A Change Of Pace

Hi,

Looking at the list of my posts you’ll notice that I haven’t blogged that much this year. To be honest I’ve been a bit busier than usual, but I’ve also been a tad more depressed and in pin than in previous months and this has caused my “fibro fog” to rear its ugly head more often.

Fibromyalgia is a difficult illness to have, because it is sporadic in nature. Sometimes I can go a whole day feeling absolutely fine. No pain, no drowsiness, no lethargy, just normal. That very evening I could simply crumple under the sudden, inexplicable change in my condition.

All this has ground all of my writing (aside from an application form and the odd letter) to a halt. My ability to read from the books in my library has also diminished, so I’m relying more on Audible to supply me with information. I’m still just about coping with Twitter, but my presence on that has been less prolific recently.

This doesn’t mean I have less to say... far from it. I’ve looked at a dozen YT videos that deserve a review, or scathing response. I’ve ear-read a few books that have given me some ideas, and lots of encounters on SM have boiled my blood.

I will be back on it later this year, health-willing. I have a house move and a few other things to put behind me before I can properly get back to business, but after that I’ll get back to a normal (sic).

Hope you’ll join me then.

Stay safe! - UB

Mr Can't-Be-Wrong

When you read a title like this you'd expect it to be about Ken Ham, or Joel Olsteen, or any of the other Evangelical or Creationist TV pundits. You don't expect it to be an atheist, do you? Well, if you are an Evangelical you probably do, but on the whole, my readers are probably atheists so this will come as a surprise.

The "Mr" in question is one Aron Ra, a very well respected and beloved atheist who deals fabulously with phylogeny and the processes of evolution. And the title comes from a recent Twitter exchange in which he was debated on two fronts by a few Agnostics (including myself) who found flaws in his reasoning and ended up getting blocked for their trouble.

Firstly Aron decided that Agnosticism was an invalid position taken by atheists who just did not want to be labelled "atheist". I'll ignore the fact that despite being an Agnostic I label myself as an atheist all the time; firstly to increase the visibility of the term "atheist" and secondly because I'm bored with people asking me what an Agnostic, or Humanist is (I'm both).

Agnosticism is the belief (it is not a claim) that we will never be able to truly understand, or define, the supernatural; particularly when it comes to the concept of gods. The word "Agnostic" does not have its root in the Greek word "gnosos" from whence came the word "Gnostic". Its root is the noun "Gnostic". Neither is it the claim that we don't know that no gods exist or any other guff.

The actual OED definition is this:

"Agnostic noun and adjective M19

(ORIGIN from A-10 + GNOSTIC)

>A noun. A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Also, a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a particular thing."

Nowhere in this definition does it say that Agnosticism is making any claim of knowledge whatsoever, in either direction. It is a position of complete neutrality. Which is why the term "agnostic atheist" is both implicitly and explicitly a misnomer.

One cannot be both an Agnostic and an Atheist. (repeat over and over until you learn it)

Aron's take on "neutrality" is that when a question is posed the natural position is to disbelieve it until such evidence is presented that a change in position is made. He thinks this is very scientific. It clearly isn't the way we approach things in science though, is it? In science, we come up with an idea... such as: "There is a thing called a boson. We then try to figure out what parameters it has, and then we find a way to test for a thing with those set of parameters. When we found it, we called it a Higgs Boson and much rejoicing was had." What did not happen was this: "Higgs proposed the boson. Other scientists en masse said it was bollocks unless he could prove otherwise. He couldn't, so it went undiscovered."

Neutrality, by definition, is non-committal. We call neutrality by another name in a debate: "impartial". That means one does not take a stance on a thing being debated until perhaps the weight of evidence is so great on one side that remaining impartial becomes dogmatic.

We are Agnostic because we have no idea what the supernatural world really is, or if there is one, or if a god, or gods, exist. We have no way, as yet to even test for such things. We are not sitting on a fence between the world of theism and atheism, as so many atheists would like to put us. We are sitting on a wall, eating peanuts and drinking soda, watching theists and atheists duke it out, wondering what all the fuss is about.

Aron's dance didn't stop there.

In a second part of the debate, Aron was answering a general call (possibly by me) to define what a god is. He defined it thus:

Quote: "A magical anthropomorphic immortal."

It will be obvious to anyone who has read my earlier post "What is a God?" that there are immediate problems with this definition. You will have to define "magical", define "immortal"... and in Aron's case define what you mean by "anthropomorphic" too!

When it was pointed out that "magical" beings exist that aren't gods, he first seemed to concede that Archangels fit the bill, but then decided that Neil Gaiman (the fiction author) had written a book called American Gods (a fictional story) that explained that anything magical was actually a god, so that's that! Case closed. Then went on to criticise his own view as not fitting in with the thousands of beings worshipped by millions of people after relabelling this as my view, to begin with. Look... this is going to get very complicated so I think I'd better start with my objections to his definition.

I pointed out that there are two ways to disagree with his definition. One is to find "beings" that fit the definition but aren't gods, and the other is to find "beings" that are gods but don't fit the definition.

So, cue Ogo the jackal god (not anthropomorphic) to which he argued that worshippers had anthropomorphized Ogo and therefore his definition held... despite the fact that anthropomorphic and anthropomorphized aren't the same thing. Anthropomorphic refers to having anthropomorphism, which in one sense does mean having the personality or traits of a human, but is most commonly regarded as being in the form of a human (more on this in a bit). To anthropomorphize something is to attribute anthropomorphism to a thing, usually through embodying a non-human thing with human-like traits.

The problem with this word is its ambiguity. I would refine it to  "anthropomorphized" in that the definition is a "magical anthropomorphized immortal" just for the sake of clarity. However, if you anthropomorphized a god who you regard as being super-human, you would only be telling half the story. "Yahweh" does not have human emotions according to many believers. He is neither good nor bad, although he was able to create both states of being through the processes of Creation and Fall (even though the Gen 2 narrative explicitly points out that they are pre-existent). So, in a sense, you super-anthropomorphize a god. You give it traits that mere humans can only aspire to... such as perfect judgement and perfect will.

The definition then becomes "a magical super-anthropomorphized immortal".

Then we come to "immortal". I pointed out that Cain was an immortal being, cursed to roam the Earth forever unable to die (in some Midrash) and unable to be killed. And I pointed to the Indian hero god Balin who was killed by his brother in the celestial realm and is therefore only regarded in the past tense as part of the mythology of the region... many other gods fall into this category. In fact, any god who has not got a current group of worshippers fall into this category according to another (better) fiction author, Terry Pratchett. In either case, the definition fails because in one instance the being is immortal, but not a god (Archangels fit this too, as do Orishas, the African sprites who inhabit rocks, wind etc.) and in the other the being is a god, but not immortal.

At this point, Aron did another little dance. His argument was that since Cain was only enchanted, not divine, that he wasn't magical... then proceeded to reply to another tweeter asking the question "since when did enchant not mean magical" by giving the definition of enchanted as being magical and then claiming we were the ones claiming that enchanted did not mean magical all along and he was right again so there! Phew! What a nifty little jig that was!

Of course, it didn't work because we held his feet to the fire, which is why we both got blocked in the end.

If a being is immortal, one could argue that this fits the definition, straightaway, of being "magical", but Aron's argument was that Cain might have been magical by virtue of being enchanted, but he wasn't "divine" and therefore not magical in and of himself.

So, you mean "divine" when you said "magical" then Aron?

Are we to further refine the description you gave? Are we up to "a divine super-anthropomorphized immortal" at this point? What do you mean when you say "divine"? That isn't just being "god-like" is it? Saints are divine. Archangels are divine. Both, by definition, are immortals. Are we back to Gaiman's "he's a god, she's a god, everyone's a god god!"?

But even if we take Aron's point here there is a further example of a god being mortal if not for an enchantment. All the Norse Gods fall into this category. Idun kept an orchard of magical apples which kept the Norse gods alive and when Loki hid them they began to die. They were not immortal in and of themselves, if it weren't for the apples they wouldn't have been!

This question of what "magical", "enchanted" and "divine" meant finished Aron off. He accused us of trolling him and blocked us. You can see the conversation for yourself if you use Twitter to search for "@ublasphemist @Aron_Ra @OceanKeltoi". Feel free to point out where I've misrepresented his position on any of this. Please. Because if I missed something I'd like to know. I respect Aron for his biology work and work on debunking the Deluge, but he came across here as being every bit as dogmatic and doxastically closed as any Young Earth Creationist I've ever dealt with.

Screenshots:

Islamic vs Islamist

A common argument posed by Trumpeteers is that he shouldn’t have to say “White supremacist terrorist” because Obama refused to say “Islamic terrorism”. I partly agree. You ought not to hold one person to the standards you refused to hold another person to. However, there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist. Muslim terrorists aren’t practicing Islamic terrorism. There is no terrorism in the modern interpretation of Islam. Note I said “modern interpretation”. All religions evolve as secular values show that murder and violence is less acceptable, and bigotry is juvenile and unacceptable. Terrorists are Islamists. Islamism is the political and religious movement which aims to create a global Muslim caliphate, often by all necessary means... including violence. There are peaceful Islamists who want the caliphate to come about through expansion of the religion, but the vast majority of Islamists support violence and terrorism. Yes, I realize that many “moderate” Muslims support acts of terror in principal, because they know the goal of their religion is the total covrerage of Islam. However, the number of moderates who would turn themselves over to commiting acts of violence is tiny. Far moe problematic is the (roughly) 10% of Muslims who identify as Islamists. The Christian/Western equivalent is the White Supremacy movement, or Nazis. They are just as committed to the idea that caucasians are superior to other races, and should be in charge... with the Christian faith as the only religion allowed. This is what Trump is being asked to condemn. We want him to call these people out for what they are. Should Obama have identified Islamic terrorism? Of course he should. He should have called Muslim terror out for what it was, Islamist barbarism. However, the job of the President includes the need to protect ALL of the citizens of his/her country, not just a single group. In the US there are large numbers of people who see brown skin and think “Muslim”, regardless of the person’s actual religion. A Muslim and ex-Muslim from the same ethnic background will look the same. There are Pakistani Christians, Afghani Christians and so on. Looking like a Muslim can get you verbally, or sometimes physically attacked by ingrates who probably need someone else to tie their shoe-laces for them. These knuckle-draggers can’t distinguish between Islamist and Islamic, so when Obama (who knows a fair bit about the hatred aimed at Muslims) refused to mention the word “Islamic” he did so because he was conscious of the fact that the terrorism was Islamist, not Islamic, and the people, by and large, don’t understand the difference. Trump must call out the White Supremacists, but he won’t because his family are involved in the movement... personally I think he’s up to his eyeballs in it. His refusal to act as Puerto Rico dies is enough evidence for that. If Mar-a-lago was suffering the same problems, you can guarantee he’d be sending federal agents, funds and relief there by the truckload. Puerto Rico however? Nah. Fuck ‘em right DT?

Apathy: The Curse of Humanism

This is just a quick post to express my feelings about a personal bugbear of mine. Apathy.

In the Humanist/Atheist world there seems to be an abundance of apathy. In fact, at times, it feels like the only thing we Atheists are any good at is failing to get motivated, or show support for an important national issue. I'm not talking about activists... being active on an issue is in the job description for those guys... I'm talking about run-of-the-mill non-believers.

These Apatheists (apathetic atheists) are everywhere. In my home town I get chatting to people who share my non-belief and mention that I'm involved in a few Humanist groups, and get the same response every time. "Oh... can't see the point." or "Isn't that just another religious group?" It doesn't help that the other thing Humanist/Atheist groups are really bad at is promotion. Ask the person next to you at work, or on the bus what "Humanism" is and I doubt they will have a clue.

Have a quick Google search for "Welsh Humanists". It's a new group, so they have a little bit of leeway, but the first (and probably one of just two) articles you'll find outside of the official BHA* pages, will be Kathy Riddick commenting on a petition organized by two Cardiff schoolgirls. In the BBC report Kathy is quoted as saying this:

"Forcing children to worship a god they may or may not believe in is obviously unacceptable and represents an affront to young people's freedom of religion or belief. It shouldn't take two school pupils to convince the Welsh Government of this." 

You're right Kathy... it shouldn't! It is very much, however, the remit of the Welsh Humanists to convince the Welsh Government of this! This is what you are supposed to be doing! Not a pair of fifteen year old schoolgirls! You!

In my area there are three Humanist groups that I am aware of. West Glamorgan Humanists (WGH), West Wales Humanists (WWH), and Llanelli Humanists. The first two are BHA affiliates, the latter, which is a Facebook-only group for the time being, is not. Guess which one produces leaflets, bookmarks and posters? Yup... the one that has no physical presence! Kathy Riddick once bemoaned the fact that there were only around 800 confirmed BHA members in Wales... is it little wonder when nobody knows there is a Humanist group in Wales?

The WGH are all over 60 years old and invite speakers to a two-course luncheon, once a month, in a hotel in Swansea, with a yearly get-together at a member's home. Other than that you don't hear a peep out of them, nor would you know they existed but for word-of-mouth.

The WWH also hold monthly meetings (in Narberth!) and the odd talk, and they also have a yearly party. Other than that, neither of them advertise, nor do they write to the newspapers (though individual members sometimes comment in letters sections), nor do they produce posters, or write letters to MPs/AMs, organize debates, or any other useful/promotional thing. I think in the three years the WWH have been running only one member has ever appeared on radio talking about Humanism. Nobody knows they even exist! How can they when WWH meetings are rarely held anywhere else other than fucking Narberth! It's a pokey little village in the middle of nowhere FFS! Yes, it could be argued that for the three counties it's quite central, but the total population of the entire area is about a third of the nearest large town, Carmarthen.

I mean, come on guys! There's a real reason to be active every week in the press around our area, but not a sound can be heard. All our newspapers produce a religious "Thought For The Week" segment, but where're the letters asking for a secular version... or better yet, an atheist one? It's time we got organized and got our names out there isn't it? Or are we going to wait until some other schoolgirls pick up the reins again and do our jobs for us?

At this rate the one group that doesn't physically exist is going to overtake all the other BHA Humanists and render them even less relevant than they seem to be now!

*   *   *

*The British Humanist Association recently changed its name to "Humanists UK", which I refuse to use. It's insipid and says nothing to me about unity, or structure. Dropping the British and Association just to appear more trendy, when the BHA top-brass are all tweed- and corduroy-wearing middle-class toffs is ridiculous. They'd have been better off paying for someone to teach them how to wear jeans and t-shirts than changing their whole brand.

For The Record: My Stance On Islam & Terrorism

Early this morning there was a terrorist attack on Muslims attending to a collapsed man near the Finsbury Park mosque. As of now I'm not sure if the driver managed to kill anyone, but there are a number of injured. The man was detained by the people he tried to kill, who did not allow some people wanting to kill the man to get near him. They showed remarkable compassion for the degenerate, given the circumstances. That said there are people who are pointing to the man's protectors and saying "Look... Islam is a religion of peace!" whilst ignoring the fact that there were Muslims there who wanted to stomp him to death. Some Muslims are peaceful, some aren't. That's the truth of all religious groups, and all other groups in which it is possible to hold extremist elements. Most Trump supporters don't really think Latinos and Muslims are rapists and murderers, despite what Trump says about gangs and immigrants. Some do, and they try to assault, or even kill them. On the basis of the numbers Trump supporters are on the whole peaceful people, but Trumpism is not peaceful. This is how it is with Islam. I feel the same way about other religions too, but this post isn't about them, so don't think you're being clever if you try to counter this post with "what about Christianity" or any other such guff. In Islam, the book they start off with advocates, and in many verses actually instructs "true believers" to lie to, harrass, exile, murder, enslave and forcibly convert non-Muslims. That is the basic foundation from which they start. Most Muslims think this book is the word of Allah (their imaginary friend) speaking through the caucasian, war-mongering, fucktard Mohammed the Prophet. The further away the Muslim gets from following the letter of this book the more peaceful they are. As luck would have it, the majority of Muslims, by a heck of a long way, are not literalists and stay away from acts of oppression, although most of these still make sure their women know their place. In the Russian Doll of Islam it goes something like this: Core doll: Murdering, hardcore, racist, mysogynist, hatefilled cunts. Second doll: Political jihadists who think political action and propaganda is all that is necessary to achieve a global Islamic State. Third Doll: Muslims who support either terrorist jihad, or political jihad, but themselves wouldnt get actively involved. Fourth Doll: Muslims who think the Islamic rules only apply to Muslims, but support actively trying to convert people to Islam. Fifth Doll: Muslims who think Islamic rules apply to Muslims only, and have the opinion that people ought to convert of their own volition. Outer Doll: Muslims who keep themselves to themselves and think people ought to live and let live. Clearly, the murdering fucktards are in the minority, but they are at the core of the religion for a reason. Each doll is painted the sane, as with all examples of Russian Dolls, but in the case of Islam, the further out you go the fainter the colours are, until the outer one has a very faint image of the core design. This is Islam according to anyone with the objectivity to see it as it is. Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but we have to acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in violence, or terrorism... yet, by their adherence to the religion they protect those who do!

The Uncomfortable Truth

When I was a young boy I had a horrible and haunting experience. It was a few days after my seventh birthday, and I was awoken by the sound of my Grandad calling my Nan from the bottom of the stairs. I ran to see what I could do. 

He was stood there with blood all down his lips, neck and chest. To my innocent eyes it looked like a very bad nosebleed. I ran to tell my Nan about the nosebleed, and it was this fact which she took at face value. Grandad was having a nosebleed. The tissues were in the kitchen. I should go off to tell him. She would follow on in a bit. No big deal.

A few minutes later I was kneeling on the blood-soaked floor of the kitchen, cradling my beloved Grandad, as he died. His eyes were begging me to help him. There was nothing I could do but hold him.

I finally came to terms with this in my late thirties.

When I was 19, I met with a psychologist who explained how my tendency to run the incident through in my mind could have been shut off by grief therapy, had it existed when I was seven. Later still, another counsellor asked me to honestly ask myself what a seven-year-old me could have done... really? The honest answer was nothing, but that fact took a while to sink in.

You see, the problem is that as I got older, and studied more about first aid, First Response & pre-hospital emergency care, in these increasing levels of complexity, I saw that incident from a more and more informed perspective. I lost sight of the fact that I was only a seven year old kid, with none of the knowledge I gained as I grew up.

This 'Grandad's Death Apologism' ultimately led me to have some serious delusions about how his demise was my fault, because I didn't perform some, now, routine actions which may have saved him. Such as recognizing that it wasn't an epistaxis for starters!

An astute reader will already know where this story is headed. This is a blog about religions and their follies after all. So, where do we usually find events recorded by ill-informed, scientifically ignorant authors whose stories are later retold from more modern and complex perspectives as more information becomes available?

Yes... The Holy Bible.

The job of the Christian Apologist is to deny the actual words of the authors, the stories within the text as seen through primitive eyes, and make up new ideas to explain what they meant, and why the stories actually meant something other than what they say.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a text by Aaronid "Priestly" scribes of the 6-5th centuries BCE, writing around the time of or just after the Jewish exile in Babylon, whose Yahweh speaks everything into being from some pre-existing materials, such as space, water and soil. Meanwhile, Gen 2:4b-Gen 3:24 is a text two hundred years older, written by Elohists who were following their tradition of Yahweh moulding humans, animals and plants out of the earth, clearly more from an agricultural perspective.

These texts actually have messages all of their own, but modern Creationists cannot bear to accept that these are from two traditions, which if taken at face value, clearly demonstrate that Yahweh is a human literary construction, used as 'Priestly Propaganda'! Instead, they have to find a way to construct a narrative that explains how the second, older story is a clarification of a period within the first, younger story, and tells us that they are both, in fact, telling a single story.

They are rewriting the story from a point of view of having both an agenda and a new set of data. Just as I did with my Grandad's death.

When you fail to take a story, or an account of an event, at face value, and forget the knowledge level of its author(s), or participants, you diminish your ability to objectively analyse the truth of it. If you're not 100% honest in your dealing with Bible texts, you relinquish any claim you have of understanding some 'arcane knowledge' or 'hidden truths' held within the text.

I didn't know about pulmonary pathologies, traumatic cardiac events, haemostatic techniques, CPR, or Stroke management when I was seven. I had to be honest about that before I could recognize the truth of my Grandad's death. If you're honest about the Creation myths of the Bible, you must accept that they inadvertently undermine the veracity of your god claim... in short, they explain the circumstances in which you can be certain your god isn't real... and never was. 

This is the uncomfortable truth!

Brexit - a short comment

I don't intend for this blog to become a political one. This is about religion, not politics. However, there comes a time when political bullshit gets too much and I have to comment. Brexit is the UK's suicide note, and clearly Brexiteers failed to understand what that note said, or why they were signing it. The first thing we have to note, and I say 'have to' because it is critical to this whole process, is that the referendum was not legally binding. The government were under no obligation, as an omitted instruction in the legislation acts as a note in itself, to follow "the will of the people" on this issue. Case in point... 52% of those who turned out to vote, 37% of the voting public and 25% of all the citizens in the U.K., voted to leave the EU. 70% of the people want an end to compulsory collective worship in schools. So, why should the government take this referendum as being more important than any other poll... because that is what it is, a poll! Brexiteers, or clowns as I like to think of them, voted primarily on the grounds of regaining Parliamentary Sovereignty. When the High Court recently decided that Parliament is Sovereign they went nuts. "You can't defy the 'will of the people'!" they shout... whilst misunderstanding the weight they carry in this debate. They don't get that the very thing they said they were voting for is now what the Court has ensured they have. 100,000 people led by Clown-in-Chief, Nigel Farage (which he states, unhelpfully, rhymes with 'garage') are set to march on Parliament today to complain that they are being ignored. They are. Their part in the process is over. The Government take it from here. We have a PM with no mandate to govern us and she cannot be allowed to arbitrarily set the rules... or did the Brexit clowns forget why they were against the EU running the show? So, the High Court has declared that Parliament as a whole must vote in order for the process to be truly democratic. So, why are the Brexit clowns really throwing their toys out of the pram? It's because of one thing. They aren't interested in democracy at all. They haven't taught themselves what it is, they don't want to know what it is and more importantly they don't want it... they only want their way! What each of these clowns is actually demanding is fascism, and they can't have it. That is why they are upset, and that's why this Brexit process must be thrown out before it's too late.

Stuff Happens

Let me tell you about something which just happened to me:

Yesterday I left my house, got in my car and drove away. I had no reason to do so. I had nowhere I needed to be. I just got in the car and got going; completely unconsciously, and without purpose. When I left my road I could of course have turned left or right, but my choice was automatic, and absolutley without any obvious reason. A few hundred yards further on I reach a crossroads with three possible choices. I just drove straight ahead. Again, for no reason I could fathom. At this point I was just out for a drive and no longer cared why, or where I went.

Moments later I watched John*, a man who suffers from Altzheimers', pitch backwards out of his Motability scooter onto the pavement. So, for reasons beyond my ken I found myself able to stop and help this man get back on the scooter and see him safely back home again.

Now... there are some readers who will state, without any possible evidence, that a deity saw what was about to happen, inform me of the need to get in my car and drive down that particular road and be on the spot to help this man, and that furthermore, his accident was designed to either teach him (or me) something, or prevent a further, more tragic occurrence later on.

This, they will argue is the result of "divine will", "divine interaction" or synchronicity. Being placed, for whatever mysterious purpose, at a specific location at a time where your help, guidance, or merely presence is required. Invariably the proponents of this idea point to incidents like mine, where a person with a certain set of skills (pre-hospital care in my case) is made to be on hand to use those skills... help an accident victim.

Synchronicity is the paranormal concept described by Carl Jung as "meaningful coincidences"; events which occur without any obvious causal relationship that are nonetheless meaningfully related. My sudden decision to leave the house, my decision to travel by car, my twice choosing a direction at a junction at random, and the accident occurring at a time when I could be there to witness it and help out. I did not cause myself to leave the house, nor did I choose for a sick man to leave his house, travel a quarter of a mile up the road and then accidentally pitch out of a motor scooter. However, both funnelled towards a single point in time.

Divine will is often given the credit for driving synchronicity, and it is very hard, when it happens to you, to deny that there is something else going on than mere coincidence. As an atheist I obviously don't believe in gods, or divine intervention, though events like these happen to me a lot. I have found myself at a few accident scenes where vehicle passengers require rescuing and/or treating... once I watched a man thrown from his motor-cycle on the motorway right in front of me because of a sudden mechanical malfunction, and in another case I was a few seconds behind a car which drove underneath an articulated lorry, killing the driver. I have also found myself in places where my experience of martial arts has been required to defend someone from an attack, or theft, or help a police officer who was struggling, and failing, to make an arrest.  After this event happened today I decided to attach a reason to my journey by going to the school uniform store to buy my son a new polo-shirt and arrived at the store to find that a shirt of his exact size was lying on the top of the pile. Clearly there MUST be a deity driving all this, right?

Of course... not!

With thousands of people in each town, with a multitude of talents between them, many with very similar training, experience, or skills, it is impossible to think that when an incident occurs there will be nobody there to help at all. I know many people of a variety of backgrounds who have taken first aid courses at work, or at school, or with care organizations. Roughly 60% of my close friends and associates could have been in my stead today to help this man. I just happened to be there. Though I wasn't alone. A local librarian also stopped to help, who by her own admission had no first aid skills to put into the pot, nor did she know how the scooter worked, or how to repair it. So, what purpose was served by sending her to the scene? To give her something to talk about during lunch?

People stop to help others out. I've never stopped at an incident and been the only person who did so. I've stopped to help at a few accidents where the next person who happened along was a doctor, a nurse, police officer, or paramedic. I had another incident where my own car caught fire underneath and my friend stepped out of his house to see it in time to tell me to get out, a few seconds later the car was engulfed by the fire, utterly destroying it; I had no clue what was about to happen and his fortuitous arrival on the scene probably saved my life.

On another more recent occasion I was parked at a roundabout in position to capture a minor fender-bender occur in sight of my dashcam. I have been able to send the victim a copy of the incident to help with his insurance claim. Of course this must be divine intervention, since I drive over 50,000 miles a year and my dashcam is on permanently when I'm operating the vehicle, over many hundreds of hours of driving time. If I didn't, at least once, capture an incident on film I would consider THAT to be bizarre!

Stuff happens! And it happens all the time.

It's not driven by anything. There are no guiding forces. These are just cognitive placeholders some people insert into the mess of things because it is too bizarre to believe that these incidents just randomly occur when they happen to be around to help, or to witness them.

If someone lacks the facility to explain an event, it is part of human programming to find a reason, or a rationale, and add it to the thing to help come to terms with it. There has to be a purpose for everything, otherwise we might have to face the reality that there is no purpose behind anything... especially not a divine one. Yet, that is exactly what's happening here. Stuff just rolls from event to event with no external guiding principles. For instance, there is a tale of a man who, upon surviving the Hiroshima bombing, went to stay with his friend in Nagasaki. Stuff most definitely happened to him! I know someone who was rescued from a cruise ship which sank, by a ship that also ran aground and sank with her still on board!

I bet every single one of us can reel off a number of incidents and events which have happened to them, or colleagues, or friends, which seem unusually connected, or synchronistic. 

As Jung wrote: "Acausal events may be expected most readily where, on closer reflection, a causal connection appears to be inconceivable." and "Therefore it cannot be a question of cause and effect, but of a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity."

He's telling us that he believes an event is more likely to occur when there is no reason that we can perceive behind it, and that there is a funnelling of time and space which occurs in order to make two or more people coincide.

Or... Stuff happens, but for a reason!

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Carl Jung's work. I think his genius is obvious, and he is clearly one of the most vivid and dynamic thinkers of all time. He is the probably the other dreamer John Lennon speculated about. But, this whole idea of synchronicity is just baffling when you consider the truly magnificently gigantic number of minute instances which fill each moment of our lives. We focus heavily on each instance of coincidence whilst totally ignoring the billions of others which have zero interest to us. 

Just think of that time when you were thinking about someone and just happened to walk around a corner and bump into them. Now remember all the times you thought of someone and nothing of significance happened at all. It's harder than you think isn't it? You're programmed to recognise agency in your life. That's why god-belief is so prevalent. 

How many times have you thought: 'This thing happened because it was part of a greater plan' or 'my life is clearly being guided towards a greater purpose'? It's lovely to think like this isn't it? Yes, clearly the idea of a guiding force, or divine plan, or will, is hard to put to one side, but it has to be, because ultimately the same thinking which brings this innocuous belief of paranormal event-steering to mind is the exact same thinking which causes Islamic fundamentalists to blow themselves up in market places and schools.

You might not be able to join those dots, but it is exactly the same thing. Believing that you, the believer, the true believer, of the one true version of the religion which seeks to bring the truth to the world of the one true god, whose character and whims only your faith group is privy to, brings with it a great many bags of arrogance and elitism. Thinking that you are being guided, or led by the nose, to some glorious goal, or higher purpose, through instances of being in the right place, at the right time, to help, or advise, is ultimately dangerous. Stuff happens folks. No reason. No guiding forces. Just coincidence and happenstance.

Get used to it. 

An Open Letter

I recently received the following letter from the head of education at the British Humanist Association. It speaks for itself, but I'm more than happy to respond to it... enjoy:

  

Dear Sir

Thank you for attending our school speakers training event in Cardiff and for completing the post-course task.

I am writing to say that, with regret, we will not be accrediting you as a BHA School Speaker.

It is of vital importance to the BHA that we are completely confident that our school speakers understand that their role in schools is to raise young people's awareness and understanding of Humanism, and that they are not there to be critical of religion. This is essential to ensure we are invited back for repeat visits and therefore for the success of the programme.

On the training course, some of the things you said made us worried that you may on occasions feel a temptation to be critical of religions or religious beliefs and that this might occasionally override the need to show respect. It was felt by myself and a number of other people on the course that occasionally your tone crossed from respectful disagreement to less tolerant criticism, a tone that could prove unhelpful in the school environment and the situations our speakers often find themselves in. I hope you do not feel this is a criticism of your views; it is simply that we need to be 100% sure that all our speakers present an appropriate message in the classroom.

We have therefore decided not to accredit you.

We appreciate your commitment to Humanism and there are many other ways in which you can support us, which we hope you will investigate on our website.

If you would like to talk about this in more detail on the phone, I would be happy to speak to you.

Kind regards

Luke Donnellan

Head of Education, British Humanist Association

I'm going to point out to start with that I'm in no way bothered about not being offered accreditation. Accreditation by the BHA is not a statutory requirement for speaking about Humanism in schools. It merely adds an additional layer of credibility and authority, and ensures that there is a forum for the school to report on the conduct of the speaker, and content of the talk given to the children. During the course my enthusiasm for the project was destroyed, by another course attendee, who pointed out the near impossibility of getting SACRE* groups to agree to schools booking Humanist speakers. I wonder which is of more importance in this context... a person occasionally making comments against established religious ideas, or someone utterly undermining the entire project with tales of being blocked and blacklisted by the SACRE he actually belongs to?

I do have antitheistic views. That much is obvious to anyone who meets me, however, this letter directly attacks my professionalism and that is something I will not allow to go unchallenged. Nobody on the course knew me well enough to judge my approach to Humanism, or have any knowledge at all of my ability to address the subject under different conditions. 

The course was attended by a fairly substantial group, including the leader of the Swansea Humanists, and its Secretary, and the Director of the Wales Humanists (WH), a group which has just over 600 members... about 200 fewer people than who follow me on Twitter!

Another person in attendance, who is a teacher and member of the board of the WH and an ex-girlfriend of mine who visibly turned sour-faced when she realised who I was. I have no doubt that her hatred of me, spanning almost two decades, drove her to poison the well and speak ill of me (not putting lies out of the picture you understand); imagining that this wasn't a significant occurrence is a little naïve. 

I wonder how you get from seeing how a person behaves in a room full of his peers, and many much older, to translating that into how a person, who is a school governor and PTA treasurer, would act in a school? I have teachers in my family, and I know that talk in the staff room is often highly critical of parents and students, yet somehow that never seems to spill out past the staff room door. Why? Could it be that teachers are professional educators who can put their personal views to one side as and when required? Just like me!

Luke Donnelly is an ex-headmaster. He of all people should appreciate that educators are able to compartmentalise their private views away from the set spiel they deliver in the classroom, to remain 'on message'. I was an actor for almost 25 years. If anyone can play the part of the perfect Humanist school visitor, it's me.

Whether Luke reads this or not, I don't care. I'm busy with my new projects, like the Llanelli Humanists, which is an online group for the moment. It is intentionally independent, because we feel that the BHA and National Secular Society are just talking-shops in Wales, with very little presence. There are no billboards, bus posters, leaflets, wall posters, TV or radio adverts explaining what Humanism is, or what it means to be a part of a group. Everyone I've ever spoken to, outside of the movement, has asked me to explain what Humanism is... Oh, and in doing so, I've NEVER denigrated any other religions! I don't need to, because I'm explaining what something is, not comparing it to other beliefs. There is a difference that I recognise, because I'm not the blithering idiot Luke seems to think I am!

The loss is the BHA's not mine. Schools aren't going to be welcoming in strangers to talk about Humanism, when the SACREs just instruct them to send their RE teachers on courses which they direct and script. Not in this decade, or the next! The money invested in this project would be better spent addressing the need for educating parents about their rights to withdraw their children from Collective Worship, and raising the profile of WH. You can teach the kids all you want, but the legal power to remove children from the indoctrination process rests with the parents. It is they who urgently need to learn about Humanism. 

There Was No Resurrection

There are a number of reasons why the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ" is a fiction, but I just want to center on just one aspect often ignored by believers and non-believers alike.

At the time of the BCE/CE crossover, Judea was a Roman annexe. It's political control was shared between the Romans and the Jewish Sanhedrin, or high council. This was a period of relative calm  in what was mostly a turbulent situation. In 70CE the Romans sacked Jerusalem because of a Jewish uprising, which had been brewing for almost a century. Control by force was always on the cards and everyone knew it.

This is why the idea that a person would be allowed to get away with escaping their execution is ridiculous.

We have no evidence that the Romans executed Jesus outside of the New Testament and subsequent texts which used it as their core, however, even if we had a signed arrest document we could be assured that no resurrection took place.

Look at the situation from the Roman perspective. You are a Roman governor, whose reputation relies on your strict control over your men, your servants, your land and its people. Rome's laws and commands are sacred, and your word is law.

You have commanded a Jewish upstart to die by crucifixion. You send a soldier to verify that the man has died, because he seemingly did so much sooner than anyone expected him to. The soldier is commanded to break Jesus' legs, but does not do it because he decides for himself that the man is already dead, despite having no legitimate means of doing so. You then execute the soldier for not obeying your direct orders.

One of the Jews who ordered the man killed (the suspiciously named Joseph of Arimathea) comes to you to ask that this criminal's body be laid to rest, rather than hang on the cross as was traditional to serve as a warning to others not to cross (ahem) you. You reluctantly agree and the man is whisked off to a crypt. Sensing that this might have all been a scam you send two soldiers to guard the tomb overnight.

The next morning the tomb is empty. Your guards are apparently oblivious to the night's events. You consider killing them too, but you need all the help you can get now. You have been tricked!

For some reason, probably to undermine the threat of capital punishment, the Jewish council used you to "execute" a man they claimed to hate, only to bribe a guard (perhaps three or four) to help orchestrate a plan to rescue him right from under your nose. This man must be found!

So, you immediately mobilize all your men to start the search. You hastily write orders to all the garrisons outside the city to be on the lookout for the convict and his helpers. You double the pay for soldiers involved in the search as an incentive and offer a reward for information leading to his capture. Notices are put up around the region, every tavern, every farm, every stable is abuzz with word of the man who couldn't be killed. Too late, you realize this response was what the Jews were hoping for. They have recorded every detail of your incompetence for posterity. They spread rumours about the man's appearances dotted around the region. To one, two, three... heck even five hundred people!

You have been played.

This is what would have happened had a man really been able to escape crucifixion, regardless of how he did it, or who he was. There would be records of this manhunt on both sides. The Roman and the Jewish records would show strong evidence of these events. Letters sent to and from Rome itself would have been found, as would notices kept by garrisons whose ledgers and files we still have today.

The fact that no such manhunt was ever conducted can only mean one thing. 

The Resurrection NEVER happened.

Why Does It Matter If I'm Racist?

I'd like to start by clarifying something.

I am not, nor have I ever been racist. In fact the whole point of this post is to explain a fundamental point about how these 'isms' work, and why we can't differentiate between them to suit our own prejudices.

The so-called 'Regressive Left' defend atrocities committed by Muslims, (including recent immigrants) such as rapes, sexual assaults, female genital mutilation, paedophilia, gender segregation, knife attacks, acid attacks, bombings and gay bashing, as "just part of their culture". This "cultural differences" argument in morality is fine, when applied equally, but otherwise it is a crock of shit.

I come from an iron mining town, sandwiched between the two largest coal towns in South-East Wales. It was the 70s and racism and sexism was very much part of our culture, and still is in large parts of 'The Valleys.'

Someone I know from a generation above mine, who is a liberal aptheist, still occasionally comes out with comments like "A local man just married an Asian girl, she's from Vietnam, but she's very kind". "But?" Why? Is it at all unusual for a Vietnamese lady to be kind?

He doesn't mean anything by it. It's just our culture. He's no more a racist than anyone else I could mention, but the Regressives would be all over him like a rash, because he's a white man.

The question I have for these Regressives is: Why are you upset that people, who come from a culture in which race, gender and sexuality are targets for oppression (and in a few cases serious bullying and violent attacks), are racist, sexist, or homophobic? Surely that's "just their culture" isn't it? 

When the BNP rally and want to be racist, why is this a problem for you? The British, as tolerant as we are as a whole, have always harboured a distrust, and dislike, of 'Johnny Foreigner.' It's a cultural thing for us.

Yet, according to you, Mr & Miss Regressive (the subject of the worst of the Mr Men and Little Miss books) we are not allowed to express our culture. When we are disgusted at seeing videos of Muslim men and women shitting in public, or we hear of Muslim men beating their wives, gang-raping children, hanging gay people, or sexually assaulting white and Sikh girls, (because they are taught this is what they must do,) we are the ones accused of intolerance - and our outrage is lambasted as "deep-seated hatred of", or "intolerable racism towards" Muslims.

You cannot have it both ways dear Lefties. Either these Muslims have to come to terms with our culture, and start behaving themselves, or the racists get to continue being expressive of their hatred.

Which is it to be?

When Atheists Have FAITH In Science

"You would have to be remarkably resistant to brainwashing to resist the claim - endlessly repeated - that we are our brains. The notion that our consciousness, the self to which successive moments of consciousness are attributed, our personality, our character, personhood itself, are identical with activity in our brains is so widely received that it seems downright eccentric to profess otherwise." - Raymond Tallis "Aping Mankind"

Until this last weekend I have never understood why theists say that "atheists have faith in science", or that "science is our religion."

I do now.

For some, those analogies are anathemas. "How could that be true?", they cry. "Science is a process," they argue. "It's a collection of models which best fit the observations we make of the world around us. It is driven by research and evidence. We don't need faith to believe it. The evidence is there!"

The problem comes when atheists start to defend science like it can never be wrong. They really do start to sound like Christians defending the Bible, or Muslims defending the Qur'an. Science for these people isn't the nebulous constantly shifting and improving body of "best models we have at the moment" we all know it is, for them it's rigid, and certain. No more so than the people who have come to believe the all-pervasive, yet pseudo-scientific belief that "we are our brains" and therefore we do not have conscious free will.

I can already hear many of you shifting in your seats and a few gasps of air have been gasped in an incredulous manner as that last bit sank in. Yes, I did say that the evolutionary psychologist position that we are our brains is nonsense. It is a scientifically religious concept, or Scientism if you like.

If you want to believe that we humans are only a by-product of trillions of sodium-potassium exchanges in the neuronal matter of our brains then fine, stop reading now and go grab a coffee, or have a lie down. For those of you who aren't fooled by this homeopathic account of consciousness and actually want to understand where I'm coming from, strap in.

When I suggested this idea to an atheist on Twitter recently I was immediately branded a "closet-Creationist", accused of being insane, Called "Mr Black and White" (whatever that means), and because I have a disability which affects my memory (I'm not kidding) I was called a liar. Apparently he's all for us being our brains until faced with the evidence that one key component of fibromyalgia (which I suffer from) is memory-loss, which according to him I don't suffer from, instead I'm just choosing to lie to him. If we are our brains, as suggested, I cannot lie to him. I cannot reasonably be held responsible for any action I take because, according to him, I am the victim of an evolutionary drive to do whatever it is I'm currently doing. So, even if I was I would not be lying to him, my brain would be. I'm absolved of all guilt. So the statement "there are no murderers, only victims of brain activity" is also a valid according to this neuromaniac. It rather makes you wonder doesn't it? But, this does illustrate one underlying principle of Neuromania, similar to a condition we see in theists all the time, which we call "cherry-picking of facts!"

What do we get when we point out that God wasn't a nice guy in the Bible?
Lots of Bible passages cherry-picked to show he was (or that Jesus was) and personal insults.

What do we get when we point out contradictions in the text of the Bible?Lots of apologetics, and links to websites and blogs and videos teaching us ignoramuses why these contradictions aren't contradictions. And personal insults.

What do we get when we claim Jesus was likely a mythical god and not a real person?Lots of Bible passages claiming to describe him as real, links to the Gospels, more videos, articles written by believers and so on. Oh... and personal insults.

Guess what I got when I told this fellow that neuromania was a thing and we are not just our brains?

You guessed it... Cherry-picked studies, links to books and videos which supported his views, and the aforementioned incredulity and ad hominem attacks... exactly what we've all come to expect from theists.

People who think science is awesome (myself included) must also realize that science isn't definitive. There are many faults with it. Almost every study suffers from a degree of bias. Most scientists go to great length to iron out these biases, or at least own up when their sample-size isn't as big as they'd like, or when people dropped out of the study, or when something didn't otherwise go to plan, or even when they weren't meticulous enough, but there are people who perform studies with such tunnel-vision that they publish without noticing even the basic flaw in their methodology, or results. Their premise is incorrect to start with, or their conclusions are all wrong at the end.

One of the key "we are our brains" (WAOB) studies is Libet's experiments which showed that our brains "light up" on an EEG moments before we are aware of the desire to move a hand. This suggests that the brain activates our hand movement before we are even aware that we have actually made the decision to move it. This study was flawed for a number of reasons but it completely forgot that it is entirely possible that the area of the brain controlling the hand movements lit up because it had been told to, by the mind of the subject being studied. A conscious decision activating the brain which fed-back a confirmation code, which the participants mistook as the decision itself, which then led to the hand being raised.

Think about that. There are a few scenarios worth considering:

One :
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the need to move our hands.
We move our hands.

Two:
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the desire to move our hands.
We decide to move our hands.

Three:
Our minds tell our brains to activate our hands.
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the decision to move our hands.
We move our hands.

In all three cases the EEG lights up moments before an awareness is felt and then the hand is moved. Exactly what Libet saw.

If your argument is that we move our hand exclusively because the brain tells us to and we have no conscious control over that action, you're ignoring the possibility that the brain is being told what to do by something outside itself and the decision was in fact entirely our own; and that deciding to do something involves the subconscious as much as the conscious parts of our minds, and the non-physical as much as physical parts of our brains. It's a bit like arguing that workers on the factory floor make the shoes their boss tells them to make, whilst forgetting that the factory output is controlled by market forces. If you only have a method for assessing the actions of the factory boss, you're missing half the picture aren't you? In the above second case the brain tells our hand to move and we decide to do it, so there is an active participatory control mechanism in place between the brain and the hand. In the third instance the brain is being controlled from somewhere else which cannot be examined.

You can only test for things you can test. Aren't we telling theists that all the time? We admit openly that we could be wrong. There might be a god. However, given that we cannot test for one it can be assumed that there isn't one. And yet, the WAOB crowd refuse to accept that, since we cannot test for the mind, we could be wrong about there not being one!

If we are our brains and we have no conscious control over anything we do, we cannot be any more in control when we are awake than we are when we are asleep. We cannot be any more in control when we perform neurosurgery to cure a person of epilepsy than we are when having an epileptic fit of our own. This makes no sense at all.

I hope you can all understand how ridiculous that notion is though, because our legal systems can. After all, I wonder how many WAOB fanatics would be willing to stand up in a Court of Law to defend a paedophile accused of rape and murder, by stating for the record that he is under the complete control of his brain, carrying out only evolutionarily dictated actions (or actions determined by damage to otherwise normal areas of the brain) and therefore cannot be held responsible, so should be allowed to go free without any punishment?

Any takers?

Let's be honest here for once, shall we? The WAOB concept is all fine in principle, but not a single one of us truly believes it when taken to its extremes, any more than we think a theist would truly believe in a god when we take her beliefs to their extremes. We know what we think of ourselves, we can direct other people to become aware of our emotions, of other things in our spacial environment, or talk in the abstract about so far incomplete ideas. We can experience guilt, which we may or may not chose to use to change future actions. We can fight our supposedly evolutionary preference for 0.7 hip-to-waist ratioed women, or women from our own class, caste or "race", to settle down with a rotund, or skinny lady from the opposite side of the colour spectrum to our own, just because she has a similar sense of humour, or likes the music of Schubert and knows how to make a great omelette! Yes, I do know that all of these things can be explained, it is claimed, by evolutionary psychology, but it really is just the scientific equivalent of theistic apologetics isn't it?

When we look for someone who is similar to us they say it's because of our evolutionary compulsion for tribalism. Yet, When we look for someone opposite to us they say it's because of our evolutionary drive to widen the genepool. I call this having a bell for every tooth. We can find "research" to support every position under the Sun, so why bother with any of it?

The bottom line is that I think, rather than the declaration "We are our brains!", the very best we can do, if we want to remain honest and, most of all, consistent, is make the claim that "We could be our brains!" And, if you decide that makes me a closet-Creationist, insane, or whatever else.

There's apparently nothing either one of us can do about that.



For an in-depth study as to why Neuromania is wrong, see Prof. Raymond Tallis' excellent book "Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity." This blog represents an incredibly simplistic view of the arguments against scientism. If you only go by what I've said, I really feel for you. You need to look for better evidence than what I've said. You, more than anyone, need to read Prof. Tallis' book. :)


.

My 5 Top Tips for Atheists

Hi... it's been a while.

It has been suggested that I write a post about how to deal with being new to the wonderfully liberating world that is atheism.

I have been an atheist for 30 years. It started when I was bored one summer in 1985 and decided to read the family Bible. It was a big, old, leather bound thing with a family tree in the front of it and lots of illuminations (Bible-speak for drawings.) So, once a day I settled down in the spare room to read the book, from cover to cover. About half way through reading Genesis I became an atheist. To this day I fail to see how anyone with any sense can make it through the first two chapters of Genesis and not immediately realize that the book is fiction. I finished the Old Testament (OT) and gave up, only to go back to it a few years later when we started doing work on the New Testament (NT) in school. Trust me when I tell you that the content of the book bares little or no resemblance to what teachers and preachers tell you it says. No wonder the Christian community spends so much time and energy (and money) on apologetics... but more on that later.

Paganism crept in shortly after this, but it was always of the atheist variety, that being a belief that the "gods and goddesses" of the religion are nothing more than archetypes (see Jung) for the ways in which we express ourselves and look forward to new challenges. A less wank-tastic version of the "think like a lion become a lion" crap they try to make you do at 'self-improvement' seminars.

Anyway, since I am not new to this game I will let you new atheists (not to be confused with "New Atheists"*) into a few secrets on how to handle your new life.

Many of you reading this will not be in the liberal and accepting position I was in. My father is an ignostic aptheist, which is someone who literally does not see the point of gods and therefore doesn't give a hoot about them. My mother, was and still is a Christian, although she has not seen the inside of a regular church for as long as I can remember, except for weddings, baptisms and funerals. So, my dad puts up with my talking about atheism and theism but considers the subject to be entirely boring and my mother listens with polite amusement. I am 42 now, with kids of my own (both self-declared atheists) so what can she say, eh?

I know this might seem like a dream come true for many of you. There are those who cannot speak up for fear of harm, isolation and financial loss. I worry about you guys. It boggles my mind that a religion (and they all do this) which talks about caring and accepting everyone, puts so many caveats in place to prevent people from leaving. There are a number of reasons why, but the biggest one has to be what social psychologist Irving Janis affectionately call "groupthink".

"Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus." - Psychology Today

For this reason I am not here to tell you how, or when, to 'come out' as a non-believer. That is for you to decide, based on your circumstances and perception of the results that might follow from such an action. My advice is to hold fast and remember that atheism is growing quickly and social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook are providing some great resources and bringing people together. You are NOT alone. Atheism is becoming more normal, and the proof of this can be seen in the recent escalation in religious people and groups becoming more vocal about their faith, and declarations of whole countries which are seeing a decline in religiosity being "Christian countries" by various politicians.

All I can tell you is that (on the whole) the atheist community are very supportive of recently deconverted atheists and the level of tolerance found here is infinitely higher than in any religion.

In with being asked to write this was a tacit request for advice on how to deal with internet theists who flood the cables with apologetics and nonsense. So here are my top 5 tips for dealing with theists online and in real life:

1. Remember that YOU do NOT have to prove anything. 

The theist is the one making the positive claim that a god exists, and therefore the onus (no matter what they tell you) is on them to prove it. Apart from saying "I don't believe your claims." you really do not have to say much else. You can be as dismissive as you like. Often I like to treat them like some drunk who tells you that they are a secret agent, or an alien. A "Really? That's interesting, but oh... look at the time... gotta run!" is all you need to say. You can block the ones who just will not quit talking at you. "So what?" is a powerful phrase.

"Atheism isn't true" - "So what?"
"So GOD is!" - "So what?"
"So YOU have to listen?" - "OK, why?"
"If you don't YOU WILL BURN IN HELLFIRE!" - "Yeah? So what?"
"You're LOST and need to be FOUND again! Find SALVATION in the arms of JEEEEEEEEEEZZZUUUUUSSS!!!" - "Yeah? OK. Whatever. See ya round mate."

The more people of this ilk start to realise that we don't care what they think and/or say, the more agitated they get, but eventually one or two do start to wonder why we don't care and look for answers. If they do so with an objective mind they usually deconvert. Trying to get a theist to be objective can be difficult. Though, that's perhaps how you got here. Hi... welcome to sanity.

2. Learn how to ask the right questions.

Let's say you have decided to engage with the theist and argue your point with them. My advice to you is to learn about Socratic Questioning, either from Dr Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual For Creating Atheists", or the excellent YouTube video series on Street Epistemology by Anthony Magnabosco. This line of thinking is extremely effective at dealing with theists.

The hardcore "hell and brimstone" types hate Socratic questioning because no matter how hard they try you just keep requesting more detailed information. This "lunatic fringe" cannot understand why you are deflecting their nonsense back at them, and even the "scholars" eventually start to hate it when their knowledge runs out and they are either forced to ignore you, go around in circles or get angry. In each cases you have won the debate. You'll get used to a lot of toys being thrown from a lot of prams on this journey.

3. Be patient. 

Many of the people you come across are victims of their own religion's brainwashing scheme. Think back to when you believed the nonsense. You may still harbour fears about losing your soul, burning in a fiery lake, or being tortured forever. Religious bullshit can be very hard to wash off.
Ask yourself how would you want to be spoken to? You have an advantage in that you have been there too and so you know how it feels to believe those things, and be in their situation. I know that for some people enlightenment came when someone ridiculed them and they got pissed enough to go looking for counter-arguments and found only common sense staring at them (like Jerry DeWitt and Matt Dillahunty) but for many telling them they're stupid only makes them more likely to entrench themselves in their beliefs.

4. Follow your own path. 

Are you interested in evolution and science? If so, then read, read, read! Lots of great books by many great authors are out there waiting for you to pick them up and read, or listen to in the car on the way to work. For some good recommendations follow people like David Smalley, or Aron Ra, or ask me. If you are not interested in evolution, or science you don't have to be. Only theists equate atheism with an interest in science and technology. You might prefer art, literature, music or any number of other things.

When you find a theist who argues that atheism is not true because evolution is false just ignore them. For one, they are using a form of logical fallacy and for another, who cares? You don't, right? Evolution isn't your thing, so just don't worry about it. Your non-belief is probably founded on your realization that the evidence for a god just doesn't stack up. It has nothing to do with science. Even if evolutionary scientists have it all wrong, the claims of the theist are no more likely to be true. In this vein I often ask that very question: "If evolutionary scientist are mistaken, how does that affect the claims made by theists about creation?" You'd be surprised how often that's met with silence, or a lot of words thrown together which don't make any sense to anyone but the person who said it (word-salad.)

It's not your job to argue FOR evolution, or any argument FOR your position at all. See point 1. The argument "Evolution isn't true, therefore Yahweh!" is no more valid than "Jelly isn't true, therefore Sasquatch!"

5. Look for inconsistencies.

When one theist makes a point, try to remember who it was who made that claim, or said that thing. For instance, if one of them says gays are evil, then make a mental note. Then, when someone else, says that gays are misguided, or putting on a show, you can point towards that other guy and say "I've heard *insert name of other person here* say *whatever he/she said*, why do you think you are right and not him/her?" or something to that effect. The point being that if theism were true and there WAS a god out there telling his subjects that ONE truth they all claim to be privy to, why do they all take up such different, and often opposite positions on things?

It's helpful, though not essential, that you learn what is and what isn't a logical fallacy. Matt Dillahunty's videos and episodes of the Atheist Experience and David Smalley's Dogma Debate are great resources.

If Christianity was uniform across the board its claim might have a bit more weight to it, but with around 40,000 versions (denominations) of it out there in the world we can be sure that, they can't ALL be right and they're probably all wrong. If one theist is really good at being consistent you can contrast his/her views with that of another and watch as the "he's wrong I'm right" arguments start.

These are my "top-tips", though other atheists approach debate in entirely different ways. I'm not always so kind to believers because their BS is so damn stupid the only thing I can offer them is my impatience.

I hope these ideas have been helpful. Thanks for reading. As usual, all comments are welcome.


*New Atheists is a term, usually used derogatorily against atheists who are vocal about their disdain for religion and the use of faith over good reasoning. Basically its used to describe any atheist who, when told to shut up by a preacher or imam, says "NO!"

What Is A God?

I've decided to update this post on 21st Feb 2017. I'm doing this because of a recent exchange I had on Twitter. My interlocutor's insistence on straw-manning my very simple question of "What is a god?" to "What is God?" is decidedly dishonest. He of course gleefully answered his version of my question, and is claiming it as a valid answer. It clearly isn't is it? I mean, if you ask me what a cat is, and I describe the character of Cat from Red Dwarf to you, my answer would be of no relevance whatsoever... I simply would not be answering your question at all! For starters, no feline has ever consistently walked on two legs or spoken English!

When you ask someone to define what a god is, and they answer honestly, you often get a list of things that a god must be, or some idea of how their god exemplifies their idea of what a god is, which isn't actually an answer to the original question, but if they explain that this is all they know, I'm OK with it.

Often they reference things like being humanoid, able to create the universe, being all-good, all-knowing and all that stuff. So, let's unpick that shall we? If a god must be all these things then we should be able to pin down exactly what a god is. Surely if a god doesn't fit the bill it can't be a god, right?

So let's take a look at the common features attributed to gods:

Anthropomorphic (human-like)

There are many gods and goddesses who aren't like us, for instance Kamadhenu of Hindu culture, who whilst having the face of a human woman and often her breasts, is a cow goddess. Ninsun, the Mesapotamian mother of the famous hero-god Gilgamesh, was also a cow.

Anansi is another example of a non-arthropomorphic god. Anansi is an African spider-god, a trickster.

Huntin is an African god of trees, and himself a tree. So not all gods are humanoid.

Creative

Not all gods, or goddesses, are able to create things... especially not universes. After all, if all the creative gods did create the universe they either did so in concert, or the whole idea is total nonsense.

An example of a non-creative god is Heitsi-Eibib, an African god of evolution. Though he himself didn't create any living beings, he reputedly convinced animals to take up more suitable habitats than the ones they previously had. For instance he made the fish leave the desert for the sea, which he deemed a more appropriate place for them to live. Seems obvious when you think about it.

So no, not all gods need to be creative.

Eternal/Invulnerable

Apedemak, a Sudanese war god, came late to the Egyptian pantheon and was gone soon after. How many gods can you name? The ones you can't are probably already dead... if you believe what Terry Pratchett said about them.

Balin, an Indian hero god actually got killed in a fight with his half-brother Sugriva.

So not all gods are eternal, or it would seem invulnerable.

Ethereal/Spirit-like

Most gods and goddesses of the ancient world appeared, or could appear, physically to humans at one point or another. Yahweh's very first real appearance was walking through the Garden of Eden looking for Adam.

Khuzwane is evidenced by the marks he left during his presence on Earth, the African god who purportedly made humans from clay (where have we heard that before?) left muddy footprints everywhere he went (which are apparently still visible today) and even uses Lake Fundudzi as a private pool from time to time.

So some gods are very physical indeed.

Judgemental

There are thousands of gods and goddesses who are seemingly non-judgemental, nor are they involved in any afterlife punishments, or trials of any sort. Take the Roman goddess named Cuba who appears to only be concerned with singing lullabies to children to get them off to sleep.

So not all gods judge our actions

Global/Universal

Um... this may seem fairly obvious to anyone who has spent any time reading about gods, but it appears that many cultures have some very specific gods who look after some very specialist and rather odd things. Anarkusuga, for instance, is a Native American/Inuit goddess who looks after the Arctic ice and its contents.

Mikula, the Slavic god, is in charge of heroics. Yup... just being heroic.

So, not all gods have a universal influence after all.

All-knowing, All-powerful, Ever-present

So far I've referenced a number of gods and goddesses, none of whom appear to be particularly all-knowing, all-powerful, or ever-present... except in their own fields of speciality perhaps. I guess tree spirits are always present in all trees, Arctic frost goddesses are to be found everywhere in the Arctic ice etc. etc.

By contrast, Buga is the supreme god of everything in the Slavic pantheon. Somewhat like the god of the Abrahamic cultures, but with the added advantage of having grown out of a more shamanic and nature-loving religion.

So not all gods are all things to all people.

All-loving

It stands to reason that a god exists which isn't all good. Yama, the Indian death lord, loves nothing more than sending your souls to Hell. Tezcatlipoca, the Aztec god of night and death, actually leads people into doing evil things, despite outwardly being handsome and friendly (at first.)

So not all gods are truly omnibenevolent. Some are downright evil.

Please check out my other musings on this subject at: http://ublasphemist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-impossible-god.html

Dealing with these "omnis", with regards the Christian version of "God", is unavoidable in any honest discourse on the subject. I would argue that my simple analysis in the above blog item destroys the main thrust of their arguments, but there is another point to be made.

Logic dictates that any entity able to be omnipresent must be present in all times, at all locations, future and past and present. So, he would in effect be at the farthest reaches of our expanding universe as well as watching you masturbate.

So, if this god were to watch as a hypothetical girl like Lucy (who is walking the mile home from her school after hockey practice, along the same route she always follows) gets mugged and hits her head hard enough for her to be placed in a persistent vegetative state? How does that not seem a bit evil to you? What lesson could this God possibly be trying to teach a girl who now has absolutely no way to interact with the world, her loved ones, or friends? What possible benefit could there be to her to make her entirely dependent on others for survival? If your answer is that she has been used as a pawn to teach someone else something you've just trodden on the bear-trap of telling me that your god is playing a game with us... and he cannot possibly be benevolent.This incident has robbed Lucy of any chance she has of leading the life on her own terms, nor "find Salvation" if she wasn't already a believer... think about it... isn't leading someone away from Yahweh a sin?

If this event could be foreseen, but not prevented, because it was the free will of Lucy's attacker to injure her, in order to take her purse and smart-phone, this god isn't all-powerful.

There are several logical inconsistencies wherever you look. Your god simply cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving and ever-present.

Another point to consider is this, dear Christians:

If the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, was the only god, why does he even have a name? Why does the term Israel itself not point you in the direction that the original god of the Jews was El? Is-ra-EL. If the people were exclusively Yahweh worshippers their name would have been Is-ra-YAHU... but it isn't is it?

How's about you have a nice cup of tea and think about that for a while... or you can add a plate of biscuits to that and do some research of your own into how Yahweh went from being a Canaanite storm god to being the principle god of the Jews around 720BCE.

In Summary

If you're talking to Christians and ask them the question "What is a god?" they nearly always ignore the question altogether. Of the few who do answer, most just point you to a Bible passage, or come up with some deepity about their god Yahweh. Fewer still actually try to answer honestly.

I'm not sure if they are deliberately failing to engage with the question because it causes a great deal of cognitive dissonance, i.e. they're being intentionally dishonest, or they just don't understand the question. Christians get repeatedly told that Yahweh is the only god, despite their Bible referencing at least a dozen other gods, and Yahweh stating himself that we should put no other gods before him in that list of ten things he's supposed to have said.


What we've seen here is that the traditional view of what a god is according to the Abrahamics does not apply to all gods. So the question remains:

What IS a god?

Check out the source for these god ideas: http://www.godchecker.com
(this post might be updated as more suggestions about what a god is are offered to me)