A Skeptic's UFO Encounter

The week of Halloween I was at a local church for their annual "Trunk or Treat" event. There were about 4,000 people there (including 1,500 or so Elsa costumes). There was ample opportunity to stand in lines. During one of these waits, I noticed some people near me pointing in the sky so naturally I looked. Behold, in the night sky there was floating overhead 4 slowly rotating lights, 2 red and 2 green. The object was fixed in the sky. Several people were asking "what is that?" with mild alarm in their voices. It did not move from its spot for about 2 minutes, it just sat in place.

I shot a video of this thing and it can be found here. I'd recommend you give it a look before continuing your read.

After 2 minutes or so it started slowly moving across the sky and fixed itself into another position.  A few people starting becoming frightened. "Oh my gosh, that is totally a UFO!"

My heart racing and my rational mind freaking out. This is, without a doubt, the closest thing to a UFO encounter I can ever remember.  I cannot explain this. My mind was having a real freakout. I do not believe alien UFO's visit Earth, yet what am I seeing right now?

While the murmurings of the crowd began growing more uneasy, I forced my rational mind to take back over and started doing what any person should do. Instead of saying "this is a UFO!" and then running and telling this creepy story to everyone I know, I began calmly asking myself questions.

"What could this be? An airplane? No, it's stationary in the sky. A hot air balloon? No, it's too still and moves too deliberately and stops on a dime.  A helicopter? I doubt it, the lights on a helicopter flash in different points, and this thing doesn't seem very high up in the sky. A remote controlled helicopter? That's certainly possible, seems more likely than a UFO, but flying RC copters are really hard, especially at night when you can't see them. Oh wait, what about one of those quad-copter things? That would explain the 4 lights."

So I pulled out my phone and googled "Quad RC Helicopter."

It took some digging, but lo and behold! Our mystery UFO with red and green lights has been solved! You can buy this thing on Amazon for $499. It allows you to attach a go-pro camera on it, which is what was happening at this event.

What a neat experience this was for me and reminds me of just how susceptible our brains are to delusion.  Our minds have a tendency to jump to conclusions when we observe phenomenon we cannot explain. It would have been very easy for me to latch onto the UFO idea and ran with it.

This happens quite often. I have had people tell me all kinds of things about experiences they have had, brushes with the supernatural, encounters with UFO's, Bigfoot sightings, ghost encounters, psychic visions of the future, so on and so forth. I have a hard time believing them.  When people are recounting their brushes with supernatural phenomenon, I believe they're being honest and sincere. That UFO experience was very real for me and my emotions and confusion was also very real. The experience is genuine.

What I have trouble believing are people's assessments of the causation for these events.

My experience with the quad-copter gave me a unique perspective on this. I got the benefit of experiencing an unexplained event and all of the very real emotions that come with it, in addition to calmly and rationally seeking an explanation instead of latching onto one instinctively and refusing to stray from it.

So when Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and New Agers all tell me they've had personal experiences with the various gods or powers they believe in, I accept their sincerity but not their conclusion. People are generally very bad at not only accurately recalling events, but also at applying a proper causal factor.

As a side note, a few days after the Trunk or Treat event, the church posted this photograph on their Facebook page, along with a thanks to the person who took the photo from their drone copter and emailed it to the church.

Evolution is an Unpleasant Fact

Evolution is a fact.

First and foremost, it's time for grownups in the 21st century to deal with and accept that evolution is true. And yes, I mean the big, scary "macro" evolution. Sometimes reality is difficult and unpleasant to deal with, that does not make reality any less true because it's unpleasant. You have probably been told your entire life by people you love and trust that evolution is fake. Here is a difficult and unpleasant truth I hope you can understand and take to heart; these people, while wonderful and well-intentioned, probably had no clue what they're talking about.

This is going to be a long blog post, but hang in there. Take the time to read and process this, it's written with the lay person who has an average science aptitude in mind.

In the first part I'd like to address some serious misconceptions about evolution, then in the second part I'd like to put forth why evolution is fact and that everything in your life from the breed of dog you own, to the food you eat, to the vaccines you put in your children exist because of our understanding of evolution, and without that understanding, we could not enjoy the health and prosperity we enjoy today.

Note: For the remainder of the article "evolution" will be understood to mean big, scary macro evolution as well as micro.

Part 1: Misconceptions About Evolution

Misconception 1: You Cannot Believe in Both God and Evolution or Evolution is Atheism.

This is patently false. In fact, more Christians accept evolution than there are atheists that exist (1). And not all atheists accept evolution.  Dr. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian, former head of the Human Genome Project, and author of the book "The Language of God." Regarding evolution, he is quoted as saying thus:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

The Reverend Billy Graham had this to say on the subject of evolution.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

Leading Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig, while not convinced evolution is true, explains why it's not a problem for a Christian to believe it and why he believes if evolution is true, that's even a greater evidence for God's existence.

Other notable Christian scientists who accept common ancestry among species: George Coyne, Darrell Falk, Robert Bakker, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Behe, Ronald Fisher, John Haught, Carl Giberson, Denis Lamoreux, C.S. Lewis, Ian Barbour, Alister McGrath, Kenneth Miller, Thomas Jay Oord, R.J Berry, Joan Roughgarden, Pierre Telhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry, Keith Ward.

Misconception 2: If We Can't Directly Observe it, it's Just a Guess

Imagine what would happen in a court of law if this misconception were true. In the American court system, guilt must be demonstrated beyond all shadows of doubt. How is this even possible if prosecuting attorney or Crime Scene Investigator never directly observed a murder? Can this be done through DNA evidence? Can it be done through tracing a person's location through cell towers? Can it be done through collecting fingerprints at the crime scene after the fact? Can it be done by casting fresh tire and shoe tracks at the murder scene that match the suspect?

We can accurately determine past events through present evidence. It's done every day, all the time in homicide investigations and the same process gives us accurate results about the story of our ancestry.

Let's talk about tree rings for just a moment. Tree rings form at a rate of about 1 per year (season) in most areas on Earth. That means you can expect 1 ring for every year of age the tree has. Not only that, you can also tell other things about the life of this tree. You can inspect the rings and find years of abundant rain or excessive drought. You can determine if there was a forest fire and during what year of the tree's life. You can determine if this tree ever survived a fungus in the past. You can determine if something like a rock pressed against the tree, causing asymmetric growth. In some species of tree you can even get an accurate reading on the average temperature or snowfall for that year of the tree's life.

Pluto was discovered in 1930. It has an orbital period around the sun of 248.68 Earth years. We know Pluto's orbital period around the sun even though we have not fully observed it. This is how science works. It's taking present data and extrapolating a result both backwards in the case of evolution, crime scenes, and tree rings, and forwards in the case of things like Pluto, and weather forecasting.

Misconception 3: It's Only a Theory

Words have multiple meanings. When you say you love ice cream or that you love your favorite sports team it does not mean the same thing when you say you love your children.  When you have a tennis match, that's not the same thing as striking a match, or saying those two would be make a cute match.

This is part of the confusion with scientific theories. In everyday language, a theory means a guess or a hunch.  People errantly assume that theory being attached to a concept in science also makes it a guess. This is not the case.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that is repeatedly confirmed through observation, testing, and peer-review. A scientific theory is the highest possible goal in science. The model of our solar system places the sun at the center and all planets revolving around it. This is called heliocentric theory. The idea that all matter is made of small particles called atoms is atomic theory. The idea that all bodies of mass have a mutual attraction is called the theory of universal gravitation. The idea that some diseases are caused by microorganisms is called the germ theory of disease. Like evolution, we know all these theories to be fact because multiple lines of evidence independently and repeatedly confirm them.

By the way, a "law" in science suffers from similar confusion about terms. In regular language a law is something that is unbreakable.  In science a law is a simple observation, usually expressed in a mathematical formula, which has no explanatory power.  Laws are subject to change in science with newer, better data. A theory never graduates to a law. In fact in the hierarchy of science, theories are held in higher esteem than laws, but they do have different functions. 

Misconception 4: A Lot of Scientists Reject Evolution

There are trained, educated scientists on this planet who believe the Earth is flat, (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) about 500 or so according to the Flat Earth Society website.

The level of support for evolution in the science community is over 97%. The level of support for evolution among biologists in science is over 99% (Level of support for evolution).  The Discovery Institute is a group of 700 scientists worldwide who are openly skeptical of evolution, about 450 of which are American.

So yes, while strictly speaking 700 is a fairly high number, there are 2.5 million scientists in the United States alone, and an estimated 12 million scientists worldwide.

Now, a level of support does not make an idea true. But a level of support does make 700 scientists who are skeptical of evolution not an impressive number to consider. Nor do 500 scientists who believe the Earth is flat make it a credible idea to consider. Yes lots of intelligent people are skeptical of evolution. A lot of intelligent people are skeptical the Earth is round. Intelligence and belief are separate cognitive functions.

Misconception 5: We Cannot Find a Missing Link

Ah yes, the missing link. It's important to understand that the missing link is not a scientific concept, it's one that was invented by evolution-deniers. In other words, evolution-deniers have erected a set of goal posts called "the missing link" and set them outside the stadium on which the game of scientific inquiry is being played.  First and foremost, fossilization is a rare event. So scientists don't use fossilization as a means of confirming evolution. This is an important concept to understand. The truth of evolution does not rely on the fossil record. However, the fossil record is all evolution-deniers talk about for some reason.

That being said, the fossil record strongly supports evolution but it's not needed. As referenced earlier, Dr. Francis Collins (remember the evangelical Christian and head of the human genome project) says this about the fossil record.

"Even if no fossils existed, the DNA record alone confirms common ancestry among all species."

But to reiterate, there is a fossil record and it strongly supports evolution. The above photograph is a set of primate skulls that range from very primitive to modern human. Several of the skulls have brain cavities larger than modern apes, but smaller than modern humans indicating a progressive growth along a continuum.

Part 2: Why Evolution is True

Understanding why evolution is true boils down to understanding how science works (something which most people are woefully bad at).

How Science Works

Imagine a game on a field with a 100 participants. All of whom, regardless of their race, education, background, religion, have an equal chance (per the rules) to control one ball.  Only one player can possess the ball at a time and all the other players are trying to gain possession of the ball.

Here is one caveat. Each time a player tries to take the ball, successful or not, all the other players learn something about the proper technique for securing the ball. Therefore, each time the ball changes possession, or someone unsuccessfully attempts to take it, the ball becomes harder and harder to take the longer the contest runs. Because it becomes increasingly more difficult, the longer the game goes on every change of possession that occurs becomes more spectacular and the player who took the ball gains more money, fame, and recognition than all the players that came before him or her. Thus, even though difficulty increases the rewards and motivations for the players also increase.

Players can also voluntarily check themselves out of the game, and new players can come in. When new players come in, they learned and observed all of the ways the ball was taken prior to their entry into the game. Thus, the fresh new players enter the game with the same knowledge of ball possession that all the other participants have.

This highly-competitive and imaginably brutal scenario describes how science works.  Every scientist in the world wants to put forth the next best brightest breakthrough in science. They attempt this by publishing scientific papers which highlight their ideas and experiments to support their ideas. When they do this, all other scientists in the world check their work, methodology, honesty, bias, and results in an attempt to prove them wrong (take the ball away). If a scientist can prove another scientist wrong, then he or she will gain a tremendous amount of respect for themselves, the university they may be employed by, and also money and tenure. Scientists are in direct competition with other scientists for ideas and also to overturn existing ideas.  Ultimately this benefits humanity. Each time a scientist is proven wrong about an idea, we can scratch that idea off the list of possibilities which puts us one step closer to discovering the truth.

Scientists, worldwide, have a tremendous amount of motivation and financial backing to overturn evolution. Can you imagine the amount of fame, prestige, money and instant-hero status a scientist would gain who conclusively proved evolution false? He would be lauded as a hero by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.  Darwin put forth his work on evolution 150 years ago (analogous to taking the ball).  Since that time millions, yes millions, of scientists have tried to disprove evolution for a multitude of reasons (religious and otherwise). For 150 years, evolution has stood and grown stronger because each failed attempt to dislodge it has furthered our understanding of it.

But that's still not a good enough reason to accept it as true.

Evidence Is Not Good Enough In Science

While the evidence for evolution is strong, science has such a high standard that evidence alone is not good enough to elevate evolution to the coveted status of scientific theory. Evidence is one part of the equation.  The other two parts are application and predictive power.

If an idea in science is true, it can make accurate predictions about future events and findings. Evolution has excelled at this, again, for a very long time. When DNA was discovered, evolution predicted that human DNA would be most similar to the great apes, then lesser apes, then monkeys, then land-based mammals, then sea-based mammals in that exact order. That was the prediction. So the fact that humans share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees is not relevant. The fact that evolution predicted that we would find exactly that, and in what order, and to what degree, and the fact that what we found was exactly that makes the predictive power of evolution and DNA similarities relevant.

Dr. Kenneth Miller is a Christian and evolutionary biologist. In this video he explains how mapping the chimpanzee genome in 2004 nearly disproved evolution. But again, evolution made a prediction about what geneticists would find in the human genome, and we found it.

But that's still not a good enough reason to accept it as true.

Predictive Power is Not Good Enough In Science

Predictive power is not good enough in science. It's strong, but it's not adequate alone to establish something as true. Ok so we have an idea, we have evidence for it, and it's making accurate predictions. What can we do with this knowledge? If evolution is true, how can we use that knowledge to make the world a better place?

Our understanding of evolution has had direct application in understanding how and why parts of our anatomy (and animal anatomy) work or don't work. The application of evolution has helped us with selective breeding of animals, plants, food, quite literally everything. Entire species of wheat that are resistant to heat and able to grow in harsh climates like Sub-Saharan Africa have been developed and have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Our understanding of evolution is essential to staying ahead of evolving microorganisms, which are harmful to humanity. Our understanding of evolution is just now allowing us to isolate genes which are harmful to humanity like cancer-causing genes. Evolution has also had a direct impact on computer science. Computer engineers create better, more efficient computing networks. In addition, computer scientists have applied evolutionary approaches to complex engineering problems and have been able to solve the previously unsolvable.

Evolution has a direct application, and it works.

But that's still not a good enough reason to accept evolution.

Application is Not Good Enough in Science

Science does not accept evolution on blind faith, as some deniers assert. A direct application to demonstrate that our understanding of evolution works is relevant, but not good enough for science. What makes evolution a fact is not the evidence, or standing up to a battery of scientists trying to disprove it, or its predictive power, or its application. Evolution is a fact because it performs seamlessly in all four categories.  Multiple lines of evidence, predictive power, application, and testing independently converge to the same conclusion; common ancestry is a fact.

Evolution is an Unpleasant Fact

Evolution is an unpleasant fact. It's not unpleasant because it means I have to abandon my religious beliefs in order to accept it. Clearly I don't have to do that. It's not unpleasant because humanity shares a connection with all life on Earth, I happen to think that's amazing and makes me feel more connected to everyone and everything. Evolution is not unpleasant because it devalues humanity, quite the opposite. Evolution demonstrates that there virtually no difference in human beings at the DNA level. Our genome reveals that no race of humanity is "more evolved" than any other. We are more similar and equal than we ever imagined before evolution. We are all truly equal and should all be valued, loved, and respected.

Evolution is an unpleasant fact because it means that humans have fragile egos and will do anything, including lie and misdirect, rather than accept reality. It's unpleasant because it means an entire culture would rather reject something that is valuable, applicable, and relevant than to destroy their malformed presuppositions towards a subject. It means that humans put a greater emphasis on the comfort of believing what they like rather than accepting something as true they don't like.  It means our nature is to get upset and angry when we read something that challenges us rather than absorb it and ponder it.

The tremendous irony, of course, is that we evolved to have these cognitive hangups.  It's human nature, both unpleasant, beautiful, and amazing at the same time.  

One of America's Best Football Players is an Atheist

Recently I got an opportunity to meet, rather by accident, an outstanding college football player. After chatting for several days he told me he secretly confided he was an atheist. I, personally, am slightly less interested in the discussion about what someone believes and more interested in the discussion on why they believe it, how does that fit into American culture, what are some of the things you've experienced as a result? For me, that's the interesting part of the discussion.

He agreed to grant me an anonymous interview.

INTERVIEW

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this interview. So the reader is aware, you have asked to remain anonymous, and also for the school you play for to remain anonymous. But the reader should know that not only do you play for a major program, as in a program that's at least in the national title discussion each year, but you also are a starter for this football team. Is that correct?
(A) - Yes, I am a starter at the D1 level.

And I'm not trying to embarrass you or anything, but as I understand it you're also up for a college football award this year! I only mention that because I think it's important for people to know that you're one of the best players in the country, not just an anonymous atheist on some small-town division III team. Are you comfortable conceding that you're one of the best college football players in the country?
(A) -  I am not sure that saying I am one of the best football players in the country is the right way to put it. However, at my position, I feel like I am competitive and can compete with anyone at my position.

All right, well to business. First, I want to ask you some general questions about football and then I'd like to chat about your beliefs and how that fits into football culture. And finally I gathered a few questions from Twitter if you have time for those.

First thing I'd like to ask is kind of a selfish question. I'm a college football fan and I have been my whole life. What's playing college football like?
(A) - Playing college football is by far the most exciting and exhilarating experience that I have been apart of.  There is nothing like being able to compete in front of a national audience and do something you love at such a high level.

What's the biggest difference between college football and high school?
(A) - The biggest difference between high school and college football is probably the workload. My whole life in college revolves around football, including my schoolwork; I have devoted basically my whole life to succeed in football. In high school, and there isn’t that level of work. Being on a national stage is also a huge difference. In college, everything you do, on and off the field, is being watched and monitored.

I'm sure you're a bit of a celebrity around campus. How does it feel being recognized by everyone, everywhere you go?
(A) - I definitely am not recognized by everyone around campus, sure there are some people who recognize me, but its not as much as everyone thinks. I am still generally new to it, so I think its kind of cool.

Ok, now in regards to your atheism I think this is the most poignant question I can ask. Why did you request for your identity and your team's identity to remain anonymous?
(A) - I requested my identity to be anonymous because the sad truth is that I cannot share it with the public on the stage that I am on. If I were to publically “come out” as an atheist, fans and the media would have frenzy. The idea of atheism in the south is a taboo in itself, and we as student athletes are not supposed to bring attention to ourselves through anything other than football.

Have you always been an atheist?
(A) - I grew up in a small Christian school in the south and had been a “Christian” growing up. I put the quotes over Christian because growing up in a Christian school, that was the only thing I was taught, I wasn’t ever given a choice at a young age on what to believe, I was, in a way, indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity was the only viewpoint had by everyone in the world. When my biology teacher told me that evolution was a hoax and that there was absolutely no evidence for it, I started to question why virtually every scientist in the world accepted it as a fact. I started to do research and realized that evolution wasn’t a hoax and that it was obviously a real thing and that there is overwhelming evidence for it. After that point, throughout my high school career, I started drawing more and more away from Christianity as I started to question more and more.

A lot of college football programs, players, and coaches are deeply and openly religious. Everyone is well aware of people like Tim Tebow, for example. Also even some programs have been in the news recently about their religious culture and even caught some grief over it. Does a coach or player being outspoken about their faith to the media create any awkwardness for non-Christians associated with the program?
(A) - There really isn’t any awkwardness with any of my teammates; most of them realize that I have reasons why I am not Christian.  Honestly, football is usually the biggest topic of discussion among football players, so I do not talk about it much with them.

It's my understanding that you're not "out" to your team, but they're aware you don't participate in team bible studies, church meetings, or religious ceremonies. Do you feel excluded or chastised by your team sometimes because of that?
(A) - Some of my closer teammates know that I am an atheist, and some do not. I am not afraid to tell them, it’s just a matter of whether they have talked to me about it or figured it out yet. I don’t feel excluded from the team in this way, frankly, because I would rather not be apart of all of the religiosity.

A lot of people view atheists as kind of uppity, coffeehouse philosophers and not as tough guys who have the guts and resolve to do something like play football, let alone be one of the best players at a major college program. Can you talk about that a bit?

(A) - I think overall, especially in the south, atheists have a bad image, and really for no other reason than not conforming to the norms of the “Christian south”.  I do enjoy deep conversations about religion, philosophy, and science; I just also happen to play football.

So why are you playing college football instead of sipping coffee and engaging in Internet debates?
(A) - Most of all, I play football because I love it, there is truly nothing like it. It pays for my college and I have fun doing it.

What's your opinion on players praying after touchdowns, college or NFL?
(A) -  I’m all for players praying after a touchdown or in a game or whatever. I respect everyone’s right to pray to any god they want, but I also respect the right for anyone to look at them and think they look foolish.

Follow-up question. How did you feel recently about the Muslim player being penalized for praying in the end zone after a touchdown when players like Tebow can do that freely without fear of reprisal?

(A) - After seeing the player get penalized for praying to Allah, I got sick to my stomach. I hate how in America, everyone has this awareness of what it is like only for a Christian to pray that people don’t even realize when others are praying. I think society is messed up in the sense that everyone can tell when a Christian is praying, but cant tell the difference between a Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist praying.

Do you envision a time when you can be open an honest about your atheism without fear of it costing you?
(A) - I can envision a time where that would happen. Atheism and freethinking are spreading around America and most of all; people are becoming more and more open minded. America isn’t there yet, but I feel like it will be.

What do you think would change your mind? I mean what, for you would cause you to say, "you know what? I think a god does exist!"
(A) - That’s a tough question, but really any evidence that would prove a god is there, would be evidence for me to believe. Ricky Gervais I think said it best in the documentary by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss ‘The Unbelievers’ when he said “Beliefs shouldn’t change the facts, if rational, facts should change your beliefs”.
All right, that's all my questions but I have a few from Twitter here. First question from Twitter, during the team prayer, do you die inside a little?
(A) -  To be honest, yes. I never bow my head and usually try to get out of it. I will for no reason pretend to pray to anyone’s god.

Next question, do you attend a school like Notre Dame or BYU, affiliated with a particular religion, where atheism would most certainly cost you your scholarship?
(A) - I do not attend a school like the ones listed, however, where I go to school is in a very southern town and coming out to the public would definitely ruin my rep. I do not think though that my scholarship would be taken because of it.

All right, next question from Twitter, how do you find like-minded friends?
(A) - It’s hard to find like-minded friends, but luckily college is a diverse enough place to where I can find them. Mostly just through conversation and usually I feel like I can tell when someone is. Obviously if I am talking to someone who hates gay people and thinks that only white males should rule the world, then I know I’m not talking to a fellow free thinker.

And finally, what's your field of study in college?
(A) - I came in as an engineer, switched to psychology and now I’m thinking of switching to business.​

Thank you again and I do wish you the very best luck for the remainder of your career and I sure hope to see you playing on Sundays even though that should be a day of rest!

Open Letter To Christians 100 Years From Now

Dear Christians of 2114,

In the 1860's American Christians claimed that slavery was the natural order of things and used passages from the Bible to justify the horror of owning other human beings. They also justified their cruelty by claiming "these savages need us to give them Jesus and the only way we can do that is by owning them and teaching them."  This onus to save the savages from themselves is a social idea once referred to as "The White Man's Burden." One hundred years later, when slavery was roundly rejected by the secular morality of the world, American Christians claimed it was them who led the fight for liberation of slaves, most notably Reformed Calvinist, John Brown.

In the 1960's American Christians bitterly opposed interracial marriage. If you're not sure what that is (because in 2114 this may not actually be a concept you're familiar with), that means that God staunchly opposed, a white person and a black person marrying. They called this an abomination in God's sight. They used passages from the Bible to justify this attitude and actively protested in front of courthouses to keep interracial marriage illegal.

In the early 2000's American Christians staunchly opposed same-sex marriage. I realize in the world you live in, same-sex marriage is only illegal in the most backwards countries, but believe it or not American Christians fought bitterly to keep same-sex marriage illegal in America. I'm sure this is difficult to believe because I am certain Christians in 2114 proudly proclaim that it was Christians who fought for the equality of same-sex oriented people.  This is not true.

Another difficult to believe proposition to accept is that as of 2014, American Christians staunchly opposed evolution being taught in schools and demonized Charles Darwin. Again, I get that this is difficult to believe because our understanding of evolution has enabled us to save millions of lives through vaccinations, developing species of wheat that is resistant to heat and disease, and staying ahead of rapidly evolving bacterium and viruses. Again, I realize in the world you live in only the most backwards of countries, if any, reject evolution. And I am sure that Christians uplift Charles Darwin as a hero, a Christian who discovered the most profound discovery in all of natural science. But in the day and age I live in, Christians think he's a monster and they use the Bible to justify this belief.

I say all of this not to demonize the Christians of 2014. I honestly believe they are good people who genuinely think what they are doing is the correct course of action. It's difficult for anyone to live outside the scope of their time and culture. Christians in 2014 simply did not understand that believers 50, or 100 years prior to them were capable of such ignorance. Just as I am sure you, in 2114 are having trouble believing that Christians in 2014 opposed same-sex marriage and evolution.

We are all susceptible to biases, groupthink, herd mentality, and tribalism. Please understand this is not an attacking letter. It's a cautionary letter.  All of us are capable of doing horrible things based on a continuum of compromise. If we accept one incorrect proposition, it could lead us to accepting another slightly worse incorrect proposition, so on and so forth until the dominoes topple over. The best way we can avoid this is to gaze into history and see the mistakes our group has made in the past and more importantly take ownership of them, and learn from them.  I urge you to please take a strong look at 2014 and see the mistakes your fellow Christians made then. Then ask yourself, "is there anything my church is vehemently opposing in 2114 that we use the bible to justify, claiming this is an abomination in God's sight?" If so, please consider whether or not it is actually an abomination through the lens of historical precedent.

10 Things Christians and Atheists Need to Know about Each Other

5 Things Atheists Need to Know about Christians

1. "My beliefs are sincere and inseparable from my identity."

Atheists may find this notion incredulous, but there are some people which it is impossible to separate their beliefs from their identity. Most atheists and skeptics are able to change their beliefs with newer, better available evidence without any emotional attachment. Other people cannot do this. Especially with beliefs as profound as a loving, creator, God who protects them, provides for them etc.  Atheists should be mindful that when discussing religious claims with believers, you're not just proposing what they believe could be in error, but it is possible that you're suggesting their entirety of what makes them a person is a lie. Tread lightly, and respectfully.

2. "The loud, outspoken minority does not speak for all of us."

The overwhelming majority of Christians are quiet, peaceful, loving, and have a heart of gold. Unfortunately, the ones who say the most hateful things, do the most hateful things, and have the most aggressive, outrageous behavior are the ones that end up on television or in print media or accosting individuals on the Internet. They do not speak for, or represent the entire group. Atheists should be mindful that most Christians do not condone the actions of the outrageous minority so it is unfair to blame them or hold them accountable for the actions of others. Instead of casting blame, speak with each Christian patiently and lovingly and you may find that what they believe may surprise you.

3. "I am not crazy, or delusional, or dishonest."

Most believers have beliefs that are grounded in rationality. Skeptics will find this statement absurd, of course, but allow me to explain. A person can hold a belief that the world is flat, and it could be a rationally-held belief.  If that person had no other access to information otherwise and had always been taught that the world was flat, that is a rationally-held belief. Wrong, but rationally held.
In the same manner, most believers are deeply-rooted in a Christian culture. Everyone they know, and love, and trust is a sincere believer and hold beliefs in God with the most profound, utmost, and sincere conviction. They attribute every blessing in their lives to God's provision. Every cured illness, every unexpected good fortune, every beautiful sunset, every act of kindness, all attributed to God's grace.  For someone who grows up in the midst of that, a belief in a loving, creator God is a rationally-held belief. They have no reason to believe otherwise.  In fact, it would be unusual for them to believe otherwise.
A productive conversation with Christians would be better suited focusing on why you, as the skeptic, have trouble believing the same things that they do.

4. "I do not hate people that I disagree with."

Getting back to sincerity for a second, Christians do not hate non-Christians. Christians want what they believe is honestly the best possible outcome for everyone. Christians view non-Christians as sick, in need of healing. While this may be an insulting proposition to the non-believer, remember that Christians also recognize that Christians are sick too, and also in need of healing. Christians believe they have the most wonderful, profound, amazing cure and they simply want everyone else to have access to it too. Sometimes believers will proclaim, loudly, what they think you need, not out of a sense of hate, but out of a sense of desperately wanting you to experience the same joy, hope, and awe that they do.

5. "There are legitimate injustices in the world, praying before a football game is not one of them."

One of the things that believers grow tired of is the seemingly endless march of frivolous, crybaby lawsuits against things that, ultimately are not that big of a deal. That's not to say Christians don't recognize there are legitimate injustices perpetuated by believers around the world. I have yet to talk to a Christian who is happy that Christians in Uganda are burning albino children they believe to be witches, or executing gay people in several countries. These are legitimate injustices that need to be fixed.
Saying a prayer before a high school football game, or a lawsuit to remove a 10 commandments poster from a classroom makes every believer roll their eyes, and for good reason. Part of the problem is that we live in a litigious society in America. Everyone sues for everything, it's the new American way. Every lawsuit that atheists bring forward is fighting an uphill battle because of the perception of society about litigation. What ends up happening is when there is an actual, legitimate case of injustice litigation is appropriate, but unfortunately its effectiveness is minimized.
In other words, when there is a need for actual litigation because of injustice or discrimination that lawsuit becomes the boy who cried wolf.
No believer is so daft that they don't understand that discrimination and injustice exists against non-believers. But because of the endless march of lawsuits, the legitimate ones are forever relegated to the trash bin.

5 Things Christians Need to Know About Atheists

1. "I don't hate your god, I don't KNOW your god exists, and I don't have a hardened heart."

Atheists do not hate God (or Allah, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Thor, or Woten, or Ahura Mazda, or Brahama, or Shiva, or Apollo, or any of the other 5,000+ gods worshiped on Earth today.) You can talk to any atheist and they will be happy to explain to you why they find the God you believe in as an immoral God, but they don't hate something that they do not believe exists.
Likewise, many Christians often tell atheists, "you KNOW god exists, you just have hate/hardened heart/pride/sinfulness etc.  This is absolutely the wrong approach and frankly one of the most arrogant, insulting things you can say to someone. In effect you are telling them, "I know what you are thinking better than you do." This may be a little hard to understand, but just easily as you find it to believe in God, some people find it just as easy to not believe in God. Don't presume to tell people what they REALLY think or REALLY believe. Instead talk to them, and allow them to tell you what they believe and why and then do something radical, assume that they're being truthful!

2. "The loud, outspoken minority does not speak for all of us."

The overwhelming majority of atheists are quiet, peaceful, loving, and have a heart of gold. Unfortunately, the ones who say the most hateful things, do the most hateful things, and have the most aggressive, outrageous behavior are the ones that end up on television or in print media or accosting individuals on the Internet. They do not speak for, or represent the entire group. Christians should be mindful that most atheists do not condone the actions of the outrageous minority so it is unfair to blame them or hold them accountable for the actions of others. Instead of casting blame, speak with each atheist patiently and lovingly and you may find that what they believe may surprise you.

3. "Prayer was never removed from American schools."

This is one trope atheists get tired of hearing from believers. The Supreme Court never removed prayer from schools. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a student's right to pray in schools, form religious groups and clubs, etc. In 1962, the Supreme Court banned faculty-led prayers, and mandatory religious activities in public schools. That means a school official cannot lead the student body in prayer, nor can a student lead the student body in prayer over a loud speaker, etc.
Voluntary religious activities are welcome. Prayer is welcome.
And this makes sense. If you are Protestant, would you feel comfortable that a Catholic principal is leading your child in prayer to a dead saint? If you are Mormon, would you feel comfortable that the school's Protestant principal prays for the health of false prophets like Billy Graham? What if the principal believes in the prosperity gospel? What if the administrator leading the prayer prays for the President? What if the principal is Jewish and does not believe in Jesus' divinity? Hopefully you understand the problem. Teaching theology to children in public school is not ok. A student's decision to pray on their own is perfectly ok.

4. "Atheists don't want to destroy your beliefs."

Atheists don't want to destroy your beliefs, or the church. In fact, most American atheists are perfectly willing to lay down their lives to protect your freedom to believe. What atheists want is for your beliefs to stop causing harm, stop bypassing laws and enjoying special rights. Atheists want your beliefs to stop unfairly suppressing the rights of others. From their perspective, false beliefs can and often does, cause real, actual harm. It's not your beliefs that atheists find offensive, it's the harm and suppression of rights that occur as a result of your beliefs that non-believers get so upset about.

5. "You are not being persecuted. There is no war on Christmas."

Non-believers find the American Christian's persecution complex to be massive. And rightfully so. Almost no American Christian has any idea what persecution looks like. That being said, Christians are the most persecuted religion worldwide (no surprise there as they are also the largest religion). There are Christians which experience unspeakable horrors at the hands of other religious fanatics and in some cases non-believers.  This does not extend, by proxy, to American Christians.
In the United States, the easiest way to get elected to office is to demonstrate the strength of your belief in God. Meanwhile, it's illegal for atheists to even run for public office in 7 states*.  How would you feel if the government passed a law that disallowed Christians from running for political office in one state? How about 7 states? Would that feel like persecution?
American churches receive about 140 billion dollars in tax breaks from the U.S. Government. Christians have hundreds of thousands of radio shows, television programs, entire cable channels devoted to Christianity, newspapers, magazines, periodicals, special-interest groups, etc. You are not being persecuted.  As a matter of fact, there is nowhere in the world where Christianity enjoys such privilege, power, and influence as in the United States.
When you are asked to abide by the same rules that everyone else must abide by, that's not persecution. When you are asked to allow others to have the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, that's not persecution. When you are asked to abide by the 1st amendment and not do things like spend public tax dollars to erect religious displays on government property, that's not persecution.
Also this may come as a surprise, but most atheists enjoy Christmas. And yes, refer to it as a Christmas not "the holidays."  Atheists say "Merry Christmas" and love opening presents and giving presents on Christmas. Most atheists have Christmas trees. Saying "Happy Holidays" is not an atheist campaign to remove Christ from Christmas. Most don't care, but some do (see point #2). "Happy Holidays" is an attempt to be all-inclusive and be welcoming of all belief systems that enjoy and celebrate holidays in and around the month of December (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and Pagans all celebrate holidays in December).

*There are laws on the books that disallow atheists from running for political office in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. However, in the spirit of fairness, none of these states would actually enforce these laws in the 21st century. That being said, if you are a Christian can you name one openly atheist politician in the last 25 years? Just one? Now, name 10 Christian politicians currently running for or holding political office. You are not being persecuted. 

**BONUS: Evolution is not atheism.

I decided to throw this in at the last minute because it is one that gets on my nerves. Evolution is not atheism. And atheism is not evolution. More Christians accept evolution than atheists (Approximately 750 million Christians accept evolution according to the Pew Research Center. Only about 700 million atheists exist worldwide).  Also, not all atheists accept evolution (Google Raelians).  There are Christians that believe in evolution, there are Muslims that believe in evolution, there are Jews that believe in evolution, there are Hindus that believe in evolution. Only 11% of American churches reject evolution. Dr. Francis Collins is the former head of the human genome project and a devout, evangelical Christian. He is quoted as saying, "even if no fossils existed, the genome record alone confirms common ancestry."  Evolution is not a religion. People of all faiths, and no faiths, accept evolution.

NFL's Zero-Tolerance Policy is a Fumble

I'm sure everyone has seen the video by now of former NFL Running back, Ray Rice, knocking out his then fiancee (now wife) in an elevator. As if that was not bad enough (and it was), the NFL's bumbling handling of that situation has to go down as one of the most inane things I have ever seen.

First they gave Rice a paltry 2-game suspension. Unconscionable.

Then after the video of the incident surfaced, it put to rest all of the silly notions that she somehow deserved it or was provoking him and people got to see how devastatingly brutal the punch was that knocked her out cold.  The public outrage was palpable. So in typical knee-jerk fashion, the NFL caves to public pressure and suspends him permanently. Another mistake, in my opinion, but outside the scope of this blog.

Then came, what I believe, to be their most egregious error so far; the Zero-Tolerance Policy against domestic violence. One instance of domestic violence, and you're out for good.

A really terrible idea.

First and foremost, victims of domestic violence are under a lot of pressure to keep their mouths shut. Having their spouse arrested could tear their families apart, ruin them financially, put children in harm's way, force the abusers to lose their jobs, ruin the family's reputation, etc.  Being victimized by domestic violence is complicated.  There are a lot of social factors at play.

Enter the zero-tolerance policy. For all of the reasons victims have to keep quiet, as stated in the previous paragraph, plus now the risk of losing millions and millions of dollars.  If you go to the police after being abused, it's over. All of your money is gone. Your house is gone. Multi-millions of dollars per year, gone. All because the NFL has thrown a knee-jerk reaction policy at the problem instead of addressing the actual problem.

This zero-tolerance policy will not deter domestic violence by NFL players. It will only discourage victims from speaking up about it because they now stand to lose everything.

A more appropriate approach would not be so punitive, but instead constructive. Multiple game suspensions is appropriate. Professional athletes are competitors. They train year-round for games, and so disallowing them to participate does get their attention.  Disallow them to participate in any team activities and practices during the course of their suspension.  Players should be required to complete abuse counseling and also volunteer time at a rape crisis center and/or battered women's shelter.

Suspending someone from NFL competition for life does not, in any sense, address the problem. Ray Rice is a scumbag. But now he's a scumbag without a job. If the NFL cared about these abusers at all, and more importantly, their victims a solution to actually correct the problem would be advisable.

The 5th Edition D&D Character Sheet is Awful

The title says it all. Please feel free to download the one I made which is superior functionally, aesthetically, and informationally. Also, since literally ever class in 5th edition is capable of casting spells, the backside consists of a very functional spellbook for tracking slots and prepared spells.

Mash Here to Download PDF