As some of you know, I am co-founder/co-song writer and bass player for a progressive heavy metal band. Well, it's been brought to my attention that a few people with whom I work closely are concerned that my being atheist will be a turn-off to any existing or potential fans of our music, since our former singer(now deceased) was heavily into mysticism/spiritualism, which, as you might imagine, became the inspiration of a good deal of our songs. Well, I can respect that concern, because, after all, music is a business as well as an art-form. However, my simple response is that it really shouldn't matter, and that their concern is a bit irrational. Let me attempt a rhetorical point by asking this simple question: would people stop buying Stephen King's books or watching his movies if they found out that he doesn't really believe in zombie-cats? I don't think so.
There is fiction, and there is non-fiction. There is reality; there is fantasy. Subject matter that is fiction/fantasy doesn't become less intriguing or less entertaining if the author doesn't actually believe in that which he writes. While there was a time when I believed in a god, angels, a hereafter, etc., I have since changed my mind. Notwithstanding, I think writing about such things makes for interesting subject matter. And then on the other hand, the truth really does seem to be stranger than fiction a lot of the time.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Prayer
This is the ritual of taking a moment of silence to ask god to do stuff for you---from giving you a really great parking space, to healing your loved ones, to getting a promotion at work. Or, in some cases, it's simply asking god to do "His Will". And BTW, now's a good time to interject that I used to do all of the above. But, the truth is, there is not one scrap of conclusive evidence that "prayer" actually does anything(aside from acting as a placebo). Prayer is, IMO, redundant at best; a complete waste of time, at worst.
Take, for instance, the god to whom Christians pray(and to whom I once prayed). An omniscient god, by definition, possesses all knowledge, including the past, present, and future. If god knows the future, as Christianity and its Christians proclaim, then this god knows, with absolute certainty, the outcome of the future set of events. If this god knows the outcome of the future set of events, then logic says that the future is fixed; the future is carved in stone, so-to-speak. Thus, this god knows what your needs, desires, and preferences are before you "pray". This is problematic for another reason, too, and that is that this god is not a free agent if he is omniscient. For example, an intercessory prayer for the purpose of healing a loved one is a pointless endeavor, simply because god already knows if your loved one will live or die, and more importantly, he cannot change this outcome. For god to be able change the outcome of any future event would mean that this god never knew the future to begin with.
Then there's the quagmire of why the god to whom believers pray answers some prayers with a "yes", but others with a "no". If you view this from outside the believer's bubble, you'll see that it's simply a case of bad luck versus good luck. Curiously, the aforementioned yes/no "answers" yield the same results we'd expect to see in an uncaring, impersonal world with no guidance, whatsoever..i.e...sometimes we get lucky and get a great parking space; sometimes we don't. Sometimes our ill loved ones recover; sometimes they don't.
Another question that surfaces if one digs a little bit deeper, is why the god to whom believers pray will (presumably) suspend the laws of nature, say, for someone's grandmother to recover from her bunion surgery, but yet, will let untold millions starve to death, including children. Again, what is going on here? What's wrong with this picture? The simplest and most likely explanation is this: No one is suspending any natural laws, whatsoever. Children die of hunger for the pure and simple reason of the location they're born. Someone's grandmother has a successful bunion surgery for the pure and simple reason that she may have been born and raised in a civilized and developed country, which lends itself to having good medical care.
In conclusion, the only meaningful prayer that can be uttered is to ask god to do his "Will". But even that is totally redundant since his "Will" was established from the on-set and cannot be changed. Thus, when people say, "God has a plan", they really, really mean it! This is not to say that most people's prayers aren't well-meaning; in a lot of cases, they are. But the down-side is that it can give a sense of false hope.
Take, for instance, the god to whom Christians pray(and to whom I once prayed). An omniscient god, by definition, possesses all knowledge, including the past, present, and future. If god knows the future, as Christianity and its Christians proclaim, then this god knows, with absolute certainty, the outcome of the future set of events. If this god knows the outcome of the future set of events, then logic says that the future is fixed; the future is carved in stone, so-to-speak. Thus, this god knows what your needs, desires, and preferences are before you "pray". This is problematic for another reason, too, and that is that this god is not a free agent if he is omniscient. For example, an intercessory prayer for the purpose of healing a loved one is a pointless endeavor, simply because god already knows if your loved one will live or die, and more importantly, he cannot change this outcome. For god to be able change the outcome of any future event would mean that this god never knew the future to begin with.
Then there's the quagmire of why the god to whom believers pray answers some prayers with a "yes", but others with a "no". If you view this from outside the believer's bubble, you'll see that it's simply a case of bad luck versus good luck. Curiously, the aforementioned yes/no "answers" yield the same results we'd expect to see in an uncaring, impersonal world with no guidance, whatsoever..i.e...sometimes we get lucky and get a great parking space; sometimes we don't. Sometimes our ill loved ones recover; sometimes they don't.
Another question that surfaces if one digs a little bit deeper, is why the god to whom believers pray will (presumably) suspend the laws of nature, say, for someone's grandmother to recover from her bunion surgery, but yet, will let untold millions starve to death, including children. Again, what is going on here? What's wrong with this picture? The simplest and most likely explanation is this: No one is suspending any natural laws, whatsoever. Children die of hunger for the pure and simple reason of the location they're born. Someone's grandmother has a successful bunion surgery for the pure and simple reason that she may have been born and raised in a civilized and developed country, which lends itself to having good medical care.
In conclusion, the only meaningful prayer that can be uttered is to ask god to do his "Will". But even that is totally redundant since his "Will" was established from the on-set and cannot be changed. Thus, when people say, "God has a plan", they really, really mean it! This is not to say that most people's prayers aren't well-meaning; in a lot of cases, they are. But the down-side is that it can give a sense of false hope.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Atheism vs Agnosticism
I won't lie. It is my encounters with believers, namely, Christians, that supply me with much if not most of my blog material. A recent encounter prompts me to talk about Atheism and Agnosticism, simply because one believer has insisted that I must choose between the two. IOW, he understands the two to be mutually exclusive. In a word, false. Atheism deals with belief(in this case, lack of belief); Agnosticism deals with knowledge(in this case, what cannot be known).
I'll start with the latter: If we are talking a "God" that is unknowable, incomprehensible, immaterial, invisible, etc., then I do not, and by definition, cannot, know if such an entity exists. However, that doesn't preclude me from believing or disbelieving that such an entity exists. To break it down----I do not know if such a being exists(Agnostic), but I don't believe that one such being does exist(Atheism). Thus, I am an Agnostic Atheist. This should be very easy to understand.
All that said, the type of "God" that Christians worship is NOT the above-mentioned type of god. No. The god that Christians worship has specific attributes, and according to Christians, "He" is most certainly knowable(since they claim to have a personal relationship with said being) ,and what's more, this being lives inside their hearts, guiding them daily in their personal affairs. Putting aside the fact that if this is true, then this "God" is clearly give people conflicting advice, I nevertheless know that this "God" not only does not exist, but cannot exist. How do I know this, and how can we know this?? Simple---because the characteristics assigned to it by believers and their bibles are mutually exclusive in some cases. For example, the concept of "infinitely just" contradicts the concept of "infinitely merciful". And there's "omniscience" contradicting "omnipotence". It is for these reasons and more that I can say that no such being exists, and I can say it with as much certainty as I can say that a "square circle" doesn't exist.
I'll start with the latter: If we are talking a "God" that is unknowable, incomprehensible, immaterial, invisible, etc., then I do not, and by definition, cannot, know if such an entity exists. However, that doesn't preclude me from believing or disbelieving that such an entity exists. To break it down----I do not know if such a being exists(Agnostic), but I don't believe that one such being does exist(Atheism). Thus, I am an Agnostic Atheist. This should be very easy to understand.
All that said, the type of "God" that Christians worship is NOT the above-mentioned type of god. No. The god that Christians worship has specific attributes, and according to Christians, "He" is most certainly knowable(since they claim to have a personal relationship with said being) ,and what's more, this being lives inside their hearts, guiding them daily in their personal affairs. Putting aside the fact that if this is true, then this "God" is clearly give people conflicting advice, I nevertheless know that this "God" not only does not exist, but cannot exist. How do I know this, and how can we know this?? Simple---because the characteristics assigned to it by believers and their bibles are mutually exclusive in some cases. For example, the concept of "infinitely just" contradicts the concept of "infinitely merciful". And there's "omniscience" contradicting "omnipotence". It is for these reasons and more that I can say that no such being exists, and I can say it with as much certainty as I can say that a "square circle" doesn't exist.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Spirituality: A License to Protest(aka whine)?
An acquaintance I met through a popular networking site who happens to be the former g/f of a late friend - and incidentally, this late friend was someone I was very close to myself, partially because of our past of playing in a band together - has made it clear on several occasions that she doesn't like the fact that I challenge people's religious beliefs....or, in her case, her "spiritual" beliefs.(yes, she's one of those who thinks that she can divorce her "God" from religion).
In any case, she continually goes on and on about how we're a "free country", yadda, yadda, and that we're free to believe whatever we wish. It should be noted that I have never once disagreed that we're free to believe whatever we wish. In fact, I say it quite frequently in these types of discussions.
So, here's the rub, because as you might've guessed, it's coming:
While we are, yes, free to believe whatever-the-hell we wish, the fact is, in some cases, people's personal beliefs become collective beliefs, and if/when people's collective beliefs turn into actions, those actions have consequences. For example, when the collective beliefs of a certain group of people turn to trying to teach "creationism" in the science/biology classroom, a consequence of this is going to be getting a challenge from people who know that "creationism"(or if you prefer the dressed-up euphemism, "Intelligent Design") is NOT "science". Now, if you are reading this right now and you are a proponent of creation/ID, *feel free to provide a physical street address of where scientists(key) are currently conducting tests on special "creation".
(*Note, you won't be able to provide any such address, but you can try. You won't be able to, because special "creation" by invisible, conscious, creator-beings, is NOT "science")
You see, in order for "creation" by magic, or ESP - or however "God" supposedly does it - to become a scientific theory, we must be able to do things like study it, observe it, test/falsify it, and make predictions on it. Well, we can't do any of the above. Thus, "creation" doesn't qualify fact or theory.
This, of course, is dealing with all of what exists. Then there's the subject of us homosapiens and where we came from.
D****** writes....
"did you see [so 'n' so's] baby???..where's the evidence to believe such a beautiful creature so unlike an ape evolved from a primate/single cell amoeba???"
She concludes that a baby human is nothing like a newborn ape, does she? She's obviously never seen an infant ape.
In any case, anti-evolutionists like to spend all of their time being critical of evolution, despite the undeniable fact that, at a minimum, we can directly observe new baby humans evolving directly from other mature humans. Yes, we can SEE it. The stork doesn't bring babies; babies aren't spontaneously being "created" out of thin air. No, the evidence shows us that life evolves from other life. So, taking this into consideration - in conjunction with the fact that bashing evolution is one big non-sequitir - the anti-evolutionists have all of their work cut out for them when it comes to proving their "lookist", creationist beliefs---beliefs that we can rightfully challenge. In fact, it's our duty to challenge them if we don't want our kids indoctrinated(brainwashed) with nonsense.
In any case, she continually goes on and on about how we're a "free country", yadda, yadda, and that we're free to believe whatever we wish. It should be noted that I have never once disagreed that we're free to believe whatever we wish. In fact, I say it quite frequently in these types of discussions.
So, here's the rub, because as you might've guessed, it's coming:
While we are, yes, free to believe whatever-the-hell we wish, the fact is, in some cases, people's personal beliefs become collective beliefs, and if/when people's collective beliefs turn into actions, those actions have consequences. For example, when the collective beliefs of a certain group of people turn to trying to teach "creationism" in the science/biology classroom, a consequence of this is going to be getting a challenge from people who know that "creationism"(or if you prefer the dressed-up euphemism, "Intelligent Design") is NOT "science". Now, if you are reading this right now and you are a proponent of creation/ID, *feel free to provide a physical street address of where scientists(key) are currently conducting tests on special "creation".
(*Note, you won't be able to provide any such address, but you can try. You won't be able to, because special "creation" by invisible, conscious, creator-beings, is NOT "science")
You see, in order for "creation" by magic, or ESP - or however "God" supposedly does it - to become a scientific theory, we must be able to do things like study it, observe it, test/falsify it, and make predictions on it. Well, we can't do any of the above. Thus, "creation" doesn't qualify fact or theory.
This, of course, is dealing with all of what exists. Then there's the subject of us homosapiens and where we came from.
D****** writes....
"did you see [so 'n' so's] baby???..where's the evidence to believe such a beautiful creature so unlike an ape evolved from a primate/single cell amoeba???"
She concludes that a baby human is nothing like a newborn ape, does she? She's obviously never seen an infant ape.
In any case, anti-evolutionists like to spend all of their time being critical of evolution, despite the undeniable fact that, at a minimum, we can directly observe new baby humans evolving directly from other mature humans. Yes, we can SEE it. The stork doesn't bring babies; babies aren't spontaneously being "created" out of thin air. No, the evidence shows us that life evolves from other life. So, taking this into consideration - in conjunction with the fact that bashing evolution is one big non-sequitir - the anti-evolutionists have all of their work cut out for them when it comes to proving their "lookist", creationist beliefs---beliefs that we can rightfully challenge. In fact, it's our duty to challenge them if we don't want our kids indoctrinated(brainwashed) with nonsense.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The irony. It STINGS
Aside from being extremely ticked off, what would your opinion be of the guy who, while you're pulled over in the middle of the desert reading a map, or texting(or whatever), flattens your tires, and then proceeds to stick his head in your window and says "Hey?.....'need a lift?"
Would you not think this person is bat-sh*t crazy? If you consider yourself a normal, sane person, then you know damned-well that your opinion of him would not be a good one. Welp, I've got news for you if you are a Christian: you are dealing with the same exact type of lunacy if you accept the cornerstone tenet known as "Salvation". That's right, God will "save" you from the very problem that he created..i.e.."evil".
First, let's look at the obvious:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" ~ Isaiah 45:7
Now let's look at the case of when one of God's angels rebelled against God:
Okay, so, an angel gets a wild hair(or maybe a feather?) up his butt, and not only did God NOT destroy this defiant angel on the spot, knowing that said angel would be a blight on humanity, but he gave him his own flippin' resort. He even gave him a really cool name..i.e. "Lucifer"(why not, "Dick"?). Oh, and he left him in charge of the whole resort and its occupants. Oh, wait, there's more ....and God made it really, really hot, just the way a DEVIL likes it! Oooo, ouch! Yeah, nice going, "GOD"! Sheesh! lol
Now let's look at something a little more subtle:
Christianity would have you believe that this Lucifer fellow is influencing people to commit their own "evil" acts in his name. Yes, that's right. For instance, as you read this, a child is being raped and/or beaten, and where is "God"? Well, lo and behold, he's standing there with arms folded watching it all go down(assuming he actually exists, of course). And why is he standing there being useless? Why, because he cannot tamper with the perp's "free will", as the standard apologetic goes. Yes, that's right, according to Christian apologists, preserving this slimy bastard's "free will" is evidently more important than the well-being of the child(victim).
Now, if you consider yourself a faithful, bible-believing Christian, then you leave me no choice but to believe that you more or less buy into the above chunk of illogical nonsense. If you are a cultural or moderate Christian, then, well, you implicitly buy into it, that is, unless you don't believe that "God" is things like all-loving and all-powerful. Like I always say, if you'd like to be the first person to offer an angle that you feel I haven't considered, you are welcome to chime in. By no means do I want to do the same thing that irks me to no end when believers do it, which is, to sit here and defend my errors.
Dear Believer,
Give me a good reason why "God" must allow Lucifer and his "evil" to exist, and I may just change my mind. In the mean time, I will work on a scenario for a future post that would allow for "evil"(if it MUST exist), allows criminals their "free will", and the best part...... no one suffers......EVER. 'Sound impossible? It's not.
Would you not think this person is bat-sh*t crazy? If you consider yourself a normal, sane person, then you know damned-well that your opinion of him would not be a good one. Welp, I've got news for you if you are a Christian: you are dealing with the same exact type of lunacy if you accept the cornerstone tenet known as "Salvation". That's right, God will "save" you from the very problem that he created..i.e.."evil".
First, let's look at the obvious:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" ~ Isaiah 45:7
Now let's look at the case of when one of God's angels rebelled against God:
Okay, so, an angel gets a wild hair(or maybe a feather?) up his butt, and not only did God NOT destroy this defiant angel on the spot, knowing that said angel would be a blight on humanity, but he gave him his own flippin' resort. He even gave him a really cool name..i.e. "Lucifer"(why not, "Dick"?). Oh, and he left him in charge of the whole resort and its occupants. Oh, wait, there's more ....and God made it really, really hot, just the way a DEVIL likes it! Oooo, ouch! Yeah, nice going, "GOD"! Sheesh! lol
Now let's look at something a little more subtle:
Christianity would have you believe that this Lucifer fellow is influencing people to commit their own "evil" acts in his name. Yes, that's right. For instance, as you read this, a child is being raped and/or beaten, and where is "God"? Well, lo and behold, he's standing there with arms folded watching it all go down(assuming he actually exists, of course). And why is he standing there being useless? Why, because he cannot tamper with the perp's "free will", as the standard apologetic goes. Yes, that's right, according to Christian apologists, preserving this slimy bastard's "free will" is evidently more important than the well-being of the child(victim).
Now, if you consider yourself a faithful, bible-believing Christian, then you leave me no choice but to believe that you more or less buy into the above chunk of illogical nonsense. If you are a cultural or moderate Christian, then, well, you implicitly buy into it, that is, unless you don't believe that "God" is things like all-loving and all-powerful. Like I always say, if you'd like to be the first person to offer an angle that you feel I haven't considered, you are welcome to chime in. By no means do I want to do the same thing that irks me to no end when believers do it, which is, to sit here and defend my errors.
Dear Believer,
Give me a good reason why "God" must allow Lucifer and his "evil" to exist, and I may just change my mind. In the mean time, I will work on a scenario for a future post that would allow for "evil"(if it MUST exist), allows criminals their "free will", and the best part...... no one suffers......EVER. 'Sound impossible? It's not.
Gusher
A week ago-yesterday, I wacked my index finger on my left hand cutting some chateau with 10 inch Wusthof. This one was a gusher, but fortunately, the cut was more diagonal to my finger(a flap of skin), as opposed to perpendicular. Four hours and five stitches later, I was out the ER door. A few days later I picked up my bass to see if I could play, but it was out of the question. Notwithstanding, I sat there and played making a conscious effort to NOT use my index. This, of course, left me limited to what I could play, but I was playing, nonetheless. Where am I going with this?
Here: After only one week of making a conscious effort to not fret any strings with my index finger, I have to now make a conscious effort to re-incorporate my index back into my game. One part of my mind is telling me, "Hey, dude...you can use your index finger here and there now, it's almost completely healed"...and another part of my brain is telling me, "Don't use that cut finger, dude!". I find it really weird that a lifetime of using all fingers can be "undone" with only a week of training myself to NOT use my index.
Moral of story, unless you LOSE a finger, do NOT attempt to relearn to play during the healing process. You will screw yourself. Arrrg.
Here: After only one week of making a conscious effort to not fret any strings with my index finger, I have to now make a conscious effort to re-incorporate my index back into my game. One part of my mind is telling me, "Hey, dude...you can use your index finger here and there now, it's almost completely healed"...and another part of my brain is telling me, "Don't use that cut finger, dude!". I find it really weird that a lifetime of using all fingers can be "undone" with only a week of training myself to NOT use my index.
Moral of story, unless you LOSE a finger, do NOT attempt to relearn to play during the healing process. You will screw yourself. Arrrg.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Ad Hominem: The best they've got?
Ad hominem:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
ref: Dictionary.com
Example of a Christian using ad homimem in a follow-up comment after blocking me:
"[...], he's gone. I blocked him. He is a contrarian for the sake of contrary and an argumentarian simply to argue. It doesn't matter what you say, he skips over what makes sense and attacks from the flank. I've had to put up with people like this for years. They have nothing of value to add. They say they are atheists, but they spend all their time fighting the God they don't believe in. The proverb is true with people like him - Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. I've given him far more slack than I should have. I don't need to go to bed fretting over a person who has nothing of value to add."
Notice that the Christian, in this case, a "Pastor", refuses to even acknowledge that he's in a conversation with an Atheist. To him, I am, uh, "fighting God". He then goes on to tell one of his flock that I'm a "fool"(because, of course, the bible says so in a "proverb"), and that Christians shouldn't even listen to Atheists, or else, that makes them "fools", too. 'Funny how that works, isn't it?
Then there's the accusation that I'm posting things contrary to what he believes for the pure sake of being contrary and argumentative. LMAO! Good grief! Yes, I put all the time and energy into my responses simply because I want to disagree. It couldn't possibly be because I really disagree and even have good reasons to back it. Nah.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
ref: Dictionary.com
Example of a Christian using ad homimem in a follow-up comment after blocking me:
"[...], he's gone. I blocked him. He is a contrarian for the sake of contrary and an argumentarian simply to argue. It doesn't matter what you say, he skips over what makes sense and attacks from the flank. I've had to put up with people like this for years. They have nothing of value to add. They say they are atheists, but they spend all their time fighting the God they don't believe in. The proverb is true with people like him - Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. I've given him far more slack than I should have. I don't need to go to bed fretting over a person who has nothing of value to add."
Notice that the Christian, in this case, a "Pastor", refuses to even acknowledge that he's in a conversation with an Atheist. To him, I am, uh, "fighting God". He then goes on to tell one of his flock that I'm a "fool"(because, of course, the bible says so in a "proverb"), and that Christians shouldn't even listen to Atheists, or else, that makes them "fools", too. 'Funny how that works, isn't it?
Then there's the accusation that I'm posting things contrary to what he believes for the pure sake of being contrary and argumentative. LMAO! Good grief! Yes, I put all the time and energy into my responses simply because I want to disagree. It couldn't possibly be because I really disagree and even have good reasons to back it. Nah.
God's Chamber of Horrors
aka, "Hell".
Recently I was treated to the ever-so-common, practically-inevitable-when-dealing-with-Christians, threat of "hell". Sometimes the threat is thinly-veiled; other times, it's more blatant. Sadly, this was a case of the latter.
Christian acquaintance(female), said....
"Just deeply concerned for your soul, my understanding is that hell is not a nice place, my heart would break for you if you ended up there [...]. I will continue to pray and love you."
Let's see, where to begin...
Okay, firstly, if you feel that I don't deserve to go to "Hell", then why-the-f' do you implicitly support such a place by loving and worshiping the very being who could do away with it if he wanted to, but doesn't? Well?
If, on the other hand, you feel that I DO deserve to be tormented 24/7 for all of eternity, then what's the problem? I'm getting precisely what I deserve, right? That's good ol' "justice", bible-style, isn't it? Please, any Christian, be the first to put it into terms that make sense.
Secondly, if "sin must be punished!" as the fundamentalists will insist, then fine, punish the one or two people who committed the one-time "offense" of eating the piece of forbidden flippin' fruit. Don't blame people who weren't there and had no part of that decision. I mean, isn't that the whole point of "free will"?..i.e..for each person to choose for themselves? Yes, I believe so. Yet, mysteriously, Adam & Eve chose "evil" on our behalf, and for some strange reason, believers buy this, hook, line, and sinker.
Thirdly, what in tarnation is a "soul", and if it's something non-physical - IOW, something beyond the scope of sensory perception - then feel free to explain how youpunish torture such a (non)-thing. 'Listening.
And finally, what does "God" hope to accomplish after the fact? IOW, assuming that some people will wake up in "Hell"....so-the-hell-what??? What does it actually prove or accomplish? If it's all true, it still remains something that cannot be proven until after the fact(after death). In which case, it seems to me that this is merely God's way of saying, "See?....told ya!.....neener, neener!". You know, that "playground" mentality we all remember from elementary school.
*Note, just like there is no literal "Heaven", there is no literal "Hell". Again, I have merely discussed this topic under the pretense that "Hell" exists, in an attempt to show the absurdity of the notion.
Recently I was treated to the ever-so-common, practically-inevitable-when-dealing-with-Christians, threat of "hell". Sometimes the threat is thinly-veiled; other times, it's more blatant. Sadly, this was a case of the latter.
Christian acquaintance(female), said....
"Just deeply concerned for your soul, my understanding is that hell is not a nice place, my heart would break for you if you ended up there [...]. I will continue to pray and love you."
Let's see, where to begin...
Okay, firstly, if you feel that I don't deserve to go to "Hell", then why-the-f' do you implicitly support such a place by loving and worshiping the very being who could do away with it if he wanted to, but doesn't? Well?
If, on the other hand, you feel that I DO deserve to be tormented 24/7 for all of eternity, then what's the problem? I'm getting precisely what I deserve, right? That's good ol' "justice", bible-style, isn't it? Please, any Christian, be the first to put it into terms that make sense.
Secondly, if "sin must be punished!" as the fundamentalists will insist, then fine, punish the one or two people who committed the one-time "offense" of eating the piece of forbidden flippin' fruit. Don't blame people who weren't there and had no part of that decision. I mean, isn't that the whole point of "free will"?..i.e..for each person to choose for themselves? Yes, I believe so. Yet, mysteriously, Adam & Eve chose "evil" on our behalf, and for some strange reason, believers buy this, hook, line, and sinker.
Thirdly, what in tarnation is a "soul", and if it's something non-physical - IOW, something beyond the scope of sensory perception - then feel free to explain how you
And finally, what does "God" hope to accomplish after the fact? IOW, assuming that some people will wake up in "Hell"....so-the-hell-what??? What does it actually prove or accomplish? If it's all true, it still remains something that cannot be proven until after the fact(after death). In which case, it seems to me that this is merely God's way of saying, "See?....told ya!.....neener, neener!". You know, that "playground" mentality we all remember from elementary school.
*Note, just like there is no literal "Heaven", there is no literal "Hell". Again, I have merely discussed this topic under the pretense that "Hell" exists, in an attempt to show the absurdity of the notion.
Disclaimer and clarification
Herein are some common assumptions made by the Christians I encounter. I'll deal with these right from the onset to avoid these assumptions being used as actual arguments. In other words, please don't waste my time, or yours, with these retorts:
In no particular order.....
Christian: "You just hate God!!!!"
Me: No, I most certainly do not "hate God". I no more "hate God" than I "hate" the gremlin who hides my car keys under the couch cushions(and once in the trash). I don't believe that gods or gremlins exist, but since I must share the planet with people who insist that the former exists, I sometimes talk about "God" under the pretense that he/she/it exists to make a rhetorical point. It's not exactly unheard of.
Christian: "You just want to sin!!!"
Me: No. I just want to search for truth no matter where it leads, and so far, there is no extra-biblical evidence for "sin". And besides, if "sin" is defined as a transgression against God's laws, then "sin" is a relative thing; not an absolute thing. For example, if there is nothing that prevents God from creating a new law that states, "If you don't behead your third-born child, that is a sin!", then intelligent, sane people see the immediate problem with that. On the other hand, if something does prevent God from implementing such a law, then obviously there is an external standard of "right"/"wrong" that even this God conforms to.
Christian: "You just want to be God!!!"
Me: 'Heard this "gem" just the other day. Nope, sorry, Charlie, I have zero desire to drown the people who disappoint me, nor do I have a desire to have someone tacked to a cross before I can forgive someone else. I have zero desire to send plagues, smite people, or dash children's heads against rocks. But if one finds those aspirations noble?... aspire away. Best of luck with that.
Christian: "You think Christians are stupid!!!"
Me: No, I don't think Christians are stupid, but I do think that they compartmentalize their beliefs, just as I once did. At least Atheists disbelieve across-the-board..i.e..they're consistent. Whereas, while Christians disbelieve in the myriad supernatural claims of other religions, they reserve a part of their brain to allow Christianty's outrageous claims. This part of their brain is "taped-off" to reason. Christians certainly don't believe that Allah dictated his will and testament to Muhammad as he sat in a cave and then later flew off into the clouds on winged pony. No, hell, no, that is nonsense to them. Yet, Christians don't flinch at the thought of a man dying, and then three days later, getting up and walking out of his grave. Virgin birth? Sure!...it's in the bible, isn't it? This is what we're dealing with.
Christian: "You're so angry!!!"
Me: Yes, angry at myself - not you - for allowing myself to be duped, when I knew all along that there was something amiss. In this case, anger is very a cleansing and even necessary emotion.
Christian: "You think we came from slime!!!!"
Me: And you think we came from DUST! Is that really less absurd? Now, with that point made and out of the way, Atheists don't believe that we "came from slime". That is a classic strawman argument.
Note*, I will likely be adding to this list as time goes on.
Thx for reading.
In no particular order.....
Christian: "You just hate God!!!!"
Me: No, I most certainly do not "hate God". I no more "hate God" than I "hate" the gremlin who hides my car keys under the couch cushions(and once in the trash). I don't believe that gods or gremlins exist, but since I must share the planet with people who insist that the former exists, I sometimes talk about "God" under the pretense that he/she/it exists to make a rhetorical point. It's not exactly unheard of.
Christian: "You just want to sin!!!"
Me: No. I just want to search for truth no matter where it leads, and so far, there is no extra-biblical evidence for "sin". And besides, if "sin" is defined as a transgression against God's laws, then "sin" is a relative thing; not an absolute thing. For example, if there is nothing that prevents God from creating a new law that states, "If you don't behead your third-born child, that is a sin!", then intelligent, sane people see the immediate problem with that. On the other hand, if something does prevent God from implementing such a law, then obviously there is an external standard of "right"/"wrong" that even this God conforms to.
Christian: "You just want to be God!!!"
Me: 'Heard this "gem" just the other day. Nope, sorry, Charlie, I have zero desire to drown the people who disappoint me, nor do I have a desire to have someone tacked to a cross before I can forgive someone else. I have zero desire to send plagues, smite people, or dash children's heads against rocks. But if one finds those aspirations noble?... aspire away. Best of luck with that.
Christian: "You think Christians are stupid!!!"
Me: No, I don't think Christians are stupid, but I do think that they compartmentalize their beliefs, just as I once did. At least Atheists disbelieve across-the-board..i.e..they're consistent. Whereas, while Christians disbelieve in the myriad supernatural claims of other religions, they reserve a part of their brain to allow Christianty's outrageous claims. This part of their brain is "taped-off" to reason. Christians certainly don't believe that Allah dictated his will and testament to Muhammad as he sat in a cave and then later flew off into the clouds on winged pony. No, hell, no, that is nonsense to them. Yet, Christians don't flinch at the thought of a man dying, and then three days later, getting up and walking out of his grave. Virgin birth? Sure!...it's in the bible, isn't it? This is what we're dealing with.
Christian: "You're so angry!!!"
Me: Yes, angry at myself - not you - for allowing myself to be duped, when I knew all along that there was something amiss. In this case, anger is very a cleansing and even necessary emotion.
Christian: "You think we came from slime!!!!"
Me: And you think we came from DUST! Is that really less absurd? Now, with that point made and out of the way, Atheists don't believe that we "came from slime". That is a classic strawman argument.
Note*, I will likely be adding to this list as time goes on.
Thx for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)