The Barbadian and The Atheist Experience

Now that church is no longer my Sunday morning refuge The Atheist Experience has become the show I watch "religiously" on that first day of the week. I love the battle of wits between Matt, Russell, Tracie and company with both theistic and atheistic callers. Last Sunday's show, June 13th was especially unforgettable . As they went to callers I immediately recognised a countryman. Yes, Stefan the first caller was from Barbados, he had an unmistakably Barbadian (Bajan) accent. I perked up immediately. Was this a fellow atheist or a theist that was at least open to the non supernatural?

He was a theist but quickly my anticipation turned to worry as he started to put forward his arguments for God. It was obvious that he was not a regular follower of the show. Had he not ever watched Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee, probably the least forgiving of the hosts , go to town on arguments like these before? Honestly, I was preparing myself for a bloodbath. I just prayed that that the hosts would not prey on my Bajan brother. Seems on this one occasion my request was answered, kind of. He was given time to make his points and there was no quick hang up. However, with each passing moment he seemed to sink further in the mire with facepalm after facepalm by the hosts. They was talk of 12 foot tall humans and evidence of Noah's ark, but maybe that the most embarrassing moment came with the " were you there?" objection to the Big Bang argument. I might be a non prophet but I knew that the word "assinine" was soon going to come from the mouth of Matt Dillahunty. It arrived right on cue.

Almost as exciting as watching the show is following the chat room debates simultaneously where on this occasion the word "idiot" was being used liberally. Things got so bad that people started to wonder whether it was a prank caller. Under normal conditions I would have been "cracking up" at the exchanges I was hearing , but not on that day. It was like if I was listening to my past talking with my present. Although I never was as naive as this guy in his beliefs, they were the type of arguments I have had put to me on numerous occasions in Barbados and points that are considered sound arguments by the average Bajan. In days past I had to answer these questions with a gentle response of , " I understand what you are saying but have you considered X." So, let me say now with almost certainty that the call was absolutely genuine. The thing is that the caller was also not a fool by any means. In terms of the way he presented himself I thought he did extremely well. He was not aggressive, ranting or preaching. He put his views forward in a logical manner, he certainly had references and he was quite open to the objections put. I would not be surprised if he honestly had never had a challenge to these ideas before. I believe this was truly his first atheist experience.

I also completely believe that the guy is at college. These ideas are put out as often by PhDs in Barbados as the "living in the blood" evangelist. The most poignant point came when the caller said, " So, a biblical account is just not just good enough?" the hosts said in unison" correct." Then came a few seconds of silence that I found so poignant.For me, that moment epitomised the crux of the matter in Bajan and indeed Caribbean society. As obvious as his comment about the bible seemed to Matt and Jeff I am sure that it hit Stefan l"like a big rock" as we would say in local parlance.

Almost nobody born in our part of the world is able to conceive the bible as " just another book." Indeed in my journey to atheism this was perhaps the most difficult part to get past. Sure, many people have long since rejected the bible as infallible. Perhaps the majority have matured to dismiss Adam , Eve and Jonah as ancient myths. They will even come further forward and reject virgin births and maybe even resurrections. But to almost everybody, the bible still represents some type of truth. And by everybody I am including many persons who are not religious or as we would say have not " darkened a church door" in years. Society still claims that the bible is a holy book. It may not be free of error but its certainly not equatable with Moby Dick, Harry Potter or Grimm's Fairy tales.

Indeed there are many people in Barbados who will say " I am not a Christian." This is a curious statement, yet one that is virtually never challenged. But what do they mean? They never offer up or give the impression that they are now followers of an alternative religion. However, by the same token they would certainly not call themselves atheist or agnostic. They would not even describe themselves with the generic term "spiritual". It's just " I am not a Christian."

I think that it really means, "I am not a fundamentalist and I don't want to follow those crazy faith heads who put limits on sexual behaviour, the types of parties I can attend, the movies I can watch, the music I can listen to or the number of beers I can drink. I enjoy my life and I just don't want it being interfered with. I just want to keep doing what I am doing because I enjoy it and I don't think I am harming anybody." The response of these people to the religious zealots is "I'll think about that later," and so we get the mass flow to church of these people at 70 plus when they think they might be "called home soon." Indeed as youths, I heard many of these non christians admit to the fundamentalists that they do have moments of "doubt." Times when they have thoughts about the threat of hell and judgement day but they just try to push them aside. .It is these people who are in line with the christian strawman atheist who only denies Jesus because he wants to keep on sinning.

What seems clear to me now is that these non Christians are really just latent believers. They may not practice faith and may even be vehemently anti church, but they still believe the bible is a special book. They don't practice because they want to continue secular lifestyles and don't want to be labelled hypocrites. It's always interesting to hear some of these non Christians lambaste the flock. " You is a Christian, what you doing in this party getting on like that?" they say. These types of statements say a lot. It shows they accept the basic doctrine fundamentalist preach. It is funny, but even moderate Christians identify as non Christians sometimes. I remember many anglicans telling me they don't understand why Christians want to have their own exclusive crop over (carnival) band. " Why can't they just jump with the rest of us?" they remarked.

I often tell people that in Barbados there is no such thing as atheism. I believe when that Barbadian caller heard the word atheist he thought it meant non Christian.The local non believer that can easily be converted by the "Heaven's Gate Hell Flames" approach. The "skeptic" who can be stopped in his tracks when you point out what the bible says about his behaviour. In Barbados, what the bible says can never be completely ignored. In fact many national debates will include somebody who will bring to the table what we commonly call "the biblical perspective." And, believe you me, this position must be given at least equal weight. Even a Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i or Rastafarian in the country will never claim that the bible is not God's word. They only claim that their sacred writings are holy too.

So, the bible is still the book that is "up there" to virtually all Caribbean people. So to hear two hosts say that what the bible says is irrelevant would be just mind boggling to put it mildly. This respect for the bible is really entrenched and almost impossible to break. I mean, even today inspite of all my non belief I would feel extremely uncomfortable using a bible to prop up my window or make my rocky bed level, even if not one single soul was watching and that's the gospel truth.

Nothing wrong with being wrong

Get it right the first time.
Seems I have heard this statement so many times from people who work in customer services. It's far easier to take the time to do things the way they should be done at the beginning than try to clean up things later. Perhaps if a certain company in the news today had adhered to this mantra, BP would not stand for big problems. The thing is, getting it right from the outset in anything is not as easy as it sounds, especially when you are embarking on a journey into unknown territory. Scary as it may sound, experience is sometimes the only reliable teacher.

Many people claim to accept that trials and failures are necessary for learning but few seem to really take it to heart. We may remember the countless falls off the bicycle as children when learning to ride, but as adults we are consumed by a need to be always right, right away. We are so afraid of being wrong we will only admit we are at fault as a last resort. It is not only aimed at self, we are also reluctant to tell other people that they are wrong, Why? Because being wrong is just not socially acceptable. We feel pointing out a failure is a direct attack on a person's character and is rude; eliciting a fight or flight reaction. The response is either to lash back at a criticiser in similar manner and seek to discredit their judgement or whimper away with head bowed thinking that our worth as a person has been devalued by their words. Both these responses are seen as detrimental to society so we seek to avoid criticism in every sense.

Even in circumstances where feedback and critique is asked for, it is often just a pretense. I always have a chuckle to myself in restaurants. The waiter comes around and cheerfully asks if everything is ok. In almost 100% of circumstances the people I am eating with nod in unison, giving the "thumbs up" while wearing pleasant smiles. All seems well with the world until the waiter is out of earshot and I inevitably hear mumblings about spare ribs that are too dry or potatoes that weren't cooked enough. It's all just a ritual. The waiter must ask the question and the customer must say everything is great. In the few cases where I have been with someone who actually took up the waiter and gave criticism, the waiter has appeared generally uncomfortable and offset as if thrown completely off script. Doesn't this idiot customer understand the program? Why is he picking on me?

So, even though the talk is of honesty being the best policy, this is far from the truth. The unwritten law in our society it is, " Don't tell me ever that I am wrong." It is far more important to be nice than to be honest. In following this edict we inhibit our development. We lose the opportunity to improve; as a result a person, company or country can easily make the same mistake over and over again. Although people like to claim they are straight talking, nobody really calls a spade a spade. This is a real tragedy for humanity. All of us suffer as a result of the human obsession with sparing feelings. I don't think that this is anybody's fault it is just a trait that has persisted over the centuries probably because it carries with it certain species evolutionary advantages. A real honest approach will almost certainly lead to ostracisation from the tribe, any politician will tell you that.


This I think really is the crux of the difficulty when we come to discuss matters of religion. Being wrong is such an undesirable state that human beings do whatever they can to avoid it. Religion is the perfect answer to that insatiable drive to be right because once you belong to a faith, you cannot possibly be wrong. Your belief is unfalsifiable, no evidence can ever knock it down. Basically, you are always right by definition. I have so often told fundamentalists that no one can ever prove that the God they believe in is not real. Amazingly this comment leads to a knowing smirk, they think I am conceding defeat in the theological debate. They just don't get it.

Contrast this with the scientist who goes totally counter to society's philosophy of non critique. Religious people will not hesitate to tell you that science has been wrong many times in the past. Evolutionary biologists have been embarrassed by having to admit that what they thought was a vital link to our earliest ancestors was indeed just a tooth of a pig. But that is science, it takes the risk of being wrong in order to find out what is right. Hypotheses that are disproven can tell us much. Verifying a commonly held hypothesis is good , but true breakthroughs in science come when you actually find out that something you held strongly to be true is in fact in error. Indeed in science there is nothing more exciting that finding out you were wrong. It means you have learnt, you have made a discovery.

This is why it makes me laugh when believers suggest that if a God was ever found to exist atheists would run and hang their heads in shame. I think nothing would be more thrilling than acknowledging that moment when it comes. Any atheist that has left religion has had to admit to himself he was wrong and wrong in a really big way. But, for me I wasn't upset or embarrassed I was just excited to learn something new by honestly following evidence.

I think that as atheists we sometimes don't recognise the paradigm clashes when making arguments. We must sound like stuck records to the religious, responding to their reasons for belief with the words, " But is it true ?" The real issue is that truth is not what is most important to the believer. There is a reason for the phrase " brutally honest." Admittedly it is better if what makes them feel good is true but they are ok if it is not, on the one condition that they never conclusively find that out.

I remember watching a segment on CNN last year. A boy who had down's syndrome wanted to play football for a high school team more than anything, but just didn't have the skill level. One day at the end of the season where the result of the game was a foregone conclusion, the coaches of the two teams got together and decided to allow the kid onto the field . It was agreed that the opposing players would not try to tackle him, he would be allowed to run right down the field unimpeded to score a touch down. I saw the play and it looked impressive. The boy was delighted to score his touch down and the players on his team embraced him like he had just won the FIFA World Cup. He was lifted shoulder high by his team mates and the entire crowd at the stadium were in uproar. He had people rushing up to him hounding him for his autograph.

The media were excited by the story praising both the coaches and all the players for the gesture they had done for this young disabled boy. In their opinion they had made a dream come true for this youngster and the value of that could not be measured. I sat and watched and shook my head. Was I the only person in the world that saw something wrong with this? The boy was happy, friends and family shed tears of unadulterated joy but it was all a LIE!! Sure the boy felt great today but just imagine if he were to ever find out what really happened, that could really shatter him for life. How would we feel if we were to find out tomorrow that all of our achievements were just given to us by others out of pity to make us feel good? This boy undoubtedly has real talent in some area and could with effort and dedication achieve something far more spectacular than even his teammates could imagine. That opportunity may have now been lost.

That tv moment illustrated to me why it is so hard to beat that religious feel good "high". Happy falsehood always seems to beat sober reality, but I am an optimist. I think we can build a new paradigm in society based on honesty and criticism. One where everyone is encouraged to give and take it as much as possible. A world where we smile and say thank you when somebody calls us an idiot; as we revel in the opportunity to correct a mistake. A world where truly and honestly there is nothing wrong with being wrong.

Not in a Church!

" No! Not in a Church!" Anybody who has grown up in the Caribbean has heard this phrase yelled at them sometime during their childhood. It could be for running up and down the stairs with friends playing "catcher" after Sunday School; using some selected slang words as you hail up a colleague outside the window or for wearing a dress that is a bit too see-through or a jeans too holey to be holy. God forbid if you were at a meeting and in an absent minded moment leaned against the altar. Well, if you didn't die on the spot from the looks of utter disdain you would pray that the priest would bring you some water right away, not only to prevent you from fainting in shame but to baptise you anew to remove that repugnant stain of sin.

Yes, as a child you learnt that the house of the Lord was sacred. Not respecting that was worse than more trivial sins such as stealing a candy from a supermarket or scratching up somebody's vehicle in the parking lot. Transgressions against people were one thing, but transgressions against God could take you straight to hell. So, from early as five or six we learnt to fear God and everything in his house.

Well, it didn't stop in childhood. I remember an incident where I was a director for an adult chorale in a church. In the Caribbean, chorales are the groups in the church that push the musical envelope by using indigenous rhythms of reggae and calypso along with other contemporary stylings. It may seem paradoxical to some, but church culture in the Caribbean has in the past been one that has frowned on traditional island culture. Regarding much of our music as "banja" or devil music. Today this view is less prevalent, but " not in a church", for this music was not that long ago.

Anyway, during one chorale practice, I encouraged members to express themselves in their movements as they sang a song we had put to a calypso beat. Apparently, in the opinion of one of the chorale members, another singer had crossed the line with her gyrations. It seemed strange as the movements we were doing were quite conservative, some head, foot and upper body moves, certainly nothing in the waist area. I learnt later, the main concern of the protester, was that the offender's effervescent movements were made in front of the tabernacle.

The tabernacle is the little box kept just above the altar on the far left hand side that houses the communion wafers. A box that, according to tradition, God himself resides. It's like a hierarchical trinity of sacredness. General church on level one, altar on level two, tabernacle on level three. Each level more sacred than the previous and the admonishment for desecration more severe. So, the problem didn't seem to be the body motion it was just that it shouldn't have been done in front of the tabernacle. Supposedly, if the gyrations had been made, while standing in the middle of the group rather than being outermost on the left, it would not have been as bad. Amazing!

What ensued was an angry exchange between the offending and offended member and both left the chorale practice in disgust. In all this, the rest of the chorale were just shocked and speechless. No one knew quite what to say. It struck me at the time that this was an example of religion not knowing reason. It was impossible on the spot to reconcile the disagreement because there was no basis for the discussion. Without God himself in the midst to arbitrate; the discussion had no way of resolving, there was an inevitable standoff. In this case it led to two very angry and distraught individuals, both of whom were simply acting according to what they believed was the proper way to serve God. There is really simply no way to counteract in logic, this " not in a church" syndrome. It's either war or shake your head and give in. You can point to traditions, but they are not based on logic. It's just how it's been done in the past. They can build a sense of strength in community but can also hold back progress. Some people uphold traditions others move away, it is a natural tension, there is no right or wrong.

It is sad to see how religion can divide people even those who earnestly want to "sing from the same hymn sheet," but "not in a church" syndrome can do that. Eventually this syndrome makes its way up in Caribbean society and manifests itself at national level. It becomes, "not on a Sunday", "not during Lent" or "not on Good Friday" where it is not uncommon for government officials to voice their open disapproval for even private functions held at these times. There is even, "not in this country." A musical group was recently prevented from performing in Barbados, in part because aspects of their message were not considered to be inkeeping with the morals of a "Christian" society.

Just like the chorale scenario, there is no way to reason these things through, unless God speaks for himself, but he has kept silent as his followers have bloodied themselves in ideological battles. It is far worse when , "not in a church" is used to exclude not music, body movements or clothing, but people themselves. I can remember when the response to having women as preachers was , "not in a church." Today those four words are likely to confront gays or lesbians wishing to evangelise.

Well, history has shown us that , "not in a church", can be overcome.The church, like society around it has moved with the times. It is a pity that the book on which the faith is based reflects an understanding of the world that is so primitive. Melodies and rhythms may have moved with the times , but the lyrics, by and large, have remained the same. Someone needs to tell the churches that these must be updated too. We shouldn't be reading a book telling us how to treat our slaves, at least not in a church.

Why I don't call myself agnostic

Agnostic or atheist, what's in a name? It is amazing how many times this comes up for discussion and as many people say, they are certainly not mutually exclusive and sometimes can be almost synonymous. But, say what you like, the connotation that these two words create are oceans apart. Agnostic is a very light term to use in a conversation, it will often endear you to many listeners. It is the "honest" position. For the strong believer you become fertile ground for discipleship, you just don't know God..... yet. To the atheist you are an honest doubter and have taken the first step to non belief.In a way you are like the cup both half empty and half full.

Say that you are an atheist and the response is completely different. First you have to make sure no one is about to sip a cup of coffee,or you run the risk of creating a spill of BP proportions. If you are lucky you may get away with just a gasp followed by an uncomfortable silence, and sighs of relief as someone quickly changes the subject. For the believer, the atheist has closed his mind, not willing to accept any contrary information. To any other atheist there, it is also awkward because unless they have come out about it to this audience before they are just not ready to say, "me too."

Agnosticism is clearly the safe position in the religious debate but I think it ultimately keeps the protection around faith. It pulls at things around the edges rather than targeting the core. Doubt after all is not normally seen as a bad thing by religious people. After all, many will tell you they have gone that way before. It is ok to be unsure, you can question as much as you like so long as you never actually stop believing. God can help with unbelief, non belief is a totally different story. When I was an agnostic, Christians treated me like an athlete with a broken foot. A poor soul tormented by confusion, that needed assistance to understand. At least I entertained the possibility of a God and that meant what the bible said at least COULD be true. There might be a heaven or hell and I needed to keep a half an ear on what they were saying even if only in a Pascal's Wager sort of way. The most you can do as an agnostic is make the ultra-religious slow down for a minute, but you are sure as hell not going to stop their train from moving.

For many years I thought agnostic was the better position. I honestly didn't know. The thing that hits me now is that of course, nobody knows. Therefore, in reality, everybody is an agnostic. So to call yourself an agnostic is about as descriptive a term as calling yourself a human being. It really gives no useful information. What is important is what you believe. You either believe there is a God or you don't, unless of course you think the probability is exactly 50/50. But I would risk to say most people know that their God meter either tips in one direction or the other even if the perturbation is slight.

For me the belief is firmly in "no God" territory even though it is by no means at the extreme. So in a somewhat paradoxical way, I would gladly call myself an agnostic atheist but would consider it a misnomer to be labelled agnostic.I also believe that in order to get the world to become more rational in outlook it is important to emphasize atheism rather than agnosticism. There is a view in the world that agnosticism is the most rational point of view, that needs to change.

The respect for agnosticism as the superior intellectual position comes from the view of science as being an open minded discipline. Many think that scientists that make dogmatic assertions on God's non existence are not being true to the field, acting ultra vires, treading on ground they should not be. However, I think that there is an aspect of science that is often overlooked. Science is not only about seeking the "one truth" it is just as much about weeding out the ideas that don't have merit. It considers all positions but is duty bound to immediately eject from the table anything that is unsupported by the evidence, regardless of the proposer. Science from that perspective is like God, it is no respecter of persons. Science must rank, categorise and separate otherwise it is not doing its job. All ideas are not equal.

We live in a world of limited resources; time devoted to ideas that have long since been recognised as having no merit will hold back overall development. The journey towards the truth depends on an efficient process of eliminating the false.The God hypothesis has unfortunately failed the tests and science has simply moved on. It is a cop out to say that science makes no comment on the supernatural, when it clearly shouts, NO!! Every experiment in the natural or social sciences could have this sentence written in the assumption section:

" We have assumed that no gods, demons, spirits or angels have affected the outcome of this experiment."

So far no results obtained have caused researches to question whether these assumptions are valid. If results do in the future, scientists will go back and question them, but it will take a massive weight of conflicting evidence to counteract an assumption which has been consistent with observations for millennia and that's only fair.

So lack of God's influence is assumed but with good reason, that is why supernatural evidence is not admissible in the law courts. It is why forensic scientists rather than demonologists are called as expert witnesses in murder trials. Atheism is indeed the position of reason and should be promoted as such. You don't remove a child's night phobia by telling him that there is probably no monster living under the bed. You take him in the light of day and let him see for himself there is nothing there but his toys, shoes and colouring books.

Unbreakable until you broke it

Imagine that someone sold you a vase, he claimed it was perfect and infallible in every way, it could never be broken. It seemed an amazing claim but you trusted the salesman and bought it. You showed if off on your living room and everyone you know admired it. From near and far people came to admire your unbreakable vase.

Then one day you brushed the vase lightly as you walked past, the vase fell and shattered into hundreds of pieces in front of you. You are both shocked and angry, this vase was supposed to be perfect and infallible. You go back to the salesman who turns on you and asks you how you could destroy his perfect vase. It was totally infallible, before you carelessly let it fall and now it is perfect no more. You made the perfect imperfect. Yes, the vase was unbreakable until you broke it.

Reluctantly you admit your mistake, although the salesman's logic still baffles you. You shrug your shoulders and ask him if he could fix the vase and make it "perfect" again. The seller tells you that is totally impossible, by your actions you have changed the nature of the vase forever, it is perfect no more. Ok, you could maybe accept that, but you ask if he could sell you a new perfect vase. Surprisingly, you are told "no". You broke the one perfect vase ever made, the nature of vases are now forever changed and all will be fragile from now on. In fact every time a person breaks a vase for generations to come , it would be a reminder to them of your careless action. Yes, vases were once unbreakable until that fateful day of the "fall."

Well, by now I am sure you can follow the analogy. This is the genesis story. A perfect world that we messed up. Some will argue that the analogy doesn't hold because perfection does not imply infallibility. Something could be perfect today and imperfect tomorrow. Even the most beautiful picture can be destroyed by a three year old's scrawls. Maybe we had a perfect vase in terms of the artwork or design but not in terms of its durabilility. A fair point, but surely when we talk about a perfect world we are not talking merely of aesthetics.It's not just beautiful trees, animals and landscapes. Indeed in terms of raw beauty the world seems no less beautiful than any you will find in a Garden of Eden representation. The critical difference is that in the perfect world there was supposedly no death, suffering or pain, no decay,deterioration or destruction. That sounds like an infallible world, one that could not be broken down, no different from the fictional unbreakable vase.

Yet christian doctrine suggests sin came into the world and things changed. There are millions in the world who accept this idea, yet all would immediately identify the salesman with the super fragile unbreakable vase as a con man. We are often told that man after the fall took on a sinful nature. This talk bothers me. How could any human being change anything of his nature? I can understand how you can change your behaviour, attitudes or responses. But how can you change your nature? That would be like changing the very essence of yourself. You can break the vase but you can't change the way that it was made. A human can no more change his nature than a lion can take on a sheep nature or a butterfly can take on the nature of a boa constrictor.

The maker of the vase is the only one who can determine the nature of the vase. The creator of the human is the only one who would have any power to determine human nature. A man with the ability to change even his own nature, far less the nature of the entire world or universe would have to possess powers equivalent to a God himself.

But, inpite of all these arguments, many will still insist that it is possible for perfection to be transient. Once perfect does not mean always perfect.But, what does that say about God? Can his nature be changed just like his creation? God may have a perfect mind today, but he might get Alzheimer's tomorrow, all because of our sinful actions. Maybe it has happened already, the fall might have affected God too. It affected all of his creation we are told, and that would mean heaven too. How do we know that the imperfections did not reach up to God?

The scary thing is we would never know if God ever becomes less than perfect.For,he is the ultimate self regulator, only he can judge himself.I tell you, there really is no way ever to get your money back after purchasing that vase that was unbreakable until you broke it.

Now where do I know you from?

We have all been there. Walking down the street and seeing that familiar face but for the life of you, you just can't remember where you met or interacted with the person. Inevitably the other person has the same reaction as they are sure they know you too but they too ponder from where. Like a computer program you scroll down the menu trying to find the files that match. Without thinking you list of your asociations, was it primary or secondary school, choir, band, athletics, church? You rapidly go down your list hoping to find a match. You get that shake of the head with all the misses until that magical moment where it clicks.

Yesterday I had the first of those kind of meetings since becoming an atheist. I ran into a lady who looked , so so familiar; as I went through the scrolling I said to her, " Were you at that a.... ?" I stopped mid sentence as I caught myself. I was going to ask her if we had met at an atheist lecture about two months ago. Suddenly, I realised I had to change from the regular program. Suppose it was not there that we met, she could easily take offence to that question. She realised my hesitancy and looked a bit bewildered. I then rephrased the question and simply asked if she had been to any lectures recently at the university; keeping it nice and generic. She replied in the negative and unfortunately we never made that connection, but I was still relieved to leave the conversation without any awkwardness.

I realised from this interaction that I really have to watch myself now. I never thought that I could upset a person by just asking them if there are part of a group I belong to, but that is reality. How often I have heard people say they were "accused" of being an atheist, as if it was a jailable offence. I remember all too well that Elizabeth Dole advertisement leading up to the US election. On the other hand, no one seems to be offended if you thought you knew them from church,school or rotary club.

I started to reflect on how it must be for the homosexual community. Imagine scrolling through the possible associations and finally blurting in exasperation,
"Are you gay ?" I suppose in some utopian world the answer along with a nonchalant shrug could be," No I'm sorry, I think you must be mistaking me for someone else." But we all know, especially in the Caribbean, this ain't happening. A quick jump backwards and two eyes opening in horror would tell you all you need to know, even if you had really hit the nail on the head. Of course it's all hypothetical since that question quite simply would never be posed.

But why should the question; Are you gay? or Are you an atheist? be any different from, are you an anglican? did you go to Prince Charles Primary School? or are you a microbiologist? It is strange to have an association as tainted as being a member of the Klu Klux clan, just by being part of a segment of society that wants their beliefs to actually make sense. Go figure!

Well, that is the world we live in. For the time being it means that I have to make a special effort to remember names and faces when I go to atheist meetings. If not I could easily end up unknowingly walking pass a partner in non belief with a mere smile and a nod ,as he asks himself that age old question. "Now where do I know you from?"

Oh my God, he's an atheist too!

I just had a talk with a middle eastern friend of mine who has an African roommate. He said that he felt he had a special connection with black people and said that maybe it was because we had such a respect for religion that establishes our moral values .

I felt a bit uncomfortable since I knew that he would have no way of knowing he was actually speaking to a black atheist. I just simply asked him if he thought that if a person wasn't religious he would not have these same values. He quickly said that indeed he was not of that view and that in fact he himself was not religious. Seemed a little contradictory from his earlier statement, so I asked if it was actually more of a cultural connection he felt with black people. I then told him that I was also not religious and in fact I didn't even believe in God, really. I have no idea why I added the word really, but as they say, letting go really is hard to do.

He completely forgot the point he was making about the religious connection with blacks,but continued the conversation headlong in the opposite direction. He told me he doesn't believe either but there is no way he could tell this to any of his friends, most of whom are strong muslims. He then went on to talk about all the problems religions create and how none of the beliefs make sense. He said he had these views for the last five years or so but he could not possibly tell anyone. If he went back home he would not be able to marry anyone's daughter if he said he didn't believe in God.

I listened as he offloaded, telling me that religion was all about controlling the masses. He said that he knew of many people in the USA that had been persuaded to go to war because of their belief in God and many in Palestine for whom killing was justified once it was for Allah. He also ridiculed the notion of a God that could punish his own children,by sending them to hell . "What kind of loving parent, could that God be?" he added. He went on about how his roommate was sure Jesus saved him when he prayed to God in a motorcycle accident. Something he thought was just cray. "Everybody prays to God when they are in serious accidents, most of them die, what happened to them?" he exclaimed. He shook his head and then lamented that so many times he wanted to give the appropriate reply to religious people but he just couldn't.I just couldn't stop smiling, I knew exactly what he was talking about.

Wow, it was such a great thing to be able to witness this. He sounded like me at my first social with other atheists, just happy for the unique opportunity to say what I really felt to people who understood. What was amazing was that this conversation didn't start like that. On so many occasions before in similar circumstances I would have nodded at his initial comment about respect for religion, concluded he was a man of faith and moved on to another safer topic. Today, I just decided to ask him to clarify his position, minutes later, he transformed into an outspoken atheist before my eyes.

With this discovery I told him how I recently joined an atheist group where we had open discussions on many of these topics. He stopped me right there. "If anyone even smelled on me that I had been to any such gathering I would be a dead man," he said anxiously looking around to see if anyone was within earshot. What a pity, it would have been nice to have another minority in that group.

Anyway,I was so glad to be his atheistic ear today. This taught me a good lesson. I often hear of how hard it is coming out as an atheist, all the friendships and associations you risk. Today I "came out" and I helped a friend and it felt all so worth it. I of course will not "out" him but at least he knows that he can talk to me about issues like these with absolutely know worries. That must at least count for something.I am just left wondering now what is that intangible factor that really draws him towards black people. Maybe he doesn't know either.