Daily digest - Wednesday, 16 January 2012

So much for my busy morning, I can't remember what it was I was supposed to be doing (Oh yeah. I was meant to be strimming my garden. Too wet right now, but two days of dry weather forecast, so maybe later or tomorrow).

It would appear yesterday's link to the Stephen Law podcast didn't work, so it is - perhaps - fortunate that +Kylie Sturgess posted her January interview with him today. Click here to hear it. 

As an addendum to yesterday's European Court judgement on Christian persecution (or whatever), here is a pdf of the full judgement.

Daily digest - Tuesday, 15 January 2012

Cor! Busy news day today. I have only managed to get one post out, and that was mainly copypasta. It is a good read, though.

The big news today, of course, is the European Court ruling on the four Christians that were claiming some sort of religious discrimination or wrongful dismissal, or something. Only one of them had their case upheld, and I disagree with that. Especially in light of Stephen Law's article.

One item that - for some unknown reason - didn't seem to make the news, was that the Cornwall Council General meeting voted against introducing a plan that would see the county's poorest people footing the entire bill for central Government cuts. I don't hold these people in very high regard, but the right decision was returned today. The Conservatives had better watch their backs at the local elections in May. UPDATE: BBC has a report here.

Short intro tonight. It is getting late and I plan a busy morning ahead.

William Tapley explains why God let the 20 children at Sandy Hook die - VIDEO

For those of you that have not encountered this guy before, he is a Christian numerologist that believes he is a prophet of the apocalypse. In this video, he explains why God allowed the 20 children at the Sandy Hook shootings to die.

I have considered the possibility that he is a Poe, but there is just too much about him, his consistency and his delivery. He has to be for real!

It seems to me that Mr Tapley is a 'Divine Command Theorist' which according to my statement in today's Daily Digest means I shouldn't be giving him an audience. What do you think?

I get mail.

I have to admit, I am somewhat disappointed with the lack of feedback I get here. My traffic appears moderately healthy, but very few people engage. So when I received an email titled 'AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS', my pique was raised. No less so because it hailed from the email account of my aunt, whom I shall be visiting in France over the holidays.

An atheist was walking through the woods.
'What majestic trees!''What powerful rivers!''What beautiful animals!'He said to himself.

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

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. 
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer.

He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him. 

At that instant moment, the Atheist cried out: 'Oh my God!'
Time stopped.The bear froze.The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.
'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident.' 'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?'
'Am I to count you as a believer?'
The atheist looked directly into the light, and said: 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very well', said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.'

I am sure my aunt finds this sort of thing harmless, humorous, perhaps even compelling, but my initial reaction was that this is the single most vile and abhorrent communication I have received in any form and at any point in my life. [Edit: A reviewer on Reddit has made me realise that this is - in fact - not the worst communication I have received. There have been a number of highly offensive comments on social networks. But it is still the most offensive email I can recall.]

Why do I feel this way? Put simply, it reflects the abject disregard Christians have for morality, it demonises and condemns those that have the audacity to  rely on a rational and evidential view of reality and it is presented in a condescending and gut-churningly patronising manner.

Let's examine these aspects a little closer.

The Christian and morality

Christians are often wont to suggest that atheists are moral relativists - as if this is something dreadful in and of itself - but the truth is there are a good number of us that would say that morality is objective, just not divinely so. I do not happen to be one of them, but that is not my point here. In reality, it is the theist that is shackled to moral relativism and not the atheist at all. 

Consider the Deuteronomical references to slavery. It is clear that the Christian God has no qualms with the practice, and accordingly issues decrees on how such a trade should be conducted. So why doesn't the Christian also accept slavery? If objective morality comes from an omnipotent and unchanging God, why would the Christian take such a morally relativistic stance on slavery in abeyance with divine command?

An oft-touted retort is that that was the Old Testament and the New Testament of Jesus Christ is the proper account of morality for Christians, but there are now two relativistic problems to deal with. The first being that an objective moral law-giver must necessarily display that morality changes over time; rendering it relativistic. The second being that even in the New Testament there is no objective prohibition on slavery. So how do modern day Christians give an account for their objection to the practice?

Also, by trying to dismiss this moral aberration by insisting it is a cultural rather than theological phenomenon, and that slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times, but it is not now, one has openly adopted a morally subjective position. Which ever way you pick away at theistically motivated moral objectivism, it always turns out to be subjectivism in a cheap objectivist suit.

So what has all this to do with our ursine-threatened hiker? Well, this is the sort of story that is bandied around by Christians as a teaching in morality. In this case, it would appear that the moral of this story is that the Christian is absolved responsibility for killing non-believers for no other reason than their faith and their nature is the sole arbiter of decency. The obvious problem with this is that the Christian's morality simply doesn't exist in this context; they are nothing more than the whim of the Christian

Is this really what Christians want people to make of their perception of morality? That their faith and character is enough for them to kill their brethren with a clean conscience?

I find that vile.

The Christian and criticism

I have noted over the years that those people or organisations that do not take criticism well, or feel they have a right to operate outside of what is generally held to be common decency, tend to have one thing in common; they have a power base to defend at any cost. Churches are certainly no exception to this rule. Indeed, it might be said it was the notion of religion that initially created the concept. As such, churches - and those aligned with them - are very keen to dismiss any form of criticism.

This story tells us in no uncertain terms that the Christian God not only condemns those that criticise, but uses subterfuge to enforce it. The atheist trusts that this new and unexpected experience of God will be a fair and just  - as his Christian friends and family had assured him God would be - but instead of forgiving him his sins (which He could do at any stage) or receiving any form of mercy, God allows the Christian to kill him.

His crime? Using the so-called God-given faculty of reason and observation to conclude that there was no reason to believe in the Christian God's existence. He would have believed at the end, but apparently not even the death-bed conversion is enough to save one from God's wrath.

I would also like to mention the atheist's use of "Oh, my God!". It is clear that the story would have you believe that the atheist in question - by simple virtue of the fact that he made such an utterance - wasn't really an atheist at all, and that this cry out was a genuine call for the God he believed in all along. 

This is bullshit personified. If you are an atheist, you do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That is it. There is nothing more to it. It can be restructured or reworded, but so long as the description meets the premise that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, then atheists do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Why would he exclaim such a thing? Well, such is the entrenched insidiousness of theistic thought in our society that we use these terms interchangeably with secular terms. I, for one, try very hard to eradicate such terms from my vocabulary, and I encourage others to do the same. Lest theistic types continue to peddle their hackneyed misrepresentations and have them understood only in their demonstrably incorrect terms.

To summarise, I find the sentiment of this story wholly abhorrent, and so should any person that values human life.

The Christian and condescension and patronisation

More than anything about this story, it is its tone that disturbs me the most. Hahaha, the atheist was foolish and got killed because God is like that. When I mentioned 'gut-churningly patronising' earlier, I am not exaggerating. I have - throughout the curation of this post - been sat sneering at the screen in disgust at my even having to wade through the subject at all.

Why does my aunt think I would get anything from this other than a deep sense of resentment on her part, and the idea that she thinks my demise will be a painful and unmerciless one?

I can see it now. "It's only a joke, Tris. Don't take it so seriously." But it isn't a joke, is it? This is - as I have already stated - a story about morality. About a morality that the believer has faith represents - not a joke - but an objective reality that will befall me for their God's inability to present himself.

Well, fuck that, and fuck your God. He's a monster. Just as well He doesn't exist, eh?

Rt Rev Justin Welby speaks in defence of 'doing God'

Not even installed as the Archbishop of Canterbury yet, the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Justin Welby, spoke out against the idea that religious beliefs should “disqualify” people from giving opinions on politics or other public matters. The Daily Telegraph reports;

He urged Christians not to be afraid to refer to their faith, despite an assumption that they should “excise” their beliefs from their minds when holding public positions. The bishop made the remarks in his first speech since being named as successor to Dr Rowan Williams, who will step down as leader of the Church of England at the end of this year.

It is not so much the assumption that religious thought plays no role in opinion on political matters, but just they should bear in mind that in a modern and dynamic nation as ours is, that the thoughts and feelings of the majority are also considered (this being the nature of representation). To ignore this growing reality is to act irresponsibly with regard to one's public position.

In a wide ranging address, he spoke about his hopes that Christians would not be afraid to ”do God” - a reference to the comment of Tony Blair’s former press secretary Alastair Campbell about discussing religion in public.

Of course people should not be afraid to 'do God', but this is not the issue here. What is at issue is the fact that people's religious convictions are still afforded an unwarranted privilege despite the populace's intentions leaning all the more against it.

He highlighted the appointment of a US Supreme Court justice about whom a senator said Roman Catholic faith “would not be a problem” as long as it did not affect his opinions.

“You might think that that was so improbably absurd as to be howled down with hysterical laughter, but it was not, it was seen as a serious comment.”

Comparing the UK and America with regard to religious conviction in our respective political realms is risible; Welby compares - without the slightest hint of his ignorance - UK legislators with those appointed to carry out different legislation on another continent. One that is considerably deeper mired in the religious right-wing's totalitarian maw than our own.

"God told me to..."

I was initially going to make this post principally about those that have carried out God's instructions to kill, but whilst they are included here, I found during my research that I encountered a number of interesting asides.

Unfortunately, my original message got somewhat drowned out in the theocratic white noise that is justification of personal moral turpitude by blaming someone that cannot be held accountable.

Guess what? You are accountable for your actions, and not in some randomly conceived notion of an afterlife, but here and now.

Certainly, some of these people are seriously cognitively challenged, but where is the level of demarcation to be drawn? What is it in someone's actions that we can clearly define one persons actions as an illness, and another's as a leadership quality?

Pastor Hagee? I call for YOU to leave America

To the American Christian reading this blog, if the idea of your Constitution protecting the rights of its citizens to believe as they wish offends you? Move.


There are plenty of planes leaving every hour where you can get a transfer to Iran or Pakistan where you can see for yourself why a secular constitution is necessary for the good of all of its citizens, not just those that subscribe to the majority. Get on one. Your country is embarrassed by you. It doesn't need you. And you'll miss the freedom America can rightly boast about that you appear to think is so offensive. I promise you.


Your coins say 'In God we trust', in strict violation of the Constitution you claim to hold so dear.


America may well be a nation of predominantly Christian people, but this is a nominal demarcation of demographics alone and has no constitutional, legal or moral standing.


Your Government has not officially recognised another god. It hasn't even officially recognised the Christian God, lest it be ruled unconstitutional. And in calling for Congress to outlaw one particular religion, you tacitly state that you re in favour of a constitutional amendment outlawing all religion; including your own.


Over 30 million non-Christians - a sizeable, increasingly powerful and vocal minority don't care about the Christian.

Johannesburg church told to remove anti-atheist billboard

Source: The Daily Mail

The South African Advertising Standards Authority has instructed a church to remove an offensive billboard from outside of the Rivers Church in the affluent Sandton suburb of Johannesburg.


The church leaders had responded to the complaint by saying they believed the public would recognise the quote as the work of 19th century British poet and opium addict Francis Thompson.

Should governments recognise any marriage?

Source: Catholic News Agency

Considering that religious types are so opposed to same sex marriage, and that it is a violation of religious principles, is it time we accepted them at their word and separate the church and state further by calling on our governments to not recognise marriage at all?


From the Catholic News Agency;

Thirty sex religious leaders joined together against redefining marriage in America, warning that such a move would have “far-reaching consequences” for religious freedom.

In their statement, they said that marriage is a universal and foundational institution that “precedes and transcends” any government, society or religious group. This, they explained, is because it is rooted in the nature of the human person as male and female and the children that are born from their union. 

The religious leaders argued that changing the civil definition of marriage changes hundreds or even thousands of laws that are dependent upon marital status, including taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care.

It would certainly make taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care more transparent and less bureaucratic. It would also fit well with the letter and application of the first amendment to the US constitution not letting government establish a religion.


If we are to treat religious freedom with the respect it so unswervingly demands, the only conceivable way in which to do this is to separate marriage - and all that that implies - from matter's governmental. 


Churches would then be free to continue refusing same sex marriages, or not, as the case may be. Quite why someone would want to marry in a church that opposes the very premise of their union is beyond me. I am sure they could find a more suitable venue where their choice in partners is catered to, and if not, I am equally sure such an enterprise would become available in the Land Of The Free.

I welcome this position on the separation of marriage from government in the interests of religious freedom.


Edit: Here is another post on Slate covering the same subject.

Jessica Ahlquist wins Cranston prayer banner court case

Source: The Sacramento Bee

Schoolgirl atheist, Jessica Ahlquist, has won her case against Cranston High School's prayer banner in the auditorium that she felt was offensive to non-Christians.

RealCatholicTV continues its defiance against the Catholic church

The self-styled RealCatholicTV station that produces slick ultra-conservative programmes for the Internet, continues to use the word 'Catholic' in its name despite having no authority to do so under Canon Law.

In an October 2008 statement by Ned McGrath, Director of Communications, the Archdiocese of Detroit issued a statement;

“In 2006, St. Michael’s Media of Ferndale, Michigan, through its chief executive, Michael Voris, and his associates, requested approval of its media enterprise  and programming from the Archdiocese of Detroit. The Detroit archdiocese responded to their initial submission and gave them direction as to the additional information and steps that would be need to be taken.  At issue was and is compliance with our basic archdiocesan media protocols and those of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  While there have been some discussions, the matter with St. Michael’s Media remains unresolved; it is not an approved apostolate.

“In 2008, a Web-based video provider named RealCatholicTV.com was launched, with Michael Voris as the primary host and senior executive producer  utilizing new and archive program material produced and provided, primarily, by St. Michael’s Media. RealCatholicTV.com has yet to present itself or receive approval
of its media enterprise from the Detroit archdiocese.

“Therefore, the catechetical  presentations and the interpretations  of  Catholic teachings or positions presented by St. Michael’s Media and/or RealCatholicTV— be they audio, video, or exclusively Web-based— cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.”

Archive: Bishop Conley sees ‘atheocracy’ as major threat to pro-life cause

Source: Catholic News Agency

This blog post was originally posted elsewhere. I am currently in the process of transferring all my favourite posts here. Apologies if you have already seen these.


Secularism in America is openly hostile to religion?


There is only one openly atheist member of Congress. State Houses have introduced hundreds of Bills that propose religious privilege in abeyance of the Constitution. Ninety two percent of the population believes in God. The good bishop stands in his pulpit preaching to the 24% Catholic population of the US [1] - about 1/3 of the Christian population - claiming religious hostility. A Christian president, in a long line of Christian presidents.

Archive: Bishop Conley article - Reponses to comments

Source: Catholic News Agency / Earlier post

This blog post was originally posted elsewhere. I am currently in the process of transferring all my favourite posts here. Apologies if you have already seen these.

True to generic religious website policy, after having vetted my comment on the above article, and letting three people attack my position, the site disabled my ability to reply to my interlocutors responses. Here follows my response.

Part of the reason I started this blog, was so that I could counter censorship, and continue a debate where others would not allow me to do so. So, without further-a-do...

I have already made a post about this subject here. It is not identical to the comment I made on the CNA site, because here, on my site, I knew I was able to provide links to back up my claims. Far from having to reign in my claims, I found that my original comment was a tad too conservative, so I make no apologies for the slight discrepancies between the two.

For the purpose of clarity, though, I shall post the debate so far, as it appears on the CNA site.

Ignorant and proud of it - Trevor Zwingli opines on the rejection of science.

Source: Western Morning News


We are all used to reading the insane rantings of north American theist's proclamations on wilful ignorance, but it still shocks me when I see evidence of it here in my backyard of the 'Old Country'


Our anonymous writer (he has now revealed his identity as Trevor Zwingli of the Tremough Catholics) appears to be rather bored of learning and understanding the world we live in. Here, for you all to enjoy, is the article in full, complete with my responses. I urge you to comment yourself.

In a forlorn attempt to improve my education, a friend regularly pops round with a pile of back copies of a magazine called New Scientist. They invariably have clever and colourful covers asking things like "Is Time Travel Possible?", "Can we Build a Brontosaurus?" or "Will Man Live Forever?"

Sadly, the answer to all these questions is always an emphatic NO. Sadder still, to reach this conclusion you have to wade through pages of gobbledegook understandable only by the sort of chap who wears sandals and socks and still lives with his mother.

However, it's good to know that people who have difficulty forming relationships have somewhere cosy to discuss quarks, neutrinos and the Higgs Boson Particle. After all, you never see them down the pub.

But this indulgence is rapidly turning to horror as you notice how fascination with the arcane is seeping out from publications like New Scientist into the media as a whole. Coverage of such things as the arts and history – even light entertainment – has been replaced with matters scientific.

Comedy panel shows all must now have a technological bent and every time someone notices something odd happening with a sandwich in the canteen of the Cern large hadron collider it dominates headlines. The schedules are packed and it will be only a matter of time before peak viewing is dominated by Kirstie Allsopp splitting the atom in a folksy, accessible way.

All through, the message comes across clear as "Hey! isn't science interesting? Isn't it fun?" to which the answer again is an definite "No!"

Riding the crest of this assumed wave of interest is a simpering weed called Prof. Brian Cox who obviously took his chair as a result of research into zit cream and having a whining northern accent. He is science's answer to gardening's Alan Titchmarsh and once he has appeared in front of the cameras he is presumably sucked back into the same oily tube from which he was squeezed. On his very debut he joined the Ron Bendell "Don't you want to hit him in the face with a shovel?" hall of fame.

As BBC budgets are trimmed – entailing vast cuts to local radio, regional TV and the rest – Cox is always there, delivering a piece to camera outside an observatory in Chile spouting on about his interest in black holes and the wonders of delving into dark matter.

His preoccupation – and that of the legion of cohorts dragged out from the bowels of laboratories across the world to back him up – always seems to be the origins of us all, the Big Bang and how little gizmos flying around the cosmos affect you, me and the fundamentals of creation.

Once, of course, these things were all left to theologians although that's terribly non-PC these days. Now, exponents of the new beliefs are free to ponder the imponderable and come up with the explanation of life, the universe and everything.

But what, I wonder throughout, has any of this got to do with the price of fish? Yes, bearded men looking at screens may have tracked down the tiny neutrons that enabled the formation of the Crab Nebula but how should that alter my life? Does that knowledge help any of us, at any time, drag ourselves through the day?

All of it, as archbishops, popes and ayatollahs before have found, is irrelevant tosh and does nothing to make the world a better place.

Good science must surely lead to practical good rather that highfalutin conjecture. Do new thoughts about the origins of the Solar System help us provide sewage systems that could save thousands in the slums of India? Do theories about the first few seconds after the creation save millions from malaria?

We already have all the understanding of the basics we need to make a happier, comfier world but instead billions are spent on meaningless research while millions starve – and folk shiver in front of gas fires they can't afford to switch on while their licence fees are spent sending Prof Cox to sit in front of yet another radio telescope. But clearly the nerds have taken over. Our tiny bit of spare cash goes to the new elite and our tiny bit of leisure time is filled by the same people telling us how fascinating it all is. New Scientist should be placed on the top shelf along with other publications of interest to people who need to get a life.

Scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Atheistic vs theistic resilience.

People with faith are happier and rebound from bad situations quicker? Curious claim to one upmanship. This would suggest people of no faith are more upset and disturbed by events around us, and they consider the implications of bad events with greater acuity and empathy.

I would rather be unhappy and disturbed, having full command of the events that left me in such a condition, than happy and oblivious to the same in a deluded and nihilistic world-view where nothing else matters but what happens to me when I die.

Opinion: Pope says Christianity trumps secularism in building good societies

Source; Catholic News Agency

I am not a Christian. I do not want to live in a Christian society. 


I do not recognise the pope as an authority on any matter outside of his own conscience, and I would thank him to respect my rights to my conscience.


Am I asking too much? Apparently. 


I will kill people to defend my right to freedom of conscience and equal treatment in a civil society, and if that means guerilla warfare on the streets of Penzance (a Celtic Spring?) against my Christian oppressors, then so be it. They will have brought it on themselves.


Religion is about love? Sheeze. Give me a break.

For my new theistic partner, lest there be any confusion

My new partner recently asked if I believed in God. 

I had heard word of her involvement with the local diocese and had already pegged her as a theist, but certainly not one of the bible thumping hypocrites I am perhaps more familiar with in my forays into the debate. Indeed, her home bears no obvious witness to either her involvement with the Church of England, or her apparent faith.

Her delightful nine year-old daughter had proudly shared her baby album with me -  replete with her Christening certificate and cards - that I perused with an established atheistic interest in things religious, and not so much as a murmur of disapproval or outward sign that anything was out of the ordinary. The fact is, I neither disapprove, nor do I think anything was out of the ordinary.

Our relationship is in its infancy, and whilst my response to her question on the existence of God was met with a haughtily condescending, 'Oh, you will.', I feel comfortable that I can be open about my lack of faith without having the walls of some archaic middle-eastern city falling down around our fledgling romance.

Still, the resentment and distrust of atheists runs deep in some people, and I must be mindful to establish as open a dialogue on the true nature of the atheist as I can, without offending her and her family's religious sensibilities.

Upon returning from a very enjoyable and relaxing 36-hour informal meet and greet with her daughter, an article by Digital Cuttlefish on the use of 'tropes' came up in my Google Reader feed. I don't know how many - if any - of these misrepresentations of atheism I shall have to field, but the occurrence of this article may well prove to be timely.

Should my partner ever come to read my blog (and she has expressed an interest), perhaps this article will go some way to dealing with the more stubborn myths that we atheists have to contend with on a daily basis.

Dutch Catholic church slammed for thousands of child sexual abuse claims since 1945

Source; BBC News

A report by an independent commission into Catholic child sexual abuse in Holland has revealed that as many as one in five children have been victims whilst under the 'care' of Catholic institutions.

The report, based on a survey of more than 34,000 people, has identified 800 alleged perpetrators, just over 100 of whom are still alive, and church officials failed to adequately address the abuse or help the victims in their schools, seminaries and orphanages.

The commission was set up last year under the leadership of former government minister Wim Deetman to investigate allegations of abuse dating from 1945.

According to the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics, 29 percent of the Dutch population of 16 million identified themselves as Catholics in 2008, making it the largest religion in the country.

The Dutch Bishops Conference scheduled a press conference for Friday afternoon to respond to the report.

Note: Internet cookie to the first person to find a copy of the report.

Email to LIND Media regarding Mid-Ohio Atheists billboard campaign

Source; Greta Christina's Blog

• 
  
  
  Whether or not the US - or any other country for that matter - is a Christian nation, each of us that live in what we notionally call the West, have decided over numerous generations that intolerance and bigotry is not welcome in a modern and democratic society.

  
  

  In both the UK and the US, majority rule forms our respective parliaments and governments, but explicitly not at the expense of legal representation of the minority's rights.
  
  
  America in particular, despite its predominant Christian base, was founded on secular principles by people that didn't wish to repeat the mistakes as they appeared in the 'old country', but these founding principles appear to have served out their useful function, a new breed of good 'ole American fascism is sweeping the nation.
  
  
  All the more disturbing, then, when perfectly legal organisations like the Mid-Ohio Atheists, raise the funds and spend time and effort putting together a tasteful billboard campaign, only to have it rejected at the last minute by the billboard company for unsubstantiated claims of an  'inflammatory, offensive and obscene' nature.
  
  
  I honestly don't know what good it will do, but I for one have had enough of this overt bullying and repression, and I have decided to let LIND Media Company know about my concerns, and to illicit a response for their actions. And I call on every fair and just-minded individual to do the same.
  
  
  My email lies below the fold.