tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57892165238908175192024-03-13T05:08:56.062-07:00Atheist MoralityThe question of morality does not have to be answered by religion, despite the contentions by theists that every law must have a "law giver." In this blog I will explain why this is not true, periodically post interesting moral questions and show ways in which morality can be taught without the presence of a divine creator.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-88256950938927892722013-04-04T08:53:00.001-07:002013-04-04T08:53:18.413-07:00This May Seem Drastic, But I'm Leaving Blogger.I tried importing comments to Disqus and Blogger just doesn't play nice. I've long hated Blogger's comment section, it's strange nesting of replies, the fact that it's java script and won't allow direct replies on mobile devices and the inability to allow hot links in comments. Importing to Disqus kept failing, so, impatient as I am, I've decided to move back to WordPress.<br />
<br />
I will keep this blog up for posterity, but the posts and comments seem to have imported over to the new site in mere minutes with no problems at all. Please update your blogrolls and rss feeds and tell your friends!<br />
<br />
I am proud to present:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://westcoastatheist.wordpress.com/">West Coast Atheist, by Tkmlac</a></span></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Hope to see you all there!<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-63945136829266894692013-04-04T06:46:00.002-07:002013-04-04T06:46:27.143-07:00DisqusI've decided I'm going to attempt to convert the comment section to Disqus. I don't know what results I'll get when I try to import all the comments into the Disqus system. Could be bad, could be good. I can only wait and see and hope that all our comments and replies remain intact. If not, I'll go from there and figure out what to do next. Here goes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-6257534650489999932013-04-02T18:40:00.001-07:002013-04-02T18:40:19.536-07:00Thirty-Two Days Left To Raise Ninety-Eight Dollars!If you feel so obliged, hop on over to my <a href="http://main.diabetes.org/goto/kagraham">Tour de Cure page</a> to donate to my fundraiser for the American Diabetes Association. I'm just under $100 from my goal of raising $500. You will get the opportunity to see me in a YouTube video trying to rap one of my favorite songs if I reach my goal.<br />
<br />
I'll be riding the ten-mile course on May 4th! I'm riding in honor of my dad who has had type-2 diabetes since I was ten years old.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-40297584033319304912013-04-02T10:52:00.002-07:002013-04-02T10:52:45.105-07:00More on Civility. I'm really liking what I'm seeing at Ellen Beth Wach's blog. People are being met on a level of discourse and reasonableness I have rarely seen in the FtB forums. With each new comment, I'm afraid the other shoe will drop and someone will start in with the "die in a fire, you misogynist, cis-gendered white male!" but so far, both sides are being met rationally when they disagree on points.<br />
<br />
This is the kind of conversations we should have been having all along. People are willing to admit mistakes, clarify their position, are encouraged to back up their arguments. It's really great to see and I really hope it lasts. Ellen Beth seems to be really making an effort to shed the poisonous attack-style call-out culture that many (including myself at times) have participated in.<br />
<br />
I'd like to see parties make some formal apologies with some specifics, but I'm not completely holding my breath. I would even accept a general, "I apologize for any way that I've contributed to the break-down of rational discourse, call-out culture, ridicule or personal attacks on people who don't share the same views as me on certain issues. From here on out, I will try my best to cool my head and address disagreements with conflict resolution in mind." In fact, consider that <i>my </i>apology.<br />
<br />
Also, if some of us slip back into old behavior (which I know I do), I'd like that to be pointed out with reasonable politeness, too, and not treated as the nail in the coffin on someone's character. We should be encouraging people to change their behaviors and admit mistakes, not slamming them every time they blunder.<br />
<br />
That's not to say that we should be afraid of what we say. Sometimes friendly jabs are warranted, but they should never be used as arguments against the other person's position. Some could do well to grow a bit thicker skin while others could learn to better clarify the intent of their humor.<br />
<br />
I really related to <a href="http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2013-04-an-open-letter-to-the-secular-community">this</a> that was just put out by the American Humanist Association.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-91667713889341856632013-04-01T14:30:00.001-07:002013-04-01T15:03:05.829-07:00A New Leaf? Updated<b>EDIT!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Cool! She answered me and approved my comment. I'm still a little careful about what I'm saying because she felt I was "veering into derailment territory," which was not my intention at all. It's actually really, really refreshing to see someone open up to discussion on the topic of civility in comments. Baby steps. I hope Michael Nugent is watching! I know he's trying to create a place for common ground right now, too. It's all so fragile right now, but if we get some people opening up dialogue without fear of being slammed, maybe we can finally have some peace.<br />
<br />
Original post: posted at 2:30<br />
<br />
EllenBeth Wachs put a post up about her experience being hammered by the commenters on FtB. I've tried to comment, but my comments keep getting lost in moderation, so I'm going to copy and paste it here, for posterity. I don't know why I'm being moderated and other people aren't, so it's hard for me to see this as genuine if she's purposely restricting what I can say, but I'll go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is something wrong with Wordpress.<br />
<br />
Here's my comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I was trying not to have to use my old wordpress account to comment, but it seems that avoiding such has lost my comment to the ether. I had a bad feeling about it (wordpress is weird like that, hence why I don’t use it anymore), so I’ll just copy/pasta it here. My comment sought to clarify some things that you may have, in the past, felt were attacks on women. I hope to hear your thoughts.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Original comment:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EllenBeth,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The very treatment you received has been what most in the slymepit and on twitter have been complaining about. It started with Steph McGraw being called out unprofessionally by Rebecca Watson at a conference as we all know. This same treatment you describe is the similar to the attacks on Sara Mayhew, which iirc, you supported Hensley and Roth for doing. I’m not here to bash you for that, just pointing out that you could be seen as an active participant. I want to clarify for you some positions that the “anit-ftb slymepitter” (as we are all now known, whether we’ve been to the slymepit or not) crowd has taken.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Some in the slymepit make really crude jokes and photoshops. You’re right, it’s not valid criticism but I don’t think those that participate in it believe it is.The photoshoppers were mainly doing it to push buttons because the concentration on what words one can and can’t use was so ridiculous and so against the idea of free speech that is ingrained in our culture. They were pushing the envelope, so to speak, just to show they could. Does that make it right or wrong? I don’t think there’s an easy answer. What it was was a protest against ideologues who wanted to shut down and silence any debate about it. You’re going to feel about it how you’re going to feel and that’s okay, I’m just trying to provide a perspective you might not have considered, before I move on to my next point.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Rape threats and name-calling on twitter is not okay. The slymepit never said it was. What we know from being on the internet is that there are some vicious douchebags out there who have no problem backing up their arguments with “I should give you my dick. You’d like it, you dirty whore.” I get it from Creationists all the damn time. I don’t consider them valid threats. Most of us there would probably agree that the best tactic we’ve found for addressing these trolls is to block, report for spam and ignore them. This was the point that was being made when we started getting told we were “rape apologists” and being banned from continuing discussion further. There was no difference between the way the trolls were being treated and the way people with honest opinions and arguments were being treated. I hope you’ll take another look at what they’ve done to Justin Vacula for an excellent example.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The very existence of these trolls and photoshoppers was an excuse to disregard anyone with any criticism against your friends. Rebecca Watson’s Evo Psych talk was not sound and had a lot of room for improvement, but the criticism she received was treated as woman-hating misogyny. How can we, as women, expect to advance in fields of science when our work is defended no matter how bad it is just because we are women? That is a problem a lot of women atheist feminists have had to deal with lately and they have been called “chill-girls” and “sister-punishers” for it.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You are absolutely right to think, “Who else could they be wrong about.” I really hope you consider what I’ve written here. I’ve written it in good faith, to try and clarify what the “Great Rift” has been about for “our side,” because neither side seems to be able to agree with what we’re arguing about and many have noticed there are feminists on both sides of the rift saying very similar things but getting very different results. Thank you for your consideration.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-56398203860376109262013-03-31T01:16:00.001-07:002013-03-31T01:16:31.449-07:00Happy Easter!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/j4lUNQQ.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="http://i.imgur.com/j4lUNQQ.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-31124352524824322392013-03-30T04:00:00.002-07:002013-03-30T04:00:19.818-07:00AAI UpdateVjack at Atheist Revolution is a model of grace and open, civil discussion. He provides an <a href="http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/03/atheist-alliance-international.html">update</a> to the AAI apology and a clarification on his original post, showing exactly where the detractors went wrong in saying he was trivializing harassment. I can only hope someday to grow up and be as level-headed as he is. I'm still waiting for the rest of the blogosphere to want to do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-72492044665065638152013-03-29T07:36:00.000-07:002013-03-29T07:36:31.954-07:00More about "Recovery."There's been a lot of chatter on some of my<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/03/21/an-increasing-number-of-atheist-and-agnostic-alcoholics-anonymous-groups-are-altering-the-twelve-steps/#comment-838385669"> favorite blogs</a> lately about Alcoholics Anonymous and how the organization is dealing with a growing number of groups that don't believe in God (mostly de-listing them from their registries, unfortunately). The problem is that AA groups are heavily laden with religious speech and ritual. Most meetings are closed with the Lord's Prayer. There's a chapter in their "Big Book" titled, "We Agnostics," but it simply describes people who don't believe in God getting drunk until they do and has some very flimsy apologetics-like arguments for the existence and reliance on a "Higher Power," including a description about how electricity turns the lights on despite the average man not understanding how it works. (Told you it was flimsy).<br />
<br />
As an ex-AA, I can say that you can stay sober if you don't believe in God. I haven't gone to meetings since I was six years sober and I celebrated ten in February with a 5k run and the Super Bowl (even though my team lost). I've talked to a friend who counsels addicted people with coocurring disorders and she had some interesting things to say about the twelve-step recovery model. Basically, it doesn't work. An addict or alcoholic is forced to throw away any work they did toward their recovery if they relapse even though it's starting to look like relapse is a natural part of the recovery process. I've talked to others who have found the reliance on God to be a crutch, the repeated phrases to be cult-like and the lack of clear leadership to cause some serious harm in people when groups start telling newcomers to throw away their psych meds and just rely on the Big Book. Families of addicts have long complained that the addicted person has replaced drugs and alcohol with meetings, going to three or four a day at times.<br />
<br />
I've been there. It took me four months to get a job after I got sober. I went to meetings all the time to avoid the boredom and temptation to drink. I built my life around doing the steps, going to meetings and doing service work. It kept me sober, but at eighteen months I nearly killed myself and had to take prozac and go to counseling for nine months. I should have been doing that all along. I made it through without drinking, but when I finally stopped believing in God I realized that none of it had to do with a Higher Power. It was a sponsor who helped me through the steps and was there to answer my questions about life, coping with sobriety and learning to grow up. It was the groups that kept me from falling into an even deeper depression. Helping other young people get sober (none of them stayed sober) gave me a purpose. There are some things AA's do that could be very useful to people wanting to get sober, but the success rate is less than five percent and I think it's because it won't change it's outlook on addiction and relapse, their causes and treatment.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-122_en.pdf">Twelve Traditions of AA </a>are a list of principles that are to guide groups in how they operate. While the fifth Tradition states that "each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers," and the third states that "the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking," atheist and agnostic groups are being forced out of the umbrella organization, AA World Services, Inc, for adopting a different form of the steps that call for reliance on a "Higher Power." In meetings, people often say this power doesn't have to be God, but AA's actions prove otherwise. The message is clear: Get God or Get Out.<br />
<br />
How can atheists improve their chances of recovery? I would suggest we go about it as we would the God question or any other skeptical claim. Research and ask questions. Ask an addiction specialist. Find a counselor outside of the Twelve Step model recovery homes and start from there. There are a number of secular groups as well, though they are few and far between. Start your own. Grab a Big Book and adjust the steps if you want. You won't get support from AA Inc, but you might be on the forefront of a new approach to recovery, one that marries the best of AA with the best of science and throws out the nonsense. Whatever you do, find someone to talk to if you feel like using again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-62925691941701741612013-03-28T23:58:00.001-07:002013-03-28T23:58:44.239-07:00DAFT is having a Blasphemy BrunchThe Davis Area FreeThinkers group Crépe meetup is such a success that we're going to have a Blasphemy Brunch next month about halfway from the next meetuo. The dinner is very informal and no matter how many times I suggest topics in the Facebook group, it always ends up being an open discussion with people just hanging out and getting to know each other. I'm expecting the brunch to be the same. <br />
<br />
A couple people have shown interest in doing some community work for a bit of exposure in our area. I don't have any problem with that as I've always been active in various ways in my communities. I don't agree with the latest claims by some atheists that charitable activism naturally follows from an atheist position, but I don't see the harm in combining my social activism (which I've done since before I was an atheist) with my non-belief, especially if it works to show people that atheists aren't scary, baby-eating hooligans. <br />
<br />
I've met some really neat people I probably wouldn't otherwise know and I've had a great time. I'm so glad I met up with the SacFAN folks at Freethought Day and connected with them. I wouldn't have been able to get this off the ground without their support. They're great! I'm really excited for what's to come. <br />
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-21943537802485423422013-03-27T14:45:00.001-07:002013-03-27T14:45:35.078-07:00AAI Trivializing Harassment.Yesterday, Atheist Alliance International tweeted to Vjack's awesome Atheist Revolution article, <i>"<a href="http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/03/understanding-harassment.html">Understanding Harassment</a>."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
They were automatically met with divisive and misleading tweets by <a href="http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/becky-bemoans-atheist-alliance-linking-to-article-from-suppressive-person/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">Rebecca Watson and Ophelia Benson</a> that implied the blog post was trivializing harassment. AAI immediately put out this <a href="http://www.atheistalliance.org/news-a-articles/presidents-corner/630-apology-from-the-aai-president">pathetic apology</a> and are refusing to answer how giving a legaldefinition of harassment and pointing out that some people are using the term wrong is trivializing harassment of women.<br />
<br />
Well, that about settles it for me. AAI is a useless organization and has lost my respect as a woman and as a former victim of harassment and years of bullying. When people like Watson and Benson label all offensive speech as harassment and spend their days chasing bogeymen instead of addressing real-life bullying, they are trivializing <i>my </i>experiences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-36665146315554962342013-03-26T11:41:00.002-07:002013-03-26T11:45:38.074-07:00Notung Discusses Shermer's Claim About Science and Morality<a href="http://www.skepticink.com/notung/">Notung</a>, who writes at SkepticInk has a new post up about <a href="http://www.skepticink.com/notung/2013/03/26/science-has-nothing-to-say-about-morality/">science and morality</a>. He is weighing in on Michael Shermer's claim that <i>"science can somehow weigh in on issues of morality."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
He begins with a thought experiment that will come into play after he begins addressing Shermer's arguments.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>You are late for a very important interview for a very well-paid job. If you miss it, you’ll certainly not get the job. You are driving to the interview and come to a fork in the road. As you are about to take the right turning, you witness a pedestrian being hit by a car in the other direction. The car flees the scene, and there are no other people or cars around. The hit pedestrian looks to have life-threatening injuries.</i></blockquote>
<i><br /></i>
Notung points out Shermer's statement that we can <i>"bring to [the question of morality] studies and data and experiments and research to see what works and what doesn’t." </i>Notung rightly points out that "what works and what doesn't" isn't always clear and illustrates this point with the thought experiment.<br />
<br />
Morality is about intention as much as result and Notung points out that whichever course of action one chooses, the result would "work" for whatever the person intended. If they leave the scene, their choice "works" to get them to the interview on time. If they stay and help, their choice "works" to give the man a better chance at survival. This was the same issue <a href="http://athmorality.blogspot.com/2013/03/chatterton-on-morality.html">I had</a> with <a href="http://957chatterton.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-is-morality.html">Chatterton's piece</a> about morality. Notung is describing very well the "is/ought" question in moral philosophy.<br />
<br />
I don't have an answer, and I would like to take Chatterton and Shermer's viewpoint that we can rationalize a better morality, but there are holes that need to be filled before we can claim with certainty that this is true. However, Notung's piece is titled, <i>"Science Has Nothing To Say About Morality," </i> and I don't know if that is quite right either. Can the harm an action brings or reduces be quantitatively measured objectively? I've always leaned toward the same utilitarianism that Chatterton and Shermer describe, but now I'm not so sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-26743399180889137172013-03-24T22:50:00.000-07:002013-03-24T22:50:57.117-07:00What Happened to You, Feminism?For the record, I appreciate everything feminism has done for women: voting and reproduction rights, a fight for equal treatment under the law, the breaking of barriers in the workplace, etc. But nowadays when I see this <a href="http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-sexual-politics-of-meat-20130320-2gfx0.html">kind of fluff</a> juxtaposed with things like women protesters being assaulted in Egypt or women barred from driving in Saudi Arabia, I just have to shake my head. <br />
<br />
What happened to you, feminism? You used to say a woman had choice, could make her own way in the world. Now you are trying to guilt us for our nutrition choices. And you're doing it with bad science and bad ideas. It's sad and sickening that while the US has more women graduating from college than men you are still stuck on ways to "defeat the patriarchy" which include shaming women for their career and life choices, treating women as fragile beings who can't handle off-color jokes and borderline paranoia about meat. <br />
<br />
Just a few things, feminists: stay away from my steak, I took my husband's name because I damn well wanted to, and damnit, I like Seth McFarland. If you can't respect these choices I've made, you aren't really a feminist at all. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-36635516949753032242013-03-18T07:14:00.001-07:002013-03-26T11:43:56.029-07:00Chatterton on Morality.<a href="http://957chatterton.blogspot.com/">957 Chatterton</a> has a post up titled, <a href="http://957chatterton.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-is-morality.html">"What is Morality?"</a> Well, that's an excellent question and since here at Atheist Morality, I haven't touched on that subject for quite some time, I suppose I'll feature this post.<br />
<br />
In the post, he describes what he believes a moral system is made of: "sympathy, empathy, and reciprocal altruism; that it is reasoned and argued for the purpose of figuring out how best to maximize happiness and minimize suffering."<br />
<br />
I agree, but I think that it is too broad a statement. Maximize who's happiness? Minimize who's suffering? This will inevitably lead to thought experiments such as <a href="http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx">"Should you kill the fat man?"</a> It gets a bit fuzzy when you start balancing the happiness of the greatest number of people with whether or not it is moral to use a person for a purpose without their consent. In general, though, I think it's a pretty good guideline for a moral system.<br />
<br />
Chatterton adds support to his assertion by describing morality as a social science. Now that is interesting! He writes, "It’s the very fact that we can make determinations of what causes the most happiness and least suffering that renders morality a subject for social science." Can we, though? Are the examples he listed, such as ending slavery and freeing women of oppression objectively and measurably "causing the most happiness and least suffering?" What if the population of women was only 13% and the rest were men and all of those men had long tradition oppressing women. Wouldn't a law forbidding such a practice actually cause suffering in a larger amount of people than the status quo? Just something to think about.<br />
<br />
He goes on to assert that this kind of moral system makes revenge and retribution invalid forms of justice. He calls for rehabilitation and restitution as forms of justice. I mostly agree with this. There are some people who will never rehabilitate or carry out restitution, but I do believe that with practice, our societies can move away from our sordid prison systems into one that turns criminals into justice-seekers. I heard an excellent talk about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice">Restorative Justice</a> on MLK Jr Day in Davis this year. The concept is that victim and perpetrator can come together to reach an agreement over what the criminal should do to make up for their crime. Hearing a story of how a mother sat down with her daughter's murderer and told him he'd have to do twice the good in the world because of the good her daughter would have done was enough to bring tears to my eyes. Even this latest Stubenville rape has got me thinking that if our society could turn those boys into activists for the protection of young people and awareness about consent, we could maybe gain something positive from it.<br />
<br />
Chatterton backs up his definition by saying that no other definition of morality holds any real purpose for us, and that may be true, but I think that it still makes that a belief rather than a quantifiable fact. I'm not saying that he's not on the right track, I'm just not convinced it's specific enough to cover all of human behavior. Still, it's a damn good start and a lot better than trying to gleam a moral code from a stone-age religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-73146852512921500142013-03-13T11:23:00.000-07:002013-03-13T11:23:38.633-07:00California and Private Online UniversitiesMy state is trying to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/education/california-bill-would-force-colleges-to-honor-online-classes.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0">require public universities to accept credit from online colleges.</a> This is pretty much a huge mistake as written. The standards of private online universities are all over the place, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/university-of-phoenix-accreditation_n_2762168.html">even ones with regional accredidation</a>. The price for these universities is higher than brick and mortar public universities and yet the graduation rate is lower and those that do graduate have lower-than-average salaries in their fields than employees who have equivalent degrees.<br />
<br />
Even the work they do is different. I'll use an anonymous example of someone I know doing their graduate degree at one of these regionally accredited schools. He still has textbooks assigned to his classes. He's doing no independent research of his own in his field. He doesn't TA and he pays his own tuition. My husband is at UC Davis in a graduate program. He gets paid to TA, his tuition is covered, he does his own research. He is not only able to access academic journals, but often he has access to the professors who write peer-reviewed papers and books in his chosen field.<br />
<br />
The state shouldn't be bringing good schools down to the level of these mediocre degree-mill type schools, they should be raising the standards of online education. There are definitely enough problems in higher education without having to lower the bar even more to accomodate these lazy degree mills. What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-91414583202394392272013-03-12T17:32:00.000-07:002013-03-12T17:32:37.039-07:00Sxsw Reddit Panel.I know a load of people have already weighed in on this "controversy" and why having a one-sided panel of people who hate reddit trying to describe reddit's impact on the web is a problem, but I'm going to go ahead and add my two cents.<br />
<br />
<br />
So I know reddit gets a lot of flack because there are stories of some commenters went on a post last year and asked for the OP to prove she was really raped, but the other day the top link with over 1500 karma was a woman's imgur album of her face after her boyfriend beat her up when she broke up with him and almost all of the comments were positive and supportive. And yes, there are sexist jokes on reddit at times, as well, but most of them are making fun of sexism and the ones that are genuinely bad taste get voted down. Sometimes shitty ones get through, but if you spend enough time in /r/new, you'd see that the rate is actually pretty low. Also, this isn't anything new to the internet. 4chan's /b/ is much older than reddit, more anonymous, content isn't subject to a voting system that weeds the bad from the good and has some of the worst content I've ever seen.<br />
<br />
I don't see how "reddit" is the problem like the panel at sxsw made it out to be when it's really just assholes on the internet in our larger society that is the problem. Rebecca Watson of Skepchick claimed that <i>"Reddit’s shared values of “freedom of speech” and anonymity combine with the “karma” voting system to create an ideal environment for the proliferation and normalization of bigotry and hate."</i><br />
<br />
So what's she's saying is that <i>everything that makes reddit reddit is the problem. </i>There's really nothing reddit could change about the user-directed content, anonymity or karma system that would keep reddit intact as it is. Note she's also not blaming twitter, facebook or any other site for the bad behavior of asshole people. It's like saying the sidewalk is the problem when someone is a jerk to you in public.<br />
<br />
I hate how arguments like this take away from real issues our societies face. You don't fight sexism in society by singling out one website and making it your personal vendetta to drag it down. I have observed that Watson is particularly terrible at this sort of thing as she has a knack for taking organizations or groups to task for the larger ills of society, especially when she does so <i>without </i>evidence that said organization or group has a larger frequency of those problems than the wider population. For calling herself a "Skepchick," She's actually not very skeptical at all of her own ideas and claims.<br />
<br />
For now, if you need me, I'll be on reddit.<br />
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-60474084251349830382013-03-04T09:50:00.000-08:002013-03-04T09:50:27.861-08:00Life of Pi: Major SpoilersI'm going to talk about both the book and the movie, <i>Life of Pi. </i>I'm going to be talking mostly about the ending. If you haven't seen the movie or read the book and want to, I suggest you skip this post.<br />
<br />
First, is <i>Life of Pi </i>religious? Well, sort of. There are definitely religious themes. The character, Pi, tells the writer he's relaying his story to, "I will tell you a story that will make you believe in God.<br />
<br />
The first part of the book centers around the main character's religious discoveries in India. He ended up practicing Hinduism, Christianity and Islam at the same time. It wasn't shown in the movie, but there is a part in the book where his three spiritual leaders meet him on the street and start arguing, trying to claim him as their own and he tells them something to the effect of "I'm just trying to know God," and they all shuffle off embarrassed that they let their dogma get in the way.<br />
<br />
The second part centers around his adventures at sea, which I'm sure you know involves a life boat and a tiger, and in the last part of the book the writer does some investigating on his own and hears the tape of Pi's account to the Japanese men. Contrary to the movie, Pi doesn't tell the writer the story he told the Japanese men involving the cook, the sailor and the zebra, the writer learns about it from the tapes. In the movie, Pi tells the author the story and then asks him which he prefers. I think this difference leaves a slightly different impression on the theme of the movie, making it seem more pro-religious than it really is.<br />
<br />
In the book, the adult Pi is living his life and telling his story as if it really happened with a tiger, a zebra and a hyena. He's chosen what he wants to believe about what happened because of how painful the event was. He claims to have a story that will make a person believe in God, but that's not what it does. The author and the Japanese men don't believe the story with the tiger over the more likely story involving humans, but they choose to tell others that the former is true. It's less a push for God than an admittance that we humans will interpret the events in our lives in a way that we are comfortable with and that are in line with our past experiences. It's more about the human condition than the question of god.<br />
<br />
The movie, trying to end on a more uplifting note than the book (not that the ending of the book was particularly dark), slightly gears it toward the "you can choose to believe in God" thing. I don't think that was the author's intention and I think that Pi's simultaneously believing in three completely contradictory religions at the same time early on in the book lays the foundation for the theme of introspection and perspective on one's own life. I don't remember the skepticism of the father being as prevalent in the book as it was in the movie, either (granted, it's been awhile since I read the book, so I could be wrong, but I think the father is supposed to replace the three religious leaders that argue in the street over Pi's faith).<br />
<br />
What I took from the book was that you can pick how you're going to perceive the events in your life, not that one should pick one perception over another. I, personally, would have (and do) believe the story revealed at the end and see the fantastic story about the tiger as a salve for the terrible events that occurred. Which would you pick?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-85714071208311049352013-03-04T09:28:00.000-08:002013-04-03T20:18:06.258-07:00Goals for a Movement.I read something that touched me and I'd like to share it. Maria Maltseva's recent <a href="http://skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/03/02/a-note-to-my-readers-i-havent-forgotten-you/">post</a>. She writes over at the Skeptic Ink Network and many of her views mirror my own, but she's much more graceful and eloquent at expressing them. <br />
<br />
First, I'd like to express my hope that her mother get better soon and that she find some comfort in her situation.<br />
<br />
I'd also like to emphasize what she wrote about what atheism has to offer. She writes, "The only thing atheism (or agnosticism or ignosticism) should be offering people is a respite from the harms of religion."<br />
<br />
Sometimes the atheist community forgets that. There are hundreds and maybe thousands out there, scared to question, to doubt, to stand up and say, "prove it," to the claims made by the large majority of theists in our country. If there is any goal that a united and active group of atheists should have it should be to reach out a hand to those people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-10800749474011666802013-02-13T07:00:00.000-08:002013-02-13T07:00:12.634-08:00At the top of my rss feed list, Talking PhilosophyI don't talk nearly enough about philosophy on this blog, so I'm going to promote Talking Philosophy, one of my favorite blogs I've found so far.<br />
<br />
From excellent thought experiments to breaking down complicated moral issues, this blog has it all. In fact, I recently read a piece about <a href="http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6733">women in combat positions</a> that went further than just arguing against the "morale" argument made by those opposed to allowing women these positions and addressed the concerns over jobs that women physically might not be able to do. <br />
<br />
If you want to know how the author, Mike LaBossiere, shuts down these arguments, offers alternative solutions and manages to do so politely and succinctly, you'll just have to give Talking Philosophy a visit! Enjoy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-64605685639311335382013-02-12T17:36:00.000-08:002013-02-12T19:29:53.324-08:00Big Brothifurret teaches a lesson on twitter.<a href="http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/conversation-with-jennifurret-jimmacdonaldmma-and">Jen McCreight succinctly explains to a twitterer how the world really works.</a><br />
<br />
Should Dawkins answer for his tweet that called ivory poachers barbaric? The way his detractors have twisted the word "barbarian" and thus the entire context of the tweet is not a good enough reason to address their inanity, in my opinion, but please don't tell Jenny, im afraid of her wrath.<br />
<br />
The tweeter in question tries to wrap his head around why Dawkins should listen to the people who are baselessly calling him a racist. Luckily, Jen McCreight steps in to clear it up: the reason this should be addressed is because Dawkins is privileged. <br />
<br />
You heard it, folks. Arguments no longer stand on their own merit. All that matters is whether or not a person has privilege. If you have any privilege in any way, all anyone needs to do is tell you to "shut up and listen" and you've already lost, no matter how irrational their argument is. Their ad hominem attack holds more weight than a rational argument about the origin of words and the context of tweets. <br />
<br />
Thanks for clearing that up, Big Brothifurret. Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Barbarian is Racist, we were always at war with misogynists. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-88835978959222796822013-02-08T12:39:00.000-08:002013-02-09T07:53:57.533-08:00Block yourself, fool.I found this lovely apologia of the twitter campaign to suspend <a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a>acc<a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_770064112"></span></a><span id="goog_770064113"></span>ounts on oolon's <a href="http://www.oolon.co.uk/?page_id=159">blog </a>, which I found as a referring link on my stats page (thanks for the traffic, but I doubt it will get me many more hits than I already get from my humble writings).<br />
<br />
First, the post states that the purpose of the block not he or she has created is to make the atheist feminist experience better by blocking harassers. <br />
<br />
So they should block themselves, right? Aratina Cage included me in a tweet even though I've had no previous contact with him/her (for sake of simplicity, and because linguistically, either pronoun can be neuter because English doesn't have a neuter, I'm going to refer to Aratina as a he, and oolon asba she, because I don't know who they are and don't really give a shit to find out). Harassment.<br />
<br />
@jlnfrancisco did the same thing, calling me insane or some such thing and then blocking me before I could respond. Harassment.<br />
<br />
Oolon, instead of addressing my arguments on my blog, puts a link to it on her own site so she doesn't have to actually back up her statements. Being a blogger, I'm sure she knew I would see her link and be directed to her site. Harassment. <br />
<br />
Second, her blog states that the purpose is not to suspend accounts and that is made clear by the fact that no one has said to block and report accounts, only to block. How convenient for them as it's been made clear by the multiple suspensions of accounts like @GodlessSpellChecker that the automated system of suspension includes accounts with a large number of blocks over a short amount of time.<br />
<br />
New slymepit visitors who have joined twitter and have followed "the usual suspects" have been suspended after just a few hours of being on twitter without ever having tweeted any of these fuckheads. <br />
<br />
It's the equivalent of swinging your fist in a crowd with your eyes closed and pretending you didn't mean to hit anyone. <br />
<br />
This is how far these people will go to silence people (including a large number of women feminists and members of minority groups they claim to be protecting) who disagree with them. Instead of addressing the question of evidence for their claims of rampant hatred of women in skeptic communities, they seek to silence dissent. It's the YouTube DMCA creationist wars all over again, except it's coming from people who claim to be skeptics themselves. What a pathetic tragedy they portray. <br />
<br />
Twitter won't get back to me about this issue, so I'm assuming it's not against the TOS. Which means it's a-okay to block people in large numbers on twitter, no matter how unethical it is. Looks like I'll be spending less time on twitter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-13305138257833547962013-02-02T09:30:00.001-08:002013-02-02T09:32:56.306-08:00Community<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
Many atheists don't feel the need to organize. Some of them join local groups but don't do much more than just meeting and making like-minded friends. One thing that came up in my local group, however, was the idea of community building to match the kind of networking structure that churches provide.
<br />
<br />
When someone moves to a new town, they will find new friends and helpful people at a church of their denomination. Because there are so many religious people who already meet in the same place once a week, church is an incredible resource for quickly learning about that community, what jobs are available, what are the best schools, childcare, etc. There are also food banks and shelters to assist the indigent.
<br />
<br />
Should atheist groups try and mimic such a network providing resources for people in need?
I don't think it could hurt to try. As a liberal communitarian type of person, I already try to uphold the ideals of community building and it has nothing to do with my atheism, but if I did start tying it in with atheism, perhaps it would give people on the fence an alternative to relying on spiritual groups.
Not every atheist, secularist or skeptic will agree or want to focus their activism this way, but that is also fine with me. The thing I love about freethinkers is the diversity of goals, ideas and values that we hold. No one should feel pressured at all to adopt actions or values that any one group holds, but anyone interested is invited to organize.
Those are my thoughts on the subject, bug I want to know what the wider world thinks. Are there any downsides to atheist groups wanting to create a support network? </div>
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-82642263134385631282013-02-02T00:37:00.001-08:002013-02-02T00:37:01.929-08:00HilariousAdam Lee will only accept a "cease-fire" in the atheist community if Justin Vacula accepts his <a href="http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ksln6r">terms</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Don't make threats of rape or other violence. Don't use sexist slurs like "bitch" or "cunt" to describe anyone, but especially not women. Don't imply that a person's appearance, weight or sexual desirability has any bearing on the validity of her opinions. Don't ogle people, touch them without permission, or trespass on their personal space. Don't act as if you're entitled to other people's time or attention. Don't contact a person in any way if she's asked you to stop. Don't defend or associate with people who do any of these things.</span></blockquote>
Adam Lee, I have some terms for you to follow before we'll stop calling you a ridiculous, attention-mongering, strawman-burning, exaggerating, distorting, character-assassinating sanctimonious piece of shit:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Don't rape babies. Don't eat dog poop off the ground after a dog has puked it up. Stay away from meth. Don't use sexist slurs like "dick" "asshole" "douchebag" or "cock" to anyone, especially women. Don't imply that a person's choice in colored spandex, love of Michael Bolton or lack of shower has any bearing on the validity of her opinions. Don't fart in a closed elevator. Don't defend or associate with anyone who does any of these things. This list here is as applicable to you as yours is to Justin Vacula, but we can't have a discussion until you stop this.</blockquote>
Got it? Oh, I have more to address:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">When women object to treatment that makes them feel uncomfortable, unequal or unwelcome, listen to them and take them seriously. </span></blockquote>
Stop pretending that they are so wholesome that the concerns of every woman, no matter how irrational, how unsupported by evidence, or how much it differs from views held by other women, are automatically valid. It's really patriarchal to assume we need our dearest-held beliefs to be shielded from any skepticism or criticism. If we're grown-ass adults, we should be able to take it. Stop pretending like no woman can be wrong or even that no women could possibly be using feminist claims to further their own personal vendettas or agendas. Stop treating women as if they can do no wrong.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Show your support for reasonable anti-harassment policies and free childcare at atheist conventions.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> </span> </blockquote>
Show how your conventions can enforce reasonable anti-harassment policies and free childcare without being intrusive or creating a huge liability for local groups to shoulder. Learn a little bit about what goes into security and childcare. Show you can create a harassment policy that doesn't make the attendees feel like they've done something wrong before they even show up to the event. Stop arguing that one harassment policy is going to work for every convention. Provide evidence that there is more harassment at atheist conventions than the conventions of other groups. Provide evidence harassment policies lower those numbers. Provide some real numbers collected scientifically that show that the larger number of men attending conventions is due to harassment and not simply a product of the fact that there are less women atheists.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Encourage the organizers of skeptics' conferences to make a conscious effort to invite speakers of all races and genders</span></blockquote>
Stop telling skeptical women they are only disagreeing with certain aspects of certain branches of feminism because they <i>just want to get male attention. </i>They might want to go to your conventions, otherwise. Stop assuming we aren't networking with all races and genders.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Attend talks that address issues beyond just the traditional skeptical issues of religion and pseudoscience, talks that apply skepticism to entrenched power differences in society that disproportionately harm women and minorities.</span></blockquote>
Stop insisting that a skeptical conference centered around religion and pseudoscience should be spending its time on your pet political projects. There are already conventions for that. I suggest you check out the DNC or the RNC.<br />
<br />
Stop assuming that minorities and women can't possibly be interested in issues such as religion and pseudoscience when they go to skeptic conventions <i>just because they are minorities. </i>It's really fucking condescending.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Don't accept a secular movement with a lopsided majority of white men as normal, unremarkable, or unchangeable.</span></blockquote>
Don't assume that we are. Quit propagating the lie that the skeptic movement <i>hasn't </i>been changing rapidly over the last several years, growing to include more and more people from every walk of life. Half of my little, brand new community group in my little college town are women. Increase outreach to conservative, rural areas where people, especially women, are afraid to "come out."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">In return, we'll stop calling you sexists and misogynists.</span></blockquote>
Learn the fucking definition of those words. In return, we'll keep on doing what we're doing: promoting science, critical thinking and skepticism and fighting for the separation of church and state.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-19985327369688695662013-01-31T00:48:00.001-08:002013-01-31T00:48:28.828-08:00Ten YearsMy journey from AA to atheism took about five years and on February 3rd I will have been sober for ten years total. I can't pinpoint the exact moment in 2008 that I realized I didn't believe in God, but I'll never forget my last drunk, even without relying on a "higher power" anymore. <br />
<br />
Someday I hope to share more about my experience, what I learned there, what I clearly could have done without, and what I think skeptic and atheist alcoholics could take away from the 12 step model (many of the lessons I learned could have been provided with or without a religious setting like AA). <br />
<br />
I think it's time that drug and alcohol addiction be addressed rationally in our society instead of superstitiously. At a recovery rate that is equal to no treatment at all, AA is the homeopathy of addiction. <br />
<br />
I used to "chair" meetings, which means I'd tell my story to the group and pick a topic. Maybe I'll do that again, in writing on this blog, but update it with the loss of my faith which I thought would surely get me drunk. It's said in AA no one leaves and comes back telling what a good time they had without the program. I realize now it's not because they are all miserable. Some of the ones that don't come back are probably like me, happy, sober and godless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-69953142652870930072013-01-30T19:00:00.000-08:002013-01-30T19:00:04.597-08:00Ghost HuntersBenjamin Radford has a hard-hitting <a href="http://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html">piece</a> about ghosts that lays out many of the questions and logical contradictions raised by ghost claims. The number one problem, like the god problem, is in tacking down a definition of "ghost." <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part of the difficulty in investigating ghosts is that there is not one universally agreed-upon definition of what a ghost is. Some believe that they are spirits of the dead who for whatever reason get "lost" on their way to The Other Side; others claim that ghosts are instead telepathic entities projected into the world from our minds.</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
The piece is well written and Benjamin Radford is a skeptic I've <a href="http://benjaminradford.com/">followed</a> on my google reader for quite some time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5789216523890817519.post-10928919400728059242013-01-28T22:22:00.001-08:002013-01-28T22:22:27.447-08:00Crepeville and FreethinkersWhat a turnout! At least twenty people showed up tonight to the Davis Area FreeThinkers group at the Crêpeville downtown! I'm going to talk to the owners and see if we can't make this a permanent venue for our once-a-month meetings. Hopefully we'll be able to scoot the tables into more of a square shape, as well, as the long, banquet table formation split the group up quite a bit.<br />
<br />
We touched on a lot of topics, including the Historical Jesus, different philosophers and writers, family issues and what we hope to talk about in the future. As the event died down and there were only a few of us left, we even had a discussion about feminism. No one got angry or anything. Imagine that. We talked about how feminism should is about equality, not about hating men. We discussed the tension between feminists who feel women need to be protected and those who want to see them empowered. We talked about sex work and our society's backward thinking about the difficulty women have finding careers after porn. It was actually a really good discussion, and though it didn't have much to do with atheism, I was glad it was brought up.<br />
<br />
I can't wait for next month, which happens to be on my birthday. The facebook group is now closed rather than secret, so here is the link if you'd like to join: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/DavisFreethinkers/">Davis Area FreeThinkers</a>. Enjoy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0