But I digress. The simplest explanation for why atheism is not a religion can  be summed in a popular statement, which is “atheism is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby”. There are a million other ways to phrase it- “atheism is a religion like not smoking is a habit”, “atheism is a religion like not driving a classic car makes you an enthusiast” and perhaps my favourite: “atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour”. These statements allude to what I mentioned previously regarding how atheism should be looked at, at most, as an extension to rationality in areas that were previously dominated by faith.

So why is the argument dangerous? Well, as I have hopefully shown, it is clearly misrepresenting what atheism does and what it entails. More dangerous than you think, it is common practice for religious commentators to lump new atheism with Communist (i.e. non-rational) atheism for this very reason and hope the confusion halts attempts to denounce faith. While an atheist friend of mine feels that the assertion that Communist dictatorships behave similarly to religion is a poor argument, unfortunately, considering the other side has brought it up, it should be addressed. Sam Harris makes a more erudite and thoughtful statement regarding the issue, but I’ll recap. Stalinism et al. is “atheism” with enforced and irrational beliefs in the mix and any reasonable atheist or indeed religious observer can clearly see its foibles. Don’t call it a religion if you must, but there are many parallels including mass hysteria, stigmas attached to the non-believing outgroup, faith without evidence and of course cults of personality. Stalin had Lysenkoism, a pseudoscience touted as science, force-fed to the USSR which did little to alleviate its hunger pangs when the supposed “double Spring” bumper crops failed to materialize. Kim Jon-il has numerous legends regarding his birth and expertise, such as playing the greatest round of golf ever witnessed, or a vision of a golden Koi that blessed his leadership. One must stand agape at what is either fake tears for fear of being shot, or genuine (and thus, even more tragic) sorrow that his constituents felt after his demise. It is clear then, that there are very clear cut lines between new atheism and the “atheism” of dictatorships past and present. As Hitchens put it, Stalin had an entire nation who had blindly followed Imperialist Russia and believed in their diety status. Why wouldn’t you exploit that?

During my undergrad years as a budding psychologist, I was exposed to the horror that was the inconsistent tetrad. I’ve mentioned it previously before, but as a recap:

1)      The mind is immaterial

2)      The body is material

3)      The mind and body interact

4)      Spirit and matter do not interact

This is the inconsistent tetrad regarding the mind-body problem. You can remove one of the four and be left with a standpoint. So someone who refutes point 2 would be something of a solipsist who believes the body is a dream. Psychologists leapt upon the issue, and initially denied the un-measurable mind and removed the 1^st. The problem was not well addressed- behaviorists (bless their scientific, driven, cotton socks) pushed for decades against the simple fact that the mind did exist, as Chomsky in the 70s pointed out with more than a little incredulity. What became of this? The Golden Age of behaviourism crumbled and the school of thought (no juxtaposition intended) was bad mouthed. To take its place was some very good things, such as cognitive psychology. There was also shockingly bad things, like humanist psychology. Even the cog psych needed to be re-uplifted, much later, by behaviourism to become CBT which stands today as the most effective clinical psychology we have. But Pandora’s box was opened, and in flooded the unscientific practices of psychology that poison the well even today.

So what mistake did behaviourists and psychology make? The made the mistake of answering the tetrad. By agreeing that the terms of the tetrad would be the way the game was played, behaviourists shot themselves in the foot and stymied their own scientific enterprise. If they ignored the tetrad and favored pure science, making nods at the unknowing mind, psychology would probably be in a better state. By the way, Agnes Petocz, an old lecturer, believes psychology in some ways is still making it and I encourage you to read the material she has publish.

So how do we apply this to the current atheist question? Most atheists, eager to do discourse with believers, have accepted the field labeled “atheism is/is not a religion” and, unlike psychology, there are concerted and powerful attempts to ensure the field stays where it is. When typical Christian spokespeople state things like ““[New atheists are] like the communists who feared religion more than anything else because it was a competing truth claim” you know atheism is getting muddied down. By putting atheism on an even playing field with religion, not only does it drag atheism down but place religion higher (in this case, a “truth claim”). The question also adds doubt, the attempt to find comparisons between atheism and religion (which inevitably creates a bizarre and distorted view of atheists as some sort of mindless, unethical campaigners) as well as the most obvious and previously stated: it misses point of atheism completely. Weird comparisons are made- the moral beliefs of the religious become the opposing number to the zero moral belief an atheist has. I hope I have pointed out that the morals of an atheist are not due to similar reasons a religious person might experience, so the comparison is meaningless.

The question of “is atheism a religion” should not be a question; it should be a non-question because the assumptions it makes are meaningless and unhelpful. A religious person should not consider becoming an atheist to be a religious conversion because it inherently not the case. It is closer to casting away baggage, or enhancing one’s rationality, rather than debating whether you eat ham for Christmas or cut off your foreskin. Thoroughly answered, not that it ever needed or should have been, we now must move on to the meaningful, underlying debates between atheism and religious worship.

Hardly surprising, given that most of these definitions tend to come from extroverts. Now I’m not one to criticize extroverts and their capacity for socializing, for their capacity to adapt, endure and become comfortable in many situations. That is an extrovert’s strength and a mighty strength it really is. There is no reason to suppose that introverts are more intelligent than extroverts (or vice versa), or that there is some ability that either group possesses that the other does not. After all, introversion/extroversion is a sliding scale (a very well defined one at that), and while some things may be easier to do than others, nothing is truly out of anyone’s reach.

Now with that out of the way, let’s discuss what introversion really means. Psychologically speaking, the difference between introversion and extroversion has to do with the way in which either brain gathers information and this in turn leads to a multitude of potential behavioural and attitudinal differences. Extroverts are said to not absorb sufficient information to keep them happy, as a result they tend to explore, embrace, make friends and so on. Introverts, conversely, absorb information too fast and at an uncomfortable rate with many observances simply undesired. Opposed to extroverts, introverts might summarily attempt to collate, group, define. Friends are of course important, but fewer friends are required- the information gleaned from individuals can be overwhelming to a strong introvert be it from chatting, body language, facial expressions, even the legacy of the friendship becomes a carefully assessed, technical balancing act in order to settle the seemingly manic amounts of knowledge being poured in.

For this underlying reason, introverts may adopt certain behaviors such as shyness or insularity but this by no means is a restriction or requirement. A great many things may occur due to this bombardment of data that will affect different introverts in different ways. For instance, one may over-analyze social situations, constantly re-thinking and doubting which manifests as awkwardness (anxiety is an often experienced trait). Comparatively, the wealth of data for others may be overwhelming as for them to miss the important parts of the conversation- subtle facial signals that the topic of discussion is uncomfortable for instance, and this manifests as different but also undesired behavior. Others still simply don’t enjoy it, and subsequently need a good deal of time in comfortable exposure to familiar surroundings.

These sort of results happen in more than just social situations. Introversion can cause people to become spotlessly clean through the desire for law and peace; others (such as myself, sadly), become intensely focused on  particular points so that other aspects tend to fall by the wayside, with the laborious task of cleanliness being a common fall guy.

There are a few traits that I think most introverts possess, and these are important in determining whether you consider yourself one or not. I’ve had occasionally extroverts believe they are introverts because they like alone time- but this simply is not the same. All introverts need organized, perpetual bouts of quiet time, preferably alone or with very close friends (or spouses). This allows introverts to calmly absorb as much information as they like within a controlled environment. The person that re-reads a favorite book several times because it is comforting might be called an introvert, the person that enjoys wandering off by themselves into a city might not be.

Of course I’m making it sound a bit gloomy but there is no reason for it to be. Introverts, like anyone else, can mold themselves into happy, healthy individuals. Career paths requiring scrutiny (such as science or business) are things introverts can pick up and be great at. Presentations can be made well, observations can be powerful and thoughtful. New experiences can definitely be enjoyable- these experiences can immersify or be middling. Introverts can and do take recreational drugs; sadly sometimes for socializing, but just as likely for experience and enjoyment. Affability might not be natural, and a bit of quiet sometimes may be required, but introverts have in their ranks those who are caring, adrenaline junkies, lovers, passionate artists, expressive lovers and so on.

It’s not to say that I don’t take opportunities to play it. With a good squash partner and time in tow I’ll happily play it twice a week  into infinite. What I mean to say is that I don’t think (apres thrashing) I will ever play it professionally. Or in a tournament. Or against anyone I’m not friends with. The simple fact of the matter is is like many hobbies worth taking up, to get really good at it pushes you so far it ends up eating all of your time and you start to miss the point- having fun.

Not that I don’t recommend squash as an all-encompassing sport for which you to live your life to. The game is fun, frenetic and the best cardiovascular workout ever. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll puke. Here are a few pieces of information I have picked up.

“I use to play Tennis; does that help?”

In a word, no. Tennis is the antithesis to squash and while tennis enthusiasts might get a certain level of cardio training as well as shot placement, the advantages fall rapidly once you push past your third session. The tennis shot is strong and uses your whole arm to move. Compare that to squash, whose shots are approximately 1000% faster and require you to twist in order to give the ball spin and better power. Squash typically  demands all your strength and better accuracy (thanks to a smaller ball). Doing squash shots on a tennis court have them sail far over the court simply because there’s no necessity to ease up on strength so the ball goes on the ground after it passes the net.

It’s more than just the shots and their placement. Squash is too fast to allow for follow through- you’ll quickly fall behind trying to pull that shit in the four walls. I’ve heard the presence of walls and a racquet-wielding maniac (i.e. your opponent) is disconcerting for tennis players. Oh, and that cardio benefit? Considering you burn about three times as much with squash compared to tennis, that’s another lost benefit.

Never play anyone over the age of forty-five

In some cruel twist of fate, old and unhealthy baby boomers have some sort unaccountable advantage over spirited, active twenty year olds. Their playing style is both ludicrously fast and bewilderingly energy efficient. Well able to deflect any shot you have just standing there they also have telekinetic ability to put squash balls into corners as if it was a manifestation of their desire to build extensions to the house. Meanwhile you’re running around like a madman, slowly losing teeth to the walls you run into, and your sanity to their (apparently) kind words explaining how you need to “bend the knees slightly” and the eternal “aim for the corner. No, the corner!”

It’s not very photogenic

Watching squash is like watching two guys wander around in a box, pretending to hit a tiny ball. Oh wait that’s exactly what its like- the ball moves too fast for your eyes to see it. Also, despite the pain you’ll be experiencing later, your smooth moves simply don’t look that impressive when its behind a glass wall. Hell, even for the proffesionals the camera angles suck:

You’re never going to look cool playing squash to anyone save other squash players.

Don’t wear long pants; you’ll sweat

Insta-squashicide. You will sweat blood. Normally playing squash after ten minutes you’ll be in a sheen of sweat approximately two centimeters thick and more than enough insulation for your currently self-roasting body. Wearing anything more than thin shorts and a t-shirt you don’t care about (strong chance it will melt) is a bad idea.

Thinking is weakness

You can’t think while playing squash- its far too slow as a means of making shots.

Pain

I’ll be honest. Squash can flat out kill you. If it doesn’t, it’ll make you think you have. The following days after a heavy session will let you know that you had a heavy session. You’ll be hurting in muscles you didn’t think you had. Watch out for your serving forearm refusing to move from a 90 degree angle, your calves jolting with pain from every step and every tendon throughout your body burning with the rage of a thousand suns. And somehow it feels good.

Eurphoria awaits

Like no other game, a good squash rally is like ecstasy. The blood flows, you achieve some zen-like ability to comprehend things and somehow, some way, there’s no pain or tiredness. It’s addictive but a couple of pain barriers need to be broken to achieve it. Do so and you’ll know squash is the game for you.

Positivism behaves rather differently. It is unconcerned with the uncovering of reality’s laws. Rather, it sees science as a way to discover conclusions to statements. The statements themselves and their conclusions have no reality-confirming power, rather they are a means to an end. Positivism is about making predictive conclusions that can then be applied to make results. Perhaps you can see why there is a whiff of positivism practically everywhere in science, given that we live in a predominantly capitalist society.

So normative science may lead to interesting but a delve of wholly “useless” piles of information. Positivism will separate the wheat from the chaff and focus, like a laser beam, into useful and applicable solutions for current day problems. Reality is superbly vast and complicated; human requirements are surely much less. Positivism wins out.

Or does it? There are a few problems when we put too much focus on what we think is meaningful investigation. Firstly, I doubt that the purity of scientific endeavour is untainted when we try and get results from scientific investigations. It’s a foible of the human condition that we will do anything to ensure results even when they are not there. Imagine you are the head of some biomolecular research that has had millions of dollars poured into it, but despite your best, most thorough efforts (perhaps the best and most thorough in the world) you have still “failed” because you have not found anything significant. It’s not because you are incompetent; it is because there is literally nothing “significant” to discover. In a positivistic framework, you’d probably be sued and fired. That of course, doesn’t happen, but there is a whiff of positivism when it comes to article publication- very rare is the “non significant” discovery allowed into a scientific journal. This is dangerous as other individuals may make the same mistakes- is it not the job of science and culture to build upon our prior endeavours? This sort of significance-mining can lead to inappropriate scientific investigation, including doctored results, if the individual is desperate enough. Without the ideals of pure scientific investigation, could anyone really be blamed for such acts?

The much more important point to consider is that we simply do not know if our research is meaningful, and we certainly do not know from where meaningful research arises. Neil deGrasse Tyson points this out succintly:

So, not only does normative science give us reality-based information, it does positivism’s job better than positivism can. This has been realized at least in theory by the vast majority of scientists, but as I have alluded to, positivism lingers on in a watered down form. It is somewhat unfeasible to give equal funding to all science, but the attempt will produce greater results than focusing on a handful of disciplines.

The philosophy to directly arise out of this Cartesian understanding is called solipsism, and has had a big influence on philosophy. Solipsism by and by, ignored Descartes’ future meditations about God that I’ve previously referred to.  Its already been pointed out that solipsism is not only highly unlikely, but arbitrarily wasteful. It is far more likely, given the complexity of sensory phenomena, that the mind did not create it, and that it is at least a meaningful representation of what the world is.

But even then I reckon they make a fundamental error. When Descartes says that he cannot conceive of any possibility of thought being extinguished (and therefore his existence), a true skeptic should ask “so what?”. So what if one man’s (or indeed the entire human race) can’t think of a way in which you cannot exist and think at the same time? What makes Descartes reasoning powers something worthwhile? A true solipsist would confer that there is now way of knowing that they exist, or indeed if they think, or indeed if existence, nonexistence or anything (or nothing) is there or not. The basis that you cannot conceive of it happening is far from a suitable point of delineation, given that we are talking about the most fundamental of all metaphysics. In short, if you really want to doubt the world and science, you need to lose a lot more than a conceived fanciful attachment to reality, you need to lose yourself.

The argument (at least according to wiki) is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

Two addendums:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

OK, if we are delving into philosophical deductions and not scientific validity it is fair enough to work within the parameters of the argument alone.

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause

Seems fair, but intuitive and not deductive (as Craig himself points out).

2. the universe began to exist

Did it? In the big bang sense of the word yes, but past the big bang (which incidentally has been described as unimportant to the universe’s current circumstance) I don’t see any reason to presuppose that it did. More intuition. This is not something to be expected in a philosophical argument regarding real world artifacts.

3.therefore the universe has a cause

Seems fair.

4. this cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

Whoah! Wait… what? What just happened there? How did God get involved? Why would it be God. Why is it one, or indeed male? What justification inside the argument is there for this stuff?

There’s nothing for it, and I find myself baffled by certain youtube account users “on [their] knees, weeping at the truth of Jesus being [their] personal savior” through this argument.

Putting aside the lack of reason for God to make it above and beyond any other argument (I could for instance, say with equal validity that 4. is “the universe was created by another universe by virtue of its dimensional-creating properties) the added parts are equally assumptive and smacks of favoritism.

This God is apparently a personal being. Definitions of personal being typically include being close to yourself. Why is the God personal, couldn’t he not care about humanity? What if it was the vast emptiness of space that he was interested in (given the amounts created its a safer bet)? He *chose* to create the universe? What if he didn’t? What if the universe is the tub of yoghurt he left out of the fridge, or worse still a smooshing of better universes thrown in a dustbin? I don’t *choose* the bacteria formed in my own garbage can, much less am I *personal* with them.  Notice by the way that Craig issues “… and he is a personal being, because He created the universe”. Yep he’s just put a mini-argument inside of a philosophical statement; that’s just poor form.

The two arguments following don’t really need much analysis, suffice to say I would love to know how he understands that actual infinite cannot exist, much less how successive addition cannot “create” infinite (if the additions themselves are infinite, then it stands to reason that the number itself is too).

Is this what genuine, hard working clever Christian philosophers churn out these days? Come on people, casual observation shows the Kalam cosmological argument to be a trussed up prime mover argument anyway meaning it’s not even new.

To begin with, the drug test does not test prescription medication despite driving whilst under the influenced outlawed and has well established detrimental effects on driving (depending on what sort of medication of course). This seems strange to me as I would assume most drugs have a fairly easy methods of detection. Perhaps it has something to do with the way in which the drugs that are tested (and subsequently prosecuted for) are analyzed. Rather than used a sliding scale of concentration, the tests are on a yes/no basis. This is flawed for a couple of reasons. Firstly, while there are a few myths surrounding these tests, it just so happens that some are to a degree, true. More importantly, while alcoholic concentration is almost certainly a very good predictor of decreased driving performance, some illegal drugs can remain within the human body long after noticeable, driving-affecting effects has passed. Nevertheless police can still prosecute driving under the influence with this data. Relating this back to the prescription medicine issue it is likely that some prescription medication is in the same situation. This would therefore lead to prosecution of people showing no driving impaired skills but with legally purchased drugs within their system. The outcry would be deafening.

While a failed drug test means that the police can search the person’s car, it also leads to suitable prosecution of driving while under the influence of narcotics. While I could hardly be concerned with the fairness of this procedure I can be concerned with the safety of road users. Because police are unwilling to test prescription drugs, we almost certainly have hordes of influenced drivers who can almost certainly avoid prosecution provided they don’t admit anything. In the same breath, we have people imbibing illegal substances (some of which are safe as houses and orders of magnitude safer than legal drugs and scientifically explored to be better even when driving), not actually impaired by them by the time they get in the car and getting prosecuted just as if they were. While a “serves you right” attitude might be floating in some heads, this sort of prosecution means that prescription medication users will never get punished due to the concern for public outcry.

What can be done? A better, alcohol test-like test would be an option, but this would mean studies that rate level of various drug concentrations with driver performance which could be considered harm minimization (political suicide in Australia if there ever was) as well as making laws vastly complicated; in addition how would one calculate for mixed drugs? Perhaps the best choice, in my opinion, is a somewhat informal test (not dissimilar to the ones employed by American police officers) once drug presence has been confirmed. Establish test parameters, tell the public if the test fails then you suffer a DUI. This way people who are dangerous are jailed, and no one escapes prosecution.

Potholes and cracked roads

Driving around these areas is a bit of an adventure and the tarmac quality seems to share that view. Despite the distance to the CBD is about forty minutes on a good day, you would be lucky to count the potholes needed to be avoided on both hands. Allergic to rain, the roads are just itching to turn into a cement archipelago. Maybe a veiled attempt at stifling immigration and modernization?

The seven-aerialed ute

A bogan specialty, this baby can pick up not only UHF and FM but probably THF, VHF, ultrasonic, supersonic, sonicator, catatonic and ‘rooband. With the amount of energy needed to maintain this mobile mobile tower it’s only expected that the driver needs to drive really really fast to keep the batteries charged. The dazzling array of 4wd enthusiast, Parklea market-purchased hilarious stickers and playboy mudflaps are actually a carefully arranged pattern designed to enhance radio signals, as is the liberal use of metal plating for foot ramps on areas no foot would ever touch.

The Grey Bikers

Outer Sydney combines sunny elements with boomer disposition, leading to a rather interesting by-product. The 50 year old bikers, like so much flotsam, somehow simultaneously suffer the same midlife crisis and join up in large posses of kawasakis et al. “Real” bikies are actually quite rare, probably due to a leather shortage brought about by these aging rebels without a cause(due to their scrupulous pension saving). Still, beats having a gazebo I guess.

The Peloton of Pain

Freakish sub-humanoids in Sunday mornings don themselves in lycra unimaginable and congregate in order to stifle the mobility of normal, road-tax-paying motorists while conveniently forgetting laws such as their locomotion cannot be next to another while travelling. Their form of communication? Shouting. My parents live, as I would say everyone does, next to a road and their main complaint is hearing the noisy banter every Sunday by these leotarded noise makers.

The Horse Float

Ahhh the horse float. Probably the most outwardly evil hazard on this list. Horse floats are in every way designed to make your driving experience a frustrating one via a bevvy of insufferable behaviours. Firstly horse floats are slow both in top speed and acceleration. Horses are apparently not use to high speeds, nor secure in the $20 000 float that they travel in, so expect a 0-50 acceleration time of about 3-4 hours, more if there are curves in the road, and more if the speed limit hovers below the 80 mark. Secondly, their lumbering mass makes them tricky to overtake, which has the added difficulty of being difficult to look past. The possibility of overtaking is further reduced by the third and most crucial issue- the driver’s attitude. Rather than risk what we, humble non-equistri-destined humanity endures and ignores all of the time, the horse float driver knows that to stay in the middle of the road is to live, and to stick to lanes is both dangerous and unimaginative. Whenever I come across a horse float I always consider this is what the driver is saying:

“The float of destiny is here, dear mortals, look upon ye mighty and despair! The horse must be safe against the terrors of the hard shoulder and the benighted landscape that exists in the singular lane! No, it is through the administration of plurality that this equine transport be guided! And ho dear passenger, a great procession is behind us, eager to glimpse at the horseflesh within! What, there is a spot to pull over and let them pass? But why? For them to ignore its greatness? For we to risk delving into the abyss? For Buttercup to feel all giddy on the dirt? No, no it’s not like we’re going that slowly anyway; it’s not like we’re a semi-trailer.”

A deal they offered said that there was a full suit set to be purchased online for the low price of $179… but did not in any fine print specify that long suits were not covered!

I could understand extra cost for material and so on as an additional option (there isn’t one), but, as a scoopon’s representative very rudely informed my fiance, it was the ‘customer discretion to check for specifics with the company’. Nicely done scoopon; throw the blame to the company your website is supposed to be endorsing and promoting. As it now stands, scoopon have refused to give us a refund.

I for one am boycotting the site for here on, and I encourage you to do the same. Have you been gypped by similar scams? Let me know.

The story indicates three things. Firstly, that orthodoxy in religion is seemingly inherently devoted to self perpetuation no matter what the source, and as a result self perpetuation can be found everywhere. In this instance, a dog is unclean and caused trouble, meaning that it is clearly the reincarnation of a lawyer. How sure are we? We are stoning it, and we wouldn’t stone something that we weren’t sure of, would we? Secondly, it seems to me that religion is not just demonstrably dangerous, but out and out bonkers (as if we needed more evidence). Thirdly, given that the courts couldn’t stop a dog from evading capture despite being a candidate for execution, the possibility of a Jewish conspiracy even if it were to exist would be highly unlikely to carry out even simple requirements for world domination. Hopefully now anti-Semites and the more traditionally associated loonies can breathe easier.