Finding my Heart

Coming Back

2011-01-01T07:47:00.000+11:00

Its been a long time since I have written here. I don't know if anyone still reads this or not. My thoughts on religion have changed much over the intervening period. I guess it means almost nothing to me now. It has been a long time since i read a book that had anything to do with religion. I have quite frankly lost interest in religion. It's hard to believe that I felt so passionately about it and now it means nothing at all to me, I can't even summon the energy to dislike it.

So why write again here?

I guess I have stuff I want to say, I certainly want to try and capture my life experiences over the past couple of years, maybe that will be worth reading, you alone can decide.

Self Sufficiency

2008-12-23T20:16:00.004+11:00

What is it about humans that drives us to seek control over others. To seek to have power to force everyone to comply with one groups ideas of what is right. It is in democracies, couched in formal language that implies a moral imperative, it will protect the weak, preserve our institutions, or in some way serve the greater good. But almost always it pushes the views of a minority onto a majority who do not want it and resist it.

In Australia we are starting on an Internet censorship path that defies logic and the clear will of the Australian people. The idea being to create a secret list of web sites that will be blocked. The public will not know what is on the list or the reasons for it. This does not sound like a democracy to me.

What is this desire to control democratic freedom? The desire to tell us what we can and cannot do. It bothers me greatly that here in Australia we have given up so many hard one freedoms in the few years. First we needed to protect ourselves from terrorists, who have not actually done anything here, But just in case. Now we have to protect children from the internet by taking away the freedom of everyone. What is to be next save those allergic to peanuts by making peanuts illegal?

At a certain point we must reverse this over intrusive over bearing idea that government should control our lives. We must be responsible for our actions, we must protect our own children. I am always stunned when parents allow their children unsupervised access to the internet. They don't give them large amounts of cash or send them off on long trips alone. The world is a dangerous place we need to learn to protect ourselves.

Saudi Arabia

2008-11-30T11:52:00.003+11:00

I am not an apologist for religion, as anyone who ever reads this blog will know. So this is more a puzzled entry than an opinion piece.

Yesterday, a lovely, leisurly Saturday afternoon I watched an episode of No Reservations, a show presented by Anthony Bourdain. This is a travel show that looks at food culture as much or more than other tourist information. He asked viewers to submit ideas about locations he could visit for the next program. He selected 4 and interviewed each person. In the end he chose Danya Alhamrani and her idea of a visit to Saudi Arabia.

It was a good show which showed a lot about Saudi Arabia that I did not know. The one section that interested me most was when they went to the local takeaway chicken chain. There were two doors Tony asked Danya which door should they enter, one was marked family one single. Danya explained that according to Islamic law single men could not go into the family area. Single women, families and groups of freinds could enter the family area.

She then explained that as a women she had never felt excluded, she had always seen it to be the men who had to do things seperately. Personally I don't get it. Religious laws never made much sense to me, but it did make think.

How well do we in the west really understand some of these Islamic laws?

Although the world would be better off without them.

Censorship

2008-11-05T13:18:00.004+11:00

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr

I'd like to start by laying my cards on the table. I think that religion in all it's shapes and forms is a blight on humanity. I would love to convince the whole world that it is a load of imaginary rubbish. Therefore I do not think religion should ever get a free pass for anything. No respect, no reverence and no special cases. This is how I would like the world to be.

The world is not as I would like it to be, I learnt that when I was 5. Other people have different ideas to me, so I have to moderate my views with a dose of reality. The sensible position is to allow everyone to have the freedom to believe or not to believe as they choose. In a democratic nation then all citizens are free to discuss any ideas and to argue their viewpoint in an attempt to persuade others.

I also feel that citizens should be free to exercise their faith provided it does not impinge on the freedoms of others. So I would never enter a church, mosque or temple to speak abusively nor any way disrupt the services. However when a colleague in my workplace started to talk about what a wonderful teacher Jesus had been I readily disagreed. Others of a similar mind to myself claimed I had been rude to make such remarks. My reply was simple, any comment made in public is open to dispute. I am still friendly with this person and their response was, "perhaps I shouldn't have raised the issue." I disagreed and offered to discuss any topic they chose, but I got the feeling they didn't think it should be discussed only agreed to.

So What I am saying at is that nothing is beyond the reach of criticism or discussion. Certainly there is nothing about religion that sets it apart. In fact for too long deference toward religion has kept many historical facts hidden. If someone chooses to write a book about Mohamed it is no ones business but theirs. Certainly if that is a work of historical fiction as Sherry Jones has done then what objection could there reasonably be.

Books ridiculing Jesus and Buddha have been written and while followers object to them they do not seek to harm the author or publishers. Islam seems as a religion to very easily fall into the pattern of using violence to prevent criticism. Democracy is about freedom of expression, we must never allow those freedoms to be undermined by some twisted notion of religion. Many people have given up much including their lives to defend democracy against tyranny, how can we give it away because someone asks us to?

All too often I have heard the argument that a failure to recognise a persons religion is a form of racism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Quite correctly most democracies have introduced laws to protect people from discrimination. I should not be able to judge someone because of factors outside of their control, such things as race, gender, age are beyond any individuals control. However whilst I agree we need to protect the rights of all to worship as they see fit, we certainly can and should question the truth of their statements. Religious beliefs are chosen, and as a choice are open to change.

The bible as symbol

2008-08-24T09:00:00.002+10:00

I have a theory, I think the bible is actually a symbol for Christians not a text for serious reading and study. While Christians constantly make the claim that the bible is the inspired word of god, gods revelation to man etc etc, most of them have never read it nor plan to read it. This always has been a mystery to me, even as a believer if there really is a revelation from God shouldn't we take the time to read it.

However if the bible stands as a symbol for a particular set of beliefs there is no need to know it's contents well. In fact much of modern Christianity is structured to keep people from actually reading the bible in detail. It starts in Sunday school where children are taught fragments and stories and then asked to memorise selected passages. Then if we look at the church use of the bible we see only select segments or books get covered in sermons and studies. In fact recent trends in bible studies in churches see groups using booklets designed to "guide" there reading and thinking.

So if you were to question some belief of a church even using the bible your views would be rejected. As the bible is a symbol of those beliefs but not there actual source. As many reading this will know for exchristians reading the bible was what convinced us that the whole thing wasn't true.

I think this explains why so few Christians have read their bible and why they remain ignorant about much of it's content.

Fractal Wrongness

2008-05-03T10:40:00.003+10:00

I came across this concept while listening to The Non Prophets pod cast. I likes the idea as a way of describing how so many religious apologists argue there case.

Fractal wrongness implies that a view is not in error in just one area but on every level. That means there can be no simple response.

I think it is a deliberate tactic to give the appearance that the overwhelming weight of ideas and information falls on the believers side of the argumant and that those who are arguing against them do not have any answers. Most often it takes the form of a string of statements that incorporate maybe up to 10 basic errors or logical fallacies. There is so much that is wrong in the statements that no one can respond in a reasonable length of time to all of the errors. It works well in debates.

Top 50 Atheist slogans

2008-01-21T08:09:00.000+11:00

Taken from the above link, and very amusing.

Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers

Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole

Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry

Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.

*There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings

"Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."God.

*God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.

If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?

He's Dead.
It's Been 2,000 years.
He's Not Coming Back.
Get OVER It Already!

*All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry. Edgar Allen Poe.

Viva La Evolución!

Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The Reason For The Season

I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist

Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.

*People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs

Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.

Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!

GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!

Jesus Told Me Republicans SUCK

*God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus

God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.

When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!

Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic?
A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.

You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing

I Love Christians. They Taste Like Chicken.

*Science: It Works, Bitches.

"Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987

I Found God Between The Sheets

I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent

My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel

Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten

*If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?

Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia

*ALL Americans Are African Americans

*I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?

I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God

The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative

*If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?

*JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself

*How Can You Disbelieve in Evolution If You Can't Even Define It?

*Q. How Can You Tell That Your God is Man-made?
A. If He Hates All the Same People You Do.

Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex

I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.

WWJD = We Won. Jesus Died.

The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children

Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War

*Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony

God is Unavailable Right Now. Can I Help You?

When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on
Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out. Frank Sinatra.

No Gods. No Mullets.

Atheist Alliance 2007 Conference DVD Review

2007-12-29T09:06:00.000+11:00

The Atheist Alliance International Conference 2007
DVD from Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

I am sure that like me you have in recent months been basking in the pleasures that are uniquely Australian. Enjoying the splendid range and quality of seafood, the magnificent summer fruits and the sheer pleasure of cricket. The Australian summer has much to recommend it. Sometimes I do wish that the rest of the world was not so far away. The distance makes it so much harder to participate in international events like this one.

This DVD set contains 552 minutes of nine outstanding speakers and question and answer sessions after each of their talks. The quality of speakers is outstanding and all of the big names are represented. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Daniel Dennett(Breaking the Spell ) and Christopher Hitchens (God is not great). The four horseman of the apocalypse as they have been dubbed. This is indeed the address where Sam Harris argues against the use of the term atheist.

Other speakers of note are Eugenie Scott, Eddie Tabash, Ayaan Hirsi Ali to mention but a few. J. Anderson Thomson gives one of the most interesting addresses on the psychology of suicide bombing and it’s links with religion. Other subjects include Intelligent design and church/state separation. If anything the question and answer sessions are as interesting maybe more so than the various addresses themselves.

having read most of the speakers books and heard many interviews with them over the last few years I would say that this DVD represents a very good snapshot of Atheism at the present time, and where else can you hear all of the major players in one location. The DVD is available direct from the Richard Dawkins foundation.

The one true faith - which one?

2007-07-12T11:09:00.000+10:00

Once again I am amazed at Christian convolutions.

The pope has declared that "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

It all seems pretty clear Catholic = Christian anything else is just plain wrong.

Although some have a different view:

"Conclusion
If many Protestants today are not persuaded that the pope is the Antichrist, what should we say of him? Has the theology of the Roman Catholic Church about the pope and about the Gospel changed? The Roman Catholic Church has changed some of its claims about being the only institution in which one can find salvation. It is willing to call Protestants in some sense separated brothers. There does seem to be more toleration and less commitment to coercion on the part of the bishop of Rome. We should be glad for these changes.

Still the basic teaching about the authority of the pope has not changed and the teaching about the Gospel also has not changed. The Roman Catholic Church still anathematizes the Protestant and biblical doctrine of justification.

The most important criterion by which any minister must be evaluated is this: did he preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? As Paul taught clearly: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). By that standard we must conclude that Pope John Paul II was no more a success than his predecessors since the time of the Reformation. Let us pray that Pope Benedict XVI, a very learned man, may come to see the truth as it is in Christ and teach it faithfully.
http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/protestantsandthepope.php"

So now we know pope=Antichrist (or close image of)

Well I feel so much better, the pope has cleared away all the confusion and set us all squarely where we need to be, in the Sixteenth century!!!!

Will they never learn???

Is Atheism a religion ???

2007-07-12T10:34:00.000+10:00

Pope Richard
Many believers have been claiming in recent times that Atheism is in fact a religion. We have a set of beliefs and we stick to them. It takes faith to believe in Atheism and like any religion we have our sacred books and our own pope in Richard Dawkins.

Usually atheists reject this idea. I am going to suggest we embrace it. It's always proposed by Believers and rejected as being a smear tactic. What if we adopt this whole approach, what can we gain.

As a religion Atheism:

Can become a tax exempt charity.
Demand to be spoken of with respect with all other faiths.
Make use of anti discrimination laws to prevent criticism and demand equal time.
Parents can object to any Christian materials in libraries or school classrooms as being discriminatory against their faith.
Get government support available to people of faith.
Demand Atheist chaplains in schools, hospitals and the military.

I'm sure you can think of other examples where being a religion would be of huge benefit. Next time someone says to you that Atheism is a religion don't be too quick to disagree.

Why Intelligent design is Unbiblical!!

2007-04-28T15:50:00.000+10:00

This argument blew me away when I first heard it the other day. So used was I to hearing Christians talk about the evidence for design that it never occurred to me that Christians might oppose the movement for biblical grounds.

Many of you have little Christian background so I will try to state the biblical argument as simply and directly as I can. The origins are in reformed apologetics, a view of defending the Christian faith that depends heavily on the bible as the central pillar of faith.

The argument:

1) Do you as a Christian accept that the bible is the authoritative Word of God, the final Word of Truth and Light for a fallen world?

2) Do you then accept that it was the sin of Adam and Eve (the original sin) that broke mankind's link with God and created the fallen world we have today?

3) Do you accept that salvation comes not from man's striving but from the grace of God through Jesus Christ?

4) Do you accept that as a Christian it is your responsibility to tell the world God's message of Salvation in Jesus as he as proclaimed in His Word?

If a Christian answers yes to each of these statements and most fundamentalists will then logically they cannot support intelligent design, and remain a Biblical Christian.

The serpent deceived Adam and Eve in Eden, Eve listened as the serpent twisted the word that God had commanded them. God commanded "if you touch the tree or eat of it's fruit you will die." (Gen 3:3). The serpent said if you eat it "...you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5). Later on Eve tries to blame the serpent, Adam blames Eve and God punishes both for not listening to his word.

The bible teaches throughout (according to conservative Christians) that God's people must remain faithful and declare His Word. In fact it is the very foundation of the faith.

How then can any Christian propagate a theory that does not have as its starting point God's Word? In fact they are doing exactly what Eve did and what Paul repeatedly warns against using the foolish wisdom of man instead of the divine truth of God.

In short from now on, when any conservative Christian spouts Intelligent Design crap I won't disagree I will call them to repent of their sins or else join the rest of us and use their brains.

A reply to a Criticism of Atheism

2007-04-21T08:15:00.000+10:00

This is a response to an attack on atheists as being mindless robots.

Talk about mindless onslaughts.

You speak of a humanist attack on faith and in the same sentence of an atheistic onslaught Surely you don't mean that two books constitutes an onslaught?

As an atheist I am puzzled by the idea that we should not look to reason to understand our experience, I have found psychology to be a very fruitful area of study in understanding human behaviour, should I abandon it's study because it's too rational?

Does science have the answers? Of course not, it is merely our best efforts to make sense of the universe. Surely we don't need to know everything in order for science to be worthwhile?

"But they'll never learn because in their arrogance they realise that access to the OTHER is forever beyond their understanding and the cut and thrust and disssection and subsequent formularistic verification." Sounds to me like you don't read much science. Most scientists don't devote their lives to the study of something that they hate. In fact when you read their comments they are full of the beauty and joy of the universe they explore. Understanding only adds to our appreciation of beauty it does not subtract from it.

Mathematics is a wonderful study of applied logic. Surely you are not suggesting that the mathematics that enabled us to build say the Sydney Opera House or the great cathedrals is mere intellectual masturbation?

"It Is ONLY the atheist who insists that ONLY his vision of reality is correct and that of the rest of us are wrong." I am one of these hated atheists and I have never insisted this. Where do you get this from?

The problem seems to be that you have made a judgement about atheists and no amount of factual correction can change your mind. Atheism is not a club, the only thing we have in common is the idea that there is no God. Because people like Harris and Dawkins are expressing a range of views does not mean that they speak for anyone but themselves, a fact they both readily point out. It is the same as saying that the Pope speaks for all Christians.

What does puzzle me is that many like yourself when they leave orthodox Christian faith fall back to a naive romanticism. A view of the world that becomes essentially emotional, elevating feelings and mystery over explanation and sympathy. This by the way is why as an atheist I object to a lot of Sam Harris. Don't be too shocked that atheists don't see Harris and Dawkins as atheist rock stars.

If we look to the positive values that atheists offer I would rather we look to people like Ayan Hirsi Ali or perhaps Brahms than too Harris or Dawkins.

In short the shallow view of atheist you offer is very puzzling, please take from me that it does not even begin to explain the views of most of us.

Wayne

Kurt Vonnegut Dies at 84

2007-04-14T07:44:00.000+10:00

Kurt Vonnegut was a very influential writer on me. As a fundamentalist Christian he challenged my black and white view of the world. His vision of a humanity suffering under its own stupidity and ignorance was a powerful alternative to a blind faith.

"If no one's said it yet, I will: Kurt Vonnegut was American literature's finest satirist since Mark Twain. (Whom the mustachioed, frizzy-haired Vonnegut increasingly came to resemble in later years.) Like Twain, he had a merciless eye for those aspects of American life (and human nature) that we're quickest to bury under layers of politeness, particularly our quickness to resort to violence. Like Twain, he progressed from laugh-out-loud funny to ruefully bitter as he aged. By the end of his 84 years, Vonnegut was hoping for a spectacular, suicidal death, like a plane crash into Mt. Kilimanjaro. But death came to him in more mundane fashion yesterday, as he succumbed to brain injuries suffered in a recent fall at his Manhattan home. Vonnegut would have been the first to appreciate the irony; he probably would have greeted it with a sigh: "So it goes."" From http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/04/vonnegut_obitua.html

"My feeling from talking to readers and friends is that many people are beginning to despair. Do you think that we’ve lost reason to hope?

I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or “PPs.”" http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C

Player Piano

Sirens of Titan

Mother Night

Cat's Cradle

God bless you, Mr. Rosewater

Slaughterhouse-Five

Breakfast of Champions

Jailbird

Deadeye Dick

Galápagos: A Novel

Bluebeard The Autobiography of Rabo Karabekian

Hocus Pocus

Timequake

His writing still confronts us with our lack of humanity and compassion.

Exam Time

2007-03-19T06:53:00.000+11:00

This is the final examination for the course.

Anything below 60% will be treated as an F.
The essay at the end is optional.
Writing it will add an automatic 10% to you total grade based on the mutiple choice questions.

Good Luck!

1.Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?
a.A Caribbean sunset
b.The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
c.The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
d.The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid

2. A deeply devout Catholic couple has just returned from their fiftieth anniversary celebration, when suddenly the husband falls to the ground, clutching his chest. What is the most productive action for the wife to take?
a.Call 000
b.Put him in the car and race to the hospital herself
c.Administer CPR
d.Fall on her knees and pray to the Lord to spare his life

3.You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?
a.All-powerful
b.All-knowing
c.All-loving
d.Mysterious

4.One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?
a.Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
b.Call the police on your cell phone
c.Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
d.Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfere

5.You are the incarnated Son of the all-powerful and all-loving Creator of the universe. What would be a good way to demonstrate your compassion and power?
a.Cure cancer forever
b.Cause all the earth's deserts to bloom with food crops
c.Unite the world with a common language and an end to poverty
d.Conjure up a jug of wine and follow it up by walking on water

6.Since we can never "know" whether or not a God exists - it is fundamentally a matter of "faith" - it's best to be a believer since you have nothing to lose, but everything to lose if your disbelief is incorrect. Keeping in mind that the fate of your soul depends on the right choice, in which God should you place your belief? For extra credit, include a brief essay justifying your choice, along with the reasons why you reject the other three.
a.Zeus
b.Quetzalcoatl
c.Vishnu
d.The Holy Trinity
(*Note: Choice D assumes you were born around 400 A.D. or later, after the invention of the Trinity)

7.You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of your planets. Their ruler is being quite obstinate. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to:
a.Cause the ruler to drop dead of a heart attack
b.Cause the ruler to fall off a cliff
c.Visit the ruler in a dream and persuade him to let your people go
d.Slaughter a great number of innocent babies who had nothing to do with the ruler's policies

8.You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?
Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.Deity X_____Deity Y_____

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.Deity X_____Deity Y_____

9.What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored by a visit to the shrine at Lourdes, France?
a.Too many to count
b.Over 1,000
c.Several dozen
d.Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough

10.As we all know, there is only one true religion. What is the one true religion in each of the following circumstances?
a.You are born in Karnak in 3000 B.C.
b.You are born in Bombay in 300 B.C.
c.You are born in Baghdad in 900 A.D.
d.You are born in Mexico City in 1956 A.D.

11.Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?
a.The wind guided it
b.Your muscles guided it
c.There is no need for an explanation
d.You consciously designed your shot to land on that particular blade

12.Which of the following is most likely to be true, and why?
a.Romulus was the son of God, born to a mortal human virgin
b.Dionysus turned water into wine
c.Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from the dead
d.Jesus Christ was the son of God, born to a mortal virgin, turned water into wine, and raised a man from the dead

13.Conceding that torture is permissible under certain conditions, which of the following would be the best justification?
a.Your prisoner is the only one who knows the date and time of an assassination attempt on the Pope
b.Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a nuclear device has been planted in Washington, D.C.
c.Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a vial of nerve gas has been placed in the London water supply system
d.Your prisoner has announced that the earth revolves around the sun

14.We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:
a.A young man (Mark 16:5)
b.No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
c.You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
d.Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

15.According to inerrant Scripture, the Savior prayed alone in the garden while the three disciples who accompanied him had fallen asleep. How did the gospel writer know the words of that prayer?
a.Jesus left them written down under a rock
b.They were recorded on a primitive taping device
c.The gospel writer was psychic
d.The three disciples were later hypnotized and asked to recall the prayer

16.According to at least one sainted church father, one of the pleasures of the saved will be to behold the agony of the damned. What would be the best time of day in heaven for a mother to behold the agony of her only son?
a.Early in the morning before it gets too crowded
b.Mid-day when she can compare notes and share the celebration with other mothers
c.Late at night when she can enjoy the flames in starker contrast

17.In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we always look to the Bible as a guide. In this example, your teenage son has returned home from the prom intoxicated. The Bible's instruction is:
a.Sit him down for a heart to heart talk
b.Enroll him in AA
c.Take away his driving privilege for one month
d.Smash his head in with rocks

18.In this example, your son-in-law, returned from his honeymoon, has just told you he suspects your daughter was not a virgin on their wedding night. Wishing to abide by God's holy rules as laid out in the Bible, you should:
a.Ask him if he was a virgin before you do anything
b.Advise him to forgive her
c.Talk to your daughter
d.Go find those rocks

19.You are eating lunch at a crowded fast food restaurant, occupied mostly by children, when suddenly a gunman bursts in, screams "Do not question or test me," and sprays the room with bullets. Ten people are killed instantly, many more grievously wounded, but somehow you escape unharmed. His ammunition expended, the gunman collapses to the floor. What should you do?
a.Call the police and wait for them to arrive
b.Call the police and leave
c.Risk death by asking the gunman why he did it, even though he told you not to
d.Fall on your knees and give thanks and praise to the gunman for sparing your life

20.Why did God show his backside to Moses, as described in Holy Scripture, Ex.33:23?
a.He invented everything, and this was simply the first mooning
b.He was really ticked off when Moses dropped the tablets
c.He was piqued, having just discovered His almighty powers were useless against chariots of iron (Judges I:19)
d.Moses was too serious and needed to lighten up a little

21.Jesus was God, and God knows all things, including all the medical knowledge that will ever be known. Why did Jesus blame demons for the case of epilepsy he cured?
a.He was suffering from a temporary case of "brain freeze"
b.The Aramaic word for "demon" is the same as the word for "cranial malfunction"
c.Neurology was not his specialty
d.In first-century Palestine, demons really did cause epilepsy. This affliction only began to be caused by electrochemical brain activity after about 1850 A.D.

22.This morning's paper carries a story about a suburban father who became so enraged with his disobedient children that he carried them both to the backyard pool where he drowned them, along with their puppy, their kitten, and their hamster. How should this father be treated?
a.He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
b.He should be banished from the town
c.He should be lynched to save the taxpayers' money
d.The townspeople should gather together to sing hymns of praise to him

23.This morning I started my day by insulting my mother in public, then punched out my father, my brother, and my sister. Then I gathered up all my clothes, sold them to a second-hand store, and with the proceeds bought a used Uzi and 50 rounds of ammunition. Next, I went down to the animal shelter and injected all the dogs with a drug that caused them to go insane and dive into the nearby canal where they all drowned. By this time I was hungry, so I went over to my neighbor's apple orchard and burned it down, because I wanted an orange and there weren't any. On the way home, I stopped at the local steel mill to discuss my philosophy of life with some of the guys. They laughed at me and said to stow it, so I tossed them all into the blast furnace. That night I discovered my son looking at a copy of Playboy. Concerned for his future welfare, I cut off his right hand. What historical character did my activities today most resemble?
a.Genghis Khan
b.Charles Manson
c.Adolph Hitler
d.Jesus Christ

24.Down through the ages, who has been most responsible for the medical discoveries that have relieved untold amounts of suffering and pain, and extended the length of that most sacred of creations, human life?
a.Medical doctors
b.Research biologists
c.Chemists
d.The Catholic Church

25.A great sadness has come into your life which you feel you cannot bear. A friend informs you of a free counseling service which has never failed to aid and comfort many others. You call the counselor; the phone rings and rings with no answer; you finally hang up. What is the most likely explanation?
a.The counselor is sitting by the phone but not answering in order to test your faith in him
b.The counselor always stands ready to hear your pleas for help, but sometimes the answer is "no"
c.The counselor will not answer because he wants you to profit by the spiritual strength that only comes through suffering
d.The counselor is not home

ESSAY QUESTION
While it is true that there have been and still are many different gods and many different religions, they are really just the various names by which various cultures approach the same God. Explain how and why each of the following is the same God:
Quetzalcoatl, who wants you to skin a young virgin alive, then put on the skin and dance;
Shiva, who wants you to pray over his penis;
Allah, who wants you to fly airliners into buildings;
Catholic God; who speaks directly through the Pope;
Baptist God, who most definitely does not;
Jesus, who wants you to castrate yourself to ensure arrival in heaven
Jehovah, who any day now, is going to kill everyone on the earth except for his Witnesses

Does Easter have any meaning?

2007-03-18T10:38:00.001+11:00

Recently a friend posted some reflections on the meaning of Easter in her life. It gave me pause to reflect on the meaning of Easter. Some of her comments were:

"This ritualized, contemplative replay which has come to be called EASTER, throws up various themes for the disciple, then and now, including:
*disappointment with “God” (Jesus comes to Jerusalem a hero and then lets himself be taken as a criminal)
*disappointment with “religion” (those who should recognize the real thing don't, and act to get rid of it)
*disappointment with each other (big talkers, fast runners)
*disappointment with “history” (things shaping up to something grand dissipate in chaos and confusion)

(YOU CAN SEE ALREADY WHY I THINK IT'S ALL PERTINENT)

*waiting, trusting (when everything's in the tomb/toilet don't give up)
*face the utter darkness within and without (a kind of death)
*gather together what is true, loving (keep going – simpler, humbler)
*act according to this pattern of truth and love (just do it)
*experience life transfigured from within (not powered by heroes or driven by extraordinary historical, ideological claims)
*be this life transfigured, redeemed, resurrected for others"

My initial response was I think still accurate. The religious tradition I have come from is Reformed. As such much of this strikes no chord with me at all. Without any ritual at all, Easter was the time we remembered that Jesus died to save his people from Sin and he rose from the dead.

My friend comes from a Catholic tradition which has a strong emphasis on liturgy. I guess now I have left Christianity I can see that the strong liturgical traditions like the Catholic and Orthodox give a lot more than just ideas to participants.

Perhaps these important experiences persist after belief fails but what can they offer to those who see them as artifacts of another religion? Having no faith I can see no meaning in Easter, these other values are not there for me because the story that tells them is different from the story I knew.

The Cult of Celebrity

2007-03-11T10:15:00.000+11:00

Why do they enchant us so?

The glitz the glamour, who is sleeping with whom this week. We cannot get enough of their lives, the movie stars, singers and even those famous for just being famous. They don't lead the sort of lives most of us would want to live. No stable family life or career; instead drugs, parties, easy sex and an almost never ending stream of money and attention.

I don't care much myself and as many will tell you I can't even identify most celebrities little alone inform you on the machinations of their lives. What does interest me is that people follow them. If Paris Hilton tries a new diet millions will follow, if Angelina chooses a new cosmetic then it will sell out, and if Madonna adopts a new religion it will become instantly popular.

My butcher does not perform surgery on me (a good thing really) nor do I consult my doctor when my car won't start. In the normal course of events we consult those with knowledge and experience in the area that we are seeking advice. Why then does our society follow the dictates of non-expert celebrities?

Given the difficulties many have had recently in remembering to put on their underwear (just checked I definitely remembered this morning) or have been through a string of failed financial dealings, drug addiction, broken relationships etc; these people are unfit to offer any advice. If they were not famous we would not have them into our homes.

Next time you're listening to some celebrity, ask yourself "What the hell would they know?"

The answer is usually

Nothing

Faith in Atheism???

2007-02-17T08:05:00.000+11:00

As a recent deconvert from Christianity I must saythat many make a basic error in understanding when they claim Atheists have faith in Atheism. I gave up Christianity because I do not believe God actually exists. That's it. Atheism is not a belief system it is merely the view that Gods do not exist. That is all that atheists have in common.

I have beliefs, in democracy, tolerance, compassion, ethics etc. These are not related to my atheism. They are views based on reason and argument. They change as I grow, develop and learn. The key to these is that I may well be (almost certainly) mistaken on some and need to change my views based on discussion and experience.

Religious belief is not like this. It is based on revelation from a divine being. It is not subject to change or even admission that it might be wrong. The biggest problem is the demand that the whole world should/must (liberal believer/fundamentalist believer) follow these beliefs.

So can I discuss belief with believers. Not in a meaningful way. For the following reasons:
1) I can be mistaken the believer is always right. God said so.
2) The believer appeals to a higher authority which I think is imaginary.
3) I wish to act based on my reason the believer acts on an imaginary instruction set.

The old Zen story makes a huge error by making all of the men knowingly blind. It would make more sense if there were seven blind men six of whom believed through faith that they could see and rather than touching the elephant they spoke with divine authority and only the atheist touched the elephant, and got it wrong. Something like this:

There's a beautiful Zen story of seven blind men who had never before seen an elephant.One day an elephant was put before them and they were asked to describe what it was after each was enabled to make contact with it.The Catholic said the Pope has revealed that this beast is like a giant snake and should be avoided.The Anglican said the bible does not mention such a creature, so it is not there.The Presbyterian formed a committee and said they would report back next month. The Muslim declared that it revealed the glory of God and that everyone should become a Muslim NOW! Oh - and the atheist caught hold of the tail and swore it was definitely a fly swat.Who was right?
No one!

The point of my story is no one is right. The rational approach though has the best chance of getting somewhere. If we put all the views together we only end up with a mess.

So it needs to be understood that:

Atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheist THINK only one thing about God/s there are none.
Atheists have beliefs as does everyone else in ethics, democracy, reason etc.

The annoying thing is the continual refusal of believers to actually listen to what non-believers actually say.

Atheist Intolerance

2007-01-28T08:46:00.000+11:00

"You can also tell that atheism is in trouble because it is becoming increasingly intolerant. In the past, atheists (or secular humanists or freethinkers) were often condescendingly tolerant of their less-enlightened fellow citizens. While they disdained religion, they treated their religious neighbors as good-hearted, if misguided.
But now key activists are urging a less civil approach. At a recent forum sponsored by the Science Network at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, the tone of intolerance reached such a peak that anthropologist Melvin J. Konner commented: "The viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"
This newly aggressive mood (Dawkins calls religious education "brainwashing" and "child abuse") is in danger of undermining civil society."

This excerpt from a Christianity Today article is indicative of a lot of mainstream Christian thinking about the "new" atheists represented by such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. From the point of view of moderate Christians this seems to be a fairly accurate statement of affairs. Atheists and agnostics abandoning their traditional tolerance of religion and demanding it be abolished or removed from society.

However they have missed a key ingredient in all of the discussions. The growth and abuse of power of a Fundamentalist Religious Right which has been sweeping all before it. The removal of basic science from schools and replacing it with religion, Christianising organisations like the Boy Scouts and generally creating a climate in the U.S where atheists have become the least trusted group in the country. Liberal/mainstream Christians have on the whole remained silent against this onslaught. It should come as no surprise then that non-believers have decided to come out in their own defence. What does come as a surprise is the number of people who seem to agree with them.

Who is buying the books (The God Delusion and The End of Faith) were both best sellers way beyond the success they could have achieved with only the non-believing community. These writers have tapped into a larger audience who perhaps also, it could be argued find concerns with religion. An audience that much of the liberal press does not seem to know about.

The intolerance being complained about is not in my opinion intolerance at all. No writer is trying to legislate religion or to ban it. What they are saying is the days of privilege for religion is over. Like all ideas religious ideas are open to public criticism and condemnation. Religion has no place in enforced public life. Religion is a private matter and needs to stay that way. Can I go to church as I choose, educate my child in a Christian school and read the bible? The answer is yes none of these rights are under attack (from atheists at least, I can't vouch for the fundamentalist Christians). What is under attack is the right of Christians to introduce their religion into public schools, to replace science education with religious indoctrination, to force public policy into Christian molds and to mandate religious programs for children, prisoners and the disadvantaged.

Surely to say that all ideas will be held to the same standards and that personal bias has no place in public life is a return to the virtues upon which democracy was founded.

How do we know right from wrong?

2007-01-23T14:28:00.000+11:00

We all judge what we believe to be right from what we believe to be wrong. It makes no difference whether we believe in a God or not. In the end no one applies an absolute standard to moral judgements. Many religious people feel that God has established absolute moral standards that all must follow. These are often found in their gods holy book. However take any faith you choose and a number of devout followers of that faith and they will usually not agree on the morality of any particular situation.

If we take the Christian religion as an example. In the past Christians have believed it was moral to own slaves. In fact the New Testament condones slave ownership to the extent of telling slaves to serve their masters with diligence. Yet the vast majority of Christians today view slavery as an evil and immoral act. What happened??? If the source of morality is the unchanging will of God as revealed in the bible Christians clearly are judging God and finding him wanting.

Morality is not relative. Morality is absolute and what is right does not change with changing times. What does change is our understanding of what is right. The religious person just like the non believer changes their judgement as they learn more and become more confident in their ability to judge a situation. What this means is that on many points we could easily be mistaken and a position we think is right today, we may not feel is right tomorrow. I guess that means a little humility and tolerance is a very good idea.

We don't have any need for a God to be the foundation of morality, and when we examine the process that societies and individuals use to make moral judgements we see no real difference between those who have faith and those who do not. Both groups base their decisions on understanding and human reasoning.

Is there Absolute Truth?

2007-01-16T07:53:00.000+11:00

I have heard from many people of faith that those of us who do not believe in God have no basis for absolute truth. This means that we must see all truth as relative and therefore we have no basis for morality, ethics or social value. In fact only those with a belief in a God can actually use logic in a meaningful way.

This to me seems patently absurd as the very claim that there are no absolute truths is absurd. Why because the claim itself should say: There are no absolute truth except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. In other words the statement itself is illogical and contradicts itself.

If there is no God what then can absolute truth rest upon? The answer might surprise you, reality. The problem is not that we have no basis for absolute truth but that we do not perceive it readily. In short we change our minds when what we have understood to be the absolute truth was in fact mistaken. It is not that such truths do not exist but that we are poor at discerning them.

If God were the only basis for absolute truth then those with faith in the right God would know absolute truths and they would never change. However what we see from all religions is the changing understanding of what the absolute truths are because they were improperly understood. This is the same for those of us without a belief in a God, as our understanding improves so our knowledge of what truths are absolute changes.

In essence a belief in god is not needed to provide a foundation for absolute truth.

Militant Atheists????

2007-01-09T08:32:00.000+11:00

I am sure you have read/heard about the militant Atheists. They started the war on Christmas and are attacking the faith and beliefs of everyone. They will not rest until they have tron down everything that faith has established and in the process bring down our society.

I went looking for them and could not find them. Lets have a look at what a militant actually is:

mil·i·tant (ml-tnt)
adj. 1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant)

I looked up some of the names often cited Richard Dawkins for example. All I found was a guy who wrote a book and then did a lecture tour to promote that book. The book itself was all about his ideas that God did not exist. Hardly militant, certainly not war like. What about Sam Harris? Well he to wrote a couple of books and promoted them he also wrote some articles in some newspapers.

Then I thought I will look at some militant actions like picketing funerals (oops that was Christians), planting bombs to kill the innocent (oops Muslims and Christians) what about rioting in the streets (sorry Hindus), what about forcing their views on children in school(Christians again), manipulating aid and information based on narrow agendas(still Christians). I gave up!!

Seems to me to exorcise your right of free speech and to put forward your religious views in a Western democracy makes you a militant. Can we tolerate the outrageous behaviour of book and newspaper writing and the radical ideas of talking to people clearly not.

What do you think?

True Christians??

2007-01-02T07:08:00.000+11:00

I was listening to a podcast the other morning in which three Christians were discussing theology. Two of them were reformed (Calvinist) the other was a Mormon. It was an interesting discussion, polite and friendly and it revealed that there was very little between their theological views. What made the discussion interesting to me was that the two reformed Christians tried to show just how vastly different they were from the Mormon Christian. The problem was every time they stated a vital doctrine in heavily laden jargon he would ask what they meant and when explained in plain English the Mormon Christian kept saying that his church held that same view.

There are differences between various Christian groups of that there is no doubt. Mormons and Calvinists are very different in many of their teachings. Catholic and Orthodox Christians differ from protestants in many ways. Yet they all have more in common with each other than with Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims. All of those outside of Christianity see that it as a very diverse religious faith.

So I wish they would stop trying to define anyone who has a different view as not being a true Christian. Like it or not everyone outside of your faith sees this nit picking as an annoying avoidance of dealing with the indisputable fact that devout Christians of good conscience disagree. Get over it.

A Christian is someone who sees Jesus as a central figure in their personal faith and sees the bible (New Testament) as having a role in that. All the rest is just your own infighting. The rest of us will not accept that person x is not a TRUE Christian and only you are right. You are all Christians, we non believers simply ask you to get along with each other and stop trying to define each other out of existence.

A Christmas Message

2006-12-26T07:58:00.000+11:00

The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things -- the beauty of love and kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days -- the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget -- a good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds -- a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

Great Bastards of the Christian Faith #5

2006-12-03T09:25:00.000+11:00

Great Bastards of the Christian Faith #5 - John Chivington

A Methodist Minister and later Elder, Chivington helped to spread the gospel of Christ among the American indians. Chivington ascended the pulpit with a Bible and two pistols. His declaration that "By the grace of God and these two revolvers, I am going to preach here today" earned him the sobriquet the "Fighting Parson. A unique man of God.

Led by the Holy Spirit and following Christ's example Chivington took advantage of this dangerous public mood by blasting the territorial governor and others who counseled peace and treaty making with the Cheyenne. In August of 1864, he declared, "the Cheyennes will have to be roundly whipped -- or completely wiped out -- before they will be quiet. I say that if any of them are caught in your vicinity, the only thing to do is kill them." A month later, while addressing a gathering of church deacons, he dismissed the possibility of making a treaty with the Cheyenne: "It simply is not possible for Indians to obey or even understand any treaty. I am fully satisfied, gentlemen, that to kill them is the only way we will ever have peace and quiet in Colorado."

Putting his faith into action this quote shows what a man of God can achieve:

The following is from "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.
So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization."
According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.
Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition.

Let us all remember what a man of faith inpspired by the life of Christ and full of the Holy Spirit can achieve (murder of inncoents, sexual sadism and torture of the helpless) , praise God!!!

References:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/chivington.htm

http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/chivington.html

http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/chiving.htm

http://www.snowwowl.com/swolfscmassacre3.html

Counting the Cost!!

2006-11-19T08:56:00.000+11:00

I have been thinking about this for the last few days. It's one of those slogans that we hear a lot. It gives sound advice, from time to time it is a good idea to look at the cost of something in our lives and decide if that activity or interest really is worth that much to us.

I think it's time we count the cost of Christianity and see if it really is worth it. This is not designed to make you change your views merely to evaluate them.

1) Christianity offers eternal life to all who accept and believe in Jesus Christ.

Because this life is merely a stepping stone to another greater life we can sustain hardship and sacrifice for the cause of Christ. What if you are mistaken?
Cost:
Lost friendships and opportunities given up for a non-existent future.
If you have only one life you will have wasted it on a fictional dream that never happens.
You devalue everything that is wonderful in this world against a fictional world in your head.

2) Jesus offers us clear direction in life. We know 100% what is right.

If we use Jesus guidance we cannot go wrong we can enforce the law of God. What if you are mistaken or misunderstand?

Cost:

You will have judged others on pure prejudice.
You will reject much of what enriches life, diversity.
Slamming doors and denying evidence isolates you from your fellow man.
Who made you judge?

3) Giving to God enriches the world.

The money we give to Christian organisations improves the world. Where does all that money go and how is it used?

Cost

By supporting my church I help pay for a minister and church building. Church buildings are often worth millions and are hardly used, is that what Jesus advocated?
The church has billions of dollars of property. What for, it doesn't help the poor.
Why spend billions on Gospel outreach, what a waste if it is not true.
The church funds political organisations, should this not be a private matter?

4) sacrificing my time in his service is an honour. How valuable is your contribution?

Cost:
Thousands of hours wasted on a meaningless cause.
What would happen if you were not involved?
Are you doing for free a job that someone should be paid for.

I guess the point of all this is that Christianity costs our society billions of dollars and individuals thousands of hours. What does the church do with all this and in the end is it worthwhile.

Have you counted the cost?

REligions Don't deserve Special Treatment

2006-11-10T06:43:00.000+11:00

Not a new idea but the above link is to one of the best short pieces I've come across on the topic.Here is a brief excert:

"It is time to reverse the prevailing notion that religious commitment is intrinsically deserving of respect, and that it should be handled with kid gloves and protected by custom and in some cases law against criticism and ridicule.

It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have a religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions. It is neither. Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason, as between them Kierkegaard and the tale of Doubting Thomas are at pains to show; their example should lay to rest the endeavours of some (from the Pope to the Southern Baptists) who try to argue that faith is other than at least non-rational, given that for Kierkegaard its virtue precisely lies in its irrationality.

On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so."

Christians immoral Again - Why are we not surprised?

2006-11-04T07:56:00.000+11:00

Once again in the news this week prominent Christians are guilty of incredible immorality. This comes as a surprise and shock to Christians. I'm not sure why? Given the complete bankruptcy of their religion in the moral realm it is more a wonder that it doesn't happen more often. Maybe it's the ability of Christians to hide their immorality that gives us the reason.

Our first hero is that champion of the faith Kent Hovind (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061102/NEWS01/611020330/1006).
Kent suffers from the delusion that he does not need to pay his taxes and that anyone that works for him is a missionary. This week he and his wife discovered that not only does the government think he needs to pay taxes so does the court. Looking on the positive side he and his wife will be able to begin a new ministry, prison outreach. Oops should that be Prison Sharing Ministries?

The second leader to fall into moral difficulties is that well known Evangelical leader Ted Haggart. A prominent evangelical leader and pastor has been accused of regularly paying for sex with a male escort. It's a cause of terrible sadness when a man's beliefs force him to deny his sexuality and attempt to repress it. Ted is more of a victim here of Christianity.

unfortunately you tend to lose all sympathy when you openly preach hatred and oppression against a social group of which you are a member. His response while initially to deny all accusations has changed and he now admits to visiting the man for a "massage" at a hotels recommendation and buying metaamphetamines from him. Needless to say no sexual contact occurred and he never used the drugs. Now that's the pastor I want for my children what a great example.
(http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626067&page=1)

What do we say?

It is time to abandon the stone age beliefs and confront the world as it really is. Bankrupt and corrupt moral systems need to abandoned. We must develop a sound moral code based on reason not blind belief in a non existent deity.

Praise God?????

2006-10-28T06:54:00.000+10:00

I received an unsolicited piece of religious propaganda today. It was about God's mercy at saving a premature baby. Here a couple of exerts.

"That afternoon of March 10, 1991, complications had forced Diana, only 24-weeks pregnant, to undergo an emergency Cesarean to deliver couple's new daughter, Dana Lu Blessing.
"There's only a 10-percent chance she will live through the night, and even then, if by some slim chance she does make it, her future could be a very cruel one"
And two months later, though doctors continued to gently but grimly warn that her chances of surviving, much less living any kind of normal life, were next to zero, Dana went home from the hospital, just as her mother had predicted.
One blistering afternoon in the summer of 1996 near her home in Irving, Texas, Dana was sitting in her mother's lap in the bleachers of a local ball park where her brother Dustin's baseball team was practicing.
As always, Dana was chattering nonstop with her mother and several other adults sitting nearby when she suddenly fell silent. Hugging her arms across her chest, little Dana asked, "Do you smell that?"
During those long days and nights of her first two months of her life, when her nerves were too sensitive for them to touch her, God was holding Dana on His chest and it is His loving scent that she remembers so well.
You now have 1 of 2 choices. You can either pass this on and let other people catch the chills like you did or you can delete this and act like it didn't touch your heart like it did mine.
IT'S YOUR CALL!
"I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."
This message works on the day you receive it. Let us see if it is true. "

The message goes on to ask you to spread it to 5 people and a blessing will be yours. Here was my reply:
What a lovely story.

David and Briana Blessing gave birth to a massively premature baby. Fortunately for them they were wealthy and well insured living in an advanced an affluent country. They decided to persevere with keeping their daughter alive at whatever cost. Through the use of neo intensive natal care and multi million dollar equipment they succeeded and she became the first baby born at 24 weeks not to have brain damage in the history of the world. Hallelujahs a miracle of God.

Meanwhile downstairs Robert Jones was admitted to hospital with chest pains Robert was 38 with a family of four. His medical benefits were not great but as a loving father and church elder he put his faith in God and in his doctors. His medical insurance however placed him on a waiting list because funds had been diverted form the surgical unit to extent Neo natal intensive care, Robert did of a heart attack within 48 hours of being admitted to hospital. Hallelujah praise the lord.

Sarah is an 85 year pensioner living in a government nursing facility she broke her hip 8 months ago and has been awaiting surgery for a replacement, but due to transfer of funds to neo natal intensive care she will wait 18 months confined to bed and suffering. Unfortunately because of this she will develop complications and die in 12 months. Hallelujah, praise the lord for his mercy.

Consala used to receive chemo therapy for her breast cancer both her medical plan has now run out and she receives no further treatment and lies at home slowly dying while her family prays. Praise the Lord for he is good.

Michael and Sarah Smith have just given birth to Samuel their first child. He is premature and at 30 weeks has a good chance for normal life. Unfortunately there are no neonatal beds available and he dies within 24 hours. Thank you Jesus.

For every neo natal facility established other areas of medicine are cut back. I have heard directly from doctor who attend such meeting. The question they address is how many do we leave to die to bring more intellectually retarded infants into the world.

Why do you praise God for the good things and don't blame him for the far greater number of screw ups?

If this God you refer to actually exists he is a complete and utter malevolent bastard. The truth is you are deluded putting your faith in things that do not exist by believing in what supports your magical belief and ignoring what contradicts it.

Here is your chance to bring the light of sweet reason to the darkness of the religious heart. Please send this message of hope and common sense to those 5 deluded people that passed this nonsense to you. Perhaps your action will make them realize that they are lost and deluded and if they only acted instead of believed they could make a difference to this world.

Why have I done this?

I did not seek you out, you sought me out. I did not bring up religion you did. Once you raised your deluded and ignorant beliefs without my consent, then I am free to attack, mock and ridicule them.
Good manners would dictate that your private beliefs are private as are mine. Once you make them public then the gloves are off.

I often wonder how gullible and stupid people are.

How many impossible things can I believe before breakfast today??

If you want the original powerpoint let me know.

The God Delusion

2006-10-21T07:37:00.000+10:00

Richard Dawkins latest book has been flying up the best seller lists on both sides of the Atlantic and for very good reason. The book as with all of his writing is well written and tightly argued. If the title has not given it away this is a book critical of religion and it's negative impact on the world we live in.

Along with many others Dawkins can give offence because he refuses to accept a fairly commonly held view in western societies. He does not think that faith or religion deserve any respect or special consideration. All statements and claims are equal and we have every right to examine and criticise them. This offends some readers, but Dawkins makes no apology about it.

There is not a lot in this book that those who have read Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett will find earth shattering. In fact while each writer takes a different approach it's not to hard to see that they share a vast amount in common. Dawkins has said more than once that he hopes the readers of this book will come away convinced that there is no sensible reason to believe in a God.

The book provides a snapshot of much of current atheist thinking and briefly outlines a history of atheism. One of the real values of the book are the many references and recommendations that will help an interested reader greatly broaden their understanding. The book begins with Dawkins own position and then moves to look at arguments for God belief and arguments for disbelieving in a God. The writer touches on morality, the origin of religion, the bible and the problems of belief.

It is in the problems of belief that the books real strength lies. For anyone who saw The Root of All Evil the arguments while not new are greatly expanded and elaborated upon. The two central problems that Dawkins sees with religion center around it's distortion of social relationships in democratic societies and the great harm it does to children.

It has been a long time since books critical of religious belief have appeared in best seller lists. To have so many in such a short time suggests that many readers both religious and non-religious have started to accept that religion is having some problems. Before people jump on the bandwagon to critise this book as many have already; I would ask why is it alright to talk about your religious faith, to advocate it's value and importance but not alright to critise religion and point out we may be better off without it??

Read this book whatever your religious views, at the very least it may help you understand that there are a great number of us who share similar opinions but who have been drowned out by the religious majority.

What is fundamentalism??

2006-10-14T10:04:00.000+10:00

This is an interesting article from a doctors perspective looking at mental health.

What do others think?

God Does Exist!!!!!

2006-10-12T09:20:00.000+10:00

ARGUMENT FROM FORTUITOUS COINCIDENCE
(1) What are the odds of that happening?
(2) Pretty long, I’ll bet.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SPEAKING IN TOUNGES
(1) My friend here, once started spontaneously speaking some jibberish that sounded to me kind of like Russian.
(2) But neither he nor I know anything about Russian.
(3) The only explanation is God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EUROPEAN HISTORY
(1) Many prominent thinkers in pre-modern Europe believed in God.
(2) Let’s just forget about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (I), a.k.a. PALEY'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (III)
(1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
(2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer.
(3) [Throws watch into forest.]
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You have my prayers.

ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LOVE
(1) Have you ever fallen in love?
(2) [Of course!!]
(3) So what is the cause of love? Isn't it God? Am I right or not?
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Monty Python

2006-10-09T14:45:00.000+10:00

This is a great site full of Python humour.

All Things Dull and Ugly Hymn (unknown origin)

All things dull and ug-ly,
All creatures, short and squat,
All things rude and na-sty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their prudish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scant and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

What is God?

2006-10-05T08:09:00.000+10:00

Silly question really but worth asking. Can you define the attributes of God? What is God like? For all those believers out there this is a really confronting question. Please avoid the obvious contradictions eg all powerful and all knowing, you can have one but not both.

What will go on your list? For me a god would have to be more than just a more powerful and wiser creature. Chris and I am more powerful and wiser than Pussboy. That doesn't make us Gods. Certainly not in his eyes.

Maybe it's compassion God would have to have compassion. Again put your list together and this is the thing about this activity. It doesn't matter what is on your list, because when you use it to judge the claims of a diety from the various human gods, they always come up short.

So make your list and compare it to your favouite diety, don't be surprised when that diety falls way short of your standard.

Some web links

2006-09-26T12:33:00.000+10:00

This is an incomplete list of web resources. Many keep asking me for this or that site. This should help.

Podcasts
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/
http://www.skepticality.com/index.php
http://www.hellboundalleee.com/
http://www.freethoughtradio.com/
http://www.infidelguy.com/
http://www.ffrf.org/radio/podcast/
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/

Walkaway / Atheist
http://www.ironchariots.org/ - Anti Christian Apologetics Forum and Wiki
http://www.goatstar.org/ - A wealth of Atheist information
http://exchristian.net/ - Resources and forums
http://godisimaginary.com/ - Arguments
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/ - Freethinking community
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/ - Leaving Christianity
http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://edwardtbabinski.us/
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html - Rejecting Pascal’s Wager
http://www.infidels.org/
http://walkaway.aimoo.com/ - Walkaway from Fundamentalism
http://www.walkawayers.org/index.php

Liberal/Progressive
http://satrs.standrews.org.nz/ - St Andrews trust NZ
http://www.barf.org/ - Biblical American Resistance Front
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/ - Bill Loaders home page
http://www.beliefnet.com/ - Interfaith discussion site
http://www.brianmclaren.net/ - Brian McLarens site
http://www.progressivereligion.org.au/ - Australian progressive site
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/ - Counter evangelism site
http://www.eremos.org.au/ - Eremos Australia
http://www.faithfutures.org/ - Faith Futures
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ - Robert Price
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/ - Pagan origins of Christianity
http://www.radikalkritik.de/in_engl.htm - Interesting scholarly site
http://www.sof-in-australia.org/
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/
http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm - Centre for Progressive Christianity
http://www.westarinstitute.org/index.html

Science
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ - Evolution and Intelligent design
http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php - Multimedia from Richard Dawkins
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

Humour
http://www.sinfest.net/ Cartoon Humour

How do we know?

2006-09-19T06:43:00.000+10:00

I guess this is a question that comes up over and over again. How do we know that God has spoken? I find two ideas put forward by believers.

1) God has revealed himself in his HOLY WORD!!!

I guess there are two questions that occur to me.
Which book? There are so many claiming to be God's Word, which one is right???
Even the Christian religion has many different bibles.

If I agree with which book does that mean once I read it I can fully understand God?
Funnily enough Christians even with the same bible can't agree what on what it says.

Conclusion: What believers mean when they talk about the Word of God is "believe what I tell you this book says and don't ask any questions,"

2) God's spirit has revealed the truth to all.

I guess the questions that spring to mind are.
Which spirit is actually God's?
Many people claim to hear the Spirit and they all disagree. Either God is very confused or some people are deluded.

The second question is a follow up: How do you tell the difference between God's spirit and others?

I guess when believers say the Spirit has told them they are actually saying "trust me I know what is best."

Overall I would say it all boils down to

"Don't question me!!"

Intelligent Design Workshop Notes

2006-09-10T09:35:00.000+10:00

Intelligent Design Workshop

Intelligent design is a movement whose aim is to oppose the teaching of evolution, and replace it with the idea that life has to have been the product of an intelligent creator.

Viewing of some of the DVD Unlocking the mystery of Life

Science in Schools

The normal path of a scientific idea entering the school curriculum is as follows:
Stage 1: A piece of original work comes out of research and appears in a peer reviewed journal.

Stage 2: Further research is completed with peer reviewed articles, the idea, theory gains wider acceptance.

Stage3: PhD students use the theory in research

Stage 4: Graduate students come to terms with the idea and its implications

Stage 5: Undergraduate students are taught the concepts and the idea/theory gains wide spread acceptance.

Stage 6: The idea/theory is considered of sufficient importance to be taught at a school level and is placed in the curriculum.

Intelligent design begins at stage 6. There are no peer reviewed articles (except those in their own journals, and negative peer reviewed articles), no Intelligent Design scientist uses the concept in their scientific work, no research is currently being conducted and no accredited University teaches Intelligent Design.

What does the Science say?

Sources for Information on Intelligent design
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.icr.org/

What has been happening?
Reputable scientists like Richard Dawkins have repeatedly stated that there exists no scientific controversy and so there is no reason to debate http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/.

So what is going on with the coverage in the press and all those court cases in the US? Essentially it seems the I.D movement is using a wedge strategy. Get a foot in the door and then use that to stir up publicity. So each court case, each debate raises the profile of the movement and lends it legitimacy. Please note how different this approach is to the conventional approach of research scholarly discussion and academic rigour.
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

What’s happening?
In the U.S church and state are legally separated and that means no religion in schools. I.D is a way that many Christians have tried to get religion back into public schools. To stop this move many scientists and parents have taken legal action. To date I.D has lost every case.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

In Australia, where we have a long history of Creationism I.D is only starting. When the then federal minister of education favourably comments on the movement (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nelson-brings-intelligent-design-debate-to-australia/2005/08/10/1123353379310.html)
and every school gets free copies of the DVD, we have the same problem here.

I have included a PDF document that addresses some of the scientific issues for those interested.

Issues:

Is this science?
Does it belong in schools?
What effect does it have on the level of science education?
Why does the media give so much attention to these people?

Mainstream Media runs a story

2006-09-04T05:59:00.000+10:00

Anyone who reads in the area of religion will know that there has been a growing unrest among atheists to the negative condemnation we have received in the press. It also will come as no surprise that a number of articulate and educated writers have started to directly to connect religion with many of our social problems. I mean writers like Daniel Dennnet, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Until now this writers have received very little attention in the mainstream media. It is as if they do not exist. This is the first report I have come across that indicates that this may well be starting to change. Maybe it is the number of books they are selling maybe it's been a slow news week; but at the very least there may be starting to be some recognition that there is a group of people who are not accepting the Christian party line.

Is it worth debating with Christians?

2006-09-02T06:48:00.000+10:00

Yes.

It is worthwhile debating with people who have different views to ourselves for a number of reasons.

1) In an open democratic society the free exchange of ideas is a viable part of any social dialogue.

2) When an idea is put forward it is important for it to be debated and discussed so that it can be examined from many angles.

3) Debates do not normally sway the views of the participants so much as they influence the listeners.

4) Public debate draws attention to issues.

5) It shows that the Christian view of the world is not accepted as valid by all.

Rational discussion of any issue does make a difference to public perception of the issue and it's related issues.

Whatever happened to soccer?

2006-08-27T11:26:00.000+10:00

When I grew up soccer was a very popular winter sport played all around Australia. It was and remains one of the most popular participant sport in the country. On the international stage though Australia sucked. Now that the dust has settled after the world cup, Australia still sucks and always will.

Why am I so down on my own national team? Because this is a sport where we will never be contenders. There are several reasons for this:
1) Most Australians will not pay to watch local soccer (That is why our top league is played in summer, in Australia.)
2) We are remote geographically from the centers of world soccer, this means we cannot really play many worthwhile internationals.
3) We are simply too small to generate players of the skills needed. We can do it every 10-20 years, but we never get near the top ten.
4) All our very best players play in other nations because that's where the money is.

So lets just accept the obvious and stop pushing this sport like it's the next big thing, it ain't getting any bigger in Australia. While we are at can common sense prevail in Australia it's soccer not football. No code calls itself football because it is just too damn confusing (football can be soccer, Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Gridiron) get used to the fact that we have many types of football you need to drop the arrogance and call your code by a name that identifies it.

P.S soccer is a winter sport, it should not be played in 35 degree temperatures in the middle of summer.

Where does our moral authority come from??

2006-08-19T06:13:00.000+10:00

One of the questions that Christians often ask we atheists is where does our moral authority come from? The Christian of course claims that the bible is the basis for moral authority. God has set down moral standards by which all judgments and laws can be determined. Now whether or not that is accurate (and I think it's not) this is the simplistic view of many Christians.

It does sound like a reasonable argument. However it fails to recognise how we actually make moral decisions. Firstly the bible does not mention every possible moral dilemma. There is no mention of stem cell research in the bible, so the believer must find a passage that they think applies. Then they extend that principle to the new situation. Not all Christians agree so discussion occurs until some general consensus is reached. So it is not the bible that decides it is the believer.

We non-believers decide what is moral based on reason and practice. We decide that murder is wrong because we don't like the idea of being murdered. Our definition includes all sorts of acts. Over time situations arise that may make us refine what we consider murder. If it is just taking human life then maybe we would want to add intention because otherwise accidental deaths would be murder. As society we refine and change our view of what is moral based on reason and experience.

This sounds a lot like our modern legal process, because it is in this fashion we decide what is moral. Does it change? Yes of course it has to. In the same way that Christians change their morality. Christians change, yes is slavery still O.K, it was a hundred and fifty years ago?

In short we all raw our moral judgments from a combination of reason and experience. These choices are made before any religious view comes into it. Even devout believers often change their mind when the moral precepts prevent them doing what they want.

Atheists then have the same moral authority as believers reason and experience and that is as good as it gets.

You will Know the Truth and the truth will set you free.

2006-08-13T07:24:00.000+10:00

As a Christian I always felt that I was a believer in the truth. I always loved the line that as Christians we knew that the WORD needed no defence, it only needed to be set free. It was a lion that devoured its opponents. I think that no longer, as time after time devout bible believing Christians do their best to surprise, rewrite and downright lie in order to prevent any other view being heard.

This latest article as linked above is a classic example of the outrageous behavior of fundamentalist Christians in trying to suppress evidence of evolution. At one of the foremost museums in the world they want to suppress a display of mankinds ancestors because "Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory."

They wish to surpress a

.. collection includes the most complete skeleton yet found of Homo erectus, the 1.7 million-year-old Turkana Boy unearthed by Dr Leakey's team in 1984 at Nariokotome, near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.

The museum also holds bones from several specimens of Australopithecus anamensis, believed to be the first hominid to walk upright, four million years ago. Together the artifacts amount to the clearest record yet discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens.

In short the church does not believe they have the truth, they do not believe their bible can stand up for itself, they do not have faith that God will support their view. So instead they attempt to interfere with a museum exhibit. I have been thinking lately maybe non-believers should start to go into church and complain that they tell only one story, that other Gods deserve to be represented and insist that the Koran and Bible both be included.

The museum is a place for science let's leave religion in the church where it belongs and let people make up their own minds.

Is belief growing in Australia? No!

2006-08-06T13:25:00.000+10:00

For a while now I have been hearing of the rising tide of Christian belief. Articles abound about the decline in non-belief as the nation looks to god for the answers. Like most other people this did not seem to gel with my day to day interactions with people where if anything most people seems less rather than more spiritual. Today I read about this new study that has taken 4 years to complete that looks at the beliefs of 13 to 29 year olds.

A summary of the actual report is found here: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/spir/sppub/sppub.htm

The report concludes that less than half of Generation Y have any spiritual beliefs at all and of those that do only 19% attend church. What does it mean? Firstly it puts to an end all of those who are claiming a rise in levels of belief. Secondly it highlights the secular nature of Australian society. Thirdly it indicates just how marginalised are the churches when it comes to speaking for Australians.

So to all those believers out there I have three things to say:

1) Yes you are a minority
2) Yes you only speak for yourself
3) Get out of politics, you obviously don't belong.

Have a nice day!!! :)

Where will your soul go??

2006-07-28T21:40:00.000+10:00

Where will your soul spend eternity? This is a question often asked by evangelists keen to convert their hearers. It's a very good question, but of course it makes a few assumptions;
1) We actually have a non-physical part of ourselves called a soul
2) The soul is eternal and does not die
3) If we displease God he will punish our soul for all eternity
So really the choice is simple, believe or burn.

We can respond in a number of ways, or right rejection seems the most logical. "We don't have a soul, so your claim is nonsense." It neatly puts the position of the non-believer but does nothing to force the evangelist to think about their claims.

Instead we should ask as a counter question "Where was your soul before you were born?" It seems like a wanky question but it does force the believer to address some or all of their assumptions;
1) If the soul once did not exist, why can't it cease to exist in the future
2) When does it become one with the body
3) Is this new soul created by God pure or tainted
Will our evangelist address any of these, I doubt it.

What the question allows us to do, is to turn the tables.
Once they tell us it did not exist we can share with them that it still doesn't.

Jesus our great example??

2006-07-23T12:33:00.000+10:00

Jesus our great example?? (If he ever existed)

This entry is nothing more than an introdution to Robert Ingersoll and amazing writer from last century. These comments come from his writings all of which may be found on line through the link above.

IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?

He never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor.

Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music -- nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.

He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms.
All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect.

At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: "My God My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"

We have found that man must depend on himself. He must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plow and plant; he must invent; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.

The Injustice of Hell

2006-07-16T11:11:00.000+10:00

In many church's today we don't here much about hell. I don't know why because Jesus talked about it all the time. In fact Christians have claimed that Jesus death and resurrection provides the only way to escape the just punishment of hell.

The lake of eternal fire, the place of torment where all who are less than perfect will burn for all eternity.

This seems unjust for two reasons:

1) The sin was not eternal. Take the worst person you can imagine. Hitler for example. Yes he was responsible for the torture and murder of millions. He certainly deserves to be punished, no question. But for how long???
God could certainly list all of his sins, but at some point; maybe after a million years of torment for each death for which he was responsible, surely he would have paid the price.

It is not just to give eternal punishment for finite offences.

2) Why is there only one punishment. Hitler is burning in hell for eternity right next to Gandhi. Both are earned the same punishment?? While medieval theologians tried to give hell levels, the bible doesn't make those distinctions.

It is not just to give the same punishment to both severe crimes and minor crimes.

Finally, why does God need Jesus to die in order to forgive the creatures he created and caused to sin, so he won't send them all to a hell he created because he is so LIMITED he can't forgive them himself.

The whole concept of hell is unjust and makes little sense.

Democracy

2006-07-16T08:16:00.000+10:00

There seems to be some confusion in the minds of many Christians in the west about what exactly democracy is. A confusion that has led them to threaten the very nature of democracy itself.

Hand in hand with democarcy is the concept of free speech. Without the open exchange of ideas and the value of debating competing ideologies democracy simply does not work. In my opinion all ideas have a right to be heard in a democracy. Not only heard but debated and vigoursly criticised, adapted and defended.

The hallmark of a free society is the right of citizens to hold differing views. Having said that this does not protect any view from criticism and condemnation. There was a time not so long ago when western democracies clearly held racist views, whilst some may still hold those views the overwhelming number of citizens have supported the enactment of laws to prevent racism.

The press plays a vital role in informing citizens of differing viewpoints. Again however whilst press reports should consider a variety of views they must in the end reach a conclusion. Remembering that any view not covered in one report, can easily be presented in another or in a different publication.

A democracy does not offer to protect your views from criticism or intellectual attack, it offers a vital marketplace of ideas with rigorus debate. If you don't want your views discussed keep them to yourself in private and enjoy the freedom to hold your own views religious or otherwise. This is the other grest offering of democracy.

Great Bastards of the Christian faith #3

2006-07-13T11:23:00.000+10:00

Great Bastards of the Christian faith #3 - Mother Teresa

Bio:
Mother Teresa of Calcutta, (born Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu August 27, 1910 in Skopje in modern Macedonia (then part of the Ottoman Empire)) Order of Merit (August 27, 1910 Â? September 5, 1997), was an Albanian Catholic nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity in India. Her work among the poverty-stricken of Kolkata (Calcutta) made her one of the world's most famous people, and she was beatified by Pope John Paul II in October 2003. Hence, she may be properly called Blessed Teresa by Catholics.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)

Reasons for Inclusion:
1) After collecting billions of dollars, she made no public accounting of where it was spent, instead she praised poverty. Why is her charity the only one to not give a public set ofaccountss?

2) After collecting billions she failed to build even one hospital.

3) It was policy to baptise all the dying into the Catholic church whether they wanted to or not.

4)Why did she win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 because she never did anything for peace. In her acceptance speech she said, Â?Abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace... "

5)The standard of medical care provided was non-existent, yet when she fell ill she went to the best clinics the west had to offer.

Well done another fine Christian!!

Great Bastards of the Christian Faith #2

2006-07-01T09:04:00.000+10:00

John Calvin

Bio: John Calvin (July 10, 1509 Â? May 27, 1564) was an important French Christian theologian during the Protestant Reformation and is the namesake of the system of Christian theology calledCalvinistm. He was born Jean Chauvin (or Cauvin) in Noyon, Picardie, France, to GÃ©rard Cauvin and Jeanne Lefranc. French was his mother tongue; Calvin derives from the Latin version of his name, Calvinus. Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517, when Calvin was 8 years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin)

Reasons for Nomination:

1) Used religion to establish his own political power - putting to torture and death his political opponents.

2) Responsible for urging the burning of 23 people for thcrimene of witchcraft.

3) Directly responsible for the murder of theological opponent Michael Servetus
"On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies! Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine of "once saved, always saved" (known in certain circles as "the perseverance of the saints") violated the cry of the Reformation -- "Sola Scriptura" -- by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification." (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm)

In short John Calvin was an unrepentant murderer and an unfit human being. Today he woulreceiveve the harshest of legal penalties for his self serving murder and torture of others.

Yet many hold him to be the greatest of Christian thinkers!!!!

Let us recognise the saintly life and example of one of Christianity's greatest teachers.

Great Bastards of the Christian Faith #1

2006-06-24T10:48:00.000+10:00

This is the first of what I hope will be a series of brief pieces on some of the great figures of the Christian Faith. Why? Because I am sick to death of hearing how great Christians are morally, it's about time they took a long hard look at what Christianity has done for the world.

Great bastards of the Christian Faith

#1 Saint Cyril of Alexandria

Bio:
Cyril I (376Â?June 27, 444), surnamed The Pillar of Faith, was Patriarch of Alexandria. He is revered as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In 1883 the Holy See declared him a Doctor of the Church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria)

Reasons for Nomination:

1) Responsible for driving the Jews out of Alexandria

2) Caused continual civil disturbance.
Cyril, making use of a 500-strong private militia, began to exert his authority in the temporal as well as in the spiritual sphere, and thus he came into conflict with the civil governor, Orestes, in the course of a series of increasingly violent confrontations between the various factions in the city. In 415 and as the violence escalated, his powerful militia made a direct assassination attempt on Orestes himself. However this failed and the governor was able to apprehend one of the ringleaders, whom he tortured so severely that the man died. Cyril was furious and, managing to get hold of the body, pronounced over it a ceremony of canonisation, enrolling the would-be assassin in the calendar of the saints (where incidentally he remained until this century). (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or030897.htm)

3) Responsible for the death of Callistus, prefect of Egypt

4) Incited mob violence that killed Hypatia a renowned scholar.
Socrates Scholasticus described her death thus in his Ecclesiastical History:
"Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius [AD 415]."

Let us all pause and remember this great man of faith who truly showed the morality of the Christian faith.

Censorship

2006-06-21T13:39:00.000+10:00

With interest I have heard once again that our government is looking at forcing ISPs to censor the net. Once again this is in order to patched children form online predators and unsuitable material. When the idea was first floated the suggestion was that an adult wanting unrestricted access to the net would need to apply to their provider to have the filter switched off.

This is all utter madness.

Do we prevent people form crossing the road because children might do so? The responsibility for all of this must remain with the parents. I am sick of paternalistic government that keeps throwing laws at us because parents will not look after their own children.

It is not the task of government to limit the freedom of its citizens because one or other group within society cannot look after their own interests. We in Australia are being over governed. It is well and truly time we had a push for less government.

Who is right?

2006-06-18T09:55:00.000+10:00

Are the atheists right? What about the Christians? What about Muslims? Well I don't want to look at any of that right now. In fact i have one simple question which all Christians need to have an answer for.
Why are there so many brands of Christianity if it is the TRUE FAITH?????

I could understand it if there was a good argument to explain why so many people who have the TRUTH all disagree. Christianity as a religion cannot agree on the following:
1) What should be in the bible.
2) The authority of the bible.
3) What is needed for salvation.
4) What will happen at the end of the world.
5) Do heaven and hell exist.
6) Was Jesus divine.
In fact there are so many differences about fundamentals that Christianity as a religion looks exactly like every other religion.

While you are working out why this happened don't bother telling me that:
1) Your brand is the only true brand.
2) Because it's true Satan has tried to corrupt it.
3) In my heart I know you're right.
4) You have the deeper/inner/secret truth that the others don't have.
Don't tell me because that's what all the other salesman said.

Wake up, Christianity is no different to any other human belief system, there is nothing unique or special about it. When Christians can explain that, they will enlarge their audience.

Out of Eden

2006-06-11T07:51:00.000+10:00

Like many Christians I had come to see the story of the fall as just that, a story. At one time I had believed that there was an Adam and an Eve and that they were the literal first people. As I learnt more about the bible I realised that it was never meant to be more than a story explaining why humans were as we are and how we fell from our relationship with God.

As a reformed Christian I also felt that the story showed God's loving plan for all creation that even at this low point God had prepared for those who loved him. As an atheist I now see that this story is one of the most negative and destructive stories that the world has ever heard.

Firstly it has led Christians to view themselves and the world as "fallen". In practice it means that we should not expect good things because we don't deserve them. The psychological damage that this has done is so massive and so intrinsic to Western culture we often don't even see it. It certainly explains our drive to exploit and manipulate nature whatever the consequences.

Secondly it puts every believer into the most spastic type of intellectual masturbation imaginable just to make sense of the story. Because it does not make any sense. God (who knows everything and is all powerful) creates a species and gives them a choice, even though he already knows they will disobey him. That makes no sense at all, why not create a species who will do what you say. I have always been told it's because of freewill. What a load of shit!!! It is not freewill to say to someone you have a choice: choose a and I will bless you, choose b and I will shoot you in the head. That is not a choice. If after the choice the rest of humanity is forever sinful, how is that a choice for the billions of us that followed?

Finally we need at this time to see this story for what it is a bronze age myth. It may have been helpful once but it's harmful now. If as I did you feel it's only a story that captures a truth about God and man, it's time to wake up.
If there was no real fall, then there is no original sin.

Get it, we ARE NOT sinners.

We don't need saving!!

Why don't we count???

2006-05-24T13:38:00.000+10:00

A recent news item came to my attention because of the odd comments that were made in relation to it. The Queensland department of Health has decided that it is no longer appropriation for Gideons to place bibles in every hospital room. The reasons given have been around issues of respecting other beliefs.

I for one can see no problem with this. All patients can have their Holy Book upon request (if they forgot to bring it with them). The ban only says that no one text will be given to everybody whatever their faith or lack there of. I would have thought that leaving one book in a hospital room as patients changed would be a potential source of infection. In addition when I was a Christian the idea of not taking my bible with me was unthinkable.

My objection to all of this came in the form of a morning television show which looked at the issue. The first argument came in the form of an anecdote by a journalist who had recently had a child. She commented about comforted she had been by the bibles presence, she actually never opened it but felt it's presence gave her peace of mind. I guess this peace of mind would not have been possible if the bible had been stored with a nurse.

The second point really angered me. People of other faiths are not offended by the bibles as many of these faiths respect it, the problem is non-believers who think that any religion presence is unacceptable. The problem seems to be that only people of faith have the right to comment on matters of religion. As an atheist I have no right to ask for a hospital bed free of any religious mythology?

Clearly we just don't count.

Rising Faith????

2006-05-15T08:07:00.000+10:00

An interesting article, if a little one sided. As I understand it faith is not on the rise anywhere, even in America. The number of believers and non-believers in that country has been stable for quiet a while. In Europe belief is dying off, at least according to the Anglican church.

It is very easy to distort what is happening in the U.S. For a very long time matters of faith were not reported in the media. In fact you could say that the media was controlled and run by secular interests that did not choose to report the extent and depth of religion in the U.S.A.

In recent times the growing political power of Christians groups has led to a greater coverage of faith and faith based reporting. This gives the impression of a growing movement which I think is mistaken. I think we are seeing a growth in coverage not in actual numbers.

Non-believers in America have not responded effectively to this shift in media coverage. Philosophically there has been little change. I don't think the writers claims of dissolutionment really apply. A faith in humanity is not intrinsic to atheism. Perhaps a fresh approach will arise, could we be seeing it in the number of Christians who actually do not believe that God exists?

2006-05-14T07:36:00.000+10:00

Gay Marriage

2006-05-14T06:46:00.000+10:00

10 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

This cracked me up, couldn't help but repost.

I am not a baby boomer!!!

2006-05-13T08:47:00.000+10:00

This is a pet hate of mine, as any reader here will know. I was born in 1960 therefore any post war baby boom was well over. I am too young to remember the 60s and the music I remember from my teen years is punk rock and heavy metal. My theory is that being caught between so called generations forces too much thought on journalists and so they have to move me into one of their boxes, no matter how ill fitting.

Yes once again lazy journalists are the cause of this little rant. In today's paper I have just been reading how the "boomers" are adpoting the technology of the young. Meaning ipods, game consoles etc. This is apparently part of a never ending quest to be young. Sound plausible??? Maybe for an older generation but not for this little black duck.

I grew up with the home computer. My brother and I were typing pages of game code into our vic20 from its inception. I owned the first walkman and one of the earliest ipods. In terms of gaming I owned an intellivision, a colecovision and have played computer games since they became available on almost any platform you can name (commdore, atari, apple, pc). Given that today I still do all of these "young" things. You know like listen to music, play computer and console games, am I trying to recapture my youth?

I would describe it as continuing to do what I have always done for recreation. Journalists it is time to get off your fat arses and do some actual work instead of making stuff up!!!

Non Believing Lifestyles

2006-05-11T16:58:00.000+10:00

After Years of Christian propaganda about how only the religious lifestyle meets human needs this article was very refreshing. Like many I had started to think that the propaganda that has passed from our clergy was true. That somewhere there was a God shaped hole in all of us, and that we would find something spiritual to fill it. Seems these young people have shown that to be far from true.

Maybe now those of us who have no belief at all in the supernatural can sleep easy knowing that we're not about to subscribe to some cult or other to fill the vacuum. In fact we may be okay as we are, no need for anything 'out there'.

Gee no god shaped hole, no original sin, what do we need the Christian church for again?????

What is an atheist?

2006-05-05T16:13:00.000+10:00

How do we define the terms theist, atheist and agnostic?
More importantly how do we use them.

The theist - believes that there is sufficient evidence that a deity exists and information about that God is knowable.

The atheist - believes that there is insufficient evidence for a diety and therefore non-exists.

The agnostic - believes that the evidence does not allow for a conclusion to be reached with certainty.

I use the word belief deliberately because each explores the same evidence and draws a different conclusion. This means to me that the choice is not made on rational grounds, in many ways the terms are not equivalent. There are many Christians for example that adhere to the faith, follow it's teaching but don't actually believe in a deity.

I would add that people move from one poition to another during their lives and so no person is locked into a position. I would also add that these views do not presuppose any particular view of any one religion.

What do people think?

Memes??

2006-04-30T09:11:00.000+10:00

Ever since I left Christianity (seems funny to be saying that) I have had a number of questions keep popping up. One of these is simply why is it that religion is so popular if it is not true? I got thinking about this listening to a discussion between a Christian and an athiest. The Christian just could not seem to understand why the atheist did not believe. He often repeated himself, and clearly had trouble understanding how, when confronted with his logic the athiest still would not believe.

As is often the case with such discussions it seemed that one side was pig headed while the other was reasonable. I guess depending on your position you might see a difference as to who was pig headed. However the longer I listened the more it seemed that the Christian was a reasonable guy but he just could not see the other position at all. If I discuss football with even the most rabid supporter they will at some point concede that their team has its flaws. My criticism of that team has some merit and I might be correct. We could come to an understanding of each others views.

Christians are incapable of this. Why?
Perhaps Christianity is a meme.
What is a meme?
The Wikipedia defines it as:

The term "meme" (IPA: [miːm]), a theoretical concept introduced in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, refers to any unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice, idea or concept, which one mind transmits (verbally or by demonstration) to another mind. Examples might include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods in addition to concepts such as race. Different definitions of meme generally have in common, very roughly, that a meme consists of some sort of a self-propagating unit of cultural evolution having an analogous resemblance to the gene (the unit of genetic information).

If Christianity is a meme it would go a long way to explaining why it's so hard to deconvert and why Christians are so dogmatic. Maybe when talking with Christians we need to understand they have this intellectual limitation. Sort of puts the boot on the other foot. Christians are victims of a mind virus who are in need of a cure.

Ex Christians

2006-04-27T08:09:00.000+10:00

This post on Exchristians was interesting for a number of reasons.
1. Nice to know your existence is noticed
2. Some of the reasons cited were valid and genuine
3. That as a movement Exchristians are growing and becoming more active.
The negative side is obvious and consists mainly of failing to understand the reasons behind the leaving of faith.

I think though that the writer has missed a number of important issues. Maybe because he is in fact writing from a point of view that is apologetic and the nature of the publication that he is writing for. Exchristians are by their nature people who have been involved to varying degrees in the Christian church. To leave any organisation with which one has a deep involvement will take some pretty strong reasons.

I don't want to talk about these. Instead I want to look at the psychological consequences of leaving an organisation into which a person has placed a lot of themselves.

Firstly there are the fears and regrets that we all feel. Have I made the right decision? What if I am wrong? Did I really do all that for nothing?

Secondly the anguish that turns to anger when you realize you have been deceived or lied to, by those who claim to represent a good.

Thirdly there is the determination not to be duped in this way again by people claiming one thing and representing another.

Finally there can be for some the desire to help others who have not realised exactly what the organisation is doing.

So, will an intellectual response reconvert the Exchristian?

I don't think so.

A question from Susan

2006-04-25T07:17:00.000+10:00

A question asked in a newsgroup.

Hi! I had a pretty good day yesterday and sat through two sermons
without too much trouble. On Easter Sunday I stayed home from the
evening service because I just didn't think I could sit through the
communion service. I have good days and bad days. Anyway, I've
been thinking over a few things that I'm curious about. This is
more directed at those who are or have been in a Christian
fundamentalist group and accepted Christ as Savior and were saved.
One thing that sticks in my mind from a sermon yesterday was about
how if someone who is "saved" goes astray and leaves the church and
gets into sin (I'm assuming this would be an obvious thing) will be
miserable because the Holy Spirit will convict them of it, and your
life will go downhill. And if this doesn't happen and you can
actually enjoy yourself, then you just probably were never saved in
the first place. Also, that the only way to financial success and a
life of success in general is doing it God's way, through faithful
church attendance, giving, praying, Bible reading, etc. I'm just
curious as to how it has gone for those of you who did leave the
church and the aforestated things behind. I've wanted to ask
someone that for a long time, because it seems to me that people in
church can be very miserable (put me at the top of the list) even
when one is doing all you can to do right as preached. I've left
after church services feeling so down because it seems impossible to
do all the things the pastor was preaching about, so why keep
trying. We aren't prospering financially in spite of generous giving
and that seems to be another contradiction. I suppose I'm to be
happy with the prospect of having riches in heaven and stop being so
materialistic.
This next topic is somewhat related, but it has to do with people
who had already made a profession of faith in Christ and were active
in the church, showed signs of growth as a Christian, etc. and all
of a sudden during a revival meeting or church service they realize
they actually weren't saved after all. Then they admit that it was
just pride holding them back from truly trusting Christ and
repenting, with repentance being the key thing here. That happened
with a few people in the church I grew up in after we had moved on,
and we heard about it from someone (amazing considering that we were
blackballed, that we even heard about it). Last spring a friend of
mine really got saved, where before she just thought she was. Then
last fall I was going through a tough time, the cause of which I
don't remember, and one Sunday morning she sat down and talked with
me about whether I was really saved and how she had been concerned
about me for weeks and just not sure how to approach the subject. I
ended up praying to make sure I was saved. Another woman in the
church had gotten saved (again?) just a few weeks before. That
evening when I stood up in front, a bit reluctantly, to say I'd
gotten assurance of my salvation, a few people called me "sis" and
so on, and it seemed strange. Now I'm on the list to be baptized
(this would be the fourth time, since I was sprinkled as an infant
and baptized in a Baptist church twice because I reassured myself of
my salvation around age 10), but I don't really want to do it
again. I'm a little afraid of the reaction if I don't do it. I'll
also mention that we're told that if you only pray a prayer for
salvation because you're afraid of hell, then you probably aren't
saved, because you have to repent. It makes me feel uneasy whenever
someone gets saved "again" like there's something a little off about
it, but hey, who am I to say what's going on in someone's heart and
mind.
Oh, I just remembered that the pastor said that if a spouse goes
astray then the family is surely doomed to destruction no matter how
hard the still faithful spouse tries to keep it together. Also,
that the backsliding spouse is bringing God's judgement on the
house, and also on the church probably. That would include having
doubts that the KJV is the only Word of God.
I heard that they've also noticed that I'm wearing pants more than I
used to and that's a bit of a concern apparently. I don't wear them
to services, just in my daily life, anyway. I feel like a rebel
because I want to dress as I like, within reasonable boundaries.
Well, I'd like to discuss one more point, but this is getting very
long.
Susan

There are many things I could say Susan to your questions. I stopped all inovolvement with church after Christmas. I have moved through all the phases of belief from conservative reformed through liberal to non-realist and finally to athiest.

As moved through all these stages one thing I have noticed is my sense of self worth has improved through each step. The first thing that changed for me was to realise that original sin is a horrible doctrine that puts those who follow it in a perpetual state of inferiority. Are we ever "good" enough 'holy' enough before God.

Was I ever saved? Of course I was fully and completely. I prayed studied the scriptures. I produced many spiritual fruits and brought many to Christ. Now I realise I was self decieved reading all sorts of "spiritual" meanings into perfectly normal human responses. The thing is those responses are still part of my life. Things that i used to call the 'spirits leadings' are my own best judgements and ideas, the 'presence of God' is my own feeling of belonging in this world. Non of the things I felt as a Christian have changed I still feel the same things.

Not feeling saved is part of the negative side of fundamentalist Christianity. You are meant to always doubt but say that you are certain you are saved. It is a psycological trick nothing more. If you realise that there is nothing to be saved from, you will see the faith very differently. It is worth pointing out that this salvation focus is fairly recent in the history of the church and far from the only way to view the faith.

In the end it has taken me a long time to step free of all that I grew up with and deeply believed. It has been difficult and painful. At the end however there is a sense of freedom and empowerment. Now that I can see the tricks and con games played on me over the years I have no guilt or negative feelings about leaving only a sense of beinging closer to the truth

Fat and Faith?

2006-04-24T15:09:00.001+10:00

I hate it when I get up the morning and start to get dressed and find those pants have been shrinking again. Anyone else have this problem ? I think it's something in the water that's reacting with the cloth. My wife on the other hand thinks I'm gaining weight ( poor misguided woman ). I guess when I get older I might gain some weight, it can happen to us all. Although I am doubtful that it could really happen to me.

It seems watching TV I'm not the only one whose thinking about those extra kilos. The supermarket is stacked with low fat, sugar free and diet foods. I for one find most of these foods not particularly flavorsome. In fact I tend to translate the labels. So Low Fat = Taste Free, No sugar = Lots of Chemicals and Diet = This is for YOU FATSO.

I was amazed to read recently that by going on a diet you cannot lose weight only put it on! A long term study 15+ years showed 100% of dieters gained weight over the long term and the more they dieted the more they gained. The only thing that worked in controlling weight was permanent lifestyle changes. That means a balance of good food, exercise and positive attitude.

This struck me as very similar to the situation Christians find themselves in. A diet of church, bible study group, youth group, Christian social group, Christian music, Christian books, all Christian friends. It starting to look pretty similar. None of these things is bad in and of itself but is this a healthy balance?

Jesus might be a little perplexed at modern Christians whose churches look more like refuges for those escaping the world than powerhouses of spiritual change. In fact churches have become more like bunkers, keeping the evils of thinking and science away.

If true balance is to be found in our society then Christians will have to be lured out of their hiding holes and encouraged to embrace a wider world of ideas and people. Losing weight like talking to Christians is not an easy task, but it’s one the rest of us are going to have to tackle sooner rather than later.

Isolation

2006-04-21T17:15:00.000+10:00

I have just finished reformatting and installing my computer from scratch. Why ???? To make it run faster and more reliably. It has worked out well with no real problems so far. However while I was without its use I felt cut off. I couldn't check my email or troll the blogs or post to my favorite forums.

Not really isolation as such but non the less I felt as if a part of my life had been removed. I raise this because we are becoming increasingly dependent on our computers to form and maintain communities. They don't replace real interaction but they do add a whole new dimension to it. If you include mobile phones as well it's quite a massive part of our communications with others.

I won't bemoan the loss of old fashioned conversation, I think if any thing computers have greatly increased human interaction. I know and communicate with people from all around the world in a matter of moments. A level and ease of exchange that simply was not possible before computers.

So let us celebrate our computers for the people they lead us to and the opportunities it gives us to share our thoughts and opinions.

The Rudeness of Christians

2006-04-16T07:37:00.000+10:00

When you look at it Christianity is a very rude and offensive faith. I know of few people who think they can be polite to your face but secretly (?) believe you deserve to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity. In fact Paul's idea of being nice to non-believers is like heaping burning coals on their heads.

Of course the down side for the Christian is that they can never do the right thing for its own sake. They always have their eye on the bottom line. Every action they do as if for Jesus. So the next time a group of Christians acts in a kindly manner don't be fooled, their only in it for the reward.

So this easter as we watch all those pious Christians celebrate the rising of Christ from the dead remember that they wish to see everyone else burn in hell for all eternity. It has always struck me that the death of one man for all mankind held great significance, both as a symbol and as a gesture of the unity of humanity. The Christian distortion of this myth is that God only wants those who think in the approved way to be saved from damnation. So it is not true to say Christ died for the sins of all.

Modern Christianity believes that Christ died to save those who would follow him. He wants to put all the others into hell for eternity. Not such a positive message, is it?

Easter - What does it mean?

2006-04-15T17:09:00.000+10:00

I guess if we abandon much of the bagage of the religious past what can we salvage as the true heart of Easter? The old pagan mythology of rebirth after winter doesn't really work for those of us in the southern hemisphere, we are just going into winter. Perhaps a closer look at the Christian myth of Christ might give us something to draw on.

I cannot see a saviour dying to save us from sins that were caused by the first man and then in three days being reborn, is quite what we are looking for. How much of a sacrifice was it anyway, he knew he was being raised from the dead so not such a big deal. Maybe though what the myth originally meant which was that the Gods are like us or rather we are like them. If they are subject to death and rebirth why not us?

I see in the Christ myth a core of understanding begining. The Gods are not different to us, they are us. One of the reasons I feel that Christianity took off in the ancient workd was it's ability to make each believer equal before God because of Jesus. The church certainly has screwed with this over time, but so many early believers really felt they were the Gods, not some diety far, far away.

So my easter message is that of being born again, to truly wake up from the deathly sleep of ignorance and to move out in the light of understanding and hope. This means facing the good and the bad (as Jesus did) and living in the knowledge that you alone have to deal with it.

The Gods may have forsaken us, but it turns out we didn't need the Gods to begin with.

Tolerance???

2006-04-12T12:04:00.000+10:00

I guess it should not come as a shock that Christians want to have the right to discriminate against various groups in society. It still is though. I guess from earlier posts you may have deduced that I think that Christianity is a basically inferior moral system, that has for centuries been holding back moral development in it's adherents. This seems like more proof.

I can understand that for purposes of employment it is okay to allow religions to discrminate against those who are not believers. That seems like the only reasonable area where discrimination would be okay. I certainly would listen to other arguments for membership and positions within a religion. HOWEVER that is not the same as wanting the right to harrass others in public.

This is not really about discrimination it is about harrassment. The Christians named in the article want the right to harrass certain groups in society with whom they do not agree. This is such a blatent fraud and very immoral idea that it has to be objected to on every level. I fail to see how it can be justified.

Maybe if it is allowed then the rest of us need to harrass and ridule these Christians as part of our right to free expression on matters of religion. I can see it now all over the world, Mormons knocking on doors to crys of derision from a group of people that follow them around all day. Meetings of Christian groups with picket lines declaring that they are liars and corrupters of children.

Yep it's certainly a big step forward.

A new Gospel ???

2006-04-09T08:14:00.000+10:00

A new gospel. This one from the point of view of Judus. This was real news?? Certainly this gospel has been known about for a long time and it really is interesting, as are many other gospels from the early church. It is hardly earth shattering enough to make the front page of the paper.

The problem I guess is the ignorance of most people as to the early centuries of the Christian church. It certainly was not the way the New Testament writings picture it. A basicly unified church with a few trouble makers. The early church was a widely diverse group of people with all sorts of wierd and wacky beliefs. What happened was that one group was able to gain political control and stamp out all of the competing groups.

Does not sound too different to any other movement in human history. The orthodox believers who had control sought to destroy every other view by burying their writings and the believers if they could. Actually the church has a long record of killing off anyone who does not toe the party line. It seems now that the early church was not as good as it thought about stamping out contrary views.

If anything this backs up what Robert Funk said for many years, which is we have a dire need for religious education. Maybe if people had a better understanding of their religions origins they would be less dogmatic about it.

Heres hoping.

Is it okay?

2006-04-04T14:00:00.000+10:00

Just the other day I heard someone say that we all need to be tolerant of the church. Although people might be rude or offensive we should accept they had the right motives and give them another chance. I hear this a lot, that somehow the rules of ordinary society do not apply in the Christian church.

My experience has been that the normal rules of polite society certainly don't apply. You won't be asked your opinion, you will be given instructions, and of course your constantly being told what to do and think. So I half agree the normal rules are not in operation. The question is if this is alright?

My answer has been a clear no. The church like every other organisation needs to get it's house in order. Sheer rudeness does not pass as concern neither does childish tantrums and offensive prejudice pass as knowledge. For me, I will never involve myself again in a church in which I do not have a voice and in which common human decency is not shown.

These things are very common in most volunteer organisations yet so lacking in the church. When will they wake up and realise how many they have driven away???

Our Furry Pets

2006-04-02T08:45:00.000+10:00

New Name

2006-04-02T08:32:00.000+10:00

I have decided that the negative name I gave this blog is not really what it is all about now. It really is about me finding a new direction, a new way forward. In that spirit it should not become so focused on the evils of the Christian religion that my own values are swamped.

What values I find will I hope unfold as time goes by. The first one is I love to play sport and exercise. I get a peculiar sense of well being from physical activity. It does not need to be competitive. I have never been a world beater or even a first class participant in any sport. That doesn't seem to matter I just enjoy taking part.

So I would say that I value the physical part of my life and challenging myself through that.

The Power of Prayer

2006-03-31T12:10:00.000+11:00

I guess the worst thing about prayer is the way it never works. I remember thinking years ago that if I was holy enough, devoted enough, knew the mind of God enough then I would be able to pray and have my prayers answered. I was wrong.

In fact most prayer is a complete waste of time. In most church meetings prayer can become a weapon in the hands of a minister/pastor who decides they will pray at people rather than with them. The prayer then turns into a another sermon.

All those wasted hours spent praying could have been better used. However someone has now conducted a serious study into the effects of prayer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
The findings predictably were "Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery." In the end though Christians inevitably claimed that you cannot test the power of prayer. Maybe thats because there is no test that will find it to actually work. So the tests must all be wrong.

Imaginary friends don't really act in the world.

Subtle Influence

2006-03-28T10:21:00.000+11:00

One of the most maddening things about Christianity is it's overwhelming desire to wield influence over others no matter how much they don't want it. It is an assumption of superiority which is unwarranted and undeserved. The same attitude when expressed towards the Christian faith is regarded as intolerance and persecution.

Most democracies have courts and processes designed to fairly rule on disputes over most matters. However when these rulings are made the Christian simply refuses to accept them and tries to undermine the broader social consensus. This article
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91
explaining how the teaching of science has been undermined in various US states. I am sure similar approaches have been used in both Britain and Australia.

At some point the rest of us will have to stand up to this relentless bullying and subversion of democracy in the name of religion. Until we do our freedoms and rights will be continually degraded.

Would you want to know?

2006-03-21T14:37:00.000+11:00

A question asked of Christians on a forum this morning. If Christianity were not true but in fact a fiction imposed on believers would you as a Christian want to know? It seems the majority of Christians asked all say they do not want to consider the question as they know it is all true. I guess you have to read this answer as a no, I don't want to know.

It is not that far from the old one about knowing if you are dying with cancer. I for one have always wanted to know. Knowledge gives me choices, directions to take and a chance to the most with what I really have. In terms of this question most people who would answer yes are on the road to leaving Christianity behind.

I say that because that's where I started. If it is all true then it can withstand any argument or negative impressions, if not it does not deserve to stand. Problem was it isn't true, it collapses like a house of cards once you look at it up close. I guess that's why I ended up here.

Just say no!!

The Moral Low Ground

2006-03-19T07:57:00.000+11:00

It seems clear that in any moral argument the Christian has an awful lot of explaining to do. I am frequently amazed when Christians make a statement about morality and expect the rest of us to agree that they are right. Almost like they have some superior moral insight or understanding. The irony is that I think they are completely wrong. In any moral discussion the Christian view should automatically be distrusted until proven valid.

The track record of the Christian faith in morality is appalling. Historically all those killings of the innocent, incest, rape, murder, slavery... anyway enough from the Holy Scriptures. If we look at the Christian church today we see any number of moral evils. These evils are ongoing and reflect the complete moral bankruptcy of the Christian faith.

The surprise is that these outrages cover almost every brand of Christianity in the market. For example:
1) Refusing to support the use of condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa (Catholic)
2) Sheltering child sexual abusers (Catholic)
3) Taking money off the poor to spend on themselves (AoG)
4) Blocking aid to the third world (Evangelicals)
5) Persecution of GLBTs (All of them)
6) Subjugation of women (Most of them)
7) Attempting to revive back yard abortions (All of them)
The list could go on. The one common theme is the ongoing moral abuse that hides behind the mask of the Christian faith.

There is no answer except to say loudly and clearly to any Christian that presumes to speak with authority on ANY moral issue to be quiet. Until they can show one thread of moral decency at all, they have no place in a discussion of morality.

Why is it that the so called people of God who have been filled with the Holy Spirit have, in the church, formed the most immoral organisation known to man???

Identity????

2006-03-15T13:59:00.000+11:00

It seems that much of who we are today is defined by others to suit their own agenda. I have found myself numbered among the baby boomers in recent times and I find that quite offensive. Not that I have anything against that group but being born in 1960 I have nothing in common with them. In fact much of my adolescent years were spent dissociating myself from those who had gone before. Yet despite never having been a boomer I observe that the year brackets have slowly crept forward to encompass my birth year.

In the same way that this label has been applied to me so have many others. The one that bothers me the most is that of Christian, a label which many have said I no longer have the right to use. Yet what other term fits what I think and believe?

While I am a non realist when it comes to God, I would not consider myself an Atheist becausde the term does not capture that part of my thinking to do with God. It is a dilemma that is perhaps waiting for a solution. Maybe those of us that think this way are a new type of atheist. Not the old line of there being no God but a new line of thought, that the gods while not being real still having a linguistic and cultural existence.

2006-03-12T09:49:00.000+11:00

Chuck Norris Facts

2006-03-12T09:15:00.000+11:00

This site is great: http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.
There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.
Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill.
Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting.... CHUCK NORRIS GOES KILLING

Historical Accuracy

2006-03-12T08:42:00.000+11:00

I just read this post here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7553&hl=

It so impressed me I had to duplicate some of it. It really nails down that old Christian error about the historical accuravy of the bible.

"The problem with your posting (I really can’t figure when you think Jesus was born), other than it is a mish-mash of “cut and paste”, is that you are going to Christian sources that quote Christian sources from nearly a third of a millennium after the fact. If you had gone to the historic records and writing of persons that lived during that period, you would have discovered that with the Romans, censuses were conducted for purposes of taxation and In his account of the major events of his life, Augustus wrote that he conducted official censuses in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, 6 CE and 14 CE. Dio Cassius the Roman historian wrote that in 6 CE Caesar Augustus set up a fund to benefit the Roman military and had kings and certain communities contribute to it. He also made a sizable contribution and promised to do so each year. When this did not provide sufficient funds to keep the military going, he issued a worldwide decree that there would be a 5% inheritance tax on estates/inheritances, something beyond normal taxation. Such taxation would require a census to register transferable assets, such as land, and to record genealogies to establish “very near relatives” (Roman History LV 25:5-6).
Josephus noted the effects of this decree in Judea: “Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus' money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it." (Antiquities. XVIII 1:1). He further reported "a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords." (Wars II 8:1). In Antiquities XX 5:2, he wrote of "Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews." As Josephus noted, Caesar’s 5% tax was to be on estates/inheritances of all but the poor and near relatives, not on the people.

The census attached to this taxation was also noted by Luke: "Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered." (Acts 5:37) This shows that Luke was speaking of the same census/taxation as Josephus, the 6 CE census/taxation conducted under Cyrenius (P. Sulpicius Quirinius).

A listing of the Governors of Syria from 10 BCE to 7 CE are as follows:
BCE 10-9 M. Titius
BCE 9-6 Gaius Sentius Saturninus
BCE 6-3 P. Quinctilius Varus
BCE 3-1 L. Calpurnius Piso
BCE 1-4 CE Gaius Julius Caesar
4-6 CE L. Volusius Saturninus
6-7 CE P. Sulpicius Quirinius
The individual that served in the period of 6 – 3 BCE, P. Quinctillus Varus has often been claimed by Christians to the the “Cyrenius” of the NT, even though Quinctillus sounds nothing like Cyrenius (Greeks were noted for at least getting close to the sound of a name) and there was not a census decreed by Caesar Augustus during that period. The ironic fact is that during the campaigns of P. Sulpicius Quirinius (the real Cyrenius), Quinctillus served as a subordinate officer under his command.

In order to ascertain the birth date of Jesus, several parameters must be met:
Matthew reports that the birth was during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BCE) and Luke reports that the birth was during the census decreed by Caesar Augustus during the tenure of Quirinius as Governor of Syria (prior to the death of Herod, Judea was not part of Syria, but instead a “patron” state) and Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (reported by Luke to have started his mission in the “fifteenth year of Tiberius reign, which would be 28 CE and reported by Josephus as having been executed by Herod in 36 CE – which in itself is a problem). He would have been tried before Pontius Pilate and executed by his troops, according to Roman records and Josephus, Pilate served from 26 CE to 36 CE, being recalled to Rome in 36 CE. If these parameters can’t be met, then it is demonstrated that the gospels are in extreme error and will remove your claim of the value of the bible as a historical report.

If Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, then he would have been born prior to 2 BCE, but there was no census decreed by Caesar Augustus after 8 BCE until 6 CE, plus at that time Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria. If Jesus had been born any time prior to the death of Herod, then he would have been 30 years old and starting his ministry prior to John the Baptist and would have been crucified prior to John being executed by Herod, so clearly we can rule out Matthew as having the correct information. If Jesus had been born in the year 1 CE, he would have come to John to be baptized in 30 CE, the second year of John’s ministry. But he would have been crucified 4 years before John was executed by Herod and the gospels are very specific that John died first. If he had been born during the 6 CE census, then he would have started his ministry the same year that John was executed and would have been executed by someone other than Pontius Pilate, which can rule out Luke as a valid record of history. Hmmmm, now instead of cut and pasting, YOU tell me when Jesus was born, because your bible is nearly worthless as history! "- Heimdall

Nutcracker (with apologies to Sartre)

2006-03-10T17:11:00.000+11:00

I love macadamia nuts, Chris and I even have a tree. I used to crack the nuts with pieces of rock, then we got Le Bonk which is a small vice that splits the nuts with little effort. The difference between the two in how they work is not vast. They both perform the job well.

The difference is that the vice was designed to crack the shell of a macadmamia nut, the rocks just happened to do an excellent job. Sartre proposed that we are like the rocks. We can do many tasks well but we were not designed for them. Sometimes I think we confuse these two catagories and believe like the vice that we are designed.

Just because we crack nuts well does not make a designer necessary.

What are you?

2006-03-05T08:19:00.000+11:00

An email this morning raised this question. What are we now that we no longer hold ourselves to be Christian in the traditional sense? Firstly I don't see it as a real serious problem, because no matter what flavor of Christian you happen to be, I figure I can find at least ten other versions of Christianity that think you are going to hell and not really a Christian.

Being a non-realist is a problem for True Believers (TM) because they don't have a category to put us into. It's bad enough for them to deal with atheists who were once Christians. That is not supposed to happen. At least though they have the decency to align themselves with the devil. They go in the evil sinners box.

The thinking goes like this:
You don't think God is real? So your an atheist - evil sinner box.
What do you mean you believe in God? You just said he wasn't real, move to heretic box.
God is a human construct that embodies truth??? Don't have a box for that.
Why can't you just deny God and get it over with??

How can we dialogue with Christians in any meaningful way? It is a hard question, we know them as well if not better than they know themselves but they refuse to counternance the thinking we have undergone. My approach has been to simply challenge every Christian statement that cannot be proven factually true. Each time I ask for evidence, or point out that that is only one of dozens of Christian truths and perhaps the speaker needs to show more respect for Christians. In a public setting this can really make Christians shut up. You in the end are not speaking against faith but for it. An example of this was when a Christian started speaking about intelligent design and their faith, I asked they show more respect for the Catholics among us whose church supported evolution. I actually said " Could you not assume you speak for all believers as many churchs disagree with your church's views, is it too much to ask for a little respect for people of faith.

Continually asking for evidence for faith based statements has two effects
1. Prevents the spouting of Christian propaganda
2. Points out not everyone thinks you are correct
3. Allows for the possibility of further dialogue
4. Takes back public space for all people not just the most rabid

Just some random thoughts on a Sunday.

Remember while we hate fundamentalism we love the fundamentalist.

The Assumption of Belief

2006-03-02T10:46:00.002+11:00

I have noticed that many people assume the mantle of religious belief without any actual commitment. They will often state that they are a Christian, but actually have no relationship with any church or group. These same people have no idea of any Christian doctrine of any hue, nor a conception of Jesus beyond him being a good bloke. Morally they tend to side with views that suit their age and social status.

This group is the one responsible for many of the problems in todays western democracies. The religious right has used these people to rise to power on the back of issues such as abortion, censorship and homosexuality. It is this group that needs to be targeted in terms of education and political awareness.

This targeting needs to be in two forms:
1. These people need to be fully exposed to conservative Christian values. They need to see how looney they actually are.

2. These people also need to see how the modern scientific world actually thinks.

It is not enough to assume a belief on the grounds of least resistance, in a society becomming increasingly marginalised by religion. If non-fundamentalists are to target any group in our society this is the one. This is the real "Moral Majority".

The Riddle of Epicurus

2006-03-01T16:09:00.000+11:00

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Read this years ago at university and thought little of it. Coming across it again watching Jonathon Miller on atheism I was very impressed by the reasoning.

I don't think their is an answer to the riddle.

You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil;you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.
— Dan Barker, former clergyman, quoted from his book, Losing Faith in Faith

Another worthy quote for those of us who walked away.

2006-02-25T08:13:00.001+11:00

2006-02-25T08:13:00.000+11:00

2006-02-25T07:53:00.000+11:00

My poor broken hand. Finger actually still it's a good way of getting sympathy.

Brings up an idea, the last time I prayed as if it mattered.

Normally like most Christians I don't pray in a way that indicates I expect it will be answered. It's like going through the motions. I have even heard Christians explain how prayer works and that it is a way of aligning the believers thoughts with Gods. I think of this now as another way of saying prayer is a waste of time.

I prayed for Gods help during my last bout with kidney stones. Kidney stones really hurt bad. Imagine the worst pain you have had, multiply it by 100. Then imagine it continuing without a break for 7 hours. At least we have opiates, blessed relief. Anyway I found myself praying for God to help me.

He didn't.

Maybe I deserved to suffer? Maybe it was a trial sent to make me stronger?

Or a fictional character does jack in the real world.

Still when in distress we fall back on anything that might work.

I stopped praying when I realised I had started but I was amused that even in extreme pain my brain told me it was a pointless exercise.

2006-02-22T16:18:00.000+11:00

I have broken my finger. Sympathy required.

Now I miss out on cricket and baseball finals.

Everything takes longer with this splint on.
Including updates.

2006-02-15T17:03:00.000+11:00

You better say I'm young this time!!!!

2006-02-15T16:33:00.000+11:00

A question came up the other day about whether I worship myself when I worship God. In other words if God is not a real being, then are the prayers and spiritual experiences we have all had the product of ourselves, are we the God we have been worshipping?

It struck me as an odd idea at first. Despite no longer believing in an objective God, I really had never considered that I was worshipping myself. Non of the experiences or prayer I have ever had have been directed to me. Maybe my unconscious mind..... I think now I can understand where the idea comes from, and why it seems attractive as an explanation to many.

It falls way short of the experiences that I have had to be an adequate explanation. I think our language has so structured our thinking that we have a very real deity to pray to. That deity exists as a vital part of our lives. Only once you stop believing can you start to break down the language patterns and forge new ones.

So I don't think we prayed to ourselves, we prayed to a construction of language with forms that were generated by that structure. That is what believers have always done and continue to do today.

2006-02-10T15:33:00.000+11:00

Who owns my experience?

When you are a Christian your spiritual experiences come from God. When you don't believe in a god anymore who owns them? I get told by many that if I cease to be a Christian then all those experiences were a lie. How can that be? Like many things Christian fuzzy thinking obscures what has occurred and gives the credit for our personal life to an imaginary friend out there somewhere.

I first came across this when I becamne friends (at 18) with a Moslem. We spoke about our experiences of God and what God meant to us. It shocked me, being the true believer that his experiences were identical to mine. Reading William James The Varieties of Religious Experience helped convinced me that what I had thought were God given spiritual experinces were perfectly normal human experiences.

It seems Christianity comes in and tries to replace the human with the divine. What it actually does is rename everything as divine and negates everything that is human. So I guess my response about my spiritual experiences now is they have not changed, lost or forsaken. In fact my spiritual life is richer now for removing an obscuring layer that prevented me from seeing myself as I actually am.

As for being a sinner from birth. Fuck that, Augustine and his buddies were wrong. Adam and Eve is a story, a myth. Can't condemn the whole human race on the basis of a myth. Seems to me we live in a mixed up world without any evidence of anything other than continually striving to be better. Sounds a lot like an evolutionary process, what a surprise.

Next time someone tries to give the credit for your achievements to God, might be worth saying a little something like " Leave God out of it right, where she was when I did all this!"

2006-02-08T06:48:00.000+11:00

A reply to Nicholas Rundle

Sea of faith

Like many Australians I grew up near the sea and it formed a vital part of my early years. Initially I was taught to love the sea by my father, an avid fisherman. We would get up at around 4.00am, well before the sun, and take our places on the beach or rocks, rods in hand to salute the dawn. We didn't catch many fish, but we certainly saw some spectacular sunrises.

As I grew older my relationship with the sea changed as I realised I didn't want to be looking at it from outside I wanted to be in the water. My love of surfing was born and my experience and love of the sea took its own shape. My peak experience was not riding 15 foot waves (which is way more frightening than I ever imagined) but of one winter's morning spending 15 minutes playing with a pod of dolphins. It was a cold crisp morning and only three of us were out when the dolphins came. We ignored them, which conversely seemed to tell them that we were safe. There is nothing like riding a wave with a dolphin riding right beside you, or having a dolphin play chicken with you (they are much bigger and faster than you think). This was one of those moment that has always stayed with me.

Sea of Faith has been a community of people who have experienced something of faith. That is all we need. Each of us immersed in the experiences that make up our lives but sharing in the common human experience. Communication does not always lead anywhere: the dolphins and I understood very little about one another but shared a common experience that morning.

A common ground we already have but those of us who are not realists in the realm of religion are not scientists examining the marine environment. We are surfers on the waves of human experience; like everyone else we seek to enrich and ennoble our lives through interaction with others.

I think I understand Nicholas Rundles point about critics and connoisseurs. The problem is that dichotomies seem to exclude too easily. As a non realist I have not stopped surfing, and I hope my interaction with the sea of faith is something I can share with those like my father who fish, like my wife who swims, my nephew who paddles on the edge. As the slogan goes, "The beach is there to share".

2006-02-05T10:26:00.000+11:00

Tatiana one of our rabbits.

2006-02-05T08:38:00.000+11:00

Sermons

I have been reading the internet monk lately and i really liked his series on sermons.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/whats-wrong-with-the-sermon-v-more-stories-please#more-318

It got me thinking about what I would say about sermons. A list of tips for the new preacher:

1)If you find the material boring so will your listeners.

2)Don't think that a sermon of longer than 20 minutes in riveting, it isn't.

3) If you tell a joke make sure it's funny.

4) Repetition is an overused rhetorical device.

5) Repetition is an overused rhetorical device.

6) Assume your audience can read, don't insult them by simply retelling a bible passage.

7) No one cares who begat who, so make your choice of a text relevant.

8) Not everyone left school in year 2 some even went to university.

9) Don't assume you know more than your audience or you may get a shock.

10) This is not a chance to argue for your position or ideas.

11) This is not a chance to insult, belittle, or simply talk down to people you don't get on with.

12) A sermon that takes 5 minutes to put together sounds like a sermon that takes 5 minutes to put together.

13) Do the research, nothing is more annoying to a listener as being told things you know are wrong.

14) God is not speaking through you, you are sharing your ideas, so don't act like a divine prophet.

15) Dress well, it is an insult to those listening to dress poorly.

16) Midnight Saturday is not a great time for sermon preparation.

17) Repetition is an overused rhetorical device.

18) Quit while your ahead, leave the listener wanting to hear more not bolting for the exit.

19) Don't be afraid to ask the audience to think for themselves, it might give them a nice surprise.

20) ???

Any suggestions.

2006-02-04T08:32:00.000+11:00

Maybe it's just me but are you getting sick of being told you don't need your democratic freedoms?

Firstly I have no respect for, or support terrorism in any way. However that does not translate into being willing to give up any freedom in order to prevent a terrorist attack. Throughout the Western world at the moment governments are busy undermining the basis of democracy in the name of preventing terrorism.

I have found this trend alarming in the extreme. I have been raised to believe that democratic goverment whilst never perfect was the best form of goverment for protecting freedom. It seems pointless to protect freedom by taking freedom away, once you do that you don't have democracy anymore.

Not so long ago a Danish newspaper portayed in a cartoon a major religious figure in none too reverend a light. Around the world this caused great consternation in certain nations. So much so that they now want a UN bill to create an offence called showing contempt for religion.

Why is it I can call our Prime Minister an idiot and his party a bunch of hopeless morons who could not run a three legged race; and that is fine , just a political opinion. If I call a religious leader an arrogant fool, being led by blind prejudice then I am stirring up religious hatred. Why are religious views so protected?

We all know that once the religion card is played all rationality goes out the window. Ever tried to discuss abortion with a Christian fundamentalist? It goes like this:
"I guess the key issue is when does life begin."
"God says it's wrong."
"Under what circumstances is it wrong, and why."
"Always wrong, God says so in his book."

No discussion, no reason, no common ground and we are just supposed to accept this as OK. Well I don't. By all means hold your own opinion, but if it can't be discussed, debated or reasoned with then it needs to be rejected not as belief but as uninformed prejudice.

The one thing I can say about religions, some of them deserve contempt because they are wrong. The Koran and Bible contradict each other only one can be true, although both can be false. If I claimed I had a miracle cure for cancer and wanted to sell it to the public and I could not prove its effectiveness I would not be allowed to. No matter how often I said "It's what I believe. God told me it's right in his book."

We are accepting all sorts of garbage in public and private lives based on religion and no one is prepared to say STOP! Enough prove it or go away.

2006-02-03T11:12:00.000+11:00

This is a discussion starter for the next Sea of Faith meeting.

The Problems caused by religion:

1) The opposition and resistance to science

2) The undemocratic control/distortion of democracy

3) Legislation of morality

4) Sexual discrimination against women and homosexuals

5) Control and manipulation of education

6) Advocacy of censorship

7) Abuse of children

8) Psychological problems

9) Failure to pay taxes

10) Destruction of the environment

2006-02-01T13:25:00.000+11:00

Stole this from here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6762&hl=

Written by All Gods Fail

Great summary of the bible though.

Once upon a time, many, many thousands of years ago, an obscure little tribe in a desert was created by a supreme being, after this being created the world and everything in it (except for the rest of the people on earth who weren’t members of this tribe – or maybe He created them too. It doesn’t really matter).

These original people disobeyed their god because a snake tricked them into it. Really.
So instead of being eternal, now they were eventually going to die.
After a lot of heavy stuff happens (including this god destroying the world except for a few favorite people), eventually this god gives the tribe a bunch of mystifying laws to follow because they kept sinning all the time.

So the tribe tries to faithfully follow the laws and otherwise do whatever their god demands of them, which often relates to killing other people and taking their land and possessions.
In general, however, the tribe doesn’t do such a good job of following the laws, so the god decides to try something new.

He reveals hell, which is a place of eternal torture for everyone who sins against him. He didn’t create it – it was there all along but nobody really understood it. Also, the devil is now recognized in the same way – he was here all along to destroy mankind, but the tribe didn’t really recognize him as such. In fact, the devil runs hell and punishes those who sin against god – which is the devil’s way to rebel against god. Seriously.

As it turns out, god doesn’t want us to fall into the devil’s clutches for eternity, but he can’t do much about it because no one seems capable of obeying the laws except for a few special people.

So he splits himself into 3 parts (which he always was, but again nobody understood that) and one of those parts is a human being, who is born by spiritual conception and becomes a carpenter who has miraculous powers. However, the human part of god is really a cunning way to save the tribe from the laws the god gave them that the devil uses to put people in hell (plus, the laws now apply to everyone in the world, not just the tribe he created). Since this god demands blood sacrifices for disobeying his laws, he has his human part unjustly executed and sends himself to hell for a few days, then comes back to life.

The tribe he created more or less rejects him, and doesn’t believe he really is their god.

His human part returns to Earth for a little while, then goes back to the sky (or outer space, or some other dimension) where the rest of god lives. But before he does, he gathers a bunch of his followers and tells them to go out and teach everybody about this new deal god made so people can escape hell and spend eternity after they die in a wonderful place instead.

And the new deal is…well, it’s hard to explain exactly. They have to believe the carpenter is god, repent, be born anew, and follow his laws without believing they have to, because laws alone don’t get people into this after-life paradise.

Except they sort of do…you have to obey them, but if you break them the carpenter will forgive you if you’re really sorry. Unless you keep breaking them. But the main thing is accepting the carpenter as god and spreading his word to everyone.
But you still have to be careful you don’t break too many laws, because then you’ll wind up in hell…but if you believe god forgives you, you won’t.

At any rate, don’t break the big rules, the 10 important ones that god originally gave the desert tribe. That will send you to hell for sure. Probably. Unless you repent. Or unless the carpenter-god’s blood sacrifice covers it, but don’t take the blood for granted. It doesn’t cover everything.

Anyway, just go to church a lot and don’t break the laws.
Except the ones that pertain only to the original tribe, because they don’t matter, like eating unclean foods and stoning witches.

Or maybe you should stone witches, but don’t avoid shellfish. But the main thing is to go to church a lot and spread the carpenter’s words. And don’t break his laws, which were both fulfilled and nullified by the carpenter’s sacrifice.

But don’t break the laws, unless you repent afterwards and really try not to break them again. Except for shellfish, which isn’t that important, etc., etc., etc.

2006-02-01T13:17:00.000+11:00

I am on the horns of a dilemma. I no longer believe that there is actually a God out there. The bible is a book of mythology that has had great impact on our culture, it certainly is not divine. Given all this I still consider myself a Christian. I sometimes wonder why.

It's not that I have any residual belief about the supernatural, I don't. I also am not in any doubt about where I stand on theology. Being a Christian has always been how I have defined myself, thought about myself and related to the world. It seems like too big a step just to call myself an atheist.

Perhaps deep down I still feel some attachment to the ideas of the faith and a slim hope like many others that somehow that will be enough. At times the dissonance I feel is extreme almost to the point of anguish. At other times though it does not seem to matter at all.

I had thought I was nearing the end of a spiritual journey, getting closer to some sort of closure. Maybe that's not the case??

2006-01-30T17:46:00.000+11:00

I guess for me one of the hardest things about withdrawing from church has been the loss of that sense of belonging to a group. You are a part of a larger whole in the church. There is purpose, the sense of a shared goal and common bond. It's not all positive of course, but on the whole it provides a sense of reassurance that you don't get anywhere else.

The biggest positive has been stepping away from the bubble of the fundie mindset. It really was like my brain was in a bubble. I thought a certain way, looked at the world in that same way. I could reject other peoples ideas without having to even consider them on there merits. Stepping outside opened up the whole world and gave a very powerful feeling of being in the same world as everyone else. A sense of all people sharing a common experience of life.

I will have to consider other positives and negatives.

2006-01-29T08:30:00.000+11:00

2006-01-29T07:25:00.000+11:00

Early Dates for Gospels

In a conversation the other day it was suggested to me that my views of the Gospels was somewhat dated. I have always felt that the gospels were written after 70CE. That is Mark first around 70CE and Luke and Matthew following the destruction of Jerusalem. John coming much later possibly into the second century. I feel that the sacking of Jerusalem was one of the trigger events for the writing of the gospels. Clearly the huge time gap would cast doubt on the reliability of the texts themselves and the accuracy of the accounts. Certainly I have never felt that the gospels themselves were eye witness accounts rather that they drew upon oral and earlier written sources (maybe).

If we allow for all Gospels to be written before the end of the first century and for the synoptics, before 70CE how does this change my view of the early church. TN Wright has actually called this disagreement over dating one of the big nonevents of biblical scholarship. The dates of the books don't effect whether or not they are reliable accounts.

Firstly we know for a fact that legends about individuals spread rapidly even whilst a person is alive. Look at the exploits of Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, Pablo Escobar, Osama Bib Laden etc. We know many of the stories circulated are not true could not be so, yet the stories circulate and the legends grow in an age where instant communication is possible. So is it possible that stories about Jesus could be exaggerated and grow even a short time after his death, while eye witnesses were alive, yes it is.

Does this solve the problem of the identity of the Gospel writers or address the accuracy of the earliest texts, of course not. Why do I seem so hostile? The picture of the first century that has come down to us has been deliberately obscured. We now know that there were many gospels and many conflicting beliefs held by early Christians. We also know that once it had gained state recognition the "orthodox" (ie the strongest group) systematically destroyed all of their opponents writings and the opponents themselves. So do I trust the early church records, not a chance. At best what we have is a deliberately structured record that seeks to deny us the knowledge of the existence of any other views.

If we add to this a world of superstition in which miraculous events were an everyday occurrence and where an illiterate worker may never travel more than a few kilometers from where they born. Because it is in the poorly traveled uneducated classes that Christianity began. The more educated and traveled were not among the earliest Christians. Does it prove anything? No, but it does suggest that all is not rosy.

The real challenge is to paint a clearer picture of the church in the first century.