tool every Twitter user should use, especially you atheists. It is a way of forming Twitter groups on various topics so that those interested in the topic can come together for more focused interaction.

Twibes has an "atheists" group, and this can be useful in a couple of ways. First, browsing those who belong is a great way to find relevant people to follow. Second, one can interact with members of this group by sending tweets through the Twibes page. That is, if you want to tweet something only to members of this group, you can do so.

5. Monitter

Monitter is a very different sort of tool in that it is about content rather than follower management. If you want to use Twitter as a source of information, Monitter is for you. You enter up to three search terms and can see three simultaneous live Twitter streams in which the term is relevant. I used Monitter to keep track of developments in Iran after the election by entering #iranelection in one window, but because I didn't want to miss out on atheist-related info, I had #atheist in another window. I can't remember what was in the third window, but knowing me, it was probably something like #horror or #mac - you get the idea. Just be forewarned, Monitter can be terribly addictive.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Indiana Atheists Prevail: Bus Ads Coming to Bloomington

Posted: 29 Jul 2009 03:33 AM PDT

Remember the atheist bus ads that were scheduled to go up in Bloomington, Indiana? The Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation rejected the ad on the grounds that it was "controversial," prompting the ACLU and the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign to sue the Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation in federal court. The fight is now over, and the atheists won. The ads will now go up in Bloomington. Way to go Indiana atheists!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Is Cheese Ever Morally Justified?

Posted: 28 Jul 2009 04:59 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

What an absurd question! Cheese has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, so the question doesn't even make sense. And yet, it is no more absurd than the title of a recent article at the Christian Post blog, "Is atheism ever morally justified?" I'll briefly explain why and then point out something even more nonsensical about the post.

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god(s). It is morally irrelevant in the same way your lack of belief in unicorns is morally irrelevant. If you want to ask whether certain things are morally justified, focus on actions and not beliefs.

What about the even more nonsensical part?

I think here of a well known academic who avowed disbelief in the Christian God because he was told -- with a notable absence of pastoral sensitivity -- that a childhood Jewish friend who died in a car accident was burning in hell. As a result this academic came to believe that the Christian God is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. So when he says that he disbelieves in God, he is saying he disbelieves in a god who is arbitrary, capricious and unjust. But I don't believe in such a god either.

Perhaps the "well known academic" was in error. Then again, if you are an atheist, you've heard some variation of this claim thousands of times. The author is essentially accusing the atheist of the straw man fallacy. But here is what Christians who are so fond of this do not seem to realize, a straw man built from the Christian bible is no straw man at all.

When confronted with the words in their own bible, the Christian has two choices: acceptance or mental gymnastics. Obviously, the first option is rarely utilized. But the second choice contains a trap for those Christians who insist that their bible is the inerrant word of their particular god: if it is really inerrant, then the words matter. One does not get to reinterpret them.

But what about the Christians who are not committed to the claim that their bible is the word of their god? Usually, they argue that we are misinterpreting their bible. Evidently their god is so deceptive that the true meaning of their bible is only revealed to those who already believe in it. Yep, the Christian bible is magic! And best of all, the "real meaning" of any passage selected at random just so happens to coincide with the Christian's own beliefs and values.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Monday, July 27, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Did Your Parents Give a Damn What You Wanted?

Posted: 27 Jul 2009 04:26 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

I often find some of the most thought-provoking and emotionally-charged posts at EXchristian.net. A recent one, "Angry and disillusioned with the Christian cancer," caught my attention by the title and did not disappoint.

Evidently, it didn't occur to my parents that my mind wasn't fully mature and I had no idea what the hell they were getting me into. It didn't occur to them to ask what I wanted -- they just presumed upon me that I naturally wanted to be a Christian too.

Yep. That describes my experience too. My parents, now Christian-in-name-only as far as I can tell, say that they dragged me to church, required me to attend Sunday school and bible school in the summers because they thought it would be good for me (in the sense of being good for my "soul"). I'm no longer mad at them for doing this - I'm old enough now that I came to terms with this year ago and harbor no real resentment on this issue. But one thing is undeniably clear: they did not care what I wanted.

Like the author of the post at EXchristian.net, my parents had good intentions. We have talked about their intentions over the years, and I do understand that they meant no harm. Part of it involved them wanting me to have the sort of connection to the church that they fondly remembered from their own childhoods. Part of it did involve the superstitious fears over my "soul" roasting in "hell" if I was not indoctrinated. And still another part involved a desire to protect me from the social consequences they knew I would experience without religion.

What made the difference - and eventually allowed me to rediscover myself - was that my parents did an excellent job of promoting education, including science. I was permitted to read whatever I wanted, and knowledge was generally celebrated. Sure, there were times when I was told not to ask so any questions or to take something on faith. But it always seemed half-assed to me and was no real deterrent.

As childhood gave way into adolescence, I rebelled in many ways. This included rejecting religion as the nonsense I knew it to be. This did create quite a bit of conflict initially, but my parents eventually came to terms with it. There were a few years where they attended church without me, and then they also stopped going.

Over the years, we've had many discussions and some heated arguments about the nature of religion. The end point is always the same - they recognize that there really is no compelling evidence but insist that the belief, regardless of its truth, works for them somehow. This isn't something I bother to bring up anymore. There is little point. If they need superstition to feel whole, there is little I can do about it. I have no such need, and I am very fortunate for that.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Feeling Powerless in the Face of Catholic Crimes

Posted: 26 Jul 2009 07:21 AM PDT

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I watched Doubt last night. Excellent film that is easy to recommend. If you have seen it, you'll understand why I mention that I just watched it even though that isn't what this post is going to be about. I mention it only to shed some light on my state of mind. You see, I got up this morning, made coffee like usual, and sat down in front of my computer to begin my Sunday morning ritual of reading atheist blogs. Not more than 2 minutes into it, and I am so mad I feel like punching someone. What happened? I read this post at Deep Thoughts and the disturbing article to which it linked in the Chicago Sun-Times.

It seems that Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Raymond E. Goedert, a former top official in the Catholic church in Chicago, has admitted that he was fully aware of sexual abuse committed by 25 different priests on his watch between 1970 and 1986. He knew that these priests were molesting children and chose to do nothing, not even report them.

Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Raymond E. Goedert's statements show "the lengths they went to to protect their reputation and the priest at the peril of the child," said attorney Jeff Anderson, who represents men who have sued the archdiocese over alleged childhood molestation.

As far as I'm concerned, the money paid out by the Catholic church to survivors of priest abuse is not nearly enough for us to consider the issue closed. As the systematic efforts to conceal these crimes, enabling the perpetrators to continue, becomes evident, it is time to stop this sick religion. As evidence mounts, not even Bill Donahue will be able to defend these guys much longer. Enough is enough!

There is an organization devoted to helping those abused by priests, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. That's how widespread this shit has been - they need their own advocacy group! Here's what their outreach director had to say on the subject:

Only a fool would believe that decades-old, deeply rooted patterns of ingrained secrecy, deceit and recklessness have magically been transformed.

What do we do? I desperately want to help people escape from this sick religion, but I feel powerless to do so. I know I can't convince current Catholics to drop their silly faith and get away from their perverted church. I hate this!

And to those who will read this and claim that I am being unfair to criticize ordinary Catholics for the crimes committed by a relatively small number of their group, I have two quick questions. First, why would you knowingly chose to associate with such a group? Second, do you not realize that the money you pay into your church goes, at least in part, to pay these guys?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

A Good Day for Blog Carnivals

Posted: 26 Jul 2009 05:41 AM PDT

You can find the Carnival of the Godless at Cyberlizard's Collection and the Humanist Symposium should be posted soon at Evolving Mind. If we want these atheist blog carnivals to stick around, we need to help out by contributing, hosting, and helping to publicize them. It is up to us.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: "Birthers"

Posted: 25 Jul 2009 05:08 AM PDT

Image by brownpau via Flickr

It is Saturday, so you know it is time to crown a new idiot of the week. The field of idiots has been culled, and a winner identified. Let's get to the award ceremony.

If there is one thing we know about idiocy, it is that it is contagious. This week, I'm going to depart a bit from the usual practice of naming a single idiot and give a shout out to the entire "birther" movement. "Birthers" are a special form of idiots who refuse to believe that President Obama was born in the U.S. no matter what evidence they are shown. They represent a small but quite rabid segment of the far right, but they seem to be finding support from some of the big-name wingnuts (e.g., CNN xenophobe Lou Dobbs).

To appreciate the idiocy of the "birthers," one really has to watch this video from Delaware Republican Mike Castle's recent town hall meeting.

H/T to Dispatches From the Culture Wars

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Friday, July 24, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

How to Save Blog Carnivals

Posted: 24 Jul 2009 04:36 AM PDT

Image by carf via Flickr

A recent post at Tangled Up In Blue Guy got me thinking. The post was reproduced from Leo Lincourt of Neural Gourmet fame. Leo is the one behind Carnival of the Liberals, and his post asked readers to consider whether it was time to end the long-running carnival. I've made no secret of being a fan of blog carnivals. Not surprisingly, my initial reaction was, "Hell no! We need a blog carnival celebrating progressive political blogging." But it isn't quite that simple. The influence of blog carnivals has been declining steadily, and there is no denying that they just aren't what they used to be. In this post, I'll share some thoughts on how we might save the blog carnival. However, you'll have to decide for yourself whether we should work to save them.

There are many reasons for the declining influence of blog carnivals. Leo describes a decline in the number of worthwhile submissions, and I have heard from those involved in other blog carnivals that this reflects a wider trend. Leo also notes that it has becoming increasingly difficult to find hosts for upcoming carnivals. Again, the same problem has been described repeatedly by those in charge of other blog carnivals such as Carnival of the Godless and the Humanist Symposium. Leo also questions whether blog carnivals are simply becoming obsolete in this age of Twitter, FriendFeed, Tumblr, etc.

Nobody wants to be in charge of a carnival in decline, so Leo's query about whether it is time to pull the plug is perfectly understandable. Managing a carnival is a lot of work, and it has to be frustrating to feel like one is losing an uphill battle against forces beyond one's control.

Ideas for Saving Blog Carnivals

As contributors, hosts, and readers of blog carnivals, we need to decide whether we want to save the medium. I can't decide this for anyone but myself, and the reality is that the effects of any efforts on my part to persuade you one way of the other would be short-lived at best. Instead, I offer the following thoughts about how we might save blog carnivals:

Educate the authors of newer, smaller blogs about the benefits of hosting and contributing to blog carnivals.
Reduce overlap in existing blog carnivals.
Encourage contributors who have posts accepted to do a better job of promoting the carnival post via social media (e.g., StumbleUpon, Reddit, Digg, etc.).
Encourage those who manage blog carnivals to reconsider editorial policies.

I know some of these suggestions might not be sufficiently clear, so I'll elaborate on them one-by-one.

For more established blogs, hosting a blog carnival involves considerable effort in exchange for little added traffic. Those running newer or smaller blogs are those most likely to benefit from hosting a blog carnival, and yet, these bloggers are the least likely to be familiar with blog carnivals. The same can be said for submitting posts to a blog carnival. This can have a big impact for less established blogs because a good post will bring the author considerable attention.

The overlap issue isn't really a problem for Carnival of the Liberals, but it certainly is for Carnival of the Godless and the Humanist Symposium. On weeks when these two carnivals overlap, it is difficult to know where to send contributions that might be appropriate for both.

For authors who have posts accepted by various blog carnivals, it goes without saying that you should do a post on your own blog directing readers to the carnival. Beyond that, make sure you submit or vote up the carnival on every social media network possible. This brings the host additional traffic and brings you more visitors as well.

Carnival of the Liberals generally only accepts the 10 posts which the host likes the best. Given the current state of blog carnivals, I think this is a mistake. Over the years, this practice has earned Carnival of the Liberals a reputation as a rather picky carnival. The problem is that this discourages many bloggers from tailoring posts to the carnival. As someone who has had multiple posts rejected by this carnival, I know I do not submit as much as I might otherwise. Admittedly, there is a trade off - poor quality posts should be screened out, but some modification of editorial policies seems warranted.

Other ideas?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why Atheists Object to Engraving "In God We Trust" on the Capitol Visitor Center

Posted: 23 Jul 2009 01:39 PM PDT

Image by Orbital Joe via Flickr

As you know, both houses of Congress have approved a bill requiring "In God We Trust" to be engraved in the Capitol Visitor Center. You may also know that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed suit to stop the addition on the grounds that it reflects an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Not surprisingly, I applaud their efforts. This is a great opportunity for advocates of church-state separation and accurate U.S. history to educate those now being misled by Christian extremists and revisionists.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, the sponsor of the bill to require the engraving, has claimed that the FFRF's suit is an effort to silence those who want to talk about their religion. This is not at all what is going on, but it does reveal why it is important for us to explain the real issues.

Rep. King also claims that the FFRF is trying to strip the U.S. of our religious heritage.

I think in the end it makes it more clear what they are trying to do and that strengthens my case and the case of people who want to have an accurate depiction of history.

Again, that is not what is happening here. The FFRF and those of us who support their efforts are opposed to the engraving for the following reasons:

Placing "In God We Trust" on a government building amounts to blatantly unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government (i.e., a violation of the Establishment Clause).
The U.S. government is tasked with representing the people - not just those who believe in gods - but all the people.
"In God We Trust" is not an accurate statement. Many Americans do indeed trust in god(s); many others do not believe in any god(s).
"In God We Trust" is inherently exclusionary. It defines the in-group as those who believe in a particular god and excludes everyone else.
The fact that "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the U.S. in 1956 no more implies that it is part of our national heritage than the fact that many of our "founding fathers" owned slaves implies that slavery is part of our national heritage.

Rep. King says that he welcomes public debate about religion. Fair enough. Let's give it to him.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Look Who's Defending Separation of Church and State Now

Posted: 23 Jul 2009 03:26 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

If there is one thing far right Christian groups are not exactly known for, it is their defense of church-state separation. And yet, the state of Connecticut appears to have found a way to make them do so.

After the Connecticut state government included links to gay-friendly churches on their Department of Children and Families web site, the Family Institute of Connecticut complained, prompting the state to remove the links. The state recognized that linking to churches on a government website raised questions of church-state separation, and they were right to remove the links.

As for the Family Institute of Connecticut, it appears that they are primarily concerned with anyone suggesting that some churches were more tolerant than the anti-gay ones they prefer. What a perfect way to help Christian groups finally understand that separation of church and state benefits everyone.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremism in America: The Family

Posted: 22 Jul 2009 03:22 AM PDT

Cover via Amazon

I had heard of the secretive Christian extremist organization known as "the Family" before the latest high-profile Republican sex scandals hit the news. However, I did not know much about the group. In fact, all I had really heard was that they were a well-connected Christian dominionist organization in the Washington D.C. area. I still do not know very much about them, but I have to say that what I've been learning in the aftermath of the Ensign, Sanford, and Pickering scandals has been more than a little concerning. I hope that more information about the group emerges, so much information that they are essentially neutered. After all, it strikes me as nearly impossible to view this group as anything less than a serious threat to democracy.

Bruce Wilson has an informative post on the Family over at Huffington Post, and as much as I hate the thought of relying on them as a source of information on any subject, it seems like a reasonable place to start because he assembles information from a variety of reputable sources. Religion Dispatches also has some good information on the Family. Here are some details about the group worth knowing:

The Family is the oldest conservative Christian organization in Washington D.C.
The Family runs (but does not own) the notorious "C Street House" as a church to provide assorted politicians with inexpensive living space, Christian bible study, and "spiritual counseling."
"C Street House" is owned by an organization, Youth With a Mission D.C., headed by Loren Cunningham, a man with a vision for worldwide Christian dominion. Cunningham links to Campus Crusade for Christ and Christian Embassy, a D.C.-based ministry that tries to convert Pentagon officials.
The Family is responsible for the annual National Prayer Breakfasts and runs assorted prayer groups in which both Republican and Democratic members of Congress participate.
According to Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (added to my to-read list), the Family is "committed to a political theology that views democracy as a form of secular humanism, to which they're deeply opposed."

It does not sound to me like members of the Family, including the politicians who continue to associate with them, have much interest in democracy. If this group was not on your radar before, I suggest they should be now.

The kingdom of God that's to be built here on earth, Family organizers are fond of saying, is not a democracy.

- Jeff Sharlet

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Catholics Still Determined to Conceal Clergy Abuse

Posted: 21 Jul 2009 04:58 AM PDT

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I have never considered myself to be anti-Catholic, at least not any more so than I am anti-religion in general. Most of my friends are Catholics, and we usually manage not to get bogged down in religious or political debates. In fact, here in Mississippi, they are often allies against the sea of Southern Baptists which surrounds us. But the Catholic Church is another matter entirely, and I find myself having an increasingly difficult time imagining why anyone would want to associate themselves with it today.

In the last year alone, it seems like there has been one Catholic abuse scandal after another. As bad as they are, I keep coming back to the common thread which ties them all together: systematic efforts by the Church to prevent disclosure, conceal the harsh realities, and protect known pedophiles. Essentially, everyone but them is responsible.

In the latest bit of news on this front, we have a report from the Associated Press that a Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent public disclosure of more evidence of sexual abuse. If anyone is still denying that the Church seeks to conceal bad acts and protect pedophiles, this should set them straight.

The records could reveal details on how retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop from 1988 to 2000. Egan's deposition should be in the file, according to an attorney for the newspapers seeking the documents.

Jonathan Albano, an attorney representing various American newspapers and seeking disclosure of the records was quoted as saying,

It's somewhat disappointing that the diocese continues to approach the litigation in a way that delays the public's right to see these documents.

Disappointing is an understatement. This is appalling and should get the attention of anyone opposed to the sexual abuse of children. I agree completely with David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests when he says,

We're disappointed that the complicity of top Catholic officials continues to remain hidden. This is not what Connecticut Catholics or citizens deserve. It's one more painful reminder that bishops will do everything possible to protect themselves and their colleagues instead of children.

H/T to Deep Thoughts

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Monday, July 20, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Blogroll
Christian Investors Swindled In "Blessed" Ponzi Scheme
Throwing Out Separation of Church and State 410 to 8

Posted: 20 Jul 2009 05:56 AM PDT

I have been having nothing but problems using Bloglines for my full blogroll, so I am reluctantly going to transition back to Blogrolling. If anybody can suggest a better alternative, I'm all ears.

In the meantime, please be patient. It is going to take me awhile to get everything transferred over. Once I think I'm finished, I'll ask folks to make sure they are listed correctly, etc.

Christian Investors Swindled In "Blessed" Ponzi Scheme

Posted: 20 Jul 2009 04:12 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

A reader e-mailed me a heads-up about this story, and it was way too good not to share.

According to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution from July 17, 2009, the Peachtree City Gresham Co. has been accused of defrauding Christian investors with a Ponzi scheme designed specifically for Christians. According to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Eldon A. Gresham targeted Christian investors by claiming that the "Lord had blessed him" and that he was offering his program to "a limited number of Christians for a limited time."

Wow! Not only did these Christian investors have the opportunity to invest with someone who had been blessed by their god, but it was an exclusive Christians-only deal. What could possibly go wrong?

It seems to me that credulity in one sphere (e.g., believing in supernatural entities without evidence) often generalizes into other spheres. What better marks could an unscrupulous con artist hope to find than those who have already demonstrated a propensity to ignore evidence in favor of wish-fulfillment?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Throwing Out Separation of Church and State 410 to 8

Posted: 19 Jul 2009 08:45 AM PDT

Image by kevindooley via Flickr

According to the Associated Press as posted by the First Amendment Center, the national motto of the United States, "In God We Trust," will be engraved in the Capitol Visitor Center following a 410-8 vote in the House to approve H.Con. Res. 131. The 410 likely represent a mixture of Constitutional ignorance, blind acceptance of Christian extremist propaganda about American history, desire to push one's religious beliefs on others, willingness to violate one's oath to uphold the Constitution to pander to ignorant voters, and simple apathy. One thing is clear: the 410 are sorely mistaken.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Where are the Atheist Women?

Posted: 19 Jul 2009 05:32 AM PDT

Image by Girl with a one-track mind via Flickr

Many atheist blogs periodically address the subject of atheist dating. Not surprisingly, atheists are interested in dating too. I have noticed that there seems to be a perception in the atheist community that there is a shortage of atheist women. Is the atheist movement really something of a "sausage fest," and if so, why? Perhaps the shortage of atheist women is only imagined. Another possibility is that it is highly context-dependent.

One thing we should understand about the atheist community is that only a tiny fraction those who belong to it approach their atheism with a sense of activism. Among this minority within a minority of atheist activists, I suspect that women are underrepresented. Could this be why so many male atheists lament the lack of atheist women? They are basing their calculations on the activist segment while ignoring the bigger picture.

If I am correct that women are underrepresented among atheist activists, then we might do well to ask why. Is there something about atheist activism, as it tends to be conceived, that is unappealing to many women? If so, is this something that could change? Independent of the dating topic, I think that atheist activism would benefit from the involvement of more women.

In the larger atheist community, I'm not so sure that women are underrepresented. If I'm right, then the challenge for male atheists seeking women would be to find them in a much wider range of settings than activist-oriented meetings.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Atheists Can Learn From Right-Wing Enablers

Posted: 18 Jul 2009 12:25 PM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

The second most controversial statement Richard Dawkins made in The God Delusion dealt with the shared responsibility of religious moderates for what extremists do in the name of their religion (you can find the most controversial here). This generated quite a bit of discussion, but I think that most atheists would agree that religious moderates who refuse to condemn the violence committed by religious extremists bear at least some responsibility for continued religious violence. We are now seeing a fascinating discussion of the same phenomenon as it pertains to right-wing extremism in the U.S. Confronted with acts of domestic terrorism committed by right-wing extremists, many Americans are starting to wonder whether those on the right who refuse to condemn these acts or otherwise contribute to the cultural milieu in which they occur might share at least some of the responsibility. While reading a recent post at Quit Your Apathy, it occurred to me that this same discussion might apply to atheists in a slightly different way.

As difficult as it might be to imagine acts of domestic terrorism committed in the name of atheism, some have warned that it is just a matter of time until this happens. When it does, I expect clear and forceful condemnation to ripple through the online atheist community. Since we have no doctrine to defend, we do not have to worry about how criticizing a terrorist might somehow undermine anything about atheism.

But what about those of us who could someday be accused of enabling such acts? If this seems far fetched, I remind you that some Christians are convinced that we eat their babies!

As we look at the relationship between religious moderates and religious extremists or between right-wing moderates and political extremists, should we be examining our own ranks as well? Just because we do not now see atheists advocating violence does not mean that we might not someday see it.

And what about a different sort of enabling that actually is fairly common today? Consider for a moment how many atheists communicate the message that nobody should rock the boat. Couldn't this be construed as a form of enabling those who wish to keep us silent and invisible?

Some boats need to be rocked, and some pots must be stirred. There are many ways individual atheists can speak out and stand up for their rights. As we remain vigilant to the possibility of those among us who might someday advocate violence, we must not allow this to stifle raw passion.

What can we learn from right-wing enablers? I'd like to see us take at least two lessons away from the discussion. First, should we ever see elements in our midst moving toward violence, we need to raise the alarm and have the courage to denounce them. Second, by urging others to keep silent, know their place, or tone down non-violent rhetoric, we risk enabling those who would oppress us.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Pat Buchanan

Posted: 18 Jul 2009 04:18 AM PDT

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Here we are with another installment of the Idiot of the Week series. Each Saturday, one shining example of idiocy from the previous week is selected for special recognition.

You know it has been a good week for idiocy when Christian extremist Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) does not win for his Human Physical-Mental Enhancement Prohibition Act! What could possibly trump Brownback's idiocy? It was a tough call, but I've been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings with fascination and have observed almost too much idiocy to handle. To be clear, I have seen it from both political parties. As much fun as some of the Republican questions have been, the Democrats have absolutely squandered a perfect opportunity to explain many of the problems with the Roberts court. Both sides should be embarrassed.

But even worse than watching the hearings themselves, I saw Pat Buchanan on Maddow. After that, it was clear that he deserved Idiot of the Week even though I had already written (but not published) a post declaring a different winner. If you have not watched the clip of him arguing with Maddow, you really should see it in its entirety. It is a watershed moment in the history of race in America that we will be talking about for years to come (I hope).

I'd like to be clear that I'm not bestowing this honor on Buchanan simply because he opposes affirmative action. Based on my experience with graduate admissions, I have serious questions about the merits of affirmative action. That said, this is pure idiocy:

White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why.

If we want to have a real discussion about the pros and cons of affirmative action, we need to start by acknowledging that there are pros and cons. Stating that the purpose of affirmative action is "to increase diversity by discriminating against white males," as Buchanan does contributes nothing.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Friday, July 17, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Risk Aversion as an Obstacle to Atheist Equality

Posted: 17 Jul 2009 04:48 AM PDT

As atheists, most of us have considerable experience with self-control. We have learned (sometimes the hard way) to prioritize our personal safety over any noble desire to speak out in defense of our rights or in opposition to the irrational and destructive nature of religious belief. Most of us have bitten our tongues so often as to have developed callouses!

Unholy Trinity (Source: atheistcartoons.com)

This is understandable, particularly for those of us who reside in pockets of widespread religious extremism. Nobody is interested in being a martyr for a cause, especially when some atheists continue to believe that there is no need for atheist activism of any kind.

And yet, it does raise a bit of a predicament for those of us who are interested in reducing the influence of religious extremism in society, strengthening church-state separation, advancing atheist equality, and the like. By remaining silent on the subject of religion, we become as complicit in maintaining religious extremism as the religious moderates who refuse to denounce the extremists. By refusing to speak out in defense of our fellow atheists, we make sure that atheist equality will remain a pipe dream.

Look at the title of this article from MSNBC: "Never Talk About Religion in a Bar" and there is little question that it conveys a message. The brief article reports on an incident in San Diego where a Muslim shot a Christian multiple times in a bar after the two had been arguing over religion. The implication is chilling: discussing religion is not safe.

At some level, it appears that our aversion to risk may limit what we can accomplish. The hard part is that this is - and must be - an individual decision which each of us makes for ourselves after careful consideration of our life circumstances. As we identify obstacles to speaking out, perhaps we can collectively find ways to reduce the risks.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Blogging Tip #16: Using a Feed Reader Effectively

Posted: 16 Jul 2009 03:03 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

For those of us who blog primarily in one niche or another, it is vital that we remain aware of what others in our niche are doing. We also want to be able to efficiently track relevant news without getting bogged down in irrelevant information. This blogging tip focuses on the RSS side of things and assumes that you are using a full featured RSS reader.

First things first, there are a number of ways to read RSS feeds, ranging from web-based clients (e.g., Google Reader, Bloglines, etc.) to stand-alone applications. As noted above, this tip assumes that you are using a stand-alone application, as these generally offer more advanced features like the one I am going to explain here.

If you use OS X and want an excellent free RSS reader, look no further than NetNewsWire. It is what I currently use, and it does everything I could want and more. For those in the Windows world, I recommend FeedDemon. It is also free and full-featured.

I have my feeds grouped into many different folders. For example, I have one folder in my reader called "AR Blogroll" that contains the feeds from every blog included in the Atheist Revolution blogroll. This makes it easier to keep up with the blogs I read regularly and recommend to others. I have another folder called "New Atheist Blogs" that contains feeds for blogs I have recently discovered and am evaluating for possible inclusion in my blogroll. I have an "Atheist News" folder, and...I'm sure you get the idea by now. If not, see tip #12.

On to the tip. Suppose that I have a very large collection of feeds in a folder such that whenever I open my application, several hundred unread posts will show up for that folder. Quite a lot of information to wade through, isn't it? It would be helpful if I could narrow it down to save myself some time, at least on the days when I am rushed.

I'll give you a specific example of how this works. I have a "Mac" folder containing so many active Mac-related RSS feeds that I can count on at least 300 new posts each time I open my feed reader. The thing is, I have no interest in all the iPhone material that clutters these feeds. I am looking for Mac-related news and products and have no interest in owning an iPhone until Apple develops an e-mail system as robust as the one on my Blackberry.

The solution was to create what NetNewsWire calls a "smart list." By setting up a simple smart list, I was able to filter the entire Mac folder to eliminate any post with "iPhone" in the title. This cut the amount of material to wade through nearly in half.

How can I apply this to my atheist-related feeds? Essentially, I can construct this sort of filter to capture and exclude virtually anything that I find annoying or that I'm simply not interested in. The beauty of this system is that I have have the choice of reviewing the original folder with everything included or the condensed smart list.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

But For Religion...

Posted: 15 Jul 2009 03:22 AM PDT

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

In the legal arena, discussions of criminal responsibility often include statements such as, "But for the effects of alcohol, Mr. Jones never would have shot Ms. Smith" or "But for the the mental illness which impaired Ms. Smith's judgment, she never would have assaulted Mr. Jones." Such considerations help us to unravel often complicated situations and parse responsibility. We can apply the same process to religion, and in so doing, we may gain insight into the degree to which it is or is not responsible for various acts.

Take the disturbing case of 12 year-old Khyra Ishaq in Birmingham, England. Khyra was allegedly starved to death by her mother, described as a recent convert to Islam. According to The Telegraph,

When the circumstances surrounding Khyra's death emerged this week, the initial debate focused on alleged neglect and child poverty. But there is now speculation that Khyra's condition may be linked to some form of "religious" process.

But for the recent conversion to Islam by Khyra's mother, would Khyra still be alive? Testimony during the trial suggests that Khyra's mother thought her daughter was possessed and may have tortured her as well.

As The Good Atheist suggested in a recent post,

It's rather difficult to get the real story as to what happened. One thing is for sure, however; religion played a role in the neglect and torture of these children. To what extend (sic), it's difficult to ascertain, but it's not uncommon for extremely religious individuals to completely isolate themselves from the outside world, especially if they feel it has a corrupting influence.

It does appear that religion was relevant, but can we really say that this wouldn't have happened but for religion? We need to know more about the mental state of Khyra's mother before we can answer that. Still, it is a question worth asking in this and many other cases.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Obama's Quest for New Church

Posted: 14 Jul 2009 03:19 AM PDT

Image by Li Song via Flickr

I want to draw your attention to an interesting post at Blogcritics in which the author, a self-identified god-believer, argues that it is a mistake for President Obama to continue searching for a home church. No, it is not some sort of deluded anti-Obama rant. It is well-written and brings up some interesting points that probably won't strike you as unfamiliar.

Here is a brief excerpt:

So why the fuss about Obama's religious affiliation? To me, the answer is simple. Christianity's most basic tenet is that an all-knowing divine God sent his only Son, Jesus, down to earth where he allowed himself to be murdered by humans as reparation for human sins. How can an intelligent person accept such a heinous crime? How could rational beings build a church on that horrendous premise or become affiliated with such an organization?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Monday, July 13, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Another Catholic Abuse Scandal

Posted: 13 Jul 2009 04:18 AM PDT

Image by mharrsch via Flickr

I am utterly disgusted with the Catholic Church for their efforts to ignore, conceal, and enable their pedophile priests to assault untold numbers of innocent children. And now, it appears that yet another sexual abuse scandal is breaking. You have heard of Opus Dei, but it is time that you meet the Legion of Christ.

From a recent article in The Independent:

Parents of youngsters recruited as Legionaries described it as a cult that targeted the young and naive in particular, some of them just 13, and then "brainwashed" them. But it is Maciel himself who has proved most controversial...

It has also been alleged that he was a paedophile. The first accusation came in 1976 from the former head of the Legion in the US. By 1998, the Vatican had received sworn statements from eight men, all detailing how Maciel had abused them when they were young recruits.

The article also describes the account of former Legion recruit, Stephen Dougan:

Around the time of his 18th birthday, Dougan was summoned one night to the bedroom of his novice master. "He said he had severe cramps in his stomach. He unbuttoned his pyjama top, poured oil on his stomach and asked me to massage him. I did. Very soon he unbuttoned his pyjama bottoms and poured on more oil. He asked me to 'do it deeper'. He meant lower down. His penis was erect. I was shocked and confused. I can remember my hands in his pubic hair. I closed my eyes and prayed."

It boggles the mind how anyone would want to be associated with such a church today. As if the abuse itself wasn't bad enough, the evidence that the Church knew about it and tried to hide it is considerable. We've seen that in case after case. Even for those Catholics lucky enough never to have been abused by their priests, why would they continue to support such an institution?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Existence of Atheists Scares Florida Christians

Posted: 12 Jul 2009 05:23 AM PDT

I am sure you remember the recent atheist billboard that went up in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I suspect you've also heard about the subsequent Christian protests of the billboard and the local media's description of it as "controversial." Many atheist bloggers have already sounded off about the situation, so I merely want to echo some of the great points that have already been made.

Opponents of the billboard seem to have two main objections:

The billboard is located next to a Christian-owned business.
The billboard is located in a predominately African American community.

I'm going to focus on the first objection because I am honestly unable to fathom how the second is in any way relevant. If someone would care to explain it to me, I'd appreciate it because I just don't get it.

The first objection, as explained by area residents, centers on their expectation that nobody will patronize businesses near the sign. Are religious people really so terrified of encountering messages which might differ from their dogma that they would go so far as to avoid this part of town because of an atheist billboard? If so, I would have to assume that these same people would not own televisions, allow their children to attend public schools, or be able to leave their homes without wearing blindfolds!

This explanation is laughable and seems to merely obscure the real issue - those protesting the sign do not want their children to know that atheists exist. Our very existence is a threat to them for some reason. As Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) said on the floor of the Illinois legislature to atheist activist Rob Sherman:

And it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

...You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying!

For more on this story, see

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Facing Death Without Faith

Posted: 11 Jul 2009 12:39 PM PDT

Image by tanakawho via Flickr

A reader e-mailed me last week to tell me about an interesting blog and see if any of us had any interest in visiting it to discuss something that we don't discuss often enough: death without faith. You see, Agnostics Facing Death is a blog written by someone with terminal cancer who is now facing death. It sounds like he is very interested in discussing how other atheists and agnostics approach death. If this is an area of interest for you, check it out.

Unfortunately, it seems like there is some sort of obstacle to the blogger being able to access his comments. I'm not sure what the problem is, but you might want to limit yourself to shorter comments until we get some indication that he can in fact read them.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Barack Obama

Posted: 11 Jul 2009 04:18 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

Idiocy is a disturbingly common problem, making it quite difficult to select particularly dramatic examples to highlight. And yet, that is exactly what happens right here each Saturday in the Idiot of the Week series.

This week produced the most crowded field of competitors since I started the Idiot of the Week series. Not only was Sarah Palin back in the news following one of the more bizarre resignation speeches I've ever seen, but state senator Sylvia Allen (R-AZ) publicly stated that the earth is 6,000 years old while discussing uranium! Oh, this week was dripping with idiocy!

In the end, I had to go with the more controversial choice. You see, this was the week that President Obama selected Francis S. Collins to head the National Institutes of Health. In announcing his choice of Collins, Obama said,

My administration is committed to promoting scientific integrity and pioneering scientific research.

The President is evidently unaware that Collins is one of the leading advocates of the deeply flawed perspective that science is somehow compatible with god-belief.

After describing Collins as "a competent administrator," PZ Myers (Pharyngula) hit the nail on the head when he said:

We can also trust him to drape Jesus over every major announcement, use the office as a platform for promoting religiosity, and otherwise taint the whole business with embarrassingly inane nonsense…just as he did with the human genome press conference.

Collins is the wrong choice not because he believes in some sort of god, but because he has already demonstrated a propensity to evangelize.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Blocking Scientology Ads

Posted: 10 Jul 2009 12:08 PM PDT

Hopefully, we won't see this again. I've had a few recent e-mails from readers who spotted this ad for Scientology in my AdSense banner. I had not seen it myself or I would have blocked it already. It should be blocked now. To prevent this sort of garbage from showing up on your blog, you might want to ad scientology.org to your filter.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Friday, July 10, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Worse Than Death

Posted: 10 Jul 2009 05:13 AM PDT

Image by polandeze via Flickr

Is anything worse than death, and if so what? To answer this question, I suggest that we consider to categories. First, we can ask ourselves whether any crimes should carry a stiffer punishment than murder (i.e., from the perspective of what we consider to be appropriate punishments, are any crimes worse than murder?). Second, we can focus on the subject experience of the victim (i.e., from the perspective of the victim, is anything worse than being killed?).

Punishment

In the American criminal justice system, first-degree murder does carry among the steepest sentences. However, there are various aggravating factors which can lead to sentencing enhancements. For example, a murder in which the victim has been tortured will often result in a more severe sentence than one in which this was not the case.

From the criminal justice framework, we ask ourselves whether various punishments fit various crimes. In so doing, we consider the nature of the crime. At the same time, we are constrained by sentencing guidelines and constraints imposed on judges by politicians more interested in looking tough on crime than achieving justice.

For these reasons, some crimes that many of us consider as bad if not worse than murder (e.g., certain sadistic rape/torture scenarios) almost never carry sentences as severe as homicide. Thus, the way our criminal justice system currently works, nothing is really worse than homicide but some homicides are worse than others.

Victim Experience

As muddled as things seem on the punishment side of things, they are refreshingly clear when we focus on the experience of the victim. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the victim, we see that there are many things far worse than death.

It is quite easy to concoct scenarios where the victim begs for the relief of death to escape pain inflicted by the sadistic offender. For most of us, prolonged torture fits this bill nicely.

We can also consider the case of severe child sexual abuse. I suspect most of us would agree that it certainly could be worse than death. Frankly, this is one of the reasons that the Vatican's claim that abortion is worse than child rape disgusts me. From what I know of the long-term consequences of severe child sexual abuse, the idea that never having been born in the first place is worse than this truly boggles the mind.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

E-mail From Christians

Posted: 09 Jul 2009 07:00 AM PDT

Cover of 23 Minutes in Hell

Some of the big atheist blogs frequently post e-mail they receive from readers. Pharygula often shares delightfully crazy e-mail he receives from Christians. Every time I see these posts, I find myself wishing I had more of this sort of thing to share.

What do you think about atheist bloggers sharing entertaining e-mails on their blogs they have received from Christians? Does this appeal to you, or do you find it annoying? I guess I am wondering if this is something I should do more of here. I may not get as many of these e-mails as I'd like, but I do get some.

This one from "Peter" is is a recent example of the sort of e-mail I'm talking about. Of course, I have not edited it in any way because that would take the fun out of it. I should also note that this e-mail was not sent in response to any particular post, at least, none that was indicated in any way.

Jesus said, "i am the way, the truth, and the life, no man can come to the father but through me"....

If you have a brain, you'd be aware of a roman historian, Josephus, whose books are historically accurate, and he writes about Pontius pilate and jesus, and that jesus performed miracles. It's your' right to believe what you will, but perhaps you may want
to read the book, "23 Minutes in hell" ...its a NY Times Bestseller....

god help you

I'm not sure if you enjoy this sort of thing as much as I do, but it seems to me that I should probably share more often than I do.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: e-mail, atheist, Christians, 23 Minutes in Hell, Bill Wiese

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Intense Debate Accounts Now Required to Comment

Posted: 09 Jul 2009 03:19 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

Last month I tried to sell as many of my readers as possible on using an Intense Debate account when commenting here instead of simply commenting as a guest. In addition to wanting to inform readers about the benefits of using such an account (especially now that so many blogs are using Intense Debate for the comments), I revealed another motive. Specifically, I said that I thought requiring Intense Debate accounts might be a helpful way to crack down on trolls without necessarily having to enable full-blown comment moderation.

My efforts met with a fair amount of success. Many of you who did not already have Intense Debate accounts created them. However, some expressed their displeasure at having to get such an account. This led me to postpone my decision...until now.

Over the last few weeks, I have realized that reducing troll activity is only one of the reasons I've been considering requiring these accounts. The one involves wanting to get to know those of you leaving comments a bit better. You see, in the current system, anonymous comments are permitted and some users seem to comment under many different names. This makes consistent conversation rather difficult, lets users impersonate each other, etc.

Will requiring Intense Debate accounts magically eliminate trolls and bring us all together? Of course not. I think it will facilitate selective moderation and improve our experience interacting with one another. But I am fully aware that it may accomplish little. Still, I have decided to try it. As of now, Intense Debate accounts will be required to comment. If you do not already have one, you can get one here.

This change may not be permanent. One of the nice things about the system is that I can disable the account requirement at any time. Maybe this will be a failed experiment. Then again, it just might work. I guess we'll see.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Mark Sanford is Innocent, Blame Satan

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 03:04 AM PDT

Image by PK Kool via Flickr

It looks like I may have been unfair in honoring Republican Governor Mark Sanford (SC) as Idiot of the Week. If the whole sordid affair was not his fault, it seems wrong to celebrate his idiocy. How could it not have been his fault? Simple. Satan did it. Warren "Cubby" Culbertson, described as Sanford's "spiritual adviser, appears quite determined to win next week's Idiot award.

According to USAToday:

...In an interview with The Associated Press this weekend at his Columbia office, just blocks from the State House, [Warren "Cubby"] Culbertson said he believed his friend when he said that this was his only marital transgression. He thinks Sanford was simply caught off guard by 'the power of darkness.'

I have a simple hope for future generations. I hope that someday "spiritual advisers" like "Cubby," Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and their associates are regarded with the same contempt that is now reserved for televangelists and others who prey on human misery.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

A Christian Response to Celebrity Deaths

Posted: 07 Jul 2009 11:06 AM PDT

Image by Bearman2007 via Flickr

I do not spend as much time as I might like reading Christian blogs. I know what you're thinking, but some really fascinating stuff can be found on some of them from time-to-time. I was curious how Christians were reacting to the recent celebrity deaths, and I ran across an interesting post on the subject at DanaPellerin.com. The post was written in late June, so it only mentions Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. In fact, it was written on the day these two died.

Mr. Pellerin comments on how quickly public interest in celebrity deaths turns into anger over how much media coverage is devoted to such deaths. He's absolutely right. I experienced this personally as what started as mild curiosity rapidly turned into frustration and disgust with the media for essentially making these deaths (especially that of Michael Jackson) the only news story for several days. It wasn't that I suddenly turned into a Michael Jackson hater or anything; it was just that the nonstop coverage got old quickly when it came at the expense of every other story.

One part of Mr. Pellerin's post that I found extremely interesting was how surprised he seemed to encounter similar reactions from his fellow Christians.

As I was following the data stream out there on the intertubes, I noticed several rude comments from strangers, but more surprising, from some Christian friends, that implied that following such stories is a waste of time and we shouldn't be making a big deal about them.

Why would he expect that other Christians would regard such stories as not being newsworthy? His Christian friends were absolutely right to point out that the excessive coverage these stories received was a waste and that other more important news was being neglected. How would the religious beliefs of his friends be expected to change this?

One person started throwing out stats on AIDS deaths as if dying from AIDS is somehow more noble than dying in other ways... One conversation regarding a child dying in a car accident today elicited a response from another who said "i'm glad that you have something worthwhile to pray about now, not Michael Jackson". Wow. The callousness of these statements, especially those from Christians, amazes me.

Aside from the flawed assumption that being a Christian somehow prevents callousness, Mr. Pellerin seems to be misunderstanding what his friends are likely saying. It seems to me that the message they are trying to impart is simply that people die in unfortunate circumstances every day and are thoroughly ignored by the media. This is a valid point and one which those of us concerned with social justice are often making.

Here's the deal; Yeah our culture makes a big deal about celebrities. And that's wrong. It's wrong to put people on a pedestal and worship them for simply making use of the gifts only God has allowed them to use. But I don't think it's wrong to mourn their deaths.

Wrong to make a big deal about celebrities? That sounds a bit simplistic for my tastes, but if we can change "wrong" to something like "inappropriate" or "detrimental to improving the conditions of others," I'll agree. I'll also agree with Mr. Pellerin that worship of other people, regardless of who they are, is absurd. Of course, I'd say the same about worship of mythical creatures like gods, angels, and the like.

But I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to mourn the loss of others. At least, I have not heard such a sentiment expressed by atheists or Christians. If Michael Jackson meant a great deal to someone (for whatever reason), it makes sense for such a person to mourn his passing. I have a hard time believing that any of Mr. Pellerin's associates would feel differently.

No, what I expect his colleagues are trying to point out to him is that it bothers them to see the media lavish attention on someone solely because of celebrity while ignoring those who die every day and mean the world to those they have left behind. Perhaps they worry that the level of adulation being heaped on Jackson has started to sound like worship. Then again, they may simply be reacting to a situation that seems unfair.

As Mr. Pellerin suggests, high profile deaths should remind us of our own mortality. But where he insists that we should also be reminded of "our need for a savior," I'd say that what we really need reminding of is our own humanity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Virgin Mary Appears in Alabama...Well, Sort Of

Posted: 07 Jul 2009 04:09 AM PDT

Image by mermay19 via Flickr

It is often said that nothing is wrong with talking to gods as long as they do not talk back. When gods talk back, one is likely psychotic. Of course, a great many people claim that gods speak to them. Some are undoubtedly suffering from serious mental illness, but the majority are either lying to manipulate others or deluding themselves in a way that would not result in a psychiatric diagnosis. This sort of self-delusion is not only socially acceptable but is sometimes met with incredible praise and admiration.

Take the case of Marija Lunetti in Shelby County, Alabama. A reader, BamaGal, sent me an article from the Birmingham News about Ms. Lunetti, and it is a great example of why someone might claim to converse with gods.

Over 2,000 people have traveled from all over the U.S. to rural Alabama simply because Ms. Lunetti claims to have daily visions of the Virgin Mary. According to the article, these "pilgrims" make the journey "hoping to feel the presence of the mother of Jesus."

One would think that rural Alabama would have plenty of folks who think they are in communication with spirits, but Ms. Lunetti came all the way from the former Yugoslavia to have her "visions" promoted.

Marija Lunetti, whose reports of daily visions of the Virgin Mary have drawn millions of pilgrims to Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, has spent the past week in Shelby County. She continues to have her daily visions, including Thursday and Friday at 10:30 p.m.

How nice that her "visions" occur on a consistent schedule. Why, one could probably sell tickets!

Although the pilgrims can't see the apparitions, they believe the Virgin Mary appears and speaks to Lunetti.

Of course they do.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Words of Wisdom: Emma Goldman

Posted: 06 Jul 2009 12:25 PM PDT

God today, no longer represents the same forces as in the beginning of His existence; neither does He direct human destiny with the same iron hand as of yore. Rather does the God idea express a sort of spiritualistic stimulus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness, In the course of human development the God idea has been forced to adapt itself to every phase of human affairs, which is perfectly consistent with the origin of the idea itself.

- Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Monday, July 6, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) is an Atheist

Posted: 06 Jul 2009 04:05 AM PDT

Image by longplay via Flickr

Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who has player Harry Potter in the films of that name, has confirmed in an Esquire interview that he is an atheist. As reported in The Telegraph, Radcliffe not only identified himself as an atheist in this interview but expressed his respect for Richard Dawkins. I suppose Christian extremists have yet another reason to boycott the Harry Potter films.

Radcliffe was quoted as saying,

I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch.

It is good to see another talented actor join the ranks of the reality-based community.

H/T to Trina Hoaks, Atheist Examiner

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Humanist Symposium #39 at Daylight Atheism

Posted: 05 Jul 2009 03:00 PM PDT

The 39th edition of the Humanist Symposium has been posted at Daylight Atheism. Be sure to check it out. And while you are there, take some time to browse Daylight Atheism. It is one of the atheist blogs that should be on your must-read list.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

My First Abortion

Posted: 05 Jul 2009 05:52 AM PDT

Image by willem velthoven via Flickr

This is one of those posts that I am writing without having much confidence that I'll actually ever post it. After watching an episode of The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart interviewed Mike Huckabee on the subject of abortion, I found myself thinking about how my life could have been very different if not for having the option of legal abortion.

I was 15 and living in a lower-middle class family on the West Coast. We were comfortable enough, and although I was still aware of living in a smaller and older home than nearly all of my friends, our lack of material success did not bother me as much as it had during junior high.

My first year of high school had been rough for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. I did not fit in very well, have a lot of friends, or do much to endear myself to the "cool kids." But that was about to change dramatically as I turned 15 and begin my second year.

This was the year I finally started to fill out a bit and develop some muscle (I was fairly tall and had been way too thin up to this point). This was the year I would make many new friends, discover alcohol, and lose my virginity.

From the perspective of any reasonable adult, including my parents, I was a terror by 15. Aside from doing well in school, I rebelled in every way imaginable. My friends were any parent's worst nightmare, and our weekend activities were a blur of hard liquor, loud music, fast cars, and girls. This would get far worse as I turned 16 and then 17, but that isn't relevant for the subject of this post aside from demonstrating that this was not merely a brief episode of bad judgment.

Against this backdrop, I somehow managed to lose my virginity. I was 15 at the time, and she was 14. She ended up getting pregnant and had an abortion without telling me about either. Although we were still together throughout this time, I did not find out that she had been pregnant or had aborted it until a few months afterward. She had told a good friend of mine in confidence. He managed to keep her secret too long but did eventually tell me.

At the time, I remember being very upset that she hadn't told me. It isn't that I would have tried to talk her out of it - I wouldn't have. No, I was upset because I would have tried to be there for her. I hated the thought that she had to go through that alone. Of course, I suppose that there is no telling how I would have actually behaved at that time had I known what was going on.

I think about this sometimes. I could have had a kid at 15. I can't imagine what that would have been like at the time. I was not one of those people who might have been able to grow up quickly and get his shit together at that age. You hear about some young parents being able to do that. I wouldn't have been one of them. I might have been able to pull it off by 18 or 19, but even that is highly doubtful. But at 15, I would have been a thorough disaster.

And the girl? There was no way her mother was going to allow her to have a child at 14 even if she had wanted to (which she didn't). Had she been 16 or 17, I suspect adoption would have been considered. But at 14, there is no way her mother would have put her through that.

In the debate over reproductive rights, I think we do not stop to consider situations like this thoroughly enough. It is one thing to say that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control among college students or adults. In the abstract, some of us might even be tempted to agree with that. But when one stops to think about one's 13 or 14 year-old daughter getting pregnant...well, I have a very difficult time understanding those who seek to make this a crime.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Proud to be an American?

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 09:30 AM PDT

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

Throughout small town America today, one will see flags, fireworks, and junk food on display. A common sentiment you'll encounter is pride, and many find it necessary to express their pride in being Americans. I'd like to make two small additions to this conversation, neither of which are original and one of which is presented in video form.

First, please consider the following from "10 Things Every Adult Should Know" written by f*cking c*nts:

America is not #1. Well, not unless you count military spending and handgun related deaths. We're shit at public education. Our health care system is both the most expensive and the least effective in the developed world. Literacy, infant mortality, per capita living below the poverty line and/or without any health insurance … etc., etc. We're kind of horrible at a whole lot of things, if you want to be honest about it. We're also, on average, fat as fuck.

Second, consider the absurdity of being proud over something that one did not do and had no control over (i.e., being born in America). But don't take my word for it. Instead, see what George Carlin had to say on the subject:

Have a good day, stay safe, and enjoy spending time with family and friends. Take pride in what you have accomplished (e.g., managing to break free from religious delusion), but don't get sucked into the mire of blind patriotism. I'll try to do the same.

H/T to toomanytribbles

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Mark Sanford
Palin Resigns
Reaching Those Who Doubt
Comment Policy

Idiot of the Week: Mark Sanford

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 04:18 AM PDT

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

It is Saturday, and that means another helping of idiocy in the form of the Idiot of the Week series. Idiocy of this magnitude deserves attention, and that is exactly what it gets here each Saturday.

This week's winner is South Carolina's Republican Governor Mark Sanford but not for the reasons you are expecting. Sanford may have been competitive simply because he is a "family values" spouting hypocrite who went after former President Clinton with a vengeance and now refuses to step down himself. And yes, comparing himself to King David was certainly worthy of idiot gold. I will acknowledge that this hypocrisy was what initially brought him to my attention, but it isn't what put him over the edge for Idiot of the Week.

I actually feel somewhat sorry for Sanford. He clearly has not been in love with his wife for some time now, does not appear capable of leaving her to be with his "soul mate," and lacks the judgment to be quiet about it. What an awful predicament! Sanford wins the Idiot of the Week distinction for anchoring himself in a failed marriage when it seems quite obvious that his heart is elsewhere. He is not being fair to himself or his family here. Gov. Sanford, divorce your wife and pursue what makes you happy.

I do have to give Sanford credit for one other thing. The phrase, "hiking the Appalachian Trial" will live in infamy as a synonym for cheating on one's partner.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Posted: 03 Jul 2009 02:05 PM PDT

Image by Jon Person via Flickr

Christian extremist favorite, Sarah Palin, has resigned as Governor of Alaska amidst rumors that Todd Palin was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." Okay, the part about Todd is just in my head, but she really did resign.

This is great news for the people of Alaska. It is also likely to be great news for the Democratic Party if it has anything to do with Palin's plans to run for President in 2012.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Reaching Those Who Doubt

Posted: 03 Jul 2009 01:23 PM PDT

Image by alles-schlumpf via Flickr

Most atheist blogs end up writing to their largely atheist audience. This is as it should be, but it is nice to address a different audience every once in awhile. Daylight Atheism has a great post written especially for religious people who find themselves doubting their faith, "To Those Who Doubt Their Religion," up now.

I wrote something similar in January of 2008 that I keep meaning to update: "Doubting Your Faith?" This is a good meme to spread, and I'm happy to see as impressive an atheist blog as Daylight Atheism doing so.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Posted: 03 Jul 2009 07:53 AM PDT

The presence of Christian trolls on this blog prompted me to develop the first draft of this comment policy in May of 2007. What you are reading now is the July 2009 revision.

Introduction

First and foremost, please understand that this is an atheist blog. I am an atheist, and the intended audience is made up of atheists, secular humanists, and other freethinkers. In fact, 88% of those who read this blog are atheists.

I welcome believers in various gods who are genuinely interested in learning something about atheism. However, those interested primarily in argument, antagonism, or proselytizing should go elsewhere. Blogs are not intended as places for readers to debate each other. If this is what you are seeking, check out this list of great forums. You'll see that some have entire areas devoted to debate.

What is a Troll?

There are several forms of blog trolls, ranging from those who engage in "drive-by link sharing" as a form of self-promotion to those who camp out and hurl insults, make threats, or otherwise try to disrupt the blog. Many trolls do not seem to understand how blogs work; others are bent on converting atheists to their particular brand of superstition. However, nearly all trolls share a common feature: They are not here to learn but to argue, and the nature of their argument is irrational.

The best way for rational readers to deal with blog trolls is to ignore them. This deprives them of what they want most - argument. But since many readers cannot resist engaging them, the following policy represents an alternative to full comment moderation.

Comment Policy

The following comment policy was adapted from Lifehacker, Making Light, and God is for Suckers!, with modification to increase applicability to this blog.

Stay on topic (i.e., the post topic).
Contribute new information to the discussion.
Don't comment just for the sake of commenting.
Know when to comment vs. when to e-mail the author. Use e-mail when what you want to say doesn't contribute to the public conversation.
Be respectful and remember that nobody likes a know-it-all.
Own your comment (i.e., anonymous commenting is discouraged and will probably not be allowed much longer).
Remember that brief comments are more likely to be read.
Be courteous and avoid personal insults.
Avoid Christianspeak. It makes you look stupid and contributes nothing of value.
Absolutely no religious proselytizing will be permitted here.
Do not feed the trolls. They thrive on argument (the less rational, the better) and will keep returning as long as they find folks willing to debate them. If you find yourself tempted to argue with a Christian troll, please read this first.

Minor violations may result in selective moderation of the violator, but more serious violations will result in deletion of offending posts. Repeat offenders may be banned if deemed necessary.

Tags: blog, blogging, comment policy, comment, Christian, atheist, troll

Friday, July 3, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

How Many Christians Really Believe What They Claim?

Posted: 03 Jul 2009 04:19 AM PDT

Image by karmablue via Flickr

It recently struck me that one of the recurrent themes that has surfaced again and again at Atheist Revolution involves the question of whether most Christians actually believe much of what they claim to believe. Not only have I written a few posts directly posing this question, but it seems to emerge in some posts and linger just beneath the surface in many others. As I look at it head on, I still do not feel like I have made much progress in finding a satisfactory answer.

Christian Hypocrisy

A common route to this question are the many examples of apparent Christian hypocrisy that show up here and on countless other atheist blogs. Mojoey at Deep Thoughts has done a commendable job tracking Christian hypocrisy, and he has much company throughout the atheist blogosphere.

Blatant examples of what appears to be Christian hypocrisy do make us wonder whether we are seeing genuine hypocrisy (i.e., someone who is acting contrary to a cherished belief) or something more akin to a con being exposed. Of course, it all looks like real hypocrisy because a good con is going to profess belief as well as the true believers.

When we see the parade of fallen pastors, we have to ask whether they really believe what they have been preaching. It often strikes us as more likely that they were simply saying what they needed to say in order to get close to their marks.

Not a "Real Christian"

As we know, whenever a Christian is caught doing something sufficiently bad, other Christians quickly conclude that the offender is "not a real Christian" because a "real Christian" could never do such a thing. This is a popular psychological defense mechanism among Christians and one that they sadly have ample opportunities to use.

These situations also bring up the question of whether many Christians believe what they claim to believe, only this time, the question is raised by other Christians. Surely, they insist, someone who really believes in the Christian god could not commit such acts. How can they have so little fear of hell?

When Behavior Betrays

We find beliefs useful primarily to the degree that they help us understand and ultimately predict behavior. If there was no relationship between what someone believed and how someone behaved, it would be hard to regard belief as relevant. We care about belief largely because it helps us predict behavior.

It is not surprising, then, to be puzzled when we encounter someone who is acting contrary to his or her professed beliefs. We wonder whether such an individual has been lying about what he or she believes, has not bothered to seriously consider the implications of his or her beliefs, or is impaired in some way.

Ken claims to be a "bible-believing Christian" who regards his preferred bible as the inerrant word of his particular god. And yet, he does not expect his wife to submit to him (Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1), does not forbid her to wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:2-6), and would never dream of offering his daughters up to rapists (2 Peter 2:8. Ken helps his widowed sister out financially even though his bible says he should ignore her plight (1 Timothy 5:5-15). And believe it or not, Ken actually lets his wife come to church with him without either covering or shaving her head (1 Corinthians 11:5-7)! So much for taking his bible seriously, huh?

What are we to make of Ken? If he really believes that his bible is inerrant, he has a very odd way of showing it. His behavior is certainly not consistent with what he says about his beliefs.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Can Atheists Participate in Interfaith Dialogue?

Posted: 02 Jul 2009 03:35 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

In a comment on one of my posts on atheist-theist dialogue, J. R. Miller directed me to a related post on his blog, More Than Cake. After noting that there is a conflict within Christianity as to whether interfaith dialogue "has led some Christians to value appeasement over proclamation of the Gospel," Miller provides a list of eight conditions which he feels would be helpful in promoting effective dialogue.

I know that many of you will be tempted to immediately discount the idea of atheists participating in interfaith dialogue because you recognize that atheism does not involve any sort of faith. Fair enough. Still, I find Miller's conditions worth a look. Perhaps they have implications for productive atheist-theist dialogue. I wonder how our conditions would compare if we were to draft a similar list?

I also realize that it is difficult to get past some of Miller's assertions. Right off the bat, he presents us with this gem:

We cannot escape the necessity of our age to engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This takes me back to my thoughts on the topic of proselytizing as compulsion. But I do find myself agreeing with at least some of his conditions.

Condition #1. Deal with the past, but don't hold individuals responsible for it

If one is attempting to engage in meaningful dialogue with Christians, I see how bringing up references to the Crusades isn't likely to be helpful. Of course, Christians trying to claim that their religion has been good for the world may need reminding that this claim is not without great controversy.

Condition #2. Express agendas with honesty

I really like this one. Dialogue does indeed work better when agendas can either be set aside or at least brought out in the open. Unfortunately, Miller does not appear to care much for the idea of setting agendas aside.

My agenda is to share the salvation hope that comes only through the death and resurrection power of the Messiah–Jesus. This, for me, is the context for interfaith dialogue.

I don't know about you, but this is likely a deal breaker for me. Miller seems to be saying that he is either unable or unwilling to set this aside. I'm not sure how atheist-theist dialogue can proceed from this point.

But what about the atheist agenda? Well, there really isn't one, at least not one so organized or commonly accepted as Miller's. Some atheists simply want to be left alone (i.e., they don't want to hear about the "Messiah-Jesus"), others primarily want to secure atheist rights, and others work toward the gradual decline of religion's power. We're all over the place! If those of us open to the possibility of atheist-theist dialogue share a common agenda, my guess is that it would involve things like encouraging rational thought, presenting an alternative to belief in the supernatural, and attempts to demonstrate the error behind many atheist stereotypes.

We encounter a big stumbling point in Miller's explanation of Condition #5:

As a Christian, I believe in truth. I believe we can know truth. And I believe the truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. BUT, knowing the Truth that is Jesus Christ, does not mean I have all the answers to every question of life.

This feels like a door being closed on the possibility of meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure where to go with this one. There is no evidence for anything close to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. This is a faith-based claim, and we know that faith is not a valid way of acquiring or verifying knowledge. Belief does not equal truth.

What do you think? What would atheist conditions look like, and is there any point to engaging in dialogue with someone who held onto Miller's conditions?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Showing Some Atheist Pride

Posted: 01 Jul 2009 12:11 PM PDT

A common complaint heard by atheists any time someone introduces the idea of atheist pride is, "Why would I take pride in something I don't believe?" It is a viable question, but I think it misses the point. Sure, atheism is the lack of god belief, but most of those who would wear t-shirts like the one pictured here and available from Revolution Books (no affiliation with this blog) do so for an entirely different set of reasons. They typically do so to raise the visibility of atheism, to communicate to other atheists that they are not alone, and/or to show that they are not willing to go along with something which they might consider harmful.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Atheist Revolution

Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremist Group Calls for July 5th Jesus Fest

Posted: 01 Jul 2009 03:13 AM PDT

Image via Wikipedia

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, claims to have a direct line of communication to the Christian god. And just what is his god telling him to do now? According to Perkins, his god wants him to organize yet another national day of prayer (presumably because the one we just had worked so well). Under the name "Call2Fall," Perkins is hoping to organize his followers into one big Jesus fest on July 5, 2009. In this post, we'll take a look at an e-mail about the event Perkins recently sent to those he considers his supporters and have some fun with it.

What follows are excerpts from Perkins' e-mail...with commentary. You can find the entire e-mail on Pam's House Blend without contributing to traffic for Perkins' website.

The Lord has impressed on me the need for us, as followers of Jesus Christ, to take responsibility for the broken state of our nation and go to God. But we must go to Him on His terms, in humility, prayer, and repentance as outlined in 2 Chronicles 7:14. Then and only then can we claim the promise of God's forgiveness, healing and the renewal of our lives and our land.

So this all-powerful and loving god of yours essentially wants humanity to grovel before it. Even though this being could solve the problems to which you refer in an instant, what it really wants to see is humans begging.

The day after we celebrate our "Independence," we need to re-declare our "Dependence" upon God in humble and repentant prayer. At minimum, we hope that you will spend at least a few minutes literally on your knees in prayer during worship services on Sunday, July 5th.

Dependence on your god? No, not even you or your deluded followers are truly dependent on mythological creatures. You may find it useful for fundraising purposes to speak as if you were. I understand that. You have made quite an impressive living for yourself out of exploiting the weak-minded. But I think we all know that unless we are merely labeling nature as "god," we are not dependent on any supernatural entities.

Can you imagine what God would do if millions of Christians all across our land would actually do this and mean it?

Yes. Yes, I can. Absolutely nothing. But that suits you just fine, doesn't it? After all, when nothing happens, you can always twist it into evidence that not enough people participated, that they didn't pray correctly, or some other bit of willful trickery.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Billboard in Fort Lauderdale

Posted: 30 Jun 2009 11:04 AM PDT

Florida Atheists and Secular Humanists (FLASH) has erected a billboard in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Here is what the group had to say in a recent press release:

This is the start of a campaign to counter the negative image portrayed of "non-believers". Many people would be surprised to find out that some of the nicest, most honest people they know are secretly atheist, and agnostic. One in 6 Americans claims no religious affiliation. That number would most likely increase if it were not for family and social pressures.

Anyone wanting to know more about the group can reach them at Browardatheists@mac.com.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)