The religious often accuse atheists and other reality-based folk of being emotionless half-Vulcans, incapable of appreciating art and beauty.

This billboard by the Minnesota Atheists does not help our case.

Being an underemployed graphic designer, this kind of infuriates me. I would love to do an atheist billboard mockup. Pay is preferred, of course, but I have volunteered my services for atheist and political causes in the past. And I’m not the only one. Hell, a few months ago JT Eberhard had a contest for a Secular Safe Zone logo. He’s gotten a lot of entries and I certainly hope most of them aren’t as bad as this.

Even if you’re stingy with hiring a designer, there are options such as JT’s method. There’s really no excuse for this.

You can adopt an atheist too! For just a measly $14.50 an hour!

Bill Donahue, spurred on by David Silverman’s Skepticon talk, has an idea to win potential Christians aware from the freethought base- the Adopt an Atheist campaign.

Here’s what our campaign entails. We are asking everyone to contact the American Atheist affiliate in his area [click here], letting them know of your interest in “adopting” one of them. All it

takes is an e-mail. Let them know of your sincere interest in working with them to uncover their inner self. They may be resistant at first, but eventually they may come to understand that they were Christian all along.

I don’t know if he expected atheists to call his bluff, but we sure did. JT Eberhard has even provided contact information and has offered himself for adoption.

I propose that those of us Joplin Freethinkers who are interested, join in and do the same. I’m crafting an ad right now.

ADOPT ME

This is Karley. She’s a 25-year-old unspayed Redheaded Feminazi/Atheist mix. Housebroken, energetic, not good with small children.

Speakers include:

Richard Dawkins
Author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, and more; Founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

PZ Myers
Blogger at Pharyngula; Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota Morris.

Taslima Nasrin
Author of more than thirty books, including Lajja (“Shame”); Prolific activist for gender equality, free thought, and human rights.

James Randi
Founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation; Creator of The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge; Magician (known as “The Amazing Randi”).

Bad Religion
Legendary rock band fronted by singer/songwriter Greg Graffin.

Check out the Reason Rally website: http://reasonrally.org/

Field sketch by an eyewitness. Note the prettiness.

Courtesy of Joplin Expats, I am delighted to reveal a scientific breakthough in Magical Flying People Research. I present, without further ado, the discovery of Lepidopterapithicus joplinia — the Southwest Missouri Butterfly Angel.

After the tornado passed over them, the mother asked her daughter if she was OK.

The little girl said she was and said to her mother,

“Wasn’t it pretty?”

Her mother asked her what she meant.

She replied that she saw a lot of butterfly people.

“Did you see the butterfly people in the sky? They were carrying people in the sky.”

They were going into the sky with people and there were a lot around the two of them.

Besides the butterfly story about the mother and child taking safety in a ditch, I have heard of two more.

This is not the only report, and if anything has any truck in science, it’s numerous heartwarming anecdotes.

I am forced to retract my previous hypothesis, when I stated that only bird-winged magical flying white people made sense.

This is now inaccurate. The new updated chart will cost you $250.

Descriptions vary, from just being “big butterflies” to butterfly people proper. We can assume that they have shapeshifting powers. No size range is given, although if they’re carting folk into the sky, they must be of considerable size and strength, far surpassing any known flying creature (with the exception of the roc and Superman, of course). The jury is out on what relation Butterfly Angels have, if any, to the fairy folk (Homa fata).

Their behavior doesn’t seem too dissimilar from the traditional Hallmarkian angel: they are prone to selecting certain arbitrary people from the wrath of their vengeful employer. More research is required to explain why some people are selected for salvation while others are given the shaft. Perhaps their antenna can detect gullibility, like how some bloodsucking insects can detect cholesterol levels. They seem to breed in turbulent atmospheric conditions. If they are anything like normal angels, their growth is fueled by ringing bells, shafts of sunlight, the laughter of happy families, and small field rodents.

This is a revolutionary new step in Thaumaturgical Ornithothropology. As soon as I get both an expedition team and my tornado engine put together, more revelations will be forthcoming.

Alas, butterfly angels have nobody to save THEM from neither natural disasters nor underpaid lab assistants.

This is an embarrassing comic, and not just because of the shitty Photoshop filters. It also exposes a nasty little secret of mine. I hastily drew this when I was in college to convey what social anxiety is like. It’s basically like every moment of your life, with few exceptions, is a job interview where the potential employer, receptionist and janitor are giving you the stinkeye the whole time. Also you’re onstage at the Apollo. The whole time.

“Interesting, if TMI disclosure about your mental illness. Now what does this have to do with Skepticon?”, you ask.

Yeah, I’m not going to do slides of my trip to Skepticville after all. Sorry. Just going to talk about feelings and such.

I attended Skepticon for the creation museum field trip on Friday, and the first day of talks. And I had personal goals to accomplish:

• Give out business cards (say, have you visited my store? It’s ace, and skeptic friendly!)
• Make friends and don’t be an avoidant dope. I refer to this constantly as “schmoozing,” to make it sound less like a basic skill most normal people have and more like X-treme Advanced Socializing for the Master Social Engineer. Please bear with me. It’s my insecurity talking.

There were many high points, schmoozing-wise, at Skepticon, such as getting the nerve to chat with Joe Nickell and sending him on a wild Strafford chupacabra hunt (I hope it went well). I even got on that little video I posted previously. But you can’t force your brain to rewire, otherwise ex-gay therapy would work.

The hardest part was when I got myself invited to a secret dinner with some of the headliners. (Long story, but the short version: I just happened to have a car with empty seats at the right time). I drove some people to the location, and we were all gunning to go to this place, and we arrive and get some drinks…

And my brain completely shuts down. I should divulge my typical reaction to meeting up with someone I know peripherally.

Me: Oh hey! I know you! You’re that person I know off the internet!

Person I Know Off the Internet: Oh, hello!

Me: *CATASTROPHIC SOFTWARE FAILURE*

I then resort to pathetic attempts at tedious small talk, and hover around in the hopes that they will learn to love me via osmosis. This reaction I have doesn’t just apply to e-celebrities, but also anyone that I have met on Facebook or Twitter or e-mail. I want to leave, but I can’t. I just shut down and stew in an effort not to cry.

What’s ironic is that at this dinner I was sitting next to JT Eberhard. If only I had known. But his speech is Sunday evening. I go home Saturday.

—————–

On Thanksgiving night after Skepticon, I have a breakdown. It’s not unusual, but this is the first one I’ve had in front of my boyfriend. I didn’t want him to ever see this, but it was inevitable. That may be part of the reason I’ve never had a significant other until a few years after college.

I just goofed up big at my onstage-at-the-Apollo job interview. Here it comes, whatever “it” is.

It doesn’t come. One of the perks of having an awesome boyfriend is that he doesn’t tell you “you need to just get out more.” Don’t have to stew in silence anymore on that front.

Afterwards I notice JT’s talk is up on the internet. Me and the BF watch it together.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-YvrHZVvk]

I tell the BF. “I’m crazy.”

I hear something I didn’t expect. “I’m crazy too.”

More crying, only it’s happy crying now. The imaginary Apollo audience goes “awwwww,” the imaginary receptionist averts her eyes and looks ashamed.

Skeptics know more than most how the human brain can betray you. They should take up JT’s word and start championing understanding of mental illness. Next year, I will not try to stew in silence. Who knows who else is trying to do the same thing you are.

I have social anxiety disorder.

I’m crazy. You might be crazy too.

And that’s OK.

You know what I’m thankful for? I’m thankful that I got all these goddamn ponies done.

Darrel Raycehorse

David Fitzgeegee

I’m especially grateful to the ones who use iconic logos in their work. Instant cutie mark!

HePinto Mehta

Also, those rumored to be involved with babies somehow.

Elippizzaner Yudkowsy

I have no idea if this pun works or not. I think I went mad and just started lumping letters together.

Dan Bronco

Dan Barker is NOT jumping. In fact, he is in the middle of an epic pratfall that he hasn’t realized is happening yet.

Richard Carriage

Richard looks all hardcore. But I imagine anyone with Joss Whedon tattooed on their ass would.

Prancer Greenberg

I had never heard of this guy and didn’t get to attend his talk, so all I had was a small photo and a rumor that he liked tea. I hope to make up for my lack of knowledge by giving him badass steampunk wings.

Did I get everyone?

It's my pony, and I'm sick of puns. So Kaje it be.

If you recognize my cutie mark, I’m willing to bet that you did NOT play with My Little Pony when you were little. Unless you borrowed some for your dinosaurs to eat.

The last batch of Skepticon ponies will come. I still have to do Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, Spencer Greenberg, Hemant Mehta, Darrel Ray, and Eliezer Yudkowsky (thanks Wikipedia!) and it looks like I have my work cut out for me. I’m not familiar with some of these people, as I didn’t attend the last day. If you’re one of these people and have a horrible horse pun or cutie mark in mind, let me know! I will also have a post on how critical thought affects my social anxiety, and vice versa. And the Skepticon post proper.

But! Have to work! So here’s a video for Thanksgiving. It’s about skeptics giving thanks, shot by the Dallas Fellowship of Freethought. I pop in at the 8:30-ish mark. Enjoy!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53j_pNgEfy0]

Jen McCrydesdale

You have no idea how tempted I was to make the cutie mark a pair of quaking boobs. But then she was all like “NO BOOBS” and then I was all like “AWWWWWWW!”

Sam Singletony

Sam Singleton doesn’t get a cutie mark, because he makes people hate crime us.

Julia Gallop

How can Spock be a special talent? Julia Galef knows how!

Amanda Marecotte

The last two are cheating, because they spoke at Skepticon 3, not 4. But this pun was so obvious. A good half of the work in these things is coming up with horse pun names. Also, Amanda was in the audience so I’m counting it.

Debbie Godd-Herd

Another Skepticon 3 speaker. Did you know that in MLP:FiM, black people are zebras? I think that’s horseshit. Normal (read: white) ponies can be unicorns, pegasi, earth ponies…black people are stuck with zebras. After all, we must other the non-whites even in kid’s cartoons! Well, fuck you canon. Debbie is a earth pony.

But before I do that, I must share these. They were inspired by these My Atheist Pony shot glasses, designed by Katie Hartman and Kelley Freeman to promote the event. I love them, but we need more. MORE DAMMIT. So I made more with General Zoi’s Pony Creator. Here they are.

JT Eberhooves

Pony Z Myers

Rebecca Trotson

Greta Equestina

Joe Nieghkell

David Silvermane

There’s no question that Skepticon 4 was worth attending. As with Skepticon 3, we had the pleasure of hearing talks by Dan Barker, Greta Christina, PZ Myers, Sam Singleton, Joe Nickell, David Fitzgerald, and others. My two favorites this year were Dan Barker and Greta Christina. Christina’s talk on why atheists are so angry was so good that it would make for an excellent video night presentation for the group. I, for one, would love to see it again. It’s one of those speeches with so much packed into it that you can’t remember half of it, but you know it was all good. Of course, any of the other talks would be suitable for a group viewing as well, but in my humble opinion, Greta’s was top-notch.

Singleton, I feel, is also worthy of honorable mention. His sermon on “Giving Thanks” was both timely as Thanksgiving was fast approaching, and right. As he pointed out in his message, any gratitude on the part of Jesus is sorely lacking in the Gospels. I must confess, I had not noticed that before. Despite being an atheist evangelist who is primarily a comedian, he delivered a genuine message in his sermon.

Those who know me, and who attended this year, will not be surprised to learn that I could not disagree more with David Silverman, whom I consider to be very dogmatic and unenlightened. In his talk, he pushed for a broad definition of an atheist, as one who lacks a belief in any sort of god. This may sound like a reasonable definition, but I, as well as a lot of other people, dare I say most people, understand the word “atheist” to mean one who outright denies the existence of any sort of god. Silverman’s broader, more inclusive definition, which he defends as being more unifying, would also include agnostics, secular humanists, skeptics, etc. But as many of you know from the presentation I gave back in January, I argued (and still do) that theism, the philosophical view that there does exist some sort of God or supreme being (nothing whatsoever to do with faith or religion) is a perfectly rational viewpoint, and for all anybody knows, may be correct. It has philosophical merit and is a worthy contender in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be taken up in philosophy classes, journals, and textbooks in the first place. It can thus be rationally held by any freethinker. Now as I am an agnostic, I technically fall under the category of atheist by Silverman’s definition. So I, an atheist according to Silverman, argue that theism is a realistic possibility. Sound strange? Of course it does, coming from an atheist. But not so much, coming from an agnostic. This illustrates my point that Silverman’s definition is too inclusive, and so too uninformative to be of much value. (Not that a conclusionary atheist, who denies the existence of God, couldn’t nevertheless agree with my view of theism.)

I also recall a point in Silverman’s talk where he commits a gross logical fallacy. I don’t remember his exact words, but the reasoning went something like this (which he expressed rather excitedly): “For centuries, they have tried to prove the existence of God, and every single time they have failed! There is no God!” Any introductory logic student should be able to see the woeful illogic being displayed here. You don’t need proof to rationally believe in something. You just need good enough reason to support it. There’s not a lick of proof, or even hard evidence, that intelligent life exists on other planets. Yet, given our background knowledge, scientists still consider it to be a realistic possibility and see fit to speculate on its likelihood. In philosophy, the possibility of God’s existence is no different.

One more point about Silverman. Not long ago, he made an appearance on Fox News. When asked to defend his atheism, Silverman repeatedly said (again excitedly), “Because it’s the truth!” The more atheists like Silverman continue to make such emotionally charged dogmatic statements with no (fallacy free) arguments behind them, the more religious believers will accuse atheism of being just another religion. And the more such accusations will be right!

Now on to Richard Carrier. As bright, intelligent, knowledgeable, and impressive an author as he is, I cannot refrain from saying that his Bayesian argument against God would leave the philosophical community as a whole a bit underwhelmed. I am not about to get into the in’s and out’s of Bayes’ Theorem, but here is a very crude and simplified version of Carrier’s Bayesian argument against God, in a nutshell. Carrier points out the evil of slavery and makes use of it in the argument.

1. It is improbable that God would have a good excuse to allow such a horrendous evil as slavery.

2. Slavery was real.

3. Therefore, it is improbable that there is a God.

This sort of argument falls under the Problem of Evil, which is a philosophical challenge to theists to explain why a loving and benevolent God would allow bad things to happen. The Problem of Evil dates back to ancient times, and Carrier even presented a famous quote from Epicurus:

“Is he willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but unwilling? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ‘God’?”

The audience applauded, and Carrier stood triumphantly as if to imply that this pretty much disproved the existence of God and that there was just nothing more to say about the matter. Such is Carrier’s ignorance or his dishonesty, since he should know better. The truth is that the Problem of Evil is an immensely complicated subject in philosophy, and theists have made countless responses to it, and atheists have made counterarguments to those responses, and theists have countered back, and so on and on it goes. From the value of free will, to greater goods, to the dichotomy of good and evil, to what some philosophers have called “soul making”, there is good reason to doubt that a benevolent God would want to create a “perfect” world in which there were no trials, hardships, or challenges to overcome. Not to mention other arguments for God’s existence, completely outside the Problem of Evil.

I don’t know why a benevolent God would allow slavery. But my point is that atheists have no right to declare victory over a small point like this when there are countless other things to consider, both inside and outside the Problem of Evil, that have bearing on God’s existence. Carrier’s point is well taken, but to imply that this settles the matter is to grossly oversimplify, and to fail to do justice to, an extremely complex and difficult issue. Anyone who thinks this is easy has a lot to learn.

By the way, long before (I’m presuming) Carrier ever heard of Bayes’ Theorem, it had been used, most notably by theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne, to argue that the existence of God is quite probable. I can’t evaluate the soundness of Swinburne’s reasoning, but his argument did find its way into the philosophical literature. Maybe Carrier’s will, too. But I won’t hold my breath.