My Morality Rumination

When I de-converted from being a lifelong believer in god, the idea of being alone with my thoughts troubled me. I’d spent all my life believing that god could hear all my thoughts, and I could talk to him about anything. Losing my faith was like losing a friend, albeit a friend who never existed.

I thought a lot about morality. If no one could hear my thoughts or know my intentions, what did that mean? If there was no punishment for my actions save what the Law would execute on me, what was my guide to right or wrong?

Since then, I’ve discussed morality with other atheists, been questioned by agnostics, and been challenged by theists. But not long after I de-converted I realised something: people over-think the source of morality far too much! Even I was over-analysing it!

I’m not saying there are no ambiguous issues, and in fact, trying to paint every moral decision in terms of black and white is often impossible, and counter-productive. However, “wrong” is a word, and as a word it has a definition. “Immoral” is also a word, and as Richard Dawkins points out, words are our slaves not masters. Humans decide what words mean, so when we talk about ‘right’, ‘wrong’, and ‘morality’, we are using words that mean something. These definitions are independent of our personal beliefs and biases, just as the word “wet” means what it means and doesn’t mean “dry” if I want it to.

It is therefore illogical when (some) religious people ask atheists what their source of morality is; a loaded question if ever there was one, that tacitly assumes that they already have a credible source: their religion.

This is silly for a few reasons, and although I don’t expect any theist to give up their beliefs, I’m sure they will come to agree with me on this:

For the purposes of morality, I’ll loosely define “wrong” as that which causes unnecessary harm or suffering to another being, including violating the rights of that being, or exploiting it. Whether that definition is too verbose or too simple, it will suffice for this discussion.

If that is what “wrong” means, then we can easily analyse any action on this basis and decide whether it is right or wrong. What things might fall under this “wrong” category? I would suggest for starters: rape, murder, theft, racism, unwarranted torture, and mistreatment of animals. Therefore, anyone committing those actions is in the wrong. I doubt anyone so far would disagree with me.

I believe that these things are wrong anywhere, at any time. As a thought experiment, imagine you’re on another planet with different laws and values. Is rape wrong here? Yes! An alien race might not have a word for “wrong” or even bother with morality, but that doesn’t make it subjective! No more than if the aliens didn’t have a word for “earth” or “sun” that would stop those things being something very real and objective. Morality is objective, and right and wrong are objective expressions, because they have real meanings in the world.

To say that wrong actions are right under certain conditions is to redefine the word, in which case you’re not talking about the word “wrong” anymore, you have invented another one. This means that, even in theory, there is a word to describe the kind of actions that the original word “wrong” was meant to imply. So, even if there wasn’t a word to describe actions, they would still be right or wrong. Again, morality is a real thing, and humans have full capacity to judge actions and decide what is ethical or not. Our guide must be what does and doesn’t cause unnecessary harm.

It is clear therefore that, to borrow from Ebonmuse: anything that increases net human happiness is good, and anything that decreases net human happiness is bad.

Now, whether god exists or not is irrelevant. This isn’t an argument for or against religion. But it is self-evident that personal faith or belief in god is not a source for morality. Rather, if god exists and is moral, god himself is bound by these objective principles. If god is not bound by them, then morality is subjective and is based on god’s whim, which means rape and murder would be “good” if god said so. The common theistic reply to this is that god would never allow rape and murder because he is necessarily good himself. But this is the same problem repackaged and moved back a level: it presupposes that god must be a certain way, or that his nature must be a certain way; but if his nature must be objectively good, then objective good exists all the same. And if god cannot go against his nature which means he cannot go against “good”, then we might just as well say that god cannot go against good, which means it exists objectively anyway.

Therefore, god and religion, whether true or not, cannot be a basis for morality. In fact, one might argue that being in the position of following the orders of another being without question could, even in theory, compromise your morality.

A final thought experiment for theists will establish the issue:

If god didn’t exist, and your religion was false, would you hurt people? Would you steal and lie and cheat? Would you rape, pillage, and kill? If not, why? And if not, then you admit that your morality isn’t really linked to your god or religion after all! In which case you’re in no better or worse position than any atheist.

Deep down, we all get our morality from the same place: our own sense of right and wrong. But because objective morality exists, most of the time everyone’s senses of right and wrong coincide. There are grey areas, but morality being a real thing itself regardless of belief, should be reassuring for all. It means that we have responsibility for our actions, and we are accountable to other beings. It also means that because we’re living feeling creatures and are surrounded by other such entities, we should feel encouraged to be nice to people and increase net happiness for all. I’m sure you agree that this is a good thing to do, whether you believe in god or not.

My Affidavit

I’ve often been asked: ‘how do you know god doesn’t exist?’

Well, the truth is, I don’t!  After all, god means so many different things to different people.  My common reply to the above question is: “which god?”

If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist.  I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.

Let me anticipate a theistic apologetic in advance: the inscrutability of god.  It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose.  This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does.  This is a contradiction.  And it is a big one!  So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:

If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good either.

You cannot have it both ways.  Either we are able to learn about god from his actions, or we’re not.  Either we can make our own moral judgements about god, or we can’t.  If we can’t, then no one has the capacity to read their holy book, know their god, and then declare him good.  You must use your intellect and morality to make that determination; the same intellect and morality that you could use to declare him evil.  And if god is essentially unknowable then we can’t say anything about him!

I want to show beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical god doesn’t exist.  I intend to do this using proof by contradiction.  Since the biblical god (according to Christians or anyone else who believes in it) is supposed to be loving, just, and compassionate, actions which strongly indicate otherwise show a contradiction, meaning that such a being as defined above cannot exist.  If theists want to use a different definition of god, that’s fair enough, but they won’t be talking about a loving, just, compassionate one.

I’d ask everyone from here on out, to pretend they’re a jury in court, and listen to the evidence presented before you.  I’d like to enter into evidence as Exhibit A, the King James Version of the Bible.   I’d like you to evaluate the character of the witness presented before you, using your intelligence and your innate sense of right and wrong.  This is my sworn testimony based on what I’ve learned about the defendant, the god of the bible:

Genesis 7.  God is angered by the wickedness of man.  As Ebon Musings points out, no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing.  God decides to murder every living creature apart from a small family.  Animals are also included in this slaughter, for some reason.

Does god click his fingers and wipe them out of existence?  Does he put them to sleep quickly and humanely?  No.  God decides that not only does every human and animal on the planet deserve to die, but only a slow terrifying tortuous death will suffice: drowning.

Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, pregnant girls, and babies.  Every single one murdered.  The reason?  Man is wicked.  What is god’s reaction after the flood?  Regret.  In fact he says: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”  So, mankind is evil so god kills them.  Then he promises not to kill mankind again by a flood because…they’re evil.

Does this sound like a fair, just person?  Or is this the reasoning of psychopath?

Exodus 4.  Egypt.  God’s people are captive, and god wants them released.  He sends his spokesman Moses to the Pharaoh demanding their liberation.  Every time Pharaoh says no, god sends plague after plague to hurt and curse the Egyptians.  Why didn’t Pharaoh change his mind?  God tells us why: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you…”  So, god hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that whatever happened he wouldn’t change his mind!  Note also that god knows in advance that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses, so what was the point of this charade?!  Why not save time and precious human life by delivering his people out by some other means?

Taking away Pharaoh’s free will and then punishing him for it is unfair to say the least. But to punish millions of people for the actions of one person is cruel and sadistic: the final plague god sends is to murder every firstborn of the Egyptians.  Imagine that.  The firstborn son, of every house, at any age, is murdered, all in the same night.  Who was being punished here, and why?  Was every Egyptian responsible for the Israelites captivity?  “…and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”

Are these the actions of a being that loves humans?  Who respects human life?  Who uses torture and murder as a very last resort?

Numbers 15.  What are you doing this Sunday?  I’m going out with friends.  We might take a walk up a hill or through the forest.  If I was living in ancient Israel, I better be careful not to pick up sticks though!

Don’t you think justice demands that the penalty for a crime should be proportionate to that crime?

Let’s see what god thinks: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day… And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

Imagine having masses of people around you, throwing stones at your body and head until you die from your injuries.  This form of execution would be inhumane no matter what crime you committed, but picking up sticks??

This is the same god that many Christians worship.  Whether Christians claim to be under Mosaic Law or not is irrelevant.  The god of the bible deems this just and necessary.  Do you?  If you were ruler would you make a rule like this?  Would you execute anyone in this fashion?

What is your opinion of genocide?  Is it acceptable, ever?  We know that people can be evil.  We know that many people can be evil, but isn’t genocide the ultimate act of racism: the deliberate extermination of a particular people or nation, just for belonging to that nation!  It is stupidity of the highest order to suppose that every single person of a particular race is worthy of death.  Yet, this is exactly what the god of the bible demands on many occasions.

“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” – Numbers 7.

(Defending yourself from invasion is one thing.  Killing soldiers in a war or occupation is one thing.  Systematically invading other nations and wiping out all life in those cities is genocide.  It has been attempted before, most notably by Hitler, and we all have our opinions of his character.)

Even in the New Testament, god’s attention switches from people of different nations to people who simply don’t believe.  The penalty is always the same: death.

In today’s culture, the death penalty is considered the ultimate price to pay for a crime, but in most civilised countries it has been virtually abolished!

Was the god of the bible unique amongst gods of the time?  Did the Israelites and their god have an evolved morality that made them stand out for their tolerance and ethics?  Or were they just like every other nation of the time; primitive and barbaric?

Numbers 31.  The Israelites defeat the Midianites in battle, and all the male Midianites are killed.  Did Moses declare victory?  No.  There was still work to be done.  The soldiers of Israel had left alive the young males, all the women, all the girls, and all the babies.

What did god’s spokesman have to say?  “Have ye saved all the women alive? …. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Would a loving, just, and caring god demand the execution of young boys?  Why were non-virgin women killed but not virgin girls?  You know why!  They were used as sex slaves.  Unfortunately for the virgin boys, since homosexuality was a sin (also punishable by death), the Israelites had no use for them, so they were murdered too.

Are these the actions you would expect from a God of Love?  Or are these actions crimes of war?  Genocide, mass murder, infanticide, and rape.  Note that all the virgin girls are given over to the men of Israel; their ages aren’t specified.

God punishes his people for the slightest transgression in the bible, yet he has nothing at all to say about Moses’ barbaric orders.  Why?

Joshua 6. Same old story.  Moses has been succeeded by Joshua, and he leads god’s armies to the city of Jericho.  The result: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

Imagine if a foreign power decided to invade your community.  Imagine even that some people in your community were horrid criminals.  But if this power exterminated every human and animal where you had grown up, you’d think them a despicable inhuman band of evil murderers.  And you’d be right to.

Joshua 7.  A man called Achan steals treasure that god’s army looted in battle.  The punishment?  Achan is burned to death.  So are all his animals, his wife, and his children.  What does this tell us about the punisher?  Even if Achan and his entire family were guilty, is being burned alive a reasonable consequence for stealing or conspiracy to steal?

In the first book of Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is stolen and then returned to the Israelites.  When it returns, the Jews make the mistake of opening it and beholding the interior.  What did our loving caring compassionate understanding all-knowing god do?  He executed over 50,000 people.  The next time you’re at a public gathering like a sports stadium, imagine everyone in there suddenly murdered.  Reasonable?

2 Kings 2.  The prophet Elisha is walking along a road when 40 children appear and start name-calling Elisha for being bald.  Elisha curses them.  No sooner did he do this, than two she-bears come out of the woods and tear the children to pieces.

Are you a parent?  Is your child a saint?  Have they ever teased or tormented someone?  Have they ever taken the mickey or acted foolishly?  Imagine if you got home from work one day and the news was given to you that your young child had been ripped to pieces by a wild animal, for the “crime” of insulting a stranger about being bald.

Would you worship a god that had such a short violent temper?  Are these the actions of a loving heavenly father, or an evil vindictive tyrant?

2 Chronicles 25.  Amaziah, god’s reigning king of Israel takes 10,000 prisoners alive in war.  It should be noted that although god punishes Amaziah for worshipping other gods, he does nothing about what we’re about to hear:

“And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.”

10,000 prisoners of war were taken to a cliff edge, and thrown off one by one by one.  Like lemmings falling to their deaths by the thousands.  This is sickening mass murder, but because these 10,000 people weren’t god’s followers does that make it ok?  Would you throw another human being off a cliff?

Although god was quick to punish the crime of false worship, he does nothing about murdering thousands of defenceless people.  We might well ask: what is more important to this person; his own glorification, or the lives of thousands of helpless people?  Choosing your own egotistical interests above the lives of others is not love.

Hosea 13.  God threatens to punish the city of Samaria. Let’s see how he intends to do this:

“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

This is how god intends to punish an entire city: murder of children; murder of pregnant women.

If you heard a story on the news of somebody killing children and pregnant women en masse, what would you think of that person?

Consider the following description of god’s personality:

“The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” – Numbers 14:8

We are told that god is longsuffering, merciful, forgiving, and just…and in the same verse told that he will punish children for the crimes of their great grandfathers!  How is punishing a person for the crimes of another person just?  That is the very definition of anti-justice!

When King David desires Bathsheba and has her husband killed in battle (all this whilst god watches on and does nothing), god decides to punish David.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  He has David’s wives raped whilst other people watch, and kills the child that is the product of David and Bathsheba’s relationship.  Sure enough, the child is born, gets sick, and dies.  Would you want someone you love to pay the price for your mistakes?  Do you think that’s fair?  What would you feel for the person who took the life of your child?

The atrocities we’ve covered above show a person who is anything but merciful and patient.  Also remember that this from a person who is supposed to be infinitely wise and all-knowing, yet he loses his temper and lashes out like a spoilt brat for the slightest transgression!

In the NT, the emphasis changes to the afterlife, and burning people alive with fire for all eternity, for choosing not to follow god (or not knowing any better).

I put it to you that the biblical god is cruel, evil, unjust, and unloving.  The god of the bible is simply not compatible with the idea that many Christians have of their god.  Therefore, there are only a few possibilities left:

1.       The interpretation of god I have presented here is wrong. (Which I believe is virtually impossible to maintain after reviewing the evidence.)

2.       God exists but is the not the god of the bible, therefore Christianity and anything based on the bible is false.

3.       The god of the bible does exist, but those who believe in him have an extremely distorted and erroneous image of him.  This also means that Christianity and anything based on the bible is wrong, or the bible is not totally consistent about god’s personality.

4.       Our sense of right and wrong is inadequate to judge god.  This apologetic fails, for the reasons given above: if we cannot say “god is good” then we cannot say “god is bad”.  In other words, this attempted explanation is self-refuting.

5.       The events in the bible are mythical.  (If this were true, the stories described above are still evil, whether they’re the acts of a mythical being or not.  But if the bible stories are a myth then what is the point of believing in the biblical god?)

6.       God doesn’t exist.

In my opinion, the best way to explain the entire bible, the contradictions, the atrocities in it, with the least superfluous theories, and in the most efficient and reasonable manner, is to go with option 6.  (Especially when one considers that there is no evidence to support these atrocities!  We can safely say that they are just stories.  Horrific, barbaric, evil – but fortunately, just stories.)

For those who accept the god of the bible, the only way to escape this conclusion is to deny that the disgraceful acts and despicable atrocities committed by god or those acting on his orders, were evil.

But I do not believe that any moral, intelligent, rational person can possibly call what we have considered not evil.

I rest my case.

My Big 5 Digits

Very recently, I achieved 10,000 hits on my blog.

I didn’t write anything to mark the occasion initially because I try to space out my posts to give as much time as possible for my followers to study and meditate on the last one. I’d rather take longer on posts and receive worship feedback and discuss each issue, than just be prolific.

I started this blog back on Myspace as a way to rant over things I felt seriously about. As it became more popular though, I was encouraged by a protégé of mine to use WordPress for my blog. I did, and although the uptake was slow, the blog has really taken off in the last few months, with particular incoming traffic arriving from online Carnivals, fellow bloggers, or search engines. It’s only a matter of time before the Church of Evanescence achieves tax-exempt status (the coming-of-age celebration for any religion), but when that happens, rest assured I will still post articles (just from the comfort of a laptop on my private jet).

As a result of the increase in traffic and feedback, I’ve felt a responsibility to reduce the rants and language, and increase my seriousness and ‘professionalism’, if that’s the right word.

It is a time-consuming endeavour to research and write new articles about three times a week, but it is gratifying to receive comments and feedback, and that makes it worthwhile. After all, if I was just going to churn out regurgitated bilge three times a week to bore everyone, I’d have just named my blog “The Watchtower”.

Not all the feedback has been positive, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve had people praising me, disagreeing with me, making me pull my hair out (you know who you are!), or even calling my blog boring and uninspiring.

It’s not about who agrees with me or not though. What matters is that everyone who’s ever criticised my blog will be tracked down and killed by the Elite Guard of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Yes, that means you! We know who you are. Or did you think you could challenge the great Atheist Lie without consequence?!

In an unabashed act of vanity, I’d like to mention some disciples of the Church of Evanescence (the greatest atheist religion in the whole of the EAC, and if you don’t agree you will be torn apart by she-bears). This is my way of giving something back to the little people who will be joining me in the Afterlife of Lesbos, after we drink of the magical elixir known as Dom Est Os:

Spanish Inquisitor ; Darren; Pink Prozac; Cragar; Joe; januarys; polishpress; Geno; D; Jon Featherstone

(I should add now that anyone who comments on my blog is an automatic member of the Church of Evanescence, and indeed the EAC.)

Also, a special thank you to my left-hand-man and Principle Kitten Executioner, Tobe. Proving once and for all that those who drink baby’s blood aren’t all big softies, Tobe’s pedantic proof-reading and grammar correction is a constant source of nightmares, and the most likely cause of a nervous twitch I’ve developed where I blurt out: “it’s ‘I’ve gotten sugar’, not fucking ‘got’!!”, at random intervals in the day. This can be most unfortunate when you’re making your boss a cup of coffee.

Finally, a special thank you to the person who makes all things possible: Satan. Without you, we’d still be living in a paradise, surrounded by beautiful naked women who never age and have no knowledge of right and wrong. You bastard!

My Empathy

I’ve debated with many theists in person and online. Many of them have shown a profound understanding of theology and philosophy, which has left me scrambling for the research books! Some of them have baffled me with facts about science, such as quantum mechanics, that has forced me to go away and do my research. On the other hand, many theists I’ve argued with have shown very little in the way of a serious debating challenge. I think this is because many theists, (if they’re anything like me), were brought up (or taught) a series of arguments in favour of their beliefs and stock answers and defences. They’re even taught stock answers to counter-answers and all the basic apologetics.

One might have been brought up a believer, or chosen to believe. I was brought up with a head full of arguments for god, a stock of rehearsed excuses and counter-arguments, and various reasons why other religions were wrong, and atheism was a mistake.

Sometimes when I debate, I admit, I can lose patience quickly if I feel the other party isn’t being logical or honest. And my penchant for sarcasm often manifests itself. Perhaps what I don’t do enough is show empathy with the believer and make them understand that most of the time, I know exactly where they’re coming from. Now, I don’t want that to sound arrogant, as if I am above anyone and I can see their mistakes now that I’m “better”. But I think when I was a theist I’d have been slightly more receptive to an “opponent” if I knew they’d held my beliefs but rejected them. As a believer I’d want to know “why?!” Perhaps I’m just curious, or perhaps I have a passion for knowledge, but this is one reason why being told to stay away from apostates or critical information on the internet made no sense to me.

There are many atheists who de-converted, and many who were never affiliated with any religion. I won’t pretend that I have any special insight that other atheists don’t have (because I don’t), but I do have the experience of being a fundamentalist and then an atheist. So I’d like to offer the follow observations:

I think many theists are in for a shock when they debate with atheists. Whereas it’s a self-evident fact are that all humans are born atheists, a professed atheist has at least a modicum of critical thinking, and this is the key thing! It is the one thing that for all the training I was given as a believer, I wasn’t taught this! And because theists aren’t taught it, many don’t expect it. More so, a lot of them don’t understand it.

Let me say first, if I’m debating with a theist and I use the expressions “Occam’s razor” or “post hoc fallacy or “begging the question”, or “the regressive fallacy”, I am not going to get on my high horse because my opponent doesn’t understand those terms. Not all theists are versed in philosophy, and society in general doesn’t do a very good job of inculcating critical thinking skills, especially in the young. So, fair enough. However, I would genuinely expect any intelligent person to acknowledge a logical fallacy after it’s been pointed out to them.

I also know that, for all my biblical knowledge, pro-theistic arguments, and apologetics, I wouldn’t have lasted half an hour in a room of atheists. This is because many believers, especially the proselytising type, are used to talking door-to-door, or with other believers, or, and I mean no offence, people who simply don’t know good thinking from bad thinking. Coming across someone who knows how to construct and deconstruct arguments, scrutinise ruthlessly, respect facts whatever they are, and has a reasonable understanding of philosophy and perhaps most importantly science, is like running into a brick wall.

I was no theistic slouch, but I couldn’t have stood against such a person back in the day. That is why I understand the problem many theists have now. I also understand how disconcerting and even harrowing it is to consider that your cherished, rooted beliefs might be wrong.

When I was de-converting, I did my research. I soaked up everything I could on critical thinking and logical fallacies. Even after rejecting my theism and sending a thank you e-mail to Bob Carroll at The Skeptic’s Dictionary, I still didn’t accept evolution. It seemed counter-intuitive to me, and I still couldn’t buy it. Here I was, knowing that god couldn’t exist (at least the gods of human invention), yet believing in intelligent design. It wasn’t a strong conviction, since I’d learned more about evolution in a month than two decades of Creationist propaganda. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a booked called “Life: How did it Get Here? – By Evolution or Creation?” It is one of the biggest squalid collection of lies, half-truths, misquotes, fabrications, bad arguments, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and fallacies you will ever read.)

My point is that my beliefs were challenged, so I did my research. This is something that believers simply don’t do enough of. Incidentally, all it took was time and lots of reading and I understood evolution. (And to be honest I’m delighted that I do. I feel that a great truth about the universe was withheld from me for years.)

If you’re a theist and you want to seriously debate with atheists online, you will almost certainly find that they are very well versed in critical thinking and science. In short, they will almost definitely know all the Arguments for God before you even recite them. The chances are, you won’t be the first theist who’s arrived in a forum/blog and said “God must exist! Look at the beautiful design in nature!” or something along those lines.

In other words, know your audience. Many atheists used to be theists. Many of them might even know your holy book better than you do! The best advice I can give you before getting into an argument (and this goes for everyone) is to know how to argue, and do your research. Not only will you avoid being embarrassed (it happens to us all at times!), you will avoid wasting your time and everyone else’s. Knowing a few logical fallacies, sound arguments, and basic science and philosophy are truly invaluable skills for any serious debater. The beauty is these things don’t even take long to learn!

Above all, in a proper intelligent discussion both parties should have one goal: truth. It doesn’t matter what you believe, answer this question:

Is there anything, even in principle, that would make you admit you’re wrong?

You know the answer, even if you won’t admit it. And if you know deep down that you’re going to hold your convictions whatever anyone says, then don’t waste time arguing. Furthermore, don’t pretend that you’re interested in truth. You’re not. Your only interest is what you already believe. And if you’re just looking to convert, again, don’t waste your time.

If you’re really interested in the facts, whatever they are, you won’t be put off by the possibility of being wrong. You won’t be afraid to go away and read up.

I’m an atheist because I think the facts support that position. But I might be wrong! You might be right! Let’s argue about it and see who’s correct. But my interest is the truth. Is yours?

My Original Sin

The three major monotheistic religions all teach that humans are tainted. No matter how hard we try, we are supposedly inherently imperfect and sinful; there is always something intrinsically unholy about humans that we constantly need atonement and forgiveness for.

Christianity refers to Original Sin, brought out by (through retrospective alteration of Genesis) the original lie of Satan to humans.

The irony here is that Original Sin is itself the ultimate Original Lie.

Like a sleazy cult leader, the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions offer you the cure to a disease you don’t have.  This is why, for no other reason than divine fiat, various aspects of the world and humanity are decreed wicked and wrong, perverse or unclean.

Why are some animals clean and others in the Old Testament?  No logical reason is given, because there isn’t one.  Human superstitions were anthropomorphised in a tyrannical god who would be disobeyed on penalty of death.

Why would god give humans perfectly natural biological processes like ejaculation or menstruation and then declare us unclean from them?

Why have women always been treated as second-class citizens wherever religion has held sway? What is so inherently flawed about the female of the species?  When you believe that god specially created woman, this sickeningly primitive attitude towards woman makes even less sense.  But suppressing women gives men power, and constantly teaches females that they are debase and low, and almost need to apologise just for being born with different body parts.

This is because religion has always been obsessed with sex and diet.  By convincing the innocent that their own bodies are disgusting and something to be feared, religion offers the cure to a non-existence plague: atonement and salvation.

Why is extra-marital sex a crime?  Why is homosexuality a crime?  Despite having no mention at all in the bible, why do all religions treat masturbation as an unnatural act of self-indulgence and debauchery?  The Faithful have even gone as far as to invent blatant falsehoods over the “dangers” of masturbation.  Why?

For those who say laws on sex etc are there for health reasons, a simple thought experiment will suffice to dispel this myth: ‘if two people who aren’t married, and may or may not be of the same gender, want to have sex but with total protection so there is no chance of conception or disease, is any consensual sexual activity acceptable then?’  If you’re a Believer and you say yes, then good; you should have no problem with the kind of sex “crimes” that religion specifies.  If you say no, then your real reasons for opposing sexual freedom are religious superstition, and have nothing to do with what is better for people or not.

Religion is about control.  It is a vehicle for human doubts and the fear of the unknown.  The Original Lie comes down to this: you are a depraved hopeless sinner, and you cannot help your own nature.  Life is a constant struggle against your own desires and urges, as you aim to beseech the help of an almighty overlord who will hopefully forgive you in the future; of course, you have to wait until you die before you realise this redemption.

There is no greater example of injustice than the doctrine that you are guilty for the crimes of others.  This is the antithesis of justice, and yet it is the core tenet of Christianity: Adam and Eve’s sin is passed onto all mankind.  This is a squalid lie.

Religion is the architect of the biggest con of all: perfectly harmless and even enjoyable things are wrong.

Fortunately, all you have to do is realise the lie to dispel its power.  If you cause no harm you can do what you want.  There is nothing wrong with you.  You have the enormous luck of being alive.  As animals go, humans are the most free of all.  Religion would have us take that gift and try to exchange it for store credit in God’s Supermarket of Guilt.  What a waste!

This is why atheism is about freedom. Atheism means that your life belongs to you, and your actions are your own.  Your life and body are your property to do with as you will.  Being human is nothing to apologise for.

Perhaps our species will never ubiquitously appreciate that freedom whilst the Original Lie still pervades innocent minds.