The Atheist Resistance

Return of The Resistance

2009-03-11T19:18:00.007+13:00

After a very long hiatus from writing while finishing my studies, The Atheist Resistance is back in action!

Today saw the start of a campaign to educate believers in the ways of science, by way of inserting 'extra pages' into literature that they're likely to read. The current information set is called Laws & Theories, and gives concise definitions of both terms. This print run was funded from the proceeds of The Atheist Resistance online shop, so big thanks are due to all those who have purchased stuff; I couldn't have done it without you.

The Laws & Theories insert is particularly relevant at the current time, given the recent Religion/Evolution conference held between a consort of Vatican officials and a number of prominent members of the scientific community.

I have a whole series of these planned, but in the meantime you can help by getting involved and inserting info at your local library or bookshop. The imprint is available for download here as an A4-sized PDF (464 kB) with three inserts per page.

Go to it!

Round Two: Fight!

2008-08-19T21:16:00.010+12:00

Today held two incredibly aggravating encounters. The first was in the form of David Round's column of bigotry and nonsense, but before I get to a critique of this week's article, I'll share with you the second encounter.

I went to my local video store to check out a DVD I'd spotted previously but hadn't had the chance to rent out. The title, "Enemies of Reason", presented by Richard Dawkins, is an exposé of the sham industries of astrology, homeopathy, psychics, spiritualist churches, etc. Luckily, it was available, so I plucked it from the shelf. As I presented my choice of DVD at the counter, and before I could say anything, I was halted in my tracks as the woman who was serving blurted out in a suspiciously defensive manner: "You know, this is very one-sided - I saw it and it has been edited to suit his side of the story". I was stunned; mouth literally agape. She had preemptively answered a question that I had no intent to ask her. I was already in a thoroughly angry state after having been outraged by David Round's newspaper article just prior, and was in no mood to deal with this. Barely containing myself, I left seething. I don't care for video store employees who publically pass judgement on my choice of viewing. Edited to suit Dawkins' point of view, eh? Well, since I'm perfectly capable of independent thought, I think I'll decide for myself once I've seen the programme.

Once again, someone with a religious or spiritual belief foists their view upon an unsuspecting victim where it wasn't asked for and was totally inappropriate. Once again, I am supposed to respect this person's beliefs as if all beliefs were equally valid, when they have no intention of reciprocating the act.

Speaking of which...

"You can't live without belief"
The Press, August 20th, 2008

"Wild Thing! You make my heart sing! You make eeeeeeeeeeeverything!"
Then, having caught the young lady's attention, the singer continues—hesitantly, sensitively—"Wild thing I, - think I love you."
You certainly have her attention now.
"But I've gotta know for sure!"
Well, that is not unreasonable.
"So c'mon, hold me tight."
Like this?
"I love you."

Was it really that simple? We can hardly believe our ears as we listen to the brisk simple steps of Wild Thing's courtship. But the old lines definitely worked. I might love you—hold me tight—no, really really tight—righto, now I do love you. Right now, anyway.

It's an old story, and a very true one.

No similar knowledge of human nature, however emerges from John Lennon's innocent and beautiful song 'Imagine'. I used to think the words were grandly noble, if impossible of realisation, but now I just think they are stupid. "Imagine there's no countries", he sings, "nothing to kill or die for—and no religion too—imagine no possessions—no need for grief or hunger in a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people living for today."

There are some internal contradictions in this blissful vision of earthly paradise. It would be neither wonderful nor possible, and attempts to create it disastrous . If people live for today, without thought of rewards and punishments in a future life, they would probably be more selfish, and more attached to material possessions as the only things which gave life meaning. They would be unlikely to share.

Only belief, which Lennon has forbidden, will get people to behave well. Belief moves all our actions. Belief can promote love as well as hatred. Love does not come naturally. If there is no belief—"nothing to kill or die for"—not even our own homeland, families and way of life—not even, as Macaulay says, "the ashes of our fathers and the temples of our gods"—then life is a very sorry business.

Everything is valueless. We would go mad.

Besides, we cannot avoid belief. We are build for it, and nature abhors a vacuum. Our choice is not between belief and disbelief, but only between wise and stupid beliefs. G. K. Chesterton said that the sad thing about atheists was not that they believed nothing, but that they would believe anything.

Every now and then someone shakes his head sadly at the betrayed bright promise and disappointed hopes of the 1960's. Here was a generation privileged as no other had ever been—educated, loved, healthy, free from the fears of war, hunger and want, ready and able to solve the world's problems. What happened?

Part of the answer was their confusion of the real and the ideal—their belief that people were, if not perfect, at least perfectible. Optimism is an endearing folly. But it can be a stupidity with dire consequences. If we are all naturally good, then effort is unnecessary. Let It Be. If only a little prod could get us to do without possessions and bring universal happiness, then can a prod be wrong? 'Imagine' is Pol Pot's spiritual theme tune.

There was an irritating series of liberating, uplifting thoughts entitled Love is in the 60's. Two plump happy twee little figures, male and female, shared love and happiness each week. Their most famous announcement was that "love means never having to say you're sorry".

That is fatuous. If you love someone, you are sorry when you hurt them. We imperfect human beings hurt the ones we love most dearly all the time. If we did not bother saying sorry, that would indicate that we just don't care.

New age apostles tell us of the destructive effects of guilt, and how much better off we would be if we could shake ourselves free of guilt altogether. This too if nonsense. Guilt is simply the knowledge that we've done wrong, and that we should do better.It is inseparable from our knowledge of good and evil. It is the voice of our conscience. It can be corrosive if carried to excess, but the usual problem is too little guilt rather than too much. A world without guilt would be a world of monstrous, cruel and ruthless egotists.

Ideas can be dangerous. Most dangerous of all, though, is a belief that we are still living innocently in Eden. We desire to return to Eden, but we are not there now. We have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We have fallen from grace; but in that fall, and our desire to return, is our humanity.

Round has the nerve to suggest that Chesterton is correct in claiming that atheists are stupid and gullible people who will "believe anything". Sure, I mean virgin conception and birth, miracles, resurrection, heaven and hell... No wait - aren't those Christian beliefs? But it's us atheists who are apparently the gullible ones. Yeah, right.

He also has the nerve to take a swipe at the "internal contradictions" of a John Lennon song. Ever read the Bible, Dave? If you were looking for internal contradictions, there's no place like home.

Round glibly wonders what happend to the spirit of the 60's. Well, Dave, it was destroyed by conservatives, capitalists, christian moralists, republicans... In short, people like you. In Round's view, it was apparently wrong of people in the 60's to actually try to build a better world, where we tolerate each other and love each other for what we are. Bizarrely, Round later laments that we have been unable to reach an earthly Eden. Having missed the swinging 60's by 20 years, I can't claim to have any first-hand knowledge, but from what I've seen and observed, the 60's were if nothing else a pretty good attempt at creating one.

Divisionism is the principal theme here. On one hand, Round rues selfishness, alienation and materialism, but on the other, he wants us all to fight for our own race, families, countries, and beliefs against the evidently evil "other".

Familiar examples of actions guided by beliefs (faith-based initiatives?) could be, say, the Crusades (spreading the 'Good News'), or the Inquisitions ("confess or die"), or the Salem witch trials ("that woman acts/looks different - she must be a witch: burn her"), or any of the other witch trials, or the near-continuous religious civil wars that divided Britain and Europe ("keep that Papist/Orange monarch off the throne!") for centuries.

The weasly, law-trained side of Round is in fine form, too. He manipulates his language to make patently unflattering implications about atheists.

Things I have consistently noted with Round, as with other bigots I have encountered, are the use of selective interpretation, negative association and connotation, redefinition of terms, changing the sense of terms, context-shifting, stereotyping, misrepresentation, fallacious arguments, deliberate confusion, ambiguity. In other words, nothing short of logical fraud.

Round believes that if we are not prepared to engage in perpetual warfare to maintain tradition and past beliefs, then "Everything is valueless" and therefore "We would go mad". In my view as an atheist, of course there is no inherent meaning in anything. Meaning is a subjective interpretation placed on an object, event or process by human observers. There may be agreement between observers, but this is irrelevant. Critically unexamined belief is simply assertion, and carries negligible value. Fundamentally there is no meaning. The difference between atheists and believers is that atheists have the fortitude of mind and the sense to accept this; believers do not, and must prop themselves up with notions of an external figure or force which acts as a parent substitute. The fear of losing this bond—its pre-provided 'meaning'—and "going mad", prevents believers from breaking free of their ridiculous superstitions, even in the face of evidence that their beliefs are not consistent with reality.

Key Appointment

2008-07-20T17:35:00.003+12:00

I seem to recall that one of the fundamental commandments is "Thou shalt not worship false idols". So who does this guy think he is? Millions of people travel from all over the globe to listen attentively to him. He gets to ride around in a specially constructed armoured car, because his life is obviously of more value than others'. A group of bodyguards surround him and keep watch over him 24 hours a day. He was apparently appointed by the highest authority that exists. He even has his own little country. Most recently, he called for people to leave their "spiritual deserts", to abandon materialism and greed and to come join his flock.

His name is Josef Ratzinger. He is just a guy. He could be anybody: you; me; the person standing in line directly behind you. He is not special. He has been put into power by a group of his cohorts who have no real authority over anyone, but claim to be higher up in the food chain than everyone. And being worshiped by millions of people makes him a false idol.

I certainly applaud his condemnation of greed and materialism, but can't help notice that he says this while dressed in the finest hand-made fitted garments and is waited on hand-and-foot. I'd wager he doesn't want his flock to stop tithing.

I encourage christians to abandon their "mental deserts", to embrace education and rationality.

Oh, and you need not worship me. I am appointed by no one. I'm just a guy, and am no better than you.

Round One: Fight!

2008-07-11T15:43:00.015+12:00

Words cannot express my anger with Press columnist David Round. In this week's article, as in previous articles, he continues to peddle his poison of self-righteous christian moral supremacy over rational thinkers. Round's profile on the Press website shows that he "teaches environmental law and issues in legal philosophy at the University of Canterbury" and is "also a keen tramper and amateur naturalist". Being trained in the law has obviously given him the idea that the truth is somewhat flexible, able to be bent to the will of skilled manipulators. The nature of proof and implications are attacked in his current jumble of fallacious conclusions.

"Atheism just plain destructive"
- The Press, July 8th, 2008

In the early 17th century, the learned James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, calculated that God's creation of the universe began on the evening preceeding October 23, 4004 BC. Other learned and pious men, including even Sir Isaac Newton, calculated slightly different dates. I disagree with them all. Of course, the Earth is immeasurably older, and life developed from the simplest primaeval forms as the theory of evolution describes. I am not a creationist.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but have some sympathy for creationists. For one thing, political correctness obliges us to respect every other religion's beliefs, however absurd. It would be very insensitive to cast public doubt or scorn on some of the remarkable events of Mohammed's life, for example. We are even obliged to ignore the Koran's numerous injunctions to wage war on unbelievers. A strong lobby group wants "Maori science" taught in schools. It is unfair that our own ancestral beliefs, however picturesque, are publically derided when not a word may be said against others.

Evolution and Christianity are actually perfectly compatible . The Catholic Church, for example, has long officially accepted the theory of evolution as a valid possible description of how life developed on Earth . The Church's most recent catechism readily acknowledges that "many scientific studies have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man".

The Book of Genesis does not contradict what science tells us. At the beginning of God's creation there was chaos. Stars — the sun — and planets first appeared, then the seas and dry land. Plants came, and sea-creatures; then land animals and last of all man himself. This is a scientifically accurate sequence. Genesis does not read exactly as a science textbook, but that is not the Bible's chief purpose. Genesis was written for a simple pastoral people in a pre-scientific age . Within that context its poetic account of creation is perfectly acceptable .

The second reason for my sympathy with creationists is that the theory of evolution is regularly misused as an argument for atheism.

Evolution is perfectly compatible with the existence of God . Scientists themselves cannot tell us what happened at the moment of the "Big Bang" , nor describe what, if anything preceded it. If there was nothing before that moment, then the universe somehow came into existence out of nothing in an truly marvellous manner. If something did exist before then, then we are back where we started in wondering where that earlier material came from. The origin of life out of inorganic matter are equally mysterious. It is perfectly possible, to say the least, that some incomprehensible life force, call it what we will, has accompanied, prompted and guided the development of the universe. At the very least science cannot disprove the existence of such a life force . It remains a plausible hypothesis .

Evolution tells us that all life, including even the most highly developed creatures, is descended from the primaeval protoplasm. Somehow all life's incredible richness and variety was contained in, or at least has flowed from , that tiny, sluggish ancestor. Why should this happen all by itself? May not some force have impelled it? Science can describe life, but cannot explain it. Why should these organs, these cells, these compounds and molecules behave as they do? How can a tiny seed somehow become an enormous tree? Science can tell us the chemistry, but can go no further .

Leave that point aside. At the very least, God and evolution are compatible. Evolutionists may fancy that their theory makes God unnecessary, but it still does not make him impossible. Yet evolution is constantly misrepresented as being the "dethroning of God" . Correspondents to this very paper have claimed that evolution "proves" that God does not exist; that life arose entirely by chance on this remote planet (remote from where?), and has no purpose or meaning .

Evolution proves no such thing. But when misused to deny God's existence it is inevitably discredited in the eyes of those who see God at work in the world . The atheistsic argument is also environmentally highly dangerous. If all life arose by chance and is without value or purpose, then why should we preserve it? The good christian believes that to render a species extinct is to spit in the face of the Creator; an atheist can have no such rational objection. In its denial of meaning and its crude determination to see nothing but physical material, atheism is as destructive of environmental sanctity as it is of social responsibility . Scientists once sought to understand God's mind. Now in their pride they attempt to usurp His Throne. Such unworthy human motives discredit their investigations.

After being subjected to this little orgy of hatred and bigoted nonsense, I am obliged to provide an analysis.

First, it is obvious that Round is a committed christian, even though he tries to distance himself from hardcore creationists — a sensible, or perhaps calculated, move on his part. In doing so he is flying in the face of the majority of adherents to his chosen faith, the members of which are the principal opponents of evolution. His belief in 'god' persists, notwithstanding.

The article starts off in moderation and facetiously diplomatic tones, but Round shows his true colours by the end, where he relapses into ranting and drawing unfounded conclusions about the atheist stereotype he has constructed for himself.

Although Round sets himself up in the second paragraph as magnanimously tolerant of other belief systems, his not-so tacit implication is that other systems of belief (including atheism) are wrong, and do not deserve to be tolerated. Of course, he doesn't entertain that his own beliefs could be seen to be absurd by others. In the same paragraph he claims that it is "unfair that our own ancestral beliefs (i.e. christian beliefs. -ed), however picturesque, are publically derided when not a word may be said against others". This is simply and demonstrably untrue. For example, there is plenty of open condemnation of islamic fundamentalism, as well criticism of Sharia law. Cults like scientology are also regularly criticised, or at least noted, for their secrecy, murky financial dealings and pseudo-scientific claims. In any case, the way christians are talked about doesn't even begin to compare to the vitriol with which atheists are publicly vilified and derided, as typified by Round's article. It happens that christianity is a major religion in New Zealand. Many church leaders and believers happen to be vocal and outspoken on various issues that arise in society, and use every opportunity to espouse their beliefs. It cannot be expected that they are never challenged on their assertions. As I have said in previous posts, religions, including christianity, deserve no special immunity from investigation, challenge, and criticism.

Round then states that "[e]volution and Christianity are actually perfectly compatible". I agree, to the extent that the process of evolution is unaffected by whether a christian believes it is happening or not. In this way, satanism, zen buddhism, judaism and every other -ism is compatible with evolution. Beliefs have no material effect on the validity of evolution. It is also true that the Catholic church "has long officially accepted the theory of evolution as a valid possible description of how life developed on Earth". As we all know, the Catholic Church haven't always felt this way about science and even today, in the modern age, only half-heartedly assents to tolerate science: It has no choice, now that the general public have access to education and the church must compete for minds. As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and pretend that this justifies your continued existence while clinging to the remnants of your shattered faith".

Another commendable position Round takes is on the Bible. "Genesis was written for a simple pastoral people in a pre-scientific age" and "[w]ithin that context its poetic account of creation is perfectly acceptable", he tell us. Here is an acknowledgment that the bible - the source of christian wisdom and the justification for their beliefs - cannot be taken at face value and is subject to interpretation. Questions regarding how much of the Bible is "poetic" in nature, and the contexts in which the Bible are valid, are left as an exercise for the reader.

It is difficult to see how it can be claimed - as Round does - that evolution is misused as an argument for atheism. The fact is that it is one of the strongest arguments for it. This is because it has been shown that evolution does occur, and is an entirely mundane, natural process. One could wonder why an allegedly omnipotent supernatural creator would bother with starting such a process when presumably endowed with the ability to create life in its final, complete and fixed form.

Atheists get a brief reprieve as Round turns his attention to scientists and science, getting into the dangerous position of equating the possible with the probable; "It is perfectly possible, to say the least, that some incomprehensible life force, call it what we will, has accompanied, prompted and guided the development of the universe. At the very least science cannot disprove the existence of such a life force". This is the realm of Bertrand Russel's teapot. It must be explicitly stressed that anything which is unknown is exactly that - unknown. Just because a phenomenon can't be explained currently does not give a speculator free reign or license to apply any arbitrary explanation to it. Unknown means "unresolved" or "indeterminate", not "the work of god". (This is but one possibility, not the sole possibility, nor necessarily the most likely possibiliy.)

The next assumption made about evolution is that "science can tell us the chemistry, but can go no further". This actually contains two assumptions; that there is a "further", and that science should be able to provide some insight into whatever that may be.

Then in the penultimate paragraph, Round cannot contain himself any longer. He sulks about the "dethroning" of 'god' by "misrepresenting" evolution, as if this is an attack on himself personally. He seems indignant that others can claim "that life arose entirely by chance on this remote planet ... and has no purpose or meaning". This is at least as valid an assertion as any advanced by christians.

Finally, the last paragraph is a ragged mess. "When [evolution is] misused to deny God's existence it is inevitably discredited in the eyes of those who see God at work in the world". A more accurate statement might refer to such people as 'those who believe that they see God at work in the world'. Here again, 'god' is assumed to exist. Clutching at straws, from nowhere he pulls out the atheists-are-just-evil card: "The atheistsic argument is also environmentally highly dangerous". Pardon me? The warped reasoning behind this bizarre statement is that the (stereotypical) atheist obviously believes life is worthless and that there is no point in preserving it: "The good christian believes that to render a species extinct is to spit in the face of the Creator; an atheist can have no such rational objection". Apart from the blunt implication that 'only christians are good - therefore anyone who is not a christian is not good', this is nothing but bigotry, since atheists can posit any of the following objections to the extinction of species: Firstly, to lose something so inherently beautiful and unique is a cause for sadness; Second, diversity - wherein nature derives strength - is diminished; Third, the balance of the lost species' ecosystem is irreversibly changed, and this will have many adverse effects. No doubt there are more objections which could be raised. In the dying fits of the article: "In its denial of meaning and its crude determination to see nothing but physical material, atheism is as destructive of environmental sanctity as it is of social responsibility". Yet another thing that atheists are responsible for. Next, Round will be accusing atheists of sodomizing sheep and eating babies...
Round's last gasp of hatred is reserved for turn-coat scientists who "once sought to understand God's mind. Now in their pride they attempt to usurp His Throne. Such unworthy human motives discredit their investigations". What throne? Pride has nothing to do with science, except perhaps the satisfaction and pride in discovery and rational thought. Thankfully, Round's insensible ranting ends here.

To summarize the assumptions Round makes: God exists; we are not worthy of god and should worship him; scientists are malevolents to be viewed with disdain and suspicion; as are atheists; all atheists are also nihilists; only christians are good.

One cannot help but feel that Round has misunderstood the point of science. To restate, science is the process of unveiling reality. The reason for scientific method and process is to independently establish what is correct, and what is not, based on testing hypotheses by observing the outcomes of controlled trials.

Atheism is simply the conclusion arrived at by considering all the scientifically admissable evidence available at the current time and taking the balance of probabilities - a concept Round should be familiar with. Atheism is also the result of a revolt against tyranny of unexamined thought and dogma.

Nothing in his article supports or justifies its title.

NOTE: At the time of posting this, Round's article is unavailable at the Press website. I would expect that it will be available within the week.

Update: Original article now available here.

Double the Resistance

2008-05-22T22:30:00.004+12:00

Another Atheist Resistance! Over at atheistresistance.org, that is...

It's great to see more and more atheists standing up for what they rightly believe in.

Watch this space for further developments.

Tolerance

2008-02-21T12:57:00.005+13:00

This morning I happened to be reading some news websites I regularly visit, where I came across three articles of interest. Together, these articles got me thinking about the nature of tolerance.

The first concerned an Israeli ultra-orthodox jewish MP making a bizarre claim that the legalisation of homosexuality in Israel causes earthquakes in the region. A laughably crazy notion at best, it shows the not-so-subtle hatred that this man has for homosexuals, stemming from his religious beliefs.

The second article I happened upon regarded an objection to the presence of banks and other companies at the University of Canterbury's Orientation week. Of course, the protest was being made by the campus Christian Union president Paul Denmead, since his group were not allowed to attend to disseminate leaflets. This is the case because there is a seperate day assigned to campus clubs and groups for this specific purpose. The Christian Union wished to attend both. Not that this limits their activities or visibility on campus: when I attended UoC, I remember on one occasion walking by the main library, where the Christian Union were massed, having placed a giant white cross on the steps. Other students have relayed to me their experiences of being surprised by the Giant White Cross at other times. I do agree with Denmead's point regarding the exploitation of students for the benefit of the University and business, but his ulterior motive is obvious. Notably, during at least one previous Orientation the CU were asked to leave after reportedly harassing students trying to complete the enrolment process.

The third article was about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's statement that "freedom of speech must respect religion", in the wake of the re-publishing of offensive cartoons in the Danish press. Again, while I agree that this act was totally unnecessary, and undeniably offensive towards the Islamic faith, it must be stated that religion deserves no special immunity from examination, analysis and criticism where due.

In my opinion, this particular act was crass and designed only to raise the ire of muslims. It had no critical value, serving only to divide the community further by reinforcing totally false stereotypes about muslims and the prophet Mohammed. Now, ridicule is a weak form of argument, if it counts at all. I readily admit to having made use of it myself in the course of debating various points. However, I try to make use it carefully, only where it is appropriate and justifiable; a valid point can be made in a witty way. The Danish cartoons, though, strike me as juvenile and dangerously misinformed.

It constantly irks me that we are encouraged to be tolerant of people's religious beliefs, yet it seems that religious folks—christians in particular—are under the impression that they have no such obligation towards the rest of us. In my experience talking with christians, muslims, hare krishnas and other individuals with a multitude of beliefs, christians would appear to be the only group who have been consistently judgemental, intolerant and disrespectful.

Tolerance is a funny thing.

Encounter With a Rational Fellow

2007-12-13T18:26:00.000+13:00

It was with great surprise and excitement that I noticed a fellow passenger reading Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great" yesterday while on the bus home. I was so heartened to be able to strike up a conversation with someone who shared the same views on religion.

He echoed my wish to see religion dismantled for the benefit of everyone, and agreed that more needed to be done at early stages of education to prevent religious indoctrination of children. He suggested restricting Sunday School attendance to children over a certain age, where they had developed better reasoning skills.

We noted the recent founding of yet another christian "traditional-family-values-oriented" political party in New Zealand, and the political influence that religious groups are trying to exert over the populace. He also shared my beliefs that there are far more people who are sick of being hammered with religious nonsense than religious adherents would have us believe; that religion deserves no special immunity from criticism; and that the internet may be where the galvanisation of atheists will lead to real action in the real world on a large scale.

I grinned, and told him I was working on the problem.

Christian's Op-Ed Lacks Sense

2007-11-05T22:12:00.000+13:00

Last week I was forced to take a break from my studies to respond to an op-ed piece in The Press which raised my ire. Local pastor John Stringer decided that he should air his views on Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" (several month late I might add), and ham-fistedly segues into a vain attempt to belittle atheism as unpopular.

Also in the same edition, a perplexing letter to the editor appeared, obviously from a christian with some kind of axe to grind.

Both are reproduced here in full. The original op-ed can be found here on The Press website.

Atheists beat familiar drum - The Press, Wednesday, 31 October 2007

The prominence of atheistic views is failing to convince the masses against religious beliefs, writes JOHN STRINGER.

The bovver boys of atheist nay-saying are at it again. The latest international atheist golden boy, Richard Dawkins, flush from successful international sales of his recent book The God Delusion, has upped the ante on us wafer munchers and cross clutchers.

It's nothing new, of course. The church and Christian and Jewish belief in a monotheistic God have endured this kind of playground collar-tugging and name-calling for more than 3000 years. From pharaohs not getting the hint from gnats, boils, locusts and frogs, to the Roman Caesars (until Constantine's dream) to Karl Marx's famous "religion is the opium of the people" one-liner in his 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, religion has been fair game.

It is, of course, blamed for war and all the social ills of our times, including paedophilia, ignorance, hatred, homophobia and intolerance. Where are some fresh lions when you need them?

The atheist retinue pride themselves on superior intelligence, sophistication and a certain logic. But that is where I've always found the likes of Brian Edwards, Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Christopher Hitchens somewhat incongruous. Atheism seems to define itself entirely in relation to something that isn't; and atheist champions seem to talk an awful lot about God to the point of preoccupation, which would seem to be oxymoronic.

How can God, for example, be "a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, infanticidal, megalomaniacal and sado- masochistic" (Dawkins as quoted in The Press, Oct 17) when he's not there? It beggars belief ... and unbelief. Dawkins owes a lot to God. Without him, sales of his book might have to be immaculately conceived. One wonders if he's flicked God a royalty cheque of late.

These outspoken atheists and their disciples seem to have an almost pathological obsessive hatred of the Big Fella, their academic diatribes fuelling a reactionary debate, which the media lap up. Conflict is the opium of the media.

Atheism is a relatively recent philosophical phenomenon. By far the majority of humans throughout history, ancient and modern, have accepted the existence of God or gods. The word derives from the French "atheisme" ("without theos") of about the 1570s.

Atheism grew, in divergent forms, with the rise of modern scientific scepticism and the open criticism of religion encouraged by the Protestant Reformation, itself a religious movement.

The germination of modern atheism can perhaps be linked back to early Hindu atheist schools and Theravada Buddhism, and even earlier to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophies of thinkers like Diagoras (the "first atheist"), Critias (the violent tyrannical politician uncle of Plato) and Democritus (who came up with the idea of the atom), among others. Where Christianity has actively formed and influenced modern politics (from Christians within the courts of the Caesars, the Roman army, to the Caesarian edicts of the early 300s outlawing persecution of minorities) liberty, and in general terms, open and transparent society have flourished.

Atheism has a less than wholesome track record as a quality philosophical foundation for civil life.

In the few countries where atheism has been actively practised (the only state to officially outlaw religion was Albania under Hoxha after World War 2 until the 1980s, Stalinist Soviet Russia and Mao Zedong China and Mongolia), the prevailing culture has been one of repression, tyranny and economic stagnation.

Despite that, however, the citizens of these nations have embraced religion, particularly Christianity. Professors of a Shanghai university have estimated that between 40 and 100 million Chinese worship as Christians and that 31.4% of the Chinese population consider themselves religious.

In Russia, a report on religious freedom by the US State Department estimated 85% of Russians in 2006 considered themselves Christian, including Russian Orthodox Christian. The Slavic Centre for Law and Justice says there are about 3500 Protestant church organisations in Russia alone.

At the time, belief in God – certainly among ordained ministers – was something of a requirement.

Today it is fashionably correct among many denominational clergy not to believe in God, which must make hymn singing uncomfortable at moments.

Richard Dawkins might blow a lot of smoke, but in the end the masses of humanity are not inhaling.

Graffiti tels truth - The Press, Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Our lives are predicated on our physical and intellectual world following laws that are observable, predictable and stable. We build everything on this foundation. The alternative is chaos.

Scintists such as Richard Dawkins assume that they are rational creatures, examine their world, conclude it has irrational origins and then declare belief in God to be irrational and themselves the paragons of reason. It takes your breath away.

Atheism is the ultimate offence against bothe reason and the heart, and we need not drown in philosophical complexities to grasp this simple truth. The logical extension of evolutionary thought is no more eloquently expressed than by our oung street-wise philosophers in their contemporary maxim—life sucks. It is written in their graffiti.

With what presumption does science dismiss all realities other than that which can be verified by their own instruments?

- Milton Heyward, Shirley

These were, of course, red rags to a bull. My response was to write back:

It was with disgust that I read John Stringer's article and Milton Heyward's letter in yesterday's Press. The views presented therein were nothing short of willful ignorance and ill-deserved smugness.

If atheists seem preoccupied with the question of God, perhaps it is because vocal theists like Stringer are continually bashing us over the head with the "we say God exists, therefore God exists" vein of circular reasoning. We atheists are merely rebutting the position advanced by theists like him. Such rebuttal is only based on centuries of methodically gathered scientific evidence, thoroughly scrutinised, cross-checked, and tested; that's all. To date, nothing we have discovered by these highly consistent means has implied the need for the existence of a 'God'.

What both Stringer and Heyward are attempting to do is to equate public opinion with the truth: How can so many be wrong? By this logic, the Germans under Nazi rule were quite justified in murdering millions of Jews, civillians and allied servicemen, since the Nazi ideology was popular in Germany at the time. See the problem here?

Stringer also blames atheism for "repression, tyranny and economic stagnation" in Russia under Stalin and China under Mao. Here the blame is misplaced: It is the removal of freedom of belief that is the cause of the resultant protest regarding belief, not the particular belief espoused. It must be mentioned that mandatory belief is exactly what theists like Stringer and Heyward dream of - except that it's their absurd systems of belief they'd like us all to swallow.

Surely Mr. Stringer must be joking when he speaks of 'open and transparent' societies founded upon christianity. Any oppression atheists are accused of pales in comparison to the centuries of brutal torture, witch hunts, crusades, inquisitions (yes, inquisitions plural; there have been many christian inquisitions - the Spanish inquisition alone lasted more than 300 years), fear-mongering, sectarian violence, etc., that religious leaders would rather were all swept under the carpet. All done in the name of an allegedly loving and just God.

Milton Heyward asks with what "presumption" does science dismiss other 'realities'. There's no presumption here: the straightforward answer to this is that the only reality we can know is this one - the one we physically inhabit. Anything else is unknown. If Heyward prides himself on "[predicating his] physical and intellectual world following laws that are observeable, predictable and stable", then he has no reason to believe in a supposed supernatural entity which (if indeed it does exist as they claim) displays none of the above characteristics.

As Thomas Jefferson - an early freethinker - put it, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty". He could very well have been referring to religious despotism versus liberty of thought. The worldwide rifts caused by religions are a millstone around the collective necks of humanity. It is time for theists to grow up, and move on.

My letter wasn't printed, although I had forseen this, as it is well over the 150 word target expressed by the Press. Even so, I could not let this outrage go unattended, and feel much better for having done so.

Long Time No Update

2007-09-08T17:27:00.000+12:00

I am aware that I have not posted here in some time - apologies. My studies, family and work have taken precedence, but rest assured, I am still working to oppose the influence of religion at large.

I'd really like to thank everyone who has shown their true colours by purchasing an Atheist Resistance t-shirt; 15 people worldwide (not including myself) have taken up the call to demonstrate their dedication to reality and rationalism. There are people from Alaska, California, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, the UK, Italy, New Zealand and Australia who are wearing symbols of resistance. Your contributions are being put towards the building of dedicated web resources for free-thinkers.

Meanwhile, current work in progress includes a complete destruction of the Ontological Argument. This is simmering on the back-burner at the moment, but I'm a good way into it and there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Stay Tuned!

Tag - I'm It!

2007-06-29T00:18:00.001+12:00

It would appear that Beast from Atheist Haven has Meme-tagged me: this is a first for me, so here goes...

The rules for meme tagging are as follows:

We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.

Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.

People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.

At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.

Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

Here are my random facts:

I celebrated my ninth anniversary about two weeks ago, even though I'm not married (the government, however, technically considers me married); my girlfriend and I have been together for longer than the time it takes for some people to meet someone, fall in love, get married, and divorced.

I have (luckily) never broken a bone in my body. I've had plenty of other injuries including severe ligament damage, losing entire fingernails, cuts requiring stitches, concussion, and have one major and one minor operation under my belt.

I have a great deal of difficulty keeping my natural body clock in sync with the rest of society's demands. I rarely get enough sleep; my ideal 'day' would be 30-36 hours long. I plan to implement this if I ever become a writer proper.

My parents gave me a great cultural and social education. They took me to art galleries, museums, science exhibits, parks, films, places of historical interest, libraries, lectures, shows, and plays. And four countries. They did all this with very little money.

I love mustard, wasabe and black pepper, which my girlfriend can't eat, yet she can eat raw chillies and burning hot vindaloo that would kill me.

I have an explosive temper and razor sharp tongue, which sometimes I am too quick with, to my own detriment.

I blog using Firefox on Kubuntu Linux. I've been using Linux for about five years now, and thoroughly recommend Kubuntu (or Ubuntu) as a great way to get started using Linux.

Coffee is gradually eating away my insides. But hey, if you have to die, it might as well be from something you enjoy.

The following blogs deserve your attention (and haven't been tagged yet I hope). In no particular order:

Atheist Girl

Rideo, Ergo Sum

The World According to The Chocolate Monkey

A Doug Cress Production

Marissa Beck

Godless Kiwi

Life, The Universe & Everything

Alicia's Ramblings

Ithankyouandgoodnight.

Negligent Beliefs

2007-06-10T21:43:00.000+12:00

In the course of thinking about my views as an atheist, I realised that I needed to actually quantify and qualify the reasons for my beliefs; in particular, why I believe that religion is ultimately a bad thing for humanity.

All the reasons I could think of relate to how a person makes decisions. Given that a decision made now affects the future, it is essential to have a sound premise from which to base the decision; to do otherwise is total folly.

Religion prevents adherents from seeing the world as it really is, by presenting a palatable fiction for those who are incapable of dealing with reality. In addition, religious leaders make extensive use of scare tactics and perceived threats—both veiled and overt—in order to obtain compliance.

It is immoral to present the views commonly espoused in religion as the 'truth' with which people are to make critical judgements and decisions that have real-world consequences, especially because the 'truth' in the claims has not been—indeed, cannot be—firmly established.

Religion discourages critical thinking. This blind acceptance, or faith, is a matter of course in indoctrinating adherents.

Religions are inconsistent with each other: there are many religious belief systems which present radically different viewpoints and histories. Claims by each group of exclusive knowledge of the 'truth' can only be divisive.

Religion is inflexible: when a view which contradicts religious belief is found to be correct, adherents feel personally threatened, and this leads to denial, retreat and self-deception.

Religious leaders are free to arbitrarily change their dogmas. Take for example the Catholic Church's abolition of the concept of limbo. Science is not free to make such arbitrary reversals.

Now, when the world is facing many crises (such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of fish stocks, disease, and general poverty), our discourse must be rational and logical decisions must be made. Religion leads us away from these things by inducing delusions of safety. We must use reason if we are to truly advance humanitarian, social and environmental causes.

Atheism 2, Religion 0

2007-04-30T18:07:00.000+12:00

Today I had an interesting encounter with two christian women. They stopped me in the street, and did the familiar "Would you take a minute to answer a question?" spiel. Always up for the challenge, I obliged.

The younger of the two started off talking about where we go when we die (either heaven or hell, of course), and mentioned that since we are free to make our own choices, we can choose to 'ask God to forgive our sins' so that we can go to heaven, else spend eternity of pain and suffereing blah blah blah in the fiery lake of 'hell'. I dutifully listened to her tell me all about her recent discovery of Jeezuz by way of a life altering experience, which she declined to elaborate on, and was all rather vague.

I was unimpressed. So I decided to make some more specific enquiries: "What about all the people who were alive before the time of Jeezuz?" I asked, "Did they all end up in this 'hell' because they could not possibly have learned from the teachings of Jeezuz or the bible?" Her answer was rather suprising. "Hades", she said. I was mystified. Wasn't Hades a part of Classical Greek mythology? "No, there's hell, and then there's hades." How convenient. "And- and Jeezuz died on the cross for your sins..." she rattled off, "-he was the son of God, and he could cure sickness and restore sight and heal the lame-". At this point, I sensed that she was getting out of her depth, and irritated with me testing her claim. She called in the older woman for assistance. The older woman proceeded to give me another vague story about an 'out-of-body experience' she had in her younger days, and how '[her] soul had looked down to see [her] body beside it'. Okay...

I considered my position. "Where do you stand on evolution?" I probed. Their response this time was one of genuine incredulity- "Do you actually believe that we could have come from, say, tadpoles?" was the younger woman's retort. I said that yes, I did. She really was astounded, and asked me "where do we come from, then?"

"Amino acids. I'm not a biologist so I don't know all the mechanics of it."

"So how do you know?"

"It's called extrapolation, based on the available physical evidence", I said. She looked confused, so I explained the concept of extrapolation to her. I don't think she got it, and she got quite snarky from that point on.

"Then what would be the purpose of being alive?" she asked me, crossing her arms. I told her that I didn't believe there was one. She could not comprehend this, or the fact that I was so comfortable with it.

Other notable utterances were that 'the bible is a historical document' and was the 'direct word of God', despite my insistance that the bible contradicts itself in many places, portrays acts which are not physically possible, and was compiled over hundreds of years by various people, most of whom had no contact with the man Jeezuz himself. Add to that the numerous translations and revisions it has undergone... You get the picture. She looked hurt and desparate.

The situation deteriorated, and both women tried to bring their unsuccesful conversion to an end. The younger woman handed me a leaflet, mumbled the times at which services are run at their church, and both started to back away from me.

Victory was mine.

An addendum: After the christians ran away, I went to pay some bills. On the way back, I happened across them again. This time they were talking to a man in a wheelchair. I approached the group, and said to the fellow in the wheelchair "Why doesn't God restore your ability to walk?" The women looked furious. "I think our discussion is over" she said, forcing a smile. The man in the wheelchair took the opportunity to escape. I offered to discuss it further over a coffee. They made some non-committal statements about meeting me later or giving me a call (funny, though, that they didn't ask for my number), and backed away again.

So now I know what time they have their services, I may just go and visit the congregation to ask them some hard questions.

Will keep you posted.

The First Step

2007-04-09T03:13:00.000+12:00

In fighting for any worthy cause, it is of prime importance that the people you are trying to reach know of your existence: Visibility is crucial.

Firstly, it gives other like-minded individuals the confidence to speak out and express themselves, that they are not alone. A supporting network of like-minded people can form, being able to identify one another.

Secondly, our visibility shows the controlling powers and agents of the adversary that their views and methods are actively opposed. Since fear of reprisal is a key component in suppressing the freedom of thought, we must show no fear.

Thirdly, being visibile generally raises public awareness, and forces those who may have no strong opinion to at least consider the issue.

Remember, the enemy only exists in 'free' societies because of laws protecting of freedom of speech, belief and thought; yet they would gladly take those priviledges away from you given the chance. Remember also that in these societies, you are protected by the same laws. The effect of not protecting these worthy institutions may not be immediately evident, but tomorrow's children may pay the price for today's indifference.

Act Today: Become Visible.

Show Your Allegiance

2007-03-28T20:59:00.000+12:00

Now you can show your allegiance to free thought in comfort and style—be rational, and fashionable! Visit The Atheist Resistance Online Shop at Cafepress.com for men's and women's T-shirts and long sleeve Tees. They're modestly priced, and look great.

On the front line - the girl at the bar evidently approves

This design features The Atheist Resistance symbol, Ω (the Greek letter omega). Why omega? In electrical engineereing, it is the symbol for the unit of resistance. Hence, the shirt symbolises that not only is the wearer a 'unit of resistance', but also part of a wider 'unit of resistance'.

Action shots are welcome (of course, names will be withheld and faces blurred if you wish, just let me know). I've been wearing mine around town—see above—and have noticed a few raised eyebrows and prolonged stares, although no-one has had the fortitude to actually challenge me on it.

"Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of the strong"

-Seneca

Join The Resistance

2007-01-24T01:39:00.000+13:00

Welcome Atheists, Free-thinkers, Agnostics, Humanists and all others who would see the end of superstition and irrational belief.

The time is upon us when we must stand up for our rights. We are now joined in a great battle—both physical and metaphysical—for our basic primal human right to determine the nature of the universe through rational, logical, scientific means. We are facing a global rising tide of religious belief. Increasingly people have been lured away from the rational pursuit of knowledge; cowed by pervasive fear, enticed by obtuse patriotism, deceit, hollow promises of 'everlasting life', 'redemption', 'love', and 'release from suffering'. This has happened in large part because of declining standards of education, greater emphasis on religion in events reported by the media since the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the general intellectual laziness of society.

The situation we find ourselves in can be likened to that of African-Americans and their supporters involved in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. Although it had long been identified and widely accepted, it was only after concerted effort, much physical, emotional, economic and social turmoil that the great inequality and prejudice levied against the African-American people began to be addressed on a national scale, and moves made to end the injustice. Today, we find that a similar distrust and revulsion of rational, logical, scientific thought has taken root in—and been actively propagated throughout—many societies around the world, and on a large scale within those societies. Atheists, free-thinkers, agnostics, humanists and anyone else who dare oppose the advance of religion are persecuted, marginalised, opressed, or worse. The proponents of religion and religious belief seek to control many (if not every) aspect of your daily life: from what you are allowed to say, to what you are allowed to do; even the thoughts you are allowed to think. They would replace your independent thought with their superstition, hypocrisy, fables, illogic and dogma. Religion has infiltrated institutions of all kinds in order to influence them to act in favour of the religious. This is not a fictional scenario: this is already happening in many places around the world. One need only look to America for a shocking example.

The Atheist Resistance holds that the major problems facing survival of the human race today, such as climate change and energy depletion, disease and social issues, can only be solved through rational means. Religious leaders would have you believe that a 'higher power' or 'god' will save you from these perils, all the while delaying much needed action. No such thing will happen. It falls to us as rational human beings to determine our own destiny.

The call to intellectual arms is raised: If you value your freedom, then bolster your human spirit, raise your voice and stand firm against the advance of religion.