Open Letter to @Ginab0beena

Open Letter to @Ginab0beena

Dear Gina

You have changed.

You burst into to my timelines a bit over a year ago earnestly discussing a teddy bear’s picnic with your friend. I couldn’t resist displaying my knowledge of Winnie the Pooh, not expecting a response. Who replied I don’t recall but I was drawn into the exchanges.  I grew to love your tweets. Not just because you shared my concerns about the harm of religion but because you could so skilfully sum up your experience in a few words.     

  

The topics you tweeted on ranged from work, dog sitting, the wealthy dunks at a regatta to shoes.  Shoes always featured a lot.  You tweeted about being in and out relationships.  In so many ways your tweets were  just about being young and alive. One running theme was your plan to travel.  You could not wait for the days to pass.  You longed to kick the English dust from one of your many pairs of shoes.

But something has happened to you, Gina, something more profound that anyone could have predicted.  Your recent tweets have moved me so very deeply. If I believed in Hell, I’d say you were tweeting from there.  Some of your tweets are painful to read and must be so much more painful to tweet.  Yet you tweet with such clarity and compassion.  More than that, you show so much strength and a desire to find a way forward. Any yet you remain Gina, in so many ways.

Something has changed Gina. You have started to record the condition of the children in Cambodia in a way that breaks my heart. You are putting what you see in plain but very powerful words.

Gina, you make me want to help. I do not believe I am alone in that. Who could not be moved by your account of a three year old child eating rotten fruit from a bin or horrified by a mother telling you how her two year old child was raped on the streets?  

We need to decide on the best way to help and, as I say, I will certainly contribute and  I am certain that many others will contribute too.  You have said there is a charity you have seen and you want to check it out further. Please give us details  about it. We will raise a fund to help.

Gina, look after yourself.

Love

Noel.

Why Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari should be spared

In January2005 I received the worst phone call of my life. It was telling me that my sister had been stabbed to death by a man she'd had a relationship with. Nothing could ever have prepared me for news like that, or for the effect it would have on who I am, and my life.

I had had a good deal of experience of grief: the loss of my mother from cancer, the death of my grandparents, a school friend who'd died in a road accident, a number of friends who died of overdoes or intentional suicide. I had also known the victims of violent death. I'd even had the experience of finding , someone I shared a house with dead. So I can, with experience, say that the death of a loved one, by violence is vastly worse than any of these experiences.

I was, in short, to experience a level of pain I could not have imagined. Though it would have been impossible for me to have done so I was burdened with the irrational feeling that I should have been able to protect my sister. I had a feeling of guilt which I knew made no sense but would not leave me. For about five years I could not have honestly answered yes to the question "Are you OK?" because I was not OK and could not even conceive of ever feeling OK again. I had times when the pain was so great that my whole torso ached with pain for days on end.

And yet I am arguing against the execution of Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari who was convicted of murder. The first point is that had my sister's killer faced execution it would not have lessened my pain in any way. It would, in fact, have added to the burden. I say this because waiting for the execution would have caused me to be constantly aware of my sister's killer. It would have also introduced the uncertainty of waiting for an unknown execution date. My grief was hard enough to deal with without introducing the idea that I could have only had "closure" after an execution.

Execution does not deter murder. If it did the murder rate would be lower where there was a death penalty. As the link http://chartsbin.com/view/1454 shows the USA with a death penalty has 5.22 homicides/murders per 100,000 population. In the UK without it the figure is 1.57. This correlation between societies with a death penalty and a high murder rate is repeated again and again across the globe.

In a jurisdiction where there is a death penalty the state's act of intentional killing lowers respect for human life. It most clearly does nothing to make for a society safer.

I argue that the life of Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari should be spared because I am convinced that executions lead to a more violent society.

Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari is due to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia eight days from the writing of this blog post.

Confusing Believers with Facts

Let me start by saying something which seems to often cause deep offence: SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE. I know this is a very shocking thing to ask anyone to do, especially if the evidence relates to such sensitive matters as the existence of a deity. I mean, frankly, believers often act as though they couldn't be more offended if I asked them to perform some deeply erotic act.

The simply truth is most believers have never seriously considered the question of evidence for God. They were taught about God in early childhood and regard his existence as a self evident truth. They are very shocked when told that there is no more evidence for God than for Santa Claus. Often this simply fact causes them to get very indignant.

"Don't be ridicules!" they tweet at me.

I calmly reply by asking them to provide any available evidence for God.

"Well the evidence is all around you. Everything in the world is evidence for God."

"Like the Ebola virus," I helpfully suggest.

That stumps them. First they have to google the the word "Ebola", just to check. Then they have to explain how God can be responsible for everything but somehow evade responsible for the Ebola virus. Many stop tweeting at that point. They remember all the other important things the need to do rather than tweet. But there are the determined ones.

The determined believers argue sin is the result of the "Fall of Man." They tweet this proud of the clever answer they have come up with and certain they have put me in my place.

Unfortunately, for them, that answer does not end the matter. I point out that if there was an all knowing God he would have known everything that would have in the world BEFORE HE MADE IT. I further point out that any human who intentionally does something, knowing the consequences will be harmful, will be held responsible for it. That is what the word "culpability" means. I It can hardly be reasonable to expect God to have lower standards than humans.

"But evil came about as the result of free will."

"Precisely how can free will create viruses?" I ask. The memory of my schooldays, when I'd wished I could have developed a virus to get me out of Latin class, comes to mind. I wonder if perhaps if I'd only used a bit more free will. Sadly they never come up with the formula that eluded me .In fact, at this point, they frequently seem to lose the train of their argument.

"What about Stalin and Hitler?" they tweet.

As you can imagine I struggle to see the connection between this and my last questiont but I try to be helpful. I point out that Hitler wasn't an Atheist and even provide a link to a very instructive Youtube video featuring Christopher Hitchens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyYwo7X4zck

Do you know there are some believers who just can't get this video to play? Anyway, asking them to view it shows how hateful and closed minded I am. Well they have a point. How can it ever be fair to argue with Christians simply by using facts? After all they've managed to maintain their faith for years and years without ever examining any.

The God of Irresponsibly

In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth Genesis I:I

It does not matter whether believers are creationists or not. Those of the three Abrahamic faiths all agree the world was intentionally created by an all powerful and just God.

This all powerful god would, by definition, be capable of creating any type of world he wanted to. He'd not be restricted by the laws of physics, which he would invent. He could make a tiny or gigantic universe. He didn't have to make humanity his central creation. Remember, being all powerful he could do whatever he wanted, any way he wanted.

When he decided to create humanity he could have made it as gentle as a kitten or like a bunch of hyenas. His choice. It is odd how often believers try to pretend God had no choice but if he was all powerful he had unlimited choice.

If someone drove a car recklessly and caused an accident, in which someone is killed or injured, that driver would be culpable for their behaviour. However, unless the driver deliberately set out to injure someone, they could claim they didn't know the consequences beforehand. God couldn't claim to not know the consequences. He knowingly created a world in full knowledge of every baby that would starve to death. How much more culpable would the driver have been had he or she known with complete certainly that they would kill and injure? How Culpable must the God of Abraham Be?

Christians argue God created free will. In that case, he did so in the full knowledge of all who would suffer as a consequence of free will. He knew everyone who would be killed and injured and abused because of free will. Christians argue that free will was necessary yet never address the question of why a just God would put the rights of wrong doers to have free will over the rights of their victims. How is that Just? In fact I have never heard any believers willingly addressing the harmfulness of their God's decision to create free will.

Assuming free will exists, which is a big assumption, why does it only apply to questions of wrong or right? An all powerful God could have given me the power to simply think I was in Paris and be there. After all, he supposedly set the laws of physics. Yet if you listen to the arguments of believers free will was primarily given to enable wrong doing. The logic of their argument is God intentionally created a humanity which he knew would largely disobey him; simply to see how many would be good. Essentially, he created humans as play things for a twisted game. He did this in the full knowledge of the suffering it would cause to the victims.

As a humanist I take a simple moral position: It is wrong to do something you know will cause harm, unless it is necessary to prevent a greater harm. An all powerful god could have created the world in another way but chose a suffering world. Those who believe in God cannot say that he is not responsible for his actions. If he isn't responsible he's no example to human morality and has no right to judge. Christians are quick to claim humans should take responsibility for their actions. Where is the logic in not saying God should take responsibility for his actions?

Those who argue that human suffering is caused by free will want to ignore that the logic of their own position; that God made a free will choice to create the world. He knew the consequences and yet freely decided to do things in the way he did. He had the power to create a world without suffering but made a conscious decision not to. The God they worship is, in short, callous and irresponsible.

A RECOVERY PROGRAM

This is a proposed recovery program for those afflicted by religion.

1. We admitted that we were no longer powerless over religion and that it had made the world unmanageable.

2. Came to recognize that there are many powers greater than us but mystical beings weren't one of them.

3. Made a decision to use our lives and wills in way that fostered rational benefits for ourselves and all inhabitants of the planet.

4. Made a list of all the good reasons to reject religion.

5. Admitted to ourselves and proclaimed to others the exact nature of the wrongs caused by religion.

6.Sought ways to in which we could help to irradiate these evils, recognizing that no contribution is too small.

7.Proudly declared the importance of rationalism.

8.Made a list of the persons and peoples harmed by religion.

9.Made a direct effort to confront these evils, except were doing so would increase the harms.

10.Continued to survey the damage of religion.

11.Sought ways to consciously improve our understanding of rational and compassionate approaches to life.

12. Having freed ourselves from religion, as a result of these steps, tried to carry this message to those afflicted by religion, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

It is worth pointing out the about half the original members of AA, on which these steps are based, were either agnostic or atheist.

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Tis the season to read Hitchens,
Fa la la lal la, lal a la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la la la, la la la la la.

Yes that really is the line,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Read the letter sent my Harris,
Fa la la la la, la la la la

Sing for Dennett, join the chorus,
Fa la la la la, la la la la

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

While I tell of godless pleasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away religion passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Hail the godless lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Brief Arguments against God and Religion

These are tweets or adaptions from tweets and are offered as brief arguments for Atheism.

How can the slow torturous death of a first century mystic help anyone, let alone save the world?

If God wants to be my friend why does he encourage so much genocide in the Bible. Sorry I don't want that kind of friend.

If God did exist what would he say to the honest Atheist at the gates of heaven- "You should have lied and pretended to believe."

There's no more evidence for God than Santa Claus. The strange think is that some adults think it makes sense to believe in one and not the other.

If those who use God as the explanation for what is Good, are to be honest, they must also use him to explain what is bad. That outweighs the good.

The genius of Douglas Adams was well illustrated in his Atheism http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/douglas.htm

Atheism is the only honest response to the confusion caused by religions without evidence.

Atheism is the the natural outcome of honestly examining how the World is. The idea of God has neither has no foundation in reality.

Hatred of Atheists is the last refuge of those who have no intelligent justification for their belief system.

If you think God gives you what you pray for, you need to explain why he ignores the cries of starving children and allowed the holocaust.

An Agnostic on the border of Atheism is someone gradually emerging into the light of reason.

If Atheism is a religion so is the non belief in Santa Claus.

The Atheist can't find God for the same reason no one can find the Tooth Fairy. Neither exists.

If God exists why did he give humanity enough free will for genocide but not to solve world hunger?

When someone says they love God, what do they mean? Aren't they just saying that they love their own imagined ideal being.

There is no relationship between belief and reality. Believing something makes it neither true or false.

If God exists and is all powerful and knowing, he intentionally created humans knowing they were more likely to kill than feed the world

To compare religion to Atheism is like comparing a tsunami to a calm sunny afternoon. The absence of terrible weather is not another storm