Subscription Link added

We now have a subscription link in the sidebar, become a follower and add your email to receive new posts as soon as they are added.

Know Where Your Charitable Dollars are Going

Well, by now the Salvation Army bellringers are out in force. I even had someone post an ill-informed email up at my workplace talking about how much money CEOs of different charities are paid. Of course I don't have to tell you that the Salvation Army CEO was listed as the lowest paid on the list. A quick Google search and trip to Snopes and you learn that most of the numbers are either outright fabrications or at best outdated. The people who pass along or start this email again each year fail to update who the CEOs are and most have since been replaced, even at the Salvation Army. The email claims that he was paid a mere $13,000 annual salary plus housing. The actual salary is closer to $238,000  18 times what is listed in the email. While its no surprise that a chain email has bad information in it, I am constantly surprised the number of people who accept this information as fact just because a friend sent it to them.



I think a lot of people donate to the Salvation Army without even knowing much about their practices, policies, and discrimination. Many people do not realize that the Salvation Army (SA) is actually a protestant church. They were founded on the idea of soup, soap, then salvation. The idea was to give to those in need and in return use it as an opportunity to push their version of god onto them. According to Forbes, their management expenditures are approximately $393 million and they receive government funding of $384 million. So, whether you choose to donate or not your tax dollars are already going to fund this church. Which brings me to my next point, they spend quite a bit of time and money actively campaigning against gay rights. They have led campaigns to stop or overturn equal rights laws in America as well as other countries. A reader on the Freethought Blog left this comment and I felt it a good example of their discrimination.

Back in my theist days in the mid to late 80s, I was a deacon at the Metropolitan Community Church in Tucson. MCC is an evangelical denomination that serves a mostly lesbian and gay demographic, and MCC-Tucson was, at the time, located downtown.

We occasionally got homeless people coming by the church in need of services; often, they were gay and knew that they could get help from us. We kept a list of service agencies in the area, and would refer people to where they could get the assistance they needed, such as food, shelter and clothes. On that list was a SA men’s shelter three blocks from the church.

Eventually, the Salvation Army learned that the community church down the street from them was run by and for *gasp* homosexuals, and that we welcomed people rather than condemned them. The Tucson commandery sent us a polite but pointed letter informing us that all of their shelters and other services have been instructed NOT to take our referrals. It seemed they preferred to have gay men sleeping on the streets where they might be assaulted, robbed, even freeze to death (Tucson is pretty high in the Rockies, and the very dry air means winter lows in the 20s were not uncommon) than emulate the Good Samaritan.

It would be sad to see any charitable organisation turn away someone based solely on their sexual orientation, but remember they receive tax dollars as part of their funding. So while I encourage everyone to donate to charities I also encourage you to know where your money is going. I think it's worth a few mouse clicks to make sure you're funding an organisation that fits with your beliefs and morals. I have placed a link below to a list of secular charities to consider when donating. I recommend taking a look at Kiva especially if you want to choose exactly where your dollars are going.

Secular Charities - http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

Forbes ranking of top 200 charities, (you can sort by their efficiency)-http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/200-largest-us-charities-11_rank.html

They love to Lie, and it shows

Delta airlines in-flight campaign for November was about flu prevention. One psa they are running is from the NVIC the National Vaccine Information Center, ironically one of the most anti-vaccine groups. The psa is careful not to come out and say don't get vaccinated but suggests alternatives such as drink plenty of water, exercise, and plenty of sleep. Now don't get me wrong all of those are good things but they alone won't help protect you from an illness caused by a virus. Delta has had it brought to their attention the nature of the NVIC and their stance on vaccines, however Delta has refused to pull them. Obviously with the month coming to a close now and the campaign getting ready to change it is not that much of a threat anymore. Many people however that watched those videos may now turn to the NVIC for information which in the long term may harm many others. Measles had once been eradicated in this country but we are seeing a resurgence as the anti-vax group gains momentum. So the major threat isn't just spreading the flu but a general fear of vaccines that keep people from protecting themselves and others from harmful diseases. 

http://skepchick.org/2011/11/update-delta-still-running-anti-vax-ads-in-flight/

*Just full disclosure here, while I do support vaccination as a whole, I personally don't usually get the flu vaccine, as I hate needles and am in a low-risk group. I am currently getting a 3-part Hep-B vaccine as a first responder, risk v benefits.

Gelatogate

Last weekend(11/19-20) Skepticon was held in Springfield Missouri, well apparently there was a little bit of drama in town.  The owner of a small ice cream shop called Gelato Mio went down to skepticon to see what it was about. When he got there he walked in on Sam Singleton giving a very fervent talk. For those not familiar with Sam Singleton this is a description right from his website. Brother Sam’s performance kidnaps the style of a Pentecostal revival meeting and uses it to deliver a sharp, compelling, take-no-prisoners atheist rant that makes Christopher Hitchens look like a vanilla cupcake.  Well, you can see where that might cause an unsuspecting christian to take note. Andy, the store owner took offense to what Sam had to say and when he got back to his shop posted the following note on his door.


He said that he took it down after he calmed down about 10 minutes later. Clearly enough time for someone to snap this photo and take note. He has since apologized and now the debate over whether to accept his apology is being fought.
http://redd.it/mkw6h

Now PZ  Myers of Pharyngula fame has been vocal about not accepting his apology. The owner has made a personal  apology to PZ which he rejected saying "I have to live with the fact that I live in a country where my rejection of your religion makes me a pariah. There’s absolutely nothing you can do to make up for that."  I certainly understand where Pz is coming from and I would not patronize his store myself either. That being said, we all make mistakes and have knee-jerk reactions, and I believe that is what probably happened here. I don't know what he could do differently now that will make it up to anyone.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/22/fair-weather-atheists-and-sunshine-skeptics/

Often there are times when public figures make some off color remark or mistake that they are forced to publicly apologize for. When I see these, they frustrate me, because I know that person is just doing it because they have to. They don't have a different worldview just because they apologized. A racist isn't not a racist just because they apologized that their statement was overheard. So I don't think that just because he apologizes that he will think any more of skeptics or atheists. Likely he is just sorry for his overreaction not his belief. He also claimed that while the sign was up that no one was refused service. In fact he may have done some people a favor, after all who wants to give their money to someone who is that bigoted. So, I don't know if he apologized just because he thought it would be good for business, but I can accept his apology, however if I find myself in Springfield I wont be giving him my money.

Happy Thanksgiving

     Well with Thanksgiving upon us I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank everyone that has joined and supported M.E.A.N. It has been a great year and I have really enjoyed meeting all the members who have had a chance to make it to a meeting. This year I am thankful to all of you who have shared your story with me. I hope to use our 1 year anniversary in January to help motivate me into stepping it up a little bit and add a little more structure to the meetings. I would like to try and get a guest speaker at least once this year. I also plan on having a showing of Roger Nygard's "The Nature of Existence" and also "The Ledge".  Have a happy Thanksgiving and I hope you all get to spend it with those you love. -Wingman

Ring species

During our September meeting while discussing evolution, Ryan brought up a great example that I was not familiar with. It is an evolutionary concept called "Ring Species", it is a great example of evolution in action. As an animal population spreads, the neighboring populations can continue to interbreed with one another. So, in this example there are 7 subspecies of the  Ensatina salamander. Subspecies 1 can interbreed with subspecies 2, and 2 with 1 or 3, and so on. However, subspecies 1 and 7 which live side by side can not interbreed with one another. As they descended down each side of the valley, they evolved with subtle differences and by the time the salamanders met at the bottom of the valley, while looking very much like the same animal, they are essentially 2 different species.      

Now of course this did not just happen overnight and would have taken many years and generations for this to have taken place. What makes this so interesting is that you can see the transition species along the way, of course all of the species have continued to adapt. Being able to track the animal as it moved and adapted to it's environment, while still being able to see the original species, make it a great tool to show evolution in action. There are other ring species as well, but the Ensatina salamander is one of the better known examples. For further information, I would recommend  checking out this link and look at the work Tom Devitt is doing, it also contains a more in-depth explanation and some experiments he has done with the salamanders. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_01 

Facebook

M.E.A.N. now has a Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Metro-East-Atheist-Network/240811429300641  As of right now there isn't too much to it, I personally do not have a Facebook page, so there will be a little learning curve there. When I post meetings on the meetup page I will post them on our Facebook as well. As always I welcome any input to improve the site or the group, so feel free to pass on any ideas you may have. Thanks, Wingman.

An Atheist's Faith

At our last meeting we were discussing whether or not it took faith to be an atheist.  It doesn't take faith to be an atheist,we do have faith though, faith in those we trust, in science, in the fact that there is no god, but, does it take faith to not believe? As viewpoints were expressed it seemed that people fell into one of two general categories, those who believed there was no god and those who knew there was no god.

Those that believe god doesn’t exist, in general are open to the possibility that given indisputable evidence, they could change their mind. This viewpoint stems from the difficulty of proving a negative, and therefore just as those without proof believe god exists, those without proof to the contrary believe he doesn’t.  
The other group however, says with a certainty that they know god doesn’t exist. They start with no belief and look for evidence that something exists. Without that evidence, religion is just another mythology, and they know this.
One of Webster’s definitions of faith is: sincerity of intentions. This may be the best definition of faith that can be applied to atheists. Both those whoknow and believe do so with good intentions. They believe that without religion this world could be a better place. Every day there are acts of violence and hate carried out in the name of religion. This is a small minority of believers but it is done over differences of faith or different interpretations of the same faith. Politicians even claim natural disasters as messages from god. No god means suffering isn’t caused or allowed by some unseen force or being. No god means we don’t have an excuse for not doing more to help those who are suffering. No god means we have to realize how short and precious this life is, because there is no eternal heaven after, and we must take care of each other better than we do now. So if faith is sincerity of intentions, then yes every atheist I know has faith, faith in mankind without religion.    

The Disease and the Remedy

     Tonight while listening to a Chariots of Iron podcast they read a listener letter from a girl who had been sexually abused as teen and how that affected her faith. Rather than shake her faith, this caused her to immerse herself deeper into the church and become very devout. However as she did so she was told "god must have caused this to happen to her because she was not faithful enough and he wanted to wake her up to his glory". It was also implied that she was now unfit for marriage and that she should dedicate her life to god instead.
     This is the same logic that an abuser uses, blame the victim for causing this to happen to her. We see this often when rape victims dressed provocatively are blamed for being raped. In this case the church steps right in and uses the tactics of an abuser on someone in a weakened state, blame her and provide her with the path to make it right. Rather than get her the counseling she actually needed they continued to reinforce that because she had done something wrong, that this was her punishment. She was told "Jesus marked her out to be his special servant". How can any reasonable adult tell a child that this is how Jesus would select her, through abuse.
     It is a common attack from the religious that "all atheists are angry", this certainly isn't so as most of the time I am very happy. However when someone hears of injustices such as these I think that they should be angry. Atheists should be angry because religion is being used victimize someone for a second time. Believers should be angry that their religion is being used as a tool for abuse. I think that any rational adult should be upset by what has taken place in this situation, and this is by no means an isolated incident. This struck close to home for me when I listened to this, in high school I had a friend that was in a similar situation and she was told that it was her fault because she had stopped attending church, and god was sending her a message. So by that logic god is what caused it to happen and god is the answer, both the disease and the cure, convenient. When it takes advantage of the weak, we should all be angry.

Religion on Discovery channel

  .
     I turned on Discovery hoping maybe to catch an episode of Mythbusters and to my surprise I was greeted with an evangelical preacher. This man, Peter Popoff, was making some pretty spectacular claims, if only you call for his "Miracle Spring Water."
 

While most people were claiming to have received money or jobs after following his directions included with the water, other claims were even more outrageous.

 These are claims that are looking to prey on people in times of weakness and that just disgusts me! He doesn't come right out and claim to be able to cure cancer but as you can see here, he clearly implies it. These are on between 2am and 9am, this is their paid programming section of the day, however they know by being on Discovery it will add to their credibility. During this 7 hour block at least 3 hours are evangelical con men. Between selling their time to evangelists and and airing so many reality shows that have little to no educational benefit, the network has really strayed from what it used to be.

     Are there other channels or shows that you feel inadvertently lend credence to religion or crackpot science?  Ancient aliens on History channel comes to mind as a good example. 


   
   

Choose your words carefully

   

     So the story in my inbox today is a post from the examiner that is critical of a post by Al Stefanelli, the Georgia state director of the American Atheist. In his post Taking the gloves off... he speaks to the dangers of the doctrine of fundamental christianity and radical islam and says that because "They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. " He is clearly speaking about the doctrines and not individuals, but this is quickly seen as an opportunity to frame him as a "radical atheist" and claim that he is encouraging or at least advocating violence. Joe Newby of the Examiner writes his post American Atheist leader tears the mask off radical atheism with violent rhetoric and claims that this reveals the "radical nature of modern atheism" and that "atheists have declared a jihad of their own".

     Now I have met a number of atheist, none of which advocate violence against others, even those we strongly disagree with. Most atheists just don't want religion and its doctrine forced upon us. I believe that most people believe that there are behaviors that need to be "eradicated", sexism, racism, and violence towards others. I think that was the point Stefanelli was trying to make. However, because of word choice, the real message of his article is being overshadowed. So let's keep participating in the marketplace of ideas and standing up for what we believe. But while you do so remember if you want to make sure it is your message that is focused upon you need to choose your words carefully.
           
http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/14/taking-the-gloves-off - Al Stefanelli's post

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/american-atheist-leader-tears-the-mask-off-radical-atheism-with-violent-rhetoric -Joe Newby's post

Predictions

     I welcome those who are affiliated with the Metro East Atheist Network and everyone else who wishes to endure the diatribes that I hope to post on a regular basis from here on out. I am sure in the beginning I will be borrowing some ideas or at least the kernels for my discussions from some others. This first post was born from thoughts I had while listening to an episode of Freakonomics Radio, which I highly recommend as they intelligently cover a number of topics.
     This particular episode was about predictions. People are constantly making predictions, whether it's some guy predicting the end of the world or just predicting what traffic might be like on the way in to work today and deciding to leave a little earlier. They were speaking of how "experts" make big predictions because if they are correct there are big payoffs to them being right. Take for example the guy earlier this year predicting May 21 being judgement day, if right he is seen as a prophet and will gain great fame and following, wrong and people forget all about him several months later.
     This got me thinking about how religion is in itself a prediction and one in which one can never be proved wrong. Pascal's wager came to mind, for those not familiar, the basic idea is if you gamble on god and are right it pays off with eternal salvation, wrong and you are no worse off. The flip side is, if you deny god and are right, there is no benefit and if wrong the consequences are eternal damnation. For either side this is a prediction that will never have to be proved to anyone else, however you can strongly be judged by others on what choice you make now.
     I do understand making predictions and taking precautions based on the fear of the unknown. I for instance have emergency gear and food so that I am prepared for a number of disasters. However, I feel that religion uses the unknown to capitalize on that fear and use it to control people. This is evident by the fact that religion frequently denies and fights scientific explanations and advances. The more that science explains, the fewer unknowns there are for us to be afraid of and less fears to be exploited. I feel this creates an incentive for religion to hinder scientific advances and that is a reason many people are concerned about how much religion is being inserted into politics recently. This has caused nonbelievers to become more active, the "New Atheist" movement is a statement "We do not want supernatural predictions and the fears they cause to guide the policies of our country"