Chick-Fil-Hate: A Fast Opinion on the Fast Food Fiasco

If you have been watching the news lately, you will have undoubtedly heard all the hullabaloo concerning Chick-Fil-A catching back-lash for its homophobic views.  The "hate" in the title has a double-meaning; it concerns both the homophobic position Chick-Fil-A has chosen to take, in addition to the aggressive flack it has received in doing so.  To catch you up to speed:  recently, the founder of Chick-Fil-A (CFA for short) has taken a stance on the gay marriage issue by basically saying "we do not endorse same sex marriage".  For those who are not familiar with CFA, the company prides itself on high-quality food, coupled with a family-friendly, Christian atmosphere.  For the most part, there's no point of contention here.  The food is good, and I know the staff to always be very friendly and helpful.  About the only inconvenience I've ever ran into was not having the option to eat their chicken on Sunday because they're closed, but I can't pick up model glue at Hobby Lobby due to the same principle, so I've learned to live with less business transactions on Sunday.

Recently, the restaurant chain has had its business with Jim Henson's company severed, due to Henson's stance that states they will not do business with CFA simply because they don't desire to support a business that backs “traditional” marriage-based groups.  Henson's company prides itself on supporting diversity, and a slew of different lifestyles.  CFA, in response, has placed up signs in some of its restaurants stating that they're recalling Henson's toys due to a manufacturing error that causes children's hands to become stuck in the bottom of their puppets.  While CFA may or may not be dishonest in the real reason for the recall, it's horrible timing to recall all of your former business partner's toys when they've decided to cut ties with you.  Horrible coincidence or a shoddy attempt to save face?  You decide...but that's not what we're here for. 

So, now that word has spread, campaigns are being levied after CFA, with many folks swearing to personally boycott the restaurant.  Of course, like many issues related to the gay marriage debate, religion is playing a large part, with critics stating that CFA's stance against homosexual marriage is nothing more than religious bigotry practiced on a large-scale, and CFA advocates firing back stating that the boycott is an impediment on CFA’s opportunity to practice its religious convictions.  The purpose of this blog is to explore that accusation, and to view the situation as we know it in terms of religion and liberty.

The first question one must ask one’s self about the situation is this:  is CFA's stance against homosexual marriage religiously based?  The obvious answer is 'yes'.  It's an answer that doesn't need to be explored too in-depth.  The owner is a conservative Christian, and he's admitted it.  That's dust in the wind at this point, and the company takes pride in its Christian heritage.  It's nothing we would have to prove, and he's perfectly within his right to enjoy his religion as he so chooses.  He's also within his rights to model a business based on his ideas, as long as it's not a violent one.

However, the real question is -- does CFA have the right to support the anti-homosexual view?  Again, the answer is 'yes'.  Many critics are outraged at CFA's position because we view our companies as fair and equal workplaces; an ideology that should somewhat reflect society as a whole.  We view companies as public entities that shouldn't discriminate, and to think that CFA would be giving money to discriminatory groups is abhorrent.  That view, though, comes with a few frills.  A privately owned company like CFA is completely in its rights to donate where they wish.  Any company can back an ideology of discrimination as long as it is not actively pursued in the workplace or in the company itself.  CFA can donate to the anti-marriage advocates, or even the Klan if they so choose...but they do so at their own peril, especially if public opinion is highly critical of such actions.  Public opinion can make or break a restaurant chain, even if it has no real bearing on the beliefs established by one’s business model.

The whole argument comes down to freedom, and if we place the notion of freedom into the equation, both sides are at a stand-still, with the advantage placed in the hands of the people only because the people can shut the business down by denying them patronage.  Both sides are in the right because they’re exercising their rights.  CFA has the freedom to support who they will, but they do not have the right to actively discriminate in the work place.  And, they don’t.  They hire homosexuals, atheists, non-religious folks, African Americans, Hispanics, male, female, and those who have alternative lifestyles – I’ve seen just about everyone represented in one CFA or another.  Yes, they have a dress code, and yes, they want to portray a conservative atmosphere (I applied for a job there myself, so I can attest to this).  However, they do not actively discriminate in their hiring practices to the best of my knowledge any more than your average company does.  The dividing line stands between active discrimination as opposed to backing a discriminating ideology.  Think about it on a personal level:  Joe Citizen can join the Klan, he's given the right to be a racist bigot, but he cannot violently act upon his discriminatory thoughts or ideas without there being repercussions.  The same with big business.  Individuals don’t want to be an accessory to something they find to be morally reprehensible, and that includes giving money that they know is passed on to serve ends that they’re aware of and knowingly disagree with.  As citizens, we can’t stop CSA from spending its money however it chooses, but we don’t have to continue giving them money.

However, the religious aspect of CFA is blatantly obvious, and from the citizen's standpoint, it's a two-pronged social battle -- a battle between pro-gay and anti-gay folks, and Christian and secular points of view.  One only needs to hop onto Facebook and read the comments to see that the majority argument has been made concerning the religious angle.  And it should rightfully be pointed out that, if the religion did not exist as the main contributing factor, CFA may very much not be facing the issues it is now. 

As a citizen, though, I have to applaud my fellow humanity for deciding to boycott CFA.  I, as a person, cannot convince Joe Citizen to change his racist ways, but in the same manner as Mr. Citizen can freely express his views, I can freely express my disgust for his views.  I can stop doing business with Joe because I decline to have my money support his views.  I can turn my back on Joe, I can refuse to do business with him, and Joe can be driven into obscurity for his bigoted ways.  That is perfectly legal.  We can do the same with CFA.  I've heard quite a few comments that "this is another form of religious discrimination!"  Is it?  Wouldn't the better question be "who discriminated first?"  Or...what is the source of the original mode of discrimination?  Theism.  Christianity.  Religion discriminates all the time.  Homosexual, folks of another race, gender, religion, or creed -- every type of discrimination has a Biblical basis.  It isn't difficult to find verses supporting it.  I would start in Leviticus, personally. 

What we're seeing here isn't reverse discrimination – it’s normal folks taking a stand against a company that, even though its in its right to act how they wish in this situation, we don’t have to condone it or continue to support it.  There isn't one element in CFA's discriminatory policy that isn't rooted in Christianity and that, therefore, makes this partially a religious issue.  We're seeing people stand up against discrimination perpetrated by the religious practices of another to begin with.  One could argue in the whole gay marriage debate that religion doesn't factor into their belief, but you show me one argument against homosexual marriage that isn't fueled by personal religious beliefs, then you'll have set a precedent for a new argument that most folks aren't aware of.

Both factions are in the right here, legally.  Ethically, morally, the people have the advantage because they're doing nothing more than cutting off funding to a company that will forward that money to groups that we wouldn't normally support.  I'm thankful our constitution allows us the freedom to stand up and turn our backs on those we disagree with, just as I'm thankful that our private businesses can donate to whomever they wish.  However, I reiterate a personal theme of mine:  standing up and backing our beliefs always comes with a set of consequences.  CFA's consequence for standing for their convictions will be to lose business.  Such is the way the game is played and it shouldn't be any other way.

Atheist Discrimination: Reflections on Work and Domestic Settings

Recently, in conversing with some of my friends and associates, it seems our group has received a small bit of attention.  While this is a wonderful start to the Owensboro Freethinkers, and the more attention we can receive, the better, it has had some ramifications – both positive and negative – for individual members.  Interestingly, these ramifications echo a national trend of discrimination experienced by atheists from theists who feel threatened by our position, or otherwise just want us, as popularly stated on a well-known YouTube meme, to just “shut up”.  While the stories of these individuals are not for our focus, there are a couple of common threads echoed in the stories that I myself can attest to, and two of those threads upon which we will focus are the work setting and family relations.

I have to tell you a little bit about myself for before I jump into the meat of this blog.  For those who don’t know anything about me, I am an outspoken agnostic atheist.  I treat all ideas equally within their respective realms: all genius ideas are worthy of my respect and admiration; all fantastic ones are worthy of criticism and ridicule.  As an outspoken atheist, I usually have a no-holds barred attitude in matters of religion, and I love learning new ideas.  As such, I have shared the new ideas I have learned while questioning the old ones, popular and not, and while I was yet still in contact with my old theistic community, those ideas earned their scorn, frustration, and chagrin.  For about two or three years, I had sporadic contact with them, but we all eventually parted ways – they mostly in frustration, and I myself equally frustrated that, while my ideas were seemingly so common-sense to myself, they did not change any minds.  Looking back, I should not have expected it to be so. 

So why did I tell that background story?  As an outspoken atheist, I have been a victim of discrimination.  Now, the discrimination I have received, I wouldn’t call “aggressive” and, really, most of the push-back I’ve felt has been very passive, so I have no real complains.  I have thick skin – I can handle it.  I’m using myself as a point of reference, though.  In my experience, folks mostly talk about me behind my back (they’re usually too cowardly to approach me in person), but I haven’t been chased down by the villagers with pitchforks and scythes in hand, nor have I been broken on the wheel a la the Spanish Inquisition…yet.  We’re very thankful for the separation of church and state on this one, so the atheist’s personal safety is relatively guaranteed (and those who threaten it suffer legal consequences).

However, in forming the Owensboro Freethinkers, I have invited potential discrimination upon the group, and us as individuals.  Everyone lives their own lives the way they feel is best, but there are consequences for being vocal about what we think, feel, and how we believe.  My hope was to create a haven for fellow unbelievers or pro-rationalist and scientific minds to meet amongst friends, to toss ideas back and forth without having to have “God” interjected into the conversation and be judged when we reject it.  We are slowly growing and we’ve been successful in our endeavors.  But, the protection provided by our group only extends so far.  We as individuals, especially the atheists of the group, will face discrimination on a personal level.

The real question, albeit it is rhetorical, is “why”?  Nearly 80% of the population identify themselves as Christian in this country.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees you and me the same protection on a national level when it comes to freedom of speech and the right to have our own opinions on religion.  On the state level, it’s a different issue (though it shouldn’t be because state law cannot conflict with national law via McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819).  Legalities aside, theists usually discriminate for many reasons, but there’s one grand unifying theme behind it:  atheists are a threat to theists – plain and simple.  If we were not perceived as a threat in any way, shape, or form, we’d be free to practice our beliefs (or lack thereof) with few consequences.  However, because we atheists can successfully challenge the idea that God exists, why would theists take the chance to introduce that element into their work places and, even worse, why tolerate it from their own family, who under theist doctrine, is one cohesive unit made to glorify God?  Discrimination happens when atheists take a stand one way or another and, commonly, it us usually initiated or spear-headed by theists. 

Let’s look at the work setting first.  Quite a few folks see religion in the (secular) work place as a non-issue, which I believe is the correct analysis, because there’s no rational reason it should be.  As an atheist, I don’t discuss religion at work…unless I’m asked.  I do not flaunt my atheism into the work place, and I wish I could say that theists don’t do the same, but many do anyway.  As an atheist, when I’m on the clock, I couldn’t give a damn what anyone believes, unless it directly impacts the work that we have to do.  I have nothing to convince my fellow employees of, nor do I view them as potential converts.  I don’t have that drive to bring up the topic of religion so that I can change their minds on it.  I don’t bring it up when it can jeopardize my job.  That’s called ‘tact’.  However, sometimes conversations come up, and folks are placed on the spot.  I have told individuals that I’m an atheist when I am questioned, because I see no reason to lie.  Most folks are cool about it (I worked in a warehouse during the weekend, so they weren't the church-going crowd).  However, there were a few that freaked out, and one or two that treated me a bit differently after.  As an atheist, I don’t shun people because of their beliefs, nor do I see what belief in a god has to do with how an individual performs their work.  It's a non-issue that, sadly, becomes an issue at the discretion of theists.  Even mentioning activities remotely associated with atheism can shoot one’s self in the foot when seeking employment.  I made the mistake recently of placing that I began the Freethinkers on my resume to show community activism, and when I was asked to explain it, the interviewers cringed.  Needless to say, I didn’t get the job.  My bad – I learned my lesson.

Active religious discrimination in the work place is illegal under state and federal law.  This extends to a lack of belief as well.  However, I am pressured to hide my lack of belief in person, lest it offers a reason to not hire me.  Work place discrimination for atheists is common enough to be an issue.  One only has to log onto YouTube or Google websites like ExChristian.net to hear testimonies of folks who have lived through the same.  I haven’t had it occur too much to me, though, but to those atheists who have had it occur, all I can say is: we all pay the price for our convictions or lack of a belief, especially if we stand up for them.  It’s up to the individual to decide how they want to deal with how they believe, but the consequences still stand.  It still doesn’t make the discrimination right, though, and we should not be afraid of addressing it as it occurs.  Maybe more of our members have stories of discrimination in the work place, and while it doesn't happen as much compared to the family setting due to rules and regulations, it does still exist.

The dynamic is different in the family, though.  There’s no legal precedent or law that I'm aware of that guarantees freedom of expression in the family unit, especially if you’re a minor or are living under the graces of one who pays the bill.  Any atheist with an idea of the law understands that if you’re 18 or over, and you’re living with your parents or someone else who owns/rents the property, you’re at the mercy of their whims, as unjust as they may appear.  However, let’s remove the legalistic element and just look at the family as a unit.

My personal testimony:  I live on my own, so I’m free to express my views, though my views can affect my family, and they do.  For a long time, I posted remarks critical of religion on my Facebook page, and some of my relations were not too pleased.  Never be friends with your family on Facebook -- that's a golden rule.  However, my family and I had never talked about religion before (we still do not), but I am the black sheep because I have been vocal about my atheism and I have no apologies.  I have had violent threats, insults hurled, and basically every other harsh word one can toss in hopes to convince me otherwise of my position.  Nothing rational, mind you, just intimidation and threats.  

So, what's the point?  I have never once said to any family member:  “I can’t associate with you because you’re a theist”.  Why?  Because that's asinine...and kind of petty.  If one takes the time to search the internet and read testimonies, guess which side of the fence usually shuns the other?  If you said “theists”, you are correct.  Whether it is a Mormon family releasing their child because of their unbelief, or an Amish community shunning an individual, or a Pentecostal father kicking their son or daughter out of their house because of their disbelief, I have never read a testimony of an atheist removing someone from their family because of differing beliefs.  Atheists don’t have that precedent…though I’m open to the challenge of being proven wrong.

Atheists don’t see the world as a dualistic battle between good and evil, nor do we see our own family as loyal followers of moral lightness and darkness.  And, unless you’re directly harming us as individuals or our society as a whole, most atheists don’t see theists as a threat.  I, as an atheist, view humans as individual beings, and I value diversity.  Atheists can draw the distinction where they can respect the person but abhor an idea they hold, and still live and let live.  The theist world view is fundamentally different.  Atheists don’t assume that folks worship God or the Devil and we don’t see people in terms of their loyalty to one deity or another.  Theists do.  Most atheists see the world in shades of grey, whereas the Biblical basis for theists and how they view it is pretty black and white.  One is either for God or against him in theism and the Bible makes it pretty clear how to treat those who avidly speak out against theism (1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs his followers to expel a wicked man from them; 2 Corinthians 6, Paul instructs Christians not to be “yoked” with unbelievers).  We are, according to theists, the “fools” who say there is no God (Psalms 14:1).  Christ himself said in Matthew 10:34-38:  “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.  Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”  Theists are taught to create a dividing line for humanity; an “us vs. them” mentality.  And while they’re taught to do it out of love or concern for the soul, the actions are rarely indicative of what most people would consider to be love.  Atheist discrimination in the family is the direct result of the religious creating divisions that don’t really exist.

I have never found the Atheist text that stated: “our freethinking, non-theistic ways have come to turn man against man, and anyone who does not subscribe to atheism is not worthy of your time or effort – thus sayeth Richard Dawkins, amen.”  It doesn’t exist.  We value humanity as full human beings – not pawns in a cosmic war who are expendable due to theological disagreements.  For those who have experienced discrimination at the hands of their family, it is truly tragic, but it’s the price we pay for unbelief.  Atheists aren’t petty enough to throw our own blood under the bus for a dichotomous good vs. evil belief system we can’t even prove.  Theists who do deny their own family for their unbelief should heed the words of their own Bible:  “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you”. (Matthew 7:1-2)  Atheists believe we have only one shot at life here on earth; we don’t devalue our love for our family because of ideology.  Life is too short to have that emotional blood on our hands.

These are just two realms where I’ve had something to say on the topic of discrimination.  I don’t hold any misguided apprehensions or views about it.  If an atheist is out in the world, not insulated, and they are independent, or if they have theistic family, or live in a theistically slanted community, that atheist will, if they open their mouths and are in the minority, experience discrimination from the majority religious.  Why?  Because we question matters, and it's uncomfortable for theists to have their beliefs questioned.  I can only speak for myself, but I would never trade the process of critical thought for social acceptance, but that’s why the Owensboro Freethinkers are here.  We value differing opinions, we value critical thought, and we don’t discriminate against people.  We're a little too far advanced in human history to justify it.

Ten Lessons Learned in Debating Theists

By:  Matt White

This will probably be the last “blog of ten” that I’ll be writing for a while.  Recently at our Owensboro Freethinkers Meeting, there was the expression of interest in opening up a dialogue with theists in our community.  Though we are not well-known in Owensboro (yet), there may come a time when we must intellectually defend ourselves against differing points of view.  The way to do that is through argumentation – the ability to soundly defend one’s views while critiquing the opponent's.  Our group is atheistic in element – most of us do not believe in a God – and while this isn’t an atheist group, this is a group where atheists are most welcome to join, fellowship, and enjoy the company of fellow non-believers.  As a community, though, we always encourage dialogue and we welcome all theists to prove us wrong or try to convert us.  It makes for great discussion, and as freethinkers, we’re pretty open to new ideas.  That is generally the group’s policy towards theism.

As for myself, I have debated theists for a few years now, and I have found that the rules of debate, while unspoken, tend to prove themselves time and time again.  In response to these rules, I have created a general set of guidelines that will help the unbeliever in tackling theistic topics of discussion.  I hope this assists our fellow members in possibly stretching their wings a bit if the opportunity to debate does arise.  You will have to forgive me for the broad strokes, and I understand I speak in generalities, but these are from my experiences.

1. Remember:  You won’t change minds.

Theists, in my opinion, usually debate with the intention of saving your soul or defending their faith.  The best way to do so is for you, their opponent, to be converted.  Theists are generally taught that their mission is to save souls, change hearts and minds, and to convince you they’re position is real.  However, most I have met lack an element that is essential in debate – the possibility of having their minds changed.  Theists normally do not go into a discussion with the notion that perhaps they’re wrong.  As an agnostic atheist, I do.  I always admit that I could be wrong.  I haven’t met many theists willing to grant the same concession.  As a matter of fact, be prepared to meet hostile theists who find your presence to be offensive just because you stand and say “I disagree”.  That’s a stigma that we have to deal with, and that prejudice works against our chances to change minds.

As such, I have never had a formalized debate where the intention was to change a theist’s mind because it’s almost unrealistic to think that it will happen then and there on the spot.  Perhaps you can plant a seed; perhaps the resources you offer, they may look into.  However, the vast majority of time, you will not change their minds, and you’ll leave the discussion in the same position as you came in.  It doesn’t mean the discussion shouldn’t happen, though, as we have a responsibility to discourse and entertain ideas.

2. Remove Emotion; Replace with Evidence.

There is a vast difference in the world view of the average theist and atheist.  Atheists are usually seen as cold, calculated, and critical (and to a degree, when thinking, one has to be in order to arrive at objective truth).  Theists view themselves as spreading a message of love and salvation.  I have been a theist, so I understand the importance of witnessing to the “lost”.  I also understand that they come from a position of faith.  Most non-believers do not.  Many discussions I have had with theists have been an ideological clash between emotion and evidence.  The atheist asks for evidence, and the theist responds with emotional pleas.  Many time, you’ll see it in the form of “argument…with an addendum attached asking you to open your heart to God in one way or another.”  Be prepared to have to shrug off emotional pleas; especially guilt.  Conviction is what normally leads to salvation, and if something they say can, to borrow their language, "stir your heart" to conviction…then they have done their job.  That’s an actual goal they reach for, so anticipate it manifesting by appeals to emotion.  Do not take attacks personally.  Call them out on it, but never digress to that level.

These attacks can range from being an agent of the devil, to being insensitive because you’re questioning their beliefs, that you're inferior or ignorant because you willfully choose not to believe in God, or it may be an appeal to take down your intellectual barriers and trust with your heart in God.  It happens all the time.  In response, demand evidence.  Everyone has their own bar for what passes as good evidence, but Carl Sagan once wrote in The Demon-Haunted World: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”  In the world of academics, where evidence is the key, the truth doesn’t lie on who can make the best emotional plea.  It relies solely on proof.  Theist’s claims are no exception.  If they do not provide evidence, point it out.

3. Know Your Argumentative Fallacies.

Many theists, I have met, usually don’t argue all too often (though I have met many notable exceptions).  I hate to sound like an ass when I say this, but it is mostly true:  most theists do not know how to argue.  There are rules in proving your thesis, and if you shirk those rules, more likely than not, you’ll be using argumentative fallacies.  The more fallacies you learn, the more you can offer correction when they occur, and hopefully your opponent can learn by having them pointed out.  Normally by doing this, you can then dismantle their argument and they’ll have to either concede or move on.  For an introduction, check out my last blog on argumentative fallacies.

4. Make them keep the burden of proof.

I am an agnostic atheist.  I have no evidence to believe in God.  I never say “there is no God”.   I don’t know that.  I don’t have to prove a negative, in the same way that I do not have to prove that there is no Loch Ness monster.  As such, he who makes the claim has to support it.  Unbelievers, be careful by saying “there is no God” because we don’t know that for sure (it’s almost intellectually dishonest to speak with that kind of certainty).  If the theist makes the claim that God “absolutely, 100% exists”, it is up to them to prove it, and you must play the role of skeptic.  If a theist says “well, you don’t have proof that God doesn’t exist”, remind them of the importance of the burden of proof.  Atheists have nothing to prove.  That's why we are atheists.

5. Define and Deconstruct.

This is a rule that often requires the patience of the atheist in debating, but much of what theists have to say can be deconstructed to show the inconsistency in their theses.  It’s best to set definitions if one can to set  parameters when discussing a term.  When one speaks of God, what do they mean?  Be prepared to quibble over meanings of words, because you might see equivocation as a fallacy pop up if you don’t, as well as confusing definitions and terms, or the shifting of goalposts.  Usually, I ask the theist two questions when I sense a debate coming:  “how much time do you have to commit to this?” and “how often do you debate?”  This takes time, but it can help you avoid hassles.  Vague terms need to be defined.

6. Avoid Shifting Topics.

Many theists have a very base understanding of atheistic topics.  It comes from them knowing about us through their spiritual leaders or biased commentators.  As such, the atheist will probably have to offer a lot of correction on misplaced assumptions.  One of the consequences of those assumptions is having theists shifting topics all the time, because they see them as linked (evolution and abiogenesis; existence of God and morality; etc.).  A recent debate I had was quite rife with the tactic, and it can exhaust an atheist who must reply to each accusation.  We were discussing, I believe, whether or not the Bible was authentic, but I was accused of not being able to interpret the Bible correctly because I didn’t have the Holy Spirit, and no moral compass…so we had to discuss morality – something completely different from whether or not the Bible is historically accurate.  I then had to point out to my opponent that what we were talking about had nothing to do with how I read and comprehended his book.  Be very watchful – once you hit a topic, recognize it, reinforce it, and stick with it until a point is conceded.

7. Recognize the Patterns; Anticipate the Generalities; Know Your Opponent.

This is kind of the big one.  The easiest way to prepare for a debate is to know what arguments to expect and to understand the theistic world view.  If I’m debating evolution, I anticipate hearing “it’s only a theory”; “it doesn’t explain the Big Bang”; “we’re too complex to have evolved”; “why are there still monkeys?”, etc. If I’m debating the Bible and its authenticity, I anticipate hearing arguments from Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel.  If we are discussing morality, I’m probably going to have to explain how I form my own morality and why it is in man’s best interest to be kind to his fellow man (and the evolutionary implications).  I usually have to retread the same ground over and over, but it’s mostly because the same arguments are presented to me over and over.  The best preparation is to read Christian apologetics…and then read critical responses to them.  It requires a lot of learning to have a response, but it is well worth it in the end if you have the opportunity to exercise what you have learned.  The best policy, as one of our members alluded to, is to treat debates with theists like a game of chess.  In chess, one removes all emotion, and the trick is to calculate the opponent’s next few moves as rationally and critically as possible.  Theists normally play the strategy of using the same arguments over and over, so it is relatively easy to anticipate them if you've been debating for a long time...though I’m always on the look-out for new ones.

8. Debate One-on-One.

This is something most folks don’t think about, but it is crucial if you’re debating in person.  This isn’t so much a rule as it is a guideline, but debating one-on-one is easier, and it places the atheist in the stronger position if he is the minority.  Ganging up is unfair to the minority and it drowns out their voice.  A group will usually win not because they made the better argument, but because they were louder and didn’t give the other person ample chance to make their case.  There is no reason a person should willingly place themselves in this situation.  When I’m with atheist friends and I have a theist who says something, and a debate is brewing, I try to make it a point to mention how unfair it is to gang up on someone, and ask that one person talk with the other as opposed to everyone interjecting something.  I haven’t had the same consideration from theists, but if I believe I’m going to have to debate three people, I ask that they pick someone to speak for them and for the other two people to hold off…or I address them one at a time.  This leads to the next rule…

9. Be Prepared to Explain In-depth.

Be prepared to explain in-depth what you have to say.  How this connects with the last guideline concerns exhaustion.  If you are debating three people who throw three different accusations at you, you have to spend ample time addressing each one of those if the interest is to correct the theist.  That’s three times the work.  I normally do one-on-one debates or discussions simply because I want to address all the points my opponent makes.  Much of the time, assumptions are thrown at us where we have to correct them, and we must explain our rational.  That can take up a lot of time and space, but it comes with the territory.

10. Practice, Practice, Practice.

The best way to learn how to debate is through experience.  I used to find random message boards and forums where nobody would know me, walk in, and debate.  Sometimes I won; sometimes I was handed my own brain on an argumentative silver platter.  But I learned from it.  That’s the essential ingredient in debating.  Minds may not be changed, but skills should be improved.  Don’t be afraid to place yourself out there and, more importantly, ask for help or research what you’re going to be discussing.  Besides, you may find you have a knack for debate when you put your mind to it.

Conclusion

Hopefully these ten recommendations will give the new debater a set of general guidelines of what to expect when debating a theist.  Most of my experiences have been debating theists, so these are just what I’ve noticed occur in the natural course of discussion.  Each side in the theistic discussion – theist and non – have their own set ways of conducting the debate, but gaining an understanding of how each operates is essential in conducting good, constructive dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Argumentative Fallacies: A List of Logical Low-blows

By: Matt White

As one who identifies with freethinking values, I tend to support the ideas and rights that promote free speech and free thought -- that’s the understood emphasis of the philosophy and our group.  I also, as a citizen of one of the best countries in the world, enjoy and promote the free exercise of those rights and an open discussion of those ideas.  Consequently, we live in a world of competitive ideology; an intellectual gauntlet exists where notions and concepts must enter into an open forum, with competing ideas and their proponents hashing it out to obtain the one overall arching, intellectual holy grail that all seekers hope to find:  the truth.

Like any moderated fight or competition, there are certain rules one must abide by in order to gain a victory, or in our case, to promote one’s ideas as the truth.  While there are numerous rules in stylized debate -- a set of standards which should be enforced at all times -- there is one that particularly discourages logical low-blows.  For an idea to be true, it must be logically consistent through all its parts, cohesive, coherent, and above all they must make practical sense.  Evidence must be the final authority that proves or disproves a claim.  Deviations from evidence that buttresses an argument, we call “logical fallacies” -- non-evidential attempts at proving a point.  Like a magician performing a trick, logical fallacies are slight-of-the-hand methods used to bolster an illusion of fact.

As an arm chair academic, I would like to call you, the reader’s, attention to what I see as the ten most prevalent logical fallacies that I have come across.  My hope is, while reading these, you may see practical applications to using these in real life:

10.  Circular Reasoning

This is the worst of the best and I find it mostly in debates focusing on matters of religion.  I tend to debate religion, history, and ethics, and circular reasoning is best described as two dependent premises enforcing each other, therefore a conclusion is reached on those two premises.  Theists in particular use this one:  "I believe my holy book is true because it says it is true; therefore my holy book is true."  Outside evidence must validate an argument.  How do we know your holy book is true?  Is there any corroborating evidence to establish a firm foundation for your book?  Can its premises be validated by outside sources?  This has been the bane of many debates I’ve had, especially with Theists.  Remember:  the more varied evidence to support your claim, the better.

 9.  Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a fallacy that even the most rudimentary debater usually knows, but it pops up enough to be on my list.  Ad Hominem is simply attacking the debater as opposed to criticizing the idea.  An example:  premise:  “My dog is a good dog”; response:  “prove it.”; reply:  “you’re a horrible person for thinking my dog can’t be a good dog.”  Attacking someone’s credibility, whether intellectual, academic, social, or moral, does nothing to prove or disprove the merits of an idea.  The idea that my dog is still a good dog still stands ready to be debated regardless of the social standing of the two debaters.  Subsequently…my dog is a Treeing Walker Coon Hound named Zelda…and she is a good dog.

8.  Confusion of Correlation and Causation

This is one that many folks aren’t aware of, and I myself didn’t learn about it until an Introduction to Psychology course at university.  To define this fallacy, we must first define “causation” and “correlation“.  Causation:  “I dropped the glass; the glass broke; therefore I broke the glass”.  (I directly caused the glass to break by my actions).  Correlation:  “I am upset; there‘s a full moon out tonight; therefore the full moon is the source of my anger” (studies show the moon has no direct influence on behavior, hence it was entirely coincidental that the moon was out).  The difference lies in linking two events.  If one event directly causes another, it is grounds for causation; if two events happen to coincide or are related, but one did not directly cause the other, it is normally correlation.  Confusion of the two can lead to premises being established based on coincidence or bad timing.

7.  Argument from Authority

This is a fallacy committed by those, I’ve seen, who promote extremely bad premises.  Essentially, this fallacy relies on the words of experts to validate the truthfulness of a claim, and it‘s a red flag to me that basically screams:  “I have no real evidence…so I am going to use quotes instead!”  I have run across these in a lot of Creationist/Evolution debates -- Creationists tend to quote-mine from “experts” (real or imagined) and will state “Aha!  Because X says that…(statement agreeing with Creationist agenda)…therefore X is true!”  No, no -- that’s an opinion and unless that view had evidence within, you have just quoted a person agreeing with you.  If person A states that the grass is rainbow-colored, and person A happens to be a biologist, is person A’s claim true based on their expertise?  Absolutely not.  Arguments from authority are weak ways to use the words of experts in place of actual evidence.

6.  Argumentum ad Populum/Bandwagon Fallacy

I have seen this fallacy all over the place.  The bandwagon fallacy is simply a “strength in numbers” ploy.  I’ll give you two examples -- one that I have actually heard before and one that I’ve never heard before…and kind of hope I don‘t.  Compare and contrast their points:  “Most people in the United States are white; therefore whites are the supreme race and should run the country” (I’ve heard this one); “Most people in the United States drink alcohol, therefore alcohol is a great thing!” (Never heard this one).  Appealing to numbers or the popularity of an action or way of thought has no bearing on the actual truthfulness of the thought.  In this country, you will hear “well, most people support…“.  It’s a great political ploy because there’s a popular idea in this country that “majority rules”.  This is somewhat true in practicality, but the majority of people can be mistaken.  Remember:  after the removal of dissidents, the vast majority of Germans supported Nazi Germany…

5.  Special Pleading

This is a tricky little fallacy.  Essentially, it means, in the course of discussion, one side tries to buy special exemptions for their premise that every other premise is subject to.  A hypothetical example:  premise:  “I have a political position and it is amazing.”; reply:  “prove your political position.”;  response:  “Well, my political position is unlike all the rest…”  Usually in the realm of politics and religion, special pleading abounds because each adherent to a certain position seeks to place its position on a pedestal and the easiest way to do that is to find ways that it doesn’t fit all the rules or exempt it from the usual criticisms.  To bring my Coon Hound back into the fray -- “my pet is a cat because, aside from the fact that she has four legs with doggy paws, a dog-like tail, floppy Coon Hound ears, is of the canine family, has mannerisms like a dog, has fur like many dogs do, has relatively the same cognitive abilities a dog has, has the teeth of a dog, the general looks of a dog, and barks like a dog…aside from all of that, she is a cat”  No, she’s a dog and I cannot build a claim based on exemptions that all other people making the same claim would be subject to.  My dog is just like every other dog, no matter how much I want her to be a cat. (And I don’t).

4.  Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection

This fallacy is one that I see all over the bloody place and it speaks volumes about how we function as human beings.  I lumped these two together because they’re essentially the same thing in practical applications.  Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection (or CB and OS) are obvious when one plays with statistics.  Observational selection is taking evidence that supports one’s claims while ignoring/suppressing the evidence that disproves it.  Confirmation bias, to use a sound-bite, is “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.”  I have, in my apartment, a corner-edge that’s really a beast to walk around in the middle of the night.  I sometimes stub my toe on it.  I have caught myself saying “(insert appropriate curse)!  I stub my foot on this (curse) every (curse) time!” (My language can be colorful).  That is not true -- I walk past that edge all the time during the dawn, day, and dusk hours, and I stub my toe on it probably somewhere near 1:100 of the times I walk by.  Stating a premise based on a few affirmations in the face of numerous “misses” usually affirms the opposite of the premise.

3.  False Dichotomy

Giving limited options when there are clearly more.  I think of parents doing this all the time, and it‘s usually done to give a choice, but to limit that choice to preferred courses of actions that reinforce our premises.  Premise:  “broccoli is good for you…and you will either eat your broccoli or go to your room as punishment!”  Clearly, if little Johnny could reason his way out of the situation, he has more options than eating the broccoli or going to his room.  He could feed the broccoli to the dog, negotiate a middle ground, trade broccoli in for another vegetable, turn the table over, run outside for his parents to catch him, ruin the broccoli to where it can’t be eaten -- there are clearly more choices than what is presented.  By the way, little Johnny should probably eat the broccoli…

2.  Shifting the Burden of Proof

There’s one specific rule in argumentation that so many folks forget:  “he who makes the claim must prove the claim.”  Freethinkers are usually skeptics, especially in matters of the supernatural.  There’s no impetus on us to believe something until there is adequate evidence for it.  I personally have no reason to believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ESP, paranormal activities, spirits, angels, demons, or even gods until the evidence is presented.  He who makes the claim, again, must prove it.  Usually this falls, in my experience, in trying to prove something’s existence (usually God or another supernatural claim).  If someone says “X is real”, I have the right to be skeptical and say “I see no evidence X is real; prove it is real.”  Shifting the burden of proof would be my esteemed opponent saying “well, prove X is not real/you can’t prove X isn’t real, therefore it is real.”  The absence of evidence, as it is said, may not be the evidence of absence, but evidence drives rational discourse.  It is the absolute responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it; there’s no obligation for someone to believe it otherwise.

1.  Straw Man

In thinking on this list, I was hesitant to put this as number one, but my experience has honestly taught me that this is the top fallacy I have seen in my experience…as frustrating as it is because it‘s such an easy fallacy to avoid committing.  The Straw Man fallacy is the act of building a perceived position of one’s opponent, and then attacking it when that artificial position does not truly represent the opponent.  I am an Agnostic Atheist and I hear arguments all the time misrepresenting the position of the unbeliever.  So many times, I have to correct people by saying “well, that’s not actually what we believe…”.  In politics, I see the continual mud-slinging between two different parties because of perception.  On the fringes, Democrats demonize Republicans as one thing; Republicans vilify Democrats as another.  I’ve never heard a Democrat or Republican admit to these accusations because they’re the other side’s perceptions.

So many Straw Men are built because of a general lack of understanding of another stance.  I’ve seen it in the Evolution/Creationist debates; Atheist/Theist discussions; Democrat/Republican arguments; Socially Liberal/Socially Conservative Arguments.  Insert any two opposing sides, and unless they are exceptionally well-studied on the opponent’s view points, and are prone to not misrepresent the other side’s view, you will see more straw men than all the corn fields of the South could have to offer.  The best remedies to avoiding this fallacy are to simply let the other side represent himself and try to garner an honest understanding of your opponent’s position.

Conclusion

One may ask “what’s the point?”.  Here’s the clincher:  the ability to recognize logical fallacies gives one an intellectual advantage and, as I love listening to folks talk, it‘s just plain fun to be able to pull apart someone‘s logic by recognizing where they have failed.  It betters you as an individual to know how to make a case that stands on its own merits instead of fallacious reasoning.  I would urge you to apply these to everything you hear and say, whether it be watching television advertisements, listening to a co-worker putting forward a proposal, or even yourself engaging in a discussion where you must prove your point.  The ideological arena we live in is one where the armed debater has the strong advantage, but its an advantage earned by anyone who takes the time to understand the tricks of the logical trade.

Honorable Mentions:
Argumentum ad ignorantium/Argument from Incredulity:  An argument wherein one party does not understand how a proposition can be true, hence they presume it cannot be true.
Moving the goalposts:  A situation where, once evidence is presented to sufficiently prove/disprove claim, even greater proof is therefore demanded, continually raising the bar or standard of evidence.
Argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat.
Non Sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
Begging the Question (or assuming the answer).  Premise where one assumes the premise and conclusion are both true in order to prove the point.
Red Herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

For a very comprehensive list of fallacies:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Are Freethinkers Anti-Religious?

Author:  Matt White

A concern was brought to me recently baring the idea that the Owensboro Freethinkers could possibly be anti-religious and this, in turn, could be a turn-off to those desiring to join the group.  This is a personal essay by me and it reflects my opinion on the group’s ideology towards religion in general.  My views reflect what I see freethinking as when it comes to a mode of thought, and there will be some members who agree with me, and others who do not.  As freethinkers representing a diversity of views, it shouldn't be any other way.

First, an observation on our home turf: in my opinion, Owensboro seems to face a lack of ideological diversity, and the introduction of new ideas and the ridicule of old ones is not well-tolerated within the community.  While growing up here, I remember being taught a fairly narrow set of views that were popularly promoted by the majority, with few dissenting voices in the wings shunned and shut down by the majority.  Many of those voices we hear on the scene tend to lean towards conservative ideology, much of which has a religious over-tone to it.  “God bless America!”  “One Nation Under God!”  “I’ll pray for you”; how many advertisements to we hear of gatherings, events, socials, etc. all financed or sponsored by churches in our city?  Is there anything wrong with this?  Of course not.  I encourage people to use their voices to the best of their ability to back whatever ideology seems best to them.  Furthermore, I encourage people to rationally test that ideology, and I founded this group as an open forum for people to bring their ideas, no matter what they are, to be discussed and debated.  All opinions are open -- even the unpopular ones.

The Owensboro Freethinker’s, though, is a group based on a certain ideology of its own.  That ideology promotes open discussion, open criticism, and open ridicule.  Free speech is all-encompassing.  It is that which allows us to root for our candidate and curse the opposition’s nominee while still retaining our lives.  It is that which allows us to create interest groups to promote agendas, but limits the other group from committing violent reprisals.  It is that which allows us to safely appreciate and create satire and humor directed at the absurd.

So, what does this have to do with religion?  Well, in matters of faith – everything.  I’ve proposed a personal litmus test to determine whether or not we come off as anti-religious in nature, and this litmus test can extend to any ideology promoted in the group by the majority.  There are three simple questions one should ask one’s self if pondering such an issue:

“Does my belief encourage rational discussion and disagreement?”
“Does my belief tolerate and encourage either passive or active criticism from others?”
“Is my belief founded on solid evidence to support its claims?”

If you have answered 'no' to these, then our group, because of the leanings of many of the members, will probably seem anti-religious to you.  Here’s why:  those beliefs are incompatible with freethinking principles in general.

I believe the Owensboro Freethinkers will welcome all people, but all people will not feel welcome in the Owensboro Freethinkers.  That is natural.  Some will leave because we are deemed offensive due to some of us treating contemptible ideas with just that -- contempt.  Everyone in the group has a different ideological passion.  Mine is standing against superstition.  We have others who are aggressive in the realm of science, civil rights, and politics, just to name a few.  I view religious superstition as a hindrance to freethinking and, coupled with the fact that it's a large part of our social culture that has pervaded numerous different venues that influence our society, it is the focus of much of what I write about. As a student of history and politics, religion catches my fancy and I love discussing it, debating about it, and most of all, criticizing it.  That's my prerogative as a freethinker.

I welcome members to submit articles if they disagree with me and I HIGHLY encourage the public to comment if they agree or disagree with us; that’s what we are here for.  As a side note, speaking on behalf of the Freethinkers themselves, we ask that members or prospective members who enjoy writing, ranting, or raving to submit articles on different subjects – we don’t focus on religion alone, but religion is a focus and it’s mine in particular.  (We are hoping to have some excellent LBGT-focused entries coming soon from one of our other writers – keep an eye out!)  Religion is a big issue in Owensboro – I foresee it becoming an on-going topic in the group because we intend to establish dialogue, and our group acts as a counter-balance, in ways, to religious thought.  We will criticize, we may even satirize.  We have the freedom to do so, as unpopular as it is.  That's a big chunk of what we represent -- freedom.

As for those who may desire to join Owensboro Freethinkers, we welcome you to do so.  Our community, though, is mostly made up of people who are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, critics, pro-science, anti-superstition, believe in the separation of church and state, and pro-civil rights.  I did not form this group to be an Atheist group…but Atheism is a by-product of free thought.  Freethinking usually tends to lead to a rejection of dogmatic thought, bigoted thinking and policies, faith-based ideas with no basis in reality, and anti-scientific views because many of us embrace the opposing views rooted in evidence.  This doesn’t represent all of us, but it does represent what freethinking tends to lean towards, and some of us in the group do embrace those ideologies passionately.  There also tends to be a liberal slant because liberal ideas are usually progressive ones, and we seek progress in society.  Much of that progress is brought forth by exposing the absurdities in some beliefs and some of us do feel that faith-based belief is absurd, hence fair game for discussion and ridicule.  Religion, to some of us, falls into that category.  Will that turn some people away?  Sure.  As a freethinker, my very existence – standing and saying “this is wrong, this is absurd, or this isn’t right” will bring conflict, especially if the subjects are touchy.  I welcome it, as there is no good discussion without conflicting views.

So, to the original question, are freethinkers anti-religious or anti-religion?  The group itself is founded on freethinking ideas which are not very compatible with religious ideology, and in some issues where the opposing side is backed by religious belief (abstinence-only education as an off-example), some of us will aggressively call that belief into question.  However, I cannot speak for the group, but I can speak as a member of the group and I can give my opinion on our philosophy.  If I call myself a freethinker, I must by default call myself anti-religious due to matters of principle.  If religion requires faith, establishes a dogma that cannot be questioned, discourages criticism and rational discussion, and cannot offer concrete evidence for their claims…then yes, I, as a freethinker am anti-religious due to the incompatibility of dogma with freethinking values.  Most freethinkers will be accused of being anti-religious because we operate on a fundamentally different path than those who rely on faith.  We will (and I in particular) will discuss religion and how it pertains to our community because Owensboro has a large community of believers and it's a topic I find ripe with potential commentaries.  It doesn't mean I (or we) hate believers, or are not friendly to people who practice a belief.  We respect the people and welcome anyone -- beliefs are different.  Many of us draw that line between faith and critical thought and ask those with faith to "prove it".  Ideological conflict is inevitable and some people will feel offended; I respect your right to practice what you believe and to say what you want; however is no such thing as the “right to protected beliefs”.

Anything is fair game to discussion and ridicule – exempting a topic from such takes the “free” out of freethinking.

The Ten Commandments of Freethinking

The Owensboro Freethinkers was a group originally formed to bring together like-minded folks who agree on a certain subset of values, and in order to alleviate any confusion on what those values may be, we have a list of ten statements that mostly represents us as a group, and hopefully it will offer the general public an idea of where we’re coming from, and what we represent.

It worked for the Christians and the Jews – don’t see why it can’t work for us as well:

1. Thou shalt have freedom of thought…

The term “freethinker” is a relatively new term on the social scene, though it can be retroactively applied to many famous folks in history who may have been, in spirit, a freethinker, but sans the label.  The definition of a freethinker is an evolving one, and it’s up for interpretation and debate, but the Owensboro Freethinkers use an amalgamation of definitions provided by Merriam Webster and a self-proposed definition offered by the Evansville Freethinkers, our sister group in Indiana.  Our definition stands as such:  “one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.  Individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason, and that opinions should be formed on the basis of science and logic, without being influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.”  To boil the notion of freethinking down to a palpable sound-bite, we encourage folks to “think whatever they want, but be able to rationally back it up”.  Freethinkers believe that no person should be restricted, intimated, or coerced into believing, thinking, or espousing a position, point of view, or way of thinking unless they reached it on their own grounds through rational and critical thought.

2. Thou shalt have freedom of speech…

“I do not agree with what you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – (Attributed to) Voltaire

In conjunction with the first value, we believe that people should be able to freely express their opinions and views, regardless of how controversial, uncomfortable, unpopular, or off-beat the view is.  Furthermore, we believe in healthy and, most importantly, open discussion and debate on these subjects without any fear of unreasonable reprisal.  Most freethinkers value the 1^st Amendment which guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but as the Clash once said:  “you have the right to free speech…as long as you’re not dumb enough to try it”.  There are consequences to what people say and write, but we encourage healthy dialogue between those who hold opposite views.  Our group stands for the notion that “any ideas are intellectual fair game”.

3. Thou shalt value humanity…

Many of us freethinkers are also secular humanists or variations thereof, which believe that, for a lack of better definition, mankind is the end-all, be-all.  We grow together, we die together – the details between are very important to us.  We have a realistic view of mankind, but we see the potential in our species to rise above many of the ideological and social fetters that have caused us quite a bit of harm in the past.  Many of our own independent ideas encourage the progression of humanity to a better future, and the best way to ensure a better future is the continual improvement of today.  We stand to help our fellow man.

4. Thou shalt encourage and perform critical and rational thought…

We promote critical and rational thought as the best means to our ends as a species.  Until the advent of the scientific method – a product of the Enlightenment – society as a whole, particularly from the fall of Rome until relatively recently, was based on unreasonable superstition, dogmatic beliefs, and rampant, unchecked spiritualism.  In Western Society, the virtues found behind critical thinking have assisted mankind in rising from the mire of the medieval ages, and now because of the scientific method, we enjoy modern technology, longer life spans, lower mortality rates, cures to diseases long thought to be scourges from God, and an overall, improved lifestyle.  History has taught us the value of thought based on reason, and our position as a group encourages a society based on said mode of thinking.  We stand behind institutions that can better man by exercising these values – science being one major institution in particular.

5. Thou shalt not restrict or infringe upon another human being’s rights…

We believe in the power of our United States constitution.  We believe that our country was founded on a reasonable amount of individual liberty and freedom, and as such, we discourage groups and organizations discriminating on sexual, racial, religious, or political basis (or any other basis not listed).  As long as we are productive citizens, we are all entitled to the same basic rights and liberties regardless of who we are.  We also believe in debating what those rights are, and how far they extend.  As Ben Franklin said (and I paraphrase here) democracy is “two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner”.  We believe in protecting the lamb’s right to not be devoured by the whims of the wolves. 

6. Thou shalt promote education…

If the lock to a better society needs a key to open humanity to better results, education – a good education – is that key.  We believe that no person should be denied an education, and we believe that education is not a twelve-year agonizing experience for children, nor a four-year rat-race for young adults in college and university.  We believe that education is a life-long endeavor, and that to be a productive, well-informed citizen capable of giving back to society, one must be educated.  We promote constant, continuous, and unfettered learning.  We are all students; we are all teachers.

7. Thou shalt encourage fair government, fair economics, a fair society, and equal opportunities…

This is open-ended, but we encourage all citizens to use their faculties to better mankind, and we universally stand for the idea of fairness.  Realistically, there will never be a fair society, but we encourage systems built to promote fair society:  the law of our land, our political systems, public activism, free trade of ideas and discourse, etc.  

8. Thou shalt value thy life – it is the only one thou hast…

Most of us do not believe in a god or higher power.  Some of us do.  Those who don’t realize that this is the only life we have, and time should not be squandered.  We have one shot at improving mankind, and we live in a time where the opportunity to do so has rarely been so ample.  We believe in enjoying our lives and appreciating what we have because it is finite.  We believe in bettering the planet for our progeny.

9. Thou shalt be an active citizen…

We promote being pro-active in the community and lending a helping hand where needed.  Most of these latter statements are all tied together with the thread of activism.  We believe that, in order to initiate change, one should vote, start groups, start clubs, bring attention to issues, use their voices, and do whatever is reasonably allowed within our culture to bring about any change desired.  There is no point in having a society or country “for the people” if the people do not have any stake in it.  A healthy citizen recognizes they have a vested interest in society, and he or she does their best to participate.

10. Thou shalt not lie…

Ok, you caught us – we borrowed this one from Exodus, but we like this one.  Freethinkers and those associated with the philosophy must, above all, be honest with others and, most importantly, to ourselves.  Freethinkers love to learn, we love to grow, but we don’t know everything.  We try not to be pretentious, but in the course of discussion and debate, we do ask for evidence to back up claims, and we take little, if anything, on faith.  We ask for and promote intellectual and moral honesty.  We promote honest critical inquiry, and we normally loath dishonesty.  No person is perfect, but if the truth is to be sought and pursued, one should not do it by dishonest means.  We don't know if the truth will set us free...but it sure helps us get by.

Owensboro Freethinkers -- Welcome!

Greetings!  We are the Owensboro Freethinkers and welcome to our blog.  We are your friendly neighborhood atheists, agnostics, humanists, skeptics, critics, and all-around pro-free speech and free thought folks who have decided to form together a group based on our values.  As self-identifying freethinkers, we stand behind freedom of speech, freedom of thought, critical thinking, the scientific method, healthy skepticism and open discussion/debate.  To invest our group into the community, we've created an Owensboro Freethinkers blog -- a forum for us to express our views, touch on whatever topics tickle our fancy, and, most importantly, a place for dialogue.  We have several different writers who will take the reigns on different issues, but you will mostly find articles placed here written by our group members, discussing our interests both in and out of the community, concrete and abstract.

We will cover current events in Owensboro, Kentucky, and abroad; we may write about religion, politics, science, and social issues.  We believe in the free discussion of ideas and, as our group affirms, any idea is fair game for critical analysis.  You will probably read articles written by folks upon topics reaching conclusions you may or may not agree with, to which we welcome you to leave us your reaction.  We encourage and promote debate, skepticism, criticism, and general discussion.  This blog is our public forum. 

If you're interested in joining the group, please check out our Facebook page (Owensboro Freethinkers).  Enjoy!