I’ve spent more time reading posts and comments on skeptic and freethought blogs in the past two weeks than I had in the previous six months combined. It started with Ben Radford’s article about Riley on Discovery News, then I read Ben’s articles at weareskeptixx, Rebecca’s response, Ben’s reply on the CFI blog, several of PZ Myers’ responses to Ben, and many other recent posts about blogging, sexism, privilege, skepticism, and free expression. This week I think I’ve spent an hour a day reading related posts and comments on Pharyngula, Almost Diamonds, and Greta Christina’s Blog, among others. I feel ridiculously in-the-loop about this stuff at the moment.

Some commenters say they’re tired of skeptics and freethinkers talking about sexism and privilege; some accuse freethoughtblogs.com and skepchick.org of being echo chambers and commenters of being “ditto-heads” (a term I’d never seen before). In my own organization, there are a few individuals who downplay the value of the skeptic/freethought blogosphere instead of seeing it as a valuable space for getting feedback, evaluating interest, building connections, and impacting attitudes, among other things.

So when I stumbled across this article from The Economist last night I found it particularly relevant. Titled “A less dismal debate,” the article says: “Blogs are blamed for cheapening debate in some fields. Yet they have enriched economics.” Here are a few paragraphs:

“[I]n an era when a blog can be set up with a few clicks, not everyone agrees that more voices and more choices improve the quality of debate. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, has argued that by allowing people to retreat into “information cocoons” or “echo chambers” in which they hear only views they agree with, the blogosphere fosters polarisation—a fear widely shared by politicians. Forbes once called blogs “the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective”.

Previous publishing revolutions, such as the advent of printing, prompted similar concerns about trivialisation and extremism. But whatever you think about the impact of blogging on political, scientific or religious debate, it is hard to argue that the internet has cheapened the global conversation about economics. On the contrary, it has improved it.

It’s interesting that it says “whatever you think about the impact of blogging on political, scientific or religious debate…” If blogging can enrich the discourse on economics, I believe blogging can also enrich the discourse in these other fields.

The article references a study titled “The Impact of Economics Blogs,” which attempts to measure three things. First, do blogs improve the dissemination of research findings, and are their readers more informed? Here are some of the perspectives the study authors took into consideration:

On the one hand, coupling the large readership of blogs with the argument of Cowen (2008) that the best ones are written at a level far higher than that of any major newspapers offers the promise that economics blogs may have sizeable effects on the dissemination of economic research and on the knowledge and attitudes of their readers. On the other hand, Sunstein (2008) argues that the blogosphere might be causing “group polarization” and creating “information cocoons” – making it unlikely that blogs would cause a significant change in the knowledge and attitudes of their readers. Bell (2006, p.75) summarizes another common perception of blogs, as “…a largely harmless outlet for extroverted cranks and cheap entertainment for procrastinating office workers.” Combined with the possibility that blogging gives scholars the freedom to write about topics outside their area of expertise (what Jacob T. Levy called public-intellectualitis’ in his blog) this would suggest that impacts of blogs are likely to be negligible.

Their conclusion: “There are large impacts on dissemination of research – a link on a popular blog results in a substantial increase in abstract views and downloads, while a majority of economics blog readers say they have read a new paper in the past month as a result of a blog.”

Second, does blogging raise the profiles of the writers? This one was easy; the answer is yes.

Third, do blogs lead to increased knowledge or changes in attitudes among readers? One way to evaluate this is to measure the influence of blogs on policy. (Remember, this is economics they’re talking about.) It seems the answer was inconclusive partly due to lack of data, but anecdotal evidence suggests that blogs can influence policy sometimes. Regarding attitudes, the study says, “we find some evidence from our experiment that blogs influence attitudes and knowledge…” but the study didn’t gather enough data to conclude that confidently.

So what am I trying to say here? I haven’t just been following the recent discussions in the skeptic/freethought blogosphere on sexism, privilege, and feminism for my own edification; I’ve also been bringing them to the attention of coworkers and friends because I believe the discourse is crucial. I think the blog discussions indicate a major shift in the culture of the movement, and—as can be expected when privilege is highlighted and challenged—the change can be painful, difficult, and sometimes divisive. Things have been “fine” for many individuals involved for a very long time, but other voices are speaking up, asking—then insisting—that their voices be heard, that their concerns be addressed, that the movement belong to them as much as it belongs to the demographics that have been comfortably represented for decades.

I am confident that blogs are an important tool driving this shift. After reading hundreds of blog comments in the last two weeks, I’m also certain that it’s not just the bloggers who have an impact; the commenters are a crucial part of the change that’s happening. If enough people speak up, others must listen. When people share their experiences, those become data. From data, we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions, even if some of the experiences may seem unreal to us. With those data and conclusions, more people will be educated and empowered to effect change.

Does this mean that every blog, and every blog community, is fostering progressive ideas? Of course not. But in this movement that values skepticism and critical thinking, we see that when members do these things poorly, they are often critiqued and criticized. And yes, there’s certainly mudslinging and ridicule and all the other kinds of behavior people might engage in when they think they’re right, someone else is wrong, and they’re offended. We have a long way to go, but—difficult as it may be—more and more people are joining in the effort and moving things forward.

As the article in The Economist says:

The back-and-forth between bloggers resembles the informal chats, in university hallways and coffee rooms, that have always stimulated economic research, argues Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prizewinning economist who blogs at the New York Times. But moving the conversation online means that far more people can take part. Admittedly, for every lost prophet there is a crank who is simply lost. Yet despite the low barriers to entry, blogs do impose some intellectual standards. Errors of fact or logic are spotted, ridiculed and corrected. Areas of disagreement are highlighted and sometimes even narrowed. Some of the best contributors do not even have blogs of their own, serving instead as referees, leaving thoughtful comments on other people’s sites and often criss-crossing party lines.

This debate is not always polite. But was it ever?

The discourse, and the process of changing our culture, is not always polite. Sometimes it gets ugly. Sometimes it drives people away. Sometimes it brings new people in. Again, the shift that’s taking place on blogs, in local groups, in our general movement can be painful, especially for those who were comfortable with the way things have been. But I’ve met many skeptics and freethinkers who are getting involved now because we’re addressing these important issues in our movement. And I’ve heard many new voices from individuals who felt that they couldn’t speak up before. Change is happening, and I am hopeful.

The Secular Student Alliance organized the panel as part of their innovative Leadership Track, which focused on topics of particular interest to student and off-campus organizers including fundraising, media outreach, and high school organizing.  It was good to see that so many people consider diversity and inclusivity issues to be a serious part of outreach and organizing, and I was honored to be invited to share my perspective at the session.

Here at CFI, we receive occasional   e-mails , phone messages, and   letters from very angry individuals who can’t believe we are so BLIND to the TRUTH about THE BIBLE/ESP/vaccines/aliens/God/Bigfoot/etc.  If I’m lucky enough to come across one in paper form, I save it in my “‘Fan’ Mail” file folder for future inspiration; e-mails are labeled similarly in Gmail.  Below is a recent favorite that was sent to the Council for Secular Humanism’s general e-mail address: (   name deleted for privacy )

  Hi Free Inquiry Folks:

  I would like to know what makes you so sure you are right and billions the faithful of all religions are wrong.  You spout off on all the reasons why faith is so old school and out dated yet you offer nothing, NOTHING at all to replace it.  If faith is what gets people through difficult times, if belief in JESUS gives them comfort, if the hope of salvation gives them a reason to follow the right path in this life, what is so wrong with that?  I am a scientist with advanced degrees including a doctorate in science and yet I still have room for faith in my life.  And yes, I also believe in evolution.  But even evolution itself could very well be part of GOD’s plan.  When we do anything even as simple as baking a cake we start from scratch (if we have any sense of pride as a chef we don’t start from a box or heaven forbid a store bought cake).  Why, pray tell, could it not be that GOD started with enzymes and amino acids in a primeval sea with us in mind all along.  What is it about faith that scares you so much?  I have this horrible, Stephen King, nightmare of a mental picture of you folks hissing like vampires when confronted with a cross or scurrying for the exits like cockroaches when someone shines the light of truth on you.  I will pray for the salvation of each and everyone of your souls.

  GOD Bless you, T——-

It’s good to see that we’re inspiring the creative spirit out there.

Demons are the new razors?  An article by a Kimberly Daniels that went up on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) website in the last day or two warned Christians of the demonic dangers of Halloween.  The response from the skeptical and secular quarters of the blogosphere was swift and fierce.  The Americans United for Separation of Church and State press release quoted one of the most eyebrow-raising parts of the article:

"[M]ost of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches," Daniels wrote. "I do not buy candy during the Halloween season.  Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference."

Interestingly, the original CBN webpage linked to from the AU piece now says, "We're sorry, the page you have requested cannot be found."

Fortunately for those of us who are curious about these sorts of things, the Google-cached page with the article can still be seen online.  You can also read the article where it was originally posted  a few days ago at CharismaMag.org, although that one comes with a disclaimer from the Editor:

Editor's Note: We realize that the article by Kimberly Daniels is controversial.  It reflects her own personal views—based on her many years of ministering to people involved in the occult.  We have chosen to post another column by Ken Eastburn which offers a different view of Halloween.  We welcome our readers to post comments on that article as well.  Click here to read Eastburn's article.

(For those of you who didn't click, Eastburn's article is titled "Why Christians Should Celebrate Halloween.")

I was going to leave the demonic candy thing alone, especially since the story's been around the intertubes quite a bit already.  Also, even though I blogged last month about a pastor who believes that there are demons in swine flu vaccinations , I reeeeally didn't think that there could be a significant number of people out there who believe in literal demons (even if Paranormal Activity is currently #2 at the box office).  However, an article from those trusty folks at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life served as a reminder that there are indeed LOTS of Americans who think that "angels and demons are active in the world."  Here are some stats they give us from a 2007 survey:

• 68% of Americans "completely or mostly agree that angels and demons are active in the world."
• 88% of Mormons, and 87% of evangelical Christians, agree.
• Also, 95% of Jehovah's Witnesses agree (but they're probably not doing any trick-or-treating for Halloween anyway, so they won't have to worry about the demons in the candy).
• Jews were the group most likely to disagree—73% didn't think that angels and demons are active in the world.
• Of the "religiously unaffiliated", the group most readers of this blog would likely fall into, 40% still completely or mostly agree that angels and demons are active in the world.

Two-thirds of Americans believe in angels and demons?  Now that is scary.  Chew on those numbers as you chew on your potentially-possessed Halloween candy this weekend.

Today, he shows his support for Blasphemy Day in the latest "Penn Says" video :

The idea for Blasphemy Day International came from a CFI student group leader who approached CFI in the spring about putting its organizational support behind the proposed event—which I'm proud to say we did.  Although controversial, defending the rights of free expression and free inquiry includes defending the right to blaspheme.  As Paul Kurtz and Tom Flynn said , we need "to affirm the right to blaspheme by exercising it."

By the way, Penn mentions that "America should be very ashamed of" shirking from publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons .  That makes me especially proud that Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism , was one of the first North American publications bold enough to print more than one of the twelve cartoons.  (And for that, Borders bookstore refused to carry the issue .)

E-mails like this would be funnier, and less frightening, if it weren't the case that some anti-vaccination proponents might actually be coming from this kind of perspective... (see the bottom of this blog post for some examples).

An End-Time-Vision...
==============
While trying to prepare my message, (27.Aug.2009) the Lord showed me a vision.

I saw a large pasture with very many sheep. All of a sudden, from every direction and from all over, came wolves upon the herd, mixing themselves amongst the sheep. Neither the shepherds nor the shepherd dogs (of utmost importance) sounded any alarm. They lay on the floor as if hypnotized. There was just a bit of panic within the herd. The sheep did notice that something was wrong, but they took no serious note of what was happening. They just continued grazing in a relaxed manner. The shepherds and the shepherd dogs on the other hand noticed nothing.

As I observed closely, I saw the wolves, which had fangs like snakes in their mouths, tweak (pinch or prick) the sheep on their buttocks. These twitched briefly, and then continued their relaxed grazing. After a short while, the wolves ran from the herd, withdrawing themselves again into the mountains, without having stolen a sheep or inflicted any visible harm on them.

On seeing all these things, I thought to myself. ‘This is not at all possible, that wolves would come amongst sheep and not harm them. This is out of character! Then as the wolves left the sheep, I saw all of a sudden the leader of the wolf pack, together with his whole wolf followership on a high cliff. It was like a great beast; a monster. Then the wolves began to howl and yelp. The shepherd, shepherd dogs and all the sheep were terrified, shivering and shocked.

And the leader of the pack began, like a demon, to speak with a deep human voice. “My dear shepherds, dogs and all my dear sheep. You now belong to us. We have you completely in our hands. We were amongst you, without your noticing anything. We worked amongst you in disguise. We even inoculated you with a "serum" that makes you now ours. You are all, as at now, bearing our “mark”. We have also inoculated you with our spirit and data, without your having been aware. There is now no more escape for you. The whole flock is now under our control.

I then said in my spirit “No! The Lord is my shepherd. I will have nothing to do with the devil and his demons. I will not have them as my shepherds”. Then spoke the leader of the wolf pack even further with a sneer on his face, saying “the sheep here ate and slept. Your bellies and welfare was more important to you.

Now hear what this demon said to me very clearly: We have now come to take revenge for our man of the Gadarenes. (See Mark  5:1-17) Back then, your Lord cast us out of him, and we had to flee into sweine and spring into the abyss. Now though, we have recovered and are strong enough to leave our cursed dwellings again. We have therefore returned from the abyss to take revenge against him (Jesus) and his works. These sheep all grazing here have been infected by our demons from the abyss. They can no longer escape. They belong to us absolutely.

I was shocked!
===========
Here, God spoke to me saying ‘my son, every person will be asked to compulsorily take immunization against the swine flu in the next few days. This is a disguise. They will in the process be infected with demons from the abyss; all who do not have my spirit and my seal upon them. Yes, it will be such that that they will receive a deadly spirit inoculated into them. This will allow the wolves do with them what they like. Whoever does not follow them, antagonises or stands against them in any way, will be eliminated at the touch of a button.

For such will there be no more escape from them. Yes it is true, my son says the Lord. These cursed spirits will arise again out of the abyss and return through the ‘swine’ to continue their mischief amongst the people who neither know nor follow me. I however, with my church will do same as then. We will depart from that area. So will those demons from the abyss exterminate one third of humanity.

Then said the Lord to me further. But you, my children, who follow me, must be bold and brave, and say NO! Do not allow yourselves to be pricked and inoculated. You must consistently trust me. I will take you with me to the other shore, and we will continue there. For you my children, life goes on quite normally. You are my sheep. You hear my voice and follow me. And I send you as sheep amongst wolves. (Matthew 10.16) Warn all my children and all men of good will against this  worldwide compulsory inoculation. It appears harmless. It is not!

It is more the return on the ancient demons of the abyss. Warn everyone! Even when you are termed “paranoid” and “terrorist”. You are my children, and my people. You are holy. You should therefore have no other ‘stigma’ in your bodies. Your body is a temple for my holy spirit, and not a secret dwelling for demons, which had been cast out by me, from which I delivered you, says the Lord. I am passing on this message as it was given me.

Dear friends,we are right in the end times. Watch quite carefully, what happens to you and your children. The devil is, and remains a liar. Und he has no good intentions. I was shaken, when God showed me this vision with the swine, in connection with the whole thing about immunization against swine flu.

The believers are about to undergo the end times test, where will be shown, whether we have enough resistance power, enough to say NO.

You are not defenceless. God gave you his Holy Spirit and the whole armour (see Ephesians 6: 16-17). These you will now need and must soon make use of. If you are not yet a true child of God, repent! Be baptized and be filled the Holy Spirit, so that the seal of God will be upon your life (Ephesians 1:1,13, 4:30 and Revelations 7:3&4) and you cannot be touched for the devil.

Do write me a few lines.
I would like to keep praying for you.

Pastor Joh.W.Matutis.

For a few examples of people taking this hogwash (pardon the pun) seriously, look here : "DONT let your child get this vac. If your child is vac - and begins acting horrible - take them thru deliverance prayers."

or here: "They decided that instead of just injecting the demons into our water along with the chlorine used to make it cleaner they would go through this process of sneaking it in by making people come in for the shot that way it is less avoidable because not everyone drinks water or takes a shower."

or here : "that the enemy is capable of unimaginable tactics in their endeavors to take captive an unsuspecting world, and bring them ultimately under the power of anti-christ."

or here : "...we know that evil people in the rock music industry have placed demonic curses upon many of their products prior to distribution."

...or just Google the first sentence of the story , take a look at the comments, and weep.

Hi, I'm informing you about a hot new Atheist rapper who has music that has the potential to crossover to the mainstream media…This is a Good way to turn Atheists views into "cool" views.

I'm informing you because if you know of any Atheist friendly radio shows, tv shows, magazines, newsletters, or ect. I would like to be a guess and tell a story and have a few songs played or even perform if it's a tv show or if it's magazines or newletters, I would like an article about the music.

...I need as much as support I can get from Atheist organizations. The purpose of my  music is to promote Atheist views and improve the image of Atheists

I did a quick YouTube search and found the song "Roll with an Atheist"—it sounded like interesting stuff, not as skilled as some music out there, but decent nonetheless.  I sent a friend request on Facebook to stay on top of news.

That's all I thought about it, until last week.  At some point I saw an update from Charlie on my Facebook wall that said,

Advantages of being homophobic: Befriending faggots is possibly inviting uninvited come ons. Homophobia scares off dykes and faggots. Some dykes and faggots prey on straight people. Gay friendly straight people are homos main targets. Why invite uninvited come ons?

Huh, I thought.  Maybe I read that wrong.

But a couple of days later, I saw another status update from Charlie: "new song "NO GAY MARRIAGE"".

That's when I decided a little more investigation might prove worthwhile.

Well, I checked out his main website and listened to a few song snippets.  Besides the aforementioned song titled "No Gay Marriage" (which begins with the lines "Something's wrong with your brain, why won't you just admit that something's wrong with your brain..."), there are songs called "Christian and a Homo" and "Dyke Chick".  I won't go into detail at the moment about my opinion of the viewpoint expressed in these songs.  Let's say for now that I strongly disagree with the message.

But now I was faced with a dilemma.  Should I defriend Charlie on Facebook, since I didn't want it to be implied that I support his views in any way, or should I maintain the weak Facebook relationship we have because it's at least worthwhile to keep tabs on his postings?  I decided to throw the question out publicly to my Facebook friends along with a link to Charlie's site.

The response was quick and passionate.  This one sums up the views pretty well: "Wow. I would drop-kick this clown off my list so fast....."

One person alerted me to the fact that Charlie Check'm had already been banned from the social networking site Atheist Nexus , "[not] for his views (as atrocious as they are) but rather for the hateful way in which they were expressed and related troll-like behavior."  (More on this below.)

That could've been the end of it, but I hadn't yet defriended Charlie on Facebook.  And at some point he decided to chime in with a response to the comments:

I'm bored so I think Ill just fuck with you faggots for a while. Homophobia scares off faggots and dykes which is a good thing. It doesnt matter if I'm really a homophobe or not. What's important is that faggots and dykes think I am. I don't want to worry about a faggot pretending to be my friend when he secretely just wants to suck my dick. I want to make sure my friends are TRUE friends and not horney ass faggots. It's simply inappropriate…I just don't have much in common with faggots. Faggots think about sticking their dicks in men shit holes and I think about sexy women. I talk about women a lot and I know faggots wouldn't be interested in that.

A later comment:

but I can appeal to lots of Christians who are smart enough to know a MALE IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE A MALE'S BRAIN. So you faggot and dyke atheists are suppose to be smart but you don't even know that penises and shit holes don't go together...Now that's some nasty ass shit. So Pro-faggot Atheists can see that God believers are delusional but they can't see a dyke bitch is crazy when a dyke bitch claims to not like men but finds a woman who DRESSES LIKE A MAN, TALKS LIKE A MAN, WALKS LIKE A MAN, EVEN WEARS A FUCKIN STRAPPED ON FAKE DICK TO TRY AND TO BE A MAN. I'm a strong Atheist and dykes and faggots are crazier than God believers.

I'll spare you the further comments.

I mentioned that Charlie had been banned from Atheist Nexus already.  According to an article on examiner.com , he had also been invited to perform at an Atheist Nexus-sponsored "Live Dance Party" at the Atheist Alliance International convention in October, but the invitation to perform was revoked.  The article reports Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus saying, "While he is free to hold whatever views he chooses, he cannot represent Nexus in any form...While most of his statements were simply ignorant and prejudiced, there were a few that were clearly bigoted and hateful. Even when others tried to show him the error of his ways, he ignored their points and became even more repugnant."

That same article says that Charlie responded on MySpace with the following:

I'm an Atheist rapper/activist. The pro-gay Atheist  members at Atheist Nexus know this and they KNOW my music is good for Atheists and they KNOW I fight for Atheist BUT THEY DON'T CARE. If they don't care about the fight for Atheists, they don't care about atheism. They only care about their gay agenda.

Which brings me to the question I asked at the start: Should atheists, and those involved in the "atheist movement" (which overlaps the humanist, skeptic, freethought, etc. movements), be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views?  Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?

Another question: If someone does not rely on tradition or religious authority to form ethical views, are there any good reasons (besides "I find it yucky") to be so virulently homophobic?

I will also follow up on these issues in a future post.  I have pretty strong opinions on this, but I am also curious to see what the readers of this blog think.

(Disclaimer: These are, of course, my own views; they do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Inquiry nor of its affiliated organizations.)

So I’m at this social gathering last Friday evening, meeting new people who all seem much cooler than I am.  But I’m wearing my new cool-person dark-wash Levi’s, so I’m feeling pretty confident there as I lean against the wall, coolly, beer in hand.

I get into a conversation with one of a pair of friends there:

Girl 1: "So, what were you guys up to before I got to the party?"
Me: "We were just going through some Trivial Pursuit cards for fun."
Girl 1: "Oh, that does sound like fun!  So…what do you do for a living?"
Me: *pause* "I work for the Center for Inquiry in Amherst."
Girl 1: "The what?"
(Brain: Yeah, try to sum THAT up in a casual conversation.)
Me: "It’s a non-profit educational organization that promotes and defends science and secularism."
Girl 1: "...That sounds interesting.  Um, so, what do you guys actually   do there?"

So, I start in on the   Committee for Skeptical Inquiry , the   Council for Secular Humanism ,   CFI in Amherst , the   international Centers ,   campus groups ,   Office of Public Policy ,   Jesus Project ...

Ten minutes (at least I   hope it was only ten minutes) pass.

Me: "...and, we even have a   full-time paranormal investigator on staff!"
Girl 1: "Wow, that’s awesome!  You’re actually doing important stuff.  Religions try to force such crazy ideas on people, but you’re actually working to try to make the world a better place!"
Me: *ego inflates a little, but playing it cool*  "Yeah, it’s a great place to be, and I work with fantastic people."

The party continues on.  About half an hour later, the pair of friends is sitting on the couch chatting with the evening’s host while I casually listen to their conversation.  (I don’t remember the finer details, but I’ll try to relay the gist of things.)

Girl 1: "...I really miss being in a relationship with Eric.  But I’m much more outspoken than he is."
Host: "That’s because you’re an Aquarius.  Both of you (gestures to pair) are Aquariuses."
(Brain: ...Uh oh.)
Girl 2: "Heh, yeah.  And he was what, a Sagittarius?  Yep, that’s usually trouble."
Girl 1: "You’re right, I don’t usually get along with them.  But our moon signs were compatible, so I thought it might work out.  What’s your moon sign?"
Girl 2: "Scorpio, but I’m an Aries mask."
Girl 1: "That totally makes sense.  My moon sign is Gemini, which is really true!"
(Brain: Whaaa…?)
(Me: Shush, Brain.  Stop making my face look skeptical!  Neutral face, neutral face.)
Girls 1 and 2 turn to me: "What about you?"
(Brain: Tell them you think it’s bunk!)
(Me: Quiet!  I’m trying to be social here!)
Me: "I, uh, don’t really go for that stuff.  Everything I’ve ever read about my sign hasn’t described me very well anyway."
Girl 2: "So, what   is it?"
(Brain: It’s a load of crap, that’s what it is!)
(Me: Stop being antagonistic!  I just met these people and you’re trying to ruin it for me!)
Me: "Well, see if you can guess."
(Brain: Good move.)
Host: "Wait, wasn’t your birthday just two weeks ago?  You’re a Taurus, right?"
Girls 1 & 2: "Oh, yeah, that makes sense."
Me: "No, it was in mid-April.  But it doesn’t matter anyway."  *pause*  "April 16th."
Girl 1: "So, you’re an Aries?  I never would’ve guessed that.  I don’t usually get along with Aries."
Me: "Well, considering these Zodiac signs were calculated thousands of years ago, and the Earth’s alignment with the constellations has shifted since then, they don’t really line up anymore.  So I might actually be a Pisces by now…not that it matters much…"
Girl 2: "Well, what’s your moon sign?"
Me: "My what?  I’m sorry, I don’t know what that is."
(Brain: I do!  It’s a steaming pile of horsesh—)
(Me: SHUT UP!)

Girls 1 and 2 proceed to explain "moon signs" and "masks" to me while I try to figure out how to politely ask them why in the world they might think that 1/12th of the world’s population could possibly exhibit eerily similar personality characteristics because of the date of their birth, or what they think the mechanism might be for constellation arrangements and sun position on the date of birth to impact future behavior, fortune, and personality (perhaps slightly different gravitational pulls on amniotic fluid?), or whether Chinese zodiac mythology also figures into these calculations; or maybe I’d tell them about James Randi’s classic horoscope experiment in which he gives everyone in a classroom the same horoscope and each person thinks it applies specifically to him, or…

As I’m plotting my next move, trying to figure out how to be a good skeptic without alienating new potential friends I’ve known for all of 45 minutes, more people come into the apartment, which ends the conversation on zodiac signs.  But that voice inside my head keeps nagging me:

(Brain: Ask her why she believes in astrology!  Ask her why she thinks religion is crazy but is willing to think that her birthdate might have something to do with her breakup with Eric!  Ask her what she thinks astrology’s mechanism is!  C’mon, just one little question!)
(Me: That’s enough, Brain!  I warned you.  Now I’m just going to have to put more beer in you.)
(Brain: Phooey.  You just wait.  You won’t be able to hold back for long.  Trust me, I know you too well.)
(Me: What?  I can’t hear you over the sound of this beer I’m chugging.)
(Brain: Damn it!)

Metro State Atheists has had a stellar year: they’ve hosted major events on campus featuring blogger   PZ Myers ,   New York Times bestselling author   Victor Stenger , and astrobiologist   David Grinspoon , and, as part of the Colorado Coalition of Reason (   COCORE ), were involved with the placement of billboards around Denver saying, "Don’t believe in God?  You are not alone."  Metro State Atheists president Joel Guttormson acted as spokesperson during the media flare-up surrounding the billboards.  (See the   January 2009 Campus Inquirer article describing the controversy.)

Congratulations also to Metro State Atheists for   winning MSCD Student Organization of the Year !  (Question—am I the only one who smiles a little when I see the word "ATHEISTS" emblazoned on an award like this?)

Guess not.

I’m generally fortunate when it comes to confrontation with religious individuals.  My immediate family is largely non-religious, my friends are mostly atheists and agnostics, my officemates are overwhelmingly on the same skeptical page as I am (lucky me!), and I don’t have a kooky grandmother who insists on sending me Bibles in hope that I’ll start attending church again.

So when the occasional angry message is left on my phone along the lines of, “‘The FOOL has said in his heart, “There is no God!”’  You’re all going to BURN IN THE FLAMES OF HELL!” *slam receiver* I forward it around to a handful of others in the office and smile with them about it.  It’s good to see that we’re having an impact out there.

I also keep a “Fan Mail” file in my desk with some of the more noteworthy replies we’ve received, several which display a Tarantino-esque fluency with choice words.

Looking at this latest addition to my file, I feel renewed respect for the modus operandus of most freethinking types when they disagree with someone or something.  Rarely do you see an atheist, humanist, or skeptic in the public sphere shouting, red-faced, veins bulging, spittle flying, trying to pound a point of view into someone’s face on Fox News or at a rally.  (I know it happens sometimes, but not often.)  Rather, we tend to utilize reasoned arguments backed by science to defend or promote our viewpoint and issues.  I can’t imagine taking the time to write “Die, Pro-Lifers!!!” or “@!*# You, Pat Robertson!” on a mailer I disagree with and sending it back in—although now that I’m thinking about it…

As for this latest message, I’m really curious about what the writer means by the cryptic phrase "Real Science will return."  It’s too bad I probably won’t ever find out what it means, as I don’t foresee getting the chance to have a meaningful dialogue with the author about it.  Oh, well, I won’t lose any sleep over it.