During the late 1950′s and early 1960′s, the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union was hot. Both sides built and tested rockets as quickly as they could, trying to be the first to launch an artificial satellite into orbit, often with explosive results. Both sides had their successes, and both sides had their failures. People around the world watched and listened. Some, most notably amateur radio operators, listened more closely than others. And of these, a pair of young brothers from Italy, Achille and Giovanni Judica-Cordiglia, reigned supreme. Their library of audio recordings of nearly every flight from the space race is by far the most comprehensive private collection known. But the real reason it’s notable is that includes a number of recordings of alleged events that didn’t make it into the history books: doomed Soviet cosmonauts captured in their final moments of life, on flights that the Soviets said never happened.

Brian Dunning

Science writer Brian Dunning is the host and producer of the podcast Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena (skeptoid.com), applying critical thinking to urban legends and popular pseudoscientific subjects promoted by the mass media. Skeptoid has a weekly audience of 157,000 listeners. Brian is also the author of four books based on the podcast. A computer scientist by trade, Brian uses new media to showcase the rewards of science and critical thinking. He has appeared on numerous radio shows and television documentaries, and also hosts the science video series inFact with Brian Dunning (infactvideo.com). He is a member of the National Association of Science Writers.

The talk will be October 27 at 6:30 pm in Fisher Science(Building 33) Room 286. The talk is free and open to the public. This talk is cohosted by the Alliance of Happy Atheists and Atheists United San Luis Obispo.

This is a summary of the upcoming events for Fall Quarter. We would like anyone and everyone to give input about these ideas and post if you have any other ideas for future events.

We have a new shirt design that is yet to be finalized but take a look! We plan on cleaning up the the images a little before we prepare for print. Also, if you take a closer look there is a tiny Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan (with pie!) on the first shirt. We will not be printing the shirts with these drawings included, but we will probably use them on future promotions. The back of the shirt will be a white version of our logo on blue, centered and of moderate size.

Hemant has worked with the Center for Inquiry and the Secular Coalition for America, and now serves on the board of directors for Foundation Beyond Belief (a charity organization targeting non-theistic donors). He is also the former chair of the board of the Secular Student Alliance. Hemant runs a popular blog, The Friendly Atheist on patheos, an interfaith web community. He is the author of “I Sold my Soul on eBay”. This will take place in the Business Silo, Building 3, room 213.

All non-theists and non-theist friendly individuals are invited to attend. Hemant Mehta is known for his work bridging the communication gap we sometimes face with one another, and this talk is intended for everyone.

Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/events/268352129925483/

Get The Flyer!
HemantMehtaFlyer (PDF)

Ann Coulter presentation

Liberal mobs started demonic occupation of Wall Street after her book came out

Their infernal use of slogans. They mean nothing. It is kind of like an Obama Speech.

Bush lied kids died.

They mean nothing, kind of like a Obama speech.

No blood for oil. What? That’s insane.There is no better reason to go for war.

We need oil. Its like no blood for oxygen. We need oil.

War is not the answer.

Of course it depends on what the question was.

What does any of bummer stickers mean?

What does it mean “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms.”

Discussion on that.

You can’t destroy a small soviet city with a child.

It was slogans that got Obama elected.

We are the ones we are waiting for.

Third choice slogan I’m going to raise the debt by $5 trillion and not create a single job

He has created a financial miracle

Redistribution of income

First he passed a $1trillion stimulus billion, mostly just stimulated the government

He says he created or saved the jobs,

What happened to the last trillion?

Democrats are crack whores that spent all the money.

We need to ask them what happened to the last trillion.

“That went to public teachers pensions” It’s wasted.

Obamacare will never work. People will be forget.

“ Yea sure that is going to be a big money saver”

52-60% are against.

About 60% are in favor of its repeal.

“We all hate obama care”

It was supposed to be a solution

Which service providers, have the strongest lobbyist.

Similarly, you get health insurance in case you get a disease.

Have you ever heard of a family dying because they couldn’t afford contraception

I predict that if obama gets reelected

the woman in charge of health and human services..

She will start requiring that the insurance companies will start manufacturing stats that the cost should go up if you have a gun in the home.

Health insurance should work like car insurance, you should be able to pick or choose what you want

Health insurance is going to be like the DMV, the lines are going to be as long and maybe worse.

Obama told the truth because the ppl that were making $250,000 are out of a job.

6. % unemployment when he came in
7. 8.1% taken it up to 10% through the passed three years and now to 8.6.

It is like a doctor that takes ur fever higher and then 3 years takes it down

Under Obamacare you will not be able to see a doctor for 3 years

It was through waterboarding that we found bin laden.

It is torture that worked.

My point is, we found him in 10 years, had we used torture maybe it would have been faster.

Between the arab spring putting crazier ppl in charge, things are out of control

Obama is going to be very hard to beat this year.

NFM (Non fox media), he makes it sound like he personally killed Bin Laden.

Voters are happy to have the first black president

“When will it be okay to say we elected a man based on the color of his skin”

It is difficult to take out a incumbent

Regan didn’t do it thru calling him a socialist

He’s appointing a bunch of lefties

The only people calling for hope and change are us

You probably hear this all the time, but this is the most important election of our lives because if we do not repeal obama care, it will never repeal it

There was not one republican that voted for it.

You collect 10 years of taxes and only give out “treats” at the end

The CBO can be manipulated with the question. If you put in a bunch of assumptions then you can give it to them and they will give you the answer you want.

***End presentation***

I will take questions

***Notes are incomplete as I was listening to questions**

I’ve written columns where I show that Mitt is much more conservative than the other guys.

All democrats are dying to give hispanics immunity.

No, I dont think Rick Santorum understands the difference between states and federal.

What was Santorum talking about banning contraception.

The state is not banned from doing that.

Mitt dealt with 85% liberal senate in MASS.

Mitt Rommey, how can you say he is the most conservative when Ron Paul is the most conservative?

I’m very soft on Ron Paul. He’s made a pact with Santorium.

uh..

Your obviously not following me on twitter, I would want Mitt to put him in charge of domestic policy.

He doens;ty understad other things

We need an arab isareal.

The Republican message is we send out troops when we need to rein in on some.

Ron Paul never sends out troops…Well we can’t do that.

Paul speak the truth and I like that

Blacks die more in war, that is not true

Blacks are imprisoned longer

He is not the truth teller I was hoping for.

He is my second choice. That is how bad I think the other candidates

Where is the government on SB28 where Homosexuality is promoted in textbooks.

Education is not up to the federal government.

Its not up to the federal government.

It is up to the states.

Governments should not be involved in education. Send it back to the states.

Santorum wants to create a bigger federal programs

I do not want that, we need smaller government.

Do you support The Fed?

I guess this is the Ron Paul section, I do not know.

If we put Ron Pual in charge of domestic policy

Christy? How does the words change

He vetoed it because he said put it to a vote

“Young people are always stupid”

“The linchpin of civil society is mother and father

(PPL booing) This is the problem with single motherhood, you raise little brats”

You get further amounts criminality and homosexuality

We should do everything possible to protect marriage. Marriage should only be between man and woman

Referred to Charles Murray several times.

There is nothing that can be done.

More than 50% of children being born to Women under 30 are illegitimate?

How can you name call the blacks in this country these rude names?

You cannot criticize him because any criticism is called racist.

You cannot say anything racist.

I respect blacks, but do not treat them like little darlings, treat them like grown up.

I respect them, unlike you.

Who do you think Rommey’s Best VP is?

I wish I could choose…I told him you better be as much of a right wing as i’m saying, but I would pick christy. It might be Rommey.

The democrats do not really have anyone after Obama to put forward as a candidate

This is question and answer period, I’m the one giving the speech. Maybe one day you can give a speech like I can. (To a questioner.)

How can Obama be compared to Flav Flav?

That is what is known as a joke…duh

Wasn’t it misleading to say Santorum voted against e-verify when he was really voting against amnesty?

No..he did some stuff on Immigration, but nothing else

Romney has supported a bunch of liberal ideas, how can u say he’s conservative

Every budget he put forward had cuts in it. He did it by cutting spending and increasing fees. And very specific things. Fishing fees, bar exam fees, etc. He had to do it.

Billion dollar deficient was left by the governor after Romney.

How would you fix the governments monopoly on education?

State by state it would be voucher systems.

We need to take the senate. (Republican)

If Ferini (sp?) cant beat Boxer then I feel sorry for you people.

Thank you.

No more questions

If you had spent less time trying to give a speech and actually asked questions we could have gotten to everyone.

From Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

From dictionary.com

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

From merriam webster:

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

From American Atheists:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.

Before beginning to discuss what atheism is, I would like to take note of definition one from Merriam Webster dictionary, which provides an archaic definition of atheism as “ungodliness or wickedness”, as I shall revisit this definition below.

There are a number of commonalities across these definitions. First, that atheism is either the denial of the existence of deities(“supreme beings”) or that atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. The former of these two is usually what is meant by an individual when they discuss atheism, but is this the best definition of atheism? It is important to remember that a key purpose of language is to allow for the expression of relationships between ideas. If this definition does not allow us to accurately express how ideas are related to each other, in this case, how one views questions regarding the existence of god, than it is a useless definition. It is my contention that the former definition needlessly creates ambiguity and leads to confusion.

In practice, one can disbelieve in the existence of a deity without explicitly claiming that said deity does not exist. This position is usually termed agnosticism, but as we will explore later, the term agnosticism represents a much stronger claim than a disbelief in a deity. If, for the moment, we allow that agnostic is an inadequate term for these individuals, than what can we call these people? Since they do not hold that god does not exist, they are not atheists in the former sense of the word – only the latter. However, as the former sense is usually what is meant, these individuals are effectively without a term, and when the term atheist is used by them or ascribed to them, they are miscategorized and their beliefs unclear. Reasoned discourse becomes very difficult at this juncture if individuals can not understand what is meant by the words used to describe their positions, let alone their arguments for those positions.
The word, atheist, if instead taken to mean “one who lacks belief in god” more accurately represents those in both camps. Understanding is aided by this broader definition, despite it being a step back in strength from the more commonly used meaning. This meaning further represents a truer conception of atheism and its etymology.  The word atheist comes from the Greek prefix a- “without” and word theos – “a god”, reading literally “without a god”. This is best conveyed by the idea that one lacks belief in a god, not that one believes that god does not exist. Despite this, one may argue that historically the meaning is of the former conception, and this is certainly the case. My argument, however, is based on the utility of each meaning, not on historical or common concerns.

A further consideration in the choice of the word atheist to mean “one who lacks belief in god”, is simply that this definition is often preferred by atheists as it represents the ideas they hold more closely than competing definitions. Clearly one knows what one believes or does not believe better than others who may ascribe positions to them that they do not hold.

Now that the word atheist is properly defined, it is worth considering what exactly is meant by the words agnostic and agnosticism. For this, it is best perhaps to begin by considering once more common definitions of the word:
From Wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable

From dictionary.com

1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

From Merriam-Webster:

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

There is perhaps an obvious conclusion one can draw from these definitions, that being that agnosticism and atheism, as defined here, are not incompatible and one might go so far as to say that agnosticism implies atheism. After all, if one believes the existence of god is unknown or unknowable, they are unlikely to claim knowledge about that god’s existence or non-existence. In this way, it seems very reasonable to suspect that agnosticism is a much stronger and complex position that atheism. While agnostics are often characterized as being unable to take sides in a dispute, as in Merriam-Webster’s second definition, agnostics actually hold to very strong positions on the nature of knowledge. For one to make extremely broad generalizations about the nature of knowledge including categorically rejecting the possibility of knowledge on one or many subjects, one ought to have good reasons to do so. Indeed, the very act of making claims about the very nature of knowledge represents an inherently stronger action than a mere lack of a claim on a subject. This leads to the conclusion that agnosticism is a much stronger claim than the lack of a claim that atheism entails.

Do not, however, mistake the position of unknowability regarding deities as absolutely implying atheism, it does not. One can, in principle, be agnostic about certain things while being gnostic about others. In principle, one can be an agnostic regarding many questions, even the question of god, while asserting belief in that god. Arguments can even be made that religion and belief in god requires this of believers. Agnosticism is a position on the nature and limits of knowledge, literally meaning, from the Greek “without knowledge”, not a position on the existence or non-existence of god. There is a great deal of overlap among those who assert either position, but conceptually they are distinct.

With definitions of atheism and agnosticism in hand, I would like to turn now to a question fundamentally related to the labels we give ourselves, that of the Alliance of Happy Atheists name. Specifically, there have been two lines of criticism regarding this name, first that it does not represent all individuals who may wish to join the naturalist/rationalist club at Cal Poly, and second, that it is confrontational towards the theistic clubs on campus.

Fundamentally, I believe that the first criticism is answered by the above discussion. You are an atheist if you do not actively believe in one or more gods. You may call yourself an agnostic, a pantheist or one of a half dozen other names, but all that is required to be an atheist is the lack of belief in gods. I believe that is a sufficiently large umbrella.

As to the latter criticism, I would like to point out that the labels we use ought to be chosen for good reasons, not for petty ones like driving a divide between individuals. While the existence of atheists may be a problem for religious reasoning, it is not intentionally confrontational to use a word that describes our positions, or lack of a position, to describe ourselves. The word atheist has bad baggage, but we must combat that baggage by using it properly. This involves answering questions with far less broad applicability than questions regarding the meaning of words.

Cal Poly is a unique environment in that we have a high proportion of highly religious students, and in particularly, a high proportion of Christian students. This is not true of all Universities, and represents a key reason for choosing a name including the word atheist. The role of an atheist club on a University campus is not always clear, but at a fundamental level involves supporting the mission of the University by providing community for its membership and educating individuals exterior to the group about atheism, secularism and rationalism. If you recall, one of the definitions of atheist that was mentioned above includes the term “wickedness” or “ungodliness”, both implying immorality and perhaps irrationality. While this definition is archaic, the implication is not. Atheists remain one of the most hated and most distrusted groups in the United States. Consequently, we must challenge the negative perception of atheists by educating people, and it is very difficult to educate when people are unclear about what your group is or is not. There is no clearer way to convey what your group is then including the word “atheist” in the name, while challenging the misconception that atheists are immoral or unhappy directly by using phrasing with positive connotations.

One might, however, argue that as a rationalist club, the name AHA misrepresents our mission and character. I do believe that to be a fair criticism. I also believe again, that Cal Poly needs a club to challenge the negative misconceptions surrounding atheism more than it needs a club obviously aimed at attacking irrationality. On the whole, Cal Poly students are extremely intelligent and extremely rational. While educating people about pseudoscience and woo is important and will continue to be a focus of both our group and the secular community as a whole, educating people about the fact that their neighbors, classmates, friends, and family members may lack belief in god while not being immoral or depressed requires a more prominent positioning of atheism. That does not change that we are not a club for atheists, we are a club for rationalists, naturalists and skeptics of all stripes, religious or otherwise.

I’ve said elsewhere, and will reiterate this fact here, that the name Alliance of Happy Atheists! is not intended for the atheists at Cal Poly and the membership in the group. The name is intended for the average member of Crusade, or one of the many students who have given the issue very little thought. It is intended for people who have skewed perceptions of atheists, not for people who know what the word atheist means, or even for those who know, without the aid of Google, what the ontological, teleological or transcendental arguments for god are. If you know what those arguments entail, you’re likely aware of secular ethics, the existence and importance of Separation of church and state or that Evolution is both fact and theory. For everyone else, let the name make you more aware of your peers.

The answer to this question, from an ethical and sociological perspective is obvious. Numerous studies, have shown that the non-religious live moral lives. Some such studies found that the non-religious end up in prison at lower rates than their religious neighbors and at a disproportionate rate compared to their percentage of society as a whole. That is not, of course, to say that religion makes people commit crimes, which is just as nonsensical as saying that non-religion keeps people from committing crimes, but rather to highlight that whatever it is that makes us moral, it is not exclusive to the religious. Indeed, the biology of morality is the subject of much ongoing research, both from the perspective of neuroscience and evolution to a search for a direct biochemical source. Research in these areas, of course, may not be able to provide the complexity of the answers required for consideration of major ethical problems, but an underlying realization has been that whatever gives rise to morality is ubiquitous. Moral reasoning exists in the minds of all human beings, regardless of race, creed or religion.

Perhaps more important than the sociology and biology of moral behavior is the ethical study of what morality is and where it originates from. Here Veritas is particularly behind the times, as the field of ethics moved beyond religious or “bible based” ethics quite literally centuries ago. Socrates discussion with Euthyphro more than 2000 years ago dealt what is, in many ways, a crippling blow to what can broadly be termed divine command theory. Arguments from more recent philosophers strangle whatever may be salvaged from Socrates assault on religious ethics. Perhaps these arguments are nonsensical, however. That is a possibility that any thinking person ought admit. Even then, religious ethics has a mountain to climb towards respectability, having to overcome the numerous theories of secular ethics.

The point is, whatever may be true of ethics, the questions worth addressing stray nowhere near whether or not one can be good without god. It simply is not a serious intellectual problem in the face of the deep problems with the idea of god based morality. Beyond that, practical ethics can and does exist without god, with millions of people being good without god everyday.

Maybe Veritas 2012 will regain its relevance, but the slide into intellectual irrelevance is pronounced and most certainly continued. The talks will likely be interesting exercises in rhetoric and stage presence, as they have in the past, but I have little hope for relevant, stimulating, Intellectually honest discussion.