Category Archives: Atheists

Aug 16 2012

The Fleece Machine – Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families


This made me a bit angry today  – ” Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families ” via Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families – National – NZ Herald News.

So to be clear as to where I stand on this - There are no spirits, ghosts, afterlife, angels, sky-god, demons, it’s all made up bullshit nonsense to part you & your cash.

You can’t talk to dead people, they do not talk to you.

Prayer does not work, the Bible is not the true word of anyone other than then person who wrote it.

There is no plan for your existence, there is no reward in some imaginary afterlife, you will not be rewarded in this life by some imaginary sky-being who watches over you, and there is no after-life.

If psychics were real then the stock market would use them, and lotto would be won at will - don’t be taken in with the claims that “it does not work that way” – tell me in what way does it work.

Why are all these spirits hanging about to tell you they are ok, and that you should be ok, and they watch over you. Which is all they do. Is that, in fact, all you do for ever and ever and ever, just hang about watching. Can these “spirits” only tell of the past, of things that you knowingly or unknowingly communicate with your “medium”

What happens when all your immediate family die, and you’re a spirit, joined by all your relatives, good and bad? Do you start watching over strange people just for the crack?

Do the dead outnumber the living ?

That’s an awfully big ratio.

Finally let me confess to tell you, I did once get a freebie to watch one Kelvin Cruickshank  at work in Takapuna, and was amazed at his skill and the way he dealt with the audience. I was impressed and confused as to how he did what he did, but let me state again – he wasn’t talking to dead people, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons or anything other than his own thoughts, and his interpretations of the feedback from the audience.

I’m prepared to be made to look a fool and have someone tell me something that they can’t know about me but that a “spirit” told them, both my Mother and Father are dead, and all my GrandParents, so you should be able to get something recent, unless they’ve disowned me.

Do it for free to prove you can do it, if you have a gift why do you need to monetize it?

Related articles some of them Comedic Value only and not an endorsement
Jul 28 2012

Faith, Same sex marriage, and Children.


New Zealand is on track to remove barriers to same sex marriages. We have Civil Union legislation, but this is a sort of half-way house thing. Removing an arbitrary sex based barrier to marriage is of it’s time.

However those of the faith and the religiosity have got their collective underpants all bunched and they’re going to come out swinging on a number of ‘points’.

And they are all nonsense. And they are all nonsense because there is not one logical argument that could be put forward that would or could justify their position. Not a one.

“Marriage is between a man and women” Since when? Since a when the ‘church’ decided to Ponce up some ceremony and add some bells and whistles is a when. The church is big on dogma and protocol. But I can’t find any evidence that before the church decided to dress up a ceremony that marriage wasn’t a thing. I can’t find any evidence that before the church decided to restrict it’s ‘blessing’ that all marriages were between men and women.

In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage.

Historically then a marriage was a means to ensure a continuance. That is all. If you had not confirmed or announced partner then you had no estate to pass. Marriage brought with it some assurances.The churches brought with it dogma, and protocol and restriction.

Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed.

The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27.

Not only does one have to “hunt” for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter.

There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds.

Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

It beggars belief that you would refer to an ancient book of myth and stories to cherry pick what your faith is. Sure the Bible might say “husband” and “wife” but it doesn’t as far as I know define the gender of either in terms of what constitutes a “marriage”.

The restriction or constriction is therefore one made up by the church and religion as a method of control.

Children

In New Zealand we have out share of conservative doom-sayers

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he was planning a “research-based” campaign on the advantages of heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures.

 ”I’m keen to be part of a campaign to get out there on this issue. It would look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad. Does gender matter, does role-modelling matter?

I don’t mind having it on record that the idea of two men having responsibility for a child is a little beyond me. I couldn’t do it. I assisted with a more maternal and capable mother in raising our children from birth. But I am talking about baby children, not toddlers, or schoolers, or teens.  I don’t have the same doubt about females raising children. Call me a bigot if you like, but I have first hand experience of a woman raising our child and she did a great job. I’d hire her again :-)

I have no idea what feeling or compulsions you have a person in relation to children and your level of altruism in wanting to look after, nurture and care for a child. I just don’t.

I have my understanding. I have an idea of what is acceptable and required from my experience, and I have the insight from a number of people who I’ve associated with who’ve raised children. I have experience.

Just because I don’t think I could does not mean I don’t think you should. It might make you shudder, cringe and gasp. It doesn’t mean that you can’t raise a child as a parent.  To have any other position on this indicates you live your life in a cave. There are lots of children raised by single parents. There are heaps raised by same sex parents, mostly female I’d wager.

The world did not stop when Elton John and David Furness adopted a child. Money makes it better or acceptable? Get a grip.

Related articles
Jul 19 2012

The one with the Personal Values Inventory


I’m participating in a Leadership Development Program at work, this is for all managers not at the Executive Level” and is in a number of sessions.

This current week we did “Engagement, Motivation and Goal Setting“. Part of this was a “Know You” question and we were asked to write down our own “Values Inventory”

This might or might not be something you spend time thinking about, or you may act according to a set of self imposed set of things that you feel you “just have” or “just are.”

I like these things because they test your capacity to understand you and challenges you to think about where you are in the big scheme of things.

Anyway as affirmation I went online to find some self assessments for my own Personal Values Inventory. and I found a simple one that offered up some possibilities. A simple paired statement comparison – A or B, A or B pick one. They cycle through some choices and then you get a result.

And boy am I miffed!

When you then get to the end of the assessment, where you pick on of the paired statements over the other you transfer them to a tick sheet.

Answer 9 relates to :  RELIGION (Guided by God or other higher power)

Not INTEGRITY, or AUTHENTICITY or HONESTY but RELIGION.

Well excuse me if you think that “my beliefs” that I would rather do the right thing other than have people think well of me means that I have some hat tip to a deity. What utter nonsense. The fact that I’m atheist shouldn’t stand in the way of a good result right.

Choose God or being tidy.. what?

According to this particular self assessment then I’m very big on

  • SERVICE (helping other people)
  • FAMILY RELATIONS
  • RELIGION (guided by God or other higher power)
  • INDEPENDENCE (doing thing by myself)
  • ADVENTURE (taking risks)

and I’m really not so big on

  • INFLUENCE/STATUS (leading through experience)
  • ORDERLINESS
  • FRIENDS

So either I was having a strange day, or the results of this particular version of the pop quiz are a bit iffy.

Related articles
Jul 10 2012

The one where schools drop Bible class as interest falls


This is a story that isn’t quite like what it seems like Schools drop Bible as interest falls – National – NZ Herald News.

In the article it says

“Browns Bay principal Roger Harnett said parents had been withdrawing their children from the Churches Education Commission programme.

Last year, about 50 students dropped out from a roll of 500, but Mr Harnett said complaints increased when students saw their friends choosing to opt out and persuaded their own parents to let them drop the class too.

This year, the board of trustees decided to cancel the programme because they were having a problem catering for the increasing number of students withdrawing. It made the decision after a review of all non-curriculum activities.”

Which says that the school can’t resource correctly for children not being taught from the book of the sky god, not that teaching from the book of the sky god is wrong, inappropriate or outdated thinking, but that having to find a teacher or activities to replace indoctrination means that they have to come up with some alternative thing. They’d still be doing the indoctrination if less parents were exercising their choice, this is a decision forced on the school by the parents and not some brave decision by the school to change their thinking and delivery of education.

There’s nothing wrong with fables and lessons on doing the right thing, but you don’t have to have specific religiosity to do that, you don’t need a book of a mystical being to be able to instill a moral compass, and to affirm that things like, say, killing someone, is wrong, or that theft isn’t really what you do in a civilised society.

Couple of amusing things in the story

“Robin Palmer, of Browns Bay Presbyterian Church, was concerned that children whose schools did not use the Bible in Schools programme would be at a disadvantage. “We regard the programme as adding value to the school, and it’s been around for many years.”

So that makes it o.k., appropriate, correct, and relevant? no!, and  I fail to see how it disadvantages people. I’d hate to think what would happen if the school expanded the religious lessons to include the Koran, or teaching from Buddhism. Actually you know what, I was just being an egg.

The other quote I like is this one

“Parents have ample opportunity to teach children about the Bible outside school time”

And I agree.  Bible isn’t for school. Science is for school, Maths and English are for school. Instilling the values of society, the right and wrong, that’s for parents, and in my house the Bible wasn’t part of that.

Related articles
Jul 6 2012

The facination of the media for Redemption


re·demp·tion:

  • An act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
  • Deliverance; rescue.
  • Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.
  • Atonement for guilt.
  • Repurchase, as of something sold

One of the online media sites in New Zealand,  Stuff.co.nz, uses “redemption” at the drop of a hat.

A quick search returns About 2,590 results on their website which is a little on high side don’t ya think?

Redemption and Sport return 2,090 results !! which is a little on the high side don’t ya think ?

The other online site The New Zealand Herald returns only about 1,000 results. Redemption and sports gets a paltry 70 results.

So either the Journalists at Stuff are a Pious bunch who have some intimate knowledge of the religiosity of the people they are writing about,  or someone at these media outlets doesn’t think “Redemption” means what they think it means.

In the context that the media use it, mostly, it’s for sport. And what they don’t divulge is what it is that they are seeking or  receiving or asking redemption for?

A Redemption from what wrong or misdeed that they’ve done, aside from being an abject failure at their earlier attempt at something. They are mostly professional sportspeople, they’ve been paid, or are getting paid to do what they do. It’s not like they have to give the money back for their failure.

Are they seeking to apologise and show they are worthy of adulation and adoration, and the cash that they comes with it, and to prove that we should throw more money their way?

Worst cases are they don’t get paid as much next time, or they don’t get another opportunity. Either way it’s not a redemptive situation is it?

Sure as an individual it could be that they are trying to redeem their good name then, regain their cachet with their adoring public, from who they crave admiration, seek redress to the bad publicity that comes with some act or other on or off the sporting field. But that does not excuse the media for running over 2000 stories of redemption under any circumstance that I can think of.

If I’m wrong however I’ll seek redemption at the earliest opportunity

Related articles

13th July : Today the NZ Stuff website ran another story about redemption and sports 

 

May 26 2012

As I get older I get different – #3


The one thing that I learned from Twitter is that you have to talk about Religion, Politics, Finance and the weather.

And so Religion.  I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m Atheist. Dead set I am. But I don’t think that it’s something that I have to share in public, or in conversation, nor do I have to justify my position.

And I have  full respect for anyone that is “of the faith“, any faith and has the need to have a “God” that they worship. I do.

My parents raised me Church of England, which in an of itself is a breakaway church, which makes me smile. When I say “raised” I mean sent me to Sunday School. I don’t actually recall attending church on a regular basis at any time. I doubt that we did, despite my sketchy memory of my early childhood. I did R.I. at school, and had parts in the annual nativity at primary school. Fully grounded then in all aspects :0)

What I’m not comfortable with is bagging people of the faith. On a personal level. I’m happy to talk about the irrelevance, the inconsistency and stupidity of religious dogma, but I shy away from confrontation. It’s not that important. But also what I’m uncomfortable with is having a label, even if it’s “atheist”, as if having a label makes it more legitimate for scorn or derision.  I feel the same way about my stand on climate change, and my own belief that despite what you think I’m sure in my own way that it’s not man made,  and that because I have that belief I don’t enjoy being called a “Denier”, I don’t deny climate change, just that man did it.

I enjoy learning about the aforementioned inconsistencies in religious teaching to reaffirm that I’m not just a bit weird.  The more you read, and absorb logical and reasoned argument, the further you get away from a belief in a “supreme being”.

I wish I could pinpoint the day when I realised that I didn’t have to believe in a sky god and that it wasn’t going to end in tears. I know it was a long time ago, and that as I get older, and experience more things, and witness more pain, heartache, illness and death I realise that there in fact can’t be a caring God, and that confirmation bias just does’s cut it.

Related articles
May 22 2012

As I get older I get different – #2


Space, the final frontier. What a wonderful concept, infinity. UFO’s. How romantic are they when you’re 14, 15, 16…. the idea that flashing lights in the sky are visitors, from another planet. Stoked by such films as “The Day the Earth Stood Still“, and “Close Encounters“, TV series such as Gerry Anderson‘s UFO, and Space 1999, and of course Star Trek and Star Wars.

2 Gerry Anderson UFO series aliens on a desert...

2 Gerry Anderson UFO series aliens on a desert planet. I made the image with CGI. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And how can you not believe? How can you possibly not look at the sky and wonder who it can be that there isn’t life on other planets. A long way away planets, a long long way away. But plants, aliens, visitors.

Aliens, ancient aliens, greys, reptoids, blues, blond nordics, chupacabras… you name they’ve been everywhere.

Of course they’ve all been to Earth, why not, we’re significant, we’re rulers of a planet, with resources.  They’ve all been here, mostly at night, mostly to prod things up our backside, dismember sheep, implant tracking devices or breed. Of course.

And then one day perhaps not. After you read some books, and thought about it, the question was “How?, followed by “Why?”. Two important questions, two of the very best.

And so the slightly older me smiles when people talk of Alien visitations, visitors, abductions, formations of spacecraft in the sky.

Now I know there are enough wonders in the back yard to keep me occupied, without having to have a feeling that there is something out there.

And I think this goes hand in hand with my Atheism.  Sort of.  Except that there must be other planets, and there must be life somewhere else. It’s an infinite universe with infinite suns,sort of. Infinite in the sense that there must be an edge somewhere, a long long way away and I can’t quite grasp the distance to Alpha Centauri for instance, and so the other side of the universe must be a long way away, infinitely far.

And whilst it’s understandable that some people think that Aliens must walk amongst us, there are people that think there is an imaginary sky god. They’re not so different. That they both are in out imagination is all they have in common.

So I’ve changed, we are alone, all alone, at least on this planet, and possibly alien me thinks the same thing.

My love of science fiction films is in no way diminished by my beliefs, it’s in fact the opposite.

Related articles
Dec 21 2011

My own personal Jesus


Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It only really just occurred to me that the whole Catholic faith is as a result of extrapolation of a few words and sentence. Whole churches and thousands of followers extrapolated from a bunch of words. Words that have been changed and re-ordered, texts that contain contradictions and statements that can’t apply two thousand years after they were written. The fact that there are almost as many variations on churches as there are words in the Catholic Bible should ring alarm bells, but it doesn’t.

That might be true of most religions.

That you can write whole treatises on a sentence or placement of a word seem core to the continuation of the ministry of faith.

Religion is intensely and totally a personal thing, your own personal Jesus is yours and yours alone. I don’t think that there would be two people who would share, in total, the whole concept and nuance of their faith. It is very subjective.

I’m atheist, and I have no problem with acceptance of a natural order of things, nor am I beholden to a core belief that I am not self-reliant or self-sufficient in and of myself. I’m content with the fact that when I die I die. I’m not happy about it, death, nor am I prepared for it. In fact some days I’m downright petrified by the prospect of an end.

But not having a continuance doesn’t bother me, why should it? Why should it bother anyone? Who really has had a life whereby a continuance would make a difference to anything? Anything other than a personal relationship or relationships group that is, ie partners or wider family.

Sure there are historical figures that we draw on for inspiration and hold as examples of change-makers. We’re pretty selective in what we remember and why, and what bits we celebrate and hold true. We’re not prepared to peek behind the curtain lest we see a reflection of ourselves.

The vocal religious types, On the whole, tend to be a bit self-centered and frankly a bit ignorant. A few sentences from a religious tract does not make it righteous. A selective, or enhanced, quotation does not prove your point, nor should it guide your moral compass. And you shouldn’t expect it to guide anyone else. Defending your faith aloud tends to draw attention to yourself and in doing so you call into question the depth of your faith, and your critical thinking. And this is where you leave yourself open to criticism and correction by the often slightly more educated atheist.

After all since the believers are labeling someone as a non-believer then the non-believer has to have a number of counter-arguments and reasoning’s, and trust me they’re all used and have been used, researched and investigated for use. All for naught though since if you have faith then you have it. You can’t stop having faith, you can choose to critically think about the faith you have and understand it’s fallacy.

On Twitter I follow a number of atheist tweeters, I’ve also followed and still do religious tweeters. The atheist twitter accounts, that I follow, tend to be more argumentative. The atheists don’t seem to get the live and let live of religion. It’s unlikely that religion or religious dogma would intrude upon their lives. And where it does ridicule and scorn don’t appear to be an effective counter argument.

It really does seem unlikely that there would be a middle ground, and religion and religious teachings account for a large portion of money, influence and sway in society, in many countries, and that’s not going to change any time soon.

Is religion wrong? Some of the teachings and some of the application of teachings is very wrong. These are human failings and interpretations, and there are vested interests in making sure that the status quo and balance is maintained. Change is slow and constant.

I’d be comfortable with your faith if you were as comfortable as I am with mine, but just don’s ask me to defend your position.

Related articles
Sep 26 2011

What Atheists Have to Believe.


I got listening to a couple of podcasts and the subject of atheism comes up now and again.

But the answer to “What atheists HAVE to belive” can be summed up in a couple of words. Well no that’s not true, the answer is not in the question which isn’t worded particularly well. The thing that I, an atheists, has believe in, and this is all, is that “There is no God”.

That is it. I don’t have to not belive in he Christian God, any God will do not to belive in.

I dont have to believe in  Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Hera, Aphrodite,
or Iuppiter, Mors,  Terra,
or Odin, Thor, Loki, Njordr,
or Krishna,  Vishnu, Kali, Ishvara,
or Shangdi, Mazu, Shou  Xing, Tu Di Gong,
or Izanagi-no-Mikoto,  Izanami-no-Mikoto,
or Cernunnos, Damona, Epona,
or Ra, Isis, Anubis, Osiris,
or An, Ki,  Enlil, Enki,
or Sin, Marduk, Ishtar, Nabu,
or Simurgh, Rostam, Gaokerena,
or Bunyip, Kurreah, Mutjinga etc

not a one do I have to belive in. There is no God.

Being an Atheist does not mean I have no moral standards, or moral code of right and wrong, I don’t find it odd to help my fellow-man, nor do I covet my neighbour’s wife or oxen most of the time.

I have one thing as an atheist to belive in. That is all.

I don’t have to apologise for evolution, I don’t have to explain the uncausable cause of the big bang, I don’t have to belive in an eternal after-life anywhere for any reason. I don’t have to belive that what I think or what I do has any repercussion other than to me and those my actions affect. I don’t have to belive in a judgement book.

Mostly however I don’t have to belive that I will vilify you, ridicule you or otherwise insult your belief in something. If you have personal experience of a God then good for you!, but that’s you and what you saw, I can’t measure it, you can’t replicate or prove it, but I’m not about that you prove it to me, especially not with a Bible of doubtful origin and content, that would be circular reasoning.

Should a God come visit with me and prove they are God then I’ll happily change my mind.  In the meantime I believe that you have a right to what you think, even if you have no basis for that belief, and I’ll continue with mine, based on what I’ve reasoned to be a reasonable position. After all “God did it” is not a reasonable excuse for anything that happens to you, anyone you know or any event in the world that you are too ignorant to think through an explain. Is it?

Sep 17 2011

I have a friend who’s very religious


A JW, who is convinced that he’s one of the 144,000 or whatever number it is. Don’t ask me how he can be, that door closed long ago. But you know that with any cult based religion you change the rules as it suits.

Anyway someone who didn’t know his fervor tried to ambush him with, starting with creationism. Trouble is that it quickly got to the big bang, and according to JW guy that was completely and utterly in line with doctrine, the un-causable cause.

Just because we can’t grasp the nothingness before creation, and this is his quote, “much like we can’t graph infinity”, then the obvious answer is a creator.

Obviously.

Not to be beaten the ambusher soldiered on, let’s try evolution again;

to which we get from  JW guy creationist nonsense about “you never see a simpler thing evolve into a more complex thing” and “why don’t dogs give birth to cats”, but he seems to have given ground in the years I’ve known him to “intelligent design” by which he means that creator made things that have adapted.

Not evolution since man did not evolve from a monkey, but that creator gives them a nudge now and then

“How about” says ambusher “Contradictions in the Bible“. I hung my head

“Show me one” says JW guy. It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Of course there are many and varied inconsistencies and contradictions, I know from reading and research that there are, but I can’t quote chapter and verse. If I was really fired up about the dumbness of religion and people’s faith I possibly would be, but each to their own. If you believe the bible in toto then you do, it’s not a negotiation. Besides which bible thumpers tend to be very picky about which words from which verse and in which context they use scripture, it’s not a whole story, it’s a soundbite.

There is no winning any argument about faith and belief, neither party is going to change their mind, as if over a coffee you’re going to have an epiphany or something.

But I’ve done my thinking and yes there was nothing and then there was something. Yes perhaps we can’t grasp the nothing, and because we are material we can only construct largely what we are familiar with, that which we know. There is stuff, it came from somewhere, there can’t have been no stuff, and suddenly then stuff, that would be silly, we don’t have experience of that happening. But to then go “ah God did it” is even lamer than just shrugging shoulders and going “it is what it is”

Finally we finished coffee with JW guy saying “what if you are wrong, what do you think will happen when you die” I said “worm meat”. I wasn’t really helping either cause.