UNCHRISTIAN CHRISTIANITY+

Everyone’s favourite New Zealand born evangelical Christian, Ray Comfort, and his pal Kirk Cameron, who in his younger days was an actor, have really shown their true colours by putting out their own version of ‘The Origin of Species’.
What do I mean, their own version?
Well, it’s exactly the same as it was first published, one hundred and fifty years ago, but with a special addition. At the front, before you actually get to the book, is a sort of preface, fifty pages of it, written by Ray Comfort, listing the mistakes of evolution, (Piltdown man, anyone?) how evolution tempted Hitler into his own brand of hateful racism, how Charles Darwin was a racist and a misogynist, etc.
In other words, it’s the book with a load of anti-Darwinist propaganda stuck at the front.
Now, putting aside the fact a few (corrected by other scientists, who after all are only human) mistakes, doesn’t make evolution less true in itself. For every Piltdown man there is a Darwinopterus, which is a genuine, perfect example of what Creationists would call the (a) missing link. And that fact that Hitler was (he wasn’t) a rabid evolutionist who massacred millions of Jews in the name of Darwinian purity, doesn’t make evolution fiction. Neither does what Darwin himself thought of other races and females. Darwin’s ideas about other nationalities does not detract from the fact evolution explained the diversity of life on earth and still does after one hundred and fifty years. But don’t worry about that.
Instead, concentrate on what Comfort and his pal Cameron are doing. Now, I used to be a Christian, and I was taught by many old saints, that charitable works, cheerful giving, being kind to those you can’t stand, loving service, is what Christianity is all about. Because when non believers see your example, they will want to know more about this Christian business and might even get saved themselves. But no. Western Christians like Comfort and Cameron are too busy pedalling propaganda to go out and serve in the name of Christ. If you go and do an old person’s shopping for them, or babysit to give a harassed single mother a few hours off, or help build a shed or make a bed, and do it for Jesus, that’s Christianity. There is nothing in the Bible that says ‘write a load of stuff to turn people to me’. Actions, not words, make the Christian. That’s what makes people like Comfort and Cameron unchristian.

As to the job and my efforts in getting one front; I’m not going to post postings(?) as to my daily job-finding efforts. There are few things more boring than having to put up with an on-going autobiography concerning what a body gets up to. I will only mention it again when (if) I manage to get work.

ATHEISM : BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD

Atheism. Atheists. Scary people. They are totally, socially, morally, emotionally, politically, every way free of the world-round fairy-tales that have us bowing down to imaginary sky people. Because, using their logic and reason, they have come to the conclusion there is no god.
None. Nothing. Which leads (logically) to the idea that there is no devil, no heaven and hell, just this life, and we have to make the most of it. Our morals come from natural, in-built rule that helping others is better for the species than harming others, which we have formed into laws and rules for our own safety and good.
It’s not because, as the Christian might say there are in love with their sins, or because they hate god, because they have rebellious, stubborn hearts so they want to go their own way. They just can’t believe in a god, given the evidence. Atheism isn’t a belief, a trusting in nothing. Atheism is a non belief in a god.
And that’s it. That’s all. Atheists are not scary people. (Although their very existence, as proud unbelievers, can be challenging to those of the theistic bent). They are not aliens from another planet or visitors who stayed from an alternate universe. They are human beings, like the rest of us, who just happened to not believe in the existence of a god, usually, in the west, the involved Biblegod found in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, translated over and over again until they are read in modern English.
There are (basically) two different types of atheist/atheism.
Strong atheism=There is no god.
Weak atheism=I don’t believe there is a god.
Unfortunately for the theists, the believers in a god, science is leading us to a place that makes god redundant. If you are being honest and reasonable, you will see the involved god of the scriptures is being pushed into smaller and smaller spaces and soon, there will be no room for him at all, and he will be interred in the graveyard of dead gods, as all the other deceased, forgotten deities of the past. So, although atheists are the most hated group of people in the USA, and officially non-existent in the Middle Eastern countries, they seem to be, ultimately, on the winning side.

Why do I put ‘they’ and not ‘we’ when I talk of atheist? Why do I say ‘Biblegod’ when I mean the creator god of the scriptures?
Because I am not an atheists. I am a deist. I have no problem with looking at the sky or a tiny insect or a flower or a baby’s smile or a cat’s eyes and seeing a great mind behind it all. The unmoved mover, the almighty watchmaker who wound the universe up and let it go, then left it be.
But that’s for another posting. . .

MISANTHROPIC DEITY ALERT

Suppose Biblegod was real?
Suppose everything written in the Bible happened as it said, ie the earth is only six thousand to ten thousand years old, man and the dinosaurs were contemporaries, Moses was handed the Ten Commandments, the wandering in the desert, the Kingdom of David and Solomon, all were true. Then we come to the reason for it all; Jesus. Because of our sin, inherited through the actions of our original parents eating the fruit of the tree, Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice, to die and take our sins away. So we could get to heaven.
Suppose the only evidence for any of this being true was what was written and bound into an ancient book that is so ambiguous it has produced so many diverse ideas that there are dozens of different sects all claiming to be the one true church?
Suppose the evidence was overwhelming for the other side; showed that the Bible and Biblegod were not true? That rock dating, fossils, the light from the stars, the way animals are today, everything points to the world being very ancient, millions of years old, and our first parents being a form of ape that walked upright on the savannah? And that logic tells you that this evidence does not point to there being any need for any atonement. After all, if it’s proven that Adam and Eve are just one set of Bronze Age men’s creation myths, why is there need for the blood sacrifice of Jesus?
Suppose countless millions are condemned to hell for following their own understanding, given the evidence for this understanding?
That millions upon millions are being thrown into hell for believing the wrong way, or being atheists for the simple reason logic tells us that Biblegod is just an invention from the minds of ancient men?
Is this fair? Biblegod loved us enough to send his son to die for us, and all we have to do is believe. That’s it. But he has piled up tons of evidence that lead to doubting, to outright rejecting, tales from the Bible. Why doesn’t he end the argument, and come back? If he loved us enough to endure agony for us, a quick, unambiguous appearance at say the United Nation, or a personal appearance in everyone’s lives at one time, would sort it out.
I mean, anyone would think that was how he had arranged it. That he wanted the majority to suffer in hell, and because of this made it damn near impossible for the truth found in the Bible to be heard over the cacophony of other beliefs and no beliefs, scientific discovery and reason-led inquiry.
Well, he did.
Matthew chapter thirteen, verse eleven to sixteen, for example. Gentle Jesus, lover of the world, wanted people to not understand, no matter how hard they tried, so they couldn’t be saved. And Jesus=Biblegod.
Even an old people-mistruster like me had the chance to save humanity, I would do. No exceptions. But the creator of the world, who made the tree of knowledge and left it where the first people could get ahold of the fruits, doesn’t want to share his heaven with the majority, wants them to burn or be eaten by the worm that never dies.
No exceptions. if the Fundie Christian is right, then all freethinkers, who in the name of reason cannot in all honesty believe the word in the Bible because everything point to it being made up, along with those who follow god in other names, will suffer endlessly after death.
And this Biblegod, who made it so, billions burning and being eaten alive because everything tells them what they are reading in the Bible is a fairytale, is supposed to be a god of love.
Maybe it’s me, but there is something delightfully, attractively misanthropic in such a view. I’m going to give you an eternal truth that will save you from suffering but then I’m going to make it very difficult for you to believe in that truth because I WANT YOU TO SUFFER FOR EVER!

MORE FROM THE MARTYDOM FRONT

Shirley Chaplin. Who’s that then? A Christian nurse who has been told she can no longer wear her cross/crucifix on a chain around her neck because it interferes with health and safety regulations. For instance, what if an elderly and/or confused (maybe coming around from an op) patient grabbed at a dangling chain and hurt the nurse or herself? Or suppose the chain links have a bug living cosily on them and the patients and other nurses catch ahold of it? MRSA is causing a lot of deadly harm on the wards and it’s policy to get everyone to wash their hands before going onto the ward and there are no longer lending library services on the wards. She said no, she wants to carry on wearing her chain. So she has been taken off front line nursing duties on the ward and put in admin by the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, where she has been a nurse for ‘about thirty years’ and has never before had any problems. She is retiring soon and wants to be allowed to wear her crucifix on her chain as she is a true Christian and feels she is being persecuted for not being allowed to wear it. In case you’re thinking ‘bloody not fair, pc gone mad’, she was given a choice to wear her crucifix as a lapel badge but she said no.
It’s a health and safety matter. I know health and safety goes too far the other way, with conkers being banned, home cooked food being banned from school fêtes, steeple clocks remaining unwound up and Christmas lights not being put up because of the wrong kind of ladder being the only one available, but there is no way this woman is being persecuted or singled out for unfair treatment because she is a Christian, as she insists.
On top of this, any Christian knows wearing a crucifix is not necessary for Christians. I was one for almost a quarter of a century and never wore any adornments (the first church I attended described this wearing of jewellery as somehow unchristian and it rubbed off on me). It says in the Bible that a person’s faith should be shown through their actions, and not what they wear, especially women.
All this Shirley Chaplin wants to do is cause a fuss, get attention.
Now, this country is far from being, as some not believers may call it, a Christian country. It is a secular democracy. But there are bishops in the house of Lords and whenever a prominent Christian (usually of the official CofE Protestant bent) says something, people in authority take notice. I bet a pound to a pile of horse droppings that those who have never seen the inside of a church will step up and take her side, and another bet, it will end up forcing the hospital to review it’s policy, just like Nadia Eweida who wanted to wear her cross and caused the massive British Airways company to back down.
And now, to get to my point; I wear a triquetra (look it up, you’re not stupid) in memory of Jessica Moonbeam (because her first name in numerology adds up to three) on a chain around my neck. Suppose I got a job (ha, ha, ha!) which entailed close contact with ill or disabled human beings (sure I will)? Suppose the elf and safety johnnies said ‘we don’t mind you wearing your triquetra, but not on a chain because it might result in harm being done’. Then suppose I kicked up a fuss and complained and cried ‘persecution’ because it was in memory of a dear feline baby who died. I would be forced to exit stage right to the sound of the scornful laughter of the participants/spectators in this great play we call life, and rightly so. So, why, because she is making her stand in the name of her religion, is it all right to not mock, but to defend her?
No way is any participant in any theistic belief persecuted while this kind of thing is going on. End of discussion.

SONG TO END THE WEEKEND ON : STICK IT OUT

This weekend’s song is the Comic Relief number from 1993, ‘Stick It Out’, by ‘Right Said Fred & Friends’. Written by Richard and Fred Fairbrass and Rob Manzoli, it reached number four in the charts back in the February of ‘93.

Strangely compelling, a lively tune and interesting lyrics with a video that goes with it containing all the red-nose tipped exuberance we’ve come to expect from the Comic Relief songs. You can have fun spotting the stars who give their entertaining all for Comic Relief.
And no, I don’t know what the title actually means. Stick it out? Go the whole hog? Put up with it? A double entente?
Anyhow,
As always,
Enjoy and
A good week whether from the top of a tall erection (building, building, it’s a building!) you shout in their direction or not.

THE CHOICE, THE CHOICE

Sometimes, you get Fundies saying that homosexuality is a choice and can be cured.
First of all, that isn’t logic. I’ll give you an example; suppose I choose to read books about murderers and nothing else. I don’t have to be cured. It’s a choice. I love reading/ reading about ‘His Dark Materials’ by Philip Pullman. so I choose to read. I don’t have to be cured. It isn’t all illness. It’s a choice. Get what I mean?
Second of all, homosexuality isn’t a choice. If it is, then to all those Fundies;
When, exactly, did you make a concious choice to be heterosexual?
If you are totally honest with yourself, you will say, I was born this way. I was born straight. So, why not give that same right to homosexuals, or bisexuals, like me, who can easily fall in love (and I have done) with members of each gender? (I don’t know how it works, or if it’s a common event, but I seem to fall for male female, male female, one then the other).
By choice, I mean, you can decide whether you want to read crime books, or ‘His Dark Materials’ or becoming a Christian. But deciding that being straight is for you, or being gay is for you. Never. It doesn’t work that way. It just doesn’t.
Unless any Fundie out there can stand up and say ‘I chose to be straight, I remember making the choice, just like I chose to become a Christian’ and say it honestly, then they can’t say that being gay is a choice.
I know what you might be thinking; Yes, but straightness is the default, and any other way (being gay) is a deviation and therefore not inbuilt but a choice. But who says heterosexuality is the default? That’s right; heterosexuals. Who have made the rules for the past five thousand years or more. Being straight is no more the default than being right-handed or white skinned or blue eyed or Anglo Saxon male. It’s just that those types have held the positions of power, and made the laws and rules. They have made it the default position. Let’s play a game, where we are in an alternate universe where homosexuals (of both genders) have been the dominate power for thousands of years. And a Fundie in a meeting stands up and says that heterosexuality is a crime and a sin, a disgusting weakness, a stubborn choice deviating from what normal people do. And hetties (nickname for heterosexuals) are the perverts who are crying for more than acceptance and equal rights, but want everyone to be the same as them, they are dirty deviants who can only breed like animals, but they shouldn’t be allowed to bring children up because they infect their offspring with dangerous, subversive, hettie ideas. Ugh!
Yeah, I know. It sounds offensive. But logically, in this alternate universe, the gay way is the right way, and the hettie way is a deviation, a perversion, and the hetties should be kept in their place and there should be kind loving organisation that try and heal them from their deviation and back to the normal, homosexual way.
That is, I truly believe, the only difference; Straights have made the laws for so long, and because of this it’s gays who are the deviants.
So, next time you think ‘gay is a choice’ remember, when did you choose to be straight?

GOD’S WORD TO HUMANITY

Eight years ago today, god spoke to his people and they reacted.

AND THIS IS WHAT IT’S SAYING

Of course, it’s just possible that the theists mocking evolution comes from the fact they don’t truly understand what it is.
Absolutely blind fear at being tossed into the nasty place for thinking any other way might also have a lot to do with it, but I’ve covered that in a previous posting, so I will try and help any theist out there by explaining what evolution is about.
By evolution I mean Darwinian evolution by natural selection, which is what the evolution v creationism argument centres around. More than one theist, in all seriousness, uses the counter argument, how come animals don’t evolve today, how come evolution doesn’t make animals bigger, stronger faster, et al. If you honestly believe this, you theists, then prepare to be challenged.
You see, evolution is not about making a super race of creatures. We aren’t all growing to a certain point where we will becoming like gods. That is not evolution. All evolution is is this;
An animal is born with a certain genetic trait, say a longer neck or bigger eyes or a sharper beak. That helps it reach for food or gain a mate easier than it’s brothers or sisters. Therefore, that one has more chance of carrying it’s genes over to the next generation. My favourite (fictional) example is, suppose a bird is born with a bone structure light enough for it to fly but strong enough to deflect the hunter’s bullet. That one will meet another bird and they will pass on this trait to the next generation, so while the non-deflecting birds are shot out of the sky*the deflecting bird will be able to reproduce more and more of it’s kind, and eventually there will be more deflecting than non-deflecting birds.
To use an example which is factual. Take a rat colony; poison it.** One rat will just happen to be born with a genetic trait that makes it immune to the poison. That one will have off spring which are also immune and they breed like rabbits (or rats) and they will all be immune to this poison. Hundreds of ‘em.
When the black plague swept down across Europe, some people were born with a genetic trait that made them immune to catching it. These people were more likely to pass this trait onto their offspring. One of the side effects of this trait is an immunity to catching the AIDS virus. I bet you didn’t know that. That’s a fact, is that, and the only reason why AIDS is ravaging the African content, whose inhabitants weren’t subject to attacks by the fourteenth century black plague, and therefore didn’t have the chance to use any genetic trait, and why Europe, with it’s immunity, isn’t. Because all those who didn’t catch the plague had more offspring than those who didn’t survive to reproduce, and the immunity against the plaque, and down the years, AIDS, worked into our systems.
You get it now? Evolution according to natural selection means that a certain member of a certain species will, thanks to inherited traits, have a better chance to live, and spread it’s genes. That natural selection comes in from the species with the trait survives and reproduces and out breeds those without that trait. And then this certain species will split off from members of the species without this trait and eventually down the line millions of years, the two species will split off so they can’t reproduce with one another any more. They become two separate species. That’s it.
So, you creationist types, anyone who tells you that evolution means we are getting better and better and eventually will evolve into being a master race is using evolution wrongly. Evolution doesn’t have a goal, it just happens. Some creature will eventually evolve into another creature. That’s where us humans come from, evolving due to one creature millions of years back having a trait for standing upright. (This is, of course, a very simplified version.) One of these primates happened to be born with a brain capable of processing more information, and then we come to self awareness. The primates without this trait became the apes and monkeys, while we are homo sapien sapiens (thinking, or reasoning, man). We aren’t, as a theist might mockingly put it, a monkey that got lucky. Luck doesn’t enter into it. Natural selection is not luck, or accident, it’s genetic traits giving the next generation a fighting chance in their element.
To explain more clearly; who knows, it’s just possible that a homo sapien might be born with a trait that puts them on four legs, making them able to outrun muggers and rapists and other nasty types out to harm. Then that will spread it’s genes onto the next generation and in a few million years we might end up back in the trees. It’s possible, because that’s how natural selection works. No one could say we are progressing back to the trees, but that’s because you have an incomplete understanding of the truth of evolution.
I’ve got to say it; I apologise on behalf of freethinkers world round for taking the easy way out and mocking creationist theists, and not explaining ourselves correctly, so you can understand.

*Aren’t human being totally evil? Aren’t they sodding evil?
**Totally irredeemably evil, all of us.

A QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS

I recall a glimmer of writing something very similar to this in a previous posting; If so, a good idea really deserves repeating. I know, I really must write the final in ‘And the Why Is’ series as to why people become and remain Christians.
Here’s a quick question for any Christian* who may be reading this.
If your god told you to, would you kill for him?
If not, why not? Doesn’t it saying that loving him is the first and most important commanded, and being holy as he is holy is one of his greatest rules? If you say, no because Jesus wouldn’t want it, well, didn’t Jesus talk about a king wiping out a whole city for not believing in him? And didn’t he say he and his father (Biblegod) are one? Didn’t he also slip in somewhere that the law was the law and should be obeyed until the end of time? So, what Biblegod wants, Jesus wants. And Biblegod in the Old Testament sent his people after a whole load of people who he reckoned should die for their sins.
So, if you god sent a message somehow that instructed you to kill a bunch of sinners, say those who attended a gay club or centre, or the group of unmarried mothers who meet at a nursery every day? Or those behind the atheist bus adverts? Would you do it? Seriously. Think about it.
I’m mentioning this because I recall when I was a Christian and attended this church we used to have like moral dilemma evenings, not services for the unbelievers but meetings for the saved. And this was one of the questions asked. Of course, everyone said ‘no, of course not’ and this was safely buried under tea and vacuous chat within minutes. But just suppose, you Christian, were the chosen one, chosen by Biblegod Almighty wipe out a local nest of sin? Suppose you were at prayer and you felt the idea, in a voice you knew, due to familiarity,was the Lord’s, coming into your mind, and you got a conviction in your heart, to pick up a weapon and kill in the Lord’s name?
If you still say ‘no, I wouldn’t', even if it was a direct commanded from the Almighty, then congratulations, you are on the way to reasoned thought, and no longer blinded and defended by a Biblical covering, you are sneaking thinking for yourself under the radar of Biblical philosophy. If you’re willing to disobey the Lord’s command on this, because something inside you, deeper and with a greater hold than the words you follow with your whole being, tells you killing is wrong, then you should be willing to disobey him on everything. Go on, it’s not so hard, go for it. If the fear of hellfire is cancelled out due to a personal moral code, it can be on other levels. Refuse to do things like thinking that Bertrand Russell is in hell, or that a good person can be good and not a Christian. You are on the rocky, uneven, frightening but ultimately satisfactory road that is allowing an idea into your head instead of crushing it because your god might not like it. To freethought.
If you say ‘yes, I would, I would massacre anyone the Lord told me to, wipe the blood off my knife and wait for his return to take me to glory’, well, oh dear. Just that; oh dear. Best not worry about it, and stick to the passages that say sin comes from harming others, in the safe places. Keep repeating; ‘god will judge, not me, god will judge, not me, and those fantasies I’m having of bursting into my neighbour’s house and knifing her to death because she has a child and no man around are harmful to my own soul and god wouldn’t like them.’ Better still, talk to someone, anyone, about your thoughts. Maybe someone in your church will be reasonable enough to get help for you, before you end up with life in a hospital for the criminally insane** and someone ends up dead.

*In case you’re wondering, ‘this sin-soaked Christianaphobic misanthropic bitch is picking on us Christians, I’d like to see her do it with the Muslims,’ well, I don’t need to ask any Muslim this question, the answer is ‘yes’ as the headlines everyday prove. And with this ‘yes’ comes the disgraceful spectacle of the Western liberal left kowtowing to them in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-fascism’.
**But suppose our metaphorical fundamentalist friend kills, and claims it was Biblegod’s word, telling him to wipe out sin? Why should he be found mentally unwell? And if Biblegod tells someone to build a hospital or set up a leper colony or open a school, why is it considered a true message? Biblegod is perfectly capable of telling his people to kill as often as he is to heal. Who are we, sinful mortals, to disobey his word, to lock someone away for doing what the Lord told them, even if the outcome is ultimately fatal to someone else?

BIBLICAL TRUTHS

When a murderer says the devil (Satan) influenced them to kill, everyone assumes yep, that’s just what the devil WOULD do. After all, according to the Gospel of John chapter eight verse forty-four, the devil is a murderer and the father of lies.
Thing is, Satan hardly killed anyone according to the Bible.
It’s true, it is. Read it, read your Bible. The only people Satan killed in the Bible were in the Book of Job, the family and workers of Job, even then he did it because Biblegod pushed him into it, as part of a bet. That’s right. Satan betting with Biblegod to see how much punishment Job would take before he snapped and cursed god. Truth is, the only Bible killings than can be pinned on Satan were those with Biblegod’s full knowledge and consent, over a bet. (Actually, Satan was winning that bet, until Biblegod cheated and threatened the wavering unfortunate back into line by reminding him that Biblegod was the creator of everything, so he’d better behave, or else). Then, he turns up again in the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew chapter four, verses one to eleven, trying to turn Jesus away from his mission. He doesn’t actually physically harm Jesus, or even threaten him. All he does is promise him food and riches if Jesus will obey him. And that’s about it for appearances of the devil.
In fact, apart from Jesus’ words already mentioned above, and the Biblegod bet, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that Satan is a killer.
No, all you Bible-following theists. Satan is not evil. Satan was a bit of used car salesman type. Sleazy, maybe. But he never independently harms nor causes anyone to be harmed in the Bible. If he can’t talk you around to his way of thinking he gives up.
Biblegod, however. . .
From the Book of Genesis, chapter six verse five to chapter eight verse twenty-two, when Biblegod wipes out every living thing except one drunkard and his wife and family, as well as two of each animal, because the people would not obey him, all the way through Joshua (now Joshua is a bloody tale of massacres in the promised land, whole cities put to the sword, including tiny babies,
so the Chosen people of Biblegod would not be sullied by mixing with the locals. Biblegod, who created everything, was so unsure about his ability to keep his people in line he ordered end to end massacres to see they weren’t led astray by false doctrine) and onwards. Even a prophet who was lied to and cheated into disobeying Biblegod got his by way of a lion in the First Book of kings, chapter thirteen, verses one to twenty-six. And Uzzah was zapped for trying to save the Ark of Covenant from falling and hitting the ground in The First Book of Chronicles, chapter thirteen, nine and ten.
There are too many examples that describe Biblegod’s murderous ways. He occasionally kills himself, but mostly, like some Mafia don, he gives the order to someone else to push a button on someone. Usually whole cities. Usually for capricious, selfish, petty reasons.
The conclusion; Jesus is supposed to be the truth, amongst other attributes. He was slightly obsessed with telling everyone he was truth. He even mentioned it to Pilate when on trial for his life the Gospel of John, chapter eighteen verse thirty-seven. (Pilate’s philosophical remark in response, ‘and what is truth?’ even shut Jesus up.) So why did he lie when he said it was the devil who was a murder, when in reality the biggest murderer, to the extent of genocide, in the pages of the Bible, is Biblegod himself.
But then, to be fair, Jesus would say that, wouldn’t he? He’s not going to give his enemy a good press, is he? Even if it means faking it.

I know what you Bible-following theists are saying even now: ‘Biblegod wouldn’t allow the devil to harm anyone, he protects his people from Satanic harm.’ I know, I’ve been there. In that case, why the heck did Jesus state that the devil was a murderer when he wasn’t?

MORE THOUGHTS ON A SUBJECT+

I know I’ve sort of covered this already in a previous posting, but well there is more than one angle to cover stuff from.
Sometimes you get theists saying ‘if you’re an atheist, where do you get your morals from? Why don’t you go on a killing spree because you don’t think there’s a god making sure you behave?’
Surely this can be turned around; suppose it can be proven, scientifically, without a doubt, that Biblegod (the involved god of the theistic believer no matter what their flavour of belief) doesn’t exist. I know, I know it’s not possible to prove this, you have to use reason and logic that shows you it’s more or less likely that he is just made up, like all the other gods. But just let’s imagine it’s proven that he doesn’t exist. Does that mean all you theists will lose your moral way?
If god doesn’t exist, what would stop you theists from going on a killing spree? Surely it isn’t just the notion that a Father Christmas of a god, seeing if you’ve been naughty or nice, stops you from murdering and raping and stealing and performing other anti-social actions against your fellow human beings?
If your answer is ‘no, I wouldn’t harm anyone even if Biblegod didn’t exist’ well, why not? For the same reason us atheists/freethinkers don’t harm others. Because it’s built into us that harming others harms us as a species in general. It feels wrong because we have evolved to survive long enough to pass our genes on onto the next generation, ensuring they live on, and if we went ahead and killed and stole excreta, we would be wiping out our genes, and ultimately our future.* Welcome to the human race and the world of scientific freethought.
If your answer is ‘yes, I would. I would go on an anarchic orgy of mass destruction if Biblegod was proven to be false’ well, bloody hell. That’s all. Bloody hell. There’s more than just slavish belief going on in your mind. You ought to get treatment before it leaks out and around that wall of fear you have built up on account of your god and you go ahead with your desires. You are actually in the minority, and if you truly would kill your neighbour and/or rape his or her wife or husband if god wasn’t holding a break on you, then that’s why we have non-theistic, secular laws. But get help, seriously. For the sake of humanity.

As for my personal existence, I’m still in an agony of loss over my (ex)girlfriend. I miss her so much. But I have to respect her wishes, and for me to reach out in an attempt to regain her would be unwanted attention and heading into the dangerous territory of the stalker. And that’s a place I have no interest in ending up, for her sake and mine. Sometimes you have to love enough to let go.

*Another good reason leads us to the marvellous philosophy labelled Hobbesian reciprocation, which basically goes, ‘if you go around freely hurting others,without any consideration for them, then there is no logic reason why others can’t hurt you.’ Or ‘Don’t harm others because then there’s no reason why they can’t hurt you back’ I believe this is one of the best-reasoned and excellent philosophies, and a great basis for non-theistic morals, and can be correctly used in an argument with a theist who asks ‘where do you get your morals from?’

FACE TO FACE PROMISE

I’ve been asked why I can no longer believe in Biblegod. The simple answer; he has never given me any evidence he exists. If the god of the Bible was real, he would be as involved as his followers say he is. There would be some sign of him. I don’t mean in the shape of the mountains or the majesty of a tree or the beauty of a kitten’s purr. That just says that some creator at one time set things going. I mean like in the Bible when he appeared and made in unambiguously clear he was THE god. Yes, he was very busy on earth at one time, with him burning bushes and sitting on mountain tops and setting sacrificial mounds afire when Baal couldn’t. Then he appeared as a man and walked amongst us, taught and healed and generally involved himself. Just like Zeus and Krishna and all the other gods appeared to mortals in ancient writings. But never mind that for now. Pretend the Bible is true. Why isn’t he around now? If he appeared to Thomas and then later on Paul why doesn’t he appear to people now?
Let’s try it. Try praying for Biblegod to reveal himself; if he loves you enough to sacrifice himself to see you are no longer eternally damned by the laws he made himself, and truly doesn’t want you to suffer in hellfire for eternity, then he would appear to you. The shepherd of the flock who went out of his way to rescue the lost sheep, that’s Jesus/Biblegod. And Biblegod knows everything. He knows that atheists/freethinkers don’t believe he is real because we have no evidence, he has never shown himself to us. He knows that atheists/freethinkers are hardened unbelievers, he would know that we are not to be convinced by a set of contradictory writings, we need the real thing. To save us from the eternal punishment he doesn’t want us to suffer.
If Biblegod exists, he would show himself to us. It’s only fair. Reason knows all the praying I did for him to make himself known. If he was real and he knew my faith was waning and he didn’t want me to head for hell, he would have appeared.
All right, when he was in Jesus mode he said he would disappear and he would send the Holy Spirit */qwp;l* to be our counsellor but after saying this he put in an appearance to Saul who became Paul. Why not today? He could appear. He can do anything and everything. All arguments would be at an end, all bets would be off. Hell would be empty. Salvation would be universal. Why does he remain hidden, leaving us with ancient writings that are so ambiguous there are dozens of different sects all claiming to be the one true Church and condemning all the others to hell, all based on the same words?
I’ll say it more clearly;
IF GOD LOVED US ENOUGH TO DIE FOR US TO SAVE US FROM HELL, WHY IN REASON’S NAME DOESN’T HE SAVE US ALL FROM HELL BY APPEARING TODAY?
Here’s a thought; could it be he doesn’t exist? Could Biblegod be the absent god, the god who isn’t there, because he is just like all the other gods found in ancient fables and for some reason the Bible has caught on while most of the other gods found in ancient writings have been dismissed as ancients man’s attempt to deal with and make sense of what he saw as the mysteries around him, and discarded as fiction?
It makes logical sense.

*Lyra Tab strikes again!

OFFENSIVENESS OR WHAT?

You get Christians and other believers in the imaginary friend in the sky saying that anyone who says anything against them are offensive and meant to offend.
When a fundie district nurse offends and distresses one of her elderly charges by offering her Bible tracts and to pray for her, to be thoroughly disgusted and see to it she is challenged is ‘political correctness gone mad’. When we look at a woman in a burqua and express hatred of an idea which would force a fellow member of the human race into such restricted straights, in the name of a god, that is being offensive and disrespectful. We are meant to accept and be touched when someone wants to pray for us, when someone shares god’s love. To act any other way is offensive. It offends believers.
You see, when they say anything about anyone else, like the Bishop of Rome saying homosexuality is as big a problem to the world as climate change, or the evangelicals and Catholics* who wrote to the General Teaching Council to force them to water down their promise to treat all children equally, which could result in outwardly gay seeming children being bullied and teacher not being as bothered about it, and the Bishop of Rochester insisting that gays should repent and change, they are doing it in a spirit of godly love. They are saying it to save a sin soaked world from01** eternal damnation. We are meant to respect or/and at least tolerate their ramblings.
But when we speak up on behalf of our atheism or freethought, that is offensive. To say ‘there is no god, live with it’ is causing distress to believers. They feel offended, upset, got at.
Got it yet? The believers can do and say whatever they like, but if us freethinkers protest, we are being diverse, or offensive, we are saying it just to cause trouble for believers, and we should be made to stop.
And yet surely condemning someone to hell for something they might do that is condemned in a book of ancient stories is the most offensive thing someone can say. ‘If you don’t do what this god says in this book here, you will burn for ever in eternal torment’. That offensive enough for you?

*Evangelical and Catholics? Banding together? They should look into their history books, look up the truth. These two different slants on Christianity once burned members of their opposite sect with godly enthusiasm and Christian joy. And even today, on some parts of the planet Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants hate one another and are still killing one another. Even in this country, where burning people would have the Health and Safety jokers on your case, the Protestant evangelicals and the RC’s are suspicious of one another and insist that the other lot are off to hell.
**This mistake was left in as a tribute to my baby kitten Lyra Tab who was jumping all over the keyboard and using my hands as a teething ring while I was typing this.