Generation Atheist

Out to Lunch - Generation Atheist

2011-09-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

Sadly, Laura, the blog's main editor, seems to be unavailable right now and has been for awhile. All submissions go to her so new submissions won't appear till she is available again and unfortunately I have no idea when that will be.

In the mean time if you have something you wish to voice, an article, an opinion piece, a poem or whatever, if you email it to me instead, I can guarantee they will show up on the blog in due time.

Mike K.
Regular Contributor

Religion Incorporated -- By Rohit J

2011-09-02T14:38:00.000-07:00

God should feel snubbed. He should feel insulted. Every single year, Forbes forgets to include him in the list of billionaires. His entire corporation, be it his son or its different employees and departments, has garnered an inordinate amount of money. God is the most successful corporate Chairman of all time. Religion is one of the most successful corporations of all time.

God has sold so many products during his lifetime. The amount of bling he has sold is ridiculous. So many shiny crosses and stars and ohms and crescent moons have been sold on chains. He clearly hurts the balance sheets for Zales and Kay Jewelers and Jarred’s with the amount of jewelry he has sold. The Christian department is the clear front runner, but the Jew department is right there in second. Through the pope and other religious figures, God has great salesmen to sell his shiny bling.

God’s famous son Jesus, the current CEO and major share holder, has been a valuable asset in Religion Inc.’s dominance. His name is everywhere. He is one of the most liked celebrities on Facebook and has 350k followers on twitter! He is on car plates, bumper stickers, fridge magnets, posters; name it, and he is on it. “WWJD” is the most famous acronym every made. His famous short story about being nailed to the cross is one of the most beloved tales of all time. Jesus could sell oxiclean faster than Billy Mays (may he rest in peace). Jesus is the most marketable man of all-time, and Religion Inc. knows this. Religion has made billions just off of Jesus, off of a man who preached material minimalism…

Religion Inc. has also made some fine real estate investments. While your house has tanked in today’s economy, Religion keeps making steady gains with its properties. People are flocking to these buildings every day. When people are dirt broke because they bought a house beyond their fiscal means, it seems praying will help them get that money back. And while houses are being foreclosed left and right and jobs are disappearing right and left, these religious properties are still making money. Donations are constantly being given to Religion Inc. even when people do not have jobs. I cannot believe my hedge-fund manager missed out on this great real estate opportunity.

Now to Religion’s biggest money-maker: books. God and his advisers have created the most popular literary pieces of all-time. The Bible is the highest selling book of all-time, while the other epic novels, like the Quran and Torah, have also brought in millions, if not billions, of dollars. JK Rowling makes pocket change compared to God. In America, bookstores have whole sections devoted to Christianity (sorry Dawkins, although The God Delusion was a great read). Religious buildings believe in sharing and even giving out these books for free. But not Religion Inc. When Religion wants money, it gets money. These fictional stories about self-abnegation and sacrifice have made Religion billions…

What do Donald Trump and God have common? Apart from the fact that they believe their name’s can sell products, it’s that they both are billionaires! Be it hotels or churches, these two visionaries have made fortunes off of capitalism. It is good to know that Jesus, Moses, and everyone else who preached about sacrifice and sharing are able to make money off of these moralistic ideas. Now where can I buy myself some shares in this industry?

You can read more from Johit at http://zoodich.tumblr.com/

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag -- By Rohit J

2011-08-29T15:11:00.000-07:00

Every American-raised child can relate to this morning ritual. We all stand up, mumble a few words, and then continue our daily lives.

This act is harmless enough, or is it?

The pledge of allegiance needs to be removed from the public school setting. No child should be indoctrinated into pledging one’s self to a nation. No child should be forced to admit the existence of a god. But most importantly, no child should have to face scorn form their peers for having a different, but valid, ideology.

Indoctrination is a crime. Indoctrination kills intellectual curiosity. Forcing someone to repeat a phrase and hold it to be true does not allow them to think for themselves. This is what the pledge of allegiance does. It is forcing school children to believe that America is “indivisible” and “one nation under god” and has “liberty and justice for all”. I am not here to attack American values. I personally am a non-believer, but I do believe that the American government does its best to give liberty and justice for all. But my opinion, nor the governments, matters in a public school setting. If a child does not believe in any portion of the pledge of allegiance, he/she should not be forced to say it or indoctrinated into believing it. Nationalist indoctrination is as bad as religious indoctrination. They both kill the intellectual curiosity that drives people to think and be creative. We cannot let a Red Scare chant preside in a setting that is supposed to cultivate thought and creativity.

The topic of God is something I will be covering in many future posts. I am Atheist, but I do not believe that the belief in God is detrimental to society. But forcing a child to say that America is “One nation under God” is wrong. Religious values, or lack there of, are very important to most individuals. No one wants them violated in a uninvited way. Unfortunately, the pledge of allegiance does that. Saying this phrase gives credence to the idea of a supernatural, which some people are not willing to do. The pledge of allegiance was originally put into the school setting to have a distinction between the godless Soviets and the Americans. There is no need to emphasize this distinction since the Soviet Union…well it doesn’t exist anymore. This phrase is hindering the value of religious freedom, a value upon which America was built upon.

Numerous times, along with other classmates, I have sat down during the pledge of allegiance. Needless to say, the condescending looks form my other classmates is unwarranted. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom. It is supposed to foster the belief in different ideologies. Yet when I respectfully disagree with the ideology of the masses, I am scorned upon. People tell me to respect the flag and be American. Heck, I’m not even American. I am not allowed to vote or run for president. I do respect America and I do very much like this country (and I am planing on applying for citizenship). But by not agreeing with the nations ideology does not mean I am disrespecting it. It just means that I am disagreeing. If the United States of America wants all of its citizens and residents to agree with its ideology, it might as well model Nazi Germany. America is a land of ideological diversity, and is great because of that. No one should be forced to believe an ideology, nor be scorned for disagreeing with the ideology held by the masses.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

He's Irish, he's an ex-Catholic and he's funny. What more could you want?

2011-08-26T15:30:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Poppy for the link.

Dating, Courtship, and Purity: How a Stone Age Religious Text Shaped My Approach to Sex -- by Libby Anne

2011-08-24T14:44:00.000-07:00

Read more by Libby Anne at lovejoyfeminism.blogspot.com

I was taught to save my kisses for the man I would someday marry. My first kiss would be at the alter. I was not allowed to date in high school, because dating was practice for divorce. I, in contrast, was to wait until I was ready to marry, and then get to know a like minded young man through a courtship guided by my father. I was taught that as a woman, marriage, homemaking, and motherhood was my highest calling, and that sex within marriage was a sacred bond not to be profaned by unholy premarital sexual contact, or even premarital kissing. I was raised a fundamentalist Christian in a purity driven culture which based its teachings about sex, dating, and courtship on the teachings of the Bible.

As a woman, I was taught to guard my purity jealously. My purity would be the greatest gift I could ever give my husband, and that moment when I would assure him on the wedding night that I was a virgin and had saved myself, my all, for him would be one of the best moments of my life. I was told that if I had sex before marriage, I would be forever haunted by regrets and my husband would never trust me. There would always be something wrong between us. If I came to the marriage a virgin, in contrast, unsullied by any other male, I would be set up for a perfect, godly marriage. In fact, I was taught that I would even regret dating or courting anyone else before my husband. During each relationship, I would give away a piece of my heart that I could never get back, and could never give to my husband.

I was told that sex (within marriage, of course) was the most amazing thing ever. After saving ourselves for each other, I was told, the sex my husband and I would have would be out of this world. It would be like nothing I could imagine. Sex was sacred, holy, and amazing. I imagined some sort of holy lightening bolt that would fill during the act of sex, overwhelming us with pleasure. This would be worth waiting for.

Weirdly, my parents never actually told me about sex. They just told me absolutely not to do it at the present, and to save it for marriage, and that it would be amazing. They didn't actually ever tell me what it was. I actually had to learn about it by reading through how to teach your child about sex books as I hide behind rows of books in the library. And what I caught in the few moments I had to myself - privacy is not easy with a dozen younger siblings - was not much. I knew almost nothing, and definitely nothing about my own anatomy besides the existence of a vagina down there somewhere.

My parents taught me a lot of things (they instilled a palpable fear of demons in me, for example), but I have to say, their teachings about dating, purity, and courtship really take the cake. It was ALL WRONG.

After several years of college, I began "courting" a young man I met there. My parents were fairly hands off, trusting that I would follow their teachings. While I got permission to start courting, my father didn't thoroughly screen my young man, which surprised me. I think he trusted that I would not be interested in someone who didn't share his beliefs, but college does not leave people unchanged and love does not always follow reason (or in this case, dogma). After some time, I began to openly change some of my religious beliefs, moving away from fundamentalism. My parents saw this and ordered me to end my relationship with my young man and to return to their beliefs. I refused. As an adult daughter they believed that I was under my father's God-given authority, but I no longer believed this. Conflict ensued and I refused to bend. It was at this point that I left my parents and their beliefs behind, declared my independence, and became my own person. Back at college I threw myself into my relationship with my young man and disregarded my parents' instructions about purity, instructions that I had followed completely up until that point.

What I have learned since leaving has taught me how completely wrongheaded my parents' teachings about sex were. My boyfriend told me that he wished I had dated before. More than that, he wished I had had sex before. What was this? I was completely confused! I had thought that by "saving myself" I would be giving him a wonderful gift. I had thought he would be grateful. He wasn't. It meant nothing to him that I had "saved myself" for him.

My boyfriend and I had premarital sex. And you know what? We've been married for several years now and that "regret" my parents taught me I would experience if I wasn't a virgin on my wedding day has never set in. My husband loves me passionately, and he trusts me completely. Didn't my parents say that if I wasn't a virgin on the wedding night my husband would never trust me? That is bullshit.

Furthermore, I have to say that sex has been very disappointing. Sex is great, yes, but my parents set me up with horribly unrealistic expectations about it. That sacred mystical connection I was raised to see sex as? Yeah, NO. Sex is just sex. That effortless sheer physical pleasure I was raised to believe would automatically accompany sex? Yeah, NO. Sex is hard work, and it's sweaty, slimy, smelly, and downright gross sometimes. It also takes a lot of practice. My parents put it on a pedestal and idealized it as something it's not and taught me to do the same. It's not that I don't like sex, it's just that sex is absolutely not what they taught me it would be.

And you know what? I wish I'd dated before meeting my young man. I wish I'd had sex before too. I wish I'd dated in high school and in the first years of college, I wish I'd dated casually and dated seriously. Dating is not practice for divorce, it's practice for relationships. Sex is not sacred, it's just a physical act humans do like eating or sleeping. Ironically, I suffer a lot of regret at these things I did not do, the very things my parents taught me I would regret forever if I actually did do.

I've spent most of this post talking about what my parents taught me, but I want to point out that they believed they had this from God. God had made sex sacred, God had commanded humans to reserve sex for marriage, God had promised that sex would be a sacred bond between husband and wife, and God had guaranteed that those who did not follow his teachings regarding sexuality would suffer regret and distrust. When I left religion entirely during college, I realized that it is highly ironic that my parents follow and apply the sexual purity standards of a stone age religious text in the modern age. They think these standards are timeless. Well I have news for them: they're not.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

An update on my super-serious undercover mission

2011-08-24T13:49:00.000-07:00

I just found this on the website of the 'Christian Youth Celebration' I'm attending in September:

"The Mix has moved to a new time of 5pm, followed by 6.30pm after hours in the crypt."

Um, the crypt? This thing just got ten times creepier.

Being Good Without God -- by William Bell

2011-08-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

What does a believer think of when they describe their own beliefs about god? The most obvious answers are God represents love, at least in the Judeo-Christian belief system. Many believers think that without the loving benevolent father and the eternal hell fire alternative they would be eating babies, raping, and pillaging.

This is based on the assumption that God created humans basically in a state of immorality and without divine discouragement (threat of hell) humans would not sustain any form of culture and human society would fall apart.

But this is in fact not true, and in my view if we are in a truly moral society then someone is being altruistic they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart not because they are afraid of punishment. It could not even be considered altruism because it is meant to contribute to reaching a selfish cause (going to heaven not hell).

However this makes sense based on evolutionary predictions. We are selfish animals and we have a deep instinct to survive, therefore once affected by a meme such as a religious belief, like the good-bad afterlife complex we will do whatever we can to make it so we survive that afterlife in good condition.

We can also look at examples in our world for instance Estonia and Scandinavia are extremely secular, these areas also have the highest quality of life, for instance Norway has the highest quality of life as in number one and Sweden came 9^th, Finland came in 16^th, Denmark came in 19^th, Estonia came 34^th, Iceland coincidentally with the highest evolution acceptance in the world comes in 17^th. I am not trying to say that secularism increases quality of life, simply that it does not decrease it.

In the words of Jessica Ahlquist “Religion is like a crappy commercial”, it says we are bad and we need redemption just like you need Old Spice and it tells you that you will go to hell if you don’t accept Jesus into your lives. Religion manipulates your emotions towards selfishness, ignorance, fear and anger, it tells you who to excommunicate and who to blow up. A construct that causes such huge problems in the world, that ensnares millions, billions of people, is that what we want judging our morality? Is this really what you want a good book to have?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Undercover at the Christian Youth Festival (the plotting and scheming stage)

2011-08-20T15:55:00.000-07:00

Call me crazy: next month I’m going to a Christian “youth celebration”.

I, your intrepid reporter, will be journeying to the depths of the evangelical teenage kingdom in order to tell you just how creepy and brainwashy (or not) Christian youth festivals really are. Farewell, good friends. It was nice knowing you.

The event is called “The Mix” and is taking part in my home town on the evening of September 4^th. I first went there when I was still a Christian and I remember even then being a little freaked out by it. There was air groping. And crying. Lots of crying. I was confused.

A Christian friend of mine mentioned it on Facebook today and I thought “Hmmm…I like purposely causing myself pain and suffering, why don’t I go!” We had the following conversation.

Me: Hi (Christian friend), (other friend) and I are planning on coming too. Is there still a mini bus?

Christian friend: Yeah, but that's with the Baptist Church and I go with my Youth Group. Laura, if your just coming to laugh with a closed, set mind I recommend you don't go. The only point in going would be if you went open minded.

Me: In the spirit of one of my favourite quotes “Keep an open mind – but not so open your brain falls out”. As always, I’m willing to change my mind as soon as I’m presented with convincing evidence. However, on this occasion I’m not there to challenge, but in a research capacity. And you explicitly said "You don't need to be a Christian, anyone is welcome".

Ah. I think by “anyone is welcome” he probably meant “anyone who is willing to uncritically accept anything my church says is welcome”. Well, you should have said! As for being open minded, I think we may mean slightly different things by that. Being open minded means to me that I’m willing to examine all pieces of evidence as objectively as I can and come to a reasoned conclusion as free from bias as possible. To him it seems to mean accepting that all claims are equally valid, regardless of evidence and reason.

Yeah, I don’t really roll that way…

And I’m not just coming to laugh. Amusement is only one of my aims.

So, back to my exciting excursion. I’ll be journeying up to Woodlands Christian Centre (motto: “Continuously reproducing the life of Jesus”) on Sunday 4^th September. I’m promised by their website that I’ll be able to “meet with God” (it’ll be nice to be introduced) and I’m looking forward to infinitely disappointing my friends when I inevitably fail to be touched by the holy spirit.

Stay tuned for the next chapter in my adventure!

Sexuality and Religion Series: My Sexy Demons -- by Mike K

2011-08-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

Darrel Ray is a psychologist who wrote the book The God Virus which looks at the mechanism of belief and how it passes itself on and reinforces itself in its host. It's a fantastic read for anyone who is interested in memes and psychological mechanisms behind powerful ideas and cults. There is more to how religions spread and survive than just a crotchety old man in robes being sent out to wander around shouting “Wololo” at people. Oh no, in reality religion is much more like a highly refined biological weapon that exploits universal human weak-points.

One of the most powerful tools religion has is what is called the Guilt Cycle. The religion will convince you from a young age that certain things are sinful and deserving of hell, then they'll tell you they have the cure; they'll link in your mind shame and guilt with lots of perfectly human and natural behaviours and thoughts and then set up the church as the only place to nullify that guilt for a short while. It becomes indistinguishable from addiction to pain killers, eventually you're going to feel lust and the guilt that comes with it and the only place you'll find solace for that unnecessary guilt is in the church.
[Ray more recently conducted a survey on sexuality in the secular, Sex and Secularism, looking that what long term lasting effects this cycle might have and perhaps surprisingly and happily it turns out that generally people can shake off the addiction relatively quickly after deconverting.]

Dilemma...

Anyway, I wanted to establish the Guilt Cycle concept as a context to tell you about my experiences around sexuality and religion. First off, I consider myself bisexual, but given that everyone seems to have their own definitions of these labels, it's really difficult to say that and have it be meaningful – much to my annoyance. But for all intents and purposes let's keep it simple: it's fact that I find romantic and sexual attraction to both sexes. But it wasn't always like that and as much as people say, “People are born that way.” It's certainly not always the case. When I originally started noticing my peers in that way, I was 11, maybe 12, and I was only attracted to girls and it seemed like every day I had a new crush.

I was also very Christian at this point having been raised to believe in creationism even and we were already getting the ol' “sex is of the flesh and sinful” type tracts in youthgroup by then. For a few years after that, things went on as normal (you know, wanking then praying for forgiveness, the normal life of a young Christian). But things were about to change. I dunno why, maybe it was because I liked tomboys and he kind of confused the parts of my brain that react to girls and his tall, slender and slightly athletic figure with his long hair and bright blue eyes just suddenly did it for me. I ended up with a crush on a boy! I can tell you that was a very scary realisation to me.

Part of the problem was the dichotomy we're implicitly taught in society; that there are straight people (who have no interest in other people of the same sex ever) and they are “normal”. Then there are gays who are nasty and like buttsecks and being covered in bodily fluids and who talk funny and who will automatically hit on you and spread AIDS, etc.. Not even SexEd in schools really set us straight, so to speak, and that things are just more complicated than the simple and false dichotomy of gay and straight and the stereotypes that go with them. Without a realistic understanding of human sexuality, a young guy can only jump to nonsensical conclusions.

Now my church back then weren't really in the business of saying “fags are going to hell” or anything like that, oh no, that would be too controversial in my country. The position of the people my old church on sexuality would be very difficult to pin down, I certainly don't remember them talking about it much (but I never really listened). However what they certainly never did was dispel the myths. I had impressions from my father, reading the bible and from culture that lead me to terrible conclusions about myself. In desperation we all will grasp at straws if we don't know any better. The fact that I was only attracted to girls and now was fantasising about boys too meant I was changing for some reason. I rationalised that change on a Christian basis.

I thought my new attractions were a manifestation of my own sinful corruption. That I was so bad (I couldn't work out where I was being so bad but never mind) that my own heart was like mutating into perversion. Any confidence I had by this time was utterly destroyed by this belief. I went into a deep depression, prayed more earnestly than ever before and did my best to try and change. Needless to say, I never did change. Disproof of my belief? Not at all! Only proves I was worse than I thought, at least that's how I rationalised it at the time.

I swallowed my turmoil for some time and after awhile just sort of accepted the idea I was corrupted and put it to one side. I agreed to myself that I'll fantasise about guys if I need to but I was only to act on opposite-sex impulses for the rest of my life. That may have been a workable solution from my perspective but it never made me feel any better about myself. The other thing was that all my best friends back then were Christian and as much as I trusted each one of them, I couldn't cope with the idea being 'out there' that part of me wanted to "be with" other guys (and that continued to be the case for years and even a little while after I became an atheist) so it all still weighed very heavily on my mind all the time.

When I deconverted 3 years ago, I had the opportunity to restructure my whole world view. I took the time to learn about human sexuality, the things I should have learnt about in school, and so don't feel like some kind of perverted freak. I grew the confidence and even pride enough to come out to everyone even though I got an almost immediate negative reaction from some of my friends. Their reaction though was rash and not thought through and after a while they all didn't care again.

While I'm happy about myself and have been able to have some great experiences because of that since (*wink*), honestly, I still have a chip on my shoulder. I can still remember very well the shame and the guilt and the gut wrenching self-loathing from my teen years.

I've been accused a few times of simply “hating God”... Rightly fucking so I say! At least I do for the religion and the quiet complicity in those who allowed the physical and internal, emotional torments, and the exploitation of those things to spread this God virus to me and other innocent young people.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

The Guava Tree of Good and Evil

2011-08-17T10:47:00.000-07:00

Alex Day (of Twilight reading fame) reads the creation story in Genesis. He ponders life, the universe, and the extent to which creation is like Sims.

Sexuality and Religion Series - God, Atheism and Me -- by Sam P

2011-08-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

I sit in silence, and think back to before. Before I became a free man. Free from the shackles of religion – having to cope with the stress and self bullying caused by anachronous religious dogma.

I found so much beauty and peace with my escape and its thanks to three things: Science, Reason and Prof. Richard Dawkins.

The reason I was trapped is still a bit unclear, a lot of it is based in fear. Fear of denying God Exists, Fear of the what if, fear of fire and brimstone, fear of disappointing my Christian parents. I would spend some nights in an appalling wretched mental wrestling match between following God and letting go.

There are two main reasons (amongst countless others) why I wanted to let go. One was because I am gay – as you may be aware religion of most kinds and homosexuality don’t mix. I was torn between God and wanting to be myself.

Another reason is because I felt I couldn’t read any other literature which I loved apart from christian books and of course the bible. My main love in life to relax and to learn is to read.
As you can see both these things were crippling to me. But along came a book…

The book being the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I was lent a copy by my Aunty (to whom I am eternally grateful for not just this but for all that she has taught me, such as the importance of learning and reading, the beauty of poetry amongst a lot of other things). I read it, and it gave me a burst of life, what I read freed me. It made me brave enough to take a step back and question.

Richard Dawkins’ site would be of some use if you felt like me.

So I was on my journey to a happy godless existence! Next I had to reinforce my discovery of science. And turned to a few other books by Richard Dawkins (Unweaving the Rainbow and Ancestors Tale were a couple of them) Here I found enjoyment and discovery of the facts of life so to speak. The beauty of certain scientific facts astounded me amongst a lot of others I have sifted through thanks to Wikipedia! I am liberated and this frees me I kept saying to myself in awe.

There isn’t going to be a big summing up of this. All I am going to say is that I want other people to become godless and then as enriched as I have. Leave the shackles in the church and discover what life has to offer!

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Sexuality and Religion Series - Untitled-- by Brittany E

2011-08-15T16:04:00.000-07:00

If you want to read more from Brittany, visit her blog.

I've grown up in an area with a church on every corner. This is not much of an exaggeration. There are two churches within ten minutes walking distance from where I'm sitting, and four within 20. I live in a place where church/state violations are brushed of as silly and people roll their eyes when asked to include religions other than christianity, and find it unthinkable to not believe in a god. a vast, vast majority of people around here are christian. My high school had between 400 and 500 people in it, and the number of (out) atheists was at 7, at the highest, while I was there. Most people attended a church every week, at least.

Luckily for me, somehow, my parents don't happen to be very religious. My mom is something of an agnostic, but went with the label "christian" for a long time, because she'd gone to church as a kid, and she didn't utilize her own mind very much until a few years ago, preferring to let my dad decide these things. My dad grew up in an abusive home, and tried to get religion to save him from it around age 15, and since, even though he's not gone to church or read the bible, has been a weird sort of religious that seems to mean he thinks that there's a god who wants you to worship him and believes a few randomized passages in the bible. I'm not really sure why someone with such an insanely cherry-picked religion that seems totally unique to him would feel he could criticize others, but he somehow finds a lack of religion laughable.

Enter- My homosexuality, and screw with all of my family relationships. I didn't come out until about a year after my parents decided they found out. It's all a little difficult to explain, but my dad heard rumors that I was gay, and kissed my girlfriend at school, then, I gave xem (My girlfriend is genderqueer and these are the decided pronouns. Check out my blog if you're interested in knowing more about this.) a goodbye kiss on xyr forehead one day, and he decided that he knew enough to guess that, yes, I am a lesbian, and I should never be allowed to talk to my girlfriend.

The only reason I could ever get out of him was that god said homosexuality was bad. This utterly insane man had somehow chosen the verse about stoning homosexuals to believe, out of all of them. He called me disgusting, and told me I was going to hell. He told me I wasn't his daughter anymore. And the only reason I could get out of him was religion. My mom just cried and said she loved me, but she wanted me to change so god would love me. I was so confused at the time. How was this random Leviticus verse the one that would send me to hell when none of us kept the sabbath holy, attended church, prayed before dinner, or even learned about the bible? But, religion around here seems to be all about intolerance.

So, my parents' reaction to my homosexuality was because of religion. My friends? Actually, most of them didn't care. That's why they were my friends. But my pool of potential friends pretty much evaporated at school. I lived a dangerous double life that, in hindsight, seems crazy to have attempted, but, I digress, the point is, at school, I was an out, proud, lesbian, and that people knew this made them look at me with disgust. No one wanted me as their teacher-picked partner for assignments, and it was hilarious to point at me and say "that's the lesbian" When halley (my girlfriend) was holding hands and walking with me, asking explicit questions about out (then nonexistent) sex-life was okay. Teachers looked the other way for the most part, because really, we deserved it for defying god this way. It seemed every way I turned, someone hated me for loving xem because their sky dad said so.

This caused a little shame, but luckily, most of the time, I just felt depressed that everyone seemed to hate me without actually thinking about it. But I did feel a little shame. I tended to laugh it off. And I labeled myself a "bad girl" because I wasn't listening to my parents for the first time in my life, and, even though I didn't believe in god, it was still something I was doing that was yicky, according to most people I knew. I thought maybe something was wrong with me, and I was terrified that there was some premise I was missing that made their logic make sense without god involved, and I lived in fear of debates, because what if they proved that it was bad? would I stop loving xem? could I stop loving xem?

But what ultimately saved me was my halley and my friends. They reminded me that loving hurts no one, even if imaginary sky dad says it does. I have one conversation I'd like to share with everyone reading, paraphrased to the best of my memory between me and a friend on facebook chat. We'll call him Jeremy. He's the kind of guy who is always joking about everything, so one night, as I was telling him I watched the spanish channel on cable at four in the morning and it was utterly bizarre, the conversation went little like this

Jeremy: well, there's basically porn on HBO at four a.m.

Me: lol. okay

Jeremy: yeah, so now you can watch all the naked girlies you want, and no one will know.

Me: haha. I'm too much of a sweet innocent little girl for that.

Jeremy: ... yeah, I'm sure you are. lol.

Me: well, it's not like I haven't thought about it. But sometimes, I forget I'm not a good girl anymore. haha. It's like I was for so long, I don't remember that that changed.

Jeremy: Brittany, you are good. You are sweet and kind and you loving a girl doesn't affect this. Anyone who wants to tell you otherwise is just a narrow-minded fuckhead who is jealous that you have someone who loves you.

Me: I think that's the sweetest think anyone's ever said to me. I didn't know you could get that serious.

And it continued. But that reminded me, without this nonsense god stuff, sexual orientation of any sort is okay, and it doesn't affect how good or kind you can be, so no one experiencing this should be ashamed.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Religious Comedy Bite

2011-08-14T02:49:00.000-07:00

I was watching "My Favourite Joke" on BBC1 last night, and came across this:

A Religious Mother's Wishes -- By Kevin A

2011-08-13T14:44:00.000-07:00

I've been an atheist for over four years and my mom has known about my atheism for around three. Up to this point it hasn't really caused a problem, mostly because we really don't talk about it, probably because it keeps the peace, which in general I'm fine with. Most of the time it just never gets brought up unless she tells me as a mere statement of fact that she went to church earlier in the day or something and it's relevant to the story as a whole.

I don't really have plans of getting married in the near future, but I have been dating my girlfriend, who is also an atheist, for over three years so it's not like the subject has never come up. With respect to marriage, you could probably infer from my previous posts that I would want a marriage ceremony completely devoid of any religious references, and given how it's seemed to be a non-issue with my mom over the past few years, I wasn't concerned that she would care either way if I had a religious wedding... that was until last week.

Over the weekend I was going to attend my first secular wedding (I couldn't actually end up attending because of car issues), and about two or three days beforehand my mom asked, "What kind of church is [he] getting married in?" which was a particularly awkward question for me, because as far as I know, this friend was the first atheist I ever knew. The most awkward part of it though, the part that gave me pause, was the way she said it. I could tell by the way she said it that she was trying to figure out if I was the only one of my friends who didn't believe, and whether they play Christian for their parents when they get married, and from that I could kind of gather that she had a twinge of hope that I would do just that. Fat chance.

I don't mean to be so glib about it, but for something that's so personal I'm not going to sacrifice my identity for someone who's not even part of the contract that is being celebrated. The person I would take longer to consider "faking it" for would be my grandmother. This is because she is so much more serious about her religious belief, e.g. believes in hell for nonbelievers, and I can tell if I ever confront her on the issue of the existence of God, while I love her to death and she shows me great compassion, she can also be incredibly stern (I hate to invoke stereotypes, but we're of German heritage) and I know she would get very defensive about it. If and when the time comes where I need to bring this issue up with her, which I imagine it will (she was only 50 when I was born, making her 70 now), I will just try to let her know that I have been this way for longer than she realizes and that I have been the same well-behaved, loving grandson she's known for this whole time. I'd hope that her believing I was going to hell didn't hurt her so much that it strained our relationship, or even worse, emotionally damaged her in some way.

If you have come out to a grandparent, which is probably harder than a parent (for me it probably will be), I would I would love to hear your advice as far as how to break it most gently. I don't plan on doing it soon, but it would be great to know for future reference.

You can read more from Kevin at his blog.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

A Teachable Moment -- By Shannon B

2011-08-11T14:47:00.000-07:00

Something slightly different today: this is a post from Shannon, who has recently started homeschooling her children, and has been thinking about secular morality and considering values for a life lived without God.

Since coming out as an atheist, I’ve only had a few people ask (and not always directly) how I determine what is moral without a higher power guiding me.

Easily… and without the guilt.

I grew up in a somewhat religious family. Though, out of the three siblings, only one of us (Eldest Male, duh) was baptized as a baby…you know, for good luck with carrying on the family name. If my parents truly did believe, then that’s like a big middle finger to the other two of us – still carrying around our original sin. Pffffft!

Suddenly, in 6th grade I was sent to private school. This was never really explained to me – why, suddenly we had to go to private school, when I knew my parents couldn’t afford it. This was apparent by the almost daily fights about money, the “No you can’t have that we are broke” retorts, and the work study I had to do to offset the tuition that my parents couldn’t afford. I digress. The summer before 6th grade I had to take a catechism class to learn all about the church and God and Jesus. Then, after I passed all of that I could be baptized and receive first communion.

It was during this summer that I learned of the hellfire and damnation that would accompany me unless I was a good little girl who never made any mistakes and stopped asking questions that “weren’t appropriate”. I could never understand why loving God at HOME on Sunday was a sin, especially since he was always with me.

Growing up in private school with religion class, praying for everything, and the inability to ask critical thinking questions of said religion, I felt – and eventually believed – the guilt so pushed upon me. I believed that I was a direct reflection of my parents and what I wanted from life wasn’t as important as filling this mold already made for me. Oozing out of the mold meant I was a “sinner” and a “disappointment”.

Despite what I learned from so many years of “being God’s child,” I graduated from high school, left for the Air Force and chose to have my dog tags read “NO REL PREF” meaning No Religious Preference. I knew from that point on, I was a former Catholic. It’s been a long journey from NO REL PREF to Atheist and Secular Humanist in 14 years.

The hardest part is un-wiring the GUILT.

It still tries to poke its horrible little head out – trying to guilt me back into those thoughts of inferiority.

That, my friends, is how indoctrination works. Scaring little kids (who don’t have the mental capacity or maturity to decipher what THEY believe) with a supernatural being and his comic-book worthy arch nemesis, “Be good or go to Hell!”

Why can’t we just teach kids (everyone) to make the right choices, be kind, and honest because it’s good for ALL OF HUMANITY – present and future?

If an adult needs a supernatural being to keep them in line – actually needs it – then they are being good for the wrong reason thereby taking the moral quality away.

If an adult truly believes that without this supernatural being they would go around murdering, raping, and enslaving – then they should seek professional help.

Let the record show that, although I don’t believe in the existence in any supernatural beings, I absolutely EDUCATE my children on the religions of the world – and of course, philosophies.

Also, my children will decide for themselves if they believe in a supernatural being. I cannot and will not make that decision for them. My job is to give them the tools, resources and knowledge for them to make their own decision. As a child of religion – I was not given that opportunity. At the beginning of my 6th grade year I told my parents that I did not want to go to private school. My mother told me that after 1 year, if I didn’t like it, I could go to the local public school. A year passed and I told them I still wanted to go to public school – motion denied! End. Of. Story. I had no choices, no say in the matter – but was falsely told I would… same goes for church. Sure ask questions… make sure you have strong faith— those were the words coming from the mouths of church members, teachers – but those most certainly were NOT their actions or the “read between the lines” mentality/message.

It took some time… and lots of research… to realize that values do not come from religion. If you think about it, religion kind of just repackages morality. It markets its specific morality as ”One,” “True,” and “From God” so that we don’t question it and realize that these values are subjective. People are the ones who determine what is right and wrong. The leaders in the churches tweak and adjust the “One,” “True,” “From God” morality to fit societal needs. The Bible endorses murder, slavery, rape and the selling of children however, modern society does not endorse these things, because these things are immoral. So… being good without god is not only possible, it happens even within religion.

For years I’ve held onto a few key words in my values list. And since I anticipate more questions as to how I can possibly hold myself back from murdering, raping and enslaving those around me, I’ve compiled a list (not limited to) of what morals/values we hold in our family and hope to instill in our children:

honesty – with yourself and others

respect - for yourself and others

courage – to stand up for your beliefs after careful consideration and critical- thinking

kindness – to yourself and others

good citizenship – to improve the world in the present and the future

personal responsibility – if you falter, accept it, make amends and learn from it

critical thinking – form your own opinions based on research, analysis and evaluation

compassion – sympathizing with others and wanting to alleviate their pain

integrity – doing what is right, even if no one would ever find out

Giving my children the tools to live a rich and purpose-filled life, drawing on values that stem from a desire to make the world in which we live a better place is the same as all parents (who actually parent). We believe in teaching morals, ethics, and values which help our children grow into integrity-filled, responsible, intelligent, kind members of society – which is better for society in the present and the future. But when I educate them, their consequences deal with this world, the reality in which we live and not on supernatural or after-life consequences.

… Maybe there is an after-life – passing on our values to future generations in the hopes that one day many people will live and promote universal morality based on the commonality of human nature.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: A Religious Mother's Wishes, By Kevin A

Sexuality and Religion Series - a call for submissions

2011-08-10T16:11:00.000-07:00

When I had that wondrous day last week during which I turned on my computer to find that the publicity from Friendly Atheist meant I had a full email inbox of submissions, I noticed something: many of the submissions I received were about how religion has affected the author's experience of their sexuality.

As this has proven to be such a popular topic, and one it's clear a lot of you want to address, I've decided to dedicate the week starting next Monday to articles about Religion and Sexuality. I'll post all the articles on that topic I have received, including my own, along with any others I receive before the end of that week.

So this is a call for submissions. If you have something you want to say about religion and sexuality, this is your chance. Just send your article, poem, creative writing piece or artwork to generation.atheist@gmail.com.

If you're feeling unsure about whether you want to send me something, here is a puppy with a sad face to guilt you into it.

See, now you have to do it.

Thinking Rationally – The Euthyphro Dilemma -- By Rohit A

2011-08-10T15:59:00.000-07:00

During any discussion that I have with people about God and religion, the one point that every believer makes is about morality. The claim is that religion and fear of God make people do good things. This of course implies that without the idea of someone omniscient looking over us, we would collapse into anarchy and as long as religion stops up from being morally bankrupt, religion is good.

The fact that you do good things out of fear of eternal damnation (or reincarnation, depending on what version of the story you prefer) rather than because they are based on sound logic tells us a lot about religion. The same believers say that because the masses, especially in a country like India, cannot think critically and make decisions for themselves and so they need religion to give them direction to do the right things. This points to the very heart of the problem. The religious would rather have us believing something without any rational thought process than encourage independent inquiry.

Seneca The Younger said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful”. One only has to look at the tremendous devastation brought on the world by people around the world who have followed orders based on religious teachings.

This brings us back to the question of morality. In Plato’s dialog “Euthyphro”, Socrates, who is awaiting trial, asks Euthyphro, a self-proclaimed religious expert, “Is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?” Put simply, is the morally good commanded by God because it is good or is it good because it is commanded by God?

As a believer, if this does not get you thinking, I put to you a simpler question – Do you think crimes like rape and murder are commendable? If you are a sane individual, you would disagree. Rape, murder or any other act that infringes on another individual’s right to live the same way as you want to live i.e. without fear, are wrong. So would you suddenly find them acceptable if a so called holy book says it is? Again, if you are a rational individual, you wouldn’t. Yet, there are a number of passages in the Bible and Quran, which are followed by billions of people, which actively condone rape, murder and many other methods of torture.

Is there any doubt that we receive our morals not from any holy book, but from rationality, independent thinking and perhaps some aspect of evolution that causes us to realize that cooperation is the best way to ensure survival and propagation of our species?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: A Teachable Moment by Shannon B

Burden Of Proof: On Acceptable Evidence For God -- By Fenix C

2011-08-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

This post is a response to a post on Generation Atheist called Are Proofs Or Evidence For Deities Even Hypothetically Possible and while I highly recommend reading that article, it will not be necessary to understand what I am talking about here.

The entire article is based on two ideas, Occams Razor and Clarke's Third Law
OR: All other things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, or more accurately, that when discussing hypotheses that are equal in other regards, it is right to select the one that requires you to make the least number of unwarranted assumptions.
CL: Any technology sufficiently advanced would be indistinguishable from magic.

We use OR in our life every day - we assume when we find a suicide note and a guy hanging from the ceiling, we assume that he killed himself. We would not assume that someone forced him to write the note in his own handwriting and then hung the guy for some reason. Unless there is evidence (for example, he was really rich, and then after he died suddenly it was revealed that his will was changed last week to put all of his money into a nameless bank account) of course, we will assume that the simplest answer is correct. This is the reason for the word "unwarranted" because if there were such evidence, the assumption would be completely warranted.

Clarke's Law is less prevalent in our society in an obvious way, but think about A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court. A moden man is sent back in time to the middle ages, and with his knowledge of history and electricity, manages to make firearms and an electric fence to defend himself from those who would wish to destroy him. And what is the first word they use for him? Wizard. He was using a concept of electricity to run his camp, charged invisible particles moving energy around - this was so far above the understanding of the people of that time that they couldn't understand it at all, and so it was magic. But we are smarter now, we have this law to reference. So if an alien race ever showed up and shot energy weapons and were capable of moving things large distances in a single instant, we would assume (based on CL and OR) that they were simply very technologically advanced, not magical.

And really - magic is simply the manipulation of the world using techniques unknown to the observer. If I can make a bosy float, and people do not understand it, it is called magic. But I did it using techniques possible and following from the given rules of the universe. If someone were to do something that we perceived as impossible, we would be wrong - it is not impossible, because we just saw it. Then there are two conclusions we can reach: either our understanding of the rules of the universe were incomplete in this regard, or our understanding of what we just saw was incomplete. This is why I say there is no such thing as magic. Because magic is to do the impossible (or at least the illusion of the impossible) which by its definition is not possible. If it is done, it is possible, and therefore there are rules governing its possibility, which puts us back at the two possible conclusions of incorrect knowledge or faulty perception.

So the question this author poses to us is this: hypothetically if someone showed up claiming to be God and showed up amazing things that we were incapable of doing (water into wine, walking on water, etc.) we, the rationalists, would assume that it was simply advanced technology and not magic - so how would a deity prove itself? This is a very good question. I had to think about it for a while, and had to back to the base of the creation myth to answer it.

I am going to assume for the sake of argument that God exists, created the world with natural laws (gravity, radioactive decay, stuff like that) and that we as members of its existence are forced to obey, and that these laws cannot be broken. They can be manipulated - Jesus can walk on water, the sea can part, stuff like that. These are improbable, but do not go against the laws of nature. It is conceivable that the act is a trick based in technology and science. For example, we have invented a vehicle that can travel on land and water without touching either of them directly - we call it a hovercraft. It is simple, a parachute holds the air in place and the force exerted upwards by the air held under the craft is equal to the force of gravity on the craft. But imagine trying to explain that to someone who didn't understand forces or gravity or even air. There was a time when birds were not understood.

So how would a Deity prove itself to exist to us? For me, it would have to violate a rule of this universe that is not violable. For me there, is only one rule that comes to mind - the conservation of matter. Unfortunately, this would be again, very difficult to do even for a Deity, because us skeptics are very skeptical.

So I was thinking how a Deity could prove itself to me beyond all reasonable doubt. Because humans do magic tricks, so a Deity doing something that even remotely looks like a magic trick would merit a response much like the lolcat above. We would raise an eyebrow and say "how did you do that" and God would respond "I am God, I can do what I want - I am master of all creation!" to which we would respond "that was a cool magic trick - now how did you do it?"

So after some thinking, and likely more thinking to come, the only thing that would prove to me that God existed is to do the one thing that it is said that God can do. There is only one thing that God could do to prove his existence to me: destroy the universe. And I don't mean make it all crunch back together - I mean make it disappear. But that would not be enough - because it is conceivable that an alien race with sufficient technology could do that. No, I want God to destroy the universe. Then I want him to take my immortal soul to the afterlife. Then I want to watch him recreate the universe.

In summary, the only thing that would really prove beyond all doubt for me personally that God existed was to watch him do the one thing that God is certainly credited with - the creation of the universe.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: Thinking Rationally by Rohit A

Why I'm an Atheist (well, kinda)

2011-08-08T15:01:00.000-07:00

Being subjected to this song on a regular basis as a child is, I think, 99% of the reason I'm now an atheist.

(The other 1% is something to do with reason, logic, critical thinking and science. But it's mostly the song.)

Belief, Science and the Human Brain -- By Emily H

2011-08-07T15:22:00.000-07:00

It has been a common saying from atheists that “God is all in your head.” A more fitting position might be this one suggested by anthropologist Pascal Boyer (referenced in the 2^nd Edition Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft), “People do not invent gods and spirits; they receive information that leads them to build such concepts.” Boyer, as well as other researchers, suggest that this “received information” could be of the brain’s own making. He suggests that religion is an accidental by-product of the way the human brain works. Humans come to the conclusion that there is a higher power, or spiritual entities because of the way our brains make connections between unrelated occurrences. Here is an example. Brian wore green socks when his baseball team won, he concludes that he must wear those same socks for the rest of the season or else the team will fail. Religion exists in much the same way. Brian prays for the baseball team to win and if they succeed it was because the prayer was answered. It is simply human nature to seek patterns where none exist. We see shapes in the clouds and constellations in the night skies. Now the question remains; why do our brains work this way?

Spiritual experiences are universal and multi-cultural. Forever, people from all kinds of religions and belief systems have claimed to have a connection with a spiritual entity. Many even report visions of these entities and their revelations are regarded as fact. How do so many people from different times and places share this theme? Science may hold the answer. Scientists have proposed that a part of the temporal lobe affects how a person reacts to religious stimuli. They refer to it as the God module. This theory is supported by CAT scans of Buddhist monks meditating and Catholic nuns in prayer. Interestingly enough, this research shows that spiritual experiences are universal because of shared human biology. All human brains have the God module.

One example of spiritual experiences and “visions” can be seen in Reverend Lovasik’s Illustrated Book of Saints. He describes St. Teresa of Avila, a Catholic nun in 1500’s Spain. She was often “blessed” with holy visions. She is also the patroness against headaches. She suffered headaches because of her divine premonitions. The book states, “In 1582, Jesus appeared to Teresa with many saints. She begged Him to take her to Himself. After prayer, her soul was taken to heaven.” Today we realize that visions can really be dangerous hallucinations. St. Teresa also had a condition that can now be recognized as epilepsy. The God module, as discussed earlier, is in a region of the brain that is over-stimulated in people with epilepsy. It is very possible that St. Teresa and the many people of various religions, who claim a special connection with a spirit or God, just have an over-stimulated part of the temporal lobe.

Another theory to explain premonitions and the sensed feelings of God is external stimulation of the temporal lobe. It can be in the form of natural occurrences in nature, like earthquakes or solar eclipses that affect electromagnetic fields. John Geiger writes about such stimulation in his book The Third Man factor. He also includes details on an experiment done by the famous the famous psychologist Michael Persinger. In 1988 Persinger developed a device dubbed the “god helmet.” Persinger began the project after theorizing that there was a link between hallucinations and electromagnetic disturbances.

These disturbances can be produce internally by the brain or externally by electric devices. The “god helmet” tested his hypothesis, “If all experiences are generated by brain activity, then experiences of God and spirits should also be produced by the appropriate stimulation.” The helmet, which let off weak magnetic fields to the temporal lobe of the participant, resulted in inter-hemispheric changes. Most of the people experimented on, reported a strong, sensed presence. Many felt absolutely sure that another being was in the room, even though the testing was done in seclusion. One journal released by Persinger on the findings of his experiments even reported that a subject claimed to encounter a “religious entity.”

Geiger continues in his book to explain how human brains can be internally stimulated during times of stress and extreme emotion. Visions can appear during times of peril to any person, secular or religious. What a person bases their beliefs on could really just be waived away by science. Did they really see their dead grandmother talking from beyond the grave? Did Jesus appear to them? Did God speak to them? Was there really a guardian angel in the room? Or was their temporal lobe just internally stimulated? An even simpler explanation is that the experience was due to the power of suggestion, or it was an overactive imagination. It is up to people on an individual basis to decide how to perceive sensations and visions. It is up to everyone to make connections…or not to.

Faith, as defined in the dictionary, is absolute belief in and devotion to God. The faith of many people would, and does, stand unwavering against the science presented in multiple books and journals. Just as it is impossible for some people to believe in God, it can be equally impossible for people to believe in scientific arguments. By presenting this information I don’t mean to force anyone into believing differently. I just mean to present some of the information I’ve gathered. It is up to the reader to, investigate, and think critically about arguments before letting anything define their beliefs. Who knows what they may come to believe. After all, the brain works in mysterious ways.

Works Cited
Stein, Rebecca and Stein, Philip The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft 2nd Edition 2008: 24-29 and 218-221
Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik Illustrated Book of Saints 1974: Introduction and 94
Geiger, John The Third Man Factor 2009: 16-19 and 166-172

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

How to be Smart (a YouTube interlude) -- by Stephen J

2011-08-06T10:25:00.000-07:00

This is a slight interlude from the scheduled posting, as Microsoft Word appears to be throwing a temper tantrum today.

Instead, I'd like to share with you a YouTube video I was sent at the Generation Atheist email address (generation.atheist@gmail.com) by a young atheist who has recently started voicing his thoughts about science, religion and scepticism on the internet. He's in the process of making a really interesting series that I would encourage you to check out. The below video is just one of many (plus, I love his shirt).

So...enjoy!

We should be back on schedule by tomorrow, but if not I may need to present to you the world exclusive of "Random Stuff Laura Finds on the Internet". Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

On Scepticism in the Broad World -- By Robert S

2011-08-05T06:46:00.000-07:00

In its own way, saying you are an atheist is a bit like proclaiming yourself Christian, in the sense that the label actually describes only the bare back bone of your belief. Coming from a Roman Catholic family, and having mostly protestant friends (which in itself is a broad term,) you start seeing differences not only between variations between the followers of Jesus, but between members of the same sect. Likewise, I have seen splits in atheism, and not only between blogers over the elevator incident. I have personally felt it.

I have never been religious. Growing up, while I adored the humanitarian message that Jesus spouted, I ignored the fact that the bible doesn’t fit our modern times with its discriminatory view on women, homosexuals, other belief systems/philosophies, etc, etc, etc. I never understood why the grownups and my friends held these beliefs, but I myself didn’t want to care. God, then, fell into this category. I simply shook off the fact that he ought to exist. As I came more and more into my own, I started to start caring about the issues, and found after looking at the evidence, I was a progressive liberal. I had doubt that a god existed, but not ready to take that next step. Instead, I started to secretly ebb away from mass, In a brilliant plan to distance myself from the church. I was still under my parent’s thumb at the time, so it was the best I thought I could do. First, I started taking three to four bathroom brakes during service, then stepped singing, then stood at the back, finally finding myself not even in the building, opting to listen to my music outside instead. I even quit religious education. But the thing I was not was an atheist.

Enter Moose, my former compatriot and mentor when it came to becoming an atheist. As you can see, I was already essentially there, but I still had not asked myself the tough question: “Who is this god person anyways?” He, on the other hand, was a charismatic, slightly perverted baptist rebel who had turned to atheism head on - researching it and debating anyone who cared to disagree with him. He was an extremist, however, going to the point where he flipped off anyone who said they would pray for him. In his mind, not only did god not exist and evolution was correct, but everyone should think that. So I did what I thought was my religious duty and bit back, only to find my non religious side intervening and making me lose the argument, all the time greedily learning from him. I decided to embrace atheism, much to my parents chagrin. Unlike Moose, however, I still had to contend with my Roman Catholic family and protestant friends, who I spent 98% of my day with. Much to my surprise, it made the experience a lot more I eye opening, as I found that unlike what Moose said, my religious people were not all that he said and they did have legitimate concerns over scientific theories like evolution, and vice versa. So while I broke out of my shell by actually standing up to my parents, listening in on atheist blogs, and gathering my own information, I still retained my lax social belief.

So, where does this leave me today? I am an Atheist, but my disbelief in a god is much different than Tim Minchin, PZ Mayers, or Richard Dawkins. I am agnostic when it comes to whether one exists, but an atheist in that one shouldn’t exist. I equivocate any singularly powerful viewpoint dominating society as the destruction of society, much like in 1984 or Brave New World. However, I mean that absolutely; I’d be even be against a completely skeptical society as well. Conflict and trauma, it seems, has been proven to bring out the most progress, from the reformation, Magna Carta, French Revolution, to art and music. There would be no renaissance had the bubonic plague not destroyed much of Europe. There would be no New deal had there not been the Great depression. So too does this modern conflict between new atheism vs. old religion enrich our lives, giving us a reason to talk to each other and across the battle lines. It is helping to break down the old absolutist systems, gets a person thinking about what he truly thinks is right. Already, hatred spurred on by religious belief is dwindling, and people are realizing that the LGBT community and mothers who want abortions aren’t all the same, nasty people conservatism wants people to believe they are. Now I think it's timeto do the same to people of all labels.

When it comes to science, I even differ from Moose and Dawkins. Evolution’s a theory, a really good one, I’ll be it, but not complete. I’m glad to say that gap is shrinking, but there are still kinks to work out. That’s how I view science in general, as a bunch of theories. Too often, I think scientists take their work to be fact, when in a few centuries it will probably be replaced, as centuries of science already has. Yet, my point with this is not that they these theories should be listened to and questioned, trying to find it’s faults. It’s why I love science; it is never the "right" answer. It’s a step in the process, a long process I hope will never stop. Again, the fact we don’t know something or the fact what we know may be wrong only pushes us to make further discoveries and continue the progress of man kind. It would be difficult to come to the end of progress.

I write this to remind us, as the future generation of this movement, that life isn't absolute. Old absolutist observations aren’t always true, even labels like “atheist,” “Christian,” and “theist” aren’t the end all be all to someone’s beliefs. Science doesn't give us right answers, just more answers to analyzed and experimented with. As skeptics, we must never lose our probing spirit. Question everything, and make sure to get the whole picture before making the verdict.

Searching for the Baby in the Bathwater -- By Libby Anne

2011-08-04T07:16:00.000-07:00

Everyone who leaves the Quiverfull movement, Christian Patriarchy, or fundamentalism in general has a long journey in front of them. They have to sort through everything they have always believed and determine what to throw out and what to keep, what still makes sense and what does not. This can be a long and difficult process, and can even take years. Everyone’s journey is different. My personal journey led me out of Christianity altogether. This is the story of that journey. It is not your journey and does not need to be; rather, it is my journey.

I had been taught all my life to take the Bible literally, to believe that God created the world in six days, that Abraham and Moses really existed and did and said what the Bible records, that every word of the Gospels was true as written, and that Paul really did tell women to submit to their husbands and not work outside of the home. The Bible, I was taught, was infallible, without error of any sort, and was my guide for life. But when I found in college that my parents’ views on evolution were wrong, and that the Biblical account of creation could not possibly be literally true, I had a problem. What was I to believe?

This was actually the point where I first questioned my beliefs about patriarchy. I had wholeheartedly endorsed patriarchy up until this point, but if my dad was wrong about young earth creationism and the literal truth of the Bible - and he made this issue the very foundation of his faith and taught it to us with a passion rivaled only by his very belief in God - I realized that something was seriously out of place. Put simply, my father was wrong. And if he was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about? And how could I submit to him and make his beliefs mine if I knew he was wrong? And with that, I let go of Christian Patriarchy.

But at this point, I had bigger problems to worry about. I had been taught I that had to take the Bible literally but now I simply could not do that. In addition, when I delved further, asking questions I had never thought to ask before, I realized that, taken literally, the Bible was wrong both factually and ethically.

First of all, not only is the Bible wrong about how the world came into being, it is also wrong in numerous particulars, such as how many Israelites left Egypt (the Bible says there were 600,000 men of fighting age, which would mean about 2,000,000 people total, but at the time there were only 6,000,000 people in all of Egypt and only about 50,000 people in Canaan) and the correct dates for the existence of the various Canaanite tribes. In addition, the four Gospels contradict each other mercilessly and contain historical inaccuracies (how many donkey’s did Jesus ride on Palm Sunday? it depends on which gospel you read. similarly, there was no empire-wide census in the days of Augustus). Sure, I had been taught to explain these things away, but I suddenly realized that those explanations made no sense when I looked at the problems honestly, and not simply out of a desire to justify my faith.

Second, I began to find that the Bible had ethical problems. God commands the Israelites to commit genocide, killing thousands of men, women, and children and wiping out entire nations. The law God gave to Moses treats women as property and even instructs fathers on how to sell their daughters into slavery. The New Testament was not immune to this either; God strikes Ananias and Sapphira dead for the simple act of lying. And this is a good, perfect, loving God? Something was seriously wrong here. And then, of course, there is the issue of sending people around the world whose only transgression is not ever hearing about Jesus to eternal torment in hell. I suddenly could not fathom how a loving God could do that.

Now that I saw the Bible as riddled with errors and filled with genocide and misogyny, I could no longer believe it was infallible in any literal sense. How was I to understand it? I had a problem on my hands. But of course, I wasn’t about to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I couldn’t very well reject Christianity - it was the core of my existence. So I set out to sift through the bathwater and find the baby. And in this process, I did what many recovering fundamentalists have done: I turned to Catholicism.

The Catholic Church admits that there are errors in the Bible, which it sees as a very human book that simply contains kernels of greater truths rather than literal truth. The Old Testament Law and the genocides were merely a tribal society’s way of understanding God, rather than being God’s actual perfect commands. This was an understanding of the Bible that I could accept, and, somehow, it made the Bible more beautiful, more rich and complex, than before. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus came to die for all of humankind, whether they had heard of him or not. Anyone who lives life with the right heart attitude will be saved through Jesus, whether they hear of him or not. This made so much more sense. I mean, if I were Jesus, I’d die to save everyone, not just the few who might hear and believe.

And on top of that, the Catholic Church offered beauty, richness, tradition, history, and belonging. I studied the early church and found that even the earliest Christians practiced infant baptism and believed in transubstantiation. There was something beautiful about the sacraments and the ritual and the history. It fulfilled my heart’s desires. The saints became my cheerleaders and Mary my surrogate mother. I had new friends who accepted me for what I was, and did not judge me. There was comfort and contentment there. There was acceptance, and I loved it.

But unfortunately, once I had begun to think the questions kept coming. Why did the church condemn birth control? Why was masturbation wrong? Why did priests have to be celibate? Just believe, the Catholic Church said. Just accept. We know what is best. It became all too familiar. The beauty and richness was still there, but the hierarchy began to feel stifling. When I took issue with certain things in the church, super-Catholics told me I wasn’t being a good Catholic. Just believe. And I couldn’t do that.

At the same time, I suddenly found that I had other even more troubling questions. Why couldn’t God just forgive people, why did he have to have his son murdered in order to be able to do so? This made no sense. When someone hurt me, I didn’t have to have something murdered in order to forgive them. It suddenly seemed to me that Christianity was built on the foundation of actual literal human sacrifice, and I felt repelled. And besides that, how does God have a son who can come to earth and die, and yet he and this son are one being, together with the Holy Spirit? Let’s face it, the Trinity makes no sense. How do theologians defend it? “Human minds cannot comprehend the mystery of it,” they say. “Just believe.” Sorry, can’t do that, I stopped doing that a while back and I won’t do it again. If the Trinity makes no sense, it makes no sense. You can’t just make it so.

With a very human Bible and Christian doctrine that didn’t even make sense anymore, I had a problem. I began to wonder if there actually was a baby in the bathwater at all.

One thing I still held onto as proof of Christianity was my relationship with Jesus. He and I had been best friends since I was a little girl, and he was always there for me. I talked to him constantly, depended on him, loved him. He was so real to me - Christianity couldn’t possibly be wrong, could it? And then I started to realize something. Christians have set it up so that God can never fail them. Your child survives cancer? Praise God! He healed your child! Your child dies of cancer? It was God’s will, and he’s teaching you things through it. In practice, whether God exists or not is completely irrelevant. Christians don’t get sick less, they don’t have greater financial success, and studies have shown that prayer does not actually help. And as I pondered it, I realized that there was nothing about my relationship with Jesus that could not be pure imagination. In fact, that’s what it was: Jesus was my imaginary friend. And with that, I let go.

It took me almost five years from start to finish, but in the end I concluded that there was no baby in the bathwater after all. You can’t force yourself to believe something you simply don’t believe anymore, and my faith died a quiet and peaceful death. Christianity embodies some very excellent impulses - love, service to others, charity - but it no longer appears to me to be divine in any sense. I can appreciate it for its history, beauty, and tradition, but I no longer believe it. I have walked beyond the borders of religion and found that the world is still a beautiful place, filled with wonder, love, and joy. I have finally found lasting contentment and answers to the questions that before had never stopped pestering me. My journey has led me to a place that has, for me, brought freedom in mind, body, and soul. Life makes so much more sense to me now, everything all fits into place, and because I now believe I have only one life to live, I am living it to its fullest with no regrets.

Please don’t feel like this post is either my attempt to convince you to follow me down the same path or an invitation for you to try to convert me. It’s neither. You might find a baby in the bathwater even as I did not. Everyone's journey is different. I’m not asking you to either agree with what I’ve said or disagree with it; rather, I’m simply explaining my journey and asking that you accept me as I am. Or not. Because regardless of what you think, I am Libby Anne, and I am an atheist.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

To find out more about Libby or to read more of her work, visit her blog.

Tomorrow: On Skepticism in the Broad World, by Robert S

Art and Religion -- By Caroline K

2011-08-03T02:39:00.000-07:00

The histories of Art and Religion are closely intertwined- 'culture,' as defined by my Social Studies teachers, required both art and religion to be present (the latter I obviously have doubts about), and religion has given birth to some of the most beautiful intricate pieces of art that we know. Take, for example, the Marienaltar, a limewood altarpiece at a modest little church in Creglingen, Germany. Carved around 1505, its designs and figures are immaculate, the details lovingly brought out from the material they came from. Although the spare paint and gild that were used have faded away, it is still a beautiful piece of art.

Alters like the Marienalter can be found all over Europe. Arabesque patterns in Muslim mosques are elegant, sloping, even living lines that stun the viewer as they see them, and art in Ancient Egyptian tombs- almost exclusively focused on their gods and religious beliefs- are enchanting, full on energy from another time. The list of examples goes on.

But, as art is entwined with religion and religion inspires art, art and artists are and have been undeniably constrained and destroyed by religion. Alters such as the Marienalter had to be closed up and hidden because of Martin Luther and the protestant reformations fight against iconography in places of worship- many were destroyed. After the rule of Akhenaten, who disregarded all other Egyptian gods during his rule, favoring to worship Ra, the god of the sun instead, statues and artifacts from his rule were smashed to bits. And, recently, an exhibit of LGBT themed art at the Smithsonian Institution has been essentially censored because of religious organizations.

Clearly religion, and underlying intolerance therein, has done more harm than good to the world of art and artists themselves. More art has been destroyed or hidden by religion than has been made. We would undoubtedly have more of a wealth of art than we do now. The emancipation of art, and, thereby, the artist from religious confines is, obviously, a problem to be dealt with.

We are undoubtedly more liberal than our earlier constituents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but there are still people out there who would constrain the creativity and ability of people to bring fantastic ideas to life through paint or clay, many of them undoubtedly motivated by religion(I point again to the recent Smithsonian exhibit).

The way to stop this is the way that any censorship is prevented- education, reaching out to people and breaking down barriers that keep them from appreciating art because of prejudices. Of course, this is a long and arduous process, but not one without merit.

So, turning to everyone else out there, what are your thoughts on the matter? Have you had any experiences with religious censorship in relation to art- not just paintings and museum pieces, but writing and films as well? What are your thoughts?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: Finding the Baby in the Bathwater, by Libby Anne

News: Baroness Scotland gives tips on curing paedophile priests

2011-08-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Between 1995 and 1999, 21 of the 5,600 Catholic priests in England and Wales were convicted of offences against children. In 2010, there were 83 sex abuse claims relating to 103 victims and 92 alleged abusers. The advice given by the new Chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission to combat this problem? Invite them to a football game or give them a glass of wine.

Baroness Scotland became Chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission in March of this year. Upon her appointment, she commented that “Safeguarding is at the heart of the Church – knowing that you are in a safe place where you will be respected; listened to and free to become part of a loving community…” Well, that seems nice enough. Except it’s not the abused children and their families that Baroness Scotland wants faithful Catholics to shelter in their “loving community”. It is, in fact, paedophilic priests.

The “fairly lonely existence” experienced by Catholic priests, said the Baroness, could be contributing to the sexual abuse problem within the Church. She went on to say that priests “need friendship and comfort and someone to have a glass of wine with and watch the football or whatever it”. Commenting on the responsibility of the community for Catholic priests, she added, “That is something that people sometimes forget. It is a two-way process.” The former Attorney General also said that the sexual abuse figures are “very shocking and painful for those who love the Church.”

It seems to me that even those whose role within the Church is to prevent and manage cases of crimes against children remain woefully ignorant of the causes and methods of prevention of sexual abuse. I find it disturbing that the person deemed to be the Church’s best hope for combating this issue can come up with no greater plan than ‘take them to a football match’. Apparently this is the level of insight you get from three years as Attorney General. Well, yeah, give me a fancy title and a top position in the UK’s Catholic Church, and I could have come up with something to absolve the priests of responsibility too.

This is exactly how rape culture works. Shout about how if Little Miss Rape Victim hadn’t dressed like a slut she wouldn’t have been raped, and you make yourself feel better. Because you don’t dress like that, and you don’t drink too much, or walk home alone, or dance like that, or talk like that, so you can’t possibly ever be raped, can you? Problem solved – you can sleep peacefully again. But it just doesn’t work like that. Sexual abuse isn’t about how lonely you are, any more than rape is about what the victim is wearing.

It’s a comfortable lie we tell ourselves; that we can eliminate child sexual abuse by identifying that one elusive factor that unites all offenders. Baroness Scotland thinks she’s found it: it’s the loneliness, she cries, it must be the loneliness! But just like reassuring ourselves that we don’t dress like that so we can’t be raped, we cannot allow ourselves to become convinced that, so long as we invite the local priest around every few weeks for wine and a football game, we have eliminated the possibility that he could become an abuser.

Arguing that priests abuse because they are lonely is taking away their responsibility for their actions. Sure, it might be that isolation is contributing factor (so too might compulsory celibacy) but priests are not stubborn dogs or young children. Being lonely doesn’t make priests abuse children, as the Baroness’s glaring over simplification suggests – they’re big boys who need to be held accountable for the atrocities they commit. When I’m peckish I don’t grab a small child’s ice cream cone; I find some money and buy myself a sandwich. If a priest cannot exercise the same self control when it comes to his sexual urges, he has no place in civilized society.

We have a logo!

2011-08-02T09:16:00.000-07:00

Generation Atheist now has a logo, which you can see in the header at the top of the page. This will be used on the site, on Atheist Nexus, and on the soon-to-be created Generation Atheist Facebook page.

Thank you so much to Harry Bratt for designing it. He put a lot of work into creating a number of possibilities and talking me through how to get them up on the blog. In fact, Harry's help and support in getting this whole project off the ground has been invaluable. Thank you, Harry!

Freedom of Religion -- By Colin G

2011-08-02T03:09:00.000-07:00

In the United States, freedom of religion holds an exalted place both in the founding documents of our government and in the minds of our citizens. That is not to say this freedom is never threatened; there are plenty of political leaders who are even proud of the persecution they encourage. But outside an unfortunately vocal fringe group, freedom of religion is still a tenet of American society, conservative and progressive segments of that society alike.

But should it be?

Suppose that tomorrow I convert to the Order of the Unicorn, a religion requiring me to worship the one and only Unicorn (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!), a process requiring me to take every Friday off as a holiday, and Thursdays too, should the weather be pleasant. Taking the idea of freedom of religion to its logical conclusion, no employer could discriminate against me for my religious beliefs in the Unicorn, nor could they impede my ability to observe my holy days. Since the state has no more ability to ascertain my true beliefs than to change them, this inevitably leads to a compromise of the ideal. This compromise is the selection of either particularly popular religions, or religions that do not conflict with state traditions (for example, the five-day work week). And here we see the first difficulty of the principle of freedom of religion.

To illustrate the second major difficulty, suppose instead of converting to the Order of the Unicorn, I have no religious epiphanies, but instead I want to see my son play baseball on some Friday afternoon. My place of employment is closed on Christmas, even though that day is not a holiday for me. But I have no right to take a few hours off of work to support my son. The state, effectively, is imposing religious values, in fact specifically Christian values, by dictating that the celebration of some long-dead shepherd's son is more important than my own son. To this difficulty, the laws of supposedly enlightened governments offer no compromise.

The special place for freedom of religion, therefore, cannot be defended. Note that I am not arguing that the state has any right to interfere with the freedom of belief; such interference is ineffective, harmful, and delusional. Nor am I arguing for any actual curtailing of religious freedom. What I have tried to show is that anything currently protected by religious freedom, at least anything that in fact deserves legal protection, must be protected instead by secular civil liberties. Only when such a system is in place will atheists be treated equally by the law.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: Art and Religion by Caroline K. Another quick note, the blog is still going through its techy phase, so if you arrive and there's something weird here, don't worry - everything will be sorted out in the end. Hopefully.

A Personal Story -- By Zoe R

2011-08-01T05:37:00.000-07:00

My family isn’t terribly religious. I grew up going to synagogue only once in a while, usually for special holidays. When I did go, I didn’t have much of an idea of what was going on; most of the proceedings were in Hebrew, which I never learned. I was taught the stories of the major holidays, such as the reason we celebrate Pesah or Yom Kippur, but they were just that. Stories. Not the absolute truth, but a story.

However, now that I’ve further explored my own belief system, I find myself growing more uncomfortable with the religion around me. I wasn’t indoctrinated, but it’s always there. My grandmother will say a prayer, or we’ll tell a religious story with all the oppressions of religion, and I’ll shift uncomfortably in my seat, biting my tongue.

I’ve tried my best not to let it become an issue. If someone mentions god, I bite my tongue or mumble in response. The message is clear, but not overly confrontational. If my aunt mentions that “God is unforgiving,” then I’ll just ignore the remark and move on. For the most part, this system works.

But I’ve become more uncomfortable with my interactions with my mother in recent months. She’s aware of my atheism, and for the most part, is accepting of it. By no means does she force me to attend anything religious in nature, nor does she preach to me. That being said, I can’t help but feel like she brings up religion and states it as fact more than I’d like. She makes an occasional comment about how “God probably judges based on goodness, so we’ll be okay” and the like. She’s not overly religious, but these comments seem to be increasing in frequency and are making me uncomfortable.

I’m undecided as to a course of action. I think that it’s a struggle we all face, in one way or another. Even if we live in secular societies and aren’t surrounded with overly religious people, religion has a way of sneaking into the conversation. As an issue, it’s nothing compared to oppression of atheists or much else on the scale, but it remains a subtle reminder that I’m an outsider in my own family. It makes me more uncomfortable than I’d care to admit, yet I’m unsure that it’s a large enough issue to escalate.

Do you notice religious sneaking into unrelated conversations? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: Freedom of Religion, by Colin G

Fun with the School God Club -- By Laura (Editor)

2011-07-29T01:01:00.000-07:00

Here in the UK we don’t generally have a huge problem with Christian groups exerting influence over school life. I definitely have it really good compared with schools I’ve heard about in other countries, where Christian student groups roam the halls loudly Jesus-lovin’ every lunchtime, or hold a lot of weight in school committees.

But my school does have a God club, which makes for equal parts of frustration and amusement. The amusement came, most memorably, on Valentine’s Day, when the club was handing out sweets along with a little slip of paper with a Bible verse on it. Obviously, God wasn’t watching over their actions too closely that day, because a typo meant that the little slip announced to the student population: “For God gave his only son, John”.

The frustration came when they invited a creationist “scientist” to give a talk about how the universe is too “irreducibly complex” to evolve, as well as the tired old refrain that “Darwin didn’t believe his own theory”. The only saving grace was that some of our Biology teachers also attended the talk, and made their distain abundantly clear. Another memorable frustrating experience was the time I attended their weekly open discussion when the topic was “What does God think about homosexuality?” Sure, let’s not think about what Tom, Janet or Pauline think about it (because they get their opinion from Jesus anyway, and couldn’t possibly generate one of their own), or – heaven forbid! - what science says about it. Instead, let’s call on invisible sky man. Urgh. An hour of homophobia and bigotry later, I came to a stunning realisation: I couldn't care less what God might think.

Does anyone else have tales of hilarity or frustration concerning the God clubs in their school?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

As I said before, I'm going away on holiday for the weekend, so next post won't be up until Monday.

Rights and Withdrawal (Part One) -- By Harry Bratt

2011-07-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

The school term’s coming to end at my Church of England school, the sun is shining down on the scarce trees that adorn the playground, most teachers have plonked on a video for the kids (although they’re not supposed to anymore!), and many children have massed joyfully in the hall to celebrate another triumphant year of learning in the joyously joyful joyfest end of year Communion of joy. What!

The teachers may have loosened their ties but “attendance to the Communion will be compulsory.” Some children wept, others began needlessly writing out lines in sheer fear and confusion.

Luckily for me I’m a sixth-former, my mind immediately turned back to the information I picked up off a website a few weeks ago.

Here’s the link, and I thank Keith Porteous Wood very graciously for its availability, he even claimed to be “personally responsible for its enactment” when I emailed him for guidance on the issue. You see, withdrawal wasn’t as easy as I thought.

“Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in another school.” said Mr Bingley (not real name) the deputy head, stroking his chin and looking towards the floor. Although indirect he was saying that I could be thrown out the school of at least refused further entry next year, for not attending Communion. He argued that it was “expected” of the sixth-formers to concede to the Christian ethos of the school.

Ok, so I was a bit scared, I mean, I really didn’t want to go this Communion, especially since I had a right not to go, but then I didn’t want to get chucked out the school! Or did I. (just kidding I didn’t.) I bet he wouldn’t have said the same to someone explicitly of a different faith, e.g. a Muslim which are present in the school.

I began to wonder if my rights really meant anything.

It seems often with “rights” there’s a bit of a grey area of what can and can’t be done. The legislation was right there in my hand (‘cause I printed it off -here’s the link) but an authority figure, who through years of institutionalisation I’d learnt to respect and obey, was telling me I had to go.

However, once again Super Keith was to the rescue, here’s what he had to say:

“Short of some pretty extreme behaviour (by which I definitely do not mean refusing to go to mass) they cannot do this. We are quite used to religious schools seeking to put undue pressure on pupils or parents that are baseless, or depriving them of the lawful.”

“The sixth form is available to all existing students who meet the requirements for the courses. Any remaining places in the sixth form will be offered to casual applicants who meet the same course requirements.”

“They are wrong if they suggest that [the law] does not apply to them because they are a religious schools. There are thousands of such schools all over the country where they are the only school in the neighbourhood and it is essential that non-believing or different faith parents can require "excuse"/withdrawal - and likewise since this provision, older pupils too.” -hopefully this will be helpful for anyone who finds there self in a similar position.

In the end I didn’t attend the Communion, I wasn’t apprehended in any way, nor was I placed in the stocks and ridiculed for my beliefs - I wouldn’t be surprised if this was allowed at my school. But I did gain a valuable insight into the power of information and authority...

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

I'm going away for the weekend tomorrow, so I won't be able to put up any more posts until Monday. However, I intend on posting a short article tomorrow morning before I leave. I shall miss you all!

Are Proofs or Evidence for Deities Even Hypothetically Possible? -- By Mike K

2011-07-28T00:44:00.000-07:00

Ever since de-converting, I've taken things like Occam's Razor and the burden of proof to heart, and enjoyed what was essentially a cleaning out of closets of all sorts of irrational bunk and superstition. There is an unshakable confidence that comes with reasonable doubt, a high standard of evidence and a willingness to accept evidence if it's merited. It rightly puts the burden of proof back on the shoulders of the claimants.

But I wonder if, at least for theists, it's an impossible burden - even if there were a god.

We all know the saying that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” but it's not really true, certainly not in all cases. At least with something like a personal god and creator, an intelligent designer with which you would see evidence everywhere. For something like that absence of evidence is definitely evidence of absence, just not explicit proof of any sort. With that in mind, I've occasionally asked, “What would be good evidence of the claims of god?” I honestly can never think of anything and generally give up pretty quickly. There is a central problem when it comes to a standard of evidence for an un-evidenced 'superbeing'.

Consider this video:

My friend showed this to me a few days ago and one of the first things to jump to mind was doing this where I could be seen by some tribal natives - the type that still throw spears at near-flying planes - and land where the impressionable lot would worship me as their sky deity! -Or perhaps not.

What I could do though was disprove my own divinity, and reveal to them there is no magic to flying, something anyone could achieve with the knowledge.

If I didn't demystify the science of human flight, you'd expect them to worship me, maybe even executing doubters for impiety in the presence of a deity. They'd do it because they couldn't imagine a natural explanation for me gliding across the sky. But if I explained it to them, a dangerous idea may occur: that if one thing presumed divine isn't, what does that mean for all the other things presumed divine? What of the sun, rain, lightning and life?

The first scientific discovery of this sort for any people ought to be the start of a philosophical revolution, at least it would if not for our incredible ability to compartmentalise our world view. But if it did, as it has for us, then to a sensible person something that looks magic would never be automatically presumed magic.

Clarke's third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The thing is that we can conceive how the apparently magic can be natural. Flying is child’s play to our very knowledgeable minds. But we can conceive of a great deal more than just flying. We have a whole genre for these things called science fiction. It would be very impressive to see, but witnessing a being capable of harnessing the total energy output of a star doesn't for a moment seem godly to us. Some even expect humans to attain that kind of knowledge. The appearance of magic is simply no useful standard of evidence.

A bit closer to home, one of the many "proofs" that believers tote as work of the divine is alleged science in the bible. Now I don't think for a second that there is any real science is in the bible; to me it reads just as belligerently ignorant as the rancid sprawling of any bronze-age farmer would be. It takes real effort to interpret that nonsense into anything that resembles science but they manage - or more specifically manage to interpret to reflect recent discoveries, always after the fact. But even if I conceded that there was predictions of science in the bible, what would that prove?

There was a great deal of fascinating science done in antiquity. In the third century BCE, a Greek scientist named Eratosthenes managed not only to figure out that the planet was round but managed to work out the size of the planet. This discovery makes it interesting that the bible still depicts in Genesis a disk world with a dome sky afloat the deep. The bible was altered greatly over the centuries it was codified, particularly before it was canonised, and yet none of the ancient science found its way into the book. So there is a lot of science that could be in the bible, yet isn't, even though there was opportunity. But what if there was, and not just science from antiquity, but anachronistic science?

What about ancient astronauts? I mean, there's no real evidence for them but it'd be more likely than something divine, wouldn't it? Regardless of the probabilities, there is at least a non-supernatural explanation for something like that, which, due to the virtue of it being a natural explanation means Occam's Razor favours it for its fewer assumptions.

So what's left? What kinds of things do we require before we can treat the divine as a reasonable idea? Well if we were talking about a magic man, like Jesus, the very least we would demand to be shown is not simply something we cannot explain, that would be an argument from ignorance & credulity. I think back to watching Derren Brown on tv with my mum. She refused to believe he wasn't psychic, even after him explicitly saying he wasn't. Simply there is a great precedence of hucksters pretending to be magic, there's no shortage of them today even. Psychic mediums, faith healers, past-life regression hypnotists, take your pick.

A magic man could put on a good show, a fantastically inexplicable show, but that's simply not enough. Even in the best case for a miracle worker, none could ever be distinguishable from a talented huckster so the safer bet is always going to be the huckster.

What about personal revelation? Quite frankly, with the amount of knowledge we already have about the fallibility of the mind and experience, it's hard to understand why it's offered as some kind of evidence for the divine. It could simply come down to the sensing of a ghostly presence induced by carbon monoxide poisoning, sleep paralysis and hypnagogic hallucinations of alien abduction or oxygen starvation causing one of those near death experiences. Revelation and personal experiences just can't be any sort of evidence. I mean, just ask yourself this: "How can I distinguish between revelation and delusion?"

Does that therefore not mean that there isn't anything that could logically convince a skeptic of the supernatural without committing the argument from ignorance fallacy?

We can only ever know something if it's natural. Sure if there is something supernatural above nature and that occasionally interacts with nature, it would be detectable. But we could never learn anything about its mechanism existing outside nature. If we can't know how it works, we can't know its not natural.

You just cannot parse unknown nature from the supernatural.

Clearly, even if there were a deity or deities out there somewhere, somehow, we could never expect reasonable evidence or proof for them. While the burden of proof is on the theists – its not one a theist could even hypothetically manage. It may feel disingenuous, but when we are asked by believers if there could be any proof we'd accept, the answer must be a simple, “No.”

It raises an interesting issue though. Theists often simultaneously claim that god is good or merciful or something and, “god's ways are mysterious.”

How can you assert anything about something that is entirely shrouded in mystery?

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: "Authority" By Harry Bratt

Thinking Free-Thinky Thoughts -- By Laura (Editor)

2011-07-27T07:38:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce you to your new agony aunt, your fountain of wisdom, your friend for life. He’s about 1300-1400g when fully grown, composed of 77-78% water, makes up about 2% of your body weight, and can generate enough energy to light a 25 watt bulb.

Drum roll, please….

He’s your brain! – and whilst not much of a looker, he’ll serve you well. And here’s the great thing: you have one of these magical machines of your very own! It’s in that space between your ears. Yep, you’ve got it. That cavern you’ve been blasting your Ipod into all day.

In all seriousness, I think that we too often forget what amazing tools our brains are. We just have no need, for the most part, to exercise them. Information is available at the click of a button. Current president of Uganda? Why, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, of course. The year of Plato’s birth? Easy: 427 BC. Thanks very muchly, Mr Internet.

We can even have our opinions decided for us if we so wish. What do I think of AV? If it’s good enough for Stephen Fry, it’s good enough for me. My views on euthanasia? Well, Mr Smith from the History department isn’t a fan, and he was right about the date of the Civil War…

I’ve been taking part in some debates at school this year, the most recent of which was on the monarchy. After talking to a staunchly royalist family member, I went home and reported to my dad that she was very cross he had brought me up as a republican. “Did I?” my dad replied. “I thought I brought you up to think for yourself.”

Now, my dad isn’t really a words-of-wisdom kind of guy. In fact, up until this point the best advice he’d ever given me was never to attempt consumption of a dessert bigger than my head (advice that I have ignored on many occasions, with varying levels of success and tragedy). But that one really made me think.

Somewhere along the way on the journey to adulthood, it seems we lose that spirit of inquiry we possess in childhood. I used to find my little sister’s constant questions irritating because, after three hours solid of interrogation, she never seemed to cotton on to the fact that maybe I just don’t care what makes salt water salty or whether chickens have their own language. But perhaps I should care. Think of the plethora of possibilities open to us, the things we can learn, the opportunities we can chase. What excuse could we possibly have for ever answering a question with “I don’t know”? What could we accomplish if we instead answered “I’ll find out,” or “I’ll give it a try”?

So now I’m going to go completely contrary to my previous claims, and I’m going to give you some advice, instead of telling you to use your own brain. Cos, hey, I’m learning to think for myself too, and part of that involves changing my mind at least fifty times every day.

1) Be wary of those who claim authority. I don’t mean that you should refuse to do your homework or sing loudly whenever your boss gives you an instruction, but don’t accept anything anyone says unquestioningly. Sure, maybe Mr Smith is a great History teacher, but does he really know a lot about euthanasia? And, yes, perhaps Stephen Fry is a very intelligent man, but that doesn’t make his opinion automatically correct (actually, scratch that, you are all commanded to immediately accept Stephen Fry as your personal God.)

2) Keep an open mind. But, as is the sage advice attributed to Richard Feynman, “not so open your brain falls out.” Of course, we need to consider all claims equally at first, but we also need to recognise when they don’t measure up. The Earth is not 6000 years old and I’m afraid that homeopathic remedies are just water. But remember, don’t listen to what I say – last week I forgot the capital of Germany and had to Google it – find out for yourself (and then report back to me and I’ll say I told you so.)

3) Ask Questions. Constantly. Take your natural-born teenage gift for causing perpetual irritation and run with it. Why does Mr Smith feel this was about euthanasia? What evidence does he have to support this? If nothing else, it will annoy the hell out of poor old Mr Smith until he agrees with you just to get you to shut up.

Maybe you won’t have an epiphany overnight, and I won’t pretend that following my advice will make you magically happy and prosperous. I guess you’ll have to take your 1300g of greyish matter and figure that one out for yourself too.

If you are a young non-theist who wants their voice to be heard, consider submitting an article of your own to Generation Atheist. Visit our submissions page for details.

Tomorrow: "Are Proofs or Evidence for Deities Even Hypothetically Possible?" By Mike K