Grim Rhapsody

The October meteor shower was the most exciting thing to happen to the small city of Ven for several decades. The reason for this was not because meteor showers look pretty at night, or because there were so many meteors large enough to create craters; it was because the craters had roughly formed the shape of a skewed five-prong star.

It was I who first saw the crater field, several kilometres out of the city, while filming it from a helicopter for the local news station. As I reported on it live from the helicopter, I laughed and jokingly said that if you turned your head and squinted, the craters could form a star. It turned out that not everybody thought it was as funny as I had.

Back at the news station, our crew had a casual discussion about the crater field. My co-reporter agreed with me that the sight of the shower itself was more amazing than any vague shape it might have happened to form. But when I spoke to the chef in the tuck shop, he seemed to be certain that the star shape was a sign of communication from an alien race, and that to hit Earth they must be aware of our existence and on their way here at that very moment.

The gardener had other ideas. He also thought the meteor field was the intentional work of aliens, but he was certain that the meteors had been aimed for the city and that an unforeseen circumstance had ‘blown’ the meteors slightly west. He also asserted that the aliens were on their way to Earth to finish the job.

The news anchor wasn’t sure who had ’sent’ the meteors, but she knew one thing for sure: the largest crater, at the tip of the star shape, was pointing to Russia. When I asked her why it wasn’t ‘pointing’ to any location between Ven and Russia, or even past Russia, she seemed unable to answer me but nonetheless remained sure that it was a sign to befriend Russia.

When I asked the weatherman, I was under the impression that he agreed with myself and my co-reporter, but this belief was firmly dashed when he informed me that this meteor shower, the largest seen in centuries, was a supernatural warning of even larger, more devastating meteor ‘attacks’ to come, despite historical records of even larger meteor showers colliding with Earth.

The news editor, who was also a religious priest, assured me that the crater star was a sign from a supernatural deity. The multitudes of religious figures I interviewed in the coming days agreed with this as the shape’s origin, but every single individual had starkly contrasting views on what the star meant. Among these interpretations were imminent apocalypse, condemnation of the newly-elected mayor, confirmation of the newly-elected mayor, the imminent return of a deity to Earth, the marking of Ven as the new ‘holy land’, and dozens more. What they had in common was that each was absolutely certain that the star was confirmation from their chosen deity that they were believing in the right thing.

People seemed inclined to believe one of these religious figures rather than those who were in the same mind as the chef, gardener, anchor or weatherman, though I couldn’t understand why. All were making guesses with no evidence, all believed an invisible being had ’sent’ the star, all drew a conclusion from the vague shape that suited what beliefs they already had, all believed they were one hundred perfect right, and all are capable of human error. Each claimed they had all the answers, and none seemed annoyed that this lame, vague shape was the best that this powerful invisible being could muster.

The government took advantage of the huge tourist attraction of the crater field, and set up fences and boardwalks to protect the craters. There was also expensive helicopter rides to see the star shape from a good vantage point, which was a very popular activity. I wondered if those thousands of dollars spent on seeing vague geomorphic shapes could be put to better use in the world.

Eventually a church, with its mounds of untaxed capital, bought the meteor-hammered land from the government and put signs all around the site advertising the supposed truth of their religion. This angered other religions worldwide, and shortly afterwards the crater field was devastated by a series of bombing attacks. The star shape had been erased, the craters were indistinguishable from bomb scorch marks, and what physical reminder had remained of that beautiful twilit meteor shower was lost.

I partially blamed myself for the whole affair, having acknowledged the vague shape live on air, and I often wonder if anyone would have noticed it had I not voiced my thoughts. What I had planned to be a story on the beauty and natural wonder of meteor showers had turned, with the help of dogmatic and fanatical beliefs, into more global religious conflict resulting in the utter destruction of the greatest natural event that would happen in my lifetime. Sometimes, before I go off to sleep, I wonder what would have happened if people had believed the gardener.

When I was four years old, my father shot me. 

I know that it was not his fault. He asked me not to play on the new slide, but I disobeyed him. I didn’t listen to his warning about what would happen if I did. When he found me sitting on the patch of dirt at its foot, he sighed, but without hesitation pulled out his revolver and shot me in the stomach. 

Three weeks later, I came back home from the hospital. The incident was covered up. My father was a very influential man. Rumours floated around town, but they were not enough to puncture my father’s charitable image. Even I didn’t hold anything against him. But from then on I was always the girl with the scar. 

For my father’s birthday the following year, I painted my love for him a rock, even though he had asked for a wall of paintings. He didn’t like my rock. He said I should be more thankful to him. I tried to tell him that I couldn’t paint a wall. He said I would have no dinner that night, and I would be locked in the basement furnace if next year’s gift wasn’t to his liking. I knew that he was allowed to, because he was my father and I owed everything to him. 

When I started school, I had a nice teacher called Mr Lee. When he found out who my father was, he seemed sad and told me I could ask him for help if I was ever in trouble. So I told him that the previous month, my father had bought me a puppy, then told me to drown it. Crying and with trembling hands, I had lowered it into the bathtub, but as soon as it touched the water he had stopped me and said I could keep the puppy. 

I think Mr Lee told the principal, because the next day my father was very angry. He had me transferred to another class and said not to talk to any teachers about personal things again. I asked where my puppy was. My father told me that he had put her in the furnace, for my own good. I didn’t believe him. But I never saw my puppy again. 

For the ten years I was in school, my father gave me different lessons at home. He would give me rules that I hadn’t learned in school. The first thing he said was that I had to always love him, or he would punish me. He told me that I must spend one day each week at home with him to prove I loved him. He told me never to question him, and to hate anyone who did. He told me horrible things would happen to me if I ever disobeyed him. I was afraid. 

When I was sixteen, I made friends with another girl. Then one time something happened between us. My father found out, and whipped me. Then we packed up and left town. I was too scared to go near a girl again for a long time. 

My father owned a mansion in another town. There were a few families renting rooms in it. My father took their money and kicked them out, so we could live there. I saw a woman crying with her baby. There was nothing anyone could do. Except my father.

My father invited over some men he knew. They were all a lot older than me. He offered me to them as a wife. One of them accepted, and we became married. I had no choice. But I knew my father was doing what was best for me. 

The following month, our country went to war. The army was not afraid of defeat. My father’s company made their weapons. Their weapons were the best in the world. All my father asked in exchange for the weapons was that he chose which country was attacked. I heard stories about rivers of blood left in the army’s path. I heard stories about children impaled against rocks, and thrown off cliffs. I didn’t believe my father would let that happen, just so he could get more land.

When I was twenty, I finally parted with my father. He was too old to run his company, so he chose someone in his place while he lived in another country. He chose a man named Chris. Everyone agreed Chris was nicer than my father. When he came for dinner with the other company members, he would tell stories. Everyone looked up to him. He put some of the company’s funds into a new medicine. He saved some lives, but eventually became too busy. Sometimes I wondered if he could save more if he wanted to. 

Then the riots happened. There were riots against the company’s weapons, which had killed thousands of people. They attacked the main building. Chris was shot in the struggle. They attacked our mansion and I was forced by another man. 

My father returned to deal with the disaster. He and my husband hated me. They said I had committed adultery. They didn’t care that it wasn’t my fault. That I had no choice. My father had finally had enough. He grabbed me and pushed me into the furnace. I was in there for half a minute before someone pulled me out. 

I opened my blistered eyes, crying from the pain, and saw a squad of policemen. Two had my father handcuffed and pinned against the wall. One was calling for an ambulance. Another was telling my father that he had got away with crimes for too long, and would be tried for hundreds and hundreds of cases of abuse, war crimes, and even more. My father received more than fifty life sentences in jail. He was only there for two years before he died.

I spent seven years receiving counselling for twenty years of what I learned had been terror on every level imaginable. I had bad scars all over my body from the burns, to join the one where my father had first shot me for being too curious. Despite that, I had opened my eyes to everything else. For the first time in almost thirty years, I tasted more freedom in the air than pain or fear. I knew that it wasn’t all lost.

A common question posed to non-theists is, of course, “Theists get their morality from God. Where do you get your morality from?” or alternatively the more blatant “Atheists are immoral because they don’t accept God’s written rules of morality.” Other humanistic writers have shattered this insulting assertion utterly and brilliantly, but I still wish to refute it for my own liberty.

The first and foremost response to this question is simply pointing out that theists, even under the same denomination, can hardly be said to be in agreement on exactly what God’s idea of morality is. There are literally hundreds of different “interpretations” of the Bible alone, the most extreme of which spit on the very idea of morality. And ironically, it is these fundamentalists who are following God’s written laws most precisely. I have no doubt that most theists who ask atheists about their “missing” morality have not read the Bible, which is of course one of the most effective methods of deconversion. A simple retort would be to ask the original questioner if they would consider the following things morally acceptable: bears mauling children as punishment for teasing; the genocide of seven civilisations for being in the wrong place; the slaying of innocent children and “ripping open” of pregnant women;  and of course throwing ten thousand unarmed captives off a cliff. That’s God’s written idea of morality.

Following this, a common answer I’ve received is that these are all Old Testament shenanigans. Everything’s much better in the New Testament, they say. Jesus teaches love, compassion and ultimately all morality.

This is effectively an admission that the Old Testament is indeed brutally immoral much more often than not. To claim that God had a “change of heart” between Old and New, or that Jesus managed to convince his wrathful father that maybe humanity wasn’t so bad after all, is incompatible with the well-accepted notion of God’s infinite benevolence. It doesn’t work. To admit that God was, at some point, immoral, destroys this basic definition of the Judeo-Christian God.

This forces Christianity back onto perhaps the most frequently-heard lay apologetic: “The Bible is not meant to be taken completely literally.” The obvious problem with such a statement is thus: how are we to know which verses to take literally, and which not to take literally? As far as I know, God hasn’t left any hints. Using this ideology, I could also claim that the evil verses are the literal ones, and the verses of love “aren’t meant to be taken literally”. Taking into account that there are more of the former, this would actually be a more realistic claim. Yet I have (fortunately) heard of no one who would do such a thing. In any case, look at the above examples of outright immorality in the Bible. What on earth are we supposed to take from these verses? If not literal, are they metaphorical? Please, Christians, enlighten me on this. These are verses of injustice, bloodshed, and the slaughter of innocents. I’m not seeing a loving “message” behind it at all.

The question of which verses to shrug off as non-literal is of course synonymous with the question of which verses aren’t likely to be featured as “Bible Verse of the Day” at a church. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are kept quiet and pushed behind the curtain by preachers and evangelizers. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are left out of the (Christian-written) ”children’s Bible”. What does this mean? Christians are not just getting their morality from God. More accurately, they are flicking through God’s written word and pulling out the verses that they want to get their morality from. And on what basis do they decide which verses are good examples of morality? Why, the same basis as atheists, of course.

While I am thankful that Christians effectively decide their own morality rather than taking all of God’s (rather controversial) written advice, I also hope that the stereotype of the immoral non-theist will be replaced with the more accurate image of someone who intrinsically desires to minimize suffering and maximise happiness, and knows it.

It is a general consensus among atheists and critics of religion that the doctrine of Hell — an afterlife in which wrongdoers and/or opposition of a particular religion will suffer horrific, conscious pain for an infinite amount of time — is the lowest and most disgusting fabrication of religion.

While words cannot even begin to describe the horror and disturbed “purpose of justice” behind such a place, allow me to give you an example of exactly what Hell is supposed to be. Imagine, for a moment, that you were to commit adultery, and as punishment for this, you had to live the rest of your life with a machine attached to your arms that crushed your bones, healed them instantly, then crushed them again, and so on until you died. Well, that’s absolutely nothing compared to Hell. Hell is not a two-year prison sentence for minor assault. Hell is infinite. If one lifetime of constant pain sounds horrific, multiply that by a trillion, and…well, you’re still nowhere close: any finite amount of time is infinitely small compared to infinity.

Putting the actual characteristics of this gruesome realm aside, there’s no mystery as to its purpose. The threat of eternal punishment is the most obvious method of scaring people into following you. Putting the punishment in a place where no one can ever prove or disprove its existence is the next obvious step. Then label anyone you dislike as destined for this mythical torture chamber. “Join us, or forever will ye burn!”

However, Hell’s purpose (and similarly Heaven’s) is somewhat diluted by the fact that most religions claim to have their own version of such a place. Visual representations may change (ranging from the Bible’s lakes of fire to Dante’s artistic rendition of the “nine levels” of the inferno), but ultimately each religion gives Hell the same purpose. It is only the “List of the Condemned” that really changes — each group puts forward a different set of criteria that one must follow to avoid this undesirable fate.

This is the main reason why nonsense such as Pascal’s Wager (the ”better safe than sorry!” of religion) falls laughably short. Think about it: at this very moment, there are millions, likely hundreds of millions, of people who think you are going to some sort of Hell (or at least, their beliefs dictate it; it’s not something said in light conversation). It’s possible that several people in your life are among these people. And atheists? We’re basically only being condemned to one more version of Hell than anyone else. Amidst the thousands of versions of Hell in existence, that doesn’t make us much worse off than theists in terms of Pascal’s Wager. And I for one would gladly add one more Hell to the list of supernatural realms I’m “destined” for, if I receive in exchange the life of freedom, happiness and caring that accompanies atheism.

Hell is both a disturbing and problem-causing part of religion. It is not enough that followers believe they are destined for an eternity of happiness; they must also specifically believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is not only shunned from this paradise, but condemned to suffer forever. I don’t doubt there would be a fair bit less tension between religions if they could simply believe they were headed for eternal paradise, whilst others simply faced unconscious oblivion. Perhaps then, one human being would not look into the eyes of another, perhaps a life-long friend, and sincerely tell them that they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.

I recently stumbled upon a hilarious collection of common (and satirised) “proofs” for the existence of a divine being. Of these 500+ arguments, I have heard at least half from theists, and for that reason I advise both humour-seeking atheists and explanation-seeking theists to have a look at them. Theists using these arguments: no doubt you have heard this before, but none of these arguments are going to convert anyone, especially anyone who has taken the time to read the far stronger reasons as to why they are flawed (Ebon deals with the less-absurd-sounding arguments beautifully here).

 I’ll leave it up to you to tackle the whole list, but here’s some of my personal favourites (some jokes, some frighteningly used seriously by theists).

49. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM
(1) God is everywhere.
(2) We haven’t been everywhere to prove he’s not there.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

79. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I’ve had religious experiences that can’t be explained unless I’m insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

89. BENDER’S ARGUMENT (II) (ARGUMENT FROM DAVID BLAINE)
(1) If David Blaine does real magic, then God exists.
(2) It looked real on his TV special.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

99. ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what?  I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

174. ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY [Perhaps the most convincing of all.]
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

211. ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies…
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

441. ARGUMENT FROM MESSED UP TRINITARIAN REASONING
(1) God is three.
(2) Three’s a crowd.
(3) A crowd consists of people.
(4) People exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

544. ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (II)
(1) If there is no God, then gays and others who do things I don’t like may never be punished.
(2) I want them to be punished.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice and punish them.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Finally, one with interesting connotations:

39. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world’s population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This is indeed what Satan intended! And he’s winning! The endless numbers of Christian sects make up only 33% of the world’s population! The remaining 67% have been tempted from the Path of Christ by Satan! Is God really that powerless to stop Satan from tricking these people into evil lives, bound for eternal torment at God’s reluctant-but-necessary hand of justice? For someone who was once second-in-command to God, old Lucifer’s doing pretty well for himself. Oh, and that’s not including the fact that a great deal of said Christian sects think the other Christian sects are also under Satan’s dominance.

Of course, this 67% as a whole doesn’t particularly offend Christians; no, it’s the 2.5%-strong atheists who are the real danger. All these others have at least some sort of divine belief — but atheists are arrogant enough to claim there’s nothing divine at all. How dare they stand opposed to the religious wars, church bigotry and indoctrination, creationist pseudoscience and discriminating dogma that are part of most world religions? How dare they abandon the restraints of a worship-bound existence, to seek self-fulfilment and humanistic goals? How dare they think themselves so much more intelligent than us?

No, these arguments for God make as much impact on atheists as our arguments make on theists, for two completely different reasons. Regardless, I urge theists to look not to proof of a divine being in words or holy books: look to the world; to what religion truly is and to what it strives for; to what has come about as a result of faith-dependent superstition; and to the impact it has had on your own moral urges and your own life.

Is it coincedence that a person’s religion is directly derived from the religion of local, surrounding people? Is it coincedence that religion tells you that all arguments defying their doctrines are indisputedly false? Is it coincedence that religion’s ultimate reward — eternal life — is in a place where no one can ever disprove its existence? Is it coincedence that your religious leaders “forget” to enlighten you as to the darker verses of your holy book? And is it coincedence that you have absolutely nothing except their word and “a fuzzy feeling inside you” that what they’re telling you is true?

Of course, from an atheist’s point of view, none of these things are a coincedence – just religion.

It’s been nine months since my first Halo music video, which was “Lost” by mainstream metal band Red (proof that I can indeed still enjoy hardcore Christian metal), and my second video, which has been in the making for two weeks, is now up: “Child’s Play, Pt. 2″ by Norwegian alternative/progressive quartet Green Carnation.

Hopefully you’ll enjoy it; it’s considerably more mellow than the previous one, and is themed around the Master Chief’s struggle on Earth.

No doubt you are familiar with world-renowed book series Harry Potter, seven books detailing the teenage years of Harry Potter, a boy who discovers he is a wizard and is pitched against the Dark Lord Voldemort. The success of the bildungsroman fantasy novels has made author J.K. Rowling the highest-earning novelist in history, and with fair reason: the novels are extremely enthralling and unique and lead the reader on a twisting journey from start to finish.

As a “children’s series”, Harry Potter has drawn considerable attention to its aspects of evil: the villains of the series are not your bumbling, evil-laughing, constantly-thwarted typical children’s villains, but are truly cruel, violent and cunning, symbolised in the murderous main antagonist Lord Voldemort. Notable, the books’ violent content increases from first to seventh book, and with obvious reason: with ten years between the first and last instalments, Potter’s original readers have matured, and Rowling has emphasised that it is this associated journey and maturing of her original audience along with Harry that leads to the latter books’ bloodshed.

As part of that original audience, I was a true follower of Harry Potter from its beginning in 1997 to its end almost two months ago, and my gratitude to Rowling extends likewise. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, more religious segments of the world have heavily criticised the series, for not only its themes of death and scenes of horror but for the mere presence of magic.

Harry Potter is set in a magical world. Harry attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for six of the seven books, and the school remains the main setting for the whole series. This won’t settle for hardcore Christians: in their eyes, Harry is “desensitizing children to the Occult” and “leading children to be fascinated by magic, however ‘white’ or ‘dark’ it may be”. This article by typical fundamentalist website ChristianAnswers is a fine example of such a response.

Of course, Christians have long condemned witchcraft. I need not remind you that Christians were responsibly for the medieval burnings of innocent people who had been fanatically identified as “making pacts with the Devil”. Their justification was as such:

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. [Deuteronomy 18:10-14]

Naturally, the fact that God detests these practices yet is unable to do anything about them is evidence against God himself, but putting this aside, it seems that Christians believe that the Bible not only applies to people, but also to works of fiction. The aforementioned article claims: “Furthermore, if one were to use the reasoning that such objectionable material can be included in fantasy literature, then ‘that line of reasoning would tell you that you could include in fantasy any violence, pornography, whatever you wanted, and still defend those books by that very same statement’.” This asserts that practices that offend religion (notably, practices that don’t actually function) are on the same level as practices that offend human nature (of which pornography can barely be classified, offending Christians for the same religious reasons).

This is the sole basis of Christian dislike of Harry Potter: the supposed presence and promotion of Occult practices, moral relativism, violence and fascination in “witchcraft”. This seems to hinge upon their belief, which ironically originates from God’s belief, that the Occult is actually a functional practice and actually allows the participant to use Potter-like magic. The fact that Harry Potter is fundamentally a magic-infused reflection of society is ironic in this sense, and thankfully the majority of Christians can accept the series for what it is — a fantasy series. (Maybe the real reason fundies despise Harry is because he’s challenged the Bible as the world’s highest-selling book.)

To finish on a different note, ChristianAnswers’ article concludes with this:

Parents, whether Christian or not, must take an active role in what their children are being exposed to and determine what is appropriate. Christians especially should be guided by God’s Word, the Bible.

I doubt this article’s author has read the Bible. If so, he would be urging parents to keep it hidden and read only from verses based around the love of Jesus (otherwise known as the one-verse doctrine, John 3:16). Isaac Asimov says it best: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

Consider this list of websites.

• AllAboutArchaelogy.org
  AllAboutHistory.org
  AllAboutLifeChallenges.org
  AllAboutLiving.org
  AllAboutLove.org
  AllAboutParenting.org
  AllAboutPhilosophy.org
  AllAboutPopularIssues.org
  AllAboutReflections.org
  AllAboutScience.org
  AllAboutSpirituality.org
  AllAboutTruth.org
  AllAboutWorldview.org

Seems fair enough, doesn’t it? An About.com-like chain of websites dealing with various contemporary issues? How about this list?

• AllAboutCreation.org
  AllAboutCults.org
  AllAboutFollowing Jesus.org
  AllAboutHeart.org
  AllAboutJesusChrist.org
  AllAboutPrayer.org
  AllAboutReligion.org
  AllAboutTheJourney.org
  AllAboutTheOccult.org

As part of the same web chain, this leads to the absolutely correct conclusion that this is a Christian chain of websites, operating under the major domain of AllAboutGod.com, and proselytising fundamentalist, Young-Earth creationist, Christian faith on every page. Most amusing of all is the link at the bottom of each page, “Learn More Now!”, leading on to the next chapter (usually cross-site) in the reader’s journey. The end of all of these paths? A page aptly titled “Become A Christian”, which no longer offers a “Learn More Now” link at the bottom but instead displays “Did you become a Christian today? YES or NO?”

The pro-creation, pro-Christianity, anti-evolution arguments posed on this All About God chain of websites are, of course, nothing new. Every single page on AllAboutScience.org discusses why evolution is false, why creationism is science, and why we should all convert immediately to Christianity. Some despicable pages on AllAboutWorldview.org promote the old Christian vendetta against homosexuality, pre-marital sex and atheism. And look no further than AllAboutParenting.org for raising obedient, unquestioning Christian children.

One would imagine the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which All About God poses fundamentalist Christian values (guess what’s on AllAboutTruth.org) would be less disturbing than the vocal discrimination employed by groups such as Westboro Baptist Church. However, in its own way, All About God is an atheist’s nightmare, promoting creationism as science whilst twisting facts to remove evolution to the back stage; beginning in questioning, appealing tones but quickly shifting into blatant evangelism; ignoring the Bible’s violent cruelty and promoting one-verse doctrine (John 3:16) ; and enforcing some of the more ridiculous Christian notions such as Young Earth creationism and absolute literal (albeit selective) Bible interpretation.

All About God (or perhaps more accurately “Christian Wiki”) is a classic example of modern online proselytisation (indeed, I have yet to come across a more deceptive instance), but, as per usual, twists the most basic principles of science to its own will and defaces both real science and any non-Christian belief, atheism most of all. I urge anyone reading any of its websites to look to less biased sources for the information AAG presents. 

Communication is, and has always been, a major fundamental part of being a living, breathing, moving organism. The vast majority of animals all communicate on some level; for most of them, access to a verbal vocabulary is very limited, but through basic sound and sight, they recognise each other nevertheless. From the chittering buzz of insects, to the majestic whale song, animals are constantly aware of each other and at the very least take their peers’ existence into consideration.

Communication between humans, however, casts the grunts and calls of the animal kingdom into sharp relief. Humans have hundreds of thousands of individual verbal codes through which to transmit their information; advancing technology allows these verbal codes to travel far across the globe with only a shadow of a delay. In addition, humanity is unique in its usage of written communication; speaking is no longer necessary, and sometimes even inefficient, thanks to the written language and its ease of transmission.

As technology increases, so does communication; as communication increases, so does globalisation. National boundaries have been struck down: some countries have reaped the benefits of a global economy moreso than others. Industries of communication have a vast array of technologies at their disposal: the Internet being the current lead contender, alongside mobile phones (particularly text messaging) and television.

These technologies are growing physically smaller, and technologically larger, without pause. The ability to write a message, and have it near-instantaneously appear on the computer screen of a far-off friend, is, needless to say, useful. But at what cost?

Obviously, there are numeous costs, some quite literally. Today, however, I speak of the cost to language as a whole (I’ll be referring to English here, being rather less adept in other languages). I speak, naturally, of things such as abbreviations, “SMS slang”, and online neologisms.

There are varying levels of the “intensity” of text abbreviations. Leaving out capital letters, or punctuation, would class low on this scale, while the higher-class slang defers from letters altogether and instead uses numbers, sometimes becoming altogether illegible. I don’t doubt that this degradation of English was originally for convenience only: it takes considerable less time to write “How R U?” than “How are you?” on a mobile phone. I have little qualms with this, for reasons of convenience, but there is a fine line between reducing word size for ease of typing and going out of your way to degrade your own literary skills. Immediate examples of the latter are replacing “was” with “wuz”, or, using the aforementioned example, replacing letters with numbers and such (from “beak” to “834|<”.

The odd thing is that, from frequent example, the more skilled a person (particularly young person) becomes at typing on a keyboard, the worse their language becomes.

The main cause of this is that, like many teenage issues, people want to fit in. The image of “cool” is often at direct odds with the notion of individuality, or personal preference. Tagging along with the crowd, actually going out of your way to make your lifestyle (and language style) comparable to others, is commonplace among teenagers. Mostly this revolves around the concept of appearing “casual and unconcerned” with such persnickety things as spelling and grammar, which are strictly “geeks only”.

While I can only urge users of such language to go their own way, I reinforce that writing with improved demeanour has definite benefits. At one point or another in your education (or at the very least in your life) you will most likely be required to write an essay or report, using your keyboard and your computer. As a former participant in online slang, and a long-since reformed user of complete language, let me assure you that such a piece is far easier to write if you aren’t disadvantaging yourself by having to switch between two standards: the formal language of typed works, against the careless slang of social chatter. In addition, the ability to completely express yourself through written words is amplified to prodigious levels when writing with a complete grammatical and literal basis behind your words; from my reader’s perspective, writing “mb ill come lol” says a lot less than “I’ll come…maybe. Hehe.”

In some situations, such as in the rush to catch the train or in the midst of an action-packed online game, abbreviations are useful. However, if you have no such immediate time restraint (and to a degree even if you do), maybe you’ll reconsider, and express yourself to the fullest, through the fullest.

Just a quick thought I had on the machinations of religions that a) follow an ancient holy book and b) claim themselves to be morally righteous. Some questions you should ask yourself, if you follow such a religion:

1. Do you “ignore” parts of your holy book because you find them morally unacceptable? If not, your religion is likely not morally righteous, unless you’re following a new morally perfect holy book I haven’t heard of.
2. If your holy book is truly the word of a morally perfect, omnibenevolent deity, why would he include these morally unacceptable verses?
3. If he DID intentionally have them written in said holy book, is he really worth worshipping, especially if he pretends to be morally perfect when these verses indicate otherwise?
4. If he DIDN’T intentionally have them written in said holy book, why not stop vaguely ignoring these verses and remove them altogether?

The fact is, either these blatantly brutal verses contradict your deity’s self-proclaimed nature, or they are not his word at all and might as well be completely removed. Notice I am not arguing against this deity’s existence; I am simply highlighting an obvious choice that atheists and theists alike should be able to recognise.

Taking the Bible as an example, considering it is the world’s major religion: how many Christians follow the actual written “Word of God”? If you as a Christian believe you do follow it accurately, take this simple test and check off things you actively condone:

• You kill anyone who worships a different god.
• You kill anyone who doesn’t worship a god.
• You kill anyone who doesn’t listen to a priest.
• You kill homosexuals.
• You kill people who commit adultery.
• You kill people for picking up sticks (at the least) on the Sabbath.
• You kill anyone who says “Oh my God!”
• You kill thieves.

How well did you do out of eight? The Bible openly condones each of these punishments, multiple times. If you find any (hopefully all) of the above morally unacceptable, ask yourself why God would command you to do them. Removing for the moment the obvious answer (he doesn’t exist), either God is not morally perfect and has lied to everyone; or these verses are fabrications, and not part of God’s Official Morally Perfect Word — in which case, why not remove them from the Bible?

If you are one of those religious followers who vaguely mutters “not meant to be taken literally” or “that was thousands of years ago”, I urge you to take this into account. Write your own edited Bible, start a new sect of Christianity, abandon the futile religious struggle altogether! The alternative is keeping these horrific Bible verses in shadow, too scared of removing them, and too ashamed to bring them into the light where the Bible, and its God, can be revealed for what they truly are.