October « 2011 « No God Blog

Archive for October, 2011

VICTORY for American Atheists! Supreme Court Declines to Hear Utah Cross Case

Monday, October 31st, 2011

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.
http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org

For more information, please contact:
Dave Silverman, President 732-648-9333
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director 859-380-3427
Blair Scott, Communications Director 256-701-6265

ATHEIST ACTIVISTS APPLAUD SUPREME COURT DECISION TO NOT HEAR UTAH CROSS CASE

An Atheist civil rights group announced today that it is applauding the United State Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the Utah cross case after the Court of Appeal for the 10th Circuit ruled against the state in the case.

American Atheists, along with several Utah plaintiffs sued to remove twelve large steel crosses erected by the State of Utah to honor fallen troopers. Edwin Kagin, the National Legal Director for American Atheists stated, “We have presented this case and won at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court correctly declined to review the case further, therefore the decision stands. We are looking forward to the state of Utah upholding the opinion of the Court of Appeal and removing the crosses.”

Dave Silverman, President of American Atheists noted, “We have no problem with honoring fallen troopers: they should be honored. Erecting divisive religious icons that violate the very constitution the fallen troopers had sworn to uphold is not the way to honor those troopers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the citizens of their state.”

“It is our hope,” added Mr. Silverman, “now that the appeals process is over and the courts have found the crosses unconstitutional that the State of Utah will find a more honorable and non-divisive way to honor their fallen troopers. The fallen troopers, their loved ones and the citizens they swore to protect deserve such recognition.”

Edwin Kagin, the National Legal Director for American Atheists commented on why Christians should support the decision, “The attitude that the cross is not a Christian symbol should be repugnant to all of those believers who believe it to be a sign of the son of god having died on a cross to save everyone who believed in him and that, as he conquered death, so will those who believe this story conquer death. That is what the crosses are to them.”

READ MORE about this case
Attorney’s Press release
Donate to our legal fund and have your donations matched!

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church-mosque-temple and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

IN THE NEWS!
(We’ll keep posting the ones we find! Find one we didn’t? Let us know!)

CNN: Justices turn aside appeal over highway crosses
Seattle PI: Supreme Court avoids dispute over highway crosses
WISN: Justices Turn Aside Appeal Over Highway Crosses
ABC4, Salt Lake: High court avoids dispute over highway crosses
Scranton Examiner: American Atheists successful in Utah State Highway Patrol case
OpposingViews: Atheists Declare Victory in Utah Cross Case
Washington Times: Appeal denied on highway crosses in Utah
The Examiner: Court decides against hearing roadside crosses case
Washington Post: Supreme Court won’t wade into roadside crosses fight
Syracuse.Com: Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal of Utah crosses for fallen police
FOX New York: Supreme Court Turns Down Utah Roadside Cross Case
Deseret News: U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Utah highway crosses case
Salt Lake Tribune: Crosses for fallen UHP officers must be removed
KSL: Supreme Court won’t hear Utah highway crosses case
FOX 13 (SLC): High court avoids dispute over highway crosses

Posted in Blog | 5 Comments »

American Atheists Disappointed in Kentucky Court of Appeals Ruling: Will Appeal

Friday, October 28th, 2011

KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS RULES AGAINST AMERICAN ATHEISTS

American Atheists sued the Commonwealth of Kentucky after a law was passed requiring the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security to state that they could not protect the state without the help of “Almighty God.” In addition, that sentiment was required by law to be placed in brochures, discussed and promoted at meetings with the public, and a plaque built to denote the mandated belief in the power of “Almighty God” to protect the Commonwealth.

The Franklin Circuit Court had already ruled in favor of American Atheists. The Commonwealth appealed that decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, who released their ruling in the morning on October 28th. The decision was 2-1 against American Atheists.

Obviously, American Atheists is disappointed in the ruling. Dave Silverman stated, “Naturally, we are disappointed in this ruling, but we are encouraged that one of the three judges on the panel agrees that using a governmental entity to endorse a specific god is illegal. We will appeal this ruling and continue this fight to protect our Constitution and the Separation of Church and State. This is not over.”

That’s right! American Atheist WILL appeal this decision to the Kentucky Supreme Court using a petition for a Writ of Cretiorari. Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists said, “Senior Judge Shake stated it very well in her scathing dissenting opinion when she said ‘[these laws] go beyond merely acknowledging the historical role of religion and instead require dependence upon Almighty God to secure the Commonwealth’s safety.”

Mr. Kagin continued, “I wonder how the majority would have felt if the statute required reliance on Allah for the security of the Commonwealth. American Atheists will use this decision as an opportunity for a higher court to rule correctly and further avoid the move toward theocracy represented by this case. Judge Shake laid out very well the basis for the petition for a Writ of Certiorari.”

We must stand against theocracy and those that would impose it upon us. Now is the time to donate to American Atheists to help the legal fund and ensure that we can continue this and other fights to maintain the wall of separation between religion and government.

Right now is the perfect time to donate to the Uhl/Mitzman Legal Challenge, where up to $50K is matched by Steve Uhl and Helen Mitzman. That means your donation to the Legal Challenge will be doubled!

You can also help American Atheists fight theocracy by becoming a member of American Atheists or making a general donation.

By Blair Scott

PRESS RELEASE THAT WENT OUT TODAY

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

http://www.atheists.org

http://www.americanatheist.org

For more information, please contact:
Dave Silverman, President 732-648-9333
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director 859-380-3427
Blair Scott, Communications Director 256-701-6265

ATHEIST ACTIVIST GROUP DISAPPOINTED IN KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN KENTUCKY HOMELAND SECURITY CASE

American Atheists expressed disappointment today that the Kentucky Court of Appeals three judge panel ruled 2-1 against American Atheists in the case against the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security for their mandate of belief in “Almighty God” to protect the state from terrorism.

American Atheists previously won at the Franklin Circuit Court. The Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Dave Silverman, President of American Atheists stated, “Naturally, we are disappointed in this ruling, but we are encouraged that one of the three judges on the panel agrees that using a governmental entity to endorse a specific god is illegal. We will appeal this ruling and continue this fight to protect our Constitution and the Separation of Church and State. This is not over.”

Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists said, “Senior Judge Shake stated it very well in her scathing dissenting opinion when she said ‘[these laws] go beyond merely acknowledging the historical role of religion and instead require dependence upon Almighty God to secure the Commonwealth’s safety.”

Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists observed, “I found it odd that the judicial panel noted that ‘The legislation merely pays lip service to a commonly held belief in puissance of god.’ Is that really what the believers want: lip service to belief in the power of their god? Again we see that government endorsement of religion only serves to cheapen religion.”

Posted in Blog | 14 Comments »

Arguing With A Theist Is Like Arguing With A Child

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.- Carl Sagan

Palms, they are everywhere, waiting to slap the faces of reasoned individuals all over the world. Rising out of the these situations are those that elicit a most painful hand print. Blatant cases of pots meeting kettles. The plethora of emotions and speed at which they pass through my consciousness is unequaled in the world of facepalming. First there is shock, then amusement, then understanding, then ire and finally the almost uncontrollable urge to bitch-slap someone naked into next week and hide their clothes before they get there.

By now, you have probably guessed that I am referring to those fundamentalists who hurl projected accusations at Atheists. Think of all the characteristics of the fundamentalist and try to recall a time or two when you, an Atheist, have been labeled as such.

Here is a short list of some of the things we have been called:

Religious
Faithful
Ignorant
Close Minded
Fool
Tyrant
Indoctrinated
Intolerant
Exclusionist
Fundamentalist
Confused
Delusional
Insane
Satan’s Footsoldier
Satanist
Devil Worshiper
Mentally Ill
Dogmatic
Congregationalist
Preacher

These are but a few… One of the main qualifiers for religious belief is the refusal to actually question what one is told. We call this “Blind Faith“, and it is apparent when you consider that there exist actual church signs that read “Reason is the enemy of faith“. When blind faith is combined with a lack of real knowledge in an arena of debate, argument or discussion, the result is not what you would call an intelligent discourse. You end up with the fundamentalist replying like a child in a schoolyard scrap instead of an intelligent adult, mainly because they don’t know any better. I enjoy a healthy debate with a person of faith, because as wrong as I believe them to be, they present their arguments in a format that engenders the desire to represent in as an intelligent fashion as possible. I call this “adult conversation”

Arguing with a fundamentalist is like arguing with a child. The Atheist will usually make a statement, back it up with reason and offer a couple of examples and empirical evidence. This is an “Argument From Reality“. The fundamentalist will usually reply with a straw man, red herring or some other logical fallacy, which I call an “Argument From Delusion.“

They can’t help it, people. They don’t know any better. their indoctrination has generally stifled a proper education and the inevitable lack of a healthy sense of skepticism has retarded their intellectual growth to the point where they are little more than petulant children, which I call “Chewtoys.“ There is no debating these people. There’s no possibility of diplomacy. They have no desire to illicit an intelligent conversation. They exist primarily to spew forth their vomitous condemnations in all their willfully ignorant glory. They have poor communication skills and are left only with a child-like projection of their own shortcomings, which they hurl all willy-nilly at their opponents which result in the ensuing facepalms performed by the reasoned of the world, as stated above.

So, while I will continue to engage in intelligent discourse with people of faith, I will also continue to chew up and spit out religious fundamentalists like the polemic pit bull that I am. Why? Because it’s fun, and besides, we don’t do it in order to make ourselves look superior, but because exposing fundamental religionists as the ignorant, childish, intellectually retarded, mentally deficient tyrants that many of them are is also a public service, and we are all about public service…

(This is an excerpt from my book, “A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet Earth.“)

——————

Al Stefanelli – Georgia State Director, American Atheists, Inc.

Tags: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, Atheist, Christianity, Islam, Religion
Posted in Blog | 93 Comments »

Atheism And The Concept Of Enlightened Self-Interest

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

“It is as impossible for a society to be formed and be durable without self-interest as it would be to produce children without carnal desire or to think of eating without appetite, etc. It is love of self that encourages love of others, it is through our mutual needs that we are useful to the human race. That is the foundation of all commerce, the eternal link between men. Without it not a single art would have been invented, no society of ten people formed.” – Voltaire

The rules of behavior are the same for the religious as they are for the rest of us, and when it comes to ethics, religion has nothing to do with how those rules govern human beings. Ethics and morality come to us through the evolutionary process, and the only choice we have in the matter is how we act out. Human emotion is contagious, and we feed off of the emotions of those who surround us and according to whatever experiences we are having, remembering or anticipating. We are happy when we are in joyful situations and we are sad when in miserable ones. As with many animals, we tend to form strong interpersonal bonds, but unlike many animals, we find ourselves being satisfied while simultaneously satisfying others. When one observes the social behavior of other primates, it soon becomes evident of our evolutionary moral and ethical behavior.

The study of morality and ethics involve our problem solving mechanisms, and the only thing that makes this ethics and morality such controversial subjects is the complexity of today’s world, mainly the infusion of religious belief into our societies. True enough, our heredity does control some of our general behavior, but our ability to think, reason and adaptively learn was activated by circuits that had been evolutionally hard-wired. Our instincts sometimes serve us well, but life in the post-modern world renders our instincts more and more inadequate with each passing generation, and this difficulty is becoming exponential.

Just a couple thousand years ago we had no understanding where thunder and lightning came from, but today we are building complex machines such as the Large Hadron Collider. However, ancient dogmas are still clung to with the tenacity of an angry pit-bull, in spite of the fact that the Ten Commandments are the moral counterpart of rubbing two sticks together to make fire. It is because so many of these superstitions are held to as reality that there is a general stagnation of adaptation amongst our species. Propelling a two-million space shuttle into orbit required some change and adaptation to what we knew about mechanical flight. The same holds true with morality and ethics. Religious morality as taught by the Judeo/Christian belief system is a throwback to an early stage of our evolution as social beings. Basically, we are trying to launch the space shuttle with a campfire

The fact is that god can no longer be the source of morality. We must rely on enlightened self-interest. Cooperating with others in a selfless, altruistic way to maximize the intensity and duration of personal gratification is a two-way street and demands reciprocity. This concept, along with justice to determines fairness, allows cooperation to operate at maximum efficiency. The desire for personal happiness, the happiness of others, justice and cooperation is the only moral and ethical formula that will allow the advancement of our species. Religion and it’s accompanying unnatural degradations, bigotries and intolerances are the result of vain attempts by ignorant men of long ago to accommodate human needs by basing moral and ethical behavior on the perceived commands and desires of mythical deities with bad attitudes. Religious morality is counter-productive to the survival of our species.

If we do not plant our ethics in the improvable and adaptable soil of science, natural selection and our own willful ignorance will insure our demise in short order.

————–

Al Stefanelli – Georgia State Director, American Atheists, Inc.

Tags: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, Atheism, Christianity, Enlightened Self Interest, Islam, Religion
Posted in Blog | 7 Comments »

Right To Opinion: The Dishonest And Indefensible Response To Disagreement

Sunday, October 16th, 2011

A Philosophically Informed Perspective, by Justin Vacula

A common phrase that people frequently insert into discussions is “I have the right to my own opinion.” Any atheist who has engaged in discussion with a substantial amount of religious persons – or perhaps even a small amount of religious persons – have probably heard this phrase that is quite the non-starter. What does the phrase “I have a right to my own opinion” really mean, anyway? How should atheists respond to this claim and can ‘right to opinion’ establish knowledge?

A fundamental idea in philosophy is that a statement about something with truth value is either true or not true (this is called the law of the excluded middle). Joe may believe proposition x (the Christian god exists), for instance, and it is either the case that proposition x is true or not true. If Jane believes proposition y (all that exists is the natural world), we can see that both proposition x and proposition y can not both be true because we would arrive at a contradiction. If ‘right to opinion‘ can work for Joe, why can’t it work for Jane? If Joe believes it can work for anyone, we have a very problematic situation. A ‘right to opinion,’ then, can’t justify beliefs because contradictions would follow.

When philosophers (and non-philosophers) talk about what is true, the topic at hand is typically “justified true belief” – what can be ascertained by an appraisal of reason, argument, and evidence that coheres with reality. If a proposition associated with truth value (“symphonic metal is the best music,” for example, is merely an opinion and doesn’t fall into this category) is not backed by reason, argument, and evidence, stating “I have the right to my opinion” does not contribute to any progress in a discussion, lead persons to the truth, or really say anything other than “this is what I believe” and perhaps, curiously more…

When people tell me that they have a right to their own opinions, I ask them if they are concerned with the truth and/or holding justified true beliefs. The typical responses are usually “You can’t know for sure that there is no God or if there is a god, so I just believe.” A popular, yet effective and humorous idea some entertain is called Last Thursdayism – the belief that we were created last Thursday with pre-programmed memories and holes in our socks among other things. We can’t “know for sure” that Last Thursdayism is false, but we still go about our lives not believing Last Thursdayism for good reason. Regardless of whether we can “know for sure” about anything, we can look at the current evidence, argument, and reason that supports a position [or doesn't] and come to rational conclusions. The idea that “we can’t know for sure” does not give us a reason to claim ‘right to opinion’ [or justify belief that a claim is true].

Not all ‘opinions‘ are created equal. If you hold a belief, for instance, that evolution is false, you’ll be met by tremendous amounts of evidence showing that your belief is unfounded if an evolutionary biologist (or another educated individual who is willing to discuss) happens to be sitting at your dinner table when you profess a belief in creationism. If, after some debate and tackling the fundamental falsehoods of creationism, a creationist happens to say “I have a right to my own opinion,” this says nothing about the truth-value of creationism and perhaps admits that the creationist is not concerned with truth. A proposition about reality is either backed by evidence, reason, and argument and it should be believed…or it is not.

Perhaps those who claim a ‘right to opinion’ just want to be left alone by atheists and believe that atheists shouldn’t challenge religious ideas. The idea of ‘live and let live,’ though, is difficult to reconcile with the fact that beliefs inform actions, actions have the ability to help and harm others, and several dangerous and false beliefs are currently, for example, giving undue privileges to some religious sects that are not given to the secular in addition to dangerous and false beliefs resulting in discrimination, marginalization, stigmatization, and invisibility of many atheists…and that’s just the ‘tip of the iceberg.‘ Why ought respectful discussion be construed as a bad thing? I may be happy to ‘live and let live‘ if various religious sects were happy to ‘live and let live,’ but this just isn’t the case.

If a religious person were to get offended simply because of a respectful conversation and, after some discussion, claims ‘right to opinion,’ one wonders why this person would enter into a conversation in the first place or even hold the belief to begin with [I, at least, am not offended when people disagree with me]. Perhaps it is the case that people are genuinely offended by the mere presence of an atheist, but should this be the fault of the atheist or the other person? I wager that you know the answer and may suggest that a person like this may have personal issues, be immature, or is far too sensitive.

When faced with contradictory evidence for one’s belief, the belief should be relinquished instead of claiming that one has “the right to an opinion.” We should care about holding justified true beliefs and take wondrous delight in challenging falsehoods when the situation calls for it. Respectful disagreement should not be considered as disrespect and discussion of ideas should be viewed as a chance to grow, understand, test one’s own convictions, and much more – not character attacks on persons. Those who believe that their beliefs are coherent with reality should have nothing to fear from honest discussion (see my previous post titled “Equality for atheists in the marketplace of ideas) and actually should welcome discussion instead of hiding behind the ‘right to opinion.’

—————

Justin Vacula, author and owner of justinvacula.com — a blog about atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more — is an active outspoken atheist in Northeastern Pennsylvania who is the co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society, a secular discussion and activist group of non-theists. Justin received a large amount of media attention in his 2009 church/state battle in Northeastern Pennsylvania and graduated from King’s College in Pennsylvania with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology in addition to receiving a distinguished award in Philosophy and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the ‘Scranton Atheism Examiner’ in addition to authoring blog posts.

Tags: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, Atheist, Opinion, Philosophy
Posted in Blog | 16 Comments »