It starts off with this 

Amidst the fantastic coverage of news and sports published in The Utah Statesman, there has always come shockingly to my attention certain opinion columns which have promoted promiscuity, homosexuality, premarital sex, the viewing of pornography and a general disdain for anything virtuous or wholesome in society.

For anyone familiar with the Statesman this is clearly in reference to the many columns done by Liz Emery (Liz has also done a rebuttal to this column and it can be found here )

Can you imagine if the norm was to openly view pornography?

Viewing porn seems to be the normal thing in Utah and for conservatives.  Blaming the increase in porn consumption on Atheist seems to be against the evidence. Mr. Winters needs to do a little more research on this before he writes on it.

Do you have any idea the rate of sexual crimes and deviances that begin with pornography? Sometime when you have a spare half hour, why don’t you Youtube “Ted Bundy last interview” and see what pornography did to inspire this particular serial killer of more than 30 women including a little girl from Utah.

Really? Really?!?!? I guess its a just a matter of time before I go crazy and kill everyone. . . Or until the 15,504* of Utah porn consumers turn into crazy mass killers. There is absolutely no evidence that pornography increases crime, in fact there has been a decrease in rape and sexual assault as porn usage have go up.  

What about another issue previously discussed in this very newspaper — premarital sex and promiscuity? This is increasingly becoming the norm in our society.

Okay I’ll give you that sex is becoming more acceptable in society. Mr. Winters even went on to give a generic example of a superhero having sex with a girl he just meet. Okay Mr. Winters still with you.

What’s incredible to me is that women in our world will fight tooth and nail for feminist movements and “women’s rights,” particularly to “their own bodies,” but they aren’t disgusted and mortified by the fact that those same bodies are increasingly treated like playthings on the big screen. And yes, we as a world are accepting it more and more.

Wow. You seem to have no understanding on the feminist movement, which has been outraged over this very thing for years. But what angers me more, Mr. Winters is the use of quotes around “women’s rights” and  “their own bodies.” Does Mr. Winters believe that women’s rights don’t exist? That they don’t have the right to their own bodies. Your sexism is clear here Mr. Winters

Another idea which we heard from a previous author’s column platform is that we should embrace homosexuality.

If by embrace you mean give equal rights, then yes.

Can you imagine if homosexuality were the norm? We would die out as a race in a single generation.

Wait when did supporting the LGBTQ community mean that we all have to be gay? Oh but it gets worse.

Interestingly enough, if you track the rise and fall of Rome, Pompeii or any other major civilization in history, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality do become the norm right before they destroy themselves.

Apparently I have been misinformed about history my whole life * sarcasm*! Pompeii didn’t have a raging gay problem they had a raging lava problem; Rome didn’t have a sexual promiscuity problem they had a Gaul and Christian problem.

Mr. Winters goes on to say we need to “start using some common sense” something he doesn’t have.

Richard, or should I call you Dick, you need to do some research before you open your mouth and spew hate and ignorance.

* Number was found by taking the Population of Utah multiplying by the 5.43/1000 (The ratio of Utahans who subscribe to porn)

[Edit for 18:49 2/7/2012 for Typo]

Professor Carol of the geology department will be joining us to talk about the formation of early earth and our moon. Please bring any questions you have as well as friends. This will be out last speaker of the semester and we’re hoping to get as large a turnout as possible.

When

Wednesday, November 28, 2012. 6:30pm

Where

Merril-Cazier Library, Room 302

Get more info and stay in the lop at http://www.facebook.com/events/245537212242711/

When: Wednesday October 24, 2012 6:30pm

Where: Merrill-Cazier Library, Room 302

Come space out with USU REASON! Dr. David Peak of the physics department will be joining us to discuss the Big Bang Theory and its implications. The event is open to whoever you’d like to invite as we’d like to get as big of a turnout as possible. Hope to see you there!

So go vote! Seriously do it, because the religious nut jobs are coming out of the woodwork and really want to turn us into a christian theocracy. ( I may have got those links backwards, but they really say the same thing which is “These Masticating sons of women are bat crap insane!”)

In preparing for this panel, I struggled to think of what novel sociological insights I could contribute. I wanted this talk to have all the academic trappings of a typical Sunstone talk. But again, I’m no expert, and ultimately I only feel comfortable talking about that which I know best: my story. And I think that’s especially appropriate given that our topic concerns ex-Mormons and their personal narratives.

I’ll begin by sharing why I left the LDS Church, and then briefly explain how I became involved with the ex-Mormon “blogosphere”.

For much of my formative teenage years, I considered myself a devout Mormon. Having been born and raised in a faithful Mormon family, I read my scriptures, said my prayers daily, went to church, and anxiously awaited serving an LDS mission. I was a bonafide paragon of piety.

Today, I identify as an agnostic atheist and secular humanist. But the transition from belief to disbelief did not happen overnight; it was the gradual culmination of several factors. The seeds of my doubt were sown as early as sophomore year of high school, when I joined the debate team.

Debate taught me to analyze ideas with a critical eye. And when that eye was trained inward on my faith, I discovered some disconcerting facts about both church history and doctrine. Initially, I attempted to use my debate skills in the service of Mormon apologetics. I wanted to defend my faith against anti-Mormon lies. So I took to the internet, which was then emerging as the front-line in the debate about Mormonism.

My testimony, sincere though it was, did not prepare me for what I would discover. I stumbled upon a site that featured a list of racist quotes from LDS Church leaders. Confident that the quotes were fabrications or taken out of context, I decided to go straight to the original sources. I noticed that a number of the more embarrassing quotes came from a book my family happened to own. That book was Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.

For those familiar with the book, you’ll no doubt understand why my reading it proved problematic. As I thumbed through Mormon Doctrine, I came across a section entitled “Negroes.” In it, McConkie asserted that blacks were a cursed race who were spiritually inferior due to their actions in the premortal existence. He also argued that racial segregation in marriage and other institutions was divinely ordained.

The significance of what I read was not that it disproved Mormonism. McConkie, after all, wasn’t writing in any official capacity for the church. Rather, its significance was in showing me that not everything critical of Mormonism was false.

To be sure, the internet is replete with nonsense about Mormonism. And looking back at some old things I’ve written, I was sometimes unwittingly a purveyor of that nonsense myself. But I was quicker to forgive the critics for their falsehoods than I was to forgive Mormonism for its falsehoods because I held the latter to a higher standard. The critics didn’t have to be right 100% of the time, but the church did.

The further I researched the LDS Church, the more disillusioned I became. I learned that the Book of Mormon had little to no archeological evidence, that the Book of Abraham was not a literal translation of ancient Egyptian papyri, that as a young man Joseph Smith was intimately involved in magic and treasure-digging, and that he secretly married dozens of women, a third of whom already had husbands.

I know this is the cliched litany of reasons people recite when sharing their deconversion story, but at the time these facts were revelatory and faith-shattering to me. The church—at least how I understood it—appeared to be a lie.

When people lose something they love, they tend to respond either with sadness or anger. I loved Mormonism, and when I lost my testimony, I was admittedly a bit angry. My emotions were tame relative to others, but I don’t blame those who experience a more visceral anger; they often have legitimate grievances. I mean, who wouldn’t be upset to learn that the church for which you’ve sacrificed so much—in time, money, and freedom—wasn’t true?

The bulk of my anger, however, wasn’t directed at the church. Perhaps more than anything, I was disappointed with myself for having believed in it. So I didn’t just lose faith in the church, I lost faith in myself. And that for me was equally painful.

The “angry apostate” stereotype does reflect an actual phenomenon, but the vast majority of those who disaffect do so quietly and unceremoniously. Just look at the widespread inactivity of members across Latin America. They don’t broadcast their disbelief online or at symposia like Sunstone. You see, many of us belong to a vocal minority of apostates.

Mormons tolerate private doubts, but not public criticism. A lot of Mormons can sympathize with having questions, but they don’t understand why some are almost evangelical in their disbelief. “They can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone,” goes the popular aphorism.

For one, it’d be easier to leave the church alone were it to leave us alone. Mormonism in Utah is virtually omnipresent—its influence extends to every facet of society here, from the home to the government. Even little things like the occasional impulse to bless the food before a meal can remind you of your former faith. Other manifestations of the church’s influence are less benign, however.

Another reason why some ex-Mormons speak out is to preempt and rebut misconceptions about why they left. It’s often assumed by the faithful that people leave the church because they were offended by something petty, wanted to lead a life of sin, or are in the employ of Satan. I didn’t want those things said of me because they weren’t true, so I made a conscious effort to convince my friends and family that I had logical reasons for leaving. My goal wasn’t to disabuse them of their faith so much as it was to earn their respect and understanding.

But I think a more positive account can be made for why ex-Mormons like myself are so vocal. I view criticism not as a sign of hate, but respect. Secular philosopher Austin Dacey said, “The way you respect a person is not by agreeing with everything he or she says, but by holding that person to the same intellectual/moral standards to which you hold yourself. Anything less is not respect, it’s indifference. So sometimes in order to respect religion’s peoples, we must critique people’s religions.” That’s why I object to the casual labeling of anyone who criticizes the church as “anti-Mormon”.

Being evangelical about one’s beliefs is actually a value I inherited from Mormonism. Countless Mormons spend two years of their lives proselytizing. And why? It’s not because they hate other religions, but because they sincerely want to share with people “the good news.” The truth is a gift; it would be selfish to keep it to oneself. Likewise, I don’t try to dissuade people from Mormonism in order to win debates or provoke a “spirit of contention”. As a matter of principle, I simply believe that people deserve the truth.

Church leaders frequently warn members that doubt leads to unhappiness. On balance, that hasn’t been my experience. I’m happy, and I’m living a more authentic life than I was as a gay Mormon. But let there be no mistake: Leaving the LDS Church can be a terribly painful ordeal—one that jeopardizes relationships and uproots your existential anchors. Yet there is something liberating about the truth, about seeing the world as it really is.

I can’t promise that everyone will find my philosophy as life-affirming as I do, but people ought to be exposed to different perspectives so that they can make informed choices.

This is why in 2008 I co-founded a secular student club at Utah State University named SHAFT, which stood for “Secular Humanists, Atheists and Free Thinkers”. It was first club of its kind in Utah. Unsurprisingly, the majority of club members were ex-Mormons, and on a predominantly LDS campus, SHAFT served an important social function. The same is true for a lot of online ex-Mormon communities.

But I had different aspirations for SHAFT. I didn’t need a support group of like-minded individuals. As a debater in high school and now as a debate coach, I’ve always enjoyed the company of those with whom is disagree. My hope for SHAFT was that it would inspire intelligent and civil discussions about religion, science, and philosophy.

To that end, I helped launch the SHAFT blog. Since 2009, I have written over 300 posts and the blog has won many awards including “Best New Blog” by Main Street Plaza. I think that as an online forum where Mormonism and other issues are debated, it has largely succeeded.

If you visit the SHAFT blog today at usureason.com, you’ll notice a dearth of recent activity. My previously prolific self could produce nearly a post a day. Contrast that with this year: In all of 2012, I’ve managed to write just one solitary post!

This fact is bittersweet. On the one hand, it belies the claim that ex-Mormons can’t leave the church alone. That I can go months without giving serious attention to Mormonism signals to me something rather healthy: I no longer live in the church’s shadow. But on the other hand, I miss Mormonism. I miss being in company like yours discussing topics like this. In short, I’m not quite ready to be “post-Mormon”. To totally divorce myself from Mormonism would be like amputating an arm—I could probably live without it, but I don’t want to.

My friend Andrew of the blog Irresistible Disgrace put it this way: “I am avoiding a possible future where I am completely severed from or am “beyond” Mormonism, because I feel like if I ever reach that point, then I become someone with no history …”

I’m flattered that despite my hiatus from the ex-Mormon blogosphere I was still invited to participate on this panel today. I hope that this experience not only rekindles my interest in Mormonism, but also helps me reclaim a part of myself I feared I was losing.

I’m grateful to all of you for giving up your Saturday morning to be here with us, and I look forward to your questions!

Thank you.

Richard is 31 years old. On his way to work one day, he accidentally backed his car into a parked van. Because pedestrians were watching, he got out of his car. He pretended to write down his insurance information. He then tucked the blank note in to the van’s window before getting back into his car and driving away. Later the same day, Richard found a wallet on the sidewalk. Nobody was looking, so he took all the money out of the wallet. He then threw the wallet in the trash can.

Now, by your best guess, is Richard a Christian, a Muslim, a gay man, a feminist, a rapist, or an atheist? Before you answer, here’s another question: Of similar minorities (this time let’s toss in Hispanics and recent immigrants), who would you least want your child to marry? And whose vision of  American society do you most disagree with?

Wait – don’t tell me. Richard – let’s call him Dick – is definitely not a rapist. That scenario is a direct quote from a study, undertaken at the University of British Columbia in 2011. The response? Atheists – not rapists – are generally more likely to commit immoral crimes. Those next few questions about marriage and American society were asked in a University of Minnesota study in 2006. Once again, atheists took the cake for the least trusted minority in the land. Say, would you vote for an atheist for President? About half of America said no, when polled by Gallup in 2007. Take heed, reader. There might be an atheist lurking near at this very moment!

Surprisingly, these findings are the good news for atheists. Thirty years ago, that Gallup poll was up to 75%. Over two-thirds of the nation wouldn’t even consider voting for an atheist in public office. President George H.W. Bush himself, in 1987, when asked if atheists deserve rights, he reportedly responded, “No, they can not be considered citizens…this is one nation under God.” (New York Times). One might have heard the disgruntled chortling of Vishnu and Buddha somewhere in the courts of the cosmos.

But first – who are atheists, exactly? Rallying atheists, goes the aphorism, is like herding cats. The non-religious have the problem of labels; it’s difficult to group together those who are simply not something – more so when one of the essential group themes is, well, not having group themes. (Allow me to take a deep breath.) “Secularists” pertains to those who support the separation of church and state, “naturalists” are those who deny the supernatural of all kinds, “humanists” calls on Renaissance ideals of mankind’s progression beyond religion, “skeptics” classifies those who doubt and inquire about the claims of others, and “freethinkers” hearkens back to the French Revolution to call on a rebellion against the suppression of scientific knowledge by pious authorities; all of these are frequently lumped into the category of “atheism,” which is historically a pejorative for those who deny the existence of God. (Inhale.)

Regardless of confusing labels, in the last decade, a boisterous movement of non-religious people has been overturning the public conversation about religion and science. The non-religious have been coming out (literally: the movement initiated by vociferous biologist Richard Dawkins is called the “Out Campaign,” encouraging atheists to stand proudly, parallel to the gay rights movement). The number of Americans who marked “None” when questioned about their religious preference has doubled in ten years since 2001 – as has the number of self-declared atheists (Kosmin and Kaysar). The global conversation about religion and science has been through a rollicking decade thanks to a revival of dissent from a series of New York Times bestselling authors who have become known as the New Atheist movement. Of course, there have always been skeptics underground, but modern America’s current secular movement is actually gaining positive publicity, and eking out a place among celebrated minorities. A “new” breed of thinker is being accepted into the mainstream. The secular community is changing the conversation about global ethics and national policy, challenging pseudoscience and religious politics, while demanding equal rights, and carving out a niche in American society.

The most notable kindling for this movement has no doubt been the exchange between creationists and evolutionists over the last two centuries – in short, religion and science. Western civilization has long had a tradition of debate between the two fields. Since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the human race has faced strong scientific challenges to our notions about, well, everything. Combined with scientific discoveries in other fields, atheists have been equipped to argue that literal beliefs in certain Abrahamic mythologies, such as the Flood of Noah, no longer hold water. The very existence of God, they say, becomes questionable because it is unnecessary; the natural world does not require such an explanation to function the way it does. Creationists, on the other hand, have strongly maintained that the Biblical story is scientifically sound; that the Earth is between 4000 and 6000 years old, and that man was created by God with his intention to rule over nature; and that such phenomena as morality, poetry and purpose can only be His hand at work…

The debate goes on as it has for years, but thanks to religious current events and new scientific discoveries, the atheist position has become more and more tenable and popular in comparison. In 1998, 93% of the National Academy of Scientists were agnostic or atheist, with belief in God the lowest among biologists (Larson and Witham). Further popularity rose in the media maelstrom surrounding a Kansas lawsuit in which the Intelligent Design movement attempted to force biology textbooks to publish a disclaimer about evolution and to teach one religious alternative – with noted support by President George W. Bush (Washington Post). Atheist voices came out in droves, supporting the scientific method and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Kansas hearings were eventually overturned, and the Intelligent Design movement has been rejected by the National Academy, who states, “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” Arguments against creationism were heard in the public square among moderates – of all beliefs – who disagreed or shared strong views on this issue. With the help of this great media attention, atheists have been able to make themselves quite public, without the lingering fear of direct brute reprisal which existed in ancient communities.

A literal explosion in the religious debate took place on September 11, 2001, when fundamentalist Muslim terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Towers. The Western world cringed and initially avoided crediting these attacks to a religious source; President Bush sparked a vague “War on Terror,” against “extremists.” In 2004, in the first “New Atheist” book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, neuroscientist Sam Harris argued that these men were “extreme” in nothing other than their faith (Harris 29). He points out that the inherent religious element in these attacks had been stepped lightly around. “Why would someone as conspicuously devoid of personal grievances or psychological dysfunction as Osama bin Laden,” he writes, “devote himself to cave-dwelling machinations with the intention of killing innumerable men, women and children he has never met? The answer to this question is obvious – if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseum by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe.” (29.) Harris later devotes half a dozen pages to direct quotes from the Quran, and fashions arguments against religion based on scripture itself, finalizing his case with an appeal to a “science of good and evil,” involving meditation and the rational study of human brain states during spiritual experiences (170). He claims his purpose in writing was to, “help close the door on a certain style of irrationality…In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence.” (223). With this declaration of war, the New Atheist movement has also become known as “militant” or “angry” atheism – a movement on the offensive, proudly performing attacks on religion. The book itself received mixed reviews, but shot to #4 on the New York Times bestseller list, where it remained for several months. This was the beginning of a huge outburst of angry angst about religion, initially directed by Harris at fundamentalist terrorists and the global religious moderation and acceptance that enables them (19).

A bigger splash came two years later from Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, who had already come to fame in collegiate biology classrooms with his landmark books on evolutionary theory, The Selfish Gene (which originally coined the term “meme”) and The Extended Phenotype. His next groundbreaking book, The God Delusion, was a massive success, another New York Times bestseller for months. Like Harris, Dawkins’ central goal was to attack religion on its own ground. “What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?” he asks. “I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else” (27). Dawkins, needless to say, puts on brass knuckles. He hits religion where it hurts by replacing it with a fundamentally scientific theory of how complex organisms must evolve from simple ones; even including a chapter on such anomalies as human morality. The best explanation for life is a slow, gradual, ancient progression from simple to complex; there is no need, and no suitable explanation, for a manipulating creative force – especially one which has any influence or answers prayers (158). He argues not only that the belief in God is a dangerous delusion, but that teaching it to children in the 21st century constitutes child abuse (310).

Tufts University professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett, like Dawkins, was already well-known in college campuses across the nation for his books Consciousness Explained and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, which are frequently debated in upper-division philosophy courses. In 2006 he published Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which, again, caused a stir by claiming religion must be the result of evolution. While lacking the polemic popularity of the last two books, Dennett’s proposal brings in arguments against theism based on philosophy and psychology. Dennett calls evolution by natural selection “the single most important idea anyone has ever had,” and this is no exaggeration. The theory of evolution brings to life a view of the cosmos as an entirely natural phenomenon, and connects man to animal to plant to ancient ocean (or otherwise material origin); in short, atheists can argue that such an idea would explain social functions of religion, mythology and even poetry, within the context of a purely natural cosmos.
Journalist and Vanity Fair contributor Christopher Hitchens was readily known for books on the lives of George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson and a scathing account of Mother Teresa. With his extraordinarily successful #1 New York Times bestseller, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (author’s lower-case emphasis), “Hitch” formed the final member of what would come to be known as the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism,” including Harris, Dawkins and Dennett. Certainly the most polemical of the four, as a public intellectual and serious debater Hitchens launched a nuclear assault, and never held back in a direct attack upon the three great Abrahamic faiths: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. He tackled the issue from a historical perspective. “Violent, irrational, intolerant,” Hitchens wrote, “allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience” (56). When debating a Catholic priest, before allowing his opponent to defend the institution, he at once called for a direct apology on behalf of the human race (Intelligence Squared). Shortly after the death of evangelist Jerry Falwell, Hitchens expressed on Sean Hannity, “If you gave Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.” Before his death by cancer in 2010, Hitchens was the emblem of New Atheism: no-holds-barred, intellectual, growling and hell-bent on the extinction of organized religion. The movement had now taken on its ultimate tone with the Four Horsemen: “angry atheism” rose to massive popularity.

But years later, the anger within the movement has hit a tipping point, as nonbelievers of all kinds come to terms with their position. Religious studies professor Stephen Prothero notes in his 2010 book God is Not One, “The New Atheism stands at a crossroads. Until now it has been spearheaded by the sort of white, male firebrands that led the charge for evangelicalism during the Second Great Awakening of the nineteenth century. But there is a different voice emerging – call it the new New Atheism – and with it a very different agenda. The friendlier atheism sounds more like a civil rights movement than a crusade, and it is far more likely to issue from the lips of friendly women than from the spittle of angry men” (327). The ultimate response to the New Atheist movement came on March 24, 2012, at an event called the “Reason Rally.” The event was predicted to be the “largest secular event in world history,” and drew over 20,000 people to rally at the Washington, D.C. Mall. The goals, according to the website, were to dispel myths about atheists, encourage political equality, and reduce negative stereotypes. It had begun to sound less like an attack upon religion than a fight for equal rights, on par with the gay, feminist and civil rights movements. At the event, author Greta Christina addressed accusations of anger.

“Atheists aren’t angry because we’re selfish, or bitter, or joyless. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. Atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it.”

Adam Savage, star of Mythbusters, also spoke at the Reason Rally.

“I am a very non-confrontational person,” he said, to cheers from new New atheists. “I am, most of the time, the very definition of a reasonable man. I don’t like telling people things they don’t want to hear. I want people to get along. I want people to like me. I want to find good things in people. I want to understand viewpoints that differ from mine. I want my tombstone to say, he was nice to work with.”

The Four Horsemen mounted a powerful attack upon religion, kindling a fire for a revival of natural philosophy through intellectual defiance and rebellion. However, the anger of these firebrands is settling, and the movement is taking on hues of the positive. The rise of atheism in America is gradually losing its adolescent rage and shaping itself into something friendly. With the Reason Rally’s emphasis on equal rights, the anger and vitriol of the movement appears to be losing its centrality.  Equal rights demands an inherent philosophical positivity; one must stand for something, not merely against. The label for these values which seems most fitting is “Secular Humanism,” which emphasizes the positive values of non-believers, rather than the negative values of religion, though labels still present a problem. As atheists of all kinds gather together to celebrate their humanity and their philosophy, will we see anger and vitriol die, and a new positive philosophy of compassion and reason arise? As the secular movement changes from “angry atheism” to “friendly atheism,” when America is asked about Dick, the stranger who backed into someone’s car and sped away, will we think twice before assuming he’s an atheist?

Works Cited

UBC Study Explores Distrust of Atheists by Believers. Media Release, University of British Columbia, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Atheists Identified as America’s Most Distrusted Minority, According to New U of M Study. University of Minnesota, 28 Mar. 2006. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Americans Still Hold Certain Biases in Choosing President. Gallup. 20 Jun. 2011. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Transcript of President Bush’s News Conference. New York Times. 4 Nov. 2004. Web. 2 Jun 2012.

The Catholic Church is a Force for Good. Intelligence Squared. 19 Oct. 2009. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Kosmin, Barry A. and Keysar, Ariela. “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population.” Trinity College, 2009. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Larson, Edward J. and Witham, Larry. “Leading Scientists Still Reject God.” Nature Magazine. 23 Jul. 1998. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

Baker, Peter and Slevin, Peter. “Bush Remarks On ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Fuel Debate” Washington Post. 3 August, 2005. Web. 2 Jun. 2012.

National Research Council. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999.

Harris, S. The end of faith, religion, terror, and the future of reason. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print.

Prothero, Stephen. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2010. Print.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything. Paperback. New York: Twelve, 2009. Print.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York City: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006. Print.
Reason Rally.

Dealing with Death for Nonbelievers
By Liz Emery

When I was sixteen, a very good friend’s young mother was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lung cancer and died four months later. This was the first time I really had to confront the idea of death—until that point, dying had been something that happened to unlucky pets, great grandparents, and strangers on the news. At the time, my religion was a great source of comfort for me and gave me the answers I needed to justify a tragedy that was otherwise unjustifiable.

Just a few weeks ago, another good friend’s even younger mother was diagnosed with the same disease. This time, neither I nor my friend have a religion to buffer the ugly reality of death. This drove me to ask the question: How do you comfort a nonbeliever who’s grieving?

Although everyone deals with loss in their own way, there are some guidelines to remember and respect when you’re comforting someone you love who does not believe in an afterlife.

The most important is that, even though a religious worldview may bring you consolation, it can come off as arrogant and insulting. This may sound strange, but if you’re religious, imagine a nonbeliever trying to comfort you by saying, “I know you’ll never see them again.” You’d feel awful, right? The same idea works conversely by saying, “I know you’ll see them again,” to a nonbelieving person.

A woman named Torrie shared with me her reaction when her brother committed suicide and a congregation member trying to comfort her told her, “He is not in a happy place right now. He is still suffering.”

“I wanted to slap the woman,” Torrie told me, even though she knew the woman meant well. “But you know what? I didn’t, because I knew my brother was dead. He was gone. And he wasn’t sad; he wasn’t happy. He wasn’t in a better place; he wasn’t in a worse place. The matter that made my brother was no longer functioning in the form that I knew as Dave.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself; and when this is what you believe—that death in its finality is not to be assuaged by ideas of afterlife— there are clearly much better things to say than the woman in Torrie’s example.

A wonderful article on alternet.org called “When it’s not God’s plan: 8 Things to say to Grieving Nonbelievers,” has some great ideas, the most popular simply being, “I am so sorry.” No wordiness, no creativity, just plain and simple human empathy.

Another suggestion is to just say, “This sucks,” because it does suck; no matter how you deal with death, it’s hard to avoid the cold, hard fact that we suffer when someone we love dies. Rather than offering cliché platitudes that really don’t mean much, let them know you’re suffering right along with them.

Share stories of good times about the deceased; ask how you can help, with the sincere intent to do dishes for a week if that’s what it takes. Or better yet, don’t say anything and just listen. Companionship goes a long way when alleviating the stark loneliness of grief.

When it really comes down to it, none of us know what happens when we die. We believe, we hope, we resign ourselves to reality; and in the end, we all deal with it in the way we know best.

Atheists, agnostics, and others who may not believe in the afterlife still get angry about death; but when I asked atheist and agnostic students at Utah State concerning the matter, the overwhelming sentiment was not of sadness but of hope and happiness. Rather than waiting for an afterlife to provide the comforts of paradise, they all focused on creating a piece of heaven on earth and leaving the world a better place.

Ann Druyan, the wife of the late astronomer and agnostic Carl Sagan, said it best after her husband died. “Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again… But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting…the way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”

About two weeks after filling out this survey, my Drill Sergeant came into the bay and called for me. I responded with the “Drill Sergeant moving Drill Sergeant!” that is programmed into you from day one, and ran to my Drill Sergeants Office trying to imagine what I had done to warrant this. Going to the Drill Sergeant’s office was normally a sign of pain and suffering to come. After knocking on his door and identifying myself I was told to enter. In the office there was my Drill Sergeant and the Chaplain. My Drill Sergeant quickly told me that the Chaplain wanted to speak to me, and then stepped out of the office.  Now I don’t remember the conversation word for word – I was running on 4 hours of sleep a night for the past 4 weeks and was in one of the most stressful situations someone could be in- but it went something like this.

Chaplain: “I understand from your survey that you’re an Atheist.”

Me: “Yes sir.” (The Chaplain, being a Major, got the title sir.)

Chaplain: “Well Private, I’m worried about you. Without a strong religious faith to support you through basic, I fear for your safety.”

After this I was starting to see what was going on. This Chaplain believed that me not being religious made it more likely that I would commit suicide. I will admit, it made me angry that I would be singled out for my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, in a nation that was based on secularism and freedom of religion (in this case lack of religion). It felt like a betrayal of what I had sworn to fight and protect. I had sworn to protect the constitution of the United States of America, and this Chaplain was spitting in the face of the most important document of this country. With my anger boiling I bit my tongue and replied.

Me: “You don’t need to worry about me Sir. You may need to worry about the Catholic kid in the bunk next to me. He cries for his mom every night.”

As a lowly just-in-the-service private, a major was a scary person to talk to. I “remember” saying this next part, but I find it hard that I would, so whether or not I actually did say the following is unknown to me. Nevertheless these were, and still are, my feelings and I would like to say that I did in fact present them to the Chaplain.

Me: “As an atheist, I only have one life to live. If I die thats it! There is no resurrection, no halls of Valhalla, no seventy virgins, no reincarnation. when I die I die, why would I want to commit suicide? It makes no sense.”

After our conversation the Chaplain asked if I would like a blessing, which I declined. I have  been to multiple Chaplains since then – it’s required for different things like deployments etc.- and while none have been as upfront as the first with their dislike in my lack of faith, they have all shown alarm and concern over it.

So how does this tie into the phrase “there are no atheist in fox-holes”? I’ve been to war. Now I may not have had people shooting directly at me but; I had mortar and rocket attacks almost daily; I drove one of the most deadly routes in Iraq (route Irish) 4 times a day as a gunner; I drove the 300+ miles from Baghdad Iraq to Ali-al-salem Kuwait. I had tense moments, moments when I was scared, but never once did I thank “God”, or ask for protection from a “higher power”, unless you consider my chain of command a “higher power”. To me “God” was the men and women who operated the CRAM (counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar), the soldiers who manned the towers and checkpoints, the route clearance teams whose sole job was to blow up IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) by driving over them before I did,  the inventors and scientists who developed my body armor, and the engineers who created the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle that I drove down the road. These were the people keeping me alive, these were the people who deserve my thanks, not some “God”.

Too many people thank God when something good happens,when a medical treatment works, when a car’s airbags deploy to save their life, or even just when the airplane they were in lands safely. But the real thanks should go to the men and women who developed the technology, who went to school to learn about their fields, who sacrificed their time and energy to make us safe. Too often people forget about thanking these people. The idea of thanking “God” for what these people do never crosses my mind.

I was an Atheist in a fox-hole. I don’t owe thanks to “God” for my survival, I owe thanks to the men and women who came before me, and who developed the technology that kept me safe, and most importantly to the Soldiers who risked their life beside mine everyday. These were my “Gods” my “higher power”, the achievements of the human mind and the strength of my brother and sisters in arms.

Dennis Potter (left) and Blake Ostler debate baptisms for the dead at UVU.

On Tuesday, Utah Valley University hosted a lively debate on the resolution: “Resolved that the practice of proxy baptisms for the dead is neither a rational nor an ethical response to the problem of the unevangelized.”

Affirming the resolution—that is, arguing that baptisms for the dead are ineffectual and offensive—was Dennis Potter, associate philosophy professor at UVU. In opposition was Blake Ostler, a lawyer who has been widely published on Mormon theology.

With Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, Mormonism and some of its more controversial tenets (like baptisms for the dead) have come under increased scrutiny. So this debate couldn’t have been any more timely or relevant. Unfortunately, the turnout was rather poor. But if you were unaware of the event or unable to attend, you’re in luck—I recorded it in full. Click the links below for audio to the debate and the Q&A session.

Baptism debate

Baptism debate Q&A

The debate coach in me is tempted to disclose whose case I felt was more compelling, but I’ll hold off. I don’t want to bias your opinion going into the debate. Please listen to it first. Suffice it say for now, though, that Potter and Ostler are both capable thinkers and each made good arguments.

I may post my analysis later, but until then I look forward to reading your thoughts in the comments!

“Only connect! And the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die.” E.M. Forster

The logic of our ideas is not as crucial as the quality of our conversation. After hearing  talk about the club (and about non-theists in general) I felt I need to clear some things up for the sake of our dialogue with religious friends and neighbors. Who are we, what are we doing and why do we do it?

The premise that brings secularists, humanists, atheists and free-thinkers together is the lack of religion. This is at once a hallowed freedom – but it can also be a cursed negativity, giving everyone the wrong impression.

You just don’t believe in God and have nothing positive to say.

We’re not about the hatred or absence of religion. Rather, we have a positive goal: to give USU students an open playing ground to discuss matters of spirituality, faith, science and reason beyond religion.

Imagine the beauty that our pumping hearts and thinking minds are literally made out of the dust of ancient stars. Comprehend the stark magnificence and special humility of the human condition, if we are the result of billions of years of free-form natural phenomena rather than some mere god’s design. Ponder the trillions of planets and the probability of distant life-forms: are we doomed to loneliness in the galaxies? Is this special species only a branch on a tree of life, a wisp and a tiny blotch in a sea of vast dark? What’s the mystery behind all this?

Now we’re talking, right? Beyond religion, the view is spectacular, and there’s work to be done.

You hate religious people.

No, we don’t. How else can I say it? Religion is a great force in the world, a powerful weight on the shoulders of believers and disbelievers alike. This blog may be infuriatingly skeptical, focusing our powers on poking and prodding religion, but it hardly qualifies as hatred to do so – it’s actually something more akin to bravery, to stand up for such a hated minority viewpoint.

It is our right as human thinkers to ask questions, even if the answers are difficult. The courage to stand up for one’s religious or political differences cannot be called hatred toward those who disagree.

We have many perfectly reasonable, kind and intelligent religious friends and neighbors.  But calling a religion into question is not to hate everyone involved in it – this is a horrifying and wrong accusation.

This club gives students an opportunity to get together in a collegiate environment to examine problems with religion – but more importantly, to explore interesting alternatives to the supernatural, by feeling free to think for ourselves. Our tools? Science, reason and dialogue. If that involves carrying strong opinions on religions, poking and prodding their ideological weak spots and investigating their dark corners, so be it.

But be clear: it isn’t hate.

You want to abolish and destroy the world’s religions.

Religion is beautiful. It is one of the pillars of our civilization on this planet, giving us breathtaking works of art, music and literature. The Bible itself is a massive monument to the human condition, full of parables whose loss would be devastating to human literature. Many of the greatest minds in history were religious. The guy who invented Calculus? Total occultist.

I won’t lie: Some atheists do want to abolish religion, saying that it is a delusion that poisons everything. But this is not really the goal of all non-theists. Many of us just want the world to know that it’s okay not to be religious. As the most hated minority in America, just above rapists, we can certainly hope people become more accepting of secular humanists, atheists and free-thinkers in days to come.

Secularists simply don’t want various gods to be taking part in politics and government, for obvious reasons. Groups like the Secular Student Alliance and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are defensive movements whose goal is not to destroy religion, but to keep it from influencing the lives of those with different beliefs. These ideals were hammered out during America’s infancy, by some of the most respectable humanists in history. ———->

Ultimately, we have our work cut out for us to rise above the status of haters, demagogues and anti-theists. ‘Beyond religion’ is a negative statement; its says what we are not, leading to the assumption that we have nothing else to say but bad stuff about religion.

But the lack of supernaturalism itself invites a mouthful of thinkers: naturalists, rationalists, realists, secularists, atheists, humanists, free-thinkers, skeptics, agnostics and a whole mountain of other -ists and -isms with widely varying meanings. While we may stray into skepticism and even bitterness, or into argument and debate, most importantly we have entertained an open conversation where the answers are weighed by reason and friendly dialogue – not closed shut by revelations or declarations from one man, one group or one mere God.

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere Aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!” – Immanuel Kant

Like everyone, non-theists want answers to the questions that frame our mortal hearts and minds. Finding truth and goodness requires analyzing existing theories. This certainly makes for a brutal conflict of interest against religious thinkers, but our conversation should not be hindered by our differences, but enhanced by our mutual yearning for what is right and what is true.

Saturday, March 24, 2012.

TSC 2nd-Floor Center Colony.

6:30-9:00PM.

Food will be served and club members will give fascinating 5-10 minute projector lectures/presentations about their research on science, history, and anything else which shows appreciation for the wonder of nature, and human ingenuity, creativity, speculation and accomplishment.

Also, we will be creating a large colorful mural to be presented on campus somewhere. Everyone will have free reign to write the things that make non-theists awesome, good-hearted people too.

Here is a preliminary lineup of subjects. Thanks so much to all the volunteers! If you would like to present something relating to the natural world or human accomplishment, please sign up now by contacting us!

-History of the Universe
-Planetary Science (Origins of Solar System to Now)
-Hypothesis for Origins of Life
-Evolution of Life from Origins
-Fossils through Time
-Evolutionary Psychology
-Game Theory
-History of Math
-History of Economics
-History of Secularism
-History of Humanism

The topic that I’d like to discuss is something that is very important to me and I thought my voice might add a different perspective to the questions at hand. So, I’m taking a break from the screenplays for a little while to write this for all you lovely people.

For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Mike Patton. I’m one of the original founding members of SHAFT. I was the main officer for the first year of our creation. I wrote the constitution of the club, organized meetings, courted professors, registered with the campus, and spammed every atheist, agnostic, non-believer, or just any all-around interesting people I could find within a 30 mile radius to join.* I was taking 18 credits at the time and it was a lot of work to build a club from scratch, but I sure did enjoy every second of it. As the club took off and became more and more exciting, I regularly spent more and more time on the club then I did on my classes. Eventually I stopped going to classes altogether…which is probably why I ended up dropping out? **Haha. But looking back on it now, I couldn’t care less about the homework. When I try to think of my most memorable times throughout my college experience, the only thing that comes to mind is all the fun I had being involved in all the clubs.

The History is a Mystery

I’ve been an atheist my entire life, well I guess since I’ve been able to think on my own, although I did read all of Nietzsche’s works several times as a fetus. I was completely ambivalent to the concept of a god for the majority of my childhood. I wasn’t raised in a religious home and those ideas couldn’t have been further from my mind. I’d go over to friend’s houses on Sunday and not understanding why they couldn’t come outside to play and ride bikes. Their behavior just seemed extremely odd to me and I didn’t understand what they were so afraid of. And I’d hope for hell that whatever it was, I wouldn’t catch it. For all I knew, the Black Plague probably comes out every Sunday simply to annihilate little boys on bikes that leave the comfort of the insides of their dwellings.

I remember the first time my father told me about god. He had been dating a new lady and was about to be remarried. He was terrible at it!! Haha. I knew he didn’t really care, he was just trying to do whatever he could to keep this new lady around. This was the same man that showed me Terminator 2 when I was 4, and let me taste beer when I wanted, which wasn’t very often. *** The same man that would teach me how to curse and tell a good joke. And even the all-important lesson of how to throw mud at girls.

So when he told me there was this God dude that lived up in sky somewhere, that loved me and had this friend named jesus that died for me, even though I had never met the guy, I naturally thought he was pulling my leg. It didn’t make any sense to me and seemed completely ridiculous. But no, it’s true he says and he would tell me all these random stories about a whale, a lion’s den, and two guys named Noah and David who just loved to hang out in the desert. I liked the stories, but I didn’t see how any of them were connected to each other. And I certainly didn’t believe them. I was old enough to know by now that Peter Pan, Dumbo, Batman and all my other heroes weren’t actually real people.

He told me about how all my sins could be washed away and wouldn’t I want that because it could bring me more happiness. Finally. We were getting to the good stuff. Of course I wanted that, for as my Mama said, I was a wild thing and was nothing but trouble. All I had to do was to make friends with God and it would wipe my slate clean. I quite liked this idea for I had heard about my permanent record at school and I couldn’t let it get too out of hand, because the principal would throw me in jail. Jail isn’t a place where you want to be, Batman is always throwing lowlifes in there. So sure, I would be friends with this invisible man to get me off the hook of going to jail. Easy. It’s not like he would tell other people that I didn’t really know him.

I found out later that wasn’t how it worked and it was about heaven and hell, not jail. So I didn’t really worry about it too much after that. Especially because I could just have the slate wiped off right before I died. Easy. Peasy. But to this day, my absolute favorite thing he ever told me, was when he showed me a quarter with “In God We Trust” on it. Hahaha. Oh, it’s in on a quarter so that must make it true! The Missionaries came by a couple times. At first they were pretty cool. They brought me free books!! Little did I know that they were super boring and the one with pictures didn’t even have any superheroes in it. Who would want to read that? Answer: The Trash Can.

After a week or so, I became very bored with talking about all of this. It was very frustrating to me, because at the time, I had a full time job of watching Batman: The Animated Series after school and all this talk was starting to cut in to my crime fighting time. Being the stubborn little kid I was, I finally wouldn’t listen to anymore and wasn’t going to hear it. My dad never tried to talk to me about it after that (Until much later) and he let me think what I wanted to think. My Mom had told me about other cultures and each of their different stories, but I didn’t really understand that’s what religion was at the time. My older brother James, The Human Encyclopedia, told me that there were people that just didn’t feel like believing in God. Alright, I guess I’m just one of those people then.

I didn’t really think about any of it until high school. Then, it became the only thing I thought about. I finally realized how different I was from all my other friends. They were all my best friends, but no matter how hard I tried or how much I wanted to fit and not have to worry about any of it anymore, I knew I would never be like one of them. I could take an infinite number of actions, but I would always come to the same boulder in the road. I could tell they looked at me different and it would always be that way. It was like everyone I knew was in this special club and I had no chance of every getting into it without radically changing who I was a person. I could never do that, nor did I want to. My brother was the only other atheist I had ever known. It just came to be something I finally accepted and then I was fine with it. I was happy with the man I was becoming.

And then it was senior year and everything was awesome. Nobody had ever told me that the last year of HS was way more epic then all the previous 11 years cummitivley combined. I was planning on graduating a year early at 16 and head off to college, because I already had all my credits from never having taken institute. But then at the last minute, I decided to just stay and take all AP classes. I’m really glad I did. The classes were way more exciting and we actually got to talk about religion, science, politics, and philosophy is much deeper ways that I had never done at school before. Usually me and The Human Encyclopedia would do the real learning at home on our own time. But this was just something that was completely invigorating and it blew my mind in ways I didn’t even realize it could. This is when I met Jordan, David, and other new friends and the atheists I knew tripled to 6. Things were getting exciting.

So I graduated and started summer school at USU five days later. That summer was great. I took astronomy and got to submerse myself into other fascinating subjects that I loved. The fall schedule was completely opposite. I had to start taking my generals and became bored out of my mind within the first couple weeks. I made it through the first year, attending class regularly, but I was always a million miles away. I took a year off to figure out what had happened and if I was really in the right major. I started again in the fall of 08, when SHAFT would be born. That semester I became much more active on campus and joined a bunch of clubs. I realized that enjoyed the clubs and really wanted to start my own club. I still hung around my group of heathens, so a club of non-believers was the first thing that came to mind. But I didn’t think we would have enough people for a campus sponsored club, so I didn’t pursue it any further.

One day, I randomly came across an article in the Statesman by Mr. Jon Adams about his experiences as an atheist and I couldn’t believe it. I thought I had hit the motherload my senior year when I finally met people like me that weren’t my brother and weren’t just people I had read about in books but would never meet. I really didn’t expect to find new people on campus so quickly, especially someone so vocal as to write for the paper. That sounds rather silly now when I say it like that. Haha. But it had took me my whole adult life to even find a handful more people. I didn’t realize it would be so exponential.

Mr. Adams’ articles in the newspaper became very controversial, much to my great delight. Numerous angry responses were published in the weeks after. I contacted Jon to see if he had ever thought about starting a club and if he thought there would even be any interest in something like that. He was very excited about the idea and we all decided to meet. There was me, my brother James the Encyclopedia, my high school chums Jordan Daines and David Heiner, and Jon. After that meeting, the wheels were in motion.

The first year went better than any of us hoped for. It was overwhelming and fantastic to see the response we got. We found so many new comrades that helped us market and build the club. For our first major event, we held a debate between Prof. Kleiner and Prof. Huenemann, our two Philosophy teachers. They had to defend each other’s positions and it evolved into a wonderful debate with over 200 people in attendance. The rest of the events were very diverse. We hosted speakers on every topic under the sun, cohosted activities with other clubs, had delicious bonfire cookout parties, and started my favorite biannual Atheist Bake Sale to raise money for charity. ****

The main objectives of SHAFT are below, but our most important goal was to gather a group of non-believers.

(a) To foster a socially and intellectually engaging community of nontheists;

(b) To promote tolerance and understanding, address negative stereotyping, misconceptions about, and discrimination against nontheists, and

(c) To advance the knowledge of the University community by contributing to the marketplace of ideas.

I don’t think I can express how very very very proud I am of SHAFT. The club is my baby….A baby that was created when I had a consensual lover affair with 8 other dudes at once. ;) I’d like to take this moment to personally thank everyone that made the club what it is. There is way too many names to list, and you all know who you are anyway, but the club would not have existed without your hard work. So thank ye kindly! I think SHAFT is quite possibly the most important club at USU (Along with LIFE!!!) Its weird living in a culture as a minority and it’s nice to know there are places where you can go to meet amazing new people without having to put on a mask to pretend to be different then what you are. While I certainly don’t think that us non-believers have it as bad as our LGBT friends (we still have rights that they justly deserve but haven’t received), I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. Both clubs fill a huge need among students who feel like outcasts and are vital to the common wellbeing of any school or university. The majority of my friends I have today, I met through SHAFT and then later through LIFE. I’m not sure what my life would look like if I had never have met any of these people, but I’ll be eternally grateful I did.

SHAFT was the first atheist club of its kind in Utah. There has since been a plethora of like mind clubs popping up like heathen daisies throughout the state. All of them with ties to us in name and spirit. We are a nationally recognized club and have been mentioned on PZ Meyer’s infamous blog, Pharyngula.  We are members of the Secular Student Alliance and the Center for Inquiry. The CFI even has an annual Student Leadership Conference every year in the summer. Jon and Jordan attended it for several years. The first year, SHAFT was even voted the best club name among all the other university clubs throughout America.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/news/student_leadership_conference_2011/

http://www.secularstudents.org/affiliates

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/another_student_groupin_a_chal.php

So I was very surprised recently when I heard that there were talks to change the name. The name has a history and image built up behind it and has simply become bigger than just a five letter word. A name change is completely unnecessary as the club has been run efficiently and effectively for 4 years. Now, I’ve been away from the club for a while and am not aware how the club functions today and the issues that it currently faces. Since activating my facebook again, I’ve read through the entire debate about the name change and have narrowed down each reason that I’d like to address individually. I think these concerns are mostly valid and should be solved immediately, but as someone who ran the club for two years, I think a complete name change is entirely unjustified.

The Scarlet Letter

Atheist. It’s a very polarizing word in today’s culture. Just like any other word in the English language, it is attached to numerous definitions. It is still an ugly, negative word to a lot of people but can also be a beautiful word full of optimism and possibility. I’ve always associated it with the later. When I think of an atheist, I don’t associate it with a hateful and uncompromising person. To me, it’s someone who looks at the evidence at hand and makes a rational conclusion from it. It’s someone who peaks behind the curtain of the universe and pokes and prods for all the hidden meaning, while constantly being enraptured by its greatness and its beauty. An atheist is not a spiritually bankrupt person, but in fact the complete opposite. The spirit of skepticism, learning, and imagination are always at our disposal. While the rest of the world is closing their minds in fear, we open ours even farther. Seeing the natural world for what it truly is and instead of fear, we can only view it with awe and admiration.

It’s not someone who berates another person’s beliefs to the point of cruelty, but someone who takes their hand in friendship on a grand adventure to explore a wonderful world of ideas and science. Even if they choose to keep their own beliefs, an atheist would still be overjoyed to call them a friend and not look down on them as intellectually inferior, but just simply different. There is nothing more important than an individual’s right to their own ideas in quiet contemplation. An atheist understands this and will always defend a person’s human rights.

No matter how you look at it, if you’re an atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in America, then you’re involved in a battle of civil rights. It’s a different kind of battle then others; there are no protests, sit-ins, or court battles. But there is still discrimination going on and we are still the most hated and untrusted group in America. There is no way an atheist would become president today and there are still only a handful of self-proclaimed atheists in higher government positions. I’ve personally lost friendships, relationships, close family members, even jobs because of my outgoing atheism. It doesn’t really matter to me. I’m happy with who I am and I know there is a lot of misconceptions about it. Even during my darkest most lonely times, I’ve always worn Atheist as a badge of honor. But I know that I can fight to change it and I’m not going to abandon the word until there is no longer discrimination, emotional and physical abuse, and death to individuals based on their personal beliefs.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Our public image alone is a good reason to keep using Atheist. Also, the fact that SHAFT was started as an atheist club, it doesn’t make since to get rid of it.  I agree it is very odd to be defined by your disbelief in something, but that’s way it is at the moment. I would rather I didn’t have to even use it, and perhaps we can get rid of it once and for all at some point in the future, but that’s not anytime soon. It’s also the word that most clearly reflects our views of subject and that will be recognized by likeminded people. Remember, the main purpose of SHAFT has always been to its members, not to pander to the people that oppose the word we use to describe ourselves. Those people would react the same way no matter what word we chose.

But there is good news. We can change the perception of the word so it properly reflects the wonderful people we are. We do this, not by running away from it, but by embracing it.  By improving our actions and our character so they have no choice but to take us seriously and to treat us as equals. Things will only get better with time. We never had any objection to that part of the name of the club and were always able to have meaningful debates among our peers.

Size Doesn’t Matter

This is the most interesting of the all the reasons and also the most ridiculous. I find it absurd that on a renowned college campus, that someone would be against joining a group only by the fact that its name is a slang word for male genitalia. I’m not going to discuss the origins of slang terms, but SHAFT was designed to be effective on several fronts, and considering how every other campus club in Utah is a variation of our name, I think it was wildly successful. This might sound crazy, but when I picked the word, I was very much aware of the connotations that came with it.

It was specifically designed to be funny. Not specifically phallic, but in several humorous ways at once.  I’ve done standup comedy several times and all the original officers and members are very hilarious people. We are all huge believers in the power of laughter. Laughter conquers all barriers created by our social constraints. It is the undisputed grand champion of bringing people from every walk of life together to a level of equality and mutual respect where new ideas can then be discussed without trivial opposition. As atheists, we already have an uphill battle of talking to new people. How great would it be if we could have them laughing and more open before a first word is even uttered? It would be amazing and that’s exactly what happened. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me they liked the name or how many times it had people laughing and happier to chat with us. The name is also very unique, so it sticks in your mind and is very hard to forget. Plus it comes with its own theme song!!! *****

Let’s talk about sexism for a bit. I think it’s easily the most important thing to talk about in this entire letter. I would consider myself a very staunch feminist. I am a very strong support of women’s rights and  think it’s absurd the way women are still treated in this day and age. Anyone who fallows the atheist community on a larger scale knows that sexism is a problem in our community. (Rebecca Watson anyone?) But I never felt SHAFT was a victim of that. When we started the club, we knew that statistically women are likely to be more religious than men, so we knew we were already starting from a weaker position then we’d like to be at when it came to marketing. It was extremely crucial to us that women be a major part of the club and we spent a lot of time actively running campaigns specifically targeted at them. It paid off and worked well. At most of our meetings, nearly half the members were women. Our main objective of the club was to make everyone feel welcome no matter who they were or what they believe in, so it was very important that women always felt comfortable there. I personally never heard of any complaints about the matter, but if there ever are any issues of harassment or sexism of any kind, I would urge you to let the officers know so it can be addressed promptly. That kind of behavior is not allowed anywhere and it will not be tolerated in our club. I hope that the atheist community changes on a larger scale soon and I hope even more that SHAFT can always remain above it.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/01/sexism-in-atheist-community-we-have.html

http://www.mallorienasrallah.com/skeptic

http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201009/why-are-women-more-religious-men-ii

But there is an obviously bigger underlining problem about SHAFT being too inappropriate of a name. And it’s this, if someone can’t get past the name and giggles like a 12 year old every time it’s said as nothing more than images of reproductive organs swirl around in there head, how do you expect to discuss the greatest philosophical questions of humanity with them? Is that someone who is intellectually mature enough to be able to talk to even if the name wasn’t there? The fact that professors and other professionals have no problem attaching themselves to the club with their reputations on the line, really speaks volumes about this issue.

My Brother’s Keeper

The third question is a question of PR. Is SHAFT even marketable to people? Can we successfully get people to be active in our activities and dialogue? In my experience, yes. SHAFT is a very marketable name. It’s memorable and direct to the point. You know exactly what it’s about by the time you are done finishing the acronym. I also already discussed the humor of it that personifies our own and cuts through objections. Overall, SHAFT is a fantastic name that accomplishes every goal we need it to. You can market anything; you just have to know the right methods to use.

We never had any problems in the previous years marketing the club. When we chatted with people, the name was never a barrier we had to cross. Even if they completely disagreed with us, they were happy to chat and have some candy. We were respected by all the other religious clubs on campus. Me and Jon regularly attend the other Christian groups and they regularly attend our meetings. We became good friends with them and the conversations were always civil and exciting. All of the officers were specifically invited to a lunch discussion with the institute and some other clubs. We were very happy to go and it was a wonderful event to be a part of. We accomplished all of this without having to give up atheist or change who we were. One of SHAFT’s most surprising and favorite friends is Eli. Eli is the eloquent Christian speaker that has frequented USU for many years that loves to stir up the Mormons for debate. He was always a regular attendee at meetings and even ran a weekly bible class with some of the members. There were numerous times when his sermons would get very heated among the lds students, with yelling and threats of altercation. I’m glad he always felt safe among SHAFT and it’s important that our club always protects all the minority voices on campus, even if they aren’t ours.

I’m not sure how this became an issue. But I do know most people don’t have any hang ups with talking to an atheist and that nobody likes to be talked down to. There is no reason that we need be aggressive, arrogant, or cruel when talking with people with different beliefs, even if we think they’re opinions are completely ridiculous. We’re not trying to deconvert anyone, but to create a mutually respectful dialogue where both parties can learn something from the other. I’m glad people have been posting the vid with Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson because it illustrates this issue beautifully. There was a reason everybody loved Carl Sagan so much. He would tell anybody and everybody what he knew about Astronomy and the Universe. It would be catered directly for them and related in a way that they would easily understand. But he would never dehumanize them or treat them unjustly about what they didn’t know. He was always polite and knew that everybody learns differently. It doesn’t make them more of an idiot, just different. And it made his passion for all things scientific shine through and infect everyone he talked to. And Neil has that exact same talent. It’s pretty astonishing how many people have become obsessed with learning science through them. That is the exact way that we should talk to others, not only about religion but about all topics. Chances are the person you are talking to is a professional on a topic that you don’t know and will gladly tell you about it if you are nice to them. That way, everybody wins!

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

It’s important to note, that even if we change the name, none of these issues will automatically be corrected. Sexism will still be an issue that we will always need to be aware of. The way we treat others that are different from us will always define our club and our character. People will still find ways to make immature jokes that will become just as old, just as fast. We can use any word we want to define atheism, but it still means the same thing and we will still be just as discriminated against. It seems to me that instead of changing the name and creating more problems, we should spend our time on other things that need our attention more. Like solving these problems outlined, marketing the club to new members, reaching out to other clubs and creating partnerships that will benefit the entire university, lining up new exciting events and speakers that attract and keep people who attend. The greatest thing about SHAFT, is that we can take it absolutely anywhere. There is no limit. I think everyone has really great ideas about the future and I’m excited to see what happens, as long as we remember what SHAFT stands for, there is no doubt that it will be very bright for everyone!

Obviously it’s not really my club anymore. I’m just an old relic now.  Nothing but an ol’ has-been at 23 that’s been blown away by the winds of time. Haha. I’m way out of the loop and haven’t been to a meeting in ages. But I would urge all of you that care about SHAFT as much as I do, to vote against changing the name. SHAFT is something that we all spent countless hours building. We put our blood, sweat, and tears into building a club where non-believers would feel welcome to come and meet new friends that care about their troubles and the pain they’ve experienced growing up as a minority in a culture so dominated by religion. SHAFT has become so much more than its name. It has a history behind it. An important history that shouldn’t be forgotten. It has a specific personality that can’t be recreated. Sure, we could switch the name to REASON, which is a good name, but how many other atheists clubs are already called that? Do you really think that there are no other atheist groups who are fans of the world famous Sam Harris’ Project Reason and chose not to use the same name?!?! haha. There are no other clubs named SHAFT or have a personality like ours!  That’s a great thing that makes a unique among the rest of the community. Changing the name would erase that history and the image we spent so much time to build and that is not worth what we would gain from changing it. I will still love the club unconditionally no matter what happens and I won’t try to stop a name change if that’s what the members want to pursue, but if there is only one thing you take away from this rather lengthy prose of mine, it is to remember that SHAFT is so so much more than a simple phallic punch line in an over told joke.

Oh, and about the color scheme. Red, White, and black are the most powerful color combination. There is a reason baby toys are only in those colors and The White Stripes are so badass. haha

Thanks for reading and thanks for caring so much about our club!

*I remember one guy I sent a message to on facebook said that he just put “atheist” under his religious description as a joke and then sent a rather lengthy reply about how he could not conceive how anyone could (not) believe in something so stupid. Haha. I responded back that he had entirely missed the punch line.

**I somehow managed to pass all my classes my last semester even though I only showed up a handful of times. I still have no idea how that happened. I’m not sure if the professors mixed me up with another student or just took pity on me because I was so retarded. Or maybe they just totally dug my batman costume I wore on the last day of the semester. I guess I never find out, not that it matters. But either way, Thanks Karma!!!1!!

*** Which was utterly disgusting!!!! It was the nastiest thing I had ever put in my mouth up to that point, including that one time I had bragged about eating dirt to the other kids. I have long since learned the error of my foolish ways. Oh, the naiveté of a wee lad!!

**** Most of my ideas for events were deemed “too offensive” by the other officers. Haha. I always tried to have a Jesus fashion show on the quad. Who wouldn’t want to see Jesus as Elvis, George Washington, and Cher? Absolutely no one, that’s who. It’s fun for all ages! And they especially squashed my dreams of SHAFT After Dark, the underground terrorist arm of the club who was responsible for nefarious actions of extreme hilarity. (Like sending 10,000 copies of Brokeback Mountain to Chris Buttars’ house) So I had to concede and settle for cookies and a glass of scrumptious Not Poison instead.

*****There were many a time me and the advertising committee would be chalking stuff or putting out fliers while enthusiastically singing this song. But I won’t comment to the possibility there were karate kicks and ninja rolls performed as well.  Chicka wokka wicka chocka wicka wokka wokka SHAFT!

The Latin word humanitas was coined by Roman philosopher Cicero as an equivalent of the Greek paideia. This entails a well-rounded, mature cultural education, and by no accident humanitas evolved to suit our modern colleges of Humanities. This is due in large part to the dangerous artistic rebellion of Renaissance thinkers against iron-handed medieval Christian schools.

History reveals that such repression can not last; we see the rise of the Freethinkers during the French Revolution as well. The thoughtful animal will not be suppressed, and we should not be stopped. The pumping blood of the human heart will always be the fountain of art, music, philosophy and literature in all forms, from escapism to realism. With its lineage in the classical era, the worry about the purpose and design of our existence lights a candle at the shadowy core of true education. The inward spiritual struggle is part of every human being, and it is what brings you and I together today.

We all seek after two things: what is good and what is right. This is our unsatisfied need, and it has led to a wealth of experimentation through the ages in many forms, all conjoined in the tormented bliss of experience. Our goal in studying our lives, and developing words to suit our philosophies, is to share with each other our private contributions to these questions. Should we choose to sever ourselves from conversation, we eliminate the value of our own precious contributions.

Our ideas procreate in a pool. Because we must labor our ideas through the work of others, the quality of our beliefs hardly matters as much as the quality of our communication. Words are used to anchor us, within and without, to who we are in a world of fighting ideas. Words have the most value when they bring us together into groups, defining our contributions to the big questions, and we can share our ideas effectively – we are the most symbiotic species.

Atheism, the word, has a fluid lineage as long as anything we know about Western civilization. As I hope we can agree, it entails “Denial of any gods.” Historically a pejorative for those who do not contribute anything to the aforementioned spiritual struggle, from the Greek Atheos to Atheism, the term has been used when in relation to a particular God…

Atheism is useful when surrounded by a particularly deafening religious culture who threatens both reason without and the humanity within. Growing up insulated in wretched-holy Utah, we children are driven to extremes. If this horrific mind-eating beast of white-toothed sex and fear is the God which religions speak about, I want nothing to do with it; I am an Atheist now.

This, however, is far too easy, and has not addressed either of the big questions. After the scarring of a religious upbringing, scrambling to shut the doors and bolt the windows to all ideas of “God,” the vaguest term in all of human history, is a mistake, especially if one wants to remain a really good skeptic and contribute to a world of human spirituality. Atheism is entirely unhelpful, given the widespread definitions of God – a word with more meanings than the amount of rivers in the world.

If it is communication that makes or breaks our ideas, this word will not help us, and it should be discarded as a core philosophy to denote what we’re all about in this conversation.

I’m interested in the answers to these big questions. When the world outside the monist religious community of Utah is revealed, we no longer need to call ourselves Atheists to study the many vague billions of human spiritual explorations from everywhere on the Earth and back through time. We can do this with skepticism, logic, reason and science quite well without labeling our core philosophy as a blunt denial of anything anyone has called “God” or “Theism” from East to West. We breach our own intellectual ethic by denoting ourselves as deniers instead of investigators, and giving in to petty word games and adolescent rebuttal.

Atheism itself is the defiance of the ideas of anyone who claims a higher power of any kind exists. But defiance is not always healthy rebellion. When viewing the vista of the human experience, in which we find answers by opening ourselves to ideas but using reason and theory to determine our choices, Atheism, as a denial of this and that, seems like something less worth investing energy in than a clear evaluation of the giant universe of positives.

Atheism, the word, is empty and negative, a way of hanging on to the troubles and evils religion has caused by investing energy in hopeless anger and backward-looking. If this is the goal, which sometimes it nobly and righteously can be, then we are better to call a spade a spade, and a Hitch a Hitch, with the more accurate Anti-Theism.

It is my opinion, then, that the word Atheist should be left in the archives of religious persecution, as a pejorative to mean someone who is spiritually uninvolved. If our goal is the pursuit of answers to the questions above – about what is good and what is right, then investing so much energy in the denial of religions is something of a cancer. We can let religious ideas go, but we must truly let them go.

By no means does this open the acceptability of all religious thought; in fact, I still feel the same skeptical attitude toward all things magical or unreasonable. Instead, losing the word ‘Atheist’ is a step in a positive direction, a graduation toward educational analysis of bigger problems, and a conservation of energy to be invested in answering these questions cooperatively amongst rational people of all stripes.

It is not so subtle that I used humanitas, the ancestor of modern Humanism, to denote what I believe is the correct term under which similar thinkers can gather, if we need one at all, to participate in the human conundrum:

We know what isn’t. So what is good, and what is right?

“The free, independent spirit who commits himself to no dogma and will not decide in favor of any party has no homestead on Earth.” – Stefan Zweig

Atheists are dogmatic, but not in the caricature we usually get.

Notice the name of the group. We have four different words that are trying to hint at the same thing, even without throwing in Agnostics. Why so much fuss and bother? Terms are ambiguous, and it causes us trouble.

We’ve all heard the argument. Atheism is only, “Not believing in gods.”

First, “gods” doesn’t tell us anything. Our first question, before even addressing dogma, is, “What do we mean by gods?”

Even naturalists can describe mere Nature as “God,” or physicists could describe the Big Bang as “God,” or meta-physicians could describe the underlying immaterial mathematical systems of our Universe as thoughts of “God,” or Eastern ideas about eternal change and suchness as “God.”

We shouldn’t split hairs about what it means to be an Atheist. With a bit of common sense, Atheism should be better known as the lack of believing in the world’s many mythic, supernatural religious characters drawn from sacred texts.

Atheism refers to this guy.

1. I am known through scriptures, prophets, prayers or revelations.
2. I am all-powerful and all-knowing, but also benevolent.
3. I am the source and judge of your Morality.
4. I can be loved, and love you back.
5. I require worship and faith.
6. I provide an immortal afterlife.
7. I take a direct hand in human affairs, such as superbowls and wars.

If God has any of these characteristics, I say, “No, thanks.” Because the world’s gods almost always do, it’s just easier to just say I’m an Atheist and go on with my life.

I left “Created the Universe” and “Immaterial/Supernatural” out.  What if the world is a massive computation on a supercomputer? Some questions we can have fun reasonably speculating about. We can think openly about these things without having Faith-based gatherings to show our support.

Atheism is open-minded, but proudly closed-minded when it comes to anti-scientific claims of sacred texts, such as virgin births and six-day creations. Atheist claims are mainly a denial of bad scriptural claims by other humans.

Atheists are misunderstood or caricatured as those who dogmatically close their minds to any theories of how the world began, and what principles are or are not material (such as numbers or souls).

Furthermore, Atheists are caricatured as those with some deep down hatred for parental figures, or who are angry at God, or who only read books by the new atheists, and simply don’t know anything about theology. Now, this certainly describes some. I do think atheists are dogmatic, but this sort of thing is like saying, “Being Christian means you believe God Hates Fags.”

When Atheists turn down these religious deities, do we necessarily replace that with some dogmatic statement? No, absolutely not. Even if a world without gods infers a naturalistic Universe, some Atheists don’t even know what that means. They only know that they don’t believe in all these religions. We need not automatically become naturalists or materialists or any other -ists, besides Atheists – people who don’t believe in the religious myths.

But here’s the kicker. As human beings in public, atheists are dogmatic. We tend to be materialists, naturalists and so forth. We lean toward being liberal. We are certainly a collective of people with similar interests who gather together and sell T-shirts. Realistically, atheism has its own cultural tinge, but that does not define us. To make this argument is similar to saying, “All Mormons are conservative woman-haters.”

Who cares who’s dogmatic? I’m proud of the group, and I’m glad that there’s one on campus where people can get together and share our similarities.

“He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.” Friedrich Nietzsche

I recently heard a student in a Religious Studies class declare that Atheism was, “A pretty bleak way of looking at things – kind of a sad life to live.”

The only interesting thing about this sentence is who’s talking.

I’m willing to play along, though. Atheism has some kind of cultural tinge of being angry and nihilistic (in fact, to try to fit the horrifying ideal of Atheism I am currently crying tears of pain while reading Nietzche in a shower of razor blades and black vinyl while listening to the Cure and hating my parents). We have no reason to give any value to anything, because it is all atomic machinery whose deterministic status renders human life’s value describable in one meaningless word: Poopsack.

So, let’s be open-minded and pretend we’re religious for a moment. Let’s give a good ear to the Buddhas, the Prophets, the Gurus and the Imams and the Priests (and their wive(s), slaves, concubines, boys and other unmentionables) telling us to look beyond this life for answers.

So life is just absolutely stinking skidmark filthy – life is a wretched damned march toward hellfire, life is an illusion filled with suffering, life is a challenge to be met, life is a punishment. Life is a critique of our behavior, life is a period of failed awakening, life is a stretch toward re-incarnation, life is a scapegoat, life is a discarded empty atomic corpse from which blooms the beautiful fiery deadly flower of faith.

In appreciation of our upcoming event (SHAFT presents “Celebrate Your Mind”) your feedback is absolutely crucial:

What is positive about your secular humanist, atheist or free-thinking attitude toward life?

Join us Tuesdays, beginning January 17 from 4:00-4:50, in the lounge in the basement of Old Main.

What are you doing tomorrow?

Actually, I really don’t care. But I’d like to change the subject to how fascinated I am with you for being able to answer whatsoever. No other species has a concept of what the word “tomorrow” actually refers to.

Do you feel special?

And that’s not all you know, smarty-pants. What makes a triangle a triangle? “Well, my good man!” you say, “It’s three straight lines indubitably connecting. Indubitably!” and you chuckle with a mustachioed yawn through a scotch napkin. (For flavor I’m giving you the voice of a rich city snob from 1875).

But while you might think knowing what a triangle is befits any fourth-grader gibbering through a mouthload of Snack Packs – you must not ignore the importance of human rationality. We are the only species which apparently has the ability to conceptualize things such as perfect triangles. Who cares? Well, YOU should, if you’re a Materialist.

How do we explain the existence of rationalism in a material world? What does it mean to be a thoughtful creature, who can perceive of things such as “tomorrow?”

If your response was, “Well, that’s what it means to be human!” then you’re indubitably right.

Please join SHAFT this Spring as we explore materialism through the lens of the intensely cerebral ancient and medieval philosophers, peeking into the fascinating metaphysics of some of the greatest thinkers in history – Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who propose we have “souls” that exist outside of space and time.

To acquaint us with these intriguing ideas and further our understanding, SHAFT is very honored to have the help of Professor Harrison Kleiner this Spring. Those interested in understanding how contemporary thinkers are talking about Atheism, Materialism and the Soul should join the discussion for some valuable insight.

Ric Machuga, who visited USU years ago, argues for the existence of the human soul and a higher meaning for human life than the materialist allows. These indefatigable and contemporary perspectives based on ancient philosophy are problematic for those of us who see ourselves as a function of senseless atomic machinery.

Please join us!

Your response should be, “Indubitably. I’ll keep a bespectacled eye on my pocket-watch, my good man.”

My recent inactivity here notwithstanding, I am still proud of what I and others managed to write for SHAFT this year. Below are the top 15 SHAFT posts of 2011; I think this list compares favorably to last year’s.

Trends in General Conference talks: 1851-2010

The development of LDS temple worship

Gay marriage: A slippery slope to polygamy?

The loneliness of atheism

Jane Manning James: Latter-day Saint and Servant

A gay Mormon’s experience at BYU

Why I like (most) LDS temples

A new focus in the gay rights debate

Two displays of crazy at Sundance

Why it’s probable we live in a simulated reality

Did the Gold Plates exist?

In defense of religious brainwashing

Am I anti-Mormon?

My testimony: A response to Bruce D. Porter

An adult discussion about pornography

William L. Rowe is one of the authors of the textbook we are using in that class. He is a philosopher and atheist and is a professor emeritus at Purdue University. There is an article of his in the book that discusses a few forms of atheism. Rowe points out that there are three ways that an atheist may view the theist. First, “the atheist may believe that no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “unfriendly atheism.” Second, “the atheist may hold no belief concerning whether any theist is or isn’t rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “indifferent atheism.” And last, “the atheist may believe that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “friendly atheism.”

To clarify, it may be good to point out that Rowe does not say that the friendly atheist accepts the theistic belief as true, but merely that the theist is not irrational in his or her beliefs. It may also be good to point out that he is discussing the rationality of religious belief and not the reasonableness of theistic belief. A distinction can be seen in an example: an individual may rack up tons of debt because he/she is planning on winning the lottery to pay it off. Yes these thoughts may in the strictest sense of the word be rational, but they are certainly not reasonable.

But here is where it becomes a little tricky. For in this case, both parties are privy to the same information yet they come to different conclusions. Can both be rationally held? Or must one be irrational by necessity? Rowe believes the former. Another author in a separate article in the book uses an example in science. Can two researchers be studying the same scientific question and come to separate conclusions and both be rational in their decisions? It seems that they can.

Rowe then goes on, “What sort of grounds might a theist have for believing that God exists? Well, he might endeavor to justify his belief by appealing to one or more of the traditional arguments: Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, etc. Second, he might appeal to certain aspects of religious experience… Third, he might try to justify theism as a plausible theory in terms of which we can account for a variety of phenomena.”

Again, it is irrelevant whether or not you believe these arguments to be true, when considering their rationality. Rowe believes that the arguments put forth by theists are false, but he also thinks the arguments can be rationally held by the believer. He would therefore consider himself a friendly atheist, and I am inclined to agree with him at this point. I am still an atheist, but I no longer look at all religious people as morons. Hopefully I didn’t slaughter Rowe’s argument too much in my interpretation. But anyway, I figured I would toss this out to all of you to see what your thoughts were on the matter.

How do you view religious belief? If you are atheist, are you friendly or unfriendly?

But for me, The God Delusion and similar books essentially present atheism as a negation. They leave me feeling like I did when I first abandoned theism: the feeling that something had been lost; that the numinous had been emptied out of the world; that, rather than a newfound freedom to create a new way of living, I now found myself having to conform my beliefs and actions to a strictly rational, materialist worldview, one which seemed little less stifling than the God I had left behind.

It is with that caveat that I mention Hubert Dreyfus’ and Sean Dorrance Kelly’s All Things Shining, published earlier this year. Its project is probably best described as ‘post-theism’: Dreyfus and Kelley attempt to create a secular practice of living—a religion, if you will—where the sacred erupts in moments as diverse as examining an artwork or watching a baseball game.

Part of what makes their argument fascinating is the way it reclaims much of western culture and even religious thinkers for secularism: from Homer to the Gospel of John to Martin Luther, Dreyfus and Kelly draw on theistic thought while giving it a secular, decidedly nontheistic spin—a method I think is preferable and richer than dismissing it all out of hand. The book, based on their popular undergraduate class at Berkeley, is intended for the general readership, and is somewhat cursory in its argument. Despite that limitation, and some quibbles about their interpretations of Nietzsche, I found the book exhilarating—for me, it was the most thought-provoking book I have read on atheism since Martin Hägglund’s.

It also left me wondering, however, if these two strands of atheism—with the ‘post-theism’ of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida on the one hand, and the ‘rational atheism’ of Hume, Russell, and the ‘New Atheists’ on the other—are starry-eyed apples and glowering oranges. Do they merely serving different purposes, or are they actually incommensurable?

What do you think, SHAFT-ers?