Why I have stopped participating in religous blog discussions

To those of you who have been used in the past to my comments on various blogs for which religious belief is at the heart, I have decided that it serves so little purpose as to be a waste of time.  Most of the mainstream blogs are close knit communities of likeminded belevers, who use these blogs to reassure themselves of their faith.  They usually only welcome 'civilised' non-believers as guests in order to reinforce their own sense of belonging - It's harder to remain cohesive unless there are 'outsiders' to fend off. 

Too many times when atheists have commented and produced strong arguments against what they see as illogical or unsustainable views, the faithful band together and become ever more illogical and fervent in defending the undefendable.

However, my participation has resulted in some helpful  (to me) outcomes;

• I am even better informed about religious belief in general, and the various forms of Christianity in particular.
• I think I have a clearer understanding of what it is that makes many people more prone to belief in supernatural cause/influence/purpose
• I have gained a greater understanding and acceptance of what it is to be a Humanist
• I am convinced that there is no higher purpose to life.  This is all there is. And it no longer troubles me

If I had one, would I press a button that would instantly end my life?

I find it curious that the people I know who believe in an afterlife tend to be the most horrified by death.  Surely they should look forward to the afterlife?  It is the people who are left behind, in whose emotional lives there appears a great hole, who deserve our grief. Yet many articles that cover violent death by suicide bombers and others focus exclusively on the victim(s) and the perpetrator(s), all of whom are no longer with us to hear.

As an atheist I am as convinced as I can be that when we die there is nothing.  We cease to exist.  I know that thought terrifies a lot of people.  But I don't feel that terror.  I find the prospect of ceasing to exist quite comforting.  Nothing to regret, no 'if-only's, no knowledge of deeply troubling things of which one was mercifully unaware as a human being.

All one becomes is a memory in the minds of those we leave behind, and within about 3 generations even that fades to no more than a couple of anecdotes.  And so our footprint in the sand is finally erased.  Even famous people are only remembered for what other people say and write about them.  Do we really know what Elizabeth Ist was like to be with,or how she spoke to those with whom she was intimate?  We know a great deal about her, but only as observed, imperfectly, by others; and by what she chose herself to let us know about her.

Does it worry me that my life could end in a few seconds, and all the knowledge that I have amassed over many years, the friendships and loves I have found, the relationships I have had; all immediately ceases except as an imperfect memory in other people's minds; with the things that only I can know, or things that I choose not to reveal about myself ,all dying with me, never to be known. In a word: 'No'.

And so, would I press that button right now?  Hmm...  I have to say 'that depends'...  If I could do so without causing distress and hardship to those close to me who I leave behind, then the answer would be 'Yes'.  But life just ain't that simple.  I find it curious that what most keeps me resigned to staying alive is the horror of what ending my life would do to people left behind, even though, by not existing, I would never experience their pain.

Strange thing, empathy....

There is no God?

Recently I've been thinking again about ways that Humanists and Believers can accommodate each others' views, and live side by side, disagreeing but respecting their differing view on the fundamental reasons for our existence.

For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence.  I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing.  But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe. 

I have to say that I have failed to find anything.  On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything.  I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire.  One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative. 

Is that aphorism really valid at all though?  Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics?  And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot?  If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?

To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant.  I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this.  As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress.  I record them for future reference.  I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.

Nietsche was right. There is no God.

OK, so it's an attention grabbing headline.  But having just re-read some of Nietsche's writings I am even more impressed by his ideas, which were truly innovative when he wrote them. 
For many this is a bleak conclusion, and they find it very hard to believe that there really is fundamentally nothing more to life than to reproduce and die.
But this need not be such a bleak conclusion if one accepts life for what it is, and models one's way of life on that premise.  It is possible to lead a full and satisfying life under this truth. 
Religion is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it is not something which it is either necessary nor desirable to try to oust immediately.  There will always be some who need the security of religious belief, and who will never be convinced of the alternative, which is arguably intellectually more challenging. 
However, religious extremism remains one of the major problems facing humankind.  And supplanting one  religion with another religion does not solve the problem.  There will always be those who seek violence, and whilst there are religions there will always be those who use it as the irrational justification for their acts.  Humanism does not breed suicide bombers...
I seem to be going though a phase when I feel particularly negatively towards religion.  I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm frustrated that people are so deeply indoctrinated that any amount of contrary evidence is dismissed, at the same time that any amount of supportive heresay and unreliable witness reports are unquestioningly accepted.  Far too frequently believers put up their own 'straw men' to discredit a non-religious view - often 'staw men' that fundamentaly misunderstand or misinterpret what Atheists actually believe.  I admit that many non-believers make no real effort to understand religion in any great depth, but it's my experience that the more conscientious atheists frequently tend to understand the religion of those with whom they argue to a greater depth than those who defend their religion.
What to do about all this though?  Hmm...

Definitions Revisited - How the Non-Religious describe themselves

Having been involved in a number of discussions lately about what it is to be a Humanist I thought I'd remind myself, and any others who read this, of some useful definitions, as defined by the British Humanist Association (BHA).

"Agnostic" in normal usage today means "don't know" or having an open mind about religious belief, especially the existence of God. It can also mean something much firmer: that nothing is known, or can possibly be known, about God or supernatural phenomena, and that it is wrong to claim otherwise. That is the original meaning of the word, and 19th century "agnostics" lived their lives atheistically in practice - that is, without any reference to any concepts of gods or the supernatural.

"Atheist" includes those who reject a belief in the existence of God or gods and those who simply choose to live without God or gods. Along with this will usually go disbelief in the soul, an afterlife, and all other religious beliefs.

"Freethinker" is used of those who reject authority and tradition in matters of all belief, including religious belief, preferring to think for themselves. It was a very popular term in the 19th century and is still used in some European countries by non-religious organisations to describe himself.

"Humanist" is used today to mean those who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. A humanist may embrace all or most of the other approaches introduced here, and in addition humanists believe that moral values follow on from human nature and experience in some way. Humanists base their moral principles on reason (which leads them to reject the idea of any supernatural agency), on shared human values and respect for others. They believe that people should work together to improve the quality of life for all and make it more equitable. Humanism is a full philosophy, "life stance" or worldview, rather than being about one aspect of religion, knowledge, or politics.

"Non-religious" – as well as those who are uninterested in religion or who reject it, this category may include the vague or unaffiliated, those who are only nominally or culturally affiliated to a religious tradition, and the superstitious.

"Rationalist" in this context, describing a non-religious belief, means someone who prioritises the use of reason and considers reason crucial in investigating and understanding the world. Rationalists usually reject religion on the grounds that it is unreasonable. (Rationalism is in contradistinction to fideism – positions which rely on or advocate "faith" in some degree).

"Skeptic" today usually means someone who doubts the truth of religious and other supernatural or "paranormal" beliefs, typically on rationalist grounds. ('Skeptic' also has a special philosophical meaning: someone who rejects or is skeptical with regard to all claims to knowledge).

"Secularists" believe that laws and public institutions (for example, the education system) should be neutral as between alternative religions and beliefs. Almost all humanists are secularists, but religious believers may also take a secularist position which calls for freedom of belief, including the right to change belief and not to believe. Secularists seek to ensure that persons and organisations are neither privileged nor disadvantaged by virtue of their religion or lack of it. They believe secular laws – those that apply to all citizens – should be the product of a democratic process, and should not be determined, or unduly influenced, by religious leaders or religious texts. The word "secularism" was once used to describe a non-religious worldview generally but this meaning is now very old fashioned.

Hatch, Match and Despatch

Yesterday evening I attended a meeting of the Central London Humanists.  The event was a talk by a long serving Humanist 'Celebrant'.  It was particularly appropriate timing for me, in the light of a recent discussion on a Christian blog.  The author of the blog wrote about Remembrance Sunday, and how uplifting he found the whole thing.  He ended his post with the following:-

"All of sudden I felt pity for those who would desire the removal of Christianity from such occasions and who would exclude themselves from this type of collective worship.  I cannot conceive how a community could even begin to mark such an occasion without the Church, and of course God Himself.  For me, it was the revelation that humanists, secularists, and atheists might never understand or appreciate the essentiality of Christianity and the wonderful meaning this brings to such occasions."

I'm sure it was not intended, but several commenters found this hugely patronising to Humanists, and betrayed a complete lack of understanding.  It's been my experience that most religious people think they know exactly what a Humanist is and is not, and depressingly often they are wrong.  Such complaints as "without God anything is permissible" are not only misguided, but frankly insulting.

I will try to get a copy of the transcript of the speakers notes from yesterday evening.  It was abundantly clear from the anecdotes he revealed, that Humanist ceremonies are at least as emotive and meaningful as their religious equivalents.  Indeed I would suggest they are almost invariably more so, as those most directly affected get to discuss with the celebrant exactly how they would like the ceremony to be conducted.  This results in a very personal and ultimately deeply satisfying experience.

One of the problems we have is terminology.  For instance 'Celebrant' is a rather awkward title, as is 'Officiant' which it replaced.  One can't use the term 'Minister', or 'Chaplain'.  Maybe we need another new word for this and many other terms?

Humanist ceremonies are not legally binding in England, though they are other parts of the UK, particularly in Scotland.  Hence there is still a reliance on Registrars for the appropriate legal documentation. There is a campaign under way now to bring England into line with the rest of the UK, and have the same legal status as the Church regarding these ceremonies.  Watch this space!

What happens when a nation becomes secular?

I could not resist reproducing the following snippet from the today's NSS newsletter:

According to polls, Norwegians define themselves (depending on how you interpret their definition) as up to 71% non-believers.

What has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years. Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.

Interesting....

Atheists can't think for themselves

This guy has done a series of videos on Atheism vs. Christianity. Interestingly it's not immediately obvious where he's coming from. Judge for yourself. Actually this is one of the more obvious ones. Have a look at his other videos.  Actually, now I come to think of it, he looks uncannily like one of my previous bosses...

Is human morality a result of evolution or God given?

I discovered a fascinating study at the "Trends in Cognitive Science" website. The following is an extract. The full report is at the link, including sources. Click on the title above to go to the link.
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"

"...

For some, there is no morality without religion. For others, religion is merely one way of expressing and legitimating one's moral intuitions. Religion can be linked to morality in different ways: moral principles are either decided by gods or by ancestors, or saints and holy individuals provide a model to be followed. Alternatively, gods and ancestors are regarded as interested parties that pay attention to what people do and people thus feel that their moral choices are never merely a private matter.

It is important to distinguish explicitly held religious beliefs and affiliations from religious intuitions. Bering, for example, presents experimental evidence that even non-religious subjects intuitively consider some mental states and processes, such as emotions, more likely to continue after death than others, such as hunger. Bloom argues that all humans are intuitive dualists in the sense that we feel our self to be the owner of the body, but we are not the same as our bodies. Thus, in folk psychology, the death of the body does not mean the cessation of personhood. Furthermore, because human reasoning is characterized by a promiscuous teleology, a capacity that causes us to see meaning and intentionality in everything that happens, we automatically postulate an agent as an explanation of various events; often this is some god -like concept.

Arguably, these tendencies make religious beliefs contagious in the sense that they are easy to spread and propagate because they functionally resonate with many of the basic operations of the mind. Consequently, they are also easy to use in moral reasoning. This does not mean, however, that there is a necessary link between morality and religion. There is evidence that at least some religious concepts and beliefs need certain cultural input in order to become adopted and to persist. The Vezo of Madagascar, for instance, seem to have two conceptions of death. Guided by their everyday experience, they construe death in biological terms as the breakdown of all vital functions, but see it as the beginning of a different form of existence in a ritual context. These two conceptions of death are activated in different contexts, and thus the Vezo do not feel that there is a tension between them.

Thus, although it seems undebatable that religiously colored intuitions can affect moral reasoning, and that religious primes can affect prosocial behavior, these observations do not license the conclusion that the mechanisms are specific to religion, nor that religion provides the central explanatory factor. Even when the intuitive content is interpreted as religious, the mechanisms that support reasoning are more general in scope.

There are endless often pointless web arguments about whether religion is necessary for humans to be moral. But surely that's the wrong question. I think most of us would agree that humans have an innate sense of morality. The really important question is surely whether this is God given. I hold the belief that it is not, but I cannot prove that, any more than someone else can prove that it is.

"The Ten Commandments and Me" - Ann Widdecombe

I just watched a programme on UK Channel 4 with MP Ann Widdecombe explaining why she thought the Biblical Ten Commandments were so relevant, and suggesting that society today would be a better place if we took more account of them. There was a subtext running through the programme that Christianity had served our country well down the centuries, and we would be well advised to stick with it as an alternative to our current obsession with consumerism and celebrity.

I have no problem with a majority of the exhortations in the ten commandments. I do however have an issue with the notion that without these biblical commendments we would lose our way in the moral maze of life. Are we seriously to consider that "Thou shalt not kill" is a uniquely Christian idea, or that without it we would all feel that it was acceptable to kill

At this point fundamentalists are liable to quote Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot as examples of how atheism leads to people being "permitted" to indulge in mass slaughter. Oh pleease! They did not commit those crimes BECAUSE they were atheists. I am an atheist, but I don't think that gives me a licence to kill. It's a basic tenet of a civilised human society not to kill fellow humans. The same shared values apply equally to all the other non-supernatural Biblical commandents.

However, atheists and humanists are individuals rather than subscribers to a specific creed. I think we tend to see ethics and morals as self evident. There are many religions and cultures amongst humans around the World, but I'm not aware of any that have a markedly different view to the Christian code of behaviour. These values are absolutely not unique to Christians.
Perhaps we should nail our colours to the mast a bit more and declare what we all share in common. Hmmm... Something to think about. It is absurd to accept some Christians' position that we need to embrace their religion to be truly moral humans.

The curious sport of Bible bashing...

“[If] people’s beliefs – secular or religious – make them belligerent, intolerant and unkind about other people’s [beliefs], they are not ‘skilful’. If, however, their convictions impel them to act compassionately and to honour the stranger, then they are good, helpful and sound.” - Karen Armstrong

I'm not a great fan of Karen Armstong, but I have to agree with this statement. It puzzles me why so many non-religious people take such pleasure in pouring scorn on those who are religious. One wonders about their motivations. Usually abuse just hardens existing beliefs and makes the recipient even more determined to defend their position. So this abuse surely cannot be a constructive attempt to persuade religious people to modify their view. It's just a form of mindless bullying.

I guess there is always a need for extremism to achieve moderate change, but people too often confuse assertiveness and conviction with rudeness and outrageous personal attacks.

So, I've decided that wherever possible when I see evidence of this type of abuse I will try to inject moderation. If we have to be abusive to make our points, then it does not say much for the strength of our argument.

What's the difference between an atheist and a secular humanist?

I am indebted to "reme1" at Yahoo Answers for this answer. In turn some of the text is from Wikipedia. I find it a helpful description:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.
The term "Secular Humanism" was coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". A related concept is "scientific humanism", which biologist Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.
Many self-described atheists are sceptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviours to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

I have met some Humanists who still profess a belief in the supernatural. People often use the terms atheism and humanism synonymously (including me sometimes) but there is a difference.
Some use the atheist label as a statement of their intent, while others use the humanist label as a confrirmation of their belief in the betterment and empowerment of humankind in the here and now, rather than worrying about the existence of a hypothetical God.
Underneath we all share our common heritage as humankind!

Which is the greater threat?

Which is the greater threat to Christianity - competing faiths or lack of faith?

Many Christians on the web seem to focus their attacks against atheism, secularism or materialism, and yet they are silent on Islam or any other competing religion. Surely these competing belief systems pose a much greater threat to the future health of Christianity than a simple lack of belief? Is the criticism of other religions taboo? Or is there real fear of reprisals? - Today’s “new atheists” are a pretty safe bet because whilst they may be capable of harsh invective, they are not by inclination violent, or prepared to die for their lack of faith.

I have to say that as an atheist in a Western democracy I am more concerned by the growth of Islam than anything the Christian Church could throw at me. Islam appears to have the potential to undermine the very fabric of our secular society.

Am I alone in this view?

One way Street?

I can understand how someone who believes in a God can become a non-believer, but I’m puzzled as to how a thoughtful and well informed atheist can go the other way, and “convert” to Deism. Though I note that some Christian websites take great pleasure in showcasing people who have made this leap.

As a small child I believed in all sorts of illogical things, from a jolly fellow called Father Christmas, to the Tooth Fairy who would leave money under my pillow. Gradually as I became more aware of the rational reality of the World around me these acts of faith were discarded. Along the way I learnt why parents went along with these bizarre concepts, in their sincere and thoughtful belief that it would make our childhood more wonderful and full of joy. Understandable and maybe laudable, but no way to continue to live one's life as a fulfilled adult.

Last to go, after an immense struggle to hold onto it, was my belief in the Christian God. For months - even years - before I finally admitted it, I struggled and tortured myself to hang onto my belief, but I just could not do it. Everything around me screamed that this belief could not be upheld.

When I finally accepted my new state it was probably the most wonderfully liberating moment in my entire life. To borrow from Biblical parlance, it was as if the shackles that weighed me down were cast off, and I became intoxicated by the light of reason and the loss of fear. Suddenly the World made sense, and I could experience the joy of being, without questioning everything for otherworldly meaning, without doubting my motives, or being ashamed of any ideas that did not fit into the Christian view of the World.

Since that time my journey has been one of great excitement, and I have found inner peace that I had not thought possible. It does not matter that there is no higher being, no higher purpose to life. This World is so incredibly awe inspiring that there is no need for anything else, and the Gods worshipped by the mainstream religions appear so petty and tawdry when compared to the wonderful symmetry and rationality of an evolved Universe. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding of the natural Universe, but almost every month some new part of the jigsaw is discovered that brings us closer to a fuller understanding. As short lived and physically restrained humans there will remain some things our minds are not equipped to understand, such as the unimaginable vastness of space and of time. We will most likely, however, find better ways to explain them conceptually, and that will have to suffice.

I cannot prove the non-existence of God, any more than I can prove the non-existence of fairies, but that is insufficient reason to devote my life to belief in a God. The arguments for belief are surely so self-serving and circular that I still find it incredible that so many people can suspend belief in everything they learn about our pysical nature, and instead make a blind leap into belief in Gods who are so full of contradictions and who often exhibit signs of human frailty and imperfection. For everything around us we can find a reason that does not include a God, despite the tortuous, circular arguments put forward by the apologists, which so often are the result of selective misquotation or which exhibit basic flaws in logical reasoning. And the argument that deists too readily propose that "we are too imperfect to comprehend the workings of God" is such a cop out for any action or lack of action that cannot be explained satisfactorily in terms of innate human morality.

I intend to find someone who has made this apparent leap from non-belief to belief, to try to understand the motivation, and the truth that this person has found that I have not. I feel that there may well be a fault in me that I cannot find empathy with these people, who I have to assume are still sane and rational.

I will come back to this again…

A monopoly on moral behaviour?

It suprises me how often religions tend to claim a monopoly on moral behaviour. They imply that without God given rules for behaviour, we humans would lose our moral compass, and be subject to selfish "base instincts". Well known figures of hate in the Western World, including Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, are cited as classic examples of what happens when religion is displaced by atheism. But isn't this assertion yet another example of flawed logic? Rather like that old chestnut: My dog always has fleas. Therefore it must be true that all dogs have fleas.

I am a consciencious atheist, and yet I feel no different about these tyrants than those of a religious persuasion. Moreover, I try to live my life by a code of ethics and moral behaviour that works for me. I frely admit that my earliest exposure to morality was through Bible stories as a child. For a while I was "sold" on the idea that morality came from God, because I had no other measure by which to judge this assertion. It took a long time and much soul searching to discover not only that I could not believe in this God, but also that it was possible to lead a moral life without the external regulation of this God.

The moral codes and ethical behaviour expounded in the holy books are surely more reflections on human nature and desires. Dressing them up in religious texts just lends a false authority to the religion thus described. I do not need to be religious to believe that i should not kill my fellow humans. I do not need religion to tell me that I should not steal or lie under "normal circumstances. These are basic human instincts, which most of us find no difficulty in obeying without recourse to artificial aids.

There is often talk of a "Golden Rule", which is at the heart of a number of religions. The rule is broadly this: "Treat others as you would like them to treat you". Now what is so hard about that. It makes huge sense for humans to behave this way. I don't want to live in constant fear of my neighbour breaking into my house and stealing my belongings, and he feels the same way aboout me. This mutual desire is constantly reinforced as we gain each others trust. Over time our mutual circles of trust expand to embrace the community. Ultimately we learn that on balnce we all prosper more if we obey these basic unwritten rules, and we pass this idea onto our children. Eventually these ideas become codified and formalised, all without the aid of an external "guiding hand".

I could go on, with countless other examples, but I hope this simple example makes the point - that we don't need religion to behave morally. Arguably atheists are capable more moral behaviour than those who believe in a God, as atheists are purely driven by an internal moral compass, without the need for belief in eternal paradise or damnation.

Things are the way they are because.....

There is an argument put forward by those who believe in divine creation that there has to be an intelligent creator. In essence they argue that if parameters and physical laws which govern the Universe were not precisely as they are, when they could so easily have been different, then we would not exist. Ergo, there must be a intelligent being who created them thus.
If one is already convinced that there is a God then I guess that this argument provides a reassuring riposte to those who point to a scientific explanation.
But is it really so astounding that these paramenters are exactly as they are? Well, yes, but they are, and it is perfectly possible and logical for these conditions to exist without divine intervention. The argument is put forward that the chances of exactly the right conditions for life existing are so incredibly small that it just can't have happened without a guiding hand.
But consider this. If I buy a ticket for the UK national Lottery, the chances of my winning the jackpot are so infinitessimally small, that many people call it a "tax on stupid people", but the fact remains that almost every week one person who buys their ticket in the knowledge that winning is incredibly unlikely, wins that jackpot.
There is a fundamental difference between something being highly improbable and being impossible Our existence may be highly improbable, given the vast range of alternative values that could have existed, but it is not impossible, and it can be deduced and explained using the basic building blocks of the structure of our Universe. There is no need for God.

Whistling down the wind

It's probably just as well that I don't have lots of people reading this blog. I'm a newcomer this arena, and judging from the reactions of many readers of more established blogs, there is much room for vilification, usually ill informed and/or plain unhelpful and rude.
Why are we all so polarised by religion? It's as if we are all supporting our own "team" and trying to score points. To read many of the critiques you would have thought they feel a whoop of delight each time they believe they have trumped the opposing "team".
It's interesting that Christian apologists appear to focus much of their spleen on atheists, instead of other (presumably competing) religions? Is that because they feel that questioning someone's sincerely held belief in a supernatural force is out of bounds? "If we question the basis for their deity then they will do the same to us, wheras atheists are fair game becasue there is no deity to compare." I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's how a number of those blogs come across, and I can see it's a tempting avenue to follow. Ah well, they are only words, and all this is just ephemeral. Does not stop me being happy that the Sun is shining brightly through my window.

Coming Out...

It seems extraordinary that in this supposedly secular and enlightened society, it should be so difficult to make the decision to declare myself an atheist. If, for instance, I tick a box on an application form to say that I am a Christian or a Muslim no one is surprised, but if instead I add that simple word "Atheist", it immediately seems to ring alarm bells - Radical - Freethinker - Independent - Nonconformist - Dangerous - Fanatical - Won't fit...
And yet I am no extremist, and honestly believe I lead a moral life, living by the creed that I should not do to anyone else what I would not like them to do to me similar circumstances. I am comforted by the knowledge that this is our one life, and that I need fear neither the wrath of a vindictive God, nor the futility of eternal immaterial "paradise".
Why do people feel so threatened by sincere discrete atheists?