Hi Martin!

Thanks for replying! I know it takes effort. I am learning why people believe what they believe. I am answering the lower part of your reply because the species debate seems pretty esoteric.

WE JUST KIND OF DISAGREE --WHICH IS OK. I agree with you that some animals cross breed and that new forms of wheat are generated BUT its too big of jump for a whole new organism that doesn't have even slight resemblances to their parents. Fish do not turn into birds, etc. True, the evolutionists claim that time is on their side for development. I studied this claim and it never made sense. Time does not account for previously unknown features. Where does this unknown stuff come from????????? Thats why the answer of a creator makes sense. I don't think its just curiosity or explanation for purpose but more one of design and architecture.

The other question would be how the OBSERVED building blocks (DNA) were put into motion. What was the prototype? Just mindboggling! But we observe beauty! We see the results of stunning design. I often think atheists just have their blinders on and think it doesn't have an explanation. Just randomness. Why do we observe them this way? Are our scientific observations way off? Do we only see part of the puzzle? Are we supposed to see the whole solution? Are we being tested for another reason? Do we have a choice?

The things we can measure seem true with science but they don't tell us everything. There are mere observations. Why is it that sometimes emotional health affects physical health? Could the biblical truths be true only if we accept them? Or are they a measure of faith? I always wondered why atheists consider religion as and yet many other organizations also have agendas they could be interpreted as bad. World War II killed more people than all the previous wars combined. This was over land and power. Call it SELFISHNESS or EVIL. Take your pick. Seems like organizations in general have this trait?

Misguided agendas don't just get applied to groups of churchgoers. My problem with church as a social norm is that the social and moral laws have nothing to do with following God's word. God says - If You Love Me- Follow My Laws --not collect money and build buildings. I see very clearly why people dislike religion. Its manmade just like the country clubs which have the same problems except they concentrate on golf instead of Sunday morning messages. Those are man's constructions. Not God's. We have free will to follow or not. I think I could easily discount the idea of a creator if families didn't exist. BUTTTT - I see God in the caring that families show. Some don't-TRUE - but they've chosen to ignore the plan.

God wants us to love each other. Not kill and hate. That's why his laws are written in our hearts. I have a question for you? Why do you care for your family and friends? Your motivation is LOVE. My view is that GOD IS LOVE. I don't mentally even draw a distinction. I don't understand love but I feel it. More experiencial view-I know. But I don't intellectualize its non existance. Why do we have laws against stealing and murder and lying? It's because you wouldn't want it done to you. The concept is KEY to the idea of a conscience. When people discount this concept they get disappointed and hurt. The concept of soul is what makes us different than animals. Animals do not have a written language or communicate at an advanced level.

Evil

I do not deny the things you label as evil. These things happen. I deny the implied link across the category, I deny that there is a force of evil.

The force i am talking about here is in the minds of the people that engage in it. Our conscience tells us it is wrong but it is a behaviour that is continued and has very real consequences. The force i am talking about is the motivation to plan and execute it. Evil is a term that is controversial because it invokes many perceptions. Call it a force or a motivation or a plan or selfessness. In fact, call it anything: but it happens because of man. I believe we have a choice. Evil is the choice of the ignorant that rebel against the individual knowledge that it is wrong and wouldn't want the same behaviours exhibited to the offender. This is called the golden rule and makes perfect sense. I am sure you studied it at some point even at church.

Murder, genocide, rape, torture, wanton destruction. All these things happen and I agree with the basic analysis that they are supremely undesirable. However I do not see them as being a either a single phenomenon or a force or either nature or something of any other realm.

They are a decision by man that could do otherwise. god gives us the otherwise.

As an analogy I could lump Ferraris, jet aircraft, racehorses and motorcycles together and challenge you to deny the existence of speed.

Speed is definitely observable and a law when misused will have consequences. Hence-speed limits!

I accept that things exist that we can agree to call evil, but I deny that evil is a separate force that permeates things or the behaviour of people. There are evil acts as there are fast things but that does not prove the existence of Satan, Hell or a Lord of Speed and the forces of the fast. When people do evil things they are behaving in a human way,

which is why god allows us to make a decision and recommends abandoning the self

not responding to forces beyond their nature. Human nature contains within it the capacity for callousness and for calculated spite, for envy, for hatred, for greed. We also have capacities for caring, loving, nurturing, sharing, curiosity, generosity, lust and pride. We are not demons or angels. We are real, human, complicated. We have a lot to be proud of and a lot to be ashamed of. As long as we can stay focused and be moral then we can improve, or at least try to keep a reasonable grade point average. For my part I find that religion is not part of the answer, it is not the way to increase morality.

nor should it be looked at that way. It's to be a relationship.

It is a way to divide people's loyalties and cause divisions.

if misunderstood and misused and abused.

Underneath our differences we are all people, we are all in the same predicament. Religions divide us.

when abused-yes- not the real message which many organizations ignore.

Understanding of our common humanity could unite us.

people will always fall into different camps of beliefs.

As an atheist I do not hate God any more than you hate Goldilocks or the Loch Ness Monster. I am against religion and the effects it has on people's behaviour.

question: where are all the atheist hospitals? i see atheism as apathy. Not enough motivation to help people. Who are the visible leaders that give selfless love like Mother Theresa?? Could it be their motivation for action is not there? I think so. Burn and trauma centers and homeless shelters get more help from faiths than non faiths. also food and clothing banks. Is there an atheist version of the salvation army? Organizations are just groups of humans. They have faults and need to be set straight some times but at least they try. I admire groups that do something.

That has nothing to do with hating God. It is impossible to meaningfully either love or hate something you do not believe in. My non-belief in God is not any kind of a stunt. It is not done for effect. It is not an act of will. I have no more "cullpability" for this belief than you have for yours that the Earth is round or that water is wet. I trust that you simply believe what you believe for reasons that are satisfactory and sufficient for you.

i'm always questioning.

I ask no more than that you do your best to allow me to do the same for my beliefs.

I am just curious also but don't discount any possibilities. Thanks again!

Todd

Martin!

I should really thank you for examining my beliefs in more depth. I have spent much time investigating in the last few weeks.

I was brought up in a church going family and disliked the dogma and traditions very much. It didn't feel right. I thought religious people were goofy and couldn't think outside the box. Many still don't, and need serious help.

I have come to an interesting conclusion. The real non seekers are the people who follow the norm. If you go to any shopping mall here, you can see the tattoo pierced kid ands teenagers looking for acceptance or just being cool. This gets translated into wanting the right brands and possessions later in life. All to be wanted and loved. This same group is a bunch of the ad agencies dream. Talk about supporting corporate greed.

The kids that have caring parents-give them this attention and are more likely not seeking it from peers. Although some still do. Although we all want to be accepted. As I grew, I realized that quite a few people I knew were off track. I now have returned to the values and beliefs that are the foundation of following Christ because they are different than the mainstream. It says to drop love of money and treat your enemies with love. If this was practiced instead of just talked about, your view may be different. This statement is truly remarkable and revolutionary because it is about being an extrordinary person. Not just wearing the right thing on the outside. I'm interested in inner beauty. I don't worry about converting anyone or having them believe the way I do.

As I write, I'm not even trying to change your thinking. I'm just exposing my thinking and what I have been through. In fact, the term converting is why it draws a negative image. Sad that it has occurred. It's OK you have different conclusions. You have a different family and history. As a science student, I found that it wasn't a substitute for faith in God. I was just curious how my life could be so amazing and yet I am totally different than my older or younger sister. They even absorbed different values than me. I wrote this statement below because I truly believe it. My observation is that Atheists ignore the very BASIC premises of Science that they profess to defend in using it as their Scientific viewpoint of life.

Science dictates that you OBSERVE, COLLECT DATA and POSTULATE an EXPLANATION or CONCLUSION based on observable facts. By analagous reasoning or thinking- if they looked around at our physical environment, everything is constructed by effort and design. It is definately CREATED. Buildings require permits and blueprints to be built in an organized manner. Cars require design. Absolutely every product and service that our economy depends upon requires organization and order. And these THINGS were CREATED using raw materials by US (Humans). If we can create-Where did this ability come from? Hint: Our animals neighbors don't do this.

Note to self: WAKEUP CALL to ATHEISTS! Why can they ignore this when it comes to something even more complex? Life! It just EVOLVED by MAGIC.

I think it was designed by purpose. Why not ignore the basics of physics and just let it evolve? Most skyscapers didn't get built by non approved experts. Why would they think that something that is as complex as a human or animal would not need constructing for it to work. Ludicrous thinking. They say it just IS. Very unscientific.

Rebellion

The reason they deny a creator is really more of a rebellion to authority or a man made institution that turned them off because they didn't feel accepted or didn't like the style presented. Most didn't like the rules. It just didn't make sense-they say. The were either out to lunch that day or didn't have the thinking cap on securely. They may be the same sort that would like any laws not to exist. Maybe we should just ignore the laws of gravity or nutrition. Eat the wrong foods (poisonous mushrooms) and you die. Guess what? These laws can't be broken either so the athesists view is wacked out thinking. They follow an agenda of non thinking. It just is- provides no insight.

The biggest fairytale is the concept that spiders turn into giraffes. Obviously, I'm pretty set in my conclusions.

I am curious what drove you to your conclusion! Was it based on some observed data or a feeling or it just came to you somehow. I think the worst thing people can do is be turned off to an interest or occupation or even belief just because of the messenger and not the message. After reading about memes I could see it as an explanation for something replicating if peoples brained allowed it to be replicated. Many ideas change through time and get morphed. Written accounts can't morph. Just a thought.

Christianity by the nature of your expanation is not a meme. Your explanation. It's not a passed on idea. It was set a long time ago in writing. The words have been translated- not the message. You are absolutely RIGHT in claiming that most so called Christians don't follow it. I observe this all the time. In fact, I'll even go as far to say that anybody that endorses any atrocity of war is definately not following Christ. That includes the religous labels of Catholic or Protestant.

I'm interested in TRUE belief and proof. I also agree with you that religion causes Problems. And the reason for that would be that man in general causes problems. I think you have pointed the finger at the wrong social organization. I think we are all more alike than different. I suppose that anyone that believes a certain way wants others to endorse it. Kind of why owners groups exist. Maybe a comradery thing. Well, I guess this was as little long winded and maybe you figured I was done writing.

More points to ponder.

Todd

Who invented capitalism?

Who designed Africa?

Who designed the ratio of the circumference to the radius?

Who planned the ecology of the Caribbean Sea?

Who decided to make Great Britain a multi-cultural community?

Who designed the wrinkles on your face?

The answers to all those questions is nobody. Is that perhaps the forgotten and greatest name of God? If you have the kind of mind that sees design in everything then that is what you see. Goats do not just die of their own free will some evil spirit makes them die. Universes and laws of physics do not just happen they happen for a reason; to test souls! This is very reminiscent of Winnie The Pooh's attitude to bees. The only reason for a buzzing sound is a bee, the only reason to be a bee is to make hunny, the only reason for making hunny is for Pooh to eat it.

Bees don't have reasons to be bees or plans to make hunny for bears. Bee genes exist because they have been making bees which have survived long enough to breed to make more bees. The bees and the genes have no (other) purpose. If you find that hard to believe then that is your problem. Your difficulty grasping the logic of it matters not one little bit.

Evolution is not magic. It is as mundane as subtraction and just as uninventable. There cannot be a universe in which there is imperfect replication with variation without there being evolution. Just look at all domesticated animals and plants; they have evolved and changed enormously in a geological instant. Nobody set out to take a wild grass and make it into a different domestic crop it just happened inevitably, no planning, no design, no forethought, no option. At every stage the desirable qualities were favoured and there was selection from among the available variation. Yorkshire terriers from wolves; cereals from wild grasses, edible almonds from poisonous almonds, giant apples from hard sour fruits the size of walnuts. Carthorses and miniature ponies from the same stock. Natural selection works the same way except that the selection is done blindly. The slower antelope becomes the meal for the cheetah not the father of antelopes. The swallow who has a brood of nine outbreeds her cousins with broods of six, the swallow with a brood of twelve dies of starvation along with her brood. The immune system that copes with disease in three days lives while the slower responding system dies or loses ground in the competition for food, territory, mates, life. Big advantages pay off quickly, small advantages pay off in the long term.

Your throw away remark about spiders and giraffes is unworthy of sensible consideration. Giraffes evolved from antelope which benefited from longer legs. Longer legs helped them run faster and reach higher branches. The neck of the giraffe is no mystery at all, it needs to be that long to allow a giraffe to reach the ground to drink. It also helped reach even higher into the trees. Necks and legs would grow with each other in a virtuous spiral until they reach the point at which extra height secures fewer new leaves than is justified by the risk of serious injury from very ungainly legs, that can still carry the giraffe faster than a galloping horse. Have they already reached that point or will they grow more? I don't know. The mills of evolution grind exceeding small.

And before you ask, antelopes are not now evolving into giraffes because the giraffes beat them to it. Being a little more giraffe-like doesn't hack it anymore, as the giraffes have eaten the leaves the antelopes are stretching to reach. Similar reasoning explains why we are not seeing other intelligent apes evolving, we leave them no room to move into.

Many things in the world around me scream unfinished evolution. The fruit of the ash tree is a classic example. It is weighted at one end with the kernel of the seed and has a wing-like structure with a slight twist. When dropped it rotates a little, a paltry amount. In contrast the sycamore trees that surround it have much more effective “helicopter” seeds. I find it impossible to believe that ash trees are not in the process of evolving more effective helicopters. The further the seeds fall from the tree the greater the chance they have of falling in a forest clearing or in the space where a mighty forest tree has recently fallen. Sycamore seeds are impressive helicopters but I can make better ones out of cardboard and I have seen TV pictures of tropical helicopter seeds that make the sycamore look like an early prototype compared to the finished design. Tropical forests have keener competition than temperate forests it would seem.

Haemoglobin is a tremendously unlikely molecule to evolve by random chance. But it is not the best possible organic oxygen carrying molecule, synthetic blood substitutes use better designed molecules, or should I say they use designed molecules, which can be better than evolved ones. They use the molecules you would expect a god to choose.

Your ideas about the Bible not being a meme and being somehow true is touching. Objective evidence is to the contrary. The message contained in the Bible has changed through the time of the Bible and the interpretation (not just the translation) has changed many times too.

Defining an idea as a meme has no relation whatsoever to whether or not it is true. Pythagoras' theorem is an excellent meme.

The theology of the early Bible is very simplistic. There is no devil in the Garden of Eden, no fallen angel. It is a talking snake. That is not an allegory, it is a fairy-tale. If that tale came from any other culture, other than “God's chosen people”, it would be seen exactly as it is, tribal creation myth, mumbo-jumbo stories. (Just what is the status of the Jews? Did the God of all mankind make a mistake in allowing the Jews to think they were chosen?) Later in the Bible real characters emerge. In Greek culture Zeus came first then a little later came Hercules, a real character, precisely as real as Moses and Joseph, i.e. 95% myth and exaggeration woven around a real figure. Then the figures are real characters wrote about in their own lifetimes. Powerful Kings and bloodthirsty prophets. The Bible is written a little like a Shakespeare story, with an eye to good propaganda. The factual content varies enormously.

What is the message of Christ? In real terms. Can it ever be teased out? People hear what they want to hear. Christianity has propped up dictators and empires. It has been used to justify and to abolish slavery. It has been used to bolster up a system of capitalism and it has been preached by bishops who dictators shoot for supporting Communism. Priests have blessed Wellington and Napoleon, Lee and Grant, King George and the Kaiser.

Christians paint icons and make (and smash) statues of Mary. Others will not write the o in the middle of God. The Bible is crystal clear about circumcision, menstruation and unclean beasts. But some "believers in every word of the Bible" believe some bits more than others, and large chunks not at all.

The scientific and rational approach is to treat the Bible as extremely dubious history and of very little value for anything else. This is what we do in life. If we know people who claim to be perfect, to never tell lies and yet we catch them contradicting themselves and making incredible claims as they profess their perfection we rightly treat them as both dubious and dangerous. The Bible is just like that twice shamed evangelist or the politician who served five years for perjury and bribery and yet proclaims his innocence to all who will be taken in.

The entire story of the Bible is supported by hearsay. You believe it because people you find convincing believe it and say it is true and has been passed down to them. That proves nothing. There are millions of stories in the world that have been passed down with similar authority and hearsay. Many concern the same ideas and so cannot all be correct. Many are demonstrably wrong. Jesus the man is as hard to find direct historical or archaeological evidence to support as Robin Hood or King Arthur. There are enough “pieces of the true cross” to build a full scale model of the Titanic, evidence has been faked systematically for centuries.

When I look back on history I see 1AD as a meaningless date. Man acted in typically human ways before, during and after the life of the supposed saviour. There was no watershed.

The story of Christ is so similar to Indian and Persian myths from previous eras that it stinks. The one true God had been descending to Earth in human form and begetting sons by virgins so many times he should have been considered a serial rapist.

Christianity is not simply a case of crying wolf; repeating dodgy stories with diminishing believability, it is crying invisible pink unicorns. And using tried and tested logic inverters to protect itself.

I am glad we agree on some things. Most people are totally sheep-like in their attitudes. People believe and do what is expected of them. I work in a shop. I see children come in every day and gravitate to the same products. The two year olds go to anything in primary colours. The five year old girls go to the pink Barbie hairdryer. The thirteen year olds go to the hi-fis. Nobody ever seriously questions their role.

Teenagers are supposed to reject what their parents tell them and accept all the stuff that is beamed at them. At age 11 pop music is fantastic, at 15 it needs to be something much more raucous and anti-social. The formula is so clear for all to see.

In twenty years time ten year olds will still be listening to pop music that could have been written at anytime since The Beatles. Fifteen year olds will be dressed in black, will be surly, spit and think they have just invented sex. The only difference will be the amount of money made out of them.

There is no evidence of a God that I can see. I know of no mountains that faith has moved. I know of no catalogue of answered prayers that stands up to examination. There is no logical need to postulate a creator. No evidence of an intervenor. No evidence of an afterlife. No evidence of salvation post flood or post crucifixion.

Any voices in my head or squidgy feelings in my tummy I put down to natural causes and I see no sane reason to act upon them. I value waking thoughts over dreams, the thoughts of a bright sober morning over those of a drink or drugged stupor. Near death experience is a meaningless concept. Death is irreversible, if you are alive you have never been dead.

Take away the theology and Jesus is just a middle ranking philosopher (apparently illiterate) with too much internal inconsistency to be labelled a great thinker. I am not anti-Christian. I simply do not believe in God which does make the whole of Jesus' teachings rather hollow. In essence there is a lot to be said for half of his fundamental teachings. Naturally it is not possible to love something that you don't believe in. But loving your neighbour is an excellent motto. As is doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. However the idea of forgiving your enemies is very impractical, it has never been practised successfully in any society to my knowledge. Many of the Bible belt states seem to enjoy the smell of frying flesh.

A sensible moral code would seem to be to act to others as you would expect them to act to you. Not quite as far as what you might hope they would do. But expectations can start high and become higher, especially if people are prepared to shun those who abuse trust. Remain open and friendly. Take sensible precautions against being exploited; you don't need to feel guilty about putting your wallet in an inside pocket or setting a burglar alarm. Explain your actions and be as open as you can, when I handle credit card payments I do not surreptitiously make security checks, the innocent customers have nothing to fear, I am protecting the interests of the person named on the card, their card. Wrongdoers must be punished, but forgiveness of accidental and unintentional sleights is a virtue, and it lubricates a good society.

Bad behaviour can never be stopped if it is regarded as perverse sin, it needs to be understood. If you can see the rationality of crime and vice you can see ways to reduce it. If it is the work of the devil or inherent wickedness it cannot be anticipated. A faith based solution to child sexual abuse is to pray, a sensible approach is to monitor those adults who are in positions of trust and watch out for danger signs, being aware that getting sexual satisfaction from children is not uncommon. The innocent never need fear.

Rejection of the God hypothesis is easy to portray as rejection of authority. In many cases that is exactly how it works. People do have a habit of believing what is convenient for them to believe. Those who inherit wealth believe it is fair, those born in deprivation believe it is unfair. Thieves believe they are doing what any rational person could do.

I freely admit that there is a degree of rejection of authority in my atheism. But I do not believe in God. I do not have a choice to believe, belief does not work like that. Belief is not an act of will. Faith may be an act of will, I do not know, I have no faith.

Christians often seem to think that it is impossible to “turn against Christ” without some nasty screwed up priest being implicated. Sorry to disappoint you. Neither my parents, my teachers nor anybody at my Church did anything to turn me away. I did not like going to church, that probably had some bearing on my continuing questioning, but there was no major trauma. I don't want to be here, I don't want to do this, why am I doing this... Over time you cannot help but think that way and go round and round in your head until you come up with some conclusions. I didn't believe in answered prayers, I didn't believe any of it. What was stopping me from not going to church? Only a belief I didn't have anyway.

Freed from that burden of justifying going to church I could think clearly about the whole matter. Did I believe in God? No. Did I want to? Only if it was real and true. Did I think it was real and true? Not really. What evidence is there? I will find out...

That was the process. I did not enjoy church so I stopped going and I did not feel guilty. Once that decision was taken there was nothing to stop me believing in any religion I chose to. It is obvious that many religious people are happier than non religious people. That seems an excellent reason to stay interested in the subject. Do they know better than me? No. They are simply deluding themselves, so what is the point?

That is it. I have confessed fully to the extent to which I rejected God for selfish reasons. Since then there have been innumerable times when I could have “slipped back into the faith” that I never had without too much swallowing my pride. It never happened. I doubt it ever will. But that is only a belief, not a faith.

Martin

If I explain myself to you have I belittled myself?

If you open the back of a radio and see the components does it change either the music or the thrill of receiving it?

If you understand what somebody is trying to tell you are they diminished?

No. Of course not. So why do you assume that a wonder explained is a wonder no more?

To my mind the worship of mystery over knowledge is the source of many of the evils of this world. If you see a supersonic jet fighter fly by at treetop height do you dismiss it as just a machine, devoid of majesty or beauty? I guess that you don't. Understanding something does not make it mundane and boring.

I love my wife and children. I would sue anybody who said otherwise. And yet I can explain that love in detail. I can explain why irrational attitudes make perfect evolutionary sense. I can explain why I love my wife, why I make love to my wife and even how often and some other details besides, none of which does anything to make me not want to do it. If you think that it should then your mind works in a dangerous way, a way in which knowledge and understanding lead to misery and mystery and ignorance lead to ecstasy. That way of thinking is both dangerous to the individual and also to the wider community.

I appreciate beauty in art and in nature. I appreciate all the things you feel you have to thank God for. There is no belittling involved. I do not feel superior for understanding childbirth or the reason why I can see a crescent moon and still see the full dark circle of the moon at the same time. The beauty and poetry of these things is not lost on me simply because I do not ascribe them to the category of miracle or mystery. Nothing has been lost by rejecting a supernatural explanation. Nothing except the false attribution of causation. This idea that explanation destroys poetry is a widespread anti-rationalist stance. Understanding something and explaining something is not at all the same thing as explaining it away or reducing it to a series of cold theories. If understanding destroyed appreciation then only people who hated literature would study it.

Yet again this subject is the subject of whole book. I need not write because it has already been done. Richard Dawkins wrote Unweaving The Rainbow to address this issue head on. He goes into great length about how explaining the world should not diminish our pleasure in appreciating it. A rainbow is just as beautiful and magnificent whether or not you know anything of the work of Newton. Nothing has been taken away, only mystery, and mystery is not a virtue.

You say that the difference between us is that you see the beauty in the things that you cannot understand. I disagree. The difference is that I see the beauty in things I can understand, and I feel challenged by the things I cannot understand and offended by the things people tell me I could not or should not understand. I see ignorance as wrong, wilful ignorance as a sin. A mystery is an insult that I take personally. You say your religion is filled with mysteries and explanations in the form of mysteries and yet you claim it is me that has closed my mind. "God did it" Is a very poor explanation. It perhaps has utility for shutting up the two year old who questions everything to no purpose or out of habit but it offers no explanation. God is a mystery. The motives of God are permanently off the agenda of human enquiry. Explaining anything by saying it is god's will is the same as saying go away and stop asking awkward questions, just thank God, feel awe and get on with your life.

You seem to be saying that my worldview must be wrong because your view feels better. I agree that your view probably does feel better. I believe that many grieving widows and parents were comforted by the assurance that the victims of the explosion or mine collapse probably died straight away and did not suffer. However I also know that many of the people who have been told such things have been knowingly lied to. Many men have been buried alive and left to die of dehydration while their "widows" were grieving them content with the lies their priests told them. Feeling good is no evidence of truth. None whatsoever. The truth is impartial, incapable of caring. It might feel right, it might feel totally wrong. It might make you feel happy it might be very painful. But in every case objective truth is separate, detached and incapable of being concerned with your feelings.

The Universe came into being the way it did, whatever that way was; it does not matter what you believe. You cannot change the reality of the Universe any more than you can conquer death or make five equal to three by an act of will, faith or belief. Wishing upon stars, believing in God or fairies notwithstanding, the Universe is the way it is regardless of what you think or feel in your heart or soul about it.

You see a news report about a child being pulled from the wreckage of an earthquake after two weeks and thank God for saving the child. I think of those children still trapped alive after three weeks who will not be rescued, while the world gets on with its business and rebuilds the churches. If you feel happy with your self delusion I am not about to stop you, but neither will I be a party to that deception. As I see it remaining silent while others lie, even to themselves, is a sin. Christians have complained that "the devil" has all the best tunes, I see no problem in using good words no matter what their derivation. Sin is a good word to describe an action that is wrong in most circumstances, wrong in the sense that it diminishes the self worth of the sinner and the aggregate common good or the interests of a specific individual. This is not greatly removed from the Christian commandment to love God (the common good of all, in the widest possible sense) and to love your neighbour. Most things that you would regard as sinful I would agree with. I do not see "blasphemy" as a sin as it is a victimless crime. There are times when being rude is essential, for example it was necessary to be a tad on the blunt side in dealing with Germany and Japan in the 1940s.

Perception and reality

I cannot believe that perception is reality. The world I live in boggles my mind on a daily basis. I cannot believe the idea that when I die and stop perceiving it there will be no universe anymore, there never will have been a carboniferous era, President Lincoln didn't exist, the canals on Mars controversy will be no more because there will have been no Mars or any astronomers, there will never have been a Tulip fever in Holland because tulips, Holland, life on Earth, Earth and the universe and laws of physics I perceived were all a figment of my imagination. I can't believe my imagination could be that good, that detailed and that perverse to allow me to create such a complex world and then live in such a mundane corner of it.

If you and I are in the same room together and you feel that it is hot and I don't and you feel the universe was created and I think that that it wasn't the underlying reality is the same. The ambient temperature of that room will be a certain level and the history of the universe will have had one and only one path. We cannot know the whole truth, it is too big for our brains, but that does not mean that any one human model of the universe is as valid as another. One will be a better model, nearer the reality. Truth and reality are fixed. Relativity is a theory that concerns viewpoints on reality. If you are moving and I am not you see a different and equally valid version of the same reality. But if you are ignorant and I am perceptive then the two models of the universe are not equally valid.

Of course difficulty believing something is not proof that it is not true, but I think the burden of proof lies with those who come up with the tallest tales. It is hard to believe that the universe just sprang into being by itself. And yet there is no more rational explanation. To imagine that instead there was a pre-existing perfect entity to design it all is no advance. Such an explanation is even more absurd. Christians are forever saying that you don't get something out of nothing so how do explain getting perfection from nothing, or getting the wisdom to create without any experience on which to base that wisdom? There can never be an explanation for the origin of the universe we see that will be self evidently true and meaningful in human terms because creation, nothing, timeless vacuum, uncaused causes and so on are all totally alien to our everyday life. We should wake up and accept that there will never be a feel-right truth.

There is no link between ultimate reality and the levers of our brain chemistry that will ensure that when we are in possession of truth we will know it. No matter how hard I think about it, however hard I try to feel the answer I can never know what the price of a washing machine is until I check. If the information seems wrong, feels wrong, I may check again, maybe ask for a second opinion, but in the end the evidence must stand. I would be in big trouble if I sold the products in the shop at the prices I "felt were right, in my heart". Look into your heart and ask yourself what on Earth you are doing. Your heart is an organ in your chest. All your thinking is done in your brain. Any feeling you get in your chest about subjects your brain is thinking about is a secondary effect of the workings of your brain. It is most likely the effect of chemical messengers such as hormones that have been released by your brain, quite likely below the threshold of your consciousness. And therefore nothing; nothing logically follows either way from how conscious of the decisions you were, they are your decisions and nobody or no-mind else is responsible. Deep down inside of you there is the same you who is incapable of assessing the difference between a good and convenient false story and a true story.

Stop passing the buck. God will not choose for you, all your decisions are yours alone.

Happiness and truth

You make a big point of saying that atheists do not seem as happy as theists. That does not mean anything. No court in any land that I know of judges the truth of an argument by seeing which advocates are the happier. Slavery was not abolished because the abolitionists were a happier bunch. I cannot think of any argument in any sphere of life that is settled by judging which lot smile more.

Interesting concept, I have visions of smile-offs between cults:

"you join us here at a packed stadium for the second quarter final of the smileathon and we have a great game for you tonight as the Mormons come up against the Moonies for the chance to meet the Hare Krishnas in the semis. Despite the rumours the Osmond boys have been passed as fit to play so we are in for some world-class smiling tonight!"

I do not believe things in order to be happy. I believe things if I think they are true. If you measure truth by the feelings it generates then you should rate heroin as a truth drug. To my mind euphoria is euphoria and truth is truth; they have nothing in common and no possible logical link.

The American disease is the expectation of happiness. There is no way to make yourself happy. Happiness is a fleeting and transitory state of your brain and body chemistry that is pleasing for the instant. There is no such thing as a happy life for precisely the same reason that you can never have everybody scoring above average. It is not sensible to strive for happiness over the long term. A better strategy is to aim to eliminate obvious sources of misery, factors that make happiness unobtainable. With unhappiness minimized there is a chance to work toward happiness.

Adopting a religious belief in order to make yourself happy is not a good idea. It works the same way as drinking lots of coffee to keep yourself awake. It can work in the short term, as a way to stretch one day of studying or driving perhaps, but it cannot work as a way to extend your overall waking hours or your life. Similar reasoning applies to heroin and cocaine; they can make you feel fantastically good for a short period but you don't need to look far to notice that over the long term addicts are not happier than those that do not take drugs. Quick fixes of happiness do not work. I seek to take my pleasure when it comes along naturally. This includes taking pleasure in the thrill of wonder and awe in the world around me. Not in the mysteries of life as such, but in the fascinating concepts. I can spend twenty minutes watching the flow of water in a river or watching the clouds roll by and reshape themselves.

Ignorance is no part of my pleasure. I take my children for "big long walks" in the countryside to see the beauty of nature and to teach them how it works, not to lessen their enjoyment, but to heighten it. The more they understand it the more they truly appreciate it. When I consider the world around me I do not find that understanding it takes away my pleasure.

I know why sex is fun, I know why I want to do it as often as I do (as opposed to three times a day or three times a year) but that does nothing to diminish the satisfaction I attain from it. I love and understand love. Unhappiness is a wonderful invention of evolution. Happiness does not exist for the same reason that cold does not exist, the concept is much better explained by the use of the opposite. Unhappiness is a goad to action. Pain makes people act. The anticipation of pain makes people act in a way that avoids the stimulus of pain. As Woody Allen said wealth is better than poverty, if only for the financial reasons. The financial reasons come down to avoidance of frustration. Being poor means being without a viable option that will ease your unhappiness. Being too poor to buy food is a serious loss of choice, it makes suffering unavoidable. Money is a way to buy off unhappiness. When you have most of your material needs covered you move on to other goals. Lack of love and respect can make you unhappy so you try to do things to make yourself and others love and respect you.

Power and love

Fame, wealth, power, faith. They are all at bottom ways of seeking to minimize unhappiness. People are looking for choice, status and love. Status is a form of love. Faith is a form of love, being comfortable with the relationship between yourself and the world. Wealth and choice are a form of power. All human motivations can be explained through these simplest of elements of motive. Hitler wanted choice, he wanted power to control and he wanted status and love of his people. Mother Theresa wanted love, and status for herself and power to help others. These motivations are far more basic than any idea of good and evil. Power and love can explain all human actions from selfless dedication to duty of the volunteer fireman or the concentration camp guard to the apparent ruthlessness of the commodities trader, the lifetime dedication of the teacher to the drive of a would-be champion.

Atheist charities

Most of the charities in Britain are secular. They do not mention any belief system. They just mention their cause. What possible benefit would there be in mentioning atheism in connection with a charity? Christians and Moslems would not contribute. Why would any atheist feel the need to declare his atheism in the title of a charity? As an atheist I contribute to charities that are not obviously connected with any irrational belief system. I am quite confident that millions of other atheists do the same. Only those people who feel their God is bigger than their concern would do otherwise. My most recent act was the giving away of a large amount of unwanted but saleable items to a charity for elderly people. It is called Help the Aged. The other big charities that I can think of in Britain have similarly functional and secular titles. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Save the Children, Oxfam (The Oxford based famine charity), the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Comic Relief (a charity set up by comedians and comedy actors) Children in Need etc. etc. Only a handful are named with any reference to Churches.

Why on Earth would anybody want to found a charity and put off potential contributors? Charities are formed with religious names if the society they are formed in is monolithic and intolerant or if the charity is done to be seen to be done rather than out of simple concern. A lot of the charitable and missionary work of Churches and sects is done in this more dubious way. Much of the work of such charities is done with a very obvious desire to be seen to be done and to do the things that the givers of the charity want done rather than the things that the recipients would choose. Christian charities send clothes, Bibles and teachers when the recipients might prefer roads, jetties, an electrical supply or a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise.

What can you conclude about the selfishness of left handed people because there are no left-handers' charities? And what about them vegetarians? It seems they don't care about people because there are no vegetarian charities concerned with anything except animals. Selfish bastards like the atheists. It doesn't follow does it? Atheists, lesbians, smokers and left handed people all give to charity, they just don't do so in quite as demonstrable a way as the Christians. Is that such a bad thing?

Mother Theresa

Maybe in a thousand years people will say she never existed. Ha ha. That is nonsense. Thousands of people have witnessed her existence and written about it in newspapers, books and Church records. She is a thoroughly historical character. I also have little doubt that huge elements of myth are being woven about her. I do not see that woman as being anything special. She gave up a life of a peasant farmer to be an International celebrity and Church leader. Considering she was born Catholic and female and became committed to that Church it is difficult to imagine her finding any better way into the public eye; she could hardly be the wife of a dictator could she, for one thing there were no Catholic dictators in Yugoslavia, and the other reason, well, I will not be unnecessarily cruel but she was not exactly a looker was she?

Selfless people work hard in their own communities and do not seek attention. There has been a lot of investigation into Mother Theresa which has exposed sides of her that are nothing to be proud of. I have not looked at them myself. However I always mistrust charity workers with an axe to grind. There is always the suggestion that their motives are very mixed.

Embarrassments

(Insert nauseating portrait of Jerry Falwell here)

There are plenty of embarrassing atheists, just as there are embarrassing Christians. I don't claim to be part of any great movement. There are a lot of atheists who are a profound embarrassment. My niece smokes because it annoys her parents. How utterly childish. Many young people posture as atheists in order to upset their parents. That was never my scene. Many people claim to be atheists because it has a rebel chic. Such people have nothing in common with me. There are dozens of atheist webrings out there, some are heavily into posturing and being anti-Christian, I am not into that scene. For me atheism is simply a central plank of my basic beliefs, it is not a badge or a passing phase.

You missed the points of my questions in the last post. Capitalism was not invented. It developed. Nobody decided to make Britain a multi-cultural society, some people encouraged immigration and nobody got around to reversing it, the whole thing happened without any planning. The right invited immigrants in from the Commonwealth (as cheap short-term labour) and the left did not allow them to be discriminated against or encouraged to leave. Nobody woke up one day and said “Let's make Bradford, Leicester and Oldham into Moslem communities! And what the Black Country really needs is a few hundred thousand blacks.” The same goes for your wrinkles. No planning. Very few things are actually planned. Most things develop.

Nobody set out to create a system to communicate pornographic images and inane chat instantly across the globe from individual to individual. The internet we have just developed, some of it was planned, most of it was made up as people went along. Looking back on it gives an illusion of purpose and destiny. We know that the internet was not designed as a mass communication system, we know it because the founders are still among us and talking about it. The model of the people's internet we have now emerged as a growing consensus. We know this. But looking back it is so easy to misread it as an unfolding destiny, or a divine plan. The internet evolved, it did it in our lifetime and it did it without a blueprint or an architect. The real world works like that a lot of the time; complexity out of simplicity, something very big and complicated out of almost nothing.