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!

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. 

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)

Something You Ought To Know About

Hi,

I'm not sure it's usual for a blogger to recommend you leave his site immediately and check out someone else's blog, but that's precisely what this blogger is now doing.

A twitter friend of mine, who goes by the necessarily anonymous title of @Elishabenabuya, has a blog in which he shares his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. His background is that of being a Talmud scholar for over 50 years, but who is now an atheist, putting to rest those oft cited myths of the Bible being a reliable source of history and the current translations being representative of the original texts.

You can find it here: apikoris.blogspot.co.il

If you are an atheist and you're not reading Elisha's blog and following him on twitter I don't really know what to do with you.

Perhaps a darkened room might help.

I jest, but you do really need to get on it.

Cheers y'all!

Why I'm No Longer Just An Atheist

Some time ago I became an atheist.

I was 12, and I'd just finished reading the family Bible (yes, we had one of those.) It was a huge, leather-bound monstrosity which sat on a corner table, set up against the stair rail on our first landing.

It took ages to read, and I have to admit to not fully understanding it at the time, but every time I came up against a passage which advocated what humans would consider an evil act I saw God at the helm.

I felt betrayed by everyone who had ever told me "God is Love". I still am.

I came to realise that the "God" of the Bible (Elohim/Yahweh take your pick) was not the god we consider to be the creator of the universe. Which meant that in that time I became a deist. A few months later I had shaken off the shackles completely and became an atheist looking for a way to express my new found love of being a human with no ties to a deity.

That is how I came to paganism. Most people think of paganism as a polytheistic religion based on a lot of woo-science, tarot card nonsense and incense burning. Yes, we burned a lot of incense, and I still like to, and I still have my tarot cards by my bed. They often fondly remind me of the actress Jane Seymour, because they are the same sort used by her in a Bond movie.

What most people don't understand is that many, many pagans know that when they invoke Pan in order to feel more free and less inhibited, they are in fact just invoking that part of themselves which can be free and uninhibited. They know it's not a prayer being received by a deity. It's self-talk. It's like knitting yourself a jumper for the cold days of winter. I was, and still am, that type of pagan. Though today I call all the gods and goddesses by their real name. Me.

In the eyes of the Christians we non-believers are all pagans and heretics.

So, why am I no longer just an atheist?

Labels matter to me. I know many people disagree, but when you see someone wearing a uniform you have a certain vision of the type of person he/she is. For good or for bad. Out of uniform their character is a little more difficult to establish. I know that when I say I'm an atheist, other atheists like me, and Christians don't (when they get to know me both groups usually agree I'm a bit of a dick!) 

:)

I have been "active" about atheism for a number of years now. But something changed recently. I see now that my simple disbelief in a deity is not getting me anywhere. 

That's why if anyone asks me what I believe now I have to be honest and tell them that religion, for me, is nothing short of POISON! I'm not an atheist anymore, I'm now a confirmed Antitheist and my new drive is that feeling of utter contempt for those religions, and their followers, which try to impose their on everyone else!

I look to that contempt to push me forward, and my compassion for humanity to take the bumps out of the ride.

Your common or garden theist is not my target. They might fund their religion and enable its crimes against humanity, reason and common sense, but they are victims too, of the venomous, institutionalised barbarism which threatens more now than ever to undermine good science and good philosophical and critical thinking; especially in our children.

All atheist activists have a responsibility to get pissed off at the constant encroachment of what is now a panicking, ever-decreasing minority of theists worming their way into our schools and colleges, either physically, or through legislation to save their religions from extinction.

We must stop this now.

Before it's too late.

Onus Probandi

I've been off for a while. My apologies, but my health fluctuates so sometimes I'm unable to focus clearly enough to write extensively.

Back with it now though.

While I've been away I've noticed that many theists on twitter, and in TV debates are still using the old fallacy of trying to turn the debate around and putting the onus probandi, or burden of proof, back onto the person denying the claim that they are making. This argument from ignorance is truly annoying.

Theists think that they get to claim whatever they like and because we cannot prove them wrong they get to claim victory.

The problem lies in their inability to extrapolate. If we cannot prove a god exists, then the god must be real, right? Well, they cannot prove that a universe-creating troll exists, so that must be the real truth. How would we ever decide which one was responsible for creating our universe? Then there's Bertrand Russell's cosmic teapot. How do you prove him to be incorrect? Is the teapot going to collide with any future mission to Mars? Does NASA need to take it into account?

Sometimes you achieve minor successes. I recently got one theist to admit that humans make up gods, but he couldn't get his head around the idea that the one he follows might likewise be a human invention. How frustrating! The cognitive dissonance required to apply rules to other ideas, but not your own, is beyond me.

Theists also tend to demand greater evidence for the negation of their claim than the claim they are themselves making. If I told you that I could fly without mechanical assistance you wouldn't be expected to prove me wrong, and likewise it wouldn't be incumbent upon you to prove that humans could not fly under any circumstances. I would not expect you to provide anatomical evidence, such as examples of bone or muscle tissue, or models of the physiological makeup of humans etc. etc. The onus is on me to provide you with evidence, perhaps by actually flying!

This moving of the goalposts is irritating, but like the shifting of the burden of proof it is just aimed at shutting down the conversation. It's the debating equivalent of "I am, but what are you?"

Why should an atheist be expected to be an expert in archaeology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, biology, anatomy, evolution, geology, theology, philosophy, literary studies, Biblical studies, history, climatology, or many other theoretical and physical sciences, arts and social sciences, just to defend their rejection of a theist's ridiculous claims? Atheism is the adoption of single position on a single claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on you or me.

Theists need (constantly) to be reminded of that.

In a recent to-ing and fro-ing in the local paper's letters section a contributor claimed that the Bible was true because he had knowledge of 40 excavations which proved the Bible to be historically accurate. Several problems arise as a result of this comment, but chief among them is the fact that even if the Bible was 100% reliable in its account of history and every single detail was absolutely true, nothing about that would be proof of a supernatural entity creating, or controlling, everything!

What on Earth makes him think it does?

If an excavation of, let's say, Tell ed-Dab'a, the home of the Canaanites* in Egypt, revealed intricate details of their religion, supporting every word of the Bible in remarkable detail, why should that prove Yaweh is real? After all, an investigation into Roman ruins does not in any way prove that Julius Caesar was a divine being. No examination of Japanese texts or temples proves that the Emperor is godly! Why do these people make that leap from A to WTF?

I think you can probably sense that I'm somewhat frustrated by these situations. I perhaps need to take a lie down and do an Apache-language crossword puzzle or a 10,000 piece jigsaw, perhaps even nail a jelly to the ceiling. Something less difficult than trying to argue with theists about their own responsibilities in the "god-debate"!

Remember:

onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the person denying the claim.

*Excavations revealed that the language of the inhabitants of Tell ed-Dab'a was Semitic, therefore they would have to have been Canaanite. Further evidence of the nature of their religious ideas and burial methods cemented the fact. The idea of a sudden Hyksos invasion, previously accepted by many historians as the true history, but now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration, was attributed to Manethos, an Egyptian historian who must have thought that a sudden attack on Egypt sounded sexier than the centuries of slow migration by Canaanites which actually is known to have happened.

The Impossible God

Many people I speak to just won't accept that a god who is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist.

So, I thought I'd lay out one simple 'proof' for you all.

An all-knowing god would know every emotion felt by humans. An all-powerful god would not know what it is like to be weak, he couldn't know regret, fear, worry, or grief.

An omnipotent god could not have true knowledge of any emotion such as self-doubt, self-criticism, or feel suicidal.

An omnipotent god could not feel pain either, since nothing could hurt him. Likewise, how could anything we do hurt him, or his feelings? Falling prey to that pain we feel when someone we love deeply does something we just know they're going to do just isn't possible for an all-powerful being. There's no way to experience pain and anguish without there being a physical component.

Also, a god who feels regret could not be said to be all-knowing, simply because knowing everything would yield no surprises, and no future left unknown. Even his own actions would already be laid out. He would be as a robot carrying out his own predestined actions. Any attempt to change path would already be built in to his knowledge of that path.

It really is that simple. If a god is omnipotent it could not be all-knowing, and if he's all-knowing he could not be all-powerful.

"The Bible is True"... but which version?

As a part-time hobby I like to discuss ideas with the Jehovah's Witnesses [J-Dubs] which blight the streets of my home town every week. I only do it every now and then because some of them have banned me from visiting their stall after being unable to properly answer my questions. I'll explain why this week I even got one of them to ask me "What's the purpose of your coming here today telling us this? What difference does it make to you what our beliefs are?" Let the fact that this comment came from a Jehovah's Witness, famed for going door-to-door peddling their crap, who at the time was sitting behind a desk in a pagoda full of Witness literature and with signs outside proclaiming God to be this and that wonderful thing, sink in for a moment... yes.. indeed!

The reason I annoyed them this week was because I approached them with the topic of "Versions of the Bible"; my pitch being that for every line in the Bible which can be interpreted two or more ways there forms a pathway which leads to a new version of the doctrine. It's not as sketchy as it sounds.

For instance, if you believe that the account of The Creation [A] is true, as they do, then that's one version. If you don't then that's another. If you then consider the comment made by God prior to the Flood in which mankind is limited to 120 years [B] and think that this is a countdown to destruction, as the J-Dubs do, then that's another factor to consider, as is the idea that the 120 years is a literal age-limit set on each of us.

Putting them together we get four different versions of the story:

God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days and gave Mankind 120 years to shape up = AaBa
God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days and limited Mankind to lifespans of 120 years = AaBb
The story that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days is an allegory but he did give Mankind 120 years to shape up = AbBa
The story that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days is an allegory but he did limit Mankind to 120 year lifespans = AbBb

So we have the four versions... Of course there are other versions of each of these but I'm trying to keep this simple for now.

Out of two lines of text we can derive FOUR different versions of the Bible. I told this to the male J-Dub but got the standard "They're not versions, they are just different opinions." Well, I'd love to know what a version is if not a different opinion on the text. Clearly whether one has the opinion that God did create the Earth etc. in six days, or not, informs your practice of your faith. It informs your reading of other texts too. So how you interpret that one line does make a big difference.

As it is with other lines, and events.

Take for instance the event in the Bible when God supposedly appeared to Moses on a hill top [C]. The story says he appeared to Moses in a pillar of smoke. Now then, some interpret that as Moses having an actual visit from God manifesting as a pillar of smoke [a]. Others say that the fire and smoke was to cover God's face from Moses and so God appeared more as a man than the smoke itself [b]. Does this not fundamentally change your view on what your God is, or can be?

I personally think it was a charlatan's trick and Moses was making the whole thing up, making use of rudimentary pyrotechnic skills he'd learnt from other charlatans descended from Abraham. who you'll remember pulled a similar trick earlier on. However, we're talking about other people's interpretations here so mine do not matter.

So... should we add this event to the narrative? With the Creation [A], the 120 years comment [B] and the new Moses smoke trick [C] what combinations are now available?

AaBaCa
AaBaCb
AaBbCa
AaBbCb
AbBaCa
AbBaCb
AbBbCa
AbBbCb

That's eight versions from three events, using only two possible versions of each story.

The Bible is beginning to look like those old Steve Jackson books I used to read as a kid, where I got to pick my own story through the book. only this time instead of only my character dying the Bible wipes out over 2 million!

How about we add the parable of the "Water into Wine" [D]? Either Jesus really did make wine out of water [a], or it is a narrative explanation of the Jewish rite of passage [b].

I won't bore you with the details but that makes 16 possible versions.

Then what if we add the Raising of Lazarus [E], the 100 Zombie Saints [F] and on and on back and forth throughout the texts of the Old and New Testaments... how many versions of one book can there be, each with a unique narrative through the text?

At no point have I touched on how many printed versions there are, but if you even take one fundamental narrative, that of the idea that sin leads to an eternity in Hell, and you realize that the original Old Testament didn't feature Hell at all, and that even some versions of the New Testament lack that idea, you now see how utterly incompatible these books are from one simple change in dynamic.

So when I ask you which version of the Bible you trust to be the whole truth I'm not talking about the KJV, or the NIV or the YLT or KJV2000, I'm talking about all these little ideas and events and how you the reader, the believer, chose to form your ideas about what you believe. If as a conservative estimate we suggest that there are 100 lines in the Bible which can be taken two ways each, the total number of possible pathways through the Bible is 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.

Of course this is a rather facetious way of looking at it, but I think that if Christians are going to go down the line of saying that "The Bible is true" as so many insist on doing, I think we do get to ask "which version"... because I do not see that it is such a stupid question after all.

Fundamentalists Are Confusing

Have you ever wondered why Fundamentalists go around making other people believe the way they do, often at the point of a sword, or the barrel of a gun?

Why is this?

If you believe that your god is the four-Os then this has to be what you think:

1. Your god is omniscient therefore it/he/she knows everything there is to know about everything... including ALL of your thoughts, aspirations, dreams, ideas and beliefs - good and bad.

2. Your god is omnibenevolent so everything that happens will eventually, even if you can't see it from your limited perspective as a human being, turn out for the best, according to your god's grand plan.*

3. Your god is omnipresent, so that along with his omniscience he is everywhere, at all times in the present, future and past. Your god is in everything, everywhere all at once.

4. Your god is omnipotent so nothing at all can ever happen without it's knowing about it, and it can create anything at any time, move whatever needs moving effortlessly, and bend the laws of science to its will.

If you don't believe these things with all your heart then you're not a Fundamentalist and in essence you are some watered down version of the ideal follower of your god.

So, let's break this down a bit more. The Fundamentalist believes that her god is omnipresent and omniscient, yet she still prays to it. Why? If the god is truly all-knowing and ever-present there'd be no need whatsoever to utter a word of praise (if you cherished it truly), or utter a wish, or voice a thought, desire, need or idea. A god who literally knows everything you think, at all times and in all possible timelines, knows everything you could possibly think or say... so a prayer is, or can be interpreted as, a demonstration that you do not trust your god implicitly.

Further to that, if you think your god is perfect and all-powerful (omnipotent), then you must believe that everything is exactly the way your god wants it to be. Your god wants the Earth to be 4.54 billion years old. He wants it to be full of evolving organisms. He wants us to be sentient of our sentience. He wants a quarter of our population to be homosexuals, and he wants other people to have their own beliefs and ideas. So if you, for one second, think that any of these things are not true or not correct (sinful) then you are essentially telling your god that you, yes you, know better than him!

Given that Fundamentalists do still go around telling people that this and that is blasphemous and that their god dictates such and such, with absolutely no idea of what a god would even look like, never mind what it wants, then these people are not true believers at all! In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they believe the dogma, but reject the idea of their god entirely in favour of their own system of beliefs.

So the next time you see the work of one extremist group or another on the TV and someone says that they don't represent the particular religion they claim to represent, they might just have a point. If they were true Fundamentalists, then they'd be sitting at home with their children without a care in the world, minding their own business and looking after their friends and families. They'd be safe in the knowledge that everything was precisely the way their god wanted it to be and everything would turn out just fine as long as they were true to themselves and good to others.

That is a true Fundamentalist.


*I will cede that not everyone agrees that a god needs to be benevolent.

Hello... and welcome to my new blog!

Hi... my name is Universal Blasphemist. So-called because as an atheist, and staunch anti-theist, I would be considered a blasphemer in all religions. This is my new blog.

A few things you should know ahead of time.

1. I like bullet-pointed lists.
2. I like the term atheist and consider labels to be important. I don't care if you don't.
3. I err towards changing minds rather than insulting people.
5. I like to maintain an air of mystery.
6. I write sporadically and often miss weeks on end, simply because I have too much going on.
7. I am Welsh and revert to speaking in Welsh when I'm angry with someone, or something.
8. I am in my 40s, overweight and a fibromyalgia experientialist.
9. I prefer people who spotted there's no number 4 in this list and are bothered by it.

That's all I feel I should explain at this point. So, if, as time goes on, you want to know more, I suggest coming back to find out... or just ask me at @UBlasphemist on twitter.

I'm currently writing a really long blog post on street epistemology... but it's taking absolutely ages, so in the meantime, to save me having to write it at all you could just go out and buy, rent, loan, steal (maybe not steal) a copy of Dr Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual For Creating Atheists" or check out Anthony Magnabosco's delicious videos on YouTube.  The consumption of both is time well spent.

I'll also be aiming to get all philosophical about other subjects which might help in debates with theists such as the Biblical Creation, logical problems with the Christian god(s) and the existence of Jesus. I'll also hit the bell on subjects such as Islam and Buddhism and even a few pages on pseudoscience, tarot reading, my favourite podcasts, people from the atheist movement and some interesting books I've found along the way.

On that note, if you're there thinking that everything you read these days is the same old shit and everyone seems to be writing vampire stories, or teen-angst crap, or books about the trials of shopping and want a new, intelligent and often disturbing book which might keep you up all night because the act of putting it down will seem dirty and sinful you should try "21 days in May" by CrispySea... it'll turn your blue eyes brown again... or some shade of black that Dulux hasn't gotten round to describing yet.

I'm not all about the plug... but since I do like it when other people get to like the stuff I like I'd feel remiss if I didn't tell you all where to go... in a manner of speaking!

Cheers

Use the links to the right of your screen to navigate my posts, alternatively use the archive at the bottom of each page. Bye.

Come back soon... miss you already...

:)