Evil corporate empire will not deny us our religious rights!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones

I feel somewhat persecuted.

Yet I don't feel the need to start a holy war, a jihad, kidnapping, blow up a public place or demand the death of someone...

Maybe I'm not religious enough... ;-)

So how has god done these last 10 years?

From BBC Newsnight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8195025.stm
Click this link if your browser does not automatically play the video. :-)


What have the noughties done for God?

Robert Pigott launches Newsnight's review of the first decade of the 21st Century by asking whether God's new millennium has got off to a bad start.


15 minutes.

Enjoy! :-)

Those damn, happy atheists!!! Curse them!

I'm seriously getting fed up with religions claiming they have ownership of morality. Apparently, they have 'true' rules to live by since they were given by a supreme, perfect being.

Hmmmm.

Some religions like to soften up the 'rules' by saying they are 'guidance' and of course you are free to to choose your path. Some religions take it to an extreme and use it as a blunt instrument to control or persecute people - quite often, their own believers!

Either way, eventually, if you don't follow the rules, you don't go to heaven - which means you go elsewhere. Nasty.

Nice way to live your life. Trying to follow the rules of a perfect being. Of course you CAN'T. Because YOU are not perfect. YOU will make errors of judgement. YOU are a deeply flawed individual. YOU have been corrupted by all the nasty little temptations in life. YOU may have even listened to ATHEISTS!!!

Us atheists eh? Look at us, living our lives without worrying about whether we might upset god(tm). Using our OWN moral judgements, considering what effect it will have on others around us, ENJOYING life, freethinking, gasping with wonder at the universe - the chaos - the very LIFE! Hey, we don't even have 'self worth' issues about having a common ape-like ancestor - we revel in the fact that all life is linked. We don't need fairy tales to help us understand the 'difficult' science.

But if you are a believer in whatever plethora of gods that really most likely don't exist, don't worry about it.

Seriously.

Those damn, happy atheists will not be laughing when YOU prove them wrong. When you have lived a flawless life. Given up your gut instincts and followed someone else's moral code. Picked the ONE TRUE religion (or splinter group of that religion) out of the tens of thousands. Chosen how EXACTLY how to interpret the holy book and know which phrases did not really apply and reinterpret some phrases so they are more convenient for you.

You KNOW there is a true god(tm). So you simply can't be wrong...




Personally, I'll remain a damned, happy atheist, than you very much. :-)

I'm a happy atheist! So why don't people believe me?!? Aarrggh!!!

I posted this on the Heaving Dead Cats blog and I thought it deserved a post on mine too. One of the accusations I have had made at me, several times of the years, is that I cannot be a happier person than someone who has discovered their imaginary friend. (Or has a 'relationship' with imaginary friend, or discovered the 'truth', or 'opened my eyes', or had an 'experience'... blah, blah...)

"Being an atheist has made me a happier person. I adore the wonder of nature, the chaos of life, the randomness of quantum physics, the vastness of the universe, the possibility of ‘god particles’, the possibility of extraterrestrial life, seeing true altruism in strangers, learning about different cultures, art, music and love.
I love being free to enjoy, appreciate and have these experiences without having to worry about offending any non-existent creatures. Sheeple (I love that term!) only demean themselves by having to attribute their ignorance to ‘god’."

Seriously, how could I be happier? (OK, Arsenal in the Champions League final, grrr....) I have a great family, fantastic job, my health, kind friends and a sparkling wit only matched by my innate charm and wisdom. If unfortunate things happen, I don't whine, blame, pray, sue, beg etc... and I certainly don't (in a weakened state) seek an imaginary friend. If you are an optimist, you don't need false hope!

We do NOT have a 'god shaped' hole in our hearts. That's just another bl***y stupid metaphor created to convince the weak minded. (Create a problem and sell the only 'cure' ) Having a 'god' in my life would mean I would have a new 'priority' - above my family, above my ambitions, dreams and humanity. And if you are the sort of person willing to do that for some perceived reward in one of the many afterlifes on offer, then well done. Just don't expect me to be impressed.

I am happy. And if you can't understand that, then I truly pity you.
(Rant over) ;-)

Challenging science

The nice christian, JL, in her quest to convert my (rather pleasant) heathen ways went on the attack about carbon dating and it's 'wildly inaccurate' results.
Being on the back foot, I had some misconceptions about carbon dating but, in my defence, they were craftily worded fundie traps which I fell into. (eg. saying that carbon dating cannot measure age of fossils, so what proof is there?)

However, EVEN IF carbon dating methods were wrong, just because 'the bible says so' is not magically the only viable alternative. *sigh*

Tree rings are accurate to 9000 years. Pay attention - this is something most kids learn in primary school! You won't find a 50 year old tree with thousands of rings. NEWSFLASH - Trees predate the Abrahamic god! "But the bible says the sky pixie made trees! Whhhaaaahhh!!!!"

Redshift - How light frequency is affected by the fantastical speeds of astronomical phenomena moving away from us (creating light towards the infra red spectrum)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8022917.stm

Carbon dating is a very good way of estimating. The biggest inaccuracies have occured when objects of 20000 years old have had an error of 3500 years. An error margin of up to 17%.
Even accounting for this extreme measure - hmmm - basic maths here - more than 6000 years!

The trap I fell into (because I simply don't know everything) was that you cannot use carbon dating for fossils. (Or diamonds, which are REALLY old! I just assumed that being made of carbon... doh!).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

The above link explains more concisely the methods used and refutes the claims of creationist (and I use the word sarcastically) 'scientists'.

JL's mission was to get me to doubt scientific reasoning and to not take scientific opinion as the truth. And yes, we SHOULD not just believe everything we hear. We must make informed decisions based on evidence. We must be willing to accept that with our limited knowledge and senses (we can only see a razor thin slice of the EM spectrum for example) that we will make mistakes and improve upon our knowledge.

And that is what I love about science. For every opinion, theory and proposal in the public domain, it must be tested, scrutinised and every possible attempt is made to prove it wrong or come up with a better explanation with the evidence and reasoning to back it up. It is inspiring, it is challenging, it is dangerous, it gives us the tools to make sense of this amazing existence... it is truly humbling to realise that there is so much in existence that we will never know.

What I find demeaning, insulting, patronising, illogical and offensive to human intellect is that theists label 'don't know' with 'god'.

Science has been answering many 'don't knows' for centuries. People no longer need to fear myths and superstitions; worry about angering vengeful gods; conduct strange rituals; wear lucky charms etc. Thanks to science, we have grown up and matured as a species.

Science is not the enemy of religion but religion has suffered because of it. Ahhh, life was so much SIMPLER 6000 years ago.

Conclusion: Just because science freely admits the limits of our understanding and is constantly trying to improve its knowledge doesn't make the bible true! (Bl**dy obvious I know, but SOME PEOPLE... tsk)

Conversations with a (nice) christian.

This is a response to my 'Alpha Course' post. (If it has scrolled off the bottom of the page then 'clicky!' )
'JL' is one of those nice christians who (in my experience) make up the majority of christians that are willing to talk to me. Currently we are in the middle of a friendly 'holy war' at our school, where she is trying to get me to appreciate Jesus and I am bestowing the gift of Pastafarian knowledge. I have shown her undeniable evidence of FSM's power by making her jump and pointing out how the kind FSM brings her safely back to Earth with his noodly appendages. (He loves us all and keeps us safe - FACT!)

Randomfish, I believe I might even have been the long-haired born-again that suggested an Alpha course to you.

Yep, The most recent one.

It's not like you have anything to lose, anyway :-p

Well, my scientific reasoning for one...

re: 'based on a relationship, not knowledge'
It always makes me smile that people get so OUTRAGED that the Bible is younger than Jesus, or at least most of it. That it's been *gasp* ADDED TO(!!!111) over the years. Of course it has. Ours is a living God. He didn't just speak once 6000 years ago (you heard right, DB!) and that was it. If you develop a relationship with your living God, he will speak to you. And he will tell you do not have a religion based on laws, you have a new life based on His loving gospel.

We agree here. Religion (especially christianity) has evolved. It has HAD to! Let's face it, if we had the same thinking as we did 1000 years ago, you would look pretty stupid now.
We don't get ill because god is punishing us. We get better because we 1) take medicine or 2) naturally get better over time.
Gods don't live in the sky. We are not the centre of the universe. Evolution is happening. The Earth is over 6000 years old. Morality is not owned by any religion...
Damn those astronomers, doctors, biologists, historians, geologists, philosophers...! They have had to make those crrraaaazzzyyy christians do some drastic rejigging of what to believe! LOL.

'Faith is more important than logic'

Logic is more important than blind faith. Blind faith is an insult to intelligence and reason. Blind faith can be harmful. For example, feel my pain when Arsenal lose! (Thankfully rarely!)

Don't pretend that you have faith in nothing, that faith in itself is ridiculous. You have faith in love, if nothing else, surely.

I DO have faith in humanity; kindness of strangers; love and hope. They are essential for understanding our humanity. I just don't attribute an imaginary friend to fill the gaps in knowledge.

Logic tells me that you can't get evolution from one species to another, only within species. Science tells me that even after thousands and thousands of generations of fly mutations, a fly is still a fly. So how did every living species in the world evolve from a fish? Including, presumably: turnips, scabies mite, chinchillas, sharks etc etc? Are you not putting your faith in a straaaange theory of evolution, hmmmmmm? ;)

Fellow humanists/ atheists, JL is a really nice person and please do not judge someone on their lack of understanding of evolution.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/sat-ii-biology-understanding-origins-of-life.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

'Because of who god is, we will always have questions'
Of course. And let's face it, when Jesus came and proclaimed himself the Son of God, not many people believed him, and what more proof could God really give us? Perhaps you would like a book full of graphs and diagrams, haha.

I proclaim to be the leader of Alpha Centauri. Can you see the problem with that? Jesus was not the first prophet to claim to lead the Jews. He happened to be the most famous. Stories told, generations later, wrote the gospels with a bias to make him more holy. Events were taken from a wide variety of religions (resurrection, death on a cross, virgin birth, claim of godhood, miracles, 12 followers, betrayal, ascension) sometimes even directly rewriting existing religions. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Jesus, the man, existed.
Jesus, the son of a god, sadly (but it would actually have been rather groovy) is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. More likely a work of fiction and copyright theft.

"You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour".
Hell for you probably isn't the same idea of hell for me. I think there is a cartoon idea based on lakes of fire with a little red devil with pitchforks. In reality, to me anyway, hell is death; it is separation from love and joy; from contentment and safety and the Lord. For me, now that I know the Lord, no pit of burning sulphur could ever hold as much sadness and fear as separation from His love. But that's just me.

Ahh, you refer to the 'nice' Hell. Depends on how literally one takes the bible doesn't it? Even Jesus refers to Gehenna.
Two very useful sites below
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
and this is pure class.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hellreal.htm (This nutter is doing theism no favours!)

And finally...
My final point I made in a rather fun theological debate is that JL is ACTUALLY a 'humanist with an imaginary friend'.

Peace to you all.

Football and gods. My dreadful hypocrisy?

And I mean PROPER football! Sorry my American friends but when you CARRY the ball for most of the game, it's a bit of a misnomer. Our beautiful game is not 'soccer'! Grrr. ;-)

If you are passionate about something, it can be frustrating when people don't have the same ideas. For example, I see NO reason why anybody should support Tottenham Hotspurs (AKA - 'The Scum'). They are a grossly overrated team who are the inferior London rivals of Arsenal. Whenever I meet such a misguided fan, I feel an urge to mock them. Remorselessly.

But I'm mature enough to realise that it is all banter. Some of it is very insulting, quite often abusive, but football does bring out a savage tribe mentality in its fans. (Impressively, you don't seem to get this in American sports.) So when fans say football is their 'religion', they are not far wrong.

• It sometimes requires a heroic amount of faith.
• You often deny the obvious flaws in your team's performance and blame others. (The ref being a common reciever of my displeasure!)
• Everyone else's team is rubbish!
• You spend far too much time devoted to your team which could be better spent doing many other things.
• You spend far too much money to prove your loyalty.
• You evangalise about your team to the point of obnoxiousness!
• You find yourself doing little rituals to change the outcome of the game.
• You wear clothing that identifies you with your team.
• You encourage your children to follow your team. Being a Man United fan would be a terrible, terrible crime against everything you stand for.
• No-one will ever persuade you to support anyone else.
  

Oh my non-existent gods... I am a football equivalent of a creationist!!!
And the scary thing is that you can't become an 'Afootballist'.

I think I am beyond saving ;-)

Alpha? Considering... being converted?

Well, it is my blog. So if I want to rant about stuff... but I also have a responsibility to give a more positive view of atheists. It's too easy for us to poke fun at people who believe in superstition, ritual, chance, planetary alignments, ghosts, lucky charms and stuff.

I do feel, in retrospect, that I did sink to a little bit of 'mocking' religion and that does not do atheism any favours. After all, we have the right to claim a higher morality since humanists care about everyone and we truly believe we are fairer than the harsh black and white laws of what ancient misogynistic priests interpreted from their positions of power.

In my continuing browsings of the web, I came across this wonderful piece of advice for potential worshippers...
"It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior."

Brilliant! It contains all the best bits of religion. Patronising, demanding and a veiled threat.
1) 'Based on relationship, not knowledgee'. A slight put down to education and thinking for yourself. Am I not capable of forming a true relationship with anything?
2) 'Faith is more important than logic'. Because logically, there is no proof or even a real need for a god?
3) 'But ultimately you must believe in the bible by faith'. (See previous post - sorry) What bits exactly? All of it? The 'nice' parts? Do I take it literally or simply as a guide. Well take your pick from the 38000 christian denominations... (sigh)
4) 'Because of who god is, we will always have questions". But to ask them is the wrong thing to do apparently (see section 1) (further sighs...)
5) "You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour". At least no mention of Hell, but an insult nonetheless.

Anyway, all this came as a result on what someone asked me a few months back. "Would you be interested in going to an Alpha course?" BTW - You can send them a question (be nice!) to be discussed - only 125 characters though!
Anyway, I actually wouldn't mind going. Like I have said before, I am an atheist morally, rationally, socially and all this was after a great deal of introspection on my part. Could religion offer a serious alternative? Would my life be improved as claimed by the brochure? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't want to be accused of being 'closed minded'.
All atheists are open to persuasion (seriously, it's true!) but we quite fairly ask for a scrap of proof - real proof mind! After all, an all-powerful god should be able to provide some undeniable evidence? Or at least NOT provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

So we get the 'faith' get out clause. That, my friends, is NOT an argument. It's a cop out! 'Faith' is the blanket stupid answer that I find insulting, patronising and clearly shows that there is no real basis for their point of view.
Just imagine if we said that we had 'faith' there was no god? Yeah, that's right. People WOULD laugh at us! All we can honestly say, is that there is a 'near certainty' that there are no gods. 'Faith' apparently is 100% (often 110%!) - There is no debating with some people... especially when they have a poor grasp of basic maths.

If there was an online version of the Alpha course. (I might suggest it) then I would definitely have a go. Maybe I will go to a session one day... :-)

Thought for the day... The really convincing story!

Let me get this right...

According to Catholics - there is this three in one god who impregnated a virgin so he could then be born and sacrificed himself on a cross to save his own creation from his own wrath. All because a woman, who was made out of a rib, surprised him (an all knowing-god) by being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magic tree. He then, temporarily, came back from the dead (being 'all-powerful' has advantages; the sacrifice wasn't permanent), we should all eat his flesh, drink his blood, talk telepathically to him whilst being constantly reminded we are all sinners (still!).
Failure to believe in this will result in a constant, unbelievable agony for eternity.

... yeah. Evolution is just soooo stupid.

I know there have been similar posts from other bloggers like this, but it feels good to remind ourselves what we are arguing against. (sigh)

Persuasion with violence (cont...)

I thought I'd make this a post rather than it getting lost in the depths of comments... :-)

The idea is a 'Hell' is possibly one of the reasons I do not believe in mythology over reason. Funny, when you consider it was such an effective technique in medieval times!

An 'all loving' god that has the capacity to create such a dreadful place? Now there's your problem.

Fortunately, I don't believe in 'Hell'. Unfortunately, theists do. And it's the theists that actually want me to go to Hell scare me.
Let's think about it... there are things in the world that I would not wish on my worst enemies. There are things that I would not wish on ANYBODY.

But there ARE theists who wish the obscene, violent, suffering of Hell on me for ever! At the very least, they think I will go there and they don't have a problem with it! That is just sick. And I really pity them. To be so twisted by what they believe to be right, they can see no wrong in any of their actions.

Ladies and gentlemen, a fine example of religious morality! (sigh) And this in a world where people are outraged about conditions in prisons! Where liberals campaign about suspected terrorists tortured in Guantanamo Bay to keep our countries 'safe'. But when it's religion... oh of course - burn the heathens and followers of false (depending on where you live) religions. Make them SUFFER!!!

But, to keep a sense of balance...
I have had conversations with (much nicer) christians who believe that 'Hell' is merely the absence of a god. And because I would never be embraced by his love, it would be 'hell' in comparison.
This is a considerably more pleasant approach than the 'fire and brimstone' bollocks I so often hear. But I do argue that the bible does make it quite clear about what will happen to the likes of me. It all depends on what percentage of the bible you consider an analogy, I guess. ;-)

Personally, and I say this as a parent of three very well behaved children and as a teacher, threats do not convince people to behave. Only by setting a good example, treating people fairly and with respect, will you have any chance of getting a message across.

Persusasion with violence. (Rape and religion?)

Well, I expect that this could be seen as inflammatory... ;-)

Imagine the situation where you have this powerful, charismatic person. He/she is adored by millions around the world and YOU have caught their attention. They want you to love them, to adore them, to fully obey their desires... but you are not interested. They try to persuade you more; you still want to be left alone. Feeling spurned, they get angry and threaten you. Not just mild threats, but threats of the most terrible violence imaginable - and the frightening thing is, you know they really mean it! No-one believes you - after all, you should be honoured but you insulted him/her so it is YOUR fault! You deserve to be treated this way...

Horrible isn't it?
But then I can play the 'analogy game'. ;-)

If that was a real situation, then you would sincerely hope that the perpetrator would be arrested. They are clearly insane, extremely dangerous and devoid of morals.

The point I'm trying to make (before theists accuse me of turning Jesus into a rapist) is that morally, how can you expect someone to give unconditional love, utter faith and devotion when the alternative is such an extreme level of punishment that far outweighs the 'crime'?
Surely the love of a god should be so great so that you could not possibly conceive not to love? Obviously not, since we have such a cruel and unusual punishment. Where is this free will? "Oh but you chose suffering." Yeah, obviously.

Maybe if there wasn't such a choice, I might have been agnostic. But since the bible so clearly personifies god with all these dysfunctional human failings, it makes me wonder if such a being could ever be worthy of my love.

Atheists finding god.

I now know of two people who have recently turned from a very strong atheist viewpoint to a full blown christian 'Dawkins is WRONG!" attitude.
Have they become better people? Hard to tell. I personally find their conversion irritating. And before I get a list of accusations from theists about what they believe I think - I shall explain.

Firstly, they were smart, intelligent people as atheists and they don't appear to have improved their moral stance since converting. One of them has become quite insufferable in fact due to their casual dismissal of scientific discoveries.

Secondly, they don't seem willing to explain why they are now christians. I would have thought they would be happy to share how they discovered the 'one true god'. (I assure you, I have not demanded that they explain themselves, or put them in a position of embarrassment.)

Thirdly, they simply dismiss any lack of evidence, historical errors or moral ambiguities as not important. They just believe. And that it seems, should be good enough for me.

Luckily for them, they have not attempted to claim the position of my moral better. Even they know that would be a VERY stupid mistake to make. ;-)

I am just extremely curious to know how they justified a U-turn in their thinking. It is especially important for me to know since I do 'look for god(s)' and to discover a real ex-atheist (I don't believe half the claimants on the web) it would be a great opportunity to see some real reasons for believing.

If I find out anything interesting, I'll let you know...

Proofs of a god. (Part 1 + Intro)

I'm no philosopher but I'm a freethinker and I enjoy having a philosophical debate with anyone.
And as an atheist (and scientist) I look for evidence to support either side of any argument. It's certainly not 'betraying' any atheist belief. I regularly adapt and improve on my moral stances and opinions as more evidence and experience presents itself.
For example, being a child in the 1970s, TV programs were quite happy to show ethnic minorities in a negative light. Shows like 'Mind Your Language' or 'Love Thy Neighbour' were family shows that I did find funny and formed my opinions of race. In hindsight, we now know them to be offensive and they would be rightly criticised if they were produced today.

I have decided to take time to look for evidence or proofs of a god's existence. I already know of several people who have converted to religion - some of them from a very staunch atheist opinion - and several who have made a choice based on what 'suits' them best. Naturally, I am curious as to what convinced them however I commonly find that they are either (1) embarrassed (2) reluctant (3) condescending (4) aggressive (5) simply unable to explain. Sometimes several combinations of that list.

I am going to do my own research. I did something similar in my early twenties and in all fairness, I think it is time for a review. It is quite possible that I may be convinced by the arguments. I may reject my atheistic viewpoint and possibly become agnostic. It could equally mean that I further reinforce my views. Can I be truly objective? I can only try. Even on a subconscious level I still have my ideas and thinking patterns.

As atheists, I believe we would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not question our 'non-beliefs' occasionally. ;-)


Proof 1: The Ontological Argument. (Summary)

Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
Premise 2: It is possible that God exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

This is Anselm of Canterbury's proof:

1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.

2. God exists in the understanding.

3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.

4. Therefore, God exists in reality

And not content with that, another one:

1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.

2. It is greater to be necessary than not.

3. God must therefore be necessary.

4. Hence, God exists necessarily.

There are quite a few others and if you are interested, look them up. But essentially, the summary is what is being said.

There are some interesting articles about this:
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1977), from Michael Peterson et al, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, (Oxford, 1996), p. 158.
He defends this argument quite rigorously.

But I can see a major flaw in this. This proof will allow ANYTHING to exist. Lo and behold, I have just conjured up a parrot with an IQ of 500. I have just done another one... a creator of gods!
Maybe I'm just being facetious here but this seems a pretty weak proof.
It is an assumption from the very start that attempts to justify itself in the following statements.

Platinga further argues that:
"it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise - that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."

The problem here lies in that it assumes it is an acceptable method of proof and claims that belief in a god is at the very least rational.
I'm sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree. (Hello, Your Noodleness!)

Many theologians deny this as a reasonable proof since it often creates scorn from both theists and atheists. But as a starting point for a theological discussion, I think it is a good start.

So at the end of the first proof, we have the idea that a god (whatever shape, form or existence) is possible. I don't believe it is rational. It would be considered irrational to believe in everything I could imagine. And I have a particularly vivid imagination!

So I would concede, a god is possible. Provided that theists concede that my ultra intelligent parrot is possible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible and many other imaginative constructs are indeed possible.

In whole, the purpose of this argument appears to be to create doubt in the atheist mind and supposedly allowing theists to then claim that they are now possibly an agnostic. Very sneaky! ;-)

I will finish with an alternative proof by Douglas Gasking:

1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

Further reading and in more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

As always, comments are welcome. :-)

Hindu funeral pyres

There is a debate that has now reached the British High Courts about whether a devout Hindu should be allowed to have an open funeral pyre for his death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7960489.stm
When words such as 'dignity' and 'human rights' are used, then it will invoke powerful emotions in all who take an interest. As a humanist and an atheist I can see different sides of the argument.

1) He sincerely believes that it will benefit him in the next life.
2) Open air cremations are an important part of Hindu culture.
3) There is currently no provision for an open air cremation.

I personally am not against the idea of an open air cremation. And Mr Ghai agrees that there should be regulation involved. But what does concern me is the argument used.

Religion. A religious right?

It seems that the religious trump card is being played again. Why should this have any bearing on the case?

Seriously. Think about it. Do you think I would stand a chance in court if I said that, "I am an atheist and I demand an open funeral pyre in accordance with my non-belief!"

Personally, I would LOVE a big fire (and fireworks) but I really don't think I would stand a chance in court. Mind you, if Mr Ghai gets his wish, then I think I might actually have a go... (Actually my inevitable death will be the subject of a future post.)

Good luck Mr Ghai, it DOES mean a lot to you and your family and, as we are a multi culture country, I sincerely hope that there will be a decision in your favour made in the High Court.

As of yet, no decision has been reached.

Racism and Jesus?

I missed this earlier.

The BNP (British National Party - Bunch of racist homophobes who have hijacked the British flag and claim persecution to their cause - IMHO) have set up a series of billboards with Jesus on it as a way of recruiting more christians!
BNP Article here. BBC opinion here.
This appears to be a direct retaliation from the General Synod who voted against allowing clergy to become a member of the BNP. (BTW - 10% of the Synod did not vote in favour of the ban, makes you wonder how morally secure they are!)
Link here.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. After all, I'm benefiting from it right now. I would even argue to allow the BNP their right to have a voice in politics. Just as I have the right to criticise and pull apart their opinions.
I just wonder if the BNP consider that they have the moral high ground? But then the bible does have very useful rules on how to treat your slaves, who you are allowed to persecute, what respect you should give others and details the eternal suffering for those who don't follow these ideals.
Some members of the church might even adopt the BNP as their poster boys! ;-)

Not very nice of me but...

Bit of a confession here, but I did take massive delight in seeing Spurs lose in the Carling cup. Even laughing at the despair on the fans and players. (Not that I really wanted ManUre to win either...)

It's strange that although I do believe myself to be a nice person, football and the emotions it fires up, turn me into quite an unpleasant person.

For example:
I mock other people's teams.
I take delight in their failings.
I gloat about successes.
I shout abuse about other teams.
I become single-mindedly obsessed about my team.

Hmm. You could almost say it is a religion! Heheheh.

Things I'm accused of... (Part 1)

Siding with the devil. Erm... Clearly not. If I don't believe in gods then I certainly wouldn't believe/ support one of their fictional enemies.

That I think too much about gods. Possibly. ;-) But they are fascinating stories! It's just when people take them as role models or use them as an excuse it fills me with despair.

That I don't treat religions with respect. Simple answer - they don't deserve it. Atheists are quite readily prejudiced against in the world (by religions) and there are no archaic 'unblasphemy laws'. There isn't even a word in the English language that shows 'offense to atheists'! (Time to start a campaign methinks...)

That I don't have faith. I have faith that all humans really want to be nice to one another. I have faith that my football team will win matches. Plenty of things in my life require no proof. Accepting that a supernatural power is in control is not one of them.

More to follow...