JP, you ask << but what makes your values superior to theirs? Against what standard are you measuring their values? >>

Fair questions however, I get the feeling that you view “values” in terms of just moral standards. I suspect that most of us would have absolutely no problem with all the “be good” attributes of most religions, particularly the christianic variants. Unfortunately each man made religion comes with baggage; these are contradiction, hypocrisy, schizophrenia and conflict. These are all part of the value system of each.

So when you ask what makes my values superior to theirs, my answer to the moral aspect is “absolutely nothing”. My answer to the parts relating to contradiction, hypocrisy, schizophrenia and conflict is, “absolutely everything”.

When you ask << Against what standard are you measuring their values? >> My answer is “mine”. If and when any religion can demonstrate its ability to abide by its own values, I will buy it.

For at least 2,000 years our societies have been trying to stamp out the human propensity for “duding” our neighbors. Religions have created millions of “do the right thing” rules however; we have also created similar millions of “civic rules” covering social, economic, political and even ecological domains.

The one “blinding glimpse of the obvious” we seem to miss every time is that each set of rules has been created and managed by humans, the very species the rules were designed to “make good” in the first place.

It’s not the rules that are wrong; it’s the fact that human nature makes us break them, even the humans that made the rules and who implement them, that’s the problem. That is why I say and repeat my assertion, “If and when any religion can demonstrate its ability to abide by its own values, I will buy it”, because only then will we know they have it right.

Beautiful article, Nick. Love it. LOVE IT!

“If the words '100% sure' mean anything at all, then we can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, and for exactly the same reasons we can be 100% sure of everything else."

I agree with you, Jon J, that we need to be careful about the way we use this sort of language. At the same time, however, I think we need to differentiate ourselves from fundamentalist beliefs by refraining from using the phrase “I am 100% sure god does not exist”.

I am certainly an atheist, but like Nick I think it is more reasonable to be 99% sure that god doesn’t exist, rather than 100%. In the same way, I am pretty damn certain that this table exists in front of me, but I would not say 100% certain. All I have to trust are my five senses and there is a (very) tiny possibility that my senses are providing me with completely false information (or that I am living in a constant dream). These ideas in philosophy have been around for a long time - reference Locke and Berkeley from as early as the 17th Century.

I think you're right, Jon J, that “all of the empirical evidence confirms that belief and none of the empirical evidence disconfirms it”, therefore we can be very confident that we are correct. But from a scientific perspective, it is impossible to ever prove a hypothesis to be true, just as it is impossible to prove it to be false. All we can show is that the weight of the evidence “strongly suggests” that god does not exist, but we can never “prove” it.

Also, I think that if we’re too cocky and say we’re 100% certain that god does not exist, that makes us no better than religious fundamentalists. I think that’s where the majority of atheists (certainly not all) are one up on believers: we continue to question our beliefs and the world around us. Doubt is a beautiful thing.

Back to the Congo everybody...

This event and the thousands like it each year remain the conundrum. We all appreciate free speech, and this is contigent on a number of things, primarily, free will.

If I wish to protect myself, or the women involved, I am obliged to curtail anothers actions and deny them acting according to their choice, even if that choice is internationally unlawful or, dare I judge it it (along with most) inhuman.

If we look at what some value in God - truth, justice, and salvation from our human failings - then atheists need to be able to say how they deal with the 'Congo' scenario.

The author blames God for the situation, but, unless the writer and his ilk want to renounce the option for freewill, what is God to do, selectively intervene? Well we kind of know how Pharoah might have felt about that unlevel playing field.

Rationally, the Congo acts could be defended if the anarchists are happy with their lifestyle and, as is often the case, can act with impunity.

Where is justice, and if we aren't eternal beings, then why does it matter, other than for an easy life for me and the others lucky enough to benefit from Judeo-Christian and western concepts of rule of law.

God(?)save the Queen, because no one - short of force of will and arms - will stop evil, wherever and however it occurs.

Now evil, where does that fit in with all this? Good Lord...back to the start again!

I was reading the following part of Nick Moodie's Essay dealing with Islam:

"This talk of liberal principles and gender equality are examples of a focus on the dark side of religion. This was clearest in the talk given by physician and writer Taslima Nasrin, an exile from her home country of Bangladesh. God squirmed in his seat as Taslima explained the violent riots and death threats that saw her flee Bangladesh in 1994 and India in 2007. He continued to squirm as she picked up on a theme by the previous speech of atheist activist John Perkins, who had explored the fundamentally violent and intolerant messages of the Koran. I did however see God trying to hide a tear in his eye as Taslima talked of what she had missed due to exile, such as deathbed goodbyes to her parents, and the fact that she could find a home only in the hearts of those who oppose ignorance and darkness. He denied it afterwards, He said there had been something in His eye."

Does anyone know whether Taslima Nasrin or John Perkins can read Arabic and whether they have any formal training in Islamic studies?

Surely if Islam is so bad one could find real scholars in Islam to tell us just how bad and nasty it is.

Or lets put this another way. Is this a sign that atheist could not find a real scholar of Islam who would be prepared to say what the atheists want to hear?

I have been reading some of the essays writen by John Perkins (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Articles.htm), one of the speakers who addressed the issue of Islam at the confernce.

In his essays on Islam, John offers a lot of opinions but so far i have not been able to find one reference to a serious scholar to support his opinion.

Does anyone know of an article by John Perkins on Islam that is supported by serious scholarship?

Thanks JonJ and JP for taking the trouble to note some of the obvious weaknesses in this article.

Since when is not being sure of something 100% classed as a virtue? I didn’t realise that I could be so virtuous. There are countless thousands of things about which I know much less than 100%. Yet I don’t organise conferences about them on that basis.

Nick, when someone advertises a talk or seminar or conference, I’d like to come and hear about what they know, or what they’ve learned or discovered. I’m not interested in them boasting about what they don’t know.

It reminds me of the Swiss ski-instructor who charged $50 a lesson. At the first lesson, he told his students (in his French accent) zat he’z going to teach zem how to fall correctly. One student replied, ‘Look mate, at $50 an hour, I think you ought to tell me how to stand up.’

Then there were those appalling stories of the war crimes and human rights abuses in the Congo. While I’m sure those stories would tug at the heart strings of any full blooded human, atheist or religious, the author didn’t explain how that specifically relates to atheism. Is atheism only based on appeals to emotion?

Nick, you haven’t it through. As JP noted, if at the bottom of everything, the universe is all about chemical reactions and atoms bumping together, then what is the atheist’s basis for saying that war crimes are wrong?

So when the young student is raped walking between the evening lecture theatre and the dorm, we arrive at a crime so horrible we class it an absolute evil. So from where does their sense of ‘absolute’ come from? Moral indignation is well founded in us all being created in the image of a moral being.

In fact, some victims of crime even take refuge in there being a God that will ultimately judge such horrors in the future. Some claim that only in the light of there being a God of justice can there come any sense from their suffering.