The Atheist Blogger

A new Carnival of the Godless is up at (((Billy))) The Atheist, so go check it out! There are some excellent blog posts featured, and I recommend every atheist blogger (whether new or old) to submit something and put themselves up for hosting it! I’ve managed to forget for several carnivals, but I’ve set an alert on my computer so I should remember now.

Carnivals are a great way of getting new people to visit your blog, which means the stuff you write is spread to even more people, some of whom may have not even heard about your blog before. It’s a win-win situation for both you and the people who read the carnival!

So my last two rather sporadic posts talked very briefly about the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Student Societies (AHS) AGM, and how I got elected to the executive position of Secretary. What I thought I’d do is write a more detailed account of my weekend.

I caught the train up to Coventry at around 13:00 on Friday 19th, and the journey was pretty decent. There was only one change (at Reading) and I managed to not leave my suitcase on the train like I did the last time I was travelling across the country (luckily that time the train was in the station for 30 minutes so I was able to get back on board and retrieve it!). I was in a carriage that had laptop plug sockets, so I booted up and watched some comedy clips I had to pass the time. A couple of hours later, I was arriving into Coventry. I’d already phoned Stewart of Warwick Atheists so he could meet me at the station, but lines got crossed somewhere (my fault probably) and he had gone to Leamington station instead! Not panicking, I followed his directions to a bus stop and caught the bus to Warwick University Campus.

I finally met up with Stewart and Alex (of Oxford Atheists) at a university café, and they took me to a bar on campus. There I was greeted by several other Warwick atheists, and the British Humanist Association (BHA) representative, the lovely Andrew Copson. The afternoon went on, many drinks were had, and more and more atheist students from all over the country kept on entering the bar. We eventually moved away from the noise of the band to a spot next to the bar, where we could pull two tables together and order our meal. At some point during the evening, we tried to come up with a list of atheist songs, that is, songs that either mention atheism or could be interpreted as atheistic. We then proceeded to try and find these in the jukebox. I seem to remember putting in “Losing my religion” by R.E.M and “Thoughts of a dying atheist” by Muse; for some reason Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen was also selected.

Then we all decided to go to the shop, buy (more) alcohol and sit on the grass in a circle and chat. The AHS Press Officer, Chloë Clifford-Frith had also arrived, and I caught up with her on the various press issues I had blogged about. I dutifully surrendered a blanket I had brought along so that people could sit on the grass, a decision I would come to regret as it started raining, since I had to sleep under it that night.

The next morning (I slept over at Stewart’s house) was a rush to get ready in time to catch the bus. The morning was a lot of administration, listening to the reports from various people on the status of the organisation, and voting on very specific issues to do with the constitution. Being students though, we tried to keep it fun, and soon it was time for lunch. We went to a Asian restaurant on campus where I had a delicious plate of ribs (was very cheap too), before heading back to yet more voting.

Soon, it was time for the part everyone had been waiting for, the election of the new Executive. Jenna (the outgoing secretary) ran unopposed as the new President, but she still presented a very well thought out plan for the next year, and was quickly elected to the position. Both myself and a guy named Michael put ourselves forward for the Secretary position, and we were grilled by a series of questions from the committee. I aimed my “campaign” at working with national and international organisations (BHA, NSS, Secular Student Alliance, etc) and making administration more effective. Something I said must have been good, because I was voted in as the new Secretary. Stuart was then voted in as the new Treasurer, and after a few more discussions about our web presence, we all went out for a meal.

Secretary Adrian Hayter, President Jenna Catley, Treasurer Stuart Pilbrow

By Sunday, we were all tired, although not as tired as me since Elles decided that she was lonely without me to talk to on Skype, and decided to call my mobile at 7 am, waking up everyone in the living room (my ringtone is Dawkins saying “Science is interesting, and if you don’t agree you can fuck off”). Nevertheless, we got on with a morning of activities, including a discussion of possible merchandise, and a workshop on how to organize Fresher’s Fairs. The day ended with half the group (myself included) deciding to miss out on the BBQ as it was raining, and to head home instead.

All in all, it was a wonderful experience, and I hope to help organise more events like this one in the future as the new Secretary!

AHS Logo

This weekend is the Annual General Meeting of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Student Groups (AHS), which gives us all a nice chance to meet up and get drunk (as we did last night). Today we actually get down to business, voting on some motions and electing a new executive (President, Secretary, and Treasurer). I’m standing for the position of Secretary, so wish me luck!

Anyway, let me have this chance to thank Warwick Atheists for their kind hospitality, knowledge of the best drinking areas, and to Stuart Pilbrow for allowing me to sleep on his floor (and save on expensive hotel fees). This should be a fun weekend for all!

An Icon of Freedom of Speech

It’s no wonder so many websites attack atheism, and why an increasing number of newspapers seems to be doing the same thing; we’re probably one of the easiest targets out there. We’re a minority group in most countries in the world, but not only that, we are actively challenging the view of the majority group. In comparative terms, we’re like the British National Party (BNP) in the UK elections. The BNP are a fascist, right-wing, white supremacist political movement which has gathered together the last surviving members of Britain’s racists. They are a small minority, yet they are often one of the loudest; campaigning against every single other party, blaming them for the current state of the government. Unlike other targets that one could attack such as those of a certain race or sex, we don’t have any anti-discrimination laws to protect us, and for very good reasons, we have campaigned against such laws (the ones that would protect us) under the banner of freedom of speech. We don’t want our governments saying that people cannot write hateful things about us, because the whole point about the atheism debate is that there can be a debate.

Freedom of speech is often attacked by the religious, who claim that atheists use it to blaspheme and campaign against their beliefs, even though they are fine when they do the same to us. The point of freedom of speech is that anyone can say anything about politics, religion, art, etc and have their view protected so that others can hear it. The people who agree will state their approval, and the people who disagree or find it offensive in any way can have their say as well, and their response will likewise be protected.

It is this freedom of speech that I execute when I respond to the newspaper articles which lie and misrepresent us. I don’t want the articles to be censored, but I want my right to a fair response. The execution of this right was most recently seen when a Op-Ed piece, penned by Charlotte Allen was published in the LA Times (and then republished yesterday in the Guardian) and spread around the blogosphere. I doubt very many atheists would have wanted Allen’s piece obliterated from the newspaper (shame on you if you did), but the sheer amount of responses it generated from both sides of the debate show the level of disagreement. If you want to read a thorough, well-written objection to Allen’s article, then head over to Shane Croucher’s blog.

I’m sure Allen will put this response down to “whining” as she did in the article and won’t even realize the hypocrisy of her writing, which one could argue is a lot of whining about atheists. I’m sure she’ll continue to criticize us for using freedom of speech to attack religion or belief in god, whilst at the same time using the very same freedom of speech to attack our views. Hers is the one-sided argument; she wants nothing but her views to be made, and she will ignore all objections or file them under the title of “whining”. We’ve seen this kind of behaviour before in so many forms, and if one thing holds true in each of those cases, it is that in the long run, people like Charlotte Allen always lose out eventually.

Opinions will be heard, debate will be had. Long live freedom of speech.

Well this is quite an amusing story, so I thought I’d share it with you. Earlier this month, I received a message on Facebook from a girl named Jennie.

I just have to thank you. In ways you may never understand, you helped me to become a Christian.

I used to be very much like yourself. Then, two weeks ago, as a result of reading your blog, I became one of those people you hate. Thank you so much. You are probably at least a little offended by this, but I felt I needed to let you know.

Obviously I was a little confused (and concerned) about her predicament. Confused because she seemed to think I hated Christians, and concerned because she had become one. I asked her to explain, and we sent a few messages to each other. She said I came across as very angry in some of my posts; I said I was only angry at justifiable things (like parents murdering children, or newspapers lying about students). She even prophesied this blog post, saying, “I’m sure you’ll be making fun of me on your blog eventually”. Of course such a prophecy was self-fulfilling, because her final response to me, where she finally explained how I was responsible for her Christianity, was just too funny not to post.

There are way too many things that led to my becoming a Christian, now that I look back. But this is how you contributed to that:

One day, while reading your blog, I just found myself wondering how anybody could spend so much time fighting against something they don’t believe exists. You have so much stuff on there and thinking that the purpose of 99% of it, is to inspire people to be against religion just seemed pointless. Not necessarily *inspire* but that’s the best word I could find for it. I started wondering what the point was. Why waste so much time and energy on criticizing religion? If there really is no God (the backbone of religion) then there would be no need to fight religion so hard. I don’t believe in unicorns, but I don’t create entire blogs dedicated to debunking the belief in them. I just think its silly to believe in them, so I ignore those who do. You, and many other atheists, however, find something in religion that makes you want to fight against it. Many atheists claims its a silly myth, but then why fight silly beliefs so hard? That got me thinking that there was something more to it than a silly myth.

You say that you’re only angry at justifiable things, but around the time I started wondering all this stuff, I saw a bunch of pictures you had of you throwing snowballs at signs about Jesus or something like that. That really confused me. There seemed to be no point whatsoever in that. Again, if its just a silly myth, why don’t you just ignore it? But you seemed unable to ignore it.

I mean, I understand if its just about the violence that religion causes, especially if you think of it as pointless because its all just a silly myth. But if you think about it, there’s just as much violence caused by anti-religious people. So why not just advocate against violence?

So I started digging. Christianity was the only religion that answered both questions. It gives the answer for why you can’t seem to ignore religion, even though you think of it as a silly myth. Also, I found the difference between religious violence and anti-religious violence. Violence in Christianity isn’t condoned by God or the Bible. The people who are using violence for religious reasons are doing it for the wrong reasons. However, without religion, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re killing people or not. It’s actually logical to kill people.

There’s much more to this whole thing, but I really couldn’t explain it all to you. I hope this makes a little sense, but if it doesn’t, please respect my beliefs and views. That’s another thing I had trouble with when it came to atheism: most atheists are incredibly intolerant and rude. But, seeing as how you kept pressing for an answer, I’d hope that you wouldn’t mock the answer I gave you; even if it doesn’t make sense to you.

One simply stares in disbelief how any atheist could actually ask questions like these given the amount of answers that have been repeated by the “New Atheist” movement in the last 10 years or so. Jennie finds my blog (and all other atheist blogs) pointless, since we are arguing against something we don’t even believe in. Like her, I don’t believe in unicorns, and I’m not going to create a blog about my disbelief in unicorns, because 99.9999% of the rest of the population shares my beliefs. There is no point preaching to the crowd. However, if suddenly the majority (or heck, even a large minority) started believing in unicorns, I’m sure there would be blogs talking about the reasons unicorns don’t exist. The point of a blog is both to spread a message, and challenge a viewpoint. Political blogs will challenge the opposition parties, Christian blogs will challenge other religions and atheism, and atheist blogs challenge religion (or just theism, but that’s not important). Jennie’s point is self-refuting if you simply change the word “atheism” to any particular belief, be it religious or political. There are Christian blogs that write reams about evolution, and they do this even though they don’t believe in it. Jennie wants to live in a dream world, where nobody talks about other people’s opinions, and debate doesn’t exist. Such places are anti-democracy, and are terrible places to live.

The second point I want to make about why atheists blog so much against religion is that we do have a belief; we believe that religions are dangerous. It’s a justified belief, because we have the evidence to prove it. Religion is the only reason Madeline Neumann is dead, the only reason why it took so long for Daniel Hauser to get cancer treatment. In Jennie’s dream world, we would not criticize the dangerous actions of the parents, and the children would die. Being nice only gets you so far; at some point you have to start disagreeing with people for society to make the progress it has.

Jennie seems to think that pictures of me throwing snowballs at Jesus posters is disrespectful, and she’s right; it is. I don’t care though, because fundamentalist baptist churches like the one in the picture are constantly disrespectful of everyone who doesn’t share their views. They blame homosexuals for everything under the sun, and use lies and manipulation to convert people. How exactly have they earned my respect? The other reason I took the picture was that I found it funny (as did my friends who I were with), and I thought some people online might have found it funny as well. It’s only a poster. I wasn’t attacking some poor pastor, I was attacking an idea, showing that nothing can be held sacred. To make you feel better, I did pelt quite a number of snowballs at my atheist friends that day (more so than I did at Jesus), so hopefully you feel like my actions were balanced.

Jennie asks “why not just advocate against violence?” instead of against religion that causes violence. I think people should attack the causes of violence, because the fundamentalists seem to think that anything goes if it is done for the will of god. They preach against violence too, but then they attack abortion centers. It is clear that reasoning with these people against violence isn’t going to work; they don’t believe their actions are immoral. If a group of atheists bomb a church, I will decry such an act, and do whatever I can to help the victims. I can advocate against violence and still advocate against religion; I see them as two different issues.

Jennie closes her argument for Christianity with a rather bizarre statement that it is “logical to kill people”. She doesn’t give any explanation of the logic used to deduce such a statement, but I think it probably goes along the lines of “How can you be good without God? You can’t. Therefore God.” Such arguments are of course ridiculous; morality doesn’t come from scripture (thank goodness) but from a combination of instinct and the society we live in. We don’t kill other people because it is harmful to the society in the grand scheme of things. Over time this has developed into the feeling of immorality we have today. There are many instances in the Bible where God orders the massacre of millions of people, so have humans actually outgrown the childish nature of God? I certainly like to think so.

Well, hopefully you haven’t found me too “intolerant” or “rude” Jennie. Hopefully you’ll read my response with an open mind, understand the errors in your judgement, and realise your argument simply makes no good points worthy of your conversion; it was based on misunderstanding and long-refuted claims. Well, one can hope.