The Positive Atheist

The Right to death

2009-06-27T12:28:00.000+12:00

Dr Phillip Nitschke, AKA Dr Death, arrives in New Zealand soon to hold a series of seminars giving tips and tricks and 'how-tos' on the subject of Euthanasia, and the right to die peacefully, when and where you like.

This is one of those areas where I think "Why is this so stupidly complicated?"

There are some truly horrendous ways to die naturally, such as complications due to bowel cancer for example (the details of which I will spare you from), and surely it is these poor people's right to side-step these horrific and often painful last days.

The only reasonable and valid objections I can think of are;

1) That the person is not of sound mind or mood when they make the decision, or

2) That someone could use the process to get away with murdering someone - using a legitimate means for nefarious purposes.

But these two scenarios already exist in society! The first one is called suicide, whereby anyone who is mentally unstable enough can simply throw themselves off the nearest high place, or step in front of a locomotive (which, for both is hugely traumatic for all parties), and the second is called (you guessed it) Murder!

So it seems really that we already have these potential problems in society, and enacting legislation which legalises the right to a peaceful death would not have any effect other than what already exists.

I suspect that the current block to the required legal amendments is a symptom of our staunch Anglican and catholic history in New Zealand. The countries that tend to be most secular tend to have legalised ethanasia already, like Switzerland or the Netherlands.

Why is it that religions are so obsessed with the creation of life, but so adverse to it's inverse relation... Death? It's like they are in denial of the natural and predictable course that everyone must take. This could relate to my previous post regarding the recent statistics that the more religious people are the more likely they are to try extreme and invasive procedures to desperately stay alive. Which seems at odds with the idea that heaven actually exists and it is a nice place to be.

I'd like to think that if was ever unfortunate enough to become terminally ill later in life that there was an option to gracefully depart stage-left, instead of suffering indefinitely. But it is a right that is beyond the reach of those currently faced with the situation. And I believe it is unfair.

New Canterbury Atheists blog

2009-06-23T20:11:00.000+12:00

www.canterburyatheists.org.nz - Pretty Huh?

Hope you like the new design. Now you can follow all your favourite ranty atheist blogs from Canterbury!
email me if you'd like to be included... thepositiveatheist@gmail.com

NZ atheist bus campaign

2009-06-16T21:30:00.000+12:00

I'd really like to continue what has been started overseas and try to organise an atheist bus ad campaign. Wouldn't that be great?

As over 40% of the population I still feel there is Little debate on the topic of atheism and that we are under represented in most discussions on religion.
I noticed on this story about how teaching primary school kids about their own bodies, that the only opinions sought were those of the proponents and the objectors. They didn't include the rational voice of the majority of the country who would support this kind of reasonable approach.

I hope that this is due to the fact that the story is really a bit of a comedy piece on how ridiculous and desperate the religious right lobby groups are becoming, and that the directors of health and education are the voice of common sense.

If you are interested in collaborating to get some ads on buses - get in touch! I'd like to do a campaign before the next census to get the non-religious quota more reflecting reality!

Skeptics in the pub

2009-06-08T21:20:00.000+12:00

Great meeting of the Skeptics in the pub in Christchurch tonight at The Twisted Hop. Great beer, good conversation and nice people.

To all who I talked to there who haven't come across Tim Minchin's skeptical musical comedy genius... Enjoy this

I'm keen to start video and discussion evenings. Messages of time and place will be organised through the Skeptics in the pub group HERE. Or email thepositiveatheist@gmail.com

'A christian act'

2009-06-04T22:54:00.000+12:00

I was disappointed at 3news tonight. Introducing this story like this;

(paraphrased)"A man who performed a very christian act turned out to be a Muslim"

The story was about a corner-store owner in the US who, when approached by a would-be thief armed with a baseball bat, pulled out a 9mm automatic rifle on the robber and threatened him with it. The robber dropped to his knees and started begging for his life, so the owner took pity on him, giving him $40 and a loaf of bread to support his starving family (the apparent motive for the crime).

Now this is pretty much universally offensive and it insults people of a different or absent religious persuasion to Christianity.
Shame on you TV3 for an introduction to a news item to be so glaringly biased in favour of a particular faith.
Are they stating that that typified the behaviour of Christians as opposed to Hindus, or atheists, scientologists, or zoroastrianists?

I am forced to quote Christopher Hitchens in his moral wager;

"State a good deed that a religious person could perform that a person of no faith could not...
Now state an act of evil that a religious person could carry out that a person of no faith would not be capable of"

Following on from this;
In the media recently has been the case of the 'Makutu' killing of Janet Moses. (Full story here)
This case involved a person being literally 'drowned' by her family as part of a bizarre and completely misunderstood cultural ritual.
This is a great example of how religion has hijacked a cultural practice with devastating results.

Janet Moses, 22, drowned during the ceremony that lasted several days in Wainuiomata on Friday, October 12, 2007, when water was forced in her mouth and eyes to flush out a "demon".

It seems the only person talking some kind of sense was Tainui senior kaumatua Tui Adams, who, because of his position as senior lecturer at Te Wananga o Aotearoa in Hamilton, was comfortable to probe the details of the crazy cultural practice - the media seemed to shy away, desperately trying to avoid being labelled racist or causing cultural offence.

Dr Adams said there was no specific water cleansing process in Maori culture.
He had never encountered parts of the ceremony performed on Ms Moses before, which he described as "extreme".
Alien aspects included the use of force, not allowing anyone to leave the house, not allowing them to sleep or close their eyes, using a crutch as a taiaha and pouring water in the eyes.

In summing up, he hit the nail right on the head;

"I believe the whanau have mistakenly tried to rid her of evil spirits as opposed to the real issue, which was Janet herself,"

Religion and sexism

2009-06-01T23:01:00.000+12:00

I've been debating with a theist on a facebook group called 100,000 Atheist face bookers against religious nut cases and thought my answer was interesting enough to post here - I hope you find it interesting!

Kimberly:
How is Odin portrayed, Shermon ?
How is Zeus portrayed ?
And how is GOD portrayed ?

All of the above are portrayed the same, or very similar: A man, with a long white beard.

God made man the image of Himself... so if He had a 'form', 'twoud be similar to that of humans.
Such as that of Zeus, and that of Odin....

Positive Atheist:
I think it more likely that man made god in his image...♠

Aren't you insuted as a woman that women are supposed to have been made from man (when exactly the opposite is true? Men are born from women?)

Kimberly:
An interesting thought.
Please, explain?

Positive Atheist:
I thrive in interesting discussion...

It has been my observance that the traits which man attributes to god are usually the traits of man himself. I think that the reason that Christianity has started to trend downward and atheism has grown is the growing incompatibility between traditional christian teachings and modern society's moral zeitgeist.

The bible is fiercely patriarchal, in that men are the rulers and women are a sub-class. This has always been accepted for the vast majority of history until the 60s of last century. Feminism is a drastic and completely new idea in the scale of history. The bible is incompatible with feminism, or even women's rights.

If that weren't enough, as I said before, women were apparently made from Adam's rib - therefore not even comparable to men in terms of their worthiness (woman came second to man - god did not create women - man did)
Whereas in reality, men cannot be born without their mothers. Patriarchs may have found this particularly threatening therefore subdued women using a variety of means, most notably the Bible - your gods word, apparently.

Arrogant atheists...

2009-05-27T22:58:00.000+12:00

Of the many things levelled at Atheists by Christians, the one that crops up far more than the law of averages would naturally suggest, is that of 'You Atheists are just arrogant'.

It may seem to people of 'faith' that we Atheists are arrogant because we question and argue against the god figure which they have already succumbed to and pathetically devoted themselves to as required by the religion. I find, however, that for most Atheists this is opposite to the truth.

I'll illustrate my point;

I'm an Atheist. I believe that I am a carbon-based life form, living with 6 billion others on a spinning planet in a very sparse expanse of space. I can observe that those in my species evolved from a long line of descendants, getting hugely more complex over a vast stretch of time, and that I'm not favoured exclusively, rather I am here because the events previous to me, eventuated in my being here. I have nothing to prove, and I don't owe my existence to anyone, except my mother and father (thanks guys).
At the end of my life, I will cease to exist as I know life now. There may be something else but there is no reliable indication of what that might be.

Compare this to even a moderate Christian's point of view;

I'm a Christian. I believe that god created me. I believe that he crafted all the events previous to allow me to exist. I believe he created this world just for me and my fellow humans because god made us in his image - I look just like him! I believe all of the animals and resources god created on this earth were put here for us to use and consume - he is providing for his children. Since god allowed me to exist I am at his mercy and pray to him that I can be worthy of his greatness. There are people who have the wrong idea about god or don't believe in him at all and it is my job to change their minds and make them think what I think.When I pray to god he listens to me and considers my requests personally - even the creator of the world isn't to busy to listen to me.
At the end of my life I will be transported into a paradise where I can be with god and sit with him. I'm so glad I'm right and that I'M going to heaven.

Now, who do you think is arrogant?

Atheism is a philosophy of observation.

If nothing is observed, then nothing is believed! That doesn't sound arrogant to me!

Post Script -

We'll soon be joining with another blog and forming canterburyatheists.org.nz an aggregated blog of canterbury religious opinion.
Also, if you are in the Canterbury region there is a meet up of rational, skeptical, and atheist types happening in early June. For more info go here: http://www.meetup.com/Christchurch-Skeptics-in-the-Pub/
Nice! - thanks for all the comments and feedback - it really makes my day!

3 Reasons

2009-05-26T15:02:00.000+12:00

I got sent this today... Brilliant!

GOD ENJOYS A GOOD LAUGH!

There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black: 1. He called
everyone brother. 2. He liked Gospel. 3. He didn't get a fair trial

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish: 1.
He went into his father's business. 2. He lived at home until he was
33 years old. 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother
was sure he was God

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands. 2. He had wine with his meals. 3. He used
olive oil.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a
Californian: 1. He never cut his hair. 2. He walked around barefoot
all the time. 3. He started a new religion.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was an
American Indian: 1. He was at peace with nature. 2. He ate a lot of
fish. 3. He talked about the Great Spirit.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish: 1.
He never got married. 2. He was always telling stories... 3. He loved
green pastures.

But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus was a
woman: 1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was virtually
no food. 2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men
who just didn't get it. 3. And even when he was dead, he had to get up
because there was still work to do.

Amen!

Thanks to Luke

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation

2009-05-17T19:42:00.001+12:00

This is old news really, but the Tony Blair 'Faith Foundation' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7427809.stm) is almost a year old.

I, like other atheists, stand back and wonder how on earth (literally) this is going to work.
The mission statement is to promote respect and understanding about the worlds faiths and show how faith can be a force for good.

My problem with this idea is as follows;

1. Faiths are mutually exclusive. Each one contradicts the other, and the idea of dogma and faith is that you are the one doing the right thing, and everyone else's faith is wrong. This is the basic underlay of any religion, as otherwise - why would they be doing what they do. In fact it is that all the major religions disagree with each other that makes them so unbelievable in the first place.
You can't try to integrate religions whose tenants are completely incompatible with our modern society's values, such as genital mutilation in children, or sexism etc.

2. Trying to get people of faiths to work together is like getting star trek and star wars fans to collaborate and make a movie! All you get is in-fighting and at best a terrible movie that no-one can agree upon.

3. If they want to show how religion can work as a power for good by healing the sick and helping people, then why can't they just do it without involving religion? It's like these religious people can only be good when someone is watching. Isn't there any motive to do just 'pure good' in these people at all?

4. Surely resources for this project will be wasted in some part by the religious activities. Whether it's breaking 5 times a day for prayer, money for bibles or churches, or another wasteful expense to appease the imaginary friend in the sky!

Richard Dawkins has written a brilliant rebuttal to the press release issued by the Blair Foundation HERE or watch the video HERE

If you want to support good in the world, give to Unicef - they do a great job without pretending there's a god. www.unicef.org.nz

Religious people fear death. Why?

2009-05-04T19:55:00.000+12:00

An article caught my attention the other day which I'd earmarked to blog about.

It was an abstract from the results of a study into patients with terminal cancer, and it compared the highly religious with the non-religious to compare the attitudes to death in the final stages of terminal illness.

The results were quite astounding and quite counter-intuitive. The religious, from their actions, seems substantially more afraid of death than their non-religious counterparts.

Which begs the question... Why? Does this offer some insight into the religious sub-conscious? Perhaps.

Most debates I have had with evangelical Christians usually touch on the fact that because they are so holy and god-like they automatically gain entrance into the paradisaical afterlife, and since I'm such a heathen non-believer that I'm doomed for eternal pain and suffering, etc. (even though god loves me?)
So one would assume that the default attitude for any Christian, at least in their conscious and preachy state, is that 'I'm going to heaven - I'm sure of this and it's true'.

It is interesting then that this study seems to paint the opposite picture that when actually coming to the point of crossing-over into the 'after-life' they are considerably more anxious about whether what they believe is true. The study cites that the probability of a religious people requesting invasive procedures to prolong their life, including mechanical ventilation and resuscitate on arrest orders.
Most Atheists, however, when approaching this asymptotical boundary of seem more likely to be resigned to their fate and leave without the desperation to cling to life of the religious.

Bill Maher in his brilliant film 'Religulous' asked one devotee (an ex-Jew for Jesus) that if heaven was going to be so great, why didn't he kill himself? Many Christians seem to take a long time to answer this question, as if they've never really thought of it before, before saying something like "God still has work for me to do" or "It's not part of God's plan" or some other vague and pithy apology.

I think the real reason that Christians are so afraid is that only when death is looming and a real imminent possibility do they examine the evidence and consider the logic behind 'God's decision' to take their life. One would have to have real reservation, given that you've only ever really heard this story from other people, and God has never spoken to you directly, and what if there is no heaven.

The reason Atheism gives me such comfort and satisfaction is that we know what happens when you die.... Nothing!
And why would we care, when we won't be around to think about caring anyway!

Some would say this is quite a bleak view, but I think it makes one more appreciative of the life we have. It gives a true ultimatum about our existence on this earth and what we could do with it.

I used to have a sign in my office quoting Mary Oliver;

"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

I think if most boy-racers actually fully considered this, they wouldn't be racking up enormous debts to get round the 4 avenues of Christchurch within 7 minutes at 3 am on a Friday night.

It makes you wonder whether the presence of an afterlife which has been woven into the fabric of our society for thousands of years has really let to the widespread waste and mediocrity we see in many places. It seems now, with the rise of secularism, that people are taking their lives into their own hands, and not banking on the fact that they'll have another shot one day. In the non-existent afterlife.

I'm a heckler!

2009-04-29T15:45:00.000+12:00

I've done something I never thought I would.

I've heckled a preacher! In Cathedral Square (in Christchurch New Zealand) where all the men of god (I've never seen a woman there) stand on their tiny step ladders and read endlessly from the bible, and then try to summarise some kind of point and moral lesson.

Well I was sitting listening to this joker read, and to start off his moral lesson he said;

"Evolutionists believe that everything came about by chance"

Now, I hadn't been planning to engage in these conversations in any way that lunchtime, but when I heard this statement something over came me, it welled up inside and I shouted out loud;

"No they don't!"

Then he said it again so I said;

"No, it's not chance, you don't know what you are talking about!"

The weird thing is, it was completely involuntary, which freaked me out a little,as I'm not usually this type of person, but the fact that he was misinforming people about what atheists and evolutionists actually believe just riled me at such a primal level, I just had to intervene!

After that, the guy in the blue shirt pictured to the right noticed that someone had spoken up and came and had a chat to me using flawed logic and confusing questions such as;

"So if there's no God and evolution doesn't exist come up with another theory"

"Do you think this coffee cup came from the big bang?"

and "How come there are not more types of trees in the world? Explain that."

And, as you can imagine one has to ponder when coming up with a new theory of existence, relating a coffee cup to the big bang, and explaining 'why there aren't more trees' so the conversation dragged a little. But I had great fun. I'll be there next time have a lunch break and feel so inclined. To his credit he was non-confrontational and open to debate, which I like.

The biggest thing I took form the experience is that not only do these people not understand the basics of the theory of natural selection, but they do not even grasp the basic concept of something growing into it's environment.
The statement of "Evolutionists believe this all happened by chance" is not as much wrong as completely the inverse of what evolutionists actually think.

Evolution says that everything gets tried, and the ones that work prosper and improve. 'Chance' is the complete opposite of this, and has no part in the idea. The other bizarre question the guy asked me was "What about bacteria then? Swine flu? You think that just evolved?"

"YES!" I said, thinking that maybe he had actually grasped the idea, but then he changed the argument completely, so no runs on the board then.

I guess my positivism from this experience was that people who believe in these scientific ideas need to get out and defend them, because they are under attack. And while you're at it you can have a nice conversation with a crazy person!

Why science rocks!

2009-04-20T19:45:00.000+12:00

You know what I love about science?

Things like this article, which show that it is the things that we don't know that are more fascinating and exciting than the things we do know.

It talks about the 13 things that 'don't make sense' in science. Pretty cool huh?

The thing is, this is what makes atheism along with science and evidence-based philosophies so much more compelling than religion, or faith-based philosophies.
The fact that science will criticise itself and point out the things that don't make sense.

Can you imagine a Christian magazine pointing out all the holes in the bible and saying 'this doesn't make sense - let's re-think what we know about our religion'?

Christians like to try to make it seem as if science is itself a religion which has a set of beliefs one must adhere to. In fact it is quite the opposite. I think Tim Minchin in his 9 minute poem 'Storm' said it best when he said;

"Science Adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"

These 'things that don't make sense' don't make scientists run away and forget science because it doesn't make sense. Their passion for finding out the truth makes them ever more resolved to find the theories and evidence that make the observations 'make sense'.

This is why science will ultimately triumph over irrational beliefs, because any weakness only strengthens the resolve who make up it's ranks.

These things that don't make sense are wondrous - imagine if we knew everything there was to know about the universe. Wouldn't it be boring!

faith vs suffering

2009-04-15T10:06:00.000+12:00

In reading some comments on a particularly interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens this morning, a Christian made a comment on it and a good point (and by that I mean a good point for atheism).

They said that (and excuse me for paraphrasing) because people were becoming more godless and atheism was spreading, that was why there was still so much suffering and pain in the world, and if we all praised him he could fix it.

And I thought 'wow! Yes, let's look at the periods when people were the most religious shall we?'

Here's an example. The middle ages. Even the dark ages for that matter.

Religion? Almost everyone believed, church (Catholic) controlled everything, including taxing everything and land grabbing wherever it could. A theocracy.

General well being? Atrocious. Poverty for the masses. Black death wiped out 40-50% of the population. Mud, mud and more mud. Sickness and ... well just misery really.

So let's compare that to today;

In New Zealand, Religion? 40% non-believers, vast minority are actively religious and most are vague and unconcerned with the specifics of their religion. Secular society.

General well being? Fantastic! Life expectancy 50% higher than 100 years previous, most diseases treatable with good prospects. small amounts of poverty, but no death due to food or water shortage, or inaccessible health care.

Verdict? these levels, broadly, are inversely proportionate. If there is a god he is rewarding the swing of society to secularism and non-theistic beliefs!

Real reason? If everyone just got on their knees and prayed for technological improvements, or cures for diseases, or solutions to mysteries. Nothing would happen (for obvious reasons).

Whereas, if we realise that there is no one watching our every move who will provide for us eventually, we actually get of our knees and start finding these things out for ourselves - with results that benefit everyone.

From http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/middle-ages-history.htm

With it's own laws, lands and taxes The Catholic church was a very powerful institution which had its own laws and lands. The Catholic Church also imposed taxes. In addition to collecting taxes, the Church also accepted gifts of all kinds from individuals who wanted special favors or wanted to be certain of a place in heaven. The power of the Catholic Church grew with its wealth. The Catholic Church was then able to influence the kings and rulers of Europe. Opposition to the Catholic Church would result in excommunication. This meant that the person who was excommunicated could not attend any church services, receive the sacraments and would go straight to hell when they died.

Example of a pleasant and worthwhile atheist debate

2009-04-13T13:36:00.000+12:00

I've been conversing with a complete strange who messaged me on YouTube with a very broad attempt at proselytizing me. Hi YouTube name is 'theM3dic' (you tube channel here) I'm really enjoying the debate as there is little hostility and we are both passionate and willing to debate;

Here's the original (unsolicited) email:

Good News!

God revealed himself to the world by inspiring a nation to write about Him. He interacted with the Jewish people so that you and I today could understand...finitely...what God was like. From that same culture God blessed the world with His presence. He came as a man to do two things. First and foremost to be sacrificed, by displaying perfect humility in the face of human ignorance God displayed his mastery over sin to us and then rose from the dead so that He could declare His loving forgiveness. This is where you get the waiting room idea...when no one explains part two of what Jesus came to do. You're told, "Yay, Jesus loves you! Accept Him as your savior and you'll go to heaven for eternity!" The End....no....not the end.
<....>
And here comes the awesome part, you won't be able to help but want to share this Good News. And God will use you to reconcile people back to Him. Why? Because the church is the body of Christ now. And Christ is in the business of saving the lost...it's the only thing you can't do in heaven....

The original message is about 3 times this length, but you get the idea - I only read the first sentence before starting my response...

Yes, but I am pretty sure that there is no heaven...

Because I knew a response that brief to his essay would guarantee a response, which was;

Is it worth risking an eternity of hopelessness on something you're just "pretty sure" about? I care about you, and I care about where you're going to spend eternity. Humbly seeking truth means being willing to forsake everything else you have held on to when you find it. Instead of stubbornly refusing to accept it because it's too hard. "Ask, and you will be answered. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you."If where you spend eternity depends on it, isn't it worth exploring?

This response is very reasonable and presents the usual version of Pascal's wager, and is a reasonable question (this is the same 'reason' I considered myself Christian when I was about 9 years old)

I responded;

Dude, when you die, there's nothing there. No eternity man - there is no proof - none whatsoever. Seriously.

To which I received this;

And there's proof about what you just said? No, man, there isn't. We should all seriously consider the possibility of being wrong. Look into the philosophy of religion. You'll find some great arguments for the existence of God....but you're right, no proof. But you won't find any proof of no God, so be careful thinking you know everything there is to know. Jesus is God, that's step one, and there's plenty of proof for him. Love you, man. Happy hunting.

Gosh - aren't we cosy! 3 emails and he loves me! (hopefully in the platonic, camaraderie sense of the word).

My most recent communication to him today was this;

When did I say I knew everything? Atheism is exactly the opposite of that! Christians believe they know what happens after you die. Apart from the absurdity of that claim it is incredibly arrogant to claim that kind of knowledge. When considering the possibility of 'being wrong' have you considered the possibility of Thor's wrath when it turns out to be him, or will Mohamed whip your ass for being an infidel? Hell, Osiris might send you to hell for believing in a false god. Hey dude, chances are if you were born in the middle east you'd be a Muslim, not a christian. If Jesus is god, then why did he cry out "why have you forsaken me" when it was him that sent himself on the mission that he knew would end in his Crucifixion? Please answer these, as I'm really enjoying this debate! Cheers bro, I don't love you, as I have never met you, but I respect you as a fellow human being who is entitled to your own belief.

I appreciate this guy actually engaging me in a calm debate, and not just throwing scripture and threats of eternal damnation my way. What I like about the Internet is the kind of non-confrontational debate you can have with people, where nothing is at stake except your own opinion.
I'll keep you posted on his response...

Inside the box

2009-04-08T22:04:00.000+12:00

I've just been watching a documentary about the differing viewpoints of the secular way of thinking and the theistic outlook. It's called 'The Question Of God' and visits the lives of Sigmund Freud and C.S.Lewis and thier contrasting world views.

Freud once said that the existence of god could not be proved and not be disproven, so the question can not be a scientific one.

And this got me trying to think of a real-world example that we could transfer it to and here's what I came up with.

You are handed a box. It feels empty. The person who gave you the box says "Inside this box is a pink balloon, and you are not allowed to open the box".

So, can we scientifically measure what is inside the box? No, of course not. Science is the record of what is observed and if nothing is observed then there can be no science.

What I got on to thinking was this: Does it matter what is in the box?

We cannot scientifically find out what is in the box, and what is in the box does not affect us in any way - otherwise we'd be able to observe and record it in science.

Is this what religion is to us? Vast studies on the efficacy of prayer have shown repeatedly that prayer has no influence over recovery of medical patients, it clearly has no effect over world events (or otherwise the US would use it as a weapon!) and it has never ever worked for me on a personal level.
Modern day miricles are few and far between, if ever, and almost always turn out to be statistical improbabilities rather than actual miricles (which is really just another word for unexplained phenomena.)

So I'd suggest that religion is a great deal like the closed box. There might be something in there, but if it has no effect on me then why would I theorise or make up something, or believe what someone else tells me?

What am I? Agnositc?!

No! Here's the atheist bit.

We can, however, look at the evidence presented by the religions and test it in the real world.

Creationists still hang on to the word of the bible, believing that the world is 6000 years old, dinosoars and humans co-existed, that men are made from dirt and women from men's ribs, and that there actually existed a talking snake which led 'Eve' astray.
Modern science has a mountain of evidence to the counter this 'theory', and the only valid arguments from the creationists are always the exceptions to the rule, or stuff that science just hasn't got round to figuring out yet.

Now, if the bible is wrong about that, then who decides which of the contents is true and what is not?

The reason that I find so much comfort in Atheism is that you know where you stand. Human interpretation is the thing that has caused many wars and killed millions throughout history. Proper science does not allow any room for interpretation. What you see is what you get.

And in that I find comfort.

(not Ray Comfort)

Being 'Christ-like'

2009-04-07T20:35:00.000+12:00

If there's one good thing to come out of Christianity, then it is this phrase;

"Do unto others as you they would do unto you" or something like that, one of the variations.

Now, even though I'm not christian, this is one of the fundamental tenants that I try to live by. I think about itevery day. And, although this is credited to one 'Jesus Christ' back in the bronze age, it was probably quite a radical concept that came about naturally at about that stage in human development.
A number of species in the animal world display natural altruistic behavior for the survival and flourishing of their kind, and it stands to reason that if everybody displayed this kind of behavior in our society then it would be a far more pleasant and positive place to live.

So in this first post of the positive atheist, I want to assert the obvious statement that you don't have to be Christian to live altruistically.
And I'd go further by saying that atheists have a guaranteed morality - that is - they are not doing it for any other reason than to be nice. There are no gods looking down with their tally charts noting bad behavior, no other motive that just being good people.

My comrade over at Canterbury Atheist recently posted an article on how he rescued a christian bike rider who had a puncture and she assumed he was Christian as he was being nice to her.

One of the things I realised after I left my faith and realised it was all a load or mumbo-jumbo was that I felt like being nicer to people because they are just people like me! There are no barriers when you are an atheist as we are all just people, all just as insignificant as each other, on our un-special spinning ball in space.

And isn't that marvellous!

Welcome to The Positive Atheist

2009-04-06T20:19:00.000+12:00

Hello there,

Thanks for reading this first post. I've started this blog because Atheism is to often seen by people as negative, and trying to pull down the Faithful. Many people also see it as a life which must be 'empty' as there is nothing else out there, but almost all atheists I have encountered have the complete opposite outlook - that the world is amazing and enchanting and they have their whole life to look forward to!

I'll try to address issues that come up or things I see with a positive atheist angle. What the world needs now is love, and fewer cheesy cliches!

I'll post some magic soon!

TTFN