YOUR BOOK TITLE HERE

“Atheism”
What is it?
Authors Name

Dr Reginald Le Sueur

1
 PUBLISHERS DETAILS

BOOK TITLE HERE

Copyright © Authors Name Here and Date

All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form,
by photocopying or by any electronic or mechanical means,
Including information storage or retrieval systems,
without permission in writing from both the copyright
owner and the publisher of this book.

ISBN Number Here

First Published Date by

Publishers Details Here
2
Printed in Great Britain for Publishers Name Here

YOUR BOOK TITLE HERE

“Atheism”
What is it?

3
4
 Type Dedication here

To all atheists everywhere.

5
Foreword

Preface

Chapter 1 “Faith and Dogma”

Chapter 2 “Creationism/Intelligent Design”
Chapter 3 “Theology and Atheology”
Chapter 4 “Evolution, Determinism, and the
Properties of Matter”
Chapter 5 “Evidence, Logic, and Fallacies”
Chapter 6 “Roots and Fruits”
Chapter 7 “Globalism and Tribalism”
Chapter 8 “Mind, Brain, Soul, Spirit”
Chapter 9 “Psychology”
Chapter 10”Christian Questions”
Chapter 11 “Early Critics of Christianity”
Chapter 12 “The Future”

Appendix: “Reasons not to believe”

Bibliography.

6
7
 Foreword

It is difficult for an enthusiastic amateur like

me to gain access to original documents, or
indeed to know just how original they are
anyway. Also without a good knowledge of
the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek and Latin my efforts in this book can be
little more than an anthology of other
researchers work, -hopefully with some extra
personalised comments and style of
presentation. I think it helps though to have
produced what I would like to believe is a
concise collection of the salient features of the
conflict between religion and atheistic
rationalism for anyone new to this subject.
Of the books mentioned in the Bibliography at
the end, I can truthfully claim to possess and to
have read most of them, and referred to the
rest, over the past 50 years of my atheism. I
have tried to follow Gibbon’s example in his
“Decline and fall”, by referring to primary
documents wherever possible; though of
course this is only a brief work, and not to be
compared with his Magnum Opus.

8
9
 Preface

Having read so many books about Jesus, I

decided why not have a go myself at
presenting the opposite pole of the argument;
surely I could not be worse. Even a prominent
Professor, who has attempted to rebut Richard
Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, makes some
very unsound assertions, along with many
others of Dawkins’ “fleas” who have jumped
on the bandwagon for Jesus.

Atheism has become a hot topic in recent

years, with books appearing from the “New
Atheists”, which are causing a stir among
believers and the undecided alike.
In particular, Dawkins’ book has caused
violent outrage.

There are many paths to Atheism, and this

little book is an attempt at an anthology of the
different strands of Science, Philosophy,
Psychology, History, Comparative Religion
and Mythology which one might otherwise
have to track down separately in different
publications
There are of course many other prominent as
well as more low-profile atheists, and their
10
outspokenness appears to be increasing, even
in the US.
“The God Strategy”, in which David Domke
and Kevin Coe offer a timely and dynamic
study of the rise of religion in American
politics, examining the public messages of
political leaders over the past seventy-five
years--from the 1932 election of Franklin
Roosevelt to the early stages of the 2008
presidential race. They conclude that U.S.
politics today is defined by a calculated,
deliberate, and partisan use of faith that is
unprecedented in modern politics..

It appears to be a vicious circle in the US

with Democrats and Republicans falling
over themselves to demonstrate their own
competitive religiosity to the Christian
voters and thereby reinforcing religious
fervour nationwide; I wonder how it will
end? Probably a Crusade against a
prominent godless Communist country.
Meanwhile the population becomes
dumber and dumber about Science, and
especially Evolution, and prayer meetings
continue in the White House.

Practical atheism has advanced in many

societies. J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart
argued that the existence of God is not
11
logically necessary. Naturalists and
materialistic monists such as John Dewey
considered the natural world to be the basis of
everything, denying the existence of God or
immortality.
A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia
Britannica indicates that the non-religious are
about 14.7% of the world's population, and
atheists around 3.8%. Another survey
attributed to Britannica shows the population
of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's
population. It is difficult to determine whether
atheism is growing or not. A study has shown
atheism to be particularly prevalent among
scientists, a tendency already quite marked at
the beginning of the 20th century, developing
into a dominant one during the course of the
century.
In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of
1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists
expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence
of God (defined as a personal God which
interacts directly with human beings). The
same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar
percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93%
among the members of the National Academy
of Sciences.
12
In order to justify Atheism, which after all is
nothing more than a simple denial of the
existence of God, or a state of being “godless”,
and therefore an entirely negative proposition,
one has to point out that it’s existence would
be unnecessary without “Theism”,-the worship
of the God of Abraham as described in both
Testaments of the Bible and in the Quran, as
well as the ancient polytheistic gods of the
Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans
etc.
For atheists it is necessary to take on the
assertions of Religion, and try to dismantle
them. This of course requires a scholarly
approach equal and opposite to the erudition of
the main world leaders of the Faiths,-and
something which I have left it rather late in life
to try and emulate,-but one can make some
critical inroads into “Atheology”, the study of
countering religious claims,--sufficient at least
to stimulate some reaction against Faith and
Dogma.

So what do atheists consider to be the causes

of, or correlations with, theistic belief?

Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been

demonstrated in the religious community
13
throughout history. In addition, there is the
historical matter of abrogating personal
responsibility in favour of what is seen to be
“God’s Will”, and using stern passages from
Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Bible to
justify any action. It will be seen here that
“morality” has different definitions according
to one’s prior belief system. To the religious-
minded, - ancient writings appear authentic
merely because of their age and supposed
sanctity.
To modern freethinkers, such attitudes appear
fossilised, parochial and irrelevant.
Piety and prayerfulness has never prevented
nations or individuals from murder, executions
and war and deceit, hypocrisy and cruelty. All
these things are excused by the religious as
“God helps those who help themselves”.

Ignorance of the real world.

Superficiality: converting to a religion

because of pressure from parents and friends.

Hatred of any opposing view.

Error: Theism partly stems from a failure to

fairly and judiciously consider the facts
14
Established State Churches; In regards to
the causes of theism, rates of theism are much
higher in countries with a state sanctioned
religion (such as many European countries),
and lower in states without a sanctioned
religion (such as the United States). Some
argue this is because state churches are
bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with
reality, while churches independent of the state
are leaner and more adaptable.

Poor relationship with father: Some argue

that a troubled/non- existent relationship with
a father may influence one of the causes of
theism.] Dr. Steven Pinker wrote an article
entitled The Evolutionary Origin of Religion in
which he points out that after studying the
lives of more than a dozen leading theists he
found that a large majority of them had a
father who was present but weak, present but
abusive, or absent. Dr. Pinker has also stated
other common factors he observed in the
leading theists he profiled: they were all
devious and arrogant.

Animal nature: According to Mark Twain,

theism is caused by "animal nature; Man is a
15
Religious Animal. He is the only Religious
Animal. He is the only animal that has the
True Religion--several of them. He is the only
animal that loves his neighbour as himself and
cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He
has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his
honest best to smooth his brother's path to
happiness and heaven....The higher animals
have no religion. And we are told that they are
going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder
why? It seems questionable taste. “

Second-hand notions: Mark Twain argued

that theism was partly caused thusly, "In
religion and politics people's beliefs and
convictions are in almost every case gotten at
second-hand, and without examination, from
authorities who have not themselves examined
the questions at issue but have taken them at
second-hand from other non-examiners, whose
opinions about them were not worth a brass
farthing.”Jewish psychologist Dr. Robert Wolf
has stated "Theism is the natural, normal point
of view of anyone who has been exposed to
religious conditioning. No one would believe
that there is an invisible king (or queen) in the
sky if this doctrine had not been imposed on a
large part of the human race by the advocates
16
of monarchy in ancient times. But because the
pressure to believe in an invisible "Supreme
Being" is still quite intense, theism in practice
appears as the ability to resist reality while
claiming its common sense." Wolf stated that
"Today theism takes the form of anti-Zionism,
which is the effort to demonize and destroy the
nation of Israel in the service of one or another
autocratic ideal, be it Muslim, Marxist or
Nazi. Marx, by the way, although commonly
seen as a Jewish atheist, was actually a convert
to Christianity who celebrated Christmas his
entire life."

Negative experiences with atheists.

Science: Science can be seen as a threat to

God and the authenticity of the Bible.

Personal tragedy: For example, the death of a

loved one, a friend or family member, can
reinforce someone's religious belief, and seek
comfort in belief in God,- without considering
that God could perhaps have prevented it in
the first place.

17
18
 Chapter 1
Faith and Dogma

In their efforts to oppose what they see as the

rising tide of Atheism, Christians are fond of
referring to it as “just another Faith”. My most
recent impression of this is in an article in the
New Scientist, in which a well known female
philosopher tiresomely equates an enthusiasm
for Science with the derogatory term
“Scientism,--in which dedicated scientists are
supposed to be wanting to take over the world,
and who deny any worth in the Humanities
such as Art, Music, Poetry, literature, morality,
and finer feelings generally.
One only has to read Richard Dawkins’ works
to appreciate his love of Nature and the
metaphysical concept of scientific truth about
the world and the larger Universe.
We all tend to “reify” (Latin “Res”= “Thing”)
what are mere evolving processes and try and
make of them “Things –in-Themselves”,
having a separate existence like Plato’s Forms,
eg Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice,-which are
apparently floating about in Space, having
been hatched by God for the benefit of human
beings.

19
Science has similarly been reified into
“Scientism”, and added to Plato’s list of
Forms,- an alleged faith and dogma which we
now worship as a new God, having abandoned
belief in Yahweh the God of Israel. Why
should I be obliged to worship the God of
Israel?-I am not even Jewish.
Science as “Scientism” is of course equated
with atheism, in the minds of the followers of
Abraham’s god.
So what is “Atheism” anyway? It has been
classified into a number of types, but two main
ones will be considered:

1. “Weak Atheism”. This is akin to

Agnosticism,-and is the assertion that we have
no valid logical or empirical grounds for belief
in God,-we do not know of any such God,-
therefore we reject the concept, and assume
atheism as the default state.

2. “Strong Atheism”. In this type, it is asserted

that atheism is a kind of belief system,-rather
than mere passive unbelief. This is a scrap we
can throw to the Christians, who are always
asserting that Atheism is a religion. It is
indeed a belief system, but definitely not a
religion; why not? Because if we use actual
20
English, and not “Christian-ish”, religion
retains it’s proper meaning of: worship of a
spiritual, supernatural, invisible God, plus
prayer and sacrifice, hymn-singing and
worship, and consultation of a Holy Book of
instruction on how to lead one’s life.
Do atheists, either strong or weak, do any of
these activities?—no they do not. Therefore
atheism (also Science),-is not Religion; so let’s
not hear any more nonsense by that claim.

There is also another modern term “Brights”,

used by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and
others, and which includes atheists, agnostics,
freethinkers, secular humanists and non-theists
generally.
I don’t like it myself; we wish to influence
Believers by reasoned argument not by
insulting them by implying that they are
“Stupids” or “Darks” by comparison with we
“Brights”,--(even if true).
As always, Christians want to have it both
ways; they criticise atheistic scientism as being
a dogmatic religious faith, while apparently
forgetting that for them, faith and dogma and
religion generally are supposed to be a Good
Thing. Don’t they want us to have faith now?
Are we now too religious for them because of
21
our blind belief in Scientism? They quite
often shoot themselves in the foot in this way,
undermining their own case. Quite often they
state their doubts clearly,-thereby
demonstrating the nonsense of theology; I
think they are then hoping to cancel such
doubts by following them up with a
triumphant declaration of defiant faith. This is
because they love paradox, and often say
things equivalent to saying “black is black, yet
it is white.” The qualifier “yet” is popular
when used like this; eg God is located in his
own space-time Universe,(which is why you
can’t see him),-yet,--he is in this room , or
everywhere, or in your heart”.

As part of their ”having –their-cake-and eat –

it” approach, Christians are happy to re-define,
or “interpret” words and statements generally;
(what I called “Christian-ish” see above, in
which language is mangled and misused).
Take “Religion”: this is now defined as a
sinful something which atheistic scientists
practice because of their “blinkered “approach
to the world. They are too blinkered to accept
as an objective Truth, everything and anything
asserted by a Christian just as it pops into his
or her head, or as a result of reading about
22
similar poppings in the ignorant and
superstitious heads of characters in their Holy
Book.
The “sin” of scientists is that they adopt
empirical methods to obtain truths about the
world and cosmos, instead of accepting Divine
Revelation or the second- hand interpretations
of self-interested priests. They lean on
Aristotle, a “pagan” Greek philosopher, whose
writings, like Plato’s, was adopted by the early
Church as unassailable Holy Writ, and in order
to give the Church a pedigree which was not
exclusively Jewish Old Testament-based. The
idea being that arm-chair philosophy and
unsound deductive logic using false premises
was sufficient to unravel “God’s Creation”,-a
presuppositionalist notion in itself. The idea
of actually going out into the Field or building
a laboratory to actually look at and measure
things, took over a thousand years of largely
Christian-induced Dark Ages until Galileo
came along and so upset the Holy Inquisition
that they threatened him with torture, forced
him to recant, and confined him to house-
arrest.

Getting back to Atheism: We atheists have

adopted a leaf out of the Creationists book,
23
(same thing as Intelligent Design—don’t be
fooled). Whereas their entire “science” of
Creationism is based on the premise that
“God-did-it”, having established this
“scientific” fact by using:

1. Arguments from Ignorance.

Ignorance because of a hatred of education
generally, of science specifically, and of
Evolutionary Theory and Geology in
particular. They try to rubbish the “geologic
column”, ie the zones of geological time from
the Pre-Cambrian to recent times, and also
they oppose radiometric dating of fossils, and
the geological zones associated with them.

2 Arguments from Personal Incredulity.

They cannot see how something could exist
“just by chance”;-therefore it didn’t happen
that way,-never mind what the world’s
educated scientists say.

3. Arguments from, “God- is- a- so- much-

nicer- explanation- than “cold science”.
The soppy/sentimentalist, lovey-dovey
approach which puts subjective feelings
exclusively above objective truths.

24
4. Straw-Man arguments, which
misrepresent Science by attacking a false
version of a theory , eg of Evolution.

5. Shifting the goal posts and “No True

Scotsman” fallacies, which they use to divert
attention from their own false claims and
blame it on some “fanatics”; (they themselves
are never fanatics,-of course).

6. Arguments from Authority-in which any

prominent Christian founding father or writer
is taken as being on a par almost with God
himself when considering his utterances; eg
the well known statements of Paul in 1.
Corinthians 1: 18-25 against wisdom .ie
Philosophy, --which becomes extended in the
minds of the faithful to some, or all of modern
Science.
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” (God)
Then there are the blatant confessions of
deceiving the faithful: Paul again as described
by St Jerome:

“"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ...

He, then, if anyone, ought to be
calumniated; we should speak thus to
him:
25
‘The proofs which you have used against
the Jews and against other heretics bear
a different meaning in their own contexts
to that which they bear in your Epistles.
We see passages taken captive by your
pen and pressed into service to win you a
victory, which in volumes from which they
are taken have no controversial bearing at
all ... the line so often adopted by strong
men in controversy – of justifying the
means by the result."

(St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus, xlviii,

13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73):

More examples:
Bishop Eusebius, the official
propagandist for Constantine,
entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th
Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use

Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the
Benefit of those who Want to be
Deceived."
Eusebius is notoriously the author
of a great many falsehoods – but
26
then he does warn us in his infamous
history:

"We shall introduce into this history in

general only those events which may
be useful first to ourselves and
afterwards to posterity."
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter
2).
John Chrysostom, 5th century
theologian and erstwhile bishop of
Constantinople, is another:

"Do you see the advantage of deceit?

For great is the value of deceit,

provided it be not introduced with a
mischievous intention. In fact action of
this kind ought not to be called deceit,
but rather a kind of good management,
cleverness and skill, capable of finding
out ways where resources fail, and
making up for the defects of the mind.
And often it is necessary to deceive,
and to do the greatest benefits by
means of this device, whereas he who
has gone by a straight course has done
27
great mischief to the person whom he
has not deceived."
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).
The 5th and 6th centuries were the
'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a
moment of shocking candour, the
Manichean bishop (and opponent of
Augustine) Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by

our ancestors in the speeches of our
Lord which, though put forth under his
name, agree not with his faith;
especially since – as already it has
been often proved – these things were
written not by Christ, nor [by] his
apostles, but a long while after their
assumption, by I know not what sort of
half Jews, not even agreeing with
themselves, who made up their tale out
of reports and opinions merely, and
yet, fathering the whole upon the
names of the apostles of the Lord or on
those who were supposed to follow the
apostles, they maliciously pretended
that they had written their lies and
conceits according to them."
28
"What harm would it do, if a man told a
good strong lie for the sake of the good
and for the Christian church ... a lie out
of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie,
such lies would not be against God, he
would accept them."
– Martin Luther

(Cited by his secretary, in a letter in

Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf
Phillips des Grossmüthigen von
Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

These are the people who built the

Church, and further examples
extend all the way from them,
through Augustine, to Martin Luther
and into recent times, with lies
about HIV and condoms as modern
examples.

We atheists have recognised the metaphysical

vacuity of trying to promote mere disbelief in
Abraham’s god as a comprehensive world
view, and so we use it merely as a foundation
base for constructing naturalistic explanations
about the world and positive philosophies;

29
such as Secular Humanism,--the belief that
real human beings come first, before the
worship of primitive deities, and Metaphysical
Naturalism, ie, the philosophical basis for
natural science. This might seem unimportant
until you recollect the opposition by the
Catholic Church and other assorted Christians
to human welfare in the form of contraception,
Stem cell research, euthanasia, condoms, HIV-
control, population limitation, child
indoctrination (and abuse), genetically
modified crops, surgical anaesthesia (until
recently), opposition to the abolition of the
Blasphemy Law, and suppression of free
speech,- or anything which goes against their
dogma that God created Nature and that we
should not tamper with it.
They are committing the Naturalist Fallacy by
claiming that Nature (as allegedly God’s
creation)-must be perfect, and we should
therefore be “natural”. But civilisation itself is
unnatural when compared with a hunter-
gatherer existence, (Adam & Eve?), and
Christians appear to enjoy all the benefits of
scientific civilisation, like the rest of us.
In so doing they demonstrate that they are anti-
human and anti-life itself, and only concerned
with a fictitious future life, and that we should
30
have no concern for this one, or store up
treasures on earth.
Strangely, this does not seem to prevent them
from living surrounded by sumptuous luxury
and enjoying a few palaces, tax-exemptions
and unwarranted status within some
governments, and in medieval times profiting
from a roaring trade in the sale of Indulgences,
extortion, and the mass production of holy
relics.
I can hear the uproar arising from those
Christians who routinely use the “No True
Scotsman” fallacy, in addition to all their other
logical fallacies, (more on that later).
They will be saying, “but we are not like that,
we are not all fundamentalist fanatics, they are
not the real Christians, we don’t despise
education or revel in ignorance, on the
contrary we Christians created Science, art,
music, poetry, literature, civilisation itself “,-
you name it, they will say they did it, and of
course give (or pretend to give) the credit to
the Trinity.
The inconvenient truth is that the basics of the
human accomplishments to which Christianity
lays claim were prior achievements of earlier
civilisations notably, Egyptian, Babylonian,
Greek and Roman.
31
Within the Christian era including the
Scholastic period, there was only continued
speculation about God, his supposed Nature,
and Mankind’s alleged relationship with him,
which had been started anyway by the Greeks,
and the Roman statesman, Cicero in his
“Nature of the Gods”,--and of course frantic
attempts to prove God’s existence by Bishop
Anselm’s very shaky Ontological argument,
and Thomas Aquinas’ Five proofs, which were
just variations on the usual arguments from
Design, and the First Cause argument. In fact
Aquinas himself demolished the Ontological
Argument shortly after its inception. Briefly,-
this argument says that there must be a God
because I can imagine Him, and that I can
conceive of Something greater than which
nothing more perfect could exist. All one has
to do to rebut this argument is to imagine the
opposite, or to imagine something different in
the same way,-like say, a perfect island.

Nowadays there are a few more specious

arguments such as the grand-sounding
Transcendental Argument for the Existence of
God (TAG),--which has been rebutted by “The
Transcendental Argument for the Non-
Existence of God “ (TANG).
32
Argument from Existence is another First
Cause Argument.

In these two it is asserted that science and the

comprehensibility (so far), of the Universe
means that God created Logic. Presumably
this means that before God created it, there
was no logic; but how could God himself be a
logically structured Being capable of logically
creating a logical Universe before there was
any Logic?
Similarly, in order for God to create Existence,
he himself would have to have prior existence,
but how could that be possible before he
existed in order create Existence?--Oh dear!-
another chicken and egg situation.
However, never fear, Christian theologians to
the rescue; the answer is obvious: God exists
in a different realm of Existence, God’s
Existence,--which of course is different form
old everyday human Existence. Similarly
God’s logic is not Human logic, God’s ways
are not Human ways, God’s Truth is different
from human truth, --or there are many
different kinds of truth.
Likewise contradictory or uncomplimentary
statements in the Bible are “interpreted” so as
33
to mean something different, or even opposite.
One Catholic theologian, possibly Tertullian,
claimed that if the Church said “black was
white” then it was.
You may have noticed that Christians have
created a mystical “spiritual” parallel dual
world alongside the real one, in order to try
and justify the ravings of Paul, the Gospel
writers, and other such biblical and post-
biblical writers,-such as Descartes, who are
largely responsible for the “psycho-physical
parallelism”, or the co-existing “spiritual”
realm which complicates our lives.
Of course it is not new; the ancient Egyptians
had at least three different types of “soul” or
spirit, - the concept, or “meme” being carried
forward and adopted into the Christian era.
From there it was a short step to a “Holy
Spirit”, or a disembodied Logos or Word,
which magically was sufficient to create the
Universe a mere 6000 years or so ago,--or a bit
more; one must be charitable.
This period of time since the Creation was
arrived at by Bishop Ussher by counting
generations of mostly mythical characters in
Genesis, including Adam and Eve, and
assigning to them various improbable life-
spans, often hundreds of years each.
34
Still he was a Bishop of the Church of God, so
it must be true.
As Cain was the only recorded replicator,
having killed his brother and lost contact with
his parents, one wonders whom he married.
Perhaps there was life outside of God’s
jurisdiction in the Garden of Eden after all.
But where did she come from?
Of course modern sophisticated Christians will
dismiss all this picturesque nonsense as
symbolic, or allegorical, ie conveying a
message; what message exactly?
Many of them openly dismiss the Virgin Birth,
-even Anglican bishops. Even the Resurrection
is viewed as “symbolic” in some quarters.,-but
this is not so surprising as some of the earliest
Christian sects rejected Christ’s divinity, along
with his physical resurrection, and it is thought
by some that even Paul believed only in a
“spiritual” resurrection,--whatever that is.
What then is left? As Paul himself said right at
the start of it all, “If Christ be not risen, then
our faith is vain” (1. Corinthians 15). So
naturally, the new church had to make jolly
well sure that Christ was seen to be risen,
whether he liked it or not,-in order that
Christians might attain their ambition to
destroy or takeover the Roman Empire, the
35
Whore of Babylon itself, the Great Satan and a
cruel pagan Empire,-at least to those who
subversively wanted to create a State within a
State, owing allegiance to God, rather than to
the Emperor (who was himself, a rival god).
Eventually they succeeded, under Constantine,
-and then the fun began, and was continued
under Theodosius and his successors (briefly
interrupted by Julian the Apostate).
“Pagan” literature, temples, shrines, statues of
the gods, were destroyed, defaced and
vandalised, books were burned. Justinian,
around 529 ordered the final closure of all
pagan temples everywhere in what was left of
the Empire,-which was a great blow to those
centres of learning and culture. The Athenian
Academy was closed in the 500’s AD, and a
least one pagan philosopher, Hypatia in
Alexandria was lynched by a Christian mob in
415 AD),- with the probable connivance of
Bishop Cyril, and the Olympic games were
cancelled until modern times. The Greek ideal
of the perfectly developed man, sound in Mind
and body, was replaced by veneration of
hideous, ignorant, diseased and smelly Monks
and hermits, who flagellated themselves and
mortified the flesh in every way, so as to gain
spirituality. More likely,-such “spirituality”
36
was the result of hallucinations and altered
states of consciousness induced by disease,
infected wounds, cold, starvation and drugs,-
like magic mushrooms. It seems a coincidence
that St John of Patmos who wrote Revelations,
lived on a island where hallucinogenic
mushrooms grow.
In the 1950’s Aldous Huxley emulated this
practice by taking mescaline and recording his
experiences in his book “Doors of Perception”.
One cannot blame it all on the barbarians,-they
had soon become Christianised anyway, to the
Arian persuasion. They were not savages, and
many of them admired Roman Law and
culture and wanted to preserve it.
Unfortunately the Church decided it rather
fancied the Athanasian version of Christianity,
and actively persecuted the Arian and other
“heretical” versions, eg Pelagians,
Marcionites, Monophysites, Docetists and
many others who would not toe the new
Christian Roman line for the sake of political
unity.
There was no resulting political unity anyway.
In the general destruction that followed, and
the fragmentation and depletion of the Army in
favour of a Monk’s or hermit’s way of life,
and the loss of former Provinces, there was
37
nothing much left over, except a truncated
Catholic State, which without a true Roman
Army to command, managed to blackmail by
Excommunication, and otherwise enforce its
will on superstitious new barbarian states, by
threats and mercenary foreign armies, in a
mostly unsuccessful attempt to reclaim lost
Roman Provinces. Rome itself was abandoned,
and weak and ineffectual Emperors set up
residence in Ravenna and Milan instead.
Much later, rival Popes and anti Popes
operating from Rome and Avignon in France
demonstrated the failure of the Jesus cult to
promote political unity and peace.
So having destroyed the opposition, it was the
only show left in town and so it could claim
credit for just about anything it wished,
including the remnants of Roman civilisation
with which it impressed the natives from its
monastic bases in the countryside and from
Rome.
Many of these assertions are fairly common
knowledge to some Christians; other ones will
dismiss them, and retreat into their cosy faith,
not wanting to be inconvenienced by mere
facts. They will claim Christianity has
modernised; but how can the unchanging
Word of God be so altered? And how can it
38
become split into thousands of competing
sects, as well as the major Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox divisions, and now the furore in the
Anglican Church over women and gay priests?
Sometimes it is said that Christianity is not the
problem,-it is Christians; but did not Jesus say
(allegedly)—“By their fruits ye shall know
them”. Christians are the fruit of Christianity,
with all its crusading violence and intolerance,
its vindictiveness to those who think
otherwise, and pursuit of them beyond the
grave. But it does have a good side, Jesus
loves you,-just so long as you obey,-and for
God’s sake don’t think, just believe.

So what then is Christianity?

Well it all goes back to Adam and Eve,

mythical people in a mythical Garden of Eden
who were seduced by a talking snake into
eating forbidden fruit which God had placed
within easy reach, while knowing omnisciently
that they would help themselves although he
had told them not to, and then he could punish
them. For this, all their descendents were
condemned to suffer through this Original
Sin, from which they then had to be cleansed
by the blood sacrifice of an innocent God-Man
39
who may actually have been God himself, or
his own Son, or a Ghost or all three at once,-
some 6000 years or more later,--by which time
most of recorded human history was over and
done with, and people had forgotten all about
the Original Sin of their far distant ancestors,
for which they were now told to pay the price
of Atonement to achieve Redemption, usually
for a material fee, in order to be “saved” and
never die,--despite the obvious fact that people
around them were dying continually,--but
apparently only in the Flesh,--which I would
have thought was death enough for anyone.
But no,-the dead could now be pursued beyond
the grave into eternal punishment by the new
loving Son of God, if they put a foot wrong by
even thinking the wrong thoughts.
(If thou lust after a woman in your heart, you
have still committed adultery with her”—
Jesus.)
This idea was reinforced by St Augustine;
even unbaptised infants were damned to Hell-
fire. But Augustine was a kind man,-he
invented Purgatory where these infants could
while away their time indefinitely until pure
enough to join God in Heaven, from which
they could be entertained by the suffering of
the Damned in Hell. Similarly, Limbo
40
Infantum and Limbo Patrem were invented by
these Church Fathers where souls could be
temporarily stored while God made up his
Divine Mind who to burn in Hell and whom to
allow to sit on his right end for Eternity; (I
can’t wait).

I’m not making this up you know!

So having touched a bit on Theology without

getting bogged down in obfuscatory details
about “Homoousia”, and “Transfiguration”
and “Logos”, “Gnosticism” and “Hypostatic
Union”, which we can leave to the
professional Fairyologists, let us consider
“Atheology”,--an artificial subject born from
its imaginary Theological parent.

Atheism is as old as Theism. Socrates was

condemned partly for atheism, which just goes
to show that one can be an atheist with regard
to any kind of god, not just the Jewish one.
Christians were reviled as atheists because
they mocked the Gods of Rome and other
imported deities like Isis and Mithras. At
least the “pagan” Romans were tolerant of all
religions, until they eventually received Christ
into their hearts.
41
 So they are nearly there already; just one
more god to discard and they will be fully paid
up atheists too.

“A-theos” means simply, “without god”, ie

“godless”, and that is all it means. It does not
mean we are, immoral horned and hoofed
demons from Hell. On the contrary, Atheist
morality is superior because it is Humanistic,
ie concerned with relating to our fellow
humans, not Theistic, trying to placate an
intolerant judgemental God who can’t desist
from watching your every move. We are
capable of a completely secular morality based
upon our common social relationships. Nor are
secularists necessarily atheist; secularists can
be religious but believe in the complete
separation of Church and State and freedom of
religion for all, as well as freedom from
religion for those who reject it.
We are social animals and evolved social
morality just as did our nearest Primate
relatives, Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, as well
as Baboons and other Monkey species who are
our cousins,--not direct ancestors. Also the
same applies to many non-Primate species, eg
dogs.

42
Morality is innate, and based upon fair trade,
and reciprocal altruism, and kin selection for
our nearest relatives, and giving honorary kin
status to unrelated “friends”.
These conclusions are based upon modern
psychology, social anthropology, genetic
relatedness and unbiased common sense.

On the subject of Ethics and morality,-- I hear

you clamouring to ask “what about Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the French Revolution
Terror”?

Before answering, I might retort, “what about

the Catholic suppression of Heresy in it’s early
centuries as well as the medieval Holy
Inquisition, the Crusades (eight of them!), Ivan
the Terrible (a Christian Tsar), Vlad Dracul,-
who is said to have gone back to his prayers
after an enjoyable morning of eye-gouging and
impaling.
The Teutonic Knight’s own crusades in
northern Russia, (which were defeated by
Alexander Nevsky, Prince of Novgorod),--
immortalised by Eisenstein‘s film and
Prokofiev’s music,-- the modern wars in Africa
mostly between Muslims and Christians, the
medieval wars, Revocation of the Edict of
43
Nantes and persecution of the Huguenots, the
burning of Jeanne d’Arc, and of numerous
early scientists and dissenters, Cranmer,
Giordano Bruno, Michael Servetus, and
( (almost) Galileo?

The point is, what else can one expect from an

atheist? (as my mother used to ask,- meaning
me). But on the other hand Christians are
supposed to know better and to follow Jesus
(in his more gentle mode).

To do a body count and say Stalin killed more

people than the Crusades is silly,-it ignores
modern weaponry. Can anyone doubt that if
the Crusaders had had nuclear weapons,
poison gas and carpet bombing, they would
not have used them to recapture the Holy Land
from Islam? God can be used to justify any
atrocity.

Hitler & Co

Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Catholic of

life- long membership, who signed a
Concordat with the Vatican, and his birthday
was celebrated by the Pope every year until the
end. He also had a weird semi-pagan religion
44
of his own, and notions of Romantic Teutonic
chivalric ethics. He was not even a Darwinist;
he does not mention Darwin in Mein Kampf or
his speeches. Occasionally he was unkind to
Christians for political reasons, but his
speeches and book are full of Christian
sentiments and admonitions.

Stalin
Stalin was an atheist, but he was brought up in
an orthodox seminary where he no doubt
learned the typically Russian, (or Georgian)
authoritarian, autocratic attitude of Tsarist
Russia, ruled as it was by a God-Tsar, and
where the Church-State alliance kept the
Russian serfs in a state of abject poverty and
suppression,-( as ordained by God, and so
much agreed with by Victorians,--(“the rich
man in his castle, the poor man at his gate”)).
Stalin was a politician, and he favoured or
persecuted the Church and Christians as
politics demanded. The Orthodox Church was
a rival for the hearts and Minds of the people,
and it had to be contained one way or another.
Do people start rampant murder if they don’t
happen to believe in the God of Abraham and
his alleged Son? Do I? How many people do

45
you think I have raped and murdered since I
got up this morning? What nonsense.
The truth is that people behave because of
early social conditioning, peer pressure, and
the fear of punishment by society (not God).
We need police on the streets, not Angels with
flaming swords.
Stalin’s actions were on account of political
and economic ambitions. I doubt if he was
thinking “ I am an atheist,-yippee, more killing
to-day”.

Likewise in the case of Mao and Pol Pot.

Believers don’t seem to realise that Mao and

Pol Pot were bought up in the Buddhist
tradition, and therefore were never Jesus-
worshippers in the first place. Traditional
Buddhism is a godless “religion” or world-
view So if they were influenced early on by
Buddhism does that mean that Buddhists are
evil murdering atheists? Tell that to the Dalai
Lama.

It was the Communist ideology of historical

determinism that was the real culprit. Hegel
began it, and Marx developed it. Society had
to be moulded by force to fit Marxist-
46
Leninism. Religion or lack of it was
incidental to the process. Marx and Engels
were atheists, although Marx like so many
Victorians and pre-Victorians had been a
Christian.
He understood that religion was the “opium of
the people”, and showed proper Humanistic
concern for the oppressed workers,- but
thought religion would eventually disappear;
they were not murderers themselves,-they
advocated violent revolution but not deliberate
murder.
This was originally a force for liberty and
equality for all, and democracy, freedom of
religion and liberation from the tyrannical and
wasteful Church-State alliance.

The French Revolution

This was based upon the French

Enlightenment Encyclopaedists who were
atheist and deists, but as tends to happen in
human affairs, it was eventually high-jacked
by extremists, the Jacobins, who instigated the
Terror, and which culminated in Napoleon’s
wars of conquest. Robespierre, who was
always ready with the Guillotine, tried to
reinstate a form of egalitarian religious
47
worship, which was viewed suspiciously by
the populace
The activist Thomas Paine, usually vilified as
an atheist (in fact a Deist), pleaded for Louis
XVI to be spared the guillotine, and earned
himself a spell in a French gaol for his
clemency.

Notes: Lynching of Hypatia—Gibbon’s

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, -and
his primary sources including the writings of
Ammianus Marcellinus.

48
49
 Chapter 2
Creationism/Intelligent Design

“Ever since Darwin”, to quote the title of the

book by the late Stephen J. Gould, there has
been an uproar, punctuated by truces. Darwin
himself was sufficiently intimidated by
Christians to delay publication of “On the
Origin of Species”,-by 20 years.
Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” had an
unholy spat with “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce,
apparently causing a lady in the audience to
faint because a Bishop was being spoken to in
such a manner.
The next round was the Scopes Monkey Trial
in Tennessee in 1925, in which Evolution and
Geology were pitted against the Bible in a
contest summarised as the “Rock of Ages”
versus “The Ages of Rocks”. After this
intellectual defeat Creationism went to ground
until around 1967 when America went into a
panic over the launch of Sputnik.
This required a massive investment in US
science in order to catch up with the Russians,-
including the teaching of Evolution in
schools,--which was too much for the
Christian Fundamentalists of the Bible Belt.

50
So a certain qualified Lawyer rose up, and
teamed up with a Mathematician, (neither of
them was a natural scientist, eg biologist) to
re-invent Creationism under the new title of
Intelligent Design. This was intelligently
designed in order to bypass the First
Amendment which forbade teaching of
religion in schools, and ensured separation of
Church and State. Other qualified personnel,
even scientists joined up with them, notably a
genuine biochemist, Michael Behe and the
whole war was re-started culminating in the
Dover, Pennsylvania trial in which Michael
Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box”, and his
theory of “Irreducible Complexity” was torn to
shreds,-metaphorically speaking, in a
testimony by Prof. Kenneth Miller, whose own
book “Finding Darwin’s God” effectively
demolished Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity”
thesis,
This was the result of a cunning attempt by
Creationists to infiltrate a School Board, and
was opposed by concerned parents. As a result,
the Board members had to resign and a new
one elected.
To his credit Prof Miller did a wonderful
demolition job despite being a “cradle
Catholic” himself.
51
It makes one wonder though about those 40%
of world scientists who believe in God (of
some sort). It is as if two opposing theories of
the origin of things can be stored in pigeon-
hole compartments in the brain without
causing a schizophrenic breakdown. This
appears to be how the Mind works in some
people.
It seems a coincidence that the US, home of
fundamentalist Christianity should throw up so
many believing scientists. My theory is that
they are indoctrinated from birth, and then
come into science with the intention of
destroying it from within,-for Jesus; except for
the admirable Prof Kenneth Miller of course,-
though he still hangs onto his God for
“theological reasons” (not scientific ones. We
had a brief e-mail chat not so long ago).
More charitably, I could also concede that
there are some believers who go into Science
in order to discover more about “God’s
creation”; this notion is of course assumed
beforehand as a pre-supposition, and therefore
seems rational to them at the time, in their
uninformed, ie-ignorant state. But one would
think that having become aware of scientific
explanations, they might modify their faith
position;-but no apparently not. So therefore
52
they are not being so scientifically rational as
they would like us to believe.
I should point out that 40% of believing
scientists means 60% of unbelieving ones, and
if one looks at the top US scientists in the
National Academy of Science,--the proportion
of atheist and agnostic scientists rises to 93%,-
and in the British Royal Society it rises to a
staggering proportion of about 96.7%.
How does a God act in Biochemistry,
including molecular biology and genetics?
Does he personally move atoms and molecules
around, or does he have Cherubim (you know,
-those fat babies with wings),-to do it for him?
And how does a qualified mathematician make
the blunder (unless deliberate),-of trying to use
Probability Theory after the event (of the
existence of complex life)?
It is as if I claimed a miracle because I, and
only I, won the lottery, despite the fact that
someone has to win it. Or,-supposing I went
out in the street and saw a car with a specific
number-plate, say ARG 42,--and then threw up
my arms and cried “Miracle”!—of all the
billions of number-plates in the world I just
happened to see ARG 42;--and on a Thursday
too—double miracle!

53
It all sounds to me like a conspiracy to pervert
science.
You may think it all a storm in a tea- cup, but
nowadays we have ample evidence of what
irrational belief combined with explosive
power can do,-and the US, headed by Bush has
explosive power in abundance. We should all
be very afraid.
There are in the US, fundamentalists who are
awaiting the Rapture, an event in which those
who are “saved”, will be taken up directly into
Heaven,(no matter what they are doing at the
time,--even piloting a Jumbo-jet. Many
believe that in order for Christ to return, or the
Rapture proceed, it will first be necessary for
the Jews to be converted. Another way to
inaugurate the Second Coming would be to
start a nuclear war, in which the Forces of
Righteousness (themselves naturally), -would
triumph, and Christ would reign in Jerusalem;
in other words another Crusade. George Bush
let slip this repressed desire in his inadvertent
mention of a Crusade in Iraq, -site of the
original Whore of Babylon itself.
Nor is I.D. confined to the US. In my small
home island of Jersey (UK), population about
90,000,)-we have at least 4 aggressive
proselytising Creationists known to me
54
personally, and lots of others who think Jesus
rules, and that Genesis is literally true.
Rational science still has a struggle ahead.
You may ask, “But don’t lots of Christians
including the Pope, accept Evolution?”—well
sort of,-but only if they can tweak it, and say
God created and sustains it, and inserts a
“soul” somewhere along the line of human
evolution. They either deny, attack, or try to
absorb it.
This polluted version of Evolution is no part
of Darwin’s original thesis. It goes under the
name of “Theistic Evolution,-and I would like
to insert my own comments on it at this
point,--something which I prepared earlier:

Theistic Evolution

1. Recent research demonstrates higher

semen viscosity in primate species that have
a high degree of female promiscuity. In such
species there is more intense sperm
competition between rival male’s semen for
the female’s attention. Natural selection
encourages the evolution of increased sperm
viscosity as an aid to preventing successful
fertilization of the female by subsequent
male lovers. This means that promiscuity is
a driving force in primate Evolution. If there
is a God in charge of Evolution, then he is
55
therefore condoning immorality by
encouraging promiscuity.

2. 99% of all species that have ever lived

are now extinct. If God is in charge of
Evolution he is therefore either a
monumental blunderer, or an evil sadist, or
a squanderer of natural resources.

3. All animals, plants, and fungi live by

murder and cannibalism,- ie- feeding off
each other;- humans are not exempt either.
Could God not do better then this?

4. Some animals exhibit deliberate blood-

sports lust, by toying with prey, or by
unnecessary overkill; eg cats, and foxes. Did
God arrange this? New-born pups are
carried off by Jackals, Hyenas , birds of prey
etc.

5. It is known by animal breeders, eg of

dogs, that specific desirable traits of
appearance and behaviour can be produced
by Artificial Selection within a few
generations. If there is a Creator God whose
goal was to produce an intelligent, conscious
Human. He would and could have done this
likewise, within a few generations of planned
Artificial Selection; instead it has taken
about 70 million years, (starting from the

56
first Mammals),-of haphazard, multiple-
path random production of humanoids to
achieve a small proportion of rational
beings,-eg (Scientists and Philosophers),
amongst an otherwise irrational Human
species.

6. Chimps have been discovered to have

rudimentary culture and language, and tool
use, and not to have any qualitatively
different attributes from Humankind, and
even better short-term memory than
humans. They also commit deliberate
murder on their fellows. Capuchin monkeys
break open nuts with rocks. Corvids also use
tools.

7. The whole concept of the Natural

selection of random variations, ie. Darwinian
Evolution is a cruel process, relying on
violence, suffering, and enormous waste
among living things,-including the obviously
sentient and human-like “higher” social
animals, eg Whales, Dolphins, cats, dogs,
and of course primates. The Ichneumon fly
lays its eggs in a live caterpillar, and its
grubs devour the caterpillar from the inside
out. There is the waste of unused sperms,
seeds and fruits and massive infant
mortality;--and then God encourages further
waste in the case of Onan having to practice

57
Coitus interruptus and “spill his seed on the
ground”!

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a

purpose, and that God created and guides
Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural
Selection of random variations) is therefore
a random process (proved by the 99%
extinctions as above),-- and the changes in
the natural environment which does the
selecting are also random, eg solar flares,
asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and
volcanoes, hurricanes etc which cause mass
extinctions from time to time,- and which all
have naturalistic causes,--how then can a
God be said to guide such chaotic
processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is
made with the desperate hope of tacking
“God” onto all aspects of Nature, because of
the self-interest of the religious
establishment. I always thought God was
supposed to have created order out of
chaos,-not chaos out of order. They ask the
question “Why”? There is no “why?”,- no
purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution
demonstrates that fully. “Why” questions are
semantic trickery that can usually be
resolved as part of “How “questions. If turns
creation stories upon their heads to say in
effect that God created chaos out of
Order(his own self) so as to re-create order,-

58
when the Bible states clearly that it was the
other way round,--order came out of chaos.
Although natural selection overall appears
random, nevertheless, at a lower level of
explanation, all evolutionary change is finely
tuned by selective competition, sexual
selection, and a kind of arms war among
and between species.

9. If God set up Evolution then he knew

what he was doing. If he set it up, and
continues to “guide” it,-he has exhibited
blood lust and lack of compassion for his
creation. If he set it up then walked away
and washed his hands of it,- then he just
shows cruel indifference and irresponsibility.

10. Hundreds of thousands of different

species of beetles have been documented.
This is compatible with Evolution, but totally
absurd if created by a God. One would have
to ask him-Why?. Christians would no doubt
assert that it is a demonstration of his power
and love. So should I follow his example and
tip a skip-full of live Cockroaches onto our
living-room floor, and explain to my wife
that I did it as an act of love?

11. We know that herbivorous animals like

rabbits, sheep, goats etc can feed off
vegetation and digest cellulose. So why did

59
God find it necessary to create carnivorous
animals who cannot digest grass etc, but
instead tear each other to pieces and devour
each other,-including we humans, who have
to farm animals, fish and poultry and shoot
and slaughter them for our food, thereby
causing animal suffering and the spread of
parasitic, bacterial and virus diseases among
animals and humans,--eg Bird flu?

12.A successful scientific theory is

something that explains and predicts by
itself,-it is self-sufficient. A theory which
needs to be created and sustained and
guided is not a theory at all; it is a
contradiction.

Christians like to have their cake and eat it .

For the reasons given above, Evolution
implies Atheism, so Christians have to
choose; they can either have Theism or
Evolution, but not Theistic Evolution,- it is a
nonsense.

I am occasionally asked to boost a local

Church choir at weddings,-which I am happy
to do, in order to help my fellow men and
women (my Humanist slip is showing),--and
because I like singing; though I baulked at a
hymn title I noticed called “Jesu is crying”.
60
Fortunately it was not on the program;
otherwise I would have been sick.
But the thing about these weddings is that they
are mostly about God and Jesus, with the bride
and groom being grudgingly mentioned from
time to time.
The hymns and prayers ( I aloofly ignore the
prayers) are all traditionalist, and emphasise
the living presence of Jesus, and God’s
creation from magic. Not much progress there
then in the last 300 years or more of rational
thought;--or perhaps it is allegorical after all.

Back to Theistic Evolution: I quote here the

Catholic attitude to Evolutionary theory, of
which “Theistic Evolution is illustrative:

In an editorial in the New York Times on 7

July 2005 Schönborn criticized "neo-
Darwinian" theories of evolution as
incompatible with Catholic teaching:
“Statement on Evolution”
"EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II
said that evolution (a term he did not define)
was 'more than just a hypothesis,' defenders of
neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the
61
supposed acceptance -- or at least
acquiescence -- of the Roman Catholic Church
when they defend their theory as somehow
compatible with Christian faith.
"But this is not true. The Catholic Church,
while leaving to science many details about
the history of life on earth, proclaims that by
the light of reason the human intellect can
readily and clearly discern purpose and design
in the natural world, including the world of
living things. Evolution in the sense of
common ancestry might be true, but evolution
in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided,
unplanned process of random variation and
natural selection -- is not. Any system of
thought that denies or seeks to explain away
the overwhelming evidence for design in
biology is ideology, not science."
This statement unleashed considerable
controversy, including public criticism
ofSchönborn's views by the director of the
Vatican Observatory, Fr George Coyne SJ, and
a response by Catholic physicist Stephen Barr
in the Catholic periodical "First Things", to
which Schönborn in turn replied.

62
Schönborn later clarified that while "unguided,
unplanned" evolution is not consistent with
Christian faith, he has no problem with a
theistic (God-guided) evolution, see Theistic
Evolution), recognizes the great work of
Darwin and the progress of science, that
science and faith answer different questions,
and they need not conflict if each respects the
other's world view.
In an October 2005 catechetical lecture he
stated:
“Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup,
and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the
history of ideas. With an astounding gift for
observation, enormous diligence, and mental
prowess, he succeeded in producing one of
that history's most influential works. He could
already see in advance that his research would
create many areas of endeavor. Today one can
truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has
become, so to speak, a 'master key,' extending
itself within many fields of knowledge....I see
no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator
with the theory of evolution, but under the
prerequisite that the borders of scientific
theory are maintained. In the citations given
above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter
63
Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such
have been violated. When science adheres to
its own method, it cannot come into conflict
with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to
stay within one's territory, for we are, after all,
not simply scientists but also human beings,
with feelings, who struggle with faith, human
beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus
as natural scientists we are constantly and
inevitably bringing in questions reflecting
world views....I am thankful for the immense
work of the natural sciences. Their furthering
of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do
not restrict faith in the creation; they
strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and
in how wisely and wonderfully He has made
all things."

----which just goes to show the basic

incompatibily of Christianity with Science,
and of the Catholic and other Churches’
repeated attemps to take over scientific human
knowledge for Jesus and it’s own self-
preservation:-especially the last sentence:

“ They do not restrict faith in the creation;

they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator

64
and in how wisely and wonderfully He has
made all things."

--which demonstrates simply how they cannot

let go of their pre-suppositionalist Dogma
about a humanoid superman who lives
Somewhere ( God knows where), and who
automatically bypasses all human creativity by
insisting, vicariously though his Catholic
agents,--that “He–did-it”.
There is no way that a scientific theory of
gradualistic natural evolution over a period of
4 billion years, can be made compatible with
deliberate creation by an intelligent Agent over
6 days, about 6000 years ago. It is delusional
to pretend otherwise.

65
66
 Chapter 3.
Theology and Atheology

Interesting things are occurring in the ancient

land of Canaan, where Israel Finkelstein has
been doing archaeology and helping to adjust
and augment biblical tradition.
It seems that after the destruction of Israel by
the Assyrians around 702 BC, the refugees
poured south to Judah, and greatly swelled the
sparse population of Jerusalem, which under
King Hezekiah underwent social and religious
reforms and development, -- which continued
under his successor Josiah, until the latter, the
new hope for Judah, was killed in a skirmish
with the Egyptians around 609 BC. By this
time monotheism was more firmly established,
and the cults of the other traditional gods had
been destroyed, and the Torah established as
the official Jewish Testament, and all was well
until the exile to Babylon around 587 BC.
From this one can perhaps see that much later
the emperor Constantine and his successors,
having become acquainted with Jewish history
via his new Christian friends, decided to copy
Hezekiah and Josiah by purging the Empire of
foreign gods and heretical versions of the new

67
Christian cult, with the same political
purpose,--strength through unity.
It has been claimed that only because of
Judaeo-Christian monotheism was the West
able to invent science and achieve political and
technological dominance over Islam and the
Far East. This may be partly true, but not for
theological reasons, ie because Jesus and the
God of Israel were watching and guiding the
process,--but rather because strict monotheism
with its God, represented as Kings and Popes,
provided the social structure for large scale
reforms.
However the ancient polytheistic Greeks
developed Philosophy, mathematics and early
science without benefit of a long lasting stable
Church-State alliance.
The Chinese did great things with a powerful
Emperor figure-head, but minus Jesus or a
divine God. The Muslims likewise, with strict
monotheism and occasional political unity, but
no Jesus,- and the ancient Egyptians had their
powerful god- king Pharaohs, but still no
Jesus,-but were able to accomplish massive
engineering works like the pyramids and the
temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak. Still no actual
God directing things though,--and even less
Jesus.
68
One could make a good case that Western
development occurred because of the
Renaissance recovery of lost classical
antiquity, the Reformation which repulsed the
Catholic domination,- the necessity to find
new ocean routes to the Far East, since the
Turks had captured Constantinople. This
undoubtedly spurred new science and
technology, ship-building, weaponry and
navigational astronomy. And then came the
Industrial Revolution, the Chartists, trades
unions and Suffragettes. Christianity formerly
comfortable with slavery throughout it’s whole
history, now jumped on the bandwagon of the
above social reforms and claimed to have
abolished Slavery;-mainly because William
Wilberforce was a Christian (wasn’t nearly
everyone at that time?).
The gulf widened between Roman Catholicism
and the new Protestant cults of Lutherism,
Calvinism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism,
Methodism, and now the affair of women and
gay priests, as mentioned earlier. The Word of
God?—which one?
The Catholics have Transubstantiation, in
which the wafer and wine become the literal
body and blood of Christ.

69
 Recently in 2008, an tremendous row
occurred when someone at a Catholic Mass
held in the University of Central Florida,-
having received the Host (wafer, Eucharist))
into his mouth, removed it, ran off out of the
Church with it, kept it in a Ziplock bag for a
week before surrendering it, and was pursued
by a furious congregation for desecrating the
Host, -and later received death threats. As a
popular America writer PZ Myers later
observed; “it’s only a “Cracker for Chrissake;-
something to die for?”
Big problems also arise if the priest
accidentally drops the Host on the ground.
The Protestants are more sensible; they have
“Consubstantiation, where God is only present
in spirit. Invisible spirits, and gods are immune
to desecration,--something which the Jews and
later the Muslims caught onto quite soon,-
whereas temples and statues are easy targets.

Talking of Spirits: How does one define

spiritual or a “Spirit”,--it can only be defined
in terms of what it is not,--ie Material. There is
no other positive definition, other than
fictitious embellishments such as “ethereal”, or
lacking in substance, invisible,-of course. On
the other hand “spiritual” can be used to
70
describe a taste for music and poetry, and
wondering about one’s place in the Cosmos,--
though I should prefer to put that under
metaphysics, epistemology, or philosophy
generally. But “Spirit” seems to have no real
meaning, and is often muddled with “Soul” or
even “Mind”. This is part of the body/ Mind
dualism which some theistic philosophers
from Plato to Descartes have inflicted upon us.
If anyone has watched Pat Condell on U-Tube,
he gives a highly entertaining description of
how when he has nothing better to do, he is
always whiling away the time by “denying the
Holy Spirit” at every opportunity,--usually
while waiting at a bus-stop.
And yet the sky does not fall, despite the
threats in Mark and Luke about how “denying
the Holy Spirit” will be punished.
Much has been made about this denying of the
Holy Spirit, as this strikes at the whole
foundation of Christianity.
As for Theology in general, Richard Dawkins
has dismissed it as akin to “Fairy-ology”, or
Santa Claus-ology. One can be an expert on
the subject of fairies, and know all about their
customs and folklore, but still be discussing
fictional characters, knowledge of which is
vacuous and meaningless. Likewise, there are
71
experts on Sherlock Holmes, and we may
possess artefacts and memorabilia such as his
pipe, slippers, magnifying glass and violin,
and know his address in Baker Street, and
have the testimony of his faithful disciple (St).
Dr Watson,--but in the end it is just
picturesque nonsense, for entertainment
purposes only.

Intelligent Theologians recognise all these

difficulties and try to play down God as
Superman, preferring instead to make him
more mystical and abstract, a vague deistic
Creator or the “Ground of our Being”,--
whatever that is.
One might ask if they are so intelligent
educated, multilingual etc,--then why be a
Theologian? There are various reasons, like
early indoctrination, an easy living (possibly),
power and influence, a desire to help starving
natives in tropical climates, which may not be
appreciated especially if it comes with a price-
tag of compulsory conversion,- inability to
find another career late in life, or a desire to
meet people and talk down to them,-or more
improbably, actually be the mouthpiece of
some God or other; though why these Gods
cannot speak for themselves is beyond me.
72
An invisible, non-tactile, speechless and
inaudible God seems somehow to me to be a
very deficient character. Can God ride a
bicycle?-no?—I can;--perhaps you should
worship me instead?
I once asked someone that if such a God is in
your room, but is completely undetectable,
even with modern instruments, then how does
His being in your room differ from him not
being in your room? The answer was that He
knows you are there,-but he still could not be
bothered to say hello. Are there no manners in
heaven?

More Proofs of God?

We have mentioned some of the arguments for
God’s existence. The fact that there are so
many of them shows the weakness of
Christianity, as does also the fact that it takes
billions of words to try and persuade us that a
God exists, and Jesus is his divine Son; surely
it should be self –evident? These theologians
do protest too much.
Talking of evidence brings us back to the two
most favourite traditional arguments:

1. Argument from Design (The Teleological

argument)
73
2. First cause (Cosmological Argument)

These two are still trotted out regularly, indeed

all the more so nowadays since (largely
atheistic) scientists have done all the hard
work of discovery. So now theologians can
get out of their arm-chairs, stretch themselves,
and stick their God and Jesus labels all over
other peoples work,-and claim it for Jesus.
This of course is traditional. Since it’s
invention Christians have re-labelled and re-
consecrated pagan temples,-when they weren’t
destroying them, flown their flag on other
peoples monuments or built chapels on top of
them, as in our own Hougie Bie megalithic
monument in Jersey. No doubt they will one
day manage to carve crucifixes on Stonehenge,
just like their systematic defacement of carved
ancient Egyptian hymns to the Gods on
monuments and the mutilation and amputation
of erect penises on some tomb paintings and
sculptures, depicting fertility.

The Design argument can be rebutted entirely

on logical grounds, -and was done so by Hume
and Kant long before Charles Darwin
demonstrated empirically how Nature designs

74
itself. But Intelligent Design has taken
advantage of the new understanding of
molecular biology to claim that it could not
happen “by itself”, and that some biochemical
systems are “irreducibly complex”, i.e.-if you
take away one essential part then the whole
system becomes non-functional.
Therefore God-did-it.
Or they say things like: “Look at that Rose”
(Tree, peacock tail etc) It couldn’t happen “by
chance”, therefore God.
Quite apart from logical rebuttals,-Evolution
has now advanced to be the “inference to the
best explanation” for Nature’s complexity.
This is abductive logic, based on empirical
evidence.
Inductive logic makes the reasonable claim
that more often than not, events which have
always happened within recorded cosmic time,
like over the last 13.7 billion years since the
Big bang,--will probably continue like that for
a good while. This is a probability argument,
not a deductive proof; (the sudden appearance
of a black Swan could destroy the claim that
all Swans are white).
But it works well enough for science to
produce from it a highly consistent and

75
workable model of the Universe and the events
which occur within it.
Most people are happy to fly in a jet airliner,
confident that the inductive laws of
aerodynamics will continue to be valid, at least
for the length of their flight,--or that God
won’t suddenly appear and perform a magic
miracle and turn the plane into a jelly-fish or
something.
There are no final proofs of anything outside
of mathematics,--and even that has to be
qualified since Gödel’s theorem showed that
there are true propositions which cannot be
proved. Creationists expect too much,-like
also demanding a continuous running video of
evolutionary change, and not accepting the
reasonable indication of evolution as
demonstrated in some fossil sequences which
contain clear “transitional” forms from one
species or Genus to another, as in Horses,
Humans, and Whales.
They don’t do this because they are stupid,
(not all of them anyway),- but merely because
they are bigoted. (The word “bigot” is derived
from “Bei Gott”,--which is what German
evangelising monks were noted for saying).
How can Lawyers, mathematicians and
biochemists be stupid?—unless of course there
76
was something wrong with their qualifications
or the (Creationist) Universities and
Academies at which they qualified.
Or perhaps they have not been reading the
latest scientific journals, and are about 2000
years out of date.

The First Cause Argument is the one that is

concerned with the origin of the Cosmos, and
ultimately of Everything. The basic problem
is how and why something came from nothing.
The Catholics of course have got it all
wrapped up, and from the comfort of their
armchairs have concluded that God created the
Cosmos “ex Nihilo”,-ie from Nothing. But
let’s look a bit closer:

Much ado about Nothing

The following article was prepared by me as a
Philosophical lecture to my small U3A group,
the University of Third Age ( i.e. 60+ and
senile), but borrowed from another author on a
web-site, whose named I have misplaced:
acknowledgements to him anyway).

The use of the word Nothing' has a very

special meaning, unlike our every day use of
the word. It means here quite literally nothing,
77
the complete absence of everything. By
definition then nothing must be an infinite
void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be
infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed
any boundaries, as a boundary would place a
limit on nothing's size and furthermore would
also indicate that there was something existing
on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from
the boundary itself existing. This would be
contrary to our definition of both infinite and
of nothing. This also, it should be noted,
excludes anything existing in any other
dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension
would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when
described as an infinite void, excludes all
possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.
This is what having nothing would mean,
absolutely nothing anywhere. The only
conclusion I can draw from that is nothing
cannot exist, because we exist.
Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If
it existed in the past, then some event must
have taken place to end it. An event would be
impossible in nothing, so nothing could never
have existed because we exist, and as our
universe now exists, nothing can never exist in
the future either. Why could an event not
happen in nothing? Because apart from the
78
obvious that there is nothing to happen, an
event would create and require a moment in
time. There can be no time in nothing as
relativity describes time as just another
dimension.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant, asserted that
“Existence is not a predicate”;- by which they
mean that saying that something exists or has
“Being”, does not add any extra information;
so, one can say “The Universe”, or at most
“The Universe is”. It is not necessary to add
that it exists or has Being, as if these were
extra attributes of the Universe, (or of anything
else).If we assert “Nothing cannot exist”, and
if we assert also, with Kant etc, that Existence
is not a Predicate, then it is also unnecessary to
talk in terms of Nothing having existence.
How, after all could Nothing possibly exist ?
If it existed it would be Something, Is this
purely a linguistic and logical manoeuvre, or
does it relate to the real world?—I’m not sure.
To get back to Time; - without it nothing must
have always existed, it can not have a
beginning or end because either would create a
moment in time. It would in reality be
meaningless to ask how long nothing has
existed and how long it will continue to exist,
79
it would be eternal and unchanging. Again,
because we exist, nothing could not have had
an existence because the creation of the
universe would have required a significant
change, thus contravening an unchanging
nothing. Nothing can not have any laws of
physics because there is nothing to apply those
laws to, also the very concept of having laws
contravenes our description of nothing. In the
absence of any basic laws, let alone matter,
how could anything be created? Once again,
because we exist nothing could not have.
Could the universe have been created in
nothing? No, for the reasons stated above.
However, just for the sake of argument, let us
imagine it was. If the universe was created in
nothing then where was it 'put'? If somewhere
'outside' of nothing, this would require an
'outside' to pre-exist, but it could not because
that would require a boundary. It can not be '
put' within nothing, because containing a
universe would no longer be within our
definition of nothing. So far then we have
discovered that by using the simple definition
of nothing as being an infinite void we have
placed the following conditions on it:-
1) It must be timeless.
80
2) It must have always existed and could not
have been created.
3) It is unchanging.
4) Nothing else can exist.
5) It is unable to create anything.
We have now concluded that nothing when
described as an infinite void could never have
existed because we do. There is however
nothing wrong with the definition itself, the
existence of nothing as an infinite void would
appear to be logical, more than that, it HAS to
be that way, nothing could not have any
restraints of size or time placed upon it. We
now need to change our definition of nothing
in order that it may contain the universe.
We will retain the description of nothing that
we had before, as an infinite void, keeping it
exactly as it was, except for one change. We
will now allow it to contain the universe. Our
new definition of nothing will now read:
nothing is an infinite void, nothing else can
exist except for the universe that is
contained within it.

81
We can now think of the universe as a tiny (or
huge as you like, there is nothing to compare it
with) 'bubble' existing in an infinite nothing
and expanding into it. This model rather
conveniently does away with the need to have
a moment of creation for the universe because
within nothing time does not exist. Without
time it would be meaningless to ask when the
universe was created, it was simply there all
the time, existing in the same way as nothing,
as it always has. Within the universe of course
time does exist, as does everything else. With
this description of nothing its existence, and
that of the universe, is now possible. Or is it?
What does it mean to say the universe was
always there? We believe it started with the
Big Bang, but can we say the Big Bang was
always there? This doesn't seem logical to me,
it needed to have actually come into existence
at some point, even the very term 'big bang',
suggests a beginning. Let's step back a little
and look at the creation of the Big Bang from
the viewpoint of a 'perfect observer' in
nothing. At the moment of creation what
would our 'perfect observer' see? Nothing at
all! The universe is self contained, nothing at
all can escape from it into our nothing, and our
observer would notice no change whatsoever!
82
As no detectable change at all has occurred
from the viewpoint of nothing, and no change
could ever be detected regarding the
expanding universe, no 'real' change has
occurred, (It may help here to visualize the Big
Bang as an infinitely small event in the
unimaginable vastness of an infinite void. In
other words, a singularity, as indeed it is
believed to have been.), therefore our
definition of an unchanging timeless nothing is
still valid. A quick (!) read of Stephen
Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" will
clarify my point about nothing escaping from
the universe and the Big Bang starting as a
singularity.
Let's now look at the implications of an
infinite nothing containing an expanding
universe, ignoring for now the actual creation.
We will consider two possible problems,
expansion and infinity.
1) Expansion. Can the universe be described
as expanding? From our viewpoint within the
universe, yes. From our 'perfect observer's'
viewpoint in nothing, no. Why not? Because a)
as stated above our observer can have no
knowledge of the universe, and b) what is it
expanding in relation to? Nothing does not
83
contain anything, other than the universe, so
there is no possible way to determine either the
size, or the expansion of the universe, as both
can only be measured in relation to something
else. Size and expansion are meaningless
terms here. This would appear to suggest that
from within the universe things are as they
appear to be, but from the point of view of our
perfect observer in nothing, the universe does
not exist! Furthermore with the absence of
time in nothing the fact that it contains an
aging expanding universe is meaningless from
the perspective of nothing. So far so good, our
nothing is still intact; from the point of view of
our infinite nothing- it still contains nothing!
(The creation event, if it actually happened,
still needs explaining however)
2) Infinity. We now have a picture of nothing
as being an infinite void, containing an
expanding universe that it has no knowledge
of, but is it still infinite? We have not put any
restrictions on nothing's 'size' it is still infinite,
but it contains a universe so surely that puts
restrictions on its ‘completeness’; nothing is
'barred' from the area containing the universe!
I think we are still okay here, to contain the
universe is within our definition, but as to
whether or not we have somehow a little less
84
infinity is open to question, but it does not
contradict our definition. I can see no reason
why an infinite nothing can not contain a finite
universe.
What caused the Big Bang and how could it
form out of nothing? Without introducing a
mysterious source of energy into the equation,
as a magician might pull a rabbit out of a hat,
it simply can't be done; it's as simple as that.
It's logically and scientifically impossible to
produce something from nothing. I realize that
in Quantum Mechanics it is (arguably)
possible, but that is in an already existing
universe, not in nothing. Having said it's
impossible we are left with a paradox, it has
happened, we ARE here. There are only three
logical conclusions to be drawn from this,
assuming of course that our definition of
nothing is valid.
1) The universe did not come from nothing, it
came from something. Taking this route
however offers no explanation either; we
would still need to explain where this new
something came from.

85
2) We have to introduce a mysterious source of
energy, which creates Universes out of
Nothing.
3) The universe did NOT have a creation
event, it always existed.
So what is this mysterious source of energy
that we are compelled to introduce? Many
people will say that it is God and that He
always existed. We either accept that or accept
that the universe itself must have always
existed.
We are now left with just these two possible
solutions, either God created the universe and
He always existed, or the universe itself
always existed. The solution requires that
something has always existed in order to
avoid the problem of creating something out of
nothing. The choice of introducing God is
purely a matter of faith, for if we accept that
God could have always existed then why not
the universe? From a logical point of view
within this model we do not need the existence
of God; God is just a further complication that
in turn would require to be created. If we
ruthlessly apply Ockam’s razor to the idea of
introducing God into the model we are left
86
with the universe always existing. I am NOT
saying (here) that God does not exist, only that
the idea of introducing God into the equation
is not necessary in order to make it work.
I know that some would argue that God is
necessary as a Creator and Grand Designer of
the universe but I disagree. The universe can
simply be the way it is by pure chance alone, it
need not have been designed to be the way it
is. For those that argue that the universe
requires such a high degree of 'fine tuning' for
things to be so well suited for our own creation
and evolution that it could not have happened
by chance alone I disagree again. If the
universe were not so well suited for us then we
wouldn't be here! (The Weak Anthropic
principle) The fact that we are here does not
mean that the entire universe was designed just
for our benefit.
All of the above would seem to suggest that
the universe has always existed. I appreciate
that the idea seems unsatisfactory to our way
of thinking, but our way of thinking is
probably part of the problem. In our universe
we take for granted cause and effect, in that
order. Everything we know of happens that
way and even our minds work that way! Our
87
very existence would not be possible if it were
the other way round. When therefore we try to
contemplate the idea of something always
existing we simply can not manage to
understand it, we are seeking a 'cause' for the
'effect' of the universe existing. The universe
however is different to us, it exists in nothing,
whereas we of course exist in the universe.
There is no cause and effect in a timeless
eternal infinite nothing!
According to our definition of nothing as
being timeless, then in order to contain the
universe, the universe MUST have always
existed within it. It is not possible for it to
have been CREATED within it for that would
require a moment in time. It is not a matter of
convenience to suggest this idea; it is the way
it simply has to be.
If however you are uncomfortable with the
concept of anything having always existed
then I see no solution at all, because you will
simply have to accept that at some point
something came from nothing, and personally
I find that prospect totally unacceptable. Either
that or you have to conclude that the universe
does not exist! And that could be right.

88
So after all the arguments I have made, what
model do I prefer to describe where the
universe came from? An infinite eternal
unchanging nothing that has always existed
and has always contained a finite but
unbounded closed universe that constantly
changes but is itself eternal. In this model the
Big Bang is NOT required as a creation event,
it is merely a phase in the cycle of an eternally
expanding and collapsing universe and has no
special significance at all. There is no need to
look beyond it, there is only a previous cycle
beyond it, and no need to say it is meaningless
to try to look beyond it!

Conclusion
'Nothing' would appear to the casual observer
to be a 'natural' state, but as I have outlined
above, it seems to me it is not, it would appear
to be a very special state.
With the model for nothing that I have
described, it would appear to be possible to
exist and to contain the universe, but it still
does not give an explanation of how the
universe could be created from nothing. This
problem appears to be insurmountable. I can
not 'fix' my theory to explain such an event
89
and it would seem to suggest that the universe
did not come from nothing but must have
always existed or never existed! I tend to
favour the view that the universe does exist,
but of course we have no proof that it does!
It may be possible that we have not grasped
the concept of nothing. Perhaps to exist it
requires a structure, its own form of 'space',
but I am not going to go down that particular
road because that is not the nothing that I
began with as a model of how it may exist.
That would be a entirely new theory! Anyway,
I don't think it possible to apply the term 'exist'
to nothing, it doesn't 'exist', its just a concept!
I think that trying to explain where the
universe came from is something we will
never be able to do, we are contained within
the universe and our understanding is
restricted to the universe, anything else is
guess work. That aside, this is the best attempt
of describing where the universe came from
that I could come up with: An infinite eternal
unchanging nothing that has always existed
and has always contained a finite but
unbounded closed universe that constantly
changes but is itself eternal.

90
With this model I can detect only one possible
problem, and that is the acceptance of the
Universe having always existed. Having said
that I would suggest that the route to take in
order to establish the concept of 'always'
requires a more precise understanding of
exactly what time is.
In the meantime, to answer the original
question 'Where did the universe come from?'
I believe that it didn't come from anything, it
always existed.
Christians have no problem saying that their
God, presumably a Being of immense power,
has always existed uncreated, yet deny the
possibility he might have evolved from a
simpler state just like Life on Earth as we
know it. This seems highly improbable, and
some theologians, like Richard Swinburne,
have instead asserted that God is the “simplest
possible thing”. But can such a simple thing
have intentionality, hear prayers, and create
Universes? Besides, we already have the
simplest possible things,--quarks and
electrons,--but they are part of the Universe
not designers of it. Is God an electron?

91
Nor do Christians have problems with magical
creations of a Universe by an unknown Being
without any pre-existing tools, factory , labour
force, or somewhere to put the finished
product -and for no apparent reason—except
perhaps that he was lonely and wanted
someone to love!
Yet they pour scorn on modern theories of the
Megaverse and multi-dimensions which are far
more probable, and have a solid basis in
Mathematics, Quantum mechanics and
Relativity Theory. But then, as with biblical
interpretation, -a cherry –picking approach is
their standard method.
A “multiverse-of-the-gaps,” is said to be no
better than the “God-of-the-gaps”. The
Multiverse does however have the merit of
some theoretical backing. Its denial is just
another desperate attempt to insist that a God
designed the Universe deliberately so as to
make it appear undesigned,--which really is
scraping the barrel. Is God a deceiver?

92
93
 Chapter 4.
Evolution, Determinism, and the
Properties of Matter

Thanks to the Russian chemist Mendeleev-

1869, we have a system of classification of the
chemical elements known as “The Periodic
Table”. The Oxford Professor of Chemistry
(and atheist), Peter Atkins, has written an
excellent small book using that title. There are
around 100 naturally occurring elements, the
heaviest being Uranium-238, and quite a few
extra man-made ones,-heavier still. A new one
has recently been added.

There is a corny Christian joke which goes the

rounds. Some scientists challenge God that
they can also create Life. God says “go on
then”. The scientists say “give us some dirt
then and we will make a start on it”. To which
God says “O no, find your own dirt”.—Ha ha.
Well the above comments about elements
show that scientists can do just that.
Matter,-that is to say, -the chemical elements,
all have specific chemical properties, which
tend to recur in linear stretches as one goes
through the periodic table (hence “periodic”).
If God made them, why repeat similar themes
94
at intervals,-why not just do it all haphazardly
by arbitrary magic, and let any old element
have any old property?
Scientists know why; the properties are
directly tied into the arrangement of electron
shells which “orbit” the atomic nucleus,
leaving a surplus or deficiency of electrons in
the outer shell which can then be shared in a
specific manner with another suitable atom.
Therefore the structure and function of
chemistry, and organic living biochemistry
consists of hierarchies of fully deterministic
logical combinations of Matter at the
molecular level of description.
At higher levels of description there is room
for chance to play a part in allowing what
happens on larger scales. But chance is limited
by selection processes which tend to regulate
what is causally possible in the type of
complex “living” molecules which emerge.
In Evolutionary theory there is the concept of
Natural Selection, -- and also “Neutralism”,-
the idea that random chemical and biochemical
mutations and increasing “sticktogerration”,-
(-or just “sticktion”), cause a tendency from
overall simplicity to increasing complexity,
(which is sometimes reversible). Or in other
words, when things are very simple and
95
primeval, there is only one way to go—
upwards.

This concept of Evolution is nor just restricted

to biology or even biochemistry, but can be
applied to the entire physical Cosmos,--in
which it is proposed that a form of Natural
Selection and Random Drift applies alternative
sets of otherwise deterministic properties to
the whole Universe,-even Megaverse,
(assuming that there might be many different
Universes.).
This is a grand idea, as Darwin himself put it
when commenting at the end of his book upon
his theory of biological evolution.
Compared with this, an unexplained creation-
event by an unknown superman called God, is
a rather poor concept. But one has to start
somewhere, and one cannot blame early
people for speculating wildly on the origin of
things before any science and technology were
possible.
What seems so strange to me is that the Bible,
which is not a single work, but an anthology of
numerous authors writing over a period of
1000 years between the first book of the Old
Testament and the last book of the New
Testament, in the same genre of course,
96
written by the same people, hence the
similarities of the theme,--should be regarded
as a scientific textbook 2000 years later.. This
can be ascribed to indoctrination and
brainwashing, ignorance of how Nature works,
wishful thinking, laziness, and fear of the
unknown, and vested interests by the leaders
of the Churches and governments---an
impressive list of unimpressive reasons.
We have much better explanations now.

Of course we, (our scientists) do not know

everything and perhaps never will. The
Universe may appear to be logically
comprehensible, but we can still only see so
far, and in the end may have to reply on
probabilistic inductive and deductive
reasoning to try and put together a Theory of
Everything.
There is no reason why a modified Ape like
ourselves, who evolved to live on the African
savannah, should necessarily have the secrets
of the Universe open before us. Though that
does not definitely mean that it is closed to us
either.

We are at the cutting edge of what can be

known. We can trace the logical cause and
97
effect progress of the evolution of the
Universe from the Big Bang up to the present
time, and mathematicians and physicists are
working to try and unravel the processes that
gave rise to that original inflation of the
Universe from the primeval Singularity.
Needless to say, Theology contributes nothing
to this voyage of discovery, (though of course
individual scientists who may happen to be
Christians can play their part) .
Meanwhile the Churches will be waiting in the
wings to take over for Jesus, whatever
discoveries are made in the future.

In the beginning after the initial 3 minutes

following the Big Bang, there existed only
quarks and gluons, followed by electrons,
followed by protons ,(or hydrogen ions), and
then gaseous hydrogen which underwent
gravitational collapse to form the first stars
and galaxies,--which then produced all the
heavier elements by nuclear fusion, and which
then exploded and scattered these elements
around space,-until they re-combined into new
stars and planets, and complex organic
molecules and the beginning of primitive Life.
Could it have happened in any other way? It
seems unlikely because it was causally
98
necessary that it should happen the way it did;
but it is an open question.
It now seems probable that our Universe is one
of many; if one then why not another and
another,-even an infinite number of different
Universes in a vast Megaverse.
Scientific theory often pulls ahead of empirical
data,-so at the moment a Megaverse, and
associated “String Theory” cannot be plausibly
proven; but that may change with more
measurements. It is all a matter of evidence.
After the Big Bang there was a slight “pause”
of about 300 million years before anything
else happened, and there was nothing but
darkness and a dense fog of electrons, which
still, (as we can look back in time), -obscures
the first 300 million years of the Universe’s
existence. It was not until the hydrogen gas
had collapsed under gravitation into the first
stars,--as mentioned above,--that the radiation
from these early stars re-ionised the remaining
hydrogen, and their light was emitted,--which
we can see now,--13.7 billion years later.
This seems a strange sort of way to create a
Universe,--having a 300 million year
“pause”,--but then I suppose there was nothing
else for God to do;--why hurry? Or it might

99
just have happened that way because there was
no other way it could happen.
Perhaps we will find out some day.
It does seem though, that Mass/Energy is
constrained in the way it can act,--perhaps
through mathematical laws which themselves
are based upon logical necessity.
We observe and discover these laws, and think
of them as “descriptive” laws.
Religious types think they are “proscriptive”
laws; that is, they are prescribed by a Law-
giver. Though this Law-giver has to be
specially invented in order to “explain” these
pre-existing laws.
Christians continually muddle cause and effect
relationships,-getting them back to front.
This is “a posteriori”, or backwards,- thinking.
They are also fond of analogies; though in this
case they are thinking akin to saying that a
rabbit has a white tail in order that huntsmen
can more easily shoot them;-or legs are
designed to fit trousers, or noses are designed
to fit spectacles.
Also they exhibit “teleological” thinking
(“telos”, Greek, meaning “far”-as in television
(far-seeing). This way of thinking assumes a
distant far-off goal or purpose to which the
Universe is striving.
100
This is why they have trouble with Evolution.
They think “Man” is the goal of creation, and
therefore find it extraordinary that living –
processes, and the Cosmos itself, should be so
fine-tuned as to produce this end goal.
The evolutionary explanation is that “Man” is
just one of many possibilities which evolution
produced; just consider,--all the vast numbers
of different living things which exist apart
from Man. So we are a random product,--just
like seaweed or scorpions.
We seem “different” largely because we have
specialised in big brains and expanded
intelligent consciousness.
But we are still at the mercy of the next viral
pandemic, caused by simple viruses which are
only half-alive themselves.
Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic writer is
partly responsible for this teleological
assumption; he wrote of an end –state, the
“Omega point” to which the Universe is
striving. This concept was thoroughly trashed
by the biologist Sir Peter Medawar.
Christians inherited these ideas from Plato.
According to Plato, Socrates had a
conversation with a cocky young Athenian
lawyer called Euythpro. They were arguing
about the origin of “goodness”.
101
Socrates concluded that if “Goodness” or “the
Good”, was defined and created by God,--then
God could call anything “good” that he wished
(even eating babies), and we would all be
obliged to obey Him and do likewise. So God
would just be a fickle tyrant.
On the other hand,--if God’s nature was to be
good, and he could not be otherwise,--then
“the Good” was something that existed prior
to, and independent of God, -to which God
was obliged to conform; also God was
constrained by his “Nature”, and therefore did
not have complete Freewill. Interesting eh?
Of course the atheist would say there is no
God, -in which case the whole conundrum is a
fictional pseudo-problem, and can be
disregarded. Atheism wins! So does
Determinism.

The Reasonableness of Evolution:

Or, a quick “potted” guide to human
evolution.

We already know that owing to random

mutations and mixing of genes through sexual
intercourse,-that children are always somewhat
different from their parents; ie—they are not

102
identical clones of them. That is obvious to
anyone, even God-believers.
We know from the fossils, backed up by
molecular biology of the genes themselves,
that human-like creatures have existed for at
least 6 million years, and that they have
changed as time moved on, up to the present
day.
Therefore, there was once a time when an
indeterminate sort of anthropoid/simian
mammal existed which produced at least two
children which became separated, but
survived.
One of these bred with others of the parent
stock in the same jungle environment, and
continued the same ape-like lineage. The
other bred likewise, but probably wandered
out of the jungle onto drier and hotter
savannah,-or was pushed out by competition,
or rejected by the “tribe” for being “different”,
but managed to find a mate.
Then owing to the digital nature of genetic
transmission, one of its children was like itself,
and better adapted than the others for the new
conditions, and it survived;-the other children
perished.
This would of course be happening in other
families as well, --not just one,--so there
103
would have been other potential mates
available,-so more grand-progeny would
survive who were better adapted to life on the
savannah.
This scenario can be empirically constructed
from observation of animal behaviour in the
wild. No longer being able to continue jungle-
life, further variations would have gradually
arisen involving loss of body hair (a protection
against jungle insects), further development of
an efficient cooling system by sweating,--
owing to greater exposure to the sun. Standing
upright to maximise heat-loss, improve vision,
and free the ape-like hands for carrying
children, food, weapons etc. There was no
longer much fur left on the mothers for babies
to cling to,-so they had to be carried.
Carrying infants in the front improved
maternal/infant bonding and growth of
intelligence and cognition, and with it the
growth of the human brain.
The forced change of diet from jungle fruits
and berries, meant rapid adaptation of hunting
skills, aggression, bipedalism, so that eye-level
could be raised up higher to scan for predators
and prey, giving early warning of them. Loss
of body fat, and increase in leg length for
better bipedal running.
104
Unlike the big cats and other predators who
had evolved soon after the demise of the
dinosaurs 60 million years previously, there
had been no time to evolve killer teeth and
claws, so these early humanoids had to use
their dexterous fingers and improving brain
power to develop new skills and artificial
weapons.
And so on. You see how it all ties together
reasonably and logically, and how it occurs
quite naturally and arbitrarily, shaped only by
environmental changes, and genetic
variations,-ie Natural Selection.
So all of the above slight modifications of the
new humanoids can be regarded as transitional
forms, from original parental stock,-and
between each other.
Then as human populations increased, they
formed cooperative clans and tribes as apes do,
-and then started competing with, and killing
neighbouring tribes;--and so began “Evil”.
Creationists stick their heads in the sand and
shout “there are no transitional forms—God
made each “kind” of animal separately.”
But why? Why make millions of slightly
different animals, which therefore all have to
be given separate names by biologists, when it
is obvious that all these slight variations are
105
not fixed,-but flow into each other in a smooth
(or sometimes punctuated) manner?
Consider Sea-lions: is it not obvious how
similar they are to dogs? They even bark, and
do tricks and have similar mannerisms. As
well as whiskers.
Consider their “legs”, which are so mal-
adapted to moving on the ground, but so
efficient for swimming. Look at them, and see
the obvious transition between proper legs, eg
like those of a frog, and the tail-like flukes of
their close relatives,--Whales. All one has to
do is stick a sea-lions stubby legs together with
cellotape down the middle, and you have an
instant whale’s tail-flukes.
Similarly other animal series, eg Horses,
where there is a steady transition from early
Hyracotherium to modern Equus.
There is no denying it;-if you are rational.

106
107
 Chapter 5
Evidence, Logic & Fallacies

Christians often claim that Nature is proof that

God exists. They say things like: “Look
around you”, or “Look at that Rose”, or Tree
etc. But:

1.We would need proof that God exists at all,

before we can consider his supernatural
exploits.
2.
We would need proof that God was able to do
all he is claimed to
be able to do. Many so-called miracles can be
duplicated by “magicians” like James Randi,
especially using high- tech effects.
3.
We would need proof that God did actually
create our Universe and human
life,--and not someone else, eg a team of
superior alien engineers from the Planet Zog.
somewhere in another Universe.
4.
We would need proof that the Bible is the
Word of God.

108
5.
We need to know if he is the personal loving
God he is claimed to be, and sustains the
world, or are we just pets and he amuses
himself teasing us.
6.
How do we know God will keep his promises
in the Bible?
7. We would need to know that the Properties
of Matter are inadequate to explain their own
self-assembly into living things, and that a
man in the Sky was actually responsible.

Comments on above:
1.
The error made by Creationist fundamentalists,
(and isn’t every true Christian necessarily a
fundamentalist?)—is that they look at Nature’s
life-forms, eg a Tree, as an individual single
object in isolation. Thanks to Darwin we now
know that all trees everywhere since the very
beginning of trees have to be compared and
contrasted with each other and with their
extinct fossilized remains, in order to really
understand “Tree-ness”. Only then will it
become apparent that Trees and every other
organism also, have become changed

109
throughout the generations, ie-they have
evolved.
But could not God, (whose existence had
already been proven),-have made the changes
himself bit by bit?
Well we already know that genetic mutations
occur randomly, as well as sometimes for
identifiable reasons like toxins or cosmic or
man-made radiation. We also know that it is
usual for any repeated copying process to
make errors, eg as with scribes copying
manuscripts, (including biblical ones). Now if
you compare these reasonable events with the
religious hypothesis that an unknown, or even
a known superman God, created millions or
billions of plants and animals of the same
“kind”, -to use Creationist jargon,-but
introduced deliberate minute changes in each
succeeding generation for no useful or artistic
purpose,--then I think the first, naturalistic
process is more reasonable than the second
supernaturalistic one;--especially as the
changes can be recorded and analyzed by
laboratory technicians.
Creationists claim that Matter is inert, like a
pile of plastic ping-pong balls, or billiard
balls,-incapable of self-organization without a
God-Person to do it.
110
The first rebuttal of this notion concerns the
unproven-ness of the existence of God, and the
fact that he would have to be a complex
evolved Life –form himself in order to have
Divine powers of omnipotence, as Richard
Dawkins first pointed out. He cannot be self –
made,-pulled up as it were, by his own
bootstraps,- or eternal; if these latter two were
possible of a God, they would also be possible
of the Universe itself, and one could just
eliminate the God-hypothesis as an
unnecessary complication ,-using Occam’s
razor.

The second rebuttal,--that of the claim of the

inertness of Matter, is entirely undermined by
atomic physics and chemistry. Atoms combine
into molecules, large and small, by logical
cause and effect processes, and the tendency to
increasing self-organized complexity. If we do
not yet fully understand all the processes of
self –assembly of RNA and DNA, it is only a
minor gap in the otherwise quite complete
understanding of the chemistry of Life, which
one can be confident will be filled in time.
Have faith!

111
Apart from chemistry, which involves only the
outer shells of electrons being shared between
neighbouring atoms to effect a chemical
bond,-- there is the little matter of the atomic
nucleus, and the Strong Force, which binds
together it’s constituent protons and neutrons,
and their own constituent quarks and gluons.
This force is partially released in atomic
reactors and atomic bomb blasts,--something
which even fundamentalists cannot deny.

The conclusion is obvious: Matter contains its

own energy/power source, and is not inert and
in need of a divine helping hand.
When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN,
Geneva gets fired up soon,-we may discover
more about this Force of Nature,-and where it
came from-if anywhere.
Perhaps it is a result of a naturally-occurring
broken symmetry in the void, as are natural
forces generally,-as worked out by the
mathematician Emmy Noether.

2. It has been rightly observed that our high-

tech capability would be seen as God-like by
primitive, unsophisticated people. So why
should “miracles “ not be high-tech natural
effects,--when they are not also being
112
hallucinations, wishful-thinking and mistaken
and inaccurate reporting?
3. If there is an omnipotent God,-it does not
follow that he actually did what the bible
writers say he did.

4. We have observed that the Bible was written

by named human authors over a period of
1000 years,--so where does God come into it?

5. Most of the time God does not appear

loving, but rather judgemental, vindictive,
violent, vengeful and Hell-bent on punishing
us. Who needs friends like that? Time to deny
him, along with the Holy Spirit, and send them
both packing.

6. We don’t know God will keep any promises.

What about the original rainbow after the
Flood, and his promise that he would
thereafter be nice, and never do that again?
Tell that to the Indonesian tsunami sufferers.

7. We have compared and contrasted the innate

properties of Matter with the inert billiard ball
claim, and demonstrated that the latter claim is
vacuous.

113
So what constitutes valid Evidence for
anything?

It means carefully observing and measuring,

comparing and contrasting, looking for self-
consistency, and constructing a theoretical
Model which constantly confirms its own
truth, and withstands attempts to falsify it, and
being prepared to alter or abandon it in the
light of new evidence. That is the scientific
method--or “Scientism” as our aforementioned
lady philosopher would like to think of it.

Evidence is not: consulting ancient and

unchangeable Holy Books, seeking revelations
in the sky, proposing unsound false deductive
arguments based on falsely assumed premises,
and holding to them doggedly in spite of, and
even in defiance, of changing circumstances.
Ignoring or wilfully misinterpreting empirical
data,-- founding holy shrines based upon the
testimonies of one or two ignorant
indoctrinated children,-eg Fatima, and
Lourdes,- and using these shrines as a
supposed source of a miraculous pseudo-
science for the main purpose of filling the
coffers of the established churches at the
expense of the poor. The commercialism at
114
Lourdes is quite appalling, with their plastic
bottles of holy water. I once mentioned this
politely to a Catholic clergyman friend (such
friends tend not to last),-and he said I did not
need to be offensive!—all I said was---

Continuing;-It is not claiming to “know God”

or to have conversations with him.
Police methods of separate interrogation of a
number of story-tellers about God will soon
demonstrate the inconsistencies between them.

The Logical Approach

God is defined according to the collective

descriptions of him throughout the Bible,
which any one can check for themselves, as
“Omnimax”. This is a collective name for
Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent,
and Omnipresent.

However such a God is a logical impossibility,

on account of the “Incompatible Attributes
Argument,--of which, two examples below:

1. The well-known Argument from Evil, which

goes back to Epicurus in the 300’s BC, which
115
shows that a God cannot be all-powerful, all-
knowing, and all- benevolent at once. If he
knows all and can do all, then he can prevent
evil,--but he does not,--therefore he is not all-
benevolent.. Or he is benevolent, but is not
powerful or knowledgeable enough to prevent
evil.
So the combination does not work.

2. If he is omniscient then he knows the future,

or any changes he might make to the future;
therefore it, plus any changes, have already
been discounted, and he has no freewill or
power to do anything spontaneous and “off-
the-cuff”, which he does not already know
about in advance. Or else he would fall into a
chain of infinite progression of knowing what
he was going to do, and then changing it,-but
not knowing what he would do next etc etc.
So this combination fails also, and God does
not have the freewill to change the known
future without violating his omniscience,
because he then would not know in advance
what changes he was going to make.

3. If God has no Freewill, how can he give the

gift of Freewill to Humans?

116
Humans already have a degree of freewill for
different evolutionary reasons; but God is
unchanging and does not alter his Divine
Nature,-otherwise what use would he be as a
fixed example and beacon of stability for
humans to look up to?
If you prayed to such a God, you could not
rely on any response he might make because
his nature could change from day to day, and
he would be as fickle as any human; you might
as well pray to your next-door neighbour.

Logical errors and fallacies

.
Many Christians claim to know beyond doubt
that God exists, and pay no heed to claims
about his logical incompatibility with himself.
They are making a Faith claim, but at the same
time claim this is evidence for God. Clearly
they cannot understand the difference between
unsupported assertions of Faith, and logical
empirical evidence,-or else they claim to be
using Logic themselves,-but cannot distinguish
a sound valid deductive argument from an
unsound one.
The “virtue” of faith is that it is something
held onto in the teeth of evidence to the

117
contrary or no evidence at all,-in other words,-
defiant irrationalism.
One of God’s attributes is his omnipresence,--
he is always around, watching you like a
“peeping Tom”, judging you,-looking for the
slightest excuse to send you to burning Hell-
fire;--but of course he loves you and only
wants to save your soul so that nasty Satan
can’t get it. Incidentally, what is an immortal
soul anyway?

The Dean at my medical school started his first

ever lecture to us by stating that in all his years
as a surgeon, he had never yet encountered a
Soul” anywhere in the human body; perhaps it
was just conveniently invisible; rather like the
God which the Sputnik satellite was unable to
detect when launched into orbit.
Scientists can detect the whole range of
electro-magnetic radiation, ultra-violet rays,
infra-red, X-rays, gamma-rays, and including
of course visible Light. Using it, they can see
about 13 billon light-years back in time,
almost as far as the Big Bang,-which itself
cannot be seen,-not because God has placed a
veil in front of it, but for the more prosaic
reason that as the Big Bang event is
approached, Space becomes an impenetrable
118
fog of free electrons which obscures it owing
to the ionization of space at that distance from
the Big Bang,--caused by radiation from the
first stars.
Only gravitational waves can emerge from
it,-and at present scientists are trying to detect
these with LIGO,-the Laser Interferometer
Gravitational Observatory,--and later to come,-
LISA,-it’s equivalent in space orbit.
Yet, scientists are unable to detect God in the
same room as themselves. One wonders how
God being in the room with someone is
different from God not being in the room with
someone.

Self-Organizing Complexity

I touched on the claim that Matter is it’s own

Energy source, and has inherent properties of
self-assembly. This can be demonstrated both
experimentally and mathematically, or
computer-simulated.
Examples are “Cellular automata”, where all
that is required is one simple rule of
procedure, eg a piece on a draughts –board
moving say “one space to the left”; and in no
time a complex pattern can automatically build
up by repeating the rule serially.
119
Another example is Richard Dawkins’
computer-generated “insects” which evolve
spontaneously.
Fractal patterns are generated in Nature, for
mathematical and logical reasons (without an
Intelligent Designer. Perfect logarithmic
spirals are demonstrated in the shells of some
shell-fish. The Golden Mean, and the
Fibonacci series of numbers appear to be
mathematical necessities, which illustrate
symmetrical forms to which humans are
attuned and find aesthetic.
Why should humans find certain patterns
aesthetic? It seems the reason is because
physical and mathematical balance are
harmonious and symmetrical,-and humans like
symmetry because in general it indicates
health and bodily strength in their prospective
mates,--and therefore lots of healthy children
who might survive long enough for their genes
to become propagated,--Natural Selection
willing. No God required so far.

Chaos Theory

This tends to explain the occurrence of large

scale effects as the result of a single, perhaps
random, spontaneous change in a physical
120
system,--like say, the weather; the famous
butterfly effect, whose wing beats ultimately
generates a typhoon somewhere far away from
it. Or the case where say, a sand-dune reaches
a critical-point of build-up, and then collapses
causing an avalanche.
Or where one extra neutron released from a
decaying atom, causes an atomic explosion.
Or the way the pounding waves on a beach can
sort the shingle pebbles into graded sizes up
the slope of the beach,-or soil, when placed in
a column of water settles out into different
layers according to the density, size and
viscosity of its suspended particles.

Or the tiny mutation in a cell’s DNA which

through a cascade effect becomes the recipe
for building a bigger brain in a proto-Human,
which gives him/her some critical new
faculty,-like say, enhanced consciousness, or
aggression, or ability to run faster.
The one straw that breaks the Camel’s back.

Still no God there.

Logical Fallacies

121
These are committed by Christian and Islamic
theologians in spades.
We have already mentioned the “No True
Scotsman” fallacy;--We don’t believe that at
all ( or anymore),--that is a different kind of
Christian who has misinterpreted Jesus.

The Straw Man argument,--where one sets up

a false version of say,- Evolutionary Theory
(saying Hitler was a Darwinist, or that Social
Darwinists killed million of people, therefore
Evolution is false)

Other favourites are: Circular arguments

(begging the question); saying things like “The
Bible is true because the Bible itself says it is
true”. This of course is self-referential, and
therefore a closed false argument. (Strangely,
one Christian writer once claimed that atheism
is self-referential; I don’t follow that; I think
what he was doing was committing the next
fallacy:

Psychological projection

-accusing your opposing debater of whatever

error of fact or logic you yourself have

122
committed;--attack being the best form of
defence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

--“after this therefore because of this”;-- eg I
prayed to God for my lost car keys to turn
up,;- I found them, therefore God answered
my prayer.

False dichotomy

Either-or answers. Or in this example of C.S.

Lewis’s logic,--the false Trilemma; “Jesus was
either Liar , Lunatic. Or Lord”—that’s it,-no
other possibilities like say,--he was a
superstitious Jewish preacher, he was a
product of his own time, when people thought
like that, or he was mistaken, or the words
were put into his moth by the Gospel writers
(at least 40 years later),-and that he never said
them at all.

Argument from Force

Believe what I tell you that Jesus said,-or be
burned in everlasting Hell-fire, (as well as here
on Earth,-and tortured first, or merely fined,
imprisoned, socially ostracized, and your
business boycotted)
123
Equivocation
Changing the meaning of words;--very
popular.

False Cause
Saying “God-did-it”,-as the answer to
everything.

Non-sequitur
The conclusion does not follow from the
argument
Eg. “Look at that Rose”;--therefore God exists.

False Conclusion
Similar to above;--just getting it wrong
basically.

Using highly improbable weak arguments to

try and justify God somehow.
Eg Alvin Plantinga; “If God exists; he exists in
every possible world”;--so? A very big “if”.
Apologies if I have misinterpreted him,-it is
difficult to follow.

Other arguments: “God is testing us”, “God

wants us to suffer in order to come to Him”,-or
to make us more worthy having been so tested
124
to build our character; (who needs “character”
in Heaven?)
Or the horrific Catholic argument: it is
necessary for little children to suffer and die in
order that they should be saved.
Or to paraphrase the Mother Teresa argument:
“It is good that the poor and helpless should
suffer as Jesus suffered, -it is the kiss of
salvation”. This probably explains why funds
donated to her for the poor, ended up
elsewhere instead. (See Christopher Hitchens
—“The Missionary Position)”

These are just a few of the logical fallacies. I

once spoke to John Blanchard, who wrote a
book called “Does God believe in Atheists?”
(very strange). I accused him, ever so politely,
by phone, of committing all of the logical
fallacies above, and more.
The reply was typical;- complete denial, or “I
deny it all”. I have not heard of him since,-
despite claims of thousands of his books in
circulation.

“Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of

Absence”

Who do they think they are kidding?

125
Some Christians appear to have little sense of
time; if Science cannot answer a question, then
that’s it,-it will never be answered,-not
tomorrow, not next week, not in a million
years,- despite the fact that Science advances
knowledge by the day. Or they say that
Science keeps getting it wrong,-that Newton
has been dethroned by Einstein;--another
Argument from Ignorance.
Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of
absence,-when that absence keeps on
accumulating, and no God or second or third-
coming ever materialises. Will they still make
the assertion if nothing happens for another
2000 years?
Their only recourse is to pretend that Jesus
actually did come back just like the Gospels
said,--in which case why are we still in need of
Salvation? Why are they still awaiting the
Rapture, when the Chosen will be taken up?
Religion makes pseudo-scientific claims about
the nature of the world, and so tries to ape the
scientific method, while refusing to play by the
rules of proper evidence, or else it discards it’s
claims when evidence continues not to appear;
and then falls back on Faith and says it rejects
science altogether.

126
There are those who pretend Science and
religion are compatible, and even offer bribes
like the Templeton prize and con some
scientists into making nice noises about
religion.
In the last few issues of the New Scientist the
scientists and the religionists have been
attacking each other; even John Polkinghorne,
ex–physicist turned fundamentalist has
resurrected himself in order to dispute a recent
claim that religious belief is no better than
astrology. Not much reconciliation there then.
One exasperated reader demanded they stop
doing it and let the scientists have their
magazine back for science, out of the clutches
of the Christian invaders who are trying to
infiltrate it.

Special Pleading
In this fallacy, two similar propositions are
considered,--one of them is supported, the
other denied. The Christians would like their
God to have existed eternally, but they deny
this state to the Universe itself. But if a God
can have existed forever, then why can the
Universe not also have existed forever?—
especially as we know the Universe exists,--
but this God-person remains elusive. If the
127
Universe is eternal and uncreated, then God is
unnecessary, and should receive the Occam’s
razor treatment.

Shifting the goal posts

When we criticise one Christian assertion they
claim they did not mean that, but something
else instead, or else they raise the criteria of
proofs for say, Evolution, until the reductio ad
absurdum of expecting evolutionists to come
up with a continuous video recording of
speeded up evolution in action for their
benefit; and they still would not believe it on
principle anyway..

Poisoning the well

A generalised discrediting of someone
creationists disapprove of, eg a prominent
atheist; they might say things like “what else
can you expect from an atheist”? Similar to
“Ad Hominem” attacks, where someone’s
character is attacked in order to discredit their
argument.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

This is very popular. In normal conversation if
one makes a positive claim or assertion such as
“ I saw Mrs Bloggs in the supermarket”, then
128
(if anyone cared), one should be able to prove
that claim with good supporting evidence, eg a
photograph, or a full shopping basket. One
would not expect to have to provide proof that
Mrs Bloggs was not
at the supermarket. Positive proof is the
default requirement.
Not so for the God question. “Prove that God
doesn’t exist” says the Christian. This is very
silly; I would immediately have to rush off
around the Universe, presumably for ever, if
the Universe is eternal,-turning over every
rock in case the Christian God is hiding
underneath it, using telescope and microscope
and spectrometer as well as chemical analysis
of samples in the desperate hunt for Him. Of
course one could not possibly succeed, and so,
using Christian logic they would say
triumphantly:
“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, therefore
he does,”-praise the Lord.
I think I might try the same method on them,
and get them to prove that the “Great Invisible
Pink Unicorn” doesn’t exist; surely She does,-
have they not beheld the Glory of Her
Ineffable Pinkness?”

129
Lies and forgeries.
The Testamonium Flavium, or adulteration of
Josephus’ work to make it appear he was a
Christian convert, or confirm that Jesus
actually existed, to the bare-faced cheek of the
Donation of Constantine, in which 8th century
Monks forged a document purporting to prove
that the Emperor Constantine had donated the
Roman Empire to Pope Sylvester, the False
Decretals,(see notes), and others too numerous
to mention;--see “Forgery in Christianity” by
Joseph Wheless.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul claims that 500
people saw the risen Jesus;- a conveniently
round number,--no names and addresses, or
cross-referencing mind you. What it really
comes down to is that just one man, Paul, says
that 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus; not
the same thing at all. There is the scandal of
the medieval forgeries, not least the Shroud of
Turin, carbon-dated to the 14th century. Also
enough bits of the True Cross of Christ to
build a barn with,--and not forgetting dozens
of Jesus’ original circumcised foreskins.
More recently claims of the alleged recantation
and conversion of Charles Darwin on his
death-bed,--the so-called “Lady Hope” affair,--
denied by Darwin’s daughter,-and one of many
130
attempted such claims, including David Hume
being pestered by priests on his death-bed also.
This brings us to the present-day repeated
assertions in Church and outside of it, by
clerics, that the Gospel writers were all eye-
witnesses of the crucifixion and /or
resurrection of Jesus,--when in fact the
earliest, that of Mark, was written around 70
AD, 40 years after Jesus’ death,--if he ever
existed and there is any truth at all in the story.
There is a good case to be made that Jesus was
a mythical figure, or some local preacher who
attracted stories of earlier charismatic
characters to himself,-a sort of syncretic
composite one-size- fits-all figure, with all the
stolen attributes of other pagan heroes and
deities. In Church it is repeatedly asserted
through traditional prayers and hymns that the
creator made the world in 6 days as in
Genesis,-that Adam and Eve lived, and
Original Sin is real, and still requires expiation
by continual worship and supplication. No
theory of Evolution there,-not even among
moderate Anglicans. The Catholic Church
grudgingly accepts its own parody of
Evolution.
It should not be necessary to point out that
gradual naturalistic evolution over 4 billion
131
years, is not compatible with intentional
creation over 6 days by a Designer God about
6000 years ago; and all the squirming over
whether a “day” actually means 24 hours, or a
few million or billion years,--will not fix the
problem;-just another example of
Equivocation.

Notes: False Decretals

The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore
False Decretals is a name given to certain
apocryphal papal letters contained in a
collection of canon laws composed about the
middle of the ninth century by an author who
uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the
opening preface to the collection. For the
student of this collection, the best, indeed the
only useful edition, is that of Hinschius,
"Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ" (Leipzig,
1863). The figures in parenthesis occurring
during the course of this article refer the reader
to the edition of Hinschius. The name "False
Decretals" is sometimes extended to cover not
only the papal letters forged by Isidore, and
contained in his collection, but the whole
collection, although it contains other

132
documents, authentic or apocryphal, written
before Isidore's time.

133
Chapter 6
134
 Roots and fruits

Although I have read the Bible from cover to

cover, it is so big, and I cannot remember
everything in it. I recently heard it said that a
Bible student had pointed out that the
expression ”Immortal Soul” is incorrect,
because apparently Ezekiel was of the opinion
that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die”; still,
what did he know (Ezekiel, I mean)?
However, if true, what happens to the
Christian doctrine of the eternal wailing and
gnashing of teeth of one’s immortal soul in
eternal Hell-fire? If souls can die like bodies,
then it is not quite so bad; a merciful release
one might say. I did not think that Souls had
teeth anyway.
There are many good books on the origins of
Christianity in pagan antiquity, (including
Jewish ). The interested reader can explore the
subject in depth, as this is meant only to be a
small book,--though getting larger all the time.
One of my oldest books, in my collection is
edited by John Hick, “The Myth of God
Incarnate”.
Obviously Christianity is grounded in the
Jewish Old Testament;--though there are some
who would like to disown the OT as being
135
concerned with the “unique “message of Jesus.
For three reasons I think; one of them being
Christian anti-semitism;-after all, aren’t the
Jews Christ-killers? The other being to try and
provide as authentic –as –possible a pedigree
to Christianity that does not just rely just on
the Jewish O.T.
So the “pagan” Greek philosophers Plato and
Aristotle were called in, and give a kind of
pseudo-Christian reverence, (being pre-
Christian themselves, and non-Biblical).
The third being the awfulness of Yahweh’s
personality and behaviour; how could he be
the Father of Jesus, (or at least consubstantial
with him)?
The four canonical Gospels were chosen out of
dozens of others,-the rest being ignored as not
confirming the right sort of story of Jesus,-eg
the Gospel of Thomas, which says nothing
about Virgin Births and resurrections.
Likewise the other Gnostic or apocryphal
writings were stifled,-as were those of other
unsuitable Greek philosophers like Democritus
or Epicurus.
Further tampering with Josephus’ the
Histories, and “Wars of the Jews” by Bishop
Eusebius and others, after much-cherry-
picking and gatherings of Church Councils, eg
136
of Nicaea and Chalcedon, finally produced the
Gospels as we know them; --arbitrary or
what? So don’t believe everything you read in
the Bible,--it is all the result of a political
conspiracy to make the new Roman religion a
one-size-fits-all creed.

What about Jesus’ miracles? What about the

miracles performed by Apollonius of Tyana
(Jesus’ contemporary), or of Emperor
Vespasian, Alexander of Aboneuticos,
Peregrinus, Buddha, Jeanne d’Arc, all the
Christian saints , apostles and martyrs,
stigmata, bleeding statues, portraits of the
Virgin Mary in a slice of cucumber or
whatever. It seems they were all at it,--except
now of course, when we are much more
discerning of silly claims and stunts.
How many other gods and heroes long before
Jesus, were in the business of being born to
virgins, crucified on trees or crosses as scape-
goats and blood sacrifices, descending to the
under-world, and then being resurrected and
ascending to a heaven. Lots,-with slight
variations of course, otherwise it would be a
clone of the Jesus story; but very similar; eg:
The Sumerian Inanna,--ascending from the
under-world after being hung on a tree for
137
three days,-- the Indian Krishna,-third
incarnation of the goddess Vishnu, Romulus,
founder of Rome, Herakles, Buddha ,Attis,
Dionysus, Mithras, Osiris , Baal etc.
The original Egyptian Trinity was Isis/
Osiris/Horus.
It is also obvious that many of these, eg
Mithras were born on 25th December, three
days after the Winter Solstice, when it
becomes apparent that the “death” of winter
has been overcome, and there is a final
triumphant resurrection at Easter when the
days become longer than night after the Spring
Equinox, and the “god” (whichever) is re-born.
It has rightly been said that what is true in
Christianity isn’t new, and what’s new isn’t
true.
It is a syncretic made-up faith, being a
composite faith for all the citizens of the
Roman Empire, it’s former colonies and their
modern counterparts in the West (and the
Western modern colonies in the third world.
So it is not literally true,-just a fiction based on
some other earlier mythical fictions, with a
smattering of garbled ancient history here and
there.

138
So why are we still slaves to it, and still being
brain-washed and threatened by it’s leaders
and their gullible converts?

Jesus, man of peace?

Sometimes, sometimes not, depending upon
which bits you read. We all know of Baby
Jesus, and Gentle Jesus meek and mild; what
about muscular Christianity,--Jesus as God of
War. What about:

“And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble,

pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish, and not thy whole body be cast
into hell. And if thy right hand causeth thee to
stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it
is profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish, and not thy whole body go into
hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30)

"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to

death, and the father the child: and the children
shall rise up against their parents, and cause
them to be put to death." (Matthew 10:21)

“Think not that I came to send peace on the

earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
139
For I came to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter in law against her mother in
law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own
household. He that loveth father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me; and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me. And he that doth not take his
cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
“(Matthew 10:34-38)

“I say unto you that unto every one that hath

shall be given; but from him that hath not,
even that which he hath shall be taken away
from him. But these mine enemies that would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:26-27)

“And he said unto them, but now, he that hath

a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet;
and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak,
and buy a sword. For I say unto you, that this
which is written must be fulfilled in me, And
he was reckoned with transgressors: for that
which concerneth me hath fulfilment. And
they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.
And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke
22:36-38)
140
 What about Jesus being born in 6 BC during
the time of King Herod, (Matthew) AND
during the time of Quirinius, Roman Governor
of Syria in 6 AD and Tax collector for Syria
and Iudaea, twelve years later, (Luke)?

If there is no God, then the Lord’s prayer and

the Sermon on the Mount become false and
meaningless; nice literature perhaps, in the
KJV,-but that is all.

So why is this phoney set of beliefs allowed to

infiltrate governments, indoctrinate our
children and meddle in Science?
Why do we have to revere fictions and give
their proselytisers tax- concessions, power
over exclusive “faith” schools, and special
privileges of all kinds?
Why do we tolerate self important prelates and
their luxurious life-styles?

Is the British State, to take one example, really

founded on a childish myth, to the exclusion of
any real solid basis, like for instance an
acknowledged gathering of similar people into
a mutually beneficial social group, without
141
having to pretend that the God of Israel has
sanctioned it?
Why should not the Anglican Church be
disestablished, and our poor Queen released
from the absurd role of Head of the Church,
(or Defender of Faith(s)) and the House of
Lords cleansed of non-elected Bishops?

Two main excuses for the persistence of

modern organised Christianity is:
1, As a moral leader

2, As a provider of charity, services and

overseas aid.

The fruits of Christianity demonstrate it’s

historical immorality;--and besides, the study
of Moral Philosophy puts paid to the claims of
God-belief as being a necessary pre-condition
for good behaviour.

It does indeed have an organised infra-

structure which make it well suited for
provision of aid and charity;--largely derived
from its previous take-over of the tools of
society.
However these advantages are neutralised by
general opposition to contraception, abortion,
142
suicide, euthanasia, condoms, HIV control, at
least by some Churches, (Catholic), and it’s
provision of indoctrinating programs , Church
and faith schools, and missionary
evangelising.
Why, after decades of Third World Aid, are the
peoples in these countries able to quote the
Bible, export their version of religion back to
the home country,-- but apparently unable to
reliably dig themselves wells and irrigation
canals, efficient farming techniques, pest and
disease control and an end to religious wars?
Too busy praying?

The fruits of Christianity are too well known

to dwell upon. Attempts to take the credit for
anything good produced by humans,--
including most of Science, and the abolition of
slavery.
Religious wars, crusades, Inquisitions, modern
squabbles over gay and woman priests and
Bishops, further splits and schisms in heir own
ranks, terrorism, censorship, waste of tax-
payers money,
The United States is locked in a vicious spiral
of competitive religiosity among their political
candidates, from which they are too fearful to
break out, in case they lose the votes of a
143
Christian, Jewish or Islamic lobby,--or get
assassinated by the latter.

Is it any wonder that atheists exist, and that we

are frustrated by being marginalised and
discriminated against, and having to hear
religion bombarding us from all sides on the
media, and being unable to be born, get

married or die, without some priest popping up

and trying to take over?

“Mankind will never be free until the last stone

from the last Church drops on the head of the
last priest”.—Emile Zola.

Time for believers to grow up and join the

modern world.

Recently, to add another nail into the coffin of

alleged Christian uniqueness, a 3 foot stone
tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew on it, found
near the Dead Sea, has begun to be translated,
and consists of bits of the Old Testament
dating from 1st century BC, which appear to
describe a concept of resurrected Messiahs,
well before Jesus was born.

144
Daniel Bovarin a professor of Talmudic
culture at The University of California at
Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a
growing body of evidence suggesting that
Jesus could be best understood through a close
reading of the Jewish history of his day.”
“Some Christians will find it shocking- a
challenge to the uniqueness of their theology-
while other will be comforted by the idea of it
being a traditional part of Judaism”—Mr
Bovarin said.
This stone tablet is akin to the Dead Sea
scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts which provide
interesting extra material outside of the
Gospels and Pauline epistles. However it is
interesting how many Christians assign as late
a date to them as possible, and pronounce
them to be inauthentic and unreliable.
Whereas the Gospels and Epistles, if not
actually the Word of God himself,-are seen as
contemporary with Jesus and literally true and
independent testimonies,--as if Jesus had been
followed around by a short-hand secretary
recording his every utterance; instead, all of
the Gospels copy each other, beginning about
40 years after Jesus’ death, -perhaps also using
different bits if oral tradition, -and in any case

145
anonymous.—the writers whose names are
attached to them being unknown.

Tempting God
The recently deceased George Carlin, (no
doubt God’s punishment; still he was old),--in
one of his stage performances asked God to
strike the audience dead if God considered
George to be blaspheming and denying the
Holy Spirit;--which I thought was a nice touch,
as well as hedging his (George’s) bets. But
God didn’t,--so presumably we can consider it
to be open season as far as denying the Holy
Spirit is concerned,--especially also now that
the antiquated British Blasphemy law has been
repealed at last.

“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”;

Matthew 4:7,--Luke 4:13,- which themselves
refer back to Deuteronomy 6:16
- sounds impressive in 17th century KJV Bible
English., and very impressive overall you
might think, seeing as how they all said it.
But why not? We are not allowed to challenge
what the priests say God says, because it just
might expose the fact that nothing actually
ever happens when you do challenge a make-

146
believe god in the sky,--and the priests might
lose face.
In “Kings” in the Old Testament we have the
story of Elijah challenging the priests of Baal,
whose altar was consumed through the
invocations of Elijah, -and then stood around
obligingly while Elijah and co massacred them
all;--probably sabotage.
I suggest we might repeat this “Elijah test”
under controlled conditions, with an altar of
God (Jehovah) in one corner, and a display
by Richard Dawkins and all the other New
Atheists, even myself,--in the opposite corner;
and then pray for one or other of them to be
blasted by a thunderbolt from Heaven.

147
148
 Chapter 7
Globalism and Tribalism

One of the biggest complaints about

globalisation is that as market forces sweep
across the world, so does western culture,-and
everywhere ends up being the same.
One reaction to it is Local Culture, a notion
which originated in the Romantic backlash
against 18th century Enlightenment. Every
island and every tribe now has to have its own
culture; it even affects non-humans; Apes are
also said to have different cultures among
themselves depending upon what method they
use to crack nuts and so on. So now we are all
pluralists, multiculturalists,-and this is seen as
progressive, anti-racist and the foundation of
modern liberal democracies.
We all have to be respected, or at least not
“disrespected”,- whatever ancient religious
notions like the re-introduction of Islamic
Sharia Law, or primitive practices like foot-
binding or oppression of women, make up a
tribe’s ancestral identity. Mistaken ideas like
the Masai tribe’s belief that female genital
mutilation is necessary for ensuring a woman’s
fertility, are supposed to be respected because
they are part of the tribe’s “tradition”.
149
But “ought” cannot be derived from “is”,--that
is the Naturalistic Fallacy, a mistaken idea of
the 19th century “Social Darwinists” that we
ought to behave the way that Nature does, and
which points to human nature as justifying the
way we should behave, which then justifies
capitalist exploitation, colonial oppression,
racial savagery and even genocide.

Customs which have existed for a long time

should not necessarily be preserved for ever.
A culture is defined by what its people actually
do, not by what they ought to do. This means
that primitive cultures can, and should be
amenable to enlightened modern change
without losing their identity.
Many traditional cultures do not see it this
way, and instead have turned in on themselves,
become isolationist and extremist, leading to
protests and terrorism against the swamping
effect of secular Anglo-American and NATO
global modernism. Islam considers itself under
attack, and uses religious language for the
political purpose of rejecting and attacking
western secularism and promoting its own
version of religious globalisation.
Born as a child of the European
Enlightenment, the idea of the modern nation
150
state is profound and simple: the State is
created by the people within a given national
territory. Secular nationalism, the idea that
gave the nation-State it’s legitimacy,-contends
that a nation’s authority is based on the secular
idea of a social contract of equals, rather than
on ethnic or sacred religious ties. It is an idea
that is universally applicable.
Unfortunately it went rather wrong by failing
to deliver on human rights, democracy and
economic progress world-wide, especially
amongst those “artificial” countries created by
former colonial powers, with arbitrary borders,
and arbitrary names, like Pakistan, Indonesia,
or Yugoslavia which had no traditions to hold
them together, and so tended to instability or
collapse.
This has lead to suspicion of the very idea of a
nation-State, and the resurgence of old
traditions instead.
One supporter of the Christian Right in the US
has been quoted as saying “our enemy is the
new world order”,-and Islam feels likewise.
The vicious outbreaks of religious violence
that have occurred in recent times, can be seen
as tragic attempts to regain social control by
those traditional groups who see themselves

151
being swamped by a tide of advancing secular
global Capitalism.
Until there is a surer sense of citizenship in a
global order, religious visions of moral order
will continue to appear an attractive, even a
rational, solution to the problems of identity
and belonging in a global world.

The attempted return to religious

fundamentalism has also resulted in literal
interpretations of Holy books, and an
aggressive defence of the statements within
them, and therefore opposition to the
conflicting assertions of modern Science,
which has resulted in further grounds for
rejecting Modernism.
In some regions and countries this has further
escalated into dangerous polarisation of
attitudes, and even a desire for nuclear
apocalypse as a supposed prelude to a new
world order. It is more likely to return us all
to the stone- age.

So whose fault will it be if this comes to pass?

All people seem to do what they think is

right,--but they can’t all be right,--that would

152
be ethical relativism,-so someone must be
absolutely wrong.

When discussing with a Christian about

religious wars and persecutions, they always
like to play the “tribal conflict” card,--
anything but blame Christian theology itself.
Northern Ireland’s “troubles” for instance are
blamed upon the differences between red-
haired Celts and dark-haired neolithic earlier
settlers, or upon invasion of Ulster by the
English, and therefore political. But Christian
evangelism is as much to blame, and shows up
elsewhere in attempts to convert India, China,
Iraq etc. South Sea Islanders were forced into
tight collars and bras, American Indian
children kidnapped and sent to Christian
schools, and there is a tug –of-war situation in
Africa between Christianity, Islam, and
Voodoo.
Until very recently, but still not completely
gone, are greedy attacks on wild life and
natives, justified by Christian reference to God
giving the Earth to Adam’s descendents,-
though now it is excused as “stewardship” of
the Earth, by whoever happens to believe they
are “God’s chosen people”, formerly the
“white Afrikaners”,-- and now fundamentalist
153
Americans,-- those Christian groups and
nations who have taken this meme over from
the Jews,- who originally contributed this
intolerant idea to those Christian nations who
deprived them, the Jews, of political power, -in
the medieval period.
However this was too late to avoid the heavy-
handed exploitation and colonialism and theft
of native culture and treasures.
Europe is still divided into States which owe
their existence and boundaries to religious
conflicts between Muslims, and Orthodox,
Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and other
Christian tribes, all adhering to their own
version of absolute truth, and each having their
own communication channel with God.
“Many paths to God,” indeed.
Suppose Christian or Islamic globalism was to
occur, and the entire world’s people believed
in one God. Some think that this would herald
the Rapture, and Christ would come again and
inaugurate a 1000 year Kingdom of Christ;
(remember Hitler’s thousand- year Reich?).
Of course it would not last, anymore than
Hitler’s utopia did. Islam would not go away,
and rival globalist powers would soon be at
each others throats.

154
Jesus allegedly said “The Meek shall inherit
the Earth”. This is very un-Darwinian,-the
meek never inherit anything, -but even if they
did it would not take long before a slightly less
meek variant among them claimed leadership
of the Meek, and thereby creating an ipso facto
dictatorship, no doubt soon followed by the
inevitable religious and political corruption,
and a globalist theocracy which would
suppress all political and cultural opposition.
It happened before, at the end of the third
century. The Christianised Roman Empire
banned pagan temple worship, burned
libraries, and persecuted “heretics” and
dissidents, until only itself remained, in the
form of the Church,-which then was able to
claim to be the font of all culture and wisdom,-
having eliminated the opposition.
But nothing lasts, and the Church is now
diminished in power compared with its
medieval heyday as the “Church Triumphant”
before the Renaissance, Reformation, and
Enlightenment severely weakened it.

155
156
 Chapter 8
Mind, Brain, Soul, Spirit

Baron d’Holbach once said that the “brain

secretes thoughts in the same way as the liver
secretes bile”.
Given modern knowledge of brain anatomy
and neurophysiology, as well as logic and
computer studies,--there should be little
dispute that the brain is, physically, a kind of
massively parallel-connected computer,-- a
sort of combination of neural net and serial
processing machine.
Like a computer, it stores memories, though
these end to degrade over time unless
repeatedly reinforced by re-visualisation of
their original causes. As in a computer there
appears to be short-term working memory, and
longer-term more permanent memories.
As animal studies progress, it is becoming
apparent that consciousness is not limited to
humans, but widespread amongst animals of
all kinds. This makes sense from an
evolutionary point of view, as consciousness
appears to be a useful adaptive
epiphenomenon associated with neural
processing of information.

157
A conscious animal is one that can remember,
and associate past memories with new in-
coming information via the senses, -compare
and contrast them, and produce an output of
appropriate behaviour, and anticipate the
future in the light of knowledge so gained.
Traditional religions tend to downgrade animal
consciousness, as this is in their view, a God-
given gift to his highest creation, Man.; and
incidentally allows Man to ill-treat animals on
the grounds that they are not conscious Beings
with a “Soul”.
Researchers like Pavlov and B.F. Skinner
developed ”Behaviourism”, -the concept that
the brains, especially of animals were a kind of
“black box”,-whose internal workings were
unknown and unimportant; all that mattered
was that that they mediated somehow, a
stimulus- response circuit of behaviour,--rather
like a reflex knee-jerk.
Behaviourism was eventually eclipsed by
Cognitive studies.
In “higher” animals the balance and
coordination of the body is controlled in part
by these reflex arcs, where for instance a slight
stretching of a muscle is compensated by a
rapid contraction of it so as to maintain
posture,--as in the knee-jerk.
158
A electro-chemical message is rapidly
propagated from the muscle via an afferent
nerve, to the spinal cord,-and the motor
response ordering the muscle to “tighten-up” is
sent back to it from the spinal cord via an
efferent nerve.
Simultaneously the message is also sent up the
spino-thalamic tract to the brain’s “Clapham
junction” processor, and then on to the
cerebral cortex where it becomes a conscious-
awareness response, telling the owner what is
going on in the body; not every single detail,
just the important bits.
This conscious cerebral cortex level is the
tricky bit, not yet fully understood,-- but it
makes sense to regard it not as God-given
magic, (a God-of-the-gaps “explanation”) but
as a processing system which involves feed-
back loops between neurons and modules of
neurons, in which past memories of the body’s
physical state, and stored and concurrent
information from the physical senses are all
involved, and which are then output via
efferent nerve fibres or inter-neurone synapses
to those parts of the brain which are the end-
terminals of the sense organs –eg skin, eyes,
ears, taste, smell,-so as to stimulate in them a
kind of hallucination in which the animal or
159
Man is aware of himself and aspects of his
environment.

Alternatively, God implanted an immortal Soul

or Spirit which flits around the neurons,
presumably being unable to communicate with
them in any way owing to being immaterial
itself. It is therefore a little homunculus
pulling the brain’s levers and pushing knobs.
In addition it must be in every body cell,
mixing bio-chemicals and moving around bits
of DNA; a busy little fellow indeed; but all
immaterially of course.
Christians love to demand how the material
brain can produce abstract thoughts, but they
don’t query how an immaterial God or Spirit
can produce material effects in the brain/body,
or indeed in the wider physical world in the
form of miracles.
Or to sum up; how does Mind/Matter
communication occur?
One solution is to cut out the typical
Descartian dualism, using Occam’s razor, and
scrap the whole God/Soul hypothesis as
defunct and outmoded.
What, after all is “soul” or “spirit”? It can
only be defined by what it is not, (Matter),-not
by what it actually is, because it isn’t
160
anything;--a meaningless assertion,-an empty
word.
It is like the Ontological argument itself; just
because one can mouth a word,- that does not
mean that a “Spirit” can be conjured into
existence just by making a noise with your
lips. Or by creating an idea in your mind,
which is merely a re-mix of other bits of ideas
from elsewhere. Likewise, - “God” cannot be
talked into existence by pseudo-logical or
linguistic manoeuvres.
Matter is supreme, with all it’s hidden atomic
power; Materialism reigns! God is dead!
-unless of course he would like to put on a
little demo and prove I am talking nonsense;
an easy thing for His Omnipotence; but then
we must not forget the Christian compensatory
move,-“Thou shall not tempt the Lord Thy
God”;--it’s just like Chess or war-games isn’t
it? Move and counter-move.

This attitude is still widely prevalent among

the God people. Some time ago in my
philosophy group, we had a cohort of Earnest
Christian Ladies, or ECL’s as I call them,-and
during our discussion, or rather argument, one
of them said in wide-eyed awestruck tones:

161
“—but the Soul, it comes from God, from
God!!”
Eventually I got on my high horse and
informed them rather tartly, that this was a
philosophy group, not a bible-study class.
They went.

So the progressive Modernists and the

religious Traditionalist are still locked in
battle, and the redoubts of the latter are the
churches and faith schools where fossilised
dogmas are still infecting the minds of
children and encouraging sectarianism and
attack on our freedom of thought.

Notes: William of Ockham (Occam) English

logician and Friar-14th century.

162
163
 Chapter 9
Psychology

Desire for something better in life than what

must be the lot of the majority of humankind,
and the need for explanations of natural
phenomena, fear of the unknown, the desire
for Justice or vengeance in another world, and
the perceived need to control aspects of Nature
by appeasing their presumed causal agents, the
gods an spirits,-must surely be the cause for
the existence of religion as a natural
phenomenon in most people.
There are some instances of peoples who have
no concept of gods or religion generally,-one
Mongolian tribe has been described in this
respect,-but generally most people believe
something about something.
They are not, as some people would have you
believe, born into the world praising Jesus and
knowing the God of Israel. These concepts
have to be taught by indoctrination, which, as
opposed to “education” means being taught
myths and beliefs rather than practical skills or
verifiable hypotheses.
An attempt was once made to assert that there
is or was, a “Primitive Monotheism” in which

164
early man “knew” God.-(Adam presumably).
This has been discredited.
Rather, early attempts at religion involved
spirit and ancestor worship, human sacrifice
and ritual cannibalism, animism, totemism,
fetishism, polytheism, and eventually
monotheism;-which is not necessarily
superior,--it just means that when you live in a
desert you only really need one god of the sky,
sands, earthquakes and volcanoes.
Whereas an urban civilisation (like ancient
Egypt), had lots of gods for this that and the
other,--all the complexities of civilised living;
eg gods of the hearth, of the Underworld, of
Judgement, and recording of one’s deeds in
life.

This reminds me of an extremely tacky kitsch

of a performance I once went to called
“Heaven’s gate and Hell’s flames”. It was of
course a visiting American evangelistic
bandwagon come to convert we heathen locals
to US-style Christianity.
The stage was done up entirely in gold and
silver foil,--to represent Heaven; the
Recording angel reminded me of the Egyptian
scribe-god Thoth,--except that she was a
“she”, and was recording “sins” of the
165
deceased into what appeared to be a dirty
exercise book, all-the-while wearing a silly
fixed grin (to show what fun Heaven is).
This concept is stolen almost compete, but
altered of course, from an Egyptian scene of
the Judgement of the soul of the scribe “Ani”
before Osiris, recorded by Thoth, from the
New Kingdom, the 18th Dynasty of Egypt.
Families from the audience were brought up
on stage, and their members,- parents and
children were separated out into the Saved and
the Damned,--a concept I found especially
nauseating. Then came the “miracles”; grown
men were skipping around the stage waving
their arms and speaking in tongues,-or else
falling backwards as they do,-into the obliging
arms of assistants, while under the influence of
the Holy Spirit.
One poor old lad lady, crippled with
rheumatism, struggled up on stage,-got
blessed, and immediately started cavorting
about crying “Yippee, Jesus has cured me”—
and so forth.
Talk about needing to show a bit of “gravitas”.
Of course no genuine cures of genuine
ailments occurred; no missing limbs suddenly
grew back.

166
All good clean fun you might think,--except
that this sort of thing is taught to children as
fact, and as a substitute for modern medicine,-
as well as being highly socially disruptive,-
into “us” the Saved, and “them” the Damned.
All of these strange beliefs continue to be
propagated by those who would rather cosy up
together in a Brotherhood of Silliness than use
their “God-given” intelligence. “Fools for
Christ” –indeed!
It further reminds me of the time I was turned
away from visiting the Sistine Chapel because
I was wearing shorts. I thought of explaining
to the Swiss Guard that as God had made my
knees, presumably it was alright to display
them;--but I thought better of it.
I got in later, after getting changed; same thing
happened at the Catacombs.

Placebo Effects
The psychological effects of rituals,
incantations and “magic”,- as well as the
medicinal use of “dummy” pills, is not fully
understood according to a recent article in
New Scientist magazine; but although they
occur, they do not seem to last;-paralysis is not
cured for longer than it takes the patient to
take up his bed and walk and then disappear
167
round the corner out of sight and out of mind,-
whatever claims are made later on by gullible
wishful-thinkers, or by actual deception to
propagate the myth of miracle cures. The blind
do not really regain their sight, except in those
rare cases of hysterical blindness; and so-
called glove-and-stocking hysterical
anaesthesia in a hand or foot happens
occasionally but is a known medical
phenomenon. Limbs do not grow back,-
despite the assurances I had recently from a
Christian lady, who quickly changed the
subject when asked for a demonstration to be
arranged. Yet I am sure she believed it
somehow, and was not deliberately lying for
Jesus, though that does happen.
Otherwise doctors and surgeons would be out
of business.
Similarly “glossolalia,-or “speaking in
tongues”, which is claimed to be ancient
languages, cannot be identified as such, eg
Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
It seems to be genuinely believed that a Holy
Spirit descends upon those who are taking
Communion, or being blessed with Holy
Water.
All these blessings and baptisms had their
earlier counterparts in Jewish rites, and in still
168
earlier pagan practices. The use of Holy Water
is clearly a sanitised, Christianised version of
animal and human blood sacrifice, derived in
part from bathing in the blood of a bull during
the worship of Mithras (also born 25th
December),-as is the consuming of the “blood
and body of Christ” at Holy Communion.

169
Chapter 10
170
 Christian Questions

By now Christians will be lining up to ask the

usual questions of anyone who questions their
presuppositions and circular arguments:

1. Why do you hate God?

It is frustrating that one hears this so often,

when one has been at pains to give sound
reasons for not believing in the existence of
the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, originally
invented by Abraham if , (God forbid) we are
to believe everything in the Old Testament. It’s
as if they cannot distinguish the difference.
I reply by saying that I do not know anyone
called God, and therefore I do not hate
someone I don’t know. This works well
enough in other situations where one is asked
to pass an opinion on another person,-but
somehow a God is different. It is assumed that
we must know them, and to ram home the
point, Christians will say “Ah, but he knows
you and loves you”! How on Earth do they
know this? Has God himself told them
personally ( pre-supposing that he exists in the
first place)? They must be very important to be

171
in on his day to day plans and opinions. But
then we all like to feel important.
Of course they believe this, otherwise why
pray unless they think their prayers are being
answered in the form of an update on God’s
personal program for them and everyone else
whom they wish to convert? This, despite the
recorded fact, that clinical trials show no
influence at all on medical cures or benefits
though prayer,-other than statistical chance,
which works out at a level of about 0.02% of
prayers answered favourably, (which for the
non-mathematical readers means 99.98% of
prayers are unanswered,)- but who cares as
long as you have faith?
It is evidently hard to determine objectively
what counts as a favourable result from
praying,-which is why all such conclusions
have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Naturally those wishing for favourable results
will see them everywhere; but always
subjectively. It is notable that missing limbs
never regenerate no matter how hard one
prays,--and the British Royal Family, possibly
the most prayed-for group on Earth, still
experience their statistical share of
misfortunes.

172
Do they not know that prayer is blasphemous?
Think about it; you are demanding that God
should change his Divine Plan just for your
convenience, and maybe just for 5 minutes,
after which you may give him permission to
carry on as ordained from the beginning of
Time? Are you then surprised when we
atheists conclude that you invented God for
your own human purpose and not the other
way round?
But you can rest easy; thanks to secular efforts
for the last 140 years, the archaic British
Blasphemy Law (which only applies to
Anglicans),--has finally been repealed. So you
won’t burn in Hell,--though this has the
downside that you will not be allowed (at least
in theory), to carry on burning and torturing
atheists and heretics either.

2. Do you hate Christianity?

Yes, sort of. I regard it as a perversion of

history, culture and Science, and nothing more
than a breakaway Jewish sect with heavy
influences from Egyptian, Indian, Greek and
other middle-Eastern religions and
philosophies, which was adopted by the late
Roman Empire for political reasons, and
173
enforced through the Middle Ages for the
same reason by it’s successor, the Vatican.
A baleful influence against education and
further scientific humanistic progress. A
concerted attempt to return us to at least a
medieval existence, and perhaps beyond that,
to a mythical new Garden of Eden,--a time of
supposed innocence. A dogged determination
to retain a supernatural interpretation of our
world, akin to belief in fairies and Santa Claus
regardless of what rational science has to say,
or how many qualified scientists say it. After
all, isn’t Science always getting it wrong,
notwithstanding the accumulated scientific
benefits which you Christians enjoy along with
the rest of us?
Ever tried major surgery without an
anaesthetic, blood transfusion or antibiotics?

To continue: the offensive pushiness of

Evangelists who won’t take “no” for an
answer, and the assumed self-righteousness of
those who “know” God, and whose Church
thinks they own all human culture. Also the
determination of fundamentalists whether
Catholic or Protestant, to infiltrate politics, and
have a voice in the European Union in
defiance of democratic electoral processes.
174
As a further example of pushiness: I was once
rehearsing a choral work in a local Catholic
Church,--for want of space elsewhere, when
the vicar rushed up to me, said ”Bless you my
son”, and dabbed my forehead with holy
water. I thought it was a good joke,--but
still---.
The burns on my forehead have only just
healed!

3. Do you hate Christians?

No not universally, though some are obviously

beyond the Pale, from my point of view.
Christians are also human beings, and as such,
have human failings as well as the potential to
achieve great things.
Christians have contributed their share of
contributions to human knowledge and
culture,--not because they have Jesus, but
simply because they are human, and some of
them are intelligent and artistic and talented,
just as much as any other member of the
human race that comes from a culture outside
of the Christian Roman sphere of influence,-
and its modern colonies. Atheists and modern
Christians can co-operate by emphasising their
similarities and downplaying their differences;
175
but I would claim that this can only be done at
the expense of “real” Christian
fundamentalism, and by treating the Bible as
interesting fiction for the most part, excepting
the bits of garbled history, and the undisputed
literary, poetic and instructive parts which we
can all enjoy; for instance, a favourite of mine
is David’s Lament,--which is great, in the King
James Version. I have not bothered to check it
out in vulgar modern editions, nor in the
ancient Hebrew.
So if Christianity continues to undergo the
typical Darwinian adaptive radiation into
almost unrecognisable new variants, which it
has done so far, and evolves into a vague
Humanism, even with the Jesus label still
attached,--then we may all get a bit of peace
from it at last, and learn to live together more
fully.

4. Hasn’t atheism been refuted?

Definitely not; the only thing which could do

that would be the actual appearance of God
himself, and no, Jesus was not God. Besides,
we are well overdue for a real unequivocal
appearance to sort out the confusion and
opposing claims. There are no valid logical or
176
empirical proofs of the existence of God,--so
Atheism is the default state.

Prof. Alistair McGrath responded to the “God

Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins,- by writing
The “Dawkins Delusion”; whereupon I wrote
an article to the Freethinker called the
“McGrath Delusion” and I am still waiting for
the “Le Sueur Delusion” to appear in due
course. This could go on for ever.
Prof McGrath printed out my mild criticism of
Humanism in his book, optimistically titled:
“The Twilight of Atheism”,- which I had
previously sent to the Freethinker, in which I
describe Humanism as rather dull compared
with the rousing sermons, hymns, and happy-
clapping. He agreed, and gave the impression
that Christian services are all about just
entertainment,--like a good pantomime. Is that
what it has come down to? A performance to
impress the congregation?

Christian tactics

The “double statement”:

This is made upon the unquestioning pre-

supposition of the existence of the biblical
177
God,-eg “God loves you”. It is no use
responding to this by saying “no he
doesn’t”-because you then are tacitly accepting
the Christian’s statement and belief that God
exists,( obviously if God does not love you
then he must exist, in order to either love or
not love you). This is a court-room tactic used
by shady barristers along the lines of “When
did you stop beating your wife?”;--it
presupposes that you were actually beating her
at some time; and is therefore biased against
you.

Questions from me.

Why have so many people throughout history

apparently loathed Christianity, including of
course the Jews and many Muslims? Is it the
fanaticism, the intolerance, the anti-
intellectualism, the anti-sex and anti-life itself
Christian rhetoric, and the riding rough-shod
over other people’s beliefs and customs?

Why did Pliny the Younger refer to their

“contemptible superstition?
Why did the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius
also hold them in contempt?

178
Why so many liars for Jesus, including Paul,
Bishop Eusebius, Lactantius?
Why did Celsus write against them and cause
the Church father Origen to write “Contra
Celsum”—in an unsuccessful attempt to rebut
him?
Why did Julian the Apostate try to reverse the
conversion of the Roman Empire?

Did Nero really persecute on such a scale as

has been claimed?
Did he really burn Rome or was it Jewish and
Jewish Christian fanatics?

Modern anti-clerics, Deists Atheists

Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand

Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, Schopenhauer,
Marx, Engels, and of course Stalin, ( non-
Westerns like Mao and Pol Pot don’t count as
anti-Christian,-they came from a Buddhist
tradition).
60% of main-stream Scientists, and 93-96% of
top Scientists, and of course the “New
Atheists”,--Richard Dawkins, Christopher
Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others.

179
All of the above are distinguished by their
intelligence and intellect.
To confirm this point, many recent studies
have shown an inverse relationship of
intelligence and religious belief.

Of course one type of Christian will glory in

their anti-intellectualism,--just as another type
is trying to show how sophisticated modern
Christianity is,--which usually only results in
showing up its abstruseness and obfuscation.

A few Atheist and Agnostic composers and

poets

Percy Shelley, the composers Faure, Delius,

Berlioz, Verdi, -to name a few.

I heard about a performance of Delius’ “Mass

of Life” given in a Church, for want of
adequate space elsewhere. Afterwards it was
“blessed” by the female vicar; -a typical
example of Christians grabbing what does not
belong to them.

Other famous atheists

David Hume, Sigmund Freud, Sir Karl Popper,
Arthur C Clark, Sir John Gielgud, Peter
180
Ustinov, Noam Chomski, Marlon Brando,
Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov--and
many more.

As long as humans are at different stages of

cultural evolution there will inevitably be
opposing views on the big questions of Life,
and most likely conflicts between them will
persist. Only Universal standardized
education might resolve the problem.
That will probably take forever.
____________

By now, traditionalist Christians will have

consigned me to Hell-fire. The “sophisticated”
ones will be using expressions like “sad” or
“sorrowful” or else smiling indulgently and
patronizingly and saying that modern
Christians are not like that;- a few maybe. But
if they have always had God’s Truth, then why
are they at different stages of development and
cultural evolution? Some are highly
sophisticated and intelligent; others are quite
bovine and uncomprehending.
They will point to their “good works” or the
great Cathedrals as works of faith,-forgetting
perhaps, that non-believes also give to charity

181
and have the motivation to build great
monuments and edifices.

182
183
 Chapter 11
Early Critics of Christianity

Considering that Christianity is the final word

from God (apart from Islam, but that is another
matter),-it seems to have attracted a
remarkable degree of dissention from its
earliest days. This little book may be seen as
concentrating upon mostly knocking
Christianity in order to demonstrate the falsity
of God-belief, and therefore promoting
atheism as the default condition.
As others have pointed out, -this is because 1.
we are in a Christian part of the world, from a
cultural and demographic point of view, and 2.
Because it is the most objectionably aggressive
and proselytising form of the Abrahmic
religion that has been our misfortune to be
born under.
As the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles seem not to
be adequate to establish the truth of Christian
claims, they have sought to find non-Biblical
references to Jesus as alleged Son of an
alleged God.
They have mentioned Flavius Josephus , and
his “Testamonium Flavium” which purports to
describe Jesus as Divine; but which has been
universally dismissed by scholars as a
184
fraudulent interpolation. Others such as
Suetonius and Tacitus mentioned Christians as
existing,--which is not quite the same as
saying that Jesus existed as either Man or God.
We already know that Christians exist and
existed (don’t we just?!).
The Letters of Pliny the Younger to the
Emperor Trajan were less than complimentary
to Christians.
Suetonius mentions only that “the Jews in
Rome were rioting on account of “Chrestos”,-
who could have been anyone.
Tacitus (around 100 AD), talks about the
Christians, but cannot of course confirm that
he was the Risen Christ. Instead he puts doubt
on Nero’s persecution of Christians:

“Moreover, there may have been some element

of distorted truth in the accusation (that Nero
started the fire), because the Christians
believed that Rome would be destroyed during
Christ's return. They must have responded
enthusiastically when they saw "Babylon"
burning, and in fact, Tacitus tells us that at
least some of them pleaded guilty, i.e. admitted
something that their interlocutors interpreted
as a confession.”

185
The above is just a sketchy summary of
Christian claims and their refutation.
Apart from the deceits of the early Christian
Fathers, including Paul, that we touched on
earlier.-there were early stronger critics such
as Celsus,--whose works have been lost
though Christian censorship; we only know of
it because of Origen’s reply to him,- “Contra
Celsum”.
Then “Julian the Apostate” tried to undo the
ruination of Rome under the Christians, and
was assassinated for his pains, (see Gibbon’s
“Decline & Fall” and his primary sources eg
Ammianus Marcellinus.)
Libanius, was a Greek speaking- pagan
philosopher of the late Empire, born around
the year 314, who spoke up for religious
tolerance, before their way of life was
submerged beneath increasing fanaticism.
Prior to that, as well as afterwards,- there were
the dozens of “heretical” sects, which had to
be gradually stamped out by Rome,--which
tends rather to undermine any Christian claim
to a monolithic claim to authenticity by any
one of the various “interpretations” of the
“greatest story ever told”,--except for the
surviving one of course.

186
Since then, we have had the Dark Ages, the
Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and
the “New Atheists”,--all expressing discontent
with the Christian juggernaut under which we
were and are submerged,-imposed by the
Catholic Church, and enforced by the
Inquisition,--which still survives under the
more innocent- sounding title of the
“Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”.
As mentioned earlier, the “fruits” of Christ’s
teachings, even if distorted by Christians since
his time, have further undermined it as being
anything other than a human institution which
exists only for it’s own benefit.
The only thing that is good about it is it’s
sporadic Humanism, which was pre-existing
anyway, and in other places,--and its strong
centralized governments in the Vatican and its
Christian post-Roman colonies. Everything
else is myth and fiction.

How to tell if you are a real believing

Christian,-or not.

1. - You vigorously deny the existence

of thousands of gods claimed by other
religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
187
2. - You feel insulted and
"dehumanized" when scientists say that
people evolved from other life forms,
but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created
from dirt.

3. - You laugh at polytheists, but you

have no problem believing in a Triune
God.

4. - Your face turns purple when you

hear of the "atrocities" attributed to
Allah, but you don't even flinch when
hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in
"Exodus" and ordered the elimination
of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua"
including women, children, and trees!

5. - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that

deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you
have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who
then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed, came back to life and then
ascended into the sky.

188
6. - You are willing to spend your life
looking for little loopholes in the
scientifically established age of Earth
(few billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates
recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen
sitting in their tents and guessing that
Earth is a few generations old.

7. - You believe that the entire

population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your
beliefs -- though excluding those in all
rival sects - will spend Eternity in an
infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most
"tolerant" and "loving."

8. - While modern science, history,

geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some
idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the
evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.

9 - You define 0.01% as a "high

success rate" when it comes to
answered prayers. You consider that to
189
 be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99%
FAILURE was simply the will of God.

10. - You actually know a lot less than

many atheists and agnostics do about
the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a
Christian.

A summary of desperate Christian

attempts to “explain” natural and
other disasters,- especially 9/11, and
the Indian Ocean tsunami.

1. If (say) 270,000 people died in the

tsunami, then God’s Mercy is the
reason why it was not 270,001. Never
mind that it probably will be after the
next re-count of bodies).
2. The reason that people help each other
or make contributions to a disaster fund
is because of God. (All social animals
eg Elephants, Dolphins help each other.
Humans have evolved sociability to a
higher degree,-this is what makes us
Human))

190
3. The reason a mother tries to rescue her
children is because of God. !! (Look
up Natural Selection).
4. The reason why a preponderance of
helpless babies and young children
perished in the tsunami is because they
are the poorest and live closer to the
coasts and have less supportive
infrastructure. This was offered by a
Christian as an “explanation”. Well
precisely:-it is a naturalistic
explanation, not a God explanation.
They have stolen a naturalistic
explanation from atheists.
5. The old favourite: “It happened so that
good might come out of it”- ie that
people would join together in rescue.
So God has to cause, or negligently
allow, tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths in order to make people feel
good about themselves and each other?
6. People help each other because they
have a “Divine spark”. This is an
unprovable metaphysical assertion,-
also meaningless if there is no God.
7. And of course the obvious: “It is God’s
punishment”—for what? What
behaviour can justify such slaughter?-
191
 maybe they weren’t Christians , but
heathens?—maybe they were the
wrong sort of Christian? Maybe they
were the right sort of Christian but not
diligent enough in praising God?
8. “God’s ways are beyond human
understanding”. !!!
9. Satan did it.
10. God was demonstrating his Power, and
culling his creation---Homicidal
maniac!!
11. “It was nothing to do with God”—
precisely;- so then, what good is God,
and all that prayer and adulation? If
God did not even notice, or care, - what
good is he?
Could the reason be perhaps that he
does not even exist?
12 .One Apologist asserted that Men have
killed far more people than God. This
raises two points: 1. Even if true,- is God
then synonymous with Natural Disaster-
and just a metaphor for it? 2. Who created
Men to behave that way, and gave them
Freewill?—God, allegedly. So we can
justifiably blame God-if he exists,-or more
justifiably assert that he does not.
13. God was testing our Faith!
192
193
 Chapter 12
The Future

It has I believe been stated that the Catholic

Church, as well as evangelical Protestant ones,
being always eager for new converts, are
poised for the time when, or more likely if,--
new alien civilisations are discovered on
Earth-like planets,
As well as taking over the work of impartial
astronomers, the Vatican has it’s own
observatory, which presumably is scouring the
heavens for God, or flocks of angels, or at
least new planets for conversion.
One can imagine how it would be; just think
back to meso-American Aztec, Inca and other
civilisations and their ruination by Gospel
spreading, gold-seeking monks and various
assorted thugs-for-God. In this way the
Human infection could spread throughout the
Universe, with new cycles of wars, witch –
hunts, and suppression of heretics.
Do not be fooled by modern apparent
Christian, or even Islamic “tolerance” and
benignity. Such pleasantness occurs in inverse
proportion to the power which religion is able
to command at any one time.

194
The Church, right from the start, has
demonstrated typical Darwinian evolution by
adaptive radiation; that is,-by throwing up new
variations (heresies),-spreading out into
ideologically unpopulated areas where such
variants can find an ecological niche, and
spreading out to increase their influence in the
meme –pool; yes I am talking “memetics” not
“genetics”, but it is an apt analogy.
Nowadays, missionary activity continues
unabated, without producing more than
superficial civilising effects,-but rather,
increasing sectarianism within third-world
populations. The most religious and belligerent
nation on Earth, the U.S., considers it it’s
divine mission to encircle other nations
militarily, to impose its own idea of democracy
and freedom of religious worship, just so long
as secularism is weakened, despite it’s own
First Amendment, and preferably some major
Christian sect,- or as a poor second best, Islam,
is encouraged to flourish, in order to check the
growth of “unbelief”.
The world is becoming increasing polarised
between contending versions of belief,-just as
in the major historical schisms within the
Church, -but now on a global scale; perhaps,
as mentioned above, it will become a war in
195
the heavens between Catholic, Islamic, and
various Protestant and secular ones.
The Catholic Church of course wants to give
the impression of monolithic, monotheistic
unity of belief and dogma,--but of course it is
vulnerable to the “Darwinian imperative” like
all evolving systems; hence its continuing war
against Liberal Theology, Progressive
Revelation, renegade priests and bishops-and
godless scientific activities like the use of
condoms, euthanasia, contraception , abortion
and stem cell research;--all the things with
which scientists try to reduce human misery,-
mostly caused by unchecked population
growth.
Hence the rise of the New Atheism as an
attempted check on runaway religious world
domination.
We will just have to wait and see how it all
pans out, though it seems difficult to see how
the Catholic Church can continue in its fixed
rules and dogmas without becoming increasing
isolated and marginalised by an educated and
secular populace who have a greater grasp of
science, and of logical rational arguments. In
addition there is increasing knowledge of
biblical origins and ancient history and
archaeology by scholars which is filtering
196
down into the population at large, the original
intention for which was the confirmation of
Christian dogma, but which instead is serving
to undermine all of its supernatural claims.
On the other hand if the Catholic Church
relaxes its grip and allows itself to “evolve”,-
then the original authenticity of its teachings
will become diluted out of existence.
How can this happen to the assertions of a
fixed and unchanging Holy Book?
It must be an impossible dilemma for the Pope
and cardinals; change or die; change and die
anyway.
The Protestant sects face the same problem.
The Anglican Church is already in trouble with
rifts and schisms occurring over women priest
and bishops, and gay clergy.
More evangelical sects are arising from the
third world, whose rather naïve and simple –
minded proponents try, amidst increasing
ridicule, to purvey their frankly daft message,
and methods of encouraging it,- in the post-
Christian West. Christian “retreats” and
“Alpha courses” may have novelty appeal for
some young, bored and naïve teenagers,-but it
appears to soon wear off, generally. It has
become a simplistic faith for mainly senile old
women, and staunch conservative middle-class
197
die-hards, and their uncomprehending
children.
Then they have to contend now with the
competition of Islam, and the ridicule and
opposition of atheists.
“Suffer little children”,--Jesus is supposed to
have said. I don’t think he meant for his
followers to become simple-minded and
gullible ignoramuses whose knowledge of the
real world is in direct inverse proportion to the
amount of time they spend hymn-singing,
Bible- reading, praying, as well as preying,-
on the rest of us.
Surveys have been done which confirm this
inverse relationship. See below:

GOD MAKES YOU STUPID, RESEARCHERS CLAIM

Intelligence begot atheism
By Chris Williams
Published Thursday 12th June 2008
11:06 GMT
A psychology researcher has controversially
claimed that stupidity is causally linked to how
likely people are to believe in God.
University of Ulster professor Richard Lynn
will draw the conclusion in new research due

198
to be published in the journal Intelligence, the
Times Higher Education Supplement reports.
Lynn and his two co-authors argue that
average IQ is an excellent predictor of what
proportion of the population are true believers,
across 137 countries. They also cite surveys of
the US Academy of Sciences and UK Royal
Academy showing single-digit rates of
religious belief among academics.
That professional skeptics don't believe in a
creator is perhaps not all that surprising. Lynn
argues, however, that it is their intelligence
that directly gives rise to the boffinated
classes' non-God-bothering tendencies. He
said: "Why should fewer academics believe in
God than the general population? I believe it is
simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have
higher IQs than the general population."
Lynn pointed out that most children do believe
in God, but as their intelligence develops they
tend to have doubts or reject religion.
Similarly, as average IQ in Western societies
increased through the 20th century, so did rates
of atheism, he said.

199
The researchers' claims of a direct causal link
have drawn criticism from others in
intelligence researches, who argue their
conclusions are too simplistic. London
Metropolitan University's Dr David Hardman
said: "It is very difficult to conduct true
experiments that would explicate a causal
relationship between IQ and religious belief.
Nonetheless, there is evidence from other
domains that higher levels of intelligence are
associated with a greater ability - or perhaps
willingness - to question and overturn strongly
felt intuitions."
Numerous studies have also failed to
demonstrate any effect, greater than chance,-of
prayer upon medical conditions, or any other
useful effect of it, other than it’s placebo or
psychological effects; certainly not enough to
claim that it contribute to objective knowledge
in any way.

Summary

For all the reasons given in this little book, we

atheists reject religious faith as a barbarous
left-over from primitive early days of human
history, and wish to make it clear to

200
evangelists that their efforts to bend us to their
will are not welcome.

Reginald Le Sueur.
Jersey. Channel Islands. U.K.

201
202
 Appendix:
Reasons not to believe

1. Original Sin –Adam & Eve- talking

snakes—all anti- Evolutionary and
biologically impossible.
2. If no Original Sin, then no need for
Salvation, Incarnation,
Resurrection and Redemption. (or
Jesus).
3. Jesus will reign over the House of
Jacob forever;-false, and now
impossible anyway. ((Luke i.26-
28.)
4. Jesus was supposed to come again
very soon. He hasn’t.
5. “A Believer can handle poisonous
snakes and drink poison” (Mark
16:17-18)---WRONG1
6. Jesus unnatural alleged Miracles.
Can the Pope turn water into wine,
in Jesus’ name?
7. Jesus intolerance to unbelievers,
and to a harmless fig tree, which he
cursed for not bearing fruit out of
season.
8. His belief in Evil Spirits as the
cause of disease. Is modern
203
 medicine and bacteriology all
wrong?
9. Where did God live before he
created Heaven and what was he
doing before that, for all eternity?
10. There was night and day on earth,
before He created the Sun.
11. Plants began to grow before there
was sunlight.
12. God said every seed-yielding plant
was good to eat.-- ? Hemlock,
Deadly Nightshade?)
13. Didn’t God know that humans
would “sin” before he launched his
Flood to destroy them all?
14. God takes part in a wrestling match
with Jacob, and wins by injuring
Jacobs hip!!! Genesis 32: 24-32.
15. God tried to kill his own prophet
Moses!! (Exodus 4:24),-and on
another occasion shows him his
backside!!!-Ex 33.23
16. God says he will blot out the
memory of Amalek, (and then
preserves it by a mention in the
Bible!)

204
17. Genesis is incompatible with
modern science, so is the whole of
science wrong?
18. Gods cure for leprosy is
Incantations and the blood of a
bird!
19. Heaven is to be inhabited in part,
by 144,000 virgin men who have
not been defiled by women!!
(Revelations 14:1-4)
20. Jesus has not conquered death. He
has caused 2000 years of murder
and mayhem instead, and confused
our children.
21. Other God-men like Jesus, eg.
Krishna, Mithras, Attis, and Jesus
imitators like Apollonius of Tyana,
Alexander etc.
22. Random pain, suffering, and
destruction.
23. Irreconcilable attributes of God.
24. Trying to explain one mystery (the
Universe and Life), by inventing a
second mystery (God).
25. Pascal’s Wager is inconclusive at
best, on logical and moral grounds,
and dishonest, and can be applied
to any god or belief system. (We
205
 had better believe in Zeus or
Apollo, just in case.)
26. Religious Harm; Time & money
wasted on building Churches. Time
wasted on prayer. “Miracle
healing” that
goes wrong. Opposition to contraception &
Euthanasia. Interference with human
rights, eg Gays & unbelievers. Promoting
AIDS by opposing condoms. Honour
killings. Brutal punishments. War &
genocide. Opposing modern science,
especially Evolution & geology,- & so
damaging Education, and censoring free
thought & free speech. Damaging
“primitive” cultures.
27. The persistence and increase of
unbelief, after 2000 years of
Christianity,-as well as rival faiths.
28. Faults of the Church, especially
child abuse.
29. Animal suffering.
30. “You can’t prove God does not
exist”-Answer:”Nor can I prove
Amon-Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, and the
Great Invisible Pink Unicorn in the
Full Glory of Her Ineffable
Pinkness don’t exist—therefore
206
 “obviously” they all do, and we
should build temples and worship
them all!
31. Hitler tried to exterminate the deaf-
mutes and infirm of all types from
the population,- and was therefore
“evil”.
Nature does exactly the same thing
through Natural Selection; therefore
Nature is also “evil”.
If Nature is God’s evil creation, then
God is “evil” in the same way as
Hitler--- Discuss.
.32.Two different versions of Book of
Genesis.
33. People have been brainwashed into
dependency on God or Jesus, by
Churches with vested interests.
34. The Roman Catholic Church is the
continuation of the Roman Empire in
the West, and uses psychological
blackmail, ie the threat of
Excommunication (and formerly
torture and burning), instead of the
Legions in order to try and keep
control; of its former provinces.
35. Nuns are converted Vestal Virgins.

207
36. The unsolved (for Christians)
Problem of Evil
37. Countries and Cities divided by
Religion.
38. If Jesus was the last word in God’s
revelation,- then why Islam?
39. It all goes back to Isaac or
Ishmael,--which one to follow? ( as
Believers feel obliged to follow, rather
than lead.)
40. Beware a Superpower controlled by
religious fanatics, the U.S.,-it will try
to provoke Armageddon,- as it sees it.
41. Long lists of Biblical absurdities,
atrocities, inconsistencies, fraudulent
forgeries, and false or inaccurate
testimonies eg. the Testamonium
Flavium of Josephus, and the irrelevant
comments of Suetonius and Tacitus.,-
Apocryphal, non-canonical, and
carefully selected NT Gospels.
42. Messiah rivals, contemporary with
Jesus, Theudas, and Simon of Galilee
43. EUTHYPRO argument: “Is
something “Good” because God says it
is, - if so, then God is just a tyrant
dictator.

208
 If something is “Good”
anyway, then there is something higher
and prior to God, so he is not
completely omnipotent, but has to
conform to higher realms of Morality,
just like the rest of us.
44. “God is always good and acts
according to his nature”,--comment:--
but then God is restricted to having
only one nature and being obliged to
stick to it,- and so again, is not
omnipotent.
45. Is the existence of Yahweh more
credible than that of Zeus , Apollo, or
Amon-Ra?- if so, explain.
46. The most credible explanation of
the Jesus saga is that he planned to be
the expected Messiah himself, and
acted the part even down to a mock
crucifixion which he survived,” in
order that ”the Scripture might be
fulfilled”—(John 19:32,33,36.)
47. The “Freewill” defence fails
because 1. God could have made us to
always choose to do good, rather than
evil.. 2. Natural disasters are not the
fault of man. 3. The doctrine of
Original Sin means that humans are
209
born in sin and unable to not sin, and
therefore do not have freewill.
48. God tries to persuade us that he
created us in 6 days, and then shoots
himself in his divine foot by sending
along Charles Darwin to teach us the
exact opposite, --that we gradually
evolved over 4 billion years;--absent
minded, or what?
49. Can God do the impossible,-make
2+2=5 or change the value of pi. If not,
he is not omnipotent, if so, then the
Universe would be in chaos and
without any logical causality.
50. Can a decomposing body be
resurrected? Even if hermetically
sealed (and how many are?),-in order
to prevent the escape of gaseous
breakdown products, eg. Ammonia,
methane, hydrogen sulphide.
51. Supporters of the Kalam
Cosmological argument delight in
saying how the Universe could not
even begin to arise out of nothing.
Even if God was omnipotent, his
creativity would be limited by the
material he was working with: ie,
-precisely nothing. Could even God
210
scoop up a handful of nothing, and
create a Universe out of it?
52.Why should anyone believe in a
Deus Absconditas? (an absent God)
53. God is (allegedly) conscious and
intelligent himself already; so why
create an inferior copy in Man? And if
(allegedly), it was an act of love and
sharing,- why not just procreate
himself in Heaven with a chosen
superior Divine consort whom he could
have first created, and not bother with
Earth at all? And further; as God’s
love is (allegedly) perfect, infinite, and
boundless,- then why are all the
neighbouring planets in our solar
system not bursting with intelligent life
(and all praising God while they’re at
it),- as far as we can observe. And of
course what about the rest of the
Universe,- all dark and empty, or
pulsating with god –fearing Christians?

54. God’s lack of manners. If I talk

(pray) to someone, I expect them
to pay attention occasionally.

211
55. . The absurd variety and volume
of living things (similar to the
absurd size of the Universe). If
created, it signifies a Creator gone
mad. However natural genetic
variation over billions of years
explains it far more plausibly.

56. The Pauline Corpus dates from the

third century, with no original
material before that. ? An
interpolation, as part of the
incipient Catholic Tradition.

57. Why can’t an omnipotent God

destroy all unbelievers, and so
usher in his Kingdom? (And don’t
give us the weak excuse of
Freewill).

58. Freewill is an illusion. Every event

has a cause, except maybe at the
quantum level. Apparent Freewill
is due to the vast tangled variety of
preceding causes, which give the
false impression of free choice.
True Freewill, uncaused, is
equivalent to chaos.
212
59. Theists say: most of Humanity has
always had a concept of God-
therefore he exists: (Ontological
Argument). Atheists say: as an
evolutionary adaptation, most of
Humanity has a tendency to
Anthropomorphise,-to see faces in
the clouds, or Jesus in a bowl of
spaghetti (it happened!).God is just
an extension of this,-the Big Man;
therefore there is no God as such.
Besides can you really compare
the bloodthirsty Hindu goddess
Kali, with gentle Jesus? - so there
is no consensus on what God is.
Therefore reject the whole
concept.

60. The long time taken for Christians

to establish hospitals, compared
with Islam and China, (suffering is
God’s will). The long time taken to
abolish slavery, to institute Human
Rights and Social Reform (and the
actual condonement of slavery in
the meantime), and the Bible –
condoned exploitation and
213
 colonisation of “primitive”
peoples. It took Enlightenment
thinkers as well as economic
pressures to change the system,
even if people like Quakers and
some individual Christians were
also highly involved in doing so.
.
61. 9/11/ Asian tsunami

62. The on-going situation in that

murderous place, “the Holy Land”.

63. The propensity of human males for

rape and child abuse, (made in
God’s image).

64. The absurdity of sexual

intercourse-God must have a sense
of humour.

65. The absurdity, as well as the pain,-

of childbirth- blamed,- very
unconvincingly ,-on Original Sin.

66. Homo floresiensis.

214
67. Omnimax God is incoherent
(Necessarily false). 1. Existence
of Evil which God being
omnipotent and omniscient could
abolish but does not.
Is Evil so good for us? Does so
much good come out of it that it is
worth continual slaughter, sickness
and mayhem? (AIDS, Tsunamis,
9/11)

2. An Omnipotent God can do

anything, including a spontaneous act
like Creation of the Universe. Also
being Omniscient he knows
everything, including everything he
will ever do- which means however
that he cannot do anything
spontaneous, or make any changes to
his plans, because he has fixed the
future- which means he is not
Omnipotent after all.—or maybe he is,
and so could change the future; but if
he changes the future, then he did not
know the future originally,-so he is not
omniscient—or maybe etc-etc---

215
68. God, in the OT, was a stern
punisher of sinners, and was always
smiting people: why then does he
suddenly decide to become a victim of
all those sinners by getting himself
crucified?

69. Tremendous wastefulness in

Nature, unused pollen and sperms,
infant mortality—and this from a God
that condemned Onan for spilling his
seed on the ground.

70 Why did God create human

anatomy so that males had the
opportunity, ability and desire to insert
their penises into orifices for which
they were not intended,-and then
condemn humans for following such
inclinations?

71. Theistic Evolution: This is the

Christian attempt to take over
Darwinian Evolution for God.. A
successful scientific theory like
Darwinian Evolution explains and
predicts, entirely by itself. In T.E.
however, God is alleged to have
216
created Evolution and sustain it,
thereby interfering at every stage, each
mutation is created, “guided” natural
selection occurs. This is no longer a
self-sufficient theory and so is
pointless and false.

72. Intelligent Design: proposes that

“Something” (God) designed the
Universe. Christians are fond of
saying that God is “outside of space
and time”. This is reasonable according
to their logic, otherwise God would be
contained in and a part of his own
creation,-so we can’t have that. But if
God is outside “our” space-time, he
cannot be completely space less and
timeless, otherwise he could not exist
nor perform any temporal action (like
creating Universes);-- so he must exist
in another Universe (or Dimension);-
so there are at least two Universes
now,--where did this God-verse come
from?—did he create it around
himself?-but why bother if he was
already pre-existent and self-sufficient?
If there are two Universes, then why
not more,--like an infinite number?
217
But if there are, they must be slightly
different from each other, eg the God-
verse must be “superior” and therefore
have different “Fine-constants” which
are better adapted for containing a
God, then is our own “human”
Universe.
Therefore we have a situation of a
Megaverse consisting of many slightly
mutated Universes which will compete
with each other for supremacy in the
survival game,--until one or more of
them evolve fine constants which are
tuned so as to allow the emergence of
intelligent human life. Therefore any
proposal for Intelligent Design
immediately destroys itself because it
inevitably leads to the conclusion of
“Cosmic Evolution” instead.
Also one must ask what the point of a
perfect intelligent God is in creating an
inferior human version of intelligence.
According to the Ugaritic texts, ---
Yahweh already had a divine consort
“Asherah”, who was presumably more
intelligent than any human.

218
 73 Christians propose the
Transcendental Argument for God,
which is supposed to prove his
existence logically. (TAG).
They propose that Logic and Science
are dependent on Christian Theism.
However, any statement about the
existence of god, or the veracity of the
Bible is itself dependent on pre-
existent Logic. Logic is therefore a
necessary truth, and God himself is
dependent upon it. (See also the
Euthypro argument above.)

74. The Missionary Position

This purports to be an argument
against the existence of the Christian
God. I don't know if it's original, but
I've never seen it used before. I'm
sure that it can use some tightening
up, so maybe you the readers, can
consider it for yourselves.

Let's start with a few premises.

1) God exists.
2) God is omnibenevolent.

219
3) God has a plan of salvation.
4) God wants his sheep to spread
his word to all unbelievers.
5) Despite God's desire for all to
be saved, there are many
millions, probably billions of
people who have died or will die
never having heard his word.
6) Since God is a just God (from
#2) it follows that those who
have never heard the word will
still go to heaven.

It follows from #6 that if there is a

Christian God with a plan of salvation
that you are far better off never
hearing about it. In other words
the missionary work of the
church actually condemns souls
instead of saving them.

Since the idea of a plan of salvation

that works best for you if you never
hear about it is absurd, it follows
that the entire New Testament is
absurd, since it purports to reveal
this plan. It therefore follows that
220
the notion of the Christian God is
absurd.

75. The Universe is far too large and too old to

have been designed by an omni-deity with life
as- we- know-it on Earth. If there is older life
elsewhere in the Universe it is irrelevant to us
as we know nothing of it.
76. Can Christians explain the difference
between Mind, Spirit, Soul, and Ghost (Holy
or not)? If not, they have no authority to claim
they speak for God.
77. The “Holy Land” has been a place of
murder and mayhem for thousands of years,-
and yet we are expected to believe that it is the
land of God and his chosen people; chosen for
what/--to suffer and die continuously.
78. “Special leading” to try and establish God.
eg God is eternal, but not the Universe. God is
“timeless”, but can still do mighty works like
creating a Universe, which require time.
79. God is timeless and changeless, yet seems
unrestricted by both, as he can change and
move about in space-time.
80. Christians routinely re-define words so as
to accommodate God,--eg a God who permits
evil cannot be benevolent-, the Christian
solution is to re-define “evil” (so that Good
221
can come out of it),-and re-define
“benevolent”, so that whatever God may
choose to do he is being “benevolent” by
definition. All examples of Equivocation.

---------------------------------------

222
223
Bibliography and acknowledgements

Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”

All his books on Evolution
and Genetics.

Christopher Hitchens “The Missionary

Position”
“God is not great: how
religion poisons everything”.

Sam Harris “Letter to a Christian Nation”

“The End of Faith”

Daniel Dennett “Darwins’ Dangerous Idea”

“Consciousness Explained”
“Breaking the spell: Religion
as a natural phenomenon”

Charles Darwin”On the Origin of Species”

“The Descent of Man”

Richard Leakey “Human Origins in South

Africa”

Friedrich Nietzsche All his books,

224
Alistair McGrath “The Twilight of Atheism”
(See page 272)

John Hick (edited by) “The Myth of God

Incarnate”

Werner Keller “The Bible as History”

Voltaire “Candide”

Thomas Paine “The Age of Reason”

Ancient Babylonian novel: “The Epic of

Gilgamesh”

Sumerian Creation myth: “Enuma Elish”.

Sir Wallis Budge “The Mummy”

Simon Blackburn “Truth”

David Hume “Enquiry concerning Human

Understanding”

William Shirer “The Rise and fall of the Third

Reich”

225
Francis Wheen “How Mumbo-Jumbo
conquered the World”

Stephen Hawking .All his books on

Cosmology eg “A Brief History of Time”

“Black Holes and Baby Universes”

Stephen J Gould All his books on Evolution

Roger Penrose “Shadows of the Mind”

“The Emperor’s new Mind”
“Road to Reality”

Paul Davies “The First Three Minutes”

“The Goldilocks Enigma”

Steven Weinberg “In search of a Final

Theory”
Peter Atkins “The Periodic Table”

Martin Rees “Just Six Numbers”

Some relevant bits of Plato, Aristotle, The pre-

Socratics, Democritus ,Empedocles,
Leucippus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Epitectus,
Marcus Musonius Rufus, Marcus Aurelius
(Meditations), Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius
226
Annaeus Seneca, St Augustine, Justin Martyr,
Flavius Josephus,
Julius Caesar (De Bello Gallico), Oration of
Pericles, “Contra Celsum” (Origen) .
Julian the Apostate, Pliny the Younger
(correspondence with the Emperor Trajan
about how to deal with Christians and their
“detestable superstition”.
Edward Gibbon, “Decline and fall of the
Roman Empire”,

Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian,

Persian, Macedonian, Greek, Roman Egyptian,
Hittite, Indian, Chinese history.

Venerable Bede “Ecclesiastical history of the

English speaking peoples”

Roy Jackson “The God of Philosophy”

Michael Baigent “The Jesus Papers”.

Magazines: “New Scientist”, “The

Freethinker” (National Secular Society”, “New
Humanist” (British Humanist Association”.
International Humanist and Ethical Union” .

The Bible (KJV)

227
Quran—some Suras, and Hadiths

Graham Phillips, The Marian Conspiracy

(Sidgwick & Jackson, 2000)
Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex
(Picador, 1976)
John Shelby Spong, Liberating the
Gospels (Harper, 1996)
John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman
(Harper, 1992)
Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized
Version (Penguin, 1991)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism &
Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity
(Darton Longman Todd, 1984)
Riane Eisle, The Chalice & the Blade
(Harper Collins, 1987)

228
229