My latest song "White Man Living In A Black Man's World" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at


Like my Facebook Musician page at and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.



White man living in a black man’s world
( Coo-ee )


Part of the boat invasion crew
Didn’t know what black men knew

Thought the land was newly found
Slashed and burned the sacred ground

Concrete, glass and twisted steel
Obliterating Dreamtime feel

Traditional owners of this place
Heard my sorry, live in grace

Ignorant of the black man’s ways
Culture shock and mental haze

My pale white skin gets red and sore
Won’t be baking in the sun no more


G / D/ Bb / D

Bb / D / Bb / D

Middle: D / C / G / D/


MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 6 The Richard Dawkins Delusion


Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Centre for the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford.


The delusions of Richard Dawkins

Peter Harrison


Unfortunately, Dawkins has blundered into a field he knows very little about. He misunderstands the logic of the arguments and how they function in a religious context. His own naïve and plodding counter-arguments would make a philosophy undergraduate cringe, and a number of reviewers have mercifully dispatched them (the arguments, not the undergraduates).

Philosopher and self professed 'hard line Darwinian' Michael Ruse has remarked that Dawkins' efforts make him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

The second theme of the book is that religious folk– ­'faith-heads', as Dawkins fondly calls them– are not only irrational, but plain dangerous. To support this proposition, Dawkins has compiled a catalogue of rabid fundamentalists and religious fanatics. These figures are presumed to be representative of the whole of the religious enterprise.

Here our author betrays a curious inability to distinguish between the suicide bomber and Mother Teresa.

The book contains more factual and logical blunders than can be dealt with here. However, it has two general weaknesses that are worth highlighting. First, the case presented violates a standard principle of academic debate– that the most powerful critiques are those that succeed against the strongest version of the opponent's position.

Dawkins has simply not bothered to familiarise himself with the vast literature on philosophy of religion and science and religion. He has not taken on the most sophisticated representatives of the religious viewpoint. Instead, he finds himself a few easy targets and scores cheap points.

On the same theme, as we have seen, his exemplars of religion are an assortment of religious extremists whom few persons of faith would recognise as fellow travellers.





Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticising atheism for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.



The ideas in atheism were discussed in philosophy far before atheism ever existed.


There are many accounts of the history of atheism, but they disagree substantially over its beginnings and its main protagonists. ... Fritz Mauthner's Atheism and its History in the West [Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte im Abendlande] (1922-24), and Michael Hunter and David Wootton's Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment (1992), to name just two prominent ones, work with too broad too broad a definition of atheism, which besides strict negation of God's existence also covers various forms of religious criticism, heterodoxy and nonconformity. As the German contemporary scholar of atheism Winfried Schroeder points out, a 'history of atheism' can often in fact amount to something more like a history of various religious departures from orthodoxy than of atheism in any strict sense. ... Schroeder notes that in Hunter and Wootton’s view the church critic Paolo Sarpi, the deist Jean Bodin, the Jewish questioner of the authority of the Torah and the immortality of the soul Uriel da Costa and the strictly atheistic clandestine text Theophrastus redivivus are all lumped together under the broad catch-all term 'atheism.’ In fact only the latter text has a clear claim to being described as atheistic.[3] However, Hunter and Wootton's fusing of the history of atheism with the history of certain forms of heterodoxy can gives the impression that there has been a continuous history of atheism from the Reformation (or earlier) to the Enlightenment, a thesis which is open to question. By contrast, Lucien Febvre's Le probleme de l'incroyance au XVIe siecle (1942), and Paul Oskar Kristeller's The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free-Thought (1968) employ a narrower (and more modern) definition of atheism that more strictly distinguishes blasphemy, heresy and anticlericalism from direct questioning of God's existence. [4] They conclude that there is no good evidence for atheism (in this stricter sense) prior to the seventeenth century. According to these historians, accusations of atheism in the sixteenth century and earlier amount to nothing more than an indication that the accuser was in some respect or other hostile to the position of the accused, not that there was any genuine atheism around.[5]

Depending on the history of atheism consulted, the interested reader can come away either with the impression that contemporary atheism has a long lineage stretching back through the atheists of the French Enlightenment, the Paduan Averroists of the sixteenth century, the middle ages and back to antiquity; or that it appears surprisingly late in history, no earlier than the mid seventeenth century.



What is the one and only true history of atheism? Who is a "true atheist"? It sounds exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians fighting over their one and only true history and who is and is not a "true Christian". Just substitute "true Christian" for "true atheist".

I do not define myself as an a-murderist though I am against murder. Atheists do define themselves as being against theism as the etymology of the word demonstrates.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).



Note that the etymology indicates that the term "atheist" did not exist before the 16th century. It is an anachronism to use the term "atheist" to anything before the 16th century.

MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 4 Ignorance Of Contemporary Concepts Of God

Unlike atheism with it's single slogan and mantra "There is no God / gods", contemporary theology and contemporary philosophy of religion are extremely complex. Describing God to an atheist is like describing colour to a blind man.

One can indirectly describe God as theologians and philosophers of religion do regularly. They both use metaphor. The vast majority of contemporary theologians and philosophers of religion define God as non-empirical.

Atheism relies on extremely outdated definitions from the 19th century and earlier and erroneously assumes an empirical God for which there must be empirical evidence. The Christian trinity of Father God, the Christ of Faith and the Holy Spirit are all non-empirical. ( The historical Jesus of Nazareth is empirical.) The Jewish God Hashem and the Muslim God Al-Lah are also both non-empirical.

I use the metaphor "Ground of All Being" used by Christian philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich (as well as mentioned in the Hindu Vedas as a metaphor for Brahman). A non-theistic God does not exist but is the Ground of All Being - that which makes existence possible. It does not have the characteristic of that which it creates - existence.

All that atheists can say against such a non-theistic non-existent God who is the Ground of All Being God is that it is somehow "redefining" God and "moving the goalposts" as though both theology and the philosophy of religions must remain stuck in the 19th century or earlier so that atheists have a straw man to joust against. It is hardly "redefining" or "moving the goal posts" when that same God is mentioned as Brahman in the Vedas 3000 years ago as well as being mentioned more recently by Paul Tillich, John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong to name a few.

Theist Grandmother's God and Atheist Uncle's God is not a non-theistic God. See

Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. A non-theistic God who is the Ground of All Being does not exist. God's existence belongs to theism and not non-theism. Atheism is thus totally irrelevant to those who follow this non-theistic God. An atheist argument against theism is of no interest or concern to non-theists.

Atheists apparently do not know that which they are against against - "A-theism." It is like being an "a-blahist" and not knowing what "blah" means. For a movement supposedly built upon reason there is much unreasonableness, irrationality and illogical thinking involved.

I quote from Karen Armstrong "A History Of God"(Vintage: 1999):

Throughout history people have discarded a conception of God when it no longer works for them. p. 408.

[Carl] Jung .... whether he believed in God ... replied emphatically: 'I do not have to believe. I kniow!'Jung's continued faith suggests that a subjective God, mysteriously identified with the ground of being in the depths of the self, can survive psychoanalytic science in a way that a more personal, anthropomorphic deity who can encourage perpetual immaturity may not. p. 410

It is impossible for us to meet God in any anthropomorphic way. God is the Ground of all being, so bound up with our own existence that we cannot possibly talk to him, as though he were simply another person like ourselves. There are no words or ideas that describe God. p. 426

Paul Tillich (1868-1965) ... A God who kept tinkering with the universe was absurd; a God who interfered with human freedom and creativity was a tyrant. If God is seen as a self in a world of his own, an ego that relates to a thou, a cause separate from its effect, 'he' becomes a being, not Being itself. An omnipotent, all-knowing tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who made everything and everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified. Instead we should seek to find a 'God' above this personal God. ..... a God who, as Being itself, was nearer to the I than our own ego. Tillich preferred the definition of God as the Ground of being. Participation in such a God above 'God' does not alienate us from the world but immerses us in reality. It returns us to ourselves. Human beings have to use symbols when they talk about Being-itself: to speak literally or realistically about it is inaccurate and untrue. ... pp. 438-439

The mystics have long insisted that God is not an-Other Being; they have claimed that he does not really exist and that it is better to call him Nothing. This God is in tune
with the atheistic mood of our secular society with its distrust of inadequate images of the absolute. Instead of seeing God as an objective Fact, which can be demonstrated by means of scientific proof, mystics have claimed that he is a subjective experience, mysteriously experienced in the ground of being. This God is to be approached through the imagination and can be seen as a kind of art form, akin to the other great artistic symbols that have expressed the ineffable mystery, beauty and value of life. Mystics have used music, dancing, poetry, fiction, stories, painting, sculpture and architecture to express this Reality that goes beyond concepts. Like all art, however, mysticism requires intelligence, discipline and self-criticism as a safeguard against indulgent emotionalism and projection. ... The God of the mystics does not arrive ready-made and prepackaged. ... God does not exist in any simplistic sense, for example, or that the very word 'God' is only a symbol of a reality that ineffably transcends it. ... pp. 454 -455

Ever since the prophets of Israel started to ascribe their own feelings and experiences to God, monotheists have in some sense created a God for themselves. God has rarely been seen as a self-evident fact that can be encountered like any other objective existent. p.456


nontheist (ˌnɒnˈθiːɪst)


1. a person who believes the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant; a person who rejects as unimportant both theism and atheism
2. a person who rejects theism (belief in a personal God or gods), whether as an atheist or agnostic



The following should also be noted as the "Atheist Mantra" of demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical God is a category error. Few theists believe in an empirical God. The "Atheist Mantra" of demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical God is thus a Straw Man argument.

a. Incorporeality

Incorporeality. God has no body (from Latin, incorporale), or is non-physical. This is a central tenet of monotheistic religions, which insist that any references to God’s eyes, ears, mind, and the like are anthropomorphic. ...

While some regard God’s incorporeality as true analytically (that is, true by the very definition of the word “God”), others derive it from one or more other attributes. Accordingly, God cannot be corporeal because that would preclude his being eternal, immutable, and simple, for example. Furthermore, if God were corporeal and omnipresent, it would seem that all physical things would be part of God. Others derive divine incorporeality from an apparent incorporeal element of human nature, termed the soul or spirit.




Atheism has not been empirically verified as true.

Atheists do make claims about God. Atheist signs appearing on buses (with official support from the British Humanist Association, atheist Richard Dawkins and atheist philosopher Philosopher AC Grayling) stated: "There’s probably no God.". See

The burden of proof is definitely upon such atheists to give a positive argument with verifiable evidence that their extraordinary claim is correct. "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence".

Where is the scientific experiment conducted by atheists that definitively proved that God does not exist? How was the experiment conducted? Which science journal was it published in and who were the researchers? How did they define the God whom they state probably doesn't exist? What is the exactly measured probability and what calculation was used to get that probability?

Note that the above ad campaign puts to rest the incorrect notion that atheists never make claims about God. The ad campaign is a direct claim.


claim [kleɪm]
2. an assertion of something as true, real, or factual

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


I demand evidence for the extraordinary atheist claim that there is no God. The absolutist claim that "there is no God / gods" is a dogma by dictionary definition.

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that there is no God / "There is probably no God" is quite extraordinary considering that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God / gods. Atheism is a minority position.  People sprouting that extraordinary claim should be able to prove it.

"He who asserts must prove." The burden of proof is upon the person who claims "There is no God / gods."

Quoting Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If atheists cannot give positive evidence for their claims then their claims can be dismissed.

Why do the rules above not apply to atheist claims? Isn't a rejection of these rules for atheists a case of special pleading?

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself  (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.



Dumbing it down for atheists ...

Atheist A accepts standard(s) S ["Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." & "He who asserts must prove." ] and applies them to those who are not atheists in circumtance(s) C [Statements of belief and / or nonbelief]

Atheist A is in circumstance(s) C [Stating the extraordinary claim of nonbelief "There is no God" / There's probably no God."].

Therefore Atheist A is exempt from S.


Although not all atheists claim "there is no God" many do and it is in the dictionary definition of atheism.

I quote

Capitals for emphasis ....

a·the·ism (th-zm)
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


While the British Humanist Association, atheist Richard Dawkins and atheist philosopher Philosopher AC Grayling) have not given the calculations that they have made for the probability of God and their result, Stepehn D Unwin has and stated that the proability that God exists is 67%. See Complete his test at

MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 2 Lack Of A Positive Argument For Atheism

There is no positive argument for atheism. It proceeds by the negative road of criticising theism. It states that theism is wrong but gives no positive viewpoint for atheism. When you mention that verifiable fact atheists then assert that they do indeed have a positive argument and then proceed with an argument that uses "no ... not ... none" and words with negative connotation such as "ïnvalid" and "insufficient". When you point out the verifiable fact that such an argument is in fact a negative argument using negative words and negative statements and not a positive argument using positive words and positive statements they act like a stunned mullet.

A negative argument against theism is not a positive argument for atheism. They both could be wrong.

Why would anyone want to join a group that is against theism when that same group has no positive argument for it's own existence? A-theism is as irrelevant to daily life as a-invisiblepinkunicornism or a-fairyism or a-flyingspaghettimonsterism or a-santaclausism or a-toothfairyism or a-leprechaunism.

Can atheists provide proof that atheism is 100% correct? If there is any element of doubt (something less than 100%) then there is a possibility of God.

Atheists should be able to prove there is no God if that is actually true as one can prove a negative despite the mantra of "you can't prove a negative" that floods atheism.


It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic- you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all.


MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 1 Category Error & Straw Man Fallacy

A category error is a semantic or ontological error in which things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

It is a category error to demand empirical evidence of a non-empirical God. Non-empirical items do not exist in time and space and cannot be measured by any empirical unit.  One cannot give a 1 mg or 1 mm or 1 degree C or 1 volt of a non-empirical God.  It is a nonsensical, irrational an illogical request for atheists to demand empirical evidence for a non-empirical God.

The Christian trinity of Father God, the Christ of Faith and the Holy Spirit are all non-empirical. ( The historical Jesus of Nazareth is empirical.) The Jewish God Hashem and the Muslim God Al-Lah are also both non-empirical.

Atheists apparently know for certain that there is no God but don't know the definition of the God whom they are against.   How can you validly be against that which you do not know and do not comprehend? How is such abject ignorance using reason?

Atheists are guilty of The Straw Man fallacy.


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.



Dumbing it down for atheists ....

Person A has position X - a non-theistic non-empirical God as the Ground of All Being (that which makes all existence possible) and thus not an existent empirical God.

Atheist B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X based upon atheist mantras and dogmas - gods don't exist / "There is probably no God" and thus an existent empirical God).

Atheist B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.