Cogito ergo sum (atheus)

Loosely translated this means I am a pompous git for spouting Latin.

More tightly translated it means I think, therefore I am (atheist).

And so I return to a subject on which I have pontificated before (see God and Religion )

I had better make it clear at the outset that I am not implying that people who believe in God don’t think! Obviously they do but follow different thought patterns to those that lead me to an atheistic position. Since time immemorial Jewish scholars have debated over the meaning and interpretation of the scriptures, obviously involving a good deal of high-powered thinking which, in the end, lead them to maintain their beliefs.

Christians and Muslims have done the same.

I simply find myself unable to accept the existence of either the God of the Bible or the God of the Qu’ran.

Are they two different Gods, or the same God being interpreted in two different ways? What about the multiple Gods of India? Humanity has believed in and worshipped countless numbers of Gods over the millennia. I am sympathetic to the view that rather than humanity being the creation of God (whichever one you believe in), God (whichever one you believe in) has been “created” by humanity.

I subscribe to an online discussion community called Quora and some of the most frequently occurring questions relate to God and Atheism. A common question is something along these lines .. How does an Atheist prove there is no God? Since I don’t believe in anything that cannot be proven beyond doubt it follows that, in my mind, there is no God, and since you cannot prove the non-existence of something I do not feel the need to produce any such proof. More to the point, I believe it is incumbent upon those who believe in the existence of God to provide proof of His (or Its) existence.

The usual come-back to this challenge is the assertion, “I have faith in His existence”. The Encarta English Dictionary defines faith as  belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

Another common question is along the lines of  .. "How do atheists maintain good moral behaviour without religious commandments? This is preposterous. Human beings don't need religion in order to behave properly. A civilized society that has no mutually beneficial rules of behavious is doomed to collapse. Conversely, religious groups demonstrably have no monopoly on good behaviour!

Now I submit that you are perfectly entitled to be endowed with this faith (in the existence of God), but you are not entitled to present it to others as fact. I believe that people have every right to believe in whatever God and teachings that they wish, so long as they: (1) bear no malice towards me, and (2) feel no compunction either to persuade or force me to adopt the same views.

For my part I have no wish to turn Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., into atheists. Atheism is not a proselytizing condition. Other people can reach that state of mind, as I did, by questioning their own beliefs in their own time, should they wish to do that. 

As has been stated by me and other more learned thinkers (such as Richard Dawkins) the reason most of us are Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Catholic/Protestant/Shia/Sunni/Atheist is because from the first time after our birth that we were able to understand anything our parents told us who and what we were; and their parents had done the same to them .. and so on back into the mists of time. As a child we learn first from our parents, and what they tell us is true fact, for we have no way of knowing otherwise, or even thinking we ought to question what we are told. “Give me a child till he is seven, and I will show you the man” (Aristotle).

I was told it was fact that God existed, that he knew my every move, and if I was good I would go to heaven; if I was bad I would go to hell and burn forever. I had a childhood imbued with fear. I was told the Bible was Holy and I was expected to read it .. which I did in my early years without questioning a single thing I read .. talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man inside a fish, slavery, animals in ark, submission of women to husbands, virgin birth, life after death, the psychotic episode that is “Revelations” .. to name but a few oddities. I had no reason to doubt the existence of Heaven or Hell. I was expected to go to church every Sunday, and for the greater part of my life had feelings of guilt if I did not do so. 

By the time I was 70 I had re-read large parts of the Bible (and the Qu’ran) with an adult mind, and decided that much of it was patent nonsense. I could also see that religion had caused, and was still causing, much conflict and evil around the world. We are currently suffering the latest manifestations of evil in the activities of fanatical Muslims calling themselves “Islamic State”, who feel compelled to rid the earth of every human being who doesn’t submit to their particular thought process.

I have therefore turned my back on religion. I have Christian friends who accept me for what I am, and for that I am grateful. I offer them reciprocal acceptance and respect. They are good people. I have also been told by others professing to be Christians that I am misguided, mentally unstable, and destined for Hell. I'm not sure they are good people.

I recently listened to a young lady calling into LBC to explain why she had abandoned Christianity for Islam. The general gist of her reasoning was that there was too much flexibility in Christianity, not enough compulsion to understand the Bible in detail, too little firm guidance. What she wanted was a firmness of purpose in her religion, and praised the fact that so many Muslims are expected to learn the Qu’ran by heart. When the presenter suggested to her that over the millennia humanity had evolved, and that what was written thousands of years ago could not be applied rigidly to how things were today, her response was that religion had evolved .. and this is how she explained that evolution: "First there was Moses, then there was Jesus, and then there was Mohammed; and HE was the FINAL MESSENGER". In other words, all that we need to know ended in the 7^th century.

What a gloriously simplistic thought process! And how lacking in proper thought.

Cogito ergo sum atheus.

©Lionel Beck

August 2017

I'm Starting a New Religion

Let me run a few ideas past you. Why don’t I start a new Religion? How easy would it be? Would it help if I grew a beard and looked a bit more imposing? OK – I’ve grown the beard. Now I’ve got to tell you about the dream I had the other night when I was visited by an Angel who declared himself to be a messenger; from God, no less. I bet you’ve never been visited by an Angel, so listen up!

He told me that I was to be the Apostle of God and he would be passing me messages about how we should all be running our lives. Right, now you are listening, aren’t you?! I mean, that’s impressive that I’m receiving messages from God the Creator. There can be little doubt that you are going to be believe me and start listening to what I have to say.

Apparently I don’t have to write any of these messages down; I can dictate them to someone else, and they can be passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, but it would be preferable if they could be finalised by not later than, say, 2321 or thereabouts, by which time a number of people will have had the time to expound some ideas on how they should be interpreted, after which the messages (and interpretations and traditions associated with them) will be committed to digital media, and accepted as the final Word of God for all eternity.

That sounds OK doesn’t it?

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that I have a penchant for small girls and I intend to see to it that some of God’s messages make it clear that this is acceptable, even to the extent of marrying one and having sexual intercourse with her. I’m sure this is something you can quickly skate over in order to appreciate the greater good in everything else I have to say. In fact, to make it easier for those of you who are men, I’m giving you permission to have up to four wives, provided you accept that I can have as many as I want (because God said I can). Moreover, you’ll be effectively in complete charge of your wives, and if they misbehave, please feel free to beat them.

This seems a good time to mention that women, generally, are inferior to men, and in case of any disputes or wrongdoing, a woman’s word is worth only half that of a man.

In the unlikely event, gentlemen, that you are still feeling sexually frustrated, you have special dispensation to have sex with female slaves, or the wives of other nationalities you fight and conquer. I’m sorry, I had forgotten to mention that it’s OK to own slaves, and on the question of going to war against other people I’d also forgotten to mention that this is a useful way of ensuring that everyone else in the world accepts everything I’m being told by God. 

I’m sorry this sounds a bit dictatorial, but I also insist that if you speak not only against God, but against me as the receiver of His messages, this is Blasphemy in either or both cases.

Some of you may be wondering about rape, but this shouldn’t worry you unduly (unless you are a woman) since God gives you permission to insist on sexual relations with your wife (or wives) so, inside marriage, rape doesn’t really exist, does it? If she refuses you, she can consider herself cursed.

This isn’t to say that rape doesn’t exist outside marriage, because really you men are only entitled to sexual intercourse with however many wives you have, your female slaves, and the wives of those you conquer. Outside of those categories, however, you are in trouble, though not as much as might at first be thought since the woman’s accusatory words are only half the worth of your own words; so – enjoy!

One of God’s messages to me made it clear that there can be no compulsion in the acceptance of this Religion I’m giving you, and I expect that in the future a lot of people of other Faiths who achieve political power will feel obliged to keep on repeating that the Religion I’m giving you is a “Religion of Peace”, and it is a good idea for you to let them go on believing that. The thing is, some of those politicians will have neglected to read a message that appears much later on in the Series that states clearly you should fight all the unbelievers until or unless they accept the truths that I’m giving you.

As everyone knows, you should always obey the latest commandment, even if it contradicts an earlier one. This is called the Law of Abrogation.

I think it would help you in your compulsory duty to spread the word by force, to think of these unbelievers as pigs, dogs and apes. However, it’s OK to appear friendly towards them before you slaughter them, since much of war (and this is a holy war) is all about lies and deceit.

Finally I would instruct you to pray five times a day, making sure you wash yourselves first especially (you men) if you have been in contact with a woman (who is by definition unclean, especially during her menses). I admit these praying instructions don’t actually appear in the messages given to me by God, but it’s generally a good idea, don’t you think? So do it, but make sure you do not look upwards as you pray if you don’t want your eyes to pop out.

All earlier laws and scriptures handed down to other Faiths are hereby declared false, redundant or both.

- oOo –

APOLOGY: Soon after I wrote this, I was visited by another angel who whispered in my ear that my ideas are not new, and they had already been implemented about one and half thousand years ago.

Ah well, back to the drawing board.

©Lionel Beck – 14^th February 2016

American Enigma

I have the pleasure of knowing a few Americans. Some I have met in person, others I've merely corresponded with via the Web.

I have visited Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Washington DC. The experiences were good, the people I met were kind, generous, and friendly.

So I'm not starting an anti-USA rant here, far from it; I'm raising a particular question to which I have no answer.

I'm also aware that my own country (UK) has many peculiarities, and many traits that are undesirable, for example (to mention a few) our tendency to regard ourselves as superior beings, an unwillingness to reform our democratic processes, a belief that something should never be changed because it's "served us well" for generations, our dislike of immigrants, and our inability or unwillingness to learn any language other than English. (Indeed a good many of us cannot even master our own language!)

What makes Americans so different from us is (1) Religion and (2) Guns.

Religion

In 2014, 71% of Americans regarded themselves as Christians. (Pew Research Centre)

In the UK 2011 Census only 59% of the UK population described them as Christians, but various surveys suggest that they are not actually practising it, with between only 7 to 10% being actively involved in the Church(es).

A YouGov poll this year found that nearly 30% of Brits either called themselves Atheists, Anostics or Humanists. The religious beliefs of political leaders in Britain are not considered a big deal. The previous Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, and the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg were publicly open about having no belief in God.

In the USA the contrast is stark: "In God we trust" is printed on the currency. It is usual for leading US politicians to end their speeches to public gatherings with, "God bless America". If a British Prime Minister ended a speech with "God bless Britain" it would be met either with puzzled silence or laugher (or a mixture of the two).

The pages of Facebook are littered with American postings exhorting people to put their trust in Jesus, accept the Lord, Praise the Lord, Amen, Amen, Amen, and people ask to be placed on Prayer Lists.

Guns

The USA is about 4% of the World's population but Americans own 42% of all the guns on the planet. So far this year there have been 45 school shootings in the USA. The number of gun deaths per million people is 106 in the USA and 7 in the UK. The right to bear arms is vociferously defended in the USA, and one of the most common and trite responses to criticism whenever there is another mass shooting is, "It's not the gun that kills - it's the man behind the gun".

The Enigma

And so my question that nobody has yet managed to answer for me is this : How do we reconcile the American love of guns with the American love of Jesus?

Are the gun lovers and the Jesus lovers the same people, or are they two distinct and separate groups? I'm suspecting there's a significant overlap, but I don't claim to know.

Je Suis Charlie

Sunday 11th January 2015 saw an amazing gathering of over a million people in Paris.

It was a mass demonstration of great dignity, peace and solidarity against the disgusting murders of journalists, cartoonists, police officers and ordinary shoppers a few days earlier by four Islamic Jihadists.

I watched this awesome spectacle for several hours on the BBC News Channel, and I would describe it as a manifestation of Civilization versus Barbarism.

For one day, at least, Civilization smashed Barbarism. We must hope that it lasts for considerably longer than one day.

We saw, united in friendship and common cause, white people, black people, brown people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, people of no faith at all; people from all over Paris, France, Europe and beyond, including Prime Ministers and Presidents from all over the place, arms linked during a slow and dignified march from Place de la Republique to Place de la Nation in the cause of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

I don't care whether or not Charlie Hebdo published cartoons that were offensive to some Muslims. That could never justify going on a shooting spree. And as Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation said yesterday, "When someone tells you a cartoon offends Muslims, what he is really saying is that it offends him".

I was moved by an interview with a Jewish man and his daughter in the crowd who were each holding a white rose. He explained that the roses had been given to them by his Muslim neighbour as a symbol of peace. A French woman standing next to a man from North Africa said, "I don't know this man, but he is my brother".

On a final note regarding the satirical magazine and its "offensive" cartoons, it is important to realise that it is not just Islam that has been the butt of their jokes, but Christianity as well. There was recently a cartoon depicting Jesus hanging on the cross, with the caption, "I'm a Celebrity - get me out of here!" No bunch of crazed Christians went on a shooting spree.

I believe whenever there is anything in our political institutions or our religions that are either stupid or ridiculous, then it is incumbent upon us to ridicule them. We survive by having a sense of humour .. something sadly lacking in most religious fundamentalists of whatever faith.

Catholic Church catches up with Science

I has been my long-held view that Religion and the churches that peddle it, do not, as a rule, lead the development of society. What happens is that from time to time the Church takes a leap forward to catch up with society.

Take the matter of contraception; officially discouraged by the Catholic Church, we all know (and that includes the Church) that it is widely practised by Catholics. I venture to suggest that the time will come when it receives the Church's official approval.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis - who in many ways has so far been a remarkable Pope - has (according to USA Today) just made an interesting statement about Creation. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he said "When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so; He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."

This is not entirely new because earlier Popes have talked in similar terms. I think the current Pope's pronouncements carry more weight, however, because of his radical views on many things, and because of his popularity.




"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

Pope Francis .. October 2014

 
 

It is probably because the Catholic Church has previously dabbled in a more scientific view of creation that the more rabid evangical protestants (found predominantly in the USA) denounce Catholics as not being "Proper Christians".

The Pope's view on Creation is anathema to those who like to adhere to the Disneyesque view of Genesis and indeed the rest of the Bible. In fact the Pope falls into line with other eminent thinkers such as Lionel Beck and Thomas Paine. What? Oh, alright, Thomas Paine!

So if we accept evolution, the question that now arises is, at what point along the evolutionary path did the organic beings that preceded primitive humankind acquire a Soul capable of surviving death and "ascending" into "heaven"?

I'm not going to try and answer that one becasue I wish to retain some semblance of sanity, but I'm sure there are people out there who are going to tell me the answer.

Atheists are Lost for Words

Oh my God!  .. I’ve just realised that religion and language have been so intertwined over the centuries that oft-repeated phrases become problematical for those of us who have concluded that GOD (as we understand Him through the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions) does not exist.

What in God’s name are we going to do about it? Invent new phrases, or be comfortable in the knowledge that everyone uses them without actually thinking?

Jesus!! .. it’s difficult! God only knows how it’s all going to turn out. But surely, being able to use words and phrases that might cause offence to some people is my God-given right?!

Lord knows, even the ghastly 21^st century manifestation, “Text-speak” (which is surely the spawn of the Devil) does not make things any easier for the atheist .. OMG !

For God’s sake help me out here. But don’t leave troll-like comments, or you can just go to Hell. I sometimes think that internet “trolls” are people who have the misfortune to live in God-forsaken towns and just feel compelled to give everybody else Hell.

Good God! .. is that the time? I must get to the end of this soon. (“Thank Heaven for that!” did I hear you cry?)

It’s even difficult for me to work out how politely take my leave of you, since the simple “goodbye” is a contraction of the 16^th century (or thereabouts) God be with Ye.

So, as I sign off from God’s own country (Yorkshire) I hope you’ll remember me in your thoughts and prayers.

God bless .. and I’ll see you in my next Blog (God willing).

"The Naked Communist" by W Cleon Skousen - A Review

My attention was drawn to this book by a man I know well who is concerned about Communist infiltration into British, American and European governments. He is of the opinion that the goal of the European Union is to turn Europe into a Communist Collective.

I disagree fundamentally with this view, which appears to be a symptom of extreme right-wing paranoia, as well as being in complete contradiction to the reality on the ground.

"The Naked Communist" was cited as evidence to support his view, so I bought it and read it.

Scousen's aim was to strip away the deceitful clothing that hid the true face and body of Communism, hence the title.

The book (published 56 years ago) has some merit in providing a useful summary of the history of Communism and its "founding fathers", if I may use that term. It was interesting to learn that Karl Marx never did a day's work in his life and neglected his wife and children to a disgraceful degree. He appeared to have not a single person he could call his friend, with the possible exception of his co-theorist, Friedrich Engels.

Both the book and it's author Skousen were products of their time: the "Iron Curtain" had fallen across the middle of Europe and all the people to the east of it had been enslaved by a tyrannical dictatorship purporting to be the answer to the problems of mankind. Communism was being presented to the rest of the world as the only way to a truly happy society. It was, of course, nothing of the kind, since it militated against man's natural instincts and could only be maintained by ruthless suppression of natural aspirations, the imposition of fear, and the frequent use of mass executions.

It was in reality a vehicle for the maintenance of power by the few over the many. At the end of the 2nd World War, in which it had been expedient to join forces with Russia and its satellites to destroy the evil of Hitler's Nazis, we found ourselves faced with an equally evil empire in the shape of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) presided over by one Joseph Stalin.

It is difficult to decide which man was the most monstrous - Hitler or Stalin. Neither had any moral compass and would stoop to any degree of depravity and international diplomatic deceit to get their way. Both used similar methods to maintain their hold on power.

And yet, after 1945, intellectuals and others in the "West" were quite happy to accept Communism as a genuinely desirable aspiration. Communist cells successfully established themselves within the USA, the "mothership" of Capitalism. The Communists believed that Capitalism was doomed to fail, but the process should be speeded up by a policy of disruption and discontent so that people would rise up and destroy their governments. During the 25 years following the end of World War 2 the Communist Party of Britain grew in strength, the British Labour Party was infiltrated, and Communist agitators within the Trade Union movement all but destroyed the British car industry, and wreaked havoc with many other industries.

Skousen's book correctly indicated what had already happened in this regard, correctly summarised what was already happening, but failed to foresee one or two important developments. He cannot be blamed for this because none of us has an infallible crystal ball.

What he didn't, or couldn't see, was that it was Communism itself that contained the seeds of its own destruction. The manifest failure of the major Communist countries to feed their own people without external help, the manifest failure to produce goods that people wanted, and the manifest failure to produce the proletarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels led - albeit painfully slowly - to a growing sense of unease within the major Communist leaderships and the people oppressed by them. Yugoslavia's Tito successfully distanced himself from the USSR, there were uprisings in Hungary (ruthlessly put down), and the Communist leader of Czechoslovakia, Alexendar Dubcek, attempted to install a kind of humanitarian and democratic communism in his country. Predictably at the time, he failed, and his Russian masters replaced him unceremoniously after the Russian tanks had been sent in.

Most significantly, though, was the gradual dawning of reality on the communist mothership itself, with the succession of Mikhail Gorbachev to the leadership of the Party in the USSR. But by this time it was already too late for a top-down rejection of Communism; the people began to rise up against their communist oppressors, first in Poland, then in East Germany. The movement spread. In 1989 the infamous Berlin Wall was demolished whilst the leadership and the "People's Army" stood by in bemused passive support. The rest of the "Iron Curtain" duly melted away.

It's ironic that the "proletariat" who were supposed to be bring down capitalism brought down communism instead!

I am not saying that Communism is a dead duck, but there is only one major Communist Country left in the world, and that is North Korea. I don't think many people are going to cite North Korea as an example of proletarian Utopia. It's just another ruthlessly oppressed people under the yoke of a dictator and a powerful army. Even so-called Communist China has somehow found an accommodation with a kind of free enterprise within its own country. It is "communist" mainly by virtue of it still being a single-party State. The Party is not practising full Communism, but it is all-powerful nevertheless.

Communism as a worldwide aspiration has imploded.

I believe it is important to know a little about Cleon Skousen and the things that influenced his way of thinking. Having drawn our attention to the history and the methods of Communism, and warned us of the consequences of ignoring those methods, he goes on towards the end of his book by trying to instil his own philosophies into the life of the "American Student", strongly advising that rather than submitting to the deceit of communism we should be submitting to the certainties of the Bible. He advocates the enthusiastic study of the Bible, and he implies that atheists are three quarters along the way to being Communists.

It is at this point that I fundamentally disagree with him; his advocacy of religion in general, and of the Judeo-Christian religions in particular as being the only way forward detracts from the value of the earlier parts of his book. Since he wrote that book, the world has moved on somewhat. I accept many of the creditable aspects of some religions and their followers, but I (and many others) cannot accept that atheism = communism = evil. 

I would ask, are the following (to name but a few) either Communists or Evil? .. Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams, Salman Rushdie, Billy Connolly, Bill Gates, Eddie Izzard, Ernest Hemingway, Katherine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, John Lennon, Barry Manilow, Ian McKellen, Terry Pratchett, Daniel Radcliffe, Alan Turing .. I could go on for pages, but I'll spare the reader.

Cleon Skousen was a far-right radical Conservative and a Mormon who worked for a short while with the FBI. He was later Chief of Police in Salt Lake City for 4 years. Mayor Bracken Lee said that although Skousen was an anti-communist he "ran the police department in exactly the same manner as the Communists in Russia operate their government."

Skousen disregarded all federal regulatory agencies and argued for the abolition of everything from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency. He also wanted to repeal the minimum wage, eliminate unions, nullify anti-discrimination laws, sell off public lands and national parks, end the direct election of Senators, eliminate income tax, and remove the separation between church and state.

Finally, the question .. is communism still infiltrating western society and is the goal of the European Union a Communist Collective?

Skousen sees no difference between Communism and Socialism ("except by their means of gaining power"). This is so way off the mark! Communism gains power by force, and retains power by force. Socialism gains power by majority vote and loses power by majority vote. To equate the two is sheer ignorance. In 1945 Britain elected a Socialist Government with a landslide majority. (I would say that was Britain's only Socialist Government). In 1951 that Socialist Government was dismissed by the British electorate. Subsequent successes by the British Labour Party were due to their abandoning socialism for a form of social democracy prepared to integrate with the idea of a free-market economy.

Whatever criticisms one can throw at the concept of the European Union - and there are many - the idea that it is working towards a Communist Collective is preposterous. Who could imagine that the people of Europe who for decades suffered either under the jackboot of Nazism, or the iron fist of Communism (in some cases one followed by the other) would countenance a return to something similar?

In Britain the Communist Party boasted 60,000 members after the War (still only about 0.1% of the population). It was disbanded in 1991. True, some ex-members went on to form other left-wing groups, most of which allied themselves to democracy rather than enforced one-party government. One such group is "Unlock Democracy" which is a left-leaning campaign group that works to promote participatory democracy across the political spectrum.

Communism is not the current threat to our way of life. The new threat is another -ism: militant Islamism.

If someone looks at Europe and sees Communism, then he fails to understand what Communism really is or was. Perhaps he should read Skousen's book? Oh damn! He already has!