• BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post
• Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun
• No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith
• Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

“Atheism 2.0” is a 20 minute TED presentation by Alain de Botton in which he proposes a new approach to evangelising atheism. Alain suggests (apparently without evidence) that we have “secularised badly” and we should sift through the rituals, traditions, and behaviours of religion to identify and adopt their efficient mechanisms.

“I have come here because I am in search of morality, guidance, and consolation.”

He says universities (and by extension, science) is not concerned with the search for “morality, guidance, and consolation”. Alain seems to be suggesting science has lost its humanity and become the heartless search of the machine inside the ghost. Religions on the other hand treat us like children in urgent need of assistance. We are broken, miserable sheep who yearn for the return of their shepherd who will tell us where to go, what to do, and how to think.

“A sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you some information”

Alain tells us religious sermons “advise people how hey could live” (which presumedly result in “morality, guidance, and consolation”), but secularism merely lecturers heartless facts. Religions use repetition and emotions to convince believers the sermons are somehow deep insights revealing the true fabric of reality.

At the heart of Alain’s statements seems to be an assumption; Science has all the answers and we will never need to change our minds again. University lecturers never update or revise the facts they preach, never listen to the counter arguments, never conduct further research. Students are there to learn the holy truths as revealed by Great Science. We can finally cease being skeptical, questioning, and inquiring, and finally resort to pure emotional evangelism and repetitive brainwashing to convince the populous of the Truth(™).

Of course, this throws the baby out with the bath water.

Science is fundamentally different to religion preciously because it does not claim to have the truth. All things in science are provisionally true; they are considered true until evidence it’s wrong comes along. Sometimes this results in almost imperceptible changes in the views of science, and others it causes massive tectonic shifts in our thinking. Science eagerly hunts out where it may be wrong and ruthlessly interrogates itself. It perversely seeks the curious mind to torture its doubts until they are satiated.

Scientific discoveries are not things we can enforce through emotional appeals and repetition. Science is a process; a mind set; a philosophical approach. Without the ability to question, doubt, and argue science fails.

I think this is why Alain’s argument also fails.

This does not sound like a great night out to me.

“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?” - 2 Kings 18:27

She did what with the gold and silver jewellery I gave her?

“You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.” - Ezekiel 16:17

The church welcomes everyone, expect those genital freaks.

“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” - Deuteronomy 23:1

Oh you want meat, do you?  The LORD shall provide … till you puke.

“And tell the people to purify themselves, for tomorrow they will have meat to eat. Tell them, ‘The LORD has heard your whining and complaints: ‘If only we had meat to eat! Surely we were better off in Egypt!’ Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will have to eat it. And it won’t be for just a day or two, or for five or ten or even twenty. You will eat it for a whole month until you gag and are sick of it. For you have rejected the LORD, who is here among you, and you have complained to him, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt?’“ - Numbers 11:18

At first God thought Adam might go for beastiality , but no.

“The man gave names to all the cattle, to the birds of the air and to every wild animal, but for the man himself, no suitable partner was found.” - Genesis 2: 20

The LORD wanted to kill Moses because his son wasn’t circumcised.  Luckily Zippy was on the ball.

“On the journey, while they were encamped for the night, the Lord met Moses and would have killed him. But Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ privates with it, saying, “You are my bridegroom.” So the Lord let Moses alone.” - Exodus 4: 24-26

Moses and Aaron have a magic face off with the Pharaoh’s sorcerers.

“When Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, they did as the Lord told them. Aaron threw down his staff in front of Pharaoh and his courtiers and it turned into a serpent. At this Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians did the same thing by their spells.” - Exodus 7: 10-11

God makes reasonable demands.

“You must not hold back the first of your harvest, whether grain or wine. You must give me your first-born sons.” - Exodus 22: 29

The LORD extends his infinite hand of compassion.

“He said to them, “The Lord God of Israel has said: Arm yourselves each of you with his sword. Go through the camp from gate to gate and back again. Each of you kill brother, friend, neighbour.” - Exodus 32: 27

Moses pioneers modern medical science with a magical statue to fix snake bites.

“So Moses made a bronze serpent and erected it as a standard in order that anyone bitten by a snake could look at the bronze serpent and recover.” - Numbers 21: 9

Handy advice when you’re living in the desert.

“As part of your equipment, you are to have a trowel, and when you squat outside, you are to scrape a hole with it and then turn and cover your excrement.” - Deut. 23: 13

The LORD giveth, and the LORD makes you eat them.

“Then because of the dire straights to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you.” - Deut. 28:53

Don’t spunk on the ground, or god will mess you up.

“Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.” - Genesis 38:8-10

Shrek is based on a real Biblical event.

“When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?” Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.” - Numbers 22:27-29

Jesus negotiates with some demons, and lovingly drives them into the local livestock.

“Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. “ - Matthew 8:30-34

The LORD doesn’t like those who drink like dogs.

“So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, “Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink.” Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink.” - Judges 7:5-6

What are your favourite bizarre Biblical quotes?

Just after Christmas and New Year the crew sit down for a very informal chat.  Excuse the audio quality as we only had one microphone in the middle of the room.  Still, it turned out rather well.

The closing song is obviously Tim Minchin’s “White Wine in the Sun”.  Go buy a copy – all proceeds are donated to charity.

Thanks to advances in medical science many people will never contract measles or experience these horrible symptoms. However, what many people do not realise is this modern measles free age is that these diseases also have a darker side. They kill people. According to the World Health Organisation 164,000 people died from measles in 2004.  Just think about that for a moment.  450 people every day.  20 people an hour.  1 person every 3 minutes –  for an entire year.  Dead.  More than 95% of them in third world countries who do not have well run, effective, vaccination programs.  The statistics are clear – vaccinations save lives!

However, this is set to change if the ironicly named “Australian Vaccination Network” (AVN), headed by chief misinformation lunatic Meryl Dorey, has it’s way. Meryl is one of the many people who has been trapped by the lies manufactured by Andrew Wakefield, whose shonky research initially linked the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism.  Despite an overly small sample size, bad controls, and tenuous correlation, and no discernible causal chain, Mr. Wakefield’s research was also found to be tainted by conflicts of interest, manipulating source data, and other serious ethical transgressions.  In short, Mr. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010 making him unable to practice as a doctor, and the British Medical Journal declared the research fraudulent in 2011. The current scientific research indicates there is no link between vaccinations and autism, and the benefits derived from vaccinations far outweigh any risks.

None of this stops Meryl Dorey from spreading her emotive propaganda, however it does force her delusion to evolve into new age conspiracy theories, “one world governments”, the Illuminati, New World Orders, chemtrails, and AIDS denialism.  This is the kind of ideology which informs Ms Dorey’s creative reinterpretation of the scientific data.

“While we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our argument no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories which, though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable.” – Meryl Dorey, 29 July 2009.

A 12 month investigation into the AVN by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) found the Australian Vaccination Network disseminated incorrect, misleading and biased information from its website, that this information was wholly anti-vaccination and poses a potential threat to public health. In addition the AVN’s fundraising authority was revoked by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing for 23 breaches of the Act it administers.

Anyone familiar with the anti-evolution nonsense of creationists will be familiar with the AVN’s strategy of cloaking itself as “presenting both sides of the argument”, “providing an alternative view”, or “free speech”.  This last point I find hilarious, since I was banned from the AVN Facebook page sometime ago for politely pointing out some of the information above and asking for a reasonable explanation.

Indeed, “free speech” has been the tactic these vermin have used to gain access to Australia’s largest music event, the iconic Woodford Folk Festival held in Queensland.  Each year, between Christmas and New Year, the Festival attracts around 130,000 people to the small town in south-east Queensland. This year, Meryl Dorey of the inappropriately named Australian Vaccination Network was booked for two appearances, but due to public concern about giving the AVN air, the organisers rearranged the schedule to pit Meryl’s titanic intellect against Professor Andreas Suhrbier (Head of the immunovirology laboratory at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research) in a panel discussion moderated by Dr John Parker, a veteran of Doctors without Borders.  An epic battle, to be sure.

This is why I am thrilled to report the Stop the AVN group has issued the following media statement:

While unhappy that Ms Dorey will still be speaking at Woodford, the Stop the AVN Facebook group, a loose-knit consortium of concerned citizens, scientists, doctors and nurses, decided to use a little humour in order to have ‘the last word’.

The group has hired an aircraft to fly over the Woodford Folk Festival site during the two hours surrounding Ms Dorey’s appearance.

Between 1.45 and 3.45pm on Thursday, 29 December, the plane will tow a banner with the message: VACCINATION SAVES LIVES.

Go to the Stop the AVN page for more information.

Viva la free speech!

Yes, it’s Christmas.

During this time many will be saying “good will to all men”, and it seems many Christians aree asking “do atheists celebrate Christmas?” One wonders why they are not asking the same question of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Scientologists. The simple answer to the inane question is, of course, “yes”.

While I may not believe in a magical man who keeps a diary of everyone who is naughty and nice, and who will perform extraordinary feats to simultaneously reward and punish everyone on the planet, I nevertheless welcome paid time off in the middle of summer to enjoy a break with family and friends.

Awkwardly, the founders of the winter traditions that seem to surround Christmas seemed totally unaware that the Earth is spheroidal in shape, so of us in the Southern hemisphere scorch in the summer sun as we decorate our houses with icicles, evergreen trees, spray the windows with fake snow out of a can, and stuff ourselves hot roast meals while songs about a “white Christmas” gently waft across the room. It’s all rather silly.

Of course Christians will complain that the true meaning of Christmas has been lost – after all the day is named after their saviour – CHRISTmas. While this may be somewhat true, it is a well known fact among the educated that early Christians hijacked pagan traditions to make their faith more palatable to the foreigners.

In the modern world we don’t celebrate the Christ in Christmas anymore than the gods which reside in our calendar. Monday was reserved for the moon, Tuesday is Tiu’s day (the English/Germanic god of war and the sky), Wednesday is Woden’s day, Thursday is Thor’s day (the Norse god of thunder), Friday -is Freya’s day (the Teutonic goddess of love, beauty, and prolific procreation), Saturday is Saturn’s day (the Roman and Italic god of agriculture and the consort of Ops), and finally Sunday is the Sun’s day.  Of course, nobody worships these god’s anymore, but the name remains.

But surely Christians can find solace in the names given to the months?  Perhaps some of these are named after the Jesus myth, or don’t give the ancient Greek or Roman gods a nod?

Nope, I am afraid not.

January is Janus’s month (the Roman god of gates and doorways), February is month of Februa (the Roman festival of purification), March is named after the Roman god of war “Mars”, April is Aphrodite’s month (the Greek goddess of love and beauty), May is Maia’s month (the Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus, and wife of Vulcan), June is Juno’s month (the principle goddess of the Roman Pantheon), July is Julius Caesar’s month (who named it after himself), August is Augustus Caesar’s month, and the remainder are simply named after their original position on the calendar culminating in the tenth month of December.  I doubt many people celebrate any of these gods either, so the Christian argument is not looking very good.

So yeah, I celebrate Christmas, but not the Christ in Christmas. I enjoy spending paid time off to be with friends and family. We eat too much, drink too much, and laugh too much. We share the summer sun drinking white wine in the sun.

So Merry Christmas to you all, or Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Holidays. Whatever floats your boat. I your next complete orbit around the massive fusion reactor at the centre of our solar system is even better than the last.  I am off to the beach, where I intend to spend a wonderful summer with my wife and lovely daughters.  I think a few white wines might be in order.

13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011

Conor bleats about how mean the “militant atheists of our generation are” because they “are forever badgering people of faith”, pointing out that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seem to have done more to disturb the peace than those of faith have ever done and pleads for rationalists to “just leave the rest of us alone”.  Conor is so busy being offended by people asking simple questions about the existence and nature of god that he misses the obvious flaw in his rebuttal.

People of faith have a long history of being able to essentially believe whatever they like without question.  The undeserved respect for religious ideas seems to be coming to an end, and the faithful don’t like it.  No longer can they simply declare their insane ideas to be divinely inspired and therefore out of the reach of sceptical inquiry, they are now finding themselves having to justify them in the unforgiving teeth of evidence and reason.  Unsurprisingly they are embarrassed to find there are few reasons to take any religious idea seriously, but rather than admit it’s “just a matter of faith” they go on the attack.

Pious clergy have excused the rape and molestation of thousands of pre-pubescent children by appealing to humanities innate wickedness, but rather than compensating the victims they retreat to their seemingly non-existent god to ask for forgiveness.  Those born with sexual desires for the same sex are routinely vilified, discriminated, beaten, and murdered because some holy book says they are “an abomination unto the Lord”. Lifesaving medical research has stalled because a clump of cells contains an “immoral soul” which is precious to the Lord, who also seems decidedly disinterested in the suffering of full grown adults. Teaching student the spine tingling facts of evolution is hampered because it’s nobler to believe a deity made us from mud and spare ribs. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos are not the result of tectonic movements, but punishment by a vengeful and indiscriminate god for our “sins”.  Yet, somehow it’s the atheists who are causing a stir.

Conor also misrepresents Dr. William Lane Craig justification of genocide, saying he merely “read from the Old Testament”.  Good old Bill Craig did more than that unfortunately, he argues the people most affected by the massacre of the Canaanites when he says:

“Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”

Richard Dawkins is justified in refusing to share a stage with someone whose mind is so poisoned by religion that he thinks murderers of women and children have it tough.  Based solely on this piece we can ignore everything William has to say on the topic of morality.

Conor goes on to claim “conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land”.  Perhaps he didn’t pay attention in Sunday school and missed the part where Israel was promised to Abraham and all his descendants because he was willing to slice open son’s throat and burn him upon the mountain top.  Ah, those wonderful Biblical values.

I am sorry, but pointing out these passages a horrific is simply factual and tearing apart the arguments that a god exists is merely the application of logic.  You are free to have your own illogical and irrational views of how the universe actually works, but please keep them to yourself.  Not all of us wish to live by your deeply held beliefs, personal delusions, and superstitions.

On the 17th April 2011 I posted a video featuring Jack Schaap – a preacher for the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana which is of the fundamentalist baptist persuasion, and promotes misogynistic and sexist beliefs, which was the focus of Jack’s summon that fateful day.

As I mentioned at the time, I was rather surprised when a DCMA claim was filed against the publication of Jack’s Biblical message, since during the video he states:

“You know what they’re going to say about you? Pfft – who cares?”

And …

“If they’re quoting me while I’m quoting the Bible, then Hallelujah God’s word is getting out!”

As a result of the DCMA claim I started researching who I was dealing with in order to inform any subsequent decisions. I would probably not have bothered if the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana hadn’t prevented me from spreading God’s word as I was encouraged to do. As a result of this process I discovered a few things:

1. Mr. Jack Schaap is married. Here is Jack’s wife Cindy asking if it’s alright for Pastors wife’s to have close friends. Why in the Hell would it NOT be OK? Where are people getting the idea that a pastor’s wife cannot have close friends?
2. Jack Schaap has his very own web site. While the site seem to have been abandoned since June 2010, it does provide helpful links to Jack answering questions about his faith and the central text on which it rests. On June 7th 2010 Jack was asked by Ralph:

“Is it Biblical for ladies to say amen at church services?”

He answers:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.” – 1 Corinthians 14:35

Yes Jack, the Bible is clear on the woman’s role within the church – they are not allowed to speak, nor are they allowed to ask questions. This must wait until they get home and their husbands can teach them. It says so in the very next sentence:

“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” – 1 Corinthians 14:34

However, even Jack shies away from a straight reading of scripture perhaps honest Biblical values are too strong, even for Jack?

More interestingly, on the 21st May 2010 Kevin:

“What do you think God’s reasoning was for requiring a lady to marry the man who forced her into fornication in Deuteronomy 22:28-30?”

Before we get to Jack’s answer, let’s familiarise ourselves with the passage again:

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-30

A simplified summary of this passage would be “if a man rapes a women, he must pay the father some cash and marry his victim.” Charming. Jack also plays down the rape by continually stating they were “immoral together”? This is not a passage about consensual sex, it pertains to rape – hence the phrase “lay hold on her”.

I think we should pause here for a second to consider what it means to be “immoral”.

To my mind morality pertains to the beneficial or detrimental effects on others by your actions. Actions which are beneficial are considered “moral” while actions which are detrimental are considered “immoral”. However, this condensed summary of morality does not address consensual behaviour between adults. In most cases such things have no implications beyond the scope of their relationship, thus have no moral dimension. None. Zero.

What Jack is talking about is “sin”, which can be defined as behaviour which a God disapproves of. Note this is distinct from any considerations regarding the effects of actions upon others, this is why many things are considered “sins” which have no harmful effects on individuals or the even the society at large. However I acknowledge there may be many overlaps between “sin” and “immorality”.

Deuteronomy 22 also says women cannot wear men’s clothes, bans ploughing with an ox and ass together, wearing mixed fabrics, promotes the public display of the “tokens of a daughter’s virginity” on her wedding night (and stoning her to death if she wasn’t a virgin), and stoning rape victims to death if they do not cry loudly enough. Are we to uphold these Biblical values as well?

What is truly horrifying is that Jack seems to have read these passages, but rather than view them as the rudimentary and raw beginnings of a fair and just system he maintains they are the perfect law of God. Jack wishes to throw away 2,000 years of argument, reason, evidence, and legal progress because some men living in the desert of another country partook of “the burning bush” one too many times.

Having reverting to pre-medieval times, Jack continues by slurring the name of the rape victim, accusing her of being seductive and unworthy of the title “lady”. Even IF the woman were seductive, this is no excuse for a man to force himself on her and commit rape. What defines “seductive” in any case? Making sexual advances? No, since this would indicate consent and not count as “laying hold on her”, IMHO.

Would wearing skimpy outfits be described as “seductive”? Possibly, but this still does not imply sexual consent – although in Jack’s world it may do. It seems Jack’s line of thinking leads directly to Burka’s and oppression of women.

No where in this short passage does it mention the sexual act was consensual. No where are the wishes of the woman considered or even factored into the decision.

No, what we have here is an unambiguous and hard ruling on what must be done in *every* similar situation. The rape victim MUST marry their rapist despite their personal wishes, circumstances, or howls of protest.

This is an abominable and unjust law reminiscent of an ancient past where women were property which men wished to conquer, subdue, and own. It runs against our modern hard fought sense of fairness, equality, justice, compassion, and empathy. Let’s leave “god’s law” in the past where it belongs.

• Someone asked why…
• Godless Business – Fishing for god
• Godless Business – Small Fish
• Yoga is the work of the devil, says Vatican’s chief exorcist

Andrew seems to identify a contradiction in my view by contrasting this statement:

Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons.

With this one made a few paragraphs later:

While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover.

As predicted, I have been accused of “scientism” and “that anything that actually exists will be detectable by some scientific inquiry”. He seems to have missed the paragraph where I explain that forces beyond our detection may actually exists, however if we cannot detect them then how can we determine whether they truly exist or not? How do you differentiate between fanciful ideas and actual reality Moreover, what methods shall we employ to determine how these forces might interact with our universe, or within themselves? This seems an intractable problem to which I have yet to see a coherent response.

I will concede that all great ideas in science have started out as mere germs of ideas within a single person’s mind. Through careful observation, trial and error, experimentation, argument, and many false starts we have clawed our way out of the darkness of ignorance towards the spotlight of knowledge. I do not contend that we are anywhere near knowing everything there is to know, however the scientific method has proven to be a formidable weapon against self deception, bias, and superstition.

Science is a broad field which encompasses everything from pure mathematics, physics, and chemistry to more so called “soft sciences” of art, literature, and history. Each discipline uses a slightly different bag of tools and methods to achieve the same goal – to determine the truth. Admittedly, the “truth” of art or literature can be difficult to define since the subjects are inherently subjective. What I take away from world class poetry or paintings may be very different to someone else’s, but neither experience can be said to truly represent “the truth” of the work. We all personalise these works, which is part of their power and majesty.

History is not the same. Historians are attempting to piece together the factual events of the past. Their task is not an easy one as many of the puzzle pieces are missing, and those that remain may have degraded, or contradict each other. The historian must also be mindful of the potential ambitions of those who recorded the information. Were they inventing a story to please those in power or solidify existing arrangements? Were they casting their enemies in a deliberately bad light to enrage their readers and ignite a war? Or were they honestly attempting to record the facts of their time without injecting personal bias?

Hard science has none of these problems (they have their own), but that does not make the historian’s task worthless. While the pictures historians produce may be fuzzy in places or completely blank in others, the shapes and colours of past events can be seen and conclusions made. However our protagonist dives deeper, presenting this gem:

“The rational intelligibility of the universe is, as some have called it, an article of faith …”

I am not sure I would classify the intelligibility of the universe of “article of faith”. I think it’s more a required axiom to function in this universe. Simply imagining what it might be like to live in a universe in which what happened yesterday is not necessarily what will happen today. If the causal links between events were shuffled each night, with random links being completely deleted, how would any of us know how to achieve anything that day? Without rational intelligibility I see little option but complete chaos, which cannot be the bed rock of any philosophical understandings. Uniformity is an axiom of understanding not an article of faith, but perhaps I am playing schematics?

Our protagonist continues by explaining that if he catches an apple he may be intervening, but this does not nullify the laws of gravity, and that somehow this demonstrates I blindly adhere to philosophical naturalism. However there is such an obvious retort to Andrew’s analogy I am surprised he did not address it in his comment. Reaching out to catch an apple is an inherently empirical event.

In each and every analogy presented thus far has followed the same lines. We knew fish smaller that 3 inches exist because we have other means apart from 3 inch nets with which to capture and observe them. We can also witness people catching apples. Both are empirical verification which fall completely within the realms of scientific inquiry. So what’s left? Realities which exist and do have an effect?

“Ah, but what about other realities that might exist which do have effect on our universe?”

Once again, how can another reality have an effect on this universe which is not (at least theoretically) measurable? Remember, the non-existent and the invisible look very much alike, and we are back to square one.

Rather than asserting that all things “must be physical” I am proposing that all things which matter must have an effect of the universe. And here is where I think we have reached the key point of difference, which I must be careful to try and communicate effectively: all realities discovered by science have been pulled under the umbrella of “the physical”. Rather than treating forces (spiritual or not) as something “non-physical”, science reclassifies those things shown to be real. So in a sense, nothing supernatural can exist using the scientific method.

Perhaps this was Andrew’s point all along?

“Quite often, evangelical atheists will defend their philosophical naturalism by pointing to science.”

Science relies on empirical evidence and employs methodologies to remove bias and subjectivity wherever possible. It detects and correct errors and does not concern itself with the deeply held personal beliefs its practitioners. Science ruthlessly peruses knowledge of the universe. However, science does have one limitation – it rests on methodological naturalism – that reality can be empirically measured.

In the physical world each force and form of matter will have a corresponding and theoretically measurable effect. Any force which exists but has no discernible effect on the reality is irrelevant by definition, and the slippery slope of philosophical naturalism appears.

Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons. For example, other realities may indeed exist but have no effect on our universe – some versions of the multiverse hypothesis propose exactly this scenario. While such parallel universe could be said to exist they are irrelevant to our existence. However, this is not the kind of reality our religious friends are promoting, apparently we require different tools to discern “evidence of the spirit”:

“Science is not the only way of knowing… Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider limits of their own tools… (Eddington) described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, then concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of the spirit.”

While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover. All we require is a suitably designed “fishing net” to detect and measure “spiritual forces” at which point we might be able to hypothesis models to explain and predict this elusive force.

However, religionists assert we already have the necessary tools to detect the supernatural. It’s just that none of these methods are scientific in nature, so any attempt to overlay the scientific method is meet with shrieks of “scientism” and “circular reasoning”. Some even resort to erroneous claims that their “wife loves me, not because of any kind of empirical scientific experiment“.

While emotions such as love are currently difficult to empirically verify within the brain of their owners, there seems to be no reason to expect their origins to be supernatural. We know emotional states, personality, and motor function are affected by chemistry, physical trauma, and other measurable forces. The reasonable inference is that all emotions are the result of an enormously complex interaction between brain structure, biology, chemistry, and electrical impulses. Moreover, the behavioural interactions between two individuals certainly fall into the domain of science, for they can all be directly observed, classified, catalogued, mapped, and predicted.

It should also be noted that any “fish” less than three inches in length have been shown to exist using empirical methods. Given our religious friends have not supplied any scientific method which demonstrates the existence of “the spirit” how can we conclusive say if it exists at all, let alone determine anything about its nature?

Concerned citizens were gleefully informed that non-religious people were able to obtain chaplaincy positions (as long as no religious person can be found to perform the task), the government were not hiring chaplains (merely funding organisations who do), and the commonwealth has entered a commercial arrangement with a cattle producer so the constitution is irrelevant (I kid you not).  In deciphering the guidelines of the NSCP its purpose became clear – to place Christian evangelists in front of every school child in the country.  Even the instigator of the program, then Prime Minister John Howard, admitted using the term “chaplain” to “conjure up a specific connotation”.

So it was with great interested we noticed the Department’s rebrand and relaunch the NSCP as the cumbersomely worded National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program (NSCSWP).  This “new” program was announced shortly after Ron Williams High Court challenge was heard but before the decision has been handed down, or after the Department’s review of the program, depending on your point of view. So what does the new NSCSWP (urgh) state in relation to secular workers? Let’s have a look at the newly published guidelines (I strongly recommend my readers download their own copy and read through the document).

Section 1.5 of the NSCSWP guidelines states:

“Services and actions could include: Supporting students to explore their spirituality and providing guidance about spirituality, values and ethical matters or referring students to, or sourcing appropriate services, to meet these needs; and facilitating access to support agencies in the community, where applicable.”

That seems fair and reasonable, but one wonders what defines “spirituality”. Without a clear definition it is not clear if the Department is referring to emotional, philosophical, or existential matters; or something else entirely.  Once again the vagaries of spiritual beliefs seem to deny rational inquiry.

Section 3.1.2 outlines a number of services which cannot be provided “during program funded hours”.  Reading between the lines it is clear that the subsequent list of prohibitions (which includes religious education, converting students, proselytising and evangelising, and initiating faith discussions, undermining students’ religious or other beliefs, and using social media among other things) may not apply when the chaplain is “off the clock” or funded via other means – say a local church.  This potentially blurs the line between official departmentally approved services and anything else the school chaplains/student welfare worker may provide.  How is a primary school student supposed to discern the difference?

Section 5.1 informs us the services provided school chaplains/student welfare workers are not compulsory.  Parents are able to opt their children out (not into) the services provided – that is unless you have enrolled your child in a faith based school, and therefore implicitly granting your consent.  The guidelines helpfully point out that opt-in consent is not required because the school community “determine the role and the choice of school chaplain/student welfare worker” – again the majority bludgeon any minority views.

The opt-out consent form (found in appendix H) gives the following advice to schools:

“Integrating consent arrangements for chaplaincy/student welfare services into the school’s current welfare services governance system.”

It would be easy to envisage all welfare of the services the school provides being inexorably integrated with the NSCSWP funded chaplain/student welfare worker, or the consent form tying these services together.  In such situations a parent must decide if they wish their child to receive any welfare services, or potentially expose their child to a chaplain.  At least parents can rest easy if their school has chosen a secular student welfare worker – right?

Wrong.

The department allows “secular” student workers to be supplied by the following organisations (and I’ll limit this this to Queensland only, however a cursory glance suggests each state encounters the same issue):

• ACCESS Ministries – “…affirms its faith in God, as One-in-Three-Persons, whose redemptive purpose for the world is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.”
• Chaplaincy Australia – “committed to communicating the Christian faith in a hands-on, compassionate and meaningful way” and “using the Chaplaincy Ministry as a tool to minister to local communities”
• Children of the Dreaming – Centre for Self Healing – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providing “a range of programs/activities to children and young people” through “EMPOWERMENT” and “SELF HEALING”.
• Cornerstone Community – “…exists to expand and enrich the Kingdom of God”
• Eagle Edge Solutions Inc – “Empower young people for LIFE.” (Looks like a proper secular option, but only provides services in Cunnamulla, Roma, Charleville & surrounding area)
• esenef Spiritual Management – Who are these people?
• Fusion Australia – “…gives each of its people a chance to fulfil their God-given potential.”
• Hymba Yumba Community Hub – “…proud Indigenous identities in a caring, nurturing school environment.”
• Ormeau Community Church Ltd – “…a group of Christians who believe and teach that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6).”
• Scripture Union Queensland – “…an interdenominational Christian organisation”
• Townsville Catholic Education Office – ‘nuff said.
• Young Life Australia Inc – “.. a non-aligned Christian charity”

So unless you happen to be near Cunnamulla your chances of obtaining a truly secular student worker are essentially nil.  While the name of the NSCP may have changed, and we have taken some steps towards an inclusive, non-discriminatory, secular system we still have an awfully long way to go.

While I never single out the Christian religion for special treatment, I so focus much of my efforts towards this religion above all others.  This is not driven by some deep inner hatred of the Christian religion in particular, rather it is what I am most familiar with and the religion which seems to be relentlessly encroaching on the inclusive, non-discriminatory, free, and secular principles this country was founded upon. 

I do not spend time worrying about the lunatic ravings of Scientology, annoying Poseidon, or being reincarnated as a worm since religions promoting these insane views do not have real power in this country.  These religious beliefs are properly considered unhinged and disconnected from reality according to the majority of Australians, so it would be a waste of effort debunking their nonsense.

However, the Christian community include individuals and organisations which view homosexuality as a heinous sin (a view my good friend find’s personally repugnant), wish to remove women’s reproductive rights because “souls enter the zygote at the moment of conception”, seek to prevent loving couples from enjoying the same rights they do, teach children to hideous notion that anything less than total obedience (or the voices in the head) to the church will land them an eternity of suffering, or the end of the world will occur any moment know so we shouldn’t bother making plans for the future.  It is these balmy ideas I find offensive, and since I do not subscribe to their religion, I see no reason I should live in a land ruled by such primitive thinking.

Christians (and members of other cults) are perfectly free to worship their gods in whatever ways they deem necessary, but don’t expect me to go along with their twisted, illogical, and unfounded beliefs. If they don’t like homosexuals, don’t be one.  If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.  If you don’t like marrying someone of the same sex, don’t.  If you think the universe will end tomorrow at the hands of you loving saviour and his army of angels, then…. I dunno – do whatever you have to do.

On the other hand, leave everyone else alone to live their lives as they see fit – with the obvious proviso that they are not harming anyone else.

While I am on the subject I should point out what real persecution looks like – and we need to go no further than the Christians themselves.  When the Catholic Church (yes, they are Christian) had real power the ritually, continuously, and relentlessly murdered members of other faiths, imprisoned tortured and killed heretics, scientists, and those who threatened the status quo, cooked women suspected of witchcraft, and locked generations Jews in ghettos for their part in killing the Christ.  Even today Christians invade countries killing men, women, and children as they hand out Bibles, bomb and shoot abortion doctors, slit their children’s throats to avoid “the trails of tribulation”, and beat homosexuals to death. This is what real persecution is, not the namby pamby writings I make in some secluded corner of the internet where only a vanishing small percentage of the internet enabled global community will ever venture.

Anyway, since when did it become “persecution” to point out someone’s argument has zero basis in reality?  Would the same argument hold if I were pointing out the non-existence of dragons to the royal society of dragon slayers?  Such arguments are rightly preposterous, and for obvious reasons.  There is no evidence whatsoever that fire-breathing, giant, winged dragons exist.  How can it be “persecution” to point out this rather inconvenient fact to the dragon slayers?  Sure they may be offended by my comment, and it may require a drastic rethinking on their part, but persecution?  Please.

Since apologists throughout time have been entirely unsuccessful in presenting any verifiable evidence for the existence of a deity (let alone a coherent argument one may exist), then why should I grant these superstitions any respect?  Why should I sit down and keep my mouth shut simply because the losing team is offended by reality?

No, I am not persecuting anyone.  I am asking those of faith to substantiate their claims, and I am ready and willing to accept any evidence or arguments which demonstrate I am wrong.  Apparently that makes me closed minded bigot who hates Christians with such vile contempt that I will spend my valuable time attempting to destroy their puny lives.

So be it.

• Ear candling – Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
• Turns out we DID come from monkeys! – YouTube
• Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all | DVICE
• Jesus Ween Christian Festival
• The world will end October 21, says Harold Camping … but no billboards this time – Beliefnet News
• Gays must curb vile vitriol | Herald Sun

Where as sacrificing your own son is the pinnacle of love.

• Schools insert God into Australian anthem | News.com.au
• Faith-healing couple guilty over death of child
• Godless Business – Trouble in Edgewater
• BBC News – Mother Shayma Ali killed daughter, four, ‘as sacrifice’

There is a reason Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are called the Abrahamic religions. Each consider Abraham to be one of the wisest holy men to have ever walked the Earth. He is one of the few people Yahweh actually spoke to and he was blessed with many children for his fanatical devotion and obedience. It is probably his prolific progeny which earns him the title as founder of the three most popular religions on the planet. So we should have a closer look at Abraham’s history with his homeboy, Yahweh.

Back in the day, Abram (as he was know then) made a covenant with the Lord, who said:

“Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” – Genesis 15:8

This spawned generations of racial, national, and tribal warfare over a rather unexciting patch of soil in the Middle East. Nice going Yahweh. Couldn’t you have predicted that would happen?

In Genesis 17 Yahweh gave Abraham’s ego and sperm count a boost, promising him he would be “exceeding fruitful” and “father many nations and Kings”. There was a catch though – they all had to cut the ends of their penises off when they war 8 days old. Abraham, being enthusiastically diligent and obedient got straight work circumcised himself, his 13 year old son, everyone who was born in the house, and all his slaves. Now that’s dedication!

Later, Yahweh, always looking for a good real estate deal, also gave Abraham the land of the Canaanites. Unfortunately the Canaanites were occupying at the time, but that’s not a big issue for God’s chosen people. I can assume you can guess what happened there.

“And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” – Genesis 17:8

Anyway, the Lord Yahweh later visited Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and impregnated her, making his earlier prediction Abraham would have a son when he was 100 come true.

“And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.” – Genesis 21:1

The boy was named Isacc and, naturally, Yahweh instructed the end of his penis to be hacked off, which Abraham did when the boy was 8 days old. But as you may well know, that was not all Yahweh had in mind for poor Isaac:

“God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” – Genesis 22:1-2

What can you say? God loves his burnt offerings.

So Abraham did as he was told, as always. He dragged poor frightened Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice to his god. Rather than face the full terror of the situation, the maker’s of this animation proposes Isaac was positively ecstatic to be killed. Yeah, I am sure that was the case. You may have thought God was happy with the way things turned out, but he still wanted his burning flesh. Luckily for Abraham there was a ram nearby. Not so lucky for the ram.

“And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.” – Genesis 22:13

As a result of this little exercise Yahweh promised to “multiply Abraham’s seed” and conquer his enemies:

“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;” – Genesis 22:17

At this stage Abraham’s gonads have been blessed by god twice. Perhaps that’s why he is so highly admired?

In reality, a terrified little boy was probably dragged up a hill by a dangerously deluded and schizophrenic psychopath intent on murder. Nowadays society is repulsed and disgusted by anyone willing to harm their children, let alone murder them. Take the case of baby Ali.

On the 30 September 2011 [the BBC reported](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15128057) Shayma Ali, 36, took her 4 year old daughter, strangled her unconscious, then stabbed her up to 40 times before removing her liver while Koranic verses played in the background. She is reported to have said:

“Then a voice told me ‘if you love Allah you should sacrifice your daughter.’”

How is this terribly tragic case any different to one of the most revered stories within the Abrahamic traditions? The only difference here seem to be Allah (read Yahweh – they are the same freaking god anyway) did not step in at the last moment exclaiming he was “only kidding” and boosting your sperm count as compensation. Not that Yahweh step in on every occasion anyway.

In Judges 11:30-39 Jephthah was off to slay the “children of Ammon” and vowed to god he would offer the first thing to come out of his house as a burnt offering (Jesus, what is it with Yahweh and burnt flesh?). Unsurprisingly, Jephthah was highly successful (if you can call it that):

“And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.” – Judges 11:33

You might have thought Yahweh had seen enough blood, suffering, and death, but not this time around. The first thing to “cometh forth of the doors of Jephthah’s house” was his only child – his daughter who had run out to greet him home singing and dancing. But a deal is a deal, especially when you make it with the all loving creator of the universe. So what choice did Jephthah have?

So after letting her daughter “bemoan here virginity” for two months, Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed” (Judges 11:39).

So next time you feel the need to pray to god for something, just remember the kind of deals he has done in the past. He promises you land someone else already inhabits, he will help you kill thousands of people, he will ask you to kill your children, and he’ll give you big balls. All you need to do is be obedient and listen to those voices in your head – no matter how crazy they may seem.

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.”

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (Part II), published 1795

Atheist: More wars have been fought and more blood has been shed in the name of God than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world.

Koukl: You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion but from institutionalized atheism: over 66 million wiped out by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; between 32 and 61 million killed under Communist regimes since 1949; one third of the 8 million Khmers- 2.7 million people- were killed between 1975 and 1979 under the communist Khmer Rouge.

Of course Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev killed millions under their irreligious Communist regimes, but not because they lacked a belief in a deity. In fact, I don’t think anyone is motivated to action on the a lack in belief in something – it requires something else in addition to a lack of belief in order to motivate people to action. Here is what this silly argument boils down to for me:

Theist: “I believe there is a magic spy camera in the sky watching everything I do, and who will judge my life after I am dead.”

Atheist: “Seeing as though you have no evidence to support your claims, I don’t see any reason to believe you.”

Theist: “If you don’t have a magic sky camera, then nothing prevents you from killing and raping everything you see!”

Atheist: “This is the only life I know I will experience, why would I want to spend it inflicting pain on others? Moreover, the only way I can assure I am not randomly killed, raped, or both is to live in a society which bans those detrimental behaviours. No god required.”

Theist: “Derp.”

As Sam Harris points out, these regimes seemed to install themselves or the State as a god substitute. They saw religion as competition to their totalitarian rule. Many such governments attribute supernatural events to their leaders. For example, Kim Jong-il is said to have walked out of his mother’s side to the tune of 1,000 birds singing, and after his death in 1994 was named there “eternal president” to rule from beyond the grave. These do not sound like rational beliefs. The problem is not that these regimes do not allow religions, it that they are too much like religions themselves.

What I did not mention is the article in question acknowledges this rebuttal, saying:

Atheist: Hang on, you can’t claim that Stalin and Mao committed their crimes because of atheism. They never did this in the name of atheism or because they were motivated by atheism their crimes were unrelated.

In this case the atheist has merely reduced the scope of atheism to the point where any crimes committed by an atheist have no relation to atheism itself.

Right. There is a direct link between “thou shall not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18) and killing witches, and killing non-Christians is perfectly justified by Deuteronomy 13:6-10, and cutting off people’s hand or plucking out their eyes is justified by Jesus himself in Matthew 5:29.

Since atheism is a lack of belief in gods, they do not place any authoritative weight on the words contained in holy texts. None of these passages could ever be used to motivate an atheist to perform any terrible act. Of course, atheists can commit horrible acts, but not because they simply disagree with unfounded claims of a theist.

Whereas religion is to blame if a perpetrator merely mentions God (see: Hitler, Breivik etc.), the relation between their actions and actual Christian doctrine is not relevant. There is an obvious double standard here and it highly useful to simply point it out, however now that the double standard has been established by the atheist his own tactic can be used against him.

There is no double standard. As I mentioned earlier, there are passages in the Bible which can very easy be used to justify all sorts of horrors. Christians may argue that these passages are no longer relevant, have been superseded, or simply ignore them, but the passages remain. Holy texts are not open to wholesale revision and alteration in the same manner other books are, and fundamentalists who have the courage to accept every word of a book to be directly inspired by their god can find ample motivation for atrocities.

In reducing the scope for the negative influences of atheism on the one hand, the atheist has unwittingly reduced the scope for all influences atheism has, this also includes positive influences.

There are no direct positive influences of atheism. Atheism is most often the result of a skeptical process, so they often do not accept many claims without sufficient evidence. Skepticism applied to religious claims leads to atheism. Any positive influences are derived from skepticism, not from the disbelief in one single claim.

Therefore it is advantageous to demonstrate the tremendous positive influence Christianity has had throughout history in every sphere of life, because when the tables are turned atheism is completely naked as no-one commits these good acts in the name of atheism or with an atheistic motive. By the atheists own standard atheism is without utility.

Again, we agree. Atheism in itself is without utility as the lack of a belief cannot be a platform for any other beliefs or actions. Christianity on the other hand has a long history of persecution, wars, subjugation, sexism, racism, slavery, torture, burnings, and hindering scientific progress. By all means promote the few positive influences of Christianity, but we will be here to highlight the thousands of horrific acts performed in the name of your religion to this day.

“These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:  They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” - Leviticus 11:9-12

I ate seafood last night and have been howling like a demon ever since. Like the the undead I cannot rest, and I swear the noises from my digestive tract are piped directly from the bowels of Hell.  Oh please Lord, make it stop.

“… at this school we have students from a range of backgrounds and it is important to consider all views and not promote one set of religious beliefs and practices over another.”

Such an approach is inline with secular principles which restrict the role of government in personal and private religious matters. No public school has the right to instruct citizens (especially children) on which god they should pray to, how this prayer shall be conducted, or when they shall pray. Students, parents, teachers, and administrators are free to pray to whichever god they please, as often as they please, but it is an infringement of personal rights and freedoms to use government institutions to forcefully instruct others on these matters.

Perhaps this is why I find it so disappointing when the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, says:

“My own view is that WA is basically a Christian-based community and I think its desirable to have the Lord’s Prayer said.”

The phrase “basically a Christian-based community” gives the game away. Australia is a multi-cultural mix of people from all other the world sharing different cuisines, traditions, music, art, and religious beliefs. Those who do not share the Christian faith should not be subjected to government instructed prayer to the Christian God. To do so is divisive, alienating, and discriminating.

The lose of undeserved privilege has caused outrage within the Christian community who have responded with a campaign of hate mail against Edgewater Primary. It seems many loving Christians see the government retreating to an inclusive, non-discriminatory, secular position as some kind of persecution, however nothing could be further from the truth.

No one is banning Christianity, or preventing students, parents, or teachers from praying to their god whenever, or however they please. Those wishing to petition the gods are perfectly free to do so, however what they cannot do is use government institutions to force everyone else to perform these acts. It’s really that simple. Just imagine the outrage Christians would feel if they were instructed by a school to pray to Shiva, or bow down to Allah 5 times a day!

If you would like to show your support for Edgewater Primary school (who have been feeling the heat of Christian understanding and forgiveness over the last few days) please drop them an email at Edgewater.PS@det.wa.edu.au. Let them know there are many people out there who understand what they are doing, and fully support their efforts to keep Australia free, inclusive, and tolerant.

Below is a video from Fox News (who else?) where Anne Graham (daughter of Christian loon Billy Graham) promotes her new children’s book explaining “what happens after death and how you can know you’re going to Heaven”.  Dear Anne says “the book is true because it’s based on what the Bible says” and relays fascinating facts like “Heaven has walls that are 200 feet thick” so “there won’t be bee stings in Heaven because there won’t be bees (see “Why don’t bees go to Heaven” by the awesome Ron Williams).

Anne sees the book as a way to “pass on real faith to children”, but what do you think?

The Greens’ intolerance of toward people who support marriage between a man and a woman is not only absurd but a worry for people who dissent to their views, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

Apparently the ACL believe equality for all regardless of natural and innate sexual orientation is tantamount to intolerance toward opposite sex couples. This is laughably stupid.

The Tasmanian Greens claim today in Parliament that Liberal Leader Will Hodgman’s views supporting marriage are ‘bigoted’ is vitriolic and intolerant ACL Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said.

Well, when you have no evidence based rational reasons for preventing others from enjoying the same privileges and rights you do, then you will rightly be called a “bigot”. Get used to it.

“A disappointing factor of the marriage debate has been the serial demonisation of people who support marriage,” Mr Brown said.

If marriage is such a great thing, then why aren’t the ACL ecstatic that now even more people will be tying the knot?

“What have we come to where it is ‘bigoted’ and ‘shameful’ to support the idea of marriage remaining between a man and a woman?

If you find the idea of marrying somebody of the same sex, then don’t do it. Preventing other people from marrying because you find the idea distasteful is selfish and mean. What would Jesus think?

“Many people support marriage because they believe being raised by parents of different genders, wherever possible, is in the best interests of a child. Surely this is not bigotry,” Mr Brown said.

No marriage certificates have ever asked if the couple are fertile and willing to have children. Nor do we annul marriages if couples have not had kids within a sufficient period, or wringing our hands at the plight of single parents (at least in relation to their marital status). Moreover, there are no studies demonstrating different gender parents produce “better” children (whatever that means), but the ACL won’t let pesky things like facts get in the way.

“If the Greens had absolute political power, what would they do to ‘bigots’ who do not conform to their views? Would it become a crime to say that a child should have every opportunity to have a mum and a dad?”

What an absurd example demonstrating a slippery slope argument. We could easily reverse the question – what would the ACL do if they had absolute political power? Seems their religious ancestors dealt with homosexuals rather harshly:

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” – Leviticus 20:13 NAB

Is this the kind of world we wish to return to? A theocracy? I think not.

Mr Brown said today’s debate on same-sex marriage was a typical misuse of the Parliament’s time by the Greens who don’t seem to care that marriage is a Commonwealth responsibility in their pursuit of radical social experiments.

I’m sorry, I did not realise the Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1999 was a Commonwealth issue. Of course, the issue is a little more complex than that.

It was disappointing that Tasmanian Labor was continuing to be led by the Greens on social policy, Mr Brown said.

Yes. How dare elected politicians have a say in government!

He thanked the Liberals for having the courage to stand for marriage in the face of such intolerant opposition.

What you mean to say is the Tasmanian Liberal party share your irrational bigotry and hatred.

“Even though the next election is years away, I’m sure the Christian constituency will not forget how members voted today.”

And the rest of us will remember how the ACL behaves when their bigoted religious views are challenged and overturned. Good day to you, sir.

“While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express views and articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious beliefs, a chaplain should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that denomination or religious belief. ”

So it is with interest that we discover the chaplain of Boddington District High School in Western Australia has instigated a project called the “National Shoe Box Collection”, which encourages children to put together a small gift for those less fortunate than ourselves in other parts of the world.

According to this article, the program has shipped over 24 million shoe box presents over 10 year period – and that was in 2003!  More interestingly though, the program is administered by an organisation called “Samaritan’s Purse”, which was run by Rev Franklin Graham (the son of the infamous Southern Baptist Christian evangelist Billy Graham), and whose stated goals are:

“… [to do] our utmost to follow Christ’s command by going to the aid of the world’s poor, sick, and suffering. We are an effective means of reaching hurting people in countries around the world with food, medicine, and other assistance in the Name of Jesus Christ. This, in turn, earns us a hearing for the Gospel, the Good News of eternal life through Jesus Christ.”

To underscore these goals let’s have a look at their actual Mission Statement:

“Samaritan’s Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan’s Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ.”

Their mission is neatly summarised in the final sentence:

“The organization serves the Church worldwide to promote the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Perhaps this is why the shoe box gifts must not contain “anything of a religious, racial, or political nature” as spelled out on the flyer provided by Boddington District High School.  From their history, it seems Samaritan’s Purse desires total control over the religious messages being delivered through their programs.

Samaritan’s Purse has been widely condemned for following US troops into Iraq to claim Muslims for Jesus, and proudly handing out 30,000 arabic bibles to terrified civilians. In 2003 they proudly declared “Muslim children in the capital city of Kabul celebrated Christmas for the first time”.  Founders and Board Directors have stated Islam is “a very wicked and evil religion” and ”the idol” of Islam’s false god” is “a guy called Satan” who “wants to destroy us as a Christian army”.

Samaritan’s Purse’s hatred of anything non-Christian is not limited to Islam either.  They accuse Hindu’s of being “bound by Satan’s power”, and refused Catholic victims caught in the El Salvador Earthquake in 2001 temporary accommodation until they had sat through an evangelising prayer session. The Director claimed to have “saved” 150 Catholics in one village alone using this method.

In 1999 Samaritan’s Purse decided the best way to help victims of the hurricane in Nicaragua was to rent buses for 50,000 people, fly Frankilin Graham in on a private jet, and subject them to and evangelical concert held in the national baseball stadium in Managua.  At the conclusion of the concert everyone was asked to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and saviour, then presented with a shoe box gift, and a Bible.  Of course.

This is hardly an organisation which respects the rights of other religious denomination or beliefs, and it is certainly not an organisation anyone employed under the guidelines of the National School Chaplaincy Program should be supporting.  I encourage all students, parents, teachers, and administrators within the West Australia Education system to immediately withdraw their support for this overtly evangelical, highly aggressive, and toxic organisation.

“I have consistently upheld the Church’s affirmation of the definition under the Marriage Act that marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”

OK, so marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, which seems to be a blatant admission the law is discriminatory and needs to change.

“I have also consistently supported the recognition of gay and lesbian relationships and have advocated for appropriate legal protection for gay and lesbian couples in areas where there was formerly discrimination.”

So on one hand Bishop supports the discrimination against gays within the Marriage Act, while on the other he advocates for legal protection against discrimination.  One wonders how the Bishop could simultaneously hold obviously conflicting ideas within his head without exploding.  I suspect years of intense theological training have prepared him for such incredible feats.

Bishop Harrower said, “Mr McKim’s call for “Marriage Equality” is disingenuous.

Yes, because allowing everyone to marry regardless of their sexuality could certainly not be called “equality”.

What he intends is a redefinition of marriage itself.

Of course. The whole purpose of parliament is to enact laws for the effective administration of a fair, equitable, peaceful, and prosperous society.

Redefining marriage does very little, if anything, to extend rights or equality before the law.

Except the Marriage Act IS LAW.

It appears to be less about extending rights to a minority and more about compelling all to conform to a novel and unnecessary view.

Of course it’s about extending right to a minority – a minority that has been unfairly discriminated against for far too long simply because of who they are.

“The institution of marriage is much more than the expression of private love but is a responsibility and a commitment of a particular sort within society.”

Are we to believe that homosexuals are somehow incapable of truly committing to marriage in the same way heterosexuals can?  On what data does Mr. Harrower make this conclusion?

And what is with this “particular sort” language?  The subtext seems to be that the good Bishop will not tolerate the “wrong sort” getting married, and maintains this position under the disguise of “advocating for appropriate legal protection”.

“Redefining marriage will disenfranchise those who have embraced and value that particular form of commitment.”

I have never understood this argument.  How does another’s marriage affect my own?  Are we to believe that a sudden influx of gay marriages will somehow result in a huge number of heterosexual marriages realising their vows before god mean nothing?  Will they all suddenly run off to file for divorce, signalling the end of civilisation and life on this planet?  Somehow, I think not.

I would encourage Bishop Harrower to revisit the Bible to see what Jesus would do in these circumstances.  Although, since Jesus never mentioned homosexuals (not even once), we may have to extrapolate what his attitude may have been from other statements he reportedly made.  How about we start with these poignant passages:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” - Matthew 7:12

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” – Luke 6:31

So Right Reverend John Harrower, how would you feel if some religious wing nut was preventing you from legally marrying the person you loved?

Update: It’s a good thing our politicians don’t listen to the religious lobby.  The Tasmanian parliament has upheld equality and voted for gay marriage.

Also read the reporters blog on the story.

“What are you so afraid of? That’s my question. Gay people getting married? What is so scary about that? It’s complicated. You grow up in a religion like that and you try to pray the gay away. I feel sadness for people like that. This is where people start short-circuiting—instead of being brave and questioning their beliefs, they are afraid and feel that they have to defend them. I don’t mind a world with religion in it. There are some beautiful tenets within all religions. What I get hot about is when they start dictating how other people must live. People suffer because of it. They are spreading misery.”

- Brad Pitt

Today the tweeters @askegg @steviebryant @SkepticalSkotty @_7654_ have all inundated my mentions with questions and of course accusations of being ignorant and what not. Vitriol behavior is not uncommon among atheists… I know.. I used to be one :)

I am highly skeptical Sacerdotus was ever an atheist, as I have often seen individuals make this claim in order to paint themselves as rational, free thinking people who have been swayed by the strength of the arguments for the existence of one of more gods. Nevertheless, I am prepared to give Sacerdotus the benefit of the doubt as it makes no difference at all the the strength of his arguments.

Let me begin on what I remember from all the tweets:

Atheism is defined as: a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)

Despite giving this definition, the above mentioned seem to disregard it.

Just after the starter’s gun has fired, Sacerdotus has made a demonstrably false claim. Far from disregarding the definition provided I agreed with it.

Atheism can be defined as the denial in the existence of gods, however this definition implies there is a god to deny in the first place, so I personally do not use this definition. The same argument can be levelled at the disbelief in the existence of gods, however I accepted the definition on the basis there isn’t sufficient evidence for the existence of any deities.

They claim that atheism is merely just a “disbelief” not a denial. However, that is illogical. The word “disbelief” means:”dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\ : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue” -(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief).

Right. I have considered the concept of gods as defined by myself as a believer, and numerous times by theists since I renounced the concept as flawed, illogical, and without foundation. So yes, I did “mentally reject” the concept of a god – how else was I supposed to reject the idea?

Notice that it uses the words “mental rejection.” Rejection is synonymous with denial. (http://thesaurus.com/browse/rejection).

Now you are being obtuse. Simply defining atheists as only those who deny the existence of gods leaves you grounds to claim gods exists and atheists are simply being irrational. The same tactics can be used to “prove” the existence of any entity:

Me: “I believe there is an invisible purple unicorn in my garage.”

Friend: “I have tried to conceptualise your contradictory mythical creature to considered your hypothesis, but find it completely without merit.”

Me: “You’re not a true a-unicornist because you can conceive my unicorn.”

Friend: “That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard.”

Moving on.

That being said, atheism is a denial or rejection of God whether as an entity or concept.

Many have tried to correct your definition on Twitter, but it does not seem to be sinking in. Atheism is the disbelief in the god hypothesis. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as you (hopefully) would reject my proposal of an invisible purple unicorn does not make it anymore real, so rejecting the concept of a god does not mean you are rejecting a real, existing entity. This is the very essence of how we determine fantasy from reality.

The above insist that atheism is merely just disbelief. However, in order to disbelieve in something or someone, one must be aware of that something or someone.

It is not necessary to “be aware” of something or someone in order to disbelief it. Al that is required is the construction of a mental image, or concept within your own mind. I can propose any number of idea such as lizard men running the world, the power of homeopathic remedies, the existence of Bigfoot, and alien abductions, but none of these somehow become real because I have conceptualised them. Nor do they gain weight if you consider the ideas and subsequently reject them as ludicrous.

How can one disbelieve in god if one is not aware of the idea, person or subject?

As I pointed out, while you cannot disbelieve in a god if you are not aware of the idea, you can lack a belief in a god if no one has exposed you to the idea.

It is like Leonardo Davinci disbelieving that Iphones or wifi exist. How can he if he has never had prior awareness of the device or technology?

Leonardo Davinci completely lacked belief in iPhones and wi-fi because he was never exposed to the ideas, or presented with a working model. However, if someone had handed Davinci a working iPhone, he could not be justified in disbelieving their existence.

Moreover, another atheist asked for proof of God. When I began to question him regarding quantum physics and how I was going to show the evidence I found, he dismissed it quickly. He even called quantum physics a “pseudo science“

No – he called your assertion quantum physics somehow proved god to be “bullshit”. He may have a point there – how exactly does the amazingly accurate physics of the quantum world demonstrate the existence of Yahweh?

My conclusion is that this gentlemen is not knowledgeable in physics and therefore rejects it as mere pseudo science in order to save face, so to speak. He is just seeking to engage in nonsensical polemics and is not interested in truly discussing God and evidence using science.

I am glad you have admitted here that your God can be demonstrated scientifically, but you will need to be more detailed in your explanations. Simply stating quantum physics exists is not enough to demonstrate a deity is behind it – you will need evidence for this assertion. Falsifiable models with evidence we can test using empirical methods – you know, science.

Another gentlemen claimed that science is somehow superior to faith and religion. (http://twitter.com/#!/7654/status/114917684138868736) (http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/7654/~LRh0w)

Sorry, science is superior. In the past 50 years we have perfected personal computers, geostationary satellites, and an interconnected world wide communications web which allow us to have this conversation. 1,800 years of praying to God resulted in very little except war, disease, ignorance, poverty, suffering, and death. Science works, faith does not.

I tried to explain that science and faith are basically the same in that they both are based on perception and belief.

Utter shite. Science is based on empirical facts leading to testable and falsifiable hypothesis with explanatory powers. Faith maintains already accepted dogma as fact and rejects contradictory ideas to maintain them. Faith is the antithesis of science.

In religion, ideas are formulated. Those ideas are then compared to sources “scripture/tradition,” from there they are rejected as heresy or approved as doctrine.

Thanks for proving my point. Faith accepts “scripture” as divine, perfect, and unalterable. Science has no such restrictions – everything is open to enquiry, scrutiny, and rejection.

In extraordinary cases, they are proclaimed “dogmas” or “revealed Divine truth.” Science is similar in that it starts with a “guess” or hypothesis. From there that guess is tested until it is either rejected, theorized or made into a official law. Science relies on perception. It uses instruments made by flawed men. Those instruments can fail, or perceive things differently than the human senses do.

Errr – aren’t the scriptures interpreted via these fallible human perceptions as well? How do you read and interpret scripture if not via the same flawed senses you say is a failing of science?

Moreover, there is the issue of the human perception. We all do not perceive the same thing. Each of us perceives things differently. Perception goes through many filters in our brains.

This is true, however we must also recognise that reality does not change on the basis of our perceptions (unless you subscribe to the useless position of extreme solipsism). If we devised a method to remove as much subjectivity as possible, we should be able to discern reality on its own terms. Luckily, we have already done this and it has proven extraordinarily fruitful. Science, it works.

If someone gets well after a horrible accident a believe will think it was a miracle. An atheist will see it as the body regenerated faster than normal. The even (recovery) is static, but the perception of both outside parties are different. Why? Because they passed through filters in the brain. Science is not immune to this. There are scientists who are for and against evolution …

95% of scientists accept evolution as fact, and these number increase if we discount those who do not study in the field.

To say that science is above religion because it uses instruments and gathers data is silly. Both religion and science are subject to man’s perception and not to mention mistakes.

So science has “silly data” which results in the motor car, international air travel, the iPhone, cancer treating drugs, modern building materials, and plentiful crops?

At least you admit religion is subject to mistakes. Perhaps your mistaken religion in general (and Catholicism in particular) is correct?

As usual, atheists attack Scripture.

Are you surprised? Any book containing talking snakes, demon possessed pigs, people living in large fish for days, and the walking dead should be continuously and mercilessly mocked.

One tweeter claimed that the Bible does not describe the sun as a “star.” This can be seen in different ways. Depending on how it is translated, the Hebrew word “Shemesh” can be ” a torch, star, or sun.” It can also be used to describe a sun god. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the Bible is not science book. While some science is explicitly and implicitly shown, its purpose is not to explain things in the way we define science today. The purpose of the Bible is to highlight God’s plan of salvation through revelation.

So science uses verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence to build models of reality, while religion uses unverifiable, personal revelation (via the words of an ancient book) to highlight God’s plan. One might have thought if personal revelation of God’s plan was consistent we would see uniformity across the religions of the globe, however this is the exact opposite of what occurs. Each minuscule interpretive variation of divine scripture causes division and schisms within a single religion – not to mention the plethora of holy texts available to choose from in the first instance.

Another tweeter dismissed the idea that science is also faith in a sense. Faith is defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.” -(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith) Well when we learn science in school or read the science section of a paper, are we not trusting in the studies (thing) or person who wrote/researched the subject matter?

No, you are not meant to trust it – you are encouraged to doubt it, question it, and run your own tests. Experiment. Try your hardest to falsify the data and explanatory models presented. If you cannot, provisionally accept the claims as true and move on, but be alert to the possibility of tectonic shifts in our understanding of the universe when new data comes along which demands a paradigm shift. Science moulds itself to the available data, and (by your own definition) faith holds scripture to be the gauge by which everything else is measured. Scripture is assumed to be true as a starting point, and this is religions major failing.

Is that not faith? How many of us have traveled to space and have seen the solar system with our own eyes? How many of us have enter the earth and have walked on the mantle and core? How many of us have personally carbon dated fossils? Not many would say yes because not everyone has access to labs and other equipment to make this attempt. Nevertheless, we accept these ideas as truth. We take them on faith that those who conducted the experiments and research are not lying to us.

You are equivocating the “faith” we have in these things with religious faith. I have good reasons for believing silicon chips work despite never having witnessed one being made. I regularly use GPS to navigate my way around which relies on the existence of satellites utilising Einstein’s general theory of relativity. I have witnessed vast quantities of electrical power emanating from nuclear power stations, which are built on the same models of radioactive decay used to date fossils, or determine the age of the Earth. In each case, I have arms length data to verify the claims being made by science – I have no such verification from religions.

Religion is no different. Religious people believe God is real, the doctrines are real and applicable. They trust that they are not being misled just as those who follow science only believe they are not being lied to as well.

Religious people may believe god is real, but they are doing so on the basis on zero evidence. This is the religious faith Sacerdotus would have you believe is identical to scientific “faith”. However, as I have hopefully demonstrated, one is based on empirical evidence and skepticism at every turn, the other is built on shifting sands.

‎”Science has done more for the development of Western civilization in 100 years than Christianity did in 1,800 years.”

- John Burroughs

On the 7th September the Honourable Peter Garrett MP, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, released a press statement announcing changes to the National School Chaplaincy Program:

School Education Minister Peter Garrett said from next year, school communities will be able to choose to employ either a chaplain or a secular student welfare worker. The scheme will also be strengthened with the introduction of minimum qualifications, benchmark standards for service providers, and improvements to the complaints management system.

This is a welcome and positive step towards a truly inclusive and non-discriminatory federal government program. However, the existing chaplains and their employers maintain significant momentum in this arena. Most likely many chaplains already employed under the NSCP and chosen on the basis of their professed religious beliefs will remain. The path of least resistance for school Principles and administers is to maintain the stays quo rather than “upset the apple cart”. This means the vast majority of the 2,700 chaplains already in schools will stay. New “chaplains” can be selected regardless of their religious affiliations.

Given the political realities of the situation we cannot hope for much more. No politician will voluntarily make 2,700 people redundant, only to replace them with functionally equivalent people on the strength of non-discriminatory secular principles – no matter how persuasive the argument. Unfortunately, this is the only political option the Honourable Peter Garrett MP can perceive, however I get the distinct impression Australian’s prefer politicians willing to stand on their principles. Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon has gathered considerable support across the country by standing against inequality, while Penny Wong has attracted scorn for her refusal to publicly back same sex marriages despite her personal feelings on the matter.

“We know chaplains are already doing great work in our school communities and I expect that many more schools will apply for funding to employ a chaplain when applications for the new round open later this year.” – Peter Garrett

Actually, we know no such thing. To my knowledge there has only been one survey of chaplains conducted, and it has largely been discredited as self-selection and poorly constructed. What we have are a number of statements from vested interested and anecdotes from others about the “great work chaplains do in school communities”. Since chaplains are there to help troubled children (not the communities) it should be reasonably simple to conduct a review of the incidents of bullying, victimisation, truancy rates, and suicides to gauge the impact chaplains have had. Why hasn’t this been done? Are the government and chaplaincy providers afraid of the results?

Other changes to be introduced include:

Introducing a minimum qualification for all new workers employed under the scheme – from 2012, all new chaplains or secular workers hired by schools will need to have a Certificate IV in Youth Work, Pastoral Care or equivalent qualification.

Again, this is a welcome step in the right direction. Our aim all along has been to ensure the best qualified people are hired to help our children, regardless of their personal religious or superstitious beliefs. Naturally, we would prefer to see the bar raised in relation to minimum qualification to ensure the best professional care is made available.

However, I am a little concerned regarding the qualification of “Pastoral Care”. While I have not done any research on this qualification yet, it sounds like something delivered and administered by religious groups. This is not necessarily a bad thing provided the outcomes of the course provide equivalent skills to (say) a Certificate IV in Youth Work and is not skewed by outdated and inappropriate religious dogma.

Requiring existing chaplains without the minimum qualifications to complete two units of the Certificate IV course: Mental Health and Making Referrals. About 500 existing chaplains will have 12 months to complete the units, with the Government meeting the costs. Existing chaplains can also have their current experience and qualifications formally recognised under Recognition of Prior Learning.

I have mixed feelings about this initiative. I think it’s fabulous that all existing chaplains will be brought up to speed, however the tax payer is being asked to train people for positions they already hold, yet are not qualified for because they were initially chosen on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The new guidelines for the -National School Chaplaincy Program- (now called the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program (NSCSWP)) will be published shortly. More information on the changes to the scheme is contained in the attached fact sheet and online at www.deewr.gov.au/schoolchaplaincy.

Pat Robertson demonstrating his love and interpretations of God’s law.

• A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong
• Zimbabwe’s male MPs to be circumcised
• Scientology: Game Over? Australia May Be About to Bankrupt Church Operations Down Under
• Order of Friars Minor Capuchin
• Follow the Yellow Boat and eradicate polio!

“From the first moment I looked into that horror on September 11th, into that fireball, into that explosion of horror, I knew it, I recognized an old companion. I recognized religion.”
-Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete (1941-)

“I’m not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I’ve seen what it can do to skyscrapers.” 
- William Gascoyne

“On Tuesday September 11, 2001, at least 35 000 people died from the worst possible death, starvation. Somewhere around 85% of these starvation deaths occur in children 5 years of age or younger. Starvation doesn’t just happen on Tuesday September 11, 2001, it happens everyday, 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, it never stops” 
- Jarek Loovali

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”
-Victor Stenger

Also watch bunny rabbits act out “The Exorcist” (thanks to Golmer for the link)

Believers are always scrabbling to remain relevant and appealing to the next generation.  Apparently this group of Christians think the best way to achieve this is to portray teenagers as hard core, drug addicted, immoral, party crazy rock stars.  Of course, the life style is hollow, meaningless, and destructive unless you have Jesus in your life. Luckily for us and the narrative, one of the gang “sees the light’ when they trip across a Bible conspicuously left in the middle of the floor.  Given the look on his face our protagonist must see light streaming from the pages and hears the angels sing.  Being a good Christian he does not hand the book in and attempt to its’ proper owner – instead he steals the holy scriptures for himself.

3 months pass and the world has turned.  Our outsider geeky rock star has found Jesus and turned his life around, while the most righteous lead guitarist has fallen into a deep depression after realising the hopelessness of his empty life style.  Proselytising begins and the healing blood of Jesus is offered to our disturbed party animal, but he is skeptical.  The burnt out drug addict rock star quips:

“How do you know the book is true?”

To which is newly reborn biblicalist replies:

“My book is the bible. Ever since I started living by what it says in there, my life has changed so much.”

Oh I see!  Your book is the Bible?  Why didn’t you say so! There is an automatic assumption that this one book is somehow special.  ”Holy Scripture” is given a special place simply because the believer presupposes it is “the word of god”.  It’s a fallacy which must be challenged.

The web site behind this atrocity says:

“The 12 Foundation Stones is a brand new, groundbreaking television and DVD series filled with eye-opening truths from the bestselling book of all time, the Bible. Many people today say that the Bible is not easily understood and is full of fables and fairy tales.”

News flash!  Talking donkeys, possessed pigs, burning bushes, and the living dead are fables and fairy tales.  No one should base their lives on a book containing such obvious nonsense.

I am so looking forward to this book.

I’ll be at the Global Atheist Convention. See you there.

“I couldn’t stop the planes, but I put a cross in the rubble for you.  Enjoy.” – God

“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”

… the man said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

As he turned to look, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He hooked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He tried to run even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically as he tried to run even faster, but he tripped and fell to the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up and saw the bear right on top of him raising his paw to kill him.

At that instant he cried out,

“Oh my God!”

Just then. time stopped. The bear froze, the forest was silent, the river even stopped moving.

A bright light shone upon the man, and a voice came out of the sky saying,

“You deny my existence all of these years, teach others I don’t exist and even credit my creation to a cosmic accident and now do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?”

The atheist, ever so proud, looked into the light and said,

“It would be rather hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years…but could you make the bear a Christian?”

“Very well,”

… said  the voice. As the light went out, the river ran, and the sounds of the forest continued,

the bear put his paw down.

The bear then brought both paws together, bowed his head and said,

“Lord, I thank you for this food that I am about to receive.”

(Sent to me by a religious Twitter follower.  Hope you don’t mind the posting.)