Hergest Ridge

In a flash, all was clear. The theory I had been formulating over the past couple of months finally blossomed into a concise idea that can be described on a single yellow post-it note (other colour post-it notes would do equally well).

Theists often perceive atheists to lack morals. This is reflective not of reality, but of a fundamental difference in how each defines life and much in it. The atheists is pro women’s choice on abortion, not because she or he believes that killing babies is acceptable, but simply, the atheist does not see a cluster of cells as a baby. If an atheists sees the zygote as a baby, even without being religious they’re likely against abortion.

Most of the world’s theists and atheists share moral convictions, but since each defines murder and life, lust and sexuality, nature and existence, and so on in different ways, an illusion of immorality can manifest itself.

When a terminally ill patient is unable to end their life and asks for assistance in doing so, and if the atheist answers the call on grounds of mercy, the theist is likely to conclude that murder is what took place. From this, the theist will often conclude that atheists have no morals, but the difference is not of morals, but that in how each defines murder. The atheist may in turn see the theist as immoral (although this case is less likely). After all, what kind of being sanctions and forces suffering onto another? Surely, not a moral one… Does a theist not put down his dog if all it has is suffering?

Contrary to the Christian’s belief, people did not go around and murder, rape, pillage, and sin to their heart’s content until the bible came along. Morality is not of the bible, but often the bible is wrongfully believed to be of morals. Everything good in the bible existed before it did – arguably, some evils not known to man before the bible, came into existence right around the time it was published.

Few weeks back I’ve contacted a client via Email, with the request for content for their new website. I informed them that the design they approved is nearly coded, and by week’s end we’ll be ready to populate the pages with their information. Several busy weeks later, with no word from the client I decided to send another Email. If no reply came within a business day or two, I planned on a phone call – just in case.

The second Email received a prompt response, and declared that the content was forwarded after our initial request. “We need to meet” became the second urgent option. I am not sure exactly how much time need have passed before we were contacted to verify that the sent content was indeed received on our end, but I digress.

Narrowing down a meeting time for the next day – again via Email, this time without brownouts – I happened to be passing near the client’s shop, and subsequently decided to poke my head in with hopes of a quick resolution right there and then. On arrival, I was informed that the key individual is in, and would be done with a client in a few minutes.

“Did you want to wait?” asked the receptionist.

“Does he have time between this and the next appointment, or, is this the last one of the day?”

A quick glance at the schedule confirmed that no other clients have been scheduled for this day.

“I’ll wait then.”

Several minutes later, my client was done with their appointment.

“I was just in the area, and though we could have a quick chat, get everything going again as soon as possible.”

“I can’t.” The quick answer came across as dismissive. “I’ve got other appointments coming up. We’ll need to meet tomorrow, say around noon?”

“Tomorrow at noon works. See you then.”

And so, it seems, I Caught a Little Lie.

My second reading of The God Delusion is now complete. Here, I have to note that this probably is the only book in my life that I’ve read twice. Certainly the only one I can recall rereading.

I’ve got a copy of 1984 sitting on the living room coffee table. The book is a second endeavour in my George Orwell self education. My pool of known facts about the book is very limited, the most notable being that the title is a year, with the last two digits reversed. The book comes with something of a 150 page preface, plus dozens of end notes pages – tad bit intimidating, but if it gets too technical, I’ll skip the preface; Maybe read it with added context after I complete the actual novel portion.

After an extra day at home thanks to Canada Day, week four at my on-site part time position is about to start tomorrow. The position has forced me to work on a more efficient schedule, and reduce activity in areas like… the blog! Now that I’m a bit more adjusted to the new ways, there is hope for more regular entries. If not, one way or another things will be back to normal in a couple of months, tops.

For those feeling lost at the reduced frequency of new content at Hergest Ridge, the Zeitgeist movie should provide a bit of entertainment, and maybe a bit of knowledge. Zeitgeist is a full length feature, of which I found the first 35 minutes or so most interesting. I have to warn you that this is not a movie for sheep. I’d dismiss much of the content as improbable or very improbable. Of course, given the assumption that you have a good head on your shoulders, you know that to be the case for just about everything. You do question everything, right? Right.

“Television is not the truth. Television is a god damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, story tellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers and football players. We [the networks] are in the boredom-killing business. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

Dan Le Sac’s “Thou Shalt Always Kill” is another great eye opener. After dispensing generally good advice for life, the song ends with the proclamation that thou shalt always kill. Only by thinking for yourself right out of the gate, or, by going back to the preceding bit of advice – thou shalt think for yourselves – does everything fall into place. Now go read a book!

I’ve always wondered about the meaning of the title quote. My first intuition was that it is a cheap shot at atheists, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am.

James Morrow said the argument is against foxholes, not atheism. As of my writing, Wikipedia’s first paragraph suggests that the phrase is ‘used to imply that atheists really do believe in a god deep down, and that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, the belief will surface, overwhelming the less substantial affectation of atheism.’ My own definition – I’m sure someone else said it before – is that you have to believe in something before you find yourself in a foxhole, the saying is not religious per se. Last, and perhaps the least, is the suggestion that atheists are cowards and self centred.

Regardless of individual interpretation, I suspect few will argue that ‘no atheists in foxholes’ can favour or discriminate atheists. And I bet that I know which camp those few with a firm belief in a definite interpretation are from, and what meaning they derive from it.