Deconversion stories: Why so long?

Why did it take so long for me to leave religion?

I keep coming back to this question, in fact kicking myself over it -- all that time and energy gone. Then I cut myself some slack. I remember that it's hard to get out of a system you're born into, and one that you've believed and invested so much in.

Still, all that aside, why did it take me so long to recognise the now-obvious absurdities and contradictions in Mormon doctrine -- actually, in all of theism? And Mormon doctrine is full of absurdities. Translating out of a hat? Pouring oil on someone to heal them from diseases? God living on a planet near the star Kolob? Having to memorise and repeat words and signs to get into heaven? Ridiculous in retrospect. Why did it seem so plausible at the time?

Of course, we can turn to the standard set of devices that humans use to believe the implausible: communal reinforcement, childhood indoctrination, confirmation bias. But recently I realised a little something extra that probably helped keep my belief afloat: It's very difficult to critique a religion effectively when you still accept some religious ideas. Meeting on Saturday might seem arbitrary, but really, meeting on Sunday is equally so. Believing in chakras is not so absurd when you believe in spirits. Why would it be a problem for a ghost to tell Nephi to kill Laban, when David killed Goliath? And so on. Religious beliefs don't seem absurd in contrast with other religious beliefs. What we're able to question depends on what we already accept as true.

In other words, the only solid ground from which to criticise religion is atheism. But how likely is someone to question the whole kit-n-kaboodle all at once? What's more likely to happen is that we'll try to preserve as much of the original belief as we can. Much less painful that way. But when you do that, you're unlikely to question that one little assumption that allows the whole structure to stand: that there's a god who can do magical things when it wants to. If you accept that one idea, then you can magic your way around any contradiction.

Once you step outside of that bubble and question the idea of a god, then all the absurdities become transparently obvious. But that's an advanced move, and probably one that people only try when all other options are exhausted. No wonder it can take so long.

Word of the day: be-clown

From Ron Rosenbaum's excellent Slate article: The Tea Party's Toxic Take on History

I think this is why it bothers me so much when Tea Party ignoramuses put swastikas on their anti-Obama posters. They disgrace themselves, they insult the dead martyrs to the truth, by lumping socialism with fascism and Obama with Hitler. They not only disgrace themselves; they be-clown themselves, they distort the historical consciousness of everyone they spread the comparison to.

That's the Tea Party to me: an incoherent, jibbering mob of idiots be-clowning themselves.

The use of 'be-clown' is relatively new; besides the Rosenbaum article, the word only has a few Google hits from 2008 and 2009. But I think this word could come in mighty handy to describe the ignorant gun-toting racist freaks that currently populate our news cycles.

See, almost exactly two years ago, I predicted that the Obama years would bring a return of 90's-style conspiracy paranoia. I didn't foresee the nature of the TP-ers, with their poorly-informed reality-allergic antics, nor did I appreciate the sheer paralysing dumbth of their wingnut queen Sarah Palin. It wasn't hard to see the 24-hour megaphone of Fox News stirring the pot, but the popularity of Glenn Beck was a bit of a surprise.

Ah, well, it's tough not being psychic. But even I can tell that there's going to be a good deal more be-clowning in future.

They can't kill us all!

You know I'm all over this, and I can't even draw.

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

I'm sure my portrait of Mohammed will be... just like the flat drawings of me in my cartoons, but with a turban. I think the turban will take the most work.

But wait -- shouldn't we refrain from drawing Mohammed, since Muslims don't like it? Sure, we have the right to draw what we wish, but wouldn't it be better to exercise restraint? To have some respect for other people's traditions, even the ones we don't agree with?

Well, that might be true, if this issue were about respect. This isn't about respect.

Here's the question: Do members of a religion get to force non-members to obey the rules of that religion? Under threat of violence? Because that is exactly what is happening here. Some Muslims are trying to set the terms of what non-Muslims are allowed to say, write, or draw, and they're backing it up with threats of violence and death. This is not the social contract I signed up for.

I think drawing is a simple way to counter this trend. So I'm getting my mouse ready. Someone else will have to care for the tender feelings of the believers.

UPDATE: Inevitable Facebook group.

Everyone wins

Sarah Colwill and Foreign Accent Syndrome

Sarah Colwill is British, but her accent has changed since having a really bad migraine. Usually Foreign Accent Syndrome happens as a result of a stroke. That's one whomping migraine, I must say. My sympathies.

People identify her accent as Chinese, but I don't know. I'm leaning toward the idea that it's not really a complete foreign accent (like you'd get if you were influenced by someone you knew with a foreign accent). I think the syndrome messes with your vowels, people hear you, and then they say, "Gee, you sound ___ (insert name of accent here)."

Here's a test: If there's someone in the room with you, play the audio for them, and get them to guess where her accent is from. (They'll have to guess before the :20 mark because she gives it away then.)



But not only is it messing with her vowels, it also seems to be messing with her morphemes. Notice how she's dropping endings off words:

And when I did speak, it sound Chinese. That last for about a week. And then I woke up again the next day, it sound more Eastern European. And it have been like that ever since.

I wonder if she was doing that before the migraine.

The saddest thing for me about FAS is how the speaker no longer identifies their voice as their own. Their own voice sounds strange to them.

"The first few weeks of the accent was quite funny but to think I am stuck with this Chinese accent is getting me down. My voice has started to annoy me now. It is not my voice," added Colwill.

Judi Roberts felt the same way. After her stroke, her American accent changed to what people identified as British. She changed her name to Tiffany Noel, in accordance with her feeling that a part of her had died.



There are worse things that can happen to your brain, of course, but it's hard to calculate the effect of no longer being able to sound like yourself.

Kids who are beaten are more aggressive

Surprise, surprise: Kids beaten by their parents show more aggressive behaviour.

Now researchers at Tulane University provide the strongest evidence yet against the use of spanking: of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5. The research supports earlier work on the pitfalls of corporal punishment, including a study by Duke University researchers that revealed that infants who were spanked at 12 months scored lower on cognitive tests at age 3.

"I'm excited by the idea that there is now some nice hard data that can back up clinicians when they share their caution with parents against using corporal punishment," says Dr. Jayne Singer, clinical director of the child and parent program at Children's Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the study.

I'm secretly excited too.

"The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began increased by 50%," says Taylor. And because her group also accounted for varying levels of natural aggression in children, the researchers are confident that "it's not just that children who are more aggressive are more likely to be spanked."

I've got a couple of great boys who I really respect as people, and who themselves are respectful. They're not great at all of life's tasks yet, but I'm not either. I'm not exactly sure how they turned out the way they have, but I do know that I've never hit them.

We all want our kids to know that there are consequences for their actions, but hitting them is a lousy consequence. It harms the relationship between parent and child, and a strong relationship is a major way to have input and influence on the child's life.

There are better consequences than hitting. Good consequences are related to the behaviour. If toys aren't put away, then the toys go away for a while, after a warning. And we need to let kids enjoy the good consequences of their actions: if they get ready for bed quickly, it's more story-time.

It's also good to play "What Happens Next". "What might happen if we don't lock the car?" "What do you think would happen if we left the milk out of the refrigerator?" This gets them thinking about the natural consequences of actions, instead of the artificial consequences that come from beatings.

I've heard parents respond to this in various ways:

"If they do something dangerous, like run into the road, they need a smack to tell them it's not okay.

If the child is doing something dangerous, then we as parents need to control the environment so they can't hurt themselves. We're the big people; we can make the choices about the environment. We can make sure that doors are locked, that enticing delicate objects are out of reach. It's hard to do, but good parenting is effortful.

"But children can't reason at that age, and a smack is a direct way to communicate to the child."

I suppose it's true that children aren't good at reasoning. This is why we teach them. We slowly and laboriously teach them all the things they need to do in their lives, including tying shoes, long division, toilet training, and riding a bike. Why do parents take an easy way out instead of teaching reasoning and logic, which is a skill more important than all those others? Perhaps because it's the parenting we got, or perhaps because it's considered acceptable by some.

But hopefully, as we get more knowledge about how violence against children affects their lives and their behaviour, it will become less and less acceptable.

The perfectly stupid is the enemy of the good

At last, at last. Obama has realised that the Right Wing will go ape (complete with feces-flinging) over anything he does, so he's doing what he wants.

President Obama thinks Republicans will engage in a full battle over his Supreme Court nominee regardless of the person's ideological leanings, and in some ways "that realization is liberating for the president" to choose whomever he pleases, an administration official told TPMDC.

Oh, the irony. By being obstructive and tantrum-prone, Republicans are getting less than they would if they were reasonable.

It wasn't always this way though. Democrats used to try to appease these apoplectic apes. Remember when 'bipartisan' was the buzzword? But bipartisanship only works when one party isn't comprised of psychos.

I hope this is how Democrats do things in future. Ignore the antics and get on with the work, as the Party of Crazy sinks to irrelevance.

Sex causes earthquakes

As humans, we naturally want to find the reasons for things. It's what makes us such inquisitive critters, and it's done us a lot of good so far.

Except that it also makes us superstitious. Why aren't the rains coming? We should do something, but what? Pray to a god and starve ourselves? Believe in Allah? How about getting our daughters to plow fields naked? And so on.

If superstition is a normal human tendency, it's one that can be overcome with a bit of practice. On the other hand, some people like to wallow in it.

Extramarital sex 'causes more earthquakes', Iranian cleric claims

Attractive women who snub traditional Islamic clothing to instead wear fashionable clothes and apply heavy make-up, caused youths in the country to “go astray” and have affairs, Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi said.

The hard-line cleric said as a result the country, bounded by several fault lines, experienced more “calamities” such as earthquakes, the reformist Aftab-e Yazd newspaper reported him saying.

Iran is prone to frequent quakes, many of which have been devastating for the country.

"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes," he told worshippers at a Tehran prayer service late last week.

Heh. He said 'taint'.

"Calamities are the result of people's deeds.

“We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers."

Except perhaps to find out what really causes earthquakes, and how to make buildings that don't fall down. You know, all that sciency stuff.

No word yet if the Iranian government is planning on putting more funding into morality-based tectonics. Perhaps they could also throw a little money toward political volcano research.

Attacking Scientology is a little bit bullshit.

Via Hungry Beast.



Are some religions more loopy than others? Not intrinsically. I happen to think that all religions fall within a narrow band on the loopiness scale. If Scientology seems intrinsically wacky to you, then you're probably just more familiar with stories about talking snakes, people made out of clay, dead people coming back to life, ritual cannibalism, and people floating up to heaven.

But are some religions more evil than others? Again, I'd say not intrinsically. Whether a religion is one of the 'nice religions' is more a function of who's running it at the present moment. Giving someone the license to claim they're acting in the name of a supreme being is just inviting abuse -- which may or may not be exercised. The nice pastor of the Mild-Mannered Christian Church won't be around forever. All the 'bad scriptures' will be in that bible, waiting for a charismatic extremist to come around. (Tick tick tick.)

Here's where I disagree with the Beast: At the present moment, yes, some religions are much much worse than others, including fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, and probably fundamentalist anything else. And of course Scientology, for reasons mentioned in the clip. These religions are affecting lives and minds by controlling the information that reaches their people, and by not allowing them to leave.

So, for people keeping score at home:
Scientology: Bullshit.
Other religions: Also bullshit.
Criticising Scientology's doctrines: Not bullshit.
Criticising Scientology's doctrines more than other religions: Bullfuckingshit.
Criticising crimes done to promote Scientology: Not bullshit at all.
Being wary of the tendency for all religions to become oppressive: Quite a good idea, really.

Update: Blogger layouts narrower than the minimum YouTube video size: Total bullshit.

You think a Mormon deconversion is rough...

Today's Pictures for Sad Children asks: what do you do when you no longer believe in your family's religious tradition?

Oh, go on. You know what they say: It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something.

Evolution: A great book, with only one misstep

I'm reading through this book with Youngest Boy. It's "Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be" by Daniel Loxton. It's really good. It has a good overview of evolutionary theory, with the evidence.

But there is one misstep, and it's toward the end of the book.

If you can't read that scan, here's the text.

This is a question people often ask when wondering about evolution. They want to connect the discoveries of science to their religious understanding.

Unfortunately, this isn't something science can help with. Individual scientists may have personal opinions about religious matters, but science as a whole has nothing to say about religion.

Science is our most reliable method for sorting out how the natural world functions, but it can't tell what those discoveries mean in a spiritual sense. Your family, friends and community leaders are the best people to ask about religious questions.

I think this answer was trying to do two things: tell why science is good, and allow for the validity of religion. Those are probably good goals for a book like this, since they're aiming for a broad audience, and the book wasn't intended to be an atheist polemic. I can even see the benefit in not antagonising religious readers.

But I also think it's important for scientists to tell the truth, and this answer sidesteps that responsibility. Here's what's wrong.

• It says that science can't deal with supernatural claims, only natural ones. This is untrue. While the scientific method, with its emphasis on real-world evidence, can't categorically disprove supernatural claims, it does tell us what to do when such a claim comes along: remain skeptical of it until its proponents provide real-world evidence in favour of the claim.
• It says that religious claims about creation are essentially supernatural. But creationist claims really involve the natural world, and can therefore be evaluated by science just like any other claim.
• It handballs the responsibility for answering questions over to family, friends, and community leaders -- people who may be no better than anyone else at evaluating truth claims, or who may have an interest in promoting an unscientific view. Religious leaders are the ones who ought to be promoting religion, of course -- that's their job -- but is that where we want to send young people for information about how evolution and religion interact?

I think the book should have said something like this:

Some religious people claim that evolution didn't happen, or that it's impossible. But according to the evidence we have, evolution is real, and it's happening all around us.

Many religious people do accept evolution. They don't see a conflict between evolution and their religion, or they see evolution as part of creation.

Whether you believe in a religion or not, you can use science to figure out how our amazing world operates.

This answer re-asserts the reality of evolution and the primacy of science, but it takes it easy on the conflict between religion and science. It allows that people have their own opinions, and is written not to be offensive.

I still think the book is really good. It's interesting, has beautiful illustrations, and lays out the basics of evolutionary theory in a way young people can grasp. Even the religion question can lead to an interesting discussion.

The author responds to the criticism here.

Talk the Talk the Talk the Talk

Has a month gone by already? I've got a backlog on Talk the Talk, so here's a load of links for your enjoyment and edification.

For the first three links, I'm on about 5/6ths of the way through the stream. Watch out; it starts playing as soon as the page loads.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
23 March 2010: American English

For this episode, I report live from the USA, and fittingly I'm talking about that special dialect known as American English.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30 March 2010: Guys

Would you call someone a 'guy', even if they're a 'gal'? What about in mixed-gender groups? A recent article in the Boston Globe is raising issues about what to call people. Is there any better way of handling this in English? And what about other languages?

This time on 'Talk the Talk', we return to language and gender, with a look at this most peevish of language peeves.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 April 2010: The Munduruku

This week on Talk the Talk, we talk about numbers. In English, we have lots of names for numbers, but the Munduruku people of the Amazon have no words for anything higher than five. Experiments show that they're good at estimating large numbers like English speakers are, but not so good at working equations using numbers they have no words for. Is it a case of language constraining thought? Or are both being constrained by culture?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13 April 2010: Homer-nyms

We have the Simpsons to thank for such words as "D'oh" and "embiggen". But what else do the Simpsons have to tell us about language? On this week's 'Talk the Talk', we look at neologisms and derivational morphology. But don't worry, I do explain what all that is. I'm also pleased to say that I managed to restrain my urge to overdo the Homer impersonation.



This link seems to be different. They've made Talk the Talk downloadable, so now you can take it on your listening device of choice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's a lot of Talk the Talk to listen to, so don't overdo it.

For next week's show, we're taking your questions, so be sure to email your language questions to talks@rtrfm.com.au, and I might pick it for next time.

As they get taller, things stop going over their heads.

Book of Mormon genetics, or the Incredible Vanishing Hebrews

Michael R. Ash is an LDS apologist, which is kind of like being a scholar, except that instead of making knowledge, you make excuses. His latest article at the Mormon Times tackles the DNA issue.

The DNA issue is a problem. The Book of Mormon purports to be the story of people of Hebrew ancestry (sometimes called 'Lehites') who traveled to the Americas. We should expect a healthy percentage of their descendants to have DNA that corresponds to that of a Hebrew population. But DNA studies have shown fairly conclusively that people in this region test up Asian. At this point, it would be reasonable to conclude that the Book of Mormon represents a failed hypothesis. But this is very difficult for True Believers to do without saying 'yes, but' and 'what if'. Many would rather listen to LDS apologists like Ash, who sing the faithful back to sleep, and delay the advance of knowledge. Let's see what he's come up with this time.

As noted in an earlier column, I believe the scientific world is part of God's truth. Therefore, I not only accept the current DNA studies as accurate, I also don't believe God simply changed Nephite and Lamanite DNA to Asiatic DNA in order to fool scientists. While God certainly has power over all things, I can't accept that he intentionally deceives us.

I'd like to give Ash props on this, but I can't. True, he gets the little things right, but his actual commitment to science is paper-thin, ready to be discarded in favour of far-fetched scenarios when it comes down to it. I could say he has a form of science-ness, but he denies the power thereof. I would rather he were hot or cold.

Ash (along with other apologists) argues that it's not possible to find Lehite DNA because...

We don't know what "Israelite" DNA from Lehi's time looks like. We have a general idea of what the DNA of modern Middle-Eastern populations looks like, and we know that as of today it has not been detected among Native Americans, but because we don't know anything about the DNA of Lehi's party, we can't exclude that it could fit among the multiple Asiatic markers we find in modern Native Americans.

I'm not a geneticist. (Although, neither is Ash.) But from my reading, this claim seems untrue. This work has been done, and Native Americans and Hebrews appear to have very little mtDNA in common.

If it's so difficult to track DNA, then why are geneticists able to do it for other groups? I ran across this description of the Lemba, an African group that claims to have split off from the main body of Israelites, and who in fact do carry the Cohen modal haplotype, a marker of Hebrew origin. If it's possible to track this group after so long (and on the Y-chromosome, no less), why not the descendants of the Lehites?

Ash again.

DNA markers can disappear. According to virtually all scientists who specialize in DNA as it pertains to population genetics, when small populations mix with large populations there is a significant possibility of losing the DNA signatures of the smaller population.

Genetic bottlenecks, for instance, occur when a significant portion of a population does not reproduce or doesn't pass mtDNA on to its progeny. If the original Nephites and Lamanites had mostly sons rather than daughters, for example, those sons would have married native women and the mother's DNA -- not Lehi's wife Sariah's DNA -- would have passed on to the children.

This is a big leap. In order for Ash's argument to hold, the Lehite women would have to have had no babies. Or babies, but no girls. Usually, the proportion of boys to girls will be about 50:50 for good-sized populations. How come no girls in this case? Were the Lehites into female infanticide? Or were the Lehite girls just not very popular? Are we to assume that none of the maternal Lehite line got through?

Ash's scenario is incredibly improbable, but it gets worse. For Ash to be right, the same bottleneck would have to have happened twice, once with the much-earlier Mulekites, and again with the Lehites.

So once again, it's the Incredible Vanishing Hebrews Who Leave No Artifacts. At some point you have to ask yourself: What's more likely - that an incredibly improbable genetic bottleneck happened twice (and it conveniently coincides with the framework of speculations that Ash promotes elsewhere) -- or that someone wrote a fake book?

Wait: I've just had a revelation. I've just figured out why Lehites left no DNA.

Lehi and Sariah were actually Native Americans. They traveled by boat to get to the Middle East, like Thor Heyerdahl in reverse. That could explain how they were able to navigate the trip back to the Americas so easily. In fact, since so many people from the Book of Mormon were cruising over to the New World, it must have been a piece of cake in either direction. I'm sure that when we finally get those large plates of Nephi, Lehi's genealogy will turn out just like I say. After all, my evidence is just as solid as anything Ash has written.

Curmudgeonly Scrabble Resistance: enlist now

Normal people don't like playing Scrabble with me.

I have all the two-letter words memorised, I'm not bad with my three-letter hooks, and I always have a copy of the OSPD handy during a game. I also have a habit of laying tiles next to other tiles in a tight little bolus, which has the unfortunate effect of locking down the board so tightly that it can't breathe. But I admit it's a really unpleasant habit.

The other unpleasant habit I have is making up new words and placing them with confidence. I sometimes have to add, "It's a word. I am a linguist, you know."

Sometimes an opponent will complain about the words I use.

"Za? What's za?" is how it typically begins.

"It's short for 'pizza'," I explain.

"That's stupid. 'Za' isn't a word, and neither is 'aa', which you said was a kind of lava. I'm not going to play if you're going to use dumb words."

At this point I calmly remind my friend that we agreed on the OSPD.

"That's dumb. Who said that those words should be in the OSPD?" says he or she, but usually she.

At this point I give the Every Lexicographer Has to Make Some Tough Choices speech, in my patient linguist voice. It usually doesn't help, and there is much grumbling.

I tend to resist changes to Scrabble. I was against adding 'qi' to the Fourth Edition. I thought it made it too easy to unload the Q. Eventually I got used to it.

But now Mattel has gone too far.

The rules of word game Scrabble are being changed for the first time in its history to allow the use of proper nouns, games company Mattel has said.

Place names, people's names and company names or brands will now count.

Mattel, which brings out a new version of the game containing amended rules in July, hopes the change will encourage younger people to play.

What, any proper noun? Xerox? Zovirax? Qwyjibo?

This doesn't seem well-thought out. How can you check if a proper noun is unacceptable?

Mattel said there would be no hard and fast rule over whether a proper noun was correct or not.

I think I'm going to be kicking it Old School on this one. No proper nouns at my place. Or foreign words, abbreviations, or usu. cap.

Donate or pulp? A quandry

I still haven't decided what to do with them. We're talking old Sunday School manuals, and a couple of copies of the Book of Mormon.

Your comments welcome in comments.

Catholic archbishop goes all Godwin on our ass

I love how Catholic leaders are being forced to deal with the so-called New Atheism in public nowadays. But they're going overboard. Usually we're just accused of being mean to people. Now Archbishop Anthony Fisher is saddling us with the collective baggage of the 20th century. It's not a new tactic, but one would think a Catholic archbishop would be a mite careful about criticising another philosophy for rotten things done in its name. Sadly, irony doesn't seem to be his strong point.

GODLESSNESS and secularism led to Nazism, Stalinism, mass murder and abortion, according to Anthony Fisher, the new Archbishop of Parramatta, who has used his inaugural Easter message to launch a scathing attack on atheism, while ignoring the sex abuse scandals besieging the Catholic Church worldwide.

It's a bit rich for a Catholic archbishop to be claiming Nazism is a consequence of atheism. Hitler was a Catholic, and was never excommunicated. The failure of Pope Pius XII to act during the Holocaust is a modern tragedy, and it's telling that the current pope has venerated him, a step on the road to sainthood.

How anyone can claim Hitler was an atheist is beyond me. He said in speeches that he felt he was doing God's work. Maybe Hitler didn't believe it. Maybe he was hypocritically mouthing religious platitudes to get people to agree with him. All the more reason to be suspicious of politicians who claim to be religious. But Hitler did claim to be on the side of the Big Guy. Check out the belt buckle for one example. If your German is as rusty as mine, here's a hint: "Gott Mit Uns" does not mean "We have gloves on".

That's Hitler. But what about Stalin and Pol Pot, and the terrible things they did in the name of atheism? Oh, that's right, they didn't do those things in the name of atheism. They did them in the name of Communism and the Khmer Rouge. Though they were atheists, the atrocities they committed were done to further their political goals, not to promote atheism.

I'm not trying to say that atheists can't do rotten things. Anyone can when they're in the grip of an absolutist philosophy, whether religious or political. But name me anyone who's killed people or started a war to promote secular rationalism. No one does. It just isn't in our line.

For the record, I don't blame Catholicism or Christianity for mass murder either (except in those cases where an ideological link can be made). People seem to pick up these ideologies and use them for their own ends, and it's a shame. Someday maybe someone will shoot up a high school and claim it was for atheism. It never seems to happen -- violent ideologies seem to be religion-based more often than not -- but it might someday. If it does, I'll say the same thing I'm saying today: inflexible ideologies in the hands of unbalanced people are a problem. But that doesn't describe your average New Atheist, who usually just wants to talk about secular issues (often at a pub), and who doesn't believe in supernatural beings without adequate evidence.

At least Fisher didn't accuse atheists of systematic child sex abuse. That would have been a giveaway.

UPDATE: Atheists hit back.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia said on Friday Dr Jensen's claims were "preposterous" and condemned Christianity for a spate of child sex abuse scandals.

"He seeks out a scapegoat and attacks atheism without any understanding of what he is saying," foundation president David Nicholls said.

"To state we hate his god or are attacking his god is nonsense.

"How does one hate or attack that which does not exist?"