A few articles have made me chuckle this week. With all the furore surrounding Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, I found this article resonated well with my thoughts on fundamental atheism. Here we have a despicable, poisonous, racist, individual on a political debate show for the first time, but anyone who saw the programme will understand why support within the British public has increased. The man was berated. No policies were discussed, no constructive debate was encouraged, and Griffin was forced to spend the entire programme defending himself.
Are you listening, "new atheists"? You see what's happened there? Common opinion would be that the left wing were in the right, but the aggression and facetiousness with which the subject was handled has done them no good at all. This is how I see the aggression of fundamentalist atheists. It's exactly the same as evangelical Christians. If you try to force something down someone's throat, they will instinctively try to reject it. The choice of whether to be religious or not is an entirely personal one.
However, Christians, you don't get off lightly either. If you want to throw Hitler at atheists, we'd like to present you with Mr Griffin as your very own little Hitler.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Sunday, 4 October 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Morality vs Atheism
The suggestion from many Christians that a secular state would be dangerous due to the lack of an absolute morality is one that bugs me greatly. I find the argument entirely preposterous, and indeed damaging to the human psyche.
Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.
A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?
Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.
Contrast that with comments made by this lady:
Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?
Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.
In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.
Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.
A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?
Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.
Contrast that with comments made by this lady:
"Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian - it is what motivates me to care for others," she said.Am I the only person who finds that a little disturbing? A nurse, whose only motivation for caring for others is because of her Christian duty?
Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?
Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.
In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Where there's blame, there's a claim...
I think I've figured out where injury lawyers learned their trade- Exodus 21:12 onwards...
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Christianity vs Islam
Recently I have to admit that I have been everso slightly swayed by the Christian argument for the usefulness (note: not existence) of a deity. I don't buy into the morality argument, and I don't buy into any of the "evidence" that has been presented, but the way Zacharias and Robertson have presented the case for a world based on atheism is a strong argument for maintaining Christianity throughout the coming years. Of course their case is based on extremes such as Hitler, Stalin and other less humanistic individuals (typically internet writers and forum trolls that give atheists a bad name), but Dawkins, Harris et al. are all guilty of using the same technique against religion.
However, this video (also embedded below) causes me concern on two levels.
Firstly, and most horrifyingly, the complete and utter inaccuracy of the video. The statistics are completely unreliable and the video has clearly been produced by something that is not a "friendofislam" as their username suggest, but someone producing venomous propaganda against Muslims. The final words of the video are most chilling - "This is a call to action."
This causes me concern. The tone and content of the video suggest that it has been produced by Christians. Given the constant references to evangelism, I would suggest that the "call to action" is not a peaceful call. The tone is quite frightening and the message could be interpreted in several ways by our more extreme Christian friends. Likewise, extremist followers of Islam could decide to respond or even get the first strike in.
Secondly, this shows the strength of feeling about how the world is heading. Although wildly inaccurate, it is true that Muslims breed at a faster rate than other religions, and that as things stand, in time Europe will become a Muslim state. Zacharias makes a particularly concerning observation when he says
Without a positive stand taken sooner rather than later, further wars are inevitable. They will likely (in Britain anyway) be fought in the name of the country, in honour of our forefathers, and the right-wing will most probably lead the charge. Americans and their more patriotic nature will certainly not welcome Islamic changes, so race-wars are likely.
This is quite a scary mess that we're in.
However, this video (also embedded below) causes me concern on two levels.
Firstly, and most horrifyingly, the complete and utter inaccuracy of the video. The statistics are completely unreliable and the video has clearly been produced by something that is not a "friendofislam" as their username suggest, but someone producing venomous propaganda against Muslims. The final words of the video are most chilling - "This is a call to action."
This causes me concern. The tone and content of the video suggest that it has been produced by Christians. Given the constant references to evangelism, I would suggest that the "call to action" is not a peaceful call. The tone is quite frightening and the message could be interpreted in several ways by our more extreme Christian friends. Likewise, extremist followers of Islam could decide to respond or even get the first strike in.
Secondly, this shows the strength of feeling about how the world is heading. Although wildly inaccurate, it is true that Muslims breed at a faster rate than other religions, and that as things stand, in time Europe will become a Muslim state. Zacharias makes a particularly concerning observation when he says
Even now, Europe is demonstrating that its secular worldview... ...cannot stand the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ. History will prove before long the truth of this contention.Although I don't accept that the choice will be between Jesus Christ and Islam, I do feel that a stand needs to be made sooner rather than later. Of course this is unlikely to happen with the government's insistence in adopting every stupid bloody EU law without resistance. With Britain's stupidly polite nature we do what's asked of us without question. I don't intend to discuss the politics of the situation here, but herein lies my point- this is a political dilemma, not a religious one. Of course religion forms a part of politics, but church and state need to remain entirely independent of each other. Zacharias is right to point out the flaws in many atheists' proposed systems of morality, however the answer is not simply to place the big bandage of Christianity over what is more than a paper cut in the skin of our society. Yes, we need to make a stand and yes, we need to take assertive action - but that action needs to be decided upon in a democratic fashion. Christianity is full of holes- you cannot force people to believe. I'm willing to concede that proposed secularist methods are also full of holes, but these holes can be filled in through productive dialogue and changes in education.The End of Reason, p126-127
Without a positive stand taken sooner rather than later, further wars are inevitable. They will likely (in Britain anyway) be fought in the name of the country, in honour of our forefathers, and the right-wing will most probably lead the charge. Americans and their more patriotic nature will certainly not welcome Islamic changes, so race-wars are likely.
This is quite a scary mess that we're in.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Exodus
When I met David Robertson a few weeks back, one of the most prominent things that he said to me was that he thinks that everyone should read the bible. I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm now at Exodus and I find it more and intriguing with every page. I have found several significant weaknesses that I have yet to come across in any atheist writings (that's not to say that they haven't been addressed, more that I've probably just not read the right books yet), so I'm going to try to address some of them here. Let's start with Exodus 2:11
This is a huge hole in the bible, I'm surprised that I haven't come across it before.
But the big one for me is the constant referrals to the fact that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. This means that the actions of both Moses and his opponent were being controlled by God. Surely this means that life is predetermined and that actually we're just pawns in God's little game? I'm sorry, but I can't get with that. What actually happens is that lots of innocent people die in the name of their fathers/leaders and the proclaimed "message" from the story is actually null and void because no one has control over their own actions.
There is no doubt that parts of the Bible are a surprisingly good read, but as far as I have read so far, it's just a series of interesting stories with contradicting morals.
In those days, after Moses was grown up, he went out to his brethren: and saw their affliction, and an Egyptian striking one of the Hebrews, his brethren. 12 And when he had looked about this way and that way, and saw no one there, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.What? Seems a bit harsh to me. And what was God's reaction? To take Moses under his wing and use him as a messenger for his wonderous morals. Let's try Exodus 7:8
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: 9 When Pharao shall say to you, Show signs; thou shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharao, and it shall be turned into a serpent. 10 So Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharao, and did as the Lord had commanded. And Aaron took the rod before Pharao and his servants, and it was turned into a serpent. 11 And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians; and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain secrets, did in like manner. 12 And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron's rod devoured their rods. 13 And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had commanded.So we are supposed to believe that these miracles actually happened, when the documented evidence of the event also states that the Pharaoh employed magicians that can do the same? I mean, this isn't just a small-scale illusion that we're talking about, this is all of the Pharaoh's magicians turning their rods into snakes. You could almost forgive the suggestion that the people could be fooled/manipulated/enchanted if the act involved one magician performing an illusion, but all of the Pharoah's magicians?
This is a huge hole in the bible, I'm surprised that I haven't come across it before.
But the big one for me is the constant referrals to the fact that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. This means that the actions of both Moses and his opponent were being controlled by God. Surely this means that life is predetermined and that actually we're just pawns in God's little game? I'm sorry, but I can't get with that. What actually happens is that lots of innocent people die in the name of their fathers/leaders and the proclaimed "message" from the story is actually null and void because no one has control over their own actions.
There is no doubt that parts of the Bible are a surprisingly good read, but as far as I have read so far, it's just a series of interesting stories with contradicting morals.
Saturday, 25 July 2009
A letter to David Robertson (author of The Dawkins Letters)
First of all, I have to say that David Robertson is a lovely person and the most reasonable Christian I have ever met. The sarcasm/humour used in this email is in the spirit of the conversations I have had with him, it is not at all meant in an aggressive way. This email is here for reference, please feel free to comment.
Dear David,
I hope you are well and managed to get back to Scotland safely after your visit to Brighton a few weeks back. I wondered if you have had the chance to read the copy of Steve Taylor's The Fall yet? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on his comments about the early gatherer-hunters and the amicable ways of life pre-religion.
I have been reading the copy of Ravi Zacharias' The End of Reason that you gave me and I've found it very interesting. I'm afraid I'm still some way from being converted, but I have at least realised what frauds Dawkins and Harris are recently.
It's been a very interesting experience listening to you and reading the discussion from the "other side". I think some of my atheist friends are worried about me because I have a new-found sympathy for Christianity. I've made an effort to start reading the Bible and though I am a very slow reader (I'm currently at Genesis 28, and I started reading a month or so ago, but hey, at least it means I'm doing something useful while sat on the toilet), I'm starting to see how convincing it is. My problem thus far is that it's still all very convenient, and there's so little justification for so many of God's actions that I can't take it's moral structure seriously. Maybe that will change as I read through.
I'm also starting to believe that there's a significant middle ground here. I think previously I wanted to be an evangelist for atheism, but I think that was the effect Dawkins and Harris had on me. Though I still agree with a lot of what they have to say (i.e. I still don't believe that religion should be enforced on children), I'm more happy now to live and let live. Indeed, if atheism is to be successful in spreading then I think that is how it has to be. You said to me that only God can convert me to Christianity - no one else can do it. Well, I now think that only an individidual can convert oneself to atheism - through knowledge and understanding - because in my opinion, in atheism "God" is oneself. I think Zacharias makes a great point when he says
Your comment about your realisation that you are a bad person has also been resonating in my head lately. This is of course true for all people, religious or not, but something has been nagging away at me about that theory, I'm not sure what it is.
I'm not actually sure what I'm getting at here. I didn't intend to write this much but I'd be interested in your comments nonetheless. I've also been writing a blog: Love, Life and Reason which is more of a sketchpad for my thoughts. I may well post this email there for my own reference. I think this is what day sat on your own in your bedroom does to you...
Anyway, best wishes to you and your family. I do hope all is well.
Guy
Dear David,
I hope you are well and managed to get back to Scotland safely after your visit to Brighton a few weeks back. I wondered if you have had the chance to read the copy of Steve Taylor's The Fall yet? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on his comments about the early gatherer-hunters and the amicable ways of life pre-religion.
I have been reading the copy of Ravi Zacharias' The End of Reason that you gave me and I've found it very interesting. I'm afraid I'm still some way from being converted, but I have at least realised what frauds Dawkins and Harris are recently.
It's been a very interesting experience listening to you and reading the discussion from the "other side". I think some of my atheist friends are worried about me because I have a new-found sympathy for Christianity. I've made an effort to start reading the Bible and though I am a very slow reader (I'm currently at Genesis 28, and I started reading a month or so ago, but hey, at least it means I'm doing something useful while sat on the toilet), I'm starting to see how convincing it is. My problem thus far is that it's still all very convenient, and there's so little justification for so many of God's actions that I can't take it's moral structure seriously. Maybe that will change as I read through.
I'm also starting to believe that there's a significant middle ground here. I think previously I wanted to be an evangelist for atheism, but I think that was the effect Dawkins and Harris had on me. Though I still agree with a lot of what they have to say (i.e. I still don't believe that religion should be enforced on children), I'm more happy now to live and let live. Indeed, if atheism is to be successful in spreading then I think that is how it has to be. You said to me that only God can convert me to Christianity - no one else can do it. Well, I now think that only an individidual can convert oneself to atheism - through knowledge and understanding - because in my opinion, in atheism "God" is oneself. I think Zacharias makes a great point when he says
After years in the academy I have learned a trade secret: If you know enough about a subject, you can confuse anybody by selective use of the facts.I believe this is the essence of the problem in the Christianity/atheism discussion. The reason that I did not dismiss you (or Zacharias) as I would many other religious writers is because of your forthright honesty. Dawkins and Harris have proved themselves (in my eyes) to be deceiptful and manipulative. This makes me dislike them as much as the street preacher with the megaphone and lecture of how we're all going to hell.
Your comment about your realisation that you are a bad person has also been resonating in my head lately. This is of course true for all people, religious or not, but something has been nagging away at me about that theory, I'm not sure what it is.
I'm not actually sure what I'm getting at here. I didn't intend to write this much but I'd be interested in your comments nonetheless. I've also been writing a blog: Love, Life and Reason which is more of a sketchpad for my thoughts. I may well post this email there for my own reference. I think this is what day sat on your own in your bedroom does to you...
Anyway, best wishes to you and your family. I do hope all is well.
Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
