On Friday CFI held an event with the producer of the Agenda, Wodek Szemberg, on the topic of why we see so few atheists in the media. I *really* wanted to go - but again the whole sick thing got in the way.

I heard feedback about the event that wasn’t so hot, on point in particular stuck out to me where one of the members of our group said he was ignoring/disregarding scientific fact. As someone who has spent the last few years fighting for rationality and science that tickled me wrong. However - when I dug for more info the “truth” of the matter came out.

Some people in the crowd were getting angry because the speaker wasn’t feeling sorry for atheists. Because he was telling it like it is. He claimed that all shows that are free of God and religion, are essentially secular - like a sporting game.

Now I can see why people would get angry about this. Because when they think “secular television” they think TV that is actually catering to their… “movement” or whatever. They are thinking a show ABOUT atheism/secular humanism like the Skeptologist or Point of Inquiry. They’re shows made my skeptics/atheists/humanists to cater to that crowd about issues they deem important.

… People want to see atheist propaganda - and simply secular television isn’t good enough for them. Ah ha. But I see where the confusion is coming in for people.

People want to see loud and proud atheists on TV shouting “WOO DAWKINS!” or talking about how awesome science is. Having a secular program, just isn’t good enough for them. An important point that was made is that they weren’t feeling like the victims anymore - and that wasn’t good. Because if we’re not the victims, how can we make everyone feel sorry for us?

Simply put, I feel bad that this guy took flak from the audience for telling the truth. The fact of the matter is - the proposals that are put in to make secularist television shows are SO lame and cheesy. It’s difficult to create a television show surrounding a movement. There aren’t really that many environmentalist television shows, or feminists television shows. There are shows with feminists on them, there are also shows that are written and directed and produced entirely by women - but the theme isn’t always feminism. That doesn’t make it a non-feminist show.

If there was an “atheist” show on television, I likely wouldn’t watch it. Just like I don’t read many blogs that are loud and proud about atheism 24/7. The one statement that really got me worked up was this by Rod “He sure doesn’t sound like an atheist.”

Why? because he didn’t tell you what you wanted to hear? because he didn’t make it seem like the media was giving atheists a spanking? because he didn’t start spouting anti-religious propaganda? Ask me about my views on religion - I don’t sound like your everyday Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris atheists. I can assure you of that. To say that someone “doesn’t sound like an atheist” because they didn’t tell you that the people in your movement are being victimized is pure crap.

I really wish I would have gone to that talk. I think the speaker was spot on, and deserved much more credit and appreciation than what he was shown.

*UPDATE*

Zak has a blog. I think I knew it existed a long time ago, but couldn’t find it again. Anyway, he does write ups about CFI stuff - and I like them because he a) doesn’t sugar coat things and b) usually formulates some of my thoughts into sentences that I usually don’t know how to formulate. His sum-up of the event:

Overall, the evening was a refreshing look into atheist activism in Canada. I now realize that about half the visitors at CFI events are morons who have more in common with the religions they claim to oppose than the freedom of thought and ideas that CFI is suppose to really be about. However, the question period that followed was long (as was expected) but the questions were generally polite and supportive since the rude and crazy people made themselves heard throughout the presentation and, I suppose, couldn’t think of any new ways to rant. More importantly, the activists in the crowd (the ones who actually do things) were generally supportive of the message being presented so I hope we can use the opportunity to start working towards more productive and realistic goals.

Amen.

*update #2*

So… I had to take all the quotes out from the e-mails, it’s hard to gain the same message from the post, but alas… gotta do. Everyone who has been reading my blog for a while knows I hate more than anything on earth taking stuff off of my blog - especially when it’s been there for more than a few days and has gotten a lot of reads. I remember when the christian camp asked me to take stuff down it nearly went as far as court.

I think the last time I willingly took content down from my site is when a friend of mine was arrested for manslaughter… after I posted the stuff, I decided I didn’t want it up.

However. …I … whatever.

I’m running out of energy to keep blogging. I get in trouble too much.

Imagine a pope or a prophet was androgynous. What if Jesus comes back with boobs!?

An Egyptian pharaoh was… I find it interesting that a pharaoh was androgynous, but if any sort of authority figure was in this day in age, that is supposed to be more progressive, people would be totally pissed. I guess I dont know if Egyptians were totally pissed or not.. Anyway, it’s interesting. heh.

The pharaoh’s feminine mystique was the result of a genetic mutation that caused his body to convert more male hormones to female hormones than needed, Dr. Irwin Braverman believes.

“[He had] an androgynous appearance. He had a female physique with wide hips and breasts, but he was male and he was fertile and he had six daughters,” Braverman said.

It’s so cool what we can find out about ancient people… Science is neat.

(While looking for a head of jesus I found this picture called “jesus laughing” and it’s actually kind of scary.)

At a general meeting in Fort Worth, Texas on April 30th the Methodist church voted on whether or not to maintain their current views on supporting homosexual practices. In the end they voted to maintain that the activity is “incompatible with Christian teaching”.

The vote was to change the mandate to “refrain from judgment regarding homosexual person and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight”. The supporters lost 517 votes to 416. I guess it gives me a little hope that 44.5% of the people voted to change it. …That’s something.

As I’ve said many times… the church is going to have to change to stay alive - and one of those changes is going to have to be to adhere to things that are becoming the social norm. I guess I say this from a Canadian perspective - where being gay truly is normal. Where as in Texas, it hasn’t really gotten to that point yet. For shame!

The ban “reflects the sentiment of most (church) members and the majority of citizens in the U.S. and many other countries,” said the committee that handled the resolution. “Sanctioning homosexual unions would give the church’s approval to homosexual behavior and relationships, which would be inconsistent” with church teaching.

Who cares about inconsistency? Why not be a leader in recognizing that you don’t live in the 30’s anymore and truing accepting and loving people despite what they do outside of the church? I think this, being more loving and caring, is more consistent with Christian values than banning someone’s homosexuality.

But what’s really scary?

And, after an emotional debate, a slim majority of Methodists agreed to strengthen the church’s advocacy against sexism by “opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation.”

Two clergy delegates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo forcefully spoke out against the anti-homophobia resolution.

Speaking in French with the aid of a translator, one pastor said that it’s “very sad that the Methodist Church continues to advocate for things that come from the devil. … It is time for us as church to get on our knees and proclaim that we have made a mistake.”

Does that mean bisexuals are like… half devil baked?

I had read Hemant Mehta’s book “I Sold My Soul On E-Bay” before, and I just finished reading it again in preparation for his talk that he’ll be doing in Toronto come June and the interview for my radio show that will inevitably follow (actually it is likely to precede).

There were a couple things in his book that I wanted to touch on. I’m not one for writing reviews that say “it was written really well!” or “his imagery was breathtaking!”… The points I wanted to talk about in regards to I Sold My Soul On E-Bay are his confusion and dislike of ritualistic churches, his seemingly simple use of the words “if you want to appeal to me” and his emphasis on discussion as a tool.

Hemant discusses in his book (and in other interviews) the churches that appealed to him the most and why. And in contrast which appealed to him the least, and why. One of the things that didn’t appeal to him were the seemingly useless traditions and rituals. I’m assuming he saw this quite often in catholic churches, and less often in other churches. He sees people going through the motions as if they don’t understand what they’re doing or aren’t thinking really about what they’re doing. Instead they’re just … doing it.

I agreed with Hemant the first time I read the book and that was often a point I brought up with people when getting into a discussion with them. I agreed that a lot of the time people didn’t think about why they were doing something and just did it because they were supposed to. After a while these just become motions engraved into their minds. However, I brought the topic up with a group of people once who made me look at it a little bit differently. They told me a story about about a time in a session that they had played a piece of music and then asked those present to reflect on that particular piece of music.

When it came to the part in the evening where they were able to share anything that they had reflected on one man shared his experience of finally finding meaning in a ritualistic hand movement that he had been doing for years. He finally made the connection. I think Hemant is right in the sense that some people give it absolutely no thought what-so-ever. That could be because they don’t have the spiritual guidance to ask the right questions to find meaning in that movement or it could be because they’re just putting in their weekly time as to get to heaven. But for others there is a deep connection found once they meditate on the motions.

I can see why rituals would be really unappealing to someone who had never seen them before - but to others it is the absolute best way of connecting the heart to the mind. Another aspect of this is that engraving these types of things into people makes it easier for churches to connect them emotionally to it - I’m speaking more in terms of ritualistic things such as music, in this case. By playing the same hymns at different times in the year it creates an emotional connection to that particular time and moment. Some music has been so deeply saturated in my sub conscious that when I hear particular songs I cry. I’m not religious, but I hear them and I just break. It’s a ritual - if there is no meaning behind the song, it doesn’t do anything but when there is it is so powerful - just like rituals that seem pointless to outsiders.

One thing that for some reason “bothered” me (I put bothered in quotations because I’m not entirely sure if its the word I want to use…) was Hemant’s constant conversation to christians with the words “if you want your church to appeal to me” … I just kept thinking “why would they want their church to appeal to you?” The church doesn’t want super open minded, freethinking, questioning, atheistic… etc etc etc youth in their church. From all the churches I’ve been to, they’d rather I didn’t go. The kinds of churches that are desperately looking for congregation members wouldn’t have the time of means to answer the questions of freethinkers, and those that can afford time and money to devote to those questioning already have a strong enough following that they don’t care.

Acquire The Fire strives very hard to appeal to youth. CHRISTIAN youth. They don’t care if they appeal atheists. They already have an army of christian youth. What I’ve learned by living with a minister is that the church isn’t trying to appeal to freethinkers or atheists or get new members. They’re trying to keep their current members entertained enough that they don’t fall asleep in church.

And in relation to this - you can write a million and a half books about how a church can better appeal to a wider audience but the fact of the matter is that you’re dealing with a lot of “old” people who are incredibly stuck in their ways. Those little churches with boring sermons don’t welcome rock bands and wildly outrageous atheist discussions in their sanctuary. They like their old hymns, played on their old organs, sang by their old choir and followed by old sandwiches and cold coffee. They don’t want to change this. They don’t want a 25 year old atheist mixed in with their crowd.

My step-dad has been fired from various churches because he has proposed the exact change that Hemant is ‘preaching’ (heh). He has proposed discussion groups instead of sermons, he has tried to modernize the way people think, he has tried to perform gay marriage in the church, he has attempted to bring more youth in via music and youth events… but the old folks simply don’t go for it. It’s not as easy as flipping the coin and saying “okay! we’ll do it this way now!” because it’s been done the old way for a very long time.

But, this leads me to my final thought on Hemant’s book, and that is the need for discussion. My radio show isn’t an atheist show, it’s not a show on skepticism or anything of that sort. It is on faith. Because I want to hear about everyone’s faith - how they got there, why they do with it, why they believe its the right faith to have… etc. I love it when C4C shows up at the Guelph Skeptics events and they start hammering us with questions. It starts a discussion. The only time I have enjoyed going to church was when I’d get to go off to “sunday school” and talk about things with the rest of my class.

I wish there was more room for clam and rational discussion. It seems like bringing together progressive christians (like my step dad) and soft atheists (like me) is for some reason difficult. People are so afraid of finding similarities so they stop the talk before it even begins. I often find that I have more in common with my christian parents (in terms of faith and religion) than I do with my secular/freethinking/atheist friends. I really wish that more people would open up their minds and mouths and realize all these similarities.

Anyway - I really like the book. I like that Hemant and I seem to share a brain when it comes to thoughts on religion and faith and the church. So much of what he has written are things that I had experienced myself. (I didn’t have someone give me money to go to different churches - I just do that on my own time and dime.) Give it a read and then come hear him speak at U of T in June! WOO! (I’ll post more info on that as it is available)

Larry Moran has made a very depressing post on all the creationists that are at my school. It’s sad how many there are, really. Check this:

 David K.Y. Chiu is Professor of Computing and Information Science and Professor of Biophysics Interdepartmental Group. He has a Ph.D. in Systems Design Engineering from the University of Waterloo (Canada).

Professor Chiu is head of the Pattern Learning Research Group. Most of his recent papers have to do with recognizing patterns in bioinformatics data.

Durston, K.K., D.K.Y. Chiu, D.L. Abel and J.T. Trevors (2007)doi:10.1186/1742-4682-4-47]

Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins”, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 4:47. [
Chiu, D.K.Y. and K. Zhang (2007) Biomolecular data analysis: a post-genomic reflection. Biomolecular Engineering, 24:319-320.

Chiu, D.K.Y. and Y. Wang (2006) Multipattern consensus regions in multiple aligned protein sequences and their segmentation. EURASIP Journal on Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, Vol.2006:1-8.

Ma, P.C.H., K.C.C. Chan, X. Yao and Chiu, D.K.Y. (2006) An evolutionary clustering algorithm for gene expression microarray data analysis. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 10:296-314.

Hwang, C., Chiu, D.K.Y. and Sohn, I. (2005) Analysis of exon structure using PCA and ICA of short-time Fourier transform. L. Wang, K. Chen, and Y.S. Ong (Eds.): ICNC LNCS 3611, pp.306-315, 2005, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005.(also Second Intern. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, joint ICNC’05-FSKD’05, 27-29 Aug. 2005, Changsha, China.)

Durston, K. and Chiu, D.K.Y. (2005) A functional entropy model for biological sequences. in supplementary volume of the journal, Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems, Series B, 2005 (also Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Engineering Applications and Computational Algorithms), pp.722-725.

Holy moly. I guess Duston is our “big one” and he’s actually the nicest person I’ve ever spoken to. I’m sure once we “got into it” he wouldn’t be so “nice”. But from what I can tell he’s a perfectly awesome guy (almost as awesome as Dr. Shallit… who I have to mention again… was the BEST speaker I’ve ever heard. Seriously.)

I ran into my favorite creationist today, Andrew Middleton - a main player in our “C4C group… I don’t think he likes me very much, and I think he got my university e-mail suspended. LAME. (I sent an e-mail out to his entire mailing list asking them to come out for the Larry Moran event… they didn’t look too highly upon that, apparently. Whoops.)

My worry is that with these creationists getting degrees that soon my school will become a joke in terms of academics - hopefully I graduate and get into a good grad school before then. *sigh*