A Lone Thought

The Church is in strife. A lot of strife. It's well known that in our modern day and age people are becoming less and less religious, and more and more secular. Year 12 is a very important year as far as religious schools go. It's a last ditch attempt to get your agenda across to the students before they go off and cleanse their minds. Statistics show that the higher level of education people have, the less likely they are to be religious. This poses a serious threat to the Church - if the peons die out, they die out. The Church is a business; it wills to survive. But what to do when your audience doesn't want to listen to what you've got to say? They're just not interested in buying your product?

Well, you revamp its look and send it out as a new and different product.

Today was an event called BYTE. Indoctrination is the name of the game. Every school in the diocese came together at one central location to "share in the community and belong together" or something like that. 'Breaking boundaries' was the motto.

Not particularly great that we had to walk there from my school, but eventually we got there none the less. As we were sitting down waiting for all the other schools to arrive in the massive hall they had, I started wondering whether some schools where some friends of mine are at were coming. Yes, they were. I was pretty excited to hear this, some of these friends I hadn't seen in a very long time.

Eventually most of the schools had sat down, and so began a presentation from each of the schools telling all of the diocese what their school was about. In between was the odd lecture from a significant person or two. Our diocese's Youth Minister was one of those people.

"I want everyone to stand up," he began. "Oh no...oh no!!" I laughed to my atheist friend next to me. He shared similar sentiments. The Minister then said "I want you to say to the person next to you, 'God loves you but I'm his favourite'". "Oh no!!!!!" My friend and I began laughing. We wern't gonna say it. Eventually we said it jokingly to each other before the Minister continued. "God loves each and every one of you. But now I want to tell you something, I'm his favourite." He then rattled on about the point he was making, and then proceeded to tell us to "tell the person next to you that 'God loves me, and you're his favourite'". As soon as people started my friend and I burst out laughing again. I actively refused to partake in such nonsense. Maybe I'm just a party pooper, but I didn't like where he was getting at.

Standard proslytizing time now: "God created all of this - the entire universe!" before doing it in style and mentioning the unbelievers "some people don't believe in God. They don't understand so they don't believe." Oh I understand perfectly well. Better than you do you ignorant fuck. This guy had an agenda. A nasty insidious one: target youth; which was just what his job was. It was clear that this guy was making sure we pushed on as the next generation of Christians - flattering us with love and praise, shunning out the unbelievers as 'ignorant' and 'not understanding'. Little did I know this would set the tone for the rest of the day...

After the presentations, recess. I was eager to begin hunting down my friends from the other schools. One particular friend I couldn't find. It turned out she was at TAFE doing her work there. Had she known I was going she would've come here. That was a bit disappointing, as she was one of the ones I was really looking forward to seeing again. The day then became dull and boring. Just gotta sit through it now and wait for the end.

Our year had been split up in four, and then four groups were formed out of the various sub groups that had been created. Each of the four groups would visit one of four short presentations and then move onto the next one. After an hour we would've gone through all of them, and it would be time for lunch again. Simple enough.

I had been seeing lots of girls were dressed in black; some guys too. They were obviously the performers for the shows we were about to witness. The first show had a bunch of being bounding around to Kool & The Gang's 'Celebration'. Well it's a good song, people found it amusing, so whatever okay. When they were done however, things turned bad. Students on platforms were talking in low somber voices about glorifying God. Things turned really ugly when they started having students reading out excerpts about life, then having a chorus of performers saying "we are only alive when we glorify God. We are only alive when we glorify God." in a monotone voice. The message was subliminal. They were attacking our base instincts - our base emotions: destroying our self esteem then building it back up with the dogma in the centre, all without us even realizing it. To suggest someone is only alive when they are 'glorifying God' I find deeply appalling. It devalues all the wonders one can seek through life, encouraging the person to give up their dreams and become the next generation of peons to instruct their peon descendents. What made things even more sickening was this once again reminded me of Jesus Camp. It wasn't the first time I felt I was living what those poor children had to go through. Two more terms...

The performance was surprisingly brief. When we were done my friends were laughing about how silly it was. When one of them asked what I thought of it I replied "wicked and disgusting," and explained my position. it was indoctrination - brainwashing. My friend agreed, but didn't see how that made it evil. The fact they're using such sneaky perverted tactics perhaps?

A long walk through the school (it's so big compared to ours...yet small compared to others) and we came to the next performance. We were given a piece of paper and a pencil as we walked out to sit down. This time the performers were standing on black square boxes. They were talking about the community, and how certain people have achieved great things in it. I thought I had grasped the message pretty early on: "Christianity breeds great community figures - isn't that something?" I was more or less correct, although it wasn't as direct as I thought it would be. We were told to write on the paper someone who we looked up to. Someone who inspired us. Hmm... who to write. Aha. I wrote the name down. I told my friends. We laughed. Some people were coming round with something to collect the papers with. We laughed again. I put my paper in the collector, and laughed once more. Someone would probably read all of these papers. They were probably looking for Christian leaders in the community. I wonder how they react when they see on the paper "Richard Dawkins".

More walking, we came to a nice shady spot under the trees on the grace. Such a beautiful scene. I'd love to go to that school and just lie down there at lunches...very peaceful. "50 bucks says they say 'oh look at nature isn't God something?'" I said to my friend.

I was surprisingly wrong. The presentation started off with Genesis. Oh no... however things suddenly swerved off into the theme for the presentation: potential. The odds of certain events (e.g. a black man becoming president) happening may of been exceedingly unlikely, but they happened none the less. Then it seemed as if they were making excuses for the problem of evil. Many different girls were speaking into microphones talking about how it's a 'sick old world', and though it may seem hard, we must try to repair it. How inconsistent of them - completely ignore the fact God created the world with its flaws but praise him for creating it none the less. I turned around and looked at my friend, "this is brainwashing," he said to me. I smiled. At least he could see where I was coming from now. Eventually all the performers just disappeared into the plants. They had just walked off. To the church we go for the final presentation!

Once again, happy vibrant enthusastic students. Praising God brings them joy. They proclaim it, and you can too! "We believe in a creator God *rainbow arms*, a merciful God, loving God". For one reason or another there was something to celebrate, and performers up the back of the church popped streamers and shiny party paper stuff all over us. My friend and I thought the ceiling was gonna fall in with the pop we heard. The overall agenda was clear. Making this sick disgusting cult more youth friendly, thereby continuing on their religion. Unfortunately I feel they succeeded...however speaking to some of my peers afterwards, many of them wern't even listening. I hope no-one heard anything anyone said today. It was just wrong, all of it. Horribly horribly wrong. I would've written more notes down to portray how wrong it was, however it was a bit difficult doing that whilst keeping the notes out of sight.

Lunchtime. We all went out on to the oval, and eventually Susie and her friend came up to me. She was aghast! "They're brainwasing us!" she said. I was a bit shocked at this...I couldn't beieve she agreed to me. I said to another friend of mine in a low voice "Susie's pretty religious...I can't believe she agrees we're being brainwashed!" Susies friend heard me and promptly told Susie what I had said. I then had to explain why I thought she wouldn't agree with me. That was a bit rude...

I began to explain the whole youth indoctrination thing when I was interupted - she didn't mean indoctrination of that, she meant brainwashing into feminism!! What?! How! "They're all very pro-woman fight the power." Apparently on the walls of the rooms we were in were a lot of WOO! WOMEN! motivational content. I asked Susie if she wanted my opinion on the matter (I'm clever enough to ask if people want my opinion when I'm going to talk about religion now). I told her how the Church has women as pretty insignificant, and so by having this they can tell themselves 'no, we're not insignificant we're awesome rah rah rah'. She agreed, so fair enough.

After lunch, mass. Pretty standard mass. One thing I picked up on was the Bishop saying "let us proclaim the mystery of faith". I had heard the Youth Minister call something a "mystery" earlier. I just don't get that nonsense. Ooo mysterious. Better worship it. Another thing was a hymn they were singing. It was asking Christ for mercy. A pretty standard hymn, sung in a pretty standard way. I think it's insane. I imagined Christ as the Emperor, and the people singing as a man at his knees begging for his life, asking the Emperor to have mercy on him. The man was screaming, crying. Not a pleasant sight. The Emperor was apathetic, and eventually the man just walked away without his answer - unfortunate, as I'd rather a real ending. Was this the same thing these people were doing? Pleading desperately for their lives to be spared? I considered that it might've been dependant on the tone it was being said, thus giving it a different sort of meaning. I couldn't think of any alternate meaning and so dropped it all together. An interesting thought none the less.

When I got home and mum asked how my day was, I had three words to say:

Disgusting. Insidious. Wicked.

...then proceeded to tell her how excited I was that I saw all my friends from other schools. Yay happy ending!

The Son of Man has come again! At recess today Jesus was back, and bloodier than ever, with not one, but two crosses! One was left up in the middle of the stage from last time, and the other was heaved over his shoulder. Covered in his bloody robes, he stood still like a statue, portraying the terrible struggle Jesus had to go through carrying that big heavy cross up that big long hill. Today, the sign said

Jesus carries his cross. What crosses do you put on others?

Great moral, poor English. Who 'puts crosses on others'? But who cares about the wording, lets look at the content. Jesus carries his cross. Of course he does, no-one is doubting that for a second, just ignoring the fact it's three against one - but alright, technically there's nothing wrong with it - the sign just said 'Jesus carries his cross'. It's making no historical assertion what-so-ever. I still feel it's implying it none the less.

Today in religion we had a look at abortion. At the start of the lesson my teacher made a point of addressing how we would handle the issue - as it was a 'very touchy subject/hard to talk about/big issue'. Sure it is... Or at least, certainly not as much as she hyped it up to be. She made a firm point of saying what our personal religious beliefs were were completely irrelevant - to which someone called out condicendingly "yeah Aardvark!". Heh.

Unfortunately, I'm a counter apologetics person. And in this course, random counter arguments are completely irrelevant, as they serve no bearing on the content of the course. 'It's just my opinion' so to speak, however . However, there are certain moments I can 'question' the reasons they're giving for certain things, and have it seem perfectly valid. A great example of this would be the argument against abortion utilizing the Ten Commandments. 'The Commandments were given to the Jews...and apply to Jews only - so who the hell are you to say God was wrong and they're in fact for you too. How arrogant can you get?! And you're screwing with God's words! He didn't want them to be for you so they're not for you!' I might be wrong on that, and if so I'd like to hear about it. But based on my current understanding of things Christians are in no place to use ANY commandment given to the Jews by utilizing the Hebrew Bible.

After receiving some worksheets and having a brief read through them I saw the usual special pleading where Christians believe humans are above all animals. I told my friend sitting next to me about Australopithecus Afarensis, asking whether it would be wrong to abort it if we found one alive today?

This then reminded my friend sitting in front of me to tell me something. The other day Mary (the insecure one) was talking to her about me. She was quoting me having said "our school pushes their beliefs onto us", and then said she thought I did exactly the same thing to them.

When my friend started telling me this I automatically objected to her first premise. I had no recollection of making such a statement. Knowing them, it would be no surprise to see they had in fact twisted my words from something else. Such a statement is ridiculous - we go to a religious school! What do you expect! I attempted to once again justify my position, stating I wasn't pushing my beliefs onto anyone, I was just stating facts. If they don't want to listen that's their decision.

I then picked up a pen and said 'the pen is red. THE PEN IS RED!!!! But the pen isn't red is it, it's blue. If you don't want to believe it's red that's your choice, but the matter of the fact is the pen is blue.' Unfortunately I didn't think to also add "the only thing I 'believe' here is I don't accept the premise God exists". Oh well, not like it would make much of a difference anyway.

I then speculated to my friend why Mary might've been thinking about me so often. First deciding I'm a scientific humanist and now I push my beliefs onto everyone? It as if she was trying to rationalize my position as an evil person who's just as bad, nay, worse than everyone else. Therefore whatever I say is clearly worthless and should not be listened to. She's a very insecure person so this would make sense.

I just stumbled upon an interesting article from the "Institude for Creation Research". I was looking for someone else in Google, but this page caught my interest. Let's do a line by line analysis of it, shall we?

Atheism is a worldview

Atheism is not a worldview.

in which there is no God.

'There is no belief in a God.' I like it how they spin it so that the opening sentence instantly gives the impression atheists are evil bloodsucking heathens. Get the point out early eh?

Adherents

I do not adhere to anything! This makes it seem like it's some sort of doctrine or dogma. A dictionary has "supporter or follower" as the definition for adherent, so okay you can have that one.

believe that life sprang from natural forces, not intelligence

That sounds more like a naturalist than an atheist to me. Nothing in atheism specifies it had to be natural. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. Raelianism anyone?

and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organised itself out of raw materials that were just there.

Quite honestly the cosmos looks anything but organised. Also, no-one is suggesting it simply "made itself". And strictly speaking - materials = matter = WRONG. Energy on the otherhand...

"New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

Disdain? Well, I don't think I would go that far. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that these books don't target specific individuals, rather the ideologies themselves. Hitchens is particuarly scathing in God is Not Great, so it's likely he probably did target specific individuals (I've forgotten - but I'm quite sure he does).

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief.

I'm still not sure what is so 'new' about it. Regardless, damn right it's not a passive disbelief. With crackpot organizations like this guy's no wonder we're up in arms about religion!

Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.¹ As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."²

Right. So he warns them. That's not trying to 'rid the world' of it. I could have a problem with anyone who didn't warn people against faith. I hate that word - the pure ignorance people express by holding onto it oh so tightly - it drives me nuts! I wonder if this quote was taken out of context too.

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith.

OF COURSE IT IS HOW CLEVER OF YOU!!! Now say hello to my little unicorn.

Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence."

1. Go to dictionary.com

2. Type 'faith' in the search field

3. ????

4. PROFIT!

Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3

Well, if you have a better way of ascertaining knowledge with a relatively high degree of knowledge that is better than the current system we already have, please! Leave a comment!

This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children.

Great analogy. Who care! Let's run with it! By measuring the activity in certain areas of his brain we would be able to get an indication of how much he loves his children based on how much the pleasure/love/etc senses heat up. If a husband kills his family, he might say he did it out of love. He was only trying to protect them, perhaps. Love comes in many shapes and sizes. This guy would probably argue the father did not love his children, otherwise he wouldn't of committed those atrocities. Nice try but no.

Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

Through...perhaps...faith? OH SHI-

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding.

More of this 'dogma' rubbish. While that view may or may not be consistant with atheism, atheism has nothing in itself to lead to such an opinion.

However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all.

The methods we use have self evidently shown to be an effective means of gathering and understanding data and information from and about the real world. This is not faith. If you see a flower grow in front of you - is that faith? No. You have good reason to suggest what has happened happened.

Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.⁴

Great reasoning. A decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Well...most of the EM spectrum isn't visible, so I guess I know most of that because of faith...? Or perhaps this guy is just trying to reword "belief without evidence" into a less obvious form. Ideas may not be visible, but the atoms on which they rely are - as are the actions that are performed as a result of them. And regardless of this, it is a complete non sequitur. I have good reason to know whether my ideas can be reliable or not - based on my past understanding and experiences of the real world. I might get an idea to jump off a cliff - does that make it a good idea?

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting

Omnipotence omniscience - oh wait that's not a philosophy. Damn! Can the Bible be a philosophy now? Can it can it please? Atheism isn't a philosophy though - thanks for the sraw man!

which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.⁵

Wouldn't they be self refuting if they just contradicted various things they stood for, making it internally inconsistent, like much of Christianity?

One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative."

Who is making that claim? True in what sense? I don't think I would make the assertion all truth is relative. Logical absolutes for example, are always true no matter what. That's an example of a "truth" per se. Another good example is what Dawkins brings up in The God Delusion. You could not get out of a court hearing when asked if you were in Chicago at the time of the killing by saying "well it depends what you mean by the term 'in'. In a certain culture you are not truly in a place unless you are the lead elder and entitled to do something with a goat" to paraphrase obviously.

This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Well I don't really accept the relative truth premise in the first place, what's more I'm not really equipped to argue against that as I don't know that much about it.

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed.

*Accepted

Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

It has shown to be a successful way of gaining knowledge over and over and over again, without fail. As I've already said, if you have a better system please feel free to comment, explaining how it achieves the goals the current method does - in detail, as well as how your method is better.

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to

THERE IT IS HE SAID IT! ATHEISM HAS NO DOCTRINE!

theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale.

You have made an assertion. Congratulations. Please demonstrate your assertion or else your claim will have just as much evidence as a fairy tail.

Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis

A sensible concept in Genesis. Hahaha!

of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation

Who was clever enough to fill in the loophole by positing he can be infinite, but his creation can't.

Knowledge of our holy God

Holy? Are you kidding me! Have you even read the damn thing! To be fair though there are multiple definitions of holy, and I just used the 'deserving of special respect' one, so I guess I could let that one pass.

HOLY?!

is generally available through our observation of the natural world.

This reminds of me of Ray Comfort's apologetic where he says 'if you put a painting in a room with a bunch of scientists and leave them in there for a while, you could be sure enough that they would come to the conclusion it needed a creator!' Nonsense! The only conclusion they could possibly come to is that the painting was there when they got there. They have no idea who or what made it. They might also have an opinion on how good a paitning it is... but the point remains. The painting is not proof of the painter - simply the painting itself. In the natural world I see the natural world. Can't see any references to the supernatural though.

This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.⁶

Not this shit again. Ironically a week or two ago I was talking with my religion teacher about Genesis and she asked me if I thought anyone took it literally - I said no - to which she replied 'of course not it's just for interpretation'. And yet you see asshats like this running around spirting crap like that out. Adam and Eve never existed.

However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ

Only the Christian Bible. Jews don't believe that shit.

and for His glory.⁷ So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him.

I like it how he references a Bible verse for this - as if that makes it any less credible. How can you 'know' him from seeing his creation! I can tell you right now I don't know Bill Gates or Steve Jobs at all. I think I'm getting ripped off!

Today I had a good conversation with an atheist friend of mine on religion and later on philosophy - specifically, the nature of consciousness and the essence of free will. This was a tricky conversation from the start. The religion conversation was easy - why does Christianity fail so hard. And I was able to rattle off all the little bits and pieces I knew - the fact that the Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah, all the prophecies he failed to fulfill, the contradictions in his birth narrative, the incoherency of why Jesus even had to save us, and how evolution singlehandedly dismantles Christianity at the core. Stuff I know a fair bit about. Philosophy on the other hand, not as easy.

In transitioning from one discussion to the other, my friend posed to me the question of what happens when we die. I withheld judgment of course, simply stating I don't know. Cos I don't! He said I had to have some theory, and we had a quarrel over what definition of theory he was trying to use. He said it was theory in the scientific sense... wouldn't he mean hypothesis then?

I said to him, "well, I dont see any reason to suggest we would have another life anywhere else; and why would we? There is no such thing as a soul." I wasn't in the mood for semantics. The soul doesn't exists in the same vain unicorns don't.

He said that was boring, to which I replied it may be, but that didn't make it any less true. Interestingly enough he then told me he believed there was such thing as a soul. I consider him a pretty rational guy. He's into science, but not really into it into it.

I had previously read of the ridiculous nature of supposing there was a soul, in particular whether it contains our memories or not? If the person replies yes, then they're exactly where I want them. We know memories are stored all over the brain, and if the soul contains them too, then it's just a copy of whatever occurred in our brain. Which would mean, that when we die, it's not our soul that goes off to heaven, it's an exact replica of our memories and experiences! It's not us though - it's a clone! Unfortunately my friend said the soul didn't contain our memories, it just had access to them.

Rather, my friend defined the soul similar to something I would call consciousness. The strange thing inside our minds that allows us to have things such as free will (assuming there is such a thing). As the argument went on, it became pretty clear to me his definition of soul was exactly the same, or pretty close to my definition of consciousness. But when I said to him he was just calling soul what I called consciousness he strongly objected, saying they weren't the same thing and I was wrong. Researching the terms I was using to try and justify my position (I was continually telling him I didn't know the answers to his questions, clearly stating I wasn't qualified to talk about them), thanks to Wikipedia, I learned he had made an equivocation fallacy.

Consciousness is a difficult term to define, because the word is used and understood in a wide variety of ways, so that it frequently happens that what one person sees as a definition of consciousness is seen by others as about something else altogether. Consciousness may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and self-awareness. It is variously seen as a type of mental state, a way of perceiving, or a relationship between self and other.

Right off the bat I could see why we were having such a hard time getting a shared understanding. It was a hard term to define. My friend was defining it as the state of being awake. When you're not awake, you're unconscious. I wasn't sure if this was the same type of consciousness or not, but had I read all of the opening paragraphs to the Consciousness article I would've saved myself 20 minutes of pointless arguing.

In common parlance, consciousness sometimes also denotes being awake and responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma.

Consciousness sometimes also denotes. There were two definitions. He had equivocated one with another. This made me feel slightly smart. It's not easy being able to remember all the various types of fallacies, so it felt good to be able to say "bam. I see wat u did thar."

When I pressed him to actually tell me what the soul is he gave me mixed definitions. First he said it was part of the brain, then said it was energy. Then he said it was supernatural, and after that said it interacts with our brain somehow. I later questioned him on his failure to properly define it, and he admitted he didn't really know what it was. He just knew it existed.

After much back and forth not really getting anywhere, I sprang him with the burden of proof. In a sense it was a last ditch attempt to "win" the debate after throwing a paragraph at him that justified my position, which neither he nor I really understood. Regardless, the burden of proof was on him. In a sense he could've claimed the burden of proof was on me too. As I was making counter claims for my explanation for how and why we have free will. I attempted to explain it to the best of my ability, however feel I inadvertently failed.

We later revisited the conversation with me springing him with "what is the subconscious then?" Which then rendered the conversation at a stale mate with him asking me to "explain" how consciousness and subconsciousness arive at the decisions they make. Cause and effect! I then became curious as to how we even know the subconscious exists in the first place? My guess is it can be inferred from some other brain activity or something. Regardless, I could not answer his question and the conversation soon moved onwards.

The philosophical questions aside, there was one thing I wanted to know of him - did he believe there was an afterlife. The best I could get out of him was "if you knew we were just gonna end, like, when we die - that's it - would you wana believe it? I'm trying to think of alternatives, because it doesnt seem right that it ends that way"

More wishful thinking, and an appeal to emotion. Ironically I had just given Wikipedia's article on the appeal to emotion to him after he summed up his position on the soul. I find Wikipedia's say on this quite amusing really.

Appeal to emotion is a fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

* Appeal to consequences
* Appeal to fear
* Appeal to flattery
* Appeal to pity
* Appeal to ridicule
* Appeal to spite
* Wishful thinking

So true. Jumping on his assertions there must be some sort of purpose, we dived into science, where I used a bit of the anthropic principle, and evolution, to show the claim there there is some sort of purpose is a silly one. All the events that have lead up to our existence are events of pure chance. The universe didn't have to be "finely tuned" this way. The earth didn't have to be suitable for life. Our species didn't have to survive - most other species that have ever lived didn't. Many (most?) conceived babies self abort due to some sort of abnormality. Where do you see any signs of purpose!

Regardless of our disagreements, it was a fascinating, stimulating conversation - one I wish I had more often. I may not be into the same sorts of stuff as everyone else is, but when someone asks me something I know a lot about, providing they're interested, a very lengthy conversation will soon follow. Good stuff.

Talking to a friend on MSN, she showed me a quote from one of her friends personal messages

Christians are drawn to the light, in this way they are on the same intellectual level as the moth.

Amazed at the sheer wit and genius of this brilliant brilliant sentence, I promptly put it in my personal message for the whole world of my contact list to see. I then said to my friend I bet my brother was going to see it, and go and tell mum. To my amazement, he didn't.

When I stepped out of the shower, 5 hours later, wearing nothing but a towel wrapped around my waist, I went into my brothers room nextdoor to the shower to talk to him about something. After this brief encounter, I was just at the doorway when mum promptly appeared, blocking my path.

Mum: What's this I hear about your brother telling me you're not being a christian anymore?
Me: No, I'm not.
Mum: So you don't believe in God?
Me: Nup.
Mum: *drops jaw* HOW COULD YOU?! AFTER EVERYTHING I'VE TAUGHT YOU!

I was somewhat nervous at this stage, however I was speaking in a smart, informed, I-know-what-I'm-talking-about kind of voice, which was really really useful - and cool.

Me: It's all rubbish.
Mum: No more Christmas presents for you then.

I then tried to tell her Christmas was a more secular festivity than a christian one as she stormed down the hallway to the living room to supposedly get away from me. I had been smart enough to look up some information about Christmas previously before, in case I ever had to argue my point. Unfortunately though my knowledge on why and how it's now a secular holiday was limited, so could hardly argue my point. It wouldn't of mattered anyway, because she was barely listening.

She then spoke to my Dad
Mum: You know what he just told me? He doesn't believe in God!
Dad: What!?

After some introductory kerfuffle to introduce Dad to this stunning revelation things got back on their way.

Mum: What are you gonna be then - MUSLIM?!
I replied calmly: No, an atheist.

Their mouths dropped. They both screamed at the same time "AN ATHEIST!??!?!"

Mum then began screaming at me, calling me evil, how disappointed in me she was after everything she'd taught me, she would be moving me from my Catholic school to a really crappy one, as well as some other stuff too. I then went back to my room. I wanted to get dressed! As I entered my room I heard Dad say "just accept the fact that- and," then his voice trailed off. Instead of getting dressed, I began telling my friend, the same friend whom gave me the quote, all about what was happening. Soon after, the internet had turned off. Mum had turned off the router. Great... Now I was gonna go out there in an attempt to turn it back on, and Mum would be waiting for me. And went out I did!

As I walked into the living room I turned and saw my Mum, standing next to the router. She was glaring at me with pure hatred. I asked why she turned the internet off? She replied "YOU'RE EVIL! PURE EVIL! GET OUT OF MY SIGHT" I then burst out laughing at her. She kept screaming at me right in front of me. I just laughed and laughed and laughed. Eventually I settled down and said, "this is exactly the sort of response I expected from you."

A conversion then pursued on whether the Bible was rubbish or not. Eventually it got to a stage where she started making up excuses.
Me: Right. So the Bible teaches us good values RAPING CHILDREN AND DESTROYING CITIES. Noah's Ark - you know what that is? GENOCIDE
Mum: Oh that's just the Old Testament

Oh how I wish my knowledge of the New Testament was greater that day... the wickedness of Jesus... his terrible, useless advice... how it would have come in handy. Of course, I interjected none the less

Me: NO - you can't say that! People think we get our values from that!

I think I actually meant to say ethics and/or morals. Oh well, not like it would've made a difference.

With the help of my cat creating a distraction, I was able to slip past Mum as she went to stop the cat destroying the bookcase that was next to me, switched on the internet, and then turned around to continue our conversation. More carrying on ensued, with a particular fondness of the world evil. She seemed to use it a lot. In hindsight, this is actually quite interesting. I'm inclined to think she was indoctrinated as a child that atheists are evil, pure evil, and out to spill their hatred on everyone else in the world.

Ironically, my Dad is in fact an atheist. When we were young and my brother and I asked him why he never went up to receive Communion he said it was because he didn't believe in God. Oh ok fair enough. I didn't see what the difference, big deal, or anything was. Nothing! Just thought it was odd he didn't go up to eat some weird old bread. He identifies himself as an Anglican. He thinks religion has its important place in the world, and leaves it at that. He might've fooled Mum, but I know better. You don't get to have it both ways. He's not an Anglican, a cultural Anglican perhaps. He's an atheist thick and thin. I can understand why he would hide under the Anglican banner though. Our relatives are pretty religious too. He might be just trying to keep the peace with both his Wife, and his family. If that's what he needs to do, then fair enough. This in a way made me somewhat lucky, as I only had one parent to deal with.

Me: You can't stop me from being an atheist
Mum: DON'T SAY THAT!!!

Atheism is the new Voldemort!

Me: Why?
Mum: You're EVIL! YOU'RE AN EVIL ATHEIST

I then went back to my room. Then Dad came in. Oh joy! He's certainly got an opinion too.

Dad: So you think religion doesn't give people good values?
Me: I didn't say that.
Dad: You said it's a lie
Me: No, the Bible is a lie. Look at Noah's Ark - Genocide!

He smiled. I wish I didn't say it was a lie. The Bible is not a "lie", that makes no (or little) sense! (grammatically at least. How can a book be a lie, that's silly - contain lies sure.) There are small elements of truth in there, and even bigger elements regarding the morals and values of the time, as well as an excellent recollection of what people back then might've believed and practised! Not to mention it's an excellent literary text that we've extracted numerous idioms and phrases from. To call it a "lie" is completely the wrong word, and I wish I said something better, such as it's not "true" - but even then that can be vague.

He then used the same apologetic as my mum, "we don't look at the Old Testament"
Me: But you all claim you get your morals and ethics from it
Dad: It's just stories
Me: That teach you morals and ethics! What - to rape and kill children?!

He smiled again, and said we disregard the Old Testament. I wasn't letting that one slip though, that was a key point, and possibly the crux of my argument, or one of at least. You cannot get off over The Ten Commandments and then turn around and say the rest is allegory - slipping the odd "but this one's true too" in every once and a while.

At one stage in the conversation I brought up the incest etc in the Bible, and he said that's why you ignore that stuff. I responded that's picking and choosing, to which he replied that's why we have brains - so we can choose to only focus on the good stuff, thinking for yourself. (Nonsense, we have brains because they help coordinate muscles. That other stuff added perks from evolution, to put it another way). At the time I thought he had a point, so responded with "some people take this shit literally - if you want it to be holy get this stuff out of here, and if they could think for themselves they would realize what a load of contradictory crap it is." In hindsight, I had a lot of good and bad arguments...

After I kept persisting him to answer the question on the Old Testament as he avoided and avoided time and time again, I eventually demanded - "answer the question!!" He left.

Regardless, I continued to tell my friend about what had happened on MSN. I was all shaken up.

The next morning, I was awoken to a "what about the New Testament, don't you believe Jesus died on the cross?"

Jesus! Ahh we meet at last. Good, I've been researching you. And so, presented the attained knowledge to my mother, one by one. Perhaps for irony I should've gone two by two.

• Only people who are a thread to the Roman Empire are crucified. Jesus was crucified along with some petty thieves. Yeah right. Thieves will bring down our economy!
• In one section of the Bible it says a man named Simon carried the cross for Jesus - in another there is no mention of Simon at all.
• It takes days to die on a cross. He was put up, died, and taken down - all on the same day!

Mum then interupted me saying they stabbed him in the side with a sword - IT'S ALL IN THE BIBLE, to which I responded, "they stabbed him in the side to check he was dead - why would they stab him on the first day? He's obviously not dead yet!

• People who died on the cross were left there for days and days and days until they died. And even when they did die they wern't taken down unless they had a loved one.

Mum responded saying 'they' took him down, to which I replied "that someone would've been Mary Magdalene, someone whom the church denies was ever married to Jesus."

It's important to note that the things I was saying were largely single sourced, that is, I hadn't bothered to really check any of the claims I'd heard and verify them against the facts. Much of the history elements I've become aware of I still haven't checked, because I wouldn't really know where to begin - nor do I really care that much. Christopher Hitchens spews history left and right in God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. While reading this book I just took a skeptical eye towards everything he said. I had no idea whether to agree or disagree, cos there's no way I could know.

At this point Mum screwed up her face, and left the room. Great wake up call.

Later that day, or a few days later Mum said she had told my Nana I was an atheist. Her response was apparently "typical he would be". An argument then pursued, leading to Mum stressing out and my Dad having a conversation with me about it. She wanted nothing to do with it. The fact her son was an apostate heathen was probably disturbing her again. Although my Dad and I went into my room to chat where she couldn't hear me, she continued to barge in the door to yell at us. So much for not wanting to listen?

A few months ago I asked mum if I could have The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for Christmas. She initially said no, as she thought it was evil stuff I was trying to brainwash myself with. I really wanted that book, and one day had a spray at her about how her delusions were imposing on my life, and I didn't want to have to put up with that. To my surprise, she eventually changed her mind. I can't help but think my spray made her think, made her realize her son is who he is, and should at least try to support him.

Those crazy Christians. What will they do next? Or what will they do that they haven't done before more rather.

At recess today - Jesus! This isn't the first time this has happened either. What's more, and I only just thought of this now, this time they chose a Lebanese boy to play Jesus. The choice might not as been as random as I had previously thought... It's quite obvious that most people would think of Jesus as a nice white chap who walked around springing love and joy everywhere - not the sort of person you would associate with a middle eastern person. They've acquired a very different sort of stigma in today's modern society...

He was standing on the stage at the end of the playground for all to see far and wide. He had a cross behind him with a purple rag on it. He was wearing short shorts, and a red shirt. Both of these were then covered by a very "bloody" rag. The reason for the choice of undergarments should now seem more obvious - you can't see his pants, just the rag covering him - which is where the focus was meant to be be (that or the "crown of thorns" on his head.) If by some miracle you could see through all the "blood", you would be greeted by more red underneath, adding to the pain imagery intended. Such a pleasant sight. When I saw this, the usual popped into my head. "I can't believe these people worship DEATH. This is DISGUSTING."

At the front of the stage was a sign with the words on it "I was unfairly condemned. Do you unfairly condemn others?" White cardboard with red writing. Ahh it looks as if it were written with blood. Such a fine colour choice. Initially I tried to think of a good counter apologetic for this, however then turned and thought that might actually be good advice. It's not fair to unfairly condemn others. The use of Jesus might get that point across. However I then turned to the 'unfairly condemned' part. Was he? Unfortunately the details on why Jesus was crucified skipped my mind at the time. It's just not something I ever need to think about. Interestingly, it's something no-one ever really talks about either. You might hear all this talk about Jesus being crucified on the cross, but they never really mention why he was.

Lacking the "primary evidence" for criticizing the sign I turned to some "secondary evidence", which didn't really stand up that well, or at least I thought. He was a heretic! Preaching all this nonsense that contradicted the Jewish Law. The Messiah was meant to uphold the law, not change it. I then posed myself the question did Jesus ever claim he was the messiah? If yes I might've had a legitimate point. However if he never did claim to be the messiah, and that label was just tacked onto him afterwards, then the point isn't as great. One could argue however that anyone who said things that contradicted the law might be considered a heretic anyway. I digress.

I also thought of the Lost Gospel of Judas, in which it's claimed Jesus asked Judas to betray him. It was all part of the plan (to quote The God Delusion). That seemed like a fun idea too, and I asked my friend if he dared me to go up and start a conversation with Jesus. He was all gain for it, but I wasn't serious. I knew better, and I'd probably get in trouble - or Jesus might've got his apostles on me.

My friends are more than smart enough to even think of bringing up the topic of religion with me. They know, it will spell a lecture. Even when I try not to lecture, when you just know so much on whatever they're talking about how can you not!

Today I was talking with Susie and her friend about the TV show The Farmer Wants a Wife and how silly and ridiculous it was. We were having some good laughs, and eventually came a time where the topic was over, no-one was saying anything, just waiting for another to pick whatever we were to discuss next. The friend then said to me, "don't you start talking about your crazy theological crap." I was taken a bit back by this. Completely random and out of nowhere! I replied "...why would I? I know you guys don't-" Susie groaned and looked the other way at this point "-wanna hear about it so why on earth would I talk about it. If I did I would probably seem like an evil atheist trying to convert everyone!" They then both replied "Good!" Then we started talking about the TV show House. Best. Show. Ever. Ironically it backed up some of the notions I made in a post yesterday - they think I'm trying to take over the world!

On the trainride home we were talking about something and then our friend Rachael said "can't be worse than your religion talks". Again - random! Where was this coming from?! Then interestingly Mary said to me "oh yeah I remember - I've decided you're not an atheist-" Oh? "-you're a scientific humanist." I then replied I'm actually a secular humanist, and if I had time would've explained I'm actually a secular humanist agnostic atheist; being a any sort of humanist doesn't prevent you from being an atheist - in many it might encourage it, and that she doesn't get to decide what I label myself, what my thoughts feelings and values are. She wasn't buying I was a secular humanist though - she had made up her mind - I was scientific.

Then when I tried to say no...I'm secular she then said "it doesn't matter all humanists are the same" What! She was walking down the carriage to go down the stairs at this point. My friends could see it was about to get ugly. They started putting their hands up to make me stop, speaking loudly over my voice, they just didn't wanna hear me go. "We don't wanna hear another religion lecture!" They cried. "It's not a religion it's a philosophy!" I interjected. They didn't care. Regardless, I wasn't gonna be accused of something, have someone grossly misrepresent something else and let it go. I started yelling down the carriage "what are you talking about?!" Unfortunately she was out of earshot and my friends were yelling way too loud for me to ask "what do you call christian humanism then?"

Where does this shit come from? I find it interesting my friends are thinking about my religious opinions, and even more interesting why they might be thinking about them? An ironic series of events today; I wonder if some other things I write in my blog manifest in real life too.

/r/ing nudes plox.