Monthly Archives: May 2012

Wakey Wakey, Hands Off Snakey

I think Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage (clap clap Obama, but what took so long?) has woken up even more fundamentalist christian nutbags in America. They seem to be really doing their best lately. In the last week or two, there’s been a few news stories that have shocked me with both their stupidity and bigotry.

The first that caught my attention was this homophobic rant from a pastor in North Carolina:


North Carolina recently passed an amendment to its constitution to ban same-sex marriages, maybe that’s what gave him the nerve to say this. Not only can the man say this in public, but he is applauded and cheered for it – disgusting. And if he thinks preventing all current homosexuals from breeding will eliminate homosexuality altogether, he must believe homosexuality is purely genetic. But wait… don’t most fundies insist that it’s a choice? That they’re choosing to sin, which is why they’re going to hell? Why would a god create someone homosexual and then be ‘again’ it? He doesn’t even make sense within the context of christianity.

Then there was this video of mental child abuse, again cheered for by the crowd:

 


 
Then a pastor from Kansas thought he would one-up the pastor from North Carolina. Electric fences are too kind for him, he says they should just be put to death:

 


 
Why can’t they understand how fucking stupid it is to insist that the rules of their faith are to be observed by everyone? It’s like demanding that everyone must put cookies and milk out for Santa Claus, whether you believe in him or not, and anyone who doesn’t is to be put to death.

A pastor from West Virginia was the only one to get attention without being homophobic, but unfortunately didn’t survive. See, it turns out that if you are bitten by a deadly venomous snake, god will heal you. There’s no need for medical attention. Unless god is just imaginary. In that case you’ll die. And he did.

 


 
In this brand of christianity, deadly snakes are handled as a test of faith. They take the following bible passage (from Mark: 16) a bit too seriously:

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

You would think a death such as this would be the kind of evidence that would cause people to think “hmm, maybe god doesn’t heal people from snake bites after all”. Well apparently not, because this man’s father died of EXACTLY THE SAME THING, 30 years ago.

They must be thinking “Yeah, it’s all so ridiculous, but the ridiculousness of it all is the test! I have to believe despite it! Then I’ll pass!”

Would the same argument work in any other situation? If your partner came home to find some mysterious foreign underwear accidentally left in your house, would the excuse “I’m not cheating on you, I put them there to test your faith in me.” be satisfactory?

Martin S Pribble.. putting the ‘tinsprib’ into… marble?… what?

Ok, so I couldn’t think of a good way to make fun of his name. But maybe I don’t have to.. it’s funny on its own. Pribble… lol.

Anyway I should pribbibly set my silliness aside and thank him for being kind enough to have me as a guest blogger on his blog at http://martinspribble.com/ while he is on hiatus. My post was a hypothetical Letter to the Future. His site is much better looking than mine so I won’t worry about duplicating the post here, just head on over there to see it :)

I only became a reader of Mr. Pribble’s relatively recently myself, since I didn’t start really getting into the blogging and twitter scene until after I returned home from the Global Atheist Convention all fired up. But I’m liking what I see.

Also be sure to check out his other guest posts as they come up. The post before mine – “How to be a better atheist, by a morally superior atheist” was from Jake Farr Wharton, host of The Imaginary Friends Show Podcast, an excellent podcast I must say. I loaded up my mp3 player with some of his episodes and have been devouring them while working, definitely makes the day go quicker.

Cheers!

Draw Mohammed Day

Earlier this year, there were calls to execute Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari for 3 tweets that he posted about Mohammed. Tweets. On the internet. He said something on the internet. Somehow that deserves death.

They must have been some damn inflammatory remarks to incite such radical opposition right?

Well, here they are, see what you think;

  • On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.
  • On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.
  • On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

The king of Saudi Arabia Abdullah ordered that Kashgari be arrested for this. Kashgari left Saudi Arabia, trying to seek political asylum in New Zealand. He didn’t make it. He was deported from Kuala Lumpur (illegally) back to Saudi Arabia where he awaits his fate.

I’m in agreement with what Thunderf00t says in his video on the situation below. It is fucked up beyond all recognition.

So this is the point of Draw Mohammed Day. To assert that freedom of speech is non-negotiable, and that the rest of the world will not be intimidated into silence by threats of violence. The more censorship that is applied, the more we will speak out.

So here is my drawing of Mohammed for this year:

A pretty slack effort compared to my drawing from last year, when the planking craze was popular:

Why Such A Sausage Fest?

There were some Muslim protesters at the Global Atheist Convention yelling and chanting about how we’re all going to hell. They were all male of course, and for a while the crowd of atheists, myself included, started chanting back at them; “Where are your women? Where are your women?” But later on I got to thinking about it… where were our women? Sure, there were hundreds of women among us, but there’s no denying it – the Global Atheist Convention was a bit of a sausage fest. And I think that’s reflective of the atheism/skepticism movement as a whole. Why is that? It’s the source of much cognitive dissonance for me whenever I think about it. Whenever I’m beginning to settle on a conclusion I’m pulled in a different direction by another train of thought. That might be because there are many different factors at work here.

One factor, as fellow heathen FearBlandness suggested, (if you’re not subscribed to her youtube channel you should be) might be that women are more heavily involved in family matters, and if their atheism disrupts that, they would tend not to ‘come out’.

[Update: FearBlandness has since posted a video with her take on the issue, click here to watch]

I’ve got some weak evidence for what I think is another big factor; the internets, and how its use varies between the sexes.

I think it’s safe to say that this fast-growing movement of outspoken atheists was born on the internet. Sure, there was the collection of atheistic books that the so called Four Horseman of the Anti-Apocalypse (the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett) published, which sparked the term “New Atheists“, but I think most people found out about those books and authors through the internet, and the controversy they stirred therein. There are countless hours of content on youtube for each of these authors. And there is a veritable hoard of atheism themed youtube channels. Not to mention the huge atheism subsection on sites such as reddit.

So what I’m getting at is that if the movement was born from the internet following, and the internet following is unproportionately male, then it’s no wonder we end up with a sausage fest at our gatherings.

So then, is the internet following indeed mostly male?

Some U.S. data I found from 2006 does suggest a majority of male users:

Recent figures from Nielsen Netratings and comScore Media Metrix indicate that YouTube’s gender ratio is approximately 60% male, 40% female.

“Men are 20 percent more likely to visit YouTube than women… Visitors between 12-17 years old index the highest among the various age groups… They are nearly 1.5 times more likely than the average Web user to go to YouTube.”

(source: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/760196.html )

2006 data might be highly relevant too, since that’s when the ‘New Atheists’ started making their mark. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, which remained on the New York Times best-seller list for 51 weeks was published that year, following his documentary The Root of All Evil. Sam Harris’s book Letter to a Christian Nation was published that year, and two years prior to that was his book The End of Faith. Daniel C. Dennett also weighed in that year with Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

And then in 2007 was the masterpiece by Christopher Hitchens (was there anything the man did that was not a masterpiece?): God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

I also found this data interesting:

It indicates that while female users dominate social networking sites, males hold the majority on sites such as Slashdot, Reddit and Digg, which are all arenas in which the news and controversial issues of the day are discussed, which would include the topic of atheism, especially so on Reddit.

So if I’m right, why is this so? I found some possibly outdated data that might give some hints:

American research http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html found that in online discussion groups women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologise, and to be upset by violations of politeness. Predominantly female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment. In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with politeness. They post criticisms and insults, violate online rules of conduct, tolerate or even enjoy flaming, and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of expression than with attending to others’ social face.

In mixed-sex public discussion groups, females were found to post fewer messages, and to be less likely to persist in posting when their messages received no response. Even when they persisted, they received fewer responses from others (both females and males), and did not control the topic or the terms of the discussion except in groups where women made up a clear majority of participants.

So basically, it might be because men (not all, of course, but it only takes a few) are being complete dicks in online forums, so that women find themselves uncomfortable and don’t participate, and therefore don’t get caught up in the movement.

And this problem that hinders women getting involved might be on top of another much bigger problem, the fact that we’re mostly, in some way or another, nerds. And I’m heavily generalising here, but nerds tend to be mostly male (and white) as well. Why? For me, it’s mostly my interest in science that makes me a nerd, and as far as I’ve seen there’s a lot more science nerd blokes than ladies. This article from livescience address why that might be the case:

In elementary school about as many girls as boys have positive attitudes toward science. A recent study of fourth graders showed that 66 percent of girls and 68 percent of boys reported liking science. But something else starts happening in elementary school. By second grade, when students (both boys and girls) are asked to draw a scientist, most portray a white male in a lab coat. Any woman scientist they draw looks severe and not very happy. The persistence of the stereotypes start to turn girls off, and by eighth grade, boys are twice as interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) careers as girls are. The female attrition continues throughout high school, college and even the work force. Women with STEM higher education degrees are twice as likely to leave a scientific or engineering job as men with comparable STEM degrees.

So, ultimately, the cause may be the sexism ingrained in our society. PZ Myers wrote here about sexism in the atheist movement. It does exist. But I don’t think we’re more guilty than than society as a whole.

And like I said, we’re nerds. Not usually credited with social skills, especially not with the opposite sex. It might be that we’re either too nervous around women to even talk to them, or get so excited by their rare presence that we fawn over them. Both cases are not equal treatment. Control yourselves, nerds! You want the nerd girl yes, but the best way for you to get a nerd girl is to encourage more girls to be nerds! And the current tactics obviously do not work.

Us bloke nerds need to raise our consciousness as a whole. Be aware and reflective of how you are treating women. Would you have acted that way toward a bloke? If not, why not? Make women feel welcome, but don’t fawn over them. That will just make them uncomfortable. And don’t ignore them either. Don’t talk over them in conversations, let them speak. And without violating the ‘putting them on a pedestal’ thing, give them credit where credit is due. The more female atheists that rise to prominence, the more that will be encouraged to get involved.

Basically, in conclusion: Don’t be a dick!

I’m quite possibly wrong or ignorant about many things in this post, if I am let me know in the comments.

Talks from the Global Atheist Convention

Video of Daniel Dennett, A.C. Grayling and Ayann Hirsi Ali’s talks are up on the abc site! I highly recommend them!

Dan Dennett: How to Tell if You’re an Atheist

A.C. Grayling: What’s Next for Atheism

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: A Secular Spring or an Islamist Winter?

George Pell discovers the Streisand Effect

Many have beaten me to it, but I feel I wouldn’t be performing my duty if I didn’t join in on making fun of George Pell.

From wikipedia:

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.

Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos & spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

After Pell’s appearance on Q and A a little while ago, comedian Catherine Deveny tweeted an image making fun of his “preparing young English boys” comment. Pell subsequently threatened legal action. That was the single best thing he could have done to guarantee he would never hear the end of it, and the internets are now awash with George Pell memes. Here’s some I like:

Edit: Made one of my own :)

Drop in the Ocean

Random fact: According to U.S. Geological Survey, if you took all of the water on Earth, the oceans, fresh water, ground water, vapour in the air, ice from the poles, water from people and animals bodies… everything.. the water could form a sphere of 1385 km in diameter:

That’s about 2.5 times smaller than the moon, the moon itself being about 3.5 times smaller than Earth. The diameter of the sphere is about the distance you would travel driving from Townsville to Brisbane:

So if you had two lakes that were perfect semi-spheres, each 1385km in diameter, you could store all of the Earth’s water.

The image is belittleing, really, it is a huge amount of water. But I’m much more comfortable with calling our planet “Earth” now. I used to think it was a silly name for a planet mostly covered in water, but now my view is a little more down to.. well.. Earth.

Herding Cats

Gathering atheists together, it has been said, is like trying to herd cats. We think for ourselves, and don’t need to go to the equivalent of church to be told what to think. Criticisms of the Global Atheist Convention from outsiders often went something like “What are you all going to do, get together and talk about how much you don’t believe in god?”.

But god wasn’t what we talked about. God may not exist, but religion does. To generalise, the speakers highlighted issues in our society where religion is having a negative influence, and what we can do to fight back against that. How do we get people to realise the harm being done? How do we get these people on our side? The fact is that being organised is an advantage, and religion is organised. And to fight it effectively, we’re going to have to be organised too. And I think as religion tries to encroach on politics more and more, atheists are starting to realise this, which explains why there were 4000 of us at the GAC.

And there’s no need to throw out the baby with the bath-water. I’ve never been religious, but I can see how it might benefit one to go to church. A sense of belonging to a community, a sense of comradery, and the social aspect of it, meeting people, doing activities together, doing charity work together and getting the self-satisfaction that comes with that. Except we don’t have to mistake that feel-good for being touched by Jesus or some such nonsense. There’s no reason a group completely separated from religion couldn’t have all of those benefits.

I’m quite sure there are many people who have grown up with religion, and have since become atheists, but dare not tell anyone and still regularly attend church because to stop would be to abandon, or even be ostracised from their entire community, and there is no other community for them. We should let those people know they are not alone, that there are others like them, and that we need their help to free more minds from the matrix and bring them into the real world.

So since the Global Atheist Convention, I’ve been riled up, and hungry for more of similar. I’m keen to get our coordinated hunting pack together, as my favourite blogger PZ Myers said in his speech. And I loved being embroiled in intelligent conversation with everyone I spoke to there, so the idea of micro-GAC’s that I don’t have to travel to Melbourne for are quite exciting to me.

So after a bit of internet trawling, I eventually found out about Townsville Humanists (and friends), and I went to a meeting tonight. And I’m glad I did. The meeting was largely about building up the group, presenting atheism in a positive light, being welcoming and not just religion bashing, getting registered as an official non profit group, getting organised, website, tshirts, etc. and how to win hearts and minds. Along with some not necessarily on-topic intelligent conversation. Exactly what I hoped.

The majority of atheists, I would say, are mostly apathetic toward religion, and I reckon it’s because they don’t realise just how poisonous it is to society. I forget where the quote is from, but “If you’re not outraged by religion, you’re not paying attention.” So that’s our challenge, we have get people to pay attention, and to show why religion is not a good thing, whilst at the same time giving people a much better option.

So if any atheists from Townsville happen to be reading this and it sounds interesting to you, I’d recommend checking it out. A website for the group will be coming shortly, but if you’re on facebook there’s this page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Townsville-Humanists-and-Friends/205107346193064

Or you can reply to this post and I’ll be glad to get you the details of the next meeting as they emerge.

If you’re not from Townsville, then wherever you are, have a look around on google and see if there’s a similar group in your city, help make our voice louder.

Grab a man or miss out, Church warns girls

That was the headline of this story:

http://www.news.com.au/national/grab-a-man-or-miss-out-church-warns-girls/story-e6frfkvr-1226348223822

According to the article;

A church official told the Herald Sun newspaper there has been a massive decline in the number of available men, with statistics claiming there are just 86,000 Mr Rights for 1.3 million women aged between 25 and 34.

This works out to be a 1:15 ratio of ‘Mr. Rights’ to women. Sound a little bit ridiculous to you? If you’re a single bloke like me, is it sounding just a little bit too good to be true?

Well that would be because it’s absolute nonsense.

The article soon reveals the criteria for what ‘Mr. Right’ is.

Demographer Bernard Salt has calculated that of the 1.343 million men in the same age bracket, only 86,000 single, heterosexual, well-off, young men were available after excluding those who were already married (485,000), in a de facto relationship (185,000), gay (7000), a single parent (12,000) or earning less than $60,000 a year.

The implication being that you can’t be a ‘Mr. Right’ unless you’re earning over $60,000 a year, and don’t already have any children. An utterly reprehensible thing to say.

If you narrowed the female population of that age bracket down with the same criteria, then compared it to the full population of 1.343 million males, you would no doubt get a figure nearly the same, but in reverse. Imagine an article that implied no woman could be ‘Mrs. Right’ unless she earned over $60,000 a year and didn’t already have any children.

I’m not sure how involved the demographer Bernard Salt is in pushing this, maybe it was just his data that was used. But it doesn’t surprise me that an official from the catholic church is peddling this sexist tripe.