The Atheist Blogger » secular

Royal Holloway Secular Students

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:38:10 +0000

Having an atheist group on campus is great fun, as long as you can remember what your group is called. Last September I created the first such group Royal Holloway had seen, the “Atheist Union”. Later that year we changed the name to “Atheist & Agnostic Alliance” because some people refused to join otherwise, and it looked more open that way.

Then, this summer a guy created the “Royal Holloway Humanist Alliance” which I quickly got in contact and met up with. At the meeting we decided that two secular groups on campus was plain silly, and so we created the “Royal Holloway Secular Students” group, which is an umbrella group for both the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance and the Humanist Alliance.

Enough is enough, we have a group name now…hopefully one that will stick. We are planning fortnightly debates on secular issues, such as Abortion (next week), Faith Schools, Evolution vs Creationism, and Shia Law.

Should be fun…

Possibly Related Posts:

Why I Rejected Christianity: Sexuality

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:30:29 +0000

I was trying to think up new ideas for articles on this blog, and I realized that whilst I have talked at great length about what I believe as an atheist and why, I haven’t really covered why I rejected Christianity. So this is the first article in a new series.

Whilst I can’t speak for all atheists who have deconverted from Christianity, these are my personal reasons for losing my faith. I was brought up in a semi-religious family and attended two Church of England schools, one of which was situated right next to the church.

Sexuality

One of the main reasons I think I rejected Christianity (as well as other religions) is the issue of sexuality. I was brought up under the Church of England, and whilst I wasn’t a fundamentalist per se, I did believe that women were responsible for all sin. Whilst I had no idea that homosexuals existed (I was younger than 10), if I had met one of been told about one, I would probably have been disgusted.

Of course in a secular place like England you cannot hold these views rationally for long. I eventually became very anti-sexist as I learned more about biology and humanity as a species. Science dictates that whilst the differences between male and female are distinct, there are “advantages” to both. Without women, we wouldn’t have children, and their minds are more adept to solving complicated puzzles faster. Men on the other hand have the obvious higher average strength and height, a gift from years of Evolution. They are also more adept at visualizing problems in their head without the need for paper.

So really, for the church to claim that women were responsible for all mortal sin was rather stupid. Even if you believe the Genesis story, it was the snake who tricked Eve by using her “God-given” ability of free-will. This I saw as pretty unfair; giving someone free-will and then punishing them for using it? Men are as inquisitive and gullible as women. I have no doubt that, left alone in the Garden of Eden, Adam would have succumbed to curiosity instead of Eve. Eve is merely the innocent victim of prejudice.

I grew up in a changing England. Secularism was on the rise, and was challenging some of the churches views. Women were gradually being appointed as clergy even thought it is against Biblical teaching:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [1 Tim 2:12]

This isn’t the only quote against women. The entire Bible is full of misogynistic writings.

The popular British comedy “Vicar of Dibley” was a turning point for many people on the views of women clergy. In it, a traditional English village sees the death of it’s elderly male pastor, and is shocked when the replacement is a women. After initial discomfort, the vicar turns out to be an enormous success.

Of course this change didn’t do anything but start hacking away at the bonds between me and Christianity. Although I thought that women had every right to be clergy, how could people ignore what was written in the Bible to do so? I now see the Bible for what it is of course, which is a book full of hatred, oppression, and lies.

Now that the gender side of sexuality is covered, I’ll move onto the sexual orientation side. I’m a partially open bisexual man. I say “partially” since I haven’t technically come out to my parents or family members, but it’s not like I keep it a secret. My facebook profile lists me as interested in both men and women, and although I have never dated a man, I have felt sexually attracted to some. I tend to date women because I find them far more interesting than any man, and possibly because I’m not a 50/50 bisexual, but probably more aimed towards a 80/20 in favour of women. Put simply, there are more types of women I am attracted to than men.

The issue of sexuality wasn’t really addressed at a young age, although I learned of homosexuality when I was about 8. At the time I found it repulsive, the very thought of a man even kissing another man was sickening. I was later bullied at school and called “gay” as a derogatory term, nothing to do with my actual sexuality, so that might have prompted an adverse reaction to it.

What really changed my minds about homosexuality was actually meeting gay couples, understanding that their love is very real, and in most circumstances their relationship is much more loving than any heterosexual one. The divorce rates between homosexual marriages are much lower than heterosexual marriages, and for some good reasons:

More respect is held for each partner, due in some way to the same gender status is society.
This leads to better sex lives, with less adultery committed.
Both partners are valued equally (as explained in #1).
Longevity because of devotion, not church sanction.
Which means the marriage is bound by passion, not tradition.
Lower instances of abuse because of shared values.

Contrary to popular opinion, homosexual couples are almost perfect for raising children because of the loving environment they give. It seems odd then, that there is such hatred of homosexuals in religion. If there is anything I hate more about homophobic religious fundamentalists, it is people who say that the Bible is misinterpreted and that “gays are fine”. These people are the ignorant ones. The Bible states very clearly in numerous places that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. Such twisting of words might look like people are trying to be more liberal about their religion, but in reality they are being hypocritical.

I think a clear message should be sent to people: If your holy book says homosexuals are an abomination, then they are according to your religion. If you disagree, have the guts to admit that your religion is not the word of God, and don’t try to warp it’s meaning. What is the point in believing in a God who says something one day but then changes his mind years down the line? I’m sorry, but I thought your God was omnipotent and omniscient, and such a thing could never happen according to those definitions.

So hopefully I’ve managed to enlighten a few people on one of the many reasons I rejected Christianity. I’ll write more on this topic soon.

Possibly Related Posts:

Which Is The Most Secular / Non-believing State In The USA?

Adrian Hayter — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:31:55 +0000

A the title suggests, I would like to know which state (or area) of the USA is considered the most secular / non-believing. Since I live in the UK I am putting this question out to all my American readers in hope that they can throw back some figures for me.

Why do I want to know? Well, I’m currently going into my second year of university studying Computer Science with Information Security (which is way more interesting to me that it sounds to you). It’s a three year course, and at the end I will weigh up my options before deciding whether to do a PhD in it. Whenever I actually leave university, I have always had plans to emigrate to America. Truth be told, there are far more jobs in the computer industry over there, especially in the areas I want to go into (Gaming and/or Web Technology).

I don’t want to end up in a Bible Belt area for obvious reasons, so I’d like a place where I could feel at ease with my beliefs, and find other secular people to hang out with. California’s “Silicon Valley” is a good place to start, since it has the technology and I know of at least one secular/atheist group for workers there. Amiable Atheist recently made me aware of Arizona which has an increasing number of non-believers.

So, which state do you consider the most secular / atheist? Do you have any figures to show this result? What other aspects of this area would make it desirable for a liberal atheist technology geek like myself?

I await your answers!

Possibly Related Posts:

Secularization In Action?

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:00:07 +0000

Make of this what you will, whether it is just my over-analytical mind working overtime, or evidence of secularization in action.

The UK is thought of as a very secular place, which historically is quite odd, as unlike America there are no direct laws that separate church and state. Also, the country has always been quite religious, although this was disrupted massively when King Henry VIII created the Church of England. Nevertheless, in recent years there have been polls showing the increase in atheism, and a poll last year which revealed 42% of a 2,200 person survey thought that “religion caused more harm than good”.

What I noticed the other day was on a more personal scale. I was visiting hospital, and as usual had to confirm my details on the system. They did a few updates, change of address, phone number etc. Then they got to the question of religion.

In a non-secular country the question one would pose is “What is your religion?”. In a secular one you would expect a more neutral approach, perhaps “Do you have a religion?”. However the receptionist asked neither of these questions.

In fact she took the latter and added two words, which to me made a massive difference. The question she posed was:

Do you have a religion at all?

It may not seem like much, but these two simple words impose a certain level of doubt or expectancy on a question. It’s the type of question you ask when you don’t expect the answer to be positive, but you ask anyway in the hope that it will be. In this scenario, the receptionist phrased the question as if she didn’t expect me to be religious at all.

Of course, my answer was the usual “No, I’m an atheist” since I am not concerned with what people think of my particular beliefs, especially those concerning the non-existence of gods. As far as I can make out, this event proves either:

1) Secularization is on the increase, and more people are aware of the separation of church and state, but moreover the general lack of interest and support religion gets in the modern world.

2) Students are considered to be apathetic about absolutely everything and she really didn’t expect me to go into details about any of my personal beliefs.

I hope hypothesis 1 is correct though, because if you believe for one second that students are “apathetic” about anything you have never been to a modern student rally. If anything, students are more fundamental about their beliefs than anyone. We have no money, no possessions, so our beliefs and what we stand for are all we really have to work with.

My apologies. This article seems to have turned into a defense of student activism, which really does prove that my mind is simply too overactive for it to stay on one subject for very long. I’d better cut off now, before I start talking about something I find more interesting than religion, and that’s coming from a guy who finds assembly language and logic gates “interesting”.

As I said at the start, make of it what you will…

Possibly Related Posts:

Rep. Monique Davis Apologizes To Rob Sherman

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:40:00 +0000

What with all the pressure put on her by the blogging community and the media, and the mere fact that her outburst has travelled around the globe in a matter of hours, it was just a matter of time before Illinois State Representative Monique Davis apologized to atheist activist Rob Sherman.

For those who still need a memory refresh, the transcript of the outburst (which happened whilst Rob Sherman was testifying against the Governor for donating public money to fund a church) is here:

Davis: [. . .] I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! [. . .] I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

According to Rob Sherman’s website, on the 9th April Davis phoned and apologized for her comments:

Yesterday, State Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago) called me from the Floor of the Illinois House of Representatives to apologize for what she had said to me at last Wednesday’s hearing of the House State Government Administration Committee. Rep. Davis had said, among other things, that atheism is dangerous to the progression of the State of Illinois, that children should not be allowed to know that my philosophy (atheism) exists, and that I had no right to testify to any Illinois legislative committee because the People of Illinois believe in God. She concluded by ordering me to “Get out of that seat!”

Some bloggers have asked what I said to instigate Rep. Davis’ comments. I was testifying about why the Governor’s proposal to donate one million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church is unconstitutional. Specifically, I was reading, in a very calm manner, from my laptop computer, the words in the March 4th “Latest Update,” which appear below and which explains why the proposal to give money to the church is unconstitutional.

Rep. Davis said that she had been upset, earlier in the day, to learn that a twenty-second and twenty-third Chicago Public School student this school year had been shot to death that morning. She said that it was wrong for her to take out her anger, frustrations and emotions on me, and that she apologized to me.

I told her that her explanation was reasonable and that I forgave her. I also suggested that if she really was concerned about public school students dying needlessly, she should look into helping me to get passed legislation to get lap and shoulder seat belts on school busses that is pending in the House and in the Senate.

She thanked me for forgiving her and said that she would look into those two pieces of legislation.

Rep. Davis’ apology was a direct result of the pressure put on her by the thousands of bloggers from around the globe who commented on the various news sites and the hundreds of people from around the world who contacted her office by telephone or e-mail. Each and every one of you really did make a difference. Your comments didn’t just go out into thin air and get forgotten about and ignored. By each one of you taking the time to carefully craft your intelligent message, pressure built up on Rep. Davis. Meanwhile, more pressure built as additional news outlets picked up the story, including the Countdown show with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, which gave Rep. Davis the Worst Person in the World award; the Capitol Fax in Springfield, Illinois; and a half-hour appearance on WTDY radio in Madison, Wisconsin. Blogs and direct contact with the offending party really do make a difference. They may not get read everywhere, but they are read by people who matter, so I thank each one of you for your efforts.

A big thank you, also, to Eric Zorn and the Chicago Tribune. If Eric hadn’t chosen to do the story, it may never have gotten off the ground. Eric’s latest column is entitled Davis’ anti-atheist tirade goes national. Thanks, Eric.

Her reasons for the apology have made some a little uneasy. Hemant Mehta commented:

The reasoning as to why she made her remarks seems very shaky to me (what do shootings have to do with atheism being a “dangerous philosophy” unless she wants to equate the two… which would be an even bigger mistake)… But it took a lot for her to apologize, and it was the right thing to do. Kudos to Rep. Davis for making the call to Sherman, even if it was about a week overdue.

Personally, I think her apology explains a lot. She had a go at Sherman for arguing against the donation of public money to fund churches and questioned why he wasn’t against keeping guns from children. If her claim that she was upset over the shootings is accurate and true, then it might account for this otherwise strange and bemusing statement.

However, I am in agreement that she had no right to take out her anger on anyone, let alone a person who is fighting for upholding the constitution. The whole thing was drawn out way too long, but as the saying goes…better late than never.

Possibly Related Posts:

Council For Secular Humanism Calls For Rep. Monique Davis To Resign

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:58:39 +0000

The Council for Secular Humanism were the first secular organisation to ask for the resignation of Monique Davis, the Illinois Representative who shouted at atheist activist Rob Sherman whilst he was giving his testimony to oppose a $1 million tax-payer donation proposed by the Governor to a Baptist Church.

The confrontation went thus:

Davis: [. . .] I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! [. . .] I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Amid a large backlash from the blogging community, and the media (with Keith Olbermann declaring her the “Worst Person in the World”), the Council for Secular Humanism had the following press release:

Council for Secular Humanism Deplores Intemperate Comments from Rep. Monique Davis; calls for Davis to resign

(Amherst, New York) –Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat and member of the Illinois legislature, stepped egregiously over the line when she verbally attacked atheist activist Rob Sherman for his religious unbelief during his testimony April 2nd to the House State Government Administration Committee, says the Council for Secular Humanism.

Sherman had been testifying before the committee that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s plan to donate one million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago was unconstitutional when Davis launched into a diatribe against atheists, asserting that atheists did not have a right to present testimony to the legislature.. Challenging Sherman, Davis wondered aloud, “I don’t know what you have against God?.some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings.” Affirming that the people of Illinois believe that there is a God, Davis went on to suggest that the philosophy Sherman was spreading was “extremely dangerous.” “It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists,” shouted Davis. After Sherman thanked Davis for sharing her perspective with him, Davis shot back, “Get out of that seat ?You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

The Council for Secular Humanism is appalled by Davis’s apparent belief that atheists and other nonreligious individuals are not entitled to the same rights and liberties as other citizens.

Ronald A. Lindsay, director of the Council for Secular Humanism’s First Amendment Task Force, is calling for Davis to resign. “In informing Sherman that he had ‘no right’ to be there merely because he was an atheist, Davis confirmed that she is not willing to be a representative of all her constituents, regardless of their religious beliefs,” said Lindsay.

“She is unfit to serve in her office, just as a representative who told a Jew or a Hindu to ‘get out of that seat’ would be unfit to serve. If she does not resign, the Illinois House has an obligation to expel her,” continued Lindsay.

Sherman, after being told repeatedly by Davis to get out of his seat because he was an atheist commented that he felt like Rosa Parks, “who also was told, get out of that seat and arrested when she didn’t give up her seat on the bus to a white person.”

You can listen to the full exchange here (courtesy of Richard Dawkins.net).

From Atheist Revolution and the Council for Secular Humanism

Possibly Related Posts:

Atheism Needs More Penn Jillette’s And Less Jodie Foster’s

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:03:54 +0000

Firstly let me explain the title. I am not having a go at Jodie Foster’s acting talents, she is one of my favourite actors and I have utmost respect for her as an actress. What I am having a go at is her views on atheism and religion. It seems that there are two distinct groups in atheism these days, the people who are “all out” atheists and continually argue against the irrationality of religion and belief, and those who are almost apologising for their atheism.

Jodie Foster is one of those in the latter group. She freely admits to being an atheist, but in doing so, always relates herself back to organised religion in some way, so it seems less of a “controversial” issue.

I don’t follow any kind of traditional religion, but I have great respect for all religions. I spend a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it’s Eastern religion or Western religion. I only have questions so far and no answers. [1]

The usage of the word “but” is probably the most conclusive evidence in this quote. She describes herself as an atheist (rather, one who doesn’t follow a religion), and then tries to cover up for the fact by showing her “respect” for religion in general. Many would argue it’s a minor piece of evidence, but how would the quote look if she had said “and” instead of the “but”, or some other passive conjunction? Instead of some kind of apology for being an atheist, the statement becomes one where the emphasis is not so greatly strained on the religious side.

Perhaps I’m being slightly too analytical, but it leads me onto the type of atheist I think we need more of: Penn Jillette.

Penn Jillette is the speaking half of the comedy magician duo “Penn & Teller”, and although Teller is equally as open and “loud” about his atheism, it is Penn who always does the talking. He has debunked Christianity on his television show “Bullshit!”, joined the “Blasphemy Challenge” started by the Rational Response Squad, and has a license plate on his car that reads “DOG ON” (“NO GOD” backwards so people looking in their rear-view mirrors will know the truth).

It is people like him that are opening atheism up to the world. People might complain that this isn’t doing atheism any good on the whole, and that continually arguing against faith is just making people hate atheists even more, but I don’t believe that is true. The only reason atheism is more widely accepted these days is because people like Jillette have come out and publicly admitted their atheism, and have ridiculed religion and exposed it for the lying money grabbing scam it truly is.

In the U.K, the leader of the Liberal Democrats party is an atheist, but he has publicly stated that

he had “enormous respect for people who have religious faith”, that his wife is Catholic and that his children are being brought up Catholic.

Notice again, the frank apology for his beliefs, which I guess is in order to gain votes from the religious majority in the country. I would have hoped that in secular England, a politician wouldn’t have to sink this low to gain votes, but then again politicians have sunken lower. I would never wish my children to be brought up Catholic. I would wish them to be brought up knowing all the facts, and for them to be able to make a rational decision by themselves. If they work out there is no God, I’ll support them, and if they belief that there is more to the universe than science and want to join an organised religion, I’ll support that too, but for goodness sake let the children decide!

Here’s hoping that the world produces more aggressive atheists. We’ll need them to combat the growing number of aggressive anti-secular, anti-atheist believers who want nothing more but complete religious control over the world.