I should have stood up for Kylie Smith

Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. It was a chant, almost tribal in its nature, from the boys in my class as the wide circle they had made around Kylie's desk got smaller and smaller. With each word they got a step closer until they were so close that she could have touched them. There were three boys in the class not participating, myself and my two best friends. 

* * * * *

As it was for a lot of people, early high school was very hard for me. Suddenly thrown into a school 5 times the size of my primary school, with no friends to help support me though it. 

I did have friends at the school but there had been a mix up. On our orientation day I found that I was in a different 'mini' (what they called the year 7 class groups at my school) to my group of friends which I had from primary school. I was in 4a, they'd all be put into 3b. There was room to move though so I put in a request to be moved to 3b for the start of high school the next year. This request was granted. 

So I showed up on high school day one, found my friends, looked up (or was told somehow) where we needed to be and which class we were in. Sure enough, I'd been moved to 3b. My 3 best friends had been moved to 1a. I was devastated and essentially alone. I made my way to 3b home group to be confronted by a sea of faces who all clearly knew each other but clearly didn't know me. I was able to spot two familiar faces in the crowd (one of them went on to represent Australia at the Olympics). They were sitting up the front of the room at a desk. They weren't friends as such, but kids I knew well enough to talk to, so I went and knelt beside them. 

For the record, this is what our school desks looked like back in the day: 

Our high school class rooms had these spread throughout (unless it was science, arts, or materials such as woodwork, or metal work). In home group many of the 'tough' kids would just sit along the ledge which was created by the cupboards at the back of the room. 

I can't remember what kind of acknowledgement I got from the two kids I recognised but I do remember they were in 3a, not 3b so once we broke up to go to class, I really was on my own. 

I don't remember if it was that morning or the next day but a short time after I wasn't sure where I had to go for my next class. I was standing in a hallway looking at the school class timetable, unable to understand it. I was lost, on the verge or tears (I was a sensitive young fella) and totally confused about where I was meant to be. 

A teacher, Sue Fraser I later learnt, walked past  so I got her attention, told her which class I was in but wasn't sure where I was meant to be. She said '3b? You're in here with me'. A lucky break in walking in finding out where I had to be. Not so lucky walking into class with the teacher. 

I was overweight in those days. (I've spent a couple of weeks here and there being not overweight since) so I endured a week of torment and abuse because of it. Not only was I overweight, but I had no one there to help stick up for me either. I've never been sure since if there was anything else about me that earned me the title of 'person to be bullied' but my weight was the obvious one. 

In one class, I can't remember which, we were stood in a circle of 5 or 6 students and we had to introduce ourselves by name and tell everyone something we liked. I was struggling for ideas as I desperately wanted to think of something that wouldn't be ridiculed. The ring leader of the bullies happened to be in the group I was in. It was frightening. 

I had received a model train set for Christmas the year before so I thought that must be okay. 

'My name's Donovan, and I like trains', is what I said. It was only later that I found out that alpha-bully was a Collingwood fan. Had I revealed at this moment that I too was a Collingwood fan, I might have become accepted, or at least the bullying might have eased off. Who knows? 

As some point, someone lied about what I had said, and how I said it. They all started making fun of me because they were convinced I'd said 'My name's Donovan, and I'm a train.' Not only were the words changed but they were also convinced it wasn't said normally but was in a long, drawn out drawl as though I had a severe speech impediment. Everywhere I walked 'My name's Donovan and I'm a train' would be said, mocking me. That was when they were feeling a little more adventurous than just calling me fat. 

So my first week of high school was hell for me. It really was. I don't remember a day not being in tears from the bullying. I talked to teachers, desperate to get out of that class and to join my friends. I remember one recess where I was sitting in the spot my friends and I always did (I'm thankful that we were at least able to spend breaks together). I was there first so for a minute or two was on my own when some girls I didn't even know walked past. One of them said 'haven't his friends arrived yet?' I guess people had heard about me. 

On the Friday morning of the first week a teacher came around to each class to check on how things were going and to ask if everyone was happy. I raised my hand. She came to my desk (I was sitting by myself of course) and asked my name. "Donovan". "Ah, I've heard about you". She said. I'm not sure what words my thought consisted of at that moment, but I know today's equivalent would be 'Then why the fuck haven't you done something about it before now?'

She told me that I'd be moved class from next week on. I got her to confirm twice that it would be 1b where my friends where. It was. She then said that maybe I should try to sit with people instead of on my own. Maybe I should try a bit harder to be friends with them. She had no idea that through no fault of my own, they hated me. 

So the Monday of the second week arrived, I was in 1b and things instantly improved dramatically. They weren't perfect. I still had a few classes with that old group so there was still a bit of bullying going on. I remember one Graphics class with the old group 3b group, not the 1b group. I guess reorganising the schedule completely was a bit too hard. 

A table of boys nearby me started talking about me, but not too me. Though they were loud enough for me to hear, and that was their intention. I don't remember the details of what they were saying, and really it doesn't matter. They were picking on me, that's what matters. I was in tears, unable to deal with it. I was trying to get my work done hoping my tears went unnoticed, but they didn't. Except by the teacher. 

The teacher stepped out for whatever reason teachers step out. A girl whose name I can't remember decided to take this opportunity to whip me on the back with a set of keys she had on the end of a long string. I don't know why she thought I should be whipped. She said a lot of things while she did it. My guess would be she hit me 10 to 12 times. The one thing I remember her saying was 'My heart bleeds for you Donovan. My heart bleeds.' To this day I've no idea what I did to deserve this from this girl. I'm not sure I'd ever even spoken to her. As far as I could tell, I was just the kid who got picked on. 

I ignored her and she eventually went and sat down. They table of boys was still abusing me so I got up and punched or shoved one of them. I can't remember which I did. 

Over the next few years the bullying decreased until it was non-existent. I eventually drifted away from the friends I'd been so desperate to be with in the first week of school and started hanging out with two other guys. With my original friends, even though I wasn't bullied as such, I was still the butt of jokes, still the laughed at kid, the odd one out. With these two new friends I was one of them. Accepted as me, never picked on for anything. 

I even became friends with alpha-bully to some extent. That I was a Collingwood fan became known and earned me some respect. My two friends and I became Metallica fans and were very excited to go see them at Melbourne's Festival Hall in 1989. May 4th. Section 9. Row E. Seat 36. Metallica were a little different in those days. They were scary. They were loud. They were dangerous. I remember when alpha-bully found out we were going. He too was a Metallica fan but wasn't brave enough to go. He kept saying we were 'gonna get knifed.' It was significant. The three geeks were going but the big tough kid wasn't. Like being a Collingwood fan, it earned respect. 

So it was with these two friends that I was sitting when a kid, Joe, came up to us. Someone at some point, somehow had decided that Kylie Smith didn't blink enough (fucking kids). And a few months prior she'd unfortunately earned herself the nickname 'stare-bear'. 

Joe whispered to us that the boys were going to form a circle around Kylie's desk and chant 'stare' at her. He asked if we wanted in. We all said no. 

Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. Stare. They chanted it as they got closer and closer. My two friends and I didn't participate. It was a horrible thing to do and I couldn't be part of it. 

So I sat there and watched. 

This commercial is currently airing on Australian TV: 

I thought about that incident with Kylie a few times since that day - about 27 years ago and this commercial makes me think about it even more. 

I sat there and watched because the focus wasn't on me. I wasn't the one being bullied. Had I said something I'm sure I would have been accused of being in love with Kylie and would have been picked on for that. I don't remember my exact thought but it would have been something like 'this is just so wrong...but at least it's not me.'

I don't know what happened to Kylie since high school. I remember a biology teacher once saying orgasm instead of organism. Kylie was the only person who laughed. She knew something we didn't. But after that? No idea. I heard that alpha-bully became a police officer. I'm not sure if that's true, but if so, I hope he's matured somewhat since those days. I don't see my two friends any more but still interact occasionally on social media. 

I think about that moment, how I just sat there and did nothing. Sure, I refused to participate, but I didn't do anything to stop it either. Every time I think back on that day I think to myself 'I should have stood up for Kylie Smith.' 

Why the Live and let live approach doesn't work

It's hard to see all the religious people of the world giving up their push to have the rules of their religion legislated if all the vocal atheists of the world were to suddenly fall silent. 

This is the naivety of the 'Live and let live' approach when it's aimed at atheists. 

From my experience the vast (if not total) majority of vocal atheists are motivated through their desire to stop having religion impose its rules onto those who don't share those beliefs (including the children they indoctrinate). 

The most common example of this imposition, I suspect, is marriage equality. Australia does not allow marriage between people who are the same gender. The opposition to this is, from my observation, 100% religiously motivated. Our current Prime Minister is opposed to due his catholic beliefs. Our previous Prime Minister was once opposed, but declared that he'd changed his mind. He concluded through his 'informed Christian conscience' that allowing marriage equality was the right thing to do. His reasoning can be seen in full here. In what could be considered a strange situation, our Prime Minister previous to that had an anti-equality position on marriage, despite being an atheist. Her reasoning, however, was "...what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture."

If not for vocal atheists and secularly minded theists, this push for equality would not exist and there'd be no chance ever of marriage equality becoming a reality, and same sex couples would be forever told that their love isn't worth joining in matrimony. How can one consider this a live and let live approach? 

If all theists of the world were advocates of the live and let live approach marriage equality would have been a reality shortly after it was identified as an anomaly. But no, when it comes to progressive morality, secular humanism leads the charge and religion is dragged kicking, screaming, and protesting behind. 

The 'live and let live' approach is essentially what the vocal atheists I respect are aiming for but we can't do it first because it's not the approach taken by theists. As I've said before, the vocal atheist position is reactionary. It has seen a rise in recent times because of religion and what religion has done and continues to do to society. If we, the atheists and secularists, were to adopt live and let live, theism would march on unimpeded and unquestioned. Rules that have no place outside of ancient scripture would be pushed through as legislation, and advances in morality would be a thing of the past. 

Atheists and secularists will continue to speak up as long as theists continue imposing their agenda onto the rest of society - whether it's their anti-equality position regarding marriage, their intimidating protests outside Planned Parenthood and other such places where abortions are available, their insistence that their version of the creation myth be taught as fact in school, the practice of praying rather than seeking medical attention while children die, their burning alive of people they think to be witches, their criminalising of homosexuality, their intimidation of students wanting to form atheist clubs in school - the list is practically endless. Because if we don't speak up we'll be forced to live under theistic rules with which we want absolutely nothing to do. 

So the live and let live approach may work one day, but it has to be theists first. 

To put it simply - if atheists shut up, we'll still hear from theists. If theists shut up, they'll stop hearing from atheists. 

On Miracles

When a theist is trying to convince me that the god in which they happen to believe is real they'll often cite miracles as evidence. 

Of course the first question to ask is 'what do you mean by miracle?' The answer which comes back is usually something like an event which can't be explained, something inexplicable. 

Surely this is where the argument ends - if they understand what they've just said at all. Of course you will most likely recognise this as pure argument from ignorance. They can't explain what happened, therefore they think god did it. 

We all know it doesn't work like that. To make a case for God, you need to demonstrate that God was responsible, not that you don't know what was responsible. 

One of the most common examples is the surprise recovery from serious illness. The person wasn't expected to recover, they were given a short time to live...but 5 years later, here they are, alive and well. Must have been God, right? No. For one, they're not considering that people recover unexpectedly *all the time*! Well...maybe not all the time - but unexpected recoveries do happen. At what point does it lose it miraculousness? 

People throw around the word miracle for a rare event, an extraordinary occurrence, something they didn't except, or even something everyday that they really wanted (I got my concert tickets...it's a miracle!). But as with prayers - miracles are never something that is demonstrably impossible without the involvement of a god. Where's the amputee growing a limb back? Where's going to bed with a normal back and waking up with wings? No, these things never happen. Miracles are always things that could have happened anyway. 

It comes down to something I've written about previously. Not understanding something doesn't mean a god is responsible for it.

Religion based Censorship

I'm sure you've heard by now that there was an outcry and petition regarding an image in the latest Katy Perry music video. 

It's the word 'Allah' written in Arabic hanging from a chain around the neck of a character who is then disintegrated by Katy Perry's character. 

In what is an almost expected response now, Muslims kicked up a fuss, started a petition and some 65,000+ signatures later reports say the YouTube version of the song has had the word edited out. See below for before and after: 

65,000 people signing a petition to remove this image is staggering - why would they care? Well they care because it's 'blasphemous'. Apparently. Now if they want to get upset about it, that's up to them. But how dare they demand to have it removed? Who are they to say what images can and can't appear in a music video? One hopes that these 65,000 people also signed petitions in favour of human rights or prevention of animal cruelty. But I doubt it.

This is close on the heels of the controversy caused when Maajid Nawaz said that Muslims shouldn't be offended by the below Jesus and Mo cartoon:

Mr Nawaz was harassed online - not because he called Mohammed a name, not because he drew Mohammed (something Muslims don't like) not because he insulted Allah. No, it was because he said Muslims shouldn't find the above offensive. That's all. Because of the outcry Channel 4 in Britain censored the picture and showed it like this: 

Again, who are religious extremists to say what cartoons can and can't be shown or drawn?

These are just two examples, there are many more and it's not just from Muslims. Monty Python famously caused controversy among Christians with their film 'The Life of Brian'.

The religious extremism here isn't the issue. Well it is, but that's not why I'm writing. Sadly, we've come to expect it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought against, but it's just not a surprise now. 

No, the issue here is the pandering to it. Why should freedom of speech or freedom of expression be the casualty? Why is it more important that religious sensitivities be protected over freedom? There is no such thing as the 'right to not be offended'. 

If we allow this bit of religious extremism to have its way, where do we stop? Islam wants women to be covered in a Hijab or Burka. What happens if 65,000 Muslims sign a petition demanding that every woman appearing on YouTube or television wears a Hijab? Do millions of YouTube videos suddenly get removed? Does the look of television change forever? 

I know I'm leaning toward Slippery Slope fallacy here but the problem is the religious people who are offended by almost everything and I genuinely don't know at what point they'll stop trying to force their rules onto others. 

Censorship based on religious sensibilities is dangerous and is a real threat to the freedom of people who don't subscribe to the religion in question (and to those who do). It would be one thing to go into a religion's building such as a mosque and offend the believers, but no one is forcing anyone to watch the Katy Perry video. No one is being forced to read the Jesus and Mo cartoons. The only forcing here is being done by the religious extremists - forcing people to submit to their whims. They need to understand that they don't get to tell other people what they should find sacred. They don't get to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. 

If person x is offended by something but person y isn't the solution isn't to allow neither of them to see it - the solution is that person x doesn't watch. Simple. I don't expect laws to be made to protect my feelings

If you would like to voice your counter position to the Katy Perry video censorship, my friend Kevin (@perth_atheist ) has set up a petition at Change.org, which you can find here.

Why Faith?

You've got to have faith. Faith is important. You can't expect God to make you believe, you have to believe on faith. It's drilled into children by theistic parents and reinforced from the pulpit. Faith - it's the one thing you need to get into heaven.

Well...allow me to disagree. 

First of all I want to clear up what I mean by faith. For starters, I don't mean trust. Faith is, essentially, pretending to know something you don't. It's believing something is true despite lack of evidence or despite contradictory evidence. Trust is different. Trust is formed over time and is based on verifiable experience and data. For example when I drive my car I don't have faith that the brakes will work - I trust they will work. I trust this because I've had them work previously, I know they were manufactured to standards, and that they're maintained by qualified professionals. 

Faith is fine if you don't care about what's true. If you want to believe something whether or not it's true, whether or not you've got good reason to believe it, then faith is for you. But if you want to believe things (or accept them as true if you'd rather put it that way) for good reasons, then faith will not help you achieve that. 

The easiest way to demonstrate that faith is flawed is to point out that through faith alone, people can have contradictory beliefs and none of them can be validated. I think this point is crucial - you cannot validate beliefs based on faith.

Take Christians who believe - on faith - that 'Bible God' exists and he sent his son Jesus/himself to earth to save human kind. They also believe that Jesus was/is the messiah. 

Contrast this with the Muslims who also believe in an Abrahamic God themselves. Muslims think Jesus was a prophet of God but not the saviour. They also think that Muhammad was a prophet but the Christians think no such thing. The Christians think God had a son, the Muslims and Jews don't. The Muslims think the Qu'ran is the literal word of God as revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. The Jews and Christians believe no such thing. 

These three big players in religion - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - pretty much, kind of, believe in the same god, yet they differ on so many crucial points. Of course this is completely ignoring the various sects and branches of Christianity there are. I've heard estimates up to 30,000 different kinds. 

So the question which must be asked is this - if faith is a pathway to truth, if faith is valuable, how can it lead to so many different conclusions? There are so many assumptions, guesses, and, really, just making stuff up that I can't see how anyone values faith as a method for determining truth. The phrase 'I know because I have faith' is an oxymoron. 

If you put two people with opposing faiths together and asked them to come to a consensus, how would they do it? They wouldn't measure their faith and go with the highest, that's for sure. (How does one measure faith anyway? And what units would you use? As I've suggested before - Gullibles?). No, they wouldn't stay with faith, they would both start stating reasons for why they believe what they do. A Christian might point to story of Christ's empty tomb, a Muslim might point to the alleged scientific truths in the Qu'ran. 

What we see here is, essentially, people abandoning their faith. When faith is questioned, when faith is put under analysis, they don't turn to 'more faith', they turn to reason and evidence - even if the reason if fallacious and the evidence is flawed. 

Faith is not a pathway to truth, faith is often abandoned as soon as it's questioned and often abandoned for good when the pursuit of truth through reason and logic is embraced. 

Faith is dangerous, we all know the horrific and tragic consequences of people operating on faith alone and not reason, I don't need to detail them here. 

Faith is ignorance, it leads not to truth, but to bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic, sexist, and oppressive views.

I've called this blog entry 'Why Faith?' but I've not really answered it. Because when it comes to why people would choose faith over reason - I really have no idea. 

______________________________________________________________

[i]  I say 'an' Abrahamic God and not 'the' because....well the God in the bible and the God in which the Muslims believe, called Allah[ii] are really two different Gods. I like to say that they have a common ancestor.

[ii] Allah is Arabic for 'the God' though it's common to see Allah being functionally used as the name of the god in question.

Why do people pray for others?

"I'll pray for you" something I get told quite often and I'm sure a lot of atheists get told the same.

We also see people praying for those who are ill, people who are looking for work, people who are missing and so on. 

I've been told by a Christian friend of mine that when she prays she's asking for guidance, for strength, and to be 'shown the right path'. I really don't mind this as I see it like meditating. Like focusing. I think it probably does work because the person is convinced going in that they'll get what they need from the prayer - I just think they give it to themselves and they mistakenly call that part of themselves God. 

When a theist tells an atheist they'll pray for them, a common comeback is 'And I'll think for you'. It's not bad...but not helpful either. I've sometimes replied with 'Good, if you're praying for me, it means you're not on the street corner shouting crazy at everyone.' Again, not helpful, even if truthful. 

These days I tend to ask why. I want to know what they're going to say and what they're expecting to achieve. I don't often get answers but on the rare occasion it's something like 'I want to ask God to make himself known to you' or 'I want Jesus to come to you so you can know his love.' Words to that effect. 

This seems to fly in the face of what I'm constantly told which is that God has granted me free will and it's up to me to then believe in him by faith alone. If a prayer to God or Jesus asking them do something in my life to cause me to believe in them is answered it removes my free will. It's no longer possible for me to believe on faith alone. What then for my free will? 

It also appears that the pray-er assumes they can change their God's mind or make him aware of something he was not already aware of (so much for omniscience). I would really like to know what they expect from that... 

'Hey God? It's me Bobby-Jo. I'm praying to you because I spoke to this atheist and he doesn't believe you exist so can you please make yourself known to him so he can know the love of Jesus? Thanks. Also - have you seen my car keys?' 

And God...in his office or wherever he hangs out to receive prayers gets a New Prayer notification. He sees it's from Bobby-Jo and it includes a request to make himself known to an atheist. Does God then say 'What? There's someone who doesn't believe in me? Really? Well..this just will not do! Yes, Bobby-Jo I will make myself known to this person! Wow, thanks for letting me know I had no idea!'. Is this really what the Bobby-Jos of the world think is going to happen? I'm really not sure but when I'm told that I'll be prayed for I will continue to ask why and will continue ask what will be said and what is expected. 

The other kind of prayer I mentioned is the praying for others in a time or tragedy or hardship. 

After a natural disaster there is, without fail, a massive cry for prayer. 'Pray for the victims of <insert natural disaster location here>'. 

I have replied to this with this: 

The first thing I think of when people are praying for the victims of a natural disaster (and I'm sure many other atheists think similarly) is 'Aren't you just praying to the very God that caused the disaster in the first place?' Similar to the above, are they saying 'God, I know you sent this cyclone/flood/earthquake for a reason, but if you could make it so it was really easy to recover, that would be just great!'. It's just ridiculous. 

What about praying for someone who is ill or missing. I've seen it on twitter, on Facebook and in the real world. Sometimes it's just an individual 'Praying for my brother who's having a kidney operation.' Okay, fine. If that makes you happy. Sometimes it's a request for a bunch of people to pray 'Please pray for my friend who's having heart surgery'. 

My question on this latter version is this - How many people need to pray for the prayer to work? If the fictitious friend in this scenario doesn't survive is it the fault of the people calling for prayer? Is it their fault for not getting enough people to pray? Does god sit in heaven with a counter clicking it up one each time a new prayer comes in and when it hits the magic number he (somehow) intervenes on Earth and does whatever it is a God needs to do in order to make sure the friend survives the surgery? Has anyone ever died because not enough people prayed for them? Is that what's going on here? When this person's friend gets to heaven and stands before god, will they remember this and say to God 'Why did you let them die? What did I do wrong? I prayed, I got my friends to pray too....why did you let my friend die?' And God looks at them and says 'Well you had 47 people praying for your friend. But I needed 50. It's a shame. I had big plans for your friend but you just didn't quite make it.' 

As I said in my previous post about prayer, The Prayer Challenge even when I was a believer I couldn't understand the purpose of prayer. It seemed so redundant. 

So maybe there is some point to prayer as a person reflecting, or a focusing of your thoughts and energy. But praying for me to no longer be an atheist? Praying for people who are victims of natural disaster or a group of people praying for a sick or missing person? It's clearly pointless, even if a God does exist. 

Be the spark.

I often hear the question, and have asked the question myself, why do people in this day and age still believe in the bible? (of course the Qur'an could fit in here too)

The thing to keep in mind is that people wrote and believed in the bible when they didn't know better. They not only didn't know how to properly investigate things, they didn't know they could even try. People used to believe the wrath of god was an actual thing they witnessed. It was a time and place when people believed all kinds of nonsensical stories and there were no scientists around to say 'let's see if we can disprove that'. Claims were just accepted without question. (still the case for many people today)

Add to this the recognition (eventually) by the ruling classes that religion was a great method to control the masses and suddenly you've got a very powerful tool behind you.

So with no way to investigate claims and authority figures reinforcing the myths at every opportunity it really is no surprise that fantastical stories were believed by entire societies. 

Given that we don't have this excuse now, why do people believe today? Think about it... In modern times when do people become religious? Is it when they've reached the age of reason? In their late 20s when they've had a solid scientific education first? Never (or extremely rarely if ever). In actuality, for the vast majority of cases, religion is driven into people when they're infants. It happens when they're children, it comes from a trusted source, and it's forced upon them without their consent. They grow up 'knowing' it to be true because they're never given a choice. They then think they're doing a good thing when they continue the cycle onto their own children. It takes a spark to break the cycle but often that spark never comes so the cycle of belief continues.

I've read about people going off to university and their path to atheism beginning there. For many it's the first time they meet and interact with people of differing views. It's the first time they learn that not everyone believes what they do, that people doubt the validity of religious beliefs and they do so with good reason. This is the 'spark' they need to start questioning what they believe.

But many people are surrounded by believers their whole lives. The spark to make them question what they've believed from such a young age and with such totality never occurs and as a consequence the path to atheism is never encountered.

I think that's why the internet is so important, it helps get information to people that would otherwise never be exposed to it. It helps show people there are differing views and that questioning your own beliefs isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that a single tweet or even a series of them can turn a believer into an atheist but they can be the spark. It's the 'hang on a minute' moment. People then ask more questions, read more books (books that aren't part of their scripture), do their own investigation and from THIS work they conclude that atheism is the logical position for them. 

I've been very fortunate to have quite a number of people tell me I've either helped them on their path to atheism or helped show people who were already atheists that they're not alone. I see this as probably the best part of being a vocal atheist. The key, as I see it, is to answer questions openly and honestly - as long as those questions are genuine. Of course sometimes people just want to troll and waste time and how you deal with them is up to you. My opinion - best ignored. 

So I recommend engaging with theists. Talk to them. On The Atheist Experience they ask a great two part question to get the conversation going 'What do you believe and why?' I recommend it. 

People believe because they've never known anything different, because they believed since before they can remember and they were never given the choice. People believe because they were never given the spark to ignite their doubt, the spark to ignite questions. 

Be the spark. 

It takes more faith to be an atheist.

Theists will often tell me that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist. They usually say this with the idea that atheism is the active belief that there are no gods or goddesses - a claim that the vast majority of atheists refute. 

But let's for a moment say that atheism isn't just the 'lack of belief in gods' default. Let's say for a moment that atheism *is* the belief that there are no gods or goddesses. And let's also say that an atheist comes to this position through consideration of theistic claims. We'll call this person a 'considered atheist'. 

Does having the belief that there are no gods or goddesses *really* take as much faith as believing there are gods and goddesses? 

This is a hard question to answer in one way because faith is not really measurable. I'm not sure if there's a way to quantify it. I don't know what units of measurement one uses to work out how much faith a person has. Gullibles? Deludeds? Who knows? So let's just assume you can measure faith...somehow. 

THE BELIEF IN GODS AND GODDESSES: 
The overwhelming majority of theists are so because they were indoctrinated as children. They aren't just told to believe, they're told a god exists with the same authority and conviction that they're told the sky is blue, that water will make you wet, and that something hot may burn you. They're not presented with faith as an alternative to reason. They're not presented different faiths and allowed to choose which of them they think makes the most sense. They are told that the god their parents believe in is real, he (most likely) watches everything they do, and if they aren't saved, they'll burn in hell forever. (Obviously there's variations on this theme but I think this is basically how it is for a very high percentage of believers). 

Actually, let me clarify - Children (infants) are not told this god is real directly. It's never 'God is real and therefore you must believe in him'. It's more like 'if you steal, God will see and you'll go to hell'. It's just taken for granted that their god exists. Non-existence is not a question. The possibility of their god not existing is never even raised. It's never considered. 

By the time these people reach the age of reason they are so fully convinced that their god is real and that their version of theology is real, that it's no longer a case of there being other possibilities to think about, it's that they are right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, and those people will, in a majority of cases, end up burning in hell forever. 

It gets to the point where many believers will have the interesting position of both having faith that their god is real and 'knowing' that their god is real. Some of these people know it to such a degree that they will die or kill for this god. 

It would take an incredible amount of faith in a deity to end a life, yours or someone else's. But even if we don't take it to that extreme there's still a lot of faith involved. In order to be a follower of today's big religions one must accept that all kinds of nonsense happened in the past. One must believe things that if they were told happened today most would have no chance of believing and they must believe these things with no evidence at all - except scripture. 

Scripture - the stories written by ancient people who didn't know how to investigate any kind of natural phenomena to find out what was actually happening. They not only didn't know how to, they didn't know they could. Before people developed methods for properly investigating how things happened and how things worked they thought epilepsy was demons possessing someone. They thought lightning was the wrath of a god. They thought a solar eclipse needed human sacrifice. They thought a story of a burning bush being the medium through which a god speaks was believable. 

Believers today hear these stories and think them real. Modern day believers not only have no evidence to support these stories but they fail to consider that these stories were made up by people who didn't know better. They fail to consider that these stories were made up by people whose understanding of the universe wouldn't let them pass a 5th grade test. That's not to say they were stupid people. They just didn't know what we know today. 

So with nothing to go on but the scripture of their religion and the say so of parents, priests and peers, these people believe without reservation, and without any confirmation that any gods exists at all let alone the god they happen to believe in, that their god is real. The evidence they provide is all fallacious. I haven't seen a new argument for the existence for god in a very long time. They always fall at either personal incredulity (argument from ignorance), special pleading,  or they argue from personal revelation, which is, of course, not enough to convince anyone else of anything. 

So the conclusion on belief in gods and goddesses it is 100% faith, with no redeeming logical reasoning - at all. 

THE BELIEF THAT NO GODS AND GODDESSES EXIST
As I said at the start, the majority of atheists will tell you that atheism is NOT the belief that no gods or goddesses exist, but it's lacking any belief that they do. Let's for a moment though throw out this notion of absolute certainty. Let's say that declaring no gods or goddesses exist is the equivalent of declaring no unicorns exist. Can one be absolutely certain that no unicorns exist? No, I don't think so. But is it outrageous to say 'I believe no unicorns exist'? No, it's really not. 

So if someone came out and said 'I believe no gods or goddesses exist' what are they really saying? I think they're saying something like 'The idea that any of the claims I've heard for the existence of gods or goddesses are real is so unlikely that they can all be dismissed'. 

To believe in God (as the big two religions think of him) we must accept that he is the supernatural being who created the entire universe, put life on one of eight planets, in a solar system around one of hundreds of billions of stars in one of hundreds of billions of galaxies.

He apparently cares about what we wear on our heads, whether or not the boys keep their foreskins, and has all manner of seemingly nonsense rules and demands. The kinds of rules and demands we'd expect ancient superstitious people to put in their rule book.

He rules this one planet but allows all kinds of evil, including the starvation, rape, and killing of children, yet his believers claim he loves us all. According to some he populated the planet and then wiped it all out because the people he created were wicked. And this was part of his plan. 

The stories associated with gods and goddesses are simply ridiculous. They are pure nonsense and it is hard to imagine a scientifically literate, well educated, adult believing them if they'd never heard them before the age of reason. 

Stories from the bible sound like exactly what they are - Fantasy from ancient, superstitious people who didn't know better. We know Adam and Eve never existed, evolution shows us that. No Adam and Eve, no fall of man, no fall of man, no need for saving, no need for saving, no need for Jesus. The stories are fabricated. To dismiss the claims that gods and goddesses exist based on the stories about them alone seems quite reasonable. Add to this that gods and goddesses have all been invented by people who didn't have the scientific method of investigation and analysis at their disposal and the likelihood of gods and goddesses being real pretty much vanishes into oblivion. 

Then there's the answers we have versus the answers ancient people supposed. For example they used to think lightning was the work of a god throwing it across the sky. We now know it's not. It's natural and easily explained. For anything for which there is an answer, where the claim was previously 'god did it' - we now know no gods or goddesses were required. Not at all. Not once. 

There is no evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings, but there is evidence to suggest they are simply the products of human imagination. Therefore to believe they don't exist seems quite reasonable.

But this is not a case against the existence of gods and goddesses as such, this is a discussion about the faith required to believe one way or the other. 

So on the one hand we've got believing in the existence of a being never proved. A being (or beings) who has been shown to exist nowhere but in ancient superstition and the gaps in knowledge of modern day believers. This belief is 100% faith based and, as demonstrated in the above, has no valid reason for thinking it real. 

On the other hand we've got believing that the superstitious beliefs of ancient people aren't real. Belief that saying 'I don't know, therefore god' is *not* a valid argument. This belief comes with reasoning - No gods have ever been the verified cause of anything and all the people who invented gods did so in times and places where they weren't in the habit of investigating actual answers. This is a considered position. A position derived from analysing the claims gods and goddesses exist and applying logic and common sense. One does not need much faith, as such, to hold this belief. 

Let me end with an example. Imagine you're at home and the phone rings. A fellow house member answers it and says it's for you - and it is capital G God. 

God has never been proven to ring people up, just as he's never been proven to create universes or do any of the things attributed to him. 

So when your house mate tells you it's God on the phone does it take just as much faith to believe it's not god as it would to believe it is? 

Of course not. 

Equality and anti-equality

I hear often that allowing equality (especially marriage equality) removes the rights of religious people.

It's as though they think that allowing two people of the same sex to marry somehow puts their own marriage in jeopardy. It won't. Well...it might. But if it does, your marriage has issues far more significant than allowing same-sex couples to marry too. 

When Rosa Parks won the right for all people to sit wherever they like on the bus*, that didn't take away the rights of people to sit wherever they like on the bus - it just extended the right to others. 

I know if we allow marriage equality we've then got the issue of the rights of certain institutions to consider. For example the Catholic church is on record as being anti-marriage equality (yes, who else but a religion would be against equality?). If a state or federal jurisdiction passes legislation allowing marriage-equality do we then force all institutions to perform those marriages, regardless of their beliefs? Are we taking away their rights if we tell them they need to perform a marriage which contravenes their teachings? Yes, I think we would be. People do have the right to be against that which ordinary, decent people think is acceptable.

But when it comes down to it these people are wanting to be protected by laws which allow them to treat other people as sub-human. People will try to hide behind what their 'god' wants or their god's will. But let's face it - is there anyone who really wants to be for marriage equality but is only against it because of what they think their god wants? Is there anyone saying 'personally *I* am for marriage equality but...well...the god I believe in isn't, so I have to side with him'? No, of course not. Anyone against marriage equality is against it because *they* don't like the idea of it. Maybe they were influenced by their scripture or an authority figure but it is still their own discrimination and bigotry they're trying to protect. 

I'm generally against forcing people to do things and I think I lean to the side of allowing a church to not perform marriages that go against their beliefs, as ridiculous and invalid as those beliefs may be. I mean we wouldn't expect a Catholic church to perform a Hindu wedding, would we? No, I don't think we would. 

So is this a possible solution? How about we let secular celebrants, and churches that wish not to be lumped in with their homophobic and bigoted counterparts, perform all the same-sex marriages they like and let those churches that wish to remain backwards do so? Then as society progresses and people move away from the backwards and bigoted thinking of the dark ages those churches that don't progress will be shunned and forgotten. 

We then have a society where people who wish to be married to a partner of the same gender can do so and religious institutions that wish to discriminate and be homophobic bigots can do that too. If one's argument against marriage equality is that those in favour of it are 'forcing' it on them, then this should be an acceptable solution. A common reply to the anti-marriage-equality stance is that 'if you don't want to get gay-married, don't get gay married'. It sounds simplistic, but it's also accurate. No one need be forced into a marriage they don't wish to be part of. No one need be forced to perform a marriage they don't wish to perform. 

Religion doesn't own marriage. It is a bond between two people. People who want to declare their love for each other, usually in a ceremony in front of family and friends. And the people getting married want that bond recognised officially by the government. There is no valid reason for a government to not recognise the marriage of same-sex couples. To not extend marriage equality to same-sex couples is discrimination based on sexual orientation - something that is not acceptable in any other part of society.

If couples of the same gender are allowed to marry, no one's life is worse off. 

So here's the deal - allow couples of the same sex to marry and allow those who wish to remain homophobic, bigoted cretins to do so. 


*I know this is a simplistic view of what happened. 

Segregating women

There's been a few stories recently of UK universities allowing the segregation of women at debates held on their campuses. Highlighted when Lawrence Krauss threatened to walk out on his debate with Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. 

Why was the audience to be segregated? Because Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is a Muslim, the event was organised by a Muslim group and for some invalid reason a Muslim thinks men and women shouldn't be sat together when viewing a debate (and, one imagines, for other things too). 

Of course that men and women travel together to get to the debates and attend universities where lectures aren't segregated doesn't seem to matter. 

Try this as an experiment - if segregating an audience based on race isn't acceptable, segregating it based on gender isn't either. 

But we live in a world where, for some reason I can't fathom, religious sensibilities are taken into consideration. We live in a world where because a Muslim man has been told that sitting with the women is 'wrong' (or whatever word it is) then in order to be culturally sensitive to Muslims we need to keep men and women separate at an event where there happens to be a Muslim speaker, or if a local campus Muslim group has organised the event. 

Let's get one thing straight - pandering to this kind of religious ridiculousness serves no other purpose than to perpetuate the nonsense. It is up to decent people to stand up to this backward, primitive thinking and say 'No!'. As a society we must take a stand against foolishness and say 'I am a decent human being. I *will* choose where I sit at this event and your religious teachings do *not* carry any more weight than my sense of decency'. 

The way I see it - if you want special consideration because of your religion but you cannot demonstrate that the basis for your religion is valid (and let's face it, who can?) then your requirement for special consideration is invalid. 

I go one step further. Even if a theist could demonstrate that their god is real and they could demonstrate that their god doesn't want men and women sitting together - so what? We are grown ups. We are educated men and women who should decide for ourselves through empathy, compassion, understanding, logic, and discussion such things as whether or not men and women should sit together at at debate at what is meant to be a secular university. I do not think so poorly of myself that I will accept any arbitrary instruction just because a 'god' says so. I would still demand to know why the instruction is valid, what are its benefits versus its cost. Throughout human history we've seen enough 'do it my way or be punished' leaders and it is never good. Any being worthy of the title 'god' would understand this and not expect us to follow blindly, but would provide reason for what is, on the surface, such an arbitrary and nonsense decision. 

So I commend Lawrence Krauss for his stance and any others who take the same stance - kudos to you. We don't have to lower our standards as people just because some religious person thinks not doing so will offend their beliefs. 

I can't help but think the only proper response to 'I'm a Muslim, therefore I believe this audience should be segregated' is 'Really? I'm a decent person and I think people should be allowed to sit where they like'.