Siding with the other team

A rare one for you here - I'm going to side with the Christians for a moment. Take a look at this article:

Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned

I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.

I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.

The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.

This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".

The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.

Faith/Loyalty/Common Sense

This past week I had the pleasure (and I really do mean that) of meeting David Robertson, author of The Dawkins Letters. I have a lot to say on that, but I'm going to give that a miss for now as I'm in desperate need of some sleep. However, I have this to say:

The more I read, the more I hear, the more I see - the more I am convinced that following a religion, and indeed NOT following a religion, is like following a football team.

• You either follow the one your dad supports through family loyalty, or you rebel and choose another team just to wind him up
• You stick with the team no matter how good or bad they are
• Even when you don't like what's happening at your club, you stick by them because they are YOUR team
• On very rare occasions, when something happens to really test the patience, some people defect to another team
• Ultimately, that's your team and you will defend them with passion

From everything I've read, THIS is where everyone is going wrong when writing about religion and atheism. So much passion and so much good meaning, yet so little substance. I will no doubt fall foul of the same accusations as I write.

Dawkins is wrong. Robertson is wrong. Zacharias is wrong and Harris is wrong. And God knows that the bible is wrong (see what I did there?)

The tone is wrong, the argument is presented badly and we end up going around in one big circle. What is obvious is that at present there is no tangible answer, and there will probably never be one in your or my lifetime. But as human knowledge grows we are more likely to find the answers that we seek.

THAT is why I am an atheist.

And actually, not a lot else matters.