prove-it-or-lose-it

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Islam for Beginners III: The Face of Islam

When Erika López Prater wanted to show a painting of Muhammad for an art history class at Hamline University in 2022, she took every precaution. It was a 14th-century work produced by a Muslim for a Muslim audience honouring the last prophet of Islam. She repeatedly warned students that the image would be shown, both on the syllabus and on the day, and asked about any concerns every step of the way. Afterwards, a student complained and Prater was fired.

Westerners often regard it as monolithic but Muslims have wildly divergent interpretations about every aspect of Islam. Some Muslims distinguish between images “mocking or ridiculing of the Prophet” and educational images. The Muslim Public Affairs Council urged Hamline University to “reverse its decision”. However, the majority of Muslims believe that images of Muhammad are upsetting de facto. A few even believe it’s upsetting enough to murder those who promulgate such images. 

Early Images of Muhammad

There are no contemporary accounts of what Muhammad looked like. All modern depictions of his face will therefore be wrong. As with Jesus, no depiction will ever be accurate. 

Before 1500, Muhammad’s face could regularly be seen in depictions. There are even descriptions of portraits of Muhammad in the hadiths which go unremarked, indicating that early Muslims had no problem with them. The horror of the image is a relatively new development in Islam. Similarly, the darabat al-hijab is nowhere in the Koran applied to all Muslim women. It was ironically a pagan custom which in the Koran only applied to Muhammad’s wives.

There is nothing in the Koran specifically banning images of Muhammad. There is a ban on shirk (idolatry or polytheism) but is poorly defined, perhaps intentionally. Shirk is banned because pagans do it. This is the stated reason for many seemingly nonsensical instructions in the Koran. It could be argued that apotheosising someone so much that you have to kill anyone who draws them is itself a particularly pernicious form of shirk. 

Moreover, the prohibition is on idolatry rather than the supernatural power of images of Muhammad. This would itself be considered shirk. It could therefore be argued that any images of Muhammad which have not been created for the purposes of worship are by definition not covered by the ban. If you are a Muslim, it might be a problem for you but you should have no problem if anyone who certainly has no intention of worshipping Muhammad produces such an image.

If Religious Image Bans Were Defensible

Muslims are entitled to avoid making or looking at images of Muhammad if they find it upsetting. They are not entitled to demand that I should also be upset at images of Muhammad. I’m not a Muslim. I don’t care.

Muslims are entitled to be upset when someone creates an image of Muhammad. They are entitled to complain about it. They are entitled to write letters and start campaigns and encourage others to avoid those creations and their creators. They are entitled to make insulting images and bad-taste jokes of their own if they feel that is a reasonable response.

They are not entitled to do anything illegal no matter how upset they are. They are not entitled to kill or injure anyone. It is objectively worse to kill someone than it is to draw a picture. There is no context that can change this and if there were, it would not be religious. 

Why Upset Muslims (Or Anyone)? 

Religious censorship institutionalised as “blasphemy” is an attempt to control the public discourse. It is the civic duty of anyone interested in democracy and freedom of speech to challenge this control.

Religious censorship removes the ability to critically analyse the subjects of that censorship. A ban on seeing Muhammad must surely influence any attempt to critically analyse his actions, behaviour and legacy. 

People want to be confident that their beliefs are justified but critical engagement can mean a slow, painful death for religion. For this reason, many religions (including Islam) explicitly encourage their members to educate themselves and examine their faith as long as they come to the correct conclusion. Whatever begins with a conclusion and works backwards is not critical engagement; it’s justification.

It is important for anyone who subscribes to a religious ideology to understand that while religion may hold power over believers, it cannot and should not hold power over anyone else. 

Why Be Childish And Unkind?

Biting mockery is sometimes childish or unkind but it is always a form of criticism. Censorship of all mockery makes it impossible to have a conversation about how valid or productive that criticism is.

Childish and unkind images of Muhammad can promote the related ideas that no beliefs are above criticism and that people who have strongly-held beliefs do not get to control how those beliefs are criticised by others. As Salman Rushdie said: “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.”

If you have been conditioned to believe that your religious opinions should be immune to criticism, this will appear to be abusive. It’s not. If you have been conditioned to regard any mockery of your religious opinions as a personal attack on you, this will appear to be hurtful. It’s not. We are all so much more than our opinions.

Transgressive art has a purpose. Shock is often used to test the boundaries of taste and confront the audience with their own beliefs about what is or is not acceptable. This alone has value. Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevant to the intention behind a shock art piece.

Of course, some virulent anti-Muslim bigots (like Pamela Geller) have jumped on this to demonise Muslims. In the same way, some virulent antisemites have jumped on valid criticisms of Israel to demonise Jews. However, if we refuse to allow blasphemy to silence criticism, we should also refuse to allow hateful extremists to silence criticism.

Sensible people do not want to be abusive. However, if certain demonstrably harmless forms of expression are banned either through legislation or intimidation, sensible people who care about freedom, often against their own better judgement, will feel obliged to test those limits by writing or saying or drawing things they would not otherwise write or say or draw.

What Now?

Muslims may find it offensive to see mocking images of their prophet but I find it offensive that anyone should be killed for drawing a cartoon. I would like everyone, including Muslims, to agree that murdering people is worse than drawing cartoons, regardless of context. Muslims who spend time and effort protesting against cartoons might consider deflecting some of their outrage against the execution of apostates in many Muslim-majority countries.

In Ireland, there are plenty of pressing issues that are objectively more important than drawing blasphemous cartoons. Special mention here goes to the Muslim Sisters of Eire who spend a lot of time feeding and giving comfort to the many homeless people in Irish cities who are victims of my government’s housing policy.

However, there are better ways to challenge religious censorship than needling Muslims. Drawing insulting pictures of Muhammad does nothing to challenge blasphemy laws anywhere. Furthermore, it needlessly antagonises our natural allies: Muslims who agree that murder is not a reasonable response to mockery.

A better way might be to organise locally and nationally to pressure our governments to remove any and all blasphemy laws and educate our communities that violence is never a justified response to any opinion. If you feel that’s a cop-out or unrealistic, that’s what we did in Ireland and our blasphemy laws were repealed in 2018.

Until then, there was a petition set up by “an international group of scholars and students, Muslim and non-Muslim” to reverse the decision of the university and have Prater re-instated, but the university settled with her in 2024.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

1. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean a person doesn't believe in an afterlife. Atheism is an answer to one very specific question: are you convinced that a god or some gods exist? Everyone is born an atheist. Someone has to put the idea of a god in one's head at some point (probably very early in life if their parents are theists), and they're either convinced or unconvinced. That said, a lack of a god belief doesn't necessarily mean a lack of belief in any other poorly supported proposed phenomenon. Many sects of Buddhism are still characterized by a belief in some part of the self that continues past the death of a body, but without a "big guy pulling the strings," it's more of a superstition about the nature of reality. You can meet many atheists who still believe in ghosts, magic, ESP, alien conspiracies, and any other thing that isn't supported by scientific evidence. The only way to find out is on an individual basis.

For me personally, I prefer to tell people I'm a skeptic first, meaning that I apportion my confidence in the truth of any claim based on the available evidence. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support a claim, I remain unconvinced, which a lot of people mistake for a counter-claim in the negative (i.e., "god is not real"), but all it's saying is "I don't think that's true, and if you want me to think otherwise you need to show your work to convince me." My atheism is a byproduct of applied skepticism.

So no, I don't personally believe in an afterlife either and yes, I experience a fair amount of existential dread. Knowing that your time on earth is finite and one day your consciousness will just click off forever can be frightening. It's the fear of the unknown that is a pretty basic feature of the human brain, and it's one of religion/spirituality's main selling points. These modes of thinking promise answers to that uncertainty, and if you lower your standards of evidence (or never develop them to begin with) they can be effective in warding off that discomfort in the face of the unknown. But the facts are that nobody's been able to definitively demonstrate the truth of any of these claims, but instead you're told that you must take them on faith, which is just not something I'm willing to do. True things are demonstrable and I'd much rather live with uncertainty and fear than believe something which could be false (and evidently appears to be false) just because some people find it comforting to do so.

2. I don't support capital punishment, but my reasons are not really relevant to this blog. The simplest way I can put it, and I don't intend to elaborate because morality and justice are incredibly deep and nuanced topics, is that the state should not have the power to decide who lives or dies. That's really as far as I care to get into it.

I like your questions and appreciate what appears to be a good faith attempt to learn about people you might disagree with. If I can offer one thing that might help navigate this topic in greater depth with even more satisfying interactions, I'd suggest remembering that no "category" of person is a monolith. You can talk to a hundred people who all identify under one singular label and get 99 different answers to the same question. Assuming that they all share any one trait or common belief outside of what the basic label suggests could frustrate your efforts to gain a deeper understanding, and it's best to take this kind of discussion on an individual basis.

Questions for the Atheists:

Firstly, I just want to clarify that these are genuine questions. I'm confused about some of y'all's beliefs.

1. If y'all don't believe in an afterlife, if you belief we go into literally nothing, why are you afraid to die? It can't be because you're scared to leave people behind, because you don't exist anymore. You can't have regrets or miss people if you don't exist. Why be afraid to stop existing if you wouldn't even remember existing in the first place?

2. If you're an Atheist and support the death penalty, why? Non-existence is not a punishment. You're freeing the person from punishment by allowing them to die, based on the atheistic understanding of death. Death cannot be a punishment if death is non-existence.

Idk if these questions make sense, but I just figured I'd ask.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Islam for Beginners II: Hijab Confab

The Koran instructs Muslim women to be modest in their dress partly to publicly identify with Islam and partly to avoid sexual assault. Since AD 630, we have come to understand that the sexual assault of women is not caused by how sexy they look but by male control issues. Human rights groups and feminists universally advise that placing responsibility on the prospective victim is a counter-productive approach to reducing sexual assaults. The Koran seems to acknowledge this in part when it instructs men in particular to "lower their gaze and guard their chastity".

If the object of Islamic modesty is to protect women, it’s not working. Sexual harassment is prevalent in the Muslim world, even in Mecca during the Hajj. The modesty rules of Islam do nothing to stop sexual harassment of women and sometimes make things worse. 

In fact, there is almost a directly proportional relationship between a country’s legal dress codes and women’s rights. While women should feel free to wear whatever they like, freedom means nothing if governments punish women for not wearing particular items for supernatural reasons.  

A quick tour of Afghanistan

The black burqa is not, and never has been, a part of traditional Afghan culture. It is a recent imposition by Islamic fundamentalists on the women of Afghanistan. Of course, some women insist that they are honouring their Islamic values by following the hijab rules but the Koran says nothing at all about burqas. It only mentions the khimar (veil) and the jilbab (dress).

The Taliban’s “strict interpretation of Sharia” seeks not only to control women but to eliminate the feminine anywhere it cannot be directly controlled by a man. In 2022, the Taliban ordered women to wear the burqa or “stay at home”. Later that year, the Taliban banned women from universities.

Any explanation for the compulsory burqa which involves serving the interests of women is repudiated by the fact that the Taliban “have institutionalised oppression against women” at every level of society.

A quick tour of Iran

In 1936, the fascist government of Iran led by the Shah passed a law called Kashf-e hijab banning all Islamic veils. This was part of a larger effort to Westernise the country. Women were beaten, their headscarves and chadors torn off and their homes were forcibly searched.

In 1983, the theocratic government of Iran led by the Ayatollah made Islamic veils mandatory for all women. Women who violate the law can be jailed or fined for appearing in public without the hijab.

Two patriarchal Iranian governments managed to come to completely opposite conclusions about the hijab while uniformly removing the agency of Iranian women.

A 2020 survey, in line with previous surveys, showed that 72% of the population opposed the compulsory hijab. This figure must include some hijabis. This September, after the morality police beat a woman to death, many Iranian women from all sections of society risked their lives to protest. Demonstrations are ongoing. In response, the government has assured protestors they are “working” on whether the law needs to change.

Any explanation for the compulsory hijab which involves serving the interests of women is repudiated by the fact that the women in Iran “continue to be treated as second class citizens”. 

Oppressive or empowering?

For many women who live where not wearing the hijab has serious political or social consequences, the hijab will be a symbol of oppression and violence. In these places, the correct response for those of us interested in freedom and justice is to support women who choose not to wear the hijab.

In Iran, the law mentioned above states that women “who appear in public places and roads without wearing an Islamic hijab, shall be sentenced to ten days to two months’ imprisonment or a fine of fifty thousand to five hundred Rials.”

For many women who live where wearing the hijab has serious political or social consequences, the hijab will be a symbol of defiance and empowerment. In these places, the correct response for those of us interested in freedom and justice is to support women who choose to wear the hijab.

In India, for instance, earlier this year, women were refused entry to their classrooms because they were wearing hijabs. Groups of men often harass and intimidate women in the street for how they choose to dress by chasing them and screaming Hindutva (Hindu fascism) slogans. In this video which went viral in the Muslim world, one very brave girl is reduced to screaming “Allahu Akbar” to defend herself against a Hindutva mob. There is a political context here that matters. The relationship of India with its Muslim population could be summarised as a series of massacres.

It’s otiose to pretend there’s no context to anything and if some ex-Muslim (and Muslim) women understandably hate the hijab, then it must necessarily be always stupid and dangerous or if some Muslim women embrace the hijab, then it must necessarily be always amazing and empowering. The intersection of religion and politics is never that simple.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Islam for Beginners I: "Now Do Muslims!"

Because I often criticise Christianity, some Christian friends have suggested, "Now do Muslims!" They join a chorus of similar anonymous grumbles. I criticise Islam (and Hinduism and Judaism and others) regularly but they only notice when their religion is put under the spotlight.

The right-wing Christian obsession with trashing Muslims is also a recurring problem among stand-up comedians. Both popular light entertainer Dara O’Briain and tortured sarcastic intellectual Stewart Lee were forced to address it in their sets.

As someone who writes satirical articles about the Catholic Church, I also write satire about Islam but not in a way that Christian critics would like. I get the recurring impression that well-researched, well-written Islamic-themed comedy is not what they’re looking for at all.

O’Briain and Lee and myself wrangle with Christianity because we come from Christian traditions. We know exactly which parts of the religion are ridiculous and which parts we can discuss with confidence. Sometimes I feel like nothing will satisfy the "Now do Muslims" crowd except hateful invective.

Muslims

Segal's Law states that a man with a watch knows what time it is but a man with two watches is never sure. Talk to one Muslim and you think you’ll have a handle on Islam. Talk to two and you will never be sure.

There are wildly divergent interpretations about even the most generic aspects of Islam. Whenever you read “Muslims think X...” or hear “Muslims believe Y...” there is a great chance that whatever follows will be wrong. An example is when the leadership of Al-Qaida thought the problem with Iran is they’re too pro-American. There is no way to shove this into any standard Western narratives of “what Muslims think”.

A recent survey of Indian Muslims revealed that 6% of them don’t believe in a god. This was around twice the percentage of Hindus and Christians who gave the same answer. Indian Muslims don’t have to worry about atheism, however. The same survey revealed that (nearly 20%) more of them think avoiding pork is more important to Islam than believing in a god.

In the West, we have been trained to see “Muslims” as a monolithic block of opinion. Whenever we see them on the news, it’s usually because some of them have been out murdering again. These people are often referred to as “hardcore Muslims” or “Muslim fundamentalists”. We are being nudged towards the conclusion that the more violent Muslims are, the closer they are to the “real” Islam. There is not much evidence to support that conclusion.

In 2015, Muslims in India (which has the third-largest population of Muslims in the world) demonstrated in support of France during the Islamist attacks in Paris. Muslims in the Maghreb will be less tolerant of France’s shenanigans. It’s not coherent, therefore, to say that “Muslims” either support France or don’t support France. Some do and some don’t and these positions will be driven by politics more than religion.

"Now Do Muslims!"

I will! This is the first article in a series I will post throughout Ramadan called "Islam for Beginners". They will deal with the most sensitive and salient issues I see among Western commentators. I have done lots of research (including reading the entire Koran) and read lots of commentaries and spoken to lots of Muslims and boiled it all down into nice Tumblr-post-sized chunks.

Disclaimer 1: If you expect to read a defence of Islam as if it were based on some universal or demonstrable truth, you will be disappointed. I reject any and all supernatural claims made by everyone and everything in Islam. Disclaimer 2: If you expect to read excoriating diatribes trashing Muslims, or glib mockery, you will also be disappointed. I’m not interested in enabling racists or xenophobes.

Western media has at best neglected Islam and Muslims and at worst intentionally misrepresented them. We may not be there yet, but I’d like to nudge the public discourse towards a place where Islam can be robustly criticised without accusations of bigotry and the human rights of Muslims can be robustly defended without accusations of Islamist apologism. At the very least, I'm hoping to start some interesting conversations.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

I find it ridiculous to consider the Christian god as a "loving and just" god.

It has never fit with my perception of him.

If we all "deserve to die" because of rules he a) put in place and b) made us break, then how can I view him as anything but a sadistic master who set us up to fail just so he could punish us?

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

There's also a reason I almost always say "harm" when talking about issues in the church and not "bigotry". Bigotry is part of harm, sure, but it isn't the whole picture.

I think sin doctrine is harmful. I think the concept of original sin is harmful. I think purity culture is harmful. I think hell doctrine is harmful. I think vertical morality is harmful. I think mandatory forgiveness is harmful. I think sin leveling is harmful. I think emotion and behavior and thought control are harmful. I think child indoctrination is harmful. I think believing you are separate from the world ("we're in the world not of the world") is harmful. I think isolating/insulating yourself from the world is harmful. I think believing this life is your "practice life" and your "real life" is in heaven is harmful. I think believing that you alone hold the one source of truth is harmful. I think spiritual bypassing is harmful. I think atonement theology is harmful. I think proselytizing is harmful. I think telling people that their thoughts, actions, emotions, beliefs are being monitored every second of every day is harmful. I think believing you are more knowledgeable than experts because you have an all knowing God on your side is harmful. I think believing you know other people's experiences better than they do because you have an all knowing God on your side is harmful. I think encouraging/requiring victims of abuse to put up with abuse because divorce is a sin is harmful. I think prioritizing faith over evidence is harmful.

I'm certainly missing things but this is long enough as is. And not every christian or church does or believes every single one of these, but none of these are one-off or two-off or even three-off things I've experienced. These are all patterns I've noticed.

So I find it odd that when I talk about harm within christianity, a lot of christians only hear "bigotry". And I also find sentiments along the lines of "it's not the doctrine it's the people carrying out the doctrine imperfectly" odd. Even if there were a church that was 100% bigotry free, addressing bigotry doesn't automatically address any of these other things. And I think that the harm christianity does goes far beyond bigotry. I think a lot of the harm is baked into it, baked right into the doctrine. Which means that for every person causing harm by carrying out the doctrine "incorrectly", there are just as many causing harm by carrying it out "correctly".

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

I think it's so funny when you say you hate Christianity and people come for you like "just let people believe what they want to!" Like y'all know the whole point of Christianity is to NOT let people have their own beliefs and to try to convert every to their religion. Like it's so funny y'all are like "live and let live" when the entire basis of Christianity is to be in everyone's business

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Nevermind my atheism, we've got a verified psychic over here who knows exactly what I think and how I feel about precisely everything!

Obvious snark aside, that's a really long drawn out way to say "I don't have any evidence and it makes me uncomfortable that you've chosen not to lower your standards and accept claims that cannot be verified, so instead I'd like to attack your character in an attempt to reassure myself in my unfounded beliefs."

And today I learned, thanks to this Christian's compassion and steadfast dedication to helping all people understand the Truth, that other religions exist. Why I should accept the claims of Christianity over any of those others is apparently privileged information that this utter saint is not at liberty to express to a wicked heathen such as myself.

Edit: just for the sake of being as charitably honest as possible, here's the link to the full discussion I had with this person. On reflection, I see many instances where they've decided I was saying a lot of things that I don't think I ever even implied, but I leave it to any potential readers to decide for themselves. I think I did the link right so you can see the whole reblog chain? I don't know man, tumblr is weird and I'm old. I'm open to any questions or other feedback on this unproductive "conversation."

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

If this was a conversation happening in real time, I'd be well within reason to accuse you of Gish-galloping with the way you've tortured this poor defenseless metaphor. At any rate, to respect your time more than you have mine, in the belabored way you've twisted the hypothetical to make the same point as the OP I reblogged, you've still failed to provide sufficient evidence for a fire. A cat cannot speak and frequently does any number of things that don't make sense to humans, because we're not cats. It is not a reliable source of information about the world. In reality I'd ask you to leave and take your cat with you before it pissed on or ate something I care about. If later, a fire occurred, you will have still done a poor job of providing any tangible reason for why I should've suspected one.

The time to believe things is when there is sufficient evidence, plain and simple.

You don't know to what degree I've engaged with and considered any number of arguments in favor of the god hypothesis. Who's arguing in bad faith now by claiming to know that I do or do not desire?

Who's arguing in bad faith by suggesting I'm not willing to be convinced? Why would I put myself in the position of having this discussion if I didn't think there was a possibility of changing my mind?

You don't have access to the inner workings of my mind, yet you've made a lot of claims about what I do or do not feel and think. That's very dishonest. Some might say disrespectful, a term you used to describe my questioning things that are asserted without evidence. While I respect your right to hold beliefs that haven't been proven to be true, I have no obligation to respect the beliefs themselves. I don't respect the belief that the earth is flat, or any other pseudoscientific nonsense that many people find convincing. These are ridiculous beliefs, which as the word implies are deserving of ridicule. Which I don't even think I've done in this particular case with your god. You may have your feelings hurt when someone doesn't just go along with these kinds of assertions, but a basic position of "I don't think that's true, because you haven't provided evidence" is not disrespect.

Finally, I don't know what evidence would convince me. But if your god exists and has the powers people claim it does, it knows what that evidence is and has decided to withhold that from me for over 30 years. Maybe you should pray and ask it what you're supposed to do in order to demonstrate its existence to non-believers before you get back to me, because after all this I'm really not interested in carrying this conversation further unless you have evidence to provide.

Christians don’t tell you about Jesus because we are trying to add one more member to our religion. We do it because we believe you’ll be in eternal trouble if you don’t hear about Him. We’re worried for you. In other words, Christians tell you about Jesus because we love you. This may not always be the case, but usually it is. We may come across as annoying or intrusive. We understand. But if you saw someone standing in a burning house, would you watch them burn just to keep from bothering them, or would you run into that house and pull them out? We love you. Do you really believe we would hold ourselves up to ridicule if we didn’t really believe our testimony was true? We know we are going to get called names and laughed at for talking about Jesus. We do it anyway. Why? Because we believe. And we consider it more important that people are saved than that our pride is preserved. Consider this: Maybe something that Christians are willing to get insulted, humiliated, even wounded just to talk to people about is actually worth listening to. People don’t just run into a burning house for no reason.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Please explain how my comparison was made in bad faith. Show your work.

I'm trying to see an actual reason for belief being stated by your second statement, but you only allude to a reason "perhaps" being "to do with" a broad, vibes-based emotional state, followed by a question mark. I'm not sure what you're saying so I can't follow you to whatever conclusion you'd like me to reach. A confusing point, if there is a point being made.

I don't know what caused everything to come into being. The question is circular in its reasoning to begin with; you've baked in an assumption that anything did cause everything to come into being, when there's no evidence that suggests there was ever a time when nothing existed. I don't know how anyone could ever determine that to be the case.

When it comes to the origin of our current instance of space-time, I don't know and you don't either. Nobody does, and my position is that it's better to follow evidence where it leads and avoid drawing conclusions until there is a logical justification for doing so, rather than assert a magical explanation without any evidence just because it's uncomfortable to be uncertain.

Atheism does not bear any responsibility to provide an alternate explanation for anything, atheism being the state of being unconvinced that a god or some gods exist. The burden of proof is on the ones making the positive claim, so if you want people to believe in your god you must provide sufficient evidence to convince them.

Christians don’t tell you about Jesus because we are trying to add one more member to our religion. We do it because we believe you’ll be in eternal trouble if you don’t hear about Him. We’re worried for you. In other words, Christians tell you about Jesus because we love you. This may not always be the case, but usually it is. We may come across as annoying or intrusive. We understand. But if you saw someone standing in a burning house, would you watch them burn just to keep from bothering them, or would you run into that house and pull them out? We love you. Do you really believe we would hold ourselves up to ridicule if we didn’t really believe our testimony was true? We know we are going to get called names and laughed at for talking about Jesus. We do it anyway. Why? Because we believe. And we consider it more important that people are saved than that our pride is preserved. Consider this: Maybe something that Christians are willing to get insulted, humiliated, even wounded just to talk to people about is actually worth listening to. People don’t just run into a burning house for no reason.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

i haven't believed in god for the past almost 3 years now and i haven't told anyone and im scared to because everyone around me is christian because i go to private christian school and my entire family is christian and it feels like that right now my options are to lie to everyone i love for the rest of my life or be alienated from everyone i love and i don't know what to do i would like some advice if you have any for me

Good to hear from you, and sorry for the late reply. I haven't been much in the mental space for writing and dealing with my chosen topics here.

Since you're still in school, your best bet for right now is to protect yourself and sort of go through the motions until you're able to fully make independent choices. Until then, keep learning and asking questions about these things, do your best to maintain whatever stability you can in your current living situation, and try to find some harmony where you can.

Also, if you're given enough privacy to secretly contact the Recovering From Religion organization, I highly recommend doing so. They have people who are much more experienced than I am and will be able to help you with your specific situation in a more personal way, without doing anything that might put you at any kind of risk with your loved ones. I hate to have to say that you might be stuck for now in your current situation; I know having to lie and not live your authentic self is a big burden, but the best I can say is that once you can get your own full autonomy it'll get better. Maybe not immediately, but with time you'll find peace. Recovering From Religion can definitely give you better and more specific advice though and I encourage you to reach out through the resources on their website.

Thanks for reaching out and take care of yourself!

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

The other thing about discussing harmful things about the christian church and getting "that's not what that verse really means/that's not how that doctrine should be applied/that's not actually supported biblically/etc" back is that... at a certain point it doesn't matter. Yes there are varying beliefs within christianity (understatement with 45,000 different denominations lmao), but you don't get to claim that christianity is separate from any harmful beliefs when a lot of harmful beliefs are the majority.

You can say "the bible wasn't ever talking about gay relationships in [xyz] verses" but that doesn't make the average church actually safe and affirming for queer people. You can say "actually hell doesn't have any biblical backing" but that doesn't mean very much when like 75-80% of christians believe in hell. You can say "men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord" but it doesn't erase the rampant misogyny in christian culture.

If the members make up the church, if members are the church, then at a certain point the cultural beliefs or majority beliefs have precedence over what was intended. You can't say "oh just ignore [belief/doctrine/interpretation/etc]" when that would be dismissing the church's most predominant collective beliefs. You don't get to just disregard harm because that "wasn't the intention". You don't get to look at the result of said harm and decide it doesn't matter because it makes you look bad.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

It's the home stretch for supporting Science Education

Oh hi. It's me again, the squid biologist on a mission to make it easier for people to connect with science. I run a small nonprofit called Skype a Scientist! We match scientists with classrooms, scout troops, robotics clubs, libraries, and more for virtual Q&As about science. We serve 4000-5000 classrooms every year! We offer this FOR FREE. We also run the tumblr-coded Squid Facts Hotline.

To support our program in 2025, we're selling FROG FACTS advent calendars. Every day you can scratch-off the sparkles to reveal facts about frogs! Please buy one! They're cute and fun and help me give science education away for free.

I unfortunately haven't gotten any grants to support our program for 2025, BUT!! these advent calendars are helping us keep the lights on! If you already bought one, THANK YOU! If you have shared a post about these calendars, that has been INCREDIBLY helpful. If you can't help us financially, reposting is so so helpful!

If you want to support our program, you can donate directly here. We're a 501.c.3 so if you live in the US, donations are tax deductible!

You can also read about our work in detail in our 2023 annual report here!

Thank you all for your support 💕🦑💕

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Podcasts have meant a lot to me as someone who spends most of his time alone. Working all night with nobody around, as much as I love not having coworkers to deal with, gets pretty dull and depressing. But my "ear friends" tend to keep me hanging on when I've got nobody else to fill the tedious void that is my job, and often most of my free time as well.

That's why I'm sad to see that one of my favorite shows is saying goodbye.

'Oh No, Ross and Carrie,' is one of the reasons I started this blog. They've been a tremendous inspiration for the way I approach the topics I deal with and have left the internet a masterclass on engaging with belief and those who believe in all kinds of things that might not comport with reality.

Both of the hosts have had their own journeys through evangelical Christianity and came through the other side with a solid grasp on what is rational, a passion for learning, and a very human approach to discussing views that they don't agree with.

All of that shines through on their podcast where they report on a wide range of topics like "alternative" healing, spirituality of all shapes, paranormal claims, and much more. Their motto was always "when they make the claims, we show up so you don't have to," and they consistently delivered some of the most amazing content for people with interests in any of those categories.

I was already an atheist when I started listening, but listening to their show helped me to find skepticism. My reasons for not believing at the time were not actually good ones, and it's through their show that I got to a place of actually applying critical thinking when confronted with these kinds of ideas. They were my gateway drug into rationality, but also, through their outright refusal to ever punch down, helped me to realize that being fooled by bad ideas isn't a statement about someone's moral character.

They introduced me to James Randi, someone I admire very much and whose foundation continues to help spread skepticism and to encourage people to be open minded, "but not so open that your brains fall out," as many people have famously said. I really appreciate their work as being a major stepping stone to where I'm at now epistemologically.

This is already too long and I'm sure I've lost some folks' attention (if I ever had it to begin with), but I just wanted to dump a sentimental "so long," and hopefully maybe get some other ears on their fantastic work which remains on the Maximum Fun network among a ton of other great and entertaining shows.

My recommendations for those interested are their investigations where they became Mormons, joined scientology, learned the art of exorcism, and found the spiritual light through the questionable methods of (cult?) leader Teal Swan. There's a ton of sometimes funny, sometimes horrifying, usually baffling, and always entertaining investigations that they've left behind for new audiences to listen to. Check it out!

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Science Is Not A Faith o.O;

I love science.

But the whole thing about science is that it's a method of investigation, not a person or a thing...and the results that one gets from science aren't "unseen".

It's not something you "have to have faith" in.

It's all there, out on paper, in the data, the studies.... there's EVIDENCE there.

Evidence that other scientists are then challenged to disprove, not support.

And the more the findings stand despite other scientists' attempts to tear it down, the more the data becomes predictive and helpful in figuring out other problems, advancing other experiments, and describing other tangible situations; and the more it can be accepted as truth (or at least as a part of the truth).

And of course, nuance can (and should!) be applied to that data.

And sometimes, that changes how the data is interpreted... changes what it means; inspires scientists to go back and do additional studies and experiments to clarify and better interpret the results...but that just improves the data, so long as it really is evidence that is truly in step with our reality.

So...I don't have to have faith in anything.

I believe in Life... because I have good reason to.

And being able to ground myself in humanity and in what is humane (instead of seeing myself and everyone else as automatically evil, "sinful" creatures who do bad just because we just love evil so much, rather than due to the pressures and lack of options provided by the systems around us), I feel has made me a better person.

Now that I'm an atheist, I feel more in touch with a good set of morals that is based on well-being, consent, autonomy, and thriving -- instead of just going with 'Whatever god says, because his Might Makes Right!'.

I wish so badly that I had become an atheist much earlier in life. It would have changed so much for me.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

saw a reply on that post about a subway worker refusing to service to some dudes wearing hate speech shirts and claiming they were being religiously discriminated against that said "as a christian, i don't claim them."

okay but do claim them, actually.

inconvenient and embarrassing and even frustrating as it is, your religion, your faith, has become all but synonymous with hatred and vicious oppression. that didn't happen by accident. it wasn't unearned. it's not new and it's not a perversion of the good true pure christianity when it's the core and foundation, in fact.

are there good, kind, compassionate christians who refuse themselves to harbor this kind of hatred? denominations that are more progressive, welcoming, loving, and inclusive? absolutely, and that's great and all.

but they have not been the ones defining the story of christianity ever, at any point in its history. you don't get to retcon the narrative. you can't "no true scotsman" your way out of association wth the vast majority, the most vocal and politically driven majority of your shared faith.

your religion historically, traditionally, and most commonly shelters and cultivates bigots and oppressors, hateful, vicious people who want to strip others of their rights and their lives and legislate them into being officially lesser-than.

claim them. own that. it's necessary if you ever want christianity to be seen as better than the worst of your lot, because the worst are the loudest, the most powerful and wealthy, the ones who've been steering the fleet for centuries.

if you want christianity to actually be the faith you strive yourself to live and exemplify, you have to reckon first with what it is, what is has long been.

those christians would claim you're not real christians, but you both are. you can't change or take control of the story if you try to pretend you're on page one. you have to straighten your back and acknowledge it.

if you want to clean house or even rebuild, you have to admit the rot is there, first, and that it's still your house anyway.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

The other thing about discussing harmful things about the christian church and getting "that's not what that verse really means/that's not how that doctrine should be applied/that's not actually supported biblically/etc" back is that... at a certain point it doesn't matter. Yes there are varying beliefs within christianity (understatement with 45,000 different denominations lmao), but you don't get to claim that christianity is separate from any harmful beliefs when a lot of harmful beliefs are the majority.

You can say "the bible wasn't ever talking about gay relationships in [xyz] verses" but that doesn't make the average church actually safe and affirming for queer people. You can say "actually hell doesn't have any biblical backing" but that doesn't mean very much when like 75-80% of christians believe in hell. You can say "men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord" but it doesn't erase the rampant misogyny in christian culture.

If the members make up the church, if members are the church, then at a certain point the cultural beliefs or majority beliefs have precedence over what was intended. You can't say "oh just ignore [belief/doctrine/interpretation/etc]" when that would be dismissing the church's most predominant collective beliefs. You don't get to just disregard harm because that "wasn't the intention". You don't get to look at the result of said harm and decide it doesn't matter because it makes you look bad.