James Billingham - Bully At Large

If he wasn’t being such a dick, James Billingham (@ool0n), would be hysterically funny with his attacks of some genuinely nice people.

James is a member of what has become the Atheism Plus “cult” and yes, I’ve used the word cult because their behaviour is very cult-like (see definition 2 below).

cult/kʌlt/ [kuhlt]

noun

1.      a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.      an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 

3.      the object of such devotion.

4.      a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.      Sociology: a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

This cult, apparently, started because some drunk fellow asked a woman back to his room to have a coffee with him at an atheism conference. Wow! I mean, holy fuck! What a total ass... telling a woman he finds her attractive and asking her back to his room. Oh... my... Darwin... call the cops.

Not only was her response to that a complete overreaction but the fallout that occurred afterwards just snowballed beyond any reasonable conversation. She made a big deal about the “event” and was, undeniably, badgered and ridiculed for making a big deal. She was, indeed, bullied with threats of violence. There is no excuse for that, however, there was also no need for her overreaction in the first place. Now James (mentioned above) would have you believe that me saying this makes me a rape apologist, and here folks is why I’m not – the woman in question was NOT raped on the elevator. Threats of rape by anonymous assholes on the internet are not, in fact, an actual rape. This I know from, myself, being a rape survivor. I wasn’t just threatened. I was actually raped.

I also was a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace when I was 19 years old. It was a summer job at a real estate company. This 60 year old man, smelling of whiskey, cornered me in the lunch room. There was nobody else in the office at the time. He claimed he wanted a “hug”. What saved me was my quit wit and the lunch table that was between us. I told him that if he didn’t “back off” I would scream at the top of my lungs and that I could scream very loudly. Where this office was in a complex, I’m sure he weighed the odds and figured he had best back the fuck off.

So, for James there, to accuse me of being a rape apologist, is not only untrue and insulting, it’s very much a re-victimization of me as a survivor. How dare he!

The blog post mentioned (that was written by MP) was regarding his attempt to raise funds to help send more women to atheist conferences for more balance in the gender of attendees. He was then cruelly insulted for “subjecting women to the misogynist behaviour at these conferences”. What the actual fuck?!?! His motives were genuinely kind and feminist in nature, not the opposite. And the person who attacked him claimed to be an Atheism Plus member. Now, where I had seen a number of negative comments made towards men (who I knew to be good men), coming from members of this group (at least they claimed to be), is it any wonder that this group gave me a bad taste in my mouth? MP is an active member of the white ribbon campaign. He is as far from a misogynist as one can get. I suspect that what is actually occurring in this A+ “cult” is a, not so subtle, form of misandry. So, having been upset by the comments I saw on his blog post, I made a critical remark about Atheism Plus on twitter. Then the buzzards attacked (one calling me a fucking bitch). I blocked them all and proceeded to forget they existed until an entire year later where I made one more tiny little reference to them being a “cult” and some girl out of nowhere HARRASSED me to the point where I was wondering why they let her out of the mental institution without her meds. After she called me a “liar” several times, I decided to return the favour afforded to me the previous year... called her a “fucking bitch” and blocked her ass. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I thought. But these odd individuals who appear to be obsessive compulsive by nature weren’t able to move on.

Now, if you will notice, in none of my tweets that James so childishly storyfied, did I say “they are definitely this” or “they are absolutely that”. In every instance, I said, “they appear to be” or “it’s quite likely” because ‘THIS IS MY FUCKING OPINION, JAMES THE MORON’. He and his cohorts have a particular skill at twisting everything that anyone, who criticizes them, says. My thoughts are this... if you can’t handle somebody who fights back (me), STOP BULLYING!

I’m on his list under “Asshole”. Nice! This is the name calling that results when one criticizes their cult. He relishes in calling an actual victim of sex crimes, even more names. What a guy! They seem to have this idea that they are infallible... now is that rational? I think not!

And just a little side note, based on James’ ridiculous rants towards me on twitter, I assumed he was a teenager... I raised three children and recognize adolescent whining. I was actually a bit shocked when I discovered, just yesterday, that he’s an adult. Seriously, I was surprised!

Now poor little James is whining because I called him ugly and greasy. Well, besides the fact that it’s true (there are these things called showers and soap is rather inexpensive), I called him that after his relentless attacks and bullying of me. Pay back is a bitch isn’t it James? How’s it feel dickhead when someone stands up to your bullying? You can dish it out quite well but can’t seem to be able to take it. Perhaps you should consider that some of us fight back after being attacked. This is known as self-defense. Attend some anti-bullying classes and see if you can recognize yourself. Until then, BACK THE FUCK OFF loser!

Words Have Definitions

I've recently had some run-ins with some fairly vile characters. They've attacked me at the drop of a hat and their claims are frequently completely fallacious. It appears as though their major mistakes are simply in the English language itself, so perhaps I've been a bit too hard on them, when, in fact, their biggest problem is not knowing how to speak or comprehend English.

What it boils down to is definitions of English words. For example, "perhaps" does not have the same definition as "absolutely" or "definitely". "Maybe" can be a synonym for "perhaps" but DEFINITELY not those other words. And "It seems" does not mean "I know for certain".

Also, "accused" is not synonymous with "guilt".

I've had an affection with the English language for nearly my entire life so I do find myself getting very annoyed when someone purposefully or even unintentionally strives to disembowel it.

My most recent annoyance has been with the word "harassment". The Oxford English dictionary defines the word "harass" as follows:

1. trouble and annoy continually or repeatedly
2. make repeated attacks on (an enemy or opponent)

So, I definitely was correct when I stated that "asking someone a question, regardless of how inappropriate, does not constitute harassment" unless the questioner will not take "no" for an answer and continually or repeatedly pressures the person being asked. For some reason, this terminology has been thrown around willie-nilly when people are simply asked questions that make them uncomfortable.

So kindly STOP IT. Look up the definition of a word if you don't know what it means.

Atheist Plus et al

I like Sam Harris... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I like Richard Dawkins... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I like Daniel Dennett... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I absolutely loved Christopher Hitchens... still... didn’t agree with everything he had to say. For example, Ellen DeGeneres and Wanda Sykes are hysterically funny (Hitch said women aren’t funny).

My point is, not everyone in global atheism has the exact same ideas/opinions on every single topic that is brought up, in and around the movement. Disagreement is healthy. We’re not all robots programmed with the exact same values. I’m many things besides being an atheist. I’m a wife, mother and grandmother. I’m a feminist. I’m a humanist. I’m an environmentalist. I’m a dog and cat lover. I’m a science enthusiast. I’m a singer and guitar player. I’m an amateur artist. I’m a computer geek and I’m a math nerd. I’m sure I’m many other things but those are a few of the things I identify with most.

The Civil Rights Movement did not result in change for just African Americans. The Civil Rights Movement changed society as a whole (for the better). Gloria Steinem’s feminist movement didn’t improve things for just women. Things improved (not quite enough) for society as a whole. What I’m saying is, society did not improve because these groups splintered off into their own little clubs/groups/cults. Society improved in a global sense because people spoke up/protested/marched to get the message out that they just weren’t going to take abuse anymore.

In the atheist movement in recent years, several splinter groups have formed and in my opinion, this has harmed the movement. The attitude of these groups is, “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Well, “la dee da.” It feels like grade school when kids broke off into their own little cliques and excluded everyone else. Personally, I was never in a clique... not because they didn’t want me to be but because, frankly, I thought these groups were childish, ridiculous and just plain stupid. I’d rather be alone with my own opinions... thank you very much. My friends were a varied group with amazing diversity. They were individuals. They were the outcasts and they were some of the kindest people I have ever known. Not all children are cruel.

The misogynist groups that have popped up are simply vile. I ignore their rants because they're... well... morons... and quite likely sociopaths. They have an obvious "hate on" for women and we're not going to change their minds on that subject. They think their penises make them special and... well... just not so.  There are, however, other groups, who, on the surface, seem benign enough but when you look a little further, you see that they too are very exclusionary in practice. They may not be quite so despicable in their approach to others but they definitely have this air of, “My views are beyond contestation.” If and when you criticize them, they pounce like a pack of wolves. I see these splinter groups and all I can envision is the dudes with the orange robes at the airport. And you’d think you’d beat their dog if you criticize their “group think” mentality. They are very “cult-like”. To hear chanting coming from them wouldn’t surprise me. And for the record, I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I really truly don’t. I’ve had extremely negative encounters repeatedly with members of the atheist plus group (for an example) and, frankly, it’s nauseating. If you’re an exclusive group, you’re not inclusive and I want absolutely nothing to do with you. Some people in the global atheist movement do need an attitude adjustment but forming a cult is not, in my opinion, the way to accomplish that. It looks like certain individuals were bothered that they were not getting the attention of a Harris or Hitchens and so wanted to grab a moment in the limelight for themselves. Well, sorry, but I’m just not interested in giving cult leaders the attention they crave.

And, for the record, I’m not on a stage in a debate and I’m not interested in “the official rules of debate”. This blog is my opinion. I don’t need empirical evidence to conclude that you’re an asshole if I think you’re an asshole. I don’t require x-rays of your skull to show a sphincter where your brain should be in order for me to conclude that you’re an asshole. If you act like an asshole towards me or my friends/family, then you’re indeed an asshole.

In conclusion, I’m tired of being pounced on by these “lunatics” (my opinion... not a clinical diagnosis). If you attack me on Twitter or any other forum from this point forward, please be advised that you will be blocked for being an asshole. Cheers! And have a nice life.

The Historical Accuracy of the Bible

The title is just a bit fallacious isn’t it?


We repeatedly hear theists claiming that the bible is historically accurate. This is simply not true and I will explain why. First and foremost, the books of the New Testament were written in the first century AD. Allegorical literature was very common at that time. An allegory is a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning. The books that were written at the time were not intended to represent actual facts. The stories simply morphed into a seemingly “historical record” after time. Urban legends are similar in that, stories are made up and after they are told and retold over a period of time, people begin to believe they actually occurred but there is actually no evidence to suggest that they ever really happened.


The first book, “Mark”, that suggested that Jesus was, in fact, a person who had lived on Earth in the Middle East, around the first 30 or so years AD, were actually written at least 40 years after his alleged death. This is a fact that is agreed upon by historians and biblical scholars alike. Any stories that might have been “told” prior to 70 AD, were not written down and herein lies the second problem. Countless studies have shown that “word of mouth” stories change, almost immediately, upon being told. We did a single experiment to substantiate this point in first year Psychology at university. Twenty people were asked to leave the lecture hall. A story was told that lasted for 3 minutes. The first student was asked to come back into the room. The story was told to him/her and they were not allowed to write down any details. The second student came into the room and the first student imparted the story to the second student and so on. By the time the story was conveyed to the 20th student, it, in no way, resembled the original story of which we all had a written copy. And yet, we’re asked to believe that a story written down for the first time, 40 years after it apparently occurred, is supposed to be “believed”. I live in a society where most people are literate but I’m unable to tell any stories that happened to my grandfather (at least not with any amount of accuracy) during his lifetime, especially since he died six months before I was even born.


Paul, evidently, wrote about Jesus 10 to 20 years after his alleged death but Paul did not tell any of the stories that supposedly took place in Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, Paul never placed a physical human being named Jesus on Earth. Paul only spoke of Jesus in a mythical realm. There was no “walking on water”, “healing the sick”, “virgin birth”, “the ministry of Jesus” or any other superstitious tale in Paul’s narrative (letters).


There are also several incidents depicted in the gospels that would not have happened in that geographical area, with Jews, at the time, such as, the Jewish supreme council meeting on Passover eve or Pontius Pilot setting free a known killer of Romans (Barabbas) in favour of letting Jesus be thrown to the mob after he tried to justify letting Jesus off the hook. There were also groups of early Christians and Jews who believed Jesus had been killed a hundred years earlier during the time of King Alexander Jannaeus and others who thought Herod had Jesus killed. Seems like the Jesus character was tossed around through different historical time periods to try to make him fit into the actual historical record. Now why do you suppose that would happen?


In any event, there is NO historical "accuracy" in the Bible, just as there is no historical accuracy for the Harry Potter series of books. In most of Stephen King's books, there are references to real places, real products and real people, but we know for a fact that his books were products of his imagination. The Bible is simply a compilation of somewhat imaginative “stories” that reflected cultural norms at the time; nothing more.

What An Atheist Is

I'm teetering on the edge of giving up on trying to reason with people. I've grown very tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.

The theocrats attack and it's always the same. They have preconceived ideas of what atheism is and they ask questions with lies built in. Their grammar is generally atrocious and their spelling isn't much better, if at all. It seems to be a common trend among the rationally-challenged folk. But they inevitably get it wrong. They always confuse the definition of an atheist with why each individual non-believer is so.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. And no I didn't accidentally hit copy and paste. It was very deliberate. That's what atheism is. That's it! That word has no other implications no matter how much theists attempt to make it mean more. It doesn't.

Now, you might ask why I'm an atheist, and I can tell you why I am an atheist but I certainly can't explain why others are. Only they can tell you that. And there are atheists who have ONLY their lack of belief in a deity in common with me. I am, and can be described as many other things but those things aren't tied in any way to the fact that I'm an atheist.

I'm a woman, I'm educated (university and college), I'm a wife, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, I'm an animal lover, I'm a liberal, I'm a skeptic, I'm compassionate, I'm tolerant, I'm charitable, I'm a feminist (in the proper definition of the word), I'm a humanist and I am a human being. There are many other words that can describe me. I'm musical, I'm artistic and yet I excel in math and science. I have an addiction to reading and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I have a heathy respect for evidence and a disdain for superstition, magical thinking and nonsense. I don't hate the people who are religious. I hate that they support their own personal bigotry, prejudices and biases by clinging to ancient myths. There is no reasonable excuse for hating other human beings based on their gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I was born a heterosexual, female, with very dark brown hair and green eyes. These are things I did not choose and I'm only able to change the last 3, but only with money, difficulty and the wish to. I want to remain female, I like my hair dark (occasionally with other colors added) and I really like my green eyes (no color contacts please). I cannot change my sexual orientation. And I cannot change who I love.

The fact that I rely on evidence rather than a "feeling" for what I believe, probably explains WHY I'm an atheist but even that doesn't DEFINE atheism. Others might have different reasons for being an atheist because an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. Some atheists even believe in other supernatural phenomena. I do not, but again, that has nothing to do with atheism.

So basically I'm writing this blog for one reason and one reason only and that's to give everyone a "heads up" and that's to let you know that if you try to tell me what an atheist is, be aware that I always have my Oxford English Dictionary nearby to prove you wrong!

Worth Reiterating

This article is so good, I had to post it on my blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Romney Is President

by MAUREEN DOWD | NOV. 10, 2012



IT makes sense that Mitt Romney and his advisers are still gobsmacked by the fact that they’re not commandeering the West Wing.

(Though, as “The Daily Show” correspondent John Oliver jested, the White House might have been one of the smaller houses Romney ever lived in.)

Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing.

Mitt Romney is the president of white male America.

Maybe the group can retreat to a man cave in a Whiter House, with mahogany paneling, brown leather Chesterfields, a moose head over the fireplace, an elevator for the presidential limo, and one of those men’s club signs on the phone that reads: “Telephone Tips: ‘Just Left,’ 25 cents; ‘On His Way,’ 50 cents; ‘Not here,’ $1; ‘Who?’ $5.”

In its delusional death spiral, the white male patriarchy was so hard core, so redolent of country clubs and Cadillacs, it made little effort not to alienate women. The election had the largest gender gap in the history of the Gallup poll, with Obama winning the vote of single women by 36 percentage point

As W.’s former aide Karen Hughes put it in Politico on Friday, “If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue.”

Some Republicans conceded they were “a ‘Mad Men’ party in a ‘Modern Family’ world” (although “Mad Men” seems too louche for a candidate who doesn’t drink or smoke and who apparently dated only one woman). They also acknowledged that Romney’s strategists ran a 20th-century campaign against David Plouffe’s 21st-century one.

But the truth is, Romney was an unpalatable candidate. And shocking as it may seem, his strategists weren’t blowing smoke when they said they were going to win; they were just clueless.

Until now, Republicans and Fox News have excelled at conjuring alternate realities. But this time, they made the mistake of believing their fake world actually existed. As Fox’s Megyn Kelly said to Karl Rove on election night, when he argued against calling Ohio for Obama: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”

Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their “traditional” America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot.

The election about the economy also sounded the death knell for the Republican culture wars.

Romney was still running in an illusory country where husbands told wives how to vote, and the wives who worked had better get home in time to cook dinner. But in the real country, many wives were urging husbands not to vote for a Brylcreemed boss out of a ’50s boardroom whose party was helping to revive a 50-year-old debate over contraception.

Just like the Bushes before him, Romney tried to portray himself as more American than his Democratic opponent. But America’s gallimaufry wasn’t knuckling under to the gentry this time.

If 2008 was about exalting the One, 2012 was about the disenchanted Democratic base deciding: “We are the Ones we’ve been waiting for.”

Last time, Obama lifted up the base with his message of hope and change; this time the base lifted up Obama, with the hope he will change. He has not led the Obama army to leverage power, so now the army is leading Obama.

When the first African-American president was elected, his supporters expected dramatic changes. But Obama feared that he was such a huge change for the country to digest, it was better if other things remained status quo. Michelle played Laura Petrie, and the president was dawdling on promises. Having Joe Biden blurt out his support for gay marriage forced Obama’s hand.

The president’s record-high rate of deporting illegal immigrants infuriated Latinos. Now, on issues from loosening immigration laws to taxing the rich to gay rights to climate change to legalizing pot, the country has leapt ahead, pulling the sometimes listless and ruminating president by the hand, urging him to hurry up.

More women voted than men. Five women were newly elected to the Senate, and the number of women in the House will increase by at least three. New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress. Live Pink or Dye.

Meanwhile, as Bill Maher said, “all the Republican men who talked about lady parts during the campaign, they all lost.”

The voters anointed a lesbian senator, and three new gay congressmen will make a total of five in January. Plus, three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, told The Washington Post’s Ned Martel that gays, whose donations helped offset the Republican “super PACs,” wanted to see an openly gay cabinet secretary and an openly gay ambassador to a G-20 nation.

Bill O’Reilly said Obama’s voters wanted “stuff.” He was right. They want Barry to stop bogarting the change.

Objective Moral Values Exist

There is one key problem with Christian apologists' arguments that there can be no objective moral values without a deity. The problem with their argument is that human genetic (if you will, evolved) predispositions to moral behaviour are not subjective as they claim but purely objective as they are a result of natural (or instinctive) development of the human social animal. Altruistic behaviour towards others in our "tribe" or family unit is not cultural; it's natural. Culture arose from the social nature of our species, not the other way around. Only immoral behaviour can be attributed to cultural (and/or religious) subjectivity. Moral behaviour can not.

Now, just because other rationalists and skeptics and many theists do not agree with my premise, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

As one, unconvincing, apologist put it, the fact that there is a chair in my kitchen is an objective physical reality. He then proceeded to twist this logic to merely assert that a deity was necessary for objective moral values to exist. Saying it doesn't make it so. I contend that because there is zero evidence that a deity exists and because a large number of non-believing homo sapiens behave morally towards each other based on objective natural instinctive moral values, then objective moral values can and do exist in the absence of a deity.

Scientific experiments conducted with chimpanzees showed very clear altruistic behaviour towards other chimpanzees in the group even when there was no benefit to the individual. Chimpanzees do not believe in an Abrahamic deity. They do not have "opinions" regarding morality. Chimpanzee objective moral values exist in the absence of a god. So do the moral values of other less intelligent species.

Human infants as young as 12 weeks of age respond to compassion and react to suffering. We're hardwired to experience joy and reject pain and this biological fact can certainly be the foundation of objective moral values. In every culture in the world, there is a universal symbol of happiness. That symbol is a smile and young infants who have been exposed to virtually no culture will mirror a smile and experience the happiness associated with that smile.

Human instinct to seek happiness for themselves and others and reduce suffering for themselves and others is a naturally evolved component of our brains for survival and prosperity of the species. Evolution and specifically natural selection are a far more reasonable explanation for objective moral values than a supernatural entity. No wizard or deity is required.

Saying that a deity is required for objective moral values to exist when the evidence or rather lack thereof clearly suggests that such a being doesn't exist, is circular logic at best.