About.com: Top Books on Skepticism, Critical Thinking, Logic

Well, since I installed the Amazon thingy on the blog, and I like to read books, I was pleased to see a list of books that Austin Cline recommends. If I was going to rewrite this list, I think that I would move "Demon Haunted World" up as the very first book for anyone you want to introduce to actually thinking (let alone critical thinking).  As a matter of fact, if this list is too daunting, I would say go with 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 first.  I I almost put "The Age of American Unreason" up there with "Demon Haunted World", but I think that may be more a hot button issue with me than others.  Although you really have to read the review Austin gives (right at the end) or even go to the Amazon page to peg your irony meter.  4 and 5 are right up there as well, but that could be the second course on tackling this reading list.

Of course, the ideal situation is to have a well read public that can tackle all 13 books on the list.  Go ahead, put them on your Kindle (or Kindle like device) or even get them in paperback with paper and all that antique stuff.  Set a goal of just getting through one every couple of weeks.

Top Books on Skepticism, Critical Thinking, Logic

Reviews of the Best Books on Skepticism and Critical Thinking

by Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Society today requires science more than at any time in the past. Unfortunately, people today are often scientifically illiterate - they don't understand science and they don't understand the sort of skeptical, critical thinking which lies at the heart of science. There are plenty of books on skepticism, but collected here are some of the best that I've found. If skepticism and critical thinking are important to you, these are books you should read and should recommend to others.

1. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age

Belief in paranormal, supernatural and mysterious claims have always been very popular, so how can skeptics best approach such claims to evaluate their credibility and offer a critical perspective? What tools and principles should we employ in dealing with obviously weird things that come up in life? What are the methods of thinking which people should be employing more often, but aren't? So long as separating truth from falsehood is important, these are vital questions for everyone.

Read Review

2. Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Are irrationality and superstition bringing the modern world to the brink of a new Dark Age? Can the proper use of skepticism and critical thinking keep us away from that brink and ensure that the promises of reason and science are actually fulfilled? These are the themes of Carl Sagan's book, which is not simply a polemic against irrationality, but also a hopeful manifesto for the future.

Read Review

3. What are the Odds? The Chances of Extraordinary Events

We can see the use of statistics in a variety of aspects of our lives. In the news especially we encounter statistics - for example, about how certain behaviors will make us more likely to get a disease, about likely we are to die on the job, or even the odds of an asteroid hitting the earth and killing us. But what do all of these statistics really mean?

Read Review

4. Thinking from A to Z

Critical, skeptical thinking isn't easy. It's not that it's unnatural, but credulous attitudes are easier to adopt and maintain because they take less work. Skepticism requires some training, patience, and above all practice. Most of those who seek out such training and practice are involved in scholarly studies like philosophy, but everyone could benefit from them as well. Where can one start?

Read Review

5. Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking

If you care about truth, then you have to care about being able to reliably differentiate between truth and falsehood. Figuring out how to do that, however, isn't always easy. A major problem with this is the fact that many of our normal habits of thinking which appear to serve us well in day-to-day matters don't really work when it comes to more complicated issues. There is little in modern culture which encourages people to do a better job with this task, and this harms us all.

Read Review

6. The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal

Is there some basic connection between religious beliefs and paranormal beliefs? Some commonality which helps explain not only their similarities, but also why they have been so appealing to so many people throughout human history? Although there are many books which offer critiques of either religion or the paranormal, few are willing to do both, probably because people who are skeptical of one aren't necessarily skeptical of the other.

Read Review

7. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Confusions

We live in an age of science and progress, seemingly far beyond the ancient world where superstition and occult dominated. If that is true, why do so many believe strange, pseudoscientific claims about things like past-life regression, alien abductions, creationism, and more? It is this conundrum which Michael Shermer explores in 'Why People Believe Weird Things.' Unfortunately, the title gives the impression that he addresses primarily the psychology of beliefs, but that's not the case.

Read Review

8. The Philosopher's Toolkit: Philosophical Concepts and Methods

If you spend much time discussing religion, politics, and philosophy, you'll quickly find that if you want to get anywhere you'll need to acquire some skill when it comes to analyzing, understanding, and refuting basic arguments - and that's all before you learn how to properly construct your own. But just where do you go to get such skills?

Read Review

9. The Age of American Unreason

Have you gotten the impression that Americans are disdainful of intellectual pursuits, complex ideas, and thought that requires real work? Well, you should have because it's true. Anti-intellectualism isn't just alive and well in America, but it's gained the high ground. There's arguably more anti-intellectualism in America than intellectualism, which spells trouble for American politics, culture, and future.

Read Review

10. Healing Yourself with Wishful Thinking

Can meditation really help you achieve optimum physical and psychological health? Can you really get in touch with a spirit guide who will help you make the right decisions in life? Can wishful thinking really make you better looking, richer, and cure your acne? Is self-delusion the key rather than an obstacle to happiness?

Read Review

11. Truth, Knowledge, Or Just Plain Bull

There are many different claims out there vying for our attention and acceptance. We encounter claims in politics, religion, and of course advertising. Some claims are true or at least reasonable, but many are wrong if not outright lies. How can we reliably separate the two? How can we learn to think clearly enough to differentiate between true and false ideas?

Read Review

12. Hoaxes, Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking

People think all the time - it is an important part of human existence, after all. Critical thinking, though, requires some training and practice. People can go about their daily lives without extensive critical thinking abilities, but this can be unfortunate because when done well, skepticism can do a lot to enhance human existence. How can people improve their critical thinking skills?

Read Review

13. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

One of the things that makes skepticism so difficult is the fact that there are simply so many paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs out there to be skeptical about. It is difficult to become reasonably familiar with even one or two of these beliefs, but how can anyone be familiar enough to be able to offer a skeptical rebuttal to the claims of dozens?

Read Review

The Universe and Woo

I found a couple of great presentations that are worth seeing or hearing.  Sadly, I don't think just anyone is allowed to view the video presentation at the source, but I will link to that as well, just in case.  The title of the presentation links to the original website.  I used the description of the presentation as a link to the file I managed to download and save on my server.  Feel free to download it, view it, listen to it, whatever.  Well worth in in my opinion!

Life, the Universe and Nothing

Lawrence M. Krauss

The past decade has witnessed one of the greatest revolutions in the past 100 years in our understanding of the universe, and also produced one of the biggest outstanding mysteries in physics, resulting in a totally unexpected change in our picture of the future of the Universe and Life within it. (1 hour 14 minutes)

Investigating Pseudoscientific & Paranormal Claims

James Randi

James Randi, Paranormal and pseudoscience investigator extraordinaire! (2 hours)

These men are both giants in their field, so I think it would be worthwhile for you to listen to them.

Bigotry Against Atheist...

Not that I am really surprised or anything, but it's still disheartening to read these surveys and statistics.  I guess that when the core of a belief system is built on hating others though, it's not at all surprising.

University of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism

Research Finds that Atheists are Most Despised, Most Distrusted Minority

Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...

Atheist: 39.6% Muslims: 26.3% Homosexuals: 22.6% Hispanics: 20% Conservative Christians: 13.5% Recent Immigrants: 12.5% Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....

Atheist: 47.6% Muslim: 33.5% African-American 27.2% Asian-Americans: 18.5% Hispanics: 18.5% Jews: 11.8% Conservative Christians: 6.9% Whites: 2.3%

Lead researcher Penny Edgell said that she was surprised by this: "We thought that in the wake of 9/11, people would target Muslims. Frankly, we expected atheists to be a throwaway group." Nevertheless, the numbers are so extreme that she was led to conclude that they are "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years." It's not that bigotry and discrimination against Muslims is appropriate, but at least it's not hard to understand where such attitudes would come from.

Every group except atheists is being shown much greater tolerance and acceptance than 30 years ago. "Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized religious groups. It is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as the basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."

Some respondents associated atheism with illegal behavior, like drug use and prostitution: "that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Others saw atheists as "rampant materialists and cultural elitists" who "threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else."

Given the relatively low number of atheists in America, and the even lower number who are public about their atheism, Americans can't have come to their beliefs about atheists through personal experience and hard evidence about what atheists are really like. Furthermore, dislike of atheists doesn’t correlate very highly with dislike of gays, immigrants, or Muslims. This means that dislike of atheists isn't simply part of a larger dislike of people who are "different."

Why are atheists being singled out for special hatred and distrust? "What matters for public acceptance of atheists - and figures strongly into private acceptance as well - are beliefs about the appropriate relationship between church and state and about religion's role in underpinning society's moral order, as measured by our item on whether society's standards of right and wrong should be based on God's laws." It's curious that atheists would be singled out for special hatred on the basis of church/state separation which religious theists, including Christians, are usually on the forefront of fighting to preserve separation. It's rare to find a case filed by or supported by atheists which is not also supported by theists and Christians. In fact, I can't think of any off hand.

Although people may say that they consider atheists inferior because atheists don't believe that civil law should be defined according to some group's conception of what their god wants, I don't think that's the whole story. There are too many religious theists who also want civil law to be secular rather than religious. Instead, I think that a much better case can be made for the idea that atheists are being scapegoated the same way that Catholics and Jews once were: they are treated as social outsiders who create "moral and social disorder."


Atheists can't both be lower-class drug users or prostitutes and upper-class elitists and materialists. Instead, atheists are being saddled with the "sins" of American society generally. They are "a symbolic figure" that represent religious theists' "fears about ... trends in American life." Some of those fears involve "lower class" crimes like drug use; other fears involve "upper class" crimes like greed and elitism. Atheists are thus a "symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."

That's obviously not going to change, because as long as atheists remain atheists, then won't be theists and they won't be Christians. This means that they won't agree that any gods, much less the Christian god, can serve as the basis for moral solidarity or cultural membership in American society. Of course, neither can adherents of many other religions who either don't believe in gods or who don't believe in the Christian god. As America becomes more religiously pluralist, America is going to have to change and find something else to serve as the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership. Atheists should work to ensure that this is as secular as possible.

Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted

The 2006 University of Minnesota study made a lot news about its revelation of how atheists are the most despised minority in America, but this wasn't news to atheists — it was just the most recent in a long series of surveys showing that Americas are very bigoted and prejudiced against atheists. For as long as organizations have been asking Americans about atheists, Americans have been responding that they wouldn't treat atheists as equals to theists and Christians.

A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%


Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time. Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:

February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%


It might be argued that there is some cause for hope here, since the number of Americans who would refuse to vote for someone solely on the basis of being an atheist has dropped from 75% to "merely" 48% over the course of 40 years. It's not much hope, though. First, the numbers of Americans whose prejudice would prevent them from voting for members of other minorities has dropped much farther much faster over the same period of time. Second, the numbers of those prejudiced against atheists hasn't really dropped in the past couple of decades — almost all the progress was made between 1959 and 1978.

Finally, other studies and surveys indicate that prejudice against atheists is going back up. A March, 2007 survey done by Newsweek shows that 62% of people would refuse to vote for any candidate admitting to being an atheist. Republicans were, predictably, the most bigoted at 78%, followed by Democrats at 60% and independents at 45%. Among those surveyed, 47% claimed that America is more accepting of atheists than in the past. I wonder where they got that idea? The only positive results from this survey were that 68% of the people felt that atheists could be moral — but this begs the question of why people won't vote for atheists.

In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:

Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%

So, only 34% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards atheists; 52% have a mostly unfavorable or worse attitude. Opinions about people who are not religious are better:

Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 41%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 14%

So, 50% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards the irreligious and just 33% have a mostly unfavorable (or worse) attitude towards them. Compare these figures with attitudes towards Muslims:

Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 38%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 12%

Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists. Attitudes towards "Muslim Americans" were even better than this. All of these attitudes translated into whether people are willing to vote for a person for president. Here are the percentages of Americans who, according to this Pew Research Center survey, would refuse to vote for someone based on the relevant characteristic:

Catholic: 8%
Jewish: 10%
Evangelical Christian: 15%
Muslim: 38%
Atheist: 50%

The 50% who would refuse to vote for an atheist is higher than the 48% who answered the same in a 1999 Gallup survey, suggesting that perhaps attitudes towards atheists are getting worse. These overall American attitudes are largely, but not entirely, the product of Christian attitudes. A 1995 study done by Barna revealed that the prejudice and bigotry of born-again Christians towards atheists was almost universal, but still very high among non-Christians.

Here are the numbers of born-again Christians who regard the impact of these groups as negative:

Islam: 71%
Buddhism: 76%
Scientology: 81%
Atheism: 92%


Here are the numbers of non-Christians who view the impact of the same groups as negative:

Islam: 24%
Buddhism: 22%
Scientology: 30%
Atheism: 50%


There is a large drop for each group, but the drop for atheists is smallest and the final number of people who remain prejudiced against atheists is significantly higher than for every other group — so much higher, in fact, that non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups. Born-again Christians are more prejudiced in absolute terms, but they are generally more prejudiced against everyone.

Liars for jebus

I just found this great website called "Liars for jebus" (well, okay, it's really "Liars for Jesus" but I prefer Homer's designation).  And it seems to be very consistent in what I have been saying for a long time about the outright LIES that these theitrad fuckwits have been doing.  Just because they don't like something, they would ratehr twist and lie instead of accepting that things aren't always like their fantasies.  There is a rampant Christian nationalist revisionism of American history, and not only is it pissing me off, but it is pissing a lot of other people off.

Anyway, this web page is a good source, and really does a good job debunking the revisionist tripe.  Not that I haven't mentioned this shit before...  Basically I think most of those fucktards subscribe to the school of "If you repeat a lie often enough, it will somehow become the truth."  Sadly, as I mentioned yesterday, facts and truth doesn't work that way.  If you are wrong in your opinions, it doesn't matter what rhetoric you throw up, you're still wrong.

USA Today: Science and religion aren't friends

I wonder how many people went ballistic reading this?  Why is it that when someone says something that is true, just because they disagree with it, they get so angry?  In the arena of reality, an opinion isn't a fact.  A fact is a fact, and your opinions are not worth anything should they disagree with facts.  No matter how much you may deny it, and attempt to use rhetoric and plain old lying to try to align the two.  And after a while, you should lose any measure of respect those around you may have had for you.  I just tend to tolerate fools much less than others, so if you are willfully ignorant and persist in thinking wrong is right, I will not coddle you.  I will heap scorn and derision on you as you deserve.  As John Wayne was purported to have said, "Life is hard.  It's harder if you're stupid."  And while I may not agree with him on many other philosophies, that is one that I can agree with him.  Sadly, society as a whole is starting to pay the price.  Now Americans aren't only the most obnoxious, mono-linguistic, arrogant bastards in the world, we are quickly becoming the most uneducated, and unteachable...

Science and religion aren't friends

Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice.

But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith.

'Venerable superstition'

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.

101010

If you have no idea what this blog title means, or what its significance is, you are missing out.

To the rest of us in the know, it's funny the correlations and patterns we attach significance to.  At least this one is in the spirit of fun and absurdity.

And I want to republish this so I can have the right date in my blog roll.  :)

Stop the foreign takeover of America

Background

In January 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court gave foreign corporations a Constitutional right to buy Congress and our next President.
If foreign corporations want to buy our elections publicly, they can simply create U.S. subsidiaries. If they want to buy our elections secretly, they can launder their money through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which aggressively raises foreign money, or through Karl Rove's secretive American Crossroads GPS, both of which are spending millions in this year's elections.
That means foreign leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hu Jintao of China, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia can use their enormous wealth to steal millions of American jobs, keep us dependent on foreign oil and even make us fight their wars.
The Supreme Court put America's national security in danger. They were absolutely wrong and their ruling (Citizens United v. FEC) must be overturned.
Urge your Representatives to co-sponsor the DISCLOSE Act to require full disclosure of all corporate campaign spending and ban foreign corporate spending.
Urge your Representatives to co-sponsor the Shareholder Protection Act to require public shareholder approval of all corporate campaign spending.
And urge your Representatives to co-sponsor a Constitutional Amendment to keep all corporate money out of American politics.

Petition

Dear Representative,
In January 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court gave foreign corporations a Constitutional right to buy Congress and our next President.
If foreign corporations want to buy our elections publicly, they can simply create U.S. subsidiaries. If they want to buy our elections secretly, they can launder their money through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which aggressively raises foreign money, or through Karl Rove's secretive American Crossroads GPS, both of which are spending millions in this year's elections.
That means foreign leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hu Jintao of China, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia can use their enormous wealth to steal millions of American jobs, keep us dependent on foreign oil, and even make us fight their wars.
The Supreme Court put America's national security in danger. They were absolutely wrong and their ruling (Citizens United v. FEC) must be overturned.
As my Representative, I urge you to co-sponsor the DISCLOSE Act to require full disclosure of all corporate campaign spending and ban foreign corporate spending.
I also urge you to co-sponsor the Shareholder Protection Act to require public shareholder approval of all corporate campaign spending.
And I urge you to co-sponsor a Constitutional Amendment to keep all corporate money out of American politics.

Contact your representative directly!

I haven't made a comment lately regarding just atheism and skepticism.  Mostly been focusing on science and the like, because those are less about opinions, and focus on data.  However, I did see something that my friend Travis Roy posted over at the Granite State Skeptics site that I wanted to pass along.  I like what he has to say here.

That whole Atheist/Skeptic thing

So this is hitting the rounds again since DJ Grothe posted a Swift Blog about Atheism and the JREF. I’ve been involved in some of the debate and conversation online about this issue and I thought I should blog about it.

First let me say that I’m doing this as a personal post. Granite State Skeptics’ official stance is that while specific religious claims that are testable are up for scrutiny, the idea of “god” is generally avoided. That doesn’t mean you can’t discuss it at our meetings, just that as a group we don’t take an official stance.
Because of that you may be able to figure out where I’m going with this post. I think there’s a number of issues with this debate that are missed, or misunderstood and that nobody fully grasps everything involved, including myself. But lets look at a few things.

First is what we are talking about exactly, so lets look at some terms and try to define them.

Skepticism is not a belief system, it’s a process of using critical thinking to come to a conclusion.

Atheism is the rejection in a belief in god. I know a lot of people add on that thing about evidence and how they’d change their mind.. More on this later.

Agnosticism is the idea that the existence of god is unknown or can not be known.

I think Agnostics get a bad wrap in the skeptical community, that they are wishy-washy. I find their stance to be more skeptical than that of an atheist, and I say that as an atheist… Well, because of all the battles going on now I don’t even like to use that term anymore to describe myself. I heard Jeff Wagg use the term “Scientific Naturalist” once and I really like it and try to use that to explain my beliefs (or lack there of).

Atheist also seem to have a problem with identity due to the spectrum. Most that I’ve met at TAM and other skeptical events explain themselves as being able to change their mind, that they’ve come to this conclusion based on evidence (or lack of evidence). But then you have popular skeptics like Penn Jillette who will come out and say that they don’t -believe- in a god, that’s something quiet different.

Then there’s the religious, and I think this is where things get REALLY muddy. An individual’s beliefs can be a huge range. From the Catholic who goes to church every Sunday to the guy who thinks that there was “something” they call god that set things in motion and caused the big bang. To pigeon hole everybody that believes in god into one area is just crazy in my opinion.

Then there’s the idea that skepticism = atheism. This is just an insane argument and I don’t see how anybody can actually claim this with a straight face. There are many skeptics that believe in some kind of god and there are may atheists that are into a lot of crazy woo-related ideas. Is Kitty Mervine of BadAlien and our Director of Investigations a “bad” skeptic because she’s a Deist? Is Bill Maher a “bad” atheist because it’s sucked into anti-vax nuttyness? I don’t think so in both cases.

Then I saw some tweets going around about if somebody can be an Astrologer and skeptic. I say why not, only because that also is a wide ranging question. I’ve talked to many people that believe in astrology, including a couple that would do readings and have studied astrology that didn’t know about thinks like wobble and how our signs don’t match up anymore. How can somebody that doesn’t have all the information make an informed decision? How many people have you met that think Homeopathy is something herbal and had no idea that it was just water. If they think it’s herbal, of course they’re going to think it could have an effect, because a lot of herbal medicine does. This doesn’t make them bad skeptics, it makes them uninformed.

In closing I just want to say that we shouldn’t close out anybody to the community or set conditions on it. We all have our “sacred cows” and I know I’ve learned things and changed my minds a lot over the past few years being an active skeptic. To set conditions on being a skeptic is silly, it turns us into something we shouldn’t be. There is disagreement, debate, discussion in the community and that’s what makes it good. What makes it great is we do it with respect and tolerance for each other and we help each other learn. We don’t call people stupid or say they’re delusional, we give them the tools and information they need to reach their own conclusion based on the facts at hand, and because we’re all individuals with different life experience they may come to a different conclusion. In doing so they may even change our minds by seeing things from another point of view.

So please comment, I want this to be a discussion.