Atheist among the faithful: My latest church experience

Yes, Sunday before last, I broke the cycle. For the first time in 2012, I went to church. Not since May last year, had I 'darkened a church door,' as we would say in Barbados. Indeed it was when I was in Barbados last year that I last attended any kind of mass. On that occasion it was Mother's Day and as a concession to my mum I went with her that  morning. She really appreciated it and it was special for the fact that living in Canada now I don't get to spend much time with her so at least we shared that moment. I was glad to oblige her and had no problem putting aside the theological differences that morning.

The circumstances on Sunday last week, were entirely different. There was no overriding sentiment to cause me to go. It all came out of a brief discussion I had with friend of  mine from Ghana. She asked me out of the blue, whether going to church is something I do. I said I didn't go to church and she immediately asked me why. I told her plainly, that I didn't believe that any gods exist and didn't see what would be the sense of going to church to worship a being that I didn't believe was there.

" You don't believe in God?" was her startled reply. "We have to do something about that," she added. I revealed that I used to believe, but that things had changed.

"What happened?" she asked. I can't remember my exact words in reply but it would amount to something along the lines of 'thinking happened.' I could see she was convinced that she needed to fix me and fast. It was as if she was a nurse in 'Accident and Emergency' and I had just arrived with blood oozing from a bullet wound on my chest. All her other patients had to be put aside and she had to get me straight on to the operating table. According to her diagnosis, what I needed was to have something 'experiential.' I have heard this talk from theists before and I can never understand what they mean by it . I have experiences everyday. I can't for the life of me figure out what it means to have an experiential experience. Anyway that's what I was missing. She asked me if I had ever been a Pentecostal. I told her I was never one but I had visited all types of churches. She was convinced that hers was different. If I visited her church my mind would be changed.


She was in a hurry but it was clear she was perturbed. Still in "Accident and Emergency" mode she said to me,
"I will pick you up on Sunday morning and I will show you what my church is like, after that we can have a conversation, something will happen, either I will win you or you will win me, but I think that I will win you."

I just smiled, this was desperation. She did not even know where I lived at that point , but she had my number and promised to call. She was determined to get me from wherever I was into the house of the Lord so that Jesus could operate and give me that brand new experiential feeling. I didn't say much, but I did indicate that I would have no problem visiting her church 'one of these days.' After all, it is not that I ever made a pact that I would never enter a church again and I was not averse to going somewhere where I could perhaps learn something new about faith and how people experience it and express it. This blog is of course about faith and atheism and in order to adequately critique and discuss the subject of faith you have to sometimes go out of the way to observe it.

Yet, I was not sure I wanted to take her up on her offer right away, but I thought of it some more during the week and concluded that perhaps I should just bite the bullet and go on Sunday. There were a number of things that convinced me. Firstly, I reflected that it had been a long time since I went to church. May 2011, meant 15 months without and kind of exposure to faith. Since, in the interim I hadn't gone to any weddings or funerals either, it really had been a complete removal from any semblance of superstitious ritual.

In the time intervening, a lot had happened in respect to my life as an atheist. I had been to New York and  hung out with the New York City Atheists and some members of the Black Atheists of America and met some Caribbean atheists in person. I had many discussions about atheism with friends and strangers alike from places as diverse as in flight cabins, university corridors, restaurants, computer work stations and more. I had been to a Darwin Day party and sang a carol dedicated to fossils and finches. I had celebrated Christmas by going to a bar with fellow heathens, toasting to celebrate the life of Christopher Hitchens. I had been to talks and heard the likes of James Randi, Daniel Dennett and Lawrence Krauss. To top it all off, I had been to my first ever atheist conference, the Imagine No Religion 2 where I spent the weekend with nearly 300 fellow non believers.

If all that was not enough, I have had continuing exchanges over the internet in one form or another trying to explain and defend the atheist position to all types of theists out there.  I had even called into a Christian TV broadcast to tell them about my atheism and why I didn't believe like them. I have also continued to meet atheist contacts that have kept me challenged . I  have also remained dedicated to trying to make something come out of the Caribbean atheists' attempt to make secularism happen in the islands.

Of course in all this I have remained in the blogging world, anxious to add my voice to the growing secular choir out there. These activities have shown me , that I am so much more than just a passing atheist these days. The last time I went to church, being an atheist, at least an open atheist was still raw. I still felt a degree of discomfort, a kind of a wince inside when I mentioned to people that I was an atheist or that I didn't believe in God.

Fast forward a year down the road and things are far different. The experiences I have had since have definitely ' toughened me up' so to speak. I no longer have that level of unease in expressing myself as an atheist, in fact it is something I express now with a great deal of pride. I have no longer any worries about who finds out and what they will think about it. It really is a feeling of complete freedom in that sense.

So, I realised I was a different atheist from the one that last entered a church, one far more confident, and far more committed to the cause than even just a year ago. I thought it would therefore be well worth seeing how my emotions would be now compared to before. I became excited about doing this as an experiment. A kind of ethnographic, active participant research. Because as much as I had an idea of how I would feel and what I would think, I really couldn't be sure. Would the irrationality make me angry? Would I feel sad to see the delusion? Would the nostalgia of  the past still be there?

The scientist in me took over. I just had to do this, I needed this data so I could write up a robust case study that would have the weight of empiricism behind it. So when, my Ghanian friend called me on Saturday to ask if I was up to going to Sunday morning church, I agreed without hesitation.

It was a little awkward on the drive to church, in that there were two other people in the car who were travelling with the one who had invited me. I had no idea what she had told them about me and the reasons why she had invited me to church, I did not have a clue whether they knew I was a non believer or not. We exchanged pleasantries and it wasn't long before the conversation between them got animated and they began to speak in twi (pronounced chee). Twi is one of the main languages spoken in Ghana. Of course once they switched to their mother tongue, I had no idea what they were saying,. I supposed it was almost psychological for them to fall into their natural language. I did after all look like them and I think that made it easy for them to actually forget that my heritage and origin was quite different. Occasionally one of them would realise that they slipped out of English and they would apologise to me and try to fill me in on what I had missed. I told them that I didn't mind them speaking in their language, and that they should just speak in the way they felt comfortable. I am sure they thought I was just trying to be nice to them by not complaining, but I was actually being truthful.

It's not easy to admit it, but I really wasn't interested in talking much that morning. I wanted to be able to just sit and reflect on the experience and the emotions. This was a fact finding mission. For me today was all about observation and taking mental notes. It was not about engaging and interacting, not about socialising or making friends. I went in to this with a specific game plan and I knew I had to stick to it. I had given the lady who had invited me my word that I would go to church, to observe her worship so that when I spoke to her later about her beliefs I would have a context to refer to. I was trying to make sure there were no 'strawmen' in any of our future debates. I told myself over and over again that I was there only to take in things, that was all. This was difficult, because I am by nature someone who likes to chat with people and engage in discussion and share with others. But, I knew that was a strategy fraught with danger on this particular day.

Dealing with religious people, especially in their own habitat takes careful planning. I look at as a game of chess, one where you must always be aware what they are thinking and what their strategy will be even as you are crafting out your own. Sure, I had made it clear that this was just one Sunday that I was going to go to church and that I was interested only in terms of seeing what their service was like, but that was not how the church people would see it. For them. it would be the old 'foot in the door' technique that marketers know so well.

Once I was among the faithful, they would use all the emotional pulling and tugging to try to convince me that I needed to come back 'home' and continue worshipping with them. The fact that I was at church, would be evidence that they would use to convince themselves they were winning. This was their chance to show me that God was calling me back and the fact that I had agreed to come that one day was proof that I knew it too and it would be ridiculous of me to deny the obvious. I knew that the more I talked to people and got to know them, the more I would feel comfortable being among them. The more I would feel inclined to come back another day to get to know them better, or just say hello. Similarly, they would want to see me again too and would invariably invite me to be a part of things, then it would be back to a situation where I would be torn because I appreciated the people but despised their doctrine. I would have to either cut off the people by virtue of the rejection of their core beliefs, which would seem cold and heartless or I would be forced to continue to engage with them  through the church in order to preserve friendships and not come across as anti social.  There was no way I was ever going to do the latter. I had been down that road in the past and was not going to repeat that mistake.

No, I knew there was no way I was going to be getting myself involved in any kind of faith group again. I had gone through too much to find my fulfilling life of reason to just toss it away because of a little' feel good in my soul.' I knew that but of course, they didn't. I just didn't want to lead them on by seeming as though I wanted to be a great friend and then disappoint them or make them angry by telling them I wasn't interested in their God. For people like this, to love them is to love their God, simple as that. I know it sounds strange, but my reasons for being a bit aloof that morning was to protect them as much as it was to protect me. So when Twi, became the language of choice, it was like a 'God send' for me, I could sit in silence and mull things over in my mind without  making those around me think I was giving them the cold shoulder.

The church itself was more modest than I expected. Not even a separate building. It was filled with people though, ladies in extravagant multi coloured dresses with  vibrant  reds, yellows, greens, purples and blues. Some of the men were also full of colour and in traditional African dress. I had forgotten how when it comes to African and Caribbean culture, church is so much about fashion. Doesn't matter if you are nineteen or ninety, Sunday is the dress to the 'nines' day. I walked in, once again sticking to my game plan of not saying much. Still, I was determined not to be unfriendly to anyone. I smiled at everyone I met and said "Hello" or "Good morning" with all the zeal I could muster. But I kept the time of interaction short and to the point.
 "My name is David, pleased to meet you!" If they said " God Bless you." I thanked them and then went  on my way.

When we arrived the service was going on but people were still mulling around outside. It really was a bit like being at a party 'liming.' That's what it would have felt like too, if it wasn't that the sun was blazing down in all its glory. We were a bit late and that meant we could take our seats at the back of the church. I was happy for this too. It meant I could watch and listen and not be conspicuous. If I had cause to roll my eyes or shake my head I would be somewhat out of view and hopefully would be able to disguise things successfully.

As I took my seat a group of three took the stage. I say stage, because that is what it was. There was nothing particularly to tell you that you were in a church. No cross, no altar,  no fancy floral arrangements, they weren't even any windows stained  or otherwise, the place was quite bare, but the colour and vibrancy of the people seemed to make up for this so much that you hardly even noticed it. What the hall did have was a  projector in the roof and a power point presentation which was obviously loaded and ready to run. The song on the screen was showing so we could sing along

 " Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh, He shall reign, He shall reign, for ever he shall reign."

This was on the projection and I almost wondered why it was necessary. That was all the song had by way of lyrics. It was just repeat and recycle after that. Some people raised their hands in the air as they sang, apparently pleading with Yahweh to come down and make an appearance. " We worship you, we thank you!", they uttered along as they sang. They were obviously overcome with all that their Yahweh had done and clearly happy that he was their king. I, on the other hand was disturbed. Nowadays I can understand why you may want to worship God. The generic higher power that provides for you and that you think protects you. I can even understand how you might want to worship Jesus. But Yahweh? Worship Yahweh? How on earth can you stand up with a straight face and say that we should be grateful to the love of Yahweh? Yahweh, is specifically the God of the Old Testament. Yahweh is not just another name for God as Christians like to say. This is the Yahweh, that likes the smell of burning flesh and demands it from his followers, the one that flooded the earth, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, had Abraham on the verge of killing his son, and massacred with abandon.

His record is so bad, that most Christians today have given up trying to defend him now, merely saying that they have upgraded to the New Covenant and all that barbarism is null and void now. Yet, still this group at least, consider it is still appropriate today to lift up the name of that  Old Testament God. It caused me to remember that just  a couple weeks back I had a similar reaction when I heard a singer in Barbados taking part in the local Party Monarch competition with a song called " Worship Yahweh!" The commentator on the radio referred to it as a song with a very important message. I wanted to push my hand down through the wifi signal and shake him. I tell you, Yahweh is alive and well in 2012.

The song continued, I am always worried at services where choruses are being sung and lyrics are few. A hymn with five or six versus may seem daunting at first, but at least you know when it's done it's done. But these choruses, not so. What these songs lack for in length, they make up for in repetitions. The Africans I find are especially skilled at drawing these kind of choruses out. Runners from Ethiopia and Kenya  are known for their ability to just keep running and running. It seems that the entire continent has similar stamina when it comes to these marathon choruses. I remember three years ago playing keyboard for an African church service where one particular two line song went on for 45 minutes unbroken.

So, I had to find a way to pass the time as others around m me were feeling the spirit . Suddenly, I thought of the Yahweh form the Non Stamp Collector and Dark Matter videos. The one who bumbles around incompetently as he tries to make something of his creations. The deity who cries like a petulant child when he doesn't get what he wants. If you are not familiar with these two gentlemen's videos, I highly recommend them. The humour is just great. And thinking of them just kept me smiling right through that chorus. I am sure my christian friends around me thought I was already feeling the Spirit.

Stay away from foolish non believers

Soon it was time for the sermon. This is of course the main event in any church and people settled in to hear the Word. The preacher started by giving a recap, apparently there were services during the week, because the pastor spoke about what they had learnt on Monday and then went down the line right up to Saturday. My ears picked up when he reached Wednesday . The topic for that evening was labelled  'Unwise Associations.' That day they had discussed with the attendees what types of people believers should avoid. The answer according to the Pastor was quite simple, 'Ungodly people.'

Yes, these type of people were unwise associations. He told us that WE believers were to make sure that we stayed away from people like that. We had to avoid them because they were fools. "What is the definition of  a fool?" The pastor put this rhetorical question to the congregation. Then he provided his own answer. " A fool is anyone who does not live in fear of the Lord." He repeated this for emphasis, as the congregation resonated with Amens. No prizes for guessing what were the next words out of the pastor's mouth. That passage that all of us atheists know so well, " The fool says in his heart there is no God!"  I was so sure that this verse was coming, that without even thinking I said the words out loud along with him,  smiling ruefully while shaking my head in disbelief. I don't know if anyone saw me doing this, but I didn't really care at that point.

Well, well, well. I couldn't have scripted it any better. Less than ten minutes into the talk by the priest and I had already been told that I needed to separate myself  from people like myself. I wondered how I could pull off something like that. Would probably need to ask Jesus, he was the one who separated himself from himself in order to sacrifice himself  to himself. Well at least I was in the right place to get help with this, I thought to myself.

After I finished laughing at the irony, I began to think of many of my atheists friends who would not have found any of this funny at all. I believe there are a few who if they had been there would simply have got up from their seat, turned and walked out never to look back. I suppose you could understand that sort of reaction. But I wasn't about any of that kind of drama that morning. As I said, the gameplan was just to watch, listen and observe, so I settled back down and continued to follow what was going on.

Pastors come fourth in stress

The sermon for the day was about how to deal with stress. We were informed that Christians suffered from a lot of stress, maybe more so than the non believers out there. The pastor started by quoting from a study he said he saw on CNN where they said that 'Pastor' was the fourth on the list of the most stressful jobs in the world. Only behind country presidents, heads of universities and sports coaches of elite teams. He seemed to revel in being compared in this class. I think it was also his way of telling the congregation that they needed to take special care of him, because of his huge burden. I am sure they will oblige.

After that the pastor went into a lesson that would not have been out of place at a university. He spoke of the chemicals the body releases as a result of stress and how that affected the brain chemistry. He spoke of adrenaline and cortisol and the role that these play in the body. He spoke of the good stress and the bad stress. The way that good stress could actually motivate action and help us to perform at our ultimate level. That type of stress was what was at work in the starting blocks of the Olympics 100m final and led people like Usain Bolt to break records.

To be honest, I was quite impressed with this aspect of the talk, it was filled with good science, it was factual and educational and I am sure that many would have learnt from it. I did, myself. He went on to speak of practical ways that one could reduce this level of stress. By resting more, delegating things to others and trying to be positive and have a 'merry heart.' His advice was simply that when you are happy your body doesn't produce the chemicals that will stress you out. Again nothing wrong with that message either. These are good things for you to remember regardless of your religious perspective. That was the whole point I was thinking during this. This is all true and useful, but what in the world did it have to do with God, or Jesus or salvation or anything in Christian doctrine?

Well, the pastor knew that would be what his congregation would be asking and tied back things to the bible   through some arbitrary verses. He picked a passage that said that Christians needed to have  a merry heart to suggest that what science had figured out was merely a carry on from what the bible said. Of course the congregation lapped it up. We have to be happy and the only way to be happy is to be happy in Jesus.  So,

more Jesus= more happy
more happy= less stress 
Therefore more Jesus= less stress

The equation was as simple as that.

Open ye gates!

He also very memorably went to the Book of ' Songs of Solomon.' I knew I had to pay attention there. It's not very often I have heard priests go towards that book for Sunday morning services. It is  not a very 'G' rated part of the bible. He spoke about stressful marriages and quoting from a particular verse in 'Songs of Solomon' spoke of  wives who  refused to 'open their gates' to their husbands.According to him some women had their gates locked from in front and behind and this was part of the problem with stressful marriages. Women, he said should not engage in doing this. There was one solitary but loud " Amen" that came booming from a mature guy sitting right act the back of the church. That sent the entire congregation into uproar. It was good to see stress was definitely being released in this house.

Soon after, the pastor wrapped up the sermon and I have to say that by and large I enjoyed it. He then said the words, " Now it is time for prayer." With that, a total transformation seemed to come over the building. What was minutes before a very cerebral lecture on cortisol, neurons and brain chemistry changed into an all out appeal to the supernatural. It was like when you are in a plane and the pilot tells you to put away everything in preparation for landing. Here, when the pastor said it was time to pray, it was as if he was telling all passengers to turn off all intellect and thinking devices in preparation for an abrupt descent into dogma.

People suddenly started mumbling and groaning, hands became outstretched in front of bodies and the pastor asked the congregation to speak to Jesus now, so he could transform the body. It was so incongruous to me. Where had all the science reasoning and evidence gone? The body that depended solely on the chemical balance to perform its functions. Suddenly none of that was relevant, all that was needed was for you to appeal to Jesus and he would come down and heal you. No questions asked.

It got more intense, one lady I saw actually went to the wall and pressed her entire body up against it, burying here head in the concrete, hands outstretched like if the police had her under arrest and told her to " spread it!" I have to admit I was a bit alarmed to see this and almost wondered if she was unwell, but then I remembered the context of where I was and breathed a bit more easily.

I just stood there as the volume in the church increased. Everybody was talking at the same time, completely independent of one another. Some of it was recognisable. English expressions like  "Hallelujah! Thank you Jesus! Praise your name on high!" Some of it I think was in the local twi language and then there was that other language. The one that sounds like gibberish to most of us, but  which believers of certain stripes refer to as speaking in tongues. Yes, that was definitely in there and becoming more and more prominent with each passing second. I wondered how any of these people could hear themselves think above such a cacophony, but  what they were doing seemed to come  naturally. I also wondered where this spiritual build up had come from. It's not as if the pastor had spent the last hour talking about the love of Jesus. He had basically just given a biology class. This was quite an extraordinary reaction. It would be like if after a lecture at university people suddenly got up and started walking around and mumbling in a trance with their eyes closed.

And through all this, I just stood there, staring blankly, there was nothing I could do but just wait this one out.   In the midst of this melee I was the only one  that appeared to be silent. It was an eerie feeling indeed. At the end of this the pastor asked if there was anyone who wanted to come forward for a special anointing or blessing. Surprisingly, no one went forward. Perhaps they were all already filled with the spirit enough for one morning.

Then came my moment of  truth. The pastor asked if there were any visitors to service. Of course as chance would have it, I was the only one. I stood up and introduced myself and told him who had invited me. He welcomed me with the words ,

" David,  remember you must always make yourself useful and available to the Lord."  

I gave a half nod and sat back down quickly. I had to, before things got any worse. Apart from imagining the amount of coffee that would have been spurting out of noses if any of my atheists friends were there, I remember thinking that he was quite bold to tell me what he did. He knew nothing about my beliefs, background or views on such things. How could he just presume to tell me the philosophy I needed to live by? Of course, I was in his domain and was obliged to just listen to it and take it without a hint of dissent. Just as I had to sit down earlier and listen to the congregation being told they should stay away from people like me. This is the type of privilege that church and religious organisations enjoy in our society. When you are in their territory, you have to be quiet, let them say whatever they want to. You have to endure. Any reply or remark to challenge anything they say would be considered rude and terribly out of place. But there is no other institution which enjoys such protection.

Religious people have turned up to secular events we have put on at Centre for Inquiry (CFI) many times. They listen to what we have to say, but they can get up at the appropriate time and state their disagreement. They can proclaim  their God as much as they want. I am not saying they won't be ridiculed if they say something ludicrous, but they always get the chance to be heard and it often adds to the presentation because the audience gets to hear opposing perspectives and judge for themselves which side has the stronger argument. But church is not like that. No church I have ever been to is like that. It was interesting that only on this day did it occur to me so clearly what a huge problem this was. In a sense, that lack of dialogue is even worse than the irrationality of the beliefs being promoted. Irrational or absurd ideas can be weeded out by having  a good system for evaluating them. But in an institution where dissent is synonymous with disrespect, all bad ideas will take root and it won't be long before they become impossible to dislodge.

I don't know when it happened exactly, but when I sat down I found a pen in my right hand and a membership card in my left. It was either stealth work by an usher, or a miracle from God.  I looked at it and decided to leave my contact information, nothing wrong with that. I noticed that there was a question asking whether I wanted to become a member of the church. Curiously there was a box labelled 'Yes' but I looked up, down, back and front but could not find a box with 'No.'  Don't think I had ever seen that before. A questionnaire with 'YES' and no 'NO.' I laughed once again, no need to guess what your answer is supposed to be. I just left that part blank and handed it back to the usher.

Party time!

Well it was time for a change once again, back to singing choruses. I can't tell you what these choruses were about as they were not in English. Probably just as well. No lyrics to annoy or frustrate me. What I can tell you is the drums and percussion just started to go wild and the people, especially the ladies erupted in  joyous dancing. This time they went up to the space in the front of the church, one behind the other in a circle 'jamming' like carnival in Trinidad or Kadooment Day in Barbados. One or two of  the women who had worn to church colourful scarves around their neck or on their heads, took them off and started to wave them like flags in the air. It really reminded me of a Caribbean party atmosphere.

My Barbadian readers will understand me when I say I didn't quite see any 6:30s but there was definitely 'pooching back.' I actually moved a bit to the music myself. It was fun, and I didn't want to stick out like a sore thumb. The pastor by this time was leading the band like a Machel Montano or Lil Rick. He was in Party Monarch mode now. Signalling to the masses to move to the left or the right, finger pointing to the sky as he gyrated.When I saw him it reminded me of the calypso competitions we have in the Caribbean, where the contestant normally has two songs. The serious social commentary to make people sit and listen and then the second half uptempo offering to work the audience into a frenzy and start the bacchanal. This was what the pastor had going for him here. He would have scored highly in both halves of the competition.

I realised the service had basically ended. No special benediction, just basically dancing your way out happily leaving your collection in the offering plate on the way. I have often said I have been to churches where many parts of the liturgy are omitted. However, I have never been to a church where they left out collection. This morning was no exception. When the room was about half full, the pastor went up and said.
"So great to see you all enjoying yourself to the fullest, making full use of these  LAST days." That sentence really made me jump. What a way to kill a party.

Anyway, I had made it to the end of the service, that was a relief in itself. All in all it really wasn't that painful. I got many enthusiastic responses from people who were happy I was there. I told them I had enjoyed the service. I really had. All in all there was more positive than negative, albeit that the few negatives were still quite hard to look beyond. What was clear though was that they wanted me to be back. One guy introduced himself and said,

" You will be coming here every Sunday morning from now on. I am not asking you, I am telling you. And next time you will be bringing your whole family as well."

I was speechless, this was the general sentiment I was getting, but just as I had done earlier, I kept the conversations brief.  Sometimes I let it slip and said I didn't expect to be back. This seem to shock them a bit.  They couldn't reconcile the fact that I enjoyed myself and yet was so averse to returning. This is the thing that I think is hard for some believes to understand. Enjoying an event and subscribing to the belief being propagated at that event are too entirely different things. I had no intention of going into the details of why I would be unable to join them long term. I just hoped that they would understand, but I don't think they did.

On my way out of the church, the person who invited me to the church introduced me to the pastor, as the congregation was still milling around. Then she unleashed a comment that I was definitely not prepared for at that moment.

"This is my friend from university, I invited him to church because he says he doesn't believe in God!"

Wow! What a time to come clean with her motive. The pastor seemed a bit taken aback too. He took out his smart phone to type, looking like he was going to write me a prescription. It was as if I was back in " Accident and Emergency"  again and he was once again hoping to give me a dose of that elusive 'experiential' thing. I tried to look down and not make eye contact with others around in the aftermath of the comment about me not believing in God. I am sure many of them must have heard what was said.

The pastor eventually found his voice and said to my friend "Oh, we have a lot of work to do."

I said nothing. The pastor asked me for my details and promised that he would invite me to his house for dinner one day and we will sit down and have a discussion about faith and belief. That would be great, then I would be on fairer turf and could say the things that I wanted. He seemed also to be relishing the thought of a one on one with me.

" The first thing you will have to do is give me reasons for why you think there is no God, you must give evidence for for why you don't believe!"

I hung my head trying desperately not to facepalm, and resisting the urge to give him the burden of proof argument right then and there. However, somehow I was able to stop myself from bringing up Zeus, Mohammad or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I shook his hand and told him politely, that I thought this was neither the time nor the place to carry on a conversation like this. I was in a bit of shock though,couldn't believe we hadn't even started to talk yet and he had already notched up his first logical fallacy.

What was even more amazing was that I was sure that the pastor thought he had me stumped with that sentence. Believing, I would now be scared of the other master arguments he would come with next time we met. There was no doubt in his mind that he would bring me back into the fold. He assured the one who took me to church that he would take it from here. He would lead me to truth. The truth of Jesus Christ. This is what being in the religion bubble does to you. It gives you a level of confidence that is totally unfounded, all stemming from the fact that you are operating in an institution where what you deliver is never ever challenged.

Christians see no problem with the 'no challenge'  model when it comes to their faith. No need for discussion or debate, because their faith is clearly the truth. Yes, for a devout believer, truth is that which can't be challenged. In my view they have it quite wrong. Anything which can't be challenged, almost certainly can't be truth.

Bolt or Blake for Olympic gold?: Speed not important in deciding who to back

'Tis the season! The one that comes by once a four years, where some chosen few whose training behaviour has been good, will see officials come bearing them gifts of gold, silver and bronze. It's that global festival called the Olympic Games. And unlike the more common ones like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and  Independence it is free of faith controversy. Not to say that we don't see images of religion on show, there were enough hymns during the Opening Ceremony to make me feel I was in St. Paul's Cathedral, but at least we secularists are not being accused of starting a 'war' on this particular historical celebration.  Thankfully there are no religious fanatics saying that we have lost the true meaning of the Olympics and need to get back to paying homage to the gods that live on top of Mount Olympus. It's a relief to be able to watch the games online or on television without having believers telling me that I have no right to be enjoying the spectacle when I have not accepted Zeus as my personal Lord and saviour.

Celebration of science, nature and human evolution

Yes, the Olympics is at least one party that the atheist can feel completely a part of. It's a chance to sit back and marvel at the super natural rather than the supernatural. Olympic sports are indeed a true demonstration of the beauty of science. The laws of gravity, angular momentum, centripetal and centrifugal forces are on show in every dive off the platform, somersault in gymnastics or hurl of the discus. Water currents are critical in the whitewater rowing, wind resistance when sprinting or doing a sport like archery. We see biology in how our physiology has evolved over time to make our bodies able to perform tasks that were once necessary to our basic survival. Being able to run fast to escape a predator,  fight to overcome a rival from another tribe, lift heavy objects to construct a place to live or throw a spear to kill an animal for food. To a large extent the games remind us what it is to be a basic human, trying to adapt and survive in our natural habitat.

Some of my friends in faith will no doubt tell me that the Olympics is also about 'spirit.' Digging deep to produce what you could never achieve with body and mind alone. Maybe, but I like to think of this 'spirit' as unlocking the potential which the body always had but the mind up until that moment didn't think was possible. It's not that there's a special non natural entity that makes the body do what the body really can't do.

If God, as many people think, is one who intervenes in nature, it is a miracle that the Olympics actually works at all. All the athletes in training or preparing for an event rely on the consistency of natural laws. They assume that if they toss a ball in the air it will take the trajectory that is predicted by Newton's Laws.They expect that there will be no trans dimensional being looking on that will throw things off a bit to favour the one that believes in him a little more strongly.  During the Olympics, athletes from every nation appear to have complete faith that God will not interfere with anything during their events. It seems that they are quite sure that whatever God they believe in will simply standby and let nature prevail.

Fans of the various events, regardless of their views on faith also appear to have no worries of spiritual interference. I have talked to a few of my Christian friends about their predictions of what will happen in London. Likely winners and losers and who will carry away the lion share of medals. Strangely enough, the belief system of the athletes never factors in. No one ever says that it depends on who prays more on the day, who has the right interpretation of theology or who has been washed in the blood.  But if God exists and cares how we worship and serve him and will punish and reward accordingly, these factors should at least matter a bit in the final analysis.

No, curiously this God factor never makes it to the discussion table. It's all about who is better prepared, who is in the best physical condition, who is stronger mentally or who is a better tactician. Of course the spirituality factor always comes in afterwards. God in his wisdom works retroactively, arriving after the fact is his trademark. So you will often hear the statement, " I prayed to God and that's definitely why I won" but almost never the statement, " I prayed to God and that's why I definitely will win."

Some Christians will hear athletes thanking God and tell me that it's foolishness.They will say flat out that God isn't interested in sports. He may like to watch but he doesn't care who wins. God has no favourite team. They will tell me that sports is actually too trivial for God to worry about anyway. Games are just something that we humans build up to be important, but they don't ultimately matter. God has bigger fish to fry, so to speak. I suppose they have a point. Perhaps he has  more critical things to do like ensuring that every human being gets at least one meal everyday, that there is no abuse of people based on gender or race, that epidemics don't ravage poor communities, or that earthquakes don't destroy cities. OK, forget that argument. On second thought, maybe Christians should stick to the idea of  a God of the games. At least the sporting God ensures that somebody comes out a winner.

The idea of a God that keeps entirely out of sports, I think would be an unfair God anyway. Why should people who dedicate their lives to be the best they can be in a discipline be singled out to be ignored? That would be almost as bad as the amputees that get snubbed everyday. It's strange also because athletes are some of the most religious people around, many with strong faith convictions. If God does not care about sports that means he has never answered a single one of their prayers to help them improve their performance . Who among people among faith would ever argue that God has never helped an athlete become a winner in the sport he or she has dedicated their entire life to? But that is the only logical conclusion we could come to if God is only a spectator when it comes to sports.

Well, I won't dwell on that anymore. The track and field starts today and I want my Caribbean friends to all focus on the competition. The showdown between Bolt and Blake, and Campbell and Frasier Price of Jamaica, Kirani James of Grenada, Bailey of Antigua,  Kim Collins the evergreen from St. Kitts Nevis,  the Trinidad male sprint relay and the depth of the Bahamas squad. Even dare I say it, Barbadian Ryan Brathwaite trying to make a comeback in the hurdles. The Caribbean has a lot to look forward to in these games and in spite of my criticisms of the region at times when it comes to the role of faith, there is no doubt that when it comes to sprinting our islands are not just on track but  proudly leading the way. I will certainly be screaming my lungs out for the region over the next week. Maybe this will be truly our time, I mean even our cricket results have been looking up recently.

Blake versus Bolt: The clash of the games

So, let the games begin! The swimming, gymnastics, rowing, diving and volleyball are all well and good, but we are now about to get out of the starting blocks for the REAL Olympics.  From a Jamaica, Caribbean and world perspective, much  has been made of the rivalry between Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake. This dual is certainly a mouth watering prospect. It's remarkable that just three years ago, it was inconceivable that Usain Bolt could have a rival. Back in 2009, the only dual on the track in the men's sprints was between Bolt at the clock and the clock was usually second best.

The first sign of Bolt's vulnerability was at the World Championships last year where he was dramatically eliminated from the final by a false start. That opened the door for Yohan Blake to take the gold and he has really not looked back since. He came frighteningly close to Bolt's world record in the 200 metres just weeks later. The indication that Yohan Blake "The Beast" meant business came in the Jamaica trials leading up to these games when he beat Bolt in both the 100 metres  and  200 metres.

Now the battle is really on. No longer is it a case of sitting back and wondering how many records Bolt will break in the meet. Things have changed in the last few years and many who would have backed Bolt without question just a year ago are now not as confident or have changed their minds. And why have people changed their minds so quickly? We can sum it all up in one word. EVIDENCE. Yes in watching these two over the last year there is evidence that Blake is on the up and Bolt may be on the way down and so predictions for who will win the gold have changed.

When I look back at what has happened in men's sprinting this year, I am reminded of that charge that we atheists have to face almost daily. Until now, whenever they have asked us the question, " Do you believe in a God?" The answer has been 'no'. It is 'no' today, it was 'no' ten years ago, it was 'no' 100 years ago. They see this consistency in answer and come to the conclusion that we are just 'no.' people. The answer has always been 'no' to the God question and will always be 'no' to the God question. There is no evidence we could possibly accept for the existence of a God. But that's simply not true, at least not for all atheists and I daresay not the majority.

In terms of where we are, we are about as convinced about God not existing as we were about Usain Bolt as a 100m champion a year ago.  For the years between 2008 and 2011, if you had asked anybody into track and field who would win a 100m with Bolt in the field, everyone (or close to it anyway) would have said Bolt, and they would have said it without thinking. It would have been said so naturally that it would have come across as a presupposition. As if Bolt was the only answer that could be given to the question. A person asking this question outside of the track and field fraternity could be excused for thinking we were all brainwashed 'Boltisciples', just following the herd, that none of us could think for ourselves. They could be excused for thinking that regardless of the evidence we were presented we would always go for Usain Bolt as our winner. They might have argued that we were just choosing Bolt as a winner because we liked him and wanted him to win. That was true for some, but definitely not all. I know quite a few who were not a fan of him and his antics but it was just impossible to deny that he was the fastest man in the world. The facts were just too clear. It's the same with God, many of us actually would like him to come and at least carry the baton for us a bit. However, we haven't even seen him hanging around the stadium with his track suit on.

Boltisciple apologetics

So, one year later we see that not all track fans are 'Boltisciples'. Not everyone believes in him as a track and field God. Some people at least have changed their position based on the evidence. I have no doubt that many atheists would change their position in God if the evidence came. To say that we won't change our minds even with evidence is to make the Bolt assumption, which was clearly fallacious. To test your theory, you just have to bring us a Yohan Blake, but unfortunately none has come.

Another thing important to note from this Bolt versus Blake story is that in making predictions on things its better to wait to get as much information as you can. If you make decisions early about something you deny yourself the opportunity to benefit from knowledge you may acquire later. Even now, it is a bit premature to say who will win the 100 m final. We will no doubt get more evidence after seeing the heats and semi finals. Indeed in two days time we may be predicting neither Bolt nor Blake. That's the nature of sport.

It's unfortunate that when it comes to the God question so many Christians want a decision right away. I don't know if it's because we have so many sprinters in the Caribbean, but it seems all the evangelicals want a fast decision when it comes to Christ.

" Come to Jesus now before it's too late!" is their eternal cry.

 But I think making a decision like that today is definitely jumping the gun. If you commit to Jesus now and evidence comes that he is not the one later, THEN it will be too late for you as a Christian. I don't know about you, but I prefer to wait before I decide. I don't see the need for the rush. If God provides the evidence one minute before judgement, I will make it before the bell, I  promise.
I don't think this jumping on to the bandwagon thing has only affected Christians, I think that some of the track fans have revealed themselves as true 'Boltisciples' as well. Let me make it clear, I am not saying that those who still believe Bolt will win have an irrational allegiance. There is definitely in spite of the Blake surge, still many reasons to support Bolt as champion. He's done it before and he is a bona fide star, that counts for a lot. However, I have heard from some people a fair degree of Bolt apologetics. Claims that Bolt deliberately let Blake win in the Jamaica championship out of generosity. That he wanted to give  Blake part of the spotlight or even wanted to lure him in to false sense of security. Without any evidence to support any of these conspiracy theories they are convinced they are right about Bolt and are angry that anyone could even consider the possibility of Bolt losing in London in spite of seeing what happened in Jamaica. I would have thought Bolt would have relished the opportunity to stamp his authority and send a strong message before London and put on a show for his adoring home fans. But this is a theory quickly dismissed by 'Boltisciples.'

 Some were saying after the 100m loss, that Bolt would be back for revenge in the 200m at the trials. We know what happened to that prediction, but these fanatics just moved the goalpost, determined to deny any anti Bolt evidence. That's what happens when you commit to an idea too early, whether it be Bolt as the Olympic champion or Jesus as the eternal saviour. That's way I say it's better to wait.

So, who do I have to win the big showdown right now? Well I'd have to say Yohan Blake at the moment. I am of course in no way discounting the 'Lightning Bolt', but Blake may just be a little more hungry and he seems to be on an upward trajectory. I am sure that the world at large would prefer a Bolt win, it's just hard to match him for charisma. It will of course be a great race either way, not forgetting Powell, Gay and Gatling who also could be in there. Of course many of you will probably be reading this after the result is known. If Bolt has won, I am sure that the 'Boltisciples' will be all over the place saying that they never ever had a shadow of a doubt about it. But I would be skeptical of all their  big talk after the fact, because deep down inside 'Boltisciples' just like born again Christians, always have a fear deep down of the "Mark of the Beast."

Put down the duckie!

  

Oh yes! Another one of those Sesame Street classics. " You got to put down the 'duckie' if you want to play the saxophone!"

The lyrics and melody are as fresh today as they were when I first heard this one back in the 80s. This song was a definite influence in encouraging me to take up the saxophone myself. But like so much of the old Sesame Street, I look back at it today and see meaning on a whole different level. I had a similar feeling when I wrote about how I rediscovered 'Ernie and the Invisible Ice Cream' a couple of years ago. Now Ernie is at the centre of attention again, as Hoots supported by a  myriad of celebrities, explains to him that he can't play the sax if he insists on keeping his favourite toy in his hand. It's a lesson that Ernie takes a while to get, even as Hoots tells him,


 "Don't be a stubborn Cluck!"

I died  laughing when I heard this line today. Sesame Street keeping it 'G' rated, even if just barely.

Anyway, once Ernie realises the wisdom of the advice he tosses the 'duck' away in liberation and goes on to break away into some attractive improvisations. Whether you are a jazz lover or not and even if you've never picked up a wind instrument in your life, you've just got to love it.

The only sad thing is that of course as simple as the lesson is here, millions of people of faith in the world have failed to embrace it. We've begged, pleaded and cajoled just like the artistes in this video, from every corner of the world. But no, believers still haven't got this one into their heads. For reasons which are baffling to us on the atheist side, they simply refuse to put their 'duckies' down.

For years they have been telling us that faith and reason can live together in perfect harmony. That there is no reason to believe that embracing scientific method, logic and critical thinking means we have to toss aside faith. In fact more than telling us that faith and reason can go together, they claim that we actually need to have both in order to have a balanced life. Truth is, that trying to put reason and faith together is just the same as attempting what Ernie is trying to do here. Sax in one hand, 'duckie' in the other and hoping the music will come out just right. Nine times out of ten, it won't. Stories of six day creations, global floods, ladders to heaven, talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections and the like just don't stand to reason. If you include these in any manuscript of science you will have problems.

Putting faith and reason on the same level is like trying to compare the skill needed to squeeze a bathtub toy with that needed to master fingering, breathing, reed control that comes with learning to play a wood wind instrument. It is not discrimination to say that the 'duckie' can't be a part of any self respecting band. 'Duckie' at playtime in the nursery and in the bathtub can be fun, and the squeaks it emits can make you laugh and giggle in delight. But there is no room for this if you are talking about playing serious music.

I suppose some Christians would say that strictly speaking Hoots is not correct. It's not impossible to play the sax while holding a 'duck'.Obviously it can be done, and the music might sound alright some of the time. In this video, the music Ernie plays with 'duckie' in hand is not terrible, some of it is actually quite nice. Especially when he is just holding the duck without squeezing it. But once he tries to interject the duck sound into the music, that's when you get the dissonance. This happens with many  liberal Christians. They keep the 'duckie' in their hand because they feel it is necessary that people see them with it. It's basically aesthetics, to show that they still have a connection to that special gift they were given in their childhood. They want it to be known that they haven't forgotten where they came from. Indeed, they don't really intend to squeeze the 'duckie' while they are playing, and with practice they come quite adept at keeping the 'duck' silent during the music or at least from interrupting the flow of the piece.

But even as they show off their skills you can see they have to try twice as hard to keep the 'duckie' out of the way while they play. Even as you stand to applaud them, you still have to wonder why they don't make life easier for themselves and everybody else and just leave the 'duck' alone. What is the most awe dropping thing is what happens after the music ends, when they declare that there is no way they could even play a single note without their duckie.  All the duckless people like me can say to that is, "What? The duck?"


It's not only the duckless that are a bit mystified though. Even as the 'duck and sax' people accept their praise they upset the true 'duckie' aficionados, those that believe in the true beauty of pure 'duck' music. How can he say he needs his 'duckie' when he never even uses it? They will say. Oh, how I wish these 'duck and sax' players would answer that 'ducking' question.

However, in reality very few 'duck and sax' players are actually skilled enough to always avoid their fingers slipping on to the 'duckie' during performance. When that happens, you hear that 'silly squeak' that Ernie talks about. This  'duckie' sound may be unintentional, but it doesn't matter. It still plays havoc with the music and usually you get a massive discord. It's embarrassing when this happens because the player then has to pretend that the 'duck' squeak is not a mistake but a vital part of the composition. He will say that if anything sounded off in the music, it was in fact the sax that was the problem, because it gives trouble sometimes. In contrast, the squeaky 'duck' always come in at the right time and in the right key.

Of course what happens every now and again is that the 'duckie' squeaks by chance and it actually sounds good. It fits the music perfectly, resulting in an enticing chord or exciting syncopation. Here is when the 'duck and sax' players do their most talking. They will make sure to show the video of that performance over and over again to prove that the 'duckie' makes the music better. If we tell them that it was just a fluke note, they will laugh at us and try to ignore us when we list the millions of times the 'duckie' has ruined performances. They will say we are taking those performances out of context and deliberately choosing only bad examples to make our case. They will add that in any case, we are not skilled enough to understand what is good 'duck and sax' music because we can't play it. We can't judge what we don't understand.

Unsinkable Rubber Ducks

James Randi- Speaks of Unsinkable Rubber Ducks

Yes, if only it was as easy as in this video to convince the Christians and other religious people to put down their 'duckies.' In fact 'rubber duckies' are so much tied to religious thinking that the faithful themselves are  often indistinguishable from the artifacts of make belief  they carry around in their hands. James Randi the famous skeptic and debunker of supernatural claims has often noted this in his talks. He refers to many of the frauds and scammers especially in the evangelical churches as 'unsinkable rubber ducks.'

He explains that these guys are able to float back up to the surface no matter how much force you use to push them down. You can have evidence to catch them red handed in some act, they always find a way to come back. Most notable among these 'ducks' is Peter Popov who Randi showed was using an earpiece that picked up his wife's voice reading out the names of the people he was 'healing' during services. Popov was clearly pretending that some divine voice was revealing names and addresses to people in his audience. It is hard to imagine how a person could be more 'caught in the act.' However, it was only a blip for Popov, he was soon back on the air and continues to this day raking in even more millions than he was at the time he was exposed. Yes, you just can't keep these guys down.

Ducking experts

The phenomenon doesn't end with people like Popov either. I know many Christians personally and online who are true duck experts. Yes, no one can duck the difficult questions like these believers. Here are some examples of questions I haven't got a straight answer to yet.

• Does everything happen according to God's will
• If God told you to murder your daughter would you do it?
• Why has God not exterminated the devil yet?
• Why does God need to have a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? 
• Do you consider it moral for a God to send someone to hell just for not believing

You won't believe the amount of ducks I have heard in response to questions like these. When they can, Christians make use of their elasticity too. In their world, whatever the brain can conceive, faith can achieve. You have to try to catch them out with logical contradictions. But even that can't keep them down, because they will argue that God himself can transcend logic. It takes ages to try to convince them that if God and us operate by different rules of logic, we can't communicate with him or begin to understand anything about him. By the time you do that, you are sure to have forgotten what the logical contradiction you were trying to call them out on was in the first place.

In the cases where both their ducking and elasticity fails them and they end up in hot water, they will fish desperately for a response and eventually distract us by throwing out a red herring. Those Christian rubber ducks, you just can't ever win.

How can we overcome the ducks?   

Well, at least so it seems. We have to take heart from this video. We have to take this Sesame Street lesson. The first thing is repetition. We have to keep telling them to 'put down the duckie' even when it seems the message isn't getting through. We also need  a variety of people bringing the message. People of different ages, genders, races, cultural and ethnic backgrounds,  just like the celebrities in this video. We even need different languages, as Celia Cruz says " Suelta el Patito."

One person, however persuasive they may be, is seldom enough to turn the tide. We also need different ways of packaging the message, just like the different styles and genres of music we see in the video.It doesn't always have to be loud and strident. Sometimes soft dulcet tones whispered in a friendly way can be just as effective. We see that here. Arguably the best part of this video is 'Put Down the Duckie' rendered softly by the group 'Ladysmith Black Mambazo

The other key to learn from here is that as strongly as we bring our message, we must never coerce. We have to understand when they tell us like Ernie, that they can't bear to be parted from their 'duckie'. It is important to note that Hoots never tried to yank the 'rubber duckie' out of Ernie's hands. Ernie tossed the thing away himself in his own time, when he reached the point that HE was convinced. The only thing we have to remind people like Ernie is that it's OK to take the duck up after sax but only if its for playing PRETEND.Yes, we must not be afraid to tell people that their 'duckie' is an imaginary friend. Sure they can talk to him but they are not going to get an answer back. As tempted as they may be, they must  never take out their 'duckie' at school during classes especially if its a science subject like Biology, unless  they want to become  'quacks' when they grow up.

All jokes aside though, the last thing we can do to help our cause, is to take things beyond this Sesame Street clip. We have to let believers know that when we implore them to put down the 'duckie' we are not putting THEM down. We have to hold up high others among us who have successfully, 'put down the duckie' and produced great music.

Andre Woodvine- Barbadian jazz saxophonist.
Put down the 'duckie' and is one of the Caribbean's finest

One such person in Barbados is leading jazz saxophonist and composer Andre Woodvine, who has made a name for himself throughout the region. You can find out more about him and his music here. He my friends, has emphatically put down the 'duckie'!

Andre contacted me through this blog last year as he was becoming public about his atheism. I was touched by the positive things he said about my writings. I was extremely excited to make the link with him and we have interacted quite a bit since then. I have always admired Andre as both sax player and composer. I will never forget his composition 'Hold You in a Song' performed by John King and Alison Hinds, that went on to win the Caribbean Song Contest back in 1992. It  remains a favourite of mine to this day. Andre  himself  had a memorable sax solo in that one, you can listen to the entire performance below. It was great to find that music and saxophone playing was not all we had in common. Andre is now open about being an atheist, as he continues to fly the national flag high, representing Barbados as a jazz musician all over the world.

Thank you Andre, for giving the message so loud and clear to the rest of us.


"You've got to put down that 'duckie' if you want to play the saxophone."

The one behind the wheel is all that matters: Why the moral argument for God drives me crazy

It comes with the territory. Once you become an atheist, you have to be prepared to get the arguments for why there is a God from left and right, almost on a daily basis. The theist doesn't have to use an indicator, we know the arguments that are coming just around the corner. First cause, complexity, meaning of life, Pascal's Wager along with a string of anecdotal testimonies and near death experiences in tow. Their discussions always take you down the same road. The potholes of fallacies don't matter, they just hope that one day one argument, any argument will bring you back on the highway to Christ. By and large such arguments don't bother me, I shrug my shoulders, sigh and give the defence of my position if I have the inclination, knowing that if the discussion continues there will be more roundabouts ahead than there are on the ABC Highway in Barbados. However, there is one argument that really does drive me crazy .I am sure for many atheists it is the same. It is the moral argument for God.

Here is how it goes. The theist will say that the fact that we can all recognise 'good' from 'evil'  in the world suggest that 'good' and 'evil' can be defined objectively. There are concepts that are not simply matters of taste or culture. The fact that they are not dependent on an individual human, means they must be dependent on an an individual non human. Therefore God. That's it! QED!

This argument is an extension of the Cosmological argument or the argument from origins. What it comes down to is this. We have a 'something' in the universe. That 'something' needed to be created. Therefore God created the 'something.' That 'something' can range from physical things such as universes, trees, planets, puppies, sunsets, babies and chimpanzees to abstract things like logic, love, consciousness, intelligence and yes, morality. So from an intellectual perspective the moral argument should be able to be dismissed just like any of the other , 'Who created X?' arguments. But no, this one goes much deeper than that. It hits me harder becomes implied in it, is the notion that the morality of people who don't believe in God or some supernatural agent are morally compromised in some way. That is the part that offends me.

Throughout my life, if there is one thing that I have always tried to do, it is to live to the highest moral standard possible. Back from when I was a Christian growing up in Barbados, up until today, living in Canada  where I solidly identify as an atheist. When it comes to the desire to 'do the right thing' my religion or lack thereof  plays no part now and it didn't play a role before either. I always saw my faith as incidental to my sense of morality. Christians will say it's God, atheists will say its a consequence of my evolutionary history, but whatever the reason I have always felt torn up inside when I have recognised that I have done something that has hurt another individual. I have always told people that I don't mind being called stupid even as I try to make good decisions. But being labelled as evil or unethical is something that hurts to the core.

I can hear all my Christian friends saying in chorus," No, no, you have it all wrong ! We know you are a moral person, we know you are good.What we are saying is that you don't have a basis for determining your morality!"

Borrowing morality form them

This is the point when I feel like tearing my hair out. It irks me more because when Christians say this, they say it with a tone that suggests they are being magnanimous. That we should be praising them for being so compromising, for telling us that we CAN be moral. They seem genuinely surprised when we are  unimpressed by what they perceive is a fantastic compliment.

Why are we unmoved? Let's explore this statement a bit more. ' We can be moral, but we have no basis for morality.' The implication is that they are the ones with the basis. Some say that we atheists are simply borrowing their morality from them. Suppose a white person came up to me and let me know that he has a lot of black friends and from those interactions he knows that black people can be good people, even though many of his white friends argue otherwise. What if he went on to explain that his view was that although most blacks were moral they had no basis for determining what was moral? Suppose he added that what we good black people are doing is behaving 'white like', copying the moral code of HIS people, even though most of us don't realise it. What if he continued by saying that white people that are evil are either not true white people or white people who through a conscious rejection of their race based moral code have lost their way? Should I  look at a person who suggests something as ludicrous as this as anything but a flat out racist?

I know it will be said that race and religion are too totally different things and the analogy doesn't hold. I disagree. I fail to see how a difference in opinion about what is the essence of nature has any more to do with how good a person you are, than the melanin content in your skin.

There is something even more curious about this morality argument that I am not sure even all atheists realise.  Their argument for an objective morality is based on the universal interpretation by  human beings of concepts such as 'good' and 'evil.'  In 'universal', they are including atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, every conceivable religious and non religious group. All these people's perceptions on 'good' and 'evil' are used to support their view that an objective morality exists.

Then comes the big sleight of hand in their argument. The God that is responsible for this objective morality that everybody recognises, is their God that only followers of their God recognise. It's a strange notion. It's not like the old days when a God just concentrated of taking care of his people. Their God takes it upon himself to step into everybody's territory. Their tribal God is responsible for the universal experience.  But this tribal God is not just any God. This tribal God is one who has advocated every atrocity in the book at some time or another. Genocide, infanticide and  much much more. Yes, there are many  'cides'  to God. In fact the only 'cide' that God seems to have evaded so far is 'suicide', well unless you want to count that 'hanging on the cross' weekend a couple of millennia ago.

So, naturally confused atheists ask Christians how can they claim that their God is the establisher of objective moral good, when so many of  his actions are in direct opposition to the objective morality that we humans universally recognise? The answer we get then is the real 'slap in the face.'

"You can't judge any actions of our God because you have no basis for morality! You have no licence to criticize! How can you say that even killing babies is evil?"

Apart from the obvious ad-hominem in this response, there is a bigger problem. In determining the existence of universal, objective morality they took into consideration the views of ALL humanity. The fact that OUR atheist view of morality is similar to theirs was seen as evidence in favour of 'objective morality', which was a crucial part of their argument for the existence of THEIR God. Now that they have used our moral perspective to help 'establish' their God's existence,  they want to dismiss that same moral perspective when we use it to challenge their God's morality. Effectively what they are telling us is that we can vote their God in but we can't vote him out. It's a one way democracy.We need to call them out on this inconsistency.

Debating Mistake?

In the last post I made on Imagine No Religion 2, Matt Dillahunty took me up on a comment I made where I said that even if he made a mistake in a debate he had enough consistency in how he structured his argument to not falter or get tied up. He asked me in the comments thread of that post  to point out to him if he made any mistakes during the debate in Kamloops. He playfully added that he didn't consider that consistency in making mistakes is a good thing. I smiled at this, because the comment about him making mistakes was a passing statement within a paragraph that was very complimentary of him and the work he does. Still, I suppose it is human nature to pick out any note of criticism, I am sure I would do the same. It's great however to see someone of his stature in the movement seeking constructive criticism. That is the true strength of the atheist community. In that thread I outlined one area in which we had a difference of opinion and I won't go into that here, you can look back at the comments in that thread if you wish.

However, Matt's comment did make me reflect on 'mistakes' of atheists a bit more. Not just his, but those of all of us. That's what I am getting to here. When theists tell us we can only get an understanding of morality from God, we challenge them on it and try to show them how patently false it is. In so doing  we take ourselves further and further from the person that they see as the law giver and this opens up the chance for them to claim we have no grounds to criticize them since we have gotten away from the one who makes right right. Perhaps what we need to do is just leave them with their assumption and say that we don't know where our moral instincts come from, and yes maybe their God did give us them. The point is that it doesn't matter, we have moral instincts which clearly work well enough for the majority of us not to be  mass murderers. As such, we have all rights to challenge the morality of the God that they claim set the rules.

Even if our basis for morality is borrowed, it is still every bit as valid and we have every right to use it and have confidence in it. If I am driving a car on the highway, I may claim the car is mine, someone else may claim it isn't. They may claim I borrowed it, rented it, even stole it. My parents may have handed it to me or I might have won it in a raffle.The fact is that none of that matters once I am driving it. I have the same rights and responsibilities as every other road user. You are obliged to give way to me if I have the right away,  you can't expect to run a red light to overtake me. It doesn't matter who owns the vehicle, who made it or how it got to me, it matters only who's behind the wheel. Once I have successfully passed my driver's test and have fulfilled all the legal obligations of the jurisdiction I am in, I have license.

August Berkshire- 'Does God put the moral instinct into our brain? If so, do his fingers slip during the rewiring?'

Speaking of morality and license. I have to mention August Berkshire here. He gave a memorable presentation at Imagine No Religion 2 on the topic of morality in the bible. It was one of those presentations that had the impact of making me gasp time after time. It was basically God and his criminal record  put together in Power Point. Forty two she bears led us off on what would inevitably become a very bloody parade. I don't know what it is, but there is something about seeing God's old testament tyranny on the big screen that makes it seem one thousand times worse than reading it on a lap top. After his presentation, you could be left with no other conclusion than that God is a monster. It was  the one presentation that weekend that I genuinely wished my Christian friends were there to see. For in spite of the horror presented, their was no twisting of the context of the stories to suit an agenda. It was just a retelling of what was right there in the book. It would be hard to know what they would have said in defence. He scoffed at the idea that God could be the one putting the morals in our brain. "Maybe his fingers slipped during the rewiring!" he quipped.  He ended by saying that if God existed and had the record that we read about in the bible, he should be the one praying to us for moral guidance. It was hard to disagree.

One other focus in August's presentation was the image of the photo above. The car he drives in his hometown in Minnesota proudly displaying "ATHEIST" on his license plate. He spoke of a few awkward discussions and hostile reactions at gas stations but he also spoke of the smiles and 'thumbs up' he got from many people, especially young people. It is heart warming to recognise that those of the future realise that the atheist label is one that we can display without fear wherever our travels may take us.

It is worth remembering that whatever its origin, whatever the car maker's name is, whoever is the mechanic, morality becomes our vehicle once we buy into it. We are also free to customise our plates to suit us. Once we are not breaking state laws, we have right of way. We are the one's in the driver's seat and unless you have evidence that we are not in control of our mental faculties, we have every right to be on the road and call you 'idiot' if you do foolishness and endanger others' lives. With all due respect, you are the ones that are driving under influence. You need to look at yourself in the mirror.You can't dismiss our rare view because your rear view says that our rare view can't tell you that you're wrong.

Given all that many of you believers think about us, it is a miracle that we actually still have models of morality that are allowed on the road. Especially given the fact that we, unlike you, are not eligible for 'Accident Forgiveness Insurance.'

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.