For those who may not know, Kermit Gosnell was recently sentenced to life imprisonment of first degree murder over the deaths of three babies and count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a woman.

To me this is a case of the justice system working. Here is a man who did not just perform abortions – he coldly killed babies who survived the abortion procedure. It is this distinction which landed Gosnell is prison for the remainder of his days.

In response to the announcement of the Gosnell case, the Australian Christian Lobby issued a press release:

MEDIA RELEASE

Thursday, 16th May, 2013

The Australian Christian Lobby is calling for investigations into babies being left to die after being born alive following failed late term abortions.

The call comes as US abortionist Kermit Gosnell was given life in prison after being found guilty of murdering three babies who survived abortion attempts.

ACL spokesperson Wendy Francis said Dr Gosnell was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, as well as over 200 violations of Pennsylvania’s abortion laws, including the performance of late-term abortions.

“Dr Gosnell’s case has shocked people worldwide on both sides of the abortion debate,” Mrs Francis said. “The level of brutality involved is unfathomable, with eyewitness accounts of babies who were born alive crying in pain before having their spines snipped with scissors.”

Although this is an extreme case, Mrs Francis says the barbaric treatment of babies born alive after failed abortions is happening in our own country.

“There was the infamous 1998 case in Darwin, when baby Jessica Jane was born alive at about 22-24 weeks after a failed abortion and left to die after crying alone for 80 minutes,” she said.

“The most recent Annual Report of Victoria’s Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity shows that, of a total of 196 post-20 week abortions performed for ‘congenital abnormality’, 42 of the babies died after birth,” Mrs Francis said. “Even before the 2008 liberalisation of abortion laws, in 2007 there were 52 neonatal deaths out of 181 post-20 week abortions for ‘abnormalities’.”

“The appalling case of Kermit Gosnell should awaken Australians to the fact that the same horrors are happening under our own noses,” said Mrs Francis. “Late-term abortions are failing, and babies are being left alone to die even when they could be saved.”

“The circumstances of these cases in Australia must be investigated, and we must ensure that this practice is not more widespread,” Mrs Francis said.

Wendy Francis rightly points out that the Gosnell case shocked “both sides” of the debate, but tragically gets almost everything else wrong.

Unfortunately for Wendy Francis I looked up and read the 1998 Jessica Jane case. You can too since the Corner’s findings can be found here.

“The procedure was necessitated, in the opinion of Dr Cho, by concerns for the mother and not because of any foetal abnormalities.”page 5, Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane [2000] NTMC 37

The case involves a women who found herself in the tragic situation of having to terminate her pregnancy. However, after the procedure was complete the nurse was shocked to hear the baby cry. This is where Wendy’s account of things goes badly off the rails.

Rather than leave the baby to die “crying alone for 80 minutes” the nurse wrapped her in a blanket, tried to raise assistance (it was 4AM), attended to the mother who was experiencing further difficulty, and checked on the baby every 10 to 15 minutes.

“I could not just leave it like we do with some, in a kidney dish, and I put it into a warm rug and put a drape over the top of it so at least it was warm. During all this time I’d been back and checked it about every 10, 15 minutes.”page 7, Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane [2000] NTMC 37

Wendy Francis says:

“Late-term abortions are failing, and babies are being left alone to die even when they could be saved.”

However, the corner’s report Wendy references says the complete opposite.

“The evidence established that the deceased was fully born in a living state. In the 80 minutes of her life she had a separate and independent existence to her mother.” – page 20, Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane [2000] NTMC 37

Here the Corner is stating that Jessica was an independent person capable of living separate from here mother, but he goes further:

“In my view, the fact that her birth was unexpected and not the desired outcome of the medical procedure, should not result in her, and babies like her, being perceived as anything less than a complete human being.”page 20, Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane [2000] NTMC 37

Since the foetus survived the abortion procedure (and is clearly capable of living independently) we should treat her as a full human being.

The report continues:

“The deceased having been born alive deserved all the dignity, respect and value that our society places on human life.”page 20, Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane [2000] NTMC 37

So here we have the Corner saying that babies born from failed abortions should be treated as full human beings with all the rights, dignity, care, and respect that we would give to any other person. The circumstances of their life make no difference in these cases.

If the findings of the coronial inquest are followed, and the tireless doctors and nurses are living up to their humanitarian pledge, the 42 babies which died after birth where given every possible chance to live. This is a much different picture to Wendy’s cries of “babies being left alone to die even when they could be saved.”

I loved the pointing finger, but thought the text needed revision.  Behold:

• #TheBible recap: People taking to themselves, wandering around lost, ninja angels, and a metric shit tonne of smiting.
• Abraham has been promised “descendants as numerous as the stars”. A logistical nightmare given the size of Earth. #TheBible
• Forty years on, Joshua is talking to a box. #TheBible
• 3:40 Joshua is whipping his troops into a frenzy of genocide to rid the promised land of god’s precious creations. #TheBible
• 4:00 Jericho is between Joshua and the promised land. Rather than walk around, he will act as a Biblical Vogon. #TheBible
• 5:30 The old lady spots the Israelite ninjas, who look just like everyone else. #TheBible
• 5:53 First fight. About freaking time. #TheBible
• 6:17 Israelite ninjas have slaughtered peaceful Jericho citizens defending their homes. #TheBible
• 7:58 The ninjas hold a knife to a mother and her son. 30 seconds later she is stalling the police so they can get away. #TheBible
• 8:15 Ninja try to save the woman. Love happens quick around here. #TheBible
• 9:00 Joshua says god is with them but they still have to do all the work #TheBible
• 10:00 Joshua meets the commander of the Lord’s Army. Not sure why he needs one. #TheBible
• 10:42 Commander angel splits the ground with his sword and tells Joshua to march around the city. Solid battle plan. #TheBible
• 10:45 It does not occur to Joshua that if he can walk *around* the city, he can walk *past* the city. #TheBible
• 11:45 Yahweh makes them march around for a week, blow trumpets, and shout before he will bother helping. #TheBible
• 13:30 There is a great massacre. Have they actually read the tablets in the ark? #TheBible
• I mean, they carry that thing everywhere. Surely someone has read the commandments? #TheBible
• 14:50 Voiceover guy fast forwards 100 years. The 12 tribes of Israel are all over the map. #TheBible
• 15:50 Here come the Judges. The most well known are Judy, Dredd, and Samsonite. #TheBible
• 17:30 Samsonite was a virgin birth. And a big black guy. #TheBible
• 19:00 Samson’s wife to burnt alive for the crime of falling in love with the wrong tribe. And I thought my in-laws were bad. #TheBible
• 20:00 Hercules kills everyone. #TheBible
• 26:48 Samson has the jawbone of an ass, but don’t tell him that. #TheBible
• 29:00 Delilah meets Samson when he’s covered in blood carrying the jawbone of an ass. She is aroused. #TheBible
• 32:20 Samson gives away his Achilles heel. #TheBible
• 35:30 Samon’s magic hair is gone. He’s blinded. Great plan there, Yahweh. #TheBible
• 37:00 Samson gets his Neo powers on. #TheBible
• 39:00 Voiceover guys says “Samson sacrifice kills thousands”. Guess he’s in Hell now. #TheBible
• 41:00 All Kings are bad unless their chosen by god. Ergo, all bad Kings were not chosen by god. Simple. #TheBible
• 42:30 Enter the good King David, who’s introduced slaughtering some campers. #TheBible
• 43:20 “You had one task” #TheBible
• 43:30 Samuel is pissed Saul didn’t kill absolutely everything as instructed. #TheBible
• 44:10 The prophet tells the King god has forsaken him. Power struggle much? #TheBible
• 46:10 David kills a hungry dog in cold blood. #TheBible
• 51:30 David climbs the beanstalk and cuts the head off the giant. #TheBible
• 54:30 Saul offers David his daughter as a reward for so much bloodshed. No, she doesn’t get a say. #TheBible
• 55:00 But first David has to kill 100 Philistines. #TheBible
• 56:55 David returns with a bag full of dicks. #TheBible
• 65:00 Saul refuses to die. The plot has slowed to a crawl. Should have left these scenes on the cutting room floor. #TheBible
• 66:30 Saul finally kills himself. Useless character. Went nowhere. #TheBible
• 67:00 The new King David picks Jerusalem as his capital. It does not occur to him it’s already inhabited. #TheBible
• 69:00 King David breaks the Monty Python rule for Kings by performing a reverse Shawshack Redemption. #TheBible
• 70:10 They better hurry, there’s a Roman feast on soon.
• 71:40 More killing. It’s getting a little boring now. #TheBible
• 75:00 The priest says god has told him David’s line will rule Israel forever. Doesn’t seem to have panned out that way. #TheBible
• 77:00 David sleeps with Bathsheba, thus breaking a commandment, and dooming the entire civilisation. God takes this seriously.
• 80:00 Yahweh takes David’s innocent baby son as payment for his adultery. Harsh, but fair. #TheBible
• That’s the end of #TheBible parts 3 and 4.
• Next time on #TheBible: Foreign idols, a Babylonian disaster, the sacking of Jerusalem, and Steve Jobs says “Change the World”.

• 3:46 Minutes in and every living thing has been drowned by a vengeful god. #TheBible
• 4:00 Why is Noah Scottish? #TheBible
• 4:41 “Sorry everyone is dead. Here’s a rainbow.” – God #TheBible
• 5:00 The water subsides. To where, no one knows. #TheBible
• 5:20 Abraham rips off Steve Jobs “Change the world” #TheBible
• 6:30 Abraham is tripping on the mountain. Imagines he heard a “god”. #TheBible
• 6:49 God tells Abraham to kick those fuckers off his land and take it for himself. The first Crusade. #TheBible
• 7:40 Abraham’s family think he’s a crackpot. They may be onto something. #TheBible
• 9:30 A fight breaks out. No one murdered even though god hasn’t told them killing is wrong yet. #TheBible

• Lot really wants to go to Sodom. Wonder why? #TheBible
• Abraham, not Moses. Rookie mistake. #TheBible
• 13:30 Abraham screams “Allahu Akbar!” has he charges to murder the Sodomites. #TheBible
• 14:10 Many of god’s children … no wait, those bastard Sodomites .. . are now dead. Praise the LORD. #TheBible
• 17:20 Abraham’s wife is encouraging him to screw the slave. #TheBible
• 18:10 So Abraham does. #TheBible
• 19:30 Fast forward -> Sarah is jealous of Ishmael. No pleasing some women. #TheBible
• 20:20 Abraham sees the Ephors from the movie “300” on the hill. #TheBible
• 23:30 Angels tell Abraham they’re about to destroy Sodom. Rather than be horrified he praises god for being “just”. #TheBible
• 24:00 Angels have to test the city, ‘cause, you know … it’s not like god could tell them or anything. #TheBible
• Meanwhile, Abraham is attempting to bargain with the source of absolute morality to prevent the disaster. #TheBible
• Angel of death started at 50 good people to save Sodom, but Abraham’s extraordinary bargaining skills have him down to 10. #TheBible
• 26:00 What’s this? Lot doesn’t give his daughters to the murderous mob? Too horrifying for the makers of #TheBible?
• Thankfully, the badass angels make the horny mob go blind. Guess we know where that urban myth came from now. #TheBible
• 26:30 The ninja angels has swords. Guess they’re only low level angels. #TheBible
• 29:00 Lot’s wife is now table salt. Serves her right for looking over her shoulder. #TheBible
• 30:00 Isaac born. Slave jealous. No one care. Characters are one dimensional. Plot jumps all over the place. Sack the editor.
• 31:00 Ismael sharpens a knife. This will come in handy. Where is Isaac anyway? #TheBible
• 34:00 Ismael is sent into the desert. I’m sure he’ll be fine. #TheBible
• 35:00 God tells Abraham to kill Isaac. Strangely, he doesn’t tell god to “fuck right off”. #TheBible
• 36:00 Abraham tells Sarah “god wants a sacrifice”, picks up a knife, and takes Isaac. She doesn’t seem concerned. #TheBible
• 37:00 Isaac is becoming suspicious they have climbed the mountain without a sacrifice to make. Bright boy. #TheBible
• 37:00 Isaac is told “the Lord will provide”. Apparently he doesn’t provide firewood and knives though. #TheBible
• 39:00 Isaac is told to “trust in god”. Easy to do when you’re not about to be gutted and burnt. #TheBible
• 40:00 God was just having a laugh; provides an innocent lamb instead. Oh yes, there must be blood. #TheBible
• 41:00 Sarah relieved. I imagine that might have been an awkward conversation. “Oh, yeah, about Isaac … “ #TheBible
• 41:00 Thankfully the voice guy over skips the begets. God doesn’t like the name Jacob. Mental note. #TheBible
• This voice over guy must have 8 bollocks. #TheBible
• 42:00 As a reward for Abraham’s attempted slaughter, god send famine and forces the promised people into Egyptian slavery. #TheBible
• 42:00 Voice over guy does not explain why Yahweh doesn’t love the Egyptians too. #TheBible
• 44:00 The story of Moses is told in flashback. They been reading Lord of the Rings? #TheBible
• 46:00 Lots of people being whipped. Yahweh gets an idea. #TheBible
• 46:00 Moses kills a guard. Swell guy. #TheBible
• 47:00 Moses is trying to put up a tent. This is tense. #TheBible
• 49:00 A burning bush speaks to Moses. He takes it rather well. #TheBible
• 49:00 The burning bush says it’s god and has seen the misery of his favourite people. He’s been busy but. #TheBible
• 52:00 Moses is wanted for murder, which is odd because god hasn’t faxed the 10 commandments yet. #TheBible
• 55:00 Moses visits Yul Brynner. #TheBible
• 57:00 #TheBible skips over magic showdown between Moses and Pharaoh because … you know … magic is just silly.
• “Just picture the Gandalf-Saruman fight in Peter Jackson’s Fellowship” – @SoupLion
• 58:00 Moses henchmen turn the river to blood. God likes blood. Pharaoh is annoyed, but not alarmed. #TheBible
• 1 hour mark. Yahweh punishes he good people of Egypt because the Pharaoh is a douche. #TheBible
• 60:02 “Death is coming for us all” – Moses #TheBible
• 60:00 Yahweh decides to kill everyone’s first born – even his favourite tribes. Pharaoh takes the blame. #TheBible
• 60:03 Wait! Yahweh has provided a loophole; just slit the throats of innocent lambs and smear the blood everywhere. #TheBible
• 60:03 Oh yes, Yahweh must have his blood. #TheBible
• 60:03 Voice over guy says god will know his people because they’re covered in blood. #TheBible
• 60:03 Fails to explain why an all knowing god needs them to identify themselves. #TheBible
• 64:00 The smoke monster from Lost appears. #TheBible
• 64:00 Abraham says “god have mercy”. It’s a little late for that. #passover #TheBible
• 64:20 Pharaoh has not listened, so his people will die. Seems fair. #TheBible
• 65:30 Pharaoh’s first born is dead. No one wonders why Yahweh didn’t just flick Pharaoh’s head off. #TheBible
• 65:47 Pharaoh asks “why?” Would have thought that would be obvious by now. #TheBible
• 66:00 Let’s not forget, Pharaohs son will still be writhing in agony in Hell because he worshipped the wrong god. #TheBible
• 66:45 The Jews rejoice and the wanton disease, plagues, drought, and death. At last they are free! #TheBible
• 68:20 Despite what just happened, Pharaoh vows to bring the Jews back to build a tomb. He’s such a dumbass. #TheBible
• 69:00 Voiceover guy says “this is the exodus”. Well, duh. #TheBible
• 70:00 Pharaoh’s armies follow Moses to the Red Sea. Seems the death of every first born via magic hasn’t scared him. #TheBible
• 73:00 Moses parts the Red Sea. Writer’s block – Deus ex machina. #TheBible
• 73:00 Pharaoh will now feel the wrath of 12 special effects guys. #TheBible
• 74:00 Jews told to “have faith” despite the entire sea parting before them. #TheBible
• 75:00 Pharaoh send his army into the sea in what will later be called “operation certain death”. #TheBible
• 77:00 Yahweh drowns the Egyptian army. In a loving way, of course. #TheBible
• 78:00 Jews screams “freedom”. I didn’t know Mel Gibson was in this movie. #TheBible
• 80:00 Moses tells them to “follow god’s path”. Results in wondering around the desert for 40 years. #TheBible
• 80:00 Yahweh finally gives laws to Moses. Hypocritically, one of them is “thou shall not kill” #TheBible
• 81:00 #TheBible skips over the embarrassing “golden calf” incident.
• 81:00 I guess it’s not believable they would immediately start worshipping a cow after everything they’ve been through. #TheBible
• 82:00 The Ark of the Covenant appears. I expect Nazis soon. #TheBible
• 82:00 Joshua introduced. Now the bloodshed will really begin. #TheBible
• 83:00 Joshua plans to annihilate the peaceful city of Jericho because it stands in his way. #TheBible
• 85:00 Crack Jewish seal team infiltrate Jericho, start killing innocent people in the name of Israel. #TheBible
• That’s the end of part 2 of #TheBible. Coming up: The fall of Jericho, King David, and Samson’s magic hair.

“These historians put the problem squarely upon the same ideology as that of Lenin …”Jared Orme

I suppose we should stop here since the deaths under Lenin were based on his ideology, not the disbelief in god concepts. I have heard it argued that totalitarian dictators like those listed above saw the authority of the church as a threat to their own perverse lust for power.

After all, the faithful do not answer to the temporal authority of the dictator, but to a higher power. In order to retain their vice like grip of power over the people these power mad megalomaniacs sought to remove god , only to replace it with themselves. It’s not the lack of a belief which lead to genocides, but their insane lust for power. Dissidents were dealt with in the most sever manner, much as a god does if you disagree with its absolute command. In this way the governmental systems they devised were much like religion’s.

Moreover, the entire argument is based on the real or potential consequences of a particular view point. We are essentially told that “we had better believe in a god (just pick one) because otherwise terrible things might happen”. Unfortunately this argument does not address the truth of the god proposition, rather it invokes an emotional response in order to garner a professed and fake belief in a “god”, just in case the alternative results in untold death.

Admittedly there is a moral dimension to this argument rooted in empirical observations. It is conceivable that a ethical system which involves untrue beliefs leads to a maximisation of happiness and well being for the human population. I’ll leave this as an intellectual thought experiment for the reader.

Conversely, I should also point out that belief in certain god concepts (even if only fake or professed) also attracts ethical systems in which homosexuals are evil, science is a Satan’s lie, unbeliever should be put to death, and witches (if there were such a thing) cannot be “suffered to live”, and all of these rules will be absolutely enforced by a deity who has personally drowned entire planets, levelled cities with fire and brimstone, and turned people into salt for looking over their shoulders. I’ll leave it to the believer to adequately explain to the rest of us why these horrific acts are actually example of the mod perfect moral being imaginable.

Perhaps I am being too harsh? I mean, we have’t even looked at Conversion Points Radio’s syllogism yet. I admit, my expectations may be higher if I had not seen one of Jared’s syllogisms before, but let’s give it a fair crack.

Ready? Here we go.

“P1: Atheism results in a lack of belief in/denial of extrinsic moral incumbency and divine retributionJared Orem

Naturally atheists do not fear “divine retribution”, since we do not accept the claims the “divine” actually exists. However, morality incumbency clearly does have an epistemological approach.

We can observe the suffering and unhappiness of other conscious creatures, so all that is required for ethical systems to develop is a modicum of empathy. Being able to imagine yourself in another’s place inevitably leads to the desire to reduce their pain and suffering. This is so obvious that many believers seem to completely over look it.

I believe this position is even stronger and more valuable than one including “divine retribution”, because they allow the participants to act in accordance with their own desire to reduce pain and suffering without transcendental threats. Indeed, if you are only behaving yourself because you fear punishment from a divine, absolute, authority you are not intrinsically moral – you are merely obedient.

“P2: If P1, then on atheism, there is no extrinsic culpability (incumbency) and extrinsic accountability (retribution) for any actions taken.”Jared Orem

False.

We are culpable, responsible, and answerable to our fellow human beings. Empathy with our fellow man requires us to assess the impacts of our actions on others, and make decisions which will minimise the harm, pain, and suffering caused.

“P3: A logical consequence of 2, is that any denial of beliefs that entertain extrinsic incumbency (EI) and extrinsic retribution (ER) will be in direct opposition to the adherents of extrinsic incumbency and extrinsic retribution.

P4: A logical consequence of 3, Actions taken by those who lack EI that conflict with people who adhere to EI will be in opposition directly based upon the severity of divergence of the action from that EI.”Jared Orem

False.

Here Jared takes a sharp turn while smuggling in more unsubstantiated premises. Why does simple disbelief in god claims mandate an individual must directly oppose adherents? There are many circumstances in which atheists positively support and encourage believers for acts carried out in the name of their faith. Charities, feeding the poor, clothing the homeless, rebuilding after tragedy, and supporting the depressed or suicidal are all actions often performed by religious faiths. The majority of those who disbelieve the central dogmas of religion still support these behaviours – even though we may think they are doing them for ultimately poor reasons.

Where we may disagree is where actions performed for faith reasons clearly result in discrimination, bigotry, harm, suffering, violence, pain, and death. These actions clearly have demonstrable harm and any moral person should stand against them.

Indeed, I suspect Jared knows this for I have not seen him defend the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church who clearly are driven by their faith and extreme fear of their god’s retribution upon the Earth. Nor do I see Jared defending the rights of Muslims (who clearly believe in a god and divine retribution) who sentenced a teenage girl to 100 lashes for the “crime” of being repeatedly raped by her father. These examples make it clear that some actions performed by the faithful should be resisted; although I do look forward to Jared’s defence of these acts.

“P5: A logical consequence of 2, actions that are of maximal benefit to the individual intrinsically will be chosen with direct disregard for anything extrinsic.”Jared Orem

False, though I have to be a little careful here.

Societies comprised of individuals seeking to maximise their happiness and well being are most likely to achieve this if they all work together. If each individual seeks to maintain the happiness of others in their community (even if at temporary discomfort to themselves) will quickly achieve high happiness levels as everyone is striving toward the same goal.

The caveat is largely hypothetical as it’s possible a society could be entire made of sadists or psychopaths. Such dysfunctional people derive pleasure from inflicting harm on others, however I suspect they fear suffering themselves. So perhaps even in these hypothetical societies maximal pleasure might only be achieved if everyone left each other alone?

“P6: A logical consequence of 2, is that conformity to overtly evil action will be ‘far more likely’ if temporal consequences are the only thing at stake.”Jared Orem

False. In fact, complete nonsense.

It is nonsense to suggest that conformity to “evil” actions are more likely if we only consider the real world. In fact, those who believe this life is the only one you will ever have, and there is no eternal reward or retribution after death, are far more likely to strongly desire reduction in temporal harm, suffering, and “evil”.

If we do not assume divine justice, then it becomes incumbent on ourselves to rid the world of these evil so that more people can live happy, fulfilled, content, and safe lives.

Lastly, Jared has to build a bridge between disbelief and actions. His argument is simply “we better fear judgement from god, or we’ll all run around killing each other”. A quick glance at the daily news falsifies this argument. People all over the world who genuinely believe they will face divine retribution after death persecute, discriminate, oppress, subjugate, harm, kill, and war with others all the time. They do so often as a direct result of the written instruction in their holy texts, or because it’s what they feel their god desires.

Now my challenge to Jared: What actions have you performed solely because you do not believe leprechauns actually exist?

“Why is incest wrong?” Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

According to early reports Lawrence Krauss responding by saying it was “not wrong, so long as the participants use a condom”, which resulted in an explosion of Muslims holding this statement up as a clear example of atheism’s total lack of a moral compass.  It also let many others scratching their heads wondering if Krauss actually said this, or what his justification for doing so was.  Some even used these events to claim Krauss and “his blind followers” where using these events to obfuscate fact he lost the debate:

“@jbrownridge @lkrauss1 Might have something to do with #Incest Diverting attention away from the debate… His followers are blind !”  shamirul (@islam_truth_) March 15, 2013

Thankfully, video of this portion of the debate has been released, so we can now witness the exchange:

Krauss opens his response with:

“It’s not clear to me that it’s wrong.” Lawrence Krauss

This resulted in howls of protests from the audience to such an extent Krauss almost did not deliver the second part of his response – his reasoning. Luckily, he decided to press on:

“The point is most societies have a taboo on incest, and it’s an empirical one. Generally incest produces genetic defects.  So in general there’s a physiological reason and a societal one why incest is wrong.” Lawrence Krauss

Hamza can clearly be heard agreeing with these statements, thereby agreeing there are purely scientific reason why incest is wrong – no supernatural deity required. Krauss continues:

“But, if you ask me the question … and this is an interesting question … (by the way, there’s an ingrained incest taboo in almost all societies for that reason; because societies want to persist, so that works) …. But if you ask me apriori the question ‘if a bother and sister love each other and use contraception, is there something absolutely morally wrong about that?’ … I’d have to think about it because I don’t think there’s any absolute condemnation of that fact. If they love each other and care for each other and they go off and it doesn’t affect anything else ….”Lawrence Krauss

Clearly Krauss is posing a thought experiment to Hamza on the morality of actions which have no negative consequences.  After all, how can one gauge the immorality of acts which do not have negative consequences?  In this hypothetical case there are no harmful effects on the individuals themselves (since they love and care for each other) and Krauss was careful to add the caveat that it did not affect anything else.  Such hypothetical scenarios cut directly to the heart of what it means to be moral or immoral.  These are difficult and unpleasant questions to ask, but must be asked brutally and honestly if we are to discover the underlying truth of the matter.  Krauss continues:

“Would I recommend it?  No.  Would I be critically happy about it? … But would I be willing to listen to those arguments, if they were rational? Maybe?” Lawrence Krauss

Rather than shy away from these difficult questions, Krauss has decided to honestly investigate them no matter how disgusting he may find them personally.  This is open and honest scientific inquiry.  We should not be afraid to tackle the difficult issues because we get an “icky feeling” in our stomach.  Of course, most people do not approach the world with such brutally honest introspection; they prefer to react on a purely emotional level without giving any consideration as to why those emotions are stirred, or even if they are correct.

Lastly, there is this:

“If you are gullible enough to believe I espoused incest at debate you may be gullible enough to believe, say, Mohammed was prophet of god.” Lawrence Krauss (@LKrauss1) March 15, 2013

I’ve not much more to add to that.

QualiaSoup does it again.

1. “..because in absence of the Divine you can’t have objective moral truths.”

Objective existence does not rely on another entity, for if they do they are contingent. Since religious “objective morality” relies on the existence of their deity, it is in fact not objective at all. If morality comes from a mind (even the mind of a god) then it is subjective by definition. Moreover, we can judge the impact of actions based on religious pronouncements to determine their morality. No appeal to the supernatural is required.

2. “I wanted to practically explain the point that there are no objective moral truths without God.”

Then (according to your framework) objective morality does not exist. However, I think we can construct moral frameworks without appealing to any supernatural idea, and there are theoretical states which maximise human happiness and wellbeing.

3. “i. An actual infinite cannot exist”

How do you know this? Moreover, don’t you disprove the existence of an eternal “god” by invoking this premise?

“ii. An infinite history of past events is an actual infinite
iii. Therefore, an infinite history of past events cannot exist”

See point i.

“For example you can actually measure the diameter and the circumference.”

The ratio of the radius to a circumference is not qualitative it’s quantitative, even though we completely accurately measure it.

4. “I presented a coherent definition of what a miracle is, and showed how the Qur’an’s inimitability makes it a miracle.”

Books exist – there is nothing miraculous about it, however that’s not your argument. You seem to be alluding to some pattern the Qur’an conforms to and invoke a deity to explain it. Even if the pattern were present all you can really say about it is “we don’t know how the authors achieved this – they *say* a deity was responsible”. So it doesn’t really achieve anything.

5. “The Professor moved away from discussing the arguments I presented and started to attack Islamic law. I didn’t want to entertain such ridiculous ploys to derail the debate.”

This on the back of gender segregation before the debate even began. Dumbstruck.

6. “It seems that the Professor was being disingenuous concerning his view on nothing.”

To be fair, the religious view does not begin with “nothing” either – a god existed. Moreover, the “god” seems capable of creating entire universes from nothing at all, which is something we are often told is impossible by religious people.

7. “Clearly, the energy of empty space (or anything else, for that matter) cannot be physically infinite, so we have to figure out a way to do the calculation and get a finite answer.” [A Universe from Nothing, p. 71]

The passage reads: “However, if we want to calculate the effect of virtual particles on empty space alone, we have nothing to subtract, and the answer we get is therefore infinite.
Infinity is not a pleasant quantity, however, at least as far as physicists are concerned, and we try to avoid it whenever possible. Clearly, the energy of empty space (or anything else, for that matter) cannot be physically infinite, so we have to figure out a way to do the calculation and get a finite answer.”

The problem is not one of reality, but how to avoid calculations which include infinities to get meaningful answers. To my untrained brain, Lawrence is acknowledging infinities may exist, but they are useless in determining useful answers.

8. “The Professor, being a highly acclaimed physicist, tried to argue that causality presupposes time …”

Then goes onto say: I included the fact that there can be a type of causal link such as asymmetric causality, where the cause exists *PRIOR* causally but not prior temporally.”

Prior indicates the presence of time, even of the order of causality is mangled.

9. “The Professor was at times rude and frankly damn right arrogant.”

Harden up.

10. “The Professor seemed to not know the difference between an inductive and deductive argument.”

Ad hominem.

11. “The Professor made a fool of himself when he rejected authentic and valid testimony as a source of knowledge. He argued everything has to be tested.”

If someone claims they were abducted by aliens, should we accept their claim at face value or attempt to verify it? Extraordinary claims, and all.

12. “science is the only way to establish reality” cannot be proven by science!

So we should abandon all empirical efforts? How do you propose we discern reality from fantasy?

13. “The auditorium had a mixed gender section, a male section and a female section. This was not enforced and was done to cater for everyone’s social etiquettes.”

Except 3 people were being forced to move. Hmm.

“Imagine if there were a bunch of ladies in a restaurant and they wanted to have a female only dinner party, but a bunch of males forced themselves on their table, what would you think?”

A private meal is not the same as a public auditorium.

“It seems to me that the Professor was just forcing his own beliefs on others.”

It seems to me the Professor was standing up for equality.

14. “The Professor seemed to think that Islam was anti-science.”

It certainly makes claims that are unscientific. Souls, spirits, Jinn, demons, ghosts, gods, Heaven, and Hell – all without a single shred of verifiable empirical evidence.

15. Towards the end the Professor said he would not address my deductive arguments because he said “Islam is nonsense”. But he failed to articulate why.

Meh.

16. “Finally, the Professor did not respond with any defeaters concerning my argument for God’s existence..”

Seems most of your arguments could equally apply to any deity, except for the supposed poetic perfection of the Qur’an. I remain unconvinced.

I am told this interview went to air sometime later, however due to technical error Jared had lost the original record. I present it here unedited, although I did remove the pre and post chatter and some minor stuff in the middle where advertisements would have been placed. Listening back, there are points I wish I had communicated better and some I should have attacked much more forcefully. Oh well, maybe next time?

Please note there were some problems with the recording on my end as the Skype plugin I used did not seem to capture my microphone. In order to compensate I have compressed the recording, which gives it a rather loud flat sound. I am afraid this was the best I could do with the time, knowledge, and resources at my disposal.

Such rich fertile ground of batshit crazy it’s difficult to pick the highlights, but personally I like:

“I don’t even understand why you even have children if you’re gonna just drop ‘em off at the government school so they can be brainwashed to be a wicked, god-hating pervert. And I’m not saying that’s how they’re gonna turn out, but that’s the goal of that system, to make ‘em turn out that way!”29:00

“Public schools are run by Satan. Literally. Teachers and school board members are just little devils.”29:35

“And I ask my wife why she hasn’t been in the kitchen!”38:00

“The world may disagree with me, but fuck it. Don’t tell me I can’t say this stuff just because I can’t give birth. I’m a pastor!”55:10

Feel free to post your favourite quote below.

On 07 Sep, 2012,at 04:39 PM, Simon Fraser-King wrote:

Good Morning Andrew

Before I reference people I am sure to check out who they are and what they believe first to avoid egg on the face later. Consequently, I would not have referenced AiG if I didn’t agree with their theology. You can see that we agree on my statement regarding copyist errors here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=copyist+errors&search=Go

Even if the Bible were consistent it would only show that the authors were able to maintain a internally consistent story, nothing more. I see no reason some supernatural entity is required to achieve this rather mundane fact.

AiG share the same view as I do with regards to the Bible’s authority (and just about every influential Christian theologian there is) – that the Bible is true in everything that it teaches.

Why would you believe that?

There are small copyist errors (the Bible was hand-copied for centuries), such as the example I gave you, or (by way of another example) some discussion about whether Jesus sent out 70 disciples or 72 (Luke 10). Some manuscripts from antiquity read 72, some read 70. However, this difference does not affect the main meaning and message of the text, that is, what the Bible teaches: that Jesus sent out some disciples and gave them authority to heal, preach and teach.

Assuming the story is true in the first place ….

So how can we know that the Bible is true? Well, Archaeology is the friend of the Christian in this regard, as over 25 000 manuscripts exist as evidence for the Bible. So almost all of the manuscripts are not records from eye witn4esses, but copies of texts which report to be eye witnesses, or later writings.

An example from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which date from the 1st century AD) is Isaiah 53. When they compared the entire chapter in the 1st century scroll to our modern translations, they found that in the 1800+ years since the scroll was written, just 1 word had been added, the word “light” in verse 11, and I am sure you can agree that this doesn’t affect the meaning of the passage (read it please.)

This only shows people are good at copying texts, not that the stories they copied were true.

I have attached a short essay on this subject above. For you the belief that one book that you have been told has been disproven or even contradictory could actually be true seems illogical. That is entirely consistent with your worldview.

Straw man. I have never claimed such a thing. Indeed, the Bible could be completely consistent and entirely accurate, but you would still be left with the claim the authors achieved this because a “god” told them. This claim in itself requires evidence beyond consistency and accuracy.

But that is because at the moment you are standing outside the gate looking in. Perhaps only for the moment. The words of CS Lewis have very little to do with a Creation/Evolution debate and much more to do with the issue of world views. He was not referencing the sun as evidence for a creator, he was referencing it as a source of light to see by. What his quote actually meant is that as the sun provides the light for us to see, study and understand everything else, so belief in Christ allows us to make sense (see, study and understand) all of human experience. I consider this nonsense. Many people who do not believe Jesus was the savior of mankind study and understand the universe.

Lewis was a well-educated man (professor of literature) who struggled to understand how God could allow pain if he’s good. It is an easily verifiable fact that he came to Christ after examining thoroughly and trying to refute the existence and nature of the Christian God.

Argument from authority. I do not care if he was a “smart man”, however I do care about his reasons. If his reasoning is sound and the evidence supports his assertions, then I cannot help but reach the same conclusions.

As for whether or not these things prove the existence of a Creator, I disagree with you (I think much evidence for the creator comes from the creation)

The word “creation” assumes a creator. You’re smuggling in your answer in the question, which is dishonest thinking. , but that is okay. The Bible clearly teaches it is possible to disagree with someone and still treat them with dignity and respect as one who bears the image of their Creator.

I am sending you a link to share files using Dropbox. I’ll start with a few podcasts by Ravi Zacharias.
(Please allow 45minutes from delivery of this email for upload)

No. I am more interested in your thoughts, not theirs.

Kindest regards
Simon Fraser-King
Discipleship College & Kidszone Media
Rivers Church

His reply can can be found here.

• Jesus Christ ‘may have suffered from mental health problems’, claims Church of England | UK News | Express.co.uk – Home of the Daily and Sunday Express
• Tas Labor sacrifices integrity in capitulation to the Greens | Australian Christian Lobby
• Influential US Catholic, blames 14-year-old ‘seducers’ for sex abuse cases – TNT Magazine
• EBay’s Auctions for Magic and Spells Will End – WSJ.com
• Pakistan blasphemy case: ‘Muslims could take law into their own hands’ | World news | The Guardian
• Atlanta pastor arrested after infecting parishioners with HIV – Portland Humanist | Examiner.com

Sacerdotus replies: Not at all. There are reasons to have faith and we can have faith in reasons presented to us. In reality everything is based on ‘faith.’ Our senses do not tell us what things are exactly. We have to trust that they are telling our brains the truth.

I think you are equivocating “faith” and “trust” here. While we may be in danger of descending into another semantic argument, I define “faith” as “belief without evidence”. “Trust” on the other hand is provisionally granted on the basis of past evidence.

Your claim “we have to trust our senses” should be taken with a grain of salt. While we have no choice but to experience the universe via our senses, there are well documented examples demonstrating exactly how out senses can be fooled. Optical illusions are a terrific example of this.

Sacerdotus replies: Not at all. We cannot perceive subatomic particles, but we know they are there. We cannot perceive love, but we know it is there.

While we cannot directly perceive subatomic particles, we have coherent models which make testable predictions which are confirmed by subsequent observation. Science allows the evidence to inform our models of the universe and make improvements. The same kind of processes confirm the emotion “love” though brain scans and body chemistry.

There is no such model for “gods”, and every testable prediction made by religions has failed.

Sacerdotus replies: No no no, you missed the point. All the things I stated were to counter claim your claim. The Church is not against science nor against reason. That was the point of my listing of the Church’s “inventions.”

No, you missed my point. The Church may not be against science, but there is NO scientific evidence for god(s), and every testable claim made by the Catholic religion completely fails.

Sacerdotus replies: If you do not know, then that is Agnosticism, not Atheism. Atheism is the position that there is no god and therefore is a concept that can be rejected.

Again, that is not my definition of “atheism” nor the definition the overwhelming majority in the atheist movement operates under. You will note that atheism pertains to belief, while agnosticism pertains to knowledge. While I do not know if a god exists or not (agnostic), I do not believe one exists (atheist). These are two separate questions dealing with two aspects, and leaves me in the position of agnostic atheist. A perfectly rational position given the definitions I (and many others) are using.

I think this point rather play against your position – it states we cannot know anything with certainty, including any supposed gods which may exist.

Sacerdotus replies: Not at all. We believers still have “veil” over us, as the Scripture says.

Given you have yet to demonstrate a “god” exists, and that this “god” is the one portrayed in the Bible, what “scripture” says is irrelevant.

Sacerdotus replies: I use God/gods interchangeably to identify a general supreme being. Atheism is a rejection of all gods whether from polytheism or monotheism. The definition I use of “god” is the one found in every dictionary. Atheism is not “open” to the idea of God at all. This is where your confusion stems.

I do not believe I am confused. As I mentioned earlier, I do not claim “there IS no god” – this is a position you are thrusting upon me to bolster your position. If I was not being generous, I would consider this a straw man attack.

Sacerdotus replies: The word “dis” means to “apart from, discard.” So it is still a “rejection” per se. Moreover, Atheism is a complete rejection of any God(s). God can be a concept and/or belief to some. This is why I say it is not about beliefs.

You may note that theism does not claim there is a “god” either, but that the individual believes a god exists. I reject the claim a god exists, and subsequently lack the belief. This is not difficult to grasp, and the sooner you accept a common definition between us, the sooner we can actually have a productive conversation rather than this nonsense regarding definitions.

If you wish to insist I am not an atheist because I do not completely reject the possibility of “gods”, then fine – I am not an atheist. It still doesn’t change the fact I disbelief your claim a “god” exists, and this “god” is the one described in the Bible. The burden of proof is still yours.

I can be “without the belief”. I can be “a” – “whatever your belief is”.

Sacerdotus replies: How can you if you are not aware of my thoughts?

If I am not aware of your belief I must be without it.

Sacerdotus replies: Well this is a problem with your assessment of the observations. You are filtering evidence through Atheism. You must be objective. It is illogical to believe something comes from nothing. Stare before you, there is “nothing.” Keep staring and see if something comes out of that “nothingness.”

I have not made the claim “something came from nothing”. I have simply stated “I do not believe your claim a ‘god’ exists”. In any case, even if I had absolutely no idea where the universe came from, how the Earth came became to be here, how life began, or how our species evolved this would in no way demonstrate your claim “a god exists”. You still bear the burden of proof for your claims – tearing down an opponents claim (even if I had made it) does not demonstrate your claim is true.

Sacerdotus replies: As a Catholic I can say that there is indeed something beyond the material of this universe. We say God did it because no other logical conclusion can come about. Moreover, He said He did it as well. As stated before, nothing cannot produce something. The universe to too fined tuned to be created by chance. Even mathematicians state this.

When we unpack the statement made here, we discover many hidden undemonstrated presumptions:

• Demonstrate anything “beyond the material” can actually exist.
• Demonstrate “non material things” can create material things.
• Demonstrate this “non material thing” actually “said” anything.
• Demonstrate this “non material thing” is a “god”.
• Demonstrate this “non material thing” is the “god” described in the Bible.

As for the rest, you are once again implying I claimed the universe came from nothing, or came about “by chance”, or is “fine tuned”. Refrain from making statement on my behalf in future.

Sacerdotus replies: Well this makes perfect sense since we all know everything came from the Big Bang. At the moment of the Big Bang, time, space, matter and energy came into existence. What was there before?

I don’t know. You’re claiming a “god” is responsible – show this is actually the case.

Sacerdotus replies: Someone or something must have caused the Big bang. This someone or something has to be outside of space, time, energy and matter yet still interacts with it.

Please explain how you ruled out the “something” option. Once you have done that, I would be interested to know how you drew the conclusion whatever caused the universe still “interacts with it”.

Sacerdotus replies: Therefore, this something or someone one is “I AM.” Or the constant.

Who is to say whatever caused the universe is constant?

Sacerdotus replies: God can be proven to exist.

Whoa! Stop the boat!

If you cannot prove your claim “a god exists” then my disbelief in the claim is justified and I remain an atheist. I am not sure we need to continue any further.

Sacerdotus replies: Stop listening to the recycle rhetoric from Dawkins etc and actually speak to a Physicist.

I am arranging this. Stay tuned.

Sacerdotus replies: Do you actually think you are touching your table, your computer? Do you actually think you are sensing? No. There is a barrier between the actual object and your nervous system. Have you seen Star Trek, the Next Generation? In the tv program, they often showed the ‘holodeck’ which is a room that plays holograms in a manner that is very realistic. The images are so realistic that they can be sensed by all 5 senses, the characters could eat, drink, even breathe the holographic objects. Even a bullet or knife could kill. Well that is our universe basically. We are in a sense living in a ‘holodeck.’ That is what “reality” is, an illusion per se. This is why Chalmer’s created his thought experiment that we could be in a simulation.

How does your Matrix scenario demonstrate a “god” exists?

Sacerdotus replies: Well then, where did the first life come from? Do you think consciousness is a random thing? To date, Biologists do not know what life is. Moreover, what of people who have been declared dead and “came back?” Where did they go?

Arguments from ignorance. Even if I had no idea, it would not show your claim a “god” exists to be true.

Sacerdotus replies: Who is to say the ancients did not live among “talking serpents” that went extinct? I am not saying that they existed, but the possibility is there.

Sure, it’s possible. Give me more evidence than an accent book filled with mythical tales if you expect me to believe it.

“There is evidence for God.Then show it to us.”

Sacerdotus replies: I will on my blog, it will be too long to include in this discussion. I was hoping to present some at the debate with Rosarubicondior, but she was not serious.

I look forward to it.

“Andrew seems to think that only Atheists hold exclusivity to rational thinking.”

I never made this claim.

“Science as we know it today was formed by the Catholic Church. The Church has been the pioneer of many scientific discoveries.”

That does not make Catholic beliefs scientifically true.

“Faith and Reason are not opposed to each other.”

Yes they are.  If you have reasons you do not need faith, and if have faith you do not need reasons.

“Atheists seem to believe that Faith means to blindly accept things. This is not Faith. Faith opens the mind and heart to what is beyond the perceivable.”

If you cannot perceive something, then isn’t this accepting things “blindly”?

“Faith is what pushes an Olympian to go beyond what he/she knows his body is capable of doing (Reason).”

No one can push their body beyond what it is capable of performing – with or without “faith”.

“Faith is what pushed the Church to form and endorse science so that She could learn more about God’s creation.”

And didn’t that backfire on them!

“The Church developed the education system, the hospital system etc.  These are all acts of Faith.”

I see you are equivocating already.  “Faith” in medical science is founded on repeated, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, hard data, and observations of the real world.  “Faith” a god exists in believing “what is beyond the perceivable” without any good reason it’s actually true.

“Are you saying that the dictionary is a demonstrably false claim? This is absurd.”

Different dictionaries have different definitions.  To accept one definition is true must therefore claim that all the others are false (or at lease incorrect).  I operate under the definition an atheist is someone who does not accept the claim “at least one god exists” is true.  You are free to define it however you wish, but keep in mind that by doing so you will no longer be talking about the same thing I am.  This will only result in confusion and frustration.

“It is interesting to note that you pick and choose which definition to use. Why do you do this? The etymology of the word is clear: Atheism is not a lack of belief. The word comes from the Greek “a- Theos” which means “without god or gods” and is used in the negative in that it is a rejection of gods. The “a” means “without” for example:  asexual or “without sex.” This is also used in the word Agnostic which means “without knowledge” which is in turn translated as someone who doesn’t think anything is knowable. So the word “Atheism” cannot mean lack of belief in anything.”

I am “without gods”.  How can I reject your claim “at least one god exists” and be “with a god”?

“Defining Atheists as those who deny God does not mean that denial of God means there IS a God.”

I did not say this is the case in all situations, but since the definition can be interpreted that way I choose not to use it.

“Moreover, we do not know if there is a purple unicorn there or not.”

And I do not *know* if a god exists or not, but we are not talking about knowledge but belief.

“Anyone who claims to know for a fact that there is no purple unicorn presupposes that the 5 senses detect “reality” in its full capacity.”

Since we are limited to our senses, we cannot say if things beyond our senses exist or not.  However, we *can* use technology to bring what we cannot directly sense into the range of our senses (as in the case of microscopes or telescopes).

“In reality, the senses do not detect “reality” as it is.  We never sense the actual objects.  There is always a barrier/filter which our nervous system uses to interpret what we are supposedly sensing.  For all we know, reality could be a simulation like the Matrix as Chalmers explains in his thought experiment.  In reality, we just don’t know.  Our brains deceive us all the time.  This is one of the reasons why Atheism makes no sense.”

I think this point rather play against your position – it states we cannot know *anything* with certainty, including any supposed gods which may exist.

“It is an assumption that humanity has learned all there is to know about metaphysics and physics and therefore no God exists because we know everything, saw everything and there was no one else out there.”

I have never claimed “no gods exist”, merely I do not accept you claim “at least one god does exist”.  I am open to the idea of gods, all you need to do is provide a coherent definition of a “god” and supporting credible evidence that such a thing actually exists.  The burden of proof is all yours.

“Again, the word comes from the Greek “A theos” or “without God/gods.” It has nothing to do with disbelief.”

I disbelief your claim “a god exists”, so tell me again how it’s not about disbelief.

“Yes, in order to disbelieve something there must be something there to disbelieve.”

Absurd. Do unicorns live on Jupiter? I do not believe this is true, does that mean there really *are* unicorns living on Jupiter and that I just don’t believe it?  No.  There is NO evidence for unicorns, let alone their comfortable habitat on the surface of the gaseous giant.

“I am thinking right now of something, can you disbelieve it without knowing what that something is?”

No, but I can lack the belief.  I can be “without the belief”.  I can be “a” – “whatever your belief is”.

“The mind needs to be aware of God or the concept of God before it can accept or reject it; believe or disbelieve it.”

Sure, and having formed the idea of “gods” in my mind I cannot match any definition presented to me with observations of the real world, so I do not accept the claim “gods exist”.

“There can be someone in the world with 5 heads that I am not aware of.  My unawareness does not mean I disbelieve that there is a person with 5 heads some where out there.”

Sure there can, but since I have not been presented with any evidence of 5-headed people I do not accept the claims they exist to be true.

“ [regarding quantum physics] That being said, this opens the door to “something out there” that is not perceivable in the way we perceive the world.  Particles appear and disappear at random, where did they go?”

Good question.  What do you think is the best way to determine the actual answer to this? Or do you wish me to throw up my hands in despair and simply assert “a god thing did it!”

“ Yahweh means “I AM.” It is a title or name that God gave to Moses showing that He always was.  He has no beginning nor an end.  He completely transcends what we perceive as reality.”

These are just claims.  Show it is actually the case.

“Now take this “YAHWEH” meaning and apply it to what I just describe in Quantum Theory.  ”YAHWEH” is indeed possible according to the theory.”

Now you have place “Yahweh” outside the reach of any empirical verification. Neat.

“Why do you think the Higgs Boson is called the “God particle?”

It was originally called “the god damned particle” because nobody could find it.  Dwell on that.

“Science has brought about the Atom bomb, weapons, diseases due to manipulation of viruses, the extinction of animals and vegetation.”

All of these things actually work and can be proved to exist, unlike your “god”.

“Science has brought us devices that interfere with our brains and bodies causing cancers and other effects on the brain.”

No one contracted cancer before science?

“While science has given us technology that can be useful, humanity has lived thousands of years without them just fine.”

If by “just fine” you mean dying during child birth, ravaged by disease, parasites, and starvation, and living to the ripe old age of 35.

“What will we do when our energy sources completely deplete?  Our science and its technological advances will be useless.”

You have another method other than science to solve the problem of energy supplies?  Do tell.

“Prayer has obviously worked, we are still alive on Earth.”

And if nobody had prayed?  Do you think god would have killed us all?

“Faith inspired Columbus to take his journey to the “new world.””

That does not make it “faith” true.

“The Bible was the first book ever printed ….”

False.

“Yes, science is based on empirical facts and so on, but as I commented above, we don’t perceive things as they really are.  As Plato states: “Science is but perception.”  We TRUST that our senses and instruments are telling us the truth.  Our senses rely on faith.”

Equivocating again.  I must accept my sense detect reality in some sense in order to make any progress.  This is NOT the same as accepting notions as true without any sensing them in anyway.

“As stated above, dogma/doctrines don’t deal with explanations of the natural world.  They deal with what we must to do to go to the next world that is not physical.”

I do not accept the claim “non-physical things” exist, so I don’t really care what dogma or doctrines have to say about them.

“Scripture is the story of how God is using man to fix man.”

Story.

“The Bible says killing is wrong.  This is something everyone can accept.”

Because it’s obvious.  Still, many religions do permit killing in certain circumstances.  Collecting wood on the Sabbath, changing religions, calling prophets “bald head”, etc

“Science can say Pluto is a planet and then, Pluto is NOT a planet.”

Because it corrects itself based upon observable phenomenon.  Your faith is unbending and absolute.  Dogma is not open to revision by definition.

“Science is based on external things while Scripture is based on internal things that deal with morality and preparing for the next life. “

I see no evidence “the next life” even exists, so I do not care what an old book has to say on the matter.

“Actually “reality” does change based on perception.”

No.  Our *perception* of reality changes.

“When it rains one can see “colored water.”  The water is not colored that way, we perceive it that way.  Nevertheless, the water is in a sense “colored” because the composition of the atoms and how they interact with light give off that “signal.””

So we *do* perceive an aspect of reality.

“Moreover, this is an experiment you can try.  If you touch your nose with your finger you will feel your nose with your finger and your nose will feel your finger.  Guess what? You were fooled.  Your brain lied to you.  The time that it takes your finger to send the message to your brain is longer than at the point where your nose touches your finger. Since the nose is closer to the brain than the finger, that signal is faster.  Your brain compensates for this by telling you that you are sensing both the nose and finger simultaneously.   If the brain does this with this simple act, imagine how many other times it is lying to us about “reality.””

So compensating for tiny delays is now “lying about reality”?

“A miracle by definition is something that defies the laws of nature.”

And so cannot occur.

“Evolution is a theory, not a law.  This does not discredit it, but it does not make it 100% accurate either.”

Please research what a “scientific theory” actually means. Thanks.

“Well people often attack what they don’t understand.”

Like “evolution is a theory, not a law”?

“Parrots “talk” by mimicking human beings.  Who is to say there was not a snake in the past that did the same?”

So Eve trained the serpent to trick her into eating a magical fruit?  Did she give the serpent the ability to vocalise recognisable sounds too?

“Informed Bible scholars all know that the talking snake is an allegory used at the time when that particular book was written.”

Of course.  The idea of a talking snake is absurd.  Who would believe such nonsense?

“The Bible has to be read properly in order to be understood.”

Meaning: the absurd parts are allegory.

“Only the Catholic Church can interpret Scripture properly.”

How can anyone say they have interpreted scripture accurate when there is no empirical evidence for the central claims?

“Religion uses God’s revelation in order to make man just and prepare him for the next life.”

In other words, they make it up.

“There is uniformity in many areas with religion worldwide.  We all share common ideas of right behavior, a “creator,” an “afterlife,”  the human soul and so on.”

All for bad reasons.

“Scientists are divided among themselves on many issues.”

And the verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical evidence will eventually settle the issue.  Religion has no such mechanism – it relies on faith and dogma.

“Faith pushes the human experience beyond the material world.”

And so cannot be trusted as a path to truth.

“If man did not believe he could go to the moon, he would not have made it.”

The expectation we could achieve such a goal is not “faith” – it is a reasonable conclusion based on the knowledge at the time.

“Based on revelation (speaking as a Catholic), we trust God and what God has revealed.”

And what do you consider valid revelation from false revelation?  How do you determine the difference without evidence? And of you are going to rely on evidence, why have revelation?

“However, have you seen the solar system with your own eyes?  Have you gone to space and verified that it has zero gravity?  No, you trust the people that told you these things.”

Trust is not faith.  Equivocating again.

“Religion is not made by man, it is made by God and is subject to God.”

Yet there are thousands of competing religions, each claiming to have discovered the truth of “god”, and many being mutually and totally incompatible.

“There is evidence for God.”

Then show it to us.

“You cannot judge and claim there is no evidence for God.”

If you can judge the evidence and claim there is a “god”, I can do the opposite.

“You cannot tell a homeless man who prayed for good fortune in bad times and afterwards wins a the lottery when a random stranger hands him a dollar which he used to buy a ticket.”

And the thousands of homeless people with losing tickets would show what?

“You cannot tell a person with AIDS or cancer who was told by scientifically minded doctors that he/she will die tomorrow and after a prayer the illness is completely gone as if it never existed.”

You cannot claim an unexplained event with a made up explanation either.

This morning Ollie and I sat down for our first every live podcast/radio show using the Blogtalkradio web service.  I think it went quite well, however it seems Ollie’s microphone was not being picked up by Skype, so was not making it to air.  I am working to resolve this issue before the next show.  Thanks for your support – especially to John, Matthew, Louise, and Jin-O who contributed to the running costs before the first live episode even made it to air.

• First man on moon Neil Armstrong dead – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Man Orders Gay Son To Marry Woman to Collect His Inheritance
• Pakistan orders report on girl’s blasphemy charge – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• 11-year-old Christian girl accused of blasphemy – The Express Tribune
• Saudi Arabia objects to .bible | Technically Incorrect – CNET News
• Launceston Skeptics (Launceston) – Meetup
• MSF Fundraiser - ‎www.magicsandwichshow.com

As readers will no doubt be aware, this site is not just an infrequently updated blog – it also hosts an infrequent podcast of the same name. The podcast was born when a small group of Australians wanted to contribute something back the skeptical/atheist community we all enjoyed. Initially we had planned a bi-weekly show, but unfortunately reality seeps in, schedules conflict, life gets busy, things get forgotten, and episodes fall by the way side.  All this results in a back catalogue which is not as complete nor frequent as it might have otherwise been.

So to remedy this we have decided to commit to a weekly 1 hour show on BlogTalkRadio. The show will now air LIVE, warts and on Sunday mornings at 10 AM Australian Eastern Standard Time. That’s 1 AM Sunday morning in London, Saturday 5 PM in Los Angeles, and Saturday 8 PM in New York.

Blogtalkradio allow listeners to call into the show on (646) 716 4530 if they’re in the USA, or via (hopefully) via Skype – godlessbiz.

So please join us on Sunday morning at 10 AM for the first ever live show. I cannot promise brilliance first time out of the gate, but we will do a very best to provide an interesting show. If you like what you hear and wish to support us, please consider a small donation or subscription to help cover the costs of hosting this site and the Blogtalkradio service.

See you on Sunday morning!

• Anti-gay marriage rally labelled ‘offensive’
• Christians burned alive in Nigeria | Barnabas – Christian persecution
• Murdered Muslim teenage girl was caught between two cultures
• Cambodians flock to ‘magic’ log for lottery luck
• Godless Business | Gays reproduce by molesting children
• An unreal Mars skyline | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

In Canberra on Tuesday 24 August the “National Marriage Day Rally” was held which called for Australians to defend  ”traditional marriage” from the “minority gay lobby” who seeks to “change the marriage act”. The event billed as Mr. Don Feder as key speaker, but unfortunately Mr. Feder was stuck down with an illness, so Peter Westmore (President of the National Civic Council), whose achievements including writing anti-equality pieces for News Weekly and taking a trip to Spain to attend the World Congress of Families, took his place.  However, it was not the keynote speaker which attracted the media spot light on Tuesday – it was Pastor Peter Walker.

Peter Walker was a Pastor with Redfern Indigenous Church and founded of the ‘Australian Indigenous Christian Ministries Ltd‘, the ‘Praise Corroboree’, and the ‘National Synergy of Prayer Network’, as well as being a member of The Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile’s oxymoronic political party).  Given Peter’s extensive experience in pastoral work you might be fooled into thinking he has thought long and hard about the real issues facing Australian society in the 21st Century – but you would be wrong.  Pastor Pete stunned the 200 strong crowd (I know, the numbers are staggering) when he said:

“I’m convinced that homosexuals (re)produces themselves by molesting children.”Pastor Peter Walker

That’s quite a claim, Peter.  I am guessing you have scientific data backing this extraordinary claim?  Or did you, as I suspect, reason that homosexuals cannot breed by themselves, so they must spread the “gayness” by some other means. Perhaps they rape defenceless school children just as they are deciding what their sexuality will be?  Yeah, that must be it.  Moron.

At this stage I should point out that I am straight.  More than that, I am also happily married and I see no reason why I should worry about other people getting married; even if they are of the same sex.  You see, other people’s marriages do not affect my own.  I will remain married to my wife regardless of who in my street also gets married – let alone those in more far flung corners of Australia. I should also point out that divorces do not affect my marriage either, but they do make me wonder about how seriously these religious whacko’s take the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing.  Nor do I think the “destruction of the family unit and the collapse of civilisation” will be brought about by allowing more people who love each other to be legally married.  And I certainly don’t think popping out children is the main concern of married couples, as Pastor Pete seems to think:

“… marriage should be a strong institution between a man and a woman, with the purpose of bearing children.”Pastor Peter Walker

I am guessing Pete’s next rally will be against infertile couples and those not wishing to spawn from “tying the knot” – as God intended.

Take Jim Wallace, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby, as an example. Mr. Wallace in his capacity within the ACL has stated everyone in Australia should live according to his personal interpretation of Christian theology, and has compared those campaigning for same sex marriage equality to Joseph Goebbels (the Nazi Minister of Propaganda), and on ANZAC day said that “servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!“.

Such views should be relegated to the sidelines of our public discourse as they do not promote unison, cohesion, fairness, and equality for citizens of Australia. These people should be ignored, starved of media oxygen, and left to rant their incoherent and backward arguments into the void. Instead the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, shall be appearing as keynote speaker at the Australian Christian Lobby’s 2012 National Conference.

Why a self admitted atheist would be aligning themselves with a group such as the ACL is bewildering at first glance, however Australia’s unmarried, female, godless Prime Minister stands against same sex marriage and pledged $220 million to place unqualified religious chaplains into public schools across the country. It seems Julia Gillard’s notions of equality and fairness take a back seat to her political aspirations and desire for power. While politicians continue to bend over backwards to appease the village idiots our progress towards a truly inclusive, equal, and free society shall be retarded.

I urge the Hon Julia Gillard MP to reconsider her decision to associate with the religiously motivated, corrosive, and divisive force that is the Australian Christian Lobby.

This week Oliver and I sit down with prominent Youtuber,  blogger, and Twitter user Zinnia Jones (ZJemptv). We talk about her religious journey, lose of faith, what sparked her activism which launched the Youtube account and eventual invitation to Freethought blogs, the homophobic practices of Chick-Fil-A which resulted in the Muppets withdrawing support and the hypocritical reaction of Mike Huckabee and the American Family Association,  the discrimination still present in American society.  Finally we launch a new initiative – a live online call in radio show.  Your support for this endeavour would be greatly appreciated.

• Muppets vs. Chick-fil-A – YouTube
• Black wedding rejected at white church – YouTube
• American Family Association – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Cassandra Tolley Ordered To Read, Summarize Bible’s Book Of Job For DUI In South Carolina
• Pennsylvania Pastor Charged for ‘Terrorism Raid’ in Church

Sometime ago we came across Alain De Botton who was proposing atheists steal a few ideas from the religious community. A calendar of festivals, a temple to something or other, and other ideas Alain thinks is missing from the atheist community. Well, Alain is at it again, this time appearing in “World”, which is subtitled “Today’s news, Christian values”.

Alain states:

“The error of modern atheism has been to overlook how many aspects of the faiths remain relevant even after their central tenets have been dismissed”.

Certainly there are isolated aspects of some religions we value, but not because those ideas happen to be held by religious people or due to the dogmas of their faith. While a comprehensive list of the valuable aspects of organised religions is beyond the scope of this small, infrequently updated, and largely ignored blog, I think a few examples may be in order.

Religion have regular scheduled meetings, which we value community because we are a social species which craves the company of others. Religions have mechanisms to support those in emotional or financial distress, and as humanists we recognise the value of helping those who find themselves in difficult situations – it may be ourselves one day. Religions ritualises charity through tithing, and humanists value these exercises because it assists those in need.

The important message here is that humans value these aspects of religion due to humanist values. Their religion has hijacked humanism and slapped a cheap veneer of faith over the top. It’s nasty and we can do without it. However, what really baffles me is when Alain says things like:

“Atheism fails in providing real community, education, and perspective. It does not foster kindness or tenderness. It produces pessimism and fails to create a true appreciation of art, architecture, and important institutions.”

In one sense this is true. Atheism is simply the recognition there is no credible evidence to support the claim “at least one god exists”. It is the admission that you do not accept the extraordinary claims of theists due to the lack of quality evidence. Since atheism is the denial to a positive claim (there is a god) it cannot provide any basis for other beliefs.

In my experience the majority of atheists are also humanists. From the basis of humanism we can easily build a real sense of community, education, and perspective. We can foster kindness, tenderness, and a true appreciation of art, architecture, and important institutions. Doesn’t the brilliant atheist philosopher Alain De Botton recognise this obvious fact?

Then Alain goes on to say:

“Christians, of course, should not spend our time defending religions in general, because some are poisonous.”

Earlier in the piece Alain crowed how he once debated Christopher Hitchens and “was amazed at his insistent defence of an untenable position: ‘Religion poisons everything’” Now we are lead to believe that some religion are poisonous. I suspect Alain, in his attempt to extend an olive branch to “World” and its “Christian values”, forgot Christopher Hitchens point. It was not that Christianity poisons everything, or that everything in Christianity is poison, but that religion (in all its perversions) poisons everything.

What is truly worrying is the very next sentence:

“De Botton calls the Christian church ‘uniquely clear-eyed and unsentimental about earthly reality.’”

Of course the Christian Church is unsentimental about Earthly reality – the spend their entire time trying to please an unreal deity. If the tenets of Christianity are true then this life is insignificant when compared to the eternity of the afterlife. This Earth is temporary and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, and we are told Jesus will soon return too annihilate creation, raise the dead, and pass judgement on our eternal souls – in the most loving way of course. Dominionists, one the crazier sects of Christianity, see the Earth as something to subdue and conquer – they believe there is nothing we can do which will damage the planet since it was a gift from Yahweh. This kind of magical thinking is extraordinary dangerous if they happen to be wrong – and all the evidence suggests they are.

The Alain goes on to conflate atheism with secularism:

“It is the secular whose longing for perfection has grown so intense as to lead them to imagine that paradise might be realized on this earth after just a few more years of financial growth and medical research.”

Wait. What? Firstly, when did secularism equal atheism? Secularism separates religion from government and allows citizens to pursue their own personal faith without interference – provided they are not harming anyone in the process. Moreover secularism does not strive for “financial growth”, that would be capitalism. And I have no idea where medical research enter the picture. What was going through Alain’s mind when he said this? It makes no sense.

He goes onto say:

“With no evident awareness of the contradiction they may, in the same breath, gruffly dismiss a belief in angels while sincerely trusting that the combined powers of the IMF, the medical research establishment, Silicon Valley, and democratic politics could together cure the ills of mankind.”

What? Seriously? So let’s recap: atheism = secularism = capitalism = centralised banking, medical research, computers, and democracy. This must be the result of some very deep philosophical meditation because I simply to not understand any of those steps.

“Christianity hints that if our bodies were immune to pain or decay, we would be monsters.”

Umm – aren’t we told there will be no suffering in Heaven. Does this mean we those who are given a ticket to the fairy playground in the sky will turn into monsters? How does any of this work?!

“He [Alain] eviscerates secular education, noting the inadequacy of standard secular lectures when compared to deeper understanding: True Christian education “has no patience with theories that dwell on our independence or our maturity. It instead believes us to be at heart desperate, fragile, vulnerable, sinful creatures, a good deal less wise than we are knowledgeable.” That’s the mood we must be in before true learning takes place.

Wow. All I require is curiosity. However, if you feel the need to spiral into a well of depression, desperation, vulnerablity and self loathing before you’re ready to learn new things – who am I to stand in your way. Oh right, humanism. Damn.

De Botton also praises a Christian understanding about the deeper purpose of art: “To guide us to what we should worship and revile if we wish to be sane, good people in possession of well-ordered souls.”

I am against worship of all varieties. I do not wish to be told what I should “worship”, nor do I think I will go insane if I think carefully about things and follow my own path. What’s more, the notion of a “soul” is terribly broken – I only hope Alain was using the term poetically.

The article end with this nugget of wisdom:

“De Botton proposes fellowship dinners and other ways to build community, but he’s asking readers to drive cars from which the engines have been removed.

No. Alain is proposing we acknowledge there is really an engine in the front of the car and we should ignore the priests who insist the family vehicle is powered by pixies. If only he had really said something like that we might agree.

Shane Bazzi, 25, of Sydney, asked the The Prime Minister:

“Poll after poll indicate that the overwhelming majority of Australians support same sex marriage; including the House of Representatives and the Senate Enquiry into marriage equality. While I acknowledge and appreciate the many Labour reforms removing discrimination for same sex couples we must to say to gay and lesbian Australians that ‘almost equal is good enough’ because almost equal is not good enough. So Prime Minister, my question to you – as the first female, atheist, unmarried Prime Minister of Australia, and leader of the self described socially progressive party, how do you explain your opposition to same sex marriage and your deeply held belief that same sex couples should continue to be discriminated against by a piece of legislation – Being the Marriage Act? Why are heterosexual relationships more valued than same sex relationships?”

He received this response:

“Shane, I don’t think that heterosexual relationships are more valued than same sex relationships. I think that people who are in committed relationships, loving and committed relationships – all of those relationships should be valued. I think my relationship should be valued, and I’m not married. So I don’t see through my eyes the discriminator about whether a relationship is valued as being whether or not a couple, heterosexual or same sex, is married. I’ve got a view about the cultural status of marriage in our society. So it’s not about my view about valuing relationships, it’s my personal view about the cultural status of marriage in our society.”

The Prime Minister goes onto say:

“On this issue, because it goes to some deeply personal questions, for some deeply personal questions about their religious views, for some deeply personal questions about what they want to do with their own lives.”

For some reason it seems to elude our Prime Minister than the freedom to choose marriage is unavailable to anyone who is homosexual. Their freedoms on this issue are prevented by legislation, which is based on the religious views of other people. This is a clear example of the religious views of some impacting the lives of others in very real and tangible ways.

Naturally groups like the Australian Christian Lobby are rubbing their hands with glee and have since issued a press release which includes:

“A law change would mean political correctness would dictate a new way of thinking and talking about marriage and the idea that some children can be deliberately deprived of a mother or a father would be entrenched in our culture.”

The ACL would have you believe that marriage is for the express purpose of producing babies. It may comes as a surprise to the members of the ACL, but our species is perfectly capable of producing babies without permission from a religious body or the government.

Moreover, marriage is two separate things which are often conflated by the religious with an agenda to pursue. Marriage is a religious ceremony for those with faith; it is also a legal agreement between two people. This is why people can get married today without ever setting foot in a church, mosque, temple, or tabernacle. In fact, all you need is a registered celebrant, which requires nothing more than the completion of a Certificate IV in Celebrancy

The ACL go on to say:

“A change in the culture of marriage would also lead to increased pressure to force the church to grant ‘marriage equality’ for homosexual weddings as has recently occurred with the State Lutheran church in Denmark, 23 years after same-sex civil unions were granted there,” Mr Shelton said.

This, of course, is nonsense. If the hierarchy of the church wish to continue their bigot club they are perfectly free to. No one will be forcing hateful priests to officiate at their weddings – they will be married by a qualified secular celebrant in a ceremony of their own choosing.

The ACL continue:

And despite vigorous attempts by the gay marriage activists to suppress the views of the ‘poly community’, Greens members and even a senior party official, Simon Copland, continue to push for equality for polyamorous and polygamist people.

This is nothing more than a slippery slope argument which is designed to install fear in their flock. On the table at the moment is opening marriage up to all couples who wish to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation or their ability to bear children.

Lastly, the ACL highlight the following:

“The Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and the Coalition have opened up an area of clear advantage over Labor with Christian voters because they are sticking to their election promise to protect the Marriage Act.”

Yep – you read that right. The Coalition will continue supporting legislation which actively discriminates against citizens of Australia. Despicable.

This week it just little old me, the microphone, and a few stories.  Oh yes, and Ronnie Williams and Hugh Willson drop by for a chat about the National School Chaplaincy Program.  I can’t quite believe I managed an hour and half – geez I can speak some rubbish.  Still, if you like this sort of thing, drop me a note in the comments.

• Excerpts from the Texas GOP platform | Ace of Clades
• High Court Challenge to the constitutional legality of federal funding directed toward the National School Chaplaincy Program – NSCP

“Major” Andrew Craibe is the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria – a position he has held for 28 years with the “Salvos” as they are known. Given such lengthy experience and being Media Relations Director for the Salvation Army you might think Andrew had some knowledge of their core mission, beliefs, and the content of their position statements, but you would not know it given his recent interview on JOY FM’s “Salt and Pepper” show.

The fun began when Serena Ryan (the host of the show) asked “Major” Andrew Craibe about the “Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine“, which is freely available from the organisations international headquarters. You see, under the heading “The problems of evil” on page 28 of the document cites Romans 1:18-32, which includes:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do themRomans 1:18-32

Poor Andrew fumbled his answer, simply replying:

“Well, that’s a part of our belief system.”Major Andrew Craibe

When pressed regarding the “Christian” nature of such passages Andrew said:

“That’s our understanding of that. Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation …”Major Andrew Craibe

While I find this view repulsive and vile, Mr. Craibe does not seem to be calling for the death of homosexuals, rather pointing out the Christian doctrine says they are destined for “spiritual death” if they do not “come to know salvation”. This is also inline with the rather uninspired “apology” issued by the Salvation Army the following day, which read:

“The Scripture in question, viewed in its broader context, is not referring to physical death, nor is it specifically targeted at homosexual behaviour. The author is arguing that no human being is without sin, all sin leads to spiritual death (separation from God), and all people therefore need a Saviour.”

All well and good you say? Well not quite.

Earlier today I noted with interest that the Australian arm of the Salvation Army has removed its Position Statement on “Human Sexuality”, and placed it “under review”. Luckily I downloaded all of their position statement sometime ago for another project. If you want to have your own copy, please feel free to download a copy here.

You will find the relevant sections on homosexuality on pages 3 and 4, where it says:

“The Salvation Army’s belief that whilst recognising the possibility of such orientation, (the origins of which are uncertain), the Bible expressly opposes homosexual practice1, seeing such activity as rebellion against God’s plan for the created order.2″

See that little “2″ on the end? That refers to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which reads:

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders.., will inherit the kingdom of God.”1 Corinthians 6:9-11

See? God loves all his creatures, unless you happen to be sexually immoral, an idolater, adulterer, male prostitute, or homosexual offender. Unfortunately, if you’re one of these, you will not “inherit the kingdom of God”. That’s the loving thing to do.

However, more interesting is the first footnote which refers to Leviticus 18:22.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”Leviticus 18:22

The passage also includes prohibitions against seeing your parents, sister, father’s wife, daughter of thy father, the daughter of thy mother, your son’s daughter, your daughter’s daughter, your father’s wife’s daughter, your father’s sister, you mother’s sister, your father’s brother, your daughter in law, and your brother’s wife naked. The Bible is comprehensive, if nothing else.

However, now the Salvation Army has opened the door to the Old Testament in general and Leviticus in particular. This should pose a very serious theological issue for the charity, since only a few passages away we find this charming gem:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”Leviticus 20:13

So “Major” Andrew Craibe, Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, being a good Old Testament based Christian organisation what should the Salvation Army do with homosexuals exactly? It seems to be the text is clear and unambiguous; and completely at odds with any sense of modern morality.

Mr. Craibe, you sound like a nice guy despite the tenets of your religious faith. You work hard to help people in need and care for those less fortunate in our society. It’s time to finally admit to yourself the “good book” is not that good, and that you are a much better arbiter of morality than the authors of the Bible ever were. It’s time to admit you cherry pick the few passages in the Bible which resonate with your modern sensibilities. It’s time to admit the Bible really never had anything to say about morality – it was all you all along. It’s time for the Salvation Army to finally put the book down and simply continue its charitable work without being tied down by religious dogma and doctrine.

Unfortunately, this was not the case in reality. School chaplains were chosen by a majority vote within the school community which effectively froze out all minority religions and those without any religious beliefs had no chance of securing a chaplaincy position. This also seemed to be by design since John Howard went on record to state why the word “chaplain” was chosen over Imam, Rabbi, or Priest when he said:

“Yes I am calling them chaplains because that has a particular connotation in our language, and as you know I’m not ever overwhelmed by political correctness. To call a chaplain a counsellor is to bow to political correctness. Chaplain has a particular connotation, people understand it, they know exactly what I’m talking about.”

The obvious connotation was that the Christian faith was highly preferred, which is congruent with John Howard’s attempt assert Australia was “based on Judaeo-Christian values” in the citizenship test. The result of this policy was a stranglehold on the NSCP by aggressive evangelical Christian organisations like Scripture Union, Access Ministries, and GenR8 who supplied almost all of the chaplains to public schools across the country. These organisations typically ensured those working for them signed “statements of belief” which included devotion to the Christian mythology and the need for people to receive Jesus into their lives to ensure salvation.

Since all that was require to secure a position as a school chaplain was to profess a belief in the same religion as the majority in a school community many of these well meaning people found themselves totally unprepared for the challenges they were being asked to deal with, and many resorted to preaching their faith.

According to a study conducted by the Rationalists Society of Australia, Chaplains admitted to dealing with the following issues in the two weeks prior to the survey being conducted:

• 95% reported dealing with behaviour management issues, such as anger
• 92% dealt with bullying and harassment
• 92% dealt with peer relationships and loneliness
• 91% dealt with student – family relationship issues
• 85% dealt with sense of purpose and self-esteem
• 81% dealt with grief and loss
• 77% dealt with community involvement and social inclusion
• 76% dealt with spirituality and ‘big picture’ issues of life
• 72% dealt with mental health and depression
• 50% dealt with alcohol and drug use, and
• 44% dealt with self harm and suicide

Soon afterwards the NSCP was “expanded” to include secular (but qualified) “chaplains”, but the option was only available to “schools that had exhausted all reasonable avenues to find a suitable chaplain” – effectively slamming the door on secular , qualified professional. As a consequence the situation did not improve and the overtly religious chaplains let loose in schools simply could not help themselves and continued to proselytise to children – despite it being against the NSCP guidelines.

Meanwhile a Queensland father with students in the public school system, Ronnie Williams, became increasingly frustrated with the religious stories and songs his children were coming home with decided to do something about it. He complained to the school, moved his children, and various other measures – all with no effect. Eventually he launched a court case which made it all the way to the High Court of Australia with a constitutional case under his arm. In the last week the decision of the High Court was handed down. He won, but not on religious grounds.

The High Court dismissed section 116 of the constitution as not relevant to the case. The section reads:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

While I have yet to read the entire 86 page judgement, it seems the federal government did not directly engage the chaplains so did not violate this section – the organisations they engaged did impose a religious test. One might have thought the federal government would ensure continuity of the constitution through all of its contractual agreements, but apparently this is not the case.

Ron Williams won his case based on section 51, which pertains to the funding of programs. Summarising a very complex issue; the federal government cannot fund programs which are not backed by legislation. This made the NSCP funding invalid, and without funding there is no NSCP.

Various government officials, politicians, and the organisations receiving the funding are now scrabbling to work their way around the rulings of the High Court, which may include the creation of legislation to fund a NSCP (and there is no assurance this would even pass), or pass the money to the states which would turn the one national NSCP program into a multi-headed state hydra. I am told state funding of this kind requires measurable benefits for the investment made which would necessitate a metric for “spiritual and religious assistance” (as opposed to physical or emotional assistance). This would be revolutionary stuff worthy of a Nobel prize.

So where do we go from here? Do not assume that the war is over – this is the significant win in favour of secular values, but we have some way to go yet. For what it’s worth, I think the NSCP funds should be redirected to a secular program which employs the best youth workers, counsellors, psychologists, and psychiatrists available – regardless of their personally held religious beliefs. After all, this is what the NSCP should have been all along.

The Catholic, Anglican and Greek Orthodox are united in their idiotic bigotry against same sex marriage. They foolishly think their superstitious beliefs trump the legal rights of people they do not know, will probably never meet, and whose lives will not affect their own in any way.

News flash! Not every one in this great country are Christians, and those who are range from whole hearted support for equality all the way to the Church’s stated official and backward position.  Even if we considered all those who call themselves “Christians” to blindly follow the dogma spewed from the Church doors, this still would not give you the right to bully the minority.  Australia’s constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority; at least in theory.

Try putting yourself in someone else’s shoes for one measly second.

Let’s pretend you fall in love with somebody, however there is a problem – their bodies are infected with Thetans and the Church of Scientology (which has managed to gain the majority of adherents) has banned anyone from marrying “non clears”.  They cite passages from Dianetics and quote the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard to support their position.  Entering into a legal relationship with “non clears” is against Xenu’s wishes. It is immoral and will cause the fabric of Western civilisation to crumble.  It is detrimental to children who may be infect with thetans causing future generations to be cursed with the affliction. The Church maintains only “clear” people can raise children in a good wholesome household . And they do this while they enjoying all the legal privileges of marriage.

“Wait a minute”, you say, “I don’t want to get married in the Church, I don’t follow their religion, I don’t even subscribe to their weird view of the world! I just want the same legal privileges everyone else enjoys!”

But the Church has waged a successful propaganda campaign conflating their religious ceremonies with the legal institution of marriage.  They foolishly believe no one gets married without a big Church wedding, thus they control who gets married.  Also, the Church does not really believe there are people who think thetans are nonsense and the very idea of Xenu is preposterous.  Amazingly, these people think they can do whatever they like (as long as it doesn’t hair anyone else) without worrying themselves about “thetans”.  I know, crazy right?

Of course this is a ridiculous scenario.  Except it isn’t.  This is exactly what the Churches are doing.  They think their god takes a dim view of his creations.  They think man and woman were created (from mud and a rib, respectively) for each other.  They cannot accept their deity made some people who are attracted to the same sex because their gods are perfect.  No, it must be the individual’s fault. A choice.  And the remainder of society must be protected from the evils of other people’s choice …. for some reason.

I have an idea which would drag the Church into the 21st century, but I doubt they will go for it.  You see, it involves “loving your enemy” and  “loving each other as their god loved them.”

Hmmm – that sounds familiar.  I think I read it in an ancient book somewhere.  Perhaps it was Dianetics?

I am on Twitter. A lot. In fact, I tweet more often than I do almost anything else; including Facebook, podcasting, blogging, and Youtube. There is something about the immediacy of Twitter which is appealing; fire off a quick thought or response and move on – and due to the sheer number of thoughts which cross my mind during a typical day results in a lot of tweets. However in-depth philosophical or theological discussions simply cannot be maintained on this medium.  Sometimes we are forced to spill over into lengthy blog posts like this one.

For example, the the other day I engaged in a conversation with Conversion Radio, who had sent me 3 logical syllogisms for the existence of “god”.  Naturally I responded with a flurry of 140 character refutations, where upon I was kindly invited to appear on his radio program which airs on “Glory 1300” in North Georgia. I am told that’s in America somewhere.

Well, I have just finished the radio interview and think I did pretty well. Of course upon reflection there are always points I wish I had raised during conversation, but that’s the price you pay when you’re thinking “on your feet”. So I thought I would share some thoughts I had on topic of the interview, which was the contingency argument .  The following argument has been copied from Conversion Radios web site.

Premise 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

This premise classifies entities into 2 main categories; those things which are caused by something else (contingent), and things which necessarily exist (by virtue of its inherent nature). This seems to be a rational dichotomy, although for completeness we should admit the possibility that some things may exist unnecessarily and uncaused. That is to say perhaps it is possible that something can actually come from nothing for no reason, though I shall not be addressing this point here.

Observation of the world around us leads us to believe that all things were “created” from previously existing matter. That is to say that “things” are an arrangement of matter which was previously there.  While this does attract the problem of induction, it does imply that matter itself may be eternal. In fact, during the conversation Jared raised the second law of thermodynamics which states that that the universe is winding down to total entropy.  It should be pointed out that this does not mean the universe ceases to exist, just that it will no longer do anything, and time will stop.

At this point I must point out that big bang cosmology (which was also discussed) states the universe expanded from a singularity – a point at which all matter existed within a single point. This is far from being absolutely nothing –  in fact it is literally an entire universe away from being nothing.

Anyway, I am happy for things to be classified into necessary and contingent. However, that is not the main problem with the syllogism presented.

Premise 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Woah, slow down dude!

This “premise” has neatly asserted two things: 1) That the universe is contingent and 2) that explanation for the universe is a “god”.  Making assertions of these kinds within the premise of your argument is very a no-no as it undermines the purpose of the syllogism in the first place.

Syllogisms should make no assumptions unless absolutely necessary.  They should reduce themselves to the bare minimum number of axioms and assumptions as possible and build from there.  I do not consider the universe is contingent and the explanation is “god” as being axiomatic, and to sneak them in like this is rather dishonest.  Further, to smuggle in “god” as the label given to the cause of the universe (if indeed there is one) attracts attributes, properties, and ideas many people have about what “god” is.  Within the last 24 hours I have spoken to Christians and Muslims who both use similar arguments to conclude their particular view of god is supported by these generic arguments. This is one of the main problems inherent in using the label “god”.

However, let’s grant the premise for argument’s sake.  What is gained by labelling the cause of the universe “god”? What additional explanatory power does the label “god” have over admitting there was “a cause”? I suspect simply conceeding therre was a ”cause” of the universe does not get the author closer to his presupposed answer.

However, if we assume the universe is contingent, then we are able to  posit may possible causes for its existence. Any number of “god” things may be responsible, including The Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster which were invented to illustrate this exact point.  Morevoer, we can also posit purely natural causes without any need to assume supernatural interventions.

What differentiates all of these potential answers from random ideas and nonsense is the evidence available to support them. Without supporting evidence each potential answer has about the same probability of being the correct.  This places Yahweh (the god of the Bible) on a par with Zeus, Brahma, Odin, or those “joke gods” mentioned.

Furthermore, positing a “god” only raises an additional entity to which we can apply this syllogism.  Is this “god” thing necessary or contingent? How can we tell?  Typically these questions are meet with bold assertions and appeals to special pleading. “God”, we are told, is simply one of those necessary things because to admit it may be contingent does not gel with the theological beliefs of the author.  Again we strike presuppositions.

Premise 3. The universe exists.

I think it is safe to assume to we both agree the universe exists - the question was whether the universe is necessary or contingent.  Since everything we observe seems to have been created from pre-existing matter this would imply that the universe is necessary. However, for the sake of argument, if we assume the universe is contingent then we should get to work figuring out which of the potential answers is plausible, which are illogical, which are impossible, and which have supporting evidence.

From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:

Premise 4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

Again, it has not been demonstrated if the universe is necessary or contingent – tt has merely been assumed to be contingent. If we assume the universe is contingent then we agree there should be an explanation for its existence. As stated, we may propose any number of possible solutions to this problem, but merely labelling it “god” achieves nothing. Until evidence for any partricular proposed hypothesis is presented we must leave the answer in the “unknown” category.

And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:

Premise 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Since premise 2 smuggled in “god” as the explanation it is no surprise that “god” is the conclusion. This is rather dishonest.

P2: Here we see a logical validation. If an opponent disagrees with P2 he would have to assert a valid proof of a self-existent universe or valid proof that the cause of the universe itself was caused by a contingent cause and would be susceptible to infinite regression:

Well, no. If you have failed to demonstrate the universe is contingent this does not mean I am require to prove it is necessary. I am happy to leave the question unanswered until convincing evidence is presented.  However, if you wish to claim the universe is contingent then you bear the burden of proof for this claim.

We can see it is far more reasonable to conclude: The universe was caused and is not self-existent.

How the authors arrived at the conclusion “the universe was caused and is not self-existent” is not evident. The argument for this was not addressed in the syllogism and should appear somewhere between P1 and P2. It doesn’t. Perhaps the authors may wish to expand their syllogism to suit?

For an opponent to disagree here would necessitate a powerful quality and quantity of evidence to buck the consensus of scholarship.

Wrong. I am not required to present an alternative hypothesis to disbelieve your proposed solution. You have failed to meet your burden of proof, so my disbelief is justified.

The cause of the universe needs to be self-existent to avoid infinite regression. It is far more reasonable to avoid self-contradictory explanations like infinite regression.

How do you know infinite regression is not possible? Moreover, you are now making claims about the cause of the universe. As noted earlier, you bear the burden of proof for any claims made and I see no arguments presented which conclude the cause of the universe must be necessary. This is merely an assertion without evidence, and I can dismiss it without consideration.

God is by definition a self-existent being capable of causing the universe.

Only because you have defined “god” as such. You have not demonstrated this “god” thing even exists, let alone how you know its attributes and properties.  If you wanted to invent answers which fit your preconceived notions, then why have we bothered with a logical syllogism?

To assert such a rebuttal would deny the mountains of claims of interaction with said intelligent self existent and the fact no such metaphysical self-existent force is known save the Mind of God.

Now the cause of the universe is “intelligent”, “metaphysical”, “self-existent” (a case of special pleading), and has a “mind”. Where in the syllogism did you make these deduce these properties and attributes? Or are you simply tacking them on at the end to bolster your preconceived religious views?  I have a sneaky suspicion you know the answer to this.

P3: Should be obvious to the honest logician.

What is P3? I am sorry, whatever it is, is it not obvious.

P4: With the concession of 1 and 3 as most will, this necessarily follows.

P1 merely state “the universe exists and has a cause”, and P3 is complete opaque to me.  As I stated, I think we can agree the universe exists, but I am still unclear how you have determined it is caused and not necessary, not how you know the attributes of the causal agent.  I suggest you revisit the syllogism immediately to address these shortcomings.

P5 Again with the concession of 2 and 4 this necessarily follows.

Sure, conclude “god” exists because you stated it as a premise in P2. Makes sense.

Well that turned into a long post, but I hope it was worth it. The episode should be available in a few weeks, and I have asked for a link when it becomes available. I will be sure to post a link to it – probably on Twitter.

In passing sentence the judge cited two examples Alexander posted to his Facebook page. One death with the fact the Quran states Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law, while the other points out the prophet consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old. If the books are to be believed (and they seem to be by many Muslims), then these are factual statements directly from their central holy texts. However, the judge apparently views stating facts as ” spreading racial and religious hatred”, which violates Article 28 of Indonesian law named the “Information and Electronic Transaction Law”.

Usually in criminal cases it is customary to identify a defendant who has been harmed by the actions of the accused. In cases of blasphemy who is the harmed party?

Is it Allah? Surely not since an all powerful being is not capable of being harmed, and even if it were wouldn’t this be an issue between Alexander and Allah? And shouldn’t a god be more resilient to mere words?

Are believers harmed? One might not think so since other people’s beliefs should not affect them. In reality it seems the only thing harmed in cases of blasphemy are the precious feelings of the faithful. Rather than admit the uncomfortable truths within their religions they seek to persecute and punish those who point them out.

You may have thought that 43 years after mankind stepped on the freaking moon we might have made some progress against superstition, but it seems we have a very long way to go.

If you wish to help Alexander you can contact the Indonesian authorities (pdf), or donate to Alexander’s legal fund.

• Hagee Tells Atheists To Leave The Country b/c They Are Not Wanted & Won’t Be Missed – YouTube
• ‘Dead’ boy wakes up and asks for water at funeral in Brazil | News.com.au
• Terry Jones, Quran-Burning Pastor, Hangs Barack Obama Effigy Outside Florida Church (PHOTO)
• Here comes the Sunrise disgust: gay marriage fires up ACL | Crikey
• Same-sex marriage showdown – Sunrise – Yahoo!7 TV
• Sex change British man gives birth to son – Telegraph
• Zach Wahls Speaks About Family – YouTube
• The Clergy Project – Home Page
• ‘Praise the Lord and pass the rattlesnakes’ – a tragic case of hiss and hearse!

Much has been said about free will and determinism throughout the blogosphere in recent months. The discussion has been simulating and thought provoking with influential thinkers and authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Russell Blackford, and John Horgan dipping their oars into the water. Rather than addressing any one particular argument, I thought I might attempt to illuminate my position on this difficult subject in the strange environment of another’s blog.

Stop for a moment and reflect on where you are. I do not mean where you are geographically located at the moment, or the position of your body, but the very kernel of your “self”. The part of you called “you”.

Have you found yourself?

Good.

Many people I speak to admit our “mind” seems to exist somewhere behind our eyes, between our ears, and above our necks. I do not think it’s a coincidence that this is where our brain resides, which seems to be the organ responsible for generating this powerful illusion.

To be brutally honest we must admit that we cannot say for sure if anyone else has a “mind”. Sure, we grant special privilege to other members of our species because we expect they experience the world in a similar manner to ourselves. This is probably the reason many are hesitant to entertain the idea that other animals are conscious thinking beings – an idea reinforced by religious beliefs that we are “specially created”. What is harder to admit is that we may not actually separate from our brains, but we are our brains.

We know physical damage to the brain has roughly predictable results. We know chemicals, diet, and drugs affect brain function, mood, and emotional states. Recent experiments have even induced “god feelings” with magnets, or utilised brain scans to rebuild what a patient is seeing. Every conceivable human function maps to our brain. There is no verifiable empirical evidence to suggest our “minds” exist independently of our brains. It seems the only reason we may even believe this in the first place is due to the illusion of “self”.

If the brain/mind divide is non-existent we must be bold enough to ask the next question: are we in charge of our own thoughts and actions? To answer this we must delve a little deeper.

States of mind

The notion of causality ties two distinct states of a system together – one *causing* the other. State “A” is always followed by state “B” in a causal chain such that if the system were reset to “state A” the resulting state would once again be “B”. This is what it means to say that “state A *causes* state B” and causality leads to predictability of a system. Everyday observations of our world lead us to believe the universe is one such predictable system. While we may not have enough information to predict any system with perfect clarity, this is an observation of observational powers rather than a comment on the system itself.

On the other hand, a truly chaotic universe as one in which every state is disconnected from everything preceding it. In such a system no notion of causality can be established. State “B” does not follow state “A”; indeed there is now possible way to predict which state would follow any other in a truly chaotic universe.

We are not shocked to discover which switch turns on the bathroom lights in the morning. We innately model our environment in order to predict, operate, and survive within it. We remember which actions give rise to the results we desire and repeat them every minute of every day. We know how to adjust the temperature of the shower to avoid scalding ourselves, put our socks on, and butter the toast and would be would be most surprised if the Vegemite suddenly appeared in orbit around Jupiter upon removing it from the cupboard as would be possible in a non-causal universe – if orbit or planets were possible at all in such universe.

If, as all of medical science suggests, our “mind” are irrevocably linked with our brain, then it follows that if we could reset a brain to a known state we could theoretically predict every resulting state. This of course assumes the sensory inputs experienced by this brain are also identical, which is also concordant with a causally deterministic universe. If this is the case, there is nowhere “free will” can hide.

Dealing with the quantum ghost

I stated earlier that the universe is predictable, and I am sure a number of readers already have their fingers poised over the keys with the words “quantum” in their minds, so I would be remiss not to address it.

There are mathematical models of the universe which indicate randomness may, after all, be at the heart of all things. It is this uncertainty which some people utilise to prop up their notion of “free will”. We are told that our “minds” or “souls” are able to somehow guide the behaviour of quantum foam, to affect subatomic particles, which affects the atoms which comprise us, which ultimately affects the decisions our brains make. It never ceases to astound me how far people are prepared to go to maintain their preconceived notions, however I cannot fully discard the idea – after all, there may be some truth to it.

If “minds” are real “things” then we should demand evidence of this “ghost in the machine” as distinct from the matter which it interacts with. I suspect some opponents of this position will cry foul and claim that immaterial “things” cannot be observed or measured with the empirical tools of science. Nevertheless, if we were to assume a “mind”, “ghost”, or “spirit” does exist then our “free will” has still not escaped the clutches of determinism.

The same “soul” interacting with the same universe would surely result in the same decisions. All that has been achieved by this pointless exercise is the addition of more machinery to the engine of causality and determinism. Of course, our “souls” could be random, but such a conclusion has devastating implications for many religious beliefs who cannot stomach chaotic souls.

While this is a very brief overview of the decisions I have come to regarding this topic, I hope I have communicated the salient points. In short, we is no choice – there is no such thing as “free will” because we live in a deterministic universe. We know this because causality seems to hold true in all relevant circumstances

• Pastor condemns homosexuals in sermon saying gays and lesbians ‘should be put in electrified pen to let them die off’ | Mail Online
• Crazy Christian Woman Anti-Gay Rant – YouTube
• 44 – Family Research Council founder hires a Rentboy
• Tasmanian Marriage Event | Australian Christian Lobby
• Godless Business | Stop the NSCP
• Compass – Past Episodes – ABC TV
• National Secular Society – Hospital Chaplains

Enjoy.

One might have thought an excellent marriage would be filled with love, understanding, forgiveness, tolerance, and equality – amongst other things.  But not so, at least according to the administrators of the associated Facebook page.  In the spirit love, forgiveness, understanding, and equality I posted the following comment:

Pretty good I though. Hell, even my wife liked the post, so I must be doing something right.  Although I would not bother visiting Facebook to find this comment, or any like it. Those good, loving, tolerant, understanding, crusaders for equality and human decency Jesus followers have deleted the posts and banned me from their treehouse.  I might have a persecution complex, but it looks like our comments were targeted for some reason because the God loving comments remain.

I cannot say I am completely surprised at this behaviour given some of the people who will be speaking about the warm forgiveness blood of Jesus at this free event about marriage (not religious, shhh  How dare you! ).  For example, Margret “you can get married if you’re not a poofter” Court will be there with Guy “children deserve the right to grow up with at least the chance of both a Mum and a Dad” Barnett, and let’s not forget local Minister Campbell “Jesus was so into straight marriage he had two dads, and hung around with 12 guys and a few prostitutes” Markham.

Anyway, while you wait for this most excellent event you could endlessly watch the inspirational movie they have produced (see below), or visit their page and report it as hate speech.  The decision is yours.

This is a continuation of my reply to Andrew Finden’s “one last philosophical hurrah” post, and addresses the question “why believe there is a god?”

It is encouraging to read the opening statement of this section where Andrew admits “that one can cannot prove that God exists”, however he quickly (and rightly) dismisses philosophical materialism – the position that everything which exists can be empirically observed or measured. This differs from methodological materialism which maintains that phenomenon may exist outside our empirical observations but if we have no methods for measuring or observing them we cannot say anything about them. Methodological materialism is the basis of science and gives rise to its agnosticism.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, I am open to the idea of the supernatural, spiritual, or metaphysical. However without a sample of one of these “things” we cannot say anything about them. We cannot list their properties. We cannot observe their interactions with other things. We cannot build models for how these things might work and make prediction of their future interactions. This interface is where the real meets the unreal, the natural meets the supernatural, the physical meets the metaphysical, and philosophical materialism meets methodological materialism.

The trap I see many religious people fall into is in placing “god” outside the universe and into the realm of the supernatural. This places “god” beyond the reach of direct empirical observation, yet they still proceed to make a multitudes of claims. For example:

• “God is love.”
• “God will judge the living and the dead.”
• “God will send you to Hell if you do not accept Jesus into your heart.”
• “God is all merciful.”
• “God is vengeful.”
• “God told me to run for President.”
• “God hates fags.”

Let’s not pretend that many religious people have vague beliefs in some “metaphysical entity”, they are often convinced their God is exactly as depicted in an ancient holy text. Typically and coincidently this text also happens to be the script most prevalent in their society. Their gods are saddled with many claims about their nature which the original authors could not have known unless their god has reached into this reality and made their presence unmistakeable. Of course this is a possibility, however rational people demand more evidence than a handful of ancient accounts written by unknown authors which have been translated innumerable times thorough the centuries.

Andrew has not launched to these points just yet (although I am sure they shall appear shortly), but starts with a much broader statement:

“One of the most persuasive reasons, to my mind, is that the universe is rationally intelligible. This points towards the existence of a rational intelligence behind it. I’ve not seen any examples of order or intelligibility from chaos and mindlessness.”

I think we can agree the universe is rationally intelligible – at least to some degree. Although we cannot be sure this is truly the case. The British geneticist and evolutionary biologists J. B. S. Haldane once said:

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose.” J. B. S. Haldane

If true, this would indicate the universe, at base, may actually be unintelligible. However, this is not the universe we reside in. The universe at our scale is reliably predictable – at least within reasonable parameters. Nevertheless, if this “rationally intelligible universe” can be explained by a “rationally intelligence” then I must ask the next question – is this “rationally intelligence” rationally intelligible? If so, then we are presented with the same problem we began with and we have solved nothing. If this “rationally intelligence” is in fact irrational (which is what we call anything which is not rational), then what *can* we say about it? This seems to be an insurmountable problem for the believer.

Moreover, the fact that Andrew (or anyone as far as I am aware) has “not seen any examples of order or intelligibility from chaos and mindlessness” does not make it impossible. I have often been accused of falling foul of the problem of induction, but it seems the shoe is now on the other foot. To play devil’s advocate, what if the smallest scales of the universe are chaotic, unintelligible, unpredictable, and mindless yet give rise to rationally intelligible, logical, predicable, and consistent universes all the time? While I have no evidence that this is the case, I cannot rule it out as a possibility and would be interested to see how Andrew Finden did so.

Andrew goes on to ask what may be the oldest philosophical question in existence:

“Why there is something rather than nothing?”

To my mind the fact we are here to ask this question does not render the question itself ridiculous, however every available answer to solve this riddle seems ridiculous. We cannot conceive that something could spring from nothing, or that the universe has always existed in some form, or some other unintelligible proposition. It is important to point out the question is equally applicable to the religious answer with slight modification – why is there a god rather than not? Once again, the proposed answer has inherented the problem it is attempting to solve and we have gained nothing.

In a similar fashion I have always found the idea “precise physical properties to allow this universe” (and our existence) possible to be slightly weird. I know am I somewhat of a loner here, but we simply do not have other universes to sample. We have no idea what the qualities potential universes may sustain. The “precise physical properties” are a result of *descriptive* laws which may not in fact be free to change. Our universe may be the *only* way a universe could exist, and in a similar way the universe may not permit absolutely nothing to “exist”. The default state may be existence rather than nonexistence.

I will save the next point for another post, since tackling the Kalam cosmological argument typically takes some space – and this post is already long enough.

Until next time.

Those who have been following this blog for a while will, no doubt, recall the various discussions/debates/arguments I have had with Andrew Finden in the past. As frustrating as I find them at times, I think he often tackles interesting and difficult topics with a calm intelligence not very often found in the religious debate. This makes me a little ashamed of the ridicule we levelled at him during an early podcast; but just a little.

So it is with a some disappointment I note that Andrew is wrapping up his religiously focused blog with “one last philosophical hurrah.” Andrew’s post is rather lengthy and covers many topic,  however I wish to adequately address the points he has raised which means this post is only the first of many replies.

Andrew first raises the spectre of “agency verses mechanics”, drawing a distinction between how something works and why, or the difference between “mechanics and agency”.  He invokes an “agency” who tinkers with the physics to effect the universe. I have never been fond of metaphysical arguments of this nature for they make a number of unstated assumptions, which often sail by without question.  For example:

1. The metaphysical actually exists.
2. A metaphysical agent exists.
3. The metaphysical agent is not natural in the sense that it occurs within the universe. It is something separate.
4. The metaphysical agent can affect changes within the natural world, and
5. The metaphysical agent cannot be considered part of an all encompassing metaphysical universe, for this would render the agent itself a part of the overall machinery and undermine the conclusion of the syllogism.

Of course, Andrew is free to state such metaphysical agents exist and “cause” the mechanics of the physical universe to behave in certain undefined ways, but he bears the unenviable burden of proof for this extraordinary claim – a charge he conveniently avoids because:

“… limited to studying the physical universe, so of course, anything that is not a part of the physical universe (e.g. a universal causal agent, meaning, art, love, purpose, or any range of meta-physical things) is not going to fall within science’s scope.”

Having shed the the tools of science he is left simply asserting that the metaphysical actually exists and he knows this because “there are other ways of knowing”, but refuses to detail how these “other ways” work, or how we can test their accuracy.

The statement “god” is a “metaphysical” entity like love, art, and purposes raises some interesting problems for his argument: “God”, like meaning, art, love, purpose is a concept. I am sure Andrew is not arguing that “god” is merely just a concept, but that he actually exists in some real way.  Some metaphysical “real” way. None of the other “things” in the list exist in any real sense, they are descriptions of real objects, feelings, or behaviours. No one has ever been able to capture “love” in a jar, or examine “art” under the microscope, although we may examine our feelings, or paintings.

“Love” is an emotion; a powerful brain state. Everything we know about human physiology suggests our bodies, emotions, and our brain states are affected by chemistry, electrical impulses, magnetism, diet, thermal changes, and a host of other purely physical characteristics. Some drugs are known to induce feelings of euphoria where the afflicted expresses deep “love” for everything and everyone. Are we to believe a metaphysical substance called “love” associates itself with particular compounds waiting for the next hippie to blaze up? No, this is clearly absurd. The same basic arguments can be made against “art”, “purpose”, or any other imagined metaphysical property.

Of course, at first glance it appears I have fallen into the trap of using science in an attempt to discover and examine the metaphysical and therefore have stepped beyond of scope of the scientific endeavour, but not so. If you will pardon the pun, let me illustrate with colour.

There are many things in this world I call “yellow”. Flowers, bananas, The Simpsons, frogs, lemons, fish, sapphires, Spongebob Squarepants, rubber ducks, snakes, and those awful happy pants I purchased in the 80′s. We can agree all of these things are “yellow”, but what does that actually mean? Not many give the sensation of colour any serious thought, much less the specific colour “yellow”  We simply assume it exists and is real, for that is what our eyes tell us. Unfortunately, colour doesn’t actually exist in the real world – at least not in the sense we commonly think about it.

Light with a wavelength of between 570–590 nm equally stimulates long and medium cone cells of our retina, which is interpreted by our brains as the colour “yellow”. There is nothing inherently “yellow” about this wavelength of light anymore than the “non yellowness” of 565 nm or 600 nm. Light simply has a frequency at which is oscillates.  It does not gain “yellowness” and it passes through this frequency range.  It is our brains which interpret the impulses sent from our eyes to form the concept of yellow.  “Yellow”, if it can be said to exist at all, is a pattern of neural activity brought about by the application of 570–590 nm lightwaves to the retina of an individual. What’s important is that light does not gain a “yellow” metaphysical “substance” as it passes 570 nm, only to shed it again once the frequency rises above 590 nm.

We have evolved various (limited) methods to detect our environment which clearly aids in survival. As language evolved, the sensation of internally experiencing this wavelength of light has been given the label “yellow” (at least in the English language). “Yellow” is the label we give to a feature of the universe as detected by our senses. We take the linguistic shortcut to assist our communication – just imagine trying to honestly and fully explain the universe every time you desired a piece of fruit, or wanted to look like an idiot in happy pants again.

I believe the same can be said for everything we experience.  Our senses detect parts of the real world and we internally simulate the world attaching crude labels to our internal experiences.  This leaves my position as a physical reductionist bare – a position Andrew takes issue with:

“Take, for example, the words on your screen. One kind of explanation is to describe the electronics, the LCD and all the physics and so forth which allow you to see words appear on the screen. Another explanation is to say that I had some thoughts I wanted to communicate, and so I wrote a blog post. Both explanations are true, but they are different kinds of explanations – one is about mechanics and the other about agency, and neither explanation precludes the other. The extent to which an understanding of the mechanics can inform us about agency is rather variable, and requires a whole stack of other background knowledge. An explanation of the physics of seeing words on a screen can’t tell you, for example, that I’m writing in English – you need further background knowledge for that*.”

* John Lennox points out that semantic meaning, while emergent from letters, cannot be explained by a reductionist view of the physics and chemistry of ink on paper.”

While I have addressed this point in the past, I continue to think Andrew’s brain and thoughts (as well as yours and mine) are a product of its physical structure, chemical reactions, electrical activity, and a raft of other purely physical phenomenon. Everything medical science knows about the brain suggests it is intimately tied to personality, thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs – so much so that there does not appear to be any facet left untouched by the physical.  Accident victims struggle with physical brain injuries, taking drugs (including alcohol) affects your mood, and applying electrodes can ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. There is nothing which suggests “thoughts” are somehow separate from the brain;  not only do our thoughts occur within the brain, they are the brain. “Thoughts” are the label we give to the emergent phenomenon of a properly functioning human brain.

Let’s be clear: Andrew’s brain reacts concordantly with its initial physical state, and the laws of the physical universe.  This results in him writing a blog post, where this computer encodes the message electronically and stored the results onto magnetic patterns of a web servers hard drive for future visitors to discover. Their computers render the fonts using a Liquid Crystal Display (or something fancier depending on your budget), which throws light into our retinas, to be interpreted by our physical brains. Being raised in an English community I recognise the patterns and swirls on the screen as “English” and can parse the information presented. I may also recognise the patterns of other languages, but may not have the skills to interpret their meaning, which should be a point which utterly destroys Andrew’s position.

If, as John Lennox puts it, “semantic meaning” is emergent from the “physics and chemistry of ink on paper” then why does it break down if the symbols cannot be recognised or interpreted by the receiver? In other words, if “meaning” transfers independently from the ink we should still be able to discern “meaning” without knowing the language utilised.  Since this clearly is not the case it seems the notion of “semantic meaning” is bunk.

For the same reasons I also discard the idea of a “meta physical agency” for it fails in a similar manner and adds no explanatory power to our understanding of the universe.  Andrew would have you believe a supernatural metaphysical god agency intervenes in the natural world, or is ever present – in which case god spends an inordinate amount of time attending to orbits of electrons. Either way, I find the hypothesis to have no utility – they are, by definition, useless. The first because I cannot devise a way to differentiate the natural world acting in accordance with its own innate laws verse behaviours caused by an supernatural agency (something I have challenged Andrew on int he past). The second because an answer which answers everything, in fact answers nothing.

Lastly and for the sake of argument, if I were to assume a “meta physical agency” somehow exists beyond space and time, then I may equally ask the same questions; How do you account for the behaviours and actions of this “meta physical agency”? Just as things within the natural world could have external agents affecting them, surely the same could be said for an “meta physical agent”? I would also be interested to know how anyone can make any claims about the non-physical as it is surely beyond the scope of our natural senses to perceive. Personally, I find Occam’s razor makes swift work of these “explanations”.

Next time: “Why believe there is a God?“

The NSCSWP began life as the National School Chaplaincy Program which sough to place well meaning religious people into every public school across Australia. Since its inception it has been a misguided, divisive, discriminatory, and dangerous program.  Our children need professional counsellors, not people who profess the same religious belief as the majority within a school community.  While the recent changes to the have hypothetically allowed secular youth workers to be employed, in reality the vast majority of schools have opted to take the easy road and stick with their existing arrangements – many with overtly evangelical Christian groups, who seek to “convert souls to Jesus” and treat public schools as “mission fields”.

This is not some harmless program either.  According to a study conducted by the Rationalists Society of Australia, Chaplains admitted to dealing with the following issues in the two weeks prior to the survey being conducted:

• 95% of chaplains reported dealing with behaviour management issues, such as anger
• 92% with bullying and harassment
• 92% with peer relationships and loneliness
• 91% with student – family relationship issues
• 85% with sense of purpose and self-esteem
• 81% with grief and loss
• 77% with community involvement and social inclusion
• 76% with spirituality and ‘big picture’ issues of life
• 72% with mental health and depression
• 50% with alcohol and drug use, and
• 44% with self harm and suicide

Please, take a few minutes to call Wayne Swan’s office and let them know your disapproval of this program. The number is  (02) 6277 77340.  Alternatively, write him and email – Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au.  Here is a template email as a starter:

The Honourable Wayne Swan
Treasurer
House of Representatives
Canberra

Dear Mr Swan,

I write in regard to the federal budget which will be presented next month. I wish to draw your attention to an area where substantial savings can be made. I refer to the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program.

A review was held into this program but before the review was finalised, an increase in the order of $222 million was announced by the Minister, Peter Garrett.

There have been some minor changes to the program but the vast majority of the Chaplains have no, or minimal, qualifications and exemptions are easily obtained . Last year’s increase included some millions to pay for retraining for existing Chaplains to complete a certificate, which are most commonly delivered by a church-based provider.

The Chaplains' Code of Conduct states that they are not to counsel students, yet in their job, they 'deal with' issues around bullying, family breakdown, relationships and depression - problems that may have serious consequences that Chaplains are not qualified to handle, nor are allowed to handle.  In addition the rules of the NSCSWP prevent Chaplains from proselytising their religion, which leave many asking the difficult question “what do they actually do?"

At risk students dealing with depression, bullying, trauma, loss, relationship difficulties, low self esteem, bullying, drug abuse, and sexual identity issues deserve properly trained Counsellors, not well meaning religious people.

The lack of quality control, benchmarking, and oversight with the NSCSWP means the program is internally contradictory, divisive, discriminatory, potentially disastrous, and very poor value for money indeed.  This is a very costly program that is not returning commensurate benefits, and should come under the scrutiny of the treasurer to ensure the Australian tax payer funds are being allocated responsibly.

Yours Sincerely,

Also, please show your support by signing this petition, which was the inspiration behind this post.

Thank you to The Friendly Atheist for promoting this, and special thanks to Fibbs1701 for creating such a masterpiece.

Last weekend I attend the second Global Atheist Convention run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia in Melbourne. The convention attracted over 4,000 attendees to listen to extraordinary line up of world class speakers from a variety of disciplines on a wide range of topics.

The convention began with a comedy line up including the brilliantly hilarious and observant minds of author Ben Elton, Stella Young, Mikey Robins, and Jim Jefferies (whose jokes may have over stepped the mark in some places). All great comedy has an element of truth mixed with tremendous absurdities, which is why religious belief is such a fertile ground for comedians.

Leslie Cannold opened the even on Saturday by pointing out Australia does not have a separation of church and state due to the “reading down” of section 116 of the constitution during the DOGS case. Not withstanding, this does not diminish the importance of truly secular education which is not impeded by religious dogma. This topic close to my obviously heart as evidenced by my “Stop the National School Chaplaincy” page, and my efforts to bring attention to this issue.

Daniel Dennett gave an amusing speech on self unaware atheists. Much like “The Sixth Sense” we see atheists everywhere – and they don’t even know they’re atheists! Some, like the panel of “The Project” still consider “agnostic” as a midway point between atheism and theism, which is simply wrong.

The brilliant theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explained the space between galaxies contains most of the mass of the universe, which is critically important when you’re trying to work out its mass, and therefore our ultimate fate.

Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. spoke about the evils of the Catholic Church and its convenient and changing self classification when deciding to be a country, a city, or a religion. He says the Vatican is no more a country than “Disney World”, which sparked laughter and applause among the audience.

The incredibly brave, mildly spoken, and gentle Ayaan Hirsi Ali pleaded with the Western world to help her Islamic sisters more, and hold the authorities to a higher standard when investigating cases of religiously inspired violence and oppression.

Sam Harris, the Jedi knight of atheism, had us all spell bound with a presentation on death, purpose, and living for the moment. At one stage he effectively hypnotised 4,000 atheists and converted them into Buddhists. I am not kidding; it was sublime.

All of these presentations, and more, were thought provoking, intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical, and inspirational – which was a stark contrast to the religious protesters who gathered outside.

On Saturday we attracted Adelaide’s Rundall Street evangelicals who wore t-shirt stating:

“I fear god and give glory to him” Revelation 14:7

They also waved signs warning “church gossips, drunkards, abortionists, thieves, sex addicts, druggies, liars, atheists, and homosexuals” that “judgement was coming”. The odious woman on the microphone was not there to listen, but to spew her brand of hateful nonsense to the skeptical crowd, who mainly sat quietly and ate their lunch. This was a sign of thing to come, as we discovered later.

These are seasoned street preachers who will ignore any question posed to them by all but one person. Their tactic seem to be talking at someone for extended periods until they surrender in disgust. Seems their god enjoys tirades of venomous and irrational pronouncements.

Having failed to convince a single soul on Saturday night, the Christians gave up and let the Muslims have a turn. On Sunday the crowd (inspired by PZ Myers fiery lecture were greeted with obnoxious Muslims shouting pathetic threats. While I did not stay to listen to their rantings very long, I did manage to understand the basic message.

Apparently the lovely Ayaan Hirsi Ali is destined for an eternity of suffering – not because she wishes people to live free from the bonds of slavery, beatings, submission, and oppression, but because she changed her mind about Islam. Due to this unforgivable sin their all loving god will throw her into the pits of Hell to meet with Christopher Hitchens (whom they also condemned). Many of their number seem keen to assist their god in making this a reality. One must wonder why people always perform these “acts of god”.

The contrast between what happened within and without the convention could not have been more pronounced. While inside we were learning about the cosmos, mediating on the moment, contemplating our demise, laughing with each other, discussing the deep questions of life, and formulating a plan for a society of built on peace, tolerance, understanding, equality, and science our religious cousins were screaming for death, judgement, and torture. Which one seems more appealing?

It was this moment of reflection which occurred to me while departing Victoria early Monday morning, that it struck me; We have it all. We, the atheist, have all the laughter, logic, compassion, reason, reflection, humility, humanity, learning, and love, while the religious attribute these things to the ethereal spy camera. We can be good without god, in fact I would argue we are good without god, since we do not have our minds poisoned with toxic, illogical, and unverifiable deities.

We have not fallen. We are not evil. We do not need salvation. We do not need Gods. We have everything we need.

This week I meet with Aronra in Melbourne for the Global Atheist Convention, and thought it would be a good idea to chat up with Australia’s most popular secular humanist Catholic Father Bob for a chat.  Strap yourself in for this one.

Opinion of who ”won” the ”debate” on Monday night’s show seems divided along whatever preconceptions viewers brought with them. This is typical for debates in general, and for the format of the Q and A program. However, I wish to specifically address a number of points both Richard Dawkins and George Pell raised during the course of he program, as I feel both missed the mark on a number of occasions.

Pell’s opening sentence sets the mood for the entire evening when he respond to the question regarding the Easter traditions:

“First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years …”

4,000 years! What? Has the good Cardinal forgotten when Jesus was apparently crucified which, according to our Gregorian calendar, was approximately 2012 years ago. Yeah OK, deduct 32 or so years for the life if Jesus, but Pell’s error bars are still a whopping 100%. That’s significant.

Oh wait, George acknowledges the Christians stole the Pagan festivals, but that this was a good thing:

“… so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance and it’s interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. Forty per cent was slaves. Men and women fought one another to the death in, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum. Women had no rights whatsoever. Infanticide was practiced regularly. The noble families didn’t want baby girls. Christianity changed that.”

Christianity’s basic text relegates women to the status of property. They can be bought, forced into marriage, feared, remain silent in church, and be “modest” at all time – anyone wonder where the idea of the Burqa came from? The religion did nothing to set women on an equal footing the their male counterparts, and to this day women still are not treated as equals. Even potential American presidential candidates such as Michelle Bachman said in 2006:

“Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, ‘Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

The emancipation of darker skinned brothers did not occur until nearly 2,000 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and one again the Bible explicitly supports slavery. It lays the foundations for when slaves can be taken, how much you should pay, how severely you can beat them, and when they can be traded or released. So Pell wishes us to believe the very same book was responsible for the end to slavery? I don’t think so.

Mr. Pell later goes on to misunderstand evolution and then conflates it with social darwinism and atheism:

“Because it is the struggle for survival, the strong take what they can and the weak give what they must and there is nothing to restrain them and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements of the last century.”

What a massive non-sequitur! This is such an awful (and often heard) argument that I have no idea where to really start. Firstly, atheism is merely the disbelief of theistic claims. I do not believe gods exists because I do not see sufficient evidence to support the proposition. That’s it.

Evolution is another matter, but your understanding seem to be limited to the often quoted and frequently misunderstood “survival of the fittest”. With such a flawed understanding of the basics it would be futile to attempt correcting this error, however for me readers it might be sufficient to point out that “fittest” simply meant those organisms which best fit their environment. It has nothing to do with muscularity or aggressiveness.

Lastly on this point, to equate some of last centuries most horrible genocidal maniacs with atheism specious at best. The entire point is an argument from consequences and does not address the truth of the matter at hand. Nevertheless, I am sure you are not motivated by your disbelief in unicorns, leprechauns, gremlins, goblins, and ghouls (Jesus excepted). A brief consideration of this point should reveal the massive flaw in your argument. Moreover, if genocide could be used as a measure of truth, then we must consider the genocidal actions performed by your deity in the Old Testament. Global floods, drowning opposing armies, levelling cities with fire and brimstone, flooding the entire Earth, killing the first born of an entire nation, etc. Do you think it’s fair to include these items on the balance sheet of truth?

Georg, you also made the extraordinary claim that atheists are able to enter Heaven after they die (and absurd claim at multiple levels). Jesus himself said:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” – John 14:6

So those who disbelieve or commit the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit actually are forgiven? We can disbelieve the very existence of god, and ignore the evil and immoral laws and instructions from this mythical being? How does that work? I am so confused.

Lastly, Pell admitted Adam and Eve did not exist saying:

“It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Does Pell recognise the implications of what he is saying? No Adam and Eve would surely mean there was no Garden of Eden and no talking snake. This makes a mockery of the insidious concept of “original (hereditary) sin” thus making the “sacrifice” of Jesus pointless.

To escape this conundrum, George adopts the Francis Collins approach as asserts a “soul” was injected into the evolving human at the crucial moment, a point which Richard Dawkins cannot leave unchallenged:

“At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?”

To which George responds:

“Yeah, well, I mean God wasn’t running around giving injections and if there is no first person we’re not humans.”

There is more that could be said about this exchange, but I am off to see some great speakers at the Global Atheist Convention. If you see me there, say hello.

‎”As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”
Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922

Leading up to the Global Atheist Convention Jim, Oliver, and Andrew catch up for a quick chat.

• The Imaginary Friends Show » IFS 90 – It’s a Good Friday… because Jesus died?
• Godless Business | Undeniable
• Godless Business | I get mail
• Godless Business | An open letter to Dodges Ferry
• BBC News – ‘Honour code’ supported by young Asians, poll says
• Man dies at Cape Town Christian rally | News24
• Evolution a ‘touchy’ subject for teachers Local Gold Coast News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Naturally, such a convention will elicit responses from the religion community. There seems to be one group currently acting as a focal point – Undeniable.  I honestly believe it is important to engage in dialogue so the faithful can understand our position and grievances, which lays the groundwork for building a society we all wish to live in.  To me this is truly secular society in which everyone have the right to believe as they wish, but all laws are based on verifiable empirical evidence rather than supernatural beliefs – even if held by the majority.

The “Undeniable” event is being promoted as:

“An event to glorify God, with the message that thousands of Christians know God is real because He has changed their lives.” http://undeniablemelbourne.com/

On the surface this is trivial to refute: People have good feelings, or some events transpire in their favour so they attribute these things to the deity promoted by the predominant religion of their culture – a rather arbitrary coincidence.  Deeply felt personal beliefs are the polar opposite to verifiable empirical evidence, thus have no place in public policy which affect the entirety of the population.

Still, members of the religious community seek to bolster their faith based beliefs with facts.  Unfortunately, the fact never seem to align with their views.  For example, on Undeniable’s Facebook page a user stated Josephus, Pily the younger, and Tacitus wrote about Jesus, thereby implying he rose from the dead to save humanity from our “sins”, then flew off into the clouds.  Here was my reply:

The facts are clearly not  “Undeniable” and all dissident views are to be censored because many have reported their comments have been removed, and they have been banned from the group.  This is hardly the behaviour you would expect to see if your views were truly undeniable.  Facts have a habit of being tenacious.

I can’t say I am completely surprised to discover my comments have been removed overnight since:

“… any disrespectful or opposing comments to this will be deleted, as the purpose of this website is to glorify God and promote the ‘Undeniable’ event. There are other forums for alternate opinions and stories to be expressed).” https://www.facebook.com/undeniable.canyouhandlethetruth

Never mind – I am able to attend their event in Federation Square and may engage in open discussions with those present.  Let’s see if their beliefs really are “undeniable”.