Atheist Ijeoma Oluo gets the definition of Atheism wrong

Whether directly in the flesh, punctuated by a handshake and a smile, or indirectly via social media, I always find it refreshing to meet a new atheist. Especially if she's female and from Nigeria. Rare combination, trust me. Since I returned home five years ago in 2010, I've met just two women that are non-believers with one of them being more agnostic than atheist. Nigeria being the patriarchal, overly religious nation that it is, it's not as easy for women to be open about not subscribing to the supernatural as it is for men. The subject of this blog post doesn't even live in Nigeria. She lives out in the west, where it's easier for women to be more open about their diverse views on theism. See her Twitter profile below;

 Ijeoma penned an article on her beliefs for the Guardian which you can read HERE

The title reads as such; 

"My atheism does not make me superior to believers. It's a leap of faith too."

I am in 100% agreement with her that what you believe doesn't make you superior to others. The second sentence is where Ijeoma mixes up what she personally believes about atheism with what it actually is. Here is a quote from her article;

Ijeoma is of the opinion that because we as humans are unable to prove that a God doesn't exist, atheism can somehow be equated with theism on the basis of faith. This couldn't be more off the mark. The burden of proof doesn't lie with atheists, it lies with believers who made the claim that a God exists in the first place. If you make a claim that is only supported by how you feel, and is not supported by any tangible evidence, how can you make the argument that those who disprove your claim because of a lack of said evidence are also making the same "leap of faith"?

Let me flesh this out with a demonstration. I want you to take a moment to stop reading this blog post and look behind you. 

Did you see it? 

There is an aqua blue Unicorn with a translucent horn feeding on stardust 3 feet behind you. 

Look again. 

Still can't see it? 

Well guess what; I STRONGLY BELIEVE in my heart of hearts that it's there. I have no further proof than that. Just my "faith." Now, if you dismiss my belief in the existence of the aqua blue Unicorn filling its stomach with a healthy meal of  stardust behind you, can I reasonably state that your disbelief in my claim is a "leap of faith" simply because you can't prove that it is not there? I cannot. Hopefully this illustrates what Ijeoma gets wrong.

The lovely thing about social media today is that one can immediately engage with writers. Take a look at this exchange on Twitter between Ijeoma and a twitter user with the name "The Humble Atheist."

It was a very illuminating exchange that led to my conclusion that Ijeoma was projecting her personal thoughts on Atheism on the actual definition and muddying the waters. Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural. Simple.You can't change the definition of a word based on your feelings. If you think YOUR atheism is based on "faith" then that applies only to YOU. 

In closing, here are further analogies below that make it pretty clear that describing atheism as a "belief" is as ridiculous as saying "off" is a tv channel, "walking" is a brand of car, and "barefoot" is a brand of shoes. Haha! 

The Prayer Option To Bring Back Our Girls

Earlier today, a religious friend of mine sent the following broadcast message on the Blackberry Messenger Platform; 

"For those who can, pls spare a moment every evening in prayer for the missing girls using Isaiah 49 vs 24 to 26 until they are returned home. If our government is powerless we know for a fact that our God is not."

So I looked it up.

The King James version of verse 25 says:

"But thus says the Lord; Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children."

Encouraging material. However, the same book of Isaiah has a notable revelation in chapter 45, verse 7, which says;

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Moving away from Isaiah to the book of Ephesians, chapter 1 verse 11 says the following:

"In him we were chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."

One literal interpretation begets another.

Essentially; The instruction is to pray to a Supernatural being to deliver innocent children from a situation (Isaiah 49: 25) created by that same Supernatural being (Isaiah 45:7) who made it happen because that's part of its "will." (Ephesians 1:11).

I've always wondered the following:

1) Is prayer meant to alert a deity to a situation that it isn't already aware of?

2) Is prayer meant to change an outcome already predetermined by said deity?

If all the girls are rescued, Ephesians 1:11 says it was predestined. 

If all the girls are not rescued, Ephesians 1:11 also says it was predestined

The scripture plays both sides of the same coin whose outcome is unknown to you and I but satisfies either one eventually. In the grand scheme of things, this leaves no room for prayer.

However, the Nigerian government has failed its people. Its ineffectiveness has left us helpless and desperate. Some have nothing else but prayer. It's the only option they have 

#BringBackOurGirls

A Family Debates Sexism in the Church

This occurred earlier today between three siblings in a instant messenger chat room which the family uses via mobile phone to keep in touch. Rotus (yours truly) took one side, while Orhie and Ovie took the other:

Orhie: Tweet from @BBCBreaking: Justin Welby - @ABCJustin - confirmed new Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of 80m Anglicans around the world [Web link]

Rotus: The sexism of the church continues.

Orhie: This has nothing to do with sexism. He was appointed a while ago has been confirmed today. They're still trying to resolve the issue of appointing women as Bishops. Once they finalise it, there'll be female Bishops and then one can be appointed one day as ArchBishop of Canterbury.

Rotus: Why is this an **issue** in the first place? Why haven't female bishops in leadership positions been part of the Church's history?

Ovie: Because men have dominated all part of human history

Rotus: Thank you. Including their interpretation of a woman's place in the church passed off as coming from a so-called "divine" source. I rest my case

Ovie: Why haven't asked why there aren't many women in the National Assembly? Or why there are so few women that head governments?

Orhie: I don't understand your intransigence about the Church. You pick on it over EVERYTHING. There is sexism EVERYWHERE, in the workplace, in the police force, everywhere. The Church is at least, trying to resolve its issues. You're acting like sexism started 1st in the Church. You're don't believe in Christ, that's your entitlement. But it's wrong to continually pick on the Church every single day.

Ovie: Whether women head or don't head the Church is irrelevant. God used both sexes as He pleases to carry out His work

Orhie: Nigeria has never had a female Governor, let alone President. Even America the 'land of the free and the home of the Brave' has never had a female President. So why this constant picking on the Church?

Ovie: I tire oh. You don't like the Church and that's fine. But don't use things that are general and common place and make it out like the Church is the only offender

Orhie: But the Church did not start sexism, did it??

Ovie: Iv never heard you complain about sexism in any other place apart from the Church or Islam

Orhie: You just said 'a woman's place in the Church'; what about elsewhere? Did the Church decide women were 2nd class elsewhere too?? You're just using your prejudices to heap blame on the Church for things it had nothing to do with. And that's not fair.

I remember you telling Batarhe (a cousin) at Rume's (another cousin) wedding about how I don't cook and you acted like it was a really big thing [Editor's note: This isn't what occurred.]. If you're such a Champion of equal rights for women, why do you see it as a big deal that I don't cook?

You should eschew such traditional roles if you're such a proponent of equality of the sexes.

Rotus: As Lawyers, you both shouldn't introduce red herrings or straw men to distract from the crux of a point you're trying to put forward. It's poor form.

That you cannot logically infer the sweeping presence/agenda of patriarchy in religion, as you've alluded to in other parts of society, and it's denigration of the position that it's the will of a "divine" source, then you're just in denial and being emotive which faults your case.

Let's swap patriarchy for tribalism since you clearly don't get it (which is laughable); If Urhobo (Southwestern Nigerian tribe) people ran the govt, ran the private sector, and then claimed that the "bible" said urhobo people are the dominant tribe in all religious institutional affairs, then whose agenda is being promoted; God, or the Urhobos?

Please, you're adults, the writing on the wall is too clear to even pretend to deny it. That's disingenuous.

Ovie: You like to skip peoples points. I think you're the one in denial. You just don't like the Church. You're never objective in your arguments when it comes to the Church. Why does sexism in Church mean so much to you? Why not sexism in other parts of society?

Rotus: You don't hear me saying "You like church" as if to highlight a bias to aid my argument. #FAIL I'm simply raising gaping holes in your argument which you cannot defend head on. If you tried that in court, you'd get your clock cleaned by the opposing counsel.

Ovie: All your arguments are duds if you ask me. You go no were with them.

Rotus: Using "other parts of society" is an incredibly **weak** excuse to justify sexism in church because the so-called "divine" source shouldn't have a biased mentality towards one sex. If you can't see that, then you've lost before you even attempt to formulate a point to defend yourself

Ovie: If the women were continuously put down in Church and not allowed to do anything then I would see your point. But as it is women are free serve God and work in the Church. So all your 'talk' is negated. One can use examples to buttress their points. You just like to run around them and make it seem like such examples are pointless. You have no case against the Church. You choose to see the Church from one view point and you've convinced yourself that no matter what other people say its irrelevant. Your views are right and no other persons opinions or arguments matter. Whatever rocks your boat

Rotus: Looks like you guys have given up. Didn't even have the courtesy to address my analogy with the Urhobo tribe. Typical. All I've heard is "Why don't you point fingers elsewhere?" as if "elsewhere" like the National Assembly, operates under guidance from a so-called "divine" source that is supposed to be above sexism. 

Again, if you can't see the failure of the equivalence you're trying to present between "God" and the corrupt, inept national assembly, then you're lost in the woods. The point is - and pay attention here - the doctrine of the church is supposed to be above the failings of society with regard to sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc. To make the argument that one should question other parts of society where such similar deplorable attitudes exist is to make the church subversive to patriarchy when it should be the other way around. 

I feel for you guys though. It's a really difficult proposition to accept a belief system that you've been raised to think is perfect, then be confronted with realities that glaringly contradict this false idea of perfection and then be stuck running around in circles trying to defend the indefensible. My condolences

Ovie: Christianity is perfect. Accept my condolences for not accepting christ. You're missing out. There is no sexism in the church. Say what you want but you've lost even before you started.

Rotus: Yes, Christianity is perfect, thanks.

The convenience of fortune telling dreams

A friend posted the following status message on facebook:

''Had a dream someone I know robbed my sister & I masked...not knowing it would be us but continued....I couldnt get to gun #foreshadowing?''

The first response said: 

''Good that you could get gun....just pray..sometimes dreams are meant to make you more cautious..pay attention to detail.....tell all to slow down and be more aware. pray first rebuke and bind that dream''

 My friend replied:

 ''Couldnt...and yeah that was my first step...i have dreams that tell the future...this isnt one of them...i know what those feel like now....but something still remains weird about this one...is like who it was is not important but instead the type of person...a flashy person always in the mix...that some would assume had it all that i know is a loyal person but only to thosd he cares about...out robbing and ashamed to support the lifestyle...tomorrow is not promised...cherish the day fbers...sveryone you think cares even though ashamed...they have goals...it could be at your expense''

I'm fascinated at how the first commenter (mistakenly) thought it was ''good'' my friend could get his gun and in the same breath also urged him to ''pray first rebuke and bind that dream.'' Seems to me the presence of the former would not require the latter as a means of security. Anyway, I could have sworn cooperating while being robbed more often than not ensures the avoidance of risk of loss of life and injury, rather than react violently and risk a potentially fatal outcome. Especially in this case where a family member is involved. But he didn't elaborate on the details of the dream that prompted him to reach for a gun that wasn't there so I'm just speculating on what I read.

I do wonder, however, how this dream (and conversation between the two) would have played out if they lived in say, the United Kingdom where strict laws against gun ownership exist as opposed to Texas, where my friend resides and I assume is where he was located when he had the dream. Perhaps he would have been equipped with a knife or, unarmed and forced to cooperate? It's quite interesting how one's surroundings affect their thought process and subconscious.

Now the interpretation of the note of caution makes sense. But this is what stood out for me in the reply from my friend;

''i have dreams that tell the future''

As seen in the full quote at the beginning of this post, he did state that this particular dream wasn't one of them, but I was still struck (as always, despite hearing them repeatedly from other people that share in his faith-based belief system) by this revelation. However, from what I've observed, these Nostradamus predictions almost always deal with the immediate surroundings (made up mostly of personalized experiences) of the dreamer (usually involving family and friends but sometimes complete strangers) and hardly ever stuff that strays out of that surrounding (unless of course you're a public religious figure, in which case, the predictions are more grandiose). For example; I don't know of anyone that had a dream which predicted Fermat's last theorem would be solved by British mathematician Sir Andrew Wiles, or that the Higgs Boson particle would be discovered 48 years after Professor Peter Higgs publicized his theory in 1964.

The only two people that could reasonably have had such ''dreams'' that predicted their respective futures are the individuals mentioned; i.e Wiles and Higgs, and possibly their family, close friends, and colleagues privy to their day-to-day work. It is for this reason that I take with a pinch of salt ''prediction'' dreams which sometimes originate from a supernataural source (based on the beliefs of the dreamer). My friend is a christian, and as seen from the first response to his status message, it didn't take long for communication with god through ''prayer'' (a popular post-dream action when contents of the dream depict threats) to be suggested. My friend's affirmative response (''yeah that was my first step'') suggests ''prayer'' would somehow lead to an intervention from above that would prevent the events of the dream unfolding in reality at a future time.

This makes me think of the biblical story of Joseph in Genesis chapter 37 who also saw ''future events.'' I find it extremely convenient how the dreams of many Christians I've encountered who ''predict future events'' happen to fall in line with Joseph's and rarely deviate. 

If there was no story of Joseph and his dreams (including other biblical stories of ''visions'' revealed during slumber), would these folks (that subscribe to the belief system that weaved these tales) categorically state they could see the future in their dreams? I doubt it.

Can Eid Mubarak get a BBM Broadcast shoutout?

"Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue, it makes it a requirement for survival" - Rene Dubos ("Celebrations of Life," 1981)

If you spend every sunday (and other days) shoving public proclamations of your religious faith down the throats of others but are noticeably silent on a sunday when another religion is being celebrated, you become part of the problem of religious intolerance in a nation where deep divisions along religious lines already exist, albeit unnecessarily and tragically so.

So show a little consistency, and acknowledge Eid Mubarak. 

Now of course, you are well within your rights not to, but when you resume your usual one-sided faith declarations tomorrow and beyond, you start to look a lot like email spam.

Happy Eid Mubarak to everyone, religious and non-religious included. Enjoy your holiday.

- Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device on Sunday the nineteenth of August, in the year two thousand and twelve