Saturday, April 5, 2014

Secular Therapy Project Reaches 3000 Clients

The Secular Therapy Project helps people find a doctor for their mental health, who won't push religion on their patients.  Recently, they reached a promising milestone with their 3000th client.  From Recovering From Religion's press release:
March 28, 2014 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – The Secular Therapist Project, a program of the non-profit organization Recovering From Religion, is thrilled to announce the registration of their 3,000th client.
Program Director Dr. Darrel Ray states, “The Secular Therapist Project is an innovative resource connecting clients, via a confidential database, with registered secular therapists near them. Many of our clients reach out to us after growing frustrated from their previous providers. They’re being told to follow the recommendations of their pastors, who are usually unlicensed in mental health issues, or to just find another church. Some of our clients even report therapists insisting on “the power of prayer” or practicing new age gimmicks like “realigning your chakras” during therapy sessions. Many of our registered therapists also offer distance counseling, allowing clients in heavily religious areas to remotely access reliable mental health resources and care. “
“The rate of client growth has accelerated steadily since the project started in 2012, adding 1,000 clients in only the last 7 months. There are currently 171 registered secular therapists, all fully qualified, who applied to join the project via the website at As of January 2014, 75% of Secular Therapist Project therapists have been contacted by one or more potential clients, 48% have been contacted by four or more, and 11% have been contacted by 10-20 new clients. The feedback received from clients regarding their experiences with therapists they’ve found through the database is overwhelmingly positive.
Executive Director Sarah Morehead adds, “This is clearly a valuable resource to so many, and we are thrilled at the ongoing success of this fantastic program. We are regularly in contact with people who have decided religion or supernatural answers are not for them, yet their only options for mental health care use supernatural recommendations. For those who want a reliable alternative to “alternative” mental health care, this is it.”
Registration and call contact with therapists is free, private, and confidential at Recovering From Religion is led by Executive Director Sarah Morehead and provides practical support and resources to individuals reconsidering the role of religion in their lives.
Contact: Dr. Darrel Ray § Secular Therapist Project Program Director § Recovering From Religion
(512) 666-4630 § §
10940 Parallel Pkwy, Suite K-145 §  KS 66109

If you know a therapist who would qualify, please encourage them to sign up.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

An Update On The Campaign To Get Biblename to AACon2014

Some friends met last weekend to create a campaign to get a talented photographer to the 2014 American Atheists Convention.  Having an active YouTuber in the room also meant getting a pretty good video for the effort.

Soon after posting it, I saw links to it all over my news feed.  Throughout the week, I've had numerous inquiries about the status of it.

In less than a week, with entirely viral marketing, this campaign is fully funded.

It's heartwarming to see atheists so eagerly supporting artistic talent and each other.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

My Elected Representative Does Not Understand What Religious Freedom Is

My Congressional Representative, Lee Terry, posted this statement about Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court case.

Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE) today made the following statement on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court today on the Hobby Lobby case in the support of religious freedom:
“Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on behalf of individuals who under Obamacare feel that their constitutional right to religious freedom has been violated.
“Our nation’s motto is ‘In God We Trust’ and it couldn’t be more clear. Every single American should have the freedom to practice their faith and protect their conscious separate from cumbersome federal mandates. I want to add my voice in support of these Americans who have unjustly been coerced by an overreaching Administration and forced to choose between their God and their government.”
I'll ignore the many issues just in his invocation (pun intended) of "In God We Trust", or his less than subtle presumption that all Americans believe in a god, for now.  That's another fight for another day.

The issue for today is Hobby Lobby, who is demanding the right to ignore the ACA mandate to cover birth control within health insurance for its employees.  They are demanding that the religion of their owners limit the healthcare options of their employees.

To illustrate the problem with that, here's something from Keith Lowell Jensen.

That is not religion freedom.  That is religious oppression.  It's a violation of the religious freedom of every employee of Hobby Lobby.  No one should be forced to find another job, or go without proper healthcare, just because their employer doesn't want to follow the law.

From the comments of Terry's statement:

Hobby Lobby is not requesting religious freedom.  They're demanding special privilege to ignore the law.

By supporting Hobby Lobby, Lee Terry is supporting religious oppression. Not religious freedom. Religious freedom would be everyone following the same laws, regardless of their religion. Religious freedom is NOT everyone but Christians following the law.

My representation in Washington DC needs a grade school level civics lesson.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

A Note On Some Responses To Fred Phelps Dying

When Jerry Falwell died, I shed no tears.  I was happy because his absence made the world a better place.  But it's different for me this time around.  I simply cannot be happy about it this time.

Maybe it's because, since then, I've had more exposure to the atheist community.  I've seen so many people who naturally behave out of love rather than hate.  More than just about anyone I've met, Nathan Phelps is one of those people.  I've had the honor of meeting him and experienced first hand what a genuinely kind hearted person he is.

My inability to be happy is likely also biased by the fact that I've been through the same loss.  I know how hard it was for me, and I didn't have the added burden of both being excluded by my family and having the world tell me how happy they were about my father's death.  Every time I see that sentiment expressed, I see it through a combination of (my perception of) Nate's eyes and my own.

It's hurtful, unnecessary, and unbecoming of humanist values.  I get the urge to respond how I've seen many do, but we owe it to ourselves and to each other to be better.The best response to hate is not more hate.  The best response to hate is to show that, even when it's the easy choice, you will not add to the hate.

The best response to hate is love.  Let's please all remember that as best we can.

Monday, March 10, 2014

David Silverman Goes To CPAC, Some Atheists Miss The Point

As soon as American Atheists announced they were going to CPAC, they got nearly as much fight from atheists as they did from the conservatives who got them kicked out.  Dave Muscato's personal (not in his official capacity with American Atheists) response to one such complaint is the best defense of the effort that I've seen so far.
If an atheist is being discriminated against for religious reasons, or is being intimidated such that s/he's staying in the closet about her atheism, or being forced to pray in a government space, or being forced to learn religious mythology in science class, etc, it is not our place, as an atheist-rights nonprofit, to treat that person any differently regardless of whether she was a conservative or a liberal. We still fight for her because that's what we do.
While there, Dave Silverman said something about abortion that resulted in some atheists getting upset at him.
“I came with the message that Christianity and conservatism are not inextricably linked,” he told me, “and that social conservatives are holding down the real conservatives — social conservatism isn’t real conservatism, it’s actually big government, it’s theocracy. I’m talking about gay rights, right to die, abortion rights –”
Hold on, I said, I think the Right to Life guys who have a booth here, and have had every year since CPAC started, would disagree that they’re not real conservatives.
I will admit there is a secular argument against abortion,” said Silverman. “You can’t deny that it’s there, and it’s maybe not as clean cut as school prayer, right to die, and gay marriage.”
People were upset over that for a variety of reasons.  JT Eberhard debunked them so well, I was compelled to tweet this about it:
It's well worth the read.  It says exactly what I was trying to explain some, that the argument against Silverman is not based in reality.  It was all I had to say about the matter until I read a few other pieces from the perspective JT was challenging.

On the blog Reasonable Faith, objection to even going to CPAC was repeated.
So, they’re closet atheists? “A lot of them, yes.” And beyond that, he says, “a vast majority of Christians here would support atheists being part of the movement.” Well, they need all the help they can get.
Iffy. There may be a lot of atheists lurking about. But ever since Edmund Burke the conservative tradition has emphasized the need for religious institutions and religious indoctrination to ensure social order. Even an atheist might endorse religion if they think it will keep the masses in check. I’m reminded of Emerson’s line that his aunt was not a Calvinist but wished that everybody else was.
They're much more likely to keep going with the religious line if the atheist community keeps telling them they're not welcome.  Why would they want to join us if we're telling them they're not welcome?  On the other hand, if we show ourselves willing to support them in their atheism (without necessarily supporting all of their politics), they'll be more likely be openly atheist around the Christian Right that dominates American conservatism.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say we can agree that bad arguments won't hold weight if they lose the protective veil of religion & the vagueness of gods.  Getting conservative atheists (who do exist) to be openly atheist is a step toward this end.  Shunning them just because they have different politics is a step away from it.

Jason Thibeault's response to the hullabaloo was much longer, and thus much more wrong.  I've generally liked what I've seen from Thibeault, but on this issue, he's so intensely wrong I simply cannot speak up.  If I addressed all the wrong things, this post would be way longer than it already is, but some the overall point needs addressing.
People are upset about this, and I strongly feel, rightly so. I’m pretty upset about it too. Not that Silverman is explicitly anti-choice, because he’s later apparently multiple times clarified that he’s not personally convinced by those arguments. I’m mostly upset that he raised the issue of secular arguments for conservative social causes, thus painting himself into a corner where he could be trapped into having to weasel out of a specific counterpoint that easily undermined what he was saying. I’m further upset that by hedging on this issue, he gives cover to people who think he means there’s a valid, cogent argument against the right of a mother to choose whether to be pregnant.
He knows Silverman isn't anti-choice, so he's just upset that Silverman admitted that there are secular arguments against abortion.  Those arguments do, in fact, exist.  The other option Silverman was to lie.  I tend to prefer honesty over lying.  I expect Thibeault has a similar stance, despite his inaccuracies here.

He claims Silverman hedged & painted himself into a corner.  Also nonsense.  Thibeault's post goes through a lot of mental gymnastics & hypotheticals to justify this stance, but it's all entirely unnecessary and done for reasons I cannot figure out.  It's especially confusing because he stated the plain truth in the middle of all of it.
He did not say that there was a valid, cogent argument against abortion. Only that there’s a secular one. 
That's it.  He only said there was a secular argument against abortion.  Because there is.  The quality of that argument was completely irrelevant to what Silverman was talking about there and counterproductive to his entire purpose for being there.  He was there to show conservative atheists that it's okay to be openly atheist.  Not to pick fights with them.  There's nothing wrong with saving the arguments for later, and doing so need not imply malice or incompetence.
But my criticisms are entirely predicated on the face value of what he said, without reading anything extra into it.
They're really not.  His criticisms are entirely reliant on reading more into it.  Entirely reliant on a pile of completely unnecessary hypotheticals, "what ifs", and the complaint that he didn't make a point to argue against abortion right then & there.  That last bit is the crux of this.

Silverman is accused of painting himself into a corner while simultaneously being accused of avoiding the argument.  It cannot be both.  But that incoherence fits the rest of it.  The argument against Silverman here is so bad and so desperate, it includes some blatantly inaccurate statements.
There’s even a secular argument for prayer in schools. But first you have to have a secular prayer, to eliminate the religion from the context of the consequence as well as the argument. When you do that, you’re left with, essentially, arguments for the American Pledge of Allegiance, which is still said in most states. It’s a vocal exhortation to an entity that is not a deity, said mostly to remind yourself and others around you that you are affiliated with that entity. Only in this case, it’s a country, not a god.
There, by definition, cannot be a secular argument for (school led) prayer in school.  Prayer is explicitly religious.  "Secular" explicitly means "without regard to religion".  The example of the Pledge of Allegiance is a huge stretch, to the point of just being flat out wrong.  The Pledge is not prayer.  And since 1954, it's not even secular. And even though, it's currently religious, it's still not prayer.  It's not TOO a god.  It merely references one.  My money, before I fix it, isn't praying either.

Silverman is accused of hedging because he didn't go off message by not going after abortion at that moment.  It's like his famous "Tides go in" encounter with Bill O'Reilly.  He got criticism for not correcting O'Reilly on the air.  I was among those criticizing him initially, until I realized why I was wrong.  Rather than letting O'Reilly derail the conversation, Silverman staid on message.  He wisely saved the argument for another time.  He did his job.

I'm sure I will end up criticizing Silverman at some point.  While quite good at his job, he's not infallible.  And I have a big mouth.  But if/when I do, it will be based on something he actually said or did.  And it won't be something as silly as an over-hyped complaint about one instance where he didn't do what I specifically wished he'd done in one fleeting moment.  Especially not one where he said something accurate and staid on message, like what happened in this instance.

So far, my only complaint about David Silverman since joining American Atheists is that he hasn't grown the devil beard back yet.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

About A Different Debate (That Has Not Happened)

While tabling for Apostacon last year at ReasonFest, I learned of a plan that was being worked for Apostacon later that year.  Learning of this was on the condition that I didn't share the information because it was still in the works and it would have had its own announce done by Apostacon itself.

The goal was for a debate.  Matt Dillahunty vs Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.  If you're wondering who the hell Sye Ten Bruggencate is, you're wondering the same thing I was then and some friends were  the other day when I referenced him.

Here's the example of him I was shown.

The gist is that he was entirely reliant on the tactic he has, Presuppositional Apologetics.  It involves an effective straw man of forcing the other person into a corner of solipsism by putting an intense focus on absolute knowledge, claiming only he can have knowledge (because God), and declaring anyone who doesn't claim absolute knowledge cannot know anything and thus cannot speak.

It's a childish word game.  When a member of the show called him out on it, instead dropping the game and having an adult conversation (the point of the show he was on), he immediately left in a tiff.

I wish I could say that was an isolated incident, but the more I learned about him, the more I learned that was his only debate tactic.  For instance, he pulled the same shit on Steve Shives and the other 2 who were on the Biblethumpingwingnut Show.

By the time my part in this story because, Matt had been dealing with Sye for a while, and he thought the potential for 2 vs 1 would get him to finally participate in a debate.  Multiple attempts were made by Apostacon to get in contact with them.  For a while, we received no response at all.  Eventually, a representative for Hovind declined citing schedule (a reasonable excuse).  We sent Sye enough e-mails that he cannot reasonably claim to have not seen them.  He never responded.

We eventually dropped the plan to attempt to make a debate happen out of logistical necessity.  We had a conference to plan and no time to play games.  Matt still came to Apostacon, where he did a magic show, that I hear was quite good[1].

After that, I hadn't put any thought toward the failed attempt for a debate or Sye until Matt tagged Apostacon on Twitter in response to Sye tweeting this video.

In that video, Sye has a clip of Matt referencing the offer Sarah Morehead that I talked about above.  In his response to that, Sye lied about not being aware of the offer.  The only other option is that he's incredibly lazy about checking his e-mail.

Why is he lying?  Only he knows.

So, Matt responded.

In his response, Sye makes excuses about why he's still never called into the show anyone can call into and nitpicks trivial details.  In claiming he'd be hung up on, he's entirely ignoring the episodes Matt is referencing, where neither Matt Slick nor Ray Comfort were hung up on.  Sye has no good reason to think he would have been treated any differently.

I suspect that Sye decided to challenge Matt to a debate after seeing the Nye-Ham debate and decided to himself some attention.

If it was nearly anyone but Matt Dillahunty, I would advise not to waste your time with him Sye Ten Bruggencate, who I do not believe is capable of a civil, honest, or sincere debate.  But I think Matt is much more likely than most to effectively call him out on his bullshit.

Matt knows he won't convince Sye that he's wrong.  But he also knows that exposing Sye as being full of shit could make a difference with believers in the audience.  Matt knows that there will be potential future atheists in the audience.

My expectations for the debate are similar what Shives posted on Matt's first video.

I expect Sye's part of the debate to be thoroughly frustrating.  I expect him to be dishonest, mostly in the from quote mines and claims of exclusivity to absolute knowledge.

Sye claims he wants to expose "the atheist worldview" for what it is.  But all he has is word games.  So, to make the endeavor worthwhile, all Matt has to do is expose the dishonesty and terrible arguments for what they are.

If he does that, it will have the same result as the Nye-Ham debate, with even Christians saying the atheist won and comparing him to a conspiracy theorist.

1.  I missed it due to Apostacon related obligations

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Some Tweets From During The Nye Ham Debate

Although, it's these 2 that really sum it all up.