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.

Why this might become a Reddit-free zone

It is possible that the Reddit buttons might disappear from this blog.  I honestly haven't decided, but I think you might be interested to know why I am considering it.  Reddit has been quite a good source of traffic over the last few months, but on balance its annoying quirks and capricious inconsistencies probably outweigh its benefits.

Once upon a time, self-publicity was permitted freely on Reddit, even if not actually encouraged.  At that time the community was thought to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff.  Posts that were of good enough quality would rise to the top, and those that were inferior would not, independent of the identity of the person who submitted them.

But now - without warning - you might find yourself banned from one sub-reddit for posting just 3 or 4 of your own blog posts over a period of months.  The /r/humour moderators did at least have enough of a sense of humour to rescind the ban once they had been contacted.  They also had the decency to tell me about it - albeit hidden behind a red envelope symbol that I didn't notice for a while.  I felt that I had been treated fairly at the time.  However, at least three friends have found themselves banned from other sub-reddits with no notification at all, and the whole thing is bewildering to new users trying to work out what they are now doing wrong.

Subsequently, I was posting regularly to the /r/atheism sub-reddit as I noticed was common with a few other atheist friends.  Clearly the /r/atheism moderators were not bothered by this, and with a rising karma figure one might assume that the community was benefiting in some way.  Again, I was very happy with the way that this sub-community spoke its mind about links that I provided to various other sites and to my own Something Surprising blog.

I have even blogged about the benefits of the slightly quirky Reddit community.

But then - some obnoxious and abusive b*****d who turns out to be the moderator of another sub-reddit (which I will not name) decided to indulge in a campaign of reporting contributors who posted things that offend him.  If his name was not 'iesvs' I might be tempted to think that he was an islamist terrorist.  I suppose that is still not totally out of the question.  I say 'he' rather than 'she' because his abusive comments are of a style that make it perfectly clear that he is a 'total-prick', and his obsession with potentially illegal Kindle hacking activities seem to be geekishly male. (I'm being narrow minded and judgemental here!)

Instead of indulging in intelligent and reasonable debate, this character uses his knowledge of the Reddit system to silence views that he does not like.  By repeatedly flagging a huge number of users - ten or more per day - as 'blogspot spammers', on Reddits that he does not moderate, the Reddit admins are persuaded to administer a sneaky and silent sentence.

They use a duplicitous technique known as 'shadow-banning'.  To the user, Reddit appears to work perfectly normally with the one exception that nobody at all seems to follow the links that you provide.  It takes a bit of research - all wasted time - to discover that there is one sure way to find out whether you are in this state.  You visit the Reddit.com/user/[your name] web page, and you find that you get a 404 error.  (There is a lot more information at this excellent link, from which the following image is ethically sourced.)

Shadow-banned - or ghost-banned!  And proud of it!

There must be another weapon in the armoury.  I and other users believe that it is possible to post things from other computers on other networks and be treated differently.  This cannot be as simple as an 'IP address ban' as my own home IP address is not static.  Every time I reboot my rooter it gets a new address.  Maybe Reddit uses the MAC address of my PC(s) or of the router itself - or maybe this is just anecdote and confirmation bias.  One way or another - posts from different places get treated differently, and I feel that there is no way that I want to waste time building a reputation for myself in the Reddit community when it can be terminated so easily and malevolently.

The Reddit admins do not seem to respond to messages.  Why should they bother?  There are plenty of other users and their time is limited.  They are not attributable to anyone and don't have to justify themselves.  Fair enough, but in my opinion they are a disgrace to the sub-reddit communities who live under an online 'sword of Damocles' unable to retain regular users who have enriched their world. This isn't just me but many other regular contributors.

Many disgruntled users will set up new accounts every time this happens and find ways to continue to patronise Reddit.  However - those who refuse to be silenced impolitely like this - like me - will just go to Twitter and other networking sites instead.  We might even write critical blog posts too!

I, for one, will not be looking to maintain a strong presence on Reddit.  That is not to say that I don't want my loyal and interesting readers to post items that they particularly like - I just won't be doing it myself.

Minus one vote for Reddit.

Thomas Paine - the first 'New Atheist'?

Thomas Paine, author of The Age of Reason, had an 'interesting' involvement in the French Revolution.  At the time he was living in France and although he was an English born 'Founding Father' of USA, he was acting as an elected member of the French National Convention when the revolution happened.  Things did not go well for him, but at least he escaped with his life.

Thomas Paine - an atheist and a deist.

Paine was a deist - in other words he believed in a creator of the universe but not a creator who intervened in its workings.  He was quite fervently anti-christian, and having been reading The Age of Reason I will be sure to write about him again in the future.

For the time being, here is what he said about the subject of miracles, with an interestingly humorous comment about Jonah and the whale.

Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief, (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show), it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since, then, a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvelous; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the whale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter would decide itself, as before stated, namely, is it more that a man should have swallowed a whale or told a lie?

But suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale, and gone with it in his belly to Nineveh, and, to convince the people that it was true, had cast it up in their sight, of the full length and size of a whale, would they not have believed him to be the devil, instead of a prophet? Or, if the whale had carried Jonah to Ninevah, and cast him up in the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to have been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps?

The most extraordinary of all the things called miracles, related in the New Testament, is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ, and carrying him to the top of a high mountain, and to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple, and showing him and promising to him all the kingdoms of the World. How happened it that he did not discover America, or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness has any interest?

Interestingly, I believe that if Paine lived today he would have realised that his deistic god had been backed so far into a corner that deism was not longer a defensible argument.  His rational and reasoning mind would be a great addition to the ranks of the present New Atheists, and he was perhaps the historical character who was nearest in every way to the late, great, Christopher Hitchens.

One could almost call Paine 'the first of the New Atheists', even though he died in 1809!

Greatest adversary of Yahweh

Following on from yesterday's post about finding the Ugaritic Texts in Musée du Louvre last weekend, here are some more detailed pictures of the tablets.  You can find more about these tablets in a post last July about The Ugaritic Texts.

The first picture is of a tablet which says in the French commentary to the right that Baal was presented as the greatest adversary of Yahweh.  I will not attempt to translate any of the others, but have added a relevant caption to each.

Their location in Musée du Louvre can be seen in yesterday's post.

Ugaritic Texts - the greatest adversary of Yahweh

Ugaritic Texts - Functionaries of a temple

Ugaritic Texts -Legend of Danel

Ugaritic Texts - Hierarchy of the gods of the kingdom of Ugarit

Ugaritic Texts - Mythological poem of the life and death of Baal

Ugaritic Texts - Mythological poem of the life and death of Baal (fragment)

Ugaritic Texts -Birth of the gods

Finding the Ugaritic texts in the Louvre

Last July I wrote a series of articles about the gods of the Old Testament including a post about The Ugaritic Texts.  Yes - I said 'gods' rather than God.  It seems very clear that there was 'pantheon' of gods at the time and God (a.k.a Yahweh) was just one of them as you can read at that link.

Finding myself in Paris on a Saturday afternoon with no other commitments for a few hours, I took the opportunity yesterday to go to Musée du Louvre to look for the actual Ugaritic Text tablets and to see them for myself.  Just having seen pictures of the tablets without seeing their context, I didn't have a good feel for the size of them or indeed the number of finds.

Musée du Louvre, in February 2012

Finding them was a little tricky.  Even asking one of the guides (and finding for the only time in 3 days that my French is not good enough) did not help.  Sitting in the Mesopotamia rooms of the Louvre, at first I thought he was just one of those arrogant Parisiens that you hear about but don't often meet.  After a while I realised that he was only arrogant because he was also ignorant of the archaeological treasures surrounding him.

C'est la vie!  I found them a bit later all by myself, in room B of the ground floor area of the 'Sully' section of the Louvre.  I gained access to that area through the 'Richelieu' wing.  No doubt there might be easier ways to get there but I happened across some other interesting and famous artifacts on the way there. More about the amazing Code of Hamurabi in a few days time.

For today, here are a couple of photos of room B.  Tomorrow I will post photos of some of the tablets themselves.  First an overview of the room looking towards the North-East.

Musée du Louvre, Sully, ground floor room B

This is the cabinet containing the Ugaritic texts

Where in Musée du Louvre are the Ugaritic texts?  In this cabinet.

and this is a bit more detail of the cabinet itself

The cabinet containing the Ugaritic Texts in Musée du Louvre

More detail coming tomorrow, but just to finish this post on an incongruously surprising, lighter note, I thought you might smile at a sticker that I saw on a motor bike in Paris.  At the least, it is an interesting example of 'Franglais'.

J'adore rien - I'm parisien!

Things Christians Say, Part 4 - Just rebelling against 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'). 

These so-called atheists are just rebelling against god.

Piano

This is an interesting accusation, because I think it is often true of young people who were indoctrinated into a religion. However, it is not universally so. In order to rebel against a god you would have to believe in one to start with. This is where it becomes difficult to lend any credence to the claims that they are atheists. Rebelling against god is in fact one thing that cannot possibly be claimed by any atheist. If they do believe then they are a rebel. If not, they are an atheist.

How often do I hear people claim that they used to be atheists too, but that they have now found Jesus? It is not rare by any means.

But then again, the same people sometimes tell me that they are frightened about the afterlife and that they can't understand how we can live a life without hope. As soon as I hear this I personally begin to feel that they are in the category of rebels against god.

As for me, since I am largely sure that there is no god, I don't fully understand the expression 'rebelling against god'.

***

Forte

For those christians who claim now to have seen the light I find that they parade their former atheism as a bit of a badge of pride. They use it in what they think is a subtle attempt to persuade you that you might also be 'saved' in future.  It is perfectly possible to change your mind – they say.

In their case they might have been rebelling against god or against their parents. They might have been more strident at that time than the current 'New Atheists' but I suspect that they don't realise that rudeness and stridency are not necessary characteristics for an atheist.

The only qualification required in order to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Most of you are also atheists – I just take it one god further than you do.



Last week:   If evolution were true, we'd see dogs giving birth to cats!
Next week:  Well - what stops you from going out and just killing everybody?

More popular than Jesus!

The is a guest blog post written by a friend of the creator of Something Surprising.  I think you will like it.

The day that John Lennon said "We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first, rock 'n' roll or Christianity", he caused a bit of a stir. Many of our friends in the bible belt of America decided to burn records and publications having already paid good money for them.

Burning the Beatles albums!

This was in 1966, 4th March to be exact, and at this time there was little in the way of a benchmark by which to measure the validity of Mr Lennon's statement. But it has to be said that I doubt their careers suffered much as a consequence and it has largely been forgotten.

But how can we quantify how popular something is based upon a world wide audience?

Facebook!

Yes Facebook, the new evil in the world that has been responsible for more than it's fair share of misery for the masses.  One in six of the world's population has a Facebook account and one in three has access to someone who does have an account.   That is in excess of two billion people.  Wow!

So, are the Beatles more popular than Jesus?  Yes, and by more than a factor of two.  At time of writing 25,600,000 people "like" the Beatles and 11,500,000 "like" Jesus.  Even if we factor in his 'dad', God, with 4,700,000 "likes" the figure only hits 16,200,000.

Strangely enough the third member of the "band", the holy ghost, doesn't even have a page. [Should we create one?]

So, I think it is official, The Beatles are still more popular than Jesus.

Having said that, the most popular Facebook page is Texas Hold'em Poker, with in excess of 50,000,000 "likes" so those tempted by money seem to predominate!


*********

This is a guest post on Something Surprising, kindly provided by 'Tony'.

Who gave this Kafir the right to speak?

At the recent London Rally to Defend Freedom of Expression, the author of the delightful Jesus and Mo cartoons asked for his words to be read out aloud, and Maryam Namazie of One Law for All obliged by doing it for him.

When was the last time you rushed into a place of worship while a service was taking place, and told the preacher to shut up? My guess is that you have never done this while sober.

Because you know that it is impolite to butt in to other people’s conversations and demand that they stop talking.

And yet that is what would-be censors are always trying to do. At St Mary’s College, on other people’s Facebook pages, at literature festivals, and on the website of Jesus and Mo, they have butted in with their rude – and sometimes menacing – demands for silence.

It is the height of bad manners. Those of us who understand the value of free expression wouldn’t dream of being so discourteous.

In fact, far from telling believers to shut up, we WANT them to keep talking. Because that is how their ideas are exposed to light and – inevitably – laughter.

In the end, there is only one solution available to those who don’t want their beliefs to be laughed at: stop believing funny things.

So this is my message to the religious censors: we do not merely ASK that you show us the same courtesy that we show you. We INSIST on it.

We are going to be criticizing your scriptures, lampooning your prophets, and laughing at your deeply held beliefs for many years to come. You can complain about us. You can ignore us. Or you can respond in kind with ridicule and laughter of your own.

But you cannot shut us up.

Thank you to everyone here for helping to get that message across.

To celebrate the words, here is a recent Jesus and Mo cartoon which sums up the message nicely.  Remember, Jesus is Jesus, Mo is Mohamed, and the invisible third character is the wise and wonderful barmaid.

Jesus and Mo - with Menace!

Incidentally, the title of this blog post does not strictly apply to the above speech, but it was drawn from another speech at the event.  They were the words of some islamist bigot who wrote in a blog post on a site called 'Islamic Awakening' (which I decline to link to - demonstrating that I really am islamophobic).

You can hear a report about the rally on the excellent Pod Delusion podcast, Episode 123.  The Pod Delusion also provided a recording of the whole Freedom of Expression event, which features some great speakers!   I'll be listening to it again - all of it - soon.

Who indeed did give 'this kafir' the right to speak, I say, speaking as another proud kafir.

Well - this is England.  Nobody needed to give us the right.  I was born with it, thanks to the bravery of all our ancestors who fought for these rights.  Nobody has the 'right' to take the right of free speech away from us.

The odd thing is that the right to free speech gives the Islamist bigots the right to question it.

In this country we celebrate that fact as a victory for freedom!


Other links:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644928-but-you-cannot-shut-us-up
and
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/02/12/but-you-cannot-shut-us-u/#comment-21229

No point in listening to peasants

From my own point of view, Peter Atkins was the star guest on a panel in the Grove Auditorium of Magdalene (pronounced 'Maudlin') College, Oxford, on 21st February.  He had the general approval of the audience to a greater extent than the other members.

The splendid 'Grove Auditorium'
(complete with a piano that was not visible yesterday).

Stephen Law was the other atheist, being part of 'team philosophy' with the christian Richard Swinburne.  I can't bring myself to comment much on Swinburne's words as they were barely comprehensible "unadulterated professorial claptrap" as Atkins said. "A world without suffering is a world where we would not have choice" and things like that poured from Swinburne's mouth - if I understood him correctly. I was told that Richard Dawkins has previously described Swinburne's work as being 'beyond satire'.  I could hardly disagree with either point of view!  The fourth member of the panel, theoretical physicist Ard Louis, spoke well about science but still seemed to require intervention from god - or particularly the christian God.

Professor Peter Atkins - a 'defunct chemist'
but not a defunct speaker (photo from here)

I'm only going to speak further on Peter Atkins' contribution, because his words delighted me and they are the only ones that I actually want to talk about and paraphrase.  He described himself as "a defunct physical chemist".  He started by saying that there are three ways of learning about the world:

• Think about it - or 'sit around inventing crazy ideas'
• Rely on authoritative books  - written by peasants, or
• Experiment!

There is no point in sitting thinking what the world should be like, and no point listening to peasants. [A little harsh perhaps] It is almost surprising that it took until the 17th century to develop the idea of experimental science. Since then the reticulation of ideas - the complex interactions between the different disciplines of science - has been one of the greatest strengths of science.  Ideas from the different islands of science reinforce each other.  They are mutually supportive, testable and most importantly, public. And science works!

There are questions which can distinguish the wheat from the chaff.  "What is the purpose of . . . " type questions are definitely in the chaff category, as is 'What is the nature of the afterlife?'  Apparently the answer to that is easy.  It will be exactly like it was before you were born, in spite of the rantings of the aforementioned peasants.

There are other questions that have not been answered yet and may never be answered, but they are still in the wheat category.  Where does it all come from?  What is the nature of consciousness, aesthetics and morality?  On topics like this, science illuminates, philosophy does something else, and religion obfuscates.

There was plenty of applause.  After the other panel members had spoken, Atkins professed a 'deep distress at the dismal views of the rest of this panel'.  I'm tempted to ask who could disagree - but there were some in the audience who would say that they would. 

Having made admiring comments about Atkins, I wouldn't say that he was the most approachable person in the room.  Then again, I am just a peasant and my feelings are not very badly hurt.

Aren't people interesting?

Think Week off to a good start

Oxford Think Week 2012 got off to a good start last night, with an event called 'In Conversation with Richard Dawkins'.  The other gentleman in the conversation was Benjamin Krishna, Chair of Oxford Atheists, Secularists and Humanists and student at Oxford University.  Oxford Town Hall was nearly filled to capacity, with an audience of about 600 people - which was said to be a larger audience than for any of the events in a week of meetings by the Oxford University Christian Union recently.

Richard Dawkins and Ben Krishna

Here are a few highlights - by no means intended to be a full transcript of the event, but just some things that I liked.

Naturally the recent results of the Isos Mori poll, (see here and here), sponsored by the RDFRS, were first on the agenda.  Much of the discussion mirrored the conversations that many people in UK will have heard on radio and TV recently.  Dawkins mentioned that most vicars and bishops were nice people who you might like to have tea with.  He said "I have only met one nasty bishop . . . quite recently actually" presumably in reference to his debate with Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali on BBC's Newsnight programme last Tuesday.

He recommended a new book by Steven Pinker, called "The Better Angels of our Nature" which sets out to demonstrate that the past was a much nastier time than the present. 

He also suggested that it would be possible to date almost any book written in the last century to the nearest decade simply by analysing the morals contained in it.  These morals come from somewhere complicated, and it is not fair to think of humans as intrinsically good or bad.  However, christianity is very good at assuming that we are intrinsically sinful

Speaking about his latest book Dawkins said that The Magic of Reality is not an atheist book - but if you read between the lines and you are a child of some intelligence you might begin to get the message.

When one of the audience questions went on longer than welcome - Dawkins replied politely "Thank you.  There's quite a lot there." and then he went on to answer the salient points.

Asked about whether his outspoken views on the burqa were helpful or not, he answered that he personally had a visceral hatred of it, and that it was abusive to women.  He said that he refused to hold back from criticising merely for fear of being branded islamophobic.

Another questioner said that he had two questions, and when asked by the chairman to choose just one of them he asked it.   Dawkins said "Oh no! Not free will! What is your other question?" which brought a round of applause. 

A good evening!  Maybe this has given you a taste of what it was like to be in the audience.  When the video is released - as I am sure it will be - I will post a link here.

The CERN Compromise

When Britain and France teamed up to build the supersonic airliner, Concorde, they had a practical problem to solve.  Which language would be the official language of the project?  In a typical European compromise they concluded that they would use both languages.

Concorde - the result of a good compromise.  Image from here.

It is said that it was official policy for all the engineers to speak in their own language.   The English spoke English and understood French spoken by the French.  The French reciprocated.  This was deemed to be the best way to minimise the likelihood of misunderstandings.  It was known as 'The Concorde Compromise'.

After all, the plane worked pretty well - at least until failure to upgrade and maintain one of the French planes let down a great design.

It is also said that another big European technological project has adopted a different solution to the same problem.

'The CERN compromise' is different.  It requires the French to learn English, and the English to learn to shake hands!

Small note - It is customary in France to shake hands with your colleagues at work every day.  In England it is customary to shake hands with a colleague once - the first time you meet them - and almost never again.  Aren't both of these options strange?