Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 3

Here is the next instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the next 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Hitchslap 17 - "Here comes the really nice bit".

Hitchslap 15: What ill is the crucifixion a cure for?  2:24
Of course I have emancipated myself from all that nonsense as I wish you would do too.
No more optional than Abraham saying to his son “Do you want to come for a long and gloomy walk?”
Millions of people every year celebrate this act of sado-masochism.
He knows what it is like to lose a son?  If the story is true, which I don't think it is, it is self-evidently not the case.  He doesn't loose a son – he lends one.  He doesn't offer one because nobody has demanded it.
No problem that has been identified in the human species that demands human sacrifice.
I'm doing this because the prophets said I would . . . have the boy tortured to death in public . . . to fulfil ancient screeds.
I don't want torture, human sacrifice, blood lettings . . .  I don't want it. I can't think of a single thing that it will make better.
‘Co-stars’: Alistair McGrath
Cited: 
Link: http://youtu.be/TD7Y4y8eJGg

Hitchslap16: Hitler was no atheist  2:14
Atheism is not a moral or political position of any kind.
To say that Nazism is equivalent to implementation of Darwinism is a filthy slander
Darwinism was derided in Germany
Hitler was not an atheist
Oath to Fuhrer “I swear in the name of almighty God . . ”.  Gott mit uns etc.
Catholic control of German education
To suggest that there is something fascistic about me and my beliefs is something that I won't hear said and you shouldn't believe.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Hitler, Vatican , Darwin , Freud, Einstein, Mein Kampf
Link: http://youtu.be/-_XY-G_zj4Y

Hitchslap 17:  I don't want to praise the dear leader for eternity.  3:04
Its a bit mushy isn't it - this I'm OK you're OK ecumenicism, as well as a bit ahistorical.
Millions died on these points of distinction and thought that their lives had been well thrown away for it, and I think one ought to respect that.
As a deist you still have all your work ahead of you before you can be a theist.
Roman Catholics believe Ex eclesiam nulla sallis – outside THEIR church there is no salvation.  Many protestants same the same about Catholics.
Which kind of Christian do you have to be to be a real one?
These are not small distinctions.
Wouldn't go to paradise if I was asked.  Its like a fucking celestial North Korea.
The trouble with religion only starts when people have affirmed that it is true.  Then comes the really nice bit – inter-religious warfare.
‘Co-stars’: ?
Cited: Rick Warren
Link: http://youtu.be/qVVvEqUFsTU

Hitchslap 18: Religion thinks it has a right to threaten non believers  3:33
It is not possible to have moral authority within religion.  The two things are so sharply divorced.
This doesn't lead to chaos.
e.g. 1 Moral blackmail of Denmark by the OIC.
e.g. 2 The fatwah against Salman Rushdie.  The offer of money to suborn murder for the crime of writing a work of fiction.
Friday prayers at Tehran University with banners and slogans saying that the sentence of Salman Rushdie will never die.
There is something shady involved here – some people say that Islamist's give themselves permission to lie to non-believers.  Sounds like the kind of vulgar and paranoid thing that an islamophobe would go round saying.  It would be very easy to disprove, except that it hasn't been.
These are not minor threats but threats to the very core of what we believe.
Claims of a religion that says it is the answer to everything.
(Also found in Hitchslap 29 - Link: http://youtu.be/is12JYel-Rg)
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Organisation of Islamic Congress, Ambassadors of Egypt, Turkey etc., Spiritual leader of Shia islam
Link: http://youtu.be/XR41ACn9R8c

Hitchslap 19: God has a special plan for us  3:09
Reference to RDFRS lecture by Lawrence Krauss.  Universe from nothing
Every single second a star goes out.  A lot of annihilation and destruction.  A wasteful scale.
It does have the positive outcome that we are all constituted of those materials – we are made of stardust
More majestic, wonderful and beautiful and impressive than a burning bush
One has the virtue of being true and provable and studiable, and the other doesn't.
I do think that the verifiability of something is a virtue.
Until 50,000 years ago there were 4 other kinds of biped humanoid on the planet. No religion ever invented knew anything about other hominids.
All of this could be part of a plan – there is no way an atheist can prove that it is not - but it is some plan isn't it.
All set in motion on a scale beyond our imagination – all so that the pope can tell people not to jerk off.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Lawrence Krauss
Link: http://youtu.be/JOe-FmEwStA

Hitchslap 20: Stupid questions  1:32
[How can you justify taking away something that gives meaning?]
What an incredibly stupid question!
1/  This stuff cannot be taken away.  It is their favourite toy and will remain that way as long as we are afraid of death.
2/  I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys as long as they play with them at home.  I will not play with the toys.  Don't say my children must play with these toys.
Enough of clerical and religious bullying and intimidation.  Is that finally clear?
‘Co-stars’: Fora TV
Cited: Sigmund Freud
Link: http://youtu.be/BnwFyfzMurI


Hitchslap 21: The weakness of religion.  3:29
Strong connection between wishes and thought.
We are the first species to know that one by one we are going to die.  To give someone the suggestion that maybe an exception can be made in their own case is making a fairly obvious offer.
Our strength is that we don't need support groups.
The weakness of religion is that it needs constant reinforcement.  Of course it needs that.  It would crumble without it.
Princess Diana checked out the same week as Mother Teresa – douche-bag, liar and thief.  Sobfest.  Ah well – there is a god.
I like it when bad people die.  I don't love my enemies.  That's why I think Christianity is immoral.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Sigmund Freud, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, Princess Diana
Link: http://youtu.be/pCbjXTFfHNs



Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

The next parts coming regularly.  Check back for more!

Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

Haiku errors

One from the archives today!

The Japanese have replaced the impersonal and unhelpful Microsoft error messages with their own Japanese haiku poetry, each only 17 syllables, 5 syllables in the first line, 7 in the second, five in the third...

A file that big?
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.

The Web site you seek
Can not be located but
Countless more exist.

Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.

Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

First snow, then silence.
This thousand dollar screen dies
So beautifully.

Stay the patient course.
Of little worth is your ire.
The network is down.

A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.

Three things are certain:
Death, taxes, and lost data.
Guess which has occurred.

You step in the stream,
But the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.

Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.

Serious error.
All shortcuts have disappeared.
Screen. Mind. Both are blank.

Small note: Hmmm!

Highly visible

Working for a large organisation, rules are sometimes applied in strange and inconsistent ways.  After an unfortunate road accident on-site, in which a pedestrian's leg was broken, one of our partner organisations introduced a rule that their employees must wear high visibility jackets whenever they are outdoors.

Maybe this is sensible, maybe not, but fortunately that rule has not been rolled out to the rest of us.

Wouldn't it have been rather ironic to have to wear a high visibility vest on top of the smart black 'low-visibility' jacket that was issued last year?  Strangely though, it is exactly the sort of thing that I could easily imagine happening.

On a 'partner site' a few years ago a rule was introduced to stipulate that all cyclists must wear cycle helmets.  That is not required on the public roads in UK, and there are statistics from other countries that have implemented such a law to suggest that accidents might even increase.  On that particular site there are also outdoor areas where it is mandatory to wear a hard hat.

I speculated to one of the directors that I might find it difficult to decide what to do if I had to cycle through a hard hat area.

It seems that that very argument had already been rehearsed for real.

Such is the fun of working for the government!

Dunbar's Number in Social media

You might have heard of the concept of 'Dunbar's Number' without having put a name to it.  If you have, you might have formed a view about whether you believe in the idea that we can only keep a certain number of social contacts in our thoughts. 

To quote from Wikipedia, Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.  Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

Like me, I'm sure that you know people who seem to remember everything said by everyone, however long ago.  Perhaps like me you recognise your own inability to do the same.  In my job I find that I have to interact with a huge number of people, and I often find myself completely unable to remember the name of someone who I have known for years.

Robin Dunbar - a touch is worth a thousand words any day!

Whether or not Dunbar's hypothesis about neocortical processing capacity or theories about long term memory are the perfect explanations of the phenomenon, I think almost all of us recognise the feeling.  You can see him speaking about Facebook friends and 'real friends' and related topics in an excellent 19 minute long talk on ForaTV.  See Robin Dunbar: How Many Friends Does One Person Need?  He says that he thinks touch is one of the most important factors in maintaining a real relationship and discusses the role of kinship, and talks about the fragility of friendships.  Interestingly it seems that the limit to the number of friends seems to be largely limited to primate species too.

A recent episode of the always-interesting podcast, Skepticality, featured an interview with David McRaney at this link You Are Not So Smart.  In a discussion that covered a huge range of interesting topics he mentioned that studies of people's use of social media have been used to test Dunbar's number in a new way.

Looking into this I found one such study of Twitter users.  Validation of Dunbar’s Number in Twitter by Bruno Goncalves et al seems to confirm the idea, with a sample of 1.7 million individuals, 380 million tweets and 25 million conversations.   The magic number of contacts comes out at around 200 again. 
Small note: I must admit that I'm not entirely certain where this was formally published as it is now in an online open-source repository, www.plosone.org.  The authors appear to come from respectable organisations.  I sometimes think that peer review is an over-rated idea anyway!

Things Christians Say, Part 7: You're SO closed minded

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 


You're SO closed-minded!

Piano

Requiring evidence before believing something surprising is not the same as being closed-minded, is it?  I would like to think that I can look at the world and consider all the possible explanations about how it came to be this way.

I happen to find it interesting first to consider the explanations that are based on all the human observations that have been made so far.  Critical thinking actually demands an open mind.  It is absolutely necessary to be able to consider the possibility of new options.  If I can't understand the world on this scientific basis, then perhaps I would have to consider other options on the basis of their merits, and one option is that we do not yet know the answer.  Falling back on supernatural explanations is very much a last resort for me though.

Many Christians do not do the same.  They fail to look at the conflicting evidence and counter arguments against their position, and by doing that I feel that they are missing so much of the beauty of the world.

If you honestly use the argument that non-believers are closed-minded, then I can only quote Christopher Hitchens who said to someone who asked a silly question

"You give the awful impression of someone who has not read any of the arguments against your position ever."

An open mind accepts new ideas!

***

Forte

This accusation is one that I find very hard to understand.  I'm assuming that this is the opposite of open-minded, but assumptions like this do not always work when talking with theists.  The sands of logic shift much too often.

I am so closed-minded that, as a former Christian, I opened my mind and dared to consider the possibility that there is no God.  The more I explore these ideas, the more I am convinced that there are no other deities either.  I still consider the question to be an open one.  However, I think the probability that I will see any convincing evidence that makes me change my mind back is vanishingly small.  I'm a fir 6.9 on the Dawkins' seven point scale.

I have gone from being a lazy, closed-minded Christian to being an open-minded atheist very comfortably and without trauma.  I can only recommend it!

Do supernatural options fit into the set of possible explanations though?  For me, no, not really.  The reason for this is that it seems to be an intellectually lazy option.  "I can't personally work out how that happened . . . so it must have been God!" doesn't explain anything at all.  Such an explanation requires an explanation in itself.

Cogito ergo non ovis - not a sheep!

Last week:  You can't prove there is no god
Next week:  The bible is totally scientific!

Not so fast with the neutrino mystery!

When I attended the village Harvest Festival supper last year, the news about neutrinos travelling faster than light had just hit the headlines.  Since it is known that I work in 'big physics', several friends confronted me with a smile, and various versions of the same question, dressed up as a statement.  "So! Physics is wrong then!"

At the time I was amused by this interrogation, and it reminded me that it was an opportunity to spread the word about how science progresses.  For very many people it is surprising to find out that being wrong is an opportunity to find something new.  It is sometimes said that physicists like nothing better than hearing what they already know.  This 'confirmation bias' is a feeling that we all have, for most of our lives.  We like to believe that we understand things, even if we are deluding ourselves. 

However, for most of us who work in science, the 'second best' thing in our professional lives is to find a surprising mystery that challenges our 'beliefs' and opens up the chance of learning something that nobody has ever known before.  The mystery of the neutrinos that might be travelling faster than light definitely falls into this category.  So much of fundamental physics points to the complete unlikelihood of the observation, but nevertheless the observation had been made. 

In actual fact I think almost every physicist was skeptical about the claim - and this would include those who had made the observation and who were calling on the broader community to explain where they might have gone wrong.  After all, we know exactly how fast ordinary neutrinos travel compared with light and would be surprised to think that those created by CERN would behave differently.  The very best and most sensitive evidence came from observations of a supernova known as SN1987A.  The light from this distant exploding star took 168,000 years to reach us and the burst of neutrinos arrived just 3 hours earlier.  We know for certain that the neutrinos came from the same direction and we understand how light can be delayed in its journey.  Light reflects and scatters from particles of matter on its way here - the neutrinos just go straight through.

SN1987A supernova - a great neutrino source!
Image from here

Even last October, the 'smart money' was on the likelihood of a subtle experimental error, and now, months later there are rumours that there are two possible candidates.  As it happens, these two tiny imperfections in a huge and complex experiment would have opposite effects.  One would make the neutrinos appear to be going even faster, and the other would make them seem slower.  Nobody yet knows which one of these dominates the measurement, but in May there is a good chance that they will find out.  At the moment, we just know that the error in the measurement is big enough to include the expected result that neutrinos do not break the light barrier.

So what does this reveal about the path of science?  I think that the openness of the scientific community, and the ease with which news can now be transmitted to the public, are strengths that we should celebrate.  The media exploits this openness for its own ends - namely profit.  However, at last the general public are able to see that science progresses in little steps, with our models of the universe getting closer to the truth each time.  Some of the steps take us backwards but they probably teach us something anyway.

The best comparison I can make to everyday life is that of seeing a delicious sausage being made.  It is perfectly OK if you are squeamish and decide not to watch what goes into the sausage, but if you don't watch then you are missing something about life, part of the path to true understanding of our universe.    In my own case I'm probably more squeamish about making a sausage than making science, but everyone is different!

Small note:  This has been written to go into a local magazine, but it was published here first!

Russell's Teapot

As philosophers go, Bertrand Russell is well known to us.  He was one of the most notable and outspoken atheists of the 20th century.  If you have not had the chance to read his essay "Why I am not a Christian" then I recommend that you take the time to read it soon.  In some ways it feels like a condensed version of 'The God Delusion'.

One of the interesting concepts that Russell brought to the attention of the public was the idea of a supernatural teapot.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Russell's teapot - image from here

Naturally, since Russell first suggested the idea, it has been extrapolated to the concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) which was last manifested in Austria as you might see at that link.

Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 2

Here is the next instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the next 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Christopher Hitchens on the subject of Billy Graham

Hitchslap 08: This so called merciful god 1:52
[What does your anti-theism have to offer in the way of dignity hope to those who are not as strong or intelligent as you?]
...not just deist belief in a creator but theist belief in someone who knows and watches and cares.
Fraulein Freisel – kept in a dungeon - Imagine how she must have prayed, beseeched heaven for 24 years.
Heaven watched with indifference because that score will later be settled.
So it was well worth her going through it.  She'll have a better time next time
‘Co-stars’: Panel of many, 
Cited: Fraulein Friesel, (Austria)
Link: http://youtu.be/X4zYYYp9cB0

Hitchslap 09: Rev. Billy Graham was an evil man 1:25
Billy Graham – a disgustingly evil man.
Anti-Semitism an unfailing sign of a sick and disordered person, horrible conspiratorial, pseudo-intellectual mean-spirited, eventually lethal piece of bigotry.
Richard Nixon – squalid little bigot – outmatched by the way that Billy Graham talks.
Goes round spouting lies to young people for a living – what a horrible career.
(This is included in Hitchslap 36.)
‘Co-stars’: In Depth
Cited: Billy Graham, Richard Nixon, , 
Link: http://youtu.be/YeUYvyn2eBQ
 
Hitchslap 10: Why Heaven wouldn't be a heaven at all  1:56
Wish to be a slave. Desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crimes while you are asleep . 
Total surveillance of your life around the clock. Every waking and sleeping moment.
The real fun begins after you are dead.
A celestial North Korea – a necrocracy.  A thanetocracy.  One short of a trinity
At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea.  Does Koran or Bible offer you that liberty? No!  The tyranny misery, utter ownership of your entire personality, smashing of your individuality only begins at the point of death.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sun
Link: http://youtu.be/igZSUofDi1A

Hitchslap 11:  The teachings of Christianity are immoral 3:20
Is it moral to believe that our sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?
I submit that the doctrine of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is utterly immoral.
Compulsory love is another sickly element of Christianity
I'll pay your debts but can't take away your responsibilities.
Scape-goating – a positively immoral doctrine that demolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend.
I am told that I have to have a share in this human sacrifice even though it took place before I was born.
I had no say in it happening.  I wasn't consulted.  Had I been present I would have been bound to do my best to stop the public torture and execution of an eccentric preacher.
Sin of Adam in Genesis
This may sound a mad belief but it is the Christian belief.
To connect meteorology to morality seems to me flat out idiotic whichever way you do it.
Fisher - Nuclear war will only hasten our transition into a more blessed state.
Another immoral and sinister thing about religion is that lurking under it at all times in every one of its versions is a desire for this life to come to an end.
What is it like to lie to children for a living and to tell them that there is an authority that they must love.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Bishop of Carlisle, Jeffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury
Link: http://youtu.be/SVwTrq_XoQU
 
Hitchslap 12: Blackmail and extortion, Christian style  2:57
[Possibility of transformation being offered to me but not imposed upon me]
Not imposed??
What if you reject the offer that took place by means of the torture to death of a human being?
I don't want it.  Oh you don't? Well you have to go to hell.
This has been preached to children. . . by gruesome elderly virgins for centuries
Religious faith is not modest and humble but the reverse.  It is unbelievably solipsistic.
To move from the deist position to the theist – to assume that we know about the mind of god. That we know what he wants us to eat and in what positions to make love or with whom.
Unbelievable piece of conceit . . . claiming to know things that they can not conceivably know.
If Dr McGrath has access to such extraordinary sources of information as the ones he has claimed I can't understand why he is only occupying a chair at Oxford University.
You don't know any more than I do.  You couldn't know any more than I do.  You can't.  You just claim that you do.
‘Co-stars’: Alistair McGrath
Cited: 
Link: http://youtu.be/2G1_M8wDcw4
 
Hitchslap 13: The Catholic Church is Evil  2:40
The pope, on March 12th 2000, begged forgiveness for the crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of Jews, injustice towards women (half the human race), the forced conversion of the indigenous people of S America, the African slave trade, the admission that Galileo was right, silence during Hitler's final solution, regret for the rape and torture of children.
These are very serious matters, not to be laughed off by reference to occasional work of charity.
Most loving pastoral care . . . well I'm sorry they have already had that.
Anti-Semitism was official Catholic doctrine until 1964.
Will one day be admitted that it might have been in error to say that AIDS is bad but not quite as bad as condoms are bad.  Or not as immoral in the same way.
Preachings of his church are responsible for the death of millions of people in Africa
A child made in the image of god.  Oh no you are not you're a faggot.
. . . clutch of hysterical sinister virgins
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Joseph Ratzinger, Galileo, Hitler, Stephen Fry, Catholicism in Africa
Link: http://youtu.be/3eLzjzAW9KA

Hitchslap 14: Shame there’s no hell for Fallwell to burn in.  3:47
Falwell established a business, a racket.  A hereditary job.
Rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred and prejudice.
Treason of saying that USA deserved the attack upon it in 2001.
A pity there isn't a hell for him to go to
Discovery of the carcass of Rev Falwell was of zero significance.
You, no doubt, as a Christian, require hypocrisy of people.
Made a career out of sponsoring dislike and superstition.
Said people he didn't like would go to hell.
Took up all the time with your long and rather unlettered question.
I think his death is a deliverance.
‘Co-stars’: Hannity & Colmes
Cited: Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reid
Link: http://youtu.be/xgd-fCepI5k


Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

Wearing magic underwear

The 'magic underwear' of the Mormons is often mentioned in such a way as to poke fun - and I hope to continue with that tradition because, like me, you might never have taken the trouble to investigate the matter further.

It seems that the semi-Masonic emblems represent different Mormon mysteries, including the Melchizedek priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood.  All these mysteries stem from the imagination of the inventor of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.

First here is a video about the secret underwear, by an amusing Australian who interviews some ex Mormons who explain the magic of the garments and succeeds in buying some (illicitly).

The Mormonism Research Ministry's page The Protective Garments of the Holy Priesthood says

“The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants you have made in the temple. You should treat it with respect at all times. You should not expose it to the view of those who do not understand its significance, and you should not adjust it to accommodate different styles of clothing. When you wear it properly, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior”.

This is a former Mormon, Ed Decker describes a bit about the mysteries of the Mormon religion in this video (part 1 of 2)

Having seen a little bit about this subject, what would you think of America if it elected a Republican president who wears this magic underwear?  With this in mind, I think it could be argued that Mitt Romney is the most sane of the Republican candidates. I think that gives Obama a good chance of a second term.

That is not to say that the Mormon couple that I know are not very nice people.  The strange thing is, I can imagine that one of them does wear the magic underwear but perhaps not the other.

Rights of women or wrongs of bishops?

Annie Laurie Gaylor is one of the co-presidents of the American body, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), along with her ex-minister husband Dan Barker.

Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor of the FFRF

If you want to hear Annie Laurie and Dan in action, try listening to the podcast "Freethought Radio" as I do every week.  Although it is very much focused on issues surrounding the 1st Amendment to the US constitution (and in UK we have no such constitution) I find that they often have guests with interesting opinions.

Last week, Annie Laurie and Dan wrote a hard-hitting 'open letter' to 'Liberal' and 'Nominal' Catholics, and published it as a full page advert in the New York Times on 9th March.  Here is a copy of the letter which points out many of the evils represented by the church.

I think this goes a long way to confront the claim that the church does more good than harm.  Of course 'other' christians will cheerfully dissociate themselves from these Catholic evils.  Whatever their disagreements might be, many christians will stick together in the face of a realistic and rational challenge to the beliefs that they share.  They always do.

Much of the message is relevant to the comments left last weekend on my latest post in the series 'Things Christians Say Part 6'.

Full page advert by FFRF in the New York Times

Why is this relevant?  It all comes down to the one and only proven cure for poverty in the world.  Any society that gives women control of reproduction naturally becomes more prosperous.  This goes very much against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - and several other notable religious movements. 

After all . . . AIDS may be bad, but condoms are a greater sin.

So, "Do you choose women and their rights, or bishops and their wrongs?" is rather a good question isn't it?

Outraged by pre-historic jockey!

A few months ago, I mentioned one of my local pre-historic monuments, the Uffington White Horse.  It is one of a collection of hillside art, carved in the chalk of Southern England.

Uffington White Horse unblemished

One morning this week, people living close to the site of this ancient monument woke up to a surprise.  Some described it as desecration.  Others were appalled that anyone could have committed an act of rural graffiti like this.

The Uffington White Horse had acquired an Uffington White Jockey, courtesy of a company called Paddy Power, in advance of Cheltenham Festival this week.

Uffington Jockey - tastefully executed and sadly removed!

Outraged or not (see Oxford Mail's article), I think that the enterprise was carried out rather well.  The jockey is designed very much in sympathy with the style of the original horse, using white canvas pegged to the gorund.

Don't worry - no white horses were harmed.  Sadly the spectacle was removed before enough people had a chance to enjoy it, demonstrating that a sense of humour is not a necessary qualification for the officials of the National Trust.

Even more sadly - much more harm will be done to real horses in order to ensure that Paddy Power continues to profit from other people's gambling stupidity.


Related post: White Horses in the Chalk

Things Christians Say, Part 6: Can't prove there is no god

A weekly series of responses to the things christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 


You can't prove that there's no god

Piano

With all due respect, I have to question why you use this type of argument at all because it does not establish anything useful.  I can't prove that there is no god any more than you can prove that you worship the right one when you have so many to choose from. 

You might even admit that God doesn't exactly make it easy for you to believe in him either.  The bible is often used as 'evidence' for his existence, but let's face it, it isn't good evidence.  The bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God, but The Old Testament includes other gods - Baal perhaps being Yahweh's greatest rival.  El and all the host of heaven appear from time to time too.

Many of the stories existed for centuries or millennia before they were written down as The Torah.

The gospels in the New Testament neither agree with each other, nor with the known historical facts from a region that was of great strategic importance to the Roman Empire, in a century that is particularly well documented.  e.g.  The Crucifiction Darkness and the raising of all the dead in Jerusalem would surely not have gone un-noticed.

I feel that these are some of the reasons to have a strong doubt about the existence of god(s) in general and your God in particular.

***

Forte

That's true.  And you can do better?  No, I thought not.  I can't actually prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy or unicorns but I'm an a-fairyist and an a-unicornist too.

If you disagree, you prove it!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

There is an increasing amount of evidence from brain science to suggest the reasons for our superstitious beliefs.


Last week:   Things Christians Say, Part 5: Just go out and kill!
Next week:   You're SO closed minded

Europium protects the currency

You may have heard the expression that nobody counterfeits bad currency.  As it happens, they do.  At the moment the Euro does not quite fit into the category of 'bad currency' in spite of the efforts of some EU countries to make this happen. 

Working in a community of curious physicists, I was intrigued yesterday to hear a story about the steps taken to avoid the counterfeiting of Euro notes.

Apparently, under ultra-violet light, a Euro note will glisten in several different colours, and the precise colours produced can be used to check that the notes are not forged.  Some physicists study light, and they use instruments called spectrometers to break light down into it constituent parts to analyse the type of atoms that are present.  All atoms have characteristic light patterns, called spectra, and with the right type of expertise you can identify them.  This is how astronomers determine the materials in distant stars or indeed in the sun.

Europium used to prevent counterfeiting

In the particular case of the Euro notes, the light is produced by a process called fluorescence.  The energy from ultra-violet light is used to excite the fluorescing atoms, and then for a short time the atoms radiate their energy again, but at different colours.  Some atoms fluoresce for only a short time and others for much longer.

The rather beautiful finding that surprised me yesterday was that Euro notes use an element called Europium in a special (and undetermined) formulation.  There is something rather poetic about this isn't there? 

I only hope that USA does not follow the same poetry for American dollar bills.  Unlike the two stable isotopes of Europium (with masses 151 and 153), all the isotopes of Americium are radioactive and it is not a material that you would want to have in your pocket.

Small note: It has been suggested that it might be illegal to investigate the sources of the other colours in too much detail!  Genuine scientific curiosity could be misinterpreted as conspiracy!

Keep Fusion's intellectual property public

USA is proposing to close down one of its most significant 'magnetic-confinement' nuclear fusion facilities next year to save cost.

USA might not be leading in fusion technology, but
the work on the Alcator C-MOD tokamak is a vital
part of the effort to make fusion power a reality

As is often said, (at least by me), "Global trade in peanuts amounts to $30 billion per annum. Fusion doesn't cost peanuts - it costs MUCH less!"

One of my colleagues tried to write an open letter to US Director of the Office of Science, Dr. William F. Brinkman
(at this link)

I write to you today as an active participant in the world-wide fusion community. The proposed cuts to the U.S. domestic fusion program in the Fiscal Year 2013 Presidential Budget Request seem to me to show a disappointing lack of confidence in the one and only technology that is likely to provide a reliable and substantial source of power in the future, long after fossil fuels have become too rare and expensive to burn.

You may not realise that the countries in the Far East have been advancing much more rapidly in their implementation of fusion engineering technology than the countries that have traditionally led the field.  You only have to look at the tables on the web site http://www.tokamak.info to see how many significant new machines have been built in the last decade.  None of them have been funded by USA, Europe or Russia and it would be irresponsibly optimistic to assume that the intellectual property developed with them will be in the public domain.

I strongly urge you to provide sufficient funding for a strong domestic fusion research program in addition to the American contribution to ITER. Thank you.


*******************

If you care about the future of our planet and want to support the idea that we should all contribute towards it, you can follow this link too.  If, like me you spend the time writing a letter and then get this message,

you will probably agree with me that open government is not what it claims to be!

As for me - I'll keep trying!  The future of the world is quite important to me.

Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 1.

Here is the first instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the first 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Hitchslap 1 - starting the index today

Hitchslap 01: Christianity's argument destroyed in 1 min and 38 sec 1:38
Don't particularly welcome the idea of the annihilation of ourselves or of the entropic heat death of the universe.
Very little evidence to suggest that I will see you all again in some theme park.
I'm willing to accept conclusions that may be unwelcome to me.
180,000 years ago the population of humans dropped to between 30 and 40,000 - close to joining every other species that has gone extinct.
Arrogance to the assumption that all this extraordinary development was all about us.
Tremendous wastefulness, cruelty and caprice, tinkering and incompetence
Never mind -  the whole universe was designed with just you in mind.
I think we have free will.  Have to take refuge in philosophical irony - you don't have any choice BUT to have free will.
Christians say "of course you have free will  - the boss insists on it".
'Co-stars': None
Cited: None
Link: http://youtu.be/N_2GXbgANWw


Hitchslap 02: Iran and Israel  3:02
[Why do you consider Iran a threat to peace in the world, and not the Zionists.]
Long work on rights of Palestinians.  
Lot of people in the Muslim world are fed up of having the subject changed to Israel.  Children are having to keep shedding their blood because the regime keeps killing them for wanting to have a say in their own internal affairs  
3 women in court against one man. Rape and torture used as policies in prisons.
Do you want a regime like that to have nuclear weapons? You're welcome but you   should say that is what you want if you don't mind.
Appeal to the fair-mindedness and intelligence of the audience.  Did I say that?
Well that's progress of a kind.
'Co-stars': #qanda Panel
Cited: Edward Said
Link: http://youtu.be/Ve3DhpvgCN8


Hitchslap 03: Christianity is a bankrupt currency 2:32
All supernatural claims must be true, or none of them are (my own position), or only one of them is.  The least probable position of all – the one that you have decided to occupy.
Why are your miracles the true bill and the others are all copies?
All Joseph knew was who had not made her pregnant if we have to be crude about this.
Which is more likely?  Divine intervention or that a Jewish girl could tell a fib.
Of the two I don't think the latter is overwhelmingly improbable.
No religion has ever been founded except with the claim that its founder and prophet was born of a virgin.  I have the whole list in the front of my book . . .
So, nobody bothers to counterfeit bad currency?  Well it turns out that they do.
'Co-stars': None
Cited: David Hulme
Link: http://youtu.be/ku38KXd90WQ


Hitchslap 04: Immoral and offensive  3:41
Beliefs of the religious are very offensive to me.
If I don't accept a bogus story about a supposed human sacrifice that took place in Jerusalem in something like 33 AD . . . If I don't accept this I'm going to hell.
I don't go and burn down the nearest Baptist or Catholic church.  I'd be ashamed of myself if I did.
I don't call for people to form mobs to vindicate my hurt feelings.
Archangel Gabriel never said a word to the peasant Mohamed.  The event did not take place, any more than the Archangel Gabriel ever announced himself to the to the non-virgin Mary
How contemptible can you  possibly get?
Whatever you do, they will find a reason to take offence and when they have done that they think it is their axiomatic right to go straight to violence of the most criminal kind.
Do not dare to address me as though you are warning me when I comment on this.  I won't have it.  I won't be talked to in that tone of voice
Marx - Criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism
Most important minority in the history of the world – those have never believed in god, who believe that ethical life is possible without religion.
Judaism is derived from ancient race myths, Christianity a plagiarism of that and Islam an even worse plagiarism of the two above.
All of these cults are equal and equivalent glimpses of the untrue.
Do we get no credit for failing to be violent?
'Co-stars': Unidentified interviewer and interviewees
Cited: Antigones; Sophocles; United Nations; Karl Marx; Samara Dome
Link: http://youtu.be/RdWaLEJk8Rc


Hitchslap 05: Genital mutilation or circumcision is despicable  2:10 
Religion compels ordinary moral people to do disgusting wicked unforgivable things.
[Opponent's son cried more at his first hair cut than at his circumcision]
You weren't doing it right then.
Can't find the compulsory mutilation of genitals of children a subject for humour or flippancy.
Religion makes morally normal people say and do disgusting and wicked things
Shame on you for saying what you just said.
At least Judaism does not go in for female genital mutilation
'Co-stars': Unknown
Cited: Maimonides
Link: http://youtu.be/ikNged5mZiQ


Hitchslap 06: The virgin birth is a lie  2:28
Hulme – Which is more likely? Natural order is suspended or a Jewish minx should tell a lie?


Babies are not born beautiful.  They are born ugly.  They need to be sawn a bit.
Secular criminality on a political level was not really possible until the late 18th century as until that time religious monopoly on violence and cruelty and torture was so intense.
'Co-stars': Rev Al Sharpton
Cited: David Hulme; Steven Weinburg
Link: http://youtu.be/YHN3LEk_dOs


Hitchslap 07: It's called faith because it's not knowledge  2:57
Do yourself and your faith the honour of saying that it is faith.
A miracle is defined as the suspension of the natural order.
What is more likely? That the laws of nature have been suspended in your favour, or you have made a mistake?
Parthenogenesis is not completely unthinkable but does not prove his paternity is divine.
Wouldn't prove that any of his moral teachings are therefore correct.
Lazarus and daughter of Jairus both raised.  All the graves of Jerusalem opened. Resurrection was something of a banality at the time.
'Co-stars': Unidentified panel
Cited: David Hulme
Link: http://youtu.be/RNV06WI40A8



Hitchslap Index posts: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9



Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

Christianity distilled

This succinct appraisal of the christian faith comes from an article about Atheist Discrimination by Dave Gamble.

Atheist evangelists at the door

The bottom line is that many do truly believe that there exists a supernatural entity that gave birth to itself so that it could kill itself, to appease its anger towards all of us because an ancestor of ours was tricked by a talking snake into eating an apple. To dare to suggest that this is not true, and that there is not one jot of evidence for it is indeed highly offensive to many. Being openly an atheist is a direct challenge, it underlines the fact that the believers have wasted their entire life for a delusion.  Read on, at skeptical-science.com.

I find that those words resonate with those of Bertrand Russell:

“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."  --  Bertrand Russell

The Amazing Hitchslap Index

Many (if not most) of the readers of Something Surprising will be familiar with the work of Christopher Hitchens.  Probably you will have seen him speaking, whether live or on one of the thousands of Youtube videos that are available.  Perhaps fewer will have come across a splendid series of clips of the great Hitch at work, uploaded to Youtube by an inspiring user called Loy Machedo.  This series of videos called 'Hitchslaps' (currently numbering 66 videos) distills many of the best moments from Hitchens, along with some great opponents from all around the world.

Loy Machedo - not to be judged! (source here)

If you have never looked at any of these I recommend that you might do a Google search for 'Youtube Hitchslap' and you will find a cornucopia of clips.  This series is so good that a few imitators have uploaded Hitchslaps of their own.  This seems a little unfair considering that the idea was created by Loy Machedo, and some of the competing series of Hitchslaps have already been taken down.  (You will not find any of them referenced in this index.)

When you look at the Hitchslaps, I predict a few things:

• You will find clips about many of the topics that atheists and skeptics study
• You will want to remember where to find them again in future to point them out to others
• You will just LOVE many of the things Hitch says, and
• You will find it almost impossible to find them again in future (even if you bookmarked them carefully).

Here is the solution to your problems!

In a series of posts over the next few weeks I am planning to generate the material for "The Amazing Hitchslap Index"  which will then reside here on Something Surprising as a resource for all you fans of Hitch. 

The intention is to generate a table of the best quotations (sometimes paraphrased) and the type of subject material covered in each Hitchslap, to list the people in the debates (where possible) and to list the other works and authors who Hitch calls as 'witnesses'.  By posting a few at a time over about 10 weeks I hope to collect your suggestions together and implement them in the final single document containing everything.

In the meantime, enjoy this Hitchslap which is the one most watched so far.

As the index progresses please leave your comments using your name or pseudonym and a link to your blog and I will credit to you in the final document.  Add things that I have missed and correct things that I have got wrong.

Keep an eye on this blog for the first installment, part 1 of the essential guide to the Hitchslaps, starting one day this week and then every week until the project is complete.


Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Redemption and the New Atheists?

In last week's Sunday Telegraph - nominally a respectable British newspaper -  there was a ridiculous and desperate attempt to criticise the character of Richard Dawkins.  Of course he doesn't need any help from me to defend himself.  He is perfectly capable of doing it himself, as in this article in New Statesman.  Indeed he had already commented about the phone call on RichardDawkins.net, so I think we were all expecting something of the sort.

Adam Lusher decided not to attack Dawkins on the basis of anything that he has done or said recently, but surprisingly because of the activities of some of his distant ancestors.

"One of his direct ancestors, Henry Dawkins, amassed such wealth that his family owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744."

I had always thought that articles like this would be more at home in one of the other, lesser, Sunday papers than in the Telegraph.  But it seems that even The Telegraph has now stooped to the level of the gutter press.  Even God only intends to visit the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation, but somehow this journalist feels that he can take this already ridiculous concept and extend it by a few more generations.  In any case, we are probably all descended from both slave owners and slaves.

One amusing comment was made by Michael Marshall of the Merseyside Skeptics, who said this week, in a parody of creationist arguments:

"If Dawkins is descended from slave owners, how come there are still slave owners?"

Very funny!  But there are more serious sides to these arguments too.

Firstly - if Lusher is so interested in slavery, shouldn't he be devoting his time to the plight of slaves in today's world?  Many people say that there are more slaves in the world today than there have been at any other time in history.  These are the people who need their situation to be highlighted in the Sunday newspapers so that the chattering classes have their smug comfort challenged.

Lusher's infantile arguments also open up the opportunity for people to demand some form of reparations from the living for the actions of their forebears, and I find this to be immoral, irrelevant, and frankly, greedy.

Take as an example this quotation, mined from a campaigner, Esther Stanford-Xosei, of Lewisham, south London, the co-vice chairman of the Pan-African Reparations Coalition in Europe, who apparently said:

"There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity."

Actually I think there is indeed a statute of limitations for any crime.  When the 'criminal' dies, the penalty can NOT be paid by anyone else - unless of course their name is Jesus.
 

Things Christians Say, Part 5: Just go out and kill!

A weekly series of responses to the things christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Well - what stops you from going out and just killing everybody?

Piano

What an interesting and yet risible question. I have even heard of this question being asked seriously by a christian who honestly claimed that, in the absence of God, they would go out on a campaign of rape and murder. I find this rather disturbing. I hope they never find out the truth about gods.

Strangely, I have never met another atheist who really understands where this question 'comes from'. Nor have I ever met one who intends to indulge in such crimes. Obviously there are bound to be psychopaths of all persuasions so it is not completely impossible that there might be such a person among the people I know, but there are laws and associated penalties for these crimes.

***
Forte

What a vile slur to suggest that a lack of a belief in god has any connection whatsoever with a notion of right and wrong. Somehow religious people like to claim that their own version of right and wrong was defined by god - indeed specifically by their own God rather than any other god. This claim was 'revealed' to an uneducated peasant at some time in the past and then believed by their followers.  They neglect the fact that the Old Testament and Qu'ran specifically advocate stoning people for sundry misdemeanours, and in the case of christians they choose to ignore Jesus's reported words that not one jot or tittle of the law is to be changed by him.  (See Do Old Testament laws still count? which refers to Matthew 5:17.)

In actual fact though, it seems perfectly clear that there are objective rights and wrongs for any society, and it seems most obvious that these have developed through the forces of evolution and subsequently been adopted by religions. Similar rights and wrongs have developed in other species. Generally speaking it would be bad for any advanced society in any species if everyone's only aim in life was to kill everyone else. Similarly, stealing each others' possessions is not likely to be good for community cohesion - although it has to be said that some form of selfishness is probably present in every society. A compromise between greed and altruism has to be reached and obviously this is not in a short-term equilibrium. The greedy get away with being that way until the other people notice, and then in a spirit of fairness the majority will eventually rebel and take action against them.

You will often hear arguments that terrible crimes have been committed 'in the name of atheism'. Strangely, when you investigate these you find that most are not 'in the name of' anything, particularly not atheism, even if they were implemented by atheistic regimes.

God with us - proof that Hitler was christian.

On the other hand, Hitler's Holocaust was carried out more-or-less in the name of Roman Catholicism ('Gott mit uns'), and indeed with the full approval of the Vatican.

In the name of Catholicism!
(Picture from here where there are many others)

In fact - I would suggest that many of the worst crimes have actually been carried out 'in the name of religions'. You only have to read the old testament to see what was done to the other peoples around the region that was 'the promised land' for 'God's chosen people'. In more recent times, the inquisition perpetuated terrible actions against people who merely disagreed with them.

When religions were strong their actions were terrible. Just because we are lucky enough to live in times when religions are not so strong we have no right to feel that religions are harmless.

More importantly, religions seem to show a complete ineptitude when they try to distinguish right from wrong and good from evil!

Last week:   These so-called atheists are just rebelling against god.
Next week:   You can't prove that there's no god

De-baptismal certificate

It is tempting to think that other readers on the web know much more than me already, but just once in a while it is possible to realise that my intelligent and knowledgeable readers might not all know about all the resources available to them.

Something that someone said to me today reminded me of the Freedom from Religion Foundation's de-baptismal certificate, which is signed by former minister, Dan Barker.

The words on the certificate say:

“I, having been subjected to a Christian baptism before reaching an age of consent, or having submitted to baptism before embracing freethought and reason, hereby officially renounce that primitive rite and the Church that imposed it. I categorically reject the creeds, dogmas, and superstitions of my former religion, particularly the pernicious doctrines of ‘Original Sin’ and damnation.
“I further denounce as an affront and defamation to humanity the false and demeaning belief that any baby is born with ‘Original Sin’ and must be cleansed of it by baptism. From this day forward, I wish to be excluded from any claims of religious affiliation or membership based on baptismal records.”


Just a couple of weeks ago there was news of Bill Maher de-baptising Mitt Romney's long dead grandfather.  That sounds rather silly, but surely it can be no more silly than the Mormons baptising people posthumously.  I think I will return to that topic soon along with a post abut the magic underwear.

Robbing people of hope?

Bloggers who consistently seem to attack religion are sometimes criticised for their efforts.  They might find themselves labelled 'aggressive', 'strident', or strangely even 'sanctimonious'.  Typically I am asked why I spend so much time attacking christianity when it is obvious that the religion brings comfort to people in time of need.  [I have never heard the same argument used about islam, and I can only imagine that it is about as comforting as a bed of nails.]

I also find that people sometimes accuse me of pointing out the transgressions of particular christians as if they are typical of the acts of all the others.  In actual fact I try rather hard to avoid these particular ad-hominem attacks, not because the hypocrites don't deserve to be singled out, and not because there is any shortage of subjects, but because it is clearly a weak line of argument.  Please accept my apologies for the few times when I have done this as it was just a case of inconsistency on my own part.

But should I apologise for being anti-religious?  After all, look at all the good things done by church members worldwide.  Look at the charitable works that they perform.  Look at how they help the poor in Africa. And look at the way that they can console the bereaved or those who have had a traumatic experience.

Faith beats facts - sourced from here.

I accept that religion is not altogether bad, but I strongly believe that it is not altogether good either.  I definitely don't believe what is on the above sign.  Looking at the facts, remember how much charitable giving is wasted building churches instead of hospitals.  How much do the teachings of the Roman Catholic church lead to the deaths of millions in Africa due to the spread of HIV.

Actually I don't just single out christianity for my attacks.  I strongly disapprove of any attempts to convince people about superstition - whatever form that would take.  I don't like the way that the 'business' of organised religion is made to look like charity.  After all, it is not a non-prophet organisation! 

There is another aspect to religion as well as the idea of hope:

Faith frightens children!

Christianity and Islam both preach (in their own ways) about eternal damnation in the fires of hell.  Imagine teaching little children this doctrine and blighting their lives.  It is no use denying it.  Different traditions approach this topic with different priority and levels of dogma, but I suggest that it is there - at least by implication - in all branches of these two religions.  I know ex-Catholics who spent their childhoods terrified by this story and who feel liberated by escaping from their religion.

Both fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam also find themselves at odds with science.  Islam teaches that salt water and fresh water do not mix (Sura 25:53).  Certain creationist Christians teach that the sun is not producing power by nuclear fusion, but that it is 'young' and all the energy is coming from gravitational collapse.  Some deny the big bang and the fact of evolution.

All this is based on nothing more tangible than a few holy books - books that are not even internally consistent.  On top of the sacred texts there is doctrine.  Much of doctrine is based on even less tangible things that someone somewhere 'just knew' to be the truth.

Christians typically meet at church on a weekly basis to affirm their faith and to share their experiences.  Atheists have no such opportunity and one chance that they do have to affirm and indeed challenge each other is by writing and reading about each others' views.  Communication between us is so much easier via the internet and we all learn from each other and add our own 'teaching' in our own ways. 

This is why I join in the conversation.  I feel that I have a right to say the things that I believe, even if some few people take offence at them.  I don't seek to offend but to lift the veil of superstition and reveal what I believe to be a small part of the truth.

Am I robbing people of hope?  Perhaps. But what is the value of hope in something that is supported by so little evidence?  I suspect that it is not possible to 'rob people of fear' without the side effect of 'robbing them of hope'.  Anyway - what chance is there that my humble words rob anyone of anything?  I think the only people likely to listen to anything that I say are those who already know in their hearts that they do not have faith any more. 

I think I prefer to think that I am supporting others who find that a 'lack of faith' is both liberating and empowering.