Church Marquees

Sometimes I seriously don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Okay, so there's a church in the neighborhood and the new message on the marquee says....

Son block prevents sin burn!

Oh, boy.

Compartmentalization Revisited

Somewhere within the several hundred blog posts I've authored here, I'm nearly certain that I've mentioned my sentiments when it comes to differentiating between beliefs and the person holding the beliefs. But today I'm going to devote an entire post to the subject.

So, I guess the best place to start is right here:

I absolutely, positively do not think that all Christians(or any other people who hold certain religious beliefs or philosophies) are necessarily stupid or lack intelligence. It's difficult to not sound patronizing, but I just don't know of any other way to state it, and furthermore, this is really being declared in response to the many times that I hear Christians say that atheists think that they are "know-it-alls" and that they think all Christians are a bunch of idiots. True, maybe some atheists do think that. I, however, do not.

The main reason why I don't harbor such a position is that I used to be a devout, sincere, dyed-in-wool believer myself, and while I was and still am ignorant on many subjects, I've never once considered myself to be a stupid nor close-minded person.

With that now out of the way and on public record, it's very noteworthy to point out that before I became a non-believer, I was necessarily open-minded, because if not, I would not have changed my mind to begin with. I hope everyone catches that part, because it's crucial.

That's right, even as a devout believer, I was obviously not so convicted to my beliefs that I wasn't willing to change my mind. And again, I'm not suggesting that those who are unwilling to change their minds, or who aren't willing to even entertain an opposing view, are automatically stupid. However, I do contend that said people compartmentalize their beliefs. That is to say, they use their intelligence selectively.

Perhaps a good example of what I'm talking about is the Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, a guy whom believers hold to be a great Christian apologist, if not the best. While Savant Craig's whiny voice and various hand gestures admittedly make him difficult to watch on video, I can put that aside and say that he's able to effectively deliver his defense of Christianity in a calm, intelligent manner.

That being said, he's really, really good at keeping the already-convinced convinced. And alas, this is what apologetics are ultimately for..i.e..quelling the doubts of those who might be struggling with their faith. And why wouldn't people be struggling with their faith? Those believers who simply accept, unquestionably, what their bibles and preachers tell them are not who I mean. No, I mean those who are bold enough to question and would change their mind if shown to be in error. This is where the intellectual prowess of people like WLC come into play.

With that much being established, at what point(if any) does savant Craig's intelligence become suspect? Personally, I think it becomes suspect the minute that he says things like that murdered children in the bible are "better off", since, it eliminates the chance of them defecting from the faith as adults. Thus, WLC, concludes that the slaughtering of children in the bible was moral.

Okay, again, this is where I part ways and contend that WLC (and those who support him) are throwing their intelligence to the wind and siding with Christianity for no other reason than that they want it to be true. Seriously, such a defense is morally reprehensible. If someone contended that we all kill our children because it would ensure them a place in "heaven", thus, avoiding "hell", we would have their butts thrown in a loony bin, and rightfully so.

This is the essence of defending religious convictions via compartmentalization. Notwithstanding, I still do not think such people are necessarily stupid; they are just indoctrinated, and no one asks to be indoctrinated.

All of this being said, I do not and will not respect such deplorable beliefs, and I will continue to unapopolgetically denounce them. Note, I have nothing against WLC or any other indoctrinated individual as a person. And this is where I make a distinction between person and belief. Things like "beliefs" and "heritage" don't automatically deserve our respect. They just don't. If someone's beliefs propagate falsehoods and/or mislead people, and if people suffer as a result, the moral thing to do is to denounce those beliefs. If someone's "heritage" is one that promotes inequality or bigotry, the same applies.

I thank all my readers, both vocal and silent, and I hope that I have now once and for all set the record straight on where I stand. But especially, if there's anyone who previously got the impression that I think all Christians are stupid, I hope that they now accept that that is simply not true.

Non-Belief: Not a Choice

Okay, this post is going to be a short one, one where I'm going to quickly cover three separate but related topics. The reason being, something came up in my FB notifications again, which was the result of me chiming in on a meme that a mutual friend posted.

The topics are, 1) belief Vs non-belief(what's a choice, and what is not a choice), 2) No true Scotsman fallacy, and 3) the false dichotomy of "Heaven" and "Hell".

Again, keeping it simple:

1. Belief is a choice, but non-belief is not always a choice. For instance, I've read, cover-to-cover,  L. Ron Hubbard's book "Dianetics". I find the claims therein unbelievable, and much of it downright absurd. No matter how many times Tom Cruise types on his Twitter page, "Scientology is true!", or "Dianetics changed my life!!!" it's not going to matter to me until I see some objective evidence that it's true, and until then, I don't believe it, and furthermore, to think that I can just "decide" to believe it, is just plain asinine. The same holds true for ANY proposition or belief-system, including Islam, including Christianity, including Buddhism, and on and on.

2. Saying that "True Christians" do X, Y, and Z(or that they don't do A, B, and C) is to commit the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman". The most glaring problem with this is the sheer fact that Christians try to distance themselves from those Christians who are crooks or scammers. But why? Take for instance, "Joel Osteen", who bilks millions of believers out their hard-earned money. IOW, he's a scammer who preys on people's gullibility and faithfulness. Which believer can say with any certainty that "Joel Osteen" isn't forgiven? Under what authority can a believer tell another believer that they're not a "True Christian"??? Answer: There is no such authority, because, by mere definition(according to the bible), ALL believers are "sinners" and "fall short". And then of course there's, "Thou shalt not judge".

3. What if I told a Christian..."Look, you're in danger of ending up in Jahannam if you don't accept and bow down to the Almighty Allah!!". Do you think that that would phase them one little bit? No, right? Right, because of course, those aren't the only choices. A third choice is pointing out that Islam is a bunch of man-made nonsense, and that such a "dilemma" is a figment of someone's imagination. Welp, it's no different with "Heaven" and "Hell". Telling me that I'm in "danger" and that there are two things to choose from..i.e.. 1) choose to "be saved", or 2) choose to suffer bodily harm, is a false dichotomy(and yes, being thrown in a "lake of fire" constitutes bodily harm, so, no, "Hell" isn't just a "separation from God").

One last thing, debating the issues isn't "an attack on Christianity". This is where Christians and other theists have it wrong. They believe that their respective religion is somehow above criticism or close examination. And, well, that's just not so.