Atheist Interview 2.0

It's 2013 so I figure it's time to go out with the old and in with the...old, I guess. I'm restarting my series of interviews with favorite atheist bloggers. Originally, the idea was to trick other writers to provide free content for my blog while I rest on my laurels and watch the ad money flow in. Here are the folks who fallen for it thus far.

• An interview with Cubik's Rube
• An interview with Lorena
• An interview with 957Chatterton
• An interview with The Wise Fool
• An interview with Vjack
• An interview with Infidel753
• An interview with Hausdorff
• An interview with John Richards
• An interview with Andrew Hall
• An interview with Tom Rees
• An interview with Cephus
• An interview with Martin S. Pribble
• An interview with The Arizona Atheist
• An interview with David Hayward
• An interview with Bud
• An interview with Hemant Mehta
• An interview with Sheldon Cooper
• An interview with Bruce Gerencser
• An interview with Paul Sunstone
• An interview with Lady Atheist
• An interview with me

I've learned a few things since I started the series. First and foremost, there is no ad money in atheism. Second, everyone is far more talented and compelling then myself.

As per usual, I'll be asking five custom questions and two, all-new standard questions. So my question to you, commenters, is this: what standard questions should I ask? I don't want to waste a chance to see if the community is on the same page about something--anything. Nothing too obvious now, but I'm currently accepting ideas.

Also, if there is a blogger you think worthy of an interview, pass the name along. I already have a couple lined up for my interrogations.

Turn-the-Tables Interview

From The Wise Fool: It seems that you have gotten yourself into many debates with theists, definitely online, but possibly also in person.  Do you have any recommendations for getting through to the other side, online or in person?  Or is it really just a roll of the dice, depending on how receptive to considering an alternate opinion the other person is?  And a corollary question:  Do you debate like you play poker?

When debating theists, I recommend you become the anti-troll. Present your points, but kill them with kindness. Pointing out flaws in how someone has been living their life will always result in defensive behavior. The more they can find about you personally to justify their inevitable anger, the less receptive they’ll be in what you have to say. In poker, it’s called going on tilt--a player loses a hand, especially when the player thinks they’ve done everything right, and it will take the player out of the game and play poorly in subsequent hands. You want to keep the theist in the game and in the conversation. The alternative will send the debate into a lizard-brain spiral of ad hominem attacks.

My other advice would be to find the root of your opponents link to religion. It might be complete faith in the Bible, in which case you should do your best invalidate their holy book; It might be a fuzzy understanding of apologetic arguments, in which case you need to take them down the rabbit hole of logical fallacies. Or it might simply be that their life is entrenched in church--with friends and family all sharing the same beliefs. In this case I recommend don’t convince them to leave their religion wholesale, just show them that atheists are smart, good people by living the example.

Overall, I suppose I do debate like a play poker, but the goals are very different. In both cases I learn how my opponent plays and adjust my play accordingly, but in debates I only want to learn and educate. At the card table I aim to win at all costs.

From Reason Being: Imagine you have a close friend who is a theist and who is"on the fence" about religion and/or existence of god.  He comes to you and asking for a book recommendation about either atheism or anti-theism, what would you recommend and why?

It largely depends on my friend’s central reason for believing in God. If he thinks that God is needed to explain how we got here, I’d direct him to a book with more biology than atheist philosophy. I find Dawkins is best at explaining evolution, and while The Selfish Gene is my favorite book of his, I’d go with The Blind Watchmaker in this one.

If my friend understands and accepts science, but still sees logic and meaning in God, I would direct him to my favorite book on skepticism, The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. This book doesn't attack religion as a concept, just the backwards thinking that tends to go along with it. It is a love letter to science and it's ability to grant the closest thing to objective truth we have available to us.

After reading either of these books, I'd encourage my friend to read or reread their own holy book. The new perspective may shine some light on the Bible's (or whatever's) shortcomings.

From Hausdorff: Many outspoken atheists like yourself grew up religious and have a lot of anger related to their upbringing, this anger often come out in their writing. Do you harbor this type of anger yourself? If so, is it ever a struggle to keep your writing full of humor instead of rage?

I really don't have much anger. Nothing bad happened to me or anyone I know personally due to my church and most everyone I met through it was a good person...at least on the surface, but as an outsider to their lives that's all that mattered. If I ever sound mad in my writing, I'm mad for others.

The humor comes in not as an anger management tool, just as a light-hearted shaming tool. When you don't believe, believing seems really nuts...and I don't want to feel as superior as I sometimes do. I try to mock the faithful out of their faith. Spoiler alert, it isn't working. :-)

From Infidel753: What can the atheist community do about the problem of sexism and sexual harassment within its ranks, which has already driven Jen McCreight out of the atheist blogosphere and continues to discourage women from participating?

I never read Miss McCreight's blog and she declined to do one of these interviews after the Atheist Plus scandal of 2012, but, sure, I've seen sexism elsewhere. Atheists should cut it out. How? I don't know, how do you stop any troll? Report them? Flag them? Ban them? Depending on the severity and the medium, those might work. Whatever you do, don't troll back--it's the very definition of "vicious cycle."

If I was Miss McCreight after getting the amount of kickback she did, I'd probably blacklist the meanest commenters from my blog and stop checking Twitter until it blew over. I would have at least considered that is that many people though my idea was bad, it might be bad--regardless of how they presented their discontent. Some people are dicks and will lash out at whatever can get the most rise. If she was a he, I'm doubt they would have not attacked him. They would have attacked his gayness or blackness or stupidity instead--whatever would have made him feel the worse. This is the Internet, we need to get used to the occasional flamewar or get to censoring.

From Bitchspot: With all of the interviews you've done now, what is the one thing that you've learned, or the one idea you've now seen from a different perspective, that you find most valuable?

Out of the seven questions I’ve asked each interviewee, only a couple have been standardized in a way in which I could come to an atheist consensus. What caught me by surprise was the consistent answers to the question “Who’s your favorite atheist?” While most everyone came to a different answer, if they answered at all, the biggest consistency was the reluctance to answer.

One “sin” believers can’t claim atheism supports is worshiping false idols. We think they’re all false and we don’t worship at the alter of any of them. “Role-model” is almost seen as a bad word. This is a huge difference from the apologetic mindset encouraging "training" from a select group of well-paid spokespeople.

Standard question #1: Who is you favorite atheist?

When addressing people who believe the crazy shit that holy books entail, a little condescending humor is completely appropriate ..as long as it’s funny. Ricky Gervais comes to mind. Outside of his hours, days, weeks, and probably months worth of recorded audio on the subject, his movie The Invention of Lying was a modern telling of (what I believe to be) the origin of religion.

Penn Jillete and Bill Maher make funny with religion as well. Jillete take is a very interesting and seemingly honest one, while Maher’s is too mean spirited for me to enjoy on a regular basis. My favorite topical comedians are Jon Stewart and Stephen Cobert. Stewart is a secular-ish Jew, but I’m confident Cobert is an atheist. Not sure if he’s ever come out and said it, but he is rarely out of character long enough to say anything honest about himself.

The atheists I listen to most regularly are Adam Carolla and George Hrab, both in podcast form. Carolla’s atheism comes up often enough, but is hardly integral to his show. I’d have to give the “My Favorite Atheist” award to Hrab. He’s outspoken on religion in all the right ways, points out hypocrisy weekly, and balances interest and humor better than anyone I’ve previously mentioned.

Standard question #2: What’s the most harmful aspect of religion?

Historically and abroad, the hatred fueled by the division of faiths is the most harmful. There are no good reasons for conflict at the scale humanity has endured, but warring over who’s mythology is correct is one of the worst.

Closer to home, my biggest problem is religion as an obstacle for progress. Believing things rather than understanding things breeds a lack of curiosity that leads to a destiny of hunting and gathering forever because anything else would be “playing God.” I often think of where we could be today if not for the technological pause of the Dark Ages and the heel dragging of Christian conservatism.
It's not only science that suffers from the irrational conservatism, but so does social progress. The only reason the church rejects slavery today is because everyone else rejected it first. Religion is one of the last hold outs preventing true sexual equality. Civil rights, interracial marriage, homosexuality--the church, most any church, has been or still is completely intolerant. Religion causes harm by keeping humanity in the past when a golden age of acceptance and abundance is waiting for us.

An Interview with Laughing in Purgatory

The following is an interview with Laughing in Purgatory.

You use humor to comment on the absurdities of religion. What makes faith such a good target for parody?

Faith is a great target for comedy for a variety of reasons. First, there seems to be a negative correlation between how religious a person is and their sense of humor. As religiosity rises their ability to laugh decreases dramatically. I don’t know of any scientific studies of this phenomena, but anecdotally speaking I’ve never seen a picture of Osama bin Laden smiling. I’ve seen Pat Robertson laugh and it is eerie, it’s as if the man needed extensive training to summon a giggle.

Second, look at the material of the faithful. Any ten year old who has not been indoctrinated into faith-based lunacy would recognize any holy book as fiction. Talking snakes, people rising from the dead and angels are in the same category of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin. Being with religiously minded people is like watching an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants, and you’re the only one who knows it’s make believe.

Third, there is the tragic aspect of faith that is ripe for dark comedy and satire – which I love to write. In many ways the funny is a cheap ego defense to deal with a species with a history of killing and torturing in the name of their god’s perfect love.  In my opinion, you can ignore that harsh reality, go mad or laugh. I choose to laugh.

Mocking a hot button issue like religion is bound to offend a great many people. What do you say to someone who claims to be offended by your satirical point of view?

I use self deprecating humor all the time, and that diffuses a lot of tension. It’s very difficult to get really peeved at me while I’m honestly trying to get you to laugh while acknowledging that I am as big a fool as they come.

As an atheist parent, how do you teach your children about religion? Were you brought up religious and does that inform your parenting today? 

Here is what I tell my kids: God is an imaginary friend many people have. The thing is they do not realize that he is imaginary. Do not tell them God isn’t real, because they may get really angry at you. Now, that runs counter to what many atheist parents do in terms belief. Many parents think that they should just let their kids figure it out on their own. That they need to be agnostic about God and give their children the cognitive tools and all will be good in the world.

Yeah, I don’t do that.

I don’t tell my kids that magic may or may not be real. I don’t tell my kids that racism/sexism may or may not be OK. The God meme is toxic and I’m identifying it as such.

We talk about religion quite a bit around the kitchen table. We also talk about Greek and Norse myths as well as science, geography, comic books, etc. That’s because I spend time with my children and we have real conversations. If a parent spends time with their kids then religion will come up. Seeing that atheists are well acquainted with faith, they should be able to transmit what they know to the next generation. What is absurd is when atheist parents bring their kids to church in order to educate them about faith. That’s like going to a used car salesman to learn about the science and history of the automobile.

I was brought up in a Baptist (the non-Southern variety) home. My mother was the church organist and my father was a deacon. My early upbringing was very church intensive, and I wanted to be a minister for a while.

Your newest feature to Laughing in Purgatory is called "The Rogue' Gallery" which highlights the lowest common commenter. How do you recommend other bloggers deal with true-believers and the occasional troll?

The Rogues’ Gallery is an experiment, and one that has actually born some fruit. I burned The God Delusion last February in response to rioting Muslims who were miffed at the Qur’an being mishandled.  I made a few memes stressing the point that atheists don’t go batshit crazy when something we like gets desecrated. One of the memes was picked up on a Humanist site and a commenter stated that, “Those who burn books deserve death. Period.”  I placed that fellow into the Gallery and shortly afterwards received an email from him apologizing for being a jerk. And it was a real apology, too. While I kept the incident up on the page, I removed his name as well as the meme I made with his face and the quote. It was a happy ending for all.

In dealing with trolls in general, I moderate my comments.  If a Christian is polite and has a real question I’ll answer it. If a lunatic leaves a preposterous but entertaining comment I’ll post it just so others can read it and have a good laugh. However, I can do these things because I run a relatively small blog. If Laughing in Purgatory ever gets big I plan to go the Sam Harris route and get rid of comments altogether. What I know for sure is that I can only handle so many “Is this story real or a Poe?” comments before my eyes start bleeding.

Who is your favorite atheist? Who is your favorite comedian?

Christopher Hitchens by far. The man had a savage wit and a proclivity of irritating everyone.

Woody Allen. My favorite movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors. The film has a mix of the tragic and the humorous which I love. Allen has the ability of framing the “big questions” in an easy to understand way that makes the audience think as well as smile.

What do you see as the most harmful aspect of religion?

Religion separates the adherent from reality. When a person chooses not to reality test their beliefs then all types of deviltry occurs. Creationism, anti-gay bigotry and the vilest tribalism is the result of people putting faith-based cognitive blinders on.

If you could incorporate any aspect of religion into your life or the life of others without the mythology, what would it be and why?

I’m a bit of an architecture fan and I wouldn’t mind living in a renovated church someday. I keep praying that more churches go bankrupt.

An Interview with Epiphenom

The following is an interview with Tom Rees of Epiphenom.

For the uninitiated, can you tell us a little about your blog and the larger “Field of Science” website?

Epiphenom is a blog I've been running for the last 5 years. The basic idea is that I read new scientific papers on research into the psychology and sociology of religion, belief and non-belief, and I post up summaries of the more interesting ones. It's pitched at folks who are comfortable reading about science, but who may not know a whole lot about these topics - typical science journalism. When I started, I just ran my blog as a stand-alone site. But a few years ago I got an offer to move it onto Field of Science, which is a small community of science bloggers.

What first got you interested in the science of religion and non-belief? Were you ever a believer?

I was born into a family of non-believers, and religion has never held much appeal for me. But atheism was never much of an issue for me either - mainly because religion was irrelevant to most of the people I knew, too. Back in the early days of the internet - the mid 1990s - I found myself on usenet, being amazed that there were so many people (mostly Americans) in denial about evolution, and generally being fervently religious. It made me wonder why America has so many more religious people than other wealthy nations. I thought it might be something to do with the lack of a welfare state, and higher inequality. Well, that fermented away in the back of my mind for a while, until in 2007 I decided to do some quantitative research to test the theory. That was published in 2009, and the blog basically arose out of the background reading I did.

Your posts are often your interpretation of research. While this gives you a better foundation to form an opinion, do you worry that the insights you gleam from the research are ever wrong? How do you balance science with journalism?

I worry that they are often wrong! Many of the studies are quite small, and they are rarely repeated. That in itself would be a cause for concern. But worse, the field of psychology has a major problem right now, in that there seems to be an epidemic of outright fraud and also of more small scale fudging of results. In other words, in many cases people haven't been following a rigourous process of developing a hypothesis, designing a study and then seeing if the data confirm their hypothesis. Rather, they often have invented explanation after doing the study. On top of that, there's a lot of publication bias. Studies that don't show the desired result don't get published.

That would explain why so many studies seem to show such clear and unambiguous proof of exactly what the authors were expecting. The only way to get to the bottom of this is for other researchers to repeat the study. On my blog, I try to reference back to other studies on the same topic whereever possible, to see if they really are going in the same direction.

As to the broader question, of whether my own conclusions are wrong, or perhaps overstated to support my own opinions - well I would have to admit that this does happen with me, just as with everyone else. But one of the good things about a blog is that the commenters will often pull you up on claims that you make that are not really supported, or provide alternative explanations of the same results. It keeps you on your toes!

What do you think was the primary reason for the creation of religion?

We have mental biases that make us see intelligent actions in the play of random chance, and to want to join together in groups, and to take actions to try to influene our environment, no matter how implausible they might appear. So we invent imaginary beings that meet these needs. They help us to feel more secure, because it feels like we have more power over our fate than we actually do. Perhaps they actually do increase real security, by encouraging honesty and self sacrifice for the group. I'm less certain of that idea, however. There is some evidence to support it, but also some good theoretical reasons, as well as observations, that undermine it.

If that reason is less valid today, why do you suppose religion has continued to stay relevant today?

Many parts of the world are less religious than they used to be. In part, that's because many of the claims that religions have made about the world have turned out to be wrong, and because there seems less need for a religion to provide 'answers' to existential questions. But it's also because we now live in societies where questioning widely-held beliefs is not only acceptable, but actively encouraged. As importantly, we lead lives that are much more secure that formerly. As a result, many people pay lip service to religion, but it really is not important to them. It's not so much that they don't believe, it's more that they don't care.

Have you found that the stereotypes of the believers and nonbelievers hold up to the statistics? What would surprise us most?

Almost always not. The first thing to remember is that, even within a single religion like Christianity, there are a wide variety of different approaches to religion. There really is no "one-size-fits-all" description of a religious person. But it's true that religious people are more traditional, have larger families, and score slightly less well on IQ tests. I think what would surprise most people is the difference between "believing" and "belonging". By that I mean the difference between have strong, fervent beliefs in the existance of god, and the participation in religious activities. Although both are used to mark out "religious" people, in fact the psychology behind the two is quite different.

The other thing that would surprise many people, at least in the west, is how many of their assumptions about religion don't really apply in regions outside of the judaeo-christian tradition. Most research into religion is done with Christian university graduates, usually in the USA. There's a whole world of surprises out there, yet to be uncovered.

Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example. 

Which god? Modern gods have been transformed as a result of pressure from the sciences. As a result, they are defined in a way that's carefully formulated to be immune to any kind of rationale investigation. It's important to note that wasn't always the case - in the past people believed that you could pray to your god and get some kind of concrete result.

So to answer your question, I'd first have to ask you to define your god. And then ask you if there is anything that you could observe that you would take as evidence for your god. Usually, when you do that, you get quite non-specific things (the existance of love, for example), which are actually just reformulations of the "god of the gaps" - i.e. here is something unexplained, therefore magic exists. God can be used to explain anything mysterious, but we know from experience that such explanations are weak and prone to be overturned as knowledge develops.

So, the short answer is no. I don't don't think I will ever see evidence for a god, because nobody who believes in a god can tell me what that evidence would be.

An Interview with Cephus

The following is an interview with Cephus of Bitchspot.

Your blog has gone through a few transformations in an effort to appeal to your varied readership. Ultimately, you have decided to continue Bitchspot blog for yourself without cartering to an audience. What do you get out of commiting your thoughts to bytes?

Just to give a bit of history that I don't think I've ever given on the blog (hey, an exclusive), I was one of the founding moderators of the Dalnet IRC network #atheism channel, way back in the day. It was a channel that turned into one of the most populous channels on the entire network. We'd draw in huge numbers of people every night and I quickly realized that debating theists, my primary purpose, was virtually impossible with hundreds of people all typing at once, you couldn't track a particular conversation or type nearly fast enough to keep up with a dozen debates going on simultaneously.  It was great to have open access, the format just sucked.  I had also been involved in debate forums for a long time, and while there, the signal-to-noise ratio was much better, the moderation policy for many forums prohibited people from even questioning theist beliefs since it might make people "unhappy".  You make people unhappy, you get suspended or banned, that's just the way it goes on most forums.  So I spent most of my time on these forums, debating with theists, biting my tongue until it bled.  Enter Bitchspot.  To be honest, back in 2005 when I started Bitchspot, it was never intended to appeal to a wide audience, it was a sounding board where I could rant against things that really pissed me off.  My wife came up with the name, it was literally my spot to bitch.  I didn't care then how many people read it, it just got bigger than I expected because my focus was mostly on religion and the atheist blogosphere really wasn't that large back then and people gravitated toward it.  I think my biggest failure was when I started to care what my readers wanted more than what I was writing the blog for. As the hits grew, I started catering to the readers, writing what they wanted to read, not what I wanted to write.  I had tons of hits, which made no real difference to me since I've never had an ad on Bitchspot in it's entire history and have never made a penny, but I ended up burning out.  I dreaded having to sit down and write that next article.  It wasn't fun so I quit.  Months later though, I found that I missed it, not for the notoriety, but because I still needed that place where I could get my thoughts out.  When I "rebooted" the system about 18 months ago, after changing hosting for my domain, I reintroduced Bitchspot on it's original mission.  People either like what I write or they don't.  Luckily, there seem to be a sizeable number of people who do enjoy what I write and stop by every day.

Typically, the religious lean right politically while the secular lean left. Why do you think that is and why are you an exception?

I'm a lifelong conservative, I was conservative when I was religious, there was really no reason to reject conservatism just because I dropped religion.  I predate the modern neo-conservative movement in the Republican party.  I'm part of the old school Goldwater conservatism, where religion played virtually no part.  In fact, it was Goldwater who recognized the coming storm and warned the Republican party to reject fundamentalist Christianity,long before it became the hallmark of modern neo-conservatism.  According to Goldwater, “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”  What's sad is that so many people aren't old enough to remember the Republican party before the Reagan era, when conservatism actually meant something.  Today, what many people assume is actual conservatism, is neo-conservatism.  It's fiscally liberal religious fascism and nothing more. It's not that the religious lean to the right, it's that we've allowed the neo-conservatives, who were originally highly-religious Southern Democrats, who abandoned the party in the 60s and 70s over issues like civil rights and abortion, to redefine the terminology.  They don't stand for anything that defined conservatism in the pre-Reagan era, they've just brought in a lot of foreign concepts and declared them to be "conservative" and over the years, people who didn't know any better accepted that shorthand as truth.  It just isn't.

I imagine most of my readers are voting Obama. Is there a case you can make for Romney taking into account the social issues atheists tend to value?

My problem is that, in no Presidential election in the past 25-30 years, has there been a candidate I could support with a clear conscience, who accurately represents my views.  There is no  real conservative party currently in existence in America and hasn't been for some time.  I have never voted party lines, I vote for the best candidate, or failing that, the one who will do the least damage. In 2008, I voted for Obama, not because I wanted Obama in office, but I wanted Palin anywhere near the Oval Office even less.  I never expected Obama to be a good President and I wasn't disappointed. This time around, I'm not voting for Romney, I'm voting against Obama.  I think Romney will harm the nation less than a second term for the Obama administration.  Most of the issues that the religious wingnut Republicans talk about are things that Romney couldn't change if he wanted to.  Hopefully, we'll end up with another 4 years of political gridlock where nothing gets done, while conservatives dream of a nation where someone worth voting for actually runs for political office. So yes, I am voting for Romney, or at the very least, putting an "X" next to his name, for all the good it will do me since I live in a very liberal state and all of the electoral votes are already going to Obama no matter what I vote.

You have been pretty outspoken on your blog against Atheism Plus. Briefly, what it your main beef with it? Is there any uniting factor you'd want atheists to share outside of non belief in gods?

The simple answer is that social justice has nothing to do with atheism and trying to draw a link between the two is irrational on it's face.  You can be an atheist, you can be for social justice, but it makes no sense to slap a common label on the two.  It makes no sense to confuse two dissimilar ideas, it only serves to confuse legitimate debates between theists and atheists.  However, the problem goes much deeper because what Atheism+ claims to be on paper and what it actually does in practice are two entirely different things.  It only takes perusing the forums, watching the tweets and reading the blogs to see that what the most vocal Atheism+ adherents say has virtually nothing to do with the set of defining statements made by Jen McCreight.  In fact, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the movement claims to be for critical thinking and skepticism, yet that's on the bottom of the list and they've stalled entirely on feminism.  I'm still waiting for any of their members to work farther down where they might apply said skepticism and critical thinking to the agenda of Atheism+.  Worse yet, and maybe it's because I've been around so long, I've seen exactly this kind of thing happen to other groups, where a sub-set of the population starts pushing a foreign agenda on everyone and doesn't take no for an answer, those groups have universally self-destructed and fallen into obscurity.  That's not something I want to see for the atheist community.

In answer to your other question, no.  Atheism is the answer to a single question: do you believe in any gods?  If you answer anything other than "yes", you are an atheist.  Atheism has no creeds, no commandments and no holy books.  It has no standards, no passwords or hand signals.  You can be a racist and be an atheist.  You can be a humanitarian and be an atheist.  I'd much prefer someone be the second to the first, but all fit the stated definition of the term. I have no problem with individuals, within the larger community of atheists, finding others who share other common interests, it's called making friends.  I have lots of atheist friends who are friends, not because we're atheists, but because we share other interests and enjoy spending time together pursuing those interests.  The idea that people have to make exclusive fan clubs and then declare "you can't be an atheist unless you're in our club" is ridiculous.

Who is your favorite atheist? Why?

That's a really hard question because I don't do role models or heroes.  I value ideas over people, it's not who says a thing, it's what they say that matters.  I can't point to any atheist writers or speakers who influenced me or who are responsible for my rejection of religion because that was done in a much earlier day when public discussion of atheism was almost unheard of.  Now I can point to people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Matt Dillahunty, all of whom are, or were, entertaining to watch in a debate, but that's really because they're all experts on the subject material, experienced in the art of debate and are very good at wiping the walls with the theists they engage.

What do you see as the most harmful aspect of religion?

As I've said in the past, “There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.”  That much is true and it damns religion to being logically useless because it gives us nothing truly worthwhile.  However, the worst part of religion is that it advances false answers to important questions.  Once an individual is convinced they have the answer to a question, they stop seeking alternative answers.  As soon as a theist is convinced that every question can be answered by "God did it", they stop looking for anything beyond that.  Religious belief shuts down rational investigation of the truth.  At least if you say you don't know, you keep looking.  Once you give in to an imaginary friend answering all questions, you become satisfied with you beliefs in nonsense.

If you could incorporate any aspect of religion into your life or the life of others without the mythology, what would it be and why? (bonus, how would you incorporate it?)

A lot of people would say that, even once they have lost the faith, they miss the ceremony and the community associated with religion. You do have a built-in family of sorts within a church.  If you need help, there are usually programs in place to provide you aid.  If you're moving, you can usually find someone willing to help you.  If you're a little short between paychecks, many times churches will give you loans to help you out.  If you move to a new city, there's usually a church with the same denomination you can jump into and feel like you never left the family.  All of these things are positive aspects of a religious institution and I agree that such things are necessary.  However, many people continue to attend religious services and pretend to believe religious nonsense, in order to have access to these social services and I really think that's a problem. People should be more concerned with their intellectual integrity than with freebies they might give up by exercising such.  That is one of the few places I think an organized atheist community serves a useful purpose, it gives people a nationwide or worldwide community of people who they can join up with and feel fellowship with.

However, I'll be the first person to say that you can just go out and make friends and get the same thing in most cases. That's the downside of the modern online social order, where most of the people you talk to are hundreds or thousands of miles away.  It doesn't leave you many people to go out and see a movie with or turn to in time of need.  if you need a shoulder to cry on, it doesn't help if the closest shoulder is half a continent away.

An Interview with The Arizona Atheist

The following is an interview with Ken, the Arizona Atheist, of The Skeptic Ink Network.

In your past, you found some value in the teachings of Buddism. What would you say to an atheist who dismisses Buddism as just another false religion?

I would say that the atheist is correct. Buddhism is another false religion, at least in certain aspects. I do believe some of its philosophy can be useful and makes a lot of sense (such as their view that it's best to live in the present moment). However, I wholeheartedly disagree with Buddhism’s belief in reincarnation and their concept of “non-attachment.” For a few years I tried to attain this state of “non-attached” living but it proved impossible. When I studied Buddhism formally for a short time I asked two different monks about how to attain this state and I never got a straight answer. I came to the conclusion that their idea of “non-attachment” was a lot of nonsense. I later realized that as human beings it's in our nature to become attached to loved ones and other things. I don't buy their view (as was expressed in one of my books on Buddhism) that if one is able to attain non-attachment you will be able to love something to an even greater extent because you will not be concerned with losing that object of affection. So, basically, I view Buddhism as another false belief system, but at the same time it does have some beneficial teachings.

Was there a particular argument for God that you found, at least at one time, the most convincing? If so, why?”

Yes. When I first began learning about the reasons Christians believe I was somewhat convinced (though still a bit skeptical) by the first cause argument and the argument that near-death experiences and out-of-body-experiences were possible evidence for an after life. I had read a book titled God: The Evidence: A Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, by Patrick Glynn and some of his arguments seemed plausible to me in the beginning. The reason, regarding the first cause argument, was because at the time it seemed to make sense. The idea of cause of effect is naturally intuitive and I fell for it. Regarding OBE's and NDE's all of the stories seemed to match what Christians said about heaven and if life force could come out of their bodies what might this mean for the view that humans were merely another piece of matter? Also at this time I took many of these personal testimonies about OBE and NDE experiences at face value, never really questioning them. But after learning more about these subjects during my personal quest to discover the truth about whether or not there was a god I found that these were not good arguments. They were flawed, both logically and factually.

When you were exploring your belief in God, was there any book/film/blog or any other work that you found most influential in your progress to atheism? What was it and how did if affect you?

There were several books, documentaries, and websites. I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, as well as the other New Atheist authors. Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus was also highly influential. Later on, when I began to have a lot of doubts about religion, I read John W. Loftus' book Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains, which aided in helping me see the falsity of religious belief. These books influenced me by showing me the flawed thinking of religious believers and the harm that religion can cause. A highly influential website was the Talk Origins Archive where I did much of my research about evolution and creationism. The website was invaluable to me in determining the truth or falsehood of several creationist claims I came across.

Another source were debates between atheists and believers on YouTube. I watched so many of those debates and listened closely to each person's arguments. The non-believers seemed to me to have the edge because their responses made the most logical sense and in most cases their evidence and reasoning were more compelling. This is a large part of how I began learning about all these issues.

Finally, watching Richard Dawkins' documentaries, such as The Root of All Evil, was highly influential in my thinking about religion.

How did the idea to start Skeptic Ink (formerly Skeptic Blogs) come about? What made you want to be a part of it?

Out of the blue I received an email from John Loftus asking if I'd like to join this new network of atheists he was creating. After thinking it over I decided to join. There were a few motivations for joining. First, I thought it would be a fun opportunity to be among some very talented atheist writers such as Loftus and Nicholas Covington, author of the Answers in Genesis Busted blog. I've been reading his blog for years. Second, I was very flattered that such a big time blogger and author John Loftus would ask little old me, who is barely a blip on the radar. That's my perception anyway. Maybe I'm more well known than I think? I was so flattered that he asked I would have felt bad had I said no. A third motivation was being linked to such big names, which would greatly help in giving me and my work much greater exposure.

Who is your favorite influential atheist? Why?

This is a tough one. I don't really have a “favorite” atheist. I think there are many atheists who do an excellent job of disseminating information about atheism and the errors of religious/supernatural thinking. However, when I was a budding atheist Richard Dawkins and the other New Atheists were highly influential. I've read all of Dawkins' books and I've enjoyed all of the documentaries he's done, especially The Root of All Evil? and The Enemies of Reason. He is so eloquent and much of what he says just made a lot of sense to me. He definitely influenced my thinking early on. Other atheists who have influenced me over the years to a degree are John Loftus, Victor Stenger, and Richard Carrier. I agree with many of their conclusions and I think they articulate their positions and their views well. I don't agree with everything they say obviously, especially regarding Carrier, but I think they all do good work over all.

What do you see as the most harmful aspect of religion?

Definitely religion's tendency to inculcate “blind faith” in sometimes harmful beliefs, such as the view that sex is sinful, or that women should be covered from head to toe (which is another expression of the suppression of very natural sexual urges). Religion also often encourages acceptance of other silly beliefs like the occult, witchcraft, and things like this, that have no evidence for them whatsoever. Many times this “blind faith” in a particular belief is held without justification and no amount of evidence will shake them from it. I agree with Richard Dawkins who says that to the religious mind “blind faith” is a virtue and that this belief should be challenged. I think evidence should be sought for all beliefs one decides to hold, and those reasons ought to be carefully scrutinized. And of course, many of the beliefs religious people hold can often lead to certain violent acts, like the murder of abortion doctors.

If you could incorporate any aspect of religion into your life or the life of others without the mythology, what would it be and why? (bonus, how would you incorporate it?)

I have actually already done this with my adoption of several Buddhist teachings when I was a teenager. Even to this day some of the teachings still help me to get through tough times in life. Of course, these ideas (such as living in the present moment) aren't particularly religious. I've heard psychologists advocating such views. As for how I would implement it it was actually very easy. The Buddhist teaching of living in the present moment was probably the single most important idea that I took. When I hit the age of about 16-17 I fell into a deep depression over all of the years of teasing I endured because of my prosthetic leg (I've detailed these events at my blog). Rather than just trying to let it go and forget about it, I allowed the cruel things people said to me to continually reverberate inside my head. Over the years I played back the things people said to me over and over until I began to believe the things they were saying. Through Buddhism I realized a way that I could stop this cycle and over a period of about six months I stopped thinking about all these bad things, and I lived in the present moment. Eventually, these bad memories became more and more faint until I almost never thought about them. That's in a nutshell how I applied that particular Buddhist teaching. Looking back it seems so simple, but at the time the idea seemed revolutionary. I suppose I was just locked into a mindset of self pity and locked into this habit, or pattern of thinking, that I had trouble breaking free from. It took this idea to help me break that cycle.

An Interview with the Naked Pastor

The following is an interview with David Hayward, the NakedPastor.

A cartoon is worth a 1000 words in my book. What inspired you to sketch your thoughts on religion to accompany your words? Did you use such visuals as a Christian as well?

First of all, it is interesting to me that you suggest I was a Christian in the past. I was, but I don't deny being a Christian today. The way I explain it is that I am a Christian in kind of the same way I am a Canadian. Christianity is such a part of my DNA, in a sense. I feel no compulsion to reject it or separate myself from it. At the same time I feel no compulsion to reject or separate myself from Atheism. It is very much a part of who I am as well. I realize my inability to be labeled frustrates many people, but this is just who I am.

I agree about the power of pictures. I can't remember not drawing. But I didn't start cartooning until 2006. I love the ability of some cartoonists and artists to convey so much content, so much truth, in a simple drawing. So in 2006 I challenged myself to draw a cartoon every day for as long as I could. I thought I would last a few months. Here it is exactly 6 years later and I'm still going.

Obviously I draw a lot. So not all of them are good. In fact, maybe there's just a few I think are really good. But I keep it up, hoping to hit the nail on the head one day.

Interesting though about my cartoons. I used to just write on my blog and maybe show some of my paintings. It was when I started cartooning that people started to notice what I was saying, including the church and the denomination I was a part of. My words were basically ignored. But my cartoons couldn't be, for some reason. I think it was mostly my cartoons, as well as the development of my "z-theory", that got me in trouble. Cartoons such as my "Personal Walk With Jesus Over the Years" stirred up enough controversy.

Z-Theory is a concept that you wrote about during your transition away from religious faith. Can you briefly explain it here? Has your view of Z-Theory changed since you first came up with it?

The "z-theory" is very important to me. If you click on this link, it will lead you to most of my posts on it. I'll try to explain it in a nutshell.

For almost my whole life I struggled over how Christianity, along with most other religions, lay claim to the entire truth and that its population is the holy chosen people of God. Even though I identified myself as a Christian, I couldn't make sense of all the other religions in the world, as well as all the good people outside the faith. I studied hard. I researched other religions and spiritualities. I studied various interpretations of Christianity and the bible. No peace came.

Then one night a few years ago I had a dream of a waterfall. I am standing at the bottom looking up. I obviously can't see over the rim, but it's obvious there are an infinite amount of gallons pouring over it. There is an unseeable source, infinite, endless, never-ending. But I can't see it. Then the water pouring over and down is immeasurable… the proof that there is something like an infinite Source above the rim. Then when the waterfall hits the earth, it spreads everywhere, covering everything and connecting everything in its path. I immediately saw this as a picture of reality. When I awakened, I felt an incredible peace come to my tormented mind. This peace has stayed with me ever since. My theological and philosophical anxiety ceased.

I see this image as a picture of reality, of what is, and all ideas are represented in it. So, theologically for instance, I saw it as Trinitarian… that the Infinite Source beyond the rim is God, that the waterfalls is the Incarnation, the appearance or manifesting of the Infinite Source, represented by the story of Christ, and the spreading of the water across the earth is the Spirit connecting and covering all things. Of course, this can also be applied to, say, science. Above the rim is what we don't know yet, what has not yet been discovered. But we know something is there because we are making new discoveries every day. The Unknown makes itself known, is "revealed" to us so to speak, represented by the waterfall. It is our discovery of the unknown, the mystery, the problem. Then the application of our discoveries is  like the river that spreads out over the earth for the benefit, hopefully, of the human race and the earth.

Anyway, this is a thumbnail of what I saw and what brought things together in my mind. It provided an integration of various thoughts and problems into a simple picture. This is the z-theory basically. I've been invited to write a book and I've begun working on it. I do wish to articulate it more fully and carefully because I think it will help others looking for a unifying kind of theory of Reality.

From within the church, did you encounter other preachers who were vocal about their own doubts? If they were not vocal, did it seem to you like they questioned aspects of their own religion or would you say they were “true believers”?

Actually, it was extremely rare for me to meet other questioning ministers. Very few, if any, express their doubts because they know the incredible risks involved, including losing their jobs. I know some who silently questioned, but I don't remember of any who did so publicly. Many pastors I knew and know are true believers, as I once was.

But it must be understood that there are many pastors, ministers, priests, rabbis and Imams who have their doubts. To be vocal about these is extremely risky and dangerous. They know this, which is why many of them suffer in silence. It's a horrible predicament. I know because I was there. When I finally came out with my questions and doubts, etc., on nakedpastor.com, that slowly began the process of me eventually leaving the ministry and finally the church.

You’ve mentioned on your site that the combination of the your reputation and small town living has caused some discomfort in past church appearances. Overall, how are you treated by Christians as an “out” atheist and ex-pastor?

Again, it's interesting that you call me an "out" atheist. Some would say I'm an atheist. Some would say I'm a Christian. I would identify myself as a Christian in the broad sense. But I would also identify myself as a non-deist or non-theist. I guess I resist labels of any kind because I don't comfortably fit into any one category. I am, like many people, very complex in what I think is true. I think truth is very complex and mysterious and defies pigeon-holing. We can claim allegiance to this school or that party or denomination or religion today. But what will we be tomorrow?

Living in a small city with a somewhat tarnished reputation as a pastor and a Christian has made things difficult in some ways because people want to know exactly where you stand. I get asked, "Do you still believe in God?", which I find impossible to answer. Or "Why did you become an atheist?" That question is just as perplexing. "God" and "atheist" are so weighted down with tons of baggage that if I said yes or no, all that baggage comes pouring in and informs people of what they believe about you no matter how differently you might believe.

As an ex-pastor, I think for many it is a symbol of failure. It means I gave up. It means I rejected the church and God. I feel no compulsion to correct people about that because they'll believe what they want. I feel no shame at all and have given up worrying about what people think. I'm searching hard for what's true, and life is too short to keep worrying about making other people comfortable and secure in their beliefs.

What changes to the dialogue have you noticed since your audience transitioned from your congregation to the on-line atheist community?

That's an interesting question because my readership has definitely changed. There is a whole movement within Christianity and the church that things need to be changed. So people are in the busy business of tweaking this or that. It is a matter of style. I'm talking not just about praxis, but also theology. But for me it is beyond tweaking. In my opinion, religion has proved bankrupt. A lot of theology being put out today is face-lifting the same old wrinkles. It's worthless. And people are beginning to recognize this. I have continuously encouraged doubting and asking questions. So my readership seems to be more and more people who are daring to ask the questions, including agnostics and atheists. My cartoons are frequently shared by atheist websites. I appreciate that and love being involved in all these conversations.

6. Who is your favorite cartoonist?

Well, let me tell you who first inspired me to start cartooning, and that is Hugh MacLeod of gapingvoid.com. Years ago I came across his material that he was posting every day, so I decided to challenge myself to draw a cartoon every day like him. I had no idea I would still be doing it 6 years later.

But recently I came across another cartoonist who I think is amazing in his simplicity, and that is the Romanian cartoonist, Dan Perjovschi. You can see some of his stuff here. He can convey so much in one simple black marker picture. That's been my goal for years now: to say it all in one frame. Kapow!!

7. Who is your favorite atheist activist?

Hm. My favorite atheist I suppose would be Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist. But I'm not sure he would be considered an activist. But my favorite atheist author and speaker who can really articulate the problems in an engaging, intelligent and even entertaining way is the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek.

An Interview with Dead-Logic

The following is an interview with Bud of Dead-Logic. He may have my favorite mission statement ever. Check it out at Killing the Buddha.

You’ve written recently about Atheism+ and the ups and downs it has faced in the harsh world of public opinion. Clearly, you aren’t a defender of labels, and not every atheist identifies with feminism or even skepticism. Can you think of any qualities all atheists share?

The one characteristic that comes to mind - which might be the only quality all atheists share - is the absence of a belief in a god or gods. Best I can say is that they all share an "absence" of theistic belief. I can't say "atheists deny the existence of a god" or "atheists believe there is no god at all," because not all atheists believe that way. Some do, sure, but certainly not all. If there is another quality all atheists might share, perhaps it's the feeling that something is wrong with the status quo. Why be part of an often misunderstood and often persecuted group like the atheist community - even if one keeps one's atheism to himself - unless one can't help but think a change in the majority's thoughts, attitudes and/or actions is needed? I'm speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover this to be one other commonality among atheists - even those atheists who aren't skeptics or freethinkers.

Do you think your experience rejecting religion has made you a better freethinker than if you were simply raised in atheism? Is there any value in a background of faith?

The value I find in my religious background is that, as an atheist, I have a deep understanding of the power of our biases, and how easily we can blind ourselves for the sake of maintaining our preferred belief systems. When I first learned the phrases "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias," I already had an existential understanding of those concepts, because I lived them for a good portion of my life. My religious background reminds me daily that no one is immune to prejudice, and critical thinking and truth-seeking are not easy tasks. They require a lot of work.

From reading your blog, you seem to put an emphasis on how to think over what to think. If you were in charge of government/education/whatever, how would you emphasize critical thinking?

If I had my way, logic and critical thinking would be mandatory high school subjects, like science, language and mathematics. There are people in our society who can earn doctorates without ever having learned anything about logic. I would push to make logic and critical thinking as fundamental to our education system as the "Three Rs."

What is the most rewarding aspect of being part of the online atheist community?

The people, by far. I have developed friendships with other atheists and atheist bloggers online, and have conversed with them and learned from them, as well as non-atheists who are at least aware of the atheist community and empathetic, even if they disagree on an area or two of metaphysics. I feel part of a "koinonia" again.

Koinonia is a Greek word that means "communion by intimate participation." Christians are familiar with this word. English counterparts include "fellowship," "participation," and "communion." Koinonia implies not only fellowship, but a joint venture, teamwork for the greater good. This koinonia is the very thing I miss about being a Christian. A folks who post comments on my blog remind me that I am part of a new koinonia of freethinkers here on the wild world wide Internet. I am humbled and grateful to be part of a group of such insightful readers, fellow bloggers and critical thinkers.

And while this online koinonia isn't quite the same, in a lot of ways it's even better, and way more meaningful. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by it. I wrote a blog entry about South African resident Eugene Gerber not too long ago in which I pretty much threw everything at him: sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek insults, even sparkly animated gifs, and after all that, he had the strength of character to engage me in discussion and present his side of things. Our discussions went from here on the blog to one-on-one via email, and subsequently, per my request, Eugene even submitted blog entries as a guest writer on my blog.
This is the kind of koinonia I want and need, where we can challenge each other - even somewhat acrimoniously with egregious displays of glittery animated gifs (if one is so inclined) - and still come out of it with respect for each other. I have this online, and it is by far the most rewarding aspect.

What do you see as the most harmful aspect of religion?

The most dangerous aspect of religion is decision-making and belief-forming based on faith. "Faith" is belief irrespective of evidence. Most people who come to faith do so apart from any rational reason. Few religious people - if any - came to faith via rational scrutiny of evidence and logical argumentation. Even those who accept faith for "reasons" don't have reason as the basis for their decision to convert. Those who, after already converting, desire to be (or appear) rational will begin searching for reasons to believe (or continue believing), but there's a huge difference between arriving at a conclusion through reason and attempting to use reason to justify a conclusion one's already accepted. What's worse is that this "faith" is considered a virtue in religion, whereas doubt is a vice and a hindrance.

All it takes is one person with a "message from god" to form a small group of zealots who subsequently start making converts of their own. A preacher becomes a cult which becomes a movement which becomes a religion - as long as they get enough converts (and the cult leader doesn't have all the followers drink the poisoned kool-aid so they can reach the mothership or some other such nonsense). Religions like Christianity maintain a strong influence because of the fact that faith is passed down from parent to child. The indoctrination process begins at a very young age, before the child can do any kind of rational analysis of the teachings. How is this a virtue?

When I came to the realization that my faith lacked a rational foundation - and then realized that "faith" by definition requires a lack of a rational foundation - that's when I began to understand all the other issues that bothered me so much about religion. Without a rational base, anything can be justified. Cast aside logic and reason, and now the moon can be comprised entirely of Spam, I can build a house made out of dance, and 2 + 2 can equal Portuguese and any freaking atrocity you can think of can be justified simply by calling it "God's Will." This is what makes faith so dangerous.

If you could incorporate any aspect of religion into your life or the life of others without the mythology, what would it be and why? (bonus, how would you incorporate it?)

Steve Martin came out with a comedic song not that long ago called "Atheists Don't Have No Songs." Some of the traditions and practices that religion uses to fuel faith and keep it from fading - communal singing, group gatherings, and listening to homilies - are lacking from most atheists' lives, including my own. I wouldn't say such things are necessary for living a happy life, but I remember looking forward to Sunday service because I knew I'd see friends. I remember church camp, sitting around the fire in the evenings as the camp leader led the group in praise songs while playing his guitar. I haven't quite felt such cozy, happy feelings I felt in those moments since leaving organized religion. Make no mistake, my emotional life has improved significantly since discarding faith. All I'm saying is that a secular form of those practices I enjoyed while in religion would be a nice addition to my life.

And honestly, I have no idea how I'd try to incorporate such things. Maybe I'll invite people over for a big group sing-a-long and pot luck dinner.

Who is your favorite atheist activist?

I'm not sure who would qualify as an "activist," but I know who inspires me to continue seeking truth and living a good life. Some of them may not consider themselves atheists, but are certainly pro-science, pro-critical thinking, and anti-dogma. I'm a huge fan of Carl Sagan, and see his influences in other thinkers I admire, like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. I respected Christopher Hitchens' intellect, and grieved over his passing. I find Tim Minchin's work to be both hilarious and thought-provoking, and, in spite of my occasional disagreement with her, I have much respect for Rebecca Watson.

I can't really pick just one, but if I must choose someone who both fits the label of "atheist activist" and is someone who makes my list of favorites, I'd have to go with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I've been reading more of her work lately, and find great value in her experiences and insights.

An Interview with the Friendly Atheist

The following is an interview with Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist.

You do a great job posting interesting takes of religion and atheism themed news items. What are the criteria you use to find stories worth writing about?

If it's interesting to me or I think it's worth talking about, I'll try to post it!  I tend not to talk too much about philosophy because it bores me.  I love stories about atheists taking action.

As a prominent voice of atheism, are you ever concerned that your readers will start to regurgitate your ideas and opinions instead of forming their own? Are there ways you promote critical thinking to help prevent this?

I doubt it. Most of the comment threads challenge everything I say -- It's not like it's ever 100 people saying, "I agree!" :)  But when the facts aren't clear or the conclusion isn't obvious, I try to present the different sides and offer, up front, any worthy criticisms of my own opinions.

It’s clear from your book I Sold My Soul on eBay that you have had a lot of experience with theists and worship services. How have you been received as an outsider at church?

I think churches like it when I'm talking at a service or having a public dialogue with the pastors.  Many Christians like having someone challenge the orthodoxy and they don't always feel they can do it themselves.  It's only a bad thing when they see me as a target for conversion, and not a chance to get educated about the "other side," but that thankfully doesn't happen very often.

What is the most rewarding aspect of being part of the online atheist community?

(Being able to provide a forum for stories about atheists, especially young ones, who are fighting lawsuits or trying to promote atheism in their community.  It's great to meet some of the people I write about too, at conferences or when I travel.  What a wonderful community we have.)

What do you see as the most harmful aspect of religion?

Ignoring any instances of physical abuse, I think it's the notion that you should trust God with everything.  It suggests that you don't have total control of your life.  More importantly, it teaches people not to question faith or the unknown because God has all the answers.  I don't want people to just be satisfied like that.  I want them to doubt and question and discover.

If you could incorporate any aspect of religion into your life or the life of others without the mythology, what would it be and why? (bonus, how would you incorporate it?)

I wish atheists had better, larger, tighter-knit communities.  It's nice to have support online, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to meet with atheists on a regular basis, to know they have your back when things aren't going well, to know you have a built-in group of friends wherever you go, to know you have many things in common with people you just met because of your beliefs.  There are some atheist communities like that in some cities, but not many.  I know a lot of atheists like to dismiss that -- "we don't need that" -- but I've seen what church groups can do for peoples' lives and it'd be nice to have some semblance of that without having to accept the nonsense that comes along with it.

Who is your favorite atheist activist?

Oh boy... I've met so many amazing ones.  I think I'm constantly inspired by August Brunsman, who helped start and now runs the Secular Student Alliance and also volunteers at Camp Quest.  He has dedicated his life to helping young atheists and really guided me down the right path when I began to get involved in the movement.

The Atheist Interview Project

Oh, yes, it's a project now.

A month and change ago I decided to do a series of interviews with some of my favorite atheist bloggers. Originally, the idea was to trick other writers to provide free content for my blog while I rest on my laurels and watch the ad money flow in. Here are the folks who fell for it.

• Interview with Cubik's Rube
• Interview with Lorena
• Interview with 957Chatterton
• Interview with The Wise Fool
• Interview with Vjack
• Interview with Martin S. Pribble
• Interview with Infidel753
• Interview with Hausdorff
• Interview with Reason Being

I've learned a few things since I started the series. First and foremost, there is no ad money in atheism. Second, everyone is far more talented and compelling then myself. I'm so impressed, in fact, I've decided to keep this series project going...with a few changes.

Thanks for the positive feedback that my questions were well written and took into account each interviewee's background. I did some research, but for the most part I knew my subjects because I was already a fan of their respective sites. However, you may have noticed that three questions stayed mostly consistent for every interview. They were as follows.

1. Who is your atheist role model? Why?
2. Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
3. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?

I kept asking these questions because I was looking for a consensus among atheists. While the sample size is far to small to be representative of atheism at large, I feel I've learned enough to stop asking the questions in their current form.

I learned that atheists don't generally like the term "role model." We are individualists and skeptical of looking to any one person to be our guide. I already knew this about myself, but it's nice to see it's a common trait. We didn't come to our views via a central figure. We don't follow the teachings of a Jesus or Buddha. We don't blindly quote a Thomas Aquinas or a William Lane Craig. Dawkins may help us learn about evolution and Hitchens may be our wordsmith of choice, but atheism has no guru. For this reason I will move forward with the similar question that my interviewee's were already answering "Who is your favorite atheist activist?"

I learned that atheists have a high expectation for divine evidence, but still maintain that the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, if not God specifically, could be proven with extraordinary evidence. Paradoxically, with that evidence, the seemingly supernatural would probably become natural. It seems to be a catch-22. I will probably replace the question "Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god?" altogether.

I learned the secular perspective is that community is the primary benefit of religion. This makes total sense and I tend to agree. I am appreciative of the community of smart, interesting people I've met since starting this blog. I can definitely see the draw of like-minded conversation, even though experiencing different points of view is likely more beneficial. I will change or replace this question with another question challenging the atheistic tendency to disregard to upside of belief, if just to see how we may incorporate the good without the nonsense.

If you would like to see future interviews go in a specific direction or want to submit a question, please do so in the comments. If you would like to be interviewed, send me an email.

An Interview with Cubik's Rube

The following is an interview with Writer James of Cubik's Rube.

Have you always been a nonbeliever? If not, what were you before and what was most influential in your change? If so, has anything ever tempted you to believe in a deity?
I grew up in a fairly typical wishy-washy Anglican environment. It never meant a lot to me, but I definitely believed in a lot of the fairly general god stuff for a while. Many years of religious schooling were enough to make belief the default, without ever being so authoritarian and intolerant as to make me resent and reject it. I don't recall any particularly pivotal moments in my conversion to atheism; as far as I remember, I just grew out of it as I started actually thinking about it, in my late teens.

The closest I can remember to a single influential moment was when one of the satellite TV channels was showing an all-night marathon of early episodes of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which I recorded and watched intently over the next few days. It wasn't that the show deconverted me exactly, but the episodes on creationism and Biblical literalism in particular tapped into something I was already starting to feel, and encouraged my spark of interest. It might be largely down to P&T that I first began to take an active opposition to certain religious ideas, rather than just drifting away from my own beliefs and becoming a half-hearted atheist by default.

You take on a variety of religions, pseudosciences, and related woo as part of your site’s “Skeptictionary.” Which false belief is the most ridiculous and which is the most harmful in your opinion?

Although they're not one of the most commonly covered topics on my blog, ineffective "alternative" medical treatments are probably a contender for the most harmful. The Jenny McCarthy Body Count has a tally of deaths from conditions which could have been prevented by vaccination, and it stands at over a thousand in the last five years. I suspect this is a conservative under-estimate, and it doesn't even touch on what's happened to, say, people taking bleach to cure their cancer, or abstaining from useful treatments because they've placed their faith in homeopathy.

More than any one belief, though, it's a lack of knowledge about what to *do* with our beliefs which I think is really harmful. If you don't understand why personal anecdotal data is a poor foundation for a firmly held belief, or how a scientific consensus is formed, or why double-blinded controlled trials are often important, then there's no telling what sort of dangerous and false things you might end up thinking are true.

As for the most ridiculous... Well, it's hard to pick just one. It's pretty bewildering how much the Mayan apocalypse has taken off, given how little it's based on anything factual, but then it's not like young-Earth Creationism has anything more going for it, scientifically speaking.

Largely in the US, faith is seen as a positive trait while skepticism is branded as cynicism. How do you think we can “flip the script” and promote critical thinking?

Hmm, I'm probably supposed to have more profound thoughts than I do on the whole "outreach" thing, but it's never really been my specialty.

I think anything which publicly and openly reinforces the idea of a feeling of community and positivity among people identifying as skeptics, or people for whom critical thinking and science is an important and central part of their identity, is a good thing. The most I can really think of is to keep making sure that skepticism and rationality is a part of the public conversation, to make sure it's a side that's voiced as much as possible so that it seems less foreign, less threatening, less unapproachable.

Even among people who don't accept much of the mainstream scientific consensus, science itself has a lot of credibility - creationists have had considerable success promoting their ideas by claiming to be scientific about it, even while they have to weave grand conspiracies which misunderstand how real science is done. I think most people appreciate the basic idea of a systematic, rational understanding of how the world works, based on evidence - and so the more they understand about the notions of applying critical thinking to our beliefs, cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and so forth, the more likely they are to appreciate the value of such things in their own lives.

It is easy to be skeptical of information that doesn't fit within our own biases and conflicts with our worldview. How can we remember to question possibly wrong information that seems “too good to be true?”

There is a tendency to look harder for logical flaws in a report, or other reasons to be doubtful about its validity, when its conclusions go against something we're already fairly certain we believe, or want to keep believing. No skeptical mindset is complete without some understanding of the way we can make mistakes and be unconsciously biased in our conclusions - it's not just about the ways *other* people can get things wrong.

It's easy enough to go through the motions of saying the right words - science should always be willing to adjust its conclusions in the light of new evidence, and so forth - but there's no simple way of making sure you're actually acting in the most rational manner you could be. The best summary of the ideal attitude to take that I can remember (I forget where I heard it first) is to try to make sure that what you're personally invested in is the *process*, not the results or any individual facts. If you become emotionally committed to the notion that, say, homeopathy does or doesn't work, it'll be harder for you to take any new evidence on board appropriately which might change your views, without either immediately finding excuses as to why it's not important, or uncritically accepting any results as further proof of your own beliefs. But if the only thing tied up with your ego and sense of identity is the process of applying critical thinking and arriving at the truth as best you can, then it becomes much less of a wrench to change your mind when you realise you were wrong about something, and there's less likely to be any internal torment driving you to dig your heels in as the logical opposition mounts up.

As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?

I think a significant part of what religion means for a lot of people is the sense of community, of being part of an in-group. I was talking to someone recently whose friend became a Mormon, after that church's members were the ones who took her in and gave her a great deal of support at a time in her life when she really needed it. Now, if she'd just sat down and looked closely at all the claims made by any half-dozen or so different religions beforehand, or even different denominations of Christianity, there's no way she'd have picked Mormonism - but, as it is, she's stuck with it for years.

Religion allows people to feel like part of a group and a community in a way that provides a comforting level of inclusion and security - and in a way that's entirely unconnected to any supernatural claims about any gods. I don't think this is an inherent advantage that religion is always going to have over secular institutions, but it's got a headstart of several centuries.

Who is your atheist or skeptical role model? Why?

Idolising individuals is another thing that skepticism is meant to make disapproving noises about, but that doesn't mean I can't admire people greatly for what they do. Carl Sagan always gives me a certain warm glow when I see or hear clips of him speaking about anything. I'm continually impressed by Steven Novella, of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast and several blogs - he knows what's what on numerous subjects, and can be relied on for a clearly articulated but perfectly measured response to any scientific news or announcements.

And I can't not mention Eliezer Yudkowsky, who seems to be significantly less known among the skeptical community but is something of a guru of the Art of Rationality over at lesswrong.com. I can't recommend strongly enough exploring some of the Sequences on that site. (He also writes epic science- and rationality-themed Harry Potter fanfiction, if that's more your thing.)

Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.

I'm not entirely sure that any set of experiences, even in principle, would make belief in any particular religion's god the most rational option.

Say Yahweh decided to make himself known to humanity in a way which couldn't *possibly* be explained by mundane phenomena and coincidence. He appears in person, as a fiery vision in the sky, delivering a message about how we should behave, and demanding obedience and worship. Everyone on the planet seems to have an identical vision at the same time, and they each report being addressed personally by God, in their own language, and that he knew every detail of their thoughts. (Everyone who was asleep had the most vivid dream imaginable, blind people have visions they can't adequately describe in words, you get the idea.)

There's no way this is pareidolia. It's not even some unknown event which *could* have a natural explanation. It's a JREF prize-winner, no question.

But is God the only or best explanation? Even with this overwhelming evidence, is it more likely that Christianity is true than, say, that hugely technologically advanced aliens have provided us with this shared delusion, for reasons known only to them? Or that someone's typed a cheat code into the Matrix?

Anything which seems god-like to us might not be distinguishable from the work of some other hyper-advanced intelligence. It's a weakness in the god hypothesis, resulting from the limitations of human perception. It can't even really be scientific, because we can't ever know enough to make testable predictions about the future which would be true if *and only if* the hypothesis is true.

So, an obviously supernatural occurrence like the one described above would certainly be enough to convince me that I don't have a damn clue what's going on, and that God might be as good an explanation as anything else I can come up with. But convincing me that God exists is a whole other matter.

(The same caveats might continue to apply even after I'm dead. Or maybe my perceptive abilities would be different outside of this body. Who knows.)

An Interview with Lorena

The following is an interview with Lorena of On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity.

The move from fundamentalist Christianity to atheism is a drastic one. Can you trace your desire to change back to any one tipping point?

My decision seems radical but it certainly wasn't instantaneous. I left the church just because the teachings didn't make any sense. For instance, how can anyone said to be ALL love send anyone to hell? Not even earthly parents put their children to burn in the oven when they misbehave.

Once I left the church, I started to realize that there wasn't really any deity outside of the universe. That all the good and bad that we experience comes from ourselves, the people. Then I completely gave up my belief in the god of the Bible, realizing that my feelings had been real, but the object of my feelings had not been real.

Looking back with a rational point-of-view, what do you think is the most outrageous belief you held to be true and that current fundamentalists still hold?

Hands down the belief that women need to be subservient to the men in their lives--that the man is the head of the home and that the female has to follow, pray, and hope. That is downright ridiculous.

You are half-way into your blog’s seventh year of existence. How do you feel recording your thoughts and receiving feedback over this time has affected your move to atheism?

Writing about it contributed in that many Christians came to comment on my posts. And when they did they were usually rude, misinformed, dogmatic, or downright ignorant. Reading their parroting of the same beliefs I used to hold really put into perspective the ridiculousness of my former worldview. Seeing that really "cured" me from fundamentalism.

When you come in contact with believers today, especially fundamentalists, are you compelled to show them down the same path you’ve taken to a more rational worldview?

No, I don't feel compelled to lead any Christians down the path I've taken, for two reasons: (1) Leaving the faith is difficult. So difficult that I don't wish it on anyone. (2) Talking about religion is impolite and leads only to disagreement. I try to stay away from disagreement whenever possible. So, I only talk about it when others bring up the issue.

As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any? 

I believe that prayer is helpful. It is like therapy. Not unlike a person who goes to a dead person's tomb to settle old issues, praying is a conversation with ourselves that helps us come up with solutions to our problems. The person or being we're talking to doesn't have to be real for prayer to be therapeutic. Of all Christian things, prayer is the only thing I still practice. But I don't pray to anyone. I talk to myself.

Who is your atheist role model? Why?

I don't have any atheist role models, actually. Because I rejected religion of my own volition, not following anyone, I don't admire any atheists enough to have them as role models.

Is there anything that would once again convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.

The god of the literal interpretation of the Bible does not exist, in my opinion. And there is nothing that would convince me otherwise. 

An Interview with 957Chatterton

The following is an interview with 957Chatterton of the blog and Twitter account of the same name.

What is your religious background? Have you always been an atheist? If not, what were you before and why did you change? If so, does this make it harder to understand theism?

My parents were non-denomination Christians. I was raised Christian and I have always been an atheist. I understand theism perfectly well. I've always had a vicarious understanding of human psychology.

You’ve been blogging antitheist content every weekday for a few months now. Is it getting any harder to think of compelling articles? What is your inspiration?

I make it hard for myself by writing blog posts that I could have made into several different posts but I have one of those brains that never really shuts off. I let my mind wonder constantly because I really have no other choice. I have even been known to pace back and forth for several hours. It may seem like I have some sort of problem but I like it. I've had amazing epiphanies and my thoughts, just thoughts, have given me the most wonderful feelings I've ever had. Whether I'm drawing a parallel between Christianity and witchcraft or discovering that a crazy idea I had when I was five is called 'atom theory,' I love to savor great thoughts and, consequentially, those thoughts develop. I am addicted to thinking.

My point is, the only problem I have with coming up with new ideas is having the energy to write 10 of them down after I've already climbed into bed. I think that already answers your second question.

I especially like the top ten lists on your blog. Maybe you could give the top three reasons you started blogging in the first place.

Thank you. I write top ten lists because they're more fun to read. I started blogging for the following 3 essential reasons:

• I have so much to say but did not previously have an apt medium.
• I have been relentlessly analyzing religion my entire life but a lot of other atheists haven't been. I care deeply for the secular community and I feel that the best gift I can give all its members is information and perspective.
• I love to write. Written and spoken art is pretty much the only art I'm good at, LOL.

Believers have church to form their like-minded communities. I feel atheists are growing a community via the Internet. Since Twitter seems to be your social network of choice, how do you find fellow atheists to follow and what value do you gain from doing so?

Considering that the internet is the "information highway" and atheists openly embrace a philosophy known as "the marketplace of ideas," it logically follows that all your internet are belong to us.

I started by simply typing a few short lines about religion that I've come up with over the years. After a day had passed, I logged back in to find people Twitter said were similar to me. I followed them, they followed me, and, after long conversations about religion and atheism, the law of connectivity just took over.

I get to talk to so many like-minded people that I can finally stop questioning my sanity, lol.

As an antitheist, you often talk about the harm caused by religion. Most readers of this blog would agree that, at least in modern society, the harm outweighs any benefits. My question is, do you see any benefit to religion? If so, what?

So long as I conduct cost-benefit analyses, no.

I want to note that atheists do have "spiritual" moments but spirituality, in that context, is just an emotion and we can get it from reality. We are all "star stuff," for example.

Who is your atheist role model? Why?

Over the years, I have developed a fondness for Hitchens but I would say that my all-time atheist role-model is Carl Sagan. I loved watching the science channel on Tuesdays when Tuesdays were reserved for astronomy. Carl Sagan's "The Cosmos" enticed me to just shut up, sit down, and watch. He taught me about the universe, superstition, and comprehension.

Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.

A fossil Jesus in the Precambrian. Other than that, all I can come up with is God appearing before me and convincing me that I wasn't hallucinating.