Meeting Matt and Seth and more: Reflections of an exciting Imagine No Religion 2

It happens over and over and over again. Each time I think that I have reached that one moment that defines my atheist journey, something comes along that blows that previous landmark straight out of the water.

The weekend before last in Kamloops was another one of those 'moments' that had that toppling effect. As I got ready to leave from Calgary there was a definite feeling of excitement. So much of my atheist life is typing away at a keyboard, communicating with anonymous souls at various corners of the globe. I have been to many meet-ups now, had my share of one to one interactions, but this was my first atheist 'mass' event and I figured it was not going to be like the old time Sunday morning ones. For some reason I felt a bit of apprehension. I was not quite sure why. I was just going to observe. I was not a speaker or presenter. No need to worry about things like computer compatibility with equipment, flash drive failures or mixed fonts on power point slides.

Still, it felt strange, like if I was  going on some type of pilgrimage into the unknown. I think it is because in many ways this was my first real 'journey' into atheism. Yes, I have gone out of my way to meet with atheists before, as I did last year in the Caribbean and New York. But those were different, I happened to be in those places for other reasons and I took the opportunity to make allies, connections and friendships. Now, it was me venturing out somewhere and atheism was the only reason. This was no little sojourn either, this was an eight hour road trip. Something completely outside the experience of a little island boy growing up in tiny Barbados where a 45 minute drive is considered an excursion.

Well, how did it go? Firstly, please don't ask me anything about Kamloops. I have no  idea what it looks like, although I can tell you the views of the mountains on the way there were amazing. The weekend was spent totally on the hotel premises. Hotel room, convention centre, bar that was the program. Three in one and one in three, that was the simple trinity.

Atheist and Proud

It didn't take me long to realise that this was a bit different from your average atheist meet-up. Of course nowadays there is nothing particularly strange about me being around people that are deity free, but what I realised was unusual was the way that the people I met felt about their non belief. It was something they wore proudly and were excited to talk about. There was none of that energy zapping apathy that I have experienced from time to time in other places. Those people that tell you they don't believe in God just like they don't believe in unicorns. The ones that say that it makes as much sense spending time talking about one category of mythical being as it does another. No, I didn't meet a single example of that type of non-believer. I met 'out and out' atheists and some people who identified primarily as humanists or skeptics, but nobody who said that they felt that calling ourselves atheists was something we should go out of our way to avoid.

What I saw on show in Kamloops was atheist pride and it was heart warming. I can't count the number of times I told my 'coming out' story and I remember even while I was talking being able to hear four or five simultaneous discussions around me where others were doing the same. I now understand why so many atheists get energized by these type of gatherings. These events often require a bit of travel to get to them and like any other conference, are not exactly cheap. It stands to reason, that those that make the effort to be there have a passion. That combined energy is something amazing to feed off of. It's something that I hope every atheist I know gets to feel one day.

Still have to work on diversity

Another thing that stood out about the audience was the racial mix, or should I say lack of it. To put it diplomatically there was a pronounced melanin deficiency. Indeed up to about two minutes before the start of the event I had spotted not a single other black person, in spite of the fact that the room was filling up and had to be close to 300. Eventually two others were spotted and we had a great time laughing and joking later in the evening about the rarity of our species in this particular gathering. It was funny that the three of us were thinking the same thing at the same time as we entered the auditorium.


Crommunist - ' I  just care too much, I have to, have to, have to write.'

 Me with  'Crommunist ' 

Both of these gentlemen of colour had interesting stories to tell  that were inspiring in their own ways. There was Ian Cromwell aka  "Crommunist" a blogger from Vancouver, who blogs on the popular Freethought Blog. It was great to have an extended conversation with a fellow blogger. Speaking of the challenges of writing when you don't know who's listening out there. Crommunist blogs everyday! That is something  that still amazes me. I loved his passion for writing and he certainly gave me great encouragement to keep on keeping on.

 Matt who had come up from Las Vegas, recently identifying as an atheist and  was making the trip to find a new community. It was great to meet them both. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty about concerning myself with the ' find the other black people' game when there are so many other things to be thinking about, but it is natural. Of course this lack of black is something that has been mentioned in the atheist movement quite a bit and obviously work still needs to be done, but that is a subject for another day.

As it turned out, there were a lot of the Calgary skeptic community that made the trek up, so in a way it was a bit of a home away from home. I began to realise how fortunate I was as an atheist, to live in a city like Calgary. I think we were the city with the most representatives. We got quite a few comments from others about how tight we all seemed to be. It is true, there is quite a bond between members of the Calagary CFI crew, even though we badly missed having our president Nate Phelps around. A person whose inspirational story speaks to many in Canada, USA and thousands across the world.

The weekend certainly had its moments of humour. It made me laugh to see members of the skeptic community try to maintain that cool rational exterior while you know that inside there was a teenage rock star groupie within them when they saw Matt Dillahunty walking through the restaurant or PZ Myers hanging around the lobby. There was a memorable moment when a youngster out of breath  ran up to me and said

" I just met Lawrence Krauss in the elevator and I wanted to say something really profound to him, but all I could end up telling him was that he was much shorter than I imagined, I feel like such an idiot!"

This was typical of the sort of thing I heard right through the conference. I even heard talk going around that  the well known youtube atheist 'Thunderfoot' was in the house. That one turned out to be just a rumour, proving that atheists are by no means immune to believing unsubstantiated claims.

Changing attitude

By the end of the first evening , I could already  feel a change in myself. Before that  night in British Columbia, whenever I told someone that I was an atheist, it was a statement I made cloaked in a thick veil of  'I am sorry.' The idea I would portray was that I wished I could say I believed in their God, but I just couldn't. Here, it was hitting home to me in a big way, that we have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of or to apologise about. We are honestly making a judgement based on what we see in reality and there is no way that that should be seen as something with a shred of negativity surrounding it. I vowed even as I was there, that I will never be apologetic about saying I was an atheist again. If that is one thing that I can stick to as a result of Imagine No Religion 2, that on its own would make the entire experience worth it.

I kept remembering as I spoke with these people that my dictionary told me that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief.' That seemed so incongruous with what I was seeing here. 'Lack' was just not a word that fit anyone I met. This was a group overflowing as much in spirit as they were in spirits. There were many differences expressed on topics relating to things like gender, diversity and vegetarianism in informal discussions. It did get rather heated at many tables in the bar. But, there was no doubt in my mind that this was a family, and in spite of how recently I had come acquainted with this movement, this was my family.

There is so much that could be written on the weekend, and I took copious notes while I was there. I have about a page or two on every speaker. Each of them brought something unique to the table and it is an almost impossible task to single people out, to say nothing of all the informal discussions I had along the way and our Sunday 'Revival Service.' What I will do is to file all of these writings away and  bring them out over the next few weeks and months. Some things just need the appropriate paragraph space to give them their due and I don't want to be giving anyone an overdose of writing today. After all, it's not as if this is blog about homeopathy.

Matt Dillahunty- ' God should be found not guilty of the crime of existing'

 with Matt Dillahunty ' The Atheist Experience'

I'll focus for the time being on two podcast  personalities  that I was anxious to  meet on this trip as well as the speaker that I think ultimately made the biggest impact . The first podcast personality is Matt Dillahunty from 'The Atheist Experience.' Matt has no books penned, no tenure at a prestigious university, but there is no doubt that Dillahunty is a star in the movement.  Say what you want, but when it comes to talking, few people can touch the 'kick ass' host from Atheist Experience. In my travels talking to atheists from the Caribbean to Calgary to Kamloops, everybody loves Matt.

I discovered "The Atheist Experience" in 2008 when I was still identifying as a Christian. I was impressed by how the show broke down the arguments for God so clearly and logically. Matt was particularly skilled in this regard.That show for about one year and a half was my only link to atheist conversation. The only place I heard such arguments addressed. It eventually helped to dragged me from a weak form of agnosticism to firm non belief. I know that show has played a similarly significant role for countless more.

The great success of the show has of course thrust Matt straight into the limelight which he recognises and  seems at ease with . From the time he walked into the hall for the Friday night debate, hands were reaching out from the aisles to him. His nonchalant reply was ," It's Ok I am  going to be here all weekend."

Matt distinguished himself in the debate, although I thought Chris di Carlo our other representative was also very effective. What impressed me about Matt in the debate was the quick and confident way he would respond to the theist questions put to him. This I think is the great advantage about being on a show like 'The Atheist Experience' for so many years. Practice really does make perfect. It's like playing chess, Matt can often see the move that the opposition is lining up for way ahead of time and he can be sure he is not going to find himself in a trap. I have seen other atheists in debates, hem and haw rather more, which is understandable, because often answers to questions are not clear cut and you want to be careful that someone doesn't run with a wrong context. Matt, even if he makes a mistake, has a consistency in the argument that makes him hard to beat. It was a delight to see him in action. I love the way he said that God should be found not guilty of the crime of existing.

It was also great to sit with Matt after and hear him talking.  He is a man always ready to chat with anyone and debate issues rigorously, enjoying having a keen audience of listeners around him. If you think that Matt is sharp and clinical on the show he is even more so over beers. I think it is his straightforwardness and honesty that people like even when he's in a hostile mood. Atheist Experience fans all know that no one can say "You're done!" quite like Matt.

One thing Matt said that I will remember was an answer to a question from a fan about why he does the show. What motivates him? His answer was simple. " I do it because I give a shit!" I don't think there is any better way you can put that. It was a good motif for the weekend.

The Thinking Atheist- Showed  us the 'theist songs' with lyrics that never change.

 with Seth Andrews ' TheThinking Atheist" 

The second of the podcast protagonists I wanted to see at the conference was Seth Andrews , 'The Thinking Atheist." Perhaps my moment of the weekend came through the way  I met him. I was sitting listening to PZ Myers' talk at the back of the auditorium. I heard this person whispering asking me if the unoccupied chair next to me was taken. I looked up to realise it was none other than Seth himself, the host of the popular podcast and several great youtube videos.  I invited him to sit down and he greeted me with a simple " Hi, I'm Seth" and then introduced his spouse Natalie. I introduced myself and told him how I was pleased to meet him. Then we just simply settled back down and continued watching the proceedings.

This was a bit of an unreal moment. I don't think Seth knew whether I even knew who he was. In off stage personalities, Matt and  Seth could not be more different. Seth seemed  so different to the vibrant personality on the airwaves. Here he was quiet and unassuming even maybe a little nervous.  It occurred to me at that moment, that Seth's frequent discussions on his program about the overwhelming challenge of being a speaker at this conference among the PhDs and other lettered speakers was by no means false modesty. In a sense, I could understand where he was coming from. This was not one of those conferences of, 'I used to be a Christian and now praise the Lord I found reason.' This was much more along the lines of a university lecture series, dealing with issues of social psychology, gender discrimination, theoretical physics and the like. Seth was obviously coming from a vastly different kind of angle.

What Seth didn't know as he sat there, was that beside him was someone on  whom he had a profound influence. Seth  is fast becoming one of my favourite people in the movement and this weekend in my eyes only enhanced his reputation. A down to earth guy if there ever was one. His voice is far more famous than his face and  for that reason I think many people passed him by in the conference without too much fuss. But for me he is one who always resonates. I think it is partly because he, like me, let go of the faith approaching the age of 40. Like me, he was a little bit late arriving at the atheist party, but I think he has a quality  that sets him apart from many other atheists out there.

Everybody says, it's the voice. Yes, that's undoubtedly part of it, but not the whole story. It's the way in which he can change your emotion on a hairpin. In a single show he can make you laugh hysterically, feel motivated and empowered, get pissed off and sit in silence on the brink of tears. All this through the inflexion of the voice, the pause for effect, variations in volume and speed of delivery. It is a talent that few have and even fewer within the skeptic community. Others tend to have a personality which swings markedly either towards confrontation or compassion. Seth has managed to get that 'good cop, bad cop'  balance almost right. I know Seth feels that we give him far more credit than he deserves but I think he is just too much involved on the inside to see the full extent of the impact he makes on those of us out here.

One thing he said that I took to heart on one of the first of the programs I listened to with him, was his advice to know your strength, concentrate on that and try to excel in it for the benefit of the freethought community. For him, his talents are radio and video production and he has given that in huge proportions to the atheist community. He made me think about what I could bring to the table that could make a difference out there. Where was my strength? For me it is writing, at least that's what other people tell me, so I have just concentrated on the blog, writing on atheism and faith and capitalising on the talent as much as I can. People have asked at times why I don't do different things. Diversify a bit, maybe do videos, write on other topics. Perhaps get into talking on wider skepticism, psychics, alternative medicine, racism, gender, sexuality, there are so many other things out there that need to be addressed. Maybe, one day I will do those things, but I am concentrating on where my strength is, where I believe I can really make a difference. Expounding on issues relating to atheism and trying to emphasise the logical frailties of the theistic position, using metaphors and examples that will make the point without provoking anger. It's the type of writing I think I do best and I have stuck with it, hopefully improving as I go along. I leave people with expertise in other areas of the movement to take other approaches. I have to thank Seth in part for giving me that little piece of advice.

Seth asked me how long it took to get to Kamloops from where I lived. I told him the drive was eight hours. He seemed to find it incredulous that I would travel such distances to hear these talks, I am sure he would have fallen out of that chair I said he could sit in, if he had found out that the fact that he was in the lineup was a large part of the reason that I made the effort. It seemed it was worth it for Seth to sit next to me too. He was rather taken by my computer that I had with me to take notes. It was my all in one ipad case/stand  and bluetooth keyboard. I had no idea that he was watching my machine the whole time. I wondered if he was watching the screen too. If he had, he would have seen me write the words,

"Seth the Thinking Atheist has just come up and sat next to me as I listen to PZ Myers. This is just unreal"

 Boy would it be funny if he read that. Thankfully, I don't think the font was big enough.

Seth's presentation itself did not disappoint and his visuals were some of the most memorable of the weekend. He just transformed when he went onstage and became "The Thinking Atheist" we all know and love. Using his DJ experience he spoke of the 'theist songs' we hear over and over again.  There was also the tribute to Carl Saigan video that again made it hard to keep back the tears. He seemed himself overcome when he admitted to the audience that he was 38 years old before he discovered Saigan. I felt like putting up my hand as well to say I was in my 30s too when I first came across his work.

Maryam Namazie-  Threw out a Challenge to Secularists

My eyes  remained moist for the next presentation. Maryam Namazie an activist from Britain and strong spokesperson against islam extremists was next up and  she seemed to have drawn a difficult position after Seth and before the keynote world class phycisist Lawrence Krauss. She started in a rather subdued manner.  She spoke about how this was only the second time she was using power point and apologised in advance for the quality of the slides. She quickly got into stride however and shook up the audience, proceeding to give a presentation that was full of passion. So great was her impact that she earned the only standing ovation of the entire weekend. It struck me from early that her discussions on the absurdity of islam got muted laughter compared to the belly laughs that pokes at Christianity had got over the course of the two days. It is poignant to recognise that even in an atheist conference, there is a little fear we all live with when it comes to making fun of islam and the Koran. In any case, as she went on there became less and less to laugh about as details were given for the science behind determining the correct size and material to use for a stoning  of a woman, to ensure that death does not happen too quickly nor too slowly. Yes, there is actually a 'just right Goldilocks' stone!!!

Maryam appealed to us in the audience to play our part in speaking up against such injustices as members of the secular community. She spoke of people in the middle east facing jail time and death for the crime of blasphemy. The young man in Indonesia who faces death for saying that "God does not exist." on his facebook page and others in trouble for posting ' Jesus and Mo' cartoons. At that moment I remember thinking about how much I had to be thankful knowing that there are many parts of the world where I couldn't write an atheistic paragraph without getting a death sentence.

Trying to find my niche

I  recall also feeling rather small about my part in the freethought movement when I was listening to Maryam. It seemed that writing  light hearted blogposts about God and how we know he 's not here, was rather trivial compared to other work that needed to be done, urgent civil rights issues that had  to be dealt with where religion was the entity wielding the  big stick. Then I remembered what Seth said about concentrating on our strengths. I also remembered that the church used to tell us that we as members were like different parts of the body, all working together to do God's work, none was more important than the other. The atheist community is like that too. We have hands and feet, eyes and ears, lots of mouth, plenty of spine, brains in abundance and as a friend of mine reminded me, some of us are rather skilled at being dicks.

So, I recognised I didn't have to be me at the forefront of every activity. I can give my support, but it is important that I keep my fight on the front where I engage. I remembered how long the journey was to get to Kamloops. The one that began long before 5:00 am on a Friday morning in Calgary. It all started because I was able to look at myself, question my deeply held beliefs and realise that I was part of the problem rather than the solution. From that point I have reached a stage where I can now see what needs to be done, which is at least a start.  There are many ways I can think of helping the cause now, but none of this could have started without a doubt. Without a doubt that told me that what I believed might not be true.

Got to keep knocking 

So, now I need to pass it on, just like the popular church song tells us. In the comedy show we saw on the Saturday night of the conference, there was a routine that imagined what it would be like if atheists used to knock on doors to spread the ' Not so good news.'  It was brilliantly funny but hearing it in conjunction with all the speeches of the weekend made me realise that we in the atheist movement do need to start doing some of this door to door stuff.

For the Christians that keep knocking us we have to give them something back. Yes, we too have to start knocking on doors. Not on the ones that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons exercise their knuckles on, but on the ones that are embedded in walls that cordon off the brain. Those that keep minds forever locked off from reality. Those for which it seems faith alone is the key. We may get ignored for a while, people may refuse to take a break from their their busy daily schedules to hear the 'Word' that we bring. They may consider our interruption to their 'thinking as usual'  to be a nuisance and warn us to get off their property. But if we can go through the neighbourhoods with the type of people I met in Kamloops, the persistent pounding will one day become impossible to ignore.  Those sitting comfortably in their houses of faith, will then  feel obliged  to peep through that small crack in their curtain and will realise to their surprise that there is indeed light on the outside.

The rules that rule the ruler: The bigger the Bible the smaller the god

It's all about the tough calls. This photo on the left always gives me chills. We see Obama, Biden, Clinton and the rest of the White House staff watching anxiously to see whether the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was successful. The anniversary of this event was two weeks ago and of course it was played out in the media, with Democrats making political capital by reminding the public of this more meaningful 'mission accomplished' moment and the Republicans playing their own politics by claiming that the Democrats should not be political.

Whatever your  political leaning, you have to admit that this was a true leadership moment for Barack Obama. This is why countries have presidents, prime ministers or chancellors. It's to make difficult decisions like these. In the midst of uncertainty and ambiguity, you have to weigh up the options and make the call realising you have to live with whatever the outcome is. The advice may come to you from all directions conflicting and contradictory. History and precedent may be there as a guide, but at the end of it all the buck stops at you. Maybe due to shrewd judgement, maybe through some luck or perhaps a bit of both, Obama came out smiling at the end. You have to take risks sometimes as a leader and you deserve the accolades when it works as much as the brickbats when it goes wrong. To make the decisions when there is no clear answer. That is what a ruler does.

Fast forward to last week and the US president was back in the news again. This time the call he made was also impactful, but in an entirely different way. The president referred to his 'evolving' opinion that now is in favour of same sex marriage. This was indeed  a significant departure from the form of his previously held transitional belief. I hope creationists will now recognise that macro evolution can occur given enough time and the right political environment. To me it was a welcome evolution, but others certainly viewed this mutation as a backward step.

Huge as this statement might have seemed to many, Barack was careful to say that it was a personal opinion. It wasn't a call to go to war to kill the opposing fundamental Christian views. It  wasn't an order to surge into churches and capture clergy. Yet, the vocal response by many, suggests that some saw it just like that. It was a curious response. Surely it is what the ruler in heaven says that  will ultimately matter on issues like these.Why should they even care what Barack thinks? Are the fundamentalists telling us that  Barack Obama is like God? Not so far fetched. Seems at times they give almost as much weight to what he says as to the words of their precious saviour.

In looking at Barack Obama as a leader over the past couple of weeks, I couldn't help but think about their own ruler up in heaven and how he compares. In one sense we are told that God is like the Barack Obama who gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Strong and authoritative, one whose orders have to be carried out exactly as he says, one whose will cannot be resisted. Then, at other times we see their ruler like the Obama we saw giving his views on same sex marriage to the press. One who merely states an opinion and gives others free will to go along with him if they choose. He leaves others a bit lower in state to decide whether his will, will be done or not. It is the ultimate mystery surrounding their heavenly ruler, the fact that he is eternally all powerful, except of course for the times when he is not.

It turns out though that this kind of inconsistency is not the only one that the heavenly president faces. Unlike Obama, their commander-in-chief  is infallible.  His opinions don't evolve, and he has no need to wait nervously after giving a order to see if things turn out right. No, their God has no such worries, he always knows what to do and he can tell us what we should do. We just need to listen to him, follow him and all will be well. Sounds simple right? Well not quite, because it doesn't end there. This infallible God has also written a book which is of course, infallible. God is infallible, he writes a book, it has to be just as infallible as he. The logic does seem watertight but again its not that straightforward.

Let's go back to down to earth again for a moment to see how things work in our domain. We have the leader in the form of a president or prime minister who makes the important decisions. There are also laws, policies, regulations, historical precedence and a constitution that give guidance to leaders. In practice we need both the leader and the book, the ruler and the rules. The laws are good but they are not perfect, they fail sometimes because they can't foresee every situation that you might find yourself in. There are times when you just have to throw out the rule book altogether because it doesn't apply or give one rule a priority over another. That's why you need a human leader that can make that kind of judgement and steer the ship through uncertain waters, make the tough calls like going in for the Bin Laden kill.

Our rules aren't perfect but then neither are our rulers. Rules are there to keep the ruler in line. Without them leaders could do whatever they wanted with no transparency and no accountability. They would be no grounds for appealing or protesting, because they would be no yardstick by which to evaluate anything. Because of the limitations of both rulers and rules, it makes sense to have both in any system of government. If both the rules and rulers are strong, you have a recipe for good governance.

The situation is somewhat different in the heavenly realm where both ruler and rules are infallible. Here, it's not a situation of complementarity, its a situation of redundancy. Why would an infallible God have a need to write a book? He is real, people have a personal relationship with him, he can speak to hearts directly. What could possibly be expressed in the book that couldn't  be said through his own voice? There is no need for accountability or transparency because by definition God is always on the right side. The infallible God makes the book redundant. Similarly, if we have an infallible bible, there is no need for a God. The bible would speak to every circumstance, there would be nothing that would need interpretation or reasoning over it. It would just be a case of read it and do what it says. If the rules are absolutely clear and flawless you don't need a ruler to interpret them for you.

Still, Christians have a strange way of explaining how God and the bible work together. A way which makes both the Lord and his word seem to have limitations. You read the bible first and through it God himself speaks to you. He writes the words and then gives you verbal instructions while you read. This seems unnecessarily complicated. It's like a parent instructing a child by going through the process of writing  a book called 'What I maybe want you to do'  and explaining what they want done by letting the child read the book and then explaining what they actually meant to say in the book. Come on, couldn't you just explain to the kid what you want done and skip the extra literature?

Well maybe, but that's not the way God does it. The bible we are told is God's living word. I still can't wrap my head around this. The words on the pages are dead. Dead from the perspective, that once they are written they are written. They can't undergo natural selection and evolve into new species. I am sorry, I can't see how you can have a living relationship with someone, through the printed words in a book written hundreds of years ago in ancient languages. The bible can't speak to you about your life any more than the 'Nutritional Facts' on a box of cereal can speak to you about your diet. Words can't listen to you and give you advice. They can't evaluate options when you have conflicting goals to reconcile within you. Only a mind is capable of doing such things.

Not a book talk

I have been fortunate enough in the time I have been a part of the CFI community here in Calgary to hear some prominent  authors speak and give lectures on their writings. These include people like Dan Dennett,  James Randi, Lawrence Krauss and Dan Barker. All of these authors have books which represent their views and have been widely read.  When they come to speak  their focus is not on their publications it is squarely on what they are there to talk to the audience about.  Books are always there on show, but their primary purpose is to be scribbled in at the end of the night. The event doesn't start by the speaker asking everybody to open they copy of  ' A Universe from Nothing' to Chapter Three on  Page 35 and start reading together from paragraph five. It just doesn't work like that. Lecturers will speak about what their books contain but they will go further, give more context and give their current thinking and opinions on the issue. They take you beyond the book.Yes, what they will say will tend to be in line with the book, but that's because the book, just like the speech they are giving represents their thoughts. The book can be a useful aid to understanding, but you don't need to have read their work in order to understand the message of their lectures.

It's a similar thing when it comes to me on this blog. Writing articles here has helped me to organise my thoughts on many issues related to faith and atheism. Sometimes I use ideas I have expounded on  here, to explain my position to someone I am engaging with in a discussion. But it is me that is speaking to them when I am debating, not the 'caribatheist blog.'

God on the other hand, should have no need to use references as aids to himself. He doesn't need  a book to remind him what it was he was thinking when he was speaking to his chosen people two millennia ago. He doesn't need it to help himself. It isn't a requirement for communication with us. So, why is it there? But even more important than being there, why is it viewed with almost the same reverence as God? We know  that almost every argument that a theist brings to argue a point about Him begins or ends with a scripture quote.

They say that in the journey of life, the bible should be kept next to you as the manual  for driving. But why do you need to consult a manual when the manufacturer of the automobile is your copilot ready to take over if there's any trouble?

Bibles should be  just for atheists

If there is any need for the manual, it's for the person without the relationship with God. The one who can't access the master directly. To me that means the atheist, the one who has not yet found the way to tune in to God. So, my advice to Christians is to hand the manuals over. Yes, bring the bibles over to us so that we may learn something about the author of your favourite text, because he is obviously not coming over to our university to give a lecture. Yes, you go with God and leave the bibles with us. But we know you'll never do that, you and your saviour's publication must never be separated. I have to ask you again. Why?

One possible answer is that the author of the book is not around. The importance placed on the book might  well mean  that the one who wrote it is no longer here to talk to the masses and answer questions. Any insight into the words on the page would then have to come from your own reasoning and reflection, not from your personal friend outside space and time. Secondary sources like the bible are only really valuable when the primary ones are absent. Contradictory as it may sound, the existence of the bible is probably the greatest piece of evidence against the existence of God. The more that Christians lean on the bible the less they are leaning on God himself. That's why I say the bigger the bible the smaller the god.

The Bible rules

Speaking of big bibles, the book got as large as the supermoon this week, when fundamentalists bashed Obama over the head with it for forgetting that it says that for a man to lie with a man or woman to lie with a woman is an abomination. That's what happens when the bible goes ahead and God stays invisible in the background. It means we have to follow the words written down years ago by his hand, without any way of knowing if it is appropriate for what we are facing now. Once the books of the bible were made into a canon it effectively blasted God out of the picture. He became forever a slave of his text, because not even an omnipotent God can alter the words of an unchangeable book.

If I ever see God I will ask him why on earth  he chose the option of ruling by the book. A leader that needs to govern through only previously existing documents is one that is not sure of himself. It is only  forgivable if you are new to the job and don't have enough experience yet to make decisions through your own reasoning.

Wait, perhaps that's the problem!  God is feeling his way into his role, still needing to stick strictly to what the textbook says. I bet he is having difficulty understanding it just like we do. Maybe he does need the book to guide him in guiding us through on this complex planet. Maybe, he himself is on a trial, only passing down to us what has been passed down to him by someone higher up the ladder that did the hiring.

Well if that's the case, God has been on probation a long time now. I sincerely hope he gets his appointment letter soon, so that he can get on with the job he is being paid to do and put aside the training manual once and for all. I tell you, the world would definitely be the better for it.

Maybe one day they'll come around

Wow! I scarce can take it in. This week in Barbados, atheism was actually featured TWICE in the Nation newspaper. All this coming on the heels of a public forum on the relationship between society and the church last week on the island. Yes, the writings contained the usual mischaracterisations of atheists and fallacious reasoning, but at least they recognise now that we exist. In fact they now say we are many. How many? A whopping 30,000!! You can read about it here.

That's more than the number of people that turned up at the National Mall in Washington for the Reason Rally a few weeks ago. The notion that the number of non believers on our tiny God fearing island of population less than 300,000 rivals those that came from all corners of US and the globe for that momentous event is just a tad too much for me to accept. I suppose it's Christian hyperbole. When you see figures like that you can well understand how you could come up with the story that Jesus fed '5000'  with five loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

It seems to me, that publishing this kind of figure is a scare tactic designed to shock the Christian reader. Making the faithful feel they need to get up and do something to stop the surge that could wipe their churches off the map if given half the chance. It plays into the old, " We are being persecuted!" mindset. We all know that if we go asking to have our voices heard in issues relating to public policy and social development, we will be told that our numbers are far too small and insignificant for us to expect to have a say in a country where the overwhelming majority is Christian. It's amazing how Christians can play both sides of the numbers game.

The second article of the week, a letter to the editor, was entitled "The atheists will come around' The letter reads like the author is just talking to the nation's Christians about us, referring to us purely in third person. When I read it, I felt like a guilty eavesdropper listening in on a church council meeting. So, I guess we are still not exactly sitting with them at their table. We are not even in their inner sanctum, but at least we have entered their building.

Predictably, the author of the Letter to the Editor  used the bible to show that our rejection of their doctrine is just as Christ prophesied and assured Christians that we would eventually receive the Lord's revelation and come around  to Christianity. Well, as far as they, the Christians are concerned, I also hope that one day, maybe they'll come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that the same arguments they use to justify belief in their god can be used to argue for the existence of  Thor, Zeus, Poseidon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe one day they'll  come around to embracing the fact that praying for us is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that we are not atheists because we are angry at God but because we have not seen evidence that he is there.

Maybe one day they'll come around to comprehending that being atheists doesn't mean we believe in nothing.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that reduction in religiosity in Barbados represents progressiveness and not the destruction of society.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that you don't need to believe in a supernatural being in order to be a moral person.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that religiously reasoning is an oxymoron.

Maybe one day they'll come around and accept that atheism is not just a passing fad.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that a child that has enough confidence and independence to seek truth out for themselves rather than accept blindly what parents, priests or teachers tell them is one that should be admired not despised.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that quoting bible verses to us atheists is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that writing articles in the newspaper saying that one day we'll come around is not gong to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to see that threatening us with hell is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that blocking or removing our comments from online forums or discussions is not going to make us go away.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that asking us "What if you're wrong?" is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and start to see that just because we've lost our faith doesn't mean we're lost.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the revelation that living a life based on logic and evidence beats one based on faith and dogma.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that coming around our house on Saturday morning to tell us we need saving is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that atheists can be happy too.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that many of us atheists were once christians and we are atheists because we read the same bible that they are now trying to save us with.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that we atheists are not going to keep quiet anymore when they try to push their beliefs on us.

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding how difficult it is not to mock a belief that includes talking snakes, magic fruit trees and floating zoos.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that we are not rejecting God just because we want an excuse to sin and not be accountable.

Maybe one day they'll come around to accept that we really don't believe in God and are not denying his existence against our will.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the revelation that the opposing team is praying for a win too.

Maybe one day they'll come around to accepting the fact that they ARE such things as coincidences

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding that something CAN come from nothing.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see  that the universe is only evidence for the universe not for a creator.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that sin could only have entered the world if God allowed it in.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that the burden of proof lies with them.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing the irony in calling us closed minded while declaring that nothing we say could possibly change their belief that God is real.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that it's contradictory to say that it is blindingly obvious that god exists and then say that belief in him is a choice. I don't choose to believe that the earth is not flat or that the sky is blue.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that atheism is the end  result of applying critical thinking to religious beliefs and not a dogmatic position that we take before we start investigating.

Maybe one day they'll come around to recognising that telling us that we can't see air is not proof for God.

Maybe one day they'll come around and understand that you can't use the bible to prove the bible.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that there is a difference between faith that the chair you are sitting in will not break apart and the faith that there is an invisible being in the sky who answers your prayers, protects you from danger and cares who you have sex with and how.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that there is something wrong with the priorities of  a god that ignores the cries of millions of starving children but goes out of his way to make sure that when you go into the department store you find a pair of shoes that exactly matches the colour of your handbag.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising they too are atheists to every god except for the one they believe in.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that praying to a God for something is pointless if he is going to always do things according to HIS will.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that one million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that typing their statements in ALL CAPS does nothing to strengthen their arguments.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that to start a discussion by arguing through reason that God must exist and then finishing by saying that God's ways are beyond reason is to saw off the branch of the tree they are sitting on.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that there is a difference between believing and knowing.

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding that atheism is not a religion

Maybe one day they'll come around to viewing us as equals in spite of the fact that we don't believe in what they believe in.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that to work hard to provide our young people with a good education and then expect them to ignore the knowledge gained through that education is defeating the purpose.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that being an atheist doesn't mean you want to shut down every church in the country.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that we hope that they come around just as much as they hope that we come around.

As you know by now, I have no problem with christians coming around me to chat so long as they are not coming to try to convert. If they still want to hold on to hope, I will confess  that I  could definitely come around one day if Jesus himself would come around.

When the cross came crashing down: The impact of bringing logic to Easter

I am not sure whether it counts as a miracle, but the passage of Easter  last week managed to resurrect some memories within me which had been dead from my consciousness for many a year. What shocked me as I reflected during the week, formerly known to me as "Holy Week,"  was how Easter had fallen from being one of those pinnacle days to a point where I scarcely remembered that it was coming. There was a time when Easter had a meaning to me that was about as large as life itself. I was never a fundamentalist, nor was I ever one who felt that I had to be sitting in a pew every Sunday morning but Easter was a day that I always made a point of finding myself inside a place of worship.

I think it all went back to one experience I had on the evening of Maundy Thursday, (the day before Good Friday) about 20 years ago in Barbados . That evening I came down with a severe case of gastro-enteritis and ended up having to spend the night in the hospital. While I lay in the bed writhing in pain on  Friday morning  I remembered Jesus. I was able to reassure myself by thinking that my present anguish was nothing compared to what my saviour had to bear more than 2000 years before. I think that helped me to get through it. I even managed to convince myself that  Jesus was bringing me through this agony on the anniversary of his death, in order that I may understand his own pain. After a while, I almost felt honoured to be chosen to carry Christ's cross with him that morning. It's crazy to recollect this way of thinking now, but it is amazing what mental gymnastics your mind can do in situations of immense pain, especially when you have the love of Jesus in your heart.

However, I  think I was  being quite rational when I smiled with relief  realising I was missing Good Friday morning service. As many people in the Anglican church will tell you, Good Friday is by far the most boring service in the liturgical  year. It's long, very long, the prayers themselves are everlasting.  The music is deliberately set to be dead and dreary. There's no communion to give you a little nourishment to help you endure to the end. No procession to break the monotony and give your legs a stretch. To add to the dirge, everyone comes dressed in their most drab black outfits. There was just no take away from Good Friday that could  help you get through what was an equally dour rest of the day. They call it Good Friday, but the only thing good about it, is knowing that when you walk out at the end, it will be another full year before it comes back. Recognising that the Lord had delivered me from Good Friday mass was enough evidence to convince me then that he was worthy of my praise.

Thankfully, by early afternoon I was fine to go home and on Sunday I was fighting fit again and ready for Easter morning church. I was in no way  prepared for what greeted me. Apparently, it had been announced during service on Good Friday  that I was sick and had to go to hospital. I arrived to people treating me as though I myself was the one who emerged from the empty tomb. All sorts of people in the congregation, some I barely knew, came up giving me huge hugs telling me how much  they were praying for me and how amazing it was that God had delivered me that Easter morn. I was a bit taken aback. Yes, I had to spent a night in a hospital but it wasn't as though I had a life threatening condition. Still, it was an uplifting feeling to know that if I ever did have a real emergency that there was a community there to support me. I also had to remember that compared to two days earlier, I was in remarkably good shape. I had bounced back from a challenging experience and there was a lot I had to be thankful for.

After that year, Easter grew in significance to me. I even found a greater appreciation for Good Friday. I came to love Palm Sunday too. Palm Sunday was the day of the big procession on the  Sunday before Easter. We would walk from the surrounding villages carrying palms in hand to symbolise Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. It was great from a personal perspective becomes many years I led the procession playing clarinet or saxophone and that provided me with a sense of worth. I began to see Holy Week as telling a story not so much about Jesus himself, but about the human experience. You have the Palm Sundays where everything seems to be going well, experience a setback on a Good Friday, but you overcome and celebrate your Easters at the end. That's the story of life. When you are up you have to remember that obstacles can come and you can trip or fall, but you can also take hope from the fact that however low you go you always have the hope of finding a way back up. So that's what the Easter story meant to me, the power of the 'comeback.'

So, it didn't matter to me whether Jesus actually rose from the dead bodily or not. It wasn't important. To argue over these things was to miss the point. " No Cross, No Crown" was the common phrase we would say and I firmly bought in to that. You had to experience the weight of the cross if you ever wanted to wear the crown of glory. Little did I know then, that the cross was soon going to buckle  under its own weight and that the entire structure would come crashing down.

What if Jesus didn't bother?

The first sign that the cross's centre of gravity was shifting came one Christmas. It was one of those plays that we used to put on every year. As usual, I had my designated role of music leader, which inevitably meant standing at the ready to fill in with instrumental interludes as scripted, or in emergency if somebody forgot a line or didn't arrive on stage on time.  In this year in question, the drama playing out on stage featured a typical family scene; children running around playing while putting up decorations on a tree, Daddy stumbling home slightly intoxicated after being out with 'the boys' somewhere and Mummy frantically trying to get the house prepared for the big day, sweeping vigorously and shooing everybody out of her way. At one point Mum says, " Man, I am so tired of all this Christmas work, I want to sleep, I don't think I'll bother to go to church for midnight mass." There was a dramatic pause of shock and horror and then the narrator's voice broke through, " Can't be bothered? You can't be bothered? Just imagine if Jesus couldn't be bothered to die on the cross!"

That line hit me with a jolt. "Yes, what would have happened if  Jesus didn't bother to die on the cross?" It occurred to me at that moment that it would pretty much be nothing. Not a single thing in the world that we can observe would be different without a Jesus crucifixion. That's one of the main reasons why we can't determine whether the event even happened. I mean, what changed when Jesus died or came back in his new body? The laws of physics were not altered to make natural disasters less likely. The human body continued to be susceptible to the same diseases as it was before the divine bleeding. Men and women continued to be just as prone to do evil as they ever were. No technological breakthroughs or game changing inventions came after the veil was torn in two. No social  norms shifted after Jesus was caught in the cross nails. Slaves were still slaves, women were still second class citizens. So what if Jesus didn't bother?

I had no more time to reflect on  this because it was  time to get back to playing, but I kept that thought in my mind for future reference. Something seemed a bit wrong with the cross now. It looked like it was leaning, the lines didn't seem straight but perhaps it was because I wasn't looking at things from the right angle.I would have to scrutinise it more closely later to see if anything was really askew with the doctrine.

Physical pain for spiritual gain

I pondered on this some more in coming weeks. If there was no physical impact that death on the cross made, what really had this all been for?  I recognised that if I put my thoughts beyond  the physical dimension, the cross could be seen to have achieved many things. Salvation from hell, eternal life in heaven, forgiveness of sin. These things were all well and good but we have  no way of testing  whether we actually  have any of these. Furthermore, if we do have them, we have no way of knowing whether we wouldn't have had them if Jesus didn't do his death and resurrection thing. Everything that the cross is said to have done for us is conveniently outside the realm of testability. Things were not looking good for the Jesus character now and  his cross was beginning to look more and more shaky.

Apart from the unfalsifiability problem, it didn't seem logical that an action in the physical realm would be needed in order to achieve something in the spiritual world. It would stand to reason that a physical sacrifice would lead to physical redemption, a spiritual sacrifice would lead to spiritual redemption. That would be logical wouldn't it? If I want to get an apple tree, why would I plant cherry seeds? The cross was definitely in  trouble now that I was analysing the material it consisted of in such great detail. It didn't take me long to realise that the cross was not only old and rugged as the song says, but brittle and breaking up along the edges. It  seemed it would have little chance of standing up in the face of unrelenting  logic.

I became by this time concerned about why a human sacrifice of any kind was necessary. As I said before, I knew that the resurrection itself may not have taken place as explained in the bible, but by now my issue was with whether the storyline itself made sense. It's like going to watch a movie at the cinema. You know it's fiction, but that doesn't stop you from going over the plot in your head as you leave the theatre to see if all the threads of the story hang together. If they don't, you have to conclude it was a second rate film and you certainly won't be going out of your way to recommend it to your friends.

Looking at it, the only context in which this sacrifice of Jesus could make any sense was in the Old Testament way of looking at things. In that world, shedding of innocent blood atoned for the sins of the community. In order for the story  to  hold together we would have to mentally transport ourselves back into the days we read of  in the Torah, where humans walked side by side with a temperamental  Yahweh who had a serious  burnt offering addiction. Ok, maybe that could work, I thought. No, even if I made that concession, the tale of the cross wasn't hanging together.

The problem with going on Old Testament thinking is that it went counter to the idea of the new covenant that Jesus himself is supposed to have brought. How often have we heard Christians tell us that we should ignore all of the strange rituals and practices recorded in the Old Testament because Jesus brought a new covenant? But this new covenant only makes sense if viewed from the perspective of the outdated old covenant. Now the two lines of the cross  were clearly tugging against each other, this could only lead to more disequilibrium, I thought. I was right.

If Jesus didn't die on the cross we would have to become vegetarians.

Once I put myself into Old Testament mindset, I realised the true horror of  what we would need to do if we were to ever find out that Jesus Christ didn't die on the cross. We would have to get the knives out quick and start slaughtering like crazy. Without Christ's blood that has a 'sin compensation equivalent' of infinity we would have to kill  animals from here to eternity in order to make up for what would be now more than two millennia of deficit Whether there would be a single animal left for us to eat would be doubtful. So, maybe that's the answer to the question in the Christmas play.  If Jesus didn't die on the cross, we would have to become vegetarians.  How I would love to wear that on a T- shirt and explain it to bewildered passers by.

I know this sounds like absurdity but it is what happens when you carry a ridiculous doctrine to it's logical conclusion. It is one of the most bizarre things that human beings have come up with, the idea that gods need to smell blood to be happy. I have too much respect for gods, even imaginary ones, to think that they would come up with a system like that. If you are going to insist that a physical sacrifice is needed why go to the extent of a gory death. Jesus could have just stumped his toe on a rock, and declared that through this all mankind is saved. This would be no less logical a connection to salvation than what we have from the stories in the gospels. If Jesus's blood has infinite saving power, a watch glass sample from the graze of a foot, should do the job just as well.  No need for the several pints oozing out on the cross from every conceivable orifice. The more I thought about this thing the less sense it made. The cross looked like it was really ready to topple now. How much longer could it hold up?

Sacrificing himself to himself in order to save mankind from himself

Around this time I had taken to the internet to see whether others out there found what I was beginning to see in Christianity equally illogical. This turned out to be another big blow to the cross. I came across the description of Christianity that I have now heard or seen written countless times."God sacrificed himself on to himself in order to save mankind from himself."

When I first read this I laughed. Surely this was a caricature. You can't sum up the Christian doctrine like that. But, when I deconstructed it, I found the description to be bang on. Jesus, we are taught, is God. God made the rules for salvation and created the very hell he is supposedly saving us from. The cracks in the cross were very visible now, I could see a break coming, the final crash was not far off.

By now it was becoming very hard for me to feel any pride about the cross as I saw it in its weakened state, deteriorating before my eyes. It was obvious to me now that the entire Easter story was about  God contriving a situation where he could appear to be the hero. This was not a 'comeback story.' This was the story of a man deliberately mutilating himself, then healing the wounds and making himself well again. Where  is the power in that story?  Where is the sacrifice? What had we been saved from? I was just left with a hollow feeling. I had long dismissed the story as not being literal, but where was the value in it? What was the metaphor? What was the moral within the pages of this allegory that I could take away?

Moral foundation giving way

Morals, morals, morals. That was the last thing that could perhaps save my cross. The logical threads had come apart  in  many places but surely there was a good message in the story overall, wasn't there? But I knew even as I asked this question out loud that there was no real message of love here. The God in this Christianity story was looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. I was definitely seeing a crooked cross. The more I thought about this story the more I realised that this doctrine is not about us at all, it was all about Him. Everything is set up to make Jesus look like 'the man'. It starts with the horror of the crucifixion. We have already established it was not necessary to the plot, but it's the major part of the story. Why is it there? It's all about reeling us in emotionally. It's about gaining our sympathy not our salvation. It's a sentiment that's played on unashamedly  by movie makers like Mel Gibson who make sure they let us witness every strike of the whip on his back, every drop of blood from his sweaty brow as he struggles to carry  his cross. That's right, we are supposed to feel sorry for Jesus. But it doesn't end there, we are supposed to feel guilty too. It's our fault. We are the ones that should be going through this brutalisation. Look at what we made Jesus go through all because we are wicked, worthless people, an abomination in the eyes of God just for being  human.

Then Jesus returns two days later, raises himself, and conquers death, and we are supposed to say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you to the end of our days and then for eternity after that.  Jesus conquering death?  He is God, all he was doing on that resurrection day was turning back on his super powers. Returning to God 'business as usual.' He could easily have stopped the slaughter. What does he want after all this? He wants our worship. That just didn't make sense to me, that's not what a real hero does. The moral thing to do is not to demand gratitude, just accept it if it is offered, graciously. The satisfaction of knowing that the people you helped have benefited personally or collectively should be reward in itself. Who can forget Captain Sully the pilot on the Hudson river saving those passengers. Some came back to thank him, but he was almost embarrassed about it. After that thanking, people moved on to make the most of their second chance in life without harping back too much on that day. Sully saved them from a danger we could all recognise. Still, there are no Sully churches by the river, no Sully pilgrimages being embarked on, no Sully prayers being offered up.

Jesus, on the other hand, isn't that forgiving about being left out of the "Vote of Thanks." Recognising him is more important than anything that we can do for ourselves or our fellow human beings. He will not let us move on from focusing on this cross and what HE did.

The inevitable crash

Bang!! That was it, with the moral foundation now giving way under the cross, there was nothing left to keep it standing. It came crashing down and their was simply nothing I could do. I would be lying if I said I wasn't sad to see it go. I had hung on to that Old Rugged Cross for a long time.

I have to say that losing the cross in no way means that I think everything to do with Christianity, Christians or the church is evil or immoral. I recognise that for many Christians the doctrinal things don't matter much. It has often been said that many believers treat religious doctrine and creeds as they treat computer software licenses. They just scroll down to the bottom of the page and click, " I Agree."

Most Christians are in church to have fellowship, find ways to help others in their communities and try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have recognised on numerous occasions  the contributions of churches in the arts, music, poetry and architecture. At Christmas I wrote here about how much I enjoyed embracing the myth of Christ's birth. It really and truly is just the cross that I can no longer support.

So, this year at Easter as I reflected on the once lofty cross now shattered on the ground it was hard to feel the joy that used to come with that day. Easter is no longer that great 'comeback story.' It's not to say that I am miserable  now as a result. I just go to other places for inspirational 'comeback stories.' Preferably drawing on accounts in the non fictional section.

Since my cross has fallen, I have had lots of offers from Christians to help me put it back up again. Shattered it may be, but they assure me I can still put it back together from memory. With the right people supporting me, my cross can stand up proudly once more. They might be right. I could probably reconstruct my cross if I wanted to. However, I am afraid it will topple again once the winds of logic hit it and I just don't want to waste my time or theirs.

Mixing up the steps: Why theists continue to trip themselves up

'Dancing with the Stars' www.eonline.com

It rained on the parade, but from all reports the Reason Rally in Washington DC last Saturday was a roaring success. It must have been a unique experience to be among so much rationality in one place. I have managed to catch a few clips of the presentations on youtube and it has been amazing to hear speaker after speaker stating emphatically that "the world is 14 billion years old not 6000." It was refreshing to hear such statements greeted with rousing applause from the secular masses. At the same time it was amusing to hear the statement of a simple scientific fact stirring such emotion. It's like hearing screams of delight when a physicist says that the acceleration due to gravity here on earth is 9.8 metres per second squared.

Immediately, it occurred to me what is the big difference between the many Christian mass worship events I have seen and a rally like the one last week. A religious speaker would never start off a sermon with a scientific fact. A leader in faith would start by appealing to the human desire for meaning, purpose and moral guidance and then include in some way these considerations in determining what the facts are. There is quite a contrast there.

 The secular thinker approaches life by taking two distinctly separate steps.

Step One: Investigate the world to try to determine what the facts of the reality you live in are.

Step Two:  Seek to find meaning within the reality you discovered in step one.

So for the atheist, facts come first. It's a simple two step rhythm. Fact then meaning, that's the way we groove it. This is important to remember because things are not as clear when it comes to theists.They consistently mix up these two steps. Trying to find meaning without having a clue about facts then attempting to get facts to fit the motif set up by the meaning.

If you are ever on the dance floor trying to put down some moves with a theist, you'll see what I mean. You try to set up the basis for the dance by telling them that they need to start with the right fact first. But, they will shake their head at you. They will tell you that you're too boring, too mechanical, dancing is an art not a science, it's just about feeling it. So, when you start with a fact like, the earth is 14 billion years old, or that we have reached our present state as a species through gradual evolution, they will stare at you blankly. So what? What does that mean?  Why is that important? How does that make me a better person? How does that give life value? 

This is a huge misstep on their part but they don't recognise it. They are surprised when we stare back at them just as quizzically. Meaning? Value? Purpose? We are talking about scientific facts, the first obligatory step in learning about the world around us. To try to find purpose within these brute facts is to pull us entirely in a different direction and that is where they start to stumble in their arguments even more. It may surprise you, but if we as atheists don't keep the balance in our arguments when something like this happens, we can end up flat on our faces alongside them.

Yes, before you can say 'Baila!' they are doing the slide into an argument from meaning, making you feel embarrassed for trying to fact things up. They talk about how believing in evolution and big bang, means that everything is just an accident and there is no reason to value anything in life. You are just a biological machine, molecules in motion, a chemical reaction just fizzing away into oblivion. There is just no point to anything if  you just follow science. In fact they tell you it is a mystery to them why you even bother doing anything. Why bother even learning to dance? In fact, why not just go and kill yourself?

It's at this point in the dance  that there is that awkward pause in the routine. You realise that things are already going awry with the simple 'two-step' that you had set out to do, but the music is playing and other people around are watching you. So, you have no choice but to think on your feet. You can do one of two things. You can pull your partner firmly by the hand and lead them back in to 'step one.' Tell them to stop tap dancing around the issue and stick to 'fact'.in step one whether they like it or not. This can be a risky move though. If you are dancing with a stubborn partner and they don't trust your ability to lead, this could spell trouble. They will just resist and make you look like the one who doesn't know the moves. They will insist that you need to follow them and that your resistance just confirms that you really have no idea of  'meaning.' Atheists in such situations can become frustrated and accuse their theist partner of not giving a 'fact.' Major tension can ensue and in a worse case scenario,  the tug of war can send you both crashing down to the floor in a millisecond. Once that happens, it will be very difficult to get back on your feet and neither of you will have any credibility in the eyes of the guests for the rest of the night, no matter  how much each of you tries to throw the blame on the other partner.

Another option is to go with the flow, smile and pretend that the stumbling and sliding is all part of the choreography. If your partner wants 'meaning' do 'meaning.' So instead of doing what you would prefer to be doing, which is giving the evidence to establish the 'fact' in step one you do a bit of a shuffle and spin around seamlessly into 'meaning.'

You take this opening to reveal that there is indeed meaning in the atheist position. A finite life means that every day is worth more. No ultimate judgement means we have to ensure we have as much fairness and equity as we can  in this world. The freedom from religion gives us the ability to live fulfilled lives which we can enjoy according to the things which we individually find fulfilling, rather than dancing to the beat of somebody else's drum.We can live our lives in a way that clearly benefits ourselves and others, rather than waiting for a cue from some unknowable capricious cosmic being who works in mysterious ways. How much meaning is there in a life where followers are required to bow down and worship a God every day in order to escape punishment? How much meaning is there in a  life after death where you sit around singing praises to God everyday and playing the occasional harp solo?

You smile smugly after you make these comments. There you have it. You're back in the groove, your atheistic meaning in life can match every theistic move they make. That's great, until your partner starts without warning to bring in this twist. The theist will look at you and say, " Oh, you don't want to believe in God, because you don't like the impositions he puts on you. He can't be real just because you can't understand him or don't find meaning in what he wants you to do. But who are you? You can't make God who you want him to be! God is real! Facts are facts! The truth is the truth whether you like it or not!" Wow, you suddenly realise what has happened here. Once again, it's trouble in the dance hall. Your partner has somehow stumbled from meaning back into facts again. This is what you were begging for earlier but now the timing is off, you're both way behind the beat.

Now things are really confused, you have no idea when and where things will move after this. It's 'fact' and 'meaning' meshed into an incomprehensible concoction of hand waving, head bobbing and foot stomping in all directions. It's obvious to all and sundry now that neither of you knows what is going on and you are both tripping. So, what do you do now? You have realised that you are not likely to look very good if you follow the theist lead in this dance. If you go back to speaking about the scientific factual bass of your position, they will pull you back into talking about the lack of 'meaning'  in that step. You go into 'meaning' and they will tell you that you are really an atheist out of emotion, wanting to believe something even though it has meaning only for you. They will imply that you don't really care about objective facts, which of course can only be discovered when revealed by their God. You will get very dizzy from the constant spinning and it's not likely to end well. In many cases like this, I have known atheists to just walk away. Hold up their hands, say they have had enough, gracefully walk off the dance floor and let someone else cut in. This may appear to be the honourable thing to do, but it often backfires. Your partner as well as others on the floor, will heckle you, do the 'chicken dance' in front of your face. They will tell you that you have the fancy talk but you can't handle it when the heat is on. They will take your withdrawal as an admission that theists are simply better on the dance floor than you.

Take control of your partner

You can take a more aggressive route and stick to the dance routine as you know it should be done and do some advanced 'fact' steps that you know your partner will never be able to follow. You can deliberately then show others around how poor the theist's dancing skills are and how out of step with reality they are. In all likelihood the theist will be the one to  leave you this time, letting you do your own thing in front of your friends. You may think that this is a good way out and that it is better to have your partner being the 'chicken'  than you. If you think that way, you'll  be wrong. Onlookers on the dance floor don't treat atheists and theists equally. You are likely to find a cool glass of beer splashing down on your perspiring face within seconds. Abuse being hurled at you from all directions. Your friends will call you out for embarrassing your partner who clearly was not at your skill level. They will say  that you never really wanted to have a fair dance in the first place. It was all about you, just trying to show off with your arrogant self. Just because you went to some prestigious dance academy you wanted to make a young amateur look stupid. You are a coward, who would never be up to dancing with an equal.

I won't tell you a lie. It's not easy being an atheist dancer. But if you keep a smile on your face and generally respect others around you, some of your dance moves will be copied by the crowd around you. They may not catch on right away, but you might encourage them to practice on their own at home. Before you know it, they could be dancing like you too, doing the 'fact' step first. You have to reassure them that 'fact' first doesn't mean that facts are all that matters. It's just that you have to let the meaning fit around the facts rather than the other way around. Indeed,'meaning' in step two may be more important than the 'facts' in step one.  There is certainly more style and flair associated with step two. It's meaning that gives us much of our desire to do something. For many scientists it is the drive to find out what the facts are that actually gives life the meaning. But that is not the case for everybody and we need to recognise that. For some, the meaning that comes from believing in a God will not be matched if they go the atheist route. Nonetheless, there are times when meaning comes along to surprise us. I don't think I have met any atheist who has told me that their move to atheism came as a result of looking for meaning. Most were quite happy with the meanings that they already had in theism, but they just wanted to investigate more and find truth, atheism just happened to be the result. They found eventually much joy and meaning in being godless but that all came later, well after the fact. I don't think any of us would have been able to see that joy from the other side of the theistic fence.

It is true that we are "Good Without God" and we should keep letting people know that, but let's not lead the theists into confusing the steps. We don't believe in God because of what the facts tell us, the evidence that is glaringly absent, not because we can live better lives without him. If living a life without God was miserable and depressing, we would still be atheists because for us, facts come first.

Let's hear it for the facts!

So, let's keep cheering for the facts as we did last Saturday and encourage our theist friends to do likewise, because it takes two to tango. We want them to follow or lead not because they will feel better for it, but  because we all have a basic obligation to understand as much as we can about our world in order to make the best decisions. Both on our own behalf and on behalf of others in it. It's similar to how a driver must seek to understand all the traffic laws in a country if he nor she is to avoid putting other road users at risk. Learning how to interpret traffic signs and signals is not the most exciting activity in the world but lives could very well depend on us getting these basic facts right.

So, let's keep the rallies going and inviting the theists to come dance with us on our stage, but let us never allow them to sidestep the critical issues. We must constantly remind them that when they are dancing with us they must pay close attention to our footwork, which requires that they always, yes always, lead with the facts.

The atheist's fight for survival: Can't let them define us out of existence

I can't believe that 'A' week has come back around so quickly. It seems like just the other day that I was tentatively putting my little 'A' on my facebook profile to tell the world that I no longer believe. There were many other events that went along with that which you can read about here. One year later and things have changed quite a bit. Definitely, I am more settled in my own skin but there are still times where there are remnants of guilt that I feel for speaking up against a worldview I once readily embraced. However, with every passing day things get easier.

I have to say that as much as I had anxiety when I made the decision to 'out' myself last year, I have never for one moment regretted it. I had put myself out in the open having heard many different stories of difficulties, particularly with close friends and family members. I braced myself for what I imagined would have been an onslaught of emails, messages and phone calls from friends, families and acquaintances of people expressing shock, horror, disappointment or dismay. I had practiced in front of the mirror, how I would react to the different types of responses, what I would say and how I would say it. Incredibly, no such responses ever came. No one telling me the friendship is over, no one even telling me I am going to hell. The most widespread response has been 'no response.'

It's strange, I wasn't really prepared for the silence. It's eerie, rather unsettling, because you are not quite sure what it means. Maybe, they don't care. Perhaps they are too shocked to talk. They might even agree but are too afraid to be seen doing that. Who knows? I sometimes wish they would just come right out and say something. It is interesting to me that those theists who have been engaging with me are in the main, people who I have met recently. Those for whom, I  have always been an atheist. They disagree of course but are happy to challenge and that is what I want. That is one of the big differences between living based on faith and living based on evidence. When you post something for God, you don't do it with any intention of starting a debate or discussion. You are quite happy if people just read and move on without comment. A 'click' of the 'like' button or an 'Amen' along the way and you are happy. As an evidence based person you put things up hoping that it will spark interest and you want comments, particularly dissenting comments. You want  people to disagree with you. That is how you know whether your views and arguments are sound and you help others who are on the opposite side see flaws in their argument (at least that's what's supposed to happen). However, I think our culture in the Caribbean takes over and people feel they don't want to 'rock the boat.' It's a pity.

When I look back at it, I feel as if I should have known this would happen. I blame my lack of foresight  on  spending too much time listening to religious discussions. When you immerse yourself in these, it's easy to think that everybody out there is keen to represent their beliefs and show why they think as they do. However, in reality the type of theist who will call in to 'Atheist Experience' or go out and study William Lane Craig style apologetics is rare. It's a bit of a shame. I had done all my background research, listened to online debates  with all types of theists; from the raging fundamentalists, to the mildest of agnostics. I was ready for the cosmological, ontological, teleological and other 'logical' arguments that I was sure I would have to be handling. It was like I completely over prepared for my exam. Staying up all night to study for something and then getting a super basic 15 minute multiple choice quiz in the morning. If I could understand not having a 'big deal' response here in Canada, the Caribbean was supposed to be so different, but not really. Perhaps I wasn't in Barbados long enough but the people I talked to about it, apart from this big exception here, haven't had much to say. When you think about it, it is somewhat strange. You have people strong in their convictions about their Lord and saviour, adamant that following him is crucial to the salvation of every individual on the planet. You tell them that you think they are fundamentally mistaken in this belief and that none of this stuff is true and their reply is the equivalent of, "Whatever."

When considering my  family, I have to pay special tribute to my parents. My mother in particular has come around remarkably since I first told her I was an atheist and I wrote this. While I was in Barbados I got a lot of time to explain to her how my beliefs had changed and why I made the switch. She was happy to engage in discussions and has actually now become one of my biggest fans on this blog. Dad has also enjoyed the writing  and thinks my approach to religion is healthy and is happy that I don't come across as too angry. I am glad to hear that, I want that theists can read what I write here without fear. Dad and I  share a lot in terms of our skepticism of religion, even though he remains very involved in the church. We had some very long into the night debates while I was in Barbados which I wish I had taped and could share to a wider audience. Dad tries to keep me to high standards, never afraid to point out the occasional grammatical error that may crop up in my writing here and their. I suppose dads will always be dads. I always promise him I will aim to do better with every effort and as he always tells me, when I write he is more in my corner than against me.

An atheist to us is not an atheist to them

Perhaps more than anything during the last year, I have learnt that there is quite a difference between how people define the word 'atheist.' Those who identify as agnostics I find especially interesting. Often when I get down to the nitty gritty of what they and I believe or disbelieve there is little difference if any at all. It has become quite clear to me that there is a major difference between what an atheist thinks an atheist is and what people who are not atheists think an atheist is. Essentially, it seems we atheists are defining our word in a way that nobody else in the world does.

"How can you be so sure?"
" I don't see how you can know that there isn't a God, so I call myself an agnostic."
" I can't become an atheist like you, the universe is too vast for me not to hold on to the slight possibility that there might be a God."

The first few times I got these types of  responses, I just treated them as one of those textbook atheist 'strawman' fallacies. I simply explained the usual; atheism is not a position of certainty it is just a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence, I am an agnostic as well, bla-bla-bla. I never thought it was anything major pointing this out. After all, any definition in a dictionary would tell you this. Not only that, but it is trivial to point out that  everyday in life we say that we 'know' something when in fact we don't have absolute certainty. I say that my car is parked in my garage now, because I left it there. But I really don't know that, it could have been towed, stolen or moved without my knowledge. Still, in spite of all this I don't think that people draw the parallel from this analogy  to how we define  'atheist.' They will nod and give us an " Oh I see what you mean," then go on their merry way.

You see, I don't think it matters what we say and how we explain it and how many dictionaries we show them. Theists have determined their own definition of what an atheist is and they will go with that. I have found people who have told me they are not atheists because they have no problem with religion and think that we all should be able to believe what we like and no one should be forcing belief on others. Again this is a curious response, atheism has nothing to do with attitude to religion.  I have said on numerous occasions, I still have a great fondness for many of the cultural artefacts relating to religion. The music, the art, the poetry and architecture, I still have an appreciation for those things. I find people still sometimes don't get this. They will go to great lengths to point out churches to me, hoping to rile me up. It's as if  they expect steam will start coming out of  my ears from the sight of a spire on a  tower or a cross on top off a roof. They are so disappointed when I say, " Yes, I see it and it's very beautiful."

It is clear that we have a long way to go to make atheism palatable and there are many things that need to be addressed. The first one is  this definition issue. I have heard lots of people in the secular/atheist movement claim that too much time is spent quibbling over names and what people choose to call themselves. Why do we have to make such a big deal about calling ourselves atheists? I think it is very important that we do, we have to claim the term and  more than that, define it on our own terms. It strikes me that we as atheists can become complacent in this definition game. Once the official dictionary term is in agreement with how we look at it, we feel that the battle is won, the evidence is on our side and we are on intellectually solid ground. No! Usage is what ultimately determines what words mean. Psychiatrists cringe, when people talk about schizophrenics in terms of people with a split personality. The medical books will say something quite different. It doesn't matter, meanings of words depend on  how people use them. That's why the ' just a theory' argument works so well against evolution when creationists are speaking to lay audiences. Doesn't matter what textbooks might say, it's the definition in the mind that matters. Definitions of the word 'atheist' are no different. In the minds of much of  the general public, an atheist is someone who is certain that no Gods exist.

Sometimes it is fine to let words, meanings and usages evolve naturally, but we have to be careful. In the case of atheism, I see a clear strategy at play in defining atheists as persons who are certain about the non existence of God. That categorisation virtually makes every atheist not REALLY an atheist. And that's the whole point, to wipe atheists off the map, not by some kind of coup or military operation but on a technicality, simply by defining  us out of existence. It is a subtle ploy but very effective. So successful, that even many in the secular world play into it. Non believers will regularly reject the atheist title because they are accepting the theist's definition of the word. This confusion of definitions even within our ranks creates a wedge between us, and theists often pick up our fragments that break off. It's the old adage of divide and conquer.We need to push against this, explain not only what the word means to us and what the dictionary meaning us but why the definition that they commonly use marginalises us and therefore why our definition is better. Their belief is that if they find a way to make the group called  'Atheists' an empty set, they can create the illusion that there really is no one that  believes there is no God. It creates the impression that we are all just different shades of theists with some more agnostic than others. We have to show them that to ask for certainty in order to justify the statement ' I don't believe' in a God context is an unfair double standard.  The bar is miles lower than that  for all other non beliefs in the universe. There is a song popular in Caribbean churches called " Cast your burden onto Jesus, for he cares for you." Jesus apparently cares so much that he performed a miracle on the rules of logic on behalf of his followers. He has made it permissible for believers to cast their burdens of proof unto atheists. We can't let them do it.

Not surprisingly, the faithful smile when we talk about putting away the demonic 'atheist' label and identify ourselves as humanists, freethinkers, secularists, brights, rationalists, skeptics or some other nebulous title. This is great, they would always support that.Their message is that you are free to not believe in God just as long as you don't tell us that. This allows the people in the faith world to continue living in their bubbles, convincing themselves that there is no opposing worldview. Once they can keep atheism as a fringe movement,  with the perception that we are a few angry voices yelling on the church step spitting on little old ladies as they walk in the door, their job is done.

Of course, what we hear also is that it is the word 'atheist' that is the problem. It's a harsh word that grates on the ear. It brings thoughts of communism, socialism and massacres by Hitler and Stalin. Even if we have the best intentions in our use of the word, better  for the sake of strategy to avoid it. This is an argument that I take seriously. From a personal perspective I like the word and find it empowering, however I recognise the importance of employing strategies that work and if atheist is a boulder in the road towards a secular world, I am all for tossing the 'A' word aside. This week in the US a bus ad was rejected as 'too controversial' for simply having the word " Atheists"on it. Still, I am not convinced that it is the word  itself that is the problem.

The problem I believe is the " I don't believe in God." Any word that means that is going to be rejected by the religious. So, it doesn't matter if we drop 'atheist' tomorrow and start calling ourselves 'pineapples' to show we don't believe in God. In a few years time, it would be almost impossible to get a picture of the tropical fruit on to the side of  a bus without  the vehicle being vandalised. The truth is that when people want us to change the word they mean they want a new word with a different definition. They want that there be no word in the english language that means ' a person who doesn't believe in gods.'   If  that happens, the God opposition  movement will disappear from the public square, there will be nothing left to hold the Almighty at bay. With no weapon of resistance against faith, we will be rendered impotent in the theistic battle and the Holy train will continue to steam-roll us.

If we want to have any chance of achieving the utopia of a world where people need to justify their beliefs, attitudes and decisions with evidence, logic and reasoning we have to keep fighting. Fighting for the survival of our group and OUR word.  People have told me that this is not necessary. God and evidence based living can coexist and reason can flow from faith. Some even argue that reason could not exist unless a God made it. Sorry, I can't see it. How can a foundational unchangeable belief in an entity which has no evidence to justify it give rise to a society where the need for evidence to justify ones position is at the core of all decision making? The house that results is bound to collapse on itself sooner or later.

So,  that's why I will continue to support efforts like 'A' Week. For me this year it's not an individual desire to 'come out'  to society, it's a desire to get a specific societal outcome. One where religion gets to be challenged rationally  like everything else. It seems fitting this year that 'A' Week will morph right into the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24th. It's almost like belonging to a church, going through Advent waiting for the big Christmas morning or reflecting during Lent in anticipation of that glorious Easter morn.

It makes me chuckle, I am right in the thick of it again. It's so great to know that this time reason is the reason for the season.

No Religion Know Jesus?: You can't get to heaven without a ladder

Last week I got involved in one of those facebook debates. It started with a comment I got from one of  my Christian friends, who remarked that that my promotion of  'No Religion' in my blog's title was a good one. She told me that she doesn't believe in religion either, that religion is something that separates us from God and the emphasis that churches put on ceremony and doctrine distracts people from what really matters which is knowing and accepting Jesus as their saviour. So, her clever retort to me was,"No Religion, Know Jesus!"

This type of thinking is one that I have heard often from Christians, especially those with an evangelical bent. It is most frequently framed as ' Christianity is not about a religion it is about a relationship.' I just can't believe that the persons who utter these statements think about what they are saying. Religion is defined in the Oxford dictionary as


 ' the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'

So, the belief that you have a  personal relationship with an invisible supernatural being is exactly what religion is!  Every religion I know of, encompasses some relationship between human beings and someone or something in the supernatural.  In the past I have viewed 'I don't believe in religion' as a tactic, it makes it easy for believers to separate themselves from aspects of their faith that they find repulsive, absurd or simply meaningless. They could take the good things  and call them ' things that God REALLY wants' and not be called to account for leaving out the 'religious' things they don't like.

Really! How can we come to know Jesus without religion? The story that we hear about Jesus comes from our bible, the central text of Christianity. If there was no Christianity how would anybody  know Jesus? That would be like expecting someone to come to know Luke Skywalker without ever watching anything about  'Star Wars'.

For a long time I did think that this argument that people of faith bring was not worth responding to.  It seemed that there was no way that you could realistically separate your God from the mythical story that brought him forth. However, these days I am realising just how widespread this view of religion without religion is. So, I thought I needed to address it. Having  looked closely at the arguments that I have heard from many regarding this 'not about religion' argument, this is how I  see it.

The Ladder of  Religion

Religion is like a ladder. A ladder perhaps not dissimilar to the one Jacob dreamt about. Impactful on the mind, stirring to the emotions but just as close to reality as the images that fill your brain when you nod off at night. We who grow up in religious cultures, get taught how to climb this ladder from the time we are in kindergarten.. Once we are old enough to walk, we are mature enough to start having climbing lessons. Each rung we reach out to teaches us a little bit more about the God of our culture. First it is how he created everything in the world including us. The next step is how he rewards and punishes us. Then we reach up to learn the stories that surround great men and women who have shown us what God is like. It is a lovely ascent for many people. We learn his songs along the way, then come to understand complicated rituals that pay homage to him, we learn how to worship him, we read the books he wrote and act out some of the things he experienced. All the while, we literally feel we are reaching up to God, getting ever closer to the prize in heaven. Then, along the way, something happens. Something that you just can't explain or put into words. It happens differently for every individual and it is commonly referred to as an 'experience.'

I have heard of many different 'experiences', and even had some of my own. An 'experience' is  something that you think cannot be explained in terms of  what you understand from physical and material reality. Something that resonates with the non natural world you have been discovering on your religious climb.At that moment it feels like God himself has reached down to you from heaven and raised you up off the ladder, pulling you to himself. That 'experience' tells you that you have found God and that is the point in the process where the ladder of religion becomes irrelevant. No need for ladders anymore when God is giving you the elevation. Or as one of my friends put it, 'no need to keep the scaffolding once the house is complete.' I think this is exactly what Christians mean when they say that 'Religion is man reaching out to God while Christianity is God reaching out to man.

Yes, 'experiences' of God reaching out can be very emotionally powerful. The sort of thing you never forget for the rest of your life. It could be a feeling of peace in the middle of a stressful situation. The relief of a long lost  friend coming through to help you with finances when you thought all hope was lost. The diagnosis of an 'all is normal' when the doctor told you a week earlier that your child was going to be born with a deformity. A voice that seems to come from inside you telling you to 'give it up' when you find yourself in the midst of gang life dealing with drugs, alcohol and prostitution.

These are just a few examples of 'experiences' I have heard about. There are millions more of these ranging from the trivial to the life transforming. As varied as they are, they all have one thing in common. When they come along they render the religious ladder redundant. In these moments we come to 'know' God, the God that confirms all we were learning about as we were climbing the ladder.  We believe at these points that God has taken us into his hands, he can take care of the heavy lifting now and there is no need to rely on our puny footsteps on a wobbly  little ladder to get us to the top. When God takes us in his arm he pushes the ladder away, just like how Benny Hinn pushes away the crutches of the 'healed' crippled people in those revival services.

So, as God pushes away the ladder,  he pushes away  religion. Now, the doctrines, the hymns, the recited passages, the creeds, the communion, the sacraments,  even the bible don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. You have now got a taste of the 'true' God. Understanding this process, is something that I think is vital for atheists, for me it explains a lot of the mystery. You see, in trying to convince believers in all faiths that their belief in their scriptures is misplaced, we point to things like absurdities in bible passages, contradictions within the texts, religious explanations about the world that flatly fly in the face of what the natural sciences teach us. We write blogs, produce you tube videos and  recommend books that speak to these things, but none of this makes a difference to the believer that has had an 'experience.' Pointing out the rotting wood or showing them all the loose rungs that are about to fall to the ground mean nothing  after they have left the ladder behind.

They will humour us by indulging in debates and discussions on aspects of philosophy, logical fallacies, hermeneutics and the scientific method but it's just a 'what if' game for them. They 'know' God already, so what if you can use logic to prove he isn't there? It's all a bit of a joke. It's like someone bringing a watertight argument to me, that proves that I don't exist. That's what I think they mean when they say it's not about religion, they mean it's not about that ladder, those initial steps they took to try to find God, it is about the God that found  them, the one they have experienced first hand. The one they truly have a relationship with.

The interesting thing is that even though the religion ladder is pushed aside, it's not as if it's thrown away.  It is maintained as a relic, a heirloom that represents that relationship they now have. The ladder becomes sacred more for what it stood for than for the level of support it gave.  That is why so many Christians display their bibles proudly on book cases without ever cracking them open to read a verse. It's the book that's holy, not necessarily the stuff inside it. It's no longer a simple story collection with talking animals, global floods and ritual killings. With your revealed saviour, you can leave the old stories in the Garden of Eden and start out on  your 'cherry picking' walk with Jesus. You have met a God that's loving so you can discard anything people tell you about a vengeful, wrathful tyrant described in the bible. Direct experience must always win over second hand  accounts. You are left in a bit of a conundrum because you still think what that book says is true and was written by God, because the God you ultimately found was recognisable because his characteristics squared with the descriptions you found within the book he wrote. But, the thing to remember is that you have a direct relationship with the one who understands all. Surely he can explain it and  will one day if he feels its necessary. If he never does, it's not a big problem, these little annoying things that detractors bring up are mere religious quibbles, like workmen arguing over who has the strongest ladder.

Still, I would advise my christian friends that try to down play the importance of the religious ladder to think again. They would never have been able to identify their saviour unless their religion had told them who to look for,  the ladder had to be there, leaning them in the right direction. There is just no way to know Jesus unless you know about his religion first. Strangely enough, nobody finds Jesus who has never heard of him. It's true, no God can find you unless you are some point on the ladder that reaches up to him.  While climbing, you may have stopped due to fatigue or even  have turned to scurry  back down thinking its not worth it, but once you have stepped out on to a  rung of a religion, its God is liable to swoop down at some point and pick you up. Of course, for every God in history, there is a ladder made by humans to reach him. It appears most of these man made ladders lead to man made Gods. Some say, all except one. I see no reason not to kick down the last one standing, but that is a topic for a different day.

So, I am sticking to my guns. " No Religion, Know Reason!" and  "No Religion, No Jesus.!"

Also, now I have given it more thought, I have to apologise to Jacob. He may have been a dreamer but he was absolutely right. You do need a ladder to get  to heaven.