Atheos - Godless

Daft things said to atheists part 9: "I can't imagine it..."

2012-01-25T07:20:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the commonest forms of this daft thing that Christians often say to atheists are as follows.:

"Why would you want to live in a world without God?"
"I can't imagine living in a world without God."

"I want to believe that I'll see my loved ones again when I die."
Or the much sadder version: "My belief that I'll see my dead loved one again is all that keeps me going."

It's not about what I want, or what you or I can or cannot imagine. Despite what we can imagine, despite what we may or may not want, God is either real or he is not. Our desires and the limits of our imagination have nothing at all to do with it.

Why would I want to live in a world without God? Well, I don't actually have that choice. If there is no God, as the lack of evidence for any kind of God whatsoever suggests, then the choices are simply to live in the world without God or to commit suicide; however, this world is a pretty good place whether or not there's a God behind it, and the privilege of being alive should never be belittled. On the whole, I like being alive, able to see, hear, taste, feel, love, and all the other things I won't be able to do when I'm dead.

If you can't imagine a world without God, then you are simply showing that, like all humans, your imagination is limited. You believe in God because you were raised to believe; that has no bearing on whether or not God is actually real.

You may well want to believe that you'll see your loved ones again in heaven when you die. Hey, I'm with you all the way - I'd love to believe that. In fact, I'd give anything to see my father, my grandparents and various other people I've loved and lost again. The problem is that our desires don't change reality at all. We may want to believe something, but that doesn't make it so. I'd love to believe I'll see my dead loved ones again, but there is no evidence that would suggest any such thing will actually happen, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that my consciousness, the thing that makes me who I am, will be snuffed out just like my voice when I die.

If your belief that you'll see your loved one again is all that keeps you going, I feel very sad for you. However, speaking for myself, I'd rather know the uncomfortable truth than believe a comforting lie. If your loved one is dead, he or she is in no pain, and is not suffering in any way. Also, he or she will always be there in your memory. That's not very comforting, I know - there is no way to relieve the pain of grief - but it's the reality that we have to live with. There is no evidence that there is anything more than this life.

Whether or not there is a God (just like any other aspect of reality) is not dependent upon our imaginations, our desires or what we think the world should be like. The balance of evidence suggests that there is most probably no God and no afterlife. We just need to get used to that fact and make the most of the only life we know we will have, in this flawed but absolutely amazing world in which we live.

The science of derp

2012-01-17T08:51:00.000-08:00

It has been decided by specialists in the field of derp (oh, OK, by me and Graeme Green) that derp should henceforth have its own SI unit, the Herp (Hp).

The fundamental particle of derp is the moron, which has a derp value equal to the Green-Taylor constant at 1x10^-50 Hp.

Quantum Derpology is a new and exciting field of research, which requires further input from a wider knowledge base.

Suggested approximate values so far suggested include:

antivaxers: 1 mHp
homeopathy:15.6 Hp
astrology: 45Hp
Islam: 650 kHp
Christianity: 625 mHp
Scientology: 1.2MHp.

Does anyone have any further insights to offer in the exciting fields of Derpology and Quantum Derpology?
I think I may have to include Herp values in future posts ;o)

Shit Christians say to atheists

2012-01-16T01:31:00.000-08:00

Atheists: how many of these have you heard? If you've been an atheist for any length of time, especially if you were once a Christian, my guess is you'll have come across most of these.

"Militant" atheism

2012-01-12T04:12:00.000-08:00

Militant, but definitely not an atheist.

It seems that every so often theists throw out the accusation that certain atheists, myself included, are "militant". In fact, that term seems to have become quite widespread. This topic has happened to come to my attention quite a bit of late, most recently due to Dylan's blog post on the topic (click here to read a translation if you don't understand Welsh).

As Dylan says (translated):

In all other cases, you have to do something very serious to be labelled as "militant". "Militant" Muslims do things like putting on a belt full of C4 before walking into a cafe in Tel Aviv to kill as many Jews as possible. Some "militant" Christians murder doctors who perform abortions. For an atheist to be rewarded with the "militant" label, however, it seems that all he or she has to do is write a few words to the effect that religion isn't necessarily all good.

When a Christian pastor states from the pulpit that those who don't follow Jesus will go to hell, is he being militant? No - he's simply making a statement that is in accord with what he believes. When he says that atheists are lost souls without hope or direction, is he being militant? No. Again, he's just publicly stating what he believes. I believe he's utterly wrong, but he's far from militant. If the same pastor were to encourage his congregation to intimidate non-Christians with violence or kill atheists, then he would be worthy of the title "militant". Otherwise he's anything but. Offensive, yes; odious, perhaps. Militant? Definitely not.

What about a Muslim who believes that those who don't accept that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet have gone astray and earn the wrath of Allah? Is he or she being militant? Not at all. It's just a statement of belief. If that person goes a step further and decides to become the instrument of Allah's wrath by blowing up a bus full of Israeli schoolkids or flying a plane into a skyscraper, then he or she is being militant.

And yet, religious people still refer to me and people like me as militant atheists. What have we done to earn that label? Speaking for myself, I blog about atheism in a pretty no-nonsense fashion. I say things as I see them and call a spade a spade. I post lots of atheism-related material on Facebook. Why? Because it's a topic about which I feel strongly, and one that interests me. Does that make me militant? I think not.

I'd love to see religion go away. I'd even go so far as to call myself an anti-theist. However, I also have a strong belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Does that make me militant? I think not.

It seems to me that what people regard as militant is the way I attack religious beliefs. However, the fact is that I draw a very strong distinction between religious beliefs and religious believers. I treat the two differently. I don't think that religious beliefs deserve any automatic reverence or respect, and more than, say, political beliefs do. As far as I'm concerned, both are open for debate and even ridicule if it's warranted. I will attack someone's beliefs until the cows come home, but I will never attack that person. I may ridicule the idea that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, but I will not punch someone in the face or burn down his house for believing it. I may think the idea that Muhammad was a prophet is ludicrous, but I will not discriminate against someone who believes it in the workplace.

Some religious believers find it hard to see the distinction between attacking their beliefs and attacking them as persons, but to me there is all the difference in the world.

So, am I militant in any way about my atheism? Absolutely not. However, I will continue to speak out against what I see as the dangers and idiocies of religion. At most, that makes me an outspoken atheist.

Another term I've heard used is "evangelical atheist". This is a label that is sometimes even used by fellow-atheists, and I can see where they're coming from. However, the use of the term comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "evangelical".

"Evangelical" in a Christian context means someone who takes the Bible as their source of authority; it comes from the word evangel, or gospel. An evangelical is someone whose focus is on the Bible and the preaching of the Christian gospel. There is simply no equivalent to this in atheism, as we have no holy books and no fundamental beliefs.

The word "evangelical" is often misused to mean "evangelistic", which is perhaps closer to the truth. However, even this term has its problems. I speak out against religion, but I'm not trying to make converts (or, if you prefer, deconverts). In fact, if someone turned away from their religion because of me, I wouldn't be happy about it. Why? Because they would just be substituting me as an alternative authority figure to their priest, pastor, imam or whatever. I don't deserve to be in such an exalted position. No-one does. That's why I don't preach my beliefs on street corners or make impassioned pleas in an atmosphere of heightened emotion and subconscious suggestion for people to raise their hands and accept reason into their hearts. For someone to change his or her beliefs because an authority figure told them to or because he or she is swayed by an eloquent preacher or orator is the very worst thing that could happen, and I will have no part in it. (I frequently did when I was a Christian, to my shame, but no longer.)

If, however, someone chose to abandon religion at the end of a process of thinking things through for themselves because I made them think, I'd be very happy. By profession I'm a teacher, and education is important to me. If I can influence people to use reason, logic and critical thinking rather than accepting the word of their minister or a holy book, then I will have achieved my objective. If that leads to them becoming atheists, so much the better. My aim is to spread critical thinking, not atheism as a faith position. True atheism is not based on faith in any way, not even faith in Richard Dawkins (as some Christians like to claim).

So, am I militant? Definitely not. Am I evangelical? Not since I left Christianity. What I am, and what Christians don't like, is unwilling to sit back while religion basks in undeserved privilege and reverence. I'm an atheist, an outspoken atheist, and I'm proud of that fact. If more atheists would stand up and make their views known then religion would have less influence in our society, which would definitely be a good thing.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 6)

2012-01-05T14:35:00.000-08:00

This is the sixth and final part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Click here for part 3.

Click here for part 4.

Click here for part 5.

Chapter 6: RealEvidence

The direct evidence of the disciples that they sawChrist, coupled with the strong chain of circumstantial evidence we have justexamined, amount to extremely strong evidence in favour of the miracle of theResurrection.

As we have seen in previous chapters, this statement isclearly false. The “evidence” offered is extremely unreliable at best, so thereis no good reason to accept it. Despite the author’s repeated assertions to thecontrary, no unbiased jury in the land would consider this as sufficientevidence to prove the resurrection of Jesus beyond reasonable doubt. In fact,it would not even be sufficient evidence to make the claim of a miracle evenslightly plausible.

But to this evidence we can also add what lawyers callreal evidence. In a court of law real evidence is evidence which can beproduced for the inspection of the court. Goods which have been stolen or a gunwhich has been found in the possession of the accused is real evidence. What,then, is the real evidence for the Resurrection of Christ? The answer is thatthe real evidence is Christ himself. If Christ rose from the dead, this meanshe is living today and that we can experience his power in our lives. To mymind this is the greatest proof of all.

If real evidence is something tangible and physical that canbe produced for inspection, where is the tangible and physical person of Jesusfor us to inspect? Of all the claims the author makes in the booklet, this oneis the most obviously laughable. Of course we cannot see, hear or touch Jesus,because he is not actually here for us to see, hear or touch. So if Jesus isnot here physically then how can he be described as evidence for his ownresurrection? The very idea is ridiculous. Of course, the Christian has aready-made excuse for this: he or she will claim that after his resurrection, Jesusascended bodily into heaven. This suggests that heaven is a place somewhere inthe sky where physical, flesh-and-blood humans can live. Where is it?Conveniently, nobody knows. What proof is there of its existence? None.

The elephant in the room, which we have consideredpreviously but to which the author never alludes, is that there is no realevidence anywhere that anyone who has been dead (by which I mean real,brain-stem death) has ever come back to life. In effect, Christians are guiltyof the logical fallacy of special pleading when they claim that Jesus came backto life two days after he died. There are no other examples of dead people comingback to life, so why should it be assumed that such a thing is even possible,let alone likely? Every single person who has ever died is evidence against theidea that dead people come back to life, as none of them are now alive.

Even if we were to allow, against all reason and evidence,that the “evidence” asserted by the author was actually reliable, we wouldstill run up against this brick wall: dead people do not rise again, and thereis no good reason to insist on an exception to this rule for one man fromNazareth who lived in the first century.

A walk through any cemetery will confirm the fact that ismost inconvenient for Christians, and that forms the obvious conclusion to thiswhole discussion: dead people stay dead. There is no reason at all to insistthat Jesus of Nazareth was any different.

Chapter 7: Yourverdict

This final chapter is nothing more than an exhortation topeople to believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and is alive today,and to accept him as their Lord and Saviour. Given that there is clearly noevidence at all for the resurrection of Jesus, to do so would clearly beridiculous for anyone who has a grasp of the facts at hand.

I am under no illusion that my criticism of the allegedevidence that Jesus rose from the dead will sway the opinion of hard-coreChristian believers. No argument or logic could do that, however true and sound, because their beliefsare not based on argument and logic in the first place. Rather, they are based on a combination ofchildhood indoctrination, emotion and unquestioned cultural norms.

However, it may be that some more open-minded Christianswho read this short series of blog posts on the subject are willing to examinetheir beliefs from the perspective of an outsider and to look at them asobjectively as possible. Of such people I would simply ask that they apply thesame rigorous standards of evidence and objectivity to their own beliefs asthey would apply to those of another religion. I have no doubt that if this isindeed done objectively, people will begin to see that their own religiousbeliefs are no less ridiculous and bear no more relation to reality than those of others.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 5)

2012-01-05T14:21:00.000-08:00

This is the fifth part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.
Click here for part 3.
Click here for part 4.

Chapter 5: Circumstantial Evidence

Thewitness of the disciples is extremely strong direct evidence for Christ’sResurrection, and it would be accepted in any court of law.

As we sawin the last chapter, this is certainly untrue. Plagiarised accounts based onoral traditions and stories hardly constitute firm evidence, or indeed anyevidence. The only thing this is evidence for is the way that religious believersare so able to compartmentalise their minds that they don’t realise they areapplying hugely different standards of evidence and intellectual integrity totheir religious beliefs than to every other area of life.

Few, ifany, religious believers are persuaded that their beliefs are true because ofevidence. Rather, they are conditioned to believe from the cradle by the sameongoing process of indoctrination by which we all absorb our native culture andlanguage. As such, religious beliefs usually go without any form of criticalexamination because they are “obviously” and “self-evidently” true. This is thecase whichever religious community one belongs to. It is possible to breakthrough this protective layer of culture to examine one’s beliefs critically,but it is certainly not easy. Indeed, most believers are unable to do so.

Althoughfew believers are aware of it on a conscious level, the fact that theirstarting-point is the assumption that their religion is true means that theyare predisposed to disbelieve or ignore contradictory evidence. At the sametime, any “evidence” that seems to reinforce their beliefs, however flimsy, isgenerally seized upon and not examined too critically. So we have seen in thelast chapter with the supposed “direct” and “eye-witness” accounts found in theGospels (which, as we have seen, are nothing of the sort).

The authornow moves on to what he claims is circumstantial evidence, which he places infour categories: The life of Jesus, change in the disciples, the existence ofChristianity and the experience of Christians.

1. The Life of Jesus

Inany court of law, favourable evidence … by witnesses from the other side wouldcarry great weight. By common consent Christ was unique, the greatest man whoever lived. This being so, it is not so difficult to believe that he rose fromthe dead. Christ’s teaching and life demand the miracle of his Resurrection.

We coulddiscuss the author’s mischaracterisation of Einstein and others as he quote-minestheir recorded sayings to make it seem as though even atheists think Jesus wasspecial, but the juiciest fruit in this section is so low-hanging that there isno need to pick the other fruit.

It iscertainly not a matter of common consent that Jesus was either unique or thegreatest man who has ever lived (except, of course, among Christians), but evenwere we to concede, for the sake of argument, that such was the case, theauthor’s claim that his supposedly exemplary life and teaching therefore make itmore likely that he would rise from the dead is simply absurd. A good man, evena great man, is no more likely to rise from the dead than a criminal. Thecharacter and life of Jesus do not constitute even circumstantial evidence forthe resurrection; the author really is clutching at straws in claimingotherwise.

Even thoughthere are indeed some atheists (myself not included) who think that theteachings of Christ are extraordinary and that his life was exemplary, as theauthor claims, this also is not evidence that he was any more likely to risefrom the dead. The most that can be gained from such “evidence”, even if it istaken at face value, is that Jesus may have been an extraordinary man. Thisevidence can in no way be deduced to infer that Jesus is not, in fact, dead.

2. Change in the disciples

Jesus’ crucifixion was shattering to his disciples. It left them stunned,leaderless and in complete despair. All their hopes were ended. But thensomething happened. Suddenly these same disciples were utterly changed. Theybecame completely different. Peter, their leader, on the night before thecrucifixion had three times denied with oaths and cursings that he ever knewJesus. Yet some 50 days later on the Day of Pentecost this same Peter riskedhis life by boldly telling the whole of Jerusalem that he had seen Jesus risen fromthe dead. Shortly afterwards peter was imprisoned because of his stand, andeventually died for his faith in Christ. What changed Peter from the cowardthat he was to the great disciple that he became? Peter’s answer is that he metthe risen Christ. Nothing short of this will do.

The storieswe have about Peter and the other disciples come from the same unreliable oralsources as the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life (as discussed in the lastchapter), so we cannot rely upon their historical accuracy. However, even if wegrant for the sake of argument that the story as outlined above is indeed true,and that there was indeed a great change in Peter’s attitude towards Jesus, theonly thing that proves is that he thought Jesus had risen fromthe dead. This has no bearing on whether or not it actually happened.

It is alsoundeniably true that people change all the time. Previously quiet, unassuming,moderate Muslim students have become radicalised and ended up as suicidebombers or gone on the rampage with automatic weapons in the name of Islam, forexample. Yet I doubt that there are very many believers in Jesus’ resurrectionwho would argue that this points towards the claims of radical Islam being inany way true. As with these young suicide bombers, so with Peter – the changein his lifestyle, ways of operating and level of radicality in no way formevidence that Jesus was alive again after he had died. It simply demonstratesthat people can change.

3. The existence of Christianity

Theexistence of Christianity is a historical fact which demands an explanation.

Theexplanation is not that difficult to come by. Christianity began as a tinyminority sect of Judaism and was spread to the non-Jewish, Greek-speakingpopulace of the eastern Roman Empire by Paul of Tarsus and his followers. It continued to be a minoritysect, though of increasingly non-Jewish character, until it was adopted by theRoman emperor Constantine as his religion and, in 313 CE it began to gain popularityafter Constantine proclaimed that this previously reviled and persecutedminority sect would now be officially tolerated. In 380 CE, Emperor TheodosiusI made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, then in 392 he banned all paganworship. Later in the fourth century, pagans were persecuted ruthlessly by Christians as a result of this legislation.

Without the official backing of the Roman establishment andthe consequent semi-official (and official) persecution of those who followedother religions, it is doubtful that Christianity would have survived to thepresent day, let alone become a major world religion. It is a fact that is toooften ignored by Christian believers who criticize Islam for its violentbeginnings, but from the fourth century onwards Christianity was often spreadby the sword.

How is the existence this historically interesting butmorally bankrupt religion in any way evidence, even loose circumstantialevidence, that Jesus rose from the dead? It is not, any more than the existenceof Islam proves that Muhammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem and from there ascended into heaven. The very idea is ridiculous.

4. The experience ofChristians

From the first Easter Sunday until today there is anunbroken succession of millions who can witness that their lives have beenrevolutionized by contact with the living Christ. Rich and poor, educated anduneducated, people of different backgrounds, nationalities, cultures andtemperaments unite in uniform testimony to the Resurrection … Evidence likethis, which could be multiplied a million times, cannot be ignored; it iscontemporary and personal testimony to the power of the living Christ. Theexperience of Christians all down the ages endorses the miracle of theResurrection of Christ.

Inner feelings and personal experiences count for little.Our minds are easily fooled and our emotions are easily swayed by suggestion,group dynamics and the expectations of our peers. In addition, such personaltestimonies of changed lives and conviction of the truth of religious beliefsoccur in nearly all religions. Is that evidence that they are all true? Hardly.It is simply evidence that we humans are easily fooled, and not nearly asobjective about reality as we imagine ourselves to be.
Click here for part 6.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 4)

2012-01-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

This is the fourth part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.
Click here for part 3.

Chapter 4:The Direct Evidence of the Disciples

On at least eleven occasions more than 550 saw the risen Christ. He appeared five times on the day of his Resurrection. Mary Magdalene was the first to see him – outside the tomb early in the morning. Soon afterwards she met him again, along with Mary the mother of James, Joanna and others, as they hurried back to Jerusalem. Peter then met Christ and wasrestored after his denial. Cleopas and his companion met him on the road toEmmaus in the afternoon. Finally, Christ appeared to the disciples in the UpperRoom and had Supper with them.

As we sawin the post on the previous chapter, the idea that over 500 people sawJesus risen from the dead at one time is based on the writings of Paul, and isnothing but reported hearsay. This cannot be taken seriously as evidence.

As for theother accounts of people seeing Jesus after his death, these are not eyewitnessaccounts either. As we have noted before, the earliest Gospel account, that ofMark, was not written by an eyewitness; Matthew and Luke were largelyplagiarised from Mark and another source, though they added their own (entirelycontradictory in some cases) details as well. John’s Gospel was written farlater, at the end of the 1^st century, when nobody who had met Jesuswas still alive. These accounts of Jesus are based on oral traditions, and themiracle stories contained in oral traditions are commonplace. There were many othercharismatic preachers and “messiahs” around in the first century, and the accountswe have of them also include miracles. If these oral traditions are notreliable, why should those recorded in the Gospels be regarded as any more reliable?

Theiraccounts of the Resurrection are independent of each other. On a superficialreading of them, there may appear to be points of disagreement, but closerexamination reveals that they are complementary and not contradictory.

On thecontrary, as we have already seen, the first three Gospels are anything butindependent. Matthew and Luke plagiarised Mark (or, if we wish to use moreconciliatory language, “used Mark as a source”) and another document, now lost,commonly known as “Q”, which was probably a list of the sayings of Jesus. Giventhat the first three Gospels share source material, the differences betweenthem must have been deliberately inserted by the respective authors, often tomake a theological point. In fact, the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus inthese three Gospels are not only different, but contradictory. Considering thatthey all used the same source materials, which are repeated verbatim in all three Gospels in many instances, it’s hard to believe thatthese differences are based on actual recollection of events. Rather, it ismore probable that none of these Gospel writers actually knew first-hand whatreally happened. In other words, they were simply recording hearsay or makingthings up themselves, which makes them extremely unreliable as historicalwitnesses.

The Gospelof John does not seem to share source documents with the other three Gospels,and as we would expect its accounts are even more different and contradictorywhen compared with the accounts of the other three Gospels. This is entirelywhat would be expected from a document that was written after everyone who hadever met Jesus was dead and was based solely on stories passed from person toperson innumerable times, getting embellished and changed in the process.

So what wereally have in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are only twoindependent attestations, neither of them written by an eyewitness. That is avery poor standard of evidence.

The evidence of the witnesses is empirical, ie it is based on observation and experiment and not on theory … Their three highest senses – sight, hearing and touch – were all involved. What they saw was real.

I wonderwhat experiments that author thinks were performed on Jesus! As we have seen,the Gospel accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts, but based on storiespassed from person to person orally over the course of many decades. Theirevidence is very far from empirical. It is shaky at best, based on hearsay andfolk tales that sprung up around the legend of a charismatic preacher namedJesus.

Thewitnesses corroborate each other … This is what we have here: the evidence ofJohn, Peter, Thomas, James, Mary Magdalene, Paul and others as to how they metthe risen Christ. Each told the same thing in his or her own way, the evidenceof one backing up the evidence of the others.

The “evidence”of John, Peter, Thomas, James and Mary Magdalene can be safely dismissedbecause they are recorded only in the flawed, hearsay-based Gospel accounts.Many Christians would surely object that these accounts cannot possibly bewrong, as they are part of the Bible and thus the Word of God, but if in fact Jesusdid not rise from the dead then the Bible accounts cannot be God’s word. Thuswe cannot simply assume the reliability of the biblical texts unless we canfirst demonstrate that Jesus really did rise from the dead. To do otherwisewould simply be a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning: “The Bible istrue. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead. How do we know Jesus rose from thedead? Because the Bible is true.” Neither of those statements should beautomatically assumed without evidence.

Paul’saccount of meeting Jesus comes from a different source than the Gospels.However, what are we to make of someone who falls down, sees a blinding lightand sees visions of Jesus that nobody else can see or hear? These days, such aperson would no doubt be diagnosed as having a psychotic episode or a severe epileptic seizure. This makesPaul’s account unreliable too.

The factthat the author says that Paul is “…the greatest witness of all for the truthof the Resurrection” betrays the fact that he actually has very little to go onby way of reliable witnesses, as his chief witness is a man who suffered frompsychotic episodes in which he was convinced God was speaking to him!

In the next post in this series, we shall examine chapter 5: Circumstantial Evidence.

Click here for part 5.
Click here for part 6.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 3)

2012-01-02T08:13:00.000-08:00

This is the third part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Chapter 3:What happened to Jesus?

The authortakes for granted that the “facts” outlined in the previous chapter (that Jesuslived, was crucified and that his tomb was later found to be empty) are“admitted by friend and foe of Christianity alike.” As we have seen in theprevious article, this is clearly not the case, as the very existence of Jesusis open to question. However, for the sake of argument, we shall assume for nowthat he was a real person.

The authorgoes on to assert that there are four possible answers to the question of whyJesus’ tomb was empty: “fraud, swoon, delusion and miracle.” These are not theonly possible reasons for the tomb being empty, of course, but we shall examinesome other reasons later. For now, let us look at what he has to say aboutthese four possibilities.

Fraud

This is theidea that the disciples came to the tomb by night, when the Roman guards wereasleep, and stole the body of Jesus. This story is mentioned in Matthew28:11-15, where the guards reported to the chief priests and the eldersthat Jesus had been resurrected. According to this account, they paid theguards a large amount of money to tell people that Jesus’ disciples had stolenhis body.

The authorfinds this unbelievable, and so do I, though perhaps for different reasons.Would people who had witnessed a genuine miracle, the resurrection of a deadman, really be so easy to buy off to keep quiet about it? Also, if the chiefpriests knew that Jesus had really been resurrected, surely they would haverealised that he was indeed someone special and wouldn’t have continued notbelieving in his message. No, it seems to me that this story was probably madeup by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, not one of the other Gospels (including the Gospel of Mark, from whichMatthew’s Gospel was largely plagiarised) ever mentions that a guard was postedat the tomb, much less that they made up a story about the disciples stealingthe body. After all, why guard a dead man?

It is possible that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, but I think itunlikely. If tradition is to be believed, many of the early disciples weremartyred. As the author himself points out, “Men may die for what theysincerely think is true, but it is another thing to die for what you know is alie.” That does not, of course, mean that the resurrection story was true. Itmerely means that they thought it was true, which would certainly not be thecase had they stolen the body themselves.

Swoon

The second idea suggested is that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but just lost consciousnessdue to loss of blood and exhaustion. He later revived in the tomb.

On thispoint, the author and I are in complete agreement. The Romans were experts incruel torture and execution, and would be unlikely to have allowed Jesus to betaken off the cross and buried unless they were satisfied that he was dead.Then there is the fact that such a severely injured man, left on his own in acold, dark rock-cut tomb for three days with no food, water, or medical care, wouldprobably have died even if he did revive in the tomb.

Finally,even if he did somehow manage to survive for a whole weekend in this severelyinjured, weakened state, there is no way he would have had the strength to rollaway the large stone covering the entrance to the tomb. Thus the idea thatJesus only lost consciousness rather than dying is a non-starter.

Delusion

Delusions often arise due to someone expecting something so much thateventually he believes it has happened. Like the wife who loses her husband.For years she has been used to him coming home from work at 6pm. Each night atthis time she thinks of him and longs to see him again. Eventually she suffersfrom the delusion that her husband has come home and spoken to her.

According to this explanation, this is what happened here. The disciples expected Jesus to rise from the dead. This expectation led to hallucination. The whole thingwas wish fulfilment and it was ‘all in the mind’.

The authorgoes on to argue that the disciples were not, in fact, expecting Jesus to risefrom the dead. This is odd, because according to the Bible Jesus himself hadtold them this was going to happen (Matthew 26:32). However, even if we allowthis, that does not rule out wishful thinking, as in the above quoted example.

The authorgoes on to point out that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:6, states that over 500people all saw Christ alive at the same time, and it is highly unlikely thatthey would all have had the exact same delusion. However, we only have the wordof Paul for this, and he was not there at the time of this supposed miraculousoccurrence. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Paul was eitherlying or simply got his facts wrong.

Miracle

This is, ofcourse, the answer favoured by the author, who was himself a Christian. No evidence is given in this chapter, but hestates that he will go on to give the evidence for this position in the nextfew chapters. We shall therefore return to this answer and consider the evidence overthe course of the next few posts.

Other possible explanations

There areother possibilities that the author has not considered. First of all, although(if you believe tradition) most of the original disciples of Jesus weremartyred for their faith, that does not mean that what they believed wasactually true. Members of many faiths have been martyred because they sincerelybelieved, but that does not make their beliefs true.

There areno first-person accounts written by the first disciples, nor are there anyeyewitness accounts of their deaths. Our only historical sources were writtenmuch later, based on hearsay. This is shaky ground on which to establish atruth claim.

Even if thedisciples really were martyred, history is full of people who were martyred fora lie because they believed it was true. The disciples of Jesus would hardly beunique in this regard.

In the next post, continuing on the author’s theme of evidence for the miracle of theresurrection of Jesus actually taking place, we shall examine what he calls thedirect evidence of the disciples.

Click here for part 4.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 2)

2012-01-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

This is the second part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.

Chapter 2:A Rider

The authorcompares the case for Jesus’ resurrection to a court case in which the courthas to decide what is the most likely thing to have happened. This analogy isuseful if the court case in question is a criminal case, with the prosecutiontrying to prove that Jesus is indeed “guilty” of rising from the dead.

In acriminal case, two verdicts are possible: guilty or not guilty. The accused canonly be found guilty if the evidence is such that his or her guilt can beestablished beyond reasonable doubt. If guilt cannot be so established, thenregardless of their personal feelings about the defendant, the jury must returna verdict of “not guilty”. So it is in the case of Jesus’ resurrection; if itcannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the honest observer has no choice butto reject it as unproven. This, in fact, is the classical atheist position. Ifan assertion cannot be proven evidentially, there is no reason to believe it.

To beunbiased in our case is more difficult than appears, as all of us have inbuiltprejudices. A striking example of this is the Frenchman Ernest Renan who wrotea book The Life of Jesus in which he denounced the Resurrectionof Christ. Yet, by his own admission, Renan started with the presupposition,‘There is no such thing as a miracle. Therefore the Resurrection did not takeplace’! Such an attitude would not be tolerated in a court of law. We must beunbiased when examining the evidence.

The authoris being disingenuous here. Starting from the position that miracles do nothappen is not being biased or prejudiced. Rather, it is a position based onwhat the author claims as the most important criterion: evidence. In our world,in our day-to-day lives, dead people stay dead. They certainly do not becomealive again after being buried for the weekend. This is the normal state ofaffairs, and in our experience this state of affairs never changes. If someonewishes to assert that something miraculous happened that not only differs from thenormal state of affairs, but also contradicts the laws of physics, then theburden of proof is on them. The assertions “miracles happen” and “miracles donot happen” are not of equal weight. The null hypothesis, the default position until actual evidence to the contrary is produced,must be that miracles do not happen.

The personwho wishes to assert that Jesus died and then miraculously came back to lifeafter a weekend of being dead and buried must therefore provide evidence thatthis is so, or else their assertion can be dismissed as unfounded. Theirs is anextraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.To go back to Hitchens again, “What can be asserted without evidence can bedismissed without evidence.”

Anycourt case must begin with the facts. Once these have been ascertained the casecan then proceed and a verdict be given. What, then, are the facts aboutChrist? History tells us three things:
He lived more than 1900 years ago
He was crucified on a cross
Three days later his body had disappeared from the tomb where it had been buried.
These factsare borne out by eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament.

Any courtcase must indeed begin with the facts. However, the “facts” given by the authorare shaky at best.

Firstly,there is no evidence outside the New Testament that Jesus ever really lived atall. No contemporary authors wrote about him, which would be odd if he reallydid the things claimed for him in the Gospels. Despite the author’s claim, theNew Testament accounts of Jesus’ life were not written by eyewitnesses. It ishighly unlikely that even the earliest of the Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, waswritten before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. It is highly unlikelythat any eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus were still alive at that point,given that the life expectancy in the ancient world was far lower than inmodern developed countries. As for the other gospels, with the exception of theGospel of John (written c. 90-100 CE) they were largely plagiarised from Mark’sGospel and another source which is now lost.

Even if weaccept that a charismatic Jewish preacher named Jesus lived in the firstcentury CE, died by crucifixion and inspired the Gospel accounts, we have noway of knowing how accurate those accounts are, given their many discrepancies.Was the tomb really empty? Was he even buried in a tomb? It was normal practicein the ancient Roman empire to bury what was left of crucified criminals in unmarked mass graves,so for the Roman authorities to release the body of Jesus for private burialwould be very unusual indeed.

The authorgoes on to cite Tacitus and Josephus as sources for the existence of Jesus.This is again disingenuous, as Tacitus only reported that Christians were namedafter “Christus”, and said nothing about the man himself. In addition, thepassage referring to Jesus in Josephus is disputed by scholars because not onlydoes it refer to him in glowing terms unlikely to come from a non-Christian Jewsuch as Josephus, but also it disrupts the flow of the narrative in such a waythat it makes more sense if the disputed passage about Jesus is removedaltogether. It is likely that the passage was inserted by a later (Christian)copyist who wanted to create more “evidence” for Jesus’ life – hardly anecessary move if real evidence already existed!

Returningto the author’s courtroom metaphor, the evidence of such unreliable“witnesses”, based on nothing but hearsay and evidence-planting, would probablybe laughed out of court. At the very least the judge would direct the jury todisregard such obviously unreliable testimony.

Click here for part 3.
Click here for part 4.

Why I am an Atheist!

2011-12-31T04:54:00.000-08:00

Kia Ora!!!

Why am I an atheist?

I was raised in New Zealand and although we are the home of Mr Ray “banana man” comfort. We are a fairly secular country.

My first memory of religion was a Friday morning story telling time at school (I was approximately 7). We were being read bible stories and being asked questions about god. Now I do seem to vaguely remember that the person doing the reading was different to our teacher, it very well may have been a ‘religious studies’ segment of our young schooling lives.

Even then I remember thinking that it was all very interesting but completely implausible. Also Santa still rocked my world at that point, so I didn’t have room for other entities. J

Several years later, around the age of 15. I developed a crush (Oh my!) on a religious boy and so naturally I did what any infatuated girl would do. I went to church with him. I found the whole experience very touching and enjoyed the community. It was a lot of singing, praising and talking.

I would like to take this moment to point out that it is very moving sitting in a room with a load of people having an extremely emotional experience. I even felt God’s presence in those times and was awed myself. So I was quite happy to go along with it all, I didn’t even think about questioning the religion as the proof was in front of me every Sunday.

Then one Sunday we had a visitor. A Gay Liberal Pastor, he was very enthusiastic about God’s love and how God loves all his children; gay, straight, black, white, blue, short, tall, women, men, 3 legs, everyone. This message resonated with me and I agreed whole heartedly. However, our normal pastor had different ideas and the very next week his sermon was about why you should change for god. You should be white, male and a Christian, nothing else will do. I think that was the contradictory kick that finally engaged by brain to ask questions.

The first person I spoke to was my mother, she is very spiritual but definitely not a Christian and is always honest with me. She told me about her experiences talking to people of other faiths and suggested that I speak to as many people as possible. She then gave me some crucial advice. “Reading the bible is always a good start”

So that’s what I did. At the age of 15 I took on the challenge of reading a book the bored me ½ to death. Confusingly I found more contradictions in that book than I did between the 2 pastors. This is where my passion for knowledge really started.

So from here it was only a matter of time before I renounced what little faith I had. One thing always stuck with me, why did I feel so moved when people were singing/praising? The answer for me came when I spoke to my Science teacher, he pointed out that it’s very likely we pick up on what other people feel. We are social creatures; you can tell when someone’s uncomfortable, which makes you uncomfortable. A friend being in a good mood will lift you up too, it’s something we all experience and it made sense to me. A room full of 100 people crying happy tears and singing was bound to effect me.

So from that moment onwards I would pretty much say that I was an atheist and more importantly a skeptic or sceptic depending where you come from.

And that in a summary is why I am an atheist.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 1)

2011-12-30T18:56:00.000-08:00

My wife andI recently received a letter from an old friend of hers who knew me back in theold days when I was a Christian.

In the letter he said, “I was sorry to hearthat Barry has given up on his faith. I enclose a booklet that I hope helps –for me the resurrection of Jesus proves it’s all really true and there’s a lotof evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead.”

I know hisheart is in the right place and he thinks he’s helping me, so I’m not going toattack him personally over this, but what makes him think I need help? Come tothat, what makes him think I hadn’t already examined this stuff in detailbefore I decided Christianity was just another made-up religion? I did not make that decision lightly or quickly, and a huge amount of thought went into it.

The bookletthis friend sent me was Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve, printed in 1976.

Over thenext few days I hope to post a series of articles based on the various chaptersof the booklet, detailing exactly why I don’t accept that Jesus actually rosefrom the dead, and why I don’t believe this “evidence” to be anything of thesort.

Chapter 1: Verdict On The Empty Tomb.

"The Resurrection is the very heart of the Christian faith ... Without the Resurrection there is no gospel. As Paul says, 'If Christ was not raised, your faith has nothing in it' (1 Corinthians 15:17)."

On this point I agree with the author. If Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christianity is worthless. The entire religion hangs on the factuality of this one claim: that following his death, Jesus actually came back to life and still lives today. If satisfactory evidence cannot be brought to prove this statement, then there is no reason to believe Christianity's claims, and certainly no good reason to be a Christian.

It is an interesting point that Christians, generally speaking, are not Christians because they have been persuaded by the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather, Christian belief (in common with most religions) is more usually a product of culture, an unquestioned assumption that people are conditioned to believe from a very early age. It is far more usual for Christians to believe first and then try to find arguments for what they believe, rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, I shall examine the arguments put forward in this booklet.

“…in noother religion do we find its followers saying that its founder is God, that herose from the dead and is alive today changing people’s lives.”

This isclearly not true. Adherents of most religions believe that the ultimate sourceof their religion is God (or the gods).

Rising fromthe dead? There are many gods who have supposedly risen from the dead. A listof them can be found here. Jesus is hardly unique in this regard. Why do Christians accept the story ofJesus’s resurrection but ignore those of other gods?

As for changing people’s lives, this is claim is not exclusiveto Christianity either. Ask any Muslim if he thinks Allah has changed his lifefor the better, and see what answer you get.

The bottom line is evidence. It’s easy to make statementsextolling the virtues of Christianity and stating that Jesus rose from the dead,but as Carl Sagan reportedly said, extraordinary claims require extraordinaryevidence. And as Christopher Hitchens said, what can be asserted withoutevidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Over the next few posts I’ll be looking at the standard ofthe “evidence” contained in the booklet and seeing if any of it actually standsup to scrutiny.

Click here for part 2.
Click here for part 3.
Click here for part 4.

Daft things said to atheists part 8: "You're closed-minded."

2011-12-27T07:53:00.000-08:00

Here's another question that often comes up, usually after an atheist has been debating with a Christian or other theist for a while. The Christian will often ask, "Why are you so closed-minded?"

This is often asked out of exasperation. From the religious person's point of view, the atheist is stubbornly refusing to believe the obvious truth. How dare he? The only explanation must be closed-mindedness.

The problem is, what seems self-evident to the believer is actually not self-evident at all.

The bottom line for sceptical thinkers, a term which describes most atheists, is evidence. If an idea has no evidence to back it up, then it is not worth believing. This is the main criterion that most people, theist and atheist alike, apply in most areas of life. Theists just seem to think it's not necessary to apply the same logic to God.

What is open-mindedness? To me, it is the willingness and humility to change one's mind or one's position based on evidence, and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Accepting any old thing that someone else believes is not being open-minded; it is being naive and sheep-like. Requiring a good reason, i.e. evidence, before one changes one's mind is not being closed-minded. It is being sensible.

Personally, I have already demonstrated that I am open-minded by changing my views based on the evidence. I was a believer for well over 30 years, and "born again" for 20 of those years. I never wanted to be an atheist. However, I was willing to follow the evidence wherever it led, and because of that I ended up changing my mind and becoming an atheist. That shows I'm willing to change my mind if necessary, but I'm not going to change my mind about something just because someone else happens to believe it strongly.

If you want me to believe what you believe, there is only one thing that will do it: actual evidence. Provide me with real evidence and I may well change my mind. However, if all you have to offer is a mixture of hearsay, personal feelings and groundless philosophical arguments then you'll find I stubbornly cling to reality - not because I'm closed-minded, but because I have not been given a good reason to change my mind.

To the religious person who accuses me of being closed-minded, then, then, I say this: if I am willing to change my mind based on evidence, while you ignore any evidence that contradicts your beliefs, which of us is really closed-minded?

Atheists are immoral?

2011-12-27T07:18:00.000-08:00

Atheism
The "immoral" belief that:

Forcing a victim to marry her rapist (Deut 22:23-24)
Killing homosexuals (Lev 20:13)
Burning anyone to death who fornicates (Lev 21:9)
Stoning people to death for blasphemy (Lev 24:10-16)
Endorsing slavery (Lev 25:44-46)

are wrong.

(Picture from the Global Secular Humanist Movement.)

Daft things said to atheists part 7: "God is like air"

2011-12-26T17:26:00.000-08:00

"God is like air. You can't see, smell, feel, taste, weigh, touch or hear air, but it's there all the same."

I've heard this one several times now, so it's worth addressing here. It usually comes as a response when someone says that there's no evidence that God exists.

Only a person with no scientific knowledge whatsoever could think this argument has any validity at all. Not only is the comparison flawed, but so are the basic premises.

Air is physical. It is a substance, a mixture of chemicals. We feel it every time the wind blows. The fact that it has mass and weight can be demonstrated by means of simple experiments. Come to that, just watch a wind turbine - only something with mass could move those monsters. We hear air all the time when the wind is strong. Try sticking your hand out of the window of a moving car and telling me we can't feel air! We can also see it under certain conditions - what do you think heat haze is, if not moving currents of air caused by convection? You can even smell and taste the air sometimes, depending what's in it.

More than that, air is essential for certain chemical reactions. How do we put out most fires? We deprive them of air.

So the premises are flawed. Air is in fact eminently detectable and provable. It is physical, it has mass, it clearly and demonstrably exists.

Now let's look at God.

It's true that we can't see, smell, feel, taste, weigh, touch or hear God. He is non-physical. He is completely undetectable. All the properties we'd expect, in fact, of something that does not actually exist.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence at all for the existence of God. The comparison with air is ridiculous.

You know what else we can't hear, see, taste, touch, weigh or hear? Unicorns and fairies. Do you believe they exist? What about Zeus, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you don't believe in any of these, why believe in the God of the Bible since the evidence for the existence for all of them is exactly the same?

The yawn true meaning of Xmas

2011-12-25T17:27:00.000-08:00

Here's a letter that was printed in the Western Mail newspaper on December 19th. It's the kind of letter that always gets printed at this time of year, by a Christian decrying the way people have forgotten the "true meaning" of Christmas.

The Christmas gift

SIR – Many children and adults in our society will celebrate Christmas, but have lost touch with its true meaning.

They will not realise the significance of Advent in the Christian church, or why we celebrate Christmas.No doubt they would have heard of baby Jesus and some might know that he was born 2,000 years ago, and he was the son of God.

To some in our secularised society, this will be little more than a fairy tale. And if they understand little about Advent, and Christmas they will understand even less about Easter.

For Christians, Advent, (the four Sundays before Christmas) is the time of solemn preparation and hopeful anticipation of the celebration of the incarnate God.

During the Christmas season, we generally exchange gifts, and these gifts symbolises our respect, affection and love for one another. But let us not forget, God exchanges the greatest of all gifts with us: Jesus Christ our Saviour.

NORMAN PLAISTED
Newport, Gwent

My response was printed on December 24th:

A secular Christmas

Sir -
Norman Plaisted is most welcome to celebrate Christmas as he sees fit (Letters, Dec 19). If he wants to believe that the birth of Jesus is the true meaning of Christmas that is his right, which nobody can take away. Millions of people worldwide celebrate Christmas as the birth of God's son. However, a great many of us celebrate a secular version of Christmas in which Jesus does not feature, and we should also be allowed to do that without being told that we are ignoring the true meaning of the celebration.

Many of us have examined the beliefs of Christianity and found them wanting. We have not forgotten the 'true meaning' of Christmas; we simply don't believe in it, and choose to reject it.

Celebrate Christmas however you want, but please don't try to impose your own version on everyone else. There's plenty of room for us all.

Need I say more? Some people wonder why atheists celebrate Christmas when they don't believe in Christ. This is my answer.

If people who don't believe in Christ can't celebrate Christmas, then why on earth do people who don't believe in Thor recognise Thursday?

This same subject came up last year, of course. If you want to read my comments from last year on this subject, they can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Play by the rules

2011-12-25T16:55:00.000-08:00

In any game, there are rules. The rules apply equally to all players, otherwise the game would be not only chaotic, but unfair as well. Try playing a game with a child, and applying the rules only to the child whilst breaking them yourself. They will soon let you know about it, in no uncertain terms. We need rules to regulate the game, but we also need to ensure that they are fairly applied.

As in games, so in life.

Many times I have had Christians tell me that I shouldn't be so open about my atheism because they find it offensive. I've been told that I shouldn't express my belief that religion is false so openly. And yet these same people think it's perfectly OK not only to express their opinions openly, but to tell me that my beliefs are wrong. Some think it's OK to try to convert me. Some even go so far as to tell me I'm going to hell if I don't repent. In other words, they're applying rules to me that they think don't apply to them.

Newsflash for Christians: you may find atheism offensive, but I find Christianity just as offensive. It works both ways.

I find the way some of you insist on preaching your beliefs at me even after you find out I don't believe offensive. Express your beliefs by all means (I support freedom of speech), but when you try to evangelise or convert me we have a problem.

I find your obscene belief in an eternal fiery hell where people are sent for not believing in your "loving" god offensive. I find the insistence of some of you that I am personally headed there even more offensive.

I find your insistence that we are all sinful, miserable creatures offensive.

I find the way you ignore evidence and reality if they contradict your holy book offensive.

I find the way you insist that faith is a virtue and discourage critical thinking and open-mindedness offensive.

I find the way that you base your moral opinions on a book rather than the good of society offensive.

I find your belief that morality comes from God and that atheists are therefore immoral incredibly offensive.

I find your belief in human sacrifice, an innocent victim dying in others' place, offensive.

This list is far from exhaustive.

I'm well aware that not all Christians try to convert others, or insist on special privileges for their belief system. Those people who don't are fine by me. Many of them are my friends. I still think their beliefs are ridiculous and offensive but I'm also happy to live and let live where they are concerned. Sadly, though, not all Christians fall into that category.

To those Christians who don't like me expressing my atheistic opinions because they find them offensive: it works both ways. The rules apply to you too. If you don't try to preach at me or convert me then I'll extend the same courtesy to you, but don't expect special treatment just because you think your beliefs are special. And of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop expressing my beliefs, any more than I would expect you to stop expressing yours. If you can't handle the fact that someone has an opinion that differs from yours, that's not my problem; it's yours. This is a big world where you'll find a huge variety of beliefs and opinions. Deal with it.

Bottom line: play by the rules you expect me to play by. If you aren't willing to do that, then don't expect me to either.

A Christmas Carol For The Rest Of Us

2011-12-23T14:24:00.000-08:00

Back on the subject of atheist Xmas carols.... :o)

Atheist Xmas Carols

2011-12-20T13:02:00.000-08:00

OK, just for fun, what atheist Xmas carols could we sing? Here are a few ideas:

Angels We've Not Heard On High
O Come Let Us Ignore Him
Fables From the Realms of Glory
Dawk(ins) The Halls
Good Atheist Men (and Women) Rejoice
We Wish You a Merry December

Anyone got any other suggestions? If so, please leave a comment below.

Two men: one great, the other contemptible

2011-12-17T07:26:00.000-08:00

As pretty much every atheist reader will know by now, Christopher Hitchens died recently.

It certainly didn't take long for the vultures to start circling his corpse, metaphorically speaking. Here's a tweet that made my blood boil, from well-known Christian megachurch pastor Rick Warren:

My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now.
— Rick Warren (@RickWarren) December 16, 2011

I had to respond.

@RickWarren Hitchens knew the truth when he was alive. Now he's dead and knows nothing.
— Barry (@Gwennwys) December 16, 2011

I must say, though, that my favourite responses came from PZ Myers and Living After Faith.

Fuck you too. RT @RickWarren: Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) December 16, 2011

@RickWarren My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now. // FYYFF
— Living After Faith (@LAFwithme) December 16, 2011

It took me a while to figure out what "FYYFF" meant, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. By exploiting the death of his supposed friend Christopher Hitchens to promote his own religious beliefs, in a way that Hitchens would never have let him get away with if he was still alive, Rick Warren has shown himself to be a tasteless, shameless scumbag. What that sanctimonious moron doesn't realise is that Hitchens knew the truth very well; which is why he was an atheist. Now he knows nothing, as the unique network of neurons that constituted his mind is no more.

As an interesting postscript, I noticed that after I had tweeted my response to Warren two staff members from his church, David Chrzan (@dchrzan) and Travis Ryan (@travisryan) followed me on Twitter. Some sort of Christian mafia perhaps? Ooh, I'm quaking in my boots ... NOT. They haven't commented yet, so perhaps they just slavishly follow people who follow their boss. It wouldn't be the first time he's been the subject of misdirected hero worship from his sheeple, after all.

Merry Xmas!

2011-12-12T14:04:00.000-08:00

I love this latest video from The Thinking Atheist. Enjoy!

The holiday season is upon us

2011-12-09T14:07:00.000-08:00

I wonder how long it'll take until the first shots are fired in this year's Phoney War? I refer, of course, to the so-called "War on Christmas", which only ever seems to be fought by Christians.

I'm sure there are atheists out there who want to ban Christmas from public life - we're a pretty diverse bunch, after all - but the vast majority don't really care as long as no coercion is involved and no civil liberties are infringed.

In fact, the only people I've ever heard insisting that Christmas should only be celebrated their way are Christians.

War on Christmas? Don't make me laugh.

An atheist at a Christian funeral

2011-11-23T15:29:00.000-08:00

We recently had a bereavement in the family. My grandmother died, aged 87, on November 5th and her funeral was held at the local crematorium on the 17th. This was, of course, a rather difficult time for us as a family. Although my nan was old and ready to go (a few years previously she had told my sister that she felt she had lived too long), the loss of someone you love always hits you hard whatever the circumstances may be.

When I posted about my nan's death on Facebook, I had messages of condolence and support from lots of people. Although it doesn't seem like much to tell someone that you're sorry for their loss, I really did appreciate knowing that people were thinking of me. Now those of you who are Facebook friends of mine will know that I'm not exactly quiet and subtle about the fact that I'm an atheist. Most of my Christian friends understand that and their messages of condolence respected that. One, however, must have forgotten to read the memo. Her heart was in the right place, I'm sure, but when I saw the words "my thoughts and prayers are with you," I'm afraid I saw red. I didn't make a big issue about it (beyond replying "I appreciate the thought, but save your prayers") because I know it was said with the best intentions, but telling an atheist you're praying for him isn't the best idea, to say the least. It was not comforting to me in the least to know that someone was praying for me, especially as that person knows I don't believe in her imaginary friend. In fact, it just annoyed me instead.

It didn't fully hit me that my nan was dead until the day of funeral. I'm glad I went, and it was good to see all the family together again even if it was for a sad occasion.

Now, like most people, I'm no stranger to losing loved ones. That's an experience that all of us, if we live long enough, have to go through. I had previously lost three other grandparents, my father and various friends. However, this was my first experience of grieving as an atheist, without the comforting fiction of heaven or the upsetting fiction of hell to colour the experience.

Before the service I took a walk alone down to the crematorium's garden of remembrance, where my father's ashes were buried. It was important to me to take the time to remember and honour my dad while I was there. Under no illusion that he in any way still existed or was able to hear me, I quietly said, "I love you, Dad, and I miss you every day." Then I walked back to the crematorium to join the gathering family and friends, awaiting the arrival of the hearse. I was one of the six bearers, and we carried my nan's coffin into the crematorium's chapel with my cousin, a Sergeant-Major in full dress uniform, leading the way with a slow march in front of the coffin.

Then came the shock of realising that I couldn't relate at all to the funeral service. Most people around here are nominally Christian even if they don't think much about religion, so I expected there to be a religious element to the funeral service, but I was unprepared for how large that element was. The whole bloody thing was about 85% religion and 15% talking about my nan. Understandable, I guess, as my nan was a believer and so are many of the family, but apart from the eulogy when the priest spoke about my nan's life (getting some of the details wrong even though it was written down in front of him) and a letter my cousin read out, I found the whole thing utterly uncomfortable and not at all comforting.

I kept my peace, but all I could think was, "You're talking shit, mate. She's not in heaven, she's dead. She doesn't have eternal life and neither can we. Now stop fucking praying and quoting the Bible and actually talk about this wonderful woman whose loss we're all mourning here."

I understand that all the talk about eternal life etc. is comforting to those who believe it, so I suppose in that sense it was appropriate for the majority of attendees, but for those of us who know it's a fantasy it's empty, cold and utterly uncomforting.

I'm not writing this to look for sympathy. Nor am I in any way suggesting that those who hold broadly Christian beliefs shouldn't derive comfort from them in times of grief and mourning, however ridiculous I may think their beliefs are. However, I do think that more consideration should be given to those mourners who either don't have any religious beliefs or belong to a different religion. (I know that at least two pagans were at the funeral, for example.) So if you're ever in a position where you're planning a funeral, you might want to make sure the emphasis is mainly on remembering and celebrating the life of the person in the coffin rather than on Bible reading, prayers and religious fantasies about life after death. After all, you never know who else might be in attendance.

And if one more person tells me they're praying for me....!

Faith is not a virtue

2011-11-05T09:03:00.000-07:00

This is a translation of a recent post by Dylan Llyr on his blog Anffyddiaeth, used by permission. Please go and read his blog - if you don't understand Welsh, Google Translate will give you the gist of it.

In the comments at the bottom of my last post, there was a discussion about faith. Obviously, my perspective as an atheist is that there is no evidence at all to suggest that there is a god, and thus the only sensible thing to do is to accept that he doesn’t exist. Of course, that viewpoint isn’t an easy one for many Christians to understand, because they have faith in god. Ifan said that he’d like to see me discussing this phenomenon further:

One subject I’d like to see Dylan getting to grips with on this blog is the matter of faith. According to my understanding of the Bible the criterion for someone to be considered a Christian is believing in Jesus and committing your life to him. But why choose ‘faith’ as the criterion? It appears to me that faith was chosen as the criterion because God doesn’t exist, and because that’s the obvious choice under those circumstances. There’s no evidence and so the big test is to believe despite the lack of evidence.

This is perfectly true. The meaning of faith in this context is believing something without evidence. Sometimes, even, as Mark Twain said (despite the fact that no-one who professes faith would acknowledge this), “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” If there is evidence in favour of a particular concept then there is no need to have faith in it, because logic demonstrates that it’s true anyway. According to Christianity, however, faith is one of the principal virtues, if not the most important. There’s a tiresome tendency among some atheists, even, to praise the concept of faith even if they don’t profess to it themselves. It’s clear that their way of thinking is that continuing to have faith in something despite evidence to the contrary is a sign of strength, dignity and loyalty, as though it were a matter of succeeding at a challenge. For example, some Christians who interpret Genesis absolutely literally and believe that the earth is 6000 years old explain the existence of dinosaur fossils by asserting that god put them there on purpose to test their faith. In fact, it’s clear that the faith of many Christians hardens and becomes more obstinate as evidence that contradicts their beliefs comes to light. This is astonishing. It’s quite possible that this element of challenge is the main reason why the concept is so important in Christianity: the best Christian is the one with the strongest faith, and the strength of one’s faith can be measured according to the amount of intellectual gymnastics necessary to reconcile that faith with the world around us that is full of opposing evidence.

It’s an extremely harmful attitude. As the Welsh philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “Where there is evidence, no-one speaks of ‘faith’. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.” It is dangerous and foolish to base your understanding of the world on what you would like it to be rather than on what it is in reality.

The second half of Ifan’s comment is less clear to me, unfortunately:

Considering that the ability to believe in things despite the lack of evidence varies a lot from person to person, why not choose a fairer test to gain entrance into Heaven? E.g. if God said to me, “If you’re willing to walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats you can be a Christian,” I’d be only too willing to do it, knowing that God existed and that I had to fulfil a specific task in order to be with Him. But instead of that he does his best to hide his existence in the first place, creating a test that’s fairly ‘random’ in my opinion.

I’m not sure why anyone should obey a god that would ask them to do that without giving sufficient reason. Why would this god demand such a thing from us? Speaking for myself, were I to receive the divine command above I’d feel rather irritated and annoyed; I’d feel that this god was playing around with me and forcing me to imitate Hercules just to please his own ego.

More than that, it doesn’t make sense to suggest that god should consider a task such as that above as an alternative commandment rather than demanding that we profess faith in him. You’d have to believe in god in the first place in order to take his instructions seriously, after all. God can’t ask us to do anything unless we believe in him first, so naturally it’s the faith itself that’s most important, as far as I can see.

Anyway, faith is a sordid thing. It’s possible to suggest anything without evidence and justify it with faith: without evidence, we don’t have an objective criterion by which to distinguish between “true faith” and “untrue faith”. All faith, then, is equally valid (or, more correctly, equally invalid). This is why there are so many different religions in the world, and so many different sects within those religions. Almost everyone accepts that Scientology is laughable, but the only difference between that faith and Christianity is that in the case of the latter, with the passing of time it has become accepted by very many people. In reality there’s exactly the same amount of evidence in favour of the one as there is of the other, i.e. none.

Evidence and logic are the only instruments we have to discover useful things about the world and to make sensible decisions. Martin Luther insisted that reason is the greatest enemy of faith, and he was right (despite the fact that he was arguing against reason!). Faith inhibits our ability to make use of evidence and reason, by leading us astray. For that reason, as well as the fact that the god of the Bible is a terrifying creature on the whole, the Christian faith – indeed, faith in general - has no dignity at all. As Christopher Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Thoughts on the 23rd Psalm

2011-10-30T17:03:00.000-07:00

Those who proclaim that the "Lord" is their shepherd are openly proclaiming that they are sheep. Baaa. Baaaaaaaaa.

That is all.

Daft things said to atheists part 6: "You need to have faith."

2011-10-26T05:54:00.000-07:00

This one comes from a recent comment left on an older post - in fact, on only the second post I ever put up here. The commenter was trying to persuade me to return to Christianity. This part isn't the main thrust of what he said (in fact, it contradicts his main point that Christianity is the most rational worldview), but it's something I've heard so often I thought it was worth a post of its own.

"A belief in God has to be first and foremost on the basis of faith, not evidence."

This is actually a statement that I entirely agree with, but not for the reasons the people who have said it to me have intended. Their intention is usually to persuade me that all my "head knowledge" is getting in the way of me seeing the truth, and that if I only have faith then I will see the truth clearly and become a believer again.

My take on this is rather different, though. After all, what is faith? It is believing in something for which there is no evidence. It is believing in something for no good reason. It is believing in something because either you want it to be true or you've been conditioned to believe in it all your life.

If something is actually true, there will be evidence for it. I know that the statement "cows exist" is true because there is abundant evidence for cows. We can see them in fields; we can drink their milk; we wear clothes and shoes made from their skins; in rural areas we can smell them. I know that Barack Obama exists because there is abundant evidence. I have seen him many times in the news media, even though I don't live in his country. If I had the money, the time and the inclination, I could visit the places he grew up and lived, I could meet members of his family, I could see his birth certificate, his tax returns and many other things that testify that he is real. Heck, if I was lucky I might even be able to meet him in person.

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of cows and Barack Obama. God is supposedly even greater than them, so there should be far more evidence for his existence if, in fact, he was real. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence at all demonstrates that God is, in fact, not real. We could argue that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist either, and thus it's technically impossible to disprove the existence of God, but it's also technically impossible to disprove the existence of fairies, elves and the Easter Bunny. However, the lack of actual evidence for any of them means that no sane adult thinks they are real.

So yes, it's absolutely true that you can only believe in God by faith, just like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, because in the real world there is no good reason to believe. Wishful thinking and self-delusion are the only ways to persuade yourself that God is real. The Bible itself says that faith is "being certain of what we do not see" - in other words, believing something for no good reason, other than that you want to believe it.

So when someone says to me that you need to have faith in order to believe what they believe, I know that there is actually no good reason to believe it. After all, if there was an actual evidential reason to believe, faith would be unnecessary.

Daft things said to atheists part 5: "Try Islam instead."

2011-10-23T05:02:00.000-07:00

This one could more fully be expressed as follows:

Of course you left Christianity - it's a false religion. Believe in Allah instead. Islam is the one true religion.

There's a very simple response to this. Yes, Christianity is a false religion - but so are all others. I don't believe in the Christian god, but nor do I believe in any others, including your favourite deity. I'm a "polyatheist", if you like. I don't believe in any gods, because there is simply no evidence that any of them are real. Until you can show me such evidence, I shall regard your particular god as just as fictional as all others.

Daft things said to atheists part 4: "You were never a true Christian."

2011-10-23T04:53:00.000-07:00

This one annoys me. For someone to tell me that I was never a true Christian really gets my back up. Why, when I no longer believe any of it anyway? Simply because I spent so much time, energy and money on my faith, and lived what I believed for over 20 years. To suggest that I was never really a true believer is to question my personal integrity, and I find that more than a little insulting.

Nevertheless, I can see where those who say this are coming from. There is a faction within Christianity that believes "once saved, always saved". In other words, if you are truly a Christian, you cannot fall away or leave the faith. The converse of that, of course, is that if anyone leaves the faith then they were obviously never a true believer in the first place, since no true believer could ever leave.

This, of course, is a fine example of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. I could go into detail of everything I believed, felt and did when I was a Christian, I could demonstrate that I was indeed a true believer, but these people would still not believe it because it contradicts their basic premise that once you are "saved", you are always "saved". Given a contradiction between reality and their premise, they reject reality in order to stick to their belief.

Another way of looking at this is that if they were to accept that I was a true believer before I rejected Christianity, they would have to accept that it is possible for they themselves to fall away, to reject the faith. They find this idea uncomfortable, and so they choose not to accept it. No logical reasoning is involved; it's all emotionally-based.

The sad fact is that many people will never accept that a true believer can later reject Christianity altogether, unless and until they do so themselves. Nothing I can say will persuade them.

But believe me, I really was a true believer. If I wasn't a true Christian, then there is no such thing as a true Christian. And now I'm an atheist.

Daft things said to atheists part 3: "You may not believe in God, but God believes in you."

2011-10-21T17:36:00.000-07:00

No he doesn't. Fictional characters are unable to believe in anything at all.

Daft things said to atheists part 2: "You're only an atheist because you want to sin!"

2011-10-20T09:02:00.000-07:00

Yes, this one is also based on a real-life encounter I have had with a Christian. Or rather, several Christians.

"You're only an atheist because you want to sin!"

This one seems to make two unfounded assumptions. The first, yet again, is that we atheists actually do believe in God; we just don't want to follow his rules. The second is that morality comes from God, and those who reject God are necessarily immoral.

The first assumption, though the easiest to answer, is actually the hardest to get across to those Christians who make these sorts of statements because they find it difficult to get their heads around it. The fact is that, as an atheist, I really, truly, do not believe God exists. It's not that I have decided to turn my back on him, or want no part of him; I actually do not believe he is real in the first place. How do I persuade someone who cannot conceive of God not being real that I actually don't believe in him? I have no idea, but I can assure you it is true.

Now for the second assumption. Morality does not come from God. I am not about to go around raping every attractive woman I see or killing everyone I don't like, but that has nothing to do with God. It is because I am a moral person, and I do not believe that these would be good or beneficial things to do.

"So you say," the Christian usually responds, "but if I didn't believe in God I'd be doing all those things, as there'd be nothing to stop me."

So now we come to the interesting bit. Someone who really believes this is saying, in effect, that they are actually murderers and rapists who keep their destructive impulses in check only because they think God is watching them. That's fear of discovery, not morality. If someone really does only behave in a moral way because they think God is watching them, while I act in a moral way because I believe it is the right thing to do, and because I believe that it contributes to the greater good of society, even though I do not believe any divine being is watching me, which of us is truly moral?

So no, I did not become an atheist because I want to sin. I don't even believe in sin, because it's a religious concept that was made up to persuade us all we're sick so that religion can provide the "cure".

Once again, the reason - the only reason - that I am an atheist is that I do not believe that God exists. Morality doesn't come into it.

Daft things said to atheists part 1: "Why are you angry at God?"

2011-10-19T15:07:00.000-07:00

This is the first part of what I intend to be a multi-part posting on some of the stupid things Christians say to atheists, and in particular to those atheists who were once believing Christians themselves. I'm sure any atheist readers with a Christian background will have heard plenty of these daft statements from their former co-religionists.

I should add, in the spirit of fairness, that not all Christians are like this. There are plenty of believers who will respect us as people and respect our integrity even though they disagree with us. I have no problem at all with those people. Nevertheless, there is a certain subset of vocal religious people who simply cannot resist engaging their mouths before their brains are in gear. Unfortunately, they seem to be rather numerous.

So to begin with, here's daft statement number one:

Why are you angry at God?

In my experience, this question is usually framed within the understanding that it is anger at God that has caused me to turn my back on him. Firstly, let me put that unspoken idea to rest. My anger, or lack of it, had nothing at all to do with my abandoning my former beliefs. That particular course of action was the result of several years of agonised wrestling with the facts. My deconversion was based on rationality and logic, not on emotions. In fact, my emotions got in the way of my deconversion because I never wanted to leave the faith. I never wanted to become an atheist, and I feared what that might lead to.

So, to move on to the surface meaning of the question: why am I angry at God? The simple answer is that I'm not. I do not believe that God even exists, so why would I be angry at him? You might as well accuse me of being angry at Spiderman, Mickey Mouse or another fictional character. Those who accuse atheists of being angry at God have fundamentally misunderstood what being an atheist entails. I don't secretly believe in God but hate him, as they suppose. Maybe some religious people can't wrap their heads around this particular concept, but it's true: I really, truly do not believe that God exists. I believe he is just as fictional as the Tooth Fairy. I believe that God is nothing more than an imaginary friend for adults.

If I get angry, it's with those who claim to speak for God, to be his representatives on earth. I get angry when they try to impose their version of morality on those of us who don't share their beliefs. I get angry when they tell young children they are going to burn in hell unless they accept Jesus. (Hell, I get angry enough when they tell adults that!) Most of all, I get angry with a system that kept me in bondage for over twenty years, all the while making me believe that I was free. I get angry at the thought of other people being infected with the memetic virus that is religion. But angry with God himself? No.

Jesus in a dark alley

2011-10-07T11:08:00.000-07:00

Here's a question for any Christians reading this.

Picture this hypothetical scenario: Jesus has just entered Jerusalem. He is walking down an alley alone when he sees a woman about to be raped by a drunken lout. What would he do? What should he do?

Please think about your answer first, then carry on reading the rest of this post.

OK, so what did you think Jesus would do? My guess is that you think he would have stopped the rape happening. Most decent people would have done the same, if they were able (and let's not forget, Christians believe Jesus was - and is - God incarnate).

So let's assume Jesus would have done the only moral thing and tried to stop the rape occurring. Good. That would make Jesus a good and moral person.

Here's the catch, though. Christians believe that Jesus is God, right? The normal Christian concept of God is that he is omnipresent, i.e. he is everywhere. They also believe that his character doesn't change, that he is the same "yesterday, today and forever".

So, given that God is everywhere, he is present at the scene of every single rape that ever occurs. So how come he lets them happen? If he is unchanging, why would it be right for him to stop a rape when he was here physically, but not when he is here in his onmipotent omnipresence?

I'd love to hear someone try to defend this contradiction in the character of God.

Basically, it comes down to this: either God is an amoral, heartless bastard who could do something to prevent rapes and other horrific crimes that the man Jesus would have stopped, meaning that Jesus cannot possibly be God due to the total difference in moral responsibility and personality between them, or God is not actually present at these rapes (or anywhere else). My money's on the latter.

Just one more reason not to believe in God.

My "extimony"

2011-10-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

A few people who knew me back in my Christian days have asked me recently how come I'm no longer a believer.

The first port of call for anyone who wants to know that should be this post. It was originally posted as a note on Facebook, and for some reason I recently re-read it there. In the comments following it (well over 100 comments!) I wrote the following, which seems appropriate to repost here. Thus I present to you my "extimony".

I was "saved" in a Pentecostal church at the age of 16. I repented of my sins, invited Jesus into my heart and decided to live my life for him. It felt really real, and the world seemed wonderful.

I devoted my life to serving God. I devoured the Bible, reading it as often as I could. I was hungry for it. I spent hours on my knees in fervent prayer. I received the "baptism in the Spirit" and spoke in tongues.

I spent two years in full-time Christian ministry in London with Youth For Christ, then I went to London Bible College (a respected evangelical college, the largest in Western Europe) for three years. During that time I did a weekly placement with Jews For Jesus and helped run the youth group at a local Baptist church. I left college with an honours degree in Theology and a diploma in Evangelism.

As a result of my college years I can read the Bible in its original languages. I learned about church history, the controversies in the Bible and many other things.

When I left college I came back to Wales and settled back into my home church. I co-led the youth group, led worship, helped to run a local monthly youth rally and many other things. I was "on fire" for God. I was convinced I had the Truth. This carried on for many years.

I won't go into the reasons other than to say that it was due largely to a clash of personalities, but I left the church in 2006. I fully intended to find a new church, but for one reason or another I didn't find one that suited. I was still a strong believer, though, and I continued praying, studying the Bible etc.

I have always believed that if something is true, it will stand up to scrutiny. One day I realised I had questioned every aspect of my faith except one: the very existence of God.

I read books about the subject, both Christian books and non-Christian books. I know reading non-Christian books can be frowned on by some Christians, but it's the only way to get a different perspective. I put a lot of prayer and thought into it.

I realised that there is no evidence for God's existence. I was always told that God answers prayer, but looking back I realised that the vast majority of my prayers were not answered, and those that seemingly were could easily be explained away by attributing them to random chance. I realised that there is no evidence at all for God's existence. (Some people have pointed me towards various Bible verses on the subject, but that's a daft thing to do because if there's no God, then the Bible becomes irrelevant.)

It took me a long time before I was ready to admit even to myself what I secretly had known for a long time: I no longer believed that there was, or could be, a God.

I prayed fervently: "God, if you are really there, show me." I prayed many variants on that prayer, fervently and with deep longing for God to be real. I wrestled with it. Eventually I had to acknowledge that I was getting no answer to my prayers because there was no-one there to answer them. I admitted to myself that there was probably no God, and reconciled myself to the fact that I was now an atheist.

So that's my story, in condensed form. I've been there, done that. Doubtless some who are still believers will think I wasn't really a true christian, or that I didn't "taste and see that the Lord is good". Believe me, I was and I did. I threw myself into it. If I wasn't a true Christian, then there is no such thing as a true Christian.

The fact is that even a true Christian like me can end up leaving the faith when they use their brain to process the facts and the evidence, beyond what they are told in church. I examined the evidence and found it wanting as far as God is concerned. I'm an atheist not because I ever wanted to be, but because the facts led me that way.

Jesus got one thing right: the truth, when you know it, will set you free. I feel so much happier now that I am not burdened by Christianity, and funnily enough I have much less fear of death now that I realise there is no heaven and, more importantly, no hell. I understand that when bad things happen to me it is no because of some divine plan or design, and I trust myself more than I ever have before because I realised that for all those years it wasn't God helping me to make decisions; it was just me.

I appreciate this life a lot more now that I know it's the only life I will ever have. The trees seem greener, the mountains more beautiful, and everything seems much more alive and vibrant now that I'm able to appreciate this world for what it truly is. It's not fallen, it's not sinful - it's beautiful.

Mixed marriage

2011-09-27T14:53:00.000-07:00

Although I am an atheist, my wife is not. She is still a Christian. We weren't always on opposite sides of the religious divide, though. When we got married, both of us were Christians.

I met Sam, my wife, back in the early 1990s. I don’t need to explain here all the details of how we got together, but suffice it to say that we had been friends for more than ten years before we took our friendship one step further. We were married just over seven years ago in a Church of England ceremony.

We never subscribed to the traditional Christian concept of marriage whereby the man is the head and the woman is subservient. Right from the outset, even before we got married, we were quite explicit about the fact that we saw each other as equals and that we should treat each other accordingly. Neither of us would automatically have the final say in everything. That has worked well for us, although I’m sure it would have raised some eyebrows at church if they had found out that I wasn’t regarded as the head of my family. As far as we were concerned, though, our marriage was exclusively our own, and how we chose to shape it was nobody else’s business.

We were hit early on by a rather severe blow. The "in sickness and in health" part of our marriage vows became all too relevant within a year of our wedding. In fact, for most of our married life Sam has been seriously ill. Her condition is not life-threatening, but it is very debilitating. The added stress caused by her illness could easily have driven a wedge between us, but thankfully it only brought us closer together. We continue to struggle with the issues brought on by her illness, but although it's been hard we've managed to cope.

A couple of years ago, my whole worldview radically changed. I had been questioning my Christian faith for some time, and I had finally come to the conclusion that there was no good reason to believe in God. My reasons for coming to that decision are explained elsewhere, so I won’t go into them again here. Suffice it to say that I did not reach this conclusion lightly, and that it was the end product of several years’ deep thought, troubled questioning and seeking answers that never came.

It took a while for me to admit it to myself, but one day I finally realised that I could in all good conscience no longer call myself a Christian. I could find no good reason to believe in God, so I rejected that belief. I was now an atheist. At that point my whole world was turned upside-down. My entire paradigm changed. Unquestioned assumptions that I had held all my life now had to be brought into the light of day, questioned and assessed on their own merits. I had to slowly piece together a new worldview based on rationality and living in the real world, rather than one based on belief in God and the Bible. Those of you who have been through similar changes know just how hard it is; those of you who have not will never understand fully unless you go through it yourself in the future. To have your entire worldview ripped apart and to have to find a new one is hard, painful and stressful beyond belief.

The next hardest thing for me was broaching the subject with Sam. I had heard plenty of stories about people whose spouses had left them when they changed their religious views. I didn’t think Sam would do that, but I didn’t know for sure. I knew I had to tell her because it would be wrong of me to lie to her, but doing so wasn’t easy. It took me a week or so to pluck up the courage. Then one day over dinner, in the full knowledge that it might mean the end of our marriage, I told Sam that I no longer believed in God.

I think it took a while for it to sink in at first. Things were a little strained for a couple of weeks, but as Sam realised that I was still the same person as I had been before leaving Christianity behind, she slowly came around to the idea. I think one of the things she found hardest was that I had always been the one she came to with any questions about her faith, since I’m theologically educated. Now she couldn’t do that. However, she rather quickly accepted that we were now on different sides of the religious divide, and to her credit she didn’t let that get in the way of our relationship. Today our marriage is probably stronger than it’s ever been, and I’m so grateful that I have such a good wife. Our differences of belief on the subject of religion are no more significant to our relationship than any other differences of opinion we have. We simply agree to disagree.

So how do we make a mixed marriage work? Well, how does any good marriage work? The biggest thing is communication. This is all-important. We have had several full and frank discussions about what we believe, so neither of us is in the slightest doubt about the viewpoint of the other. Sam occasionally reads this blog too. Generally we don’t discuss or debate the relative merits of our respective viewpoints regarding religion, as it’s more important for us to have a strong marriage than for us to score points against one another. Sam doesn’t try to convert me, and I don’t try to deconvert her. I’m a lot less disparaging of religion when Sam’s around, not because I respect what she believes, but because I love and respect her. We talk about things that relate to being an atheist or being a Christian, but only when it’s relevant to the conversation we’re having.

One thing that could complicate things a lot would be if we ever had children, but as we do not plan to have any that issue will hopefully not arise. If it did, there would be a lot of discussion and compromise necessary regarding their exposure to religion and how we would bring them up, but I'm confident that we could overcome even that hurdle if it arose. Communication, honesty and openness are everything.

At the end of the day, I didn’t marry a set of religious beliefs; I married a person. Sam isn’t married to atheism; she’s married to a person. Who we are is not defined by what we believe, however much we may sometimes kid ourselves that this is so. The things we have in common far outnumber those that could divide us.

(This blog post is my response to the Mixed Marriages episode of the Living After Faith podcast.)

Prejudice against gay people

2011-08-21T06:22:00.000-07:00

There was an article in the Welsh-language magazine Golwg this week, with the title Criticising pictures of gay parents. The picture referred to was the picture on the left, or a Welsh version of it.

The gist of the article was that the Evangelical Movement of Wales was criticising Stonewall for showing pictures that portray families with gay parents as totally normal families. Words like 'misleading', 'incorrect' and 'unnatural' were used.'

The article quotes Keith Lewis, a spokesman for the Evangelical Movement of Wales, as saying, "With homosexuals firstly, I disagree with that because the Bible teaches that it's a husband and wife that raise a child ... two people who are of the same sex getting married contravenes the Bible, so no way!"

Well, after reading about the Evangelical Movement of Wales's prejudiced attitude, I had to write a response. Here's a translation of the letter I sent to Golwg.

So the Evangelical Movement of Wales has condemned the organisation Stonewall for showing pictures of children with parents of the same sex. There’s nothing new in this; unfortunately, religious people have a long history of condemning, judging, belittling and bullying gay people and their families.

Most of society has moved on from that prejudiced, old-fashioned mindset. Using words like “unnatural” and “abnormal” to describe homosexual people is misleading to say the least. There’s enough evidence to show that homosexuality is totally natural. In the natural world, it occurs frequently. Sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice; it has a biological basis.

Nevertheless, the Evangelical Movement of Wales demands that everyone conform to the Bible. But which parts of the Bible? If they seriously want to ban homosexuality, what about wearing clothes with mixed fibres? What about eating bacon and prawns? What about collecting firewood on a Saturday? These are all proscribed according to the Bible. If they want to be selective, where’s the boundary? The morals of pre-scientific Bronze-Age tribes are not relevant in the 21st century.

Love is not a sin, despite some people’s old-fashioned attitude. Lots of children who are raised in families with two fathers or two mothers get more love and a better upbringing than children in traditional but dysfunctional families where the father and mother neglect the children.

Prejudice is prejudice, and love is love, however it is expressed.

In an emergency, call an atheist!

2011-08-20T19:09:00.000-07:00

Parental Advisory: contains sexual violence and genocidal themes

2011-08-18T10:52:00.000-07:00

Once again David Hayward, the Naked Pastor, isn't afraid to say it how it is.

Where we differ, of course, is in the fact that David is still a believer (albeit one who can see our point of view) whereas I find this sort of thing to be just another reason not to believe. In David's own words:

"Someone will say, 'That’s so Old Testament! We’ve moved on from there!'
Why aren’t we willing to say the same about other issues that are in the New Testament?"

My personal take on that is: why believe any of it? Why accept such a morally bankrupt, anti-scientific book (that even those who believe in it do so selectively because they don't like all it has to say) as the basis for your morality, your actions or your beliefs?

"Bad" language

2011-08-17T06:08:00.000-07:00

This is an updated version of a post I made on my old blog a few years back.

Let me begin with a quote from a sermon by American Christian preacher Tony Campolo:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

This is an example of someone using supposedly "bad" language to good effect. It shows a skilled communicator using a taboo term as an effective tool for making a point. However, the point I want to make is simply this: why is it that so many people - and not only religious people, either - have such a negative view of "swearing" or "bad language"?

What is it about certain words that make them so offensive? Some people go nuts when they hear even relatively innocuous words like “bugger” and “damn”. Then we come to "stronger" words and expletives, which would offend many people. For example, if I had said "fuck" from the pulpit back in my Christian days, before I turned atheist, it is highly unlikely that I would ever have been invited to preach again. Some would say that would have been the right response, and that such words have no place in the vocabulary of any civilised and educated person, but have you ever stopped to wonder why that might be the case – or even if it should really be the case at all?

To me, the offensiveness of a given word is arbitrary and based on the culture and understanding of its hearers. So for example, those of you reading this who don't understand Welsh wouldn't react at all if I said "cnycha bant" to you, while those who do speak Welsh and understand that it's equivalent to "fuck off" might be more offended by it. If I called someone a "rotter" it probably wouldn't cause any eyebrows to be raised, whereas the same word used a couple of centuries ago would have been regarded as a deeply offensive insult. It's all relative, and to my mind there is no such thing as an unquestionably offensive word. I've noticed that some words are regarded as offensive in some parts of the world where English is spoken but not in others. In parts of America, even the word “hell” is considered offensive, whereas here in South-East Wales it’s far from it. Profanity, then, is a status accorded to a word or expression by the listeners' prejudices, not a property of the word or expression itself.

People who are offended by swearing often say that it betrays a poor vocabulary or a lack of education. Is that really the case? I strongly believe that it is not. I have heard far too many highly intelligent, eloquent people swearing for that to be true. It’s all about context. Of course it’s true that when a "swear word" is used as every other word in a conversation, it loses its value and becomes "bad" language in the sense that it is lazy and loses its meaning. When used judiciously, however, it can be a very effective tool for communication. Think of it having the same effect on a conversation as condiments do on food. It brings out the flavour and enhances the whole. The fact is that despite their meaning being similar in dictionary terms, a single “fuck off” is worth a hundred “please go away”s. A single “cunt” is worth a thousand “unsavoury person”s. Swearing, when used sparingly and judiciously, enhances one’s vocabulary. Unless used unthinkingly ten times in every sentence, it can be a sign of an advanced command of language.

So although I disagree with his religious beliefs, I applaud Tony Campolo for having the audacity to use the word "shit" in church to reinforce a point. Those who disagree can go fuck themselves.

Good without God

2011-08-17T05:55:00.000-07:00

The following letter was in the Western Mail newspaper today:

Need for discipline

SIR – The violence on our streets is a reflection of the weakness of society, which is dreadfully sick, as the Premier points out. The do-gooders among us have blinded us to the harsh reality of the need for discipline.
The only way to enforce discipline is by means of punishment for all transgressors and the ultimate deterrent is physical. We have banned the cane from the schools and the direct result is violence in the classroom by children towards teachers which has grown dramatically.
Expulsion or exclusion is no answer, this merely transfer the problem elsewhere. The problem remains and eventually has been converted into street anarchy.
The decline in religious influence has compounded the problem. Side by side with secularisation there has developed an incidence in immorality.
Children no longer can discriminate what is right or wrong. Those fortunate enough to retain a strong religious base can more effectively withstand the oppressive demands of greed and envy. Instead of reducing religious teaching, we should be giving it greater emphasis.
DEREK G THOMAS
Brecon, Powys

Of course, once I had read the absurd suggestion that the recent riots were due to a lack of religious morality, I had to reply. Here's what I wrote:

SIR - Derek G Thomas (Letters, Aug 17) suggests that secularisation and immorality go hand in hand, and that the only way for people to discriminate right from wrong is to "retain a strong religious base" and give greater emphasis to religious teaching. This naive view of morality is rather insulting to the great many people, in Wales and elsewhere, who are good without God. Morality is not the sole preserve of religion.

I have known a great many religious people, and among their numbers are some of the best people I know. It's also true, though, that some of the worst people I've ever known have also been religious. In terms of morality I see no difference between the religious and the non-religious. The only difference is that those of us who are non-religious take responsibility for our own morality rather than ascribing it to an imaginary higher being.

Those who still think religion is the source of morality should reflect on this: the Inquisition, the Crusades, slavery and 9/11 were not perpetrated by non-believers.

Comments?

The best optical illusion in the world!

2011-07-22T16:49:00.000-07:00

Prayer? No thanks.

2011-06-12T07:36:00.001-07:00

Pat Condell, in his usual wonderful ranting style, once again says it all much better than I ever could. Over to you, Pat.

My Imaginary Friend

2011-05-29T07:03:00.000-07:00

When I was a Christian I used to write worship songs. The last I heard, at least one of them was still in regular use by my old church. When I left Christianity behind I stopped writing songs. I was thinking about that a few weeks back, and I decided to try my hand at songwriting again.

The song that I came up with was an autobiographical song called My Imaginary Friend, which is all about realising that God isn't real and the pain of losing what I had previously believed to be a real and beautiful relationship with God, and all that entailed.

I admit that I'm not the greatest singer in the world, but I can hold a tune. I hope you like the song. The video is of me singing the song at Ebbw Vale Folk Club last Friday night. It's unusual in that it's in English; I usually sing Welsh songs at folk nights.

Apologies for the video quality - it's the best I could do given that I was up on stage at the time with the camera propped up on a table.

And here, for those who can't understand my accent or my singing, are the lyrics.

MY IMAGINARY FRIEND (© Barry Taylor 2011)

Ever since I can remember, you were always at my side
In good and bad, you always saw me through.
I thought it was forever, and I felt so good inside
Ever since the day I gave my heart to you.

I loved you, but reality got in the way
Now we're through, you're silent as I walk away

Chorus:
But I don't blame you for the way that everything went wrong
I thought you were everything I'd need, but I was wrong
Now looking back I see you were never there for me
I lived with your chains, telling others I was free
People told me you were true, that my life belonged to you,
But now all that's at an end.
Goodbye, my imaginary friend.

Now the memories are hollow, all the lies I thought were true,
All the things I read about your famous deeds,
How you came to die and save us to restore our hearts to you
And the promise that you'd meet my deepest needs.

All my ills they promised me that you could heal
But I know that's hard to do when you're not real

Chorus

Twenty years I wasted on a fantasy
I'm moving on to live for me.

Chorus

More on the rapture

2011-05-21T15:05:00.000-07:00

The Thinking Atheist has come up with yet another video gem. This one deals with the rapture that was supposed to happen today.

Muhammad and the rapture

2011-05-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

As I'm writing this after the supposed time of the rapture and yet I have seen no flying Christians (damn, I'll have to stick to shooting clays instead!), it's clear that the prophesied rapture didn't actually happen. Big shock.

I'm going to have to cancel my planned looting spree and just relax with a beer instead.

In other news, even though it was rather overshadowed by all the rapture nonsense, yesterday was Draw Muhammad Day 2011. Why draw pictures of Muhammad when it enrages Muslims? Well, because we can, and because we want to preserve that freedom. After all, why should non-Muslims be bound by the religious beliefs of Muslims? Would they agree in turn to be bound by the religious beliefs and taboos of, say, Jews? Events in the Middle East in recent decades suggest that such reciprocal respect would be, to say the least, unlikely.

I may or may not have made my own contribution. (If any Muslims are reading this, someone else did it - if you're not a Muslim then... no comment!) Hemant Mehta has posted some of the pictures I am alleged to have created on his Friendly Atheist blog - the ones that are alleged to be by me are third, fourth and fifth on the page.

The pictures alleged to be mine are reproduced below, but please head on over to Friendly Atheist to view some of the other pictures. There's a good collection of them this year.

Oh yes, and should any Muslims be reading this and feeling righteous anger towards me and all the other alleged Muhammad-drawers, please visit this site to see that Muslims have themselves happily depicted Muhammad many times over the centuries. Makes the current prohibition look more than a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

Anyway, here are my alleged efforts in all their glory:

Get 'em while they're young

2011-05-13T18:08:00.000-07:00

As I have mentioned here before, I am a primary school teacher. There is no church-state separation here in Wales, or in the UK as a whole, and we are required to hold a daily act of “broadly Christian” worship in school, in which I refuse on principle to participate. Thankfully, no teacher can legally be required to participate in or lead any such act of worship.

Schools often invite Christians in to take these religious assemblies, as it takes the burden off busy teachers. Now to be fair, most Christian groups and individuals who regularly visit schools to take religious assemblies are aware of the rules and don’t directly proselytise. Back in the day, when I was still a Christian and working as a full-time volunteer with Youth For Christ, we were explicitly told in our training that we were not allowed to proselytise in schools. Nor were we allowed to make specific truth claims or present Christianity as objective truth; rather, we had to phrase everything as “Christians believe X,” or “As a Christian, I believe Y.” We took care always to stick to these rules, and we were an explicitly evangelistic organisation.

Although I’m opposed to the very concept of compulsory worship in schools, and actively campaign against it, while it is still a legal requirement I have no problem with Christian groups or individuals coming into school as long as they stick to the same guidelines we did in Youth For Christ. Unfortunately, not all of them do.

In school this afternoon my class, along with all the other children in the school, had to go to the school hall to watch a puppet show by a visiting group of evangelical Christians from the local Baptist church. They’ve visited us before on numerous occasions, and I complained about them to the Head last time because they were explicitly evanglistic, telling the children that they needed to repent and turn to Jesus to save them from their sins.

This time I walked out of the school hall as soon as their show began, and as I was walking up the corridor back to my classroom I heard the strains of Hillsong’s Shout To The Lord behind me. (I originally accidentally typed that as Killsongs in what must be a Freudian slip!)

I always take care in school never to discuss my religious beliefs, or rather the lack of them, with the children. I do teach Religious Education, as we are required to do, but I always take care to present a balanced approach. Some of the children in my class are open about the fact that they don’t believe in God, while the others clearly do believe, and I encourage them all to accept each other no matter what they believe. I also encourage them to think for themselves, and the last thing I would want is for some of them to be able to say, “I don’t believe because my teacher doesn’t.” Arguments from authority are poor arguments, and I have no desire to be held up as such an authority. I pride myself on the fact that none of the children in my class know what my personal views on religion are. As far as I’m aware, the same is true of the rest of my colleagues as well. However, despite the professionalism of school staff, it seems that some people are allowed to come into schools and present whatever religious rubbish they like and nobody bats an eyelid. It’s disgusting.

Even Christians with strong faith should really oppose such things in primary schools. Force-feeding a captive audience of impressionable young children with religious beliefs of any description should be regarded as shameful. I’d feel exactly the same in the unlikely event of an atheist speaker coming in and trying to persuade the children that there is no God. When people are more mature and able to think critically and evaluate claims for themselves then there is no harm in exposing them to the claims of various world views, whether religious or atheistic. They should by then be in a position to make their own minds up based on the information available to them. However, preaching to a captive audience of young school children is, to my way of thinking, totally unethical.

When the puppet show/gospel outreach was over, I thought that was the end of it. However, a little while later some children came to me with some leaflets and told me they were to be given out to my class. They had big bundles of them to give out to all the classes. These leaflets turned out to be gospel tracts, so I took the whole lot from the children and went back to the hall to return them to the Christian group. (With hindsight, I wish I’d just thrown them in the recycling bin instead.) I told their leader that I thought it was unethical, and possibly even illegal, to proselytise to children in schools. The only response I got was a half-hearted “I’m sorry you were offended” pseudo-apology, and they told me they’d had no opposition in other schools.

This sort of thing makes me really angry. I’d be just as angry in the unlikely event of an atheist group behaving in a similar way. As to the legality of such behaviour, I’ve asked advice from people who are more in the know than me. I’m currently awaiting their response. Either way, it’s unquestionably unethical.

In my not-so-humble opinion, all schools that are paid for by the taxpayer should be run on a totally secular basis, with the legal requirement for a daily compulsory act of “broadly Christian” worship removed. Then situations like this would never arise, as there would be no excuse for religious groups to abuse the goodwill of schools in this way.

Glory Hallelujah

2011-04-30T18:07:00.000-07:00

I love this song! (HT: PZ Myers)
It's so catchy, I must have listened to it about five times on the trot before I decided to post it here. In fact, I'm proably going to listen to it again just as soon as I've finished writing this post. I'm going to have to see if I can find somewhere to perform it live too, I think!

The lyrics have been slightly different in every version I've watched on YouTube, but click here for a more or less "standard" version.

Easter quiz

2011-04-24T09:07:00.000-07:00

Take a look at this Easter quiz by David Fitzgerald, author of the book NAILED: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All.

How many answers did you get right? I got ten out of ten :o)

Go on, humour me and take the quiz.

Did we evolve from aquatic apes?

2011-04-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

This has nothing to do with atheism, but I thought it was an interesting hypothesis. Plus she's Welsh, and therefore worth listening to :o)

How prayer works

2011-04-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

It doesn't.

Bible Quote O' The Day

2011-04-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

Part 5 of an occasional series.

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks
(Psalm 137:8-9)

Religious education

2011-04-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

In schools here in Wales, Religious Education is a statutory subject. Its purpose is not religious instruction, or indoctrination into a particular religion. Rather, it is to teach children about the beliefs and practices of the six major world religions. As such, I have no problem with it as an atheist. I strongly believe that it’s important to have at least a basic understanding of what others believe, because it can be an effective antidote to prejudice and misunderstanding.

All that being said, it can still feel a little odd sometimes, especially when I’m teaching about my own former religion, Christianity.

One day last week I was teaching the Easter story to my class of seven- to nine-year-olds with special educational needs. Some of them had never heard it before (or at least didn’t remember it) so it was all new to them. In my previous life as a Christian I would have presented the story as truth, albeit prefaced with “Christians believe that…” but these days my emphasis is somewhat different. This time I just told the story without making any claims about its truthfulness. As a story, and as part of our cultural heritage, it’s worth knowing. However, I did make a point of saying that although Christians believe the story is true, not everyone does, and that it’s up to them whether or not they believe it.

Some of the children in my class come from religious families, and they tend to believe the whole thing because that’s how they’ve been raised, but there are also some children who openly say that they don’t believe. These days I make sure that everyone knows it’s also OK not to believe, whereas before I wouldn’t have commented on it.

I remember one girl who was in my class last year who, on finding out that some people didn’t believe in God, was absolutely scandalised! Children from religious families are often surprised to find out that atheists exist. I’d never dream of trying to indoctrinate children into believing what I believe, as it’s my opinion that they should be able to make their own minds up. In fact, I don't mention my own beliefs at all, even when they ask, as my own personal beliefs are irrelevant in the classroom. However, if I have exposed them to the knowledge that there are other choices, and that besides Christianity many people follow either a different religion or none, then I’m happy that I’ve done my job as an educator.

Scientific evidence against evolution

2011-04-12T09:30:00.000-07:00

OK, folks, I'm an open-minded person, and when I come across real evidence for something I had previously dismissed, I'm quite willing to change my mind.

With that in mind, please follow this link to see a comprehensive list of all the scientific evidence that shows that the theory of evolution is, in fact, a hoax.

Storm

2011-04-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

You must watch this. It's fantastic!

(HT: PZ Myers)

Why am I so anti-religion?

2011-04-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

I was talking to a work colleague who is also an atheist the other day, and the subject of religion came up. He said, “I’ve never believed in my life and it doesn’t bother me. How come you’re so anti-religion these days?”

My reply was that as I spent 20 years in the grip of religion – and not just any religion, but Pentecostalism, with its added daftness – it’s more natural for me to be anti-religious, or at least anti-Pentecostal.

You know, in many ways I envy people who grew up non-religious. I suppose such people could be described as post-atheist, in the sense that their atheism isn’t a big issue for them. It’s just the way things have always been, and religion to them is just an irrelevant bit of nonsense that nobody takes very seriously.

Unfortunately, those of us who were taken in by the claims of religion often have no choice but to take it seriously. If you believe in hell, for example, it’s a terrifying thing. I spent years believing that my father, who died when I was only fourteen, was probably in hell because he wasn’t a Christian (according to my sect’s narrow definition) when he died. I could never square the circle of believing that all unbelievers went to hell while also believing, as I was told when Dad died, that God is merciful and loving and we don’t know who goes where after death. It’s a little odd that people can insist they don’t know whether certain people are in hell, while also insisting that every single “unsaved” person goes there.

Nowadays, of course, I don’t believe in hell or heaven, but back then I took it seriously and the prospect that my dad might be in hell was an awful thing to contemplate. That’s just one example of how religious beliefs can be harmful, and seriously screw people up. Believe me, there are many more examples I could mention.

I’ve seen the way religion can mess people up while claiming to make their lives better. I’ve seen the way it enslaves people while making them believe that they are actually free. I’ve seen it turn likeable, normal people into sanctimonious clones. I’ve seen it dividing families. I’ve seen intelligent, otherwise sceptical people willingly surrendering their critical faculties and believing uncritically everything that is said from the pulpit, no matter how ridiculous.

That’s why I’m so anti-religion these days.

The New Commandments

2011-03-15T16:30:00.000-07:00

Hallelujah! I believe it! Watch this video and you will believe it too. Praise Almighty Zeus! ;o)

Bible Quote O' The Day

2011-03-09T09:40:00.000-08:00

Part 4 of an occasional series.

An east wind from the LORD will come,
blowing in from the desert;
his spring will fail
and his well dry up.
His storehouse will be plundered
of all its treasures.
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”
(Hosea 13:15-16)

Bible Quote O' The Day

2011-02-26T15:40:00.000-08:00

Part 3 of an occasional series.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Folk night

2011-02-26T15:27:00.000-08:00

I decided to try something new last night, so I went along to a local-ish folk club that a friend of mine had told me about. I ended up having a great night, and I even borrowed a guitar and did a few traditional Welsh folk songs. I got some good feedback, which was nice. It was all the more appreciated because most of the people there didn't speak Welsh (only two of us did), so they don't often get to hear Welsh songs.

Anyway, I had a fantastic night, and I was glad I went along. There was one small fly in the ointment, though. There was this one man there who was a really good guitarist and sang a few songs. He was a Christian, which is neither here nor there. I don't normally worry about what people believe, as long as it doesn't affect me. However, some of his songs were explicitly Christian, and it seemed he was trying to use his music as an evangelistic tool. I used that as an opportunity to take a bathroom break, but it did strike me once again how much my attitude has changed. Once I would have applauded him for trying to introduce Christ to people; now I just wanted to cringe with embarrassment.

It didn't spoil my evening, and it wasn't really a big issue, but it just showed me how far I've come and how much my attitude towards religion has changed. Once it was a matter of life and death to me; now it's just a mild embarrassment.

Bible Quote O' The Day

2011-02-19T16:43:00.000-08:00

Part 2 of an occasional series.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria
(2 Kings 2:23-25 )

Evidence is all. Faith is meaningless.

2011-02-19T15:45:00.000-08:00

Why is there such an emphasis within Christianity and other religions on believing things by faith? In no other area of life do we believe things by faith; we rely instead on evidence.

There are so many things Christians take for granted, for no other reason than that it is written in the Bible. I know this is true because I used to be one of those Christians. However, how do they know the Bible is reliable? How do they know it is actually the word of God? How do they know God is real in the first place to inspire the Bible? There is no evidence for any of these things. It's all taken by faith.

What about when the actual physical evidence contradicts the Bible? Why do so many (though admittedly not all) continue to believe even those parts of the Bible that have been thoroughly debunked by science, such as the Genesis creation narratives, in the face of overwhelming evidence for and old earth and the origin of species by a process of evolution driven by natural selection?

To me, the definition of faith is "that which enables a person to believe something for no good reason".

Why is the Bible reliable? How do you know there is a god? If heaven and hell are real places, where exactly are they? How do you know we have souls? How do you know we will live forever? None of these questions have a satisfactory answer because the subjects they address are not based on evidence, but on faith.

I would suggest that faith is not really the reason why Christians believe what they do (although I would probably have disagreed when I was a Christian myself). Rather, I suspect that childhood indoctrination and cultural norms are the real reasons for religious belief, while faith is simply the mechanism by which such belief is maintained.

When I finally asked myself why I believed in Christianity, I eventually found that I had no answer to that question other than the fact that I was raised to believe it because I happened to have been born to a nominally Christian family in a nominally Christian culture. The actual evidence to justify such belief was missing. The whole edifice was without foundations, so it rapidly collapsed, leaving me as an atheist.

These thoughts were inspired by this video clip, where Matt Dillahunty responds to a Christian who phones in to tell him he's going to hell. He's polite and courteous throughout, but at the same time he is uncompromisingly direct in exposing the problems with religious faith. It's well worth taking the time to watch.

Useful resources for atheists

2011-02-16T16:49:00.000-08:00

Here's a partial list of some resources I've found useful. Go ahead and check them out.

Podcasts

Living After Faith: Specifically for those who have come out of religion.

Chariots of Iron: General atheist discussion.

Atheist News: Exactly what you'd expect it to be.

The Good Atheist: General atheist discussion.

Point of Inquiry: Podcast from the Center For Inquiry.

The Pod Delusion: The name alone makes it awesome!

Blogs

Friendly Atheist

Blag Hag

Pharyngula

ExChristian

The Religion Virus

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Ask An Atheist

The Thinking Atheist

Cartoons

Ape, Not Monkey

Atheist Cartoons

Jesus & Mo

Bible Quote O' The Day

2011-02-16T16:30:00.000-08:00

Part 1 of an occasional series.

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
(Exodus 21:20-21)

Creationists shoot at the wrong target

2011-02-12T04:59:00.000-08:00

Like any scientifically-minded atheist (and like a good many intelligent Christians too, it must be said), I've had my fair share of discussions with fundamentalist Christians about creationism and evolution. I'm lumping "intelligent design" in with creationism here, because as far as I'm concerned ID is simply creationism covered in a thin veneer of scientific language.

I was once a young-earth creationist, but that didn't last long. For most of my time as a Christian I couldn't swallow creationism because I knew too much about geology and palaeontology. I knew that the evidence in favour of evolution was overwhelming, whereas the scientific evidence in favour of the biblical creation story is precisely zero.

One thing that still strikes me as odd is the way creationists always frame their arguments as an attack against evolutionary theory. Huge amounts of money, time and effort have been expended in trying to disprove Darwin. What these people don't realise, though, is that if Darwin's theory could be disproved scientifically, that would have already been done and someone would have won the Nobel Prize for doing it.

More to the point, though, especially where their beliefs are concerned, they are shooting at the wrong target.

Even in the extremely unlikely event of evolution being conclusively demonstrated to be false, the creationists would still have the same huge problem that they have now, namely that there is no evidence for their hypothesis at all. Creationists seem to think that disproving Darwin would prove creationism, but all such an event would prove would be that Darwin was wrong. It would say nothing at all about creationism. The burden of proof would still be on them to prove that their hypothesis is any better.

If any creationists read this, please take note and stop attacking Darwin. If you want your creationism hypothesis to be taken seriously outside of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, you need to provide scientific evidence for it. You need to demonstrate that your hypothesis fits all the known facts about the development of the various species of life on earth. Attacking the currently dominant theory gains you nothing; you need to prove your own hypothesis. As a wise person once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Oh, and the book of Genesis is inadmissible as evidence. Saying that a proposition is true just because someone wrote it down in a book during the Bronze Age is patently absurd. Instead, just show us the evidence.

How astrology works

2011-02-07T14:41:00.000-08:00

It doesn't.

Warning: Rapture coming this year! (Or not.)

2011-02-01T11:47:00.000-08:00

I commented previously on Harold Camping's prediction that the rapture will occur on May 21st this year, heralding the day of judgement and the end of the world. Oh well, at least I won't need to buy my wife a birthday present this year.

Wait, what's that you say? It's all complete and utter bullshit? Damn!

Now I'm under no illusion that this is a mainstream belief, and I'm sure many intelligent Christians will be laughing at him just as much as atheists are. However, I'm just as certain that a great many Christians will be all too eager to jump on the bandwagon because his prediction chimes with their own beliefs about the end of the world being imminent. The question is, will Camping and his followers be held to account by other Christians when their prediction proves to be false just like every other prediction of the return of Christ and the end of the world has been?

Anyway, here's a really good video on the topic from The Thinking Atheist. Should you feel the need to crow when the 22nd comes and no supernatural event has actually occurred, here's a handy countdown to let you know when they're going to have to eat humble pie.

How homeopathy works

2011-01-30T14:54:00.000-08:00

It doesn't.

I am not my blog

2011-01-29T16:25:00.000-08:00

I was just chatting with an atheist friend who reads this blog, and she commented that I come across as rather militant in my writings here. She's not the first person to make comments along that line. I found that interesting, and she was probably right too. I suppose I do come across as somewhat ... well, perhaps militant isn't the best word, since I don't go around advocating violence or shooting Christians, but certainly I can be rather blunt and outspoken about my views on this blog.

Some people might be surprised to hear this, but in person I'm not like that at all. In fact, unless you try to convert me or specifically want to discuss religion or atheism with me, I'm highly unlikely to even broach the topic with you. OK, so being an introvert I'm not the world's greatest conversationalist anyway, but I'm much more likely to talk about the latest Scarlets game, or maybe music or some of the sweet mountain bike trails I've ridden. Even when I do talk about my atheism or someone's religion, I try to be tactful and respectful rather than blunt and obnoxious wherever possible.

At least part of that is due to my wife's influence, as she's still a Christian and that doesn't look likely to change any time soon, if ever. Which is fine - she is not her religion. She is a person. We love and respect each other while disagreeing with each other's beliefs. For us, at least, it works. Just as I realise she is not her religion, she realises that I am not my atheism. I'm just me.

This blog is a different case, however. I created it specifically as a place to write about issues relating directly to atheism and how it affects me as someone who came out of a life-long involvement with Pentecostal Christianity. The name of the blog itself is a dead giveaway. When someone chooses to read a blog like this one, they should have a fairly good idea of what the subject matter will be. As such, I don't feel the need to pull any punches here. I hope I treat commenters with respect, but I will always give my opinion bluntly here without sugar-coating it. That's the nature of an atheist blog. I'm not writing primarily for Christians, although of course I have Christian readers whose opinions I value. I write for myself, and if anyone else finds my writings interesting enough to read that's just a bonus.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I am not my blog. This is a single-issue blog, but my life is far from a single-issue life. Here you'll get my opinions on atheism and religion, undiluted by tact or compromise. In real life, I really am a much nicer person.

What I believe (part 1)

2011-01-25T10:34:00.000-08:00

Back in my Christian days, one of the things I noticed about most Evangelical and Pentecostal churches was that they would usually have a statement of faith hanging somewhere prominent in the foyer. These spelled out in detail what you had to believe in order to be a member of that particular church or denomination.

I can't make something similar for atheism, because atheism is not a religion and has no creeds or required beliefs. The only thing all atheists have in common is one thing we don't believe, i.e. that there is any evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

With that in mind, this is not an atheist statement of faith. It is simply a statement of what I personally believe. You could call it a statement of non-faith if you like. Please understand, though, that I do not and cannot speak for all atheists. This is just where I am after about seven months as an out-of-the-closet atheist.

I don't think I have everything neatly categorised and sewn up yet. There are still plenty of things I'm working through in my mind, but this is a kind of statement of where I am at the moment. As always I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. I'll expand on this further in future posts.

Barry's Statement of Non-Faith

I believe:

That we human beings are collectively responsible for both our own well-being and the well-being of the planet on which we live.

That although humans possess the potential to do both good and bad deeds, our normal inclination is to be good. Humans are in no way intrinsically sinful, evil or depraved.

That morality is defined by human beings in community, according to what is beneficial for both the individual and the community.

That since the natural universe we perceive, made up of matter and energy, is the only reality for which we have any evidence, we should assume that it is the only reality.

That since there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, demons or any other supernatural entities, such entities can be assumed not to exist.

That since our personalities are a function of our brains, we will not survive brain death.

That since this is the only life we will ever have, we should live it to the full and do our best to make the world a better place by the time we leave it than it was when we arrived.

That human beings have no reason to fear death, as there is no heaven and no hell. When we die we will be in the same state of non-existence as before we were conceived and born, and thus we will suffer no pain, sorrow or hardship after death.

That a sense of awe and wonder is a healthy and natural response to the vastness and intricacy of the universe, both on a macro and a micro scale; and that this sense of awe and wonder should be directed towards its proper object rather than towards a supernatural being.

That our lives can have both purpose and meaning. These are subjective, rather than objective, and each person’s purpose and meaning in life is unique. We create our own meaning and purpose, according to what we ourselves hold to be important; they are not externally imposed by a deity or other supernatural agent.

Comments, as always, are welcome.

George Carlin on God

2011-01-22T15:51:00.001-08:00

"Agnostic" doesn't mean "undecided"

2011-01-08T17:18:00.000-08:00

I have always been an agnostic, yet I identify strongly as an atheist (and previously identified strongly as a Christian). To many people that sounds strange, so I shall explain.

According to popular usage, agnosticism is a kind of middle ground between theism and atheism, a place where someone who is uncertain can take refuge. This is, however, not true.

In fact theism-atheism and gnosticism-agnosticism describe two different things. In the diagram on the left they are represented as two different axes.

One is either gnostic (meaning that one knows) or agnostic (meaning that one does not know) about an issue. In this case, you either know there definitely is or is not a God, or you do not know. There is no middle ground.

In a similar way, one is either a theist (having a belief in God) or an atheist (not having a belief in God). Again, there is no middle ground, no halfway house. You either have a belief in God, or you do not. Not having a belief in God is NOT the same thing as having a certain belief that there is no God; one can be uncertain but still have no belief in God.

Most people, whether theists or atheists, are agnostic. We do not know for certain that there is or is not a God, but we base our belief or lack of belief on what we think is the strongest, most likely case. Gnostic theists (those who "know" that there is definitely a God) and gnostic atheists (those who "know" that there is definitely no God) are in the minority. Why? Simply because there is no actual evidence for the existence of God, and it is impossible to prove a negative so his existence cannot be conclusively disproven either.

So if you call yourself an agnostic, meaning that you're somewhere in between theist and atheist, think again. If you have no real belief in a god, even though you do not know for definite one way or the other, you are actually an atheist like me. There is no middle ground.

(Of course, you could substitute "deist" for "theist" and the point would still stand.)

The end of the world is nigh!

2011-01-05T15:37:00.000-08:00

This story has been all over the atheist and skeptical blogs, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it's received its share of publicity in the Christian blogosphere too.

I'm referring, of course, to the recent efforts by a group of Christians led by one Harold Camping to let the world know that according to their calculations the end of the world will begin on May 21st this year. According to these fruitcakes, "the rapture of believers will take place on May 21, 2011 and ... God will destroy this world on October 21, 2011." This is apparently based on their study of the Bible.

I really can't wait to hear what their excuses will be on May 22nd. After all, this isn't the first time Harold Camping has predicted the end of the world. Apparently he predicted that it would end in 1994 too (he even wrote a book about it) but that didn't turn out too well for him.

People who are expecting Jesus to come back on May 21st (or, in fact, any other date) are deluded even by biblical standards. Jesus himself clearly expected to return during the lifetime of his original disciples. So did those disciples, in fact. Oops, they got that one wrong! What's the point in being the Son of God if you can't even get something as simple as the time of your own return right?

I wonder if anyone will actually call them on their crap when nothing happens on May 21st. I hope someone films an interview with them, because I'd love to see these idiots squirm uncomfortably. I think it's more likely that they'll refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong, though. Good luck justifying that, guys!

Ricky Gervais talks a lot of sense

2011-01-01T12:34:00.000-08:00

The following is an extract from A holiday message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm an atheist.

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

To read the rest of the article (and it's well worth a read), go here.

What atheists believe

2010-12-30T15:15:00.000-08:00

Here's a short list of the fundamental truths that all atheists believe.

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...
10. There is no compelling reason to believe in any gods.

If anyone tries to tell you, "Atheists believe so-and-so", take it with a pinch of salt. If you look hard enough you can find atheists of all different kinds. We have different political views, different levels of intelligence, different opinions on most topics you could mention. The only thing that you can guarantee any two atheists will agree upon is that they do not believe in any gods. Everything else is up for grabs.

Atheism is not like a religion, which requires its adherents to believe in a list of fundamental truths or a creed. In fact, atheism is not a coherent system at all. The only thing we all have in common is that there is one particular thing that none of us believe in. On that basis, I'm sure most of us are also atoothfairyists and aunicornists as well.

On this topic, please read Greta Christina's Eleven Myths and Truths About Atheists, especially if you are not yourself an atheist. If nothing else, it may give you a clearer picture of what you are arguing against.

Me and Dan

2010-12-29T17:30:00.000-08:00

I have a friend named Daniel, whom I have known for many years.

Dan lives in Australia, which of course is on the other side of the world, but that's OK because in this technological age distance is no barrier to friendship. In fact, Dan and I get on really well, and he's one of my best friends.

I e-mail Dan at least once every day, telling him what I've been up to and asking him how things are going with him. His life in Australia is so exciting, it's hard to explain!

Dan is always there for me when I need him. I just feel like I can tell him anything. That's the sort of friend he is. He's helped me through many difficult times, just by listening to me when things got tough. He's never too busy to listen.

Although I e-mail Dan regularly, I have never actually had an e-mail back from him. I've never met him in person either. Nor has he ever written to me, and he's never actually spoken to me on the phone either, although I am constantly speaking to him. Text messages? Not likely. He never replies to those either. He's still my best friend, though, and he always answers my messages. I know it's true because I can feel it deep inside my heart when I think about Dan.

Ridiculous? Of course it is. In reality there is no Daniel. If he was actually real and I e-mailed, phoned and wrote to him regularly, and if he was any kind of friend at all, he'd reply. If he didn't, then for me to claim that we had a friendship, or indeed any kind of relationship at all, would be plainly ridiculous.

So why do Christians say that Jesus is their best friend and that they have a relationship with God?

Ricky Gervais on Noah

2010-12-29T12:36:00.000-08:00

(Thanks to Hemant Mehta for the link.)

No hope?

2010-12-26T16:09:00.000-08:00

Several of my Christian friends have made comments to me lately that boil down to two main points:

1. If you live without faith, you live without hope.
2. What if you're wrong?

The first point is plainly wrong. I certainly don't have less hope now than I did as a Christian. I am not despairing at the emptiness in my life; rather, my life is full and I am enjoying it despite my current health problems. As a matter of fact I am enjoying my life more than ever now, because I know I'm not a sinner (and nor is anyone else) and I'm free of Christian guilt. I am no longer encumbered by the silly rules and expectations to which those who consider themselves "set free by Christ" are nevertheless enslaved.

If by "hope" they mean hope of eternal life, then of course I do not have that particular hope because I don't believe there is any kind of afterlife. All the evidence we have suggests that this is the only life any of us will ever have, so my hope is based on enjoying this life and making it better for others. The hope of eternal life, however much comfort it brings to Christians, is a false hope founded upon no evidence whatsoever.

As for point two, "What if you're wrong?", I'll let Richard Dawkins answer that one for me:

I couldn't have put it better myself. Even if I am wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that Christians are right.

As Ricky Gervais said: 'So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.'

What if I'm wrong? Well, if anyone can show me any actual evidence or proof that I'm wrong, I will happily change my belief system. I never wanted to be an atheist; I wanted to remain a Christian. Leaving my lifelong faith and changing my entire worldview was the hardest thing I have ever had to do. It made me ill with stress. It still has ongoing repercussions today as I am still adapting to my new belief system. There is no way I would have put myself through all that if I wasn't sure it was the right thing to do. The only reason I became an atheist is that the evidence led me that way. In the unlikely event of someone showing me real evidence that their religion is right then I'll convert on the spot.

Note that word though: REAL evidence. Personal feelings, subjective experiences and third-hand hearsay do not constitute evidence. Nor do passages from the Bible or the Qur'an, which make plenty of assertions about God but offer no actual proof for those assertions. Praying for an amputee in front of me and letting me see his severed limb growing back in front of my eyes, on the other hand, would be real evidence.

I won't hold my breath.

Another reply in the newspaper

2010-12-21T06:28:00.000-08:00

The replies to my letter in the Western Mail newspaper keep coming. Here's the latest one, printed today:

SIR – If atheists like Barry T**** (Letters, Dec 4, 16) are adamant that they should be allowed to celebrate a secular Christmas without any religious people reminding them of its true meaning then they should divorce themselves from the religious festival altogether including any reference to its terminology in their daily lives. Why keep Christmas when you are not a Christian? It’s totally nonsensical!

Non religious members of society in other faith communities don’t hijack Mohammed’s birthday in Islam or Guru Nanak’s in Sikhism, for example and manipulate the day into a secular free for all annual merry-go-round.

The UK needs to jump off the religious bandwagon and reflect as to where it’s going with Christmas since the time has probably come to refer to this annual public holiday as a midwinter break.

So here’s a happy Midwinter to everyone!

HAYDN WILLIAMS
Llangain, Caerfyrddin

I can see where he's coming from, but what he fails to realise is that I've already abandoned the religious festival of Christmas in favour of the secular festival of the same name that has largely replaced it in the West. Anyway, why should I not celebrate Christmas just because I'm an atheist? I may not be a believer, but I'm what you might call culturally Christian. While I reject the supernatural elements of Christianity, I see no problem with following harmless traditions otherwise.

I've sent off a response:

SIR – Haydn Williams (Letters, Dec 21) has got it all wrong. I don't want to celebrate Christmas without religious people reminding me of its "true meaning". Rather, I want to celebrate it in my own way without having that "true meaning" (which is only "true" from a Christian perspective) imposed on me. I'm a great believer in the principle of live and let live. I have no issue with believers who want to celebrate Christmas as a religious festival, and I would not want to interfere with that.

All I want is for myself and other non-religious people to be free to celebrate in our own way without constantly being derided as "militant atheists" because we don't conform to the expectations of certain religious people who think Christmas is still exclusively Christian. It is not, and has not been for a long time.

You celebrate it your way, and I'll celebrate it my way. Then we can all be happy and enjoy the season.

A very happy Christmas to everyone, whatever you believe!

A magnificent rant

2010-12-20T15:40:00.000-08:00

OK, this is a bit (well, a lot) more blunt than I would ever be when talking to a religious person. Get past the bluntness and listen to the message, though, and he's making a lot of sense.

If you liked that, there's plenty more from Pat Condell here.

A reply to a Christian friend

2010-12-20T12:53:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine left a comment on an earlier post today. I decided that it was worth taking an entire post to respond, rather than writing a lot of comments to the original post.

Interestingly, this friend used to be my pastor when I was a Christian. We're on opposite sides of the fence now as far as religious belief goes, of course, but he's a person who has earned my respect and thus we're still friends despite our differences of opinion, albeit from a distance most of the time these days. (Actually, even when I was a Christian we disagreed on many issues and had a lot of interesting debates.)

Although this is my reply to my friend first and foremost, please feel free to add your own comments below, on either side of the argument. I'm sure both of us would be interested to hear from different perspectives.

OK then, let's get started!

Interesting thoughts Barry, though I am strongly a Christian, does not mean I automatically ditch your thoughts, we know each other better than that.

Indeed we do.

i am able to entertain (though not necessarily believe), the evolution process of matter and life, but how does matter (or material substance) create (or evolve) the non material such as right and wrong.

The thing is, how much do you actually know about the process of evolution and the theory of natural selection? Have you read any sources on the subject other than Christian creationist sources? If not, you will have got a very skewed picture of what evolution actually entails. Natural selection is the part that is "only" a theory (in the same sense as gravity is "only" a theory, I might add), but the process of evolution itself is an observable fact.

Right and wrong are not determined by an external agent such as God. They are determined partly by the society we live in and partly by what is in the best interests of the species as a whole - in other words, it is to at least some degree determined by the ongoing process of Darwinian evolution. Why is it wrong for us to go around killing each other? Because we don't want the same thing to happen to us. The "Golden Rule" is intuitive to us. Also, it would be counter-productive to the survival and continuing evolution of our species.

I always say "i am greater than the highest mountain" why? because it does not know about itself or its universe, but uniquely "I DO" where does awareness come from if evolution and formation is all about material. What is conscience, morals, love, hate, anger. The animal kingdom, plant kingdom and insect kingdom survives without these things. Why us?

Interesting - why do we automatically assume that being aware of the world around us is in any way greater than being unaware? We humans have an innate tendency to think we are the pinnacle and focus of the universe, whereas in fact we are only a very tiny, insignificant part of it.

Evolution is not only about material. Or rather, it is, but that material gave rise gradually to consciousness. Our personalities, consciousness, decisions, emotions and morality are all functions of matter; without our brains none of them would exist. That's why head trauma, brain tumours etc can so profoundly change a person's personality: we are our brains, at least in terms of our awareness.

Our high-functioning brains evolved because they gave us a survival advantage over similar species that did not have such complex brains. Why us? Because we had the survival advantage and were able to out-compete other species for food, water, shelter and reproduction. That's why we're still here while other similar hominid species with less-developed brains are extinct.

Also, who says that non-human animals don't have morality, awareness, consciousness and emotions? Granted, they are usually not as highly-developed as ours, but they are definitely there.

You have many questions and issues about the Christians and their ways, (I must admit, so do I), but when I (as an engineer and designer)look and see the vast extent of an infinite universe of innumerable stars (some of which are larger than our solar system), and then think of your understanding that this vastness appeared from nowhere is a BIG issue to me.

How do you know that the universe is infinite? Current scientific models suggest that it may well not be, although it is so large that the measurement would be beyond our comprehension. Our universe is expanding; an infinite universe could not expand, as there would be nothing for it to expand into.

I don't claim to know that the universe just appeared from nowhere. I'm comfortable saying that I don't know how it came into being. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't created out of nothing by a god though. For God to create the universe he would need to be more complex and greater than the entire universe, which then begs the question: where did God come from? If your answer is that he was always there, why should that not be true of the universe itself? If the universe needs a creator in order to exist, then its creator also needs a creator, which also needs a creator, and so on in an infinite loop that makes no sense.

Our understanding of the universe did not appear from nothing. That idea is based on a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. It developed gradually, infinitesimally, over thousands of generations as it gave us a survival advantage to be self-aware and more aware of the world around us, including our ability to understand abstract concepts. Our ability to contemplate the universe is a by-product of something that evolved solely because it helped our species to survive.

When I consider the unbelievable chances of life on this speck of stardust, and when I use my imaginary zoom lens and focus on the most fundamental of human organs "the eye" with its focusing techniques a million times superior to the most advanced digital camera lens, I think to myself "chance?" NO WAY. But that`s me.

Again, the eye did not develop by chance. For a simple explanation, take a look at this short video. Bear in mind that these changes did not develop suddenly, but over innumerable generations.

Evolution is not random; it occurs by a process of natural selection. For more information on what evolution actually is, as opposed to what biased creationist preachers would have you think it is, here's another short video that explains it well:

The Universe and its contents are FACTS which both of us face. but when we mere mortals interpret these facts, boy is there room for much error.
One thing I have learnt Barry my good friend "one only has to miss something small out of an equation, and the result can explode in your face" This has happened to me many times in my work as an electrical engineer. Like me, Barry it is wiser to take the stand that "I might be wrong" than to dogmatic

There is room for error as we interpret these facts, undoubtedly. However, science will readily admit that it was wrong when new evidence comes to light that refutes its previously-held beliefs. Religion will not, as it makes claims to ultimate, absolute truth.

Yes, I might be wrong. However, I'd rather put my trust in science, which is based on observations of the real world which are then tested rigorously, and its interpretations discarded if they don't fit the available data, than on a book which claims to be the source of all knowledge but in fact does not fit many of the things we now know to be true about the world.

Equally, you could be wrong. There could be no God. In fact, not believing in something is the default position. Disbelief in flying blue pixies is our default position, but were we actually to see evidence for their existence then we would change our minds and believe. If someone told me flying blue pixies were real, the burden of proof would be on them. In other words, it would be for them to prove that such things exist, rather than for me to prove that they do not.

The same is true of God. Disbelief in a god is the default position; neither of us believes in Zeus, Thor or Krishna, for example. Why? Because there is no evidence for their existence. Yet millions of people have lived and died believing that they were real, and indeed were willing to die for their beliefs.

Since the beginning of recorded history, humans have worshipped around 2870 different gods that we know of. You do not believe in 2869 of them. Why not? For the same reason that I don't believe in 2870 of them. There is no evidence that any of them are real, including the God of the Bible.

Church leader joins 'aggressive atheists' row

2010-12-20T06:58:00.000-08:00

More idiocy has appeared in the Western Mail newspaper today, courtesy of publicity-seeking clergy:

A SENIOR Welsh church leader yesterday became the latest to join in an attack on so-called "aggressive atheists".

The Bishop of St Asaph, the Rt Rev Gregory Cameron, says those who believe Christmas should be brought to an end because it is too exclusive or commercial should be resisted strongly.

He said in his Advent message: "Christmas gives more than an excuse for a couple of days feasting, it gives significance to the whole of life – and that’s why I hope we will celebrate it for ever."

His comments come after the Rt Rev John Davies, Bishop of the Church in Wales diocese of Swansea and Brecon, criticised what he called "aggressive atheists".

And in another outspoken pre-Christmas speech, the Swansea-born Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams lambasted "weary annual attempts by right-thinking people in Britain to ban or discourage Nativity plays or public carol singing out of sensitivity to the supposed tender consciences of other religions".

In his annual Advent message the Bishop of St Asaph said: "What would we lose by banning Christmas? I’m assuming of course that we could still have a Yuletide, so the presents and the drinks parties could continue."

(Read the full article here.)

I think I've mentioned this before, but the only people I have ever heard suggesting that some people want to ban Christmas are Christians with a siege mentality. I have never heard any atheist groups or non-Christian religious groups complain about Christians celebrating Christmas in whatever way they choose.

Why, then, do these people keep trotting out that same old line about "aggressive atheists" wanting to ban Christmas? Probably because, in an age when church attendance figures are in freefall, it's the only way they can get any sort of publicity outside of a sex scandal.

It's ridiculous, frankly.

As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of non-religious people don't want to ban Christmas or stop Christians celebrating it however they choose. All we want is the same freedom to celebrate it our own way without Christians telling us that we are wrong, or somehow threatening them by not conforming to their beliefs.

Cartoon fun

2010-12-14T12:28:00.000-08:00

If you've never seen it before and you like cartoon strips (especially if they deal with the topic of science v. religion), you need to visit Ape, Not Monkey. Seriously. Go and look. Now.

With characters like these, you'll love it!

Another response in the newspaper

2010-12-14T12:11:00.000-08:00

Following the last response to my letter printed in the Western Mail newspaper, they printed another one today. The tone is much more conciliatory than the last letter. I disagree with the writer’s suggestion that his imaginary god offers something better, of course, but I agree entirely with his ideas about being constructive and showing good will to others. That’s what humanism is all about, after all. There is no need to hold any religious beliefs in order to help others.

Remember good will

SIR – Barry T**** (Letters, Dec 4) is quite right that you can have a non Christian mid winter festival to cheer up the bleak season or look forward to an increase in the length of days – many societies have had that custom. However, what his imaginary old minister (and many young ones, too, I expect) is trying to tell him is that there is something better on offer as well.

The Great Spirit who underlies the universe and the other alternative ones that seem quite likely is infinitely benevolent to each one of us, is infinitely constructive and positive, and holds out the promise of eternal life. Now that is something even more to celebrate but remember the condition, we have to be constructive and have good will also.

That means, for example, helping out the homeless, being considerate of the environment or bearing it in mind that people we disagree with or disapprove of are still fellow humans and many have reasons that we do not know about. Christmas is a time to remember good will to others as well as to feast.

D C SAGE
Penclawdd,
Swansea

In defence of Santa Claus

2010-12-13T11:10:00.000-08:00

At this time of year, lots of children’s dreams are shattered by adults and other children who tell them that Santa Claus does not exist. This is, of course, a wicked lie. As such, I shall now refute some of the most common arguments used to “prove” that Santa does not exist.

1. Santa is based on the myth of Saint Nicholas

This is not true. There are some similarites between the story of Santa and the story of Saint Nicholas, it’s true, but they are just coincidental. Just because two stories share some similarites, it doesn’t follow that one was based on the other. The stories about Saint Nicholas are interesting to believers in Santa, but they are irrelevant to Santa’s existence. The stories about Santa are undoubtedly true, whereas the stories of Saint Nicholas may well be mostly legends.

2. Your Christmas presents are really delivered by your parents

Your parents may well bring you some presents, because it’s natural to want to give presents to those you love. However, Santa gives presents too. In a mysterious way, he even delivers presents that other people bought. How he does this is quite simple. He checks the presents that are left under the tree, makes sure they are all good ones, then puts them back exactly where they were. Thus in a sense he delivers even other people’s presents.

3. Reindeer cannot fly

Every year, large numbers of previously unknown species are discovered by biologists. It is pure arrogance to claim that such a creature as a flying reindeer cannot exist, simply because you have never seen one. They are extremely rare creatures and are only found around the North Pole. They are also very shy, so they hide whenever humans come around (unless they are wearing a red coat with white fur trim, which they have been trained to recognise).

4. Santa can’t possibly get around the whole world in one night

This is such a ridiculous idea that it is barely worth refuting. Of course Santa can get around the world in one night. He only visits people who celebrate Christmas, so large swathes of the world where religions other than Christianity are predominant are excluded from Santa’s rounds. For the rest of the world he uses a special time dilation device that creates a miniature black hole, accelerating Santa to beyond the speed of light and thus allowing him to travel back in time. Thus he can appear to be in many places at the same time, which also accounts for how he can appear in many shopping malls simultaneously. Santa has chosen not to share this technology with the wider world out of concern that it might be used to cause harm instead of good.

5. As most new houses don’t have chimneys, how can Santa get in and out?

It is widely known that Santa’s preferred method of entry into houses is via the chimney. However, as most modern houses have at most a narrow flue pipe rather than an old-fashioned wide chimney, this is often not possible.

Not many people know this, but Santa is actually an expert at picking locks. No lock has yet been made that can keep him out. So in houses without suitable chimneys, Santa simply picks the lock and enters through the front door. (He takes care that the door is properly locked again when he leaves.)

6. It’s impossible for Santa to have a list of all the children in the world and know who’s been naughty or nice

In most countries it is compulsory for all births to be registered. Santa’s elves have many talents, including hacking into government computer systems to obtain the births register. Thus he has a list of all children’s names and ages. It’s quite simple for his army of covert espionage elves to find out which children are naughty and which are nice, and to pass on that information to Santa via a secure satellite e-mail system.

7. If Santa existed he couldn’t possibly eat all the mince pies that are left out for him

An unfortunate side-effect of Santa’s time dilation device is that any food he has eaten recently is not transported with him. Rather, it is destroyed during the process of time travel. Thus he needs to eat again each time he travels backwards through time in order to keep his strength up, and each time he begins with an empty stomach before he eats the mince pies, cookies and other foods that thoughtful people have left out for him.

8. Santa, if he is real, must have been alive for hundreds of years. Nobody lives that long.

Actually, Santa is only forty-eight years old. He appears to have been around for much longer because he travels through time a lot. Contrary to popular belief, Santa does not lounge around doing nothing for most of the year. Apart from three weeks’ holiday during the summer, he works six days a week travelling through time to deliver Christmas presents in various years.

9. "The Night Before Christmas" is only fiction

The poem itself was written by a fallible human being and thus contains some minor inaccuracies, but nevertheless it contains deeper, more profound truths about Santa Claus that we would all do well to learn and heed. Santa, though described and extolled through the written word, is much greater than mere words can fully convey.

Conclusion

Nobody can prove conclusively that Santa Claus does not exist. Arguments can easily be found to counter all claims that attempt to disprove his existence, if a little imagination is employed. The same is true of God. It is thus clearly true that God is just as real as Santa Claus. Merry Christmas!

Life and meaning

2010-12-12T09:37:00.000-08:00

What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? If you’re a Douglas Adams fan, the answer is of course 42.

Adams aside, what actually is the meaning of life? It’s been argued many times that if we are to abandon religion, we need to replace it with something else that explains the meaning of life.

The thing is, what if there is actually no overall meaning to life? There is no evidence for the existence of a god, and no evidence of any divine plan. Thus our existence does not have an overall purpose or meaning; it is a cosmic accident, albeit a happy one for us. For some reason this bothers theists, as they often assume that a life with no cosmic purpose or plan is not worth living.

If we turn that argument on its head, we can see that a universe without God is actually a much more friendly place. For one thing, we can be assured that the worst things that happen to us are not deliberately engineered as part of a divine plan. We can be sure that there is no hell and nobody to condemn us to spend eternity there. We can also rest easy in the knowledge that, as there is nobody to set arbitrary laws over us that stifle human expression, we are not sinners as some would have us believe.

The fact that there is no overall purpose to our lives, and that our existence is due to chance rather than design, emphatically does not mean that life is inherently without meaning. Rather, life has the meaning we choose to give it.

We can choose to live our lives in such a way as to make the world a better place. We can choose to love our families and make their lives richer and better. We can be good friends to others. We can learn more about our vast universe and perhaps add to the sum total of human knowledge through research, or even through accidental discoveries. We can pass on good societal values to the next generation.

Life is brief, and it ends. We are all certain to die one day. In 200 years’ time, it is probable that I will be forgotten. My life has no cosmic purpose, no grand design imposed by a deity, but it does have a purpose. If I can have a positive impact on the lives of the people that matter to me in the here and now, that gives my life all the meaning it needs.

Truly, life is full of meaning.

Fundamentalist atheist extremists?

2010-12-10T09:36:00.000-08:00

Recently I was engaged in a discussion on the Maes-E forum. The subject was something close to my heart, namely worship in schools. Here in the UK it is a legal requirement for all state schools to hold a daily act of worship of “broadly Christian character” which is mandatory for all pupils unless their parents have explicitly requested, in writing, that they be withdrawn. I strongly disagree with this, and I know that various humanist organisations have been lobbying the government for a change in the law.

One particular person in the discussion really couldn’t understand why I’m against mandatory worship in schools. In the end this person said they didn’t see the point in continuing to discuss matters with “fundamentalist atheist extremists” like me.

That made me pause. What on earth is a fundamentalist atheist extremist? What would such a thing look like?

Firstly, the word “fundamentalist” means someone who believes and defends as literal truth the fundamental doctrines of their religion. Since atheism is not a religion and has no doctrines, fundamental or otherwise, how can any atheist be a fundamentalist? The only requirement for being an atheist is a lack of belief in any gods. That’s not even a belief; it’s a LACK of belief. That’s not much to be fundamentalist about.

Then there’s the term “extremist”. What exactly is an extremist, and does that apply to vocal atheists like myself?

To me, an extremist is someone who resorts to extreme actions to enforce their beliefs. Religious extremists are the sort of people who fly planes into skyscrapers or blow up abortion clinics. Religious extremists commit suicide bombings and incite murder in the name of their beliefs. When they infiltrate the mainstream leadership of their particular religion they end up being responsible for atrocities such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Compare and contrast with so-called atheist extremists. What do we do? We defend our viewpoint verbally and refuse to give religious beliefs undeserved respect. We write letters to newspapers defending our point of view. We debate with believers. At our most extreme, some of us might occasionally ridicule the superstitious beliefs of others. Compared with religious extremists, can we really be described as extreme? I think not, somehow.

So there we have it. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist extremist. The term is an oxymoron. The person who used the term to refer to people like me is just a regular moron.

Bishop slams "aggressive atheists" for not believing

2010-12-09T16:38:00.000-08:00

Yawn. Yet another attack in the Christmas War is reported in the local newspaper. It should come as no surprise that yet again it's coming from a Christian clergyman, as the supposed "atheist war on Christmas" only exists inside the heads of a certain kind of Christian.

The Rt Rev John Davies, Bishop of the Church in Wales diocese of Swansea and Brecon, said outspoken atheists had "little grasp" of how stories told in the Bible came about, adding: "One of the great falsehoods perpetrated by the aggressive atheist lobby is that our faith is without foundation and that, in effect, it’s all made up."

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence that would convince me that their faith wasn't made up. Methinks the bishop is tilting at straw men, as many atheists are former Christians and know exactly what it's all about.

Thankfully, and somewhat refreshingly, the newspaper didn't just report the bishop's comments. Two representatives of atheist groups were interviewed and their responses to the bishop were printed. I think atheist views were quite fairly represented, which makes a pleasant change from the uncritical reporting of bishops' comments that too often finds its way into newspapers.

Julian Bennett, secretary of Cardiff Humanists, had this to say:

"I agree Christmas stories can be charming and contain some element of truth, like many fairy stories, but as atheists we do not venerate Robin Hood as our saviour and await his return, nor do we condemn the Big Bad Wolf for being true to his nature."

Emma Bryce, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) added:

"Christmas is now a festival shared and enjoyed by the majority of the non-religious community, focused around positive messages of love, caring, and goodwill. While the stories presented in churches throughout Advent may well be much-loved and traditional, with no extraordinary evidence backing up the extraordinary claims they describe, we must see them as just that – much loved and traditional stories."

You can read the full article here.

Christmas war of words

2010-12-09T16:23:00.000-08:00

The responses to my last letter in the local newspaper have begun. The following letter was published today.

SIR – Before I take issue with Barry T**** of P******** (Letters, Dec 4), can I first point out that I am not a clergyman and, at knocking on 50, I’ll leave it to Western Mail readers to judge if I am old or not.

I do however have a habit of writing in this column protesting against things like drunks rolling into church for midnight Mass, (the church I go to usually has a 10.30am Welsh service at which we do not get blasted with English language Christmas carols over-used during Advent for commercial advertising).

I have also protested against an over-zealous use of the TV during Christmas and the banning of Nativity scenes from public places. I have also suggested that Saint Nicholas of Myra may well have existed and was in fact a godly bishop. Yes, such a species does exist. Last year I suggested we might all do well if we went out and bought ourselves a prayer book at Christmas.

Now Mr T****’s remark about the “secular” practice of giving gifts at Christmas doesn’t ring true. It stems from what the Bible says at Matthew 2:11. The legend about Saint Nicholas finding the money to redeem three sisters from being sold into prostitution also plays a part. What is wrong at this time of year is the pressure put on parents with young children to spend money they may not have on presents by using the suggestion that, if they don’t, they don’t love their children.

If Mr T**** doesn’t want to keep a Christian festival called Christmas I would go so far as to suggest that he has two options. He can keep the old Roman festival of Saturnalia. That was always a good excuse for a booze-up. He could also keep something like a “late winter bank holiday” and convert Saint Nicholas into “Grandfather Frost” as they did in Soviet Russia. Either way he would not be keeping Christmas.

JAMES SAMUEL COLE
Capel Coelbren, Castell Nedd

I decided to reply, so I've just emailed the following letter to the editor.

Sir,

In response to James Samuel Cole of Capel Coelbren (Letters, Dec 9) I would like to point out that despite the giving of gifts at Christmas having roots in the Christian legends of the Magi and St. Nicholas, for many of us this tradition has now taken on a life of its own and has been divorced from its religious beginnings. For those of us who are non-religious, this can only be a good thing.

Mr Cole seems to think I should stop celebrating the Christian festival of Christmas because I am not a Christian. He can rest assured that I already have. Instead, I celebrate the secular festival of the same name that has largely replaced it in Western cultures. For me and for many other people there is no religious element to Christmas at all. Why should there be if we are not ourselves religious?

Mr Cole may want to buy a prayer book at Christmas as he suggests, but I for one would prefer to celebrate Christmas as a family time and a time of "good cheer" without superstition getting in the way.

The so-called "war on Christmas" is a myth. As an atheist I am not out to spoil anyone else's fun, or stop people celebrating Christmas in whatever way they choose. All we atheists ask is that we be extended the same courtesy and be allowed to celebrate in our own way without religious people trying to tell us we are wrong.

If there are any more letters printed on this topic I'll post them here as well.

Musings in a church

2010-12-07T08:29:00.000-08:00

As I write, I’m sitting in a church. Several hundred people are here, singing hymns of praise to God and reading from the Bible.

No, I haven’t reconverted to Christianity. I’m here supervising children as they practise for tomorrow’s school carol service. Here in the UK there is no separation of church and state, so it is normal for state schools to do this sort of thing. These practices tend to take a long time and be very tedious, so I decided to bring my laptop with me and do something productive (though not work-related) while also keeping an eye on the children. So it turns out men can multi-task sometimes!

It feels very odd being in a church now. What was once a familiar, comforting setting has now become an alien, stifling environment. It also seems rather ridiculous in many ways. As I look around I can see stained glass windows depicting various saints; an icon of St. George killing a dragon; a statue of the Virgin Mary that looks nothing like I imagine a first century Jewish peasant girl would have looked; and the various stations of the cross. My first reaction is to be both amused and amazed that people can actually believe in all this stuff, but then I remember that only a few short years ago I believed it too. That seems like another life now.

This building was erected at great financial cost in the nineteenth century by people who thought the financial outlay was worth making. The maintenance, heating and electricity bills for such a large building must be astronomical. All that money, time and effort expended on a fiction.

There’s a large stained glass window at the front of the church, above the altar. It depicts the fictional spirit of a fictional deity descending on Jesus, who himself may not have existed (and who is lily-white with blonde hair and blue eyes in this depiction, again very unlike a first century Jewish peasant). Despite the fictional nature of the story it depicts, it’s very pleasant to look at. So are many of the other pieces of art around the church, from icons to memorial carvings.

Why does religion inspire such works of art? Presumably because it evokes a sense of the transcendent, reminding people of how small they are in the grand scheme of things. What a pity that it takes ancient fiction to arouse such feelings of awe in most people!

Next time there is a clear night, go outside and look up at the stars. Some of them are so unimaginably far away that the light we now see radiating from them has actually taken millions of years to get here. Some of the stars we see don’t actually exist any more, so long has it taken their light to reach us.

It was from stars such as these, exploding at the end of their lives and ejecting material into space, that the atoms which make up our bodies (and everything else we see around us) came. The notion that we are made of star dust may sound fantastic, but it’s true. Each of our atoms was formed in the depths of a long-dead star, and somehow via an unimaginably long process came to be part of a human being.

Then reflect on the fact that of the billions of potential human beings who were never born, the billions of different genetic combinations that could have existed, you had the good fortune to be born and live, experiencing the world and all it has to offer. The odds against you existing at all were astronomical; orders of magnitude greater than the chances of you winning the National Lottery jackpot. And yet there you are, reading words written by another person with the billions-to-one good fortune to exist.

There’s where I get my sense of the transcendent. All I need to do is look at the wonders of the universe and of my very existence in the vastness of all that is. The “miracle” that is the order of the natural universe. The wonder of the laws of physics. The joyous feeling of being alone in a wood, on top of a mountain or walking on a beach, experiencing the wonders of nature. Who needs fictional gods when the real universe is so awesome and wondrous without them?

So, back to the church in which I’m sitting. It is no more than an expensive folly built to honour a fiction, a pale shadow of the wonders of the real universe. Its works of art have their own merit, but how much greater would they be if they were inspired by and dedicated to something real and far more awesome than a god created by the myths of an unsophisticated Bronze-Age society?

Who started the war on Christmas?

2010-11-30T06:52:00.000-08:00

I was reading my newspaper this morning when I came across this report. It's the sort of story that has become depressingly familiar every December, and to me it's a sign of poor journalism. You know the format: someone complains about the "true meaning" of Christmas being eroded, and some clergyman is pestered for a quote to support their ideas.

In this particular case, the topic is Advent calendars.

THEY began life in the 19th century when German Christians would make a chalk line for every day in December until Christmas Eve.

But like so many festive traditions Advent calendars seem to have evolved from simple acts of Christian celebration to lose much of the spirit of devotion that shaped them.

The latest incarnation of the calendar is more likely to reveal Playmobil or Lego toys than biblical scenes when the countdown to Christmas begins tomorrow.

The traditional versions are being superseded by the rise of the toy calendars where the passing days bring shiny, plastic gifts in place of scripture.

(You can read the rest of the article here.)

Every year, the same old thing. Secular Christmas traditions are attacked by those with religious beliefs who insist we should all celebrate their way. And yet they think we are the ones making war on Christmas! Crazy.

Anyway, I sent a response to the letters page of the newspaper. I hope they print it. Here's what I wrote:

Sir,

Christmas is coming, and with it come the inevitable complaints about how its "true meaning" is being eroded. This time it took the form of a report about advent calendars, but it has many forms. The upshot is generally that Christmas is a Christian festival and we should only celebrate it in a Christian manner. Every year some old clergyman is wheeled out to tell us we're doing it wrong, and that celebrating the birth of Christ is what really matters.

The fact is that large numbers of us are not religious and don't believe that the Christian stories about Jesus' birth are either true, meaningful or relevant to our celebrations at this time of year. However, we do still enjoy the more secular traditions that have sprung up around Christmas, such as giving gifts, enjoying family time and parties, to name just three examples.

Yes, the roots of Christmas are indeed Christian, and those who wish to celebrate the birth of Jesus are free to do so. However, those of us who are not religious should also be free to enjoy Christmas in our own way without being accused of forgetting its "true meaning" or spoiling the fun.

If you're a non-believer and want to celebrate Christmas, go for it! Decorate your house, eat turkey, put up a tree, spend time with your family, give and receive gifts. But don't you dare forget the "true" meaning of Christmas, or you'll make the Baby Jesus cry...

Regrets? I've had a few...

2010-11-28T10:18:00.000-08:00

Now that I'm out of the closet as an atheist and used to thinking with an atheistic mindset, I've found myself more and more looking at the past with a mixture of nostalgia, incredulity and regret. I gave more than 20 years of my life for a cause in which I no longer believe, and I have many regrets.

True, in the course of my Christian efforts I did meet my wife, but that's the one good thing I can really say about it.

Looking back, I regret all the time I wasted trying to convert others to Christianity. I regret all the hours wasted in prayer to a non-existent deity, naively believing that I had an intimate relationship with him even though he never so much as spoke to me. I regret all the effort I put into church activities.

I regret giving up playing rugby because training clashed with prayer meetings and bible studies.

Most of all, though, I regret the big things I did as a result of believing God was calling me to serve him in a deeper way.

I spent 2 years with Youth For Christ on their discipleship and youth work training programme, Operation Gideon. Basically I was placed in a team of 3, based in London. I was embedded in a local church, lived with the pastor's family and generally spent 2 years meeting young people in schools, on the streets, at events and in church an trying to convert them. I also had to undertake a personal study programme, which basically amounted to further indoctrination and moulding me into a good evangelical.

After that, again following what I thought was the call of God, I spent three years studying Theology at London Bible College (now known as London School of Theology, a respected evangelical seminary). I did placements with a local Baptist church and Jews for Jesus, and I served on the Student Committee.

So that's five years out of my life dedicated to training and learning. What do I have to show for it now? Not a lot, besides regrets.

I was originally going to study Geology at University, before my religious beliefs caused me to change direction drastically. I was good at geology in school. I aced my exams without needing to study; that's how good I was at geology. Instead of studying geology, however, I wasted my time (and my state funding, as back then students got a grant as well as loans) on studying what I now believe to be a non-subject. Theology, the study of God, has as much real-life application as the study of mermaids.

I went on to become a primary school teacher because I believed that was what God wanted me to do. Several people since have told me that I'm wasted in that job, but it's what I know. Sometimes I like the job, sometimes I don't, but it's all I'm qualified to do and I can't afford the pay cut that changing jobs would lead to. There aren't many jobs that an atheist could do in good conscience for which a degree in theology is a useful asset, after all.

Now I'm a married man and a sole breadwinner with debts that I can just about manage, it's too late for me to go back to university to study something useful. I'm nearly 40 and have health problems, so it's too late for me to take up rugby again. I will never get back all the time and money I wasted on Church activities and on things that I thought honoured God.

God has stolen a lot from me, and I can never get it back from him because he does not exist.

Thank goodness for my wife, whom I first met when I was with Youth For Christ. She's the only thing that I can honestly say was good that came out of all that.

One Strong Voice

2010-11-20T19:20:00.000-08:00

I have not posted here before now. Barry has been wonderful to extend an open opportunity here for expression and I am honored to be a part. Life simply has had me in a tailspin yet again to where my thoughts have been swirling and locked away. As I peek out from behind that, I saw a FB post tonight that caught my attention.

Watching this interview with Christopher Hitchens is like watching a library beginning to smolder. If he does not survive his illness, the world will lose a vast wealth of beautiful knowledge encapsulated in one brave, stand-up man. Christians that refuse to watch, read or listen to him, and others like him, are fueling their own ignorance and short changing their own psyches of enlightenment. The Christian bias against hearing any other voice has always been frustrating to endure. How can one truly turn a deaf ear to a wise voice regardless of faith?! What a waste!

Ask Dawkins

2010-11-16T12:35:00.000-08:00

I love the hate mail section at the end!

Topsy-turvy

2010-11-02T16:24:00.000-07:00

An interesting point to ponder from Atheist Cartoons:

Pope Benny's Adventures in Britain: an official response

2010-11-01T13:55:00.000-07:00

A while back, before this summer's papal visit to the UK, I sent this message to my local Member of Parliament:

I am writing as your constituent ahead of the upcoming state visit of Pope Benedict XVI in order to raise my concerns with some of the policies and practices of the Vatican and the Holy See – the ‘state’ which the Pope heads and will be representing during his visit. As my elected representative, I request that you pass my views on to your party leaders and other representatives who will be meeting with the Pope during the visit. The leaders should represent the views of the British public during the state visit, and I feel it is important that my views are represented.

I am concerned about the Pope's opposition to women's reproductive rights, gay equality, embryonic stem cell research and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV has a huge effect on the human rights of millions of people across the globe. In particular, the six main issues I would like to see raised with the Pope are:
1.   Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS.
2.   Promoting segregated education.
3.   Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
4.   Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
5.   Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
6.   Rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.

In summary, I strongly urge you to express these views to senior members of your party, as I feel it is important these issues are raised.

So far, so good. Yes, it was a standard email, but I agreed with everything in it. Had I not done so, I would have altered the wording.

Anyway, I got a reply from my MP shortly afterwards, saying that he had passed my concern onto the Prime Minister and would relay his reply to me. That reply finally arrived today, though it came from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office rather than the PM himself. Here's the full text of the reply:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your letter of 21 September to the Prime Minister on behalf of your constituent, Mr Barry ****** of ** *********, Caerffili about the visit by Pope Benedict XVI. I am replying as Minister responsible for our relations with the Holy See.

Pope Benedict has a dual status as both Head of the Catholic Church and Head of the Holy See and the Vatican City State. It was Head of State [sic] that he was invited by Her Majesty the Queen to visit the United Kingdom.

The UK takes the issue of child abuse very seriously, and is committed to eradicating it. The UK is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of the child worldwide, and has previously lobbied the Vatican on this issue. We welcome the strong condemnation by the Pope, the Vatican and the Catholic Bishops' Conferences of abuse of children by Catholic priests, and messages of their strong desire to learn vital lessons to prevent this happening again. This is clearly a very important issue but it was not the focus of the Papal visit to the UK.

The Holy See is a valuable partner in the work we do on a wide range of issues, and the visit gave us an excellent opportunity to develop our close co-operation and work on a number of key international issues, as both the Pope and Prime Minister emphasised in their addresses during the visit. These include working towards delivery of the Millennium Development Goals, helping developing countries to tackle climate change, preventing and resolving conflict, and promoting a multi-faith dialogue. As with any bilateral diplomatic relationship, there are issues on which we disagree. The Holy See is clear on our positions on these issues.

Every best wish,

HENRY BELLINGHAM MP
Minister for Africa, the UN, Overseas Territories and Conflict Issues.

Which is fair enough. However, I don't remember it ever being the custom for visiting heads of state to conduct religious services at public expense (yes, I know they sold tickets, but it was the taxpayer who paid for his security arrangements). Nor has it ever been customary for visiting heads of state to criticise the policies of the host state publicly. I'd say that the Pope, and the Church he heads, got far more out of his "state" visit than the United Kingdom did.

One thing I didn't add to the letter, though perhaps I should have, is that as a non-Catholic I object to taxpayers' money being used to pay for such a visit. I would have had no objection to the Pope visiting Britain at the invitation of British Catholics, provided they had financed his visit themselves. It drives me mad that in a time of economic hardship, with jobs disappearing by the thousand and the numbers of people living on the breadline increasing drastically, huge amounts of public money were squandered to pay for the visit of the head of the richest religious organisation in the world to pay a visit. Can the government really not think of anything better that could have been done with the money instead?

Open-mindedness

2010-10-28T11:02:00.001-07:00

The God experience

2010-10-19T14:50:00.000-07:00

This is a fascinating video. It turns out that not only are religious experiences a product of the human brain, but they can actually be induced under laboratory conditions. This suggests to me that both believers and unbelievers are partly right. The experience is indeed real, just as the believer claims; however, it is only in his or her mind, just as the unbeliever claims.

Atheos - Godless

Daft things said to atheists part 9: "I can't imagine it..."

The science of derp

Shit Christians say to atheists

"Militant" atheism

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 6)

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 5)

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 4)

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 3)

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 2)

Why I am an Atheist!

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 1)

Daft things said to atheists part 8: "You're closed-minded."

Atheists are immoral?

Daft things said to atheists part 7: "God is like air"

The *yawn* true meaning of Xmas

Play by the rules

A Christmas Carol For The Rest Of Us

Atheist Xmas Carols

Two men: one great, the other contemptible

Merry Xmas!

The holiday season is upon us

An atheist at a Christian funeral

Faith is not a virtue

Thoughts on the 23rd Psalm

Daft things said to atheists part 6: "You need to have faith."

Daft things said to atheists part 5: "Try Islam instead."

Daft things said to atheists part 4: "You were never a true Christian."

Daft things said to atheists part 3: "You may not believe in God, but God believes in you."

Daft things said to atheists part 2: "You're only an atheist because you want to sin!"

Daft things said to atheists part 1: "Why are you angry at God?"

Jesus in a dark alley

My "extimony"

Mixed marriage

Prejudice against gay people

In an emergency, call an atheist!

Parental Advisory: contains sexual violence and genocidal themes

"Bad" language

Good without God

The best optical illusion in the world!

Prayer? No thanks.

My Imaginary Friend

More on the rapture

Muhammad and the rapture

Get 'em while they're young

Glory Hallelujah

Easter quiz

Did we evolve from aquatic apes?

How prayer works

Bible Quote O' The Day

Religious education

Scientific evidence against evolution

Storm

Why am I so anti-religion?

The New Commandments

Bible Quote O' The Day

Bible Quote O' The Day

Folk night

Bible Quote O' The Day

Evidence is all. Faith is meaningless.

Useful resources for atheists

Bible Quote O' The Day

Creationists shoot at the wrong target

How astrology works

Warning: Rapture coming this year! (Or not.)

How homeopathy works

I am not my blog

What I believe (part 1)

George Carlin on God

"Agnostic" doesn't mean "undecided"

The end of the world is nigh!

Ricky Gervais talks a lot of sense

What atheists believe

Me and Dan

Ricky Gervais on Noah

No hope?

Another reply in the newspaper

A magnificent rant

A reply to a Christian friend

Church leader joins 'aggressive atheists' row

The yawn true meaning of Xmas