Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour. (Don Hirschberg)

I am slowing coming to the conclusion that there are quite a few people in this world who believe a thing just because they like the idea of it, and that a surprisingly high number of religious people fall into this category.

I must admit that I see the attraction. It is tempting to believe in a world that basically equates to a fairy tale - that everyone will live forever, and that there will be no pain or suffering. I prefer, however to overcome this temptation and be realistic. Anything else is to live a lie.

In this blog I'd like to document some of the obstacles that atheists face when trying to convert a religious person and I'd also like to explain why we should attempt to do so.


* Who Cares?

Why should we convert religious people to Atheism? What's the harm if they believe in an imaginary God, or that they will have eternal life?

The short answer is: because religion is dangerous. Additionally, many religious people are militant, and are fighting for the intellectual control of our future. If we don't fight back, we will lose by default.

Also, what I would like is for the human race to move on from our pathetic superstitions, and start to make rational decisions about our future. I'd like to live in a world where we start to become honest with ourselves and others about exactly what we know to be true, and stop lying just so everyone feels better. Nobody knows what happens after death. Not you, your Priest, your Mufti or your Sharman - Nobody.


* What About Moderates?

Moderates are the worst offenders. Most people complain loudly about the 'fundamentalists' or the 'extreme' followers. But what exactly do those terms mean? Put simply, it means followers who actually believe everything that their particular holy book purports. Anyone who has read the book of Deuteronomy knows that most Christians today don't follow their religion in the way that God originally suggested that they should. Let's take an example:

Deuteronomy 22:21

"Then they are to make the girl come to the door of her father's house and she will be stoned to death by the men of the town, because she has done evil and put shame on Israel, by acting as a loose woman in her father's house: so you are to put away evil from among you."

When was the last stoning you went to? If I follow this commandment, does that make me a fundamentalist, a homicidal maniac, or a devout follower?

Almost all Christians are 'moderates'. That is they choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and discard the rest.

* Why don't Religious People Convert to Atheism?

While there never can be concrete evidence that disproves the existence of God, the chances are astronomically high that he does not exist. There is precisely the same chance that God exists as there is for the existence of any other magical creature. This being the case, why do people still believe in religion?

1. Firstly, and most importantly, it feels good. Which would you rather: An eternity fertilising daisies, or to live eternally as a demi-god? Lock in option B, Johnny!

2. Abandoning everything you have ever believed is hard going. I should know, I used to be an orthodox Christian. You have to come to terms with the fact that you have been taken for a ride - big style! You might have even been ready to kill or die for your belief. Crikey!

3. It goes against our culture. Every time we say "bless you", every time we celebrate Christmas or Easter, we are reminded of how ingrained Christianity is into our culture. To some people, turning your back on Christianity means turning your back on your culture.

I'll end now, because my fingers are getting sore. But I'd just like end with a call out to any atheists reading this blog. The next time you pass a Christian in the street, ask them if they've heard the bad news...

Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy. (Henry Kissinger)

So the news was dominated today with reports that sexism is rife in our workplace and that Hilary Clinton will not become the first female President of the US of A because of sexism. Yes, cracks have been made in the glass ceiling, but it’s still hanging on for dear life at the law firms apparently, as the vigilant Margaret Thornton reported today on ABC Radio National’s very excellent “The Law Report”.

Margaret Thornton was annoyed, and so she should be, it’s intolerable that anyone these days is kept back, or to be more precise, not advanced on the basis of anything other than merit. My problem is that such outrage seems to be a one-way street in that it only seems to be a problem if it is targeted at a minority group or women. Let me explain:

For quite a while now Australia (and other western democracies) have adopted a policy of what is called in PC circles “positive discrimination” or “affirmative action”. What this basically means is that corporations and various government departments are given a percentage target of a given demographic that must be met by a certain timeframe.

For example “The Greens” (a major political party in Australia) state that they are: “Remedying existing discrimination by ensuring a higher representation of women on legislative and judicial bodies.” Of course, there’s an elephant in the room when we get down to actually enacting this type of mandate; that is, how do you remedy the existing discrimination without hiring purely on the basis of gender or race?

The short answer is that you can’t. There is no such thing as “positive discrimination”, just discrimination. Whenever you discriminate, someone is unfairly advantaged, and someone is unfairly disadvantaged. The only arguments that can be made in favour of such legislation usually end up along the lines of “The end justifies the means”. Basically, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Insurance companies also seem to have hitched a ride on the bandwagon, and SGIO have an advertising campaign at the moment which states that “SGIO rewards women for their safer driving by offering them a lower premium”. This can be restated to “SGIO punishes men by offering them a higher premium”, thereby implying that the driving standard of every male is automatically in question because of their gender. Nice.

Moving on to Hilary Clinton, I heard a breathless female reporter today announce that “The country was ready for a female President, but the media was not”, and she went on to say that Hillary’s chances were harmed by sexist comments made by various media personalities. To my mind this argument is self-defeating. The two possibilities are:

1. The country was ready for a female President. In this case they would have dismissed such sexist comments and just condemned the media reporter who made them. Or;

2. The country wasn’t ready for a female President, and wrongly took the sexist comments to heart and voted accordingly.

You can’t have it both ways.