Are Nail Clippings Eligible for Human Rights?

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 09/03/2014 20:55.  Not published.

           

Sir

John Rowland (The Star, Thursday March 6 2014) in “Punish the guilty, save the innocent”, says that everything he wrote “has a Christian base”.

A difficulty with Christianity is that there are (per Wikipedia) around 3000 different sects.  Across the spectrum, there are radically divergent views.  Many sects regard the others as hell-bound non-Christians.  “Christians” can be as diverse as Catholics and the ZCC.  All claim to be following “God’s Word”.

What sort of god is unable to express himself clearly enough to avoid being misunderstood in 2999 different ways?

As Ricky Gervais says, “It’s almost as if The Bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God. Weird”.

If there were any truth in religion, over time it would converge to a consensus.  This happens in science.  Instead, religion produces ever more schisms.  This is ample proof that religion has no basis in fact.

Hence, Mr Rowland’s “Christian base” is built on sand.

“By their fruits ye shall know them”:  Religion –particularly Christianity– has produced sumptuous churches, rich preachers, poor masses, ignorance, fear, disagreement, hatred, inquisition, persecution, pogroms, wars, and misery.  It has suppressed freedom, progress, science, and human rights.

Given its history, it should be clear that religion has no moral authority.  Rather, faith marks a person as one that believes things that aren’t true.  A religion is a badge of the irrational, something of which to be deeply ashamed.

Religion is an unreliable guide.  Let us look instead to facts, to science.

Mr Rowland argues against abortion with the usual dishonest emotive argument that a “baby” is aborted.  This is hardly true.

The fertilized egg is known as a zygote. It develops rapidly into a mass of cells called a blastocyst.  This becomes an embryo, which looks like a fish.  From around 10 weeks, it begins to have some human characteristics and is known until birth as a foetus.

A first trimester embryo or foetus is not a viable human being.  The nail clippings Mr Rowland so callously discards are just as much human tissue, just as capable of independent life.  Should nail parings be given human rights?

Later in pregnancy, things become more complicated, and our treatment should be more sensitive and circumspect.

Of course, the unspoken reason that Mr Rowland opposes all abortion is the concept of a “soul”.  His particular branch of his particular religion probably holds the belief (not necessarily shared by other sects or religions) that the “soul” enters the body at conception.  This gives a zygote, in his eyes, the same rights as a fully-grown woman.

Science has found no evidence of the existence of a “soul”, just as it has found no evidence for any gods.  This may distress those who are suffering under the yoke of religion in the hope of a glorious Hereafter, but it is so.  There is no afterlife, no Heaven to come.  It is up to us to make this Earth our Heaven during the brief time that we have here.

I agree with Rowland that “women who find themselves pregnant in distressing circumstances must be helped with all the compassion that society can provide”.  That compassion should include every woman’s right to cheap, safe, legal, early abortion.  Having an abortion is no easy decision.  It should not be further complicated by a patriarchal religion that still regards women as property useful only for producing male heirs.

So Many Gods, So Little Time to Pick the Right Ones...

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 07/01/2014 08:29 in response to the letter below.  Not published – we want to make it appear that the Atheists have no answers, don't we?.

Sir

Ebrahim Nathie (Letters, The Star Monday January 6 2014, “Atheism boggles my simple mind”) says that human intellect is fallible, so we should rely on divine intellect, or ”god”.  Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. say their scriptures prove that god exists, so the burden of proof should be on Atheists.  He concludes that if the religious are right, Atheists are doomed for eternity but if believers are wrong, there is no penalty.

The latter argument, “Pascal’s Wager”, has been well discredited, but there is no harm in doing it again:

Yes, many religions (excluding Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology) say that there’s a god –or gods, in the case of Hinduism, Shinto, etc.-- but they disagree radically about what those gods want their believers to do.  Accept Jesus as your Saviour, but if Allah turns out to be in charge, you’re damned.  Worship Allah, but if the Jews are right, you’re in big trouble!

With over 3000 gods to choose from, the Theist is no closer to Heaven than the Atheist is.

In fact, the believer is worse off: She will have devoted time, money, and energy to a fantasy, and missed the wonders of reality.  The devoted Jew and Muslim will have missed bacon and prawns.  The Young-Earth Creationist will not have been amazed by geology and evolution.  The Jehovah’s Witness may have died for lack of blood transfusion.

All will have voted for people and supported policies that are not in their best interests, delaying human progress in fields like medicine and ethics.

Ebrahim (since we seem to be on first-name terms now) thinks Atheists have the burden of proof.  In other words, we should prove that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods?

On this same basis, does he believe in Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, fairies, invisible pink unicorns, and that he won $50 Million in an internet lottery he didn’t enter?

No: The burden of proof is always on the person claiming that something exists, not on the person asking for proof.

The universe is proof of the existence of the universe, not that it was created by Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Religious scriptures look suspiciously like they were written by misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and (by today’s standards) barbaric uneducated men, not a transcendent intellect.

What a pity that the Creator did not include a few equations in His Scripture!  If only He casually mentioned E = mc² or that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and revolves around the sun!  Imagine where we could be now had He described Natural Selection, the law of universal gravitation, or the secret to faster-than-light travel.

Sadly, there is no evidence that a higher mind than ours had any hand in religion.

May I suggest that Ebrahim, instead of bemoaning his human intellect, rather (in the words of the scripture) “become as little children”?   All children are Atheists until they are indoctrinated into a random religion.

Promoting Religion is Reprehensible

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 17/06/2012 16:19, not published.

 

Sir 

An acquaintance sent me an e-mailed PowerPoint presentation, “Center of the Bible”. Here is my reply, which deserves a wider audience: 

Dear Neil 

I am sure you meant no harm in sending me your chain-letter e-mail promoting religion, the bible, and prayer. No doubt you believed it was a Good Thing to do. Let me explain why I find it reprehensible. 

Imagine that you got an e-mail from me inviting you to a festival of the Sun God, based on ancient Egyptian writings. We will offer prayers and, to ensure good rains and a bountiful crop, will be sacrificing some first-born: Yours might be lucky enough to be included. You should command your wife and slaves to attend as well. 

I’d expect a sharp reply from you castigating me for my barbarism and superstition, pointing out that the Sun is a common star with no supernatural powers, that praying and sacrificing to it will not influence the weather or crops, that your wife is an adult who makes her own decisions, and that no decent person today owns slaves. 

Now, make two changes to my hypothetical invitation: Replace “Egyptian writings” with “Bible”, and “Sun God” with your name for God. 

Human sacrifice is a theme running through the Bible from Isaac to Exodus to Jesus: Indeed, it is a central tenet of Christianity that it is a good thing to torture an innocent man to death in the place of the guilty. Civilised? I don’t think so. 

The Old Testament gives detailed commandments for the keeping of slaves, including the requirements for selling your daughter into slavery. The New Testament supports it. The “Good Book’s” attitude towards women is that they are possessions: Witness Lot’s willingness to give his daughters to a mob to be raped. Good? I don’t think so. 

As with many other books, the Bible contains its share of wisdom, but there is a lot of bad stuff there too. If you take the Bible as the word of a God that must be obeyed, you would murder me for speaking against Him, and kill everyone you know for working on the Sabbath. 

I am worried when an educated 21st-Century person advocates the Bible as anything more than a myth from the infancy of our species. Today anybody with matric knows more about the universe than the authors of the Bible did. Yet your opinion of me is so low that you think I follow it. 

The god depicted in the bible is a nasty piece of work: Rigid, jealous, angry, sectarian, misogynist and genocidal. Fortunately it is obviously also fictitious.

Prayer is at best a waste of time, and may well be counter-productive, as shown by scientific studies (for example, the 2006 "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" led by Harvard Professor Herbert Benson). You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. 

In an age when religious fanatics who welcome Armageddon can get hold of nuclear weapons, you are doing our planet a grave disservice by spreading superstition. Please reconsider. 

Thanks and RICKgards

The "Word of God" is fiction about an imaginary being.

Sent to the Sunday Times, Johannesburg, Mon 02/01/2012 10:15; not published.

In the Saturday Times of 31 December 2011 (masquerading as the Sunday Times of 1 January 2012), Readers' Views, "No Apology Required",  James Mentor has a lot to say about the Editor quoting what he calls the "Word of God".

There is nothing wrong with quoting the bible as we would quote any other international literature.

The problem is with people who think the bible is special, even divine, or has some sort of authority.

The bible approves of slavery and genocide and the suppression of women.  It may have been useful at a time when people were ignorant about the structure of the universe and the causes of disease, or could only be moral if they believed in heaven and hell.  We have moved on from this.

If a god had written the bible, would we not be impressed by the foresight, the wisdom, the compassion, the grace, the poetry of this being?  Instead, the god of the bible is a caricature of the worst in humanity: Stupid, jealous, angry, vindictive, and capricious.

No: The bible is largely a work of fiction, and the god it portrays is, thankfully, imaginary.

Theory and Reality: Evolution is Both

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Sat 12/11/2011 10:23, published published Thu 17/11/2011 minus the parts in blue as “Evolution is a fact, and that’s a fact”.

Bob Holcombe, in Readers' Letters of Friday November 11 ("Telling that his books have been taken off the shelves"), lambastes UFO-believers.  And so he should, because this is fringe stuff and highly debatable.

However, having deplored this deception, he tries a worse one of his own: To denigrate what he calls "unproven theories of macro-evolution" and promote the bible as good cosmology.

When someone says that evolution is "only a theory" he is not making a statement about evolution, he is showing his abysmal lack of understanding of basic science.

In science, some words have a more precise meaning than in everyday speech.

I am an engineer. If you tell me that you are "under pressure", I may ask "how many kilopascals?” Pressure is defined as force divided by area.  (All people live under pressure: About 100 kPa of atmospheric pressure)

Similarly, to a layman, a "theory" is something unproven, a guess, a conjecture.

When a scientist talks of a "theory" she means a coherent explanation of empirical phenomena, that is well-proven and logically consistent with observed facts.  It takes a lot of work by many scientists for a system to graduate from a "hypothesis" to a "theory".

Would Mr Holcombe like to tell us that Electromagnetic Theory (proof: electric light) or the Theory of Relativity (proof: the atomic bomb) is also "just a theory"?

The reason evolution is taught in schools is that it is fact: Proven beyond doubt to the satisfaction of all serious scientists.  The evidence is overwhelming that simple creatures evolved into more complex ones over millions of years.

Only those blinded by misguided "faith" in a literal interpretation of scripture believe –despite all evidence to the contrary– that the universe was created magically in six days.  Oddly, these same people question the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

There are also scientific words for the biblical story of creation. They are "myth" and "fallacy".

ASA Defends Imaginary, Not True Values

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Thu 10/11/2011 22:01, not published.

I refer to Irvine Moyo's letter "Ads can't venture where even angels dare not tread" in the Star Letters, Thursday November 10, supporting the ASA's banning of the Axe "Fallen Angels" advert.

The ASA should have banned Axe's adverts for their sexism, but we can see that the ASA supports religion but not gender equality.

Mr Moyo, you can wax lyrical about your "Almighty God", His Bible, and His Angels.  However the reality is that your god and his angels are imaginary, and your bible is a quaint collection of fables.

You like the moral standards given by the bible?  The bible approves of murdering people for collecting sticks on Saturday, the subjugation of women, slavery, and genocide.

If you do not want your religion to be mocked, you should not follow such a mockable religion.

Consider what you as a Christian probably believe: That in the face of all geological and other scientific evidence to the contrary, the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created over six days.  That god is one person and three people at the same time, which any maths teacher can tell you is nonsense.  That god committed adultery with another man's wife so that the other part of him could be born into the world.  That this part then died to make up for the sin we inherited from some people who ate the wrong fruit generations before.  But actually he didn't stay dead; he got his life back again.  That if a priest mumbles over wafers and wine, they become the flesh and blood of your god (never mind that no human DNA is present).  And you should take part in ritual cannibalism by eating this.

You probably also believe that anyone who doesn't believe what you do, will be tortured forever after they die by your just and loving god.

Muslims believe the latter too, except that you have to believe in their god.  And in a polygamist who flew to Jerusalem and heaven on a magical flying horse.  That if you enrich the corrupt dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and throw stones at a pillar, you will be blessed. And other nonsense like, if you do something really evil by blowing yourself up along with a lot of people you don't like, you will be rewarded in an unverifiable hereafter with many virgins. Or maybe they won't' be virgins, but raisins: What a let-down!

You think that such superstition deserves respect, instead of gales of raucous laughter?

Religion = Slavery and Conflict. Atheism = Freedom.

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Mon 18/10/2010 23:30

Elise D van der Pijl (Star Letters, October 10 2010) does not believe that the followers of what she calls "God's Word" over the centuries have been mislead by myth.  Arlene Chaperon (also October 10) is offended and maintains the Bible is the Word of God.

Indeed, over much of recorded history, mankind has believed in gods.  Not just one god.  Hundreds.  With divergent points of view.  Which, if any, was right?

If you are a Christian and believe that Christ is "the light, the Truth, and the way" and that no man comes to the Father but through him, you aren't allowed to believe with the Muslims that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.  Your three gods are also inconsistent with the Jewish belief that "the Lord our God, the Lord is One".

Yes, there is a slight-of-hand by which Christians claim a three-is-one god, to appear monotheistic, but I have yet to find one who will lend me three hundred Rand and accept repayment with one hundred since three equals one.

If you are a Christian, a majority of the world's population thinks you are wrong.  A Muslim? The majority of the world disagrees with your beliefs.  Likewise for Hindus, Jews, Pastafarians*, name any superstition you like.

How come you had the luck to find (usually to be born into) the one true religion, and everyone else is headed for damnation?

Why is it that no religion's followers are blessed more than those of any other?  How come your reward comes only after death, unverifiable by any objective means?

It is more likely that all religions are false; political creations used to manipulate the gullible.

Van der Pijl and Chaperon have personal relationships with their god.  People of religions around the world commune in many ways with their diverse gods.  This can involve altered states of consciousness of all sorts.  Trances, self-hypnosis, mass hysteria, etc. seem very convincing to the participants.  They show what the human physiology is capable of.  And how powerful self-delusion and wishful thinking can be.  They do not prove that there is a god.

Reality check: If gods, capable of creating the universe, exist and want contact with us, why do they not manifest in physical form?  Why not have residential and postal addresses, telephones, e-mail, and Facebook pages?  Where are their superhuman ambassadors to the UN and the nations?  Surely this would settle the controversy?

No.  If superior beings exist, as yet undetected by science, they do not seem concerned about our welfare nor care whether we worship them or not.  Stop living in fear of myths, and start living a life of freedom!

* Pastafarians = The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Not to be confused with Rastafarians.

Contradictions in Jesus's "Genealogy" show the Bible is False

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 05/10/2010 22:38

Sir

This letter is addressed to those who still believe that the Bible is the infallible, divinely-inspired Truth.

Please read Matthew 1.  It starts with what the author claims is "the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male descent from Abraham to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".

Now see Luke 3:23-38, which traces the male line in reverse from Joseph back to Adam.

Luke and Matthew use opposite directions so they are difficult to compare, but if you sort their lists (or ask me for the Jesus spreadsheet) and then try to align them, some glaring differences emerge:

From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.  Of the names between David and Joseph, only two match exactly, and two approximately.

You don't have to be a judge or a policeman to know that, if two people give you seriously conflicting accounts, one of them is wrong.  Or both.

So, if God inspired Luke and Matthew to write these lists, He's a liar.  Or maybe they weren't that inspired.

Worse is to come.

Remember, Matthew proclaimed "the genealogy of Jesus Christ", supposedly showing his descent from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But wait a minute: Isn't the Christian myth that God made Mary pregnant with Jesus?  Well, yes, Matthew later admits that Joseph was only the husband of Mary, not father of Jesus but just the cuckold who was conned into raising another's child.

With no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus, both genealogies are pointless.  Why have them at all?  To mislead the gullible?

Perhaps the original versions did have Joseph as Jesus' dad.  Then later editors grafted the "son of god" story in from older legends, but could not deal with the obvious contradiction.

Too bad that, to them, Mary was only a woman and not worthy of her own genealogy –even if she was left as the only link between Jesus and the human race!

Is this part of the Bible true?  Logically it can't be.

Can the Bible then be the Word of God?  Only if He is very confused...

_______________________________________________________________________

Spreadsheet (contact me for a copy on Excel):

The Table below compares the Genealogy according to Luke 3, Matthew 1, and Genesis 5 &11.  The column headed "Match" indicates whether the names match (most don't). The last two columns estimate the number of years from Adam to Jesus according to Like and Matthew, giving a difference of 15 generations and around 500 years!

By Luke 3:23-38				by Matthew 1				by Genesis 5 & 11			Age at
Verse	Gen	Name	Generations		Name	Match?	No.	Verse	Name		birth of son
38.3		God.
38.2	1	Adam				Yes	1	5.1	Adam		130	130
38.1	2	Seth				Yes	2	5.3	Seth		105	105
38	3	Enos				Yes	3	5.6	Enos		90	90
37.4	4	Cainan				Yes	4	5.9	Cainan		70	70
37.3	5	Maleleel				Approx	5	5.12	Mahalaleel		65	65
37.2	6	Jared				Yes	6	5.15	Jared		162	162
37.1	7	Enoch				Yes	7	5.18	Enoch		65	65
37	8	Mathusala				Approx	8	5.21	Methuselah		187	187
36.4	9	Lamech				Yes	9	5.25	Lamech		182	182
36.3	10	Noe				Approx	10	5.29	Noah		500	500
36.2	11	Sem				Approx	11	5.32	Shem (& Ham, and Japheth)		100	100
36.1	12	Arphaxad				Yes	12	11.10	Arphaxad		35	35
36	13	Cainan			Genesis 9:18   ...and Ham is the father of Canaan.
35.4	14	Sala				Approx	13	11.12	Salah		30	30
35.3	15	Heber				Approx	14	11.14	Eber		34	34
35.2	16	Phalec				Approx	15	11.16	Peleg		30	30
35.1	17	Ragau				NO	16	11.18	Reu		32	32
35	18	Saruch				Approx	17	11.20	Serug		30	30
34.4	19	Nachor				Approx	18	11.22	Nahor		29	29
34.3	20	Thara				Approx	19	11.24	Terah		70	70
34.2	21	Abraham			Abraham	Yes	20	11.26	Abram	$	100	100
34.1	22	Isaac			Isaac	Yes			Isaac	#	60	60
34	23	Jacob			Jacob	Yes			Jacob	@	30	30
33.4	24	Juda			Judas	Approx			Judah		30	30
33.3	25	Phares			Phares	Yes					30	30
33.2	26	Esrom			Esrom	Yes	$ -Genesis 21:5				30	30
33.1	27	Aram			Aram	Yes	# - Genesis 26:26				30	30
33	28	Aminadab			Aminadab	Yes	@ - Ages from here				30	30
32.4	29	Naasson			Naasson	Yes	on are estimates.				30	30
32.3	30	Salmon			Salmon	Yes					30	30
32.2	31	Booz			Booz of Rachab	Yes					30	30
32.1	32	Obed			Obed of Ruth	Yes					30	30
32	33	Jesse			Jesse	Yes					30	30
31.4	34	David	1	1	David	Yes					30	30
31.3	35	Nathan	2	2	Solomon	NO					30	30
31.2	36	Mattatha	3	3	Roboam	NO					30	30
31.1	37	Menan	4	4	Abia	NO					30	30
31	38	Melea	5	5	Asa	NO					30	30
30.4	39	Eliakim	6	6	Josaphat	NO					30	30
30.3	40	Jonan	7	7	Joram	NO					30	30
30.2	41	Joseph	8	8	Ozias	NO					30	30
30.1	42	Juda	9	9	Joatham	NO					30	30
30	43	Simeon	10	10	Achaz	NO					30	30
29.4	44	Levi	11	11	Ezekias	NO					30	30
29.3	45	Matthat	12	12	Manasses	NO					30	30
29.2	46	Jorim	13	13	Amon	NO					30	30
29.1	47	Eliezer	14			NO					30
29	48	Jose	15	14	Josias	Approx					30	30
28.4	49	Er	16	15	Jechonias	NO					30
28.3	50	Elmodam	17		(in Babylon)	NO					30
28.2	51	Cosam	18			NO					30
28.1	52	Addi	19			NO					30
28	53	Melchi	20			NO					30
27.4	54	Neri	21			NO					30
27.3	55	Salathiel	22	16	Salathiel	Yes					30	30
27.2	56	Zorobabel	23	17	Zorobabel	Yes					30	30
27.1	57	Rhesa	24	18	Abiud	NO					30	30
27	58	Joanna	25	19	Eliakim	NO					30	30
26.4	59	Juda	26	20	Azor	NO					30	30
26.3	60	Joseph	27	21	Sadoc	NO					30	30
26.2	61	Semei	28	22	Achim	NO					30	30
26.1	62	Mattathias	29	23	Eliud	NO					30	30
26	63	Maath	30	24	Eleazar	NO					30	30
25.4	64	Nagge	31			NO					30
25.3	65	Esli	32			NO					30
25.2	66	Naum	33			NO					30
25.1	67	Amos	34			NO					30
25	68	Mattathias	35			NO					30
24.4	69	Joseph	36			NO					30
24.3	70	Janna	37			NO					30
24.2	71	Melchi	38			NO					30
24.1	72	Levi	39			NO					30
24	73	Matthat	40	25	Matthan	Approx					30	30
23.2	74	Heli	41	26	Jacob	NO					30	30
23.1	75	Joseph	42	27	Joseph	Yes					30	30
23	76	Jesus	43	28	Jesus*		Number of years (Luke vs Matthew)				3696	3216
Difference:				15	generations						480	yrs

*Matt 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  No genealogy is given for Mary. So descent of Jesus is not known, only his "step-father". 

Debate around Religion: The Bible is Fiction.

Sent to "The Star, Johannesburg" on Sat 02/10/2010 22:14, Published Tue Oct 5 2010, except for the sentence in blue.

We have a nice crop of responses to my letter of Sept 27 2010 criticising the Bible.  How sad that the critics appear not to have read the "Good Book" itself!

Jaco Bruwer (Sept 29, "There's no reason to trash biblical explanation") and Niki Christie (Sept 30, "Being sure of what we hope for") imply that the "days" referred to in the Creation Myth are not 24-hour days but "ages".

Please read Genesis 1:  It says the world was created in literal, 24-hour days, made clear by repeating "and there was evening, and there was morning" for each day.  Why evening first?  Because in those days (and still in Jewish tradition), the day was taken to start at sunset.

Daniel Spangenberg (Sept 29, "Confusing personal view with fact") can observe for himself that the earth did NOT arise in 144 hours by looking at geological processes, the speed of formation of elements in stars, and other natural phenomena.  These have convinced scientists that the six-day creation story is just a myth.  This is scientific fact, not just my opinion.

Jaco Bruwer agrees, saying "the earth's atmosphere cleaned up over millions of years".

Niki Christie says that it all has to start somewhere.

In a paragraph edited out of my original letter, I pre-empted this by saying: "If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor."

If Niki Christie would like examples of contradictions in the Bible, she should compare the two creation sequences in Genesis 1 and 2, and the differing stories in Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus and particularly their radically conflicting genealogies of Jesus.  I can expand on this in a later letter.

My point is that the Bible is not true.  Hence it is not possible that it is the work of a truthful divine creator.

Conclusion: The Bible is fiction steeped in the mythology of its time.  It is no more reliable a handbook –on god or anything else– than Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Time for a Balanced Debate around Religion!

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Wed 22/09/2010 18:08, published without the parts in blue on 27 Sept 2010.

"The Star" always gives the last word on religion to Bob Holcombe, making it seem that there is no answer to his shallow arguments.  Will Sol Makgabutlane be sufficiently unbiased this time to break with tradition and publish my letter, as he has failed to do on several previous occasions?

Bob Holcombe's letter (Sept 17) "God only knows if there is life elsewhere" should not stand unchallenged.

He says that scientists are going beyond their field.  Not at all.  Anything that can be objectively investigated is the province of science.  If it can't be scientifically tested, it's speculation, superstition and nonsense.  As is Religion.

Mr Holcombe talks of a reason and a cause.  This is typical mumbo-jumbo.  Things just are, they don't need a reason and a cause.

If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor.

He says "God makes himself approachable" –what, through a hundred different religions that contradict each other and a Bible that contradicts itself?

And "God ... provided a logical account of how it all started".  Really?  We know from previous letters that Mr Holcombe believes the Bible.  Pity he appears not to have read it.  If he had, he would know that the Biblical account of Creation is both illogical and contradicted by observable facts.  The universe clearly did NOT arise in six days of 24 hours.  A schoolchild can tell you that day and night could not have existed before the sun.