After scouring several blogs, both theist and atheist, I have come to the conclusion that there is a simple method of telling if your own ideas and beliefs are rational and sane, or off the wall and hatstand. It really is simple.

When you are thinking something, and we will use a theist belief for the example, try replacing words and see if make sense. For example:

God is omnipotent and guides me in all my actions

changes to

C3PO is omnipotent and guides me in all my actions.

If you think the sentence still makes sense, the idea may well be rational. If the changed word would invoke ridicule, then you may want to rethink a little.

Sending a response to one of the blog posts here by the contact form is not the easiest way to go about things, as it makes any ensuing debate a bit harder. That said, it is reasonable and we will try to respond as much as possible.Following a post made here (about why Christians don’t Get It), we had a response sent in over the contact form. Below the fold is the message in full with my return comments. The main reason I want to address these points is that there is the inference I have committed many logical fallacies, so I take it fairly seriously 🙂

Continue reading →

It looks like the post on “Misunderstanding Atheism” has made it to Digg.com. Thanks to whoever spotted it and dugg it. Please, feel free to add to the digs! 🙂

read more | digg story

The Wire series 4 will be shown on British TV from Tuesday. (On Sky FX, which you should also have if you get cable.) There is almost no way to express how good it is, if you haven’t seen it. In which case, get the DVDs or something and watch the previous 3 series first or you’ve already missed 36 hours of tv genius and you won’t understand the back-stories. You should still enjoy it though. Series 4 is the one with the kids.

The Guardian’s TV Guide introduces the new series with a few pages of the obligatory paeans of praise and with pictures of some of the characters from series 1 to 3. I can’t help feeling the writer has missed the point a bit but that’s all part of the Wire’s magic – you’re alwys going to miss whole levels of meaning because it’s so multi-layered. In fact the TV Guide brought home a huge point that I had missed – Series 3 opens with the blowing up of two towers that is followed by “a dumb and protracted war” (quoting David Simon.) “..Is there a metaphor there? Well what the fuck do you think?…American power and American weakness is the subject. Well one of the subjects.”

The review says that the Wire is “so rich in character and nuance, and so powerful in its anger and painful with its humour that is has been compared to the darkest classics of literature.” The Guardian writer quotes from the New York Times “If Charles Dickens was alive today, he would watch the Wire, unless that is, he was already writing for it.”

He says that the difference between the Wire and Dickens is the absence of a kindly old gentleman to set things right. There is indeed a kindly old gentleman, Bunny, the retired police chief, who has never put a foot wrong and becomes even more virtuous throughout series 4. I am unsure whether this is a weakness – having a truly good man in a world of infinite moral complexity. At first, I was a bit irritated that there was a character who was a genuine hero, in a series in which there is no clear right and wrong. In fact series 4 is much better at engaging one’s sympathies for the innocents – firstly by focusing on the kids, you come to feel more empathy with the adults. Bubs, Prez, Bunk, the boxer and Bodie are all playng “nice guy” roles, as well, all doing their best to follow some codes of decency. (And what about di Angelo in the first series?)

In the end, I feel that having “good” people isn’t a weakness but a narrative imperative – Bunny consistently shows how a single person of character can bring about small positive changes. He stops the Wire from being infernally pessimistic and shows how rationality and goodwill can be maintained in a sea of crap. That is, despite its darkness, the Wire always holds out the possibility that things could change. If it didn’t do this, it would lose a lot of its brilliantly expressed anger at the way things are now.

It seems that people who are guided by their belief in an imaginary being often get confused over what Atheism means. Atheism is not not “just another form of belief” and it is not a religion. Remember, Dawkins, Harris, Myers (et al) are not the Prophets of Atheism. They are not Ministers of Atheism.

People who follow a religion, and let it guide their lives sometimes have difficulty coming to terms with the concept, but part of being an Atheist is making up your own mind. There is no doctrinal book which says what all Atheists must believe, or how they should behave. Atheism allows the human to make their own choices. While this should be common sense, it seems some people really can not grasp it (for example Debbie Schlussel is convinced all Atheists are Muslims or brainwashed).

It is not just the offensive and idiotic theists who make these mistakes as well. Otherwise normal, decent followers of various religions can, sometimes, get confused over the matter. Take this example:

At the end of the day, we all have faith in something. Even an atheist has a kind of faith; faith in the absence of any god. (The Sleepless Nights Reading File)

Now, sorry to say, but no. Not all Atheists have faith in the absence of any God (see above for why I do not speak for any Atheists other than myself though). My understanding of the word “faith” is it means a belief in something without any evidence. A quick visit to Google and I can’t find any better definition.

Given this, I feel fully confident when I say I do not have faith in the absence of any god.

I have mentioned in the past the problem of debating matters of faith with theists, and this is a good example. I can think of nothing that I “believe” which can not be falsified. Every concept and I idea I hold, I can think of a way in which it could be proven wrong and I would (reluctantly maybe) have to rethink. I suspect the majority of theists are similar to Andrew Sullivan, in that when it comes to their religious faith, not only will they hold it without any supporting evidence, they will hold it in the face of contradictory evidence.

Maybe this is why some people think of religion as a mental illness. If I went about my daily business, believing (for example) that Cars could talk to you and gave you guidance as to how to live your life, I wouldn’t spend long before I started sleeping in a padded cell. Is it a double standard that we allow people to make the same apparently insane commentary simply because they can claim their “religion” has lasted for a few centuries?