The reason I wanted to draw your attention to this particular post is that Dr Beck hits on a point that we’ve discussed previously, namely people using religion to duck their responsibilities.  Ther pertinent part of the article:

Obviously, I was being a bit provocative with the student. And I did go on to clarify. But I was trying to push back on a strain of Christianity I see in both my students and the larger Christian culture. Specifically, when the student said “I need to work on my relationship with God” I knew exactly what she meant. It meant praying more, getting up early to study the bible, to start going back to church. Things along those lines. The goal of these activities is to get “closer” to God. To “waste time with Jesus.” Of course, please hear me on this point, nothing is wrong with those activities. Personal acts of piety and devotion are vital to a vibrant spiritual life and continued spiritual formation. But all too often “working on my relationship with God” has almost nothing to do with trying to become a more decent human being.

The trouble with contemporary Christianity is that a massive bait and switch is going on. “Christianity” has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with something else, an endorsed “spiritual” substitute.

The example Dr Beck used in the beginning of the article cited a young woman who wanted to “work on her relationship with God”.  Dr Beck’s response was that she should, instead, work on her relationship with people.  Or specifically, people she had wronged.  This is a refreshing approach.  I’ve seen religious people ask their chosen deity for forgiveness rather than the people they have wronged.  I’ve also seen religious people refuse to take responsibility for their actions because they believe it to be their deity’s “will” or “plan”.  I’ve heard religious people defending this attitude in the past, so I’m glad to see it’s not universally accepted.

This does beg an interesting question.  Is it more important to have a good relationship with your deity, or with the people around you?  I’m not implying that the two are mutually exclusive, but clearly some people give preference to one over the other, and in my experience (and one would assume from the article, Dr Beck’s) it tends to be their deity.

I’ve questioned the motives of the religious before, and I’ve also questioned using religion as a source of morality, and while the post linked doesn’t take quite as harsh a view, it’s certainly interesting to hear a voice of discontent from within organised religion.  I’ll let Dr Beck sum this up:

The point is that one can fill a life full of spiritual activities without ever, actually, trying to become a more decent human being. Much of this activity can actually distract one from becoming a more decent human being. In fact, some of these activities make you worse, interpersonally speaking. Many churches are jerk factories.

But let’s not forget that it’s just not the religious leaders that are happy to prey on the vulnerable and gullible. If hell existed, a special place in it would be reserved for psychics, mediums and other frauds who claim to be able to contact the spirits of people who have died.

The really, truly disturbing thing about those who claim to posses these supernatural powers is that they must take an incredibly calculating approach to their “profession”. To use techniques like cold reading, and to carry out the amount of preparation they do requires a certain dedication, a certain amount of planning, to carry it off. So when you consider that these people are taking advantage of the emotionally vulnerable in such a callous way, it really drums home the unpleasantness of their actions.

Boing Boing recently posted the video embedded below. In it, three psychics are invited to do a reading in an old chocolate factory. Specifically, the host is seeking information about the boss of the establishment.

If this video doesn’t hammer home the blind face cheek and unashamedly deceitful nature of these people, you should really watch it again. Out of the three psychics, one is attempting cold reading whilst the other two have simply researched the subject before hand. All three have ended up contacting the spirit of someone who simply never existed.

This brings to mind a famous story I once heard of a very famous ghost hunting show. This particular show visited a hotel that was known to be haunted by a certain ghoul. The psychic duly contacted the spirit of the ghoul and recited information regarding the circumstances of their death. All very convincing until we learn a few years later that the current owner of the hotel had made the story up in order to raise publicity of the establishment. Like the chocolate factory in the video above, the psychic contacted the spirit of a person, and recited details of their life, even though this person never existed.

Like religion and the complete absence of evidence for any of the claimed deities, there is no evidence whatsoever for the claims these psychics make. In fact, they consistently and regularly fail scientific “double blind” tests and are incapable of performing in front of people who are wise to their tricks.

All this is important to remember because these people try to invade people’s lives when they are feeling the most vulnerable. Much like religion, they try to plug a gap that is perceived by those who are incapable of coping with a given situation. It’s hard to criticise those people, and they should very much be treated as victims of these scams. What cannot easily be forgiven is that the authorities allow these people to operate, sanctioned by the law in many cases.

However, the real enemy in this are the perpetrators themselves. Whilst many atheists give religious people a free pass on the grounds of being indoctrinated and brain washed from a young age, the same cannot be said of psychics and mediums. They know absolutely that the claims they make are not true, otherwise, why would they resort to techniques such as cold reading and research? And yet they happily give false hope, false information and take money from the vulnerable and misguided. Sickening.

The Motivation

When this blog first started, it didn’t get much traffic and even fewer comments.  It was thrown up quickly by me using a freely available WordPress Theme.  Over the last year or so the length of the posts have increased, the number of visitors have increased and with it, the number of comments.  A few weeks ago I decided it was time for a change, and I set the following goals:

1. Improve Readability
2. Improve Handling of Comments
3. Provide Room for Expansion

Let’s break those goals down.

Improve Readability

Comparing readability between the old and new design.

Readability was not a strong point of the theme I was using.  Small text on a dark background does not equate to readability.  It got to the point where I didn’t enjoy reading my own posts and the comments of others on this site, purely because of the styling of the text.  This situation had to be remedied.

Improve Handling of Comments

There are a lot of comments on this site.  Some posts already have 100+ comments against them.  100 comments against a post require a slightly different structure than 5 comments against a post.

Provide Room for Expansion

I’ve got some exciting ideas for this site, and was already beginning to find the previous theme restrictive.  The new look should provide a bit more flexibility and agility.

The Changes

The design of the blog has been completely overhauled.  I’ve changed it to dark text on a light background, introduced a better visual hierarchy for content and given text some more rome to breathe.  Hopefully it’s easier to read.  I’ve also rolled out some more specific changes.

Comments

I’ve made two changes to the comments system.  They are now threaded and paginated.  Threaded comments mean you can now respond directly to a previous comment, and see your reply appear in line.  This should help keep the comments organised, and allow commenters to easily see any replies against their comments.  If you want to reply to a specific comment, just click the “Reply” link and type away!

You’ll also notice that comments are now paginated, so that no more than 25 comments appear on page at any one time.  Again, this is to help keep the comments organised and easier to use.  I’m not 100% sold on this approach, so I’ll be monitoring it over the next few weeks.

This site now also supports Gravatars, so if you have one linked to your email address, it will now show up in the comments.  Hopefully this will aid with scanability.

Search

The New Atheist Blog Search

The old, rather hit and miss, search facility has now been replaced by a Google Custom Search.  This should provide more relevant results.  The other big benefit of using Google is that it searches the entire site, including the comments.  This was very important.

Improved Inter-Page Linking

One of the major problems with the old theme was that links to other pages were not really promoted as much as they should have been.  This has been addressed with dynamic “Most Popular” and “Recent Comment” areas as well as slots for me to manually add featured content links.

Known Issues and Improvements

I’ve already identified some areas for improvement, and I’ll be monitoring performance over the next few weeks.  At the moment, the site does not function correctly with Internet Explorer 6.  Personally, I don’t see this as an issue.  We only get a handful of visitors using this out dated browser, so it doesn’t warrant to extra effort to correct the problems at this moment in time.  If you are one of the IE6 users out there, you really should upgrade your browser as soon as possible (I’d recommend the completely free and excellent FireFox).

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the redesign.  It’s so different that it may be jarring at first, but I believe the changes are for the best.  I’m no web designer, so while I’ll make every effort to enhance the site and correct bugs, I can’t promise I’ll have the time and / or knowhow.

The image below (click to enlarge) depicts the site as it is supposed to look.  If you are looking at a site that looks significantly different, please let me know by using either the comments or the reinstated contact form.

The New Atheist Blog Screenshot

I can understand the reasoning for the wordings used, especially given the trouble encountered in many locations where atheistic campaigns were planned, but I for one would favour a more aggressive approach.  OK, perhaps not aggressive, but at least on par with the stronger wording we see from pro-religion ads all around the country.

I’ve come up with the following, both are designed (to use the term loosely) to fit the mostly Christian area in which I live and work, and I’m pretty sure they’d play well.  Both play on the idea that most Christians haven’t read the Bible, or if they have read the Bible, only choose to believe the parts that they agree with.  The Bible is one of the most powerful arguments for atheism in existence.

The Atheist Billboard

The billboard (click to enlarge) reads:

Exodus 21:20-21

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

God. Loving slavery since 4000BC.

This billboard is aimed mostly at the black community.  Specifically, this is inspired by the recent Gay marriage ban in California, seemingly driven by the black community on the grounds of religious belief.  I feel it’s important for the black community in particular to realise that the oppression of homosexuals that they support is based on the same grounding that lead to them being oppressed previously.  The justification they are using, was also used by white farmers who kept black slaves.

The Atheist T-Shirt

The T-Shirt (click to enlarge) reads:

Back.

Jesus said, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42 NKJV).

Front

Jesus (heart)s Drownings

The quote on the T-Shirt is taken from the post where I asked how Christians could possibly love something that would drown their families, and the aim of the T-Shirt is to cause a reaction.  People will see the front of the T-Shirt and think, Jesus is about love, he wouldn’t advocate drowning someone, only to see that, the Bible says he does.  It’s also a play on the typical “Jesus hearts you” T-Shirts and posters.

Your Turn

Both these designs are reactionary, attack pieces.  They imitate the typical ads you see on the sides of Churches all around the country.  While I’d like to take the higher moral ground, it’s sometimes fun to fight fire with fire.  So with that in mind, what would you like to see promoting atheism?

Blank billboard image by mediaboytodd.  Plain T Shirt image from Erika Hall.

Stephen Colbert asks.

“I think it would really be better for the anti-gay-marriage side if they obeyed everything in the Bible, not just the anti-gay-marriage part. Don’t you?”

“When did Jesus talk about gay people?  Because I keep on looking for that so I could win some arguments.”

If you watch the video embedded in the page linked to above, you will no doubt recognise the squirm most Christians experience when they are challenged on the actual content of the Bible.  I think it’s always interesting to ask a Christian why they choose to believe certain parts of the bible (God, creation, miracles) but not others (slavery, adult circumcision, oppression, violence, abuse etc.).  I’m yet to get a satisfactory answer.

An example he used in the show I attended was that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  The famous author and creator of Sherlock Holmes began believing in paranormal phenomena towards the end of his life.  This included fairies, of which he wrote a book.  Derren gave a demonstration of the techniques used to convince people like Arthur Conan Doyle of the existence of paranormal activities.  I won’t go into the specific example in case you intend on going along to the show, but suffice to say it was impressive and could be convincing.

The whole experience really got me thinking.  Derren gave a very specific demonstration that was framed, even with his introduction which clearly stated he didn’t believe in paranormal activity and that the following was an illusion, in such a way as to make it plausible.  If you wanted to believe it to be true, there wouldn’t be much to stop you.  Now this is entertainment, and as Derren points out, he is always honest in being dishonest.  He tells you something is a lie before going on to demonstrate it as if it was true.

Now I’m a very perceptive, logical, person.  While watching the show I came up with various ways in which the some of the acts could have been successfully performed.  And there were clearly nods throughout the act to those of us in the audience who had this critical hat on.  Veiled hints at how things are done.  The important thing to remember here though is that I went in as a critic and sceptic.  I knew (because Derren himself admits it) that these are tricks and I wanted to know how they were done.  If I hadn’t have gone into the performance with this attitude, it would have been very easy to believe everything he did.  To buy into the performance.

This is the point really.  One of the key differences between Atheists and Non-Atheists is that Atheists almost always have a critical sceptic hat on.  They want to know the how’s and the whys of everything and tend not to take things at face value.  If you’re a Christian, and you read the Bible, you are predisposed to believe everything in there as fact.  You won’t have that critical eye that others have.

So where am I going with this?  It became obvious that throughout the show there are certain actions, scenarios and set ups Derren uses to paint a convincing picture.  It’s all very carefully designed and acted out to create an illusion.  So I found myself wondering how religion uses these same techniques.  What are the illusions religion creates in order to maintain it’s grip over people, and grab new followers?

Over the next few weeks I’ll be posting my thoughts on this area.  How certain religions use illusion to trick people, be it subtle or overt.  I’ll be starting off with Christian churches, and how they are designed, architecturally, to be magical places that connect followers to “God”.

Question: Do unchristians make less moral choices than Christians?

Hypothesis: The Bible is the perfect guide to life that shows us how to be moral people. Without believing in the Bible you can’t know God and he can’t guide you and give you rewards for being a good person. I think people who aren’t Christian will be less successful.

Experiment: I will interview thirty people and ask them if they are Christian. I will give them the same questions so I have a control sample. I think they are immoral if they score lower than 15.
Questions I will ask. There are 20 points available.

1. Have you ever spoke the name of our Lord in vain? – Our Lord?  I don’t have one, so no.  Score 1!  (good start, let’s keep this up).
2. Have you ever killed another human being? – If I answered yes to this, I’d have bigger problems than failing this morality test.  No.  Score 2.
3. Have you every lied? – When I was 6 I told someone God was real.  It was a cruel joke.  Yes.  Score 2.
4. Have you ever had relations before marriage? – Hasn’t everyone?  My mother is one example of a relation, and I’m not married.  Yes.  Score 2
5. Do you go to church every Sunday or once a week? – Good one.  I’d rather rub salt into my eyes.  No.  Personally I think this should gain me a point, but that’s probably not what the author had in mind.  No.  Score 2.
6. Do you wish you had more stuff? – I wish I had more Bibles.  Oh, that’s a conundrum.  Yes.  Score 2.
7. Do you gossip? – Why?  What have you heard?  Yes.  Score 2.
8. Do you give to charity? – Yes, so long as said charity has no religious affiliations.  Yes.  Score 3.
9. Do you listen to rap or heavy metal music? – I definitely don’t listen to Brave Saint Saturn, if that’s what you mean. Yes.  Score 3.
10. Have you ever had an abortion or been pro-choice? – Well I’m a man, so that’s abortion out of it.  But am I so morally decrepit that I’ll try and force my views on other people?  No.  So, in this twisted logic that translated to a Yes.  Score 3.
11. Have you ever read Harry Potter or Spiderwick Chronicles or the Golden Compass? – It’s funny that I can get a point for this even though I’ve read numerous atheist books, such as The God Delusion.  No.  Score 4.
12. Do you see movies with unwholesome content? – I usually see movies with my Girlfriend.  Yes.  Score 4.
13. Do you pray every day? – I prey every day, does that count?  No.  Score 4.
14. Do you believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth? – Well I don’t believe heaven exists, and I’m sure that if some entity did create the earth they would have done a better job,  Like intelligently designing people to be clever enough not to be religious, instead of relying on the intelligent amongst us to evolve to such a state.  Hell no.  Score 4.
15. Are you overweight because you eat too much? – No I’m overweight because God is punishing me for his non-existence.  No.  Score 5. (I’m overweight because I don’t exercise enough!)
16. Do you take pride in accomplishments other than service to God? – I don’t take pride in anything.  I love apathy.  No.  Score 6.
17. Do you put God and Jesus first? – Er, I can’t put two things first.  That’s like asking someone to dedicate themselves 110% to something.  Can’t be done.  Sorry.  No.  Score 6.
18. Do you view pornography? – View?  or interact with?  No.  Score 7.
19. Do you practice temperance in every thing you do? – Such as my fanatical following of a religion? No.  Score 7.
20. Are you quick to anger? – Not according to the judge.  Actually, I take pride (damn!) in the fact that I’m very calm, logical and diabolical un-flappable.  So no.  Score 8.

So I got an eight.  Better than I thought I would.  Admittedly I had to use some pedantic interpretations of the questions, but that’s ok in my book.

In all seriousness though, this questionnaire and it’s author can’t really be criticized.  It all comes down the the parents who have ingrained this belief in the child that you can only be “moral” if you are a Christian.  Note that you can’t achieve the “pass mark” unless you get at least some of the Christian exclusive activities right.  It’s asking a question that only has three outcomes.  Either you’re a Christian and moral, or a Christian and not moral or an unmoral non-Christian.  There’s no fourth option.

How did you do?

This year, I took a trip to New York City, Manhattan in fact.  And walking around there wasn’t much in the way of Christian elements.  It’s easy to argue that the whole Christmas thing is about Christianity, but for many people, an increasing number in fact, it’s simply not.  So wondering round the streets, the spectacular window displays and the various attractions I felt Christmassy, but not Christian.  To be honest, it came as a relief.  This is New York City, I know, it’s not exactly known for it’s religiousness, but still.

The point I’m getting to is this, I browsed to th BBC News website this morning to find three religion related stories on the front page.  The first, detailing Tony Blair changing his religion is of little interest to me.  The other two, however, warranted more reading.

First up we’ve got The Archbishop of Wales warning against Fundamental Atheism, or “Atheistic fundamentalism” as he wrongly puts it.  There are a couple of points worth picking up on.  Firstly, he claims that Atheistic fundamentalism is a new concept.  Sorry, “Doctor”, it’s not.  It’s been a building, growing and evolving movement in many parts of the world for quite a while.  France, especially, has a strong contingent of Fundamental Atheists.  The point the good Doctor is sadly missing is this.  Being a fundamental atheist means you treat all religions with the same contempt Christianity shows other religions.  Except a Christian that dismisses Islam, for example, is not called a Fundamental Christian, just a Regular Christian.  It’s commanded in the Bible.  The more accepted definition of Fundamental Atheism is more along the lines of people who are happy to state they are an Atheist, along with logical reasons why, and engage in debates and discussions with those of a religion persuasion.  Essentially a mirror of Christianity.  In France, there are well known Atheist “Churches” and “Preachers” where logic is taught and debated, and fear is not used as a tool.  The second point the Archbishop tries to make is that the political correctness currently sweeping across Britain is because of this “Atheistic fundamentalism”.  Sorry, but that’s not the case.  The drive away from religious affiliations in Schools, Hospitals and public institutions has come from the opposite of Atheists; the religious.  Because of this deep fear of offending people, driven from the top by Tony Blair and the Labour party, people in public positions have become apologetic to all religions.  The net result is a removal of religious affiliations.  Of course, as I said in the opening paragraphs, I have no problem with celebrating Christmas, and if I received a Christian Christmas Card, I’d welcome it.  As a “Fundamental Atheist”, I’d never want to prevent someone from following a religion through oppression.  I’d rather do it through logic and reasoning.

The second story which caught my eye talks about the gradual, but noticeable, softening of America’s Christians.  I’d completely agree with the opinion of the author, albeit based on circumstantial evidence (see my trip to NYC).  I believe that hard-line Christianity is becoming unacceptable.  After all, when the Bible says to love all of God’s creatures, how can you abuse Homosexuals?  It doesn’t make sense.  This poses a problem for Christianity, not just in America but around the world.  There are movements in the US and the UK and parts of Europe for hard-line Islamic law to be adopted.  At the moment these movements don’t get much press coverage and haven’t gathered many followers, but give it time.  Recent surveys suggest that a growing number of Muslims want to see Sharia Law enforced.  This represents a very hard-line view.  So what happens when you’ve got Christianity going less hard-line and Islam going more hard-line?

Bring on the fundamentalists.

Now, I’m no British Solicitor, but I had no idea the BBC was powerful enough to actually arrest people.  I guess if you collect a tax, you can also enforce.