Be Reasonable

A secular Samhain to you all

Folks have been arriving at my article Do the Christians Want Halloween or Not? with search terms such as 'why christians should not celebrate halloween'. Not sure they'll find quite what they were looking for.

Just out of curiosity I typed 'christian halloween' into google(.co.uk) and was amused to see that the top link was to the True Christian® Halloween Combat Guide over at the Landover Baptist Church. The description of the link is "Learn to fight Satan on his own birthday, October 31, by educating yourself on the Devil's trickery!"

For those of you who haven't visited, the Landover Baptist Church is a rather good parody site (I know, it can be difficult to tell the difference between Christian parody and the genuine article). They have some excellent content and their Halloween material is no exception. It includes great suggestions for Christian Halloween activities such as burning Harry Potter books and going Wiccan hunting!

I'll admit that I get some enjoyment from the idea of Christians searching for alternative Halloween suggestions coming across the Landover link. With the volume of genuine (not quite the right word, but you know what I mean) Christian material out there it's quite an achievement for a parody site to get the top spot. Perhaps the world's not such a bad place after all ;-)

As a non-religious pagan, I'll be entering into the spirit of Samhain.

Happy Halloween

Spreading the atheism meme

Over at Atheist Revolution, vjack has set a challenge: us reasonable folk need to start proposing solutions to the problems we are discussing. Well, I'm not one to turn down a challenge, so here's my take on how we can wean the world off its deity dependency.

First of all, I'm optimistic that the human race will eventually achieve a post-religious society. I'm also pretty sure that it won't be in my lifetime (of course I'd love to be proved wrong). I think we might be able to speed things up just a little though.

I started this blog because I think it's important to make the atheist perspective more visible. I can't make much difference as an individual, but together we can add to the volume of information that's available. Exposure to ideas makes them more acceptable. We need to take the shock value out of atheism and make it a normal everyday outlook on life.

The What Can I Do? category on this blog is intended to hold suggestions on how we can move things forward, I plan to post suggestions there when I get ideas. At the moment, it just contains one post (other than this one), Stand Up and Be Counted which suggests joining organisations that campaign on freethought issues. I think this is very important. In the UK, the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society do great work representing us - if they had more members and more money they'd be able to do more.

I also suggest we practice what we preach, as it were, and apply reason. No I don't mean that we need to reason with the believers, we know that hasn't worked! What I mean is that we need to tackle this rationally.

I think Dawkins is right on this one, religion is a meme. We need to understand how it works and how to counter it. We need to apply science, philosophy and knowledge of history to the problem. We've got reason on our side, let's use it.

McGrath criticises arrogant atheists

Alister McGrath, a Christian and ex-atheist and the author of The Twilight of Atheism has written an article in today's Times newspaper criticising atheists. I haven't read his book (although I probably will) so I'm just going on my understanding of the article.

The article was prompted by the World Congress of the International Academy of Humanism which is taking place this weekend in New York and has the topic Towards the New Enlightenment.

McGrath argues that atheism has lost its way after failing to convince the world to give up on religion:

"Hopelessly overstated arguments that once seemed so persuasive - such as "science disproves God" - have lost their credibility. Anyway, our culture's criterion of acceptability is not "Is it right?" but "Does it work?" And the simple fact is that religious belief works for many, many people, giving direction, purpose and stability to their lives ..."

McGrath seems to be suggesting that it doesn't matter whether or not religion is correct, that the effect that it has on people who believe is more important. Well I almost agree with him here. I can't dismiss the value of truth so easily, but if I thought that religion was a positive influence on the world then I'd probably keep pretty quiet about my atheism. I might even feel a little inadequate that, as a non-believer, I wasn't able to participate in improving the world through religion. But the point is, I don't think religion is a positive influence, I don't even think it's benign. Religion is a negative force in the world, that's why I speak out as an atheist. For me, atheism isn't about being right, it's about improving society.

McGrath further criticises atheists:

"It may once have been bold, brave and brilliant to argue that religion was an infantile delusion or a pernicious superstition. Now, atheism seems arrogant and uncomprehending; incapable of even the most basic act of intellectual empathy that tries to grasp why intelligent, articulate people might choose to believe something which we disagree with - and which might even be right."

Arrogant? Well this is something that does concern me. I've tried for many years to come up with a non-condescending reason why intelligent people might believe. I can come up with reasons why they might choose to act as if they believe (e.g. sense of community and family obligation), but that's not the same thing.

Uncomprehending? Definitely. Though not for the want of trying.

Incapable of the most basic act of intellectual empathy ...? I can certainly empathise with religious people in other cultures. I just listened to a recording of the first part of Bob Geldof's Faith in Africa radio programme where he, although an atheist himself, convincingly argues that religion is so important in Africa because day-to-day life is so grim. But it's true, I can't empathise with intelligent educated people who seem blind to the problems caused by religion.

McGrath's main criticism of atheism is that it hasn't moved with the times and accepted that modern Western society needs religion.

Personally, I think it's religion that hasn't moved with the times. I agree with McGrath that religion does help many people in today's society. However, I'm pretty sure that something else would have taken its place had they not been exposed to religion. Wouldn't it be better to try and work out how religion can be replaced in a post-religious society rather than encouraging people to 'choose to believe' in something for which there is no evidence?

Atheism in your own living room

Church News is reporting that the BBC is under fire over religious shows. Surprisingly the accusation is that there isn't enough religion on TV. The article quotes Nigel Holmes, author of the book Losing Faith in the BBC, as saying that as Christians make up a significant proportion of TV license payers, there should be sufficient religious coverage. I think this is an excellent idea provided that a proportional amount of coverage is given to atheism and agnosticism. (A 2004 YouGov survey showed that only 44% of the UK population believe in a god and 36% described themselves as atheist.)

I decided to take a look at the BBC listings for the coming week and found that it's actually a good week for atheism on the BBC. Of course there's a disproportionate amount of religious programming, but I don't feel too badly done by.

First we have the Heaven and Earth Show. This is mysteriously described as a 'topical magazine programme' in the BBC listings so it didn't come up at all when I searched for religious keywords. The Heaven and Earth show is primarily about religion and ethics and also covers wacky topics like water divining and non-belief.

I've found that Heaven and Earth is the best programme on TV for getting to hear the views of non-believers. You have to put up with a lot of new age clap-trap and Christians advocating beating their children, but it's the best we have. This week Richard E Grant is a guest and will apparently discuss losing his faith, sounds interesting. Over the years they have had many famous atheist guests.

Last week's show was excellent it had Robert Winston (who claims to be a believing Jew but does a very good impression of being a secular cultural Jew) and the atheist and philosopher A C Grayling. It was an interesting pairing the religious scientist and the non-religious arts enthusiast. Winston was promoting his upcoming programme The Story of God (the book is already out, the TV show will be on in December). I'm looking forward to the Story of God, Winston is very articulate about the science of belief.

Moving to Monday, it gets even better. The first episode of Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief is on BBC 2 at 7pm.  I watched this series when it was first broadcast (on BBC 4, I think). It's excellent. I'm a very big Jonathan Miller fan (one day I'll tell you about the time I met him). Jonathan is a polymath - he trained as a medical doctor, was part of the highly successful Beyond the Fringe comedy group (with Dudley Moore, Peter Cook and Alan Bennett), he is a theatre and film director, an opera director and creates sculptures from junk. He's also an atheist. The series is basically a bit of an excuse for Jonathan to have a chat to some other famous atheists and I'm more than happy that we get the chance to eavesdrop.

I wouldn't object at all to more religious coverage, provided we get proportional coverage for non-believing license fee payers.

Stop it, you're embarrassing me

While I certainly respect other people's right to be religious, I honestly feel that religion is a negative force it the world. When I think of the religiosity that currently plagues the world, I'm bemused, frustrated, fearful, sickened and most of all, embarrassed.

I'm bemused because I just don't get it. Why can't they see the emperor has no clothes? I can understand why religion still exists in parts of the world where modern thinking isn't prevalent. But in western countries where science is taught in schools, what's going on there? I sometimes wonder if they're faking it. Is there some great conspiracy that I'm not in on? Will someone one day provide me with a plausible reason as to why it's in the best interests of humanity for me to pretend that I believe in God? This explanation actually seems more plausible to me than the idea that millions of educated people are religious. Yep, I'm bemused.

I'm frustrated because all this silliness gets in the way of rational thinking. If all the intellectual energy that is currently directed towards interpreting an ancient collection of folk tales was instead applied to the advancement of society just think where we would be. I feel strongly that leaving behind racism, sexism and homophobia are steps forward in human morality. The religious contest every step forward. Just think how much more quickly society could progress without religion. Yep, I'm frustrated.

I'm fearful because the situation seems to be getting worse. This is most obvious in the US. The idea of a president believing that god is on his side is absolutely terrifying to me. Bush is very very scary.

I'm sickened every time I hear a disaster survivor claim that they prayed to God and he saved them. Do they really believe that they are morally superior to all the people who prayed and still died. Do they think they are better than the babies and children that God didn't save? I feel sickened that these people are so blinded by fake morality that they've lost touch with human morality.

And finally, I'm embarrassed because we should know better, we do know better. I cringe to imagine what future historians will write about these times.

Religious Education? No thanks.

The BHA has again voiced its concerns over the government's plans for increasing the number of faith schools in the UK. I agree with everything they have to say on the topic.

I find the idea of faith schools deeply disquieting. I can't understand why the government is encouraging the creation of new faith schools rather than getting rid of the 7000 we already had. Faith schools are wrong on so many levels.

I can't see how anyone can justify teaching religion to children within the educational system. Teaching religion and science on an equal footing is just plain wrong. How can you give children the critical thinking skills that are needed in order to advance society if you also advocate faith-based belief? We've even had a hint of creationism at schools run by Vardy (the 'success' of these schools is a motivating factor in the new white paper). I wish we could get to the point where the only place for religion in schools is in history lessons.

I'm also concerned about the ripple effect that an increased number of faith schools would have on the wider community, Local schools are a major consideration when people are buying houses. If we see more faith schools then we'll see more segregation in communities. Lack of exposure to other cultures breeds prejudice. Our school system must not encourage small-mindedness.

I find the idea of parents having a choice of schools on any basis ludicrous. Does the government think that everyone lives in big cities with many schools in easy travelling distance? Or perhaps they think it's a good idea to have more children travelling long distances to school by car? Every child should have access to a good school within walking distance (or with a school bus in rural areas). What if the nearest school for a non-religious family is religious? What if the nearest school for a religious family has the wrong flavour religion? Do we really want large numbers of children to have a long commute each day?

If the good school in an area is religious (which does happen) then parents already pretend to be religious in order to get their children into the school. In some cases this even involves non-believers having to attend church, this might be great for the church's attendance figures but surely no-one should be in this position.

I also object to the government spending my money on feeding religious propaganda to children. This is not a religious country, unfortunately our government is disproportionately religious and the religious communities have an influence which is entirely unreasonable.

Religious Education? No thanks.

Mockery of the Faithful is Good

The Religion and Ethics section of the BBC website is currently running the following poll:

Is mockery good for the faithful?:

• Yes
• No

Immediately after I voted the results were looking very close:

• Yes: 114
• No: 116

I wasn't quite sure how to answer. I went with Yes on the basis that occasionally mockery might make someone religious see sense. On reflection, perhaps mockery is more likely to make them dig their heels in.

The poll is a reference Lord Carey's opposition to the proposed (completely crazy) Religious Hatred Bill. Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has said:

"We know religion is a force for good but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism."

"The Church of England is a broad church, we are used to being mocked. I do believe passionately in this."

While I agree with Carey that the bill is a bad idea. I think mockery is ultimately going to contribute to the downfall of religion. Even if mockery doesn't convince the faithful, I think it does a lot to make the doubtful see reason and to assure the godless that they are in good company.

Yesterday, Cenk Uygur published a wonderful piece of mockery: "If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong".

Is mockery of the faithful good? Yes, Yes, Yes.

How I Became an Atheist

So how did I come to be an atheist? Well there was no great moment when I saw the light, I didn't lose my religion. I was brought up in a household with a father who is an atheist and a mother who chooses to believe the nice bits of Christianity without thinking about it too much. We didn't attend church as a family and I never went to Sunday school. I did go to a Church of England primary school which had daily acts of worship including prayers at the end of each day (I cringe to think of this now). We also had a weekly assembly in the local church (the vicar would come to us if it rained). I remember giving religious readings in church at Harvest Festival and Christmas services.

The weird thing is that I remember hearing lots of bible stories as a small child, but I don't remember feeling that we were supposed to think they were true. I remember them in the same way that I remember Aesop's fables. I understood that the stories had an underlying moral message, but I don't think I realised that people actually believed that they had happened.

When I was at middle school (in the 1980s), religious education was all about learning about other religions. I remember learning a lot about Hinduism. I don't remember thinking about religion much at this age, but I would certainly have understood that people did in fact believe in various religions.

I guess I have to credit Erich von Daniken for helping me come to an actively atheist and rational world view. As a young teenager I read some of his books including Chariots of the Gods: Was God an Astronaut? and found them fascinating. Could this stuff really be true? Had aliens really influenced the development of civilisation on earth? (I was young.)  Then I read an article debunking his books which got me thinking about how we actually determine what is true. I realised that religion was no more plausible than von Daniken's explanations and that critical thinking was crucial.

At the age of eighteen a boyfriend's father explained that he was a Humanist and what this meant. Prior to this I hadn't realised there was a term for my worldview.

I've never wavered from being an atheist. I was never tempted by any of the many religions I encountered at University. I was never convinced by any of the so-called proofs of the existence of God that I encountered when studying philosophy. I can listen unswervingly to any number of explanations as to why God/Allah is the reason why a horrendous natural disaster isn't even worse.

Charity and Religion Don't Mix

When I was writing yesterday's post on Alabama 3 I took a look at their website. The band recorded a version of Bob Dylan's Trying to Get to Heaven in order to raise money for victims of hurricane Katrina - the lyrics of the song are very appropriate to that disaster. In light of recent events, they have now changed this so that the proceeds go to victims of the South-East Asia Earthquake.

Great idea, I thought and followed the link. In order to download the song as an mp3, you need to make a donation to victims of the earthquake. Then I read the declaration I needed to sign (it's an honesty system):

I swear by almighty god that I will not download the MP3 file -"Trying to get to heaven" - until I have made a donation to Islamic Relief.

The god reference isn't a problem, based on the bands views I'd say it's ironic. And anyway, the declaration is actually optional (you can download the track without agreeing to it). The bit I have a problem with is the reference to a specific religious charity: Islamic Relief. I doubt if the band were directly involved in choosing the charity but it's still a bit disappointing to see this. Or maybe it was done deliberately to make Christians donate to an Islamic charity?

I don't donate to religious charities at all. Religion and charity do not mix in my book. I want to be absolutely certain that I am not supporting a religious agenda anywhere in the world.

I'm pretty sure Alabama 3 didn't intend to encourage atheists to donate to an Islamic charity so I decided to make a donation to a alternative agency instead. I did a quick search and it seems that the Disaster Emergency Committee is the main umbrella charity collecting donations for the quake appeal. However, many of the member agencies of DEC are religious charities including CAFOD, Christian Aid and Islamic Relief. DEC spends its funds by distributing them to its member organisations. Hmm. I wonder if I've been caught out by this in the past?

I know that both the British Red Cross and Oxfam are secular charities so I went directly to Oxfam and donated there. (You can use the following links to donate via the British Red Cross or Oxfam.)

I wanted to email the Alabama 3 site and ask them to add a secular charity as an alternative, but couldn't find any contact details on the website.

I downloaded the track, which is excellent although it was slightly spoilt by my brain making unpleasant connections between the sentiment of "Trying to get to Heaven" and Islam.

The Meek Ain't Gonna Inherit Shit

I'm a big music fan. I'm not going to listen to music just because it happens to have an anti-religious theme. But, one of my favourite bands Alabama 3 have all bases covered. Alabama 3's musical style is best described as acid-country-gospel-techno and their subject matter is political with a liberal dash of satire targeting organised religion and drug culture.

The band have their own church - the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine (UK). Band member The Rev D. Wayne Love is a minister of the church and preaches, among other things, "D.Wayne Love represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!". Well Amen to that.

Alabama 3 are best known for Woke up this Morning, the title track to the Sopranos, but if that's all you've heard then your seriously missing out (provided you like acid-country-gospel-techno and I can't see who wouldn't). The title of this post is a line from The Mansion on the Hill and appears on some of the Alabama 3 merchandise. Here are a few more irreverent examples:

• I got two heads
  I'm gonna bang my heads together
  I got one leg
  I'm gonna hop to heaven's door
  I got three eyes
  I'm gonna pluck one out for Jesus
  And I ain't gonna have no troubles anymore - Two Heads


• (Sung in the style an an American envangelical preacher)
  Step Three: Make a searching inventory of all your good shit
  Step Four: Inventory taken,you hand all that good shit over to me
  Step Five: Having divined I am the real thing you get down on your knees
  Step Six: ....and humbly ask me to remove your underthings - Hypo Full of Love
  
  
• My two little cousins got shot selling rock
  Outside the old school gates
  
  CHORUS
  I don't mind cos I live in the light
  I live in the light of the Lord - Cocaine Killed my Community

A few Alabama 3 facts:

• In the US the band are known as A3 (to avoid getting sued by a redneck band called Alabama).


• The band are actually British.


• They are one of the best live bands I've ever heard. Closest I'll get to a religious experience ;-).

The band have just released a DVD - Hear The Train A Comin:

Stand up and be counted

Would you like to live in a country where there's no such law as blasphemy, where state schools cannot offer religious instruction, and where there is no offical state religion? No, this isn't an advert from the French Tourist Board, it is an advert of sorts though.

Relatively few reasonable people (rationalists, humanists, secularists, etc) are members of reasonable organisations. In some cases this may be an active decision, not all reasonable folk feel the need for organisations that promote their worldview. However, I suspect that many people are not members for other reasons. Perhaps they don't know that such organisations exist, or they don't understand what they do or they've just never got around to it.

I've just renewed my membership of three UK-based reasonable organisations because I do think they are valuable. It only took me a few minutes per organisation to subscribe online (links below). I think it's well worth the money. You can also make additional donations to further support the work of these organisations.

The National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association do a great job of providing a reasonable voice in UK politics. Recent examples have included opposition of the religious hatred bill and government funding of faith schools. The more members these organisation have the more weight their activities will have.

The Rationalist Press Association publishes New Humanist Magazine. I think it's really important to have a print magazine that provides a reasonable perspective. A New Humanist subscription is included with membership, or you can subscribe to the magazine without becoming a member.

Join the British Humanist Association
Join the National Secular Society
Join the Rational Press Association

Of course there are reasonable organisations around the world. But I'm afraid you'll have to go and look for those yourself ;-) There's one international organisation that I will mention though The Brights. As you may of heard, the Brights are trying to get the word bright recognised as a generic term for those with a 'naturalistic world view'. It doesn't cost anything to register as a Bright, but you can make a voluntary donation if you like.

Go on, do it now.

Thankyou Polly Toynbee

Polly Toynbee is a British Journalist who writes for the Guardian. I first came across Polly's no-nonsense journalism in the Radio Times (a UK TV and Radio listings magazine) and was hooked immediately. Polly had a regular columm in which she covered a wide range of issues and often unapologetically dismissed religion, astrology and similar popular bunkum.

Polly's recent columns for the Guardian are available online. Polly is well worth reading on a variety of topics, but our focus here is on her Rationalism. The following extracts give a flavour of her views in this area:

"The way this government nurtures religion is beyond comprehension in most of its own ranks. Why 150 more separatist faith schools? Why incitement to religious hatred when hardly a voice in the Commons could be found to support it, and when most people profess no religion? And what is all this for? As religion breaks out across the world as the most ferociously divisive force, it is time to be serious about secularism." - The bishops have no right to restrict our right to die

"Race is something people cannot choose and it defines nothing about them as people. But beliefs are what people choose to identify with: in the rough and tumble of argument to call people stupid for their beliefs is legitimate (if perhaps unwise), but to brand them stupid on account of their race is a mortal insult. The two cannot be blurred into one - which is why the word Islamophobia is a nonsense." - My right to offend a fool

"It is time now to get serious about religion - all religion - and draw a firm line between the real world and the world of dreams. Tony Blair has taken entirely the wrong path. He has appeased, prevaricated and pretended, maybe because he is a man of faith himself, with a Catholic wife who consorts with crystals. But never was it more important to separate the state from all faiths and relegate all religion to the private - but well-regulated - sphere." - In the name of God

When I feel exasperated by the media's blind acceptance of religion and superstition, I go and reread one of Polly's articles and feel a bit better about the world.

Thankyou Polly Toynbee for reasonableness of the highest standard.

Narnia: A fiction based on a fiction

Disney has made a film of CS Lewis' children's book, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Children's author and atheist Philip Pullman is up in arms about this, claiming that "they are stories of racism and thinly veiled religious propaganda that will corrupt children rather than inspiring them."

So does Pullman have the right idea, or does this sound like the atheist version of Christian Evangelists banning Harry Potter books because they promote Paganism? Well Pullman does at least have factual basis for his claims. Lewis was a Christian apologist and has stated that Christianity was a strong influence on the Narnia books. The Narnia books are heavily conservative and I have no reason to doubt Pullman's claim that some of the uglier aspects of Christianity are present.

I remember reading The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe as a child. Thinking about the book still conjures up vivid mental images, but the Christian symbolism went way over my head. I suspect that Pullman is right that if I read the books today I would find them morally objectionable.

The American religious right has certainly adopted the film as its own and statements such as "We believe that God will speak the gospel of Jesus Christ through this film," are appearing. It seems that Disney is taking advantage of the Christian appeal of the film, but those involved in making the film claim that it is faithful to the themes of the book and doesn't overly stress the religious message. Douglas Gresham, Lewis's nephew was involved in prodicing the film and has said "We never set out to make a 'Christian' movie, the book taps different veins in different people. If we overstressed what little symbolism there is, we would have thrown away the project."

So assuming that it's true that the film projects the same values as the book, is there a problem with the film? Personally, I'd rather see more childrens films that reflect my morality, but I wouldn't want to prevent a film such as this. Children should be exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints and encouraged to develop critical thinking skills so that they can form their own opinions.

However, I'm very concerned with the risk of Christianisation of the film industry. Kyle Fisk of the (American) National Association of Evangelicals has said of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe "There is a big connection between this film and The Passion of the Christ. Mel Gibson proved you can make a film with moral values which could be embraced by people with faith. Hollywood is now waking up to the fact that people want this kind of entertainment. If The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a fabulous movie then we are going to see it used in churches, youth groups and outreach programmes."

The religious right in the US are so numerous that they could have a serious impact on which films get made.

I have to admit that I'm really hoping that the Christians will dislike this film for not being religious enough, or for having scary witches in, or something. I'd hate for Disney to get the message that the Christian market is a realiable source of huge profits.

Do the Christians want Halloween or not?

The holiday of Halloween can be traced back to the Celtic celebration of Samhain:

"The Celts believed that on the night before the new year the boundary between this world and the world of the dead dissolved and the dead returned to earth causing trouble and damaging crops.

It wasn't all bad though, since the Celts thought that the presence of these spirits helped their priests to make predictions about the future. These forecasts and warnings about the future were an important source of solace during the long, dark winter." - BBC feature on Halloween

The next step was for the Romans to add their touch to the festival, combining a couple of nearby holidays into the mix.

I'm sure you can guess what happened next. Of course, the Christians came along and claimed the holiday for their own:

"All Saints' Day is said to be the day when souls walked the Earth. In early Christian tradition souls were released from purgatory on All Hallow's Eve for 48 hours, and cakes and wine were left out for them." - BBC feature on Halloween

So why is it that modern Christians aren't playing the game and claiming Halloween as their own? Many of them seem to celebrate Halloween as a secular holiday, others shun it based on its pagan roots. Christians seem to have no trouble claiming Easter and Christmas for their own, but Halloween seems a lot more troublesome.

A Christian Perspective on Halloween is a lovely example of not playing the game. The gist of this article is that Christians should not celebrate Halloween because of its connection with the occult, Christians are invulnerable to dark magic but others are not so it's best to stay away. Children and those who have converted from the dark side are especially vulnerable. Here's a little taster:

"During this night when Satanists and witches covens meet to cast their spells and perform grotesque rituals, it seems appropriate for believers to gather to praise the one and only God."

The web is full of advice on holding church Harvest Parties as a Christian alternative to Halloween. This all seems a bit defeatist to me. The Christians didn't set up a parallel festival to Easter, they claimed it for their own, ditto Yuletide/Christmas.

All is not lost though. The Rev James Jordan has the right idea. In his article Halloween: A Distinctly Christian Holiday he claims that Halloween has nothing to do with pagans and is an entirely Christian holiday:

"Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ - we have NO FEAR!"

Why I'm an atheist

In  the simplest  terms  I'm an  atheist  because I  don't believe  in God(s).  It's not just that I don't believe in any of the gods in common circulation, I don't believe in any divine beings.

Many religious folk misunderstand this and think that in order to be an atheist you would need to be able to disprove the existence of gods (or at least their God). Either that or you would need to accept the non-existence of gods 'on faith' and therefore you would be using similar reasoning to them.

Plenty of people have explained why this is dodgy reasoning, but I don't think it will hurt to do it again. In order for me to believe in something I have to have sufficient evidence to accept that it is true. I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in gods therefore I don't believe in them. In fact I have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that the human brain is capable of inventing gods. The non-existence of gods seems by far the most reasonable conclusion and I therefore don't believe in gods. There's no need to disprove the existence of gods to take this position.

So does this mean that I can't be certain that gods don't exist? Yes it does. If convincing evidence becomes available to prove the existence of gods then I will become a believer. Similarly, if JK Rowling produces concrete evidence that the Harry Potter series is not actually a work of fiction but a true story then I would also believe that. I happen to think that the former is just as likely as the latter.

Shouldn't I technically call myself an agnostic if I can't disprove the existance of gods? Well given my position this would seem rather silly to me. I don't feel the need to say I'm agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden, Father Christmas or unicorns. Fortunately afairyism is the default position for adults so I rarely need to express my position on topic. Unfortunately atheism is not the default position.

How can a theist be moral?

A couple of things this week have got me thinking about the relationship between religion and morality.

Firstly, a letter to the Guardian included the following: "... if there is no God, why should I be moral? Arguably, this question is more embarrassing for atheists than for theists. In a world with God, we cannot attain our happiness without loving God, and therefore obeying God's commands. In a world without God, however, moral standards are nothing more than merely abstract ideals. And why should I be bound by that sort of ideal if there is no such being? Any serious defence of secular morality must face up to this challenge." A quick google shows that there are plenty of people genuinely asking this question.

Secondly, there was a BBC News article describing how a mullah tried to prevent the daytime preparation of food for earthquake survivors because it broke the rules of Ramadan. I just don't see how anyone can think that morality must come from religion or is even compatible with religion. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Doing things because you think you'll be rewarded in the afterlife is not my idea of morality. As Ricky Gervais said "Being an atheist makes someone a clearer thinking, fairer person. They [atheists] are not doing things to be rewarded in heaven; they're doing things because they're right, because they live by a moral code."

2) Religious folks often pick and choose the bit of their religious texts that most closely match their own sense of morality. This is why we find Christians who are pro-choice and in favour of gay rights and other Christians who are anti-choice and homophobic. In this case morality is not coming from religion, instead religion is being used to reinforce morality.

3) To my mind, religious texts often promote a code of conduct that I would describe as immoral. Take a look at the  if you need reminding of the truely awful morality of the Bible.

4) Many modern day ethical issues are not addressed in ancient religious texts. For example the bible does not explain under which circumstances gene therapy can be applied. Anyone trying to use religion to address such issues is in the realm of interpretation. How can anyone think that such an interpretation is preferable to having an informed debate based on the facts?

5) The idea that people need a 'carrot and stick' ideology in order to behave well is flawed. Atheists clearly do live by a moral code. The reason they do this is a combination of human nature and    the society in which they participate. Instead of asking 'What would Jesus do?', we ask 'What should I do based on the knowledge I have?'. Falling back on religion is a lazy attitude to morality, it gives people an excuse not to think about difficult issues.

I find the impact that religious 'morality' is having on modern society frightening. I'm fed up with religion being brought into discussions on important ethical issues such as euthanasia (see Polly Toynbee's article in the Guardian on this topic).

I find it disappointing that there are religious people who even need to ask the question 'How can an atheist be moral?' I suggest they take some time properly consider the question 'How can a theist be moral?'

Blogging for Reason

I'm happy to be called a sceptic, a rationalist, a humanist and an atheist. I don't believe in gods, astrology, reincarnation, clairvoyance or anything else that requires a paranormal explanation. I do believe in sound reasoning.

I think religion in particular is a negative force in the world. It prevents society from applying reason to the big issues of our time. On so many topics (war, abortion, euthanasia, genetic research, etc) our scientists and philosophers are forced to spend energy refuting religious arguments rather than having reasoned debates based on facts and knowledge.

The UK population is not  particularly religious, yet the religious have a big impact on the way we live our lives. It's not okay that bishops automatically get places in the House of Lords, it's not okay that English schools must have a daily act of worship and it's not okay that the government wants to fund more faith schools. More people need to say that it's not okay.

My reason for blogging is to make a small contribution towards making superstition less acceptable and reason more acceptable.

- Be Reasonable