RSS

Atheist music: Shelley Segal

This is the single from Shelley Segal’s “An Atheist Album.” I love this, first of all because it is well written and well produced and beautiful. If it were not for these things, I would never give it a second listen.

But beyond that, I think it is a great thing to have atheists out there expressing their thoughts in ways other than cerebral scientific or philosophical discourse. This song is not an argument for atheism, it is an expression of what it is like to live as an atheist in a religious society. I think I like this most of all because as both an atheist and a woman, I identify with what she is saying.

If you are interested in hearing more, “An Atheist Album” can be found on Amazon and iTunes. If you like this song, you will love the rest of the album.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 15, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Lasik one week later…

It has now been a week and a couple of days since my Lasik eye surgery. My vision has sharpened up a lot by now, and I do not think I will need glasses even for driving. Driving and focusing on street signs does not make my head hurt any more. I still see halos around lights, especially around the headlights of oncoming cars, and from what I hear it may be a permanent effect. However, it is tolerable, and I can still drive at night without problems.

Right now my eyes are itchy and watery and sensitive to light. Those symptoms just started on Friday though…I wonder if I should take a pill for allergies?

EDIT: My eyes feel better after showering. Still rather sensitive to bright light though. I think that’s normal.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 15, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Congratulations to Jessica Ahlquist

I can hardly imagine the pluck and bravery of this young woman. Especially in high school, where such action can and does result in serious social consequences, there are still people out there who put themselves on the line to defend their values.

In this case, she called on the ACLU to challenge the unquestionably sectarian “School Prayer” posted on the walls of her high school.

Seriously, schools should stick to education and not erect religious barriers up between the students. Nothing says “you are just not one of us” like a declaration that your school promotes a religion you don’t believe in. And every student deserves to belong in their own school. And, yes, it is unconstitutional for schools to give endorsement to religion, for good reason.

Ahlquist said she is proud of her decision to fight for what she felt was right.

“Even if kids in school hate you, even if there are nasty comments all over the Internet, it’s important to just stand true to what you believe in,” Ahlquist said.

From: Student who challenged Prayer Banner speaks out

If you appreciate this young woman as much as I do, you can show your support in a concrete way by contributing to Jessica’s scholarship fund.

EDIT: Actually, as the ChipIn widget does not show properly on my blog, here is a better link for Jessica’s scholarship fund: A fundraiser for Jessica Ahlquist

Related articles

 
3 Comments

Posted by on January 12, 2012 in Activism, Atheism

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“Has Obama waged a war on religion?: NPR”

I found this NPR story posted on a friend’s wall in Facebook today, and though I’d pass it on. In light of recent blog posts and discussions on the state of religious rights in the United States, I think this is quite relevant. As typical, NPR takes a middle ground and is quite respectful to the religious and secular views expressed.

Staver says as rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people make gains, religious conservatives are having to set aside their convictions. A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations. A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding. Staver says these people aren’t trying to impose their religious views on others.

“What people of faith don’t want to do, however, is be forced to participate in something that literally cuts to the very core of their belief.”

Boston says of course religious believers want to impose their views on the world — witness the fight against same-sex marriage. But he says under the law, people can’t discriminate based on their religious beliefs, any more than a restaurant owner can cite the Bible in refusing to serve black customers. He says the solution is simple.

“If you don’t want to serve the public, don’t open a business saying you will serve the public.”

I think Boston has it right. Religious people have every right to make their own choices regarding who they will marry, whether or not they would have an abortion in any given circumstance, whether they will take birth control, and so on. What they don’t get to do is make these choices for other people who may or may not share their convictions. Especially At least not with the blessing and funding of our secular government (what you do in your personal life is your business).

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion

 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 9, 2012 in abortion, Activism, Atheism

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Lasik is a bizarre experience

As readers of my blog know by now, I had Lasik eye surgery last Thursday afternoon. It was a bizarre, and rather scary experience at times. In first stage of the actual surgery, a cold-looking machine pressed down uncomfortably on my eyes, one at a time, causing me to go temporarily blind in each eye in turn with the ultimate goal of improving my vision. While the nurses encouraged me and told me “only 5 seconds to go” I concentrated on my breathing and watched the multicolored glittery spots which danced in my field of vision.

After that part was done, the nurse lead me into another room with a “Warning: Laser” sign on the door. In that room I saw the strangest light show ever when the doctor burned bits of my cornea with the laser and I could smell a stench like hair burning in the process. I had no pain in the process since my eye was numbed by the anesthetic eye drops they had put in my eyes during surgery prep, though I was completely conscious the entire time. All I needed to do was watch that green light–even when it fuzzed out so much that I could barely see it and all I could do try to look straight ahead.

LASIK

Even with newly burnt eyes and very cloudy vision, I could see the improvements in my sight as soon as I sat up. I could actually see a vague outline of the objects and people in the room, where before I would see mostly an indistinct blur of colors. According to the post-op instructions, I laid back and kept my eyes closed for about 6 hours after the operation, though I could open my eyes briefly to see where I was going when I needed to get up. There was some pain and discomfort after the numbing drops wore off, but a bit of Tylenol took care of that. And when I woke up the next morning, laying on my back and wearing the provided eye shield (to prevent my accidentally rubbing my eyes in my sleep), I was actually able to read my alarm clock without grabbing for glasses.

At every step of the process I was keenly aware that this was a total commitment I was making. The changes being made to my eyes were permanent and there was no going back. I am not completely though the process even now. I have a regiment of three types of eye drops that I need to use four times a day until Tuesday: a moisturizing drop, a steroid drop, and an antibiotic. I am not supposed to use a hot tub or a jacuzzi for a couple of weeks, so I am avoiding the temptation of our jacuzzi bathtub for now. My optometrist says my vision may not completely stabilize for about a week, even though I was able to work at my job with still slightly cloudy vision the day after surgery. At this point, I am actually seeing quite well, even though objects far in the distance are still slightly out of focus, I have a very slight smudge or “ghost image” on objects viewed though my left eye, and I see large halos around car headlights and other bright lights.

Still, even in the process of healing, the my new ability to go throughout my daily activities without the glasses or contacts is simply amazing.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 7, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why I am an Atheist: The superfluousness of the soul

Souls

It’s perfectly natural to think of ourselves as something separate from our bodies. I’d bet that a major factor in the starting of religions thousands of years ago was the uncanny sense that we each have a “self” floating somewhere behind our eyes. Surely our vast range of emotions, mental capacity to contemplate the universe, empathy and communication with other people, and the whole of our personalities are evidence of a special spark of the supernatural inside each of us that goes beyond what is possible in the mere physical world.

Yet, even before I gave up my belief in Christianity, I concluded that the whole concept of the soul was totally superfluous.

A number of things that I learned in my college classes regarding philosophy and psychology caused me to question the existence of immortal and immaterial souls. It was in a class on psychology at my Nazarene University that I was first exposed to the concept that some people think that the mind is identical to the brain, with no soul needed. Being that this was a Christian university, the idea was quickly glossed over and was apparently only mentioned for completeness, but the idea stuck with me. It shocked me.

The same semester, in an introductory philosophy class, we discussed Descartes and the ways he tried to figure out how an immaterial soul could influence a physical body. Descartes thought that the soul interacted with the body though the penial gland. Everyone in the class thought this was funny, but the question was interesting. And it got me thinking: How would an immaterial soul interact with an influence human flesh? Did it even make sense at all?

Back in Psychology, the professor had the class watch a video recreation of the story of Phineas Gage. This particular event sticks out in my memory, not least because one of the students in the class fainted when the metal bar shot though Gage’s head up through his cheek and out the top of his head. (The prof warned us this could happen, and had happened before. I heard this was the last time he showed the video in class.) The most amazing thing about the Phineas Gage story is not that he survived, and was conscious and coherent even in the minutes right after the rod blew through his brain. It was the way this injury totally and irrevocably changed his personality and his character (though I have also read since that the changes were not fully documented and may have been exaggerated). If both his personality and character changed due to a physical injury, that must mean those things are contained in the brain and not in an immaterial soul.

And it’s not just Phineas Gage, but look at all the people who take drugs that affect mood, personality, and a range of other mental characteristics. What about people who lose their memories due to a blow to the head? Assuming there were an immortal soul, does that mean that when we die we lose all of our memory since memory is stored in the brain and dies along with our body? If an immortal soul lives on, but without our memories or personality, then what would that even mean? Would that thing that survived my death even be me at all?

What about animals? It’s clear that our mammalian relatives have emotions and personality. Chimps, for example, have been observed to show compassion and empathy towards one another and even at times towards members of other species — impulses once thought to be the domain of humankind alone. Yet I still hear from time to time that the thing that separates humans from animals is that we have souls, and they do not. What sense does it make to try to prove our uniqueness by claiming that they don’t have something that we cannot even clearly define or prove we have ourselves?

I mentioned above that I stopped believing in immaterial souls while I still was a Christian, which may be puzzling to some of my readers. But the thing is, Christianity has never had a hard-line, consistent, explanation of what is supposed to happen to our soul after we die. Some Christians believe that the soul goes directly to heaven or hell after death. But others believe that after you die, you “sleep” until the resurrection at the end of time. So when I no longer believed in the soul, the second option made the most sense to me. However, I eventually gave up all those beliefs using the same type of reasoning that lead me to doubt the soul.

I think that the concept of the soul is a wonderful metaphor for who we are inside, even if I don’t believe such a thing literally exists. We can use the concept of the soul just like astronomers use constellations, even though the stars that make up these shapes really have nothing to do with each other. There is not really a lion in the night sky, or a hunter, or a bull. Constellations are intuitive and useful, even if not actually real. Such it is with the soul.

My disbelief in the soul did not directly lead me to atheism, but it was a step in that direction. The same method of thinking that lead me to conclude that the soul is superfluous and probably made up was the same type of thinking that lead me to conclude the same about God.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 7, 2012 in Atheism, Why I am an atheist.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lasik Update

Now the Lasik is over, and I would have to say it worked! Right now my vision seems about the same as what it was with contacts, though still a little bit cloudy. That is normal since my cornea is still healing and it may persist a couple of days. The cloudiness makes it difficult for me to judge the clarity of my distance vision though. I have a checkup with my optometrist at 4:00 today to see just how effective the procedure was.

I’ll write a more thorough post about my experience soon.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 6, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Lasik

Today’s the day! I am going to the doctor to have Lasik eye surgery in about one hour from now. I am very excited and also every nervous (though not really any more nervous than in the minutes before giving a speech.)

Basically, they are going to cut back a flap on my cornea, reshape the under-layers of my cornea with a laser, and then put the flap back and tell me to close my eyes for about six hours. Here’s hoping this goes well! If so, it will be the first time since I was eight years old that I have not depended heavily on glasses for every everyday activity.

I’ll report back when I am able to open my eyes again.

The laser cutting the corneal flap.
 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 5, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Answering “A Christian’s Response to Homosexuality”

From http://lifeofafemalebiblewarrior.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/a-christians-response-to-homosexuality/

There are three passages in the Old Testament (Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13) and three in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10) that have traditionally been read as prohibiting homosexuality.

In this post, I will look up each of these passages and give my own response, followed by a general conclusion at the end. Like I have made clear in my post Why I am an Atheist: Secular Morality vs. Divine Command, I do not give any credence whatsoever to Biblical authority on anything much less morality. However, given that I am interested in what Christians believe due to my early immersion in the religion, and the fact that these controversies are affecting people’s lives even today, I feel a desire to respond.

Gen. 19: 1-13: I see no prohibition about homosexuality here. Maybe only a prohibition about allowing guests who have entered your home to be gang raped by a mob. But then, Lot seems to have little scruple about sending his virgin daughters out to be raped instead (I guess he felt he would have to send out someone?) I see this not as a message to modern Christians that homosexuality is immoral, but a message to everyone today that the morality in the Bible is just plain twisted.

Lev 18:22: This is an Old Testament law against male homosexuality (it says “do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman”) though I notice it says nothing about lesbians.  Couched right between the rules against adultery and bestiality.

Lev 20:13: Essential the same as Lev 18:22, but with slightly different wording. And followed by specific instructions not to sleep with animals, see their siblings naked, or “take” their brother’s wife (Though wasn’t there a rule requiring the brother to sleep with his deceased brothers widow so the deceased brother would have an heir? I’ll have to look that up later…).

Rom. 1:26-27: Really not sure how to interpret this one. It sounds like it says God made people gay because they were degenerate sinners? I just have to quote the whole passage here… I remember this passage from Bible quizzing, but come to think about it I’m not even sure who Paul is talking about, unless it is just people who don’t believe in what he is preaching. But that doesn’t make much sense because being an unbeliever does not cause one to be attracted to members of the same sex. It sounds like just an inflammatory rant against those who didn’t believe his message. Not only are the disbelievers gay, but also they lack all natural affection, and are generally evil.

1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And it also seems strange that Paul would condemn homosexuality as “unnatural” when he also said that the “natural man” was evil.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul lists below those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (presumed to mean, these people don’t go to heaven? The phrase “kingdom of God” is not really defined very well anywhere in the Bible.)  Besides, what does it mean “effeminate”? Some people have translated this as “homosexual” but I have to wonder if this is due to their own prejudice more than what the word actually means. Perhaps an “effeminate” man doesn’t fit into the clear-cut gender roles required by Paul’s Christianity? Similarly, I don’t get what “abusers of themselves with mankind” is supposed to mean either and if this has anything to do with homosexuality or not. I’ve heard masturbation referred to as “self-abuse” but I see it as no such thing. Could Paul’s ickyness towards sex be what is really being revealed here?

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I Tim. 1:10: Meh, pretty much more of the same…lumping gays (I guess) in with sinners, murderers, and menstealers (??).

1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

From what I can see here, it looks like the Old Testament law prohibited homosexuality, along with other abominations like the eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12) and the wearing of mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19). These laws should be irrelevant to the modern Christian since they are supposedly no longer under the Old Testament law. Or so I have heard. As for the New Testament passages (All coming from the same person in fact, assuming that letters to Timothy are not forgeries as suspected by many scholars.) I don’t see much here besides Paul’s distaste towards sex, especially when coupled with his admonition to his followers that it is better for them to be celibate and not to marry. (1 Corinthians 7)

In conclusion, regarding gay marriage, I see nothing in the Bible prohibiting it at least for modern-day Christians who are supposedly no longer “under the law” as Paul put it. I see assumptions but no declarations that marriage is between men and women. Though if you really look at the Bible, this “one man, one woman” notion is scarcely to be found. Also there is nothing saying that other sexual “sinners” like fornicators or adulterers should be restricted from marrying or doing anything else really. Regarding Paul’s libelous lumping in homosexuals with murderers, liars, and other sorts of seedy people, I only see his own prejudice and ever more reason why notions of “Biblical authority” should be tossed into the historical trash-bin of really bad ideas.

EDIT: I have been trying very hard not to edit posts after I have already published, because I always seem to think of one more thing to say after I have published. But it’s a point I have to make:

NONE of these passages that speak badly of homosexuals or lumps gayness in with murder and lying has anything to do with Jesus, or was attributed to Jesus. They were all either Old Testament passages or were written (or at least attributed) to Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh and only made a very untestable claim to have had a vision of Jesus. 

And now I will go back to my intention to make no further edits to posts after publishing.

 
12 Comments

Posted by on January 1, 2012 in Atheism, Morality

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Happy New Year!

There is nothing really special about New Year’s day. We add 1 to the number that represents the year, life goes on, and somewhere around March we start writing the dates correctly on our checks. (Assuming we still write checks :) ). But regardless of the total arbitrariness of the day, it is still a great time to reflect on the past 12 months and make plans and goals for the next.
Here I have listed a few of my reflections on the past year, and my goals and aspirations for the next.

Highlights of 2011:

  • Record attendance at the best American Atheists convention ever, at which my husband and I signed on as life members.
    English: The American Atheists atom symbol wit...
  • My first time to attend Skepticon!
  • Kentucky Secular Society was granted official non-profit status from the IRS (even after some rather humourous questions in their letter requesting further information).
  • For the first time, we hosted the family Thanksgiving at my house, and I roasted my first turkey. And was very pleased with how it turned out. :-)
  • And, of course, the word did not end nor did the rapture happen, much to the disappointment of the followers of Harold Camping.

My Goals and Aspirations for 2012:
  • Getting my vision corrected with Lasik in January! For once I will be able to see clearly as soon as my eyes open in the morning. That is something I have not had since before I was eight years old, and I am excited.
  • Attend the Reason Rally in March!
  • Attend Skepticon V.
  • Continue to write more in the blog. For most of 2011 I neglected to write much of anything, but I have started to turn this around in December. I intend to continue to write frequently using series such as “Why I am an Atheist” and in dialogue with other bloggers such as The Warrioress.
  • In general to focus more on the positive and uplifting in my inner thought life, and less on the negative.

Here’s to a happy, sucessful, prosperous, godless New Year!

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 31, 2011 in Meaningfulness

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 285 other followers