Children in Nigeria Victims of Superstition

In a small village in Nigeria, a little boy of 5 years of age is frightened and confused. His mother and father have abandoned him; their normally loving embrace will never be felt again. The other villagers are angry, and some of them throw stones at him. He does not cry. Part of him has accepted his fate, and the dejection of his loved ones is enough to make the boy numb. The only question in his mind is how all of this is happening, and whether or not it’s simply just a bad dream.

If you’ve ever thought that human superstitions were quaint and amusing, this is due to the fact that in your society, science has unmasked superstitions and showed how foolish and silly they are. No one takes the idea of throwing salt over their shoulder for good luck seriously, any more than we avoid black cats. But in places like Nigeria, superstition is a powerful force that still dominates their lives. It is made worst by the fact that the fears they trigger is being used by powerful evangelical ministers to gain power and wealth. The victims are little children who are often tortured, abandoned, and sometimes killed.

Their tactic is simple: by accusing children of witchcraft, a minister offers his expensive services to excise them. Often, however, when the parents can ill afford the treatment, their fear turns them from caring parents into brutal murderers. Some of these preachers have become extraordinary wealthy doing this. All of them have the blood of the innocent on their hands.

It’s difficult enough to watch as whole villages turn on innocent children without seeing the long term affects. Many of the children, even when they do find a home, look despondent and scared. Their childhood has been savagely ripped away, leaving sorrow, despair and unhappiness.

A little while ago, we did a podcast on the subject, but a fan of the site thought it necessary to remind me that this was still going on. I felt it should be mention it again, if only to encourage those generous few to donate to an organization called Stepping Stones Nigeria which takes in these abandoned children who would otherwise be turned into slaves, or simply raped and killed. I don’t normally ask this of anyone, but its far too shocking to do nothing.

I’ve heard it be said that atheists are less generous than their religious counterparts. I think this untrue. I encourage you to help out this worthy organization, and if you have Christian friends, make them understand that their savior is being used to justify torture and death. If they feel even half the outrage that I do, hopefully it will match their generosity.

Hello, I’m an Idiot…

Christian Apologists make me sick

Question: The Old Testament quite clearly states that the Israelites were ordered by God to kill the Canaanites. Ever man, woman and child was to be slaughtered. If this story is historical truth, and God really did issue this command, is he not then admonishing genocide?

This is the very same question asked of Dr. Willian Craig, a research professor of Philosophy and the proud owner of ReasonableFaith.org. If you’re unfamiliar with what Christian apologists do, think of it as an entire field of theology intended to try and explain away some of the most troubling aspects of the bible. It’s not an easy job, but some feel compelled to try.

Dr. Craig’s answer is long winded, so I thought I might boil it down to the fundamental quotes:

…God doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to fulfill.  He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.  For example, I have no right to take an innocent life.  For me to do so would be murder.  But God has no such prohibition.  He can give and take life as He chooses. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second.  If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit.  How long they live and when they die is up to Him.

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives.  The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them.  Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder?  No, it’s not.  Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.  The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

If you think this sounds dangerously like admonishing the acts of delusional people who think that God is commanding them to commit genocide, it’s not the end of the argument.

Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad?  Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith…By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just [sic] judgement upon those peoples.  The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism!  War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith…The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God.

Now isn’t that convenient? Islam fundamentalists were only wrong for flying planes into the World Trade Center because they had the wrong God. Silly me; here I had the delusion that acts of murder and genocide were universally bad.

Environmentalism is not a Religion

(This is a response to this video)

Imagine every Nobel winning scientists went on record to say that a giant asteroid was headed for planet Earth, and that in 30 years, it would impact, killing all life on the planet. How many people would go on television and say that more data needed to be collected before we took action? How many would claim that asteroid impacts are a natural part of the Earth’s history and not an issue for concern.None obviously. Humanity would more than likely unite to avoid this catastrophe, pouring money, time and effort into the endeavor. I doubt any governments would be concerned over the loss of jobs or the economy when faced with the prospect of instant annihilation.

Global warming isn’t as dramatic as this example. It’s also highly unlikely that it would wipe out all life on this planet. But there is reason for great concern. The fact that the changes are gradual and slow undermines the fact that the long term impacts may be devastating.

I’ve heard the accusation from climate change deniers for years now that environmentalism is akin to religious dogmatism. It’s true that for some, there is a sort of primitive Shinto like mysticism that creeps into the discussion on global warming. But to characterize the entire movement as little more than religious indoctrination is doing a giant disservice to all of the science done on the subject for over 30 years.

Nature worship is nothing new. Even without the modern environmental movement, there have always been individuals that place great emphasis on the importance of the natural world in the continued prosperity of mankind. There’s an almost surreal power an elegance to it, and it’s not unheard of for scientists to wax poetic on its beauty. But it would be unfair to accuse this of resembling religion, simply because the information we have concerning global warming is the result of solid scientific data and not romanticism.

Climate change deniers like to point out that the earth’s average temperature is always in a state of flux. We’ve had countless periods of warming and cooling in the long history of the planet, and their argument is that we are simply experiencing a natural warming of the environment because of these cycles. It sounds logical, but this is assuming that the natural world resembles what it has in the past. You need only look out your window to know that human beings have had a considerable impact on changing the face of the Earth, and that it hasn’t been without consequence.

How much of an impact is still a matter of debate, but there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is a direct result of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity. It’s only difficult for some to believe because of the seemingly massive size of the planet. How, they ask, could we have any impact if the Earth is just so big?

How important are greenhouse gases?

Carl Sagan said that if the earth was the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be no thicker than a coat of varnish. This thin layer is all that stands between us and the cold regions of space. To know how significant such a thin atmosphere is, one need only look at our two neighboring planets to understand just how important that “coat of varnish” really is.

Consider Mars. Although it’s less than a third of the mass of the Earth, at one point in time Mars looked somewhat similar to our own planet. We know for a fact that it had water canals and an atmosphere similar to ours. The gravity of the planet, and the lack of a magnetosphere, however, was not enough to keep the atmosphere of Mars from gradually fading off into space, and the result is the cold dead planet we see today. Although an atmosphere does still exists, there is too little to keep any much warmth, and the result are wild fluctuations in temperature. It can go from lows of minus -150 to 20 degrees Celsius.

Venus, on the other hand, is more closely resembles the earth in both density and size, but is a far more alien world that Mars, due mostly to it’s unique atmosphere which is 92 times more dense than ours. The pressure on the surface is massive; the same were we 1 kilometer deep in water. It’s made mostly of carbon dioxide, which is a major greenhouse gas. It’s this gas that allows the planet to reach temperatures of over 460 degree Celsius, more than double the heat that a modern stove can produce. The surface of Venus is hot enough that there is no water, and it’s rocky surface is always semi-molten.

These two planet’s temperatures are extreme compared to ours, but their relative distance from the sun is less important that the combination of the density of their atmospheres, and the amount of greenhouse gases they possess.

Although it’s true that carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere is in constant flux, we do know that it has never been higher than in any other time in Earth’s history (we know this because of ice samples in the arctic dating back millions of years). The conclusion that this is the result of human activity can be made simply due to the level of carbon being burned and released in the atmosphere every day.

It’s not enough to convince Ian Plimer, however. Apparently, all scientific data concerning climate change is simply the result of dogmatism, and not serious analysis and observation. This professor is convinced that the warming of the earth actually represents a boon to us, citing that warmer climate typically means a greater abundance of life. What he fails to realize is that previous climate changes have occurred more gradually, and it is the sudden change that is so concerning. Many animal species are dying because the changes are happening faster than they can adapt.

It would be naive to assume, even if these changes did not lead to a global catastrophe, that humans would remain unaffected. Although I don’t deny that there has been a great deal of fear mongering on the part of some environmentalists, it’s important to note that the major scientists that have been discussing it are relying on the strength of their data, and not on a quasi religious paradigm. There are fanatics that would use concern over the environment to promote their own agenda, but it does not mean that the data itself is fabricated. It simply means that the consequences are massive enough to warrant action.

I personally find it insulting that someone would compare belief in climate change to religion. Climate researchers are not clergymen trying to promote a specific agenda. This belies the work of serious scientists that search for answers in nature, and it undermines the serious skepticism and probing that is still occurring. It’s true that we are having a difficult time predicting what the effects of Global Warming will be. It could be catastrophic or benign. But it’s now reached a point where we are aware that not only is it happening, but that we are the cause. It would seem foolish to think that the impact will be only benign, and the call to action of these scientists is specifically to avoid complacency in the face of the potential for disaster.

It seems to me reasonable to assume that any major changes to the temperature of the Earth may have dire consequences. If this means that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, we have to consider the ramifications of our inaction.

I do want to say one last thing concerning environmentalism that Ian Pilmer touched on. There are some that have created a kind of nature cult. You can see these people living in mud huts and using their own feces to grow crops. These are members of society that want a complete and immediate change in the way we live our lives. They revere nature and find anything man-made deplorable. I don’t suggest we live as they do. I firmly believe that we have the ability to find technological solutions to this problem, and I believer in the power of innovation. But these cultists are right about one thing: we do need to change the way we live, otherwise, there is the chance that the change will be made for us.

On The Need for a Strong Atheist Community

I’ve written on the subject of an organized atheist movement for years now. The responce so far, overwhelmingly from many atheists, is that such a movement would violate the notion that atheism is not a religion, but rather a particular viewpoint about the non existence God. Over this same period of time, however, a number of individuals have emailed me expressing their feelings of isolation and loneliness at not being able to share their world view with others. It has convinced me that there the idea of forming a community is not such a foolish idea.

It is my belief that human beings have a need to be understood. The way we typically achieve this is to make friends or lovers that share many of the same beliefs and ideas we do. The knowledge that we are not alone in thinking the way we do is what makes us feel a connection with others. It is as though these shared thoughts prevent us from feeling as though we are prisoners in our own minds.

It is partially this need that drives some to search for God. The idea that a supreme being can know even our most intimate thoughts brings not only comfort and stability, but a sense of permanence about our existence.

Although it is tempting for many to search for this connection through the concept of God, for many others, this belief is simply not enough. After all, the relationship goes only one way: we may feel that God knows our mind, we can never know his. The comfort that God brings to some does not inherently make it real. If I wanted desperately to be rich, it would not change the fact that I am poor.

Those of us who abstain from the belief in God find company and comfort in the physical world we inhabit. Rather than look to the supernatural for comfort and meaning, we find our place in the world with the knowledge that there is nothing  special or unique about our existence.

It is true that this belief can sometimes lead to a type of nihilism. I have met atheists who felt that the lack of inherent meaning and the impermanence of all things meant that there was no real reason to their existence. But this was not the way the majority of atheists I have met and talked to believe. Instead, when I sat down and talked to them, they explained to me that the realization the the brief time they have on earth compels them to make the most out of it. While religious folks might be obsessed about their “after lives”, they in turn wanted their present ones to be more meaningful and fulfilling. In other words, they recognized that they only had one shot, and wanted to make the most of it.

Sometimes though, the desire to make the most of life can be curtailed by the painful realities of the world around us. The atheists that have written to me about the loneliness and isolation they feel are often treated as outcasts of society. The failure of society to make these individuals welcome is exactly why an organized community of atheists is so important. To state otherwise would be to forget that like their religious counterparts, the need to feel like a part of something greater than yourself is still a part of the human experience.

I realize that even as I write this, I will be bombarded with emails and comments about how institutionalizing atheism is a terrible idea. I do not pretend to do anything like that. There is no atheism dogma to spread, or atheist ideals to preach. But it’s not at all about that. It’s about reaching out to people that feel alone. If religious beliefs are not needed to act out of kindness for our fellow man, what is so wrong about other atheist making a conscious effort to organize?

There is a naive tenancy to believe that atheism is an inevitable conclusion that educated and liberal minds will automatically derive. After all, it’s clear that the Universe needs no divine hand, and that nature is not the product of a designer. But if the only opportunity for human beings looking to make a connection with others is by joining a church and subscribing to religion, then we cannot be surprised when truth is replaced with comfort. After all, Atheists are a minority specifically because they offer nothing but the cold implacable truth.

We need to offer more, not only for people that may doubt the existence of God and fear becoming isolated themselves, but also for those already feeling that isolation. Although atheism is not a philosophy, the conclusion that there is no God makes us all humanists, since the measuring stick for good and evil becomes man-made. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that our ethics and morality be just and equitable in a Universe that cares little for such a concepts.

The idea that we are all better left on our own devises ignores the fundamental truth that we are social creatures that have the desire to be understood and cared for. Although I don’t yet pretend to understand how an atheist community would look like, I can say with conviction that it must conform the the highest standards of ethics and morality; far beyond those claimed by religion. It is my hope that I can convince others that such an undertaking is both positive and needed, and my hope that by opening a dialog on the subject, we can begin to create a community that anyone can be proud of.

Arkansas Gays Lose Battle to Keep Adopted Children

Many of you might be wondering why, in the past few days,. I’ve been writing as much as I have on gay rights. Although it’s true that the site is primarily about atheism, my reaction to the blatant and shocking disregard for this minority obliges me to continue to write on their behalf.

Unbeknown to most of us, the election was not only about voting in a new president. It was also an opportunity for conservative groups Arkansas to pass through legislation that makes it illegal for homosexual couples to adopt children. It also means that  all adopted kids now with these couples will be removed from their current homes and placed into foster care.

The state has one of the lowest adoption rate in the country, and it’s likely that these children will not find homes, and will instead be hopelessly lost in the system for the rest of their lives.

I am still baffled at how heartless and savage the so called “moral majority” can be. It’s obvious that their hatred for homosexuals runs so deep, they are willing to break up happy families to satisfy their ignorant belief that only “mother-father” homes are healthy. It’s been proven time and time again that this has little if nothing to do with how happy and healthy a child grows up. They just don’t seem to care about the truth.

Of course, that religious people refuse to listen to reason is nothing new. What is shocking is how easily everyone seems to accept these laws when they are passed democratically. As i wrote in my article “When Democracy isn’t Democratic“, it’s time that we re-examine the constitutionality of being able to vote away the existing rights of individuals.

It looks to me as that the increased power and mobility of religious groups has begun to erode the rights of homosexuals, and I’m inclined to believe that this is only the beginning for them. The growing religiosity of Americans is a frightening new realty, and it’s consequences could be devastating. Consider how close they were to having an ignorant, under qualified Vice President (and potential president with the foreseeable death of John McCain) who’s fundamentalist ties are well documented.

If this were a war, I would say that with each battle, the left has been taking heavy casualties with no clear sign of a victory on the horizon. In a world where religious beliefs cannot be questioned, it becomes an invincible armor that cannot be pierced. In a fight, we cannot allow this blanket immunity to cloud the issue. The right has been allowed a free ticket to prosecute minorities under the banner of “faith”. I’ve had enough. Have you?