By alien we mean beings like the one from the movie 'E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial' or like Darth Vader and Chewbacca from the fictional 'Star Wars' universe. They are all aliens since they are beings that don't originate from Earth (although from Chewbacca's perspective it's we humans that would be the aliens). But even Chewie, or E.T. or Mr Spock from the 'Star Trek' universe, are not true aliens, since they are purely fictional characters. Asking whether Chewbacca is an alien, or whether he fights for the Rebel Alliance or the Galactic Empire, only makes sense when one is questioning elements of the fictional 'Star Wars' universe. But here's the weird thing, while people have no problem accepting that the 'Star Wars' universe with its Wookiees and lightsabers is just make believe, two billion plus people (who seem otherwise sane) fervently believe that the fantasy Christian universe that Jesus exists in, with its gods, demons and harp-strumming angels, is actually real. They believe there are worlds out there where these beings exist, with names like Heaven and Hell, and that these beings are not only constantly observing and visiting Earth, but actively manipulating events on Earth to further some mysterious master plan.

Obviously that view is batshit crazy, but as is required with any work of fiction, especially one with extreme fantasy, if we suspend our disbelief we can ask some interesting questions, like in this fantasy universe would Jesus, as seen from a human perspective, be an alien? This may seem like a frivolous question, even blasphemous to Christians, but it does expose a troubling conflict (for Christians) between their ancient religious worldview and the modern scientific worldview which they, like it or not, are immersed in.

So if we consider the fantasy universe where Jesus exists, then the answer to whether he is an alien must surely be yes, since just like Chewbacca, Jesus does not hail from Earth. And in this sense Jesus must be an alien rather than a god. Some might argue that gods are different from aliens, in many cases having created those aliens. But how would a powerful, highly advanced alien differ from a god, how could a mere human tell the difference? As science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. A powerful, highly advanced alien that could instantly move from planet to planet, that could conquer death, that could scan our brains and discern our thoughts, that could harness the power of stars, could even create new universes, how would this alien not be seen as a god? What can a god do that this alien can't? Isn't god just an ancient term for a very highly advanced alien, a term conceived of before people realised real alien worlds existed that might be inhabited by advanced beings with technology beyond our comprehension?

Where Jesus comes from (the Hebrew one, not the Latino ones) is unclear. It could well be a parallel universe, somewhere outside our universe, since he claims to have created (and to actually own) this one, although under a different name: God. This alien seems to operate mainly under three different aliases — God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit — but also answers to such names as Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai (Lord and Master), El — and my personal favourite — I Am that I Am. Maybe it's for tax purposes, or maybe he's just hiding from those that want to see him brought to justice for the many heinous crimes he admitted committing in his autobiography, the Bible. At other times it's claimed that they're not aliases, that there are three separate entities, God being the father, Jesus is his son, and the Holy Spirit is a ghost that regularly haunts them both for some reason. Christians themselves cannot agree if there is one god (alien) or three or more. Most insist that there is definitely only one god; one called God, one called Jesus and one called the Holy Spirit, and that's why Christianity is called a monotheistic religion, a belief that only a single god exists. The following equation that even young children quickly grasp: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, is utterly meaningless to Christians.

Of the three, Jesus is the only one that has been willing to reveal himself to humanity on his visits to Earth, although since he worn a false beard on a false body, only met with a handful of Hebrews and was very vague about his mission, saying he revealed himself could be a bit of an overstatement. Jesus is what science fiction writers normally describe as (1) a shape-shifting alien, in that he took on human form to hide his true alien nature and at other times can even become invisible (the form he prefers); (2) a highly advanced alien, in that he has powers to observe and manipulate nature that seem magical to us humans; (3) an immortal alien, in that he appears to live forever; and (4) an evil, conquering and dictatorial alien, in that he wants us Earthlings to serve him and will punish those that rebel in an off-world torture camp (Hell), even threatening to destroy the entire planet if we challenge his authority en masse, something he labels the Apocalypse.

So these deluded people that actually believe they are living in the fantasy Christian universe would have to agree that Jesus is indeed an alien ... if they ever thought about it, which is highly unlikely. Thinking is not their strong point. Most Christians don't even realise that Jesus, during his visit to Earth, took on the guise of a Jew (not a Christian), so grasping that Jesus must also be an alien since he was not of this Earth would be quite beyond them. Christians are infamous for making outrageous claims that they haven't thought about, haven't even fact-checked and consequently most everything they say smacks up against reality, revealing their silly belief to be full of untold contradictions and blatant nonsense.

Something that has mystified me for years is how a few religious people can also be great fans of science fiction (sci-fi) that involves highly advanced aliens, like in the 'Star Trek', 'Star Wars' and 'Doctor Who' universes. For example, there was a fundamentalist Christian I used to work with (and I've had discussions with others of a similar mind) who believed in Adam and Eve, a six day creation some 6,000 years ago and all the other nonsense like Hell and original sin. Yet at the same time this person also believed, like many non-religious people and more liberal Christians do, that science has revealed that the universe is so vast with so many stars with their own planetary systems that alien life certainly exists out there, and by alien life he imagined intelligent beings leading lives similar to ours, some far more advanced than us, some less so. These folk embrace two opposing worldviews, religion and science, and are somehow able to compartmentalise the conflicting views, discussing just religion when at church and just science after watching the latest 'Star Trek' movie. This paradox struck again the other morning when I again saw a vehicle which has '1 SPOCK' personalised registration plates. And yes, they do refer to Mr Spock from 'Star Trek', made clear when you read the smaller text on the plate. It reads:

'THERE IS ONLY 1 SPOCK, LIVE LONG & PROSPER'

And yes, of course people can be captivated by fictional characters without believing they're real. For example, I have a working telephone in the shape of Alf, the alien from the late '80s comedy TV show; I built a kitset model of the Nostromo's shuttle craft that Ripley used to escape in the movie 'Alien', and I've bought all the many DVDs of the sci-fi show 'Stargate', however I don't for a moment believe any of these beloved characters are real. I certainly believe that the universe (sans the aliens) that features as a background to these sci-fi stories is real, but more importantly, that belief doesn't conflict with any other strong belief I might have. But it's been my experience that it's somewhat different for devout Christians who are also big fans of sci-fi stories set in outer space. While I don't think the owner of the '1 SPOCK' vehicle believes Mr Spock or the 'Star Trek' universe he hails from is real, I've found these religious sci-fi fans largely do believe that intelligent aliens are real and the universe described by science is real. And yes, their (fuzzy) belief in science would seem to be a good thing. They understand these sci-fi stories are fictional, but believe they are based on a foundation of scientific facts, and while Mr Spock and Chewbacca don't exist, aliens somewhat similar to them surely do. And as I've said many non-Christians and atheists, even some scientists, feel the same way. Personally I think it's great that they're embracing a scientific worldview when it comes to what might be out there, above the clouds. Even if I don't think their view is fully informed, in that I think alien life is far more likely to be microbes than humanoid lifeforms piloting space cruisers, at least their view of the cosmos is informed by science, even if it is a bit rough around the edges and saggy in the middle. At least they're not quoting scripture when they discuss the latest 'Avatar' movie. So what's my gripe?

Well, I just couldn't understand how they could hold conflicting worldviews. If God and Jesus are real then the scientific view of the universe surely isn't, and vice versa. If intelligent aliens exist then Jesus Christ isn't Lord.

Most fundamentalist Christians assert that scientific views are false, that theories like evolution and the big bang are quite wrong, while most avid sci-fi fans assert it's religious views that are false, that claims of gods and demons are quite wrong, but there also exists this mystifying group that can somehow hold both religious and scientific views at the same time … and somehow not get a huge migraine. How could they do it, why were the conflicting claims not constantly battling away in their mind and driving them mad? I've since concluded that they're not bothered by a raging conflict because most have not grasped that a problem even exists, and if they have sensed a slight inkling of a conflict in beliefs, they have consciously willed themselves not to think about it. Christians have had centuries of practise at avoiding thinking about ... well, anything that might suggest that Jesus is just as imaginary as Zeus, Ra and Marduk before him. So what harm might thinking about aliens and the universe do to their belief in that long dead Jewish carpenter?

One huge problem for believers in both Jesus Christ and in the existence of aliens (advanced or otherwise) is that they claim that Jesus had to visit Earth, suffer horribly and then die in order for God to forgive humans of our sins, the beings he had created with original sin. Even a new born baby that hasn't had any chance to do wrong already has sins, is already corrupted flesh, that's why Christians insist everyone needs saving by Jesus, not just people that have broken one of the Biblical commandments, like working on a Saturday. As the Bible says:

'For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
    Romans 3:22-23

'For the wages of sin is death … And these will go away into eternal punishment … And they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
    Romans 6:23, Matthew 25:46, Matthew 13:42

'I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'
    Isiah 45:7

'God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us … we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. … For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.'
    Romans 5:8-9, John 3:16

Because God made us with defects, he felt somewhat sorry for us (since it was his fault after all), so he came up with this idea of a scapegoat, a blood sacrifice, that would save sinful humans from going to Hell. Of course he could have just avoided building the bloody torture camp known as Hell in the first place, but no, that seemingly wasn't an option, or perhaps it just never occurred to him. Apparently this barbaric idea of forcing his son to die a horrible death was the only solution possible to this (self-created) problem of eternal torture in Hell, and being an all-knowing god, God would surely have known if there were easier, and less bloody, options available. There weren't, so his son must die. And die horribly, he couldn't just die peacefully in his sleep from a heart attack or after eating some dodgy leftover chicken. (But Christians also claim, rather confusingly, that Jesus isn't dead, he's actually alive and well and waiting for them in Heaven, which suggests that his 'death' was all an act, so yeah ... take what they say with a grain of salt.) Anyway, this explanation for why there is evil in the world — that God simply couldn't create a better world — and why Jesus had to 'die' bloody and screaming, was believed for centuries, and still is by far too many, but when people also started believing in aliens, it raised some troubling questions. (The Christian Church even burnt philosopher Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 CE for daring to suggest aliens might exist.)

OK, so if there are aliens then obviously God had to create them, as he did us (remember that nothing happens without God willing it), and since it was impossible for God to create humans without sin, then aliens must also possess sin. Right? Now for the troubling bit. If there are thousands, millions and billions of sinful alien worlds out there, does Jesus have to visit, suffer and die over and over and over again on all these many worlds in order to forgive their sins, as he did on Earth? Jesus suffering and dying was the only option available for humans, so clearly him suffering and dying is surely the only option for all these alien worlds. Jesus is trapped in a sort of Groundhog Day, reliving his torture and death over and over for all eternity, with just a slight change in scenery and body design from planet to planet.

But Christians will have none of this, their knee-jerk response to this scenario of Jesus visiting, spreading the message to a select few, and then dying on untold alien worlds is that there is only one Jesus and he only had to die once, after visiting just one planet, Earth. But that just creates more problems. If aliens don't need Jesus to forgive their sins for them to be saved from eternal torture (don't even need to have heard of Jesus), then either God created aliens without original sin, meaning he could have done the same for us but didn't bother, or that God has settled on a less primitive and barbaric form of forgiveness for aliens, like maybe just saying, 'I forgive you', like humans do with each other all the time. But both of those reasons for aliens not needing Jesus to die contradict the Christian belief that humans are God's favourite creation and his most perfect. Surely aliens created without sin are more perfect a creation than humans created with sin, or forgiving aliens with a simple phrase is a far better solution than the one he used on Earth, murdering his own son? So if humans are God's favourite, in all the universe, even the multiverse, why is he treating aliens so much better, either making them without sin or forgiving them with kind compassion (meaning Jesus doesn't have to be killed — yet again — on their planet)?

In order for Christians to argue that God hasn't made aliens without sin and therefore superior to us and isn't treating them more humanely, they'd likely argue that aliens are more like animals on Earth — soulless — and that's why Jesus doesn't have to die in order to save them. But let's be clear that when I talk of alien life being probable I'm thinking of microbial life, whereas these sci-fi loving Christians (and most people actually) are thinking of intelligent beings with highly advanced civilisations, flitting around the galaxy in faster-than-light spaceships, and even occasionally visiting Earth to give a hillbilly an anal probe. Any alien civilisation that has developed interplanetary or interstellar travel clearly has an intellect and technology far superior to humans, so if they could achieve what they have without souls, then clearly souls are a disadvantage foisted upon us by God. How could we humans be God's favourite if he saddled us with the handicap of a soul, while giving aliens free rein to explore the universe? After all, mere animals could not build spaceships. Most sci-fi aliens (even the evil ones) are often far more advanced than humans, far more knowledgeable about life and the universe, and even though we have never met real aliens, these advanced sort of aliens are what most people visualise when they say they think aliens are out there somewhere. But how can they reconcile that view of aliens being more advanced than us, while also believing that we were specifically created by God to be his all time favourite, to be his pinnacle creation? How can there be advanced aliens if we are the top dog in this universe? If we humans have only managed to travel to the moon, which is right on our front doorstep when cosmic distances are taken into account, how could aliens be effortlessly travelling all the way to other star systems on a weekend jaunt? Just for an anal probe and some selfies for their social media feed?

And why would God even make alien worlds? If, as Christians claim, humans are perfection, or at least as close to perfection as divinely possible, beings created in God's very image, then why would God create untold other planets that humans will never visit or even see from a distance, and populate them with what must, by necessity, be inferior forms of alien life? Having created the most perfect beings possible, humans, why wouldn't God populate these alien worlds with more humans, rather than inferior aliens? It makes no sense for God to create humans, his best invention ever, drop them on one little planet and then never use that design again, instead making millions and billions of inferior designs to populate all the other planets he creates. How is it even possible that a perfect God could be happy with seeding the universe with imperfect beings when he knows he has the perfect being twiddling its thumbs on Earth? In religious terms it's believed that it's actually impossible for a perfect being like God to create anything that's not perfect. It would be like you claiming to own the perfect coffee maker, and yet it makes crap coffee. Therefore you must be lying about your coffee maker being perfect, since a perfect coffee maker must by definition make perfect coffee, it would be impossible not to. Thus if there are advanced aliens then they must be made by God and they must be 'perfect', in the same sense that (religious) humans consider themselves perfect.

This scary realisation, that if aliens exist they must be superior to us, even if that superiority only extends to them not having original sin (and therefore no fear of eternal torture), might well lead to Christians deciding that this means — in order for us to remain as God's favourite — that aliens don't exist after all. Of course this means that the universe is utterly devoid of intelligent life, except for humans of course (and even that's questionable when we consider many people, Donald Trump supporters for example and of course religious folk). But this just raises another glaring problem, the universe is not just big, it's fucking big. In 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' Douglas Adams wrote, 'I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space'. Of course when the Jews first invented Judaism, and then Christianity, they had no idea that what we now call space was even out there. The stars, sun, moon and the five planets they were aware of (not that they knew they were planets like the Earth, the word 'planet' to them meant 'wandering star'), plus the odd comet and shooting star, all the things they saw in the sky were all quite close, just up there above the clouds in God's domain. It's only in the last century that we (meaning scientists, not priests and theologians) have discovered how truly vast the universe is, and while we now know the observable universe is tens of billions of light years across, it is believed that is only a tiny fraction of it's true size, which may well be infinite. And if the multiverse is real, then there could be an infinite number of infinitely huge universes. And if Christians are going to continue to insist that humans are God's most perfect creation, then our mindbogglingly humongous universe is quite empty as regards green pointy eared aliens.

So why would God create a universe full of stars and planets and stunningly beautiful nebulae that humans will never be able to visit? And we mean never! Even if we developed spaceships that could approach the speed of light (the universe's speed limit, and we're nowhere close to doing even a reasonable fraction of that), it would take us over four years to reach the nearest star (not counting the Sun of course), a hundred thousand years to cross our galaxy, and two and half million years to reach our nearest neighbourhood galaxy. But worse still, the universe is not only expanding, that expansion is accelerating. Distant galaxies are racing away from us faster than we'll ever be able to travel (faster even than the speed of light). In the far distant future they will be so distant we won't even be able to see them with our most powerful telescopes. Why would God create such a universe for us, one that he gives us dominion over but one that is forever out of reach? Imagine a loving father creating the most fantastic toys for his young children but then preventing them from ever playing with them by securing them behind a lethal electric fence, most are even out of sight, covered by a blanket. The children can be tempted and enthralled by their father's creations, both those they can see and those they can imagine under the blanket, but they can never reach them. We'd call that child cruelty. But that's what God has done, only on an unimaginable scale, created worlds that humans, his special creation, will largely never see and certainly never visit and never even want to visit. Nothing that we know of outside the Earth is pleasant to humans, everything wants to kill us; the universe is one humongous killing field. Magically transport a human to any random point in the known universe and the odds are astronomical that they will die horribly within seconds, since nearly everywhere is cold empty space, with the next spot being super-hot stars. The chance of materialising on a planet is so remote as to be nigh impossible, and even if it did have an atmosphere, it would almost certainly be toxic. What was God thinking? If it was designed as our playground, why is the universe so deadly to us, so inaccessible to us and largely invisible to us? It all seems like such a huge waste of resources. You may know that our galaxy the Milky Way contains at least 100 billion stars, and I've heard people say that they've looked up at the night sky and marvelled at the millions and billions of twinkling stars, but they are mistaken. The reality is that without a telescope you can only see some 3,000 stars with the naked eye. So the other 100 billion or so might as well not be there, and for almost all of human history we didn't know they were there, so why did God bother? Did he also make rainbow-coloured flying space unicorns that we also can't see?

So that's the problem Christians are faced with. If they want to believe the modern view that intelligent aliens are out there (perhaps no more advanced than Medieval humans), and at the same time don't want to imagine Jesus dying over and over again on infinite alien worlds, then one belief — science or religion — will have to go. They'll be forced to change their mind. Siding with religion they'll assert that intelligent aliens are not out there, it's just us. But now they need to explain why there is a big, deadly, inaccessible universe on our doorstep, as do the Christians that never believed in aliens but do accept that the big bad universe as described by science is out there. Isn't it a bit excessive ... even for God? We know God is insanely desperate to be praised for his creations, but bloody hell, why so many and why put them where we can't see them?

In order to reject the horrific notion that Jesus is an alien that is continually suffering and dying on untold alien worlds, Christians have to deny that the universe described by science exists. They have to deny that which they can readily observe with their senses while embracing something no one has ever seen, felt or detected. It's like someone refusing to acknowledge the very real dog running around their front lawn while trying to convince us that they have an invisible dragon living in their garage. While Christians can enjoy stories of sci-fi aliens with warp drives and ray guns, they can never accept that they might exist in the real universe without destroying their faith in fantasy gods. Any Christian that claims to believe in both clearly hasn't thought about either.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 May, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Given your antipathy to any form of religion and presumably any afterlife I am curious about your thoughts on suicide and assisted dying.

In most religious beliefs there is a warning against the perils to the soul of anyone who takes their own life.

Presumably you are wholly in favour of euthanasia (this is suicide however it is portrayed) being a conscious choice of an individual.

Is this different from someone who is otherwise fit and healthy but make the decision to end their life; suicide as it is usually meant? Does an individual have the right to make the decision to end their life regardless of the circumstances?

Presumably you would dismiss as bunkum any suggestion that there might be some impact on the soul.

Cheers

Ben

You're right that we have an antipathy towards all religions, largely because they all cause harm to varying degrees, from the extreme of devout fundamentalists slaughtering non-believers, priests raping kids and homophobic parents rejecting their gay children through to the lesser evil of parents simply lying to children, of filling their heads with wild fantasies that everyone (even you) agrees are absolutely false. I doubt if you believe a talking snake really conversed with Eve some 6,000 years ago when God created the universe, and I'm sure you don't believe the stories children are told about Shiva or Maui or that Allah is going to punish all that don't worship him and his prophet Mohammed. The numerous religions around the world are at the very least misleading their adherents as to what the universe is, how it came about and how it works. That to my mind is a form of harm, of deception and fraud. And since there are no gods then none are busy preparing an afterlife for us, vacuuming the floors of our luxury unit, checking the Wi-Fi, and putting a mint on the pillows after a quick fluffing.

We do indeed support access to voluntary euthanasia (which as you'll know is now legal in NZ), and we highlight that it is 'voluntary' euthanasia, not merely euthanasia, that it must be the free choice of the individual to opt for assisted dying, not something forced on them by others, such as overworked doctors or greedy children looking for an inheritance, that is, euthanasia without the 'voluntary' part. We actually wrote a post called 'Should we kill granny?' which expresses our view on voluntary euthanasia, so rather than repeat ourselves, we suggest you read that for a better insight. Well before that we also wrote a post called 'Should we talk about suicide?'

But we take it that you want to know if we see a difference between suicide and assisted dying. Short answer, no. As you say both are the 'conscious choice of an individual'. Suicide and assisted dying both happen when for some reason a person decides to end their life, most often because it has simply become quite unbearable and not worth living. In some cases though, their life isn't that bad, but they are convinced that it would be much, much better in some other place, like in Heaven with their family and friends who have already died. Look at the untold people who risk their lives, and the lives of their children, crossing dangerous seas and borders to illegally reach a country that they believe will give them a better life. We marvel at their fortitude and bravery to strive for something better. If people will do this to reach a real world country where they will still be treated as illegal aliens, why should we not accept that many will commit suicide to reach a promised afterlife that will be beyond their wildest dreams and they'll be welcomed by loved ones? While not usually the direct cause, religious beliefs must make suicide easier for many people. Religion tells us that death is not the end, it is just the beginning of a much better life, so without doubt religious belief has assisted in many suicides. Muslims even view suicidal actions in battling unbelievers as martyrdom, and that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife. And how often do we hear the religious say on someone's death, 'They're going to a better place' or 'They're with Jesus now' or 'They're at peace now'?

You suggest that assisted dying involves someone in very poor health and near death, whereas suicide involves 'someone who is otherwise fit and healthy'. However even today with legal voluntary euthanasia, a person who commits suicide is often not fit and healthy, they are often suffering chronic pain and leading a truly miserable life that still doesn't meet the stringent criteria for voluntary euthanasia, meaning that rather than dying peacefully in bed with a lethal drug, they are forced to blow their brains out with a shotgun and their family have to clean up the mess. And yes, there are people, especially young people, who commit suicide who are 'fit and healthy', at least in a physical sense, but not in a psychological sense. While they don't have obvious physical pain they clearly have unseen emotional pain that has become as unbearable to them as physical pain has to a cancer sufferer. Whether it be by suicide or voluntary euthanasia, in both cases the person involved has reached the limit to what they can bear physically or psychologically or both. For example, Zeus knows how many, as you say, 'fit and healthy' people that also happened to be homosexual have committed suicide over the years solely due to the abuse and torment and guilt heaped on them by their family, their peers and their church. Of course many will say good riddance, they were sinful and destined for Hell anyway. They were told that society didn't want them, and for most of history things certainly weren't going to get better for them, their lives were not going to improve. Life for them meant suppressing their desires and hiding their feelings, being continually on guard, living a lie day in and day out. Not all suffering is physical and often there is no rescue on the horizon.

Of course some 'fit and healthy' people contemplating suicide can be helped, say with drugs that relieve their debilitating depression. A homosexual facing continual abuse can be relocated to a more tolerant environment. A person facing financial ruin can be shown a path to recovery. A woman shamed and ostracised for being raped can be shown she is not at fault and has nothing to apologise for. But that said, many suicide victims that outwardly appear 'fit and healthy' often cannot be helped. They are suffering psychologically and their mind cannot envision a better future. My mother died of cancer and it used to really annoy her when visitors would cheerfully say, 'You're looking really good', and yet inside she was screaming in pain. For days, months and years! Don't believe the crap that no one needs to suffer pain today thanks to modern drugs, that is a myth spread by those unwilling to support voluntary euthanasia, a myth that allows them to sleep at night untroubled by the distressing reality.

Far too many people visualise their own wonderful life and can't comprehend why some stranger would commit suicide. They naively believe that the stranger surely has something akin to their good health, their loving relationships, their successful career, their amazing goals to look forward to, so why would they want to throw all that away? I've heard people say when someone seems sad or depressed, 'Cheer up, I'm happy, why can't you be happy too?', which is as useless and ridiculous as saying, 'I'm rich and good-looking, why can't you be rich and good-looking too'. Their life is not the stranger's life, and were they in the stranger's shoes or even just able to truly empathise with the stranger they may well opt for suicide too. We're sick of people saying that they would never commit suicide. Fine, no one is asking you to. Just because they wouldn't do something, like go skydiving, watch horror movies, eat sushi or work as a prison guard, they don't get to insist that no one else does those things either. For some people skydiving or horror movies gives their life extra meaning, and who is to say that how they choose to live their life is any more or less important and rewarding to how we choose to live ours. Or end ours for that matter.

The reality is that so-called 'fit and healthy' people do not commit suicide, and those that appear 'fit and healthy' and yet still commit suicide were clearly NOT 'fit and healthy' in their entire being, they merely appeared to be so to outsiders. Suicide and voluntary euthanasia are no different, both involve a person who finds their life unbearable and have no reason to believe it will improve. Just because a young suicide victim may seem 'fit and healthy' compared to a paralysed 80-year-old dying of cancer doesn't make their suffering any less real for them.

Actually, the previous paragraph needs clarification, there would be a case where someone that appeared 'fit and healthy' truly was and yet still committed suicide. Imagine a thought experiment where someone with potentially many happy and healthy decades ahead of them suddenly learnt that something was soon going to happen that would bring about their unexpected death. Their death is inevitable, there is no way to prevent it, so don't think what if he did this or that or if someone came to his rescue. Imagine World War III has begun and the Russians have launched numerous nuclear missiles toward him, or perhaps a deranged killer is going to rape him repeatedly and then skin him alive or maybe some evil neo-Nazis are soon going to drag him from his cell and slowly torture him to death for information he doesn't even have. It doesn't matter what the cause, this person is going to die and they know it. But this person has a cyanide pill, meaning they can opt for a quick relatively painless death or they can forgo the pill and opt for an excruciatingly painful death drawn out over hours, days or even months in the case of radiation poisoning from the nuclear strike. It's their choice. The question is not will they die, that part is certain, but how intense and of what duration will their suffering be. To make it even more personal, imagine this person has his five young children with him, and they are destined for the same fate as him. Should he give them a cyanide pill each or watch them be tortured and die horribly? Personally I know that I would opt for suicide (for me and my children) over extended intense suffering. And yet the religious would argue that one should, indeed must, choose the extended and intense suffering. Apparently your sadistic god really loves to watch a good bit of suffering (just look at the world), and is horribly pissed when anyone robs him of his fun. So yes, in my opinion, even 'fit and healthy' people could be justified in committing suicide in some cases.

You ask, 'Does an individual have the right to make the decision to end their life regardless of the circumstances?' If they are an adult of sound mind, then yes, of course they do. Your question seems to suggest that we aren't free to make our own choices, that we don't have control over our own lives, that someone else actually does, and that other person will make our life and death decisions for us. But this would mean that we are nothing but slaves, the property of a master who dictates how we live and how and when we will die, like we do with sheep and cattle. As a Christian, you Ben are apparently content with being someone else's property, but are you really? Let's say you were told that Donald Trump was the person in charge of your life, and death, would you be happy with that, or at least resigned to the fact that he had ultimate control over how you lived your life? That what job you did, who you had relationships with, where you lived, what movies you watched, what you could eat, all this was dictated by The Donald, your master. We're guessing you'd be the opposite to happy on learning that Donald Trump was claiming that he owned you, and controlled you. So is there any human that you would be happy to have as your lord and master? No matter who they were, no matter how nice they seem, they're still a slave owner, so I'm guessing you still wouldn't accept any human master as they would still be taking the control of your life out of your hands and making you live a life that suited them, not you. You would be their puppet. Of course I know that while you would likely oppose a human master, you will accept and bow down to a divine master. But not just any god. If Muslims told you that Allah was the god that had control of your life, and death, you would reject that claim as quickly as you rejected Donald Trump's claim of ownership.

If Muslims tried to dictate to you how you should live your life based on their ancient holy books, on how you should behave, dress, eat, and who you could have sex with, when, and what body hair had to be removed before that could happen, you would tell them to piss off and mind their own business. But, they say, your business is our business, because Allah created us all and instructed us to ensure everyone lives as he has commanded we do. We are not individuals free to do as we desire, we have been created to please him, to serve him, to live a long life or short life, a peaceful life or a violent life, whatever he desires. On and on they might go, quoting scripture as evidence for Allah's ownership of us all, proving his divine right to control every detail of our life and death. I'm sure none of these appeals to holy books and miracles and even the threat of eternal punishment should you fail to submit (the word Islam means submission) will see you accepting that a god called Allah does indeed own and control your life. You will be able to see the obvious flaws in their arguments, and will declare that this god does not dictate your behaviour, in fact he clearly doesn't even exist. Ditto with any other ancient god that claimed you as his property, his creation, from Ra to Apollo to Thor, including the Jewish tribal god Yahweh. But not that Jewish god's son. Christians find that god quite believable for some inexplicable reason, and are more than willing to submit to his demands.

So put yourself in our shoes. When it comes to considering the claim that you are the property of a god, you will readily dismiss the Muslims, the Hindus, the Jews, even the Jedi Knights. You can see no reason or evidence that even remotely suggests that the fanciful stories in their old books might be true, and what's more you no more want to be the property of Allah or Ra than you did Donald Trump. You don't want these gods telling you how to live, or how you should die. You want to live on your own terms. So now imagine you find yourself on the doorstep of atheists, you come to us with essentially the same spiel, you've just replaced Allah with God, one ancient god with another, the Koran with the Bible, one superstitious text with another, one religion with no supporting evidence with another religion with no supporting evidence, one group of clerics spouting nonsense with another group of clerics spouting nonsense. You don't believe the Muslims or any of the thousands of other religions that have made claims to the creation of the universe, you rightly see them all as pure fantasy, so why shouldn't we view your spiel about an ancient creator god as equally flawed? You didn't want to be the property of Allah, and couldn't even see that he existed, so why do you think we would want to be the property of a slightly different god, or would look at essentially the same flimsy evidence and arguments and, against all reason, suddenly decide your god is real, and as proof, you say the ownership papers are in the mail? Why does your god trump thousands of other gods? Why do you believe you can dismiss thousand of gods with the wave of a hand and not expect us to do the same, for the same reasons? For us to accept that we are the property of your god, you're going to have to produce something much better than quotes from some old holy book, something you wouldn't accept from the Muslims, Jews or Hindus. We would need something called evidence supported by science. Not hearsay. Until we see some robust evidence, we have no reason to believe our life, and our death, is not ours to do with as we please.

Let's rephrase your question from 'Does an individual have the right to make the decision to end their life regardless of the circumstances?' to 'Does an individual have the right to make the decision to end the life of another person regardless of the circumstances?' Now we would say the answer is typically no. Of course in certain cases, like war and self defence, people do have the right to kill someone. But in normal life in modern society no one has the right to harm another person. People can harm themselves, hence suicide is now legal, since people have control of their own lives and bodies. People can now also have sex with whomever they like, marry whomever they like, work wherever they like, vote and own property regardless of their gender or race. Adults can now do untold things that were forbidden throughout history (bans often created and maintained by religion) since we've now agreed that no one can own another human being as property and no one can dictate how individuals behave as long as that behaviour doesn't harm others. Rich folk can no longer own slaves. Men can no longer control women. Christians can no longer prevent Jews from entering politics. Protestants can no longer stop Catholics from going to university. Whites can no longer make blacks sit at the back of the bus. Straights can no longer beat up gays. Husbands can no longer legally rape their wives. The Church can no longer force society to ban divorce, contraception or abortion. We'd like to think that you'd support many if not most of these changes, although obviously not all of them, eg suicide. But for all the changes that you would support, their key element is that no person has the right to control another person's life. People are not someone's else property. You don't have the right to control my behaviour nor I yours. But when suicide is considered suddenly Christians argue that another person does indeed have the right to control my behaviour because ... umm ... they own me, they created me so I'm their property and they'll make the rules while I'll living under their roof. And no, we're talking about parents, we're talking about an invisible god that no one has ever seen. So what's the difference, why has society decided that real parents cannot dictate the behaviour of their adult children but Christians continue to argue that an unseen sky fairy can? If owning and controlling humans is wrong when it's done by other humans, why is it right when it's done by an uncaring god who never even sent a birthday card? Why is a caring parent who has spent decades loving and raising a child not allowed to control them as adults but a person that utterly ignored them is? Why is an absent god with a documented history of barbaric and unjust behaviour and untold genocides to his name, a god that ignores his priests raping children, allowed to control people but a caring parent isn't? Your question was whether a person has the right to end their own life, and you obviously believe they don't, your reason being that we are all controlled by a master, we are his property and as such we must do as he says, not as we wish. We are not free. You appear content, joyful even, at being a slave to a monster (do we need remind you of Hell, a place that makes the Nazi death camps look like relaxation spas?) You're at least resigned to living your life as your lord and master demands, but the rest of us have our own plans and they don't involve bowing down and licking anyone's boots. No one gets to control humans, not other humans and not a god; not the Christian god, the Muslim god or any other god, no one gets a free pass to own and abuse human beings.

The Christian argument is that no one has the right to end their life, but then you happily give that right to a fucking stranger, you give them the right to end the lives of every person on Earth, to literally kill people as the whim takes them. We're told we can't end our own life, but you're allowing a homicidal stranger to take it from us against our will. Giving this stranger the name God doesn't make what he does ethical. You're meekly accepting that God has this right, you're not putting up the slightest bit of a fight nor do you think it's even remotely unjust. Without even an argument or demanding to see some legal documents, you'll just hand over control of your life to someone you've never met, never even seen, not even on TV, in fact no one has ever seen God. How could you grant such obscene power over your body to someone that isn't even prepared to show himself or make himself known. He can apparently create life and take it again with world-covering floods, well-aimed lightning bolts, earthquakes and microscopic viruses, but hasn't managed to get his head around email or cell phones. Even knocking on a door and introducing himself is too complicated for God. Fuck me, even Donald Trump mastered that task. But worse still, you'll hand over control not just of yourself to God, but of everyone, without even consulting us. Like an indifferent Mafia boss God is ruthlessly ending untold people's lives when they are no longer of any use to him. And you're OK with that, you actually praise him. He could have created beings free to live their own lives on their own terms, instead he created puppets, and he'll cut their strings as soon as they've delivered the lines he's written.

You're right, we do 'dismiss as bunkum any suggestion that there might be some impact on the soul', since you can't affect something that doesn't exist. But like we do when we discuss Santa's flying reindeer with children, let's pretend for the sake of argument that souls are real too. Christians generally define the soul as the divine or spiritual nature of humans, claiming that the soul is immaterial and immortal while the body and mind are material and mortal, and that the soul is pure while the body is sinful and corrupted. So, when someone commits suicide, what makes that decision, is it the human mind or the divine soul? If it's the soul, a pure spark of life from God that animates our body and will survive our death, then how could a divine essence from God, one of God's loyal employees if you like, commit an act that God strictly forbids? Surely souls know suicide is immoral and will be punished? Again, they come directly from God to further his mysterious plan. And being immortal, they would know that this punishment would be eternal. So why would a soul ever induce a material body to commit suicide knowing the serious ramifications?

One possibility is that the soul isn't running and controlling the body, it merely provides the mystical life force to animate the body and it simply observes the brain as it creates the mind which then controls the body. The soul is merely a voyeur with a hands-off approach, a spy for God, which is borne out in many real-life situations, like when a person becomes blind their eyes see nothing, even though it's claimed that the soul still sees everything but refuses to pass those visions to the mind. Ditto when a person loses their memory in old age, the soul still has all their memories but refuses to refresh the human memory. The human body is left to suffer while the soul retains perfect health. Most Christians appear to support this role of non-interference for the soul, since it is the only thing that explains why the health of human bodies fail even though they contain an immortal soul that could run the show if it wanted to. However, you Ben talk of 'some impact on the soul' and 'the perils to the soul of anyone who takes their own life', but why should the soul suffer any punishment or negative impact if it played no part in the suicide? If, like flying reindeer, souls are real, then it's obvious that they are innocent observers that are prohibited from interfering in any decision the human mind makes, you know — as per our God-given free will — and therefore there is no reason to fear that our human actions will in any way impact on the soul. It would be totally unjust for God to go to town on the soul with a souped-up version of an electric cattle prod for a suicide it played no part in. But strangely Christians do believe that it is the innocent soul of a person that commits suicide that will be sent to Hell for eternal torture. The human is of course long dead, it's the soul that will suffer, even though real-life experiences show that the soul is utterly incapable of stopping the body it inhabits from committing untold sins, everything from true evils like murder and rape to somewhat lesser sins like masturbation and becoming an atheist. Souls stop none of these sins from happening, clearly they are just along for the ride.

A second possibility for why the soul seems to allow suicide is that it does control the body. The brain is material but what we call the mind is actually the immaterial soul. There are some fatal flaws with this idea, but let's ignore them as Christians readily do. But if our mind or soul is an immortal essence from God that may have already inhabited many bodies prior to the current one, then surely it has a wealth of knowledge concerning God's desires for us, memories of lessons learnt from previous lives, and clear instructions on how to lead a moral life that will please God. But when we look into our mind, sorry ... our soul, we see none of this. Nothing about God, nothing about past lives, nothing about not working on the Sabbath. If a soul is running our bodies then clearly its memories were wiped before we got it. We start life on a blank slate, effectively making it up as we go along. Do what feels right, avoid what feels wrong. So if this body decides to commit suicide then certainly the element that made that decision is its immortal soul (albeit a soul that was educated solely in the human world and is quite oblivious to its supernatural origins). But is it fair to then torture the soul for all eternity for one simple decision, a decision that had to be made without access to all the facts, in a world where God was actively hiding his existence from his creation? The soul had been made ignorant on implantation so God can't say it should have known better, he ensured it didn't know better. Likewise almost all humans that have ever existed have never heard of God and his moral code, God never felt the need to reveal his existence to them. Indeed, he was actually happy letting other fake gods claim that they created the universe. He was just as happy to let atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking convince me that all gods were fake, even him. The one time he did feel like telling someone (and not a scientist) it was just some primitive goat herders in Palestine, no one else, and even then he was just one of many gods promoting his wares, meaning few bought what he was saying. So again, is to really fair and just to torture a soul for not knowing something that it had little chance of ever knowing? Isn't that like punishing a toddler for not knowing the GDP of Somalia? If a person has not been educated on some topic, be it geography or Christian morals, then we should not punish them for their ignorance in said topic. The great majority of people in the world are not Christians, and never have been, and know nothing of what the Christian God demands, and if this God were real he would know this, so it is quite unjust for him to create souls for every body on the planet, souls that have had knowledge of God deliberately hidden from them, and to then punish them for not abiding by rules that they had no knowledge of. If a human acted like this, punishing people for not knowing about secrets he was hiding from them, then we would call him a monster and act to stop him, we certainly wouldn't worship him.

We'll end this post as we begun, should we believe the old claims that God makes the decisions concerning our life and death and Santa makes the decisions concerning our children's toys, or is it time we grew up and started making our own decisions in life, finally acknowledging that these shadowy figures are not watching us as we sleep, or in the shower, and never have been? For untold centuries when people faced death, surely many tried to end their suffering by their own hand or pleaded to be put out of their misery, but were denied a humane release (something we always do for our pets). Apparently it wasn't part of God's plan, but what sort of loving god would say, 'No, I want him to die slowly, oh so slowly, and screaming the whole fucking time!!'

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Apr, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

So we went and had a look. The 'Movies Without Nudity' website informs us that it 'provides a simple yes-no guideline to nudity in over 10,000 movies', a list that allows people to quickly reject and shun any movie that contains nudity, no matter how fleeting or innocent. We're told that the guide was 'designed to help families who are tired of seeing naked butts and boobs in movies', or as stated elsewhere, simply 'for people who are tired of being exposed to nudity'. That all sounds quite innocent, like we're tired of being exposed to religious themes in movies so it would be helpful to have a website that listed the ones to avoid. Especially since exposure to religion has surely harmed more people than exposure to nudity. But alas, no such guide exists. Apparently many believe the real threat is from nudity.

Anyway, the website, created by Jim Lewis, is very basic, and unlike IMDb it answers only a single question for each movie — Is there any nudity? — yes or no, and there's nothing at all on whether the listed movies contain violence, sex, profanity, drug use etc. So to be clear, this guide is just talking about nudity, since Lewis' list apparently only flags scenes featuring naked bodies, not sex scenes. Obviously many sex scenes will also have nudity, but these get a mention due to the nudity, not the sex, and sex scenes without nudity get a free pass. In his search to find nudity in movies, Lewis writes that, 'Most websites I refer to address sex and nudity together, but they do not provide a quick reference such as "nudity: yes or no".' Lewis apparently wishes that nudity and sex wasn't linked together as one category (and here we agree with him, but for different reasons), and frustrated that movie websites don't have a standalone category of just 'Nudity', he created 'Movies Without Nudity'. So in his list movies that receive the REJECT stamp do so based solely on a glimpse of a naked body or part of a naked body, whether it be a man, woman or child, young or old, simply getting changed to go to the ballet or having sex. In our minds only a very repressed sort of person would be selecting a movie for family night viewing based solely on the lack of nudity, with no thought to other factors that might limit its suitability.

With this in mind we wondered how this website aligns with our argument that nudity is harmless and ubiquitous, yet is largely missing from movies, while violence is harmful yet is readily accepted and even expected in movies. Is is really just a website for people 'tired' of seeing naked butts and boobs, or is it one for people shocked, disgusted, offended and even afraid of naked butts and boobs, for people that believe that there is no such thing as 'innocent' nudity and that all nudity causes real harm? Our conclusion is that the website views all nudity as harmful not harmless. Again, Lewis makes no explicit reference to violence in the movies he lists, which is telling in itself (more on that shortly), and instead focuses solely on nudity as being the problem that must be combated. So why is nudity harmful? While the website does say that the list is for people simply tired of nudity, not for those that think nudity is harmful, this is nothing but a smokescreen, since Lewis then explains that nudity is indeed harmful because it acts as a trigger for lust — dangerous, harmful sexual lust — that will have a negative impact on all men. No mention of women, apparently women are sexless creatures incapable of lust. The real purpose of the list, Lewis explains, is not about being tired of seeing naked butts and becoming bored with naked boobs, it's about being genuinely fearful of the sexual lust that nudity generates. He writes:

'All men struggle with lust. As a Christian, lust is something I must battle, not simply struggle with. I have taken the stand that I won't knowingly expose myself to nudity in films. When I started this list, I also had a young daughter that I was trying to teach to be modest in an immodest world.'

My immediate response to Lewis' claim regarding lust is, 'Speak for yourself asshole!' I'm a man and I don't struggle with lust, nor do any of my male friends that I'm aware of. And if I did I would consider it my job to control my behaviour, I wouldn't insist that it is the job of women to change their behaviour and appearance so as not to tempt me. My dictionary defines lust as: 'Intense or unrestrained sexual craving'. Lust does not describe someone who really enjoys sex or finds some naked bodies sexually attractive, even sexually arousing. It describes someone with overwhelming sexual urges and obsessive sexual desires, someone who, when they become sexually aroused, struggle to restrain themselves from acting on their intense feelings, desires that may even cause behaviour that is unethical and/or illegal. We suspect Jim Lewis is fearful that on-screen nudity will generate uncontrollable lust within him and cause him to break, probably not ethical or legal laws, but moral laws in a Biblical sense. We say Biblical laws since Lewis proudly admits to being a fundamentalist Christian, and they're the worst sort. He states that, 'The Bible is God's Holy Word, without error, and is the sole authority for life', that, 'Human beings ... fell through the sin of the first man, Adam', and 'those who die in their sins will spend eternity in hell'. The Bible says nudity became a sin for us humans as soon as those carefree nudists Adam and Eve ate that forbidden fruit, and God immediately slaughtered some innocent animals to clothe them and hide their shameful nakedness. And things only went downhill from there, with nudity then becoming solely linked to sex, another thing that God had a major hangup with. Even if you didn't get naked or have sex you could still sin, as stated in Matthew 5:28 for example, 'anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart'. Even if men opted for sex with a goat or another man, God also said that bestiality and male (but not female) homosexuality was also a sin. Thus anything that might create temptation and lead to sinful lust must be avoided. And for some, nudity in movies with it's images of beautiful, seductive, naked sirens, and for others, a naked male butt, could clearly be that sexual temptation that will lead to damnation. If only we had a helpful guide that could divert us from harm, a list that warned us of all the dirty, filthy, degrading movies with their naked bodies of shame. Oh wait ... there is such a list.

When we accessed the website it listed 10,362 movies, ranging from one released in 1911 through to 2023. Of those 10,000+ movies, we're advised to avoid watching 3,949 titles because they're said to contain nudity. A movie title and release date in a red font means nudity and a normal black font means it's safe for the whole family to view. Most listings have no extra information, although perhaps 1 in 20 titles that feature nudity do have some brief details describing the nudity. As we've said, a movie receives the 'nudity' stamp of damnation no matter how fleeting or innocent said nudity might be, as Lewis explains:

'The standard is any nudity, regardless of the duration or context whether it is male or female. The only exceptions are a painting, illustration, sculpture, or infant, but they are noted. I have noted movies where the only nudity in the movie is men's bare butts. Since this is not a struggle for most men, I noted it.'

Clearly Lewis fears viewing nudity since it might cause him to act on his desires, but if those desires simply involve being naked, like in the sauna or skinny dipping with friends, or even if it extends to having consensual sex, then that doesn't break any ethical or legal laws, so it's not causing harm to anyone. Unfortunately Lewis believes in a god that disapproves of his natural (God-given) desires and should he give in to them, will punish him severely for all eternity. The good news is that his god isn't real, so no actual harm can ever be visited upon him by someone who doesn't exist. Nudity itself causes no harm, for fundamentalist Christians like Lewis it is the irrational fear of nudity that causes harm. They are merely imagining that they are being stalked and tormented by an imaginary sky fairy. Deliberately avoiding movies with nudity will be as futile and time consuming for Lewis as it would be for me to take the long route to work to avoid areas where evil trolls might be hiding.

But what about violence in movies and our view that it seems at the very least unfair if not harmful to censor innocent nudity while pushing graphic violence? Recall that we noted that Lewis' list makes no explicit reference to violence (or sex) in movies, they're rated solely on the presence of nudity, but that this omission might be telling us something. Lewis does anticipate this and writes,

'You may say, "What about language and violence?" Well, they aren't the same kind of struggle for me as lust is. Frankly, I don't curse, and I don't beat people up. Too many men struggle with addiction to pornography. Nudity in movies is just the jumping-off point.'

Lewis' basic argument is that the vanilla nudity scenes we view in movies are alluring but ultimately disappointing and this will motivate us to seek out more graphic forms in porn, meaning that he sincerely believes the on-screen behaviour of movie characters can manipulate the real world behaviour of male moviegoers. Seeing nudity on screen we'll be incapable of leaving it there, we'll be driven to search for more naked flesh, we want to have their experiences, and in far more detail. So what we later strive to do in real life, the seed for that action was generated by behaviour we saw in a movie scene. It created a pressing desire that we are unable to resist. Monkey see, monkey do. We saw a movie character do something, we liked it, hell, we loved it, and now we must try it for ourselves, and damn the consequences. But do we often find ourselves acting out movie scenes, is that actually true? Lewis himself demonstrates that it's not when he argues that the reason he (and others) don't avoid movies with bad language and violence is because he (and most everyone it seems) can easily watch such movies and not be influenced by violent on-screen behaviour and not be compelled to emulate it. There is no driving urge to seek even bigger thrills. Lewis feels that viewers can effortlessly dismiss the urge to shoot, punch, or even swear at their boss in real life (though regular mass shootings in the US might suggest otherwise), or even watch other more violent people really do these things in real life, no matter how many times they see characters do it in the movies. And we agree with Lewis, most everyone (OK, maybe not everyone in the US) does have this self control, we don't feel compelled to act out the violent scenes we see in movies, even if our bosses might well deserve it. And this is where his larger argument fails. Just as there is clear evidence that your typical moviegoer can readily shrug off the violence and bad language seen on-screen, there is equally clear evidence (ignored by Lewis) that we can all shrug off on-screen nudity. Those naked butts and boobs, while they may generate some fleeting sexual feelings depending on the context, don't cause unrestrained sexual cravings that see male moviegoers foregoing a coffee with friends to race home to logon to PornHub, or worse, see men going on to rape and sexually abuse others. And again, even if some movie nudity did sometimes encourage some late night viewing of porn, what would be the harm? Masturbation is a healthy and pleasurable habit to have. If any movie scenes are later reenacted in real life we'd much sooner they be the naked body and orgasm scenes rather than the scenes with the high-speed car chases or the knives and automatic weapons.

Of course it might be argued that when some people see movie nudity it does make them think of sex and that might make them go in search of sex in the real world, where they might end up making unwise decisions that harm themselves or others. This is true, but it's equally true that after seeing movie violence some people will then want to buy a gun which ends up killing people, and that watching (totally unrealistic) high-speed car chases in movies often convinces young people that they too can drive like that and no one will be harmed, or likewise come away believing they can jump from tall buildings and fight several assailants wielding baseball bats and still walk away unscathed. If the potential risk posed by viewing on-screen nudity is enough to ban it, then the risks posed by on-screen violence are equally real, and we would argue, far more likely to cause death or serious injury, so why is movie nudity decreasing as movie violence increases? If this argument is real, that movie content influences behaviour in real life, why are people more fearful of nudity on the streets than violence on the streets?

For Lewis to argue that violence isn't a problem in movies, that no one is going to be harmed or negatively influenced by those violent scenes, but to then state that people are certainly going to be harmed by nudity is just ridiculous. And again, recall that Lewis is fixated just on nudity, not sex scenes. We actually noticed that some movies on his list that contain sex scenes but no nudity avoid the red stamp and remain in the family friendly pile. To view nudity as sexual, as something that generates lust, but then not include actual sex scenes if characters hide under the sheets or keep their clothes on seems rather weird, but perhaps Christians need to see bare flesh to generate lust. They are told not to think for themselves, to just believe what they're told, so maybe their imagination and fantasy skills are rather underdeveloped. Again, Lewis is a fundamentalist Christian so there is little doubt that his weird and childish view of nudity comes from his silly religion. He holds this primitive, superstitious view that nudity is not just wrong and shameful, it's harmful and needs to be actively shunned. He seems to believe that viewing nudity pretty much always creates sexual desire. The nudity may not be obviously sexual in nature to most moviegoers, but nudity in and of itself, no matter how innocent it may appear, will generate lustful desires in the mind of the (male) viewer, and no good can come from that, or so Lewis suggests. An addiction to pornography is the clear outcome for most men after viewing nudity in movies. Clearly he is quite wrong since most people in the world have viewed nudity in many movies and most people are not porn addicts. Mind you, I haven't been to church lately to check out the situation there.

Just because this weak-willed Christian continually battles to suppress an overwhelming sexual desire after viewing nudity, he naively assumes all men do. Again we suspect this is a Christian thing, as they're continually told that everyone sins, whereas they should be told that no, it's just them that have a problem with being sexually tempted on seeing 'Male rear nudity', or nudity in general. It's just them that thinks nudity always leads to sex which always leads to eternal damnation. It's just them that thinks their god actually loves violence but abhors nudity and sex, and so of course movies should reflect God's morality. Promote violence, hide nudity. So sayeth the Lord.

There's another thing about Lewis' movie list that reveals his truly fucked up world view, one where he not only abhors nudity in movies but where he also indirectly embraces movie violence. He promotes his 'Movies Without Nudity' list to everyone, but especially families who want to watch movies that are going to be safe viewing for all, especially young children. In our 'Nudity or violence?' discussion we made our own short list, not of family movies, but of some 111 mainstream movies that we have watched that featured what we saw as extreme and graphic violence. In our view not one of those movies is suitable for family viewing. So checking our list against his, how many did Lewis say were not for family viewing? Only 34, less than a third, were tagged as inappropriate for the kids, but here's the thing, Lewis only excluded them because of some fleeting nudity, not because of the graphic violence they featured, something he didn't even consider. If the nudity could be somehow deleted then they'd surely all go back on the family viewing list. Even without those 34 'dirty' movies, 77 very violent movies were deemed perfectly acceptable for all and sundry. How could someone be so obsessed over the perceived harm that viewing nudity will cause that they'll check, rate and catalogue over 10,000 movies and yet they don't express the slightest concern that violent movies might be inappropriate for some audiences? How can Lewis seemingly dismiss graphic violence in movies as harmless and child-friendly while actively fighting to keep movies with nudity away from not just children, but even adults? He's saying we can't let anyone view movies with nudity, it's just not safe, but don't worry, here's some great movies with blood and violence I'm sure you'll all enjoy. That's like taking a soccer ball off some kids because it's perceived as a choking hazard and giving them a live grenade to play with instead. Seriously, that this fundamentalist Christian from Texas can be so deluded and narrow minded as to fixate on nudity in movies at the exclusion of violence is simply astounding. And let's highlight that his job is not to compile the 'Movies Without Nudity' list while his unseen associates beaver away on a much larger 'Movies Without Violence' list. No such list exists or is deemed necessary. Lewis has argued that violence in movies isn't a problem, not like nudity is, since nude movie scenes create the potential for real harm, unlike scenes of violence which are apparently safe and pleasurable viewing for the whole family.

We want to finish with a quote that graces the homepage of 'Movies Without Nudity'. It's by Lee Tamahori, a movie director who just happens to also be from New Zealand. Kiwis might remember him as the director of the 1994 movie 'Once Were Warriors' starring Temuera Morrison, a true-to-life movie exposing the violent side of Maori life in Auckland and featuring graphic domestic violence, child rape, child suicide and vicious gang beatings. It was a powerful movie, one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen, due to the realistic scenes of violence dished out by men locked into the Maori warrior mentality. Thankfully there was no nudity to speak of. Anyway, to the quote:

"Sex should not be in the movies and should be in the home, and violence should be in the movies and not in the home."
     — Lee Tamahori

And yet that's where we're going with these prudish views, with Tamahori arguing that, 'Sex should not be in the movies', but happily adding that 'violence should be'. He's apparently uncomfortable with viewing movie sex scenes, but has no problem with viewing (and as a movie director, creating) scenes of violence, some quite disturbing. What this suggests is that Tamahori believes that moviegoers, like himself, are perfectly comfortable with, and even expect, violence in movies but don't want to see sex scenes (or presumably, nudity). They love seeing people being shot, stabbed, beaten, decapitated, tortured, raped, murdered, and killed by zombies, vampires and Orcs, even eaten by cannibals and flesh-eating bacteria. They love seeing people horribly injured in car accidents, IED explosions, in attacks by terrorists, evil aliens, super-villains and killer robots. They love viewing vicious, bone-crunching hand-to-hand combat featuring spies, soldiers, gang members and superheroes. They love viewing it all, in full high definition and often in slow motion, but not the sex scenes, even though such scenes might have featured stunningly beautiful and handsome bodies. But then later, in their home, these people will happily try and reenact something similar to the sex scene that they really didn't want to see, or as is increasingly happening, weren't shown at all.

Again, we are not for one moment arguing that movies shouldn't include violent scenes where appropriate, or that these scenes shouldn't portray violence realistically. Not at all. Many such movies (the good ones anyway) have the psychological impact they do on moviegoers solely because the violence is confronting and disturbing, it reveals the horror of the incident and goes someway towards allowing us to feel the pain and suffering of the victims, as well as the cruelty of the perpetrators if the violence is deliberate. This is what makes some movies memorable. Showing the violence makes it feel real, without it being real, it allows us to to empathise with the characters and have a better feel for why they then do what they do. When violence occurs in the real world our response to it often depends on whether we observed it (personally or via a news video) or merely read about it in a brief item. Actually seeing the violence results in far more people getting upset and demanding justice or offering help, than does merely hearing about it. Seeing a woman being viciously beaten by her husband in a movie has far more impact than the director simply showing us a newspaper headline, 'Man charged with assault on wife'. To be fully immersed in a movie we need to be able to empathise with the characters and understand how their life experiences influence their behaviour. If we're not shown the incidents in their life, both good and bad, pleasurable and violent, that make them who they are, then these movies are not reflecting real life and real people, but are merely portraying some whimsical fantasy that conclude s with, 'And everyone lived happily ever after. The End'. While there is a place for such movies, for movies that attempt to tell stories anchored in real life where everything from serial killers to drone strikes and plane crashes to earthquakes cause real violence to real people, then movie directors need to show that violence to make it feel real, to make it more than just a feel good Disney movie about a helpless princess rescued by her prince.

Movies about real life should reflect real life, so that's why we believe they should continue to show violence (to appropriate audiences). What we're arguing for is that for the same reason that violence should be shown (and is shown), nudity (and sex) should also be shown. Real people experience nudity in their lives far, far more often than they encounter violence, but not according to Hollywood. Even though many find movie violence at times confronting and disturbing, they still expect it to be shown, believing the movie would be lacking if it wasn't, and yet they then argue that nudity, and of course sex, shouldn't be shown because they always find it confronting and disturbing. Two confronting and disturbing movie scenes, one featuring violence, the other nudity (and/or sex), and the viewing public decides they are comfortable with the violence remaining but quite uncomfortable with the nudity, the nudity must go. Even though both violence and nudity reflect real life, movies can only show that aspect of real life that is harmful, shocking, disturbing and often illegal, and are compelled to hide that aspect of real life that is harmless, pleasurable, highly sought after and perfectly legal.

Reflecting a widespread view, Tamahori argues that, 'violence should be in the movies ... [but] sex should not', however we challenge anyone to explain why moviegoers need to see violence while being shielded from sex, and nudity. If the harmful and disturbing nature of violence makes for good viewing, how can the harmless and pleasurable nature of sex and nudity make for bad viewing? Surely their reply will be that we're wrong, that viewing sex and nudity is actually harmful and disturbing to most people, but then doesn't that put it on the same footing as violence, as something that should be in the movies? It appears that it doesn't matter whether nudity and sex is actually harmless or harmful, good or bad, many moviegoers simply aren't interested in the truth of the matter, their narrow and ignorant worldview has made them deathly afraid of viewing bare flesh and they just want it gone from their movies. Lee Tamahori, 'Movies Without Nudity' creator Jim Lewis and a large proportion of the general public, especially those in deeply religious countries like Iran and the USA, are nothing but prudes and fools, surrounding themselves with superstition and violence so that they don't have to gaze upon a naked body. They're utterly ashamed of their own god's creation. Perhaps they should repurpose that old saying about sticks and stones, changing it to: Nudity and sex may break my bones, but violence shall never hurt me.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Apr, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

So yes, it sounds like a lead-up to a joke, but an Aussie surf club in Terrigal, New South Wales, has indeed banned all nudity in its changing rooms and showers. In 2023. Members must be obedient snitches and report all breaches and those that break the 'no nudity' rule will face disciplinary action and possible membership termination. And no, no connection to the Catholic Church was mentioned, although the club's board members are quite possibly religious. We've always argued that any problem that people have with nudity almost always finds its way back to the Bible, that ancient, superstitious document that first tied nudity to sex and decreed both a terrible sin, and that silly nonsense continues to influence gullible people even today.

In this video Steven Pearce, the CEO of Surf Life Saving NSW, tries to defend the new policy by saying that,

'A lot of the younger members were feeling uncomfortable and intimidated when there would be older more mature gentlemen in there naked having showers, and because the club received that complaint they wanted to do everything possible'.

7.10 Change room arrangements

CYP have a right to privacy, and this must be balanced by all persons with the responsibility of supervising the safety of members whilst using change rooms. All persons in addition must:

a) ensure adequate supervision in "public" change rooms when they are used;

b) not shower or change at the same time as supervising groups of Children;

c) provide the level of supervision required for preventing abuse by members of the public, adult service users, peer service users, or general misbehaviour, whilst also respecting a CYP's privacy;

d) avoid one-to-one situations with a CYP in a change room area; ensuring that they do not undress and avoid using a changing room with a CYP unless there are other people present;

e) ensure female identifying persons do not enter male change rooms, and male identifying persons do not enter female change rooms;

f) at a minimum ensure there are two Relevant Persons of the same gender as the group be present;

Clearly this policy is aimed at surf club staff, not surf club members, it dictates the responsibility the staff have towards keeping children and young people safe while using their change room facilities. It makes no mention of adult club members — does the club have an equivalent Adult Safe Policy? — and how they must act in the change rooms if children are present, or if only adults are present. Likewise it makes no mention of a parent and their child, and whether a parent must prevent his child from undressing until a 'Relevant Person' arrives to ensure the parent doesn't do something inappropriate. Clearly a parent wouldn't accept that restriction, meaning these rules obviously do not apply to ordinary club members. But the most obvious omission from this Child Safe Policy is that nowhere do these rules state, mention or even suggest that nudity isn't allowed when changing or showering. Perhaps they thought that of course nudity will be present when people are changing and showering after swimming, and to expect otherwise would be ridiculous, ergo there is no need to mention the obvious, let alone try and ban it. The rules are solely focused on ensuring that children and young people are always watched by strangers as they undress and shower, the minimum number of people that must make up this audience, and that males must watch males and females watch females. And no, we're sure it's not ... well, probably not ... a homosexual thing. Again, there is no rule against nudity, or even a suggestion that it should be minimised where possible. To argue that Surf Life Saving Australia's Child Safe Policy dictates no nudity in the showers, not just for staff but for everyone, is merely an excuse used by prudes as they cry, 'Won't someone please think of the children? Because you know, nudity kills more people every year than even guns, car crashes and heart attacks combined (Of course we're being sarcastic, innocent public nudity likely hasn't killed anyone, ever.) We actually mentioned this trend of school, gym and pool changing rooms being converted in individual changing cubicles and teenagers refusing to shower after gym classes unless they had complete privacy some five years ago in our more extensive article 'Nudity or violence? — Which is worse?', looking at why modern society embraces graphic violence, especially in movies, but also in sports like boxing and the right to gun ownership, while at the same time becoming increasing fearful of nudity, even in the shower or changing room, so clearly this nonsense is not just a blip on the radar, ignorant groups of prudes are still fighting to ban innocent nudity while ignoring, and at times even embracing, the real harm caused by violence. Of course this surf club ban doesn't involve a toss up between nudity and violence, but think about it, would you be happy to learn that your local surf club or swimming pool administration was allocating time and money towards banning nudity in the showers rather than, say, towards extra life guards and swimming lessons? Which do you think might actually make your children and yourself safer, is the real threat to life coming from the water or a little innocent nudity in the changing rooms?

Of course it makes sense that the club would want to respond to complaints from younger members and resolve their discomfort, but the solution they chose was prudish, lazy and even harmful. On hearing that some younger members were feeling uncomfortable and intimidated when they saw adult men having a shower, the conclusion the club apparently reached was that it was adult penises that were scaring the children, but is that likely, are five- or ten-year-old boys really afraid of an adult penis over there minding it's own business in the shower? Did the younger members specifically say that it was the exposed penises that were troubling them, or was it just that being in a small room with strange men was the problem, and the fact that some were in various stages of undress was largely irrelevant? Let's remember that many parents falsely push the view of 'stranger danger' onto their children, they are taught to fear strangers, and what these strangers are wearing, or not wearing, never enters the discussion. We say 'falsely' because children are statistically far, far more likely to be abused by a family member or friend of the family than they ever are by a stranger.

That said, the mere presence of adult men, strangers, certainly can intimidate and make kids uncomfortable, but that usually happens because adult men are often big, powerful, loud and bossy, not because they're naked, which they almost never are. If anything naked men often appear more vulnerable and less threatening, even laughable according to some women. How can simply putting a skimpy bathing suit onto a big, hairy, muscly stranger turn him from an intimidating figure into a harmless pussycat? Over the years I've been in many situations where strangers around me were clothed (obviously) and quite a few where they were naked, and I can honestly say that the few times I've feared for my safety, the strangers I was worried about were always clothed. We simply find it hard to believe that young boys in changing rooms are more afraid of a naked little man with a flaccid penis than they are of a big, aggressive man with a little towel around his waist. Which let's be honest, can be dropped in the blink of an eye should the man be so inclined, so has this silly new rule really guaranteed the safety of children, or is it just a feel good option, a prudish, simplistic and quite useless mandate brought in by a moronic and gutless surf club board?

But let's say some young boys are truly uncomfortable on seeing a naked man's genitals, and that putting a skimpy covering over his penis would quickly make them happy and resolve the problem. If boys are indeed shocked and disturbed by the sight of an adult penis then that is a real problem that needs addressing, but is the solution to simply hide the source of their distress, to pretend it doesn't exist, or to educate the boys about the human body and the changes that puberty causes? We'd argue the latter. Let's remember that these boys will eventually be forced to come to terms with the adult penis, their own. Should that bodily change come as a traumatic shock or something they are well prepared for? Let's also say some children and young persons are intimidated by the sight of an adult penis, in the sense that they feel horribly inferior when comparing it to their own. But again, isn't the best solution to educate young boys (and young girls) about puberty, assure them that just as they'll grow taller and stronger and hairier, their genitals will also change into their adult form? It is surely much better that young boys and girls know what to expect than have them worry for years, especially over myths and falsehoods, until puberty suddenly strikes. And of course denying youth the opportunity of seeing normal naked bodies in the changing room won't suppress their curiosity, which means they will be forced to get their knowledge of what real adult bodies look like from the only other publicly available source, easily accessed pornography. We'd like to see the surf club ban that. The trouble is that learning about what naked bodies and sex is really like by watching porn is like learning about astronomy and physics by watching the 'Star Wars' movies; for every fact you might glean you get a dozen falsehoods, with no hint as to which is which. Note too that the initial complaints only concerned the male changing rooms, yet the surf club ban extended to female changing rooms too, implying that the club assumed young girls would also be uncomfortable seeing naked women. Following the ban Associate Club Member Nada Pantle had a complaint made against her, although the club didn't let her know what she did to break their 'no nudity' policy, there was just an ambiguous statement from the club that she had. She was advised, as were all members, that 'the club is a family friendly environment and that nudity is not acceptable as per the Child Safe Policy'. Which of course, as we now know, is bullshit, the Child Safe Policy says no such thing. She resigned her membership in protest. She correctly argued that,

'The policy is implying that we're doing something sexual by getting changed, by showering, getting changed and getting dressed, it's implying that we're doing something wrong, and we're just not'.

The news reporters and a few members of the public interviewed for the news item all seemed to disagree with the club's policy, well summed up by Associate Club Member Wendy Farley saying she felt 'worried about the message this new policy sends to people about their bodies', and adding that,

'I think it's really good for young women in particular to see women of all shapes and sizes and all ages being nude in the change rooms, feeling comfortable with their bodies, and to turn that around feels like such a backward step'.

One hopes there were other rational and informed voices that argued against the policy, or maybe there wasn't, maybe they didn't seriously engage because they thought it too trivial or that no such policy could ever gain traction in the 21st century. But if they did express their dissent, clearly they were out numbered or even ignored by the club board, the lawyers and PR team at large. This is a clear lesson that the unbelievable (and undesirable) can happen, that progress isn't guaranteed, that we can go backwards, that even in the 21st century with easy access to all the mistakes of the past, ignorant groups of people can still obtain positions of power that allow them to thrust the rest of us back to more primitive times, forcing prudish behaviour onto us all as if we were Catholic schoolgirls.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Apr, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Of course, if you're intelligent and reasonably well-informed you'll be well aware that auras, chakras, energy healing and a body's life force, along with communication with spooks, are all complete nonsense, utter bullshit, silly beliefs from ancient, primitive, superstitious times that just won't die. Claiming to be able to detect some imaginary life force by waving your hands above a body has been proven to be utterly false (most convincingly by 9-year-old Emily Rosa no less). These wackos are simply making it all up. That said, these beliefs continue to skulk around on the fringes of society, but thankfully our health system and reputable media know better and ignore them. But not always it seems.

On Newshub/TV3's main news bulletin a couple of night ago viewers were shown a locally produced item that began with the newsreaders telling us that, 'Maori health practitioners are calling for cultural concepts to be more strongly incorporated into Western clinical methods to improve mental health. Our Maori Affairs Correspondent Te Rina Kowhai has this "Because It Matters" report'. These 'Because It Matters' reports are Newshub's way of informing viewers about current topics they feel are vitally important to society. The report begins with their Maori Affairs Correspondent (and yes, apparently you need Maoris to report on Maori issues, although anyone can report on non-Maori issues) saying that, 'Rongoa Maori [is] an alternative healthcare that incorporates both physical and spiritual well-being'. The screen shows Ngapuhi practitioner Kate Taylor-Reid waving her hands above a patient lying on an examination table and saying, 'I'm just going to work above you and I'm just going to ... umm ... work with your mauri and your wairua'. Thankfully the Maori Affairs Correspondent translates for the viewer, explaining that, 'mauri' meaning the life force and 'wairua' the spirit, commonly used words at Rongoa Maori clinics'. Of course they're not words you'll ever hear at real medical clinics, and for good reason, this is no longer the Middle Ages. We then learn that Kate became a Rongoa Maori practitioner because she was told by tohunga that 'she was spiritually gifted'. "Tohunga" was not translated, but apparently it means 'an expert practitioner of any skill or art, either religious or otherwise ... [and] includes expert priests, healers, carvers etc'. Kate revealed that learning Rongoa Maori 'was like being able to see inside people's bodies and see all the ancestors standing there and know exactly what had happened to them'. We're then told by Wiremu Niania, described as a 'tohunga or Maori healer', that 'Maori have spiritual experiences that in the Western world are described as psychotic episodes'. Our Maori Affairs Correspondent wraps up her report acknowledging that, 'because supporting Rongoa Maori can be controversial in our Eurocentric health system, some healing ideas ... are hard for some to get their head around ... but things are changing in healthcare, Te Aka Whai Ora, the new Maori Health authority, is funding 34 registered Rongoa Maori service providers across Aotearoa, they treat on average 20,000 clients a year'.

WTF? Here we have a Rongoa Maori practitioner who apparently has no medical training, experience or qualification whatsoever, her 'training and knowledge' comes solely from conversations with her living relatives and from the unseen spiritual realm. She claims to diagnose and treat illness simply by waving her hands above the body, working on an imaginary life force, and believes she's getting information from dead ancestors. Why shouldn't we believe that? She acknowledges that her skills are spiritual not physical, that she is like a human MRI scanner and is 'able to see inside people's bodies'. Again, all quite believable ... isn't it? Practitioner Wiremu Niania assures us that Maori don't have mental problems, what doctors see as psychotic episodes are actually spiritual experiences. Agreeing with all this, the new Maori Health authority is now funding (with tax payer money) 34 registered Rongoa Maori service providers.

How is this any different to doctors endorsing Reiki to fix a urinary track infection, bringing in a psychic medium to resolve relationship problems, photographing your aura to detect an iron deficiency, recommending prayer to cure cancer, suggesting homeopathy to treat Ebola (as a NZ politician did a few years back), or endorsing any number of other useless forms of alternative healing? And not just useless, but dangerous as well since wasting your time with bogus treatments while refusing to seek proven medical diagnosis and treatment can see an illness progress to such a late stage where medical interventions that would likely have been beneficial are now ineffectual. Why is Rongoa Maori getting a free pass with tax payer funds and uncritical media promotion when their methods are obviously just as bogus and fraudulent as all those other alternative healers? Surely no one can argue that a body's life force and the spiritual realm only exists for Maori, meaning that it would all be a waste of time and money for non-Maori because those things aren't real for the rest of us? We can laugh at Reiki healers for their gullibility but not Maori healers. What's next, we can't criticise Christians either for their silly beliefs?

If this endorsement by the health authorities, and the uncritical reporting by the mainstream media, succeeds in convincing Maori to return to their traditional (ie primitive, superstitious and ineffectual) attempts at healing, then what will be the outcome? We're told that Maori as a whole already have a lower life expectancy and worse health generally than non-Maori, and present at a much lower rate to doctors and hospitals when ill. Consider the recent pandemic, many Maori were part of that section of society that dismissed the virus as either a hoax or as a greatly exaggerated threat that would quickly blow over with nothing more than a handful of deaths, no more serious than the flu. As such many largely ignored or at least complained about government health mandates and shunned vaccination when it became available. In order to increase vaccination rates for Maori (and Pacific Islanders) health authorities had to resort to not only driving into their street with a vaccine bus, but also to bribing them to get the jab with the likes of free food (such as pizza slices and coffees), musical entertainment while they waited, giveaways and even the chance of winning a smartphone. They weren't going because they believed in the vaccine, they were going for the free shit. Of course the vaccine was free too, but by itself it was not tempting to Maori. They needed stuff they could eat or take home. All these enticing strategies had to be concocted and extra resources found to get many Maori to turn up for the vaccine. Many Maori are in no rush to partake of modern medicine, sometimes because they don't trust it but also sometimes because of the cost, so convincing Maori that they are right to shun modern medicine in lieu of ancient healing methods (that don't work) can only make things even worse as regards their health.

The motivation for this rant was the promotion of clearly bogus claims for Maori healing, but it applies equally to any and all groups that make bogus claims for alternative healing, whether it be homeopathy, Reiki, acupuncture, acupressure, Ayurveda, naturopathy, Chinese medicine, aromatherapy, herbal remedies, hypnotherapy, light therapy, chiropractic, psychic healing, colour therapy, reflexology, iridology etc etc., the list goes on and on. And of course we can't forget the most ubiquitous group of all, the religious nutters, who claim to be on good terms with the most acclaimed healers of all time, the all-powerful gods. If sickness strikes all they need do is say a prayer asking for help, since there is nothing their god can't fix. Although, more often than not, their god's response for help is an unsympathetic (and unspoken) refusal. He doesn't say no in so many words, he just lets his stony silence convey his unwillingness to help. Strangely this doesn't perturb true believers in the slightest, no matter that hundreds, thousands or millions die from disease, accidents, wars and natural disasters, they're confident that the next time they ask for god's help that he will get off his lazy arse and do something useful. Next time will be different, you'll see.

Just image if health authorities, backed by government and promulgated by the mainstream media, promoted the idea that if you felt unwell, or an epidemic had broken out, instead of seeking and following the advice of medical professionals, that you should quickly arrange a visit with your local priest, pastor, iman, rabbi or holy man, and soon all would be well again. Of course society at large, excluding the religious fundamentalists, would be appalled, arguing that for millennia pleas to gods had proved (in hindsight) to be utterly worthless, that pleading with gods for their help is as silly as pleading with leprechauns. The same if instead of priests we were advised to seek the bogus watery cures of homeopaths or to implore Reiki healers to massage our auras back to full health. NZ would be the laughing stock of the world if we supplanted proven modern medicine with superstitious, irrational and quite bogus traditional therapies, or even if we offered them alongside modern medicine for people that wanted the choice of alternative options. Doctors, hospitals and health bodies have a responsibility to only offer therapies that have been proven safe and effective, it would be reckless, ill-conceived and dangerous to send patients seeking treatment to bogus healers that have no medical training, qualifications or history of ever curing a single person. Just as our airline pilots, lawyers, engineers and such have to be licensed to work at their chosen career, so too do doctors, so doctors should not be fobbing off patients to some quack down the road working out of a back bedroom. People can choose to visit these quacks on their own volition of course, but our health authorities should not be recommending them, and they most certainly shouldn't be incorporating them in their medical practice by giving them their own room to perform consultations and store their magic potions.

Again, we (hope) there would be a huge outcry if health authorities started recommending to their patients that they should consider consulting a priest or a Reiki therapist or a Jedi Knight rather than sticking with conventional medicine. But how is a recommendation from health authorities that patients might want to think about a Maori witch doctor any different? I say 'witch doctor' to highlight the problem with referring to these people as 'alternative healers' that use 'alternative medicine and therapies', since the word 'healer' and 'medicine' implies that these people can actually heal people and that their 'medicine' is actually medicinal (meaning it's safe and it works), which is false in both cases. We shouldn't allow people that have no proven history of healing anyone, ever, to call themselves healers, and we shouldn't allow them to call their magic potions and mystical hand waving medicine (alternative or otherwise), since again the term medicine should be confined solely to substances and treatments that actually work. There are laws that forbid people from claiming that some magic potion they're selling can cure some disease if there is no evidence of that, so I don't understand why it is quite legal for some quack to sell their services as a healer when there is no evidence of any healing. They can't hold up a product as being able to heal, but they can hold themselves up as being able to heal. Why does the potion need proof but not the person? And why are the health authorities not only turning a blind eye to Maori energy healers, but actually recommending and incorporating the services they offer, when they wouldn't consider doing the same for Reiki energy healers or homeopaths? Why is the Reiki energy healer excluded but not the Maori energy healer? Surely it can't just be a desire to make Maori feel they're part of society by including their traditional therapies into modern medicine, even the bogus ones? Is it just another Treaty thing, are we accepting bullshit into our health system just to make Maori happy? We're all for improving the health outcomes for Maori (and anyone actually that is suffering), which includes using our tax dollars, but channelling Maori (or anyone) away from the real doctors and hospitals that offer safe and effective treatments to some backstreet energy healer that thinks they see spooks is only going to make things worse. It's depressing enough that some will always seek out these bogus healers, but it's deplorable when the health authorities actually send vulnerable clients their way.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

This post was motivated by a recent email exchange with Toni (aka Anonymous-12), who wrote to us in support of her silly belief (actually one of many), that psychic medium Jeanette Wilson is genuine. Yes, apparently Wilson is still scamming people by pretending to see and talk to ghosts. No, seriously, people actually believe this shit. Toni felt we were mistaken about Wilson's spectral abilities and her approach was calm, measured and erudite, providing an argument and evidence that was, quite frankly, a little troublesome for this committed atheist and skeptic. Might there actually be an afterlife?

No, of course we're joking. Toni began her brief email by telling me I 'know jack Shit' about Wilson's spooky powers and finished by saying, 'go Fug yourself'. As is typical with these sorts of attacks from true believers there was no reasoned argument, no incontrovertible evidence (no evidence at all in fact), just an angry, abusive outburst sprinkled with bad spelling and grammar. Apparently she was so consumed by anger that reason deserted her, time it seemed was of the essence and insolence would have to take the place of evidence and rational explanations. I'm just happy the encounter happened digitally and not in the knife aisle at the supermarket.

But seriously, we all know Toni's unwillingness to explain why spooks and psychic mediums are real has nothing to do with anger management problems or wanting to keep the knowledge hidden within a select group, it's because the evidence that spooks are real simply doesn't exist. Her angry emails were all smoke and mirrors to divert our attention away from the embarrassing fact that she had nothing of any worth to offer. She gave us absolutely nothing that might make us reconsider, even for moment, our negative view of Wilson, because for years, decades and centuries skeptics have sought evidence from psychic mediums and their gullible followers to support their claims, and yet even after centuries still no believable evidence has been produced. Worse still, psychic mediums go to great lengths to prevent any critical and scientific investigation of their side show acts, just as stage magicians refuse to let their audience sit behind them or look up their sleeves. But unlike psychic mediums, magicians readily admit that what they do is a trick and not real, hence the need for some secrecy. However psychic mediums and their supporters continually insist that what they do is real, and they get very annoyed and even abusive when skeptics question their claims. So why then do they not make even a small attempt to demonstrate this reality, if it's all true then they certainly have it in their power to easily produce convincing evidence of communication with invisible spirits. They say they engage with spooks in most every reading they have with a client, which must run to hundreds and thousands of pieces of evidence for some popular psychic mediums, and millions of pieces of confirming data if they were all collected worldwide. And yet not one psychic medium has come forward and said, Here is the evidence you seek, scoff no more!

So I asked Toni for this evidence, the evidence that had convinced her, and surprisingly Toni followed up with three more emails, but not surprisingly none of them included any supporting evidence whatsoever. Nothing, zilch, nada, nary a bean. In my replies I attempted to explain why I believe psychic mediums are frauds (and asked for some evidence to the contrary), but Toni's final email, still very short and angry, said that she wasn't going to read any more of my replies or debate the subject with me, saying, 'I can't be fuckt writing back to you', her excuse being that she didn't have the energy. I guess talking while still saying nothing of note can be quite draining. Or maybe there was another reason for her anger, and then her sudden lack of interest in a debate she initiated. In a TV documentary I watched last night (quite unrelated to this discussion) an academic made the comment that no one likes to be pointed out as in the wrong, and for some there can be a kind of deep psychological reaction when that happens. Their response can be anger, a kind of primal response, where people are met with retaliation and hostile behaviour, because they're not going into it necessarily with their eyes open. We'd agree with that observation, the immediate response from many whose silly belief is challenged is simply to lash out, and when they get their breath back and grasp that they're now being asked for some supportive evidence, they realise they have gone into the fray unarmed and need to quickly slink away, explaining that they feel a case of the vapours coming on. And in hindsight I suppose that expecting Toni to read a few paragraphs where I attempt to explain my skepticism was quite unreasonable. I can now see why true believers call us skeptics arrogant.

No wonder the gullible fools of the world remain gullible fools, since they refuse to read or listen to any argument that might force them to change their little minds about some fondly held fantasy. I've lost count of the times when I've asked some person holding a silly belief to look at an article or book or even read my short email to them and they all insist that they haven't got the time or energy to ... umm ... read something that might challenge their thinking (or more often, lack of thinking). They usually say they refuse to read a specific book or my email because (as Toni said) 'it's such utter ignorant BS' or some similar pathetic excuse, but how can they actually know that if they refuse to actually read it? That's like me saying a new dish that I refuse to taste actually tastes terrible. How can I know that without first trying it? Of course these true believers have plenty of time and energy to read and discuss books and watch YouTube videos that support their particular fantasy, they have time to go to psychic readings, New Age fairs and Reiki courses, to attend UFO and Flat Earth conventions and weekly Bible classes, they merely have an aversion, like vampires have to garlic, to books and arguments that question their fantasy. Their very real fear that they might be wrong always nags them, doubt is always there no matter how confident they might appear, how can it not be when the great majority of the world, certainly the intelligent and educated portion, view their claims as nonsense, and lets them know about it. Knowing that reading anything that challenges their silly belief will only chip away at their confidence, they avoid it like the plague. Asked to consider some new argument, they will quickly say they haven't got the time or energy, and retreat back into the shadows and the comforting embrace of their fellow believers.

Their fear of being wrong explains their aversion to new knowledge, but they also imply that they know a lot about their silly belief, most importantly they know it's true, and they happily tell us it's true. They won't engage with scientific knowledge, or reason in general, because it scares them, but why won't they even produce the evidence they must surely have that supports their silly belief? Fearing what the likes of science, history, philosophy and critical thinking reveals about the world, they immerse themselves fully in their silly belief, reading, discussing and experiencing their silly belief, often at the exclusion of all else, so in essence they must be amassing a huge amount of data and knowledge to support their silly belief, surely enough data to show that it's real, even if they can't yet fully explain it. Like in the past where people could easily prove lightning was real, even though they couldn't explain it. So why aren't psychic mediums and their rabid supporters producing, at the very least, the evidence that some very spooky otherworldly communication seems to be happening, even if they can't explain how ghosts can talk, and why only some people can see and hear them. Again, they must have a mountain of evidence of weird shit happening, shit that they're convinced can't be explained by natural causes, shit that requires a supernatural cause. So why, why, why don't they at least show us this evidence of the weird shit happening, why aren't they keen to shock us and make us seriously reconsider our views, why aren't they desperate to sow at least a little doubt in our minds? Why is it all or nothing with them, why do they insist that we must believe them without any evidence at all, just their sincere assertion, and if we refuse to take their word, they just dismiss us (sometimes with a pleasant 'go Fug yourself') and walk away? Why aren't they prepared to meet us half way, and give us some evidence that makes us go, 'Wow, that's ... umm ... weird, I can't explain that, at least not straight away'. Supposedly every psychic reading, miraculous healing and UFO sighting produces examples like that, so why won't these true believers let us in on them too? What are they hiding, what are they afraid we'll see?

I have a friend of a friend who recorded a reading with a psychic medium, a reading where she insists the medium revealed all manner of spooky information. She mentioned this reading in an attempt to convince me that psychic mediums were the real deal. I said I suspected that she unknowingly told the medium her personal details (it's called cold reading) and the medium then merely fed those details back to her later in the reading. She denied this, saying she hardly said anything, the medium did all the talking. So I asked if I could listen to the recording, and she refused, saying the reading was personal. And yet this woman and I have openly discussed some very personal and intimate incidents in our lives, including sex, so bar the reading revealing that she had tortured and murdered someone, I can't believe anything in the reading would have shocked me. Thus the likely reason is that she realised my talk of cold reading was true, she had indeed been tricked into revealing personal details, they hadn't come from the spirit world, and she didn't want to admit to being fooled. So like all who support psychic mediums, she refused to provide the evidence (that she had on tape) and simply said I should believe her.

Of course I didn't believe her, her refusal to produce the recording we both knew existed just made me more suspicious that the recording would have likely exposed the psychic medium as a fake, and she knew it. Why else would you withhold some evidence that proves you're telling the truth? So if we consider evidence (by definition) as something that allows us to reach a conclusion or form a judgement, then every time a psychic medium performs a reading some evidence is amassed, which again means, due to there being untold psychic mediums out there giving readings over untold years, there must be without doubt a humongous mountain of evidence that exists, evidence that psychic mediums and their supporters are clearly desperate to keep hidden. I say 'clearly desperate' because no matter whether you ask a psychic medium or one of their supporters to see the evidence (that obviously exists) that communication with a spirit world is real, they all refuse, politely or otherwise. We know the evidence exists, it's collected at every reading, what we don't know is what conclusion that evidence forces on us. If we were able to view that evidence would we form the judgement that spooky communication is real or false? These are the only two options, real or false. Surely if the evidence pointed towards it being real then psychic mediums would be tripping over each other to reveal to the world that they are not deluded fools or greedy scammers? And surely the only reason to keep the evidence hidden is to hide the fact that it reveals that psychic mediums are indeed deluded fools or greedy scammers?

So every time psychic mediums or one of their gullible supporters like Toni refuse to produce the very real evidence to support their claims, and instead just make vague assertions, throw insults, issue legal threats and then complain that they don't have the time or energy to discuss the subject, before finally fleeing back into the shadows, we can be reassured that no evidence exists that supports a belief in talking to dead people. Or more accurately, of dead people talking back.

While having these losers repeatedly bail and flee the scene might seem somewhat depressing, their behaviour actually boosts our confidence in our naturalistic worldview. Unlike the arrogance of true believers who can't for a moment even entertain the mere possibility that they might be wrong in their beliefs, I readily accept that I might be mistaken. That said, every time a true believer fails miserably to convince me that there might be something to their claims, my confidence builds and I become more convinced that my worldview, while certainly not perfect, better represents reality than does theirs, by an enormous margin. The world is more likely round than flat; gremlins didn't hide my keys, they just fell down the back of the sofa; antibiotics cured my infection, not some magnetic mattress underlay, and it was caused by bacteria, not a witch's curse; weather balloons, the planet Venus and flashing aircraft lights are responsible for UFO sightings, not aliens; and the movement of tectonic plates cause earthquakes, not some imaginary god's anger at homosexuals. Like true believers I am outspoken and confident that my stance on these and many other matters is true, and I'm not going to change my mind ... unless someone can give me some very, very good reasons why I should. That's the crucial difference between a true believer and a true skeptic. We skeptics want to hear any and all challenges to our worldview, we will consider them carefully and honestly, and if warranted we will admit we were wrong and change out minds. This willingness to welcome new data, to revise current arguments, to acknowledge errors and even to reject current theories outright, no matter their popularity, is where we differ. True believers will hold fast onto deeply flawed beliefs no matter how ridiculous they are shown to be, for them blind faith that a certain belief is true easily trumps reason that clearly demonstrates how false it actually is. In life we have the choice to believe in a mundane truth or to embrace an extraordinary and fanciful lie. True skeptics will choose the cold truth, but many others ask how does a sterile truth make their daily lives better? It often doesn't so they opt for the comforting lie. Better to believe that a loving god awaits them in heaven than accept that their life might end. What arrogance to think that they are so important that the universe simply couldn't go on without them in it in some form. Strange that it coped quite well before they were born.

I used to think (long ago) that true believers would understand their given belief with some depth of knowledge, after all they strongly argue that it is the only way a certain something can be explained, be it earthquakes, healing, unusual objects in the night sky, melting polar caps, or why bad things happen to good people. I expected them to be able to deliver rational explanations and to offer convincing evidence in support of their silly belief. We all expect this level of competence from scientists and academics who readily provide detailed, technical and rational explanations and evidence to support their theories, and the popular accounts of their theories of how the universe works are very convincing. Again, they're certainly not perfect, much is still to be learned, but on a basic level clearly their scientific theories closely match reality, since much of our modern technology and therefore society is based on those theories. If they were wrong our technology simply wouldn't work, and we would still be living a medieval existence. The proof is in the pudding as they say. But while I expected the same level of competency from true believers, and why shouldn't I since they demand to be taken seriously, they keep letting me down, like a horse baulking at the first jump, often they won't even come out of the stables.

Of course behaviour like Toni's — her refusal to provide evidence, read conflicting views or enter into debate — is widespread, and doesn't just apply to silly psychic mediums. Over the years we've had many (brief and unproductive) discussions with believers in gods, angels and demons, with believers in chemtrails, in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, in UFOs and alien abductions, in alternative healing, in the historicity of Jesus, in racism, in patriarchy and sexism, in homophobia, in the moon landing hoax, and of course, with those that believe COVID-19 and climate change are both hoaxes. And our experience is almost always the same. It would be very casual to begin with, but as soon as people grasped that my view on their pet topic was polar to theirs, then friendly conversation suddenly turned into the inquisition. They would be quite indignant that I didn't see the world as they did and felt it their duty to set me straight. They never saw it as a chance to consider an alternative viewpoint, merely as a chance to lecture someone on the truth as they saw it. True believers wanted me to understand in no uncertain terms that they were right, and I was not only wrong, but ignorant, arrogant and close-minded. They didn't get curious and ask why I thought the way I did, they instead just trotted out several claims that supported their view, without any supporting evidence, like, 'But God is real, the Bible clearly says so! How else can you explain beautiful sunsets and a baby's smile?', or, 'The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids, they must have had help from aliens from another galaxy', or, 'Of course crystal healing works, I had a bad cold and I applied a crystal and within a week I was cured'. Naturally I can't resist pointing out (politely I might add) the many flaws in these claims, which somehow only makes things more tense. Having had their ignorance exposed somewhat, but quite unwilling to admit to error, and suddenly aware of their inability to respond with a rational argument, they then jump from silly claim to silly claim hoping for a win, quickly moving on when awkward questions are raised. They soon realise that there is no chance of a glorious victory, not even a frustrating stalemate, but only an embarrassing and humiliating defeat. I'm no expert (by any means) on gods, aliens, alternative medicine, the paranormal, cryptids, racism, conspiracy theories and other topics skeptics love to discuss and debunk, but I generally find I know far more about silly beliefs that I don't believe in than do the people that fervently believe in them. For example, surveys have consistently shown that atheists are far more knowledgeable about religion than devout believers. Why is that the case? Why are non-believers often knowledgeable about things we dismiss as nonsense and yet believers are often quite ignorant about things they hold dear?

During these brief discussions I've often asked if they have read any popular scientific, philosophical or historical books on the belief they are supporting. The answer is almost always no. Devout Christians repeatedly and vehemently criticise the works of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and of course Charles Darwin, but none have ever read their books. The only book they own, but usually haven't read either, is the Bible. Ditto with believers in the likes of visiting aliens, the moon landing hoax, the paranormal, psychic healing or the climate change hoax, none have ever read any of the popular scientific books that debunk all of these silly beliefs. They have however (sometimes) read some of the many (many) books that promote these silly beliefs. That said, most people with regard to all these silly beliefs don't even read any of the mountain of books that 'explain' and support their belief. Like Christians believing without ever reading the Bible, most just pick up snippets here and there; a sermon at church, some gossip at the pub, a stupid post on Facebook, something their cousin told them, a pathetic video on YouTube, untold Hollywood movies about ghosts, aliens and curses confused as fact, something written on a bathroom wall or something they just hope is real, you know, like heaven.

I've offered numerous true believers the free loan of books, articles and TV documentaries that investigate the specific belief they are promoting, and no one has ever taken me up on my offer. They're not completely stupid because clearly they are fearful that reading or viewing these items might turn them into ... gasp ... a non-believer. That and they're just really lazy, remember that they usually won't even read books that support their belief, books that give them (weak, pathetic and bogus) arguments to throw at us skeptics. Imagine if I said I had an invisible dragon in my backyard, and you (without seeing any evidence of this dragon or hearing any of my reasons for making this claim), simply replied that you believed me, and started telling other people that I had a pet dragon. This is what most true believers in silly beliefs are like, they blindly embrace some outlandish claim and actively try and get others to embrace it too, even though they have no good evidence or reason to believe it is actually true. Even though there is much evidence that strongly suggests the claim is bogus, they ignore it, and they equally ignore the embarrassing fact that they cannot produce a shred of evidence that their cherished claim is true. They have their claim, and they assert it is true, that is good enough for them. They are not troubled in the slightest that claims without evidence are no different to claims about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and leprechauns.

If I'm going to discuss some claim about the world and in the process convince people that it's true, then I'll first read up on that claim, trying to understand both the arguments that support it and any that may oppose it. I'll want to be convinced that supporting arguments are valid and opposing argument are flawed. I'll go into discussions well prepared, convinced by the evidence and able and willing to present that evidence to others. If I'm going to publicly defend some stance then I first must be convinced it's true, meaning I must understand the arguments for and against it, and be more than willing to explain them when asked. Why do true believers not approach their beliefs in this manner, since many are extremely passionate about their belief, especially religious believers whose commitment to it literally controls their life, dictating their behaviour and consuming huge amounts of time, energy and money. Anti-vaxxers and anti-mandate proponents will risk their lives, those of their children, lose their jobs and even risk arrest due to their belief in killer vaccines and/or evil governments. Believers in homeopathy will shun doctors and take plain water instead, believing it will cure their cancer. Those that believe they were abducted by aliens will attend regular meetings to share with other abductees just what the aliens did to their genitals, often is scary detail. However most of these deluded folk do not do any research into the validity of their belief, be it a belief in gods, visiting aliens or the COVID-19 hoax, they simply accept it is true, end of story. Again, a few do read up on their chosen belief, but only books that are supportive; Christians read books by evangelising Christians and maybe skim the Bible; believers in aliens read books written by alien abductees and binge Hollywood alien movies; believers in the COVID-19 hoax worship Donald Trump and read rants on the dark web posted by uneducated 40-year-old trolls still living in their parents' basement. None ever read up on the arguments that challenge their belief, they are so utterly convinced that they are right that they just know the opposing arguments must be wrong without even looking at them. They know how convincing fake news can appear, but it's still fake, the work of the devil. To them, a skeptic asking that they read something explanatory is a futile exercise, a little like a young child wanting me to read his arguments as to why the Easter Bunny is real. I can dismiss it out of hand because educated adults have gained enough knowledge about the world to dismiss certain claims without needing to look at them in depth. But adults holding a silly belief is a slightly different matter, they know all too well that whatever their belief is, be it in Jesus, ghosts or healing crystals, that the majority of the world's population thinks their belief is false. They know that most people, many intelligent and well-educated, view them as deluded, gullible and ill-informed. So why are they never curious enough to understand why the world at large believes their belief to be false, why are they never troubled by a nagging worry that perhaps the naysayers are right? Well, actually I suspect that deep down many do have an inkling that their views might indeed be as ridiculous as we skeptics say they are, especially religious folk (I mean, talking snakes, seriously ... we're supposed to believe that?) but they manage to suppress it and keep up the façade of a true believer. If a troubling thought does ever arise, they merely go to a fellow believer and ask to be reassured that their silly belief is indeed true, they never seek out an informed non-believer and ask, Why don't you believe as I do? Give me your best argument!

Worse still, knowing the world is against them, and does more than just giggle behind their backs, they won't even build up a defence or mount an attack to convince a doubting world that their silly belief is, contrary to popular opinion, actually the correct one. Desperate to have the world believe them, their response to derision, questions, or requests for evidence is childish in its execution. First they repeatedly assert that their belief is true, providing only anecdotes and fanciful stories with no evidence to support them. When asked for reliable evidence, the request is ignored, brushed aside as if we were asking for a living unicorn or Santa's North Pole address. When those tactics fail to convince anyone, they often get annoyed and resort to verbal abuse. Strangely that doesn't work either. Some then issue threats of legal action due to perceived defamation, hate speech etc. (as both Toni and weather astrologer Ken Ring did to yours truly). When those avenues all fail, all discussion ends with the true believer fleeing the scene after disclosing that they haven't got the time or energy to debate a topic dear to their heart. In other words, they have no supporting evidence and no idea how they might defend their silly belief, and further discussion will only make them look even more ridiculous. Time to cut their losses and go back into the consoling arms of their fellow true believers, who may be equally deluded, but at least they don't ask each other for evidence.

So again, when true believers are clearly desperate that we believe their claims, and angry when we don't, when they merely run through these pathetic and worthless steps that convince no one, when they then plead that time and energy has deserted them and they must break off the conversation, when these things regularly happen, rather than be disheartened that we have learnt nothing of consequence, we are in fact buoyed by the realisation that their abject failure to promote their case obviously means that they have no case to speak of. Every time a true believer, and again we don't just mean a devout believer in gods or ghosts, we include the likes of anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and racists, every time one of these individuals fails or refuses to provide evidence for their stance and then storms off in anger, or, knowing it will end badly, refuses to even begin a discussion, we can only take their dismal failure to perform as a victory for our worldview, to the triumph of critical thinking and the ability to believe what is demonstrably true, rather than the childlike ability to blindly believe what one desires to be true.

Maybe we're wrong, maybe aliens are here, maybe both Jesus and their dead grandfather is watching us in the shower (perverts!), maybe chemtrails are real and maybe COVID-19 isn't. We concede that we might be wrong on many things, and so we ask people who say we are indeed mistaken on some topic to explain why and to convince us of our error. Our desperation lies not in the need to believe any specific thing, like God is real or that the Sun will eventually destroy all life on Earth, but in the need to believe the truth about the world, whatever that might be, whether it be pleasing or depressing. If you believe dead people are trying to communicate with the living, and even though we don't believe that, if it's actually true then we want people to convince us of that truth, to disabuse us of our error, so that we might have a more reliable view of the universe and how it works. You'd think that true believers would welcome a chance to really engage with us, to have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence and perhaps make converts of us. Initially they are keen, but when their vague assertions are dismissed as lacking in substance and they are confounded by probing queries, when they find themselves unable to produce convincing evidence, suddenly they realise it is they that are in danger of being converted. And they beat a hasty retreat. Maybe we're wrong in our views, but when people who insist we are wrong consistently refuse to engage with us, consistently refuse to expose our erroneous thinking, saying they haven't got the time or energy, then we're sorry, but that goes no way to sowing a seed of doubt in our minds, it only solidifies our confidence that we're actually right. Only losers run from a challenge.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Feb, 2023 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Reading NZARH's latest newsletter we were made aware of a '2.4m painting by New Zealand artist Shona Moller, called "False Profit"', which is on display in Moller's art gallery in Mount Maunganui. As you can see from the image, it features a cross on which the usual bloody, tortured and dead body of Jesus Christ has been swapped out for Santa Claus. This article — 'Santa on a cross — Blasphemy or biting commentary on consumer Christmas?' — reveals the typical Christian response to the artwork, which of course is just mindless rage generated by their ignorance and intolerance. Moller said she has received a 'bombardment of abuse', saying that critics of the painting

'were prickly, some ranting, some verging on abusive. Others said it was offensive or blasphemous or the like to put the two images together'.

'Good art stops people in their tracks. I'm not trying
to express a particular view, merely to start conversations around religion and capitalism'.

Let's remind ourselves about the main events of the Christian version of Christmas. It's a long time ago in a galaxy land far, far away. We have young girl probably aged somewhere between 12 and 14 giving birth. Her child is illegitimate since she is an unwed mother, a very dangerous and shameful position to be in during those primitive times. Her pregnancy was a result of what we today would describe as rape, both ethically and legally, as Mary never gave her consent to be impregnated, or was even aware that she had been sexually violated. Well aware of the pregnancy he caused, the father of the child nevertheless abandons both mother and child, never contacting them or providing any support. The father is revealed to be a powerful tribal god, and in spite of this reprehensible treatment of a young girl, his followers approve of his actions and continue to worship him (Even when he murders the child some decades later the blind worship continues unabated). Guided by a very bright moving star, foreign astrologers arrive to pay homage to Jesus whom they proclaim as a newborn king, and leave him expensive gifts. Due to not booking ahead at the local inn, Mary is forced to give birth in a barn (or cave) surrounded by animals and is attended only by Joseph, an older man her family had betrothed her to. He has agreed to still marry her and raise her son as his own, apparently on the condition that the identity of the baby's true father be kept hidden from the community.

So, does our modern Xmas celebrate any of the elements of the original Christmas? No, not a single one. We don't seek out and celebrate babies born on Dec 25th to unwed teenage mothers, we don't actually encourage young girls to get pregnant at any time of the year, we don't promote forced marriages, we don't allow such young girls to get married (or have sex) at all (even willingly), we don't celebrate pregnancies due to rape or worship the rapist, we don't applaud fathers who abandon their children, we don't sit out on Xmas Eve scanning the night sky for a moving star signalling a new king, we don't see astrologers giving gifts to existing kings (or presidents or prime ministers), we don't recommend giving birth in barns with animals, and we don't teach unwed mothers to feel shame and to hide their sinful fornication with a quick wedding.

So looking around our community and at our movies and social media, if it's not unwed teenagers and unsanitary barn births, what are the elements that actually make up Xmas today? Well, we have Santa Claus with his elves and flying reindeer, we have the tradition of parents giving gifts to their children, adults exchanging gifts, drinking eggnog, singing Xmas carols, decorating Xmas trees, sending Xmas cards, burning Yule logs, kissing under the mistletoe, hanging Xmas stockings, eating an outlandish Xmas dinner with extended family, taking time off work and school to enjoy the festivities, people wearing silly fake antlers, red noses and Santa hats, xeroxing your naked ass on the work photocopier, drinking and eating to excess at company Xmas parties, hanging colourful lights from your house and shrubbery, and greeting visitors with a hearty, 'Ho, ho, ho, Merry Xmas!' Not one of these activities has anything to do with the alleged birth of Jesus. These are all Santa and zero Jesus.

Jesus Christ has clearly been photoshopped out of Christmas, Christ has even been written out of the name with most people just writing 'Xmas' these days. We dare say that most kids today have no idea that the name Christmas actually used to refer to Jesus Christ, just as most adults don't know that Christ was not the surname of Jesus; it was a title — Jesus the Messiah — like Alexander the Great and Vlad the Impaler (aka Vlad Dracula), and unlike Jesus Christ, they both actually existed. Hell, most Christians don't even know that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian.

The reality is that most everyone, and that includes Christians, are quite ignorant about Jesus Christ, Christianity and the origins of festivals such as Christmas and Easter. For most everyone Xmas is now about Santa and gift giving and Easter is about the Easter Bunny and chocolate eggs, not the birth and death respectively of a Hebrew carpenter turned failed preacher. In truth, the festival we now call Xmas was celebrated long before Jesus was (allegedly) born. In ancient Rome the week long pagan festival of Saturnalia (named after the god Saturn) was held to coincide with the date of the winter solstice (which is why we now have Xmas on December 25). When Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century CE the Church was unable to stop people celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice so they hijacked the festival and renamed it Christmas, and many of the traditions of Saturnalia — including gift giving, singing, lighting candles, feasting and merrymaking — were absorbed into Xmas. The reason for such merrymaking is that in the Northern Hemisphere the winter solstice signalled that the cold winter would soon begin to wane and a warm spring would be approaching. Of course Xmas is celebrated around the summer solstice in NZ, so we're not sure what we have to celebrate, only the promise of winter! Christians would know that something was amiss about Jesus being born on Dec 25th if they ever thought about what their Bible actually said. While it doesn't give any date for his birth (meaning straight away you know that the Christmas date must be made up), it does suggest that Jesus was likely born sometime in spring. So if the Bible is factual and can be trusted (spoiler: it can't), then Jesus could not have been born in the middle of winter, ie Dec 25th. Likewise if Christians knew just a smidgen about science they would also know that the silly claim they make to defend the Dec 25th date is utterly bogus, that claim being that, 'Jesus is the reason for the season'. What rubbish. The season they refer to is winter (or summer in the Southern Hemisphere), as if the birth of Jesus is the reason it is winter. The actual reason we have seasons is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis, nothing to do with the birth of an illegitimate child. Are we expected to believe that they didn't have seasons before Jesus was born? But then the Bible does say that hail and snow is kept in storehouses, that the sea is held back by doors and bars, that the world is flat, rests on pillars and cannot move, so maybe they do believe the birth of Jesus brought us the seasons, just as the flood of Noah brought us the rainbow. Just so ignorant. Jesus was no more born on Dec 25th than the Easter Bunny was. And speaking of which, did you know that Easter is named after the Celtic goddess Eostre who was celebrated in England during the time of the Spring Equinox, and as such 'Easter' celebrations predate Christianity? At least when they stole and repackaged Christmas they renamed it to try and hide what they had done. It seems stupid that Christians would steal and repackage a pagan celebration and yet leave it named after a pagan goddess, but then you don't have to pass an IQ test to be a Christian. But like Xmas, Easter is now celebrated not for Jesus or its pagan origins, but for a bunny. Xmas moved from the pagan god Saturn to the god Jesus to jolly old Santa, and Easter went from the pagan goddess Eostre to the god Jesus to the cute bunny, and the only thing connecting them all is that these festivals all celebrate a fantasy being.

So we'd think it was pretty obvious that the battle between religion and crass consumerism has been fought and religion has lost. Religion hasn't been destroyed, but it is certainly on the retreat, whimpering with its tail between its legs. As atheists this is no shock to us, but it is a conversation that the wider public should have, they need to accept that just as Jesus replaced the god Saturn and the goddess Eostre, so too has the god Jesus been replaced by Santa and the Easter Bunny. Just as no one now gives a flying fuck about insulting the memory of Saturn or Eostre, no one should now care about insulting the memory of Jesus either. You can't insult fictional characters any more than you can insult your toaster. Over the eons humanity has discarded thousands of gods, far more than we can even keep track of, so we shouldn't lose any sleep over ditching another false god. We're just surprised it's taken this long. And the positive thing is that the magical beings we're left with — Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny — no adult actually believes they're real, they're just harmless fun for little kids. And the kids on maturing and learning about the world soon realise that it was all a good-natured con, unlike those religious folk who never get to see behind their curtain.

Worse still, these deluded religious folk take great offence at anyone who even tries to go near their curtain or suggests that it might be hiding something deceptive. Why are Christians (and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, even Scientologists) so threatened by anything that questions the validity of their faith? Why is their faith so flimsy that even a cross with the image of Santa on it can send them into a rage? Let's recall that they absolutely believe that they have the unwavering support, backing and protection of the universe's most powerful being, so how can they think that a piece of artwork can somehow threaten the reality of their god? Is belief in God like a house of cards, so fragile and weak that just a mere breeze in the form of a painting in a country at the bottom of the world is enough to bring it crashing down? How powerful can God be if Shona Moller, artist, can bring him to his knees, can destroy all he has built? Why does God need enraged Christians to run to his defence? Like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind the curtain, is God also a fraud, quite unable to challenge his detractors in person without revealing it's all a lie? If God is real, then God, being all-knowing, knew about the painting long before they did, before even the artist knew she was going to paint it, and he did nothing to stop it being created. He hasn't destroyed it with lightning bolts, or even a suspicious fire, so if God isn't fussed about it, why do his followers think they should be?

We read that Andy Sutton, a Mount Maunganui local, complained about the painting, saying that he found it 'offensive' and 'blasphemous', adding that, 'The Christmas holiday is due to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. It makes a mockery of it to put another image on the cross. Everyone knows Santa is not real'. Here Sutton displays typical Christian ignorance, since as we've explained, people were celebrating and holidaying at this time of year (the winter solstice) long before some Jews dreamt up Jesus being born of a virgin. He is angered that society has largely forgotten Jesus and has given Santa pride of place in the Xmas holiday, when in fact the Santa crowd has merely done what Christians did to the followers of the pagan god Saturn, they have stolen and repurposed an existing festival. Sutton is like a thief being annoyed when another thief steals his ill-gotten goods. And for Sutton to claim that, 'Everyone knows Santa is not real', this again shows his ignorance. In the Western world there must be untold millions that believe Santa and Rudolph are real just as strongly as Sutton believes God and Satan are real. And yes, we're talking about young children, but they're people too. Sure they are naïve and ill-informed and their beliefs are being manipulated by devious adults, but Christians like Sutton are likewise naïve, ill-informed and their beliefs are also being manipulated by devious adults known as priests, pastors and ministers. Even if we dismiss the children as Sutton does, when he claims that, 'Everyone knows Santa is not real', his clear implication is that the world knows that Jesus, unlike Santa, is real. Again this is simply not true. The great majority of the world's population, several billion in fact, believe that Jesus Christ, like Santa, is not real. Only Christians believe Jesus Christ is real, whereas the majority of people, like Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists etc, believe Jesus Christ is as fictional as Zeus, Thor, Osiris and Harry Potter. Sutton also says that putting an image of Santa on the cross makes a mockery of the Christian faith. But think about that, all the artist did was to put an 'image' of a man who isn't real onto an image of a cross, a man who isn't bloody or in any apparent distress, whereas the God that Sutton worships allegedly put a real man on a real cross to die a horrible death! Moller's Santa wasn't tortured, wasn't left to die in agony and never suffered in the slightest, unlike Sutton's Jesus who was tortured and left to his grisly fate, even though God, his loving father, could have easily prevented the totally unnecessary death of his son. While supposedly executed by the Romans as a criminal, we must remember that according to the Bible the death of Jesus was entirely orchestrated by God. God needed a scapegoat, a blood sacrifice to fix his mistakes, and he chose his son Jesus (Oh, thanks dad!). No wonder Jesus was surprised when he found himself dying on the cross, crying out, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Sutton, representing most Christians, finds a cross with Santa on it to be 'offensive'. A fantasy being dying an imaginary death upsets Sutton immensely, and yet he finds a cross with a real man on it showing a horrific and meaningless death to be so wonderful, the very opposite of offensive, that it needs to be reproduced in all its gruesome detail in churches worldwide and that small miniatures of the cross be worn around the neck. Christians actually worship a barbaric method of execution, the killer cross is the very symbol of Christianity. Imagine if Jesus had been shoot by a firing squad, would Christians now all wear a little rifle around their necks? If Jesus was executed by hanging would Christians all wear a noose around their necks, or if by beheading, would churches all have a big sword on top of their steeples and on their front lawn? It's as if Sutton believes that Santa somehow defiles and sullies the cross by touching it, that jolly old Santa is dirty and vile and the cross is all peace and love. How fucked up is that? It's a cross, it was not only designed to kill people, it was designed to draw out their death and make them suffer in the extreme. It wasn't an efficient way to execute people, it was a way to terrify and send a message to those witnessing the death — behave or this will be you! At least Christian pastor Philip Brown knew a little bit about history and accepted that Christians don't have 'exclusive rights to the cross', but at the same time he said he understood the 'negative reaction from Christians' since the cross 'represents the heart of what we believe'. Again, this just shows how fucked up Christians are. Of the handful of positive things the Bible says about Jesus and God from which they could have made a symbol to represent their faith, they instead obsessively focus on a cruel and inhuman execution device, the very thing that killed their saviour and stopped him in his tracks. In the early days of the Christian cult one of the symbols for Christianity was an image of a fish, another was a dove, but apparently these weren't sending the right message, weren't threatening enough, so they opted for the cross, a symbol of nothing but death through the application of pure sadistic violence. So pervasive is this image of death that Christians now argue that it 'represents the heart of what we believe'.

Finally let's look at Andy Sutton and others feeling the real need to complain to artist Shona Moller that her painting is 'offensive' and 'blasphemous'. First, we wonder if there would have been the same level of angry criticism if the artist had been a man, because it's so much easier for some to attack and try to intimidate a woman, especially one who is trying to make us think, maybe teach us something, since the Bible clearly says it is not a woman's place to teach men. Was a female artist perceived as an easy target, one not likely to get physical? We suspect there is an element of truth to this, that aggrieved Christians only challenge those that will likely tolerate their angry rants. Let's consider why Christians (or any religious believer) accuse others of being 'offensive' and 'blasphemous'. Christians believe that they worship the one true god and that all other gods are false gods, so they are offended by any statement that affirms or even suggests that their religious beliefs are false (and really silly), and any act or attitude that simply ignores the presence of their god, or worse still, offends their god (like homosexuality) is considered blasphemous. Telling Christians their Bible is merely a collection of myths or behaving in such a way that implies God doesn't exist is a real affront to Christians. Obviously atheists and those that don't follow any religion are easy targets for Christians who feel that such people are not showing their god the respect he deserves, and demands. Outright denial of their god or even apathy toward their god is interpreted by them as a claim that their god is false, or at the very least, unimportant and impotent. But it's not just atheists and agnostics that send out the 'Your god is false' signal and get Christians all hot under the collar. The very existence of every other religion, such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Zoroastrianism and Scientology, is simply screaming out the claim that Christians are worshiping a false god. So instead of just walking into one art gallery and complaining to one artist, why are Christians not going into mosques, synagogues and temples, places that have put, not Santa, but Allah and Yahweh and Shiva in place of Jesus, and telling these misguided believers that they're offended by their implied claims that Jesus isn't real? We guarantee that Christians like Andy Sutton, while quite willing to criticise and even suppress harmless works of art, are quite reluctant to visit or contact Muslims, Hindus and Jews in their community and impress on them how offended they are by their blasphemous dismissal of Jesus. The small number of people that don't believe in or care about gods are an easy, and safe, target for the ire of Christians, but said Christians are far too afraid to challenge the billions of people around the world that are, by the very nature of the different religions they belong to, most definitely broadcasting the same message to Christians — 'Your god is false'. Of course these gutless Christians will likely argue that it is important to be tolerant of different beliefs, that's why they don't picket their local mosque, which of course is, from a Biblical perspective, bullshit. Their god commands them not to be tolerant of other religions, and that those promoting false gods should be killed. Of course we're glad that modern Christians are far more fearful of human justice than they are of retribution from their god, and that they meekly tolerate those with different beliefs as per secular law, but why are they willing to tolerate Muslims, Hindus and Jews and not harass them on the street or at their place of work or worship, even though they all have books and rituals that effectively deny Jesus, but they aren't prepared to extend the same courtesy to an artist painting Santa? Shouldn't toleration apply to all? Apparently Christians only tolerate those they feel might pose a threat to their well-being. In NZ and around the world atheists are a persecuted minority, meaning Christians believe it's perfectly acceptable to harass non-believers, but realise they would (at the very least) be publicly condemned for harassing Jews and Muslims over their views on Jesus.

Christians know that prayers are being offered to false gods every single day by billions of people, and believe that their god is greatly offended and insulted by this blasphemous behaviour, and yet they don't care, at least not enough to do anything about it, but should a woman create a single painting of Santa Claus tied to an ancient Roman method of execution, then some imaginary line has been crossed. Enough is enough. Tears are welling up. Time for action. Complaints need to be made. Fingers need to be wagged angrily. They can put up with billions of Muslims and Hindus proclaiming Jesus Christ isn't real, but when an artist suggests that society might be more interested in Santa than Jesus at Xmas time, then ... OMG, that's just so offensive!! I mean, seriously, how bloody childish is this, Christians attacking an easy target of a female artist over her thought-provoking and utterly harmless depiction of Santa Claus while blindly ignoring all the real harm caused by religion, both their own religion and the religions of others? We haven't done the research, but we suspect believers in gods have and still are killing, harming and persecuting somewhat more people through their blind obedience to sky fairies than are artists through their work. Of course we could be wrong.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Dec, 2022 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Comments:

1. Comment by Mark, 02 Jan, 2023

   Hi John,

   Some of the references to Islamic beliefs in your last blog maybe could be modified a wee bit. Muslims do recognise Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of God. He is respected in their religion, even though they think he got his paternity wrong. Orthodox Muslims deny the virgin birth, and even the claim that Jesus actually died on the cross. Some Muslims even claim that Jesus was actually a Muslim. Much of the Q'ran originates from Hebrew texts and beliefs and Mohammed's eventual hatred of the Jews was primarily because they refused to accept him as God's final prophet. In many ways Islam is even more ridiculous than Christianity, as anyone who reads the Q'ran will discover if he has patience enough to put up with all the repetitive and tedious content.

   That being said, I think Santa Claus is pretty ridiculous too and Christmas has been commercialised to the point that it has become a consumer rite exploited to the max by big business. Maybe we should all just have a bloody great party at the end of each year and not need to make excuses for it. I am all for a resurrection of the old tradition of All Fools Day!

   Anyway, much as I enjoy your blasphemous rants, be careful about any ridicule directed at Islam! The followers of Mohammed tend to grab swords rather than words in retaliation for insults, whether real or imagined.

   Anyway enough of this — back to work! (at the moment I am busy working on a painting of the Easter Bunny Crucifixion)

2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Jan, 2023

   Thanks for your comments Mark, and you're quite right, Muslims do revere Jesus as a prophet, as they do Mohammed, but neither are believed to be divine. As prophets go, for Muslims Jesus is like an old iPhone 8 whereas Mohammed is an iPhone 14, the latest and more up-to-date version. I once worked with a Muslim woman in Iran who told me how Jesus was a part of Islam, as is Adam and Eve and Moses and Noah etc, even his mother Mary is much revered, although not as a virgin. You'll no doubt know that unlike Protestant Christians, Catholics actually insist that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, she never had sex with Joseph, which must have made for a very boring married life. She had to be a virgin to give birth to Jesus and for some fucked up reason Catholics believe she therefore had to forever remain a virgin. Truly screwed up thinking. I'm guessing there was lot of masturbation on both sides, or maybe Joseph was gay and the marriage was just a sham to hide his secret.

   But I digress. We thought some might take issue with our claim that, 'Only Christians believe Jesus Christ is real, whereas the majority of people, like Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists etc, believe Jesus Christ is as fictional as Zeus ... ', so we were careful to write 'Jesus Christ' and not 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Only Christians believe in 'Jesus Christ', in Jesus the Messiah, in Jesus as the Son of God, or (confusingly) Jesus being God incarnate, where God himself became a man called Jesus (meaning he couldn't have been his own son). Jesus Christ is the supernatural, magical being that Christians believe in, that walked on water, that brought people back from the dead, who died on the cross and then came back to life, before fleeing back to heaven for a life of luxury, never to be seen again. On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth is the historical Jesus, not divine in any way, didn't perform any miracles, just an ordinary man who became a failed preacher that the Romans executed as a criminal, and who stayed dead. This is the Jesus that Muslims refer to, and also many atheists, Hindus etc, when they say that they believe Jesus was real. They believe (incorrectly in our view) that Jesus the man existed, but not Jesus the god. We don't believe that there is even good evidence for an historical Jesus, especially since all we know about Jesus comes solely from the Bible, mainly the Gospels, which contradict each other wildly concerning the life and death of Jesus, and weren't written by anyone that actually knew him. It makes no sense for non-Christians to say that the Bible obviously can't be trusted in pretty much everything it says, from a god making the world in six days, the talking snake, the flood of Noah to the virgin birth of Jesus, him turning water into wine and then rising from the dead, but to then say they're sure that everything the authors write about the boring and mundane aspects of the life of Jesus are surely true! Why would these fantasy writers make up all these magical stories and not care how ridiculous they are but be quite fastidious about keeping the truly unimportant bits about Jesus factual? They made up the characters of God and Satan and Adam and Eve, why wouldn't they also make up Jesus? In fictional stories you make up fictional characters to lead fictional lives, it's how it all works. I've heard many atheists argue that while they believe God is fictional, Jesus is surely based on an historical Jesus. Would they say the same about demigods like Hercules or Maui? This is like arguing that Superman and Batman aren't real but Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne were surely real people. It also astounds me when non-believers say that they believe there was an historical Jesus, not because they've researched it, but simply because most theologians and Biblical scholars believe there was. That's like asking the Pope if God is real. Of course they believe there was an historical Jesus, even if some now don't believe in the divine Jesus, because they've obviously been enthralled with the Jesus stories from a young age, it's why they became theologians and Biblical scholars, and they won't (or can't) accept that they've wasted their entire life chasing a myth. Would they waste so much time and effort researching Santa's village in the North Pole I wonder? Is this new focus on an historical Jesus just a way to salvage a little bit of their reputation, to show that they haven't been on a fool's quest all these years, that not all is lost, they've at least shown that real men and women did exist back then? Of course being atheists we don't care one iota whether a Jewish guy called Jesus actually existed, since that Jesus would be a nobody once you took away his miracles, just a criminal who got executed along with hundreds of others, just another deluded fool thinking that an invisible sky fairy had his back, and boy, did he get that wrong.

   Although I've long been dismissive of an historical Jesus, I recently read an interesting book entitled 'Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"' (2013), edited by Frank R. Zindler and Robert M. Price. Biblical scholar Ehrman, a devout Christian who has recently become an atheist, argues (poorly and deceptively) in his book 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth' (2012) that there was indeed an historical Jesus (although he accepts that he probably didn't come from Nazareth, since Nazareth likely didn't exist at the time of the birth of Jesus). So it's gone from Jesus Christ to Jesus of Nazareth to just plain Jesus. In fact we know that Jesus wasn't even called Jesus, that's just what his name later got translated to. Being unwilling to forget Jesus of Nazareth is like being unwilling to remove Alexander the Great from our history text books if we were to discover he wasn't the great general and conqueror that we thought he was, that the real Alexander never left his little village in Greece and simply ran a taverna. If the real Alexander was a nobody, and the stories about him false, would we keep making it clear to all that asked our opinion that while we accept that Alexander the Great wasn't real, we do absolutely still believe that Alexander the taverna owner was real? Why the fuck would we care, once we know Alexander's empire was a lie, wouldn't we just stop talking about Alexander the taverna owner as well? This is why I don't understand atheists who seem to be so fixated on keeping the idea of Jesus of Nazareth alive, as if they're afraid to sever all ties to that other Jesus, the son of God, keeping all their options open, just in case.

   This rant is just to say that not only should people not believe in Jesus Christ, they shouldn't believe in an historical Jesus of Nazareth either.

   Regarding your 'bloody great party at the end of each year' in lieu of Xmas, we'd go long with that. The ancient Egyptians had the right idea, they divided the year into 12 months of 30 days each (none of this confusing 28, 30 and 31 day crap), and allocated the remaining 5 days to a huge celebration. And I hear the pharaohs used to switch off social media so you couldn't spend it in the corner on your smartphone.

   And yes, you're correct that radical Muslims look for weapons rather than evidence when their beliefs are questioned, which is obviously why brave Christians only complain about Santa and not Allah.

   I look forward to viewing your painting of the Easter Bunny Crucifixion. For me, my favourite is this one of the Tooth Fairy on the cross, and for extra offence to those prudish Christians, she's naked (Click photo for larger image). And of course we shouldn't forget Brian on the cross, from Monty Python's excellent documentary 'Life of Brian'.

Consider if you will the following scenarios. Parents of two young children write letters to Santa Claus on their kid's behalf, listing the toys they'd like. And then they wait in excited anticipation. Imagine their shock and disappointment when the requested toys don't miraculously appear under the tree on Xmas morning. Now imagine another young child who has just lost a tooth, and his parents assure him that if he places it under his pillow the Tooth Fairy will swap it for money in the middle of the night. Again the parents do nothing, they merely wait for the Tooth Fairy to do her thing, and of course both child and parents are again disappointed.

How would you view the actions of those parents, who by other measures seem to be average, reasonably intelligent adults? We assume that you'd see them as being quite deluded and naive, exhibiting an immaturity no different to their young children when it comes to blind belief in invisible, magical beings that exist in some distant and equally invisible realm. Beings whose sole purpose is to give us things, whether that is toys or money or just support and guidance when we stumble.

Now perhaps you're thinking that it's me that is being silly and childish, as no normal, educated adult is going to make requests to Santa Claus and expect him to sneak in with toys and for the Tooth Fairy to swap teeth for money. No adult is going to be so stupid as to believe that magical beings are hiding just out of sight and ready to come to our aid if we ask nicely. No adults tell other adults not to bother buying toys for their kids or replacing that lost tooth with their own money, and assure them that these magical beings will deliver if they just have faith in them. A thousand years ago, long before we came up with scientific enquiry, people did indeed believe in all manner of magical beings, but people today aren't that foolish. Or are they?

Picture this tradition, one most of us will have experienced, one that is all too real. Just before partaking of a meal, someone, almost always the male head of the household, instructs everyone to be silent, to hold hands, close their eyes and bow their heads while he gives heartfelt thanks to some being called Lord or God or Jesus for the food on the table (I guess they work on a roster), usually completely ignoring the very person, almost always a woman, who actually spent hours preparing the meal? He even overlooks himself, the person who likely worked to pay for the food, and thanks the one person, being or thing that didn't lift a finger or a slimy tentacle or contribute a single cent towards the meal. Never do they come home and find Jesus, Mary and a couple of angels slaving away in the kitchen preparing dinner. Never do they see a money transfer into their bank account from God to help out with the high food costs. Never in fact do they even see or hear from the person they are thanking. Naive young children believe in the work of Santa and the Tooth Fairy because devious adults lie to them and trick them into believing that these beings really did bring the toys and take away the teeth. So kids can be excused for holding silly beliefs. But when it comes to adults thanking a magical being for providing a meal, these adults know full well that they alone sourced the ingredients, paid for them, prepared them and served them. They know they received no help from any otherworldly spectre. If the roast is overcooked, why is the cook blamed, but if it is delicious, why does some god get the credit? How is it that adults can pretend to fool themselves, to lie to themselves, always knowing that this god played no part in their meal? Adults know that if they simply rely on God to help, in the same way that our naive parents in the example above relied on Santa to bring toys, then they know that nothing will happen, and they will starve. Even if they are incapacitated and unable to find and cook food, they still know that God won't come knocking with a pizza, and they will starve. So why this sincere and heartfelt thanks to a being that no more makes deliveries than does Santa?

And it's not just meals where an unseen magical being is thanked, the same thing happens with hospital surgeries. After hours on an operating table and attended to by one and often several highly qualified and dedicated surgeons and nurses, following a successful outcome an extremely grateful and relieved patient brushes them aside and tearfully thanks the Lord, God or Jesus (yet another roster it seems). The dedicated medical staff that "appeared" to do all the work in saving a life are ignored, and a being that no one saw lift a scalpel or offer advice is thanked instead. The patient never questions this god as to why he made him ill in the first place, or why he waited so long before he offered his help. Or why he couldn't have just cured him with a supernatural spell, why did the cure have to involve pain and suffering and being cut open and then months of recuperation? If God deserves the thanks then surely he did the work, so why does God's effort seem no different to what humans can do? It's as if he was too busy or too lazy and just contracted the operation out to some human surgeons he knew. Ditto with natural disasters (if they are indeed natural), survivors are down on their knees tearfully thanking Jesus or Allah for saving them, never questioning him as to why he flattened their house and killed their neighbours. Their thanks always goes first to some god, only later might they thank somebody who actually risked their lives to save them, but even then they are likely still thanking God because they'll say that God sent those rescuers their way, they were mere tools of God. No matter how devastating a disaster is, no matter how many innocent lives are lost, no matter how many communities are destroyed, these people are always thanking their god, never questioning his motives or accusing the bastard of mass murder. When American women recently lost the constitutional right to abortion, the religious that were carrying signs that said, 'Pray to End Abortion', cried out in thanks, 'Praise the Lord'. Again the naive belief was that their prayers had been heard and that God had compelled the US Supreme Court to amend the law. The change did not come from men and women (ignorant men and women) fighting for decades to sway the court, it came, in their view, from God's hand.

Why is it that today, with good education and easy access to a mountain of knowledge that reveals how the world really works, and with clear evidence of what amazing things creative humans are capable of, from landing probes on distant comets and inventing flush toilets to open heart surgery and pizza deliveries, so many people still have no confidence in humanity. They believe that what we have and what we appear to have achieved are all the result of a supernatural being. Like a child wanting a bike for Xmas, they believe they must beg this being to give them what they desire in life. If they want to succeed in their career, then they believe they must implore this being to give them guidance and help, to show them which path to take, to show them which of many options is the best. On their own they are lost.

Are the religious quite useless, incapable of leading a free and independent life and must instead be led around like a pet, are they pathetically unable to make plans, reach conclusions and achieve goals without help and guidance from gods? Can they not accept that we humans can achieve things, from preparing meals and performing surgery to rescuing people and debating council matters without requiring any help from gods? Do they lack the confidence and drive to engage with other adults without first pleading to an imaginary friend to hold their hand?

For the last few centuries in NZ it has been devout Christians that insisted that they be allowed to bring their imaginary friend to meetings, court hearings, parliament debates, weddings, funerals, schools and even crime scenes, usually revealing his presence through prayer (Trust us, he's here, they would say), although in recent decades their imaginary friend has largely elected to stay home (maybe he's become addicted to Internet porn?), and events that always had a religious component are now increasingly secular in nature. Sensing an opportunity, some Maori now feel that the time is right to bring their imaginary friends along to these events, to fill that vacant seat. We now see Maori offering prayers and blessings at crime scenes, all sorts of openings, sites of natural disasters, schools, meetings and sporting events. Just this week a local Maori elder was invited to provide a blessing at the opening of a new helipad. Is that what the life of a god has slumped to these days, blessing helipads? Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Where previously we saw Christians sprinkling water made holy by their god, now we have Maori pleading with their gods to come along and do some tricks. Thankfully not everyone is on board with this mumbo-jumbo.

A recent TV news item informed viewers that Peri Paniora, a councillor representing the Maori ward on the Kaipara District Council, wanted to start the council meeting with a karakia, as per Maori customs. A karakia is a prayer spoken in te reo Maori and is apparently used to invoke spiritual guidance and protection, and can be directed at a range of different spiritual beings. Paniora interrupted Kaipara's new mayor Craig Jepson four times in her attempt to say the prayer. Each time Mayor Jepson informed her that council protocol did not permit her to interject, and after her second interruption, he clearly told her his reason for denying her request, saying that, 'I intend to run a secular council'. However, clearly trying to badger the mayor into submitting to her request, Paniora interrupted two more times. While the TV news item did not broadcast the mayor's full reply to Paniora, the video in this article does, and it is worth quoting in full:

'This is a council which is full of people who are non-religious, religious, of different ethnicities, and I intend to run a secular council here, which respects everybody and I will not be varying from that'.

TV reporter Leighton Heikell had began the news item with the words, 'A simple request'. It may have just been me, but based on his delivery of that phrase and later comments, I couldn't help but get the feeling that he was implying that this entire incident was not only unfortunate, but could have been easily avoided if the mayor had just capitulated and had let the woman make a plea to her gods. Is that really too much to ask? Let's remember that Maori have been forced to sit through untold Christian prayers for many generations, so surely now it's their turn? Doesn't the Treaty promise equal rights for Maori?

Paniora's request was certainly simple but still repeatedly denied, because it's not about how quickly and easily a request can be expressed, agreed to and dispensed with, but whether it is appropriate, and introducing religious prayers into a secular meeting clearly isn't. Judging a request on it's simplicity is not how you right injustices and improve society. A simple request need not in any way be an appropriate or ethical request. For example, asking a stranger on the street if they will have sex with you is certainly a simple request, but merely being simple does not make it right. Just because it is a request that everyone would quickly grasp does not mean they should automatically say 'Yes', or that the request should even be made in the first place. It's not how simple or complex a request is, but whether making it might cause unnecessary problems, and since it made the TV news, clearly it did cause a problem. When NZ society finally accepted that it is wrong for those in authority to force their beliefs onto others, even if it's a simple request like merely requiring you to bow your head and remain silent while someone begs their god for guidance, the solution is not to swap places and let the oppressed place you in position of submission. That's like saying to a parent, 'When I was child you abused me, now that you're old and I have the power, I'm now going to abuse you! Let's see how you like it'. No, no, no. The correct ethical response is to acknowledge that abuse is wrong, no matter who does it, and that abuse must stop. It's not about tit for tat. We shouldn't merely swap around the players. Just because Maori (and atheists) were tormented with Christian prayers for many generations, the answer is not for Maori to now torment Christians (and atheists) with Maori prayers. As victims Maori have long known that forced submission was wrong and harmful to their well-being, and now everyone accepts how unjust it was. There is no honour (merely spiteful revenge) in Maori now forcing the same injustices onto non-Maori, of Maori transitioning from the abused to the abuser.

Denied the opportunity to spout her religious nonsense, Paniora said later that she was 'quite disappointed but not surprised', explaining that the prayer was necessary because, 'Something that is important, such as a full council meeting, starting that with a karakia [serves] to ground ourselves for the kaupapa that is ahead'. By 'kaupapa', I expect she means (because she didn't translate the Maori word) something like the discussion and deliberations that take place at a council meeting. Many Maori today love to sprinkle their English conversations with Maori words, arrogantly so I believe, when they know most people will not understand. How would Maori feel if we were having a conversation in English (the only language we know we both speak) and I kept throwing in words from another language, say Spanish? Imagine if I said to my Maori friend, 'Hello Rangi, I can't stop and chat as I'm going to the playa to look for my gato'. (FYI, playa and gato are Spanish for beach and cat respectively.) Rangi would be confused and rightly annoyed that I used words that I had no reason to think he would understand, especially since I knew the appropriate English words but threw in foreign words anyway, and for what purpose ... to show off, to simply demonstrate that I could speak another language? Surely my speaking to Rangi was to communicate some information to him, that my cat was lost and might be at the beach, but in that regard I failed miserably. Communication should increase understanding between two people, and the language used should be at level that both can reasonably be expected to understand, stripped of foreign words and technical jargon that aren't familiar to both. If a neuroscientist wants to describe his work to a child, he must use language the child will likely know, and if a Maori wants to explain her culture's traditions, not to fellow Maori but to an English audience, she needs to use English. That should be obvious. And let's remember that most Maori speak better English than they do Maori, and many can't speak Maori at all. Some Maori may argue that New Zealand has three official languages: English (de facto), Maori and NZ Sign Language, and therefore they have a right to speak Maori. This is certainly true. But having the right to speak Maori doesn't mean they should if most of their audience likely doesn't speak Maori. That would like giving a lecture using NZ Sign Language when you know your audience has no knowledge of it. Continually throwing Maori words at your audience in the expectation that eventually the meaning will become evident is like that joke made about British tourists travelling to foreign lands on holiday, that they would always speak to the foreigners in English, and when they didn't understand (obviously), you should just speak louder and louder until they bloody well do understand. (And my annoyance applies to anyone that talks like this. I remember reading a popular science book years ago where an academic, in order to explain his argument, quoted some historical claims in some eight or nine different languages (both ancient and modern) and he didn't translate a single one! Needless to say his effort sourcing those quotes was a waste of time, and his explanation almost certainly remained a mystery to every reader.)

But anyway, if I was the mayor I would have denied Paniora the opportunity to say a prayer as well, not because it was a Maori prayer, but because it was a prayer. In the past we've criticised local councils and even the NZ Parliament for saying a prayer, almost always a Christian prayer, before the start of council meetings and the opening of parliament sessions. Prayers have long been an unquestioned tradition in our institutions, and a sign of the influence Christianity has had on society. A few councils have since removed all prayers, but some have added more, now offering prayers from multiple religions, not just Christianity. A few years back parliament removed the name Jesus H. Christ from their prayer, supposedly to make it a generic prayer that any religion could naively believe was referring to their god, but it's arguably still a prayer to the Christian god because it ends with 'Amen', the word from the Bible used to end prayers, and only Christians call their god God, with a capital G, other religions are all on a first name basis with their gods, eg Jehovah, Yahweh, Ra, Shiva, Zeus and Maui. I've always thought that calling your god God is as imaginative as calling your dog Dog. Not a lot of thinking involved. So here, if you're curious, is the revised prayer that's now read in NZ's "secular" parliament:

'Almighty God, We give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.'

But getting back to this specific council, we were told that starting the council meeting with a karakia (Maori prayer) fits in with Maori customs, and that, 'It's a custom the council has done for the past two terms'. The mayor's predecessor had apparently signed an agreement with two other Northland councils saying that they will protect and respect Maori traditions. But that was the old mayor and the council now has a new mayor, plus agreements come and go and there is no suggestion this new stance by the council is breaking any laws or being unfair to Maori. It was reported that neighbouring Far North mayor Moko Tepania 'isn't impressed' that the request to say a Maori prayer was denied, with him saying that, 'It seems almost to be going backwards in time, you know, to the dark ages of Aotearoa', and adding that, 'It's 2022, you know, like upholding cultural traditions, that should just be business as usual'.

We find all this talk of Maori customs and cultural traditions quite misleading and frankly, deceptive. And this extends to traditions of any group. No one should be able to demand the right to do something, and for that right to be protected and respected, simply by saying that it is a custom of their culture, since any custom can be good, bad or indifferent. The horrific binding of the feet of Chinese women was once a custom, as was the Roman custom of throwing unwanted babies on the rubbish pile, and the Muslim custom of stoning women accused of adultery to death is still a custom in some Islamic countries. Misogyny, racism, homophobia, patriarchy, xenophobia and sexism have long been, and still are in many cultures, traditional attitudes, handed from father to son. It's bad enough allowing one tradition to continue without considering if it's harmful, it's even worse when we broadly promise to protect and respect a group's traditions, which means ALL traditions, when we don't even know what all those traditions actually are. We would be operating on ignorance, and just hoping the group won't reveal that their group have traditionally sacrificed kittens to predict the weather. Dictionaries define a custom as, 'A longstanding practice followed by people of a particular group or region', and a tradition as, 'The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation; a custom'. Shaking hands when meeting people has long been a Western custom, likewise it is traditional for men to wear pants and women to wear dresses, but for an equally long time it was also the custom for women to remain in the home, to be barred from education and careers, and if a marriage broke up, the husband always got possession of the children, since by custom they belonged to him, not the wife. At weddings the bride is given to her husband by her father, because traditionally he owns her. Traditionally, and until very recently, wives could be raped by their husbands with no legal recourse. Traditionally men could (and did) beat their children, since the Bible said that fathers shouldn't spare the rod. Imagine if we said that those of Western descent are free once more to do anything that was once a Western custom or cultural tradition. We would be giving blanket approval for untold injustices.

So this claim that the mayor should allow Maori prayers because we need to protect and respect their traditions is not one we should accept. Like the phrase, 'A simple request', the words custom and tradition tell us nothing about what the practice does or how it might affect people today. Like any simple request, we can only agree to allow a custom to continue if we consider each and every custom individually. We can not automatically give any and all customs the blind tick of approval simply because some group have traditionally done it for generations. Each custom must be approved on its merits, no group gets a pass for a whole unopened bag of traditions. As I've said before, I refuse to show respect to any religion (where respect by definition means 'To feel or show deferential regard for'). I'll tolerate their silly rituals as long as they don't cause harm, but I won't take off my hat or cover my legs or bow my head and pretend, even for a minute, that I believe in their bullshit. If they want to get down on their knees or wave their arms wildly while looking at some mysterious spot in the heavens, all the while begging some sky fairies to look out for them, then fine, but do it in their own time and in their own space, don't expect me to take part in their silly ritual, even if that would just require me to sit quietly and not laugh. I will laugh ... OK, I probably won't laugh, but I will almost certainly groan and roll my eyes, and I will judge you if you do childish things in my presence, or even just ask if you can do childish things. But with Maori it's more than just expecting us to play along with their embarrassing nonsense, they say they should be allowed to bring certain practices to the fore in public arenas because they are part of their cultural traditions, and they like other ethnic groups should be able to reconnect with their past, with the traditions of their ancestors. We agree that in the past Maori were wrongly denied the right to practice some of their cultural traditions, like speaking Maori or worshiping their own gods. Now they can freely do so. We support any group if they want to keep alive elements from their cultural history, as long as they don't cause harm, and as long as they don't force others to participate. Imagine if we all had to swap our comfortable sneakers for clogs, those traditional wooden shoes that the Dutch once wore, just to keep them happy? But what we find deceptive is that under the cry of 'customs and cultural traditions' some of the rights Maori now demand were never a part of their culture and were never traditional. That's not to say they shouldn't demand those rights, but their argument shouldn't be based on customs that never were, but simply on human rights. At the same time many things that were cultural and traditional are now either ignored by Maori or even actively opposed. Why are Maori picking and choosing which customs to bring back and which to ignore? If customs by their very nature are crucially important to maintain what it means to belong to a specific group, then surely all customs, not just some, should be advocated for? By picking and choosing are they not acknowledging that some past group behaviour, ie customs, were, with the benefit of hindsight, quite wrong or silly or are now simply outdated?

First let us explain what we mean when we talk of customs that never were, specifically of councillor Paniora's claim that it is Maori custom to start council meetings with a karakia (a Maori prayer). Saying that 'It's a custom the council has done for the past two terms' is misleading. What the previous two councils did at their meetings is not a Maori custom or cultural tradition, it is merely something that some people agreed to do in recent years. A Maori custom or tradition is an element of Maori culture passed from generation to generation, not something that was just started in recent times by mostly non-Maori. If we look at the behaviour of council meetings that do go back generations, there certainly was no custom of having Maori prayers, but there was a custom of having a Christian prayer. So if anyone is going to seriously argue for a return to custom and tradition, all they can argue for is the return of the Christian prayers, never a Maori prayer because such a thing never was a tradition. Maori uttering karakia or prayers is certainly traditional, but uttering them at council meetings is not. It's equally deceptive when neighbouring mayor Tepania complains that Mayor Jepson's insistence on running a secular council 'seems almost to be going backwards in time, you know, to the dark ages of Aotearoa', that not allowing prayers to be said is a backward step, going back to councils of old. Again this is nonsense, since for every step back in time we go we only see councils whose meetings were opened with a prayer, albeit a Christian prayer. In the dark ages of Aotearoa councils never threw out the prayers, so Mayor Jepson can't be going back to that practice. It's also quite ironic that Mayor Tepania describes the removal of prayer as a return to the dark ages, when in fact what historians call the dark ages was a time when Western civilisation was withering under oppressive religion, where every aspect of life was cloaked by prayer. By trying to wrap imaginary supernatural forces around secular meetings Mayor Tepania is trying to return to a time when ignorance and superstition ruled, it is he that is trying to bring back the dark ages. Mayor Tepania goes on to say that, 'It's 2022, you know, like upholding cultural traditions, that should just be business as usual'. Again this is misleading because if Mayor Jepson did uphold the council's cultural traditions, where traditions actually mean traditions and not just something that was done a mere six months ago, then Jepson would have reinstated the Christian prayer. A Maori prayer wouldn't even have been part of the discussion. It's also interesting to note that the name Aotearoa, the name Tepania and Maori now use to refer to NZ is apparently not all that traditional either. In this article 'Aotearoa: What's in a name?', Professor Kerry Howe explains that,

'Aotearoa, is it widely assumed, is the original 'indigenous name' for New Zealand. It is certainly the 'modern' name favoured by many Maori and others. But our current common use and understanding of the name was probably not in existence before Western contact'.

'The term Maori, to describe a native New Zealander, did not come into use until the late 1830s.'

'Prominent kaumatua Sir Toby Curtis said he did not believe modernisation was an answer to change, but was about doing away with being Maori and all becoming Pakeha.
"It's very difficult to argue intellectually that women shouldn't speak, but it's far more difficult to bring about a change in terms of custom and tradition," he said. "Despite all the arguments to say women should stand, my stomach doesn't feel right. My ngakau and wairua hasn't reached that level of real acceptability".'

When a woman wants to say Maori prayers at council meetings, and argues that it's their custom, this is where Maori are demanding a return to a tradition that never existed, which we feel is quite deceptive, a stratagem to make us feel guilty, that we've trampled on their customs for so long that we should now give them the freedom to practice them again. But again, there never was a custom of Maori prayers at council meetings, so that particular custom could never have been trampled on. This is where Maori are advocating for customs that never existed, but we also mentioned that there is a problem with Maori ignoring traditions that actually do exist. For example, the left image below shows a group of Maori at Waipahihi hot springs near Taupo in the 1870s, traditionally dressed as was their custom in the past (although even here you can see with one skirt that some are starting to incorporate European cloth and move away from traditional fabrics).

The crucial thing to note is that all six women in the photo are topless, and clearly not embarrassed or ashamed in the slightest. The only person not topless is actually a man. As we noted in a previous post — Naked chick offends Maori spirits — anyone that knows anything about European first contact with Pacific Island cultures knows that the natives didn't have much of a clothes fashion industry going on, they wore very little, even in NZ which was cooler than the likes of Hawaii and Tahiti. Women were often topless, bathing costumes were unheard of with nudity being the norm at the beach or river, and while they weren't usually completely naked like some native tribes, there is no suggestion from oral accounts that historical Maori had any problem with public nudity. In their book 'Digging Up the Past' the authors noted that, 'An interesting aspect [to this photo] is the degree to which many of the group, including the women, are unclothed — such semi-nudity became uncommon following Christianisation'. So only after Europeans introduced Maori to the concept of sin did they adopt Christian traditions of extreme modesty. Prior to this women being topless was traditional, it was as councillor Peri Paniora should say if asked, normal Maori custom. Now look at the right hand image, a typical photo of modern day Maori dressing like their ancestors to perform a song and dance for the benefit of tourists. None of the five women are topless, even the men in this instance are covered up. And both men and women also happily wear that most non-traditional of items, underwear. (And while we're at it, the 'Digging Up the Past' authors also noted that, 'two distinctive items worn today by performers of Maori cultural items, the piupiu flax skirt and the decorative head-band, appear to be comparatively recent innovations'. And it should also be obvious that those ubiquitous guitars that usually accompany their singing are not in the slightest bit traditional.) If respecting and restoring ancient Maori customs is so important to Maori, why has not a single Maori insisted on having topless women in their performances? When they dress up as primitive natives, why aren't they also dressing down? Why do Maori women happily wear "native" clothing that was clearly designed by their prudish colonial oppressors? Obviously the reply would be that Pakeha society and it's domineering Christian morality view topless women as quite objectionable, even fearful, and demand modesty, which is true, but aren't we at a stage in history when Maori are demanding that they be able to revive their customs, that we should respect their traditional dress code and that they no longer be forced to behave as if they were Christian Pakeha? Isn't this what this particular debate over council prayers is all about, allowing Maori to live their life following customs from their distant past? So why are Maori demanding that some of their ancient customs be restored, even bogus ones like women praying to Maori gods at council meetings, and yet at the same time are happily ignoring untold other Maori customs and willingly following a modern 21st century lifestyle instead? Like using speed boats and rifles instead of traditional canoes and spears, eating KFC instead of gathering local shellfish, putting on bathing suits instead of just skinny dipping, and watching Netflix instead of the beautiful sunset.

We don't have a problem with Maori ignoring many of the customs and traditions that their ancestors lived by, because most of them are, as far as 21st century sensibilities go, well deserving of being ditched. For example, before the arrival of Europeans Maori culture featured near constant tribal warfare. They kept captured warriors as slaves, they ate rats and dogs and also occasionally practised cannibalism. They were very patriarchal. With little thought towards conservation or their environment, early Maori burnt off almost half of NZ's native forest and played a not insignificant part in the extinction of numerous species, including the moa (a flightless ostrich-like bird) and the Haast eagle, the largest eagle known to have existed worldwide. And of course similar accusations can be made against most cultures around the globe throughout history, everyone from European to Asian to African has some nasty skeletons in their history closet. Our point is not that Maori had some cultural traditions and customs that most people, Maori included, now find reprehensible, because of course every culture did some despicable things in centuries past. We've written a lot condemning the truly horrible things Christians, Jews and Muslims have done in the past (and some still do), all of which they defended on the basis of custom and tradition. Our point is that just because something can be given the label of cultural tradition or custom, this in no way says anything about whether it is a harmless tradition or is a custom that is ethical. People seem to think that just because some behaviour has been repeated for untold generations by family and friends then cultural traditions and customs must be inherently good. You know, like celebrating the New Year, decorating trees and exchanging gifts at Xmas, enslaving people, and hating Jews. Hey, what can I say, is the response, it's just something my people have always done, and we can't break with tradition, that would offend our ancestors.

Anyone with a little thought can list many traditions that their cultural or ethnic group do, or used to do, like torturing and burning witches or preventing women from voting, along with traditions other groups did, or still do, like throwing coins into a wishing well, wearing wedding rings, celebrating birthdays or always wearing a particular style of silly hat, where some are harmless and can be tolerated while many others are clearly harmful and need be stopped. Obviously customs can be both benign and destructive (if not to yourself, then to others) meaning an action can never be defended simply because it is a custom. No one can argue that they should be able to perform some action simply because it's been traditionally carried out by their group for untold generations. Having a history of behaving in a particular way is no guarantee that that behaviour was right. At this very moment women are being killed in Iran by their government's morality police for breaking the tradition of wearing headscarves. Far too many groups around the world have a tradition of white supremacy and are actively persecuting people of colour. Other groups are persecuting gays because they have a tradition that says God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and at the football World Cup currently being held in Qatar, both FIFA and the local authorities are silencing anyone that shows any opposition to that tradition. For millennia healers and doctors would bleed people in an attempt to heal them (of pretty much any affliction) and yet all they achieved was to harm them further and often kill them. Bleeding patients was traditional, but clearly it is not a tradition we would now want to revive. Slicing off the foreskin of the penis in males has long been and still is a tradition in many cultures, which includes Jews, Muslims and some Christians, as is slicing off the glans of the clitoris in females in some Muslim, Arab and African cultures. It's just unthinkable that many people are still defending such barbaric age-old traditions merely on the grounds that they feel the need to continue with the customs of their ancestors, that they would be disrespecting and dishonouring them if they stopped. In our view they are disrespecting and dishonouring the living, and often causing them considerable harm, by wanting to live in the past, by looking to ancient superstitions with the expectation that they will aid and improve their life in the modern world. That's like thinking that a witch's spell for wisdom, something your family has traditionally said over every newborn for centuries, will help them switch on their cell phone's GPS.

So what's the best solution? Rather than just swapping one religion for another, Christian for Maori, we should all be fighting for the only fair and just option — secular meetings with no prayers whatsoever, because any prayer that was offered would favour one group of religious believers and disadvantage many others. Maori should remember that they were angered (and rightly so) when Christian colonisers forced Christian prayers onto them, prayers to a god they didn't believe in, and they should ask themselves if they are now trying to do the same thing, forcing their prayers onto people that don't believe in their gods? In doing this, are they now committing the same injustice that they have condemned for generations? Angered by the English for not letting them worship their own gods in their own villages, forcing them instead into churches and schools to listen to prayers to the Christian god, by now demanding that their religious beliefs are given voice in council meetings, aren't they simply doing the same thing as was done to them? Why must Maori now force others to to remain silent while they pray in their presence? Is wanting to make others sit through their prayers just a form of revenge? Shouldn't they recognise the real hurt they felt at the hands of Christians and not force the same injustice onto a new generation? Just because they now have the power to try and force non-believers to sit through their prayers, and give them a taste of how it felt, anyone with a little empathy would argue that it doesn't mean they should.

Civilised societies around the globe (and there are still many that are far from civilised) have realised that people with many different beliefs and worldviews exist within every society, and if society is to flourish and peacefully co-exist, then no one group in society should force their traditions and religious beliefs onto the other members of that society. Everyone should have the right to independence, to freedom of expression, to hold whatever beliefs they choose, to live their life as they choose without interference as long as their actions don't harm others. And to make that work everyone must be willing to tolerate beliefs different to theirs, and while this means they can't oppress beliefs they disagree with, it also means other beliefs can't be forced upon them either. The only solution that avoids conflicts, that avoids any group insisting that their cultural beliefs and rituals should dictate how meetings and governments should be run, at the expense of others, is to make religion and traditions a private affair. Governments, council meetings and publicly funded organisations need to run on secular lines, with policies and procedures that are devoid of religious or cultural content, with rules and guidelines that don't specifically favour or disadvantage any group in society, where every group is treated equally. Of course many groups would prefer that they were running the show, that their beliefs were dictating behaviour to society, but you can only have one authority, meaning untold other groups would rightly feel disadvantaged, and since no group can ever know if they will be the one in charge, or how long they might stay in charge, what sort of authority is likely to be most advantageous to your group? With society made up of many, many groups, only one group can be in charge if it's simply a matter of picking one, meaning all the groups bar one will have their behaviour dictated to by the one in power, and like winning the lottery, the odds are greatly against your group being the one in charge. If your group isn't in charge, then this means that the religious beliefs and rituals of the group in power will be forced on you. They will be the master and you their servants. The best solution that works for everyone is to have no religious group in charge, to have no masters and servants but merely citizens treated equally and able to hold their own private beliefs. Of course those desiring to be the masters won't like this idea since they lose power, but for the multitude of servants it's the best option since they gain independence. If a secular authority is chosen, then no single group gets to dictate behaviour which means all the many groups, while they are not in power, are at least free to privately practice their rituals as they see fit, and when they attend official meetings and such, they are not forced to blaspheme against their religion by participating in the rituals of a different religious group. And it must be remembered that while no one religious group is in power, any member from any group can still be part of the secular council or government running the region or country, they just have to leave their religion at the door, and pick it up when the leave.

In NZ our central and local governments are all secular in nature, but many elected officials try to circumvent that by introducing prayers and rituals that are dictated by their specific religion, arrogantly believing that the have the right and duty to force others in the room to behave in a way that will please their god. Stupid Christians can foolishly believe that they are just maintaining a long tradition, and that it does no harm because most everyone in the room, bar those evil atheists, are going to be Christians anyway. But it's different when Maori try and take control and push their Maori prayers, they've had generations of being forced to suppress their gods and listen to prayers to a false god instead, they know what it's like to be ignored and oppressed, forced to show respect to the beliefs of others. Surely they should learn from the mistakes of the past, not just gain power and repeat them?

But, every religious believer will ask, what calamities might befall us if we don't pray at the start of council meetings? That's like asking whether you will jinx a meeting if you don't wear your lucky underwear. Praying to a god or gods for help is as useless as writing a letter to Santa asking for toys. How is a Maori offering a karakia at a meeting any different from the silly prayers said over a meal or before and after a successful surgery? Isn't it obvious that these prayers are all ignoring and disrespecting the amazing people doing the actual work — the cooks, the surgeons and the councillors? How can these people seriously believe that some invisible otherworldly do-gooders are responsible for the achievements they witness? They credit beings they've never met or even seen at a distance, all while ignoring those that do turn up and put in the hard work. As adults, do they secretly still believe that the Tooth Fairy did take those teeth, and not their parents? How can they believe that supernatural interference in the world actually happens, if not by tooth fairies at least by gods? We know praying doesn't work, no matter what gods one prays to, if it did the world would be a noticeably different place. Followers of the right god would all have won the lottery and be multi-millionaires. They, their families and their friends would all be disease free, crime in their community would be unheard of, and natural disasters would only strike in godless places. Billions of religious believers, from Christians, Muslims and Hindus to Jews and Maori pray and pray and pray and yet ... surprise, surprise ... their prayers go unanswered. Devout believers get killed in wars, lose their jobs, learn they have cancer, suffer domestic abuse, struggle to feed their families, are displaced from their homes due to natural disasters, and are forced to live in the back of a van. They prayed and prayed that bad things wouldn't happen, and yet they did. Like that letter they sent to Santa, which apparently went unread, it's as if their gods simply don't care. Never do they think that maybe the lack of response is simply because invisible fantasy beings are ... well ... just a fantasy. On many measures, from wealth and employment to health and education, Maori are disproportionately on the bottom rung, so whatever gods they are praying to, either those gods don't care, aren't real or actually want them to fail. We're going with 'aren't real'.

No, you're wrong, some poor deluded believer will say, so let's for the moment pretend that gods are real (and yes, leprechauns and unicorns too if that makes you happy). But let's clarify that logically only one religion's gods can be real, if the Maori gods made the world and created humans then the Christian god didn't, and doesn't exist, and if the Muslim god made the world then all the other gods from the Hindu and Maya and Jewish religions don't exist. You can't have ten religions all correctly claiming that their gods created the universe, at the very least nine must be wrong. So, we're pretending that a god or gods belonging to one religion is real, how is he, she or it likely to respond to numerous prayers directed at false gods, gods that don't exist, while just a single prayer is directed towards them? What god is going to help a council committee that is made up of one of his followers and a dozen heathens? Gods by their nature (at least according to the myths) only guide and help their devout followers, while either ignoring the heathens or punishing them and causing them to fail. A council can't hope to be successful if only one or two councillors are praying to and being guided by the one true god, since they will always be outvoted and ignored by the majority of councillors who are heathens and are being misled by the god they don't believe in. The only way a council could be successful would be if all the councillors believed in and prayed to the same god, and by a lucky coincidence, that god just happened to the one real god. As soon as a council starts offering prayers to other false gods, say they expand the opening prayers to include Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Maori, then this would just anger any god who was real, he'd realise that the council as a whole didn't know what god was real and were just guessing, spreading prayers around to improve their odds. No god is going to help and guide a council that doesn't truly believe, that are just covering all their bases, praying to anyone that might listen. Perhaps a hundred years ago there was a single prayer being offered when all councils were likely made up of devout Christians, but now there is much diversity in our councils, with the likes of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and atheists, maybe even some Jedi. So even if some god was real, since there have been thousands of religions, it's extremely unlikely you are praying to the right one, and even if you are, your efforts will be cancelled out by your fellow councillors angering your god by praying to all those false gods, or worse still, not even attempting to pray, arguing that gods aren't even real.

So prayer doesn't work, and couldn't work, but the frustrating thing is that billions of people are unable to grasp this reality. Worse still, running on a primitive, superstitious, medieval mindset, many of these people seek positions of authority and influence in order push their old worldviews. Local government made up of city and district councils make decisions that can be as important as those made by central government, they can make or break their communities, so maybe we need to place some conditions on who can serve as councillors in the 21st century. Maybe we need to ask some questions where a 'Yes' leads to their rejection as a candidate. We're sure no one would oppose the following questions, and we're sure potential candidates have been rejected when officials got the impression that the answer would likely have been 'Yes' to questions such as, Will you treat citizens differently based on their race or religion? — Will you funnel off funds to your own bank account or to terrorist organisations? — Will you make important policy decisions based on a coin toss? But the questions we're thinking really need asking are ones like, Are you going to plead for help and guidance from unseen gods? — Do you think this council, and indeed the world, runs on supernatural magic? — Do you have the skills and intellect to research and discuss complex issues, or are you just hoping that some god will quietly nudge you towards the right decision? — Are you going to blindly support old customs and traditions or will you re-examine them based on whether they are still fit for purpose? If a potential candidate needs to pray to some god and receive guidance to do his or her job, then clearly they are not qualified or suitable and at best will only be dead weight, and at worst, will make horrendous decisions that harm council business.

Let us offer a final example of a tradition causing harm. Recently the world saw the rise of the #MeToo movement, originating from the sexual abuse and exploitation of hopeful young actors by powerful male producers and executives in Hollywood, the poster child being scumbag Harvey Weinstein. Essentially young women (mostly) were told that if they wanted a career in acting then they either put out, ie drop those panties, or find the door. Some weren't given the option of submitting, and were simply raped, but again, if they wanted to continue working in the industry then they knew to keep quiet about what had happened. And lest you argue that this sort of behaviour is hardly a tradition or custom in Hollywood, this article notes that,

'The casting couch in Hollywood has long been known as the place where sexual favours are demanded by a powerful film producer or director from aspiring actors or actresses who want a role in their production'.

Why are so many people still battling to get their prayers heard in public forums, and why can't they understand that the majority just don't want to hear them. Just as Christians don't want to hear prayers from Muslims, Jews or Hindus (and vice versa), non-Maori don't want to hear Maori prayers. Humans have the ability to empathise, to gain some insight into how others are feeling, and yet many can't grasp how it might feel to be forced to sit through prayers to a being that at the very least some will consider imaginary and embarrassingly childish, which in turn diminishes the confidence one would have in those praying councillors, and at worst is an action that will cause believers in other gods psychological harm, since they'll believe their god will see it as a blasphemous act and will surely punish them. Let's not forget that much of what drives the religious, especially Christians, Jews and Muslims, is an overriding fear of what God will do to them if they piss him off. The notion of angering the gods is not a new thing.

As atheists we applaud people that can recognise when a tradition has passed its 'use-by-date' and are pleased that Christian prayers are slowly being ditched in some council meetings around NZ, but we'd be very annoyed if that vacuum is simply going to be filled with Maori prayers, where one form of superstitious nonsense is merely replaced with another. Far too many Pakeha are being made to feel guilty for the way Maori were treated in the past, as if they were personally responsible, and in a flawed attempt at making amends, they think it only fair if Maori now get a chance to keep us quiet and respectful while they offer prayers to some unseen supernatural realm. But as we've argued, real progress is not made by having the whip change hands. Society will only advance and flourish when all are treated equally, where no one gets to formally invite their non-elected invisible friend to the meetings to guide proceedings towards their interests. Maori will no doubt insist that they're not trying to unfairly influence council proceedings with their prayers, but clearly they do believe their prayers will be answered and help will be forthcoming, and therefore they must at least be attempting to influence the proceedings. If their prayers are truly having no influence, then why bother praying at all? Denying any influence would be akin to admitting that their prayers are going nowhere, and are waste of time, and yet insisting that their prayers are effective, which surely they must, would be an admission of unfair influence, meaning Maori are either knowingly (and foolishly) praying to nothing, or deceptively manipulating proceedings with the help of an invisible god. Neither is a good look. Only a council run on secular grounds creates an even playing field, meetings are not the place to try and talk to your imaginary friends and have them do battle with the imaginary friends of other councillors. Council meetings are for discussing council affairs which involve earthly matters, if you want to raise the question of gods then after the meeting seek out a marae, church, mosque or temple. Or better still, talk to an informed atheist. Just as we expect responsible parents to buy gifts for their kids and not just write a letter to Santa, we also expect councillors and politicians to investigate real world solutions to real world problems, we don't want elected officials that believe requesting guidance and protection from unseen spiritual beings is the most valuable role they can perform. And who then glibly assure us that soon all will be well, the gods have been notified.

And for the record, we don't know, nor do we care, what Mayor Craig Jepson's beliefs are, the important thing is that he understands that a secular run council will deliver the fairest outcome to all on the council and to the district it serves.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Dec, 2022 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Comments:

1. Comment by Norman, 10 Dec, 2022

   Phew! I have just read your brilliant composition on the Maori Prayers controversy triggered quite rightly by the Kaipara mayor's refusal to have any prayers at the start of a council meeting. Congratulations for your huge effort to put it together. I do hope you forward it to not only the Chairman and councillors there, but to many others as well, including MPs, many who would benefit from this. A good read for them over their summer break to enlighten and support them and to show them the weight of evidence against, and to show Peri Paniora and educate her and others to the true and unquestionable facts of history.

   And while I am at it, here is a copy of a letter I sent recently to Christopher Luxon [leader of the National Party]:

   Dear Christopher,

   Here are my thoughts about your stated belief in your God as in your maiden speech. It seems extremely hard for me to note your professed beliefs, particularly after your stint as CEO of Air NZ, when surely you must be aware of the dreadful Erebus disaster that claimed 276 lives when it slammed into the slope of Mt Erebus, albeit when you were 9 years old. Your predecessor and others did their best to hide the cause and blame the crew, as did that nasty Robert Muldoon of your National Party.

   However, the fate of all the crew, the passengers and that beautiful DC-10 was sealed in the small hours of the night, right from the moment the flight coordinates were changed and the admin inexplicably failed to inform the crew of this vital change of the flight path. From that moment on the whole flight was doomed to impact at high speed into the mountain many hours later. I contend that your God watched this whole event unfold over the entire time to the impact and did not a single thing to prevent it. What a useless mongrel!! And there was all sorts of prayers and bible bashing following the retrieval of the human remains and their painstaking identification, some of whom were never fully identified, and at the burials. All this when, like my question, the nation should have been demanding it at the top of the list.

   I do hope you take note of not only this, but the thousands of other disasters and tragic deaths that are occurring right at this moment where there was never any sign of your useless Deity. And you need to change your views as well on euthanasia and abortion as the World is heading to a cataclysm due to Human overpopulation (8 billion now, the latest!) and the Human greed that is also causing the extinction of so many other species that have not done a single thing to cause their demise. I do hope you reflect on all this for your future actions and outlook.

   Also, there was a large advert in today's (Nov 12th) NZ Herald by the Salvation Army pleading for donations of food etc. Why isn't their God providing for this? Isn't all this so pathetic to those of us who have just a fraction of common sense.

   And the same begging to the community from the City Mission.

2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Dec, 2022

   Thanks Norman. The post went longer than we originally intended, but as your comments to Christopher Luxon point out, the more you think about these issues the more stupid things just pop out, and the more things we need answers to. If there really is a god floating around and pulling strings, then why this string and not that string?

   The religious shouldn't be praising God for helping them find their car keys, as you say, they should be questioning why he did nothing to prevent the Erebus crash and save many innocent lives. Christians claim their god is all-powerful and all-knowing but when disasters happen some then claim (obviously without thinking) that he didn't know they were happening or couldn't prevent them, or the most pathetic of all excuses, that he has good reasons to kill innocent people, he just won't reveal what they are. Why won't our courts accept that excuse from serial killers? I sleep well at nights, but I suspect Christians have a lot of sleepless nights, with a lot of tossing and turning trying to come to terms with what an asshole their god seems to be. There must be a right war going on in their heads trying to resolve all the contradictions that real world events throw up against their Biblical worldview. And like you I can't understand how religious groups can shamelessly beg the community for donations and help, shouldn't they be begging their god, isn't he their provider and protector? What does it say when atheists will help them but their own god won't? Doesn't that shake their belief at all? Apparently not.

   I certainly won't be voting for Luxon or National based solely on how religion now seems to be informing many of their policies. That said, I fear that the irrational annoyance many feel over having had to endure a pandemic, as if it was somehow Labour's fault (or that National would have done better; I believe they would behaved more like a Trump government) could see many (eg anti-mandate, anti-mask, anti-science, anti-vaxxers) voting for Luxon in the next election, simply to punish Labour. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. And National aren't a fan of climate change, and as Labour apparently should have done with the pandemic, believe the answer is to just say, No, no, no, you're not wanted here, go somewhere else. Yes, I'm sure that will work.

3. Comment by Doug, 10 Dec, 2022

   Thanks for your long article denouncing the use of prayer or karakia preceding Council meetings.

   I was on the School Board of a liberal co-ed school with a hard fought for secular tradition. The school was founded about 1956 between two contrasting suburbs — one being very wealthy, the other being very working class. It started as a standard school with uniforms and the usual christian religious veneer of hymns and prayers in ceremonies and assemblies and logos. But with time and mostly at the behest of the students, uniforms went and so did the religiosity — well, at least the officially sanctioned stuff. There were still christian clubs and these were part of the scene, no issue.

   Then came the directive from successive Governments to respect the treaty and be much more inclusive for Maori students (about 5% of the student population) and songs in staff meetings and pepeha etc. It was all new stuff to most of us but was tolerated or accepted keenly, depending who you are. But then karakia with obviously christian messages began to penetrate ceremonies, to the discomfort of some staff.

   A letter from a staff member was received by the Board of Trustees complaining about this imposed change to the secular traditions of the College. The Maori representative on the Board got somewhat agitated and told us that basically it was what it was and it was non-negotiable. It was left at that because no-one wanted to rock the boat too much as there was, and probably still is, a lot of sympathy for the difficulties that Maori face in the society that has been imposed on them, at their considerable cost.

   But I wish that I had your article at hand at that time. It bemused me that the karakia were christian-based when that was the religion of the despised colonisers. How thorough the colonisation has been. Ironic, to say the least.

   To give some credit, when one Te Reo teacher who conducted the karakia was asked not to use christian prayer, he did desist, appealing instead to the "spirits" of the local geographic features etc. At least that is what he told us; most of us wouldn't have known otherwise. The Amen's stopped though, for a time.

   Since I left that school it seems to have gone headlong into promoting "Maori" culture with all the contradictions that you have covered. Student voice is muted by respect for the "traditions" and fear of being fingered as racist.

   Steps forward? No way.

4. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Dec, 2022

   Thanks for your input Doug. I was lucky, in hindsight, that none of the schools I attended, all co-ed, had any religious elements whatsoever, not Christian, Maori or even Jedi, when clearly so many others apparently did and still do. Zeus knows why I was spared all this conflict.

   And you're right with your observation that originally the karakia were apparently all christian-based. When we first heard of Maori offering karakia alongside or instead of Christian prayers, they were all about God and Jesus, they were essentially just old Christian prayers translated into te reo Maori. Even today, while the karakia are supposedly now directed to Maori gods and such, and neither Jesus nor his dad get a mention, many of the Maori that offer them likely still have a strong connection with Christianity, still go to church, still believe in heaven and hell, still think original sin is real. Look at Brian Tamaki's Destiny Church, by all appearances Maori make up the major proportion of his followers. The gods worshipped on Sunday — Jesus, the holy ghost and God himself — are swapped for gods like Ranginui, Papatuanuku and Tane-mahuta when they go and bless a helipad.

   You're quite right, colonisation has been very thorough, and religion really does get under the skin, so just like any Catholic, Baptist or Muslim, walking away from a lifetime of brainwashing will be extremely difficult, meaning most Maori will remain a contradiction, offering karakia to Maori gods while still doing what's necessary to ensure Jesus keeps that reservation open for them in heaven.

   And yes, Maori had a hard time in the past, their culture suppressed, forced to pay respect to a false religion, but compelling others to now pay respect to their religion (also false) isn't the way forward. That's just petty payback.

5. Comment by Norman, 10 Dec, 2022

   There was one other thing we missed too, about the Maori prayers and 'culcha'. I am not at all a fan of that bloody game called Rugby after seeing the blatant cheating by Andy Hayden in the match against Wales which he/All Blacks got away with all those years ago due to the film era and before no instant digital replays. NZ should have owned up and awarded that match to Wales. Andy Haden's dive was a great Welsh rugby injustice but he'll be remembered as a legend — Wales Online

   However what I wish to point out is that with this stupid game, Concussion risks and $87 million pre-Covid ACC claims, eye gouging, punching and urinating on the field, we are so besotted with the women's game now that there doesn't appear to be the slightest complaint about the 'Culcha' being rudely ignored when the women start their game with their HAKA , Pakehas and all!!! Where are the howls of protest at this? Aren't the wahines always behind the warriors during their cannibalistic 'Culcha' action?

6. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Dec, 2022

   Hi Norman. I didn't realise the women rugby players also did the haka, but then of course they would, people use almost any excuse and occasion these days to break into a haka, even when the pizza arrives. It doesn't seem to matter anymore that traditionally it was a Maori war dance, something done in anger to motivate warriors on the battlefield. I guess the All Blacks have done the haka for so long now that Maori have effectively lost control of that bit of Maori culture. But it does make some Maori hypocrites when they say their culture is exclusive to them, that Pakeha or foreigners doing hakas is disrespectful, but then they needlessly introduce it to the women's game, as if rugby can't be played without starting with a war dance. Now both Pakeha and Maori women do a haka, clearly for no other reason than they felt it would boost their image on the world stage, comparing them to the All Blacks. Maori culture in the form of the haka was bought and sold to increase TV viewers. I've heard no complaints from the Maori gods, so I guess they're happy with the deal.

In Auckland yesterday Health NZ began legal proceedings to temporarily take the guardianship of a baby named Will off his parents and place it with the courts, which would give agents of the court authority to make medical decisions for Will. This action was taken because his parents Cole and Samantha Savage-Reeves are refusing to allow him to get an urgent open-heart operation unless said operation only uses blood from donors who haven't received any of the COVID-19 vaccines. The court is yet to make a decision. UPDATE: 7 Dec 2022 — Temporary guardianship has been granted to the courts, and the urgent operation is to go ahead using blood from the general pool. The guardianship will only last around six weeks.

So is this opposition reasonable, is there is any evidence that vaccination causes blood to become harmful to the vaccinated person, or anyone that might receive that blood via a blood transfusion? No, there is no evidence for harm, this is the sort of mindless opposition one might expect from ignorant, medieval peasants.

Of course that's not to say there aren't many claims circulating that assert that vaccination (any vaccination, not just COVID) is dangerous. They are widespread, especially on social media, but empty, childish, irrational and/or superstitious claims are not evidence, they are merely silly beliefs and poorly considered opinions offered by ill-informed 21st century peasants. Consider that there are also claims made by many that the world is flat (or round and hollow), that psychics can talk to dead people, that 5G cellphone towers caused the coronavirus pandemic, that the Jews secretly run the world, that homosexuality (and by logical extension, heterosexuality) is a choice, that visiting aliens (with a fixation on our genitals) are abducting simple, rural folk for experimentation, that homeopathic remedies made from just pure water can cure any health problem (from cancer to Ebola), that Adam and Eve were misled by a talking snake, and that a sky fairy will soon send his dead son Jesus to whisk a chosen few off to a heavenly paradise and send the remaining billions off to a place of eternal torture.

So clearly anyone can make quite ridiculous claims, and sadly the world is full of such deluded fools, but intelligent and rational people need to ask what support those weird claims receive from science and reason, remembering that it's science and reason that have given us the advanced society we enjoy, whereas pseudoscience and superstitious thinking have merely hindered us every step of the way. In order to deceive and create fear anti-vaxxers focus on and distort an actual fact, while ignoring a greater truth, and that fact is that vaccines (possibly all vaccines) have harmed and even killed people, just as even 'harmless' peanuts have killed people. And no, we are not suddenly siding with anti-vaxxers.

We want you to consider the following question. Do cars, planes, alcohol, sexual relationships, swimming at the beach with friends, hospital surgeries, extreme sports and even taking baths ever kill people? Yes, many, many deaths in fact, but everyone has agreed that these things are all worth keeping (well, all except alcohol in our opinion) because their benefits far outweigh their costs. We don't even outlaw those killer peanuts. Do vaccines ever harm or kill anyone? Yes, but the rare harm and low numbers of deaths that do occur must be balanced with the far greater harm and death that would happen if vaccines weren't used. Anti-vaxxers focus on the fact that a vaccine might, say, harm the life of one person in a country of 5 million vaccinated people, and completely ignore the fact that a thousand people would likely have died if the vaccine wasn't used. One person may be harmed or even die, which of course is regrettable, but a thousand were saved. Anti-vaxxers would rather a thousand people should die in order to save one. Evidence wise there is no question that vaccines do cause deaths in rare cases, just as life-saving surgeries, car seat belts and CPR do cause deaths on rare and exception occasions, but these things all save far, far more lives than the rare deaths they cause. Electricity is another example that causes death in the home and at work, perhaps through a faulty appliance or a toddler putting his finger into an electrical socket, and yet imagine the huge number of deaths that would result from us not having electricity in our homes and businesses. Just falling down the stairs due to a lack of light, dying from pneumonia due to a lack of heat, house fires due to a reliance on candles, food poisoning killing you due to no refrigeration, and not being able to phone for help in an emergency. Anti-vaxxers really need to look at the bigger picture, to the huge number of lives saved, rather than myopically focusing on the harm that was apparently suffered by their friend's cousin's Brazilian waxer. Yes there is a very small risk to one's health when taking a vaccine, but the risk to your life (and all those lives in your community) in not taking it is far, far greater. It's like every time you eat a meal there is a minute risk that some ingredient or unseen toxin will harm you, but the risk of you being harmed and dying is much, much greater if, fearful of that potential but very unlikely risk, you avoid food altogether. In this metaphorical sense, anti-vaxxers are essentially choosing to avoid food altogether, and putting themselves at far greater risk of harm through their misplaced fear of an extremely rare event.

OK, let's now consider what the parents' supporters said, and what was expressed on many of their placards, that it's their 'Freedom to Choose'. But in reality they're not asking for the freedom to choose, since they already have that, the freedom to choose to accept the blood offered by the NZ Blood Service and the freedom to choose to risk the life of their child. It's not as though there is a vaccinated blood bank and an un-vaccinated blood bank and they are being denied their right to choose either one. There is only the one mixed blood bank, so that choice doesn't exist, only the choice to use the existing blood bank or not to use it. And to risk their child's life. They don't want the 'Freedom to Choose', they want the 'Freedom to Demand', the freedom to demand that NZ creates a special service to accommodate their irrational beliefs, a service that would be expensive, time-consuming, have no health benefit and that the NZ Blood Service says would actually introduce unnecessary risk. People have the freedom to choose to do things that put their own lives at risk, like skydiving and wrestling alligators, and even refusing life-saving treatments, but they don't have the right to harm or risk the lives of others, and that includes their own children, even though they have legal guardianship until they come of age. Any parent that demonstrates that they aren't making sensible decisions regarding their child's well-being, such as irresponsible decisions that put the child at real risk of harm, are undeserving of parenthood. Luckily in NZ you can face prosecution based on the criminal neglect of your children, which includes refusing them medical help for which there is scientifically accepted evidence of its efficacy and safety, and good evidence that they would be severely harmed if denied said treatment. Parents aren't allowed to reject proven treatments and simply allowed to pray for their sick child instead, and rejecting an urgent operation over the use of vaccinated blood is as stupid as praying to an invisible sky fairy.

So this is a case of morons believing that blood from certain people is harmful (and in the past people also believed receiving blood from people from certain groups was disgusting, offensive and even something their god was opposed to). But just think where granting this right to demand blood from a chosen group would lead. If anti-vaxxers were granted a special right, and got to choose who could donate blood to them, then there are untold groups that exist now that would quickly demand equal treatment under the law, and once an exception has be made for one group, how could you deny other groups their right to also choose their preferred blood donors? Christians would demand that their blood donors were screened to exclude homosexuals, atheists, and non-Christians, especially Jews and Muslims. Many Christians would also demand that they didn't just want generic Christian blood donors, but that they have to belong to their specific sect; Catholics wouldn't want tainted Protestant blood for example. Many whites would want the blood from people of colour excluded from their blood bank, and vice versa. Many Jews and Muslims would likewise demand blood that came solely from their group of believers, excluding of course homosexual believers. The Japanese wouldn't want Korean blood, the English wouldn't want German blood, Maori wouldn't want Pakeha blood (a Pakeha is what Maoris call a white New Zealander), and there would be many men who wouldn't want blood from a woman, fearful that it would dilute their masculinity. Granting the right to one group to choose their blood donors, especially a right based on pure nonsense — that vaccinated blood is dangerous — would set a precedent and open the floodgates, leading the world into a chaos of mistrust, alienation and enmity. All the gains that have been achieved in bringing different cultures and groups closer together by reducing the likes of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and religious animosity, would be quickly eroded.

And logistically, how would one even determine who truly belonged to what group? Regarding the COVID vaccinations, I'm sure there are some vaccinated people whose records don't show their vaccinations (due to sloppy record keeping), just as the anti-vax groups created false records showing non-vaccinated people had been vaccinated. And as reported in this article 'Court move after parents request unvaccinated blood be used in heart surgery',

'Auckland University's Immunisation Advisory Centre medical director Professor Nikki Turner told Newstalk ZB Covid-19 was widespread in New Zealand and that would be reflected in the nation's blood.

"Almost all blood in New Zealand will have Covid antibodies in them so unless you're going to refuse all blood, I can't imagine how you'll get round this," she said.'

But signed up by whom? The only organisation in NZ set up to safely take, store and distribute blood to health facilities, and who could potentially segregate donors, is the NZ Blood Service. The segregation would have to be based largely on trust, as anyone could easily lie and say they had never had the COVID vaccination, which would make the whole enterprise easy to sabotage. But again the true motive for this separation of blood is that all vaccinations are dangerous and cause harm, so the number of people honestly able to front up and affirm that they have never had any vaccination for any disease, would be minuscule. This would mean that the NZ Blood Service would have to provide segregated instruments and storage for the collection of non-vaccinated blood in every town and city where they operated, even though they would hardly ever be used. This would be a very expensive option that almost no one wants, and would negatively impact on an organisation that is already struggling to receive enough blood.

And let's remember that the expense and logistics of collecting, storing and distributing bags of blood would expand enormously if anti-vaxxers were granted the right to have donations from their chosen group, since, as we've said, other groups like Christians, Muslims, Neo-Nazis, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes would quickly demand the right to set up their chosen groups within the NZ Blood Service. More and more needles and machines and bags would need to be kept separate. But testing-wise, how would that work, how could the Christians, Muslims, Jews and agnostic homophobes reliably identify and exclude all the gays from their blood donor group? We all know that there are many gays who are still 'in the closet', those who haven't publicly revealed their homosexuality, and no amount of questioning at the blood clinic will make them tell the truth. And of course no diagnostic test exists to determine one's sexuality. Believing that their carefully collected blood was devoid of any homosexual contamination would be a clear delusion. Ditto with groups seeking racial purity in their blood donations. Since race is more a social construct than a biological reality, what tests and thresholds would be used to determine what 'race' one belonged to? As an extreme example, in NZ Maori claim that if you feel and identify with Maori culture then you can claim to be Maori, even if your parents came from Scotland. You don't even have to be Maori to belong to the NZ Maori political party, which to us is a little like saying you don't have to be a woman to join your local woman's softball team. And setting up a blood donor group for each specific religious sect is, like homosexuality, also problematic. We know of many religious people that are still 'in the closet' when it comes to their faith, meaning they are openly atheist around other atheists but won't reveal their disbelief to those in their church, mosque or synagogue. Likely pressured into donating blood for the good of their group they would be continually contaminating the pool with their heresy genes. What about those astrology nutters, the ones that claim no matter what star sign you are born under you are really only compatible with people born under two or three other star signs, not the entire zodiac? Like saying a Leo is only compatible in life with those born in Virgo and Aquarius. So the NZ Blood Service would need 12 separate astrology groups, not just the one group for astrology believers. And in reality all the other donation groups would quickly branch out into untold subgroups too. For example, if you were a white supremacist who also hated women, you couldn't just get some blood from a white supremacist donation group, because that group likely only excluded non-whites and happily accepted white women, you'd need a group that excludes both non-whites and all women. And if you wanted your group to be white, male, Christian and non-vaccinated, well things get even more complicated. The number of carefully separated blood donation groups required to meet all possible requests and permutations would be astronomical, and of course would far exceed the number of people willing to regularly donate blood. While your preferred blood group may be listed at the NZ Blood Service, almost all the groups would have no blood available due to the pool of potential donors being so very small for each group, and remembering that what little blood might be donated, it only lasts a bit over a month before it has to be destroyed.

We hope we've made it clear that were the courts to acquiesce to the anti-vaxxers demands and force the NZ Blood Service to collect, store and distribute blood for the benefit of a specific group — the anti-vaxxers — then a precedent would have been established, the floodgates would open and the NZ Blood Service would be compelled to organise segregated donations for untold groups that would demand an equal service. This wider service would be unrealistic, uneconomic, unsafe and would ultimately see the NZ Blood Service collapse. And untold hospital services requiring blood would quickly follow. And we must also remember that even if it were possible to create such an entity that gives everyone a choice in whose blood they want to accept, it would still be a useless and worthless enterprise because the harmful elements that these ignorant people believe is in the blood of certain undesirables doesn't exist in the blood of anyone, but only in their ill-informed and biased minds.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Dec, 2022 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

When I was young Christians were everywhere and very open about being believers, like regularly going to church, saying grace before meals, praying in public for help, having the local priest or minister around for tea, quoting religious reasons why we shouldn't do certain things, threatening disobedient children with Hell, condemning divorce, contraception, abortion, masturbation and sex outside marriage, only voting for good Christian candidates, having a Bible in or on the bedside table etc. When I was little kid and we left the farm to visit the big city we'd often see Catholic nuns, dressed as in the photo, and my brother and I jokingly referred to them as the penguins. Even back then they seemed totally out of place, meaning that even at that young age I could sense that religion was something that was well past its use-by-date and something to be laughed at. On TV, when it arrived, forums of experts that debated important social issues of the day would include the likes of politicians, scientists, economists, teachers and always, no matter the topic, a priest or minister. Every opening of a new building or park would see a priest liberally sprinkling their magic water and every accident scene would require spells from a church minister to make the area safe again. (Of course today the silly rituals are performed by a Maori spiritual leader speaking Maori rather than a Christian spiritual leader speaking Latin, but the important difference is that in the distant, superstitious past (ie the first half or so of the 20th century) these ancient rituals were taken seriously by the assembled crowds, whereas now they are merely an embarrassing sideshow to placate the natives.) Last century most every marriage and funeral was held in a church, and almost considered a shameful, non-event if it wasn't. Couples sought marriage guidance and relationship counselling, including advice on sex, from priests who had never been in a relationship or married, let alone knew anything about sex beyond occasional homosexual acts with choir boys. Even church ministers and pastors who were married were little help since they still thought sex and the naked body was shameful, that sex, especially for women, was just something that they had to occasionally endure to propagate the species. If you were the wife, the advice was, Lie back and think of England, and it will soon be over. Or just say you have a headache. When parents had problems with their children's behaviour they sent them for counselling to their local church leader, whose only reference book was the fucking Bible, not to a doctor or psychologist or counsellor. And rather than let kids run free on Sunday after attending church, they were then made to go to Sunday School, because apparently regular school wasn't teaching them enough about God, even though secular schools often included morning prayers and Bible classes. The reality is that when I was growing up the majority of people, rich or poor, openly displayed a sincere belief in God, and the Church's view on matters big and small was very important to them. Even if they didn't really believe in God, most people knew it was advantageous to appear as if they did. To be seen as a good person you had to be seen as a devout Christian.

But today that's largely all gone, most Christians now seem quite reluctant to exhibit public signs of devotion, they deliberately hide their belief and behave in public like atheists. Christian leaders are no longer invited to officiate at public events or to serve on discussion panels, in fact they're seldom seen outside their churches. Psychologists and counsellors have taken over the role of inexperienced and woefully unqualified priests, as have celebrants for formal ceremonies. Church attendances have plummeted, so much so that untold churches around the country have closed and been demolished, and of those that remain many seem to be sparsely populated by the elderly and immigrants. Acceptance of divorce, contraception, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, civil unions, gay marriage, prostitution, voluntary euthanasia and even atheism, is not just widespread but perfectly legal, even though all those things are not just condemned by the Church, most would carry a death sentence if God had his way. Threatening disobedient children with horrific stories of the tortures that would await them in Hell would now be considered child abuse by most people. Sex, in all its forms, is now viewed as something to be enjoyed by all, whether one is married or not. Today vibrators will be found in the bedside table, not Bibles. Saying grace, ie thanking God for a meal, would now be seen as an insult to the person who had actually worked hard to provide the meal. Religious classes in secular schools, while still legal, are fast disappearing. When discussions about life and the universe are heard in public, we hear mention of evolution and the big bang, not of Adam and Eve and a talking snake or of God creating the entire universe in just 6 days. Even our last three prime ministers have all openly expressed disbelief in God, and yet still they were each reelected for a second term.

NZ society today is a very different place for Christians than it was a century ago. Just as it used to be advantageous in the past to appear to be a believer in God, whether you were or not, now the shoe is on the other foot. Today it seems it's advantageous for Christians to at least appear to be secular and to leave their faith at home, to keep it as something private between them and their invisible god. Today Christians seem well aware that should they say that God or Jesus would disapprove of some action or if they were to voice their dislike of gays or Jews or abortion then they rightly fear it is likely that those around them will challenge their claim and maybe even ridicule them. So they keep quiet, leave their crosses at home, and desperately try to hide their annoyance and frustration when someone maligns their undisclosed faith. Like someone hiding a drug habit or a criminal record, many Christians hide their religiosity behind a secular mask. And even then, what they would label as their Christian belief is a very watered down affair, something Christians in past eras wouldn't hesitate to call heresy. Their belief in God, something instilled by their parents, a flimsy belief that has already been stripped of many of God's more onerous commandments, is hanging by a thread, and for many young people today, that thread has already snapped.

I think as more people become exposed to the scientific view of the world through school, movies and the Internet and become more informed about both the atrocities committed by the different religions and the absurdities contained in all religions, then younger generations will view a belief in gods as something quite foolish, as no different to believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Look at the children of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu parents today, a fast growing number are rejecting their parent's religion outright, and even if they haven't yet gone that far, many are embracing sexual equality, are accepting of differing views of sexual identity and gender, are rejecting arranged marriages and female and male circumcision, are insisting on sexual freedoms, are demanding access to all career paths, are forming friendships with people their parents' religion condemns, are dressing to please themselves, not some god, are offering scientific explanations of how things work, not religious myths, and are viewing people simply as fellow humans, not as believers or heretics. Confronted with new evidence that nature and humans are running the show and not invisible gods and that no god will put them on a naughty list any more than Santa will, the young are breaking from silly traditions and are adopting a secular, atheistic, scientific and philosophical take on their life and the world. Rather than asking what an invisible, absent, selfish, arrogant, barbaric god would advise they do (actually demands they do), enlightened youth of today are more likely to seek scientific and ethical answers to life's challenges. Of course this transition from superstition to reason will take time, unlike God we can't just rid the world of those that annoy us with a global flood. And even if we had the means, unlike God, our compassion would prevent us from slaughtering billions of innocent people, even if they do hold silly beliefs.

But attitudes are clearly changing, and I believe that publicly professing religious belief will increasingly be seen as something strange and weird and totally embarrassing if it's a friend or family member, like those morons that wear tin foil hats so that evil governments can't read their thoughts or insist that the world is flat and that Queen Elizabeth is a shape-shifting reptilian alien. Or the current delusion, that COVID is a hoax. Being a religious believer in the future will be like being a member of a Neo-Nazi group is today, belonging to a minority hate group that is legally tolerated but also widely condemned and that exists only on the fringes of society, a group made up solely of people who are intellectually unable to understand and accept the world as it really is and thus are forced to fall back on superstition, ancient myths and outright bullshit. On its eventual fall from public consciousness Christianity will return to its origins in Roman times as a secret fringe religion, hiding in the shadows and practised by a mere handful, their underground meetings advertised by obscure symbols, and then, like the Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian religions before it, Christianity's flame will eventually flicker and die. And not before time.

Of course Christianity's demise is not going to happen in my lifetime, but we can act now in ways that assure that it happens sooner rather than later. We can openly challenge the bullshit claims that Christians (or believers of any faith) make. We can refuse to stand by while they insult or disrespect those that their god hates, like homosexuals, women and atheists. Call the police when they do real physical harm to people, like forcing female genital mutilation or arranged marriages on young girls, or preventing women from freely accessing contraception or abortion. Embarrass them by exposing their ignorance concerning how the world works, like explaining that mental illness is not caused by demons, that the earth does not rest on pillars as their Bible claims, and their God hasn't saved us (or them) from COVID. Shame them with their prudish attitudes towards sex and nudity. Confound them with their hypocrisy, like when they preach that God condemns homosexuality, but then they happily ignore God's condemnation of tattoos, shellfish and female teachers. Embarrass them with their ignorance of the Bible, quiz them as to why they know so little of their God's written word, is his only book really that boring and unimportant? (Spoiler Alert: Yes.) Put them on the spot by asking if God has ever spoken to them, not in dreams or weird feelings, but real, genuine communication, or even sent them an email or a birthday card. Ask them if they know of anyone who has demonstrability communicated with God, and since any honest answer must be no, ask why a loving god could be so absent in the lives of his earthly family for thousands of years. Ask them why God felt he had to torture and murder his only son to forgive their sins, and why, like loving human fathers can, he couldn't just forgive us without the bloodshed and death. Make them consider this question: If in human law incapacitating and getting a young woman pregnant without her knowledge or consent might reasonably be classed as rape, did God rape Mary when he inseminated one of her eggs to create Jesus? Was God's subsequent desertion of Mary with no offer of child support the moral thing to do? What about forcing the shame and stigma of being an unwed mother onto Mary (who was just a young girl and not yet a woman, which makes it even worse), remembering that in ancient Jewish culture unwed mothers normally faced a death sentence, especially when that drama could have easily been avoided by God simply waiting until after Mary married and making it appear that her husband Joseph was the father of her child. In the matter of Mary's non-consensual "sex" resulting in an unplanned pregnancy, did God act like a kind, thoughtful and loving god, or more in the manner of an uncaring, arrogant, misogynist who mistreated and disrespected Mary by using her body like a toaster oven and forcing a pregnancy on her? And what for, just so the absent father could return and kill the child a few decades later to make a silly point about sin? A child was forced on Mary and then later brutally taken from her, and on neither occasion did God discuss this with Mary or care how she felt. Ask Christians if they would treat an innocent woman like this, and if not, why do they praise a god who does. Make them uncomfortable, make them squirm, make them realise what a monster God is, and how despicable they must be for worshiping him.

Seriously, there are a million and one ways to make true religious believers, and especially Christians, realise that their faith is nothing but silly beliefs, beliefs that at best make them look ignorant and foolish and at worst are responsible for many of the world's ills and cause widespread harm. To debunk this nonsense all it takes is a little knowledge of science, history, philosophy and the claims made in old holy books like the Bible and Koran. Often mere logic and common sense is enough to expose religious claims as utterly ridiculous, let's remember that intelligent men, and women, have debunked untold religions over the last few thousand years, all without the benefit of a modern education. Their astute criticism is the reason people no longer worship gods like Zeus or Ra or Maui. Think of when naïve Christians insist that God must exist because everything requires a creator, that the universe wouldn't be here if God hadn't made it, but even children have the intelligence to ask, since everything requires a creator, then who made God, who was God's creator? And why aren't we worshipping him, since he clearly must be more powerful than God if he created God? Usually their pathetic response is that God doesn't need a creator, but of course that destroys their argument that everything needs a creator, and if some things can exist without a creator, then it's far, far more likely that an empty, dead, unthinking universe could exist forever, doing absolutely nothing, than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god has existed for an eternity doing absolutely nothing, not utilising his power or knowledge and having nothing to love. God must have been really bored, so why didn't he create the universe long, long before he supposedly did, why did he wait for so long before creating man as a plaything? And even with all that time to think and plan, he still fucked it up. He created Adam and was surprised when Adam was lonely, so God was forced to create Eve, then he foolishly created a devil that convinced Eve to double cross him. And God was again surprised, but isn't that what demons do by definition? Further down the track he now suspects that everyone is conspiring against him, so he confused their language and forced them to migrate to different lands. Later still he feels his experiment has again jumped the tracks so he drowns all life on the planet, with no thought of their suffering or their innocence, all bar a few favourites he saves on Noah's ark. Then using the same flawed genetic material he starts again, and for some strange reason, even though the first thing Noah does after the flood is get drunk and lie around naked (the sort of behaviour that started the whole flood thing), God expects things to turn out differently this time. But of course they don't. Sometime after this reset God again comes to believe that his playthings are misbehaving, and at a loss of what to do this time, eventually decides, probably after a talk with Satan, that creating a son who he will later torture and murder is obviously something that will make people behave. But surprise surprise, that didn't work either, probably due to the fact that killing your own son didn't make any sense, or show God in a positive light, and that God hid all evidence of what he did to his son anyway, so most people on the planet never even got to hear of Jesus or his brutal death at the hands of his father, and if they later did, chose not to believe it, so whatever obscure lesson God hoped all his playthings would learn was never fully realised. Again, God had an eternity to plan his humanity experiment and run an infinite number of different test scenarios, meaning a perfect god should have went with the perfect design, but yet the plan God went with resulted in fuck up after fuck up, and God was surprised by every single one of them. How can an all-knowing god be caught unawares, how can God be utterly surprised by things he already knew were going to happen, long before he started down the path of building a universe? How can a perfect god that insists on perfection create a universe with so many bugs and design flaws? So many questions about God, so little time, and pretty much no Christians willing to take part. But getting back to the question of who made God, if even a child can deal a fatal blow to one of religion's most basic arguments, then any rational, intelligent, informed adult should be capable of identifying its other weaknesses and delivering the death blows. We're dealing with people who are mentally inferior to young children, and while it's almost unfair to force them to subject their silly beliefs to reason, intellectually ill-equipped as they are, remember the welfare of the world is at stake.

When I see and hear adults on the TV news saying they have faith that God or Allah or Jesus will come to their aid, save their village, turn back the flood, cure their cancer, keep COVID at bay and smite the gays, I literally wince, I honestly feel embarrassed for them. How can supposedly intelligent adults hold such silly beliefs, such childish beliefs, such demonstrably false beliefs? More astounding still, how can they willingly make such public fools of themselves? To me their strong expression of trust in an invisible being in the sky that has been hiding from humanity for thousands of years is no different to someone proclaiming that they sincerely believe Superman or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny will suddenly appear and make everything right by trouncing the villain, showering us with gifts or cheering us up with chocolate eggs. God and Superman, Jesus and Santa, Zeus and the Tooth Fairy, the Holy Ghost and Harry Potter, they're all equally imaginary and quite impossible, none of these magical beings have ever appeared outside tales of pure fantasy. Like me, true believers would feel embarrassment if one of their family or friends suddenly started publicly preaching that we need not fear, that the Greek god Zeus will save us from the effects of climate change. Like me, they could surely offer many good arguments as to why belief in Zeus was foolish, what's more, Christians can offer rational arguments as to why belief in Allah is foolish, and Muslims can likewise explain why Jesus isn't going to save anyone. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, they can all clearly see the fatal flaws in everyone else's religion just as clearly as they can dismiss belief in other powerful beings like Superman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk. And yet, while they scoff at other religions and question the sanity of those who follow them, no true believer can see the fatal flaws in their own religion, even when they are pointed out to them in great detail. It's like someone saying that they can easily see why Superman is just a fictional comic book character for kids, and could never be real, but then insisting that Spiderman is actually real, of that they're certain. This is how I view true believers, people that can easily and rightly dismiss untold fantasy beings but who then confound the fuck out of me by assuring us that some other fantasy being of their choosing, a god such as God, Jesus, Allah, Jehovah or Shiva, does actually exist, even though to any rational person those beings are clearly as fictional as Thor or the Tooth Fairy. Not that they've ever seen their god mind, or even got a text from them, or viewed evidence of their existence, but based on childish faith and blind stupidity they sincerely believe that their invisible fantasy god is watching them from ... umm ... that cloud over there.

But, as I've said, I believe that people of all generations and in all countries, and especially the youth, are becoming better informed and more independent and are consequently rejecting religion since they recognise not just the harm that it does in their lives and in communities both local and worldwide, but also because there is no good evidence whatsoever that any of the many thousands of different religions are true, meaning that all of the disgusting, misogynistic, homophobic, barbaric, dogmatic and irrational tales in those ancient holy books are as much a fantasy as those in 'The Lord of the Rings' books. As more people come to realise that gods, demons and angels are as fanciful as wizards, Elves and Orcs, religion will fade from society. It won't disappear completely, but will become a fringe belief populated by those unfortunates who struggle to understand the world, like those that currently believe that the Earth is flat or hollow, that insist fairies live at the bottom of gardens, that claim aliens took them on a tour of Venus, and that believe their dead granny is talking to them from beyond the grave. Rather than society seeking guidance from religious leaders as has happened for millennia, in the future people still harbouring religious beliefs will be shunned at social gatherings, and shown the door if they attempt to voice an opinion on anything important. In the future lepers will have been cured and the religious will have dropped down into that vacated position. The change happening in society right now will eventually be seen as God's most monumental fuck up, the one that essentially erased him from existence, like Zeus, Apollo and Osiris before him.

And if this pandemic has a silver lining, it's that it has kept the religious morons away from my door, those that want to tell me about Jesus and his step-brother Spiderman who, at some undetermined time in the future, are going to swing in and save us all. Well maybe not all of us, but at least those people that don't deny God's existence, masturbate or fear spiders.

Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Mar, 2022 ~ Add a Comment    Send to a Friend