Just WHO Are Atheists Blaspheming?

Offensive to God?  Or just to you?

Comedian Stephen Fry is under investigation by Irish Police for Blasphemy following a member of the public complaining about some comments he made on RTE television show The Meaning of Life in February 2015.

The show host, Gay Byrne, asked Fry what he might say to God at the gates of Heaven, to which he replied "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

Speaking of the Greek Gods (Stephen Fry is also a classical scholar), Fry added that they did not "present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent... ...the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported that a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis the same month the programme was broadcast, which he claimed breached the Irish Defamation Act. He has more recently been contacted by the Garda to say they are now investigating his complaint. It is claimed that the complainant says he was not personally offended by the comments, but felt that Stephen Fry's comments qualified as Blasphemy under the 2009 law.

The Defamation Act entered Irish statute books in 2009. It was introduced to extend existing blasphemy laws in Ireland to all faiths, as the Irish Constitution of 1937 only gave Christians and the Christian faith protection under law. Breach of the Defamation Act carries a 25,000 Euro (UK £22,000) fine.

Stephen Fry in 2015 pointed out that he had not singled out any one religion in his comments.

Scotland also has a Blasphemy Law still on the statute books of Scots Law, although it was last enforced in 1843, when Edinburgh bookseller Thomas Paterson was jailed for 15 months for selling "blasphemous literature".

So, under risk of prosecution, if the Bible were to be believed, let me tell readers exactly what I think of the God of Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition.

By the very admission of the Bible, this is a petty-minded, childish, cruel god, with all the loving kindness of a sadistic psychopath.

From the very beginning, our "loving father" placed the first humans in the Garden of Eden, and forbade them eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But hold on, if they did not know what good and evil were, then it therefore logically follows they had never been taught right from wrong. Therefore, when they did eat from the tree, they were wholly innocent in their actions, not knowing any better.

That's the same actions of the arsehole who puts paint thinner in a milk bottle and leaves it within reach of a toddler. Our 'loving father' is one helluva shitty parent it seems

It was inevitable that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, for it is human nature to be curious. That's why in 2010: Odyssey Two, Arthur C Clarke had the aliens tell humanity "All these worlds are yours to explore except Europa. Attempt no landings there."; because they knew the temptation would be too great for mankind to resist.  It is also why you get kids climbing over walls and fences into 'forbidden' areas, and even why if you put up a "Wet Paint" sign, some daft bugger will inevitably always touch the paint to check.

So, with Adam and Eve innocently breaching God's rules, which he never explained fully why, what was God's reaction? Not only did he punish the first humans but he condemned all mankind to come for all time to be punished for all eternity, for a minor infraction by the first two who could not have known any better.

This is a god who in a fit of pique, wiped out every species of flora and fauna on the face of the planet, save for a few on a ruddy great boat, because mankind had become "wicked".

A god who commanded his "chosen people" to kill every man, woman and boy child, right down to babies, but that they could keep all the young unmarried virgin girls for themselves. Thereby sanctioning not only mass murder but also rape and sexual slavery.

A god who loved his chosen people so much that he deliberately hardened the heart of Pharaoh, ensuring he would not accede to the pleas of Moses to let his people go. A god who then proceeded to rain down hail, affecting everyone, poison the water, affecting everyone, spread disease and lice, affecting everyone, destroy the crops, affecting everyone, and kill the cattle, affecting everyone. A god who rounded off this particularly nasty set of parlour tricks by killing every first born son of every Egyptian, right down to the babies.

A god who laid down his book of rules, in which he freely admits to being jealous, and goes on to tell his people to kill adulterers, gay men and women - whom he allegedly created yet calls them an "abomination", and even unruly and cheeky children.

A god who was so angered by the sexual licentiousness of two cities that he destroyed them, leaving only one man and his two daughters surviving. Yet when the daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him (because obviously there was loads of wine lying around in a cave, and Lot somehow magically did not suffer from 'brewer's droop'), the same god who frowned so much on the sexual practises of Sodom and Gomorrah apparently had no problem with their incest.

A god who laid down rules for slaves, telling them to be loyal and faithful to their masters.

A god who punished some children who were cheeky to a bald man by having a bear tear them to shreds.

A god who is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, yet somehow had to impregnate a woman with himself, then have himself sacrificed and brought back to life, to 'save' mankind from the eternal punishment which only the same god alone could have created.

A god who told his followers to leave their families and follow him only.

If any human being told you that they watched your every move, they knew everything you do, everywhere you go, everyone you met and what you did with them, and that same person told you that you had better love them and them alone above all others, or they would punish you in the cruellest ways without mercy, you would be more than a little alarmed. You may seek an exclusion order against that person. You would more than likely contact the police, and if their investigation proved that the said person had indeed said all of the above, they would be charged, convicted, and imprisoned for your safety and that of the public in general.

Yet that is exactly what the Christian faith is based upon; that an all-seeing God is following you all the time, and if you don't accept him, love him above all others, and do his bidding, then you will be thrown into Hell and punished mercilessly for all eternity.

The 'love' of God is no love at all; it has all the love of the dangerously obsessed psychopathic stalker who needs locked up for their own good as well as that of society.

If the God of the Bible was proven to exist, then I would have no reason but to accept that, but there is no way I could ever bring myself to follow the evil fuck. And what would I say? I would tell him to his face all of the above and condemn him that if anyone truly deserved to be burning in Hell, it would be him.

If anyone is offended by all I have written above, as I said, Scotland has blasphemy laws, so go ahead, make my day – bring a complaint against me. I would relish my day in court, I would plead Not Guilty, and for my testimony I would use no other documents than the King James Bible. Referring to it, I would prove that not one word I say in any way blasphemes the Christian faith. Indeed, much of it actually is central to the faith and thereby upholds it.

I would call God as a witness, but I think he may unavailable to comment.

Moreover I would make the point as I do not believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, or any other gods for that matter, then I cannot possibly be guilty of blaspheming the Christian faith, or any other faith.

When Sir William Wallace was dragged before King Edward I of England for his show-trial in 1305, he admitted many charges. But when the charge of Treason was read out he defiantly cried out that he could not be guilty of Treason, as he had never sworn allegiance to King Edward. It did him no good, but it was a sound legal point. Similarly, neither the God of Abraham nor Jesus are my kings; I don't believe in the former and the jury is still out on the very existence of the latter. Therefore, I am no more guilty of blasphemy against the Judeo/Christian God than I am of blasphemy against the Elfin Queen, unicorns, Father Christmas, the Green Man, or the Loch Ness Monster.

And exactly the same can be said of Stephen Fry. Indeed, more so for Fry, as unlike me, he did not single out any particular religion.

Many would find a great deal of what I have said above offensive, but it is by no means blasphemous. If it is offending, then it is not my belief that it is offending God, because I don't believe he/she/it/they exist. So just who then is being offended? Only the believers, and herein lies the problem.

The brilliant You Tube atheist cartoonist who goes under the name DarkMatter2525 once posted an absolutely brilliant video, "The Real God; An Epiphany", in which he argued that when theists are offended by atheists, it is not because the atheist is rejecting God, but rather it is the believer who feels rejected. Likening belief to an attraction to another person, he pointed out that when someone approaches another, only to find their attraction is not reciprocated, that person has their feelings hurt, they feel rejected, and may lash out in anger as a result. DarkMatter2525 went on to claim that this is because that the 'relationship' that believers feel with their god is in fact a deep relationship with their own ego. The god they 'worship' will often share their own views on social, moral, and even political issues, and that is because the 'relationship with god' is in fact a deeply-set relationship with the subconscious self. In reality, the believer IS the very god they claim to worship.

And of course, among all this, there actually has been no rejection at all. If any one of us is approached by another who is attracted to us, but are not interested, we may let them down lightly, we may agree to be friends but not more than friends, but are we rejecting them? No, we are not. We may already be married or in a relationship, we may be of a different sexual persuasion, the time may not be right for us, or we may simply not be interested. There are hundreds of reasons why we do not enter into relationships with others, none of which can be defined as rejection. So it is if we do not believe in the existence of god(s), and/or we consider the writings of 'holy' books to be nothing more than mythology, we are not rejecting those beliefs. If you think that we are, then consider whether you likewise have rejected Maebh, Queen of Faerie.

Yet the believer will react angrily, often even violently, to the non-believer for this 'rejection'. History is replete with instances of atrocities carried out in the name of religion, where countless millions, possibly billions, have been killed for "blasphemy", "heresy" and "apostasy". Here in Edinburgh alone, we have the Witches Well; a memorial on the site where hundreds of innocents, mostly women and girls, were once burned at the stake for Witchcraft (over 500 alone during the reign of King James VI, who was paranoid about witches, and whose youngest victim was a little girl of 4 years old). The Holy Inquisitions killed thousands, all based on idle superstition and dogma which has since been proven to be wholly mistaken.

We have all seen or heard about the atrocities committed by Daesh, and there are Islamic countries where questioning or denying the Qur'an can earn sentences ranging from fines, to imprisonment, to lashes, or even to hanging or beheading. Saudi Arabia has recently passed laws which define atheism as terrorist activity.

But do not be too quick to point the finger at the dark ages ideas of fundamentalist Islamic states, Christians, because although you may claim that Christian atrocities are part of a sad and mistaken history, your faith does not have clean hands to this day. In Kenya it is not uncommon for fanatical Christian mobs to hunt down, attack, and even massacre people they suspect of witchcraft. In Uganda faith-based laws see gay men arrested, beaten up in cells, and even 'disappeared' in some cases. Nor can you put this down to the idle superstition of some uneducated African peoples. Chechnya is quite openly rounding up gay men and placing them in concentration camps, with full sanction of the Islamic authorities, and the Orthodox Church. And of course the homophobic views of Russian President Vladimir Putin are more than well known, and gay men in Russia are often arrested and/or beaten up, which the authorities either turn a blind eye to, or are actually involved in. This again again has the sanction of the Orthodox church.

Believers reacting to what they perceive as blasphemy, be it through law, by violence, or both, actually suggests a distinct shallowness of faith. For surely if you believe your god is omnipotent, that is all-powerful, then it is down to that god and that god alone to deal with the blasphemer. Or do you believe your god to be so weak and powerless that he needs his earthly minions to do his fighting for him?

This is actually a very important message for the Christian faith, which indeed tells believers not to be judge, unless they too should be judged. In Deuteronomy 32:35, God allegedly states "To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." This is repeated in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." In other words, by the very rules laid out in the Bible, it is not the place of Christians to seek revenge for imagined slights, but they are actually meant to leave it to God to deal with the 'sinner'.

Gandhi, although not a Christian, was a very devout man who believed there was truth in all faiths and who greatly admired the story of Jesus. He once stated "Violence implies atheism", again working on this idea that if you turn to violence, then you are denying the power of your god.

If any believers are offended by my writings, they therefore have to ask themselves just who have I offended? Have I really offended their god? No, because I don't believe their god exists, and if they did, then it is that god's place to deal with me, not the believers.

Have I offended the believer? No, I have severely questioned the Judeo/Christian faith, which I consider to be utter nonsense, and the Bible - already proven to be unreliable and inaccurate - to be little more than a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders campfire tales. Believers, whichever faith they follow, really need to get over the idea that their 'holy books' are somehow not open to scrutiny. If they do not, then they are little different from the Taliban. As Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist fundamentalist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination says "No idea is beyond questioning. No human being is beyond dignity."

Have I as much as suggested suppressing the right to freedom of religion? Not by the slightest iota. I am in fact extremely passionate about human rights, including the right of freedom of religion, thought and conscience. I may consider religion to be absolutely barmy, but if anyone chooses to believe, then not only is it their right to do so, but I would be the first to defend that right. I may not be a parent, but I believe every child has the right to a good education. You do not have to be part of something to defend it. I only wish that more theists would likewise defend my right NOT to believe in god(s); freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

So, believer, if you are indeed offended by my writings, and think they are blasphemous, here is my open invitation; go ahead, bring a complaint against me. I do believe that the statute in Scots Law against Blasphemous Libel would cover it. I think I have already clearly illustrated however that I am innocent of any such charges, and I will more than happily stand up and repeat those arguments in a court of law.

Then before you bring any such action, consider that if you do so, not only would you be trying to do your God's work for him, but in doing so you would also be bearing false witness against me.

Would both of these actions not in fact be, ermm, blasphemy?

Gender IS a Spectrum - and YOU are on it

That fake, dishonest, unintelligent, bigoted meme

Get used to it.

I see the internet is still ablaze with the claim that Bill Nye once said that gender is determined by chromosomes.

In the wake of Bill's new show, Bill Nye Saves the World, in which he asserted that gender is on a spectrum, some bigot produced a meme with a still from his 1996 show, Bill Nye the Science Guy, with wording added stating "Gender is determined by your chromosomes". Despite Snopes and other sources on the internet utterly destroying the myth that Bill Nye said any such thing, the meme is still doing the rounds, and people are still trying to assert that gender is driven by chromosomes.

It is quite sad that among those claiming such things are people who are otherwise quite intelligent, and usually very liberal towards others. Yet every time they assert that gender is determined by chromosomes., they exhibit a form of thinking which is dishonest, ill-informed, intellectually stunted, prejudiced towards others, and anti-science in the extreme. In other words, the usual traits I have come to expect from the unintelligent rantings of right-wing bigots, usually of the religious persuasion.

Not only did Bill Nye never say that gender is determined by chromosomes, whoever put that meme together is disingenuously referring to two episodes of Bill Nye the Science Guy, and a line spoken not by Bill but rather by an actress.

In the episode of the show entitled "Genes", Bill Nye stated "Our genes are stored in parts of our cells called chromosomes. They look like this. Chromosomes contain all of the genetic information, all of the instructions you need to make a person. Now humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46." Then in an episode in Series 2 entitled "Possibilities", actress Amy Broder stated "You’re either X and X. Girl. Or X and Y. Boy. The chance of becoming either a boy or a girl is always 1 in 2."

In these statements, neither Bill Nye nor Amy Broder never said a thing about gender at all. As any biologist worth their salt will tell you, what both were talking about is not gender, but rather biological sex. Keep this in mind; it is an important distinction.

It is also interesting to note that even for their time, the shows were fundamentally flawed in claiming that there is only ever a biological binary. The very existence of babies born intersex, that is with both 'male' and 'female' genitalia (formerly known as hermaphrodites) tells us that simply is not so.

And here is where the distinction comes in. Those who have latched onto the chromosomes=gender mantra are trying to assert that gender and biological sex are one and the same thing. That is the first part which is anti-science and which simply is not so.

To explain this, we have to look at human development in the womb. The glands which form into ovaries or testes develop around week 9 of pregnancy, and will continue to develop based on the biological sex of the foetus until around week 13, when external sexual organs in the form of a clitoris and labia in girls or a penis and scrotum in boys.

Whilst the beginnings of the brain start at around week 6 or 7 of pregnancy, this is no more than a developing brain which starts to receive impulses from growing nerve cells, and is by no means a functioning brain, capable of independent thought (no matter what the anti-abortion brigade may try to tell you). It is not until around week 16 that the brain starts to grow rapidly. This continues into the third trimester of pregnancy, when the baby's brain almost triples in the last 13 weeks of gestation, and becomes fully functioning and capable of thought.

It is now believed that gender, just like sexuality, is determined in this last period of cerebral development. That is that just as we now believe it is in the womb that it is decided whether the child will be straight, gay, bi, pan, or any other sexual persuasion, so the same applies to whether the child will identify as cisgender, transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, or whatever other gender (and it is now agreed there are many), has also already been decided prior to birth.

The important point here however is the difference in timescales between biological and cerebral development. As much as we all know many guys seem to think with their dicks, I am sure we all agree that gender, like sexuality, is 'all in the mind', and you won't find a tiny brain in the glans or clitoris.

And of course, in the above example, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, I refer only to the usual biological sex binary. But intersex children throw in an interesting point with regard to gender identity.

Here is the litmus test. Imagine that you had a child which was born intersex, with the genitalia of both sides of the biological sex binary. Now, just how are you going to bring that child up? Are you going to decide a gender for them and enforce surgery upon the child according to the gender YOU want them to be? Or are you going to leave the child to grow naturally, let nature take its course, and leave the child to decide which, if either, side of the gender binary they most identify with, and whether or not to opt for surgery when they are old enough to make that decision (some intersex people are in fact more than happy with their bodies as they are)?

For my part, I would go with the latter option. If I were the parent, I would not know the child's gender identity, and I would seek only that child's happiness. Therefore, I would leave it to the child to decide their gender for themselves, which starts to show as early as 3 years old.

To date there is only one country in the world which has outlawed 'gender corrective' surgery on children, and that is the tiny island state of Malta. Quite a surprise in fact, as Malta has been at the crossroads of religions for millennia and still has very conservative religious views on sexuality and gender. And yet, they have taken this very brave step, which I personally believe is the right one. Malta is standing up for the human rights of gender identity like no other country in the world has done so, and in doing so they have sent a firm message to the world; biological sex and gender are not one and the same thing.

There is an important point to be learned here, and that is just who is the expert on gender identity. And I put this to each and every reader; who is the expert on YOUR gender identity? Your parents? Your doctor? Your family? Your friends? Or is it more likely that you and only you are the one and only true expert on the gender which you identify with? This is true for each and every one of us. And if it is true that nobody has the right to tell you what gender you are, or exhibit prejudice towards your gender, even tell you that you need psychiatric help, or even that your gender does not even exist, then the same is true for you, and every other person, towards others who may be of differing gender. The simple fact is that there is only one expert on anyone's gender, and that is the individual involved.

I would say a word here on those who say that those who do not fit into the stereotypical gender binary need psychiatric help. I actually had someone say that about non-binary individuals on an online thread just recently, the second time saying "If you don't identify as a man or a woman, go and see a psychiatrist." I twice asked them what their academic qualifications were in psychiatry - and I am still waiting on a reply. The actual nerve of some people who think they are so very 'expert' on the gender identity of others, when they patently do not know the first thing they are talking about. Amazing how you put a keyboard in front of some people and suddenly they become the expert on everything.

Actually, from what I have garnered from many non-binary (and transgender) friends and individuals online, many if not most, of them do go to see psychiatrists and/or psychologists; highly trained professionals who counsel them and help them to cope with their gender identity. But not one of these health professionals would ever coax a non-binary person into choosing either side of the gender binary.

But even if non-binary people don't seek such help, what the fuck is it to the individual mentioned above, and those like him? Speaking from their position of cisgender privilege, just how the hell is anyone not conforming to the gender binary hurting them, exactly? It's a rhetorical question of course, because the obvious answer is that it does not harm or even affect them one iota. And that being the case, we can only put their attitudes down to one simple answer; sheer blind bigotry. I really think that some of such people feel threatened by the gender spectrum. Because if they accept it exists, then they have to equally admit that they, like all of us, are on that spectrum; just as we are all on the sexuality spectrum, which also leaves some feeling threatened.

This too is important, because this is where the "chromosomes=gender" brigade are on dangerous ground, concerning others who share that view. As I have pointed out above, the very root of this mistaken belief are those who think gender and biological sex are the same thing, when they patently are not. Yet not too long ago, there were homophobes who were using the chromosomes. argument against homosexuality, claiming that because of the way the human body forms biologically, that homosexuality must be a choice. This is still prevalent among some religious bigots, particularly those who come out with the tired old "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" mantra. Again, these people are incapable of differentiating biological sex from gender. Most gay men and lesbian women are every bit as cisgender as the heterosexual majority.

So, those who would maintain that chromosomes=gender, be very careful of the company you are keeping. Lay down with dogs, do not be surprised if you wake up with fleas.

Ultimately, the very denial of the gender spectrum is indeed unintelligent, ill-informed, and anti-science. It is in fact born of lazy thinking. For science does say that gender is a spectrum. In the same thread I mentioned above, another person said of there being a gender spectrum "citation needed". I replied to their comment by leaving links to peer-reviewed science which asserts that gender identity is indeed on a spectrum (and I've had no reply from them either). And if the science says that, then that's what I am going to roll with.

But then, that is what Bill Nye said in his new show, Bill Nye Saves the World;

"If you’re like me, and I know I am, you’re still learning about this field of science. We used to think that there were just two settings. Male and female. But it’s actually a lot sexier than that... ...Take sex. We used to think it was pretty straightforward. X and a Y chromosome for males. Two Xs for females. But we see more combinations than that in real life… …We have to listen to the science. And the science says that we’re all on a spectrum."

There it is; an open admission from a learned man, more learned than most, that he - unlike all the keyboard experts - doesn't know it all, but that it is the science which says gender, just like sexuality, is on a spectrum, and it is that science we have to trust in.

To conclude, I will finish on a humorous note.

How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?

Pull down it's genes.*

*This gag is supported by the EU fund for the Continuance and Preservation of Extremely Unfunny Old Jokes.