An encounter with god botherers

On Saturday, I was relaxing at home and there was a knock at the door.  This already irritated me as I had a long night at work.  I hadn't slept for a while and I just wanted to relax.  So after running to get a shirt, I opened the door and I immediately knew the fate that was in store for me.  There were two people standing there smiling and holding pamphlets.  There was only one possibility, god botherers...

I wanted to be polite so I resisted the immediate urge to say "I don't feel like playing make believe today" followed by closing the door and going back to my computer.  Instead, I listened to what they might have to say.  After all, it might prove fun to turn the tables on them in the process.

They started out by asking me how I was that day and I responded that I was fine, hiding my annoyance.  I asked the same in turn and they said they were well and then asked if I wanted to attend their church.  I knew this was coming and I responded with a no, thank you.  They further asked if I went to church, perhaps thinking that I was content with the one I went to (I do live in Oklahoma after all, where there is one on nearly every corner).  I replied that I did not go to one.  I did not directly say that I thought the idea was foolish as I did not think it was necessary.

One of them, who was obviously the younger and more enthusiastic of the two, asked me if I knew what happened to me when I died.  I said that yes, I did have a good idea of what happened.  I went on to elaborate by saying that as my neurons would begin to die and the synapses of my brain broke down, the being that was me would fade away.  Then, the atoms that composed my body would be dispersed back into the environment.

The younger and more talkative of the two asked "What about God? What about heaven and hell?"  I said that I saw no evidence or need for a deity and that the idea of hell was absurd if one believed in anything close to an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.  But instead of hearing a well informed reply I was treated to a line that would kill a little more of my hope for the American education system.

The older and, at this point, visibly agitated one, asked me this: "What do you believe in then, the Big Bang?  Not even Darwin believed in that."

I was stunned.  If I was a less polite person I might have told them that I didn't have time for that kind of stupid and would have shut the door.  But instead I pointed out the tiny detail that the theory of the Big Bang didn't even exist till well after Charles Darwin's death and that there was no way for him to even know about it.

Unfazed, the now previously irritated and now slightly hostile one barked back that they weren't there to debate this.  I found this more than a little dishonest as that was clearly what they were there to do and I called them out on it.  I said that they were going door to door to try and make the argument that their particular god was the correct one and that others should believe in it.

They then said that they were leaving and I, despite myself, apologized if I had come across as rude.  I knew I hadn't despite being irritated by the whole ordeal, yet I defaulted to what is the 'proper' response in my society.  I did what equated to apologizing for not believing in a magic man in the sky and preferring little things like evidence and facts.  Afterwards I realized just how absurd this was and I felt a bit bad for it.  I shouldn't have to apologize to such door to door sales persons trying to con me into buying their pathetic excuse for  knowledge.

I didn't take one of their pamphlets as I thought that they had spent their money on it and I would just throw it away anyway, so what was the point.  It would end up in a landfill anyway, but I would rather it not be by my hand.  I somewhat regret this as I've often found that such pamphlets are a wealth of unintentional comedy.  Poor graphical design and laughable arguments are par for the course in such material.

I later wondered if I had invited them inside and let them go on a bit more while putting forth my own questions, or even asking them if they would be willing to talk about alternatives, if I might have done more good.  But, in retrospect, I doubt this.  In a different setting it might have worked, but not this one, both for those involved and my own mood and tiredness.  These were not well educated individuals but lackeys for their church.  They didn't understand the reasoning or concepts, just that they were taught that it was right.

I imagine they will remember the event as involving an angry atheist who hates god, but this doesn't bother me.  I know they are wrong and would only be seeking to fit the mornings events into their established world views.  Though I wish this wasn't the standard response, it is one that could not be helped.  If nothing else, maybe it will plant a little doubt into one of them.  Sadly though, it will most likely do nothing one way or the other.

Karl Marx and the "Opiate of the people"

"[Religion] is the opiate of the people" is probably the most often quoted line from the collective works of Karl Marx.  To many, this is all the exposure to Marx that they truly have, other then some vague lines about his views on government that they might remember from a history class.  It has been argued as a critique of religion by most and even as being in support of religion by a few.

But what does Karl Marx really have to say on the subject?  What is the source of this oft quoted line and what is the actual context?  When prompted, few can give the actual source or its significance.  Something I find quite sad as it reveals much more about his views on the nature of religion and says more then most have been led to believe.

The quote comes from Marx's Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and the entire quote is thus:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

 To put this in further context, we must consider the piece Marx was critiquing, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right.  Without getting to far into detail, Hegel's work can be loosely summed up as the argument that humans cannot experience true free will outside of the confines of an established government of some sort.  His arguments include such things as humanity having the chance to be free from the basic needs of survival in the wild as well as access to such state sponsored services such as education and protection.  He further argues that such establishment of government is the direct will of god.

To clarify, he never argued that any and all governments held sway by divine right, just that the abstract concept of a central government was divinely willed.  This is crucial, as his philosophies, like those of Nietzsche's have been hijacked by fascist and totalitarian governments in the past, the most famous being Mussolini's.

While Karl Marx agreed that a government was key to humanity reaching its potential, he was highly critical of how it had gotten to its point of power and the intentions of current forms of government.  His views on class warfare are still highly relevant today and he saw the ruling class as essentially parasitic upon the lower classes.  He argued, and I believe rightly so, that for any form of equality as well as the free will that Hegel saw dependent upon government to exist, there had to be a gross restructuring of government.

While I do not agree with everything Karl Marx had to say, I believe he was on the right track.  The fact that so many of his works had been hijacked has made his name almost taboo in some circles.  This I believe is unfair as it dismisses what the man actually had to say on a vast array of subjects within the field of government and human freedoms.  His views on religion are a prime example of this.

"[Religion] is the opiate of the people" is one such line.  It is often embraced as the end all be all argument against religion, as an argument for religion as a sort of salve for the common 'man', or as the foolish ramblings of a mad man.  But it is, in reality, none of these.

It is an argument that takes one of (though surly not the only) the root causes of the modern choke hold religion has upon both the multitude and so many governments and succinctly exposes it to the light of logic.  Karl Marx argues that religion is a numbing agent used by the down trodden masses.  That in a society that seems unfair and uncaring, religion offers an escape for those that might see no other.

This may sound like an argument for religion, but it is anything but.  While Marx was highly critical of religion, he was not entirely without sympathy for those who followed it.  He knew that, at least at the time of his writing, that many had no hope of escaping their place in life, either due to those in power or due to their own upbringing, or even the religion itself.

He also knew that religion was a tool of those in power to keep those it dominated in their place.  We now believe that government and religion co-evolved together.  Religion gave those in power a reason to have their power and those that received such blessing of the dominant religion allowed the religion to flurish.  While there is a symbiotic relationship, there is also an arms race between the two.  If the government became too powerful and independent, it would negate the need for religion.  If those in power were too quick to shun those who controlled the religion, they could be ousted and replaced with a more submissive ruler.

Marx saw religion as the very tool those in power used to maintain their dominance.  The fact that he likened it to opium is no mistake.  Opium is a central nervous system depressant.  Those who are users will become lethargic and clouded in mind.  It will ease their pain, but only temporarily and by over riding the pain signals, not by curing the ailment.  Its addictive properties were not lost on Marx either in his analogy.  He knew, just like opium, the more a religious 'user' devoted themselves to a belief, the more they would need it.  And the more they needed it, the more they would defend its use.

The fact that religion had become the source of the masses oppressors power would be lost on many, something those in power counted on.  Marx argued that the only way for humanity to be free would be to shake off the shackles of their addiction and see past their own illusion.  See the very classes that strove to control them and keep them in a place of dependence and weakness for their own gain.

Karl Marx went beyond labeling religion as a simple stupefying substance and as a part of a power play that has existed longer then history has been able to record.  He saw it as a tool of subservience and control.  In many ways, his views reflected those put forth by Plato in his Allegory of the Cave, a series of illusions meant to keep the human mind docile.  Illusions that could be broken by the bright light of day that would, at first, leaving those that experienced it afraid and overwhelmed, but would soon become the source of their joy, enlightenment, and freedom.

How Isaac Asimov helped me embrace my atheism.

I am an atheist, out and out. It tooke me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrepectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that god doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." --Isaac Asimov

I have admired Isaac Asimov for many years.  I knew of his fiction for years, first being introduced to him through his brilliant short story Nightfall (which, if you haven't read, I have included a link to the entire story, it is one I strongly recommend to everyone).

It wasn't until a few years later that I encountered one of his books on religion.  The book, In The Beginning, pulled me in and I soon found I could not get enough.  In it, Asimov took the book of Genesis and looked at it from three different angles: how the religious see it, how such writings came to be as they are now, and what science says about the idea in question.

I had known for a long time that something was seriously wrong about religion and that it didn't fit quite with reality, but I was still something of a deist bordering on agnostic.  But this book helped me along the road to leaving belief in the past.  Finally someone else who saw what I did and didn't try to give some lame excuse as to why religion didn't match up with reality.

Years later I discovered that not only was the whole thing ridiculous, but it could actually be damaging and rather terrefying.  Not just for the harm it does to the vulnerable mind, but how it views those who do not believe in their specific brand of magic.  Not to mention the often downright rage they would express to those who dared to actually doubt the concept all together!

These people had made not believing in an invisible man in the sky such a terrible thing that to consider it openly was one of the deepest of taboos.  It was so strong that someone who had such a powerful mind and, through much of his life, was such an open atheist, was pushed to hide his own views.  Views that he knew made sense, that were the only ones that really did make sense in light of the evidence.  But still he hid them because they were frowned upon.

If someone such as Isaac Asimov could be bullied into such a belief then what does it mean about so many others, including myself?

But instead of the 'dangerous' view that far too many often claim it is, atheism is, to me, as it was to Asimov, freeing.  It was the universe laid open for us to scrutinize and wonder over.  It was finally no longer being afraid of ones lack of belief and openly saying "there isn't enough evidence to support the view and it isn't one that is important enough to waste any more time considering further".  It is finally being able to look at religious belief in the same way one does believers in the Loch Ness Monster and not think that ones has to suppress such views.

The quote that I started this article is a prime example of these views.  It is his looking back and realizing that he had been silly the whole time and should have just been open with himself the whole time.

To be clear, when Isaac Asimov says that he is an "emotional atheist", he is not meaning what so many theists claim.  He is not someone who 'believes' atheism is accurate like a theist believes in their particular patented version of a deity..  It is the feeling of elation you feel when you realize that the universe works without the need for a 'man behind the curtain'.

It is seeing the workings of a cell or the life cycles of stars and realizing "I can understand this!"  followed soon after by "Wait...what?  I can understand this?  A critter that evolved as an overly complex way of replicating strands of amino acids can look at the universe and say, ok, I see how that works!"  If that does not instill within you a sense of awe then I pity you to the point of sadness.

Some theists may cling to the end of the quote where Asimov says "I don't have the evidence to prove that god doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."  They point their finger and go "Aha!  You don't have any evidence and you still believe there is no god?  Where is your science now!" and then, I imagine, go feel rather pleased with themselves and bet Jesus would give them a high five.

To which those of us go on to ask them, at least those of us who have patience for it, whether they have evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist.  Our imaginary theist might respond saying the idea is absurd, they have never seen a tooth fairy and that parents are the ones who have the absurd tendency to hoard discarded dentition.

"Exactly" is the only needed response.  The believer might not see it, but I do.  It is obvious to the point of absurdity and to waste any further time with it seems meaningless.  The only reason myself and others must is because we are surrounded by people like those we have such conversations with and some of them seem to think we should just sit back shut up or get what's coming to us.

So here is to you religious extremists.  You are the reason we have to step away from the adult conversations and deal with such silly ideas as invisible sky daddies.  I would much rather be doing what Asimov and many of my others heroes have done and still do today and get to excitedly talking about things like evolution, stellar formation, the big bang, quantum physics, and the possibilities for xenobiology.

Not to mention other things more important then whether their deity exists such as what I'm going to have for breakfast or where my jacket is.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty

Back in 1819, John Keats concluded his poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" with the lines:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

 This is a line that has always held a place of deep importance within me, despite not always knowing the source (something I deeply regret as I now consider this one of my favorite pieces of poetry).

However, when it was first released, there was a significant debate as to the importance of this line.  T..S. Eliot was especially critical with his responce in 1929 of:

[T]his line strikes me as a serious blemish on a beautiful poem

Many might agree with Eliot by following along the belief that an existence that is limited to this universe is terrifying and restricted.  But to agree with this criticism is to miss the very purpose of this line.

The poem encompasses the thoughts of Keats of what historical events a Grecian urn might have 'experienced'.  But in the end, it takes all the hypothesizing and wonderment at the possibilities and tosses them aside.  It does not do this because it feels they are ugly or useless.  Instead, he does it because he realized that, not matter what we might believe, the truth of the universe will always be more beautiful than our beliefs, simply because it is the truth.

This is an idea that has become increasingly lost amongst many.  Instead of looking at the beauty of what is, many would prefer to believe the stories of the disenchanted.  While not always their fault and, at times, seeming more appealing than what is, this is the kind of thinking that can cripple a mind for life.

Many people feel more comfortable with thinking the universe was created by some deity thousands of years ago for the sole purpose of glorifying it (I will, for simplicities sake, ignore the sexism of the traditionally used pronoun 'him').  But this view is diametrically opposed to the final line penned by Keats.  Not only this, but it sets itself up as the opposition to reality and truth itself.

They will often stat that the facts revealed through rational inquiry using a tool known as science is, by its very nature, something that is incomplete.  That there must be more than just reality.  So they ignore the beauties and truths hidden within in favor of their myths.

I would like to think that they do so not out of spite, but out of ignorance and fear.  That they either do not truly know enough about the subject (or had it displayed to them properly) or that they fear it because it is different.

I am sure there are many who find the idea of being told what to do and think comforting.  But I doubt that they even realize many of the causes behind such beliefs.  It is simply what has worked best for them as they developed, thus they cling to it like a child does a favorite toy.

What such people do not see is that there is a beauty without compare just beyond their grasp.  That, for a potential myriad of reasons, they have held fast to their 'truths', instead of looking to the information itself.  They see a cold and unfeeling existance without the familair and calming embrace of their beliefs.  But this is just an illusion created out of ignornace.

For the universe as we understand it through the lens of science, is more beautiful than we could ever hope to comprehend.  Think for a moment that we know, with an incredibly high degree of certainty, the reasons for many things in our universe.

That, despite our various inner conflicts, biological failings and tendency for various forms of cognitive dissonance, we have started to understand the universe that we are a part of.  That we have looked into the molecular machinery of life and found an unbroken thread connecting us to every other organism that has, will or does exist.

That we have looked up at the seemingly permanent stars and uncovered an ever changing tapestry.  With every discovery, a new piece of the universe is revealed.  Enormous, fiery gas giants, devastating hypernoavea, black holes producing jets of matter and energy powerful enough to shred stars, organic molecules forming in nebulae, and an ever present echo from the formation of the universe itself.

Think for a moment upon the fact that, other than hydrogen, helium and a little bit of lithium, all other elements were made within or by stars.  That, all elements above iron can only be formed, naturally, by the explosive death of massive stars.  That we, and everything else that surrounds us, are made of these long dead stars.

These are but a few of the things we have begun to understand in our short time as a species.  Each day, new discoveries are made.  New connections form between seemingly disparate ideas.  Links forming towards a single unified view of what the universe is.

We have done this.  We, a group of primates that were forced down out of the trees due to an ever changing environment, have started to reveal these and other hidden truths.

Where once we relied on myths and superstition, we now rely on what we can prove.  And unlike the cold empty existence that many have feared, we find that Keats was right all along.  There is no greater beauty than truth.

How sexism hurts skeptical inquiry, and everything else for that matter.

Just the other day, there was an event over on the r/atheism section of the site Reddit that has just been brought to my attention.  It seems that a 15 year old girl posted an image of herself holding the book The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan that her highly religious mother gave her for the holidays.  She had posted it in hopes of an open discussion on the matter of her atheism in a religious family as well as her excitement over receiving such a wonderful and thoughtful gift from a parent that has often disapproved of her daughter's lack of belief.

Instead, she was met with levels of misogyny and sexualized comments that are beyond reprehensible.  Many of these comments were up-rated in excessively large numbers, showing that it was more than just a few idiots vomiting up their own brand of moronic bile.  At the girl's original post, comments of such a horrid nature can be found that I am loath to even repost them.  But I know that I must for the sake of pointing out the scale of the event as I know there will be people who would rather downplay such occurrences as trivial.

Comments such as “Well 15 is legal in many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.” “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.” “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.” “Tears, natures lubricant.” “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!” were posted.  Not only this, but as I said, they received far more up votes then down votes instead of being pointed out as vile comments they obviously are.  How many you may ask?  The second one on that list received, as of the writing of Rebecca Watson's original article on the event, 1715 up votes and only 648 down votes.  This makes it plainly obvious that they are being viewed by far to many as normal or even funny, instead of as the acts of horrible and hurtful people.

While not everyone who posted responded with such vile comments, the very fact that any occurred should be a source of shame for any decent person.  This is doubly so when it comes from a community that claims to pride itself in rationality and equality.  This is not to say that such traits are not held in high esteem by the skeptical community, but that there is much work that still remains to be done, otherwise this would never have transpired

Such behavior should be vociferously deplored the moment it creeps up.  There should be such a stigma against any such disgusting and clearly idiotic behavior that anyone who holds or exposes such beliefs should be afraid to mention them, or is forced to reevaluate them.  No one should ever have to fear speaking up on the internet because of how they will be treated by clearly damaged people.

Some will claim that to treat such commenters as the backwards and harmful individuals that they are is a violation of their right to free speech.  The fact that such things can be thought without having a melt-down of their irony meters shows a severely deranged and self-entitled mode of thinking.  It is to say that such commenters right to free speech is more important than the free speech of those they are attacking.

And yes, this is an attack and it should not be assumed to be anything less.  It is not playful trolling or harmless joking.  It is stating that someone else is so much less then you as to be unworthy of even the most basic of levels of human dignity and respect.

Not only have they harmed this girl who was only trying to show her own love of rational thinking and a great book, but they have also made what should be a rational and accepting community into the kind of place that has no place for those silly women-folk with their absurd illusion of having worth as something other than an object for a man to use.

Thankfully, many atheist writers have taken a stand against this behavior.  I was introduced to this account by the ever wonderful Greta Christina who goes on to link others who have also written in protest of this occurrence.  Many others have read about these accounts and have taken it upon themselves to speak out against this behavior as well as give their support to this girl on her original post.  I hope that many of those reading will follow the link and offer your own support.

Some may hope that if we ignore such fools they will simply shut up and go away.  I cannot fathom why anyone would think this, especially amongst a community that often does what it can to speak out against the crimes of others in religious and political arenas.

It displays and underlying misogyny that cannot be ignored.  For to do so will only serve to alienate half the human population.  Non-believers (and believers alike) of all forms must stand in unison to put this to a stop.  We should be above this and those that truly are must speak up.  Otherwise the voice of the misogynistic morons will be the only voice budding young female skeptics will hear and be turned away from what, I for one, see as one of the most fulfilling realizations possible.  That the universe can be understood on its own merits and is all the more beautiful for it.  If we do not stand up, then we are only quietly condoning such behavior.  We should be showing such individuals our passion for a rational understanding for the world and nurture their own love for it as well, not letting them suffer at the hands of others.  To do anything less is to deny such individuals humanity and lose a part of ours in the process.

A random quote that has nothing to do with the holidays, but enjoy anyway

I just stumbled upon this quote from Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth and I thought I would share it with you.  He really was a brilliantly clever man and far ahead of his time.  I hope everyone has a wonder Holiday.

The priest said, "Imitate our Father in Heaven, learn to be like him." The man studied his Bible diligently and thoroughly and understandingly, and then with prayers for heavenly guidance instituted his imitations. He tricked his wife into falling downstairs, and she broke her back and became a paralytic for life; he betrayed his brother into the hands of a sharper, who robbed him of his all and landed him in the almshouse; he inoculated one son with hookworms, another with the sleeping sickness, another with gonorrhea; he furnished one daughter with scarlet fever and ushered her into her teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life; and after helping a rascal seduce the remaining one, he closed his doors against her and she died in a brothel cursing him. Then he reported to the priest, who said that that was no way to imitate his Father in Heaven. The convert asked wherein he had failed, but the priest changed the subject and inquired what kind of weather he was having, up his way.

A final note on Christopher Hitchens

I had recently stumbled upon this video over at Spanish Inquisitor.  After watching it...and once the numbness finally left my limbs from my proximity to that kind of stupid, I decided to have a go at this.  The individual in the video brings up the idea that, according to his doctrine, Christopher Hitchens is in hell not because of some punishment, but because god loves him ever so much.  For those of you with a low stupidity tolerance, I shall give you a moment before trudging on.

So how does someone love another enough to let them burn eternally?  Well, there really isn't any way that it can make sense, at least not the kind of sense that is seen outside of serial killers and, apparently, Christian talk show hosts.  According to him, Hitchens was in pursuit of damnation his entire life, by not accepting the loving embrace of Jesus (I still cannot write that without getting a bit of a shiver down my spine at the thought of just what that embrace might entail).  So in his infinite and unquestionable wisdom, god gave him just what he had always strived for, an unveiling of the truth and a betterment of humanity...wait, I'm sorry, god was just fresh out of those and instead Hitchens has to settle for an infinite understanding of pain and agony, same thing right?

According to this man and all those countless others who follow such doctrine, god loves everyone and is willing to let everyone have what they desire.  And by that I mean give those who believe in his kid everything they could hope for while torturing the rest.  All the good the man did, all the events he brought to light in his various books and articles, his own moral stance and actions, all cast aside because Hitchens didn't believe in their god (specifically their god's son...who is also god...I hate the trinity), all his life's works condensed into one little nugget that, with the aid of a bit of Magic Jesus Juice, would be light enough to float into heaven. But Hitchens clearly made his choice, so his eloquent and satirically laced nodule would be just a bit too heavy and would sink down into hell (satire being the densest of all writing styles).  Thus, god gives us what we truly desire, isn't it beautiful?

If that seems a bit, well, crazy to you, congratulations, you are not a psychopath!  The attempt at wit at the very end of the video, where the individual states that Hitchens would not want to be given access to heaven is actually correct, but not for the reasons he thinks.  For who in their right mind would want to enter into a heaven that involves spending all your time worshiping a tyrant.  No, Hitchens wouldn't want entry into such a place based on the principles of its ruler, not out of pride as this person, and many others think.  But luckily for him, we live in a universe where things don't work that way.  Instead we have nothing to fear but the people who prop up their ideals upon the very gods they create in an attempt to raise some part of themselves above what they see as the 'enemy'.  This is a sad state of affairs and one I wish was not so, but if anything, Christopher Hitchens taught us to look directly at what is worst about ourselves, he did this in a hope that the rest of humanity might rectify the wrongs of others.  And for that we should thank him, for giving us a chance to look at the darker parts of our selves and figure out how to make things just a bit brighter.

1949 - 2011

Atheists have better sex!

In religious debates, a common tactic is for the theist to claim that their belief grants them a sense of well being. They claim it makes their day to day lives are better and to be without religion, there would be a gaping hole left in them. Well a study by organizational psychologist Darrel Ray, Ed.D and undergraduate Amanda Brown have determined that any 'gaping hole' would have been supported by its own weight in guilt, at least when it comes to sex.

9,500 people fully answered the survey devised by the researchers to determine if their sex lives had changed since leaving religion (14,500 people, in all, participated but not all completed the survey). What was found is after leaving religion, their feeling of guilt after sex was greatly reduced. As an added bonus, 50% claimed to have had better sex then they had while being believers. It seems when you don't believe a magic man in the sky is watching you, you won't feel bad about getting it on with your partner.

The survey took samples from 94 countries though the majority came from the United States. The sample sizes came down to 5.1% from Canada, 4.7% from the UK, 2.7% from Australia, and the remaining countries never comprised more than .75% of the sample group.

What denomination a person held affected their level of guilt rather strongly. Those who came from a more fundamentalist background felt the most relief while more open belief systems such as Unitarianism had the least guilt attached to their sex lives.

It was also found that the kind of sexual behavior people would partake in would remain the same. So losing religion did not lead to new kinds of sex, just more satisfying sex. This is important to note as many who are locked in a faith believe the would become sexual deviants without the aid of their religion.

When asked about their sexual education, it was reported that those from more conservative households were the least likely to be informed, where as the more progressive and especially non-religious tended to be more informed about sexual matters. This did not reduce the age or number of sexual events, as both had approximately the same, just those from non-religious or non-denominational houses were more informed beforehand.

One expected outcome never did show itself. After losing religion, the guilt left behind quickly faded. Most reported there being no long term affects on their sex lives from having been a part of a religion. So we can safely say that it doesn't matter how long you have been a believer as once you stop, the sex will always get more rewarding

So the next time a theist claims that religion has improved their lives, you can whip out this study (hopefully only this study) and show them the fun you are having without all that guilt.

---------------------------------------------------
References:
Sex and Secularism
By Darrel Ray, Ed.D. and Amanda Brown1
IPCpress.com

A question for literal bible believers...

While I am sure this question is no where near original, I was reading the comments on a post at Pharyngula about a pastor in Colorado Springs who has decided it would be a good idea to hop into a helicopter to pray for the city from the air, and a thought popped into my mind. For those who happen to believe the bible is the literal truth (of which I know far too many), what is your take on the story of the Tower of Babel when you happen to live in a world where humans daily go far higher then such a Ziggurat could ever have hoped to have been built.

One would think such people would be against things such as skyscrapers, air travel and the International Space Station. Because unless there is an international conspiracy, such places are not plagued by random changes in language. Has God mellowed out since then? Did he finally realize that "Oh shit, I made this planet to be part of a vast universe and not some isolated plane of existence stuck under a literal heaven!"?

Now I know some will argue that it was the fact that the builders of the Tower of Babel did so with the intent of reaching heaven, so unless the builders of modern towers or aviators had the intent of reaching heaven, God wouldn't really care. But if this is the case then you are just setting yourself up for a laughable caricature of a god. Did God, at that time, think man would succeed, was he scared of having his sky party crashed by a bunch of sinful humans? Or, as the original argument goes, was it because of their hubris in thinking they could reach heaven. If this is true then it would mean any time humanity has thought to achieve something above their 'station', God would get a bit pissy. Every time humanity has done something that violates something in the bible, man would have some X-Files level shit happen.

Granted many of these 'true believers' already see humanity as degenerate to begin with, but to such people I say this "if you believe this is so, that all the advancements humanity has made in recent years, especially through secular means, then why not give up all modern technology, medicine, easier lives and your longer lifespans. If you are not willing to do so then your belief is little more then hollow remnants that mean nothing more then as a crutch for your personal fears and ignorance".

It certainly is crazy

I ran into this over at Pharyngula and couldn't help but want to spread it. This is simply genius.

How to deal with (and mock) sexual desires as a single

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Faith based schools

Here is the first part of a four part video featuring Richard Dawkins on the matter of Faith Schools in Britain (links to the final three parts can be found at the end of this post). As he states in the video, one third of all schools are now faith based. These schools get ninety percent of their funding from the government so, unlike religious schools in the states, are very much dependent on the state for support. But unlike the other public schools which also get their funding from the state, faith based schools can pick and choose who is allowed to attend. Effectively making them private schools but funded by the government.

To make matters worse, because of the high number of such schools, in some situations the most convenient school for a parent to choose will end up being faith based. If schools were equally placed this would not be an issue, but they are not. There are places where the only schools for miles are faith based. This, as Richard Dawkins points out, creates a form of discrimination against those parents who would prefer their children to go to a secular school.

For those who have no choice or even wish for their children to go to these faith based schools due to supposed high exam scores, many faith based schools have a system of admittance based on the parents. Not how well the student is, that is not what concerns them, what they are interested in is whether the parents are active members of the religion the school is based upon. This sort of religious coercion may even go so far as being based upon the parents contribution to the church, though the evidence for this is currently only second hand and the church denies such allegations.

One of the reasons that so many are turning towards faith based schools is there higher exam scores compared to public schools. So many parents were willing to make the sacrifice so that their children would have the best possible education (though one does question how much is lost due to the indoctrination). However, when an independent group was asked to examine the data to see if faith based schools really were better, what they found was counter to what many parents believe. They found that the only reason these schools have better exam scores is because of the push to get students into them as well as further parental push to maintain those scores. In all actuality, if parents would put the same effort in supporting their children attending public schools, the results would be exactly the same. Well not exactly, the parents wouldn't have to potentially convert or fake a religion and the child wouldn't get indoctrinated by the religious aspect. And as we know, religion is one of the largest stumbling blocks for critical thinking. So parents actually get more out of the public schools then the faith based.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Trouble in Ontario

In many parts of Canada, the public schools are still run by the Catholic Church. So when the It Gets Better project took hold, pointing out the high rate of gay teen suicide and the treatment they far too often receive in schools, it was only natural for many regions to encourage groups such as the Gay-Straight Alliance. And most schools have welcomed this, yes, even some of the Catholic ones. Things seemed to be actually getting better for young LGBT individuals, that is until the Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) Caught wind of it.

The HCDSB claimed that clubs such as the Gay-Straight Alliance were harmful to its youth...despite every bit of evidence showing it was the complete opposite. The even went so far as to ban the organization from meeting at their school. When questioned as to their reasoning, board chair Alice Anne LeMay had this to say:

“We don’t have Nazi groups either, Gay-straight alliances are banned because they are not within the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Wait...did she just Godwin her interview? I'm sure some religious apologists would have accepted the later part of her argument (though that doesn't explain why other Catholic run schools were fine with it), but only the most paranoid of the neo-cons would think the first half was justified. Because whenever you think of a group that strives to create understanding between differing groups everyone always thinks of the Third Reich.

But there is a chance that the Canadian government will force the HCDSB to change their decision. The reason being, as of 2011, the Ontario Ministry of Education declared that all school boards within Ontario (the province the HCDSB resides) must "have equity and inclusive education policies that help schools provide safe and positive environments for students of all races, religions and sexual orientations." They even go so far as to support the foundation of clubs such as the Gay-Straight Alliance.

However the education director for the HCDSB, Michael Pautler, argues that the Ministry of Education only proposes the Gay-Straight Alliance as one possibility to harboring a greater sense of acceptance for those with differing sexual orientations. Though he did not suggest any other possibilities. Apparently after the idea to compare them to Nazis failed they simply ran out of options.

Pautler went on to say:

"Dialogue groups can achieve the same kinds of objectives, but that have a broader focus on inclusion generally, or a celebration of diversity, as opposed to focusing on any one particular expression of diversity.”

In other words, you can have a group that explores the differences in humanity as long as you don't use the word 'gay', because, as we all know, highly religious people just feel icky all over whenever they hear that word and we wouldn't want that now would we.

Though what worries me even more is this final bit said by LeMay:

“[The policy] lists gender, sexual orientation, a whole bunch of stuff, that Halton has not included in their equity and inclusive education policy"

Hold on a sec, they haven't included gender in their equal education policy? And what is this 'bunch of other stuff', does this school still think blacks need to be kept separate from the rest of the student body? LeMay says this as if it were some common thing. Is denying women equal rights and comparing LGBT students to Hitler everyday occurrences in the Catholic parts of Ontario? The Catholics are really starting to scare me more and more each day.

----------------------------------------------------

A bow to Xtra! Canada's Gay and Lesbian News for the information.

Times to fast

While at a friend's house, I happened to encounter a sticky note attached to their computer monitor. Being slightly bored at the time and hoping it was something that would entertain me for a few moments I decided to find out what wisdom it contained. What I found was an ever so informative piece by Chip Ingram entitled "Times to fast". Upon reading the title I knew I was going to be far more entertained and or confused then I had expected.

But before I get into what was written on that little green piece of paper, let me answer the question "who is Chip Ingram and why should we trust him on when it is appropriate to fast?" To answer this I went to his website www.livingontheedge.org, here I found this about Chip:

Chip Ingram's passion is to help Christians really live like Christians. As a pastor, author, coach and teacher for more than twenty-five years, Chip has helped people around the world break out of spiritual ruts and live out God's purpose for their lives.

Today Chip serves as senior pastor of Venture Christian Church in Los Gatos, California, and president of Living on the Edge – an international teaching and discipleship ministry. Over the last twenty-five years Chip has pastored churches ranging from 500 to 5,000 and served as president of Walk through the Bible. Chip holds an M.S. degree from West Virginia University and a Th.M. degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.

He is the author of eleven books, including his newest releases: Living on the Edge, Overcoming Emotions that Destroy and Holy Ambition. Reaching more than a million people a week, his teaching can be heard online and through hundreds of radio and television outlets worldwide. Chip and his wife, Theresa, have four children and eight grandchildren.

I'm sure to Christians, that is very impressive. As such, they can take his advice about when it is appropriate to deprive their bodies of necessary nourishment, right? Well let us just see what his advice is and judge it for itself.

1) Sudden calamity. Loss of a job, etc

Well this makes sense. When something horrible occurs like you losing your job or random tsunami (he did say calamity) one should stop eating. And all this time I thought you stopped eating because you no longer had the funds or available food to eat in the first place, silly me.

2) A major decision, school, marriage, i.e.

I'll try and ignore the fact that he put the I.E. in the wrong place for now as I'm sure by now his nutrient deprived body is starting to effect his brain. However I am trying to figure out how starving yourself when you are already stressed out by a major decision would be even close to a good idea. You are already using up more resources because of the stress and will need even more for the event at hand, so he tells Christians to start starving themselves? Does he hope that when the hallucinations start that they will get an answer instead of thinking they have gone insane?

3) spiritual warfare

I generally thought going into combat with a body that is close to feeding on itself to function properly was a very bad decision. After all, wasn't it Napoleon who said "An army marches on its stomach"? Maybe Chip took this quote to literally and took it to mean when the body starts breaking down the stomach for necessary nurishment after being starved.

Though I have to ask, what exactly constitutes spiritual warfare? Has Satan given up on fiddle contests and gotten with the times and settled with a game Dungeons and Dragons? Are the geeks of this world truly to be our saviors against the evil one?

4) increase intercessory effectiveness

Apparently, starvation increases the effectiveness of prayer and such. Because, as we all know, the Christian God thrives off of suffering like some sort of dynamo of anguish. You would think he would get enough from all those starving children in third world countries we see in those television ads. But apparently that isn't enough. Those people are suffering because they have to, what god really wants, what he finds absolutely delectable is the suffering that is self inflicted. God then uses your misery to make a fine wine from your fermented tears...or so I hear.

But as I look around at the world around me, I don't see a single case of supernatural intercession. So either that means their is no intercessory god or the Christians haven't been starving themselves properly. So for a Christian, the option is obvious, the reason there is no action from God as of late is because they have been eating too much, those glutenous believers. And if you take a look around the area where I live, Oklahoma, one of the most religious states in my county, then you start to think that Christians must believe that fasting means a quick trip to Burger King.

5) personal repents

Finally, my personal favorite, personal repentance. Nothing like some good old fashioned self inflicted torment to cleanse you of your guilt. But wait, wasn't that the whole point of the Jesus thing? That he would die for the Christian's sins? Or was that just supposed to be a retcon for the Adam incident? Christians never seem to be clear just how much sin was covered. Based on the accepted idea that God loves him some suffering, perhaps had Jesus writhed a bit more on that cross would we have had more of our sins accounted for? If so, why the hell did he not? He is God, or Gods's son depending on your stance on the trinity, he could endure it with ease. He supposedly could cure the sick and such, what are a few wounds to such a being? But no, because of God's oversight in this matter (what, God make a mistake, never!) Christians have to forcibly starve themselves whenever they feel guilty for something.

Yet another person from the state I reside makes me ashamed to live here...

I am, once again, ashamed of my state. To understand why I must feel such shame, watch this video. It is a clip from everyone's favorite pretend news network, Fox.



For those of you who do not wish to watch the video or cannot due to there location, here is an article by ThinkProgress describing what is occurring on the video.

Now that you have had a chance to fill yourself in on the facts, let me give you my impression on Senator Jim Inhofe's reaction to the change in the name of the parade. It probably will not surprise you to find that I think Inhofe is being a whiny child who is doing nothing more then throwing a hissy fit when he does not get his way. Now granted, he could have done a lot more then he has to make himself look like a fool, but the fact that he has done this alone is more then enough to warrant being called out for his actions.

Inhofe claims to have taken part in this parade for the past thirty years and it is only when the word Christmas was replaced with Holiday that he has decided to not partake in the parade. As for some reason, he cannot bear to be in the "Holiday Parade of Lights" because it no longer uses the word Christmas. Now I have no problem with Senator Inhofe sitting this one out. Personally I wouldn't mind if he would remove himself from a lot more functions. For me, personally, Inhofe is an embarrassment to Oklahoma and is a walking stereotype of everything that is wrong with this state. He also proudly proclaims his backwards thinking that my state is notorious for. It is because of people like him that I have to reassure those I talk with from different states or countries that I'm not a backwards, bigoted and all around ignorant hick.

To make matters worse, Senator Inhofe says

Last time I checked, Gretchen, Christmas meant the birth of Jesus Christ and that's what we're celebrating and that's what I'm celebrating and that's what my twenty kids and grand-kids are celebrating."

Oh really? Apparently Inhofe believes that Christmas was the sole property of Christians and to suggest otherwise is wrong. Which is quite interesting as he contradicts himself right after by agreeing to something Gretchen Carlson says. He even goes on to elaborate upon it himself. Now here is what Gretchen Carlson prompts Inhofe with

So what you are saying is, its not like you are not tolerant of other religions, like Hanukkah and Quanza and whatever else may be celebrated in December. What you're saying is what a lot of people are saying in our society right now which is, we are supposed to be tolerant of all these other religions which every person pretty much accepts. Why does it always seem Christianity is the one to take the boot

This is followed by Inhofe's reply of

They're the ones to take the hit and you know your good friend, who has been on your program many times, Lanny Davis, I was on a program with him last week and he's Jewish, he's uh, very liberal, he's from the Clinton White House and he agrees with me.

Notice the contradiction? First he said that Christmas is entirely about the birth of Jesus Christ, therefore making it a Christian holiday and only a Christian holiday. Then with the support of Gretchen Carlson, he agrees that it is a holiday that everyone can have and that he never does anything to disrupt what others believe. So how can it be only a Christian holiday, but also be supportive of other beliefs?

I think it comes down to this. Had Gretchen Carlson not prompted Senator Inhofe with the part about being tolerant of other religions, Inhofe would not have contradicted himself, though he would still be a bigot. What I believe happened here is Gretchen Carlson noticed what the Senator had said and proceeded to prompt him in an effort to save the integrity he would have lost otherwise. Though I'm not entirely sure that Senator Inhofe was aware of all of this entirely. It would not surprise me that, had Gretchen Carlson not prompted him at that moment and at some future date some journalist asked Inhofe if that means he was less intolerant of other religions, he would say something that alludes to him not being tolerant of other religions and wanting Christianity to be the one everyone sees in public. I cannot say if this is accurate or not, but based upon what he has said here and previously, it would fit with his mode of thinking.

I also find it pathetic that he brings up the ever present idea of Christianity's martyrdom. That all the other religions are tolerated just fine but it is only the poor innocent Christians who have to take the beating. As any sane and non-biased individual can tell you, in the United States, and especially in the more conservative states such as Oklahoma, Christianity is in charge and often does all it can to keep it that way. Even if it means he has to squash the rights of others. For him to turn around and say ask "why is everyone picking on poor Christian me" while going about his office supporting bills to the Oklahoma Constitution that makes it illegal for same sex marriages to take place. Thus ensuring that his Christian doctrine is kept safe. As well as supporting such frivolous resolutions as the one banning those who think differently on the case of evolution from speaking (this is in reference to the proposition to ban Richard Dawkins from Oklahoma. His vote can be found under Resolution 1015). So it is clear by his actions that he feels like he and his fellow Christians are in charge. Yet he still pulls the martyr in an attempt to get his way. This kind of counter intuitive thought is one of the prime reasons why religion has no place in politics.

So I once again, apologize on behalf of every free thinking and rational person living in the state of Oklahoma. Not everyone in this state is a backwards thinking moron. We, sadly, just have enough of those underdeveloped individuals in our state to get people like Inhofe elected.

Ripples through the universe...

Many people wonder why so many events, good or bad, are happening to them. Why does it seem that, far too often all the bad occurs at one time. We might even look around and see someone much more deserving of what we are suffering through, yet they are surrounded by good fortune. Why is this? Well, to be honest, it is all just an illusion of the universe.

To begin to understand the truth of the matter we must first realize a few core truths. The universe is and we are simply a part of it. It may throw hardships or pain our way but we must remember that when they occur, it not because the universe hates us or has singled us out, but because we are part of its inner workings. And like the inner workings of any complex system, things are bound to go wrong from time to time. In fact things must go wrong from time to time as that is the Entropic Rule.

We must remember that we are perceiving things but from a single vantage point. While it is true that from our perspective, it may very well look like the universe it throwing more things at us then at others. That those who are less deserving are receiving more than they should. That those who are innocent are forced to suffer and those who are repugnant wallow in excess.

From our fixed vantage point it looks like patterns and trends, but this is all an illusion. For if we step aside and look at it from another perspective, we truly begin to see things as they are, a series of causes and effects. Like the ripples from a handful of pebbles tossed into a calm pool, we see patterns and direction. We see one part that is more turbulent despite having few stones near them. Whereas another part has many stones, yet their myriad ripples may cancel one another out, leaving the surface with an unexpected calm. These ripples reinforce or cancel one another out, creating complex patterns that seen to be purposeful, but we know full well that they are not. That any purpose is seen only in retrospect and that any pattern that forms does so out of pure randomness.

We can think of each of our lives as one of these pebbles and the ripples to be the events that sculpt our lives. While it may very well seem that we have our unfair share of ripples around us, while those who create the most commotion may find themselves to have the fewest ripples to deal with. It is not because the pond intended for us to have more ripples, but because of chance and random occurrence.

The same can be said for our lives. It may seem like the universe hurtles at us an unfair amount of turmoil and pain. But it is not because the universe has a vendetta against us or enjoys seeing our suffering. Rather, it is because of the random nature of the cosmos that things seem to pile up now and again. We forget that in randomness, there must be those who experience repetition, be it good or bad. For if they did not, then the system, as a whole, would not be random at all, but designed and laid out.

So do not take such events as an omen that one is marked. Instead realize that it is simply part of existence and that, in time, new ripples will form.

Religion's Pool

We are born into a gloomy bay. Blind and knowing only what we are shown. Those ahead, their hands are grasping for anything, but return only slime. Knowing not what they seek, they relish the feeling. Larger hands guide us away, towards reed pools filled with spines and pearls. Around these we gather, thrusting our virgin hands into the abyss, with a hope beyond precious hope that a pearl will be unveiled as we open our hands, only to find bristles and stones.

We wade prostrate our fingers feeling for any flotsam that might come our way. By chance we find the reaching hands of another passer by. Entangled we float, collecting each other. Each grasping and searching yet never finding. We form whole drifts, each unique in our writhing. Every part a chance to reach for more. Yet none are grasping that precious peal.

We stumble and fall, a misplaced foot upon a slippery stone. Diving in we see nothing, hear nothing and wonder, is this what we were searching for? Hands around us pulling us free. Air refills our lungs, our flailing hands grasp for all we can. Rocks and thistles are all we find.

Angered and blind we thrash but held fast. We are told to search more gently, to keep our calm. We will find what we need in time, just as those of old. So we seek the thing we do not know. Our fingers grasp and pull occasionally a heavy stone.

In time we learn to use the stone. A point of haven, a refuge from the spurs. But another stone has been found. Theirs is like ours but somehow greater they declare. We try and find if this stone is a mirror of ours. All the same, save for a few bits of life dangling below. In this do we find our treasure? But no, the stone falls away again, pushed by stronger hands. Why not stay together? Greater hands twist and split, push away, we all are told to push away.

Alone again wandering, why? Our hands feel through the grime finding nothing more then more tines. We sputter and sink, wondering what lies beneath. A last final claw before we open our maw. No hands to save us as we drown.

But could it be, my last grasp has it all? My fingers pull away from my palm revealing my last found. I dare not see it for if I were to drown, then all would be gone nothing would ever be found.

I feel for the shape, perfectly round. It is what they have lost, now I have found. I look upon its form as I drown. It is nothing, nothing to be found? My mind reals looking for something sound. Now I find, the lost gem was never there, it was always them.

I tear for the surface, finding my air. My eyes open and all around, I see nothing but the lost, hoping to be found. I step toward the only shore I see. Upon reason, I am finally free.

A bit of atheist Comedy

The secret to great comedy is thus, tell the truth, don't let your internal critic censor yourself, and pay attention to the chaotic world around you. Using these simple rules, anyone can create great comedy. But what differentiates the stand-up from everyone else is confidence. Confidence allows the day laborer to get out in front of a crowd and say the things everyone is thinking, but no one has the guts to say aloud. Far too much of our society has become pent up and repressed. People worry about offending this person or that. But the comedian cuts through all of this. The comedian expresses what people want to say but are afraid that if they say it, they will be shunned. Through comedy we not only have get a release for all these pent up thoughts, but a chance to change things for ourselves. Instead of keeping that bit in let it out, take a chance. If someone is offended, that is their choice. And that is what we often forget, that to be offended is a choice, not a reaction. It is easy to brush off even the most hateful of words with a laugh and perhaps a bit of sharp wit thrown back at the assailant.

We all need comedy to survive the experience that is life. It renews us, comforts us, and even chastises us for our own short comings. It is something that should be found in daily life. And when we are weary and tired, what better feeling is there then to hear your own thoughts pronounced aloud, yet twisted just right so that we can laugh and forget whatever it was that was bothering us.

While I was up helping my dear friend that I mentioned in an earlier post, she was supposed to meet a friend to go to an event. The friend never showed, eventually calling at the last minute stating that he had a gig with his band the following day and could not make it. So my friend asked me if I wanted to join her for it, as she had two tickets already bought and there was no sense in wasting it. What I didn't realize is that the tickets were for front row seats to see Cheech and Chong for their "get it legal" tour. The two of us laughed harder than either of us had in quite some time. It was therapeutic, just like all great comedy should be.

For those of you reading this, here is something to sooth you as well. A bit of comedy from the talent of Jim Jefferies, enjoy.

Goth and Atheism

This post is one I have wanted to write for quite a long time now. It has to do, partially, with the name I chose for this blog. I have had a lot of people who have read the title and said to me "wait, isn't that a contradiction? How can a Goth be an atheist? Isn't Goth some kind of religion?". Whenever I hear this, I cannot help myself from the cliché of doing a literal face palm.

For those who might be reading this and may have thought something similar or remember hearing someone saying something close to it at one point in your life, I would like to answer this question once and for all. Furthermore, I want to explain why I see the Gothic sub-culture as not only being accepting of atheism, but proving to the readers that the majority of the sub culture would self describe as either atheist or agnostic (or Agnosto-Atheist such as myself, as you will soon discover, such attention to detail and fact is something of a cornerstone in the sub-culture).

So to begin I shall, without any question, state that whatever the goth subculture (or any of its many sub-subcultures...we will get to that later in the post) are absolutely not a religion and have never been even remotely close to one.

The best way to go about stating what the subculture is would be to tell a bit about its history first. What eventually became what we all now know as 'Goth' started in 1980's England. At this point, the term for the subculture was not even known. It started as part of the Punk subculture where some of the more introspective members of the culture started making music that was just a bit different. Instead of being about extroversion and being angry at all the idiocies of the world around us, which was a noble thought to begin with; the music became more introspective. While Punk was raging at the world, these new music artists looked at themselves and thought "what is actually going on and what does it mean to me as an individual". These first proto-goth bands went on to become some of the best remembered "post-punk" artists of all time. Groups such as The Velvet Underground, Nico (who started as a member of The Velvet Underground but then went solo), Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Bauhaus, Iggy Pop, The Birthday Party, and Killing Joke. It was the media who first used the term goth and it was used to describe some of these band, in fact the first usage was to describe the singer of The Velvet Underground, Nico, in 1971.

The term goth was brought up again by independent parts of the media to describe various bands from then on. Martin Hannett, of Joy Division described their music as "dancing music with Gothic overtones". Where as the part owner and manager of Factory Recods, Tony Wilson, Described Joy Division as "Gothic" on the television show "Something Else". The term goth was later thrown around as a derogatory remark by the media to describe the bands Bauhaus and Siouxsie and the Banshees. But it was not until the music critic, Simon Reynolds used the term goth as a "positive identity, a tribal rallying cry" that the still nameless subculture took on that name.

Now that the subculture had a name, had something to call their own, it started to feel itself out. Whether a band called themselves goth or not, these new bands started shaping the subculture. Bands such as Bauhaus, Joy Division, Specimen, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Damned, The Cure, The Birthday Party, Southern Death Cult, Ausgang, Sex Gang Children, The March Violets, 45 Grave, UK Decay, Virgin Prunes, Kommunity FK, Alien Sex Fiend, Christian Death, Gloria Mundi, This Mortal Coil, Dead Can Dance, Mittageisen, Killing joke and even early Adam and the Ants.
Thus began what is now looked back upon as Goth Rock, or as it had been termed within the Punk subculture, Death Rock.

Goth as an individual entity exploded from what had been lain down by previous bands. It was now the 1980's. Some said that Punk was dead, and that music was left in a post-punk world trying to find itself. Others knew that Punk just did what it had previously done, before all the fame; it went back underground and pushed forward. The newly formed goth subculture could now start to step forward and claim individuality. Not just a nebulous out-growth of Punk, but a branch that became an entirely new and individual tree of music and culture. Bands such as Sisters of Mercy, Fields of the Nephilim, The Mission (or The Mission UK as they became known in the states), and Clan of Xymox took the mantel of goth further.

It was now the time of 4AD Records, a record company that signed bands that defined the subculture and those that drifted towards it as well. Names such as The Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance, Modern English, The Pixies, Tones On Tail, This Mortal Coil, The Wolfgang Press, Xmal Deutschland, and Camera Obscura. 4AD still lives and in 2008, the owner of the label, known as the Beggars Group finally realized that 4AD was their most prestigious and successful label so they merged them under one name. Originally all of the sub-labels of the Beggars Group were under the label Beggars Banquet, but even the core label knew that 4AD surpassed all the others and decided to rename the entire label as 4AD.

Gothic music continued to branch and unfold in new ways. It soon began to run alongside another subculture spawned by the Punk culture. The Industrial movement paralleled and in many ways has fused with Goth. While there are still those who see Industrial as a subculture all its own, it is generally accepted that it has become part of the Goth subculture. Other branches formed or became intertwined with Goth, such as Ethereal, Heavenly Voices, Neo-Medieval, Darkwave, Synthpop, Futurepop, Shoegazer, Psychobilly and others.

The subculture has grown to encompass so much that where 'goth' stops and another genre starts has become nothing more then shades of gray. It wasn't that goth had overpowered or pushed into these other territories, but what was goth grew to become more. Which brings me to the core of what Goth is. It isn't just a set of music styles, or a group of like minded people, but a mindset. Just as the music that spurred the formation of the subculture was introspective, so is the subculture itself. It developed into something much more then music but about freedom of expression. About art for arts sake. About passion, love and everything that made a person.

Goth was now something entirely more. With the free thinking of its Punk roots and its introspectiveness of its first bands and individuals it became an almost thought process. One where Individuality is key, where knowing oneself and others became habits. Where knowledge was valued alongside music and aesthetics. It is within the gothic subculture that, if one is truly a member, one must be well read, believe that fact must come before belief, put what is true before what is desired and through it all an inner beauty will form of understanding. And through this understanding and knowledge comes even more beauty, for only those that can know something so intimately could truly say they understand.

So it is only now, with this understanding of what goth is, can we answer the question that started this post in the first place. What is the link between atheism and goth? As many probably have discerned they both share many key features. While atheism can only be said as the belief that without substantial evidence there is no reason to form a belief in a deity, one must admit that those who are drawn to it, those who pull themselves from religion, or strive against it often have something in common. It is a sense of individuality and understanding for the sake of understanding. The same key features that make up the gothic subculture.

And these features are what I see as tying the two together, both are individuals, both stand up for knowledge and have a deep seated respect for the person next to them, especially so if they too are experiencing themselves as an individual. As such those reading may find this statistic on the beliefs of goths quite interesting. In fact, here is what religioustolerance.org says about the gothic subculture. While I wish I could give an actual poll on the percentages of 'goths' and their religion, this is quite difficult. For one the idea of self identifying as goth is a bit counter to what goth is. Yes one can say one has gothic tendencies, but one never is goth, for if someone was, then they would be the stereotype and thus would defeat the very purpose of goth. Though for the most part, within the gothic subculture, agnosticism and atheism is the majority, with a bit of pagan, deist, christian and others. But if one is part of the subculture, one of the key ideas is to accept those beside you for who they are. Yes, you will often find a group of 'goths' arguing about the philosophies and logistics behind theism or non-theism. But the end result is just the same as for an amicable atheist and deist, they will both put their points forth and in the end, agree to disagree. They will then go and thank each other for their thoughts and the chance to think in those ways. It is this similarity that I see as connecting the gothic subculture and the atheist 'movement' or whatever the freethinking body wishes to be called. They both respect, they both seek knowledge; they both are open to debate. While there will always be those within the cultures that cause problems for the whole. Stupid kids who think dressing in black and blaring angry music while letting out hate speech against another is trendy. Or the atheist who thinks that yelling out in a church is the best way to be heard. Both are outliers, both are individuals who are making wrong decisions under the guise of the names of us all. Neither represents the whole at all yet both are accepted as the stereotype. Yet another way the two are similar.

Fox news, ever the source of honest journalism...

For those of you who did not notice, the title is dripping with sarcasm. I'm sure most of my readers picked up on that, but I also know the intellectual aptitude of humanity at large; so I wanted to clarify. The title is in reference to this recent article put up on the Fox News website. I'll give you a chance to read through that great example of journalistic integrity.

I have the misfortune of currently living in the state where this event is unfolding. What you might immediately notice is Fox News' attempt to link the atheists who funded this billboard and satanists. Yes, the journalist who wrote this article is doing his best to make his audience of gullible readers think that atheists are in league with satanists. Now I personally know that satanism is not actually about worshiping the devil figure from Christian mythology but more about poking fun at the system and irritating the status quo. But your average Christian reader does not have the slightest inclination towards this fact. Most honestly believe that there are people out there who truly see Lucifer as their ruler and perform various horrible acts to gain favor with this imaginary character. I also know that Fox news is well aware of this fact as well and they are using it to stir up commotion and public outrage in the hopes of increasing their ratings and site hit counter.

So is there an actual connection between the Oklahoma Atheists and the satanist group? Kind of. The only link they have is that the satanist group rented part of the same building the atheist group will be using. Yes, that is the one and only link. So other then trying to get more of a reaction, there is absolutely no reason to even mention the satanist group who did not offer any funding for the billboard or are associated with the atheist group in any way.

In a strange twist, near the end of the article, there are a couple quotes from a local minister, Robin Meyers, who says "It's not the people who don't believe in God that worry me, it's some of the people who do" and "Fundamentalism is the enemy worldwide, no matter what the strain." I believe that Mr. Meyers and myself would have quite a few things that we would agree on. This heartens me quite a bit, to hear about religious moderates who are standing up against the more fundamental groups.

So in the end, we have another case of Fox news writing things in a way that will get them the most ratings; while laying their intellectual integrity down as a sacrifice to the ignorant hordes. If only such half-truths and bending of facts were punished instead of being rewarded by the masses.