The Atheist Blogger

In this post I was planning to talk about the answers that Lindsey Kirth gave to questions people asked about Mormonism. However, in light of the response the article got on Friendly Atheist (where it was published) it seems that she has pretty much deleted everything she ever wrote for the site. Hemant posted some thoughts on the the posts made by Lindsey, claiming

I think it was courageous of her to try explaining Mormonism from an insider’s perspective — knowing full well that her beliefs would be thoroughly challenged by readers. Judging from some of the comments, though, many of you didn’t want any part of that dialogue. And some of you are just plain rude.

Yes it was very courageous of her to try and explain Mormonism to a bunch of atheists, but it is really rude to point out obvious flaws in her reasoning? I’m looking back through the archived comments I have in my feedreader still, and I see only a bunch of people challenging the absurdities Lindsey was espousing. Of course, my comments only go back so far, and it is possible that I wasn’t able to cache them all. However, I would say most people were still eager to be part of the dialogue, and a few were asking more questions.

Something that didn’t help Lindsey was the amount of ex-Mormon atheists that found the thread, and who promptly dismissed her arguments that “Mormons don’t practice polygamy” or that Mormonism wasn’t originally racist. The history of Mormonism, like that of Scientology, has been revealed on the internet on many websites. The Skeptics Annotated Book of Mormon has a long list of examples of intolerance, making the argument that the Book of Mormon was simply the ravings of Joseph Smith even more clear.

I was contacted a couple of days ago by a representative of Current TV:

I am writing from Current TV in the hopes of persuading you to record a quick Point of View webcam in regards to a half hour special we here at Current TV are producing on the topic of religion. We will be using webcam comments as interstitials in the show, in the hopes of gaining a real authentic look @ how people relate to religion today. Of course, your blog came up as a good resource for atheists, and we want to be sure you are represented.

When I queried further, they asked for a video of my “point of view on religion, in 30 seconds or less”. That is actually quite a challenge, and I’d much prefer to take up the entire half hour special explaining my complex opinions on religion. However, 30 seconds is all I’ve got, so I’ll have to somehow compress it down a bit.

No idea when I have until to do the video, or when the program runs on Current TV, but I’ll update you with more information when it comes, and also with my video.

Unrelated: Tomorrow marks the day we start to hand out leaflets for the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance, and hopefully we start getting somewhere towards ratification with the Student Union.

Chicken Girl made me aware of this Times article on Sharia Law in the UK, which is a despicable attempt at getting Sharia law set up for Muslims. The UK is not a Muslim country, it is a secular country, and as such every person should follow the same set of laws. We do not allow Rastafarians to smoke cannabis simply because it is in their religion to do so, so why should it be any different for Muslims? Laws should be made for the good of the people, not for the good of religion. That is why we have legalized abortion, despite the outcry of various Christian groups, and why we scrapped the blasphemy laws.

Pat Condell posted this video on YouTube, highlighting why we shouldn’t bow to Islam.

If you are a citizen of the UK, and you disagree with Sharia Law being imposed in our courts, then please sign this e-petition to our government.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk

Law professor Douglas Whaley has written a book which he describes as an “atheist thriller”. He was kind enough to send me the following synopsis and information.

Franklin Whitestone, a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, is trapped in the rubble of the Ohio State football stadium when a Muslim terrorist sets off a bomb. During the rescue Franklin becomes a hero by holding onto a girder while allowing over 50 people to escape. This is  captured on television, and is the one bright spot in the what becomes known as  “9/11 Two.”  Franklin is flown to New York City for an appearance on the Jimmy Ball Show (the equivalent to the Larry King program). Accompanying him to NYC is his significant other, Kelly Keyfold, and since the two of them are the guests of the tv show, they dine at a fancy restaurant where Kelly insists on a bottle of wine, telling Franklin it would be good for his nerves to have one glass himself. He does this, but at some point during the meal a  waiter refills his goblet, and so he drinks two glasses of wine. At the studio, Franklin is shown into the green room, where the first guest on the Jimmy Ball Show, a rummy comedian, offers him a drink from a flask. Franklin at first refuses, but, unused to national tv and shaken to his very core, he finally takes another sip. Of course, this proves unwise.

When Franklin goes on the air, the video clip of his heroics is shown and applauded, and then he and the host answer call-in questions from the live audience. One of the callers is a woman from Salt Lake City, and she asks him whether he was praying to God to give him strength during his heroics, and—his judgment clouded by alcohol—Franklin blithely says no. “God,” he tells her, “was not the solution, but the problem—belief in him is what caused the bombs to go off.” This sparks outraged calls from other viewers, and Franklin
makes some other ill-considered statements along this same unfortunate line. When asked by the host if he is an atheist, Franklin replies:

“Let me put it like this, Jimmy. When I was a child I had an imaginary friend who was with me everywhere I went, helping me out, very real to me. I loved him with all my heart. But as I got older I didn’t need that crutch anymore, and one day he just wasn’t there, nor did I miss him. As an adult I’d be embarrassed if I still needed an imaginary friend to help me run my life.”

Of course, saying this is a mistake of major magnitude, as is made clear to Franklin when his life blows up on many fronts, starting minutes after he’s off the air.

The book has much to say about theism versus atheism, and the role of each in today’s society (I am a lifelong professional teacher and this is a subject about which I am passionate). But the novel is much more than that. There is quite a bit of humor in it, as well as a number of action sequences (and some violent encounters). I would hope that anyone picking up the book would find it an entertaining read.

The book can be ordered from Amazon.com ($15.00).

Finally, let me add that I know this is a delicate and controversial subject, and I have tried to handle it in a way that is fair to all viewpoints. The reader can judge for him/herself whether I have succeeded or whether to join the crowd gathering tar and feathers. I would love to hear any and all comments readers have about the  book, and my email address for making them is in the “Author’s Note” at the end of the novel.

Douglas Whaley

---

The book is currently only out in America, so we can’t add it to the book club list, but if anyone reads it please write a review. Many thanks to Douglas for passing this information on, and best of luck with the book!

A simple philosophy that is so mindbogglingly easy to follow, yet the religious seem to be up in arms about gay marriage, and they get worse every year. Somehow the religious seem to think that they came up with this great idea called “marriage” and that is has been violated by homosexuals. The truth, as it so often is in these cases, is completely the opposite.

Marriage predates verifiable recorded history, essentially a social extension of the mating procedure for reproduction. The Greeks and Romans had marriages, both opposite sex and same sex. There were no civil ceremonies, only an “agreement” for husband and wife, or husband and husband, wife and wife accordingly.

So what violated this traditional standard of marriage? Oh that’s right…it was the Christians.^[1] In 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned same-sex marriage. In 390, three other Christian emperors, Valentinian II, Theodoisus, and Arcadius, made homosexual sex a crime punishable by death (burned alive because Christians are so merciful).

As I write this, religious fundamentalists across several different religions are rallying together to support a California proposal that effectively bans homosexual marriage. Marriage, they reckon, should be up to the religions, not the state. I ask, why can’t you have it both ways?

It would be simple. Define a state marriage that has all the perks of “regular” marriage, allowing anyone to marry anyone. Let the religions decide what they want to do about marriage within religion. There would be no difference in opinion either way. Religions would still reckon that state marriages weren’t governed by God, whilst the religious homosexuals forced to take a state marriage as their only option would argue that they were.

It has worked in the UK for the last few years, and there is no reason why it couldn’t work anywhere else. Secularisation is the only sufficient train of thought that respects the wishes of all groups. It calls for a separation of church and state. The state cannot control the church and the church cannot control the state. A very simple relationship that allows people to either align with one or both, depending on what they want to do.

So yes, let’s be traditionalists. Let’s take marriage back to its original status: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.