This Filthy Generation: A Refutation Part I

Over on the "Saved by Grace" blog, one of the contributors who goes simply by "lyn", authored a recent post entitled, "There is a generation that is not washed from their filthiness".

Okay, so this "lyn" person - someone who, best as I can tell, is a Calvinist/Reformist - wastes no time at all in pretending to know that which she cannot possibly know. What I mean is, we don't even have to wait for her to get into the body of her voluminous, mega-sermon to know that she is about to once again use her religion as a "license" to JUDGE her fellow human beings. How can we know this? Easy, because "lyn" makes it pretty clear that she is about to go on one such judgment-casting/aspersion-casting affront when she suggests that those of this generation who do not think like she does are "filthy". Nice, huh?

So, yeah, as we know, it is religion, and particularly religious "faith", that perpetuates/facilitates this sort of judgmental, invidious mindset. Now, while I understand that some (many? most?) nonbelievers opt for not rocking the boat, but instead, prefer to abide by a "live and let live" sort of mantra, there is a growing number of nonbelievers today who have simply had enough. Welp, I am one of those people, and I make no bones about it, not that this is any secret, or anything.

In any case, "lyn" the Calvinist confirms my suspicion early on.

She writes...

1. There is a generation of atheists, that neither fear God nor regard man; that say in their heart, “There is no God;” and vainly wish there were none.

Cling cling!! True, story!... I don't "fear God" for the same reason(s) that you don't fear the boogie man, "lyn". See, it's just not rational for me to fear something that I don't even believe exists.

As for what atheists "say in their heart", I don't know about anyone else, but my heart doesn't have vocal chords, ergo, my heart cannot speak to me, to you, or to anyone else. Nope, my heart, aka, my cardiovascular organ, pumps blood. That's it. My heart can't think, nor can it speak the human language.

But to give benefit of doubt, there's a chance that what was said was meant in a figurative or metaphoric sense, in which case, yes!...there are some gods that I "say in my heart" do not exist, and yet, there other other conceptions of "God" upon whose existence I am agnostic. The god that you (pretend to) worship, "lyn"? Welp, that is the former type of god.

In other words, "lyn", I know that your and John Calvin's conception of "God" is an impossibility, and therefore, I know that that god cannot exist, and therefore, it does not exist. And please note that I can state this with as much certainty as I can state that "married bachelors" cannot exist, and therefore, do not exist.

For just one quick example of how I arrive at this, I'm nearly certain that the Calvinist conception of the Christian deity is that it is "Sovereign" and has a "Will". If I'm correct on that character assessment, then said deity would necessarily possess the free agency with which to be "Sovereign" and to implement its "Will". E.g..to be "Gracious", to exact its "Perfect Justice", or maybe to be pleased that some people are bound for hellfire, etc. You know, the sort of things that your "God" evidently does as it sits around in the cosmos.

But in all seriousness, the glaring problem with this is that if the Calvinist conception of God includes a knowledge of the future set of events; and if this God was in possession of this knowledge "before the foundation of the world"(Ephesians), then "free agency" goes bye-bye. Yes, kiss it goodbye, "lyn", as an omniscient god cannot also be an omnipotent god, and vice versa. John Calvin claimed his god is both, and so, John Calvin was wrong. You are wrong. It really is that simple.

Lastly, I don't need to "wish", vainly, or otherwise, that "there was no God", thank you very much. Y'see, "lyn", what we "wish" is a point of zero practical value, aka, moot, simply because reality doesn't care what you, me, or anyone else wishes. Seriously. This is perhaps the most asinine of all the Christian arguments against atheism instances of Christians projecting onto atheists. The idea is that we atheists really believe that "God" exists, but, um, that we wish God didn't exist. You know, so that we can "sin", "mock" gawd, drink ram's blood, 'n all that junk.

This sort of mindset is plain preposterous. It really, really is. Imagine what you'd think if you overheard someone telling someone else, "Hey? Y'know what? I've always wanted to go skydiving without one of those clumsy, cumbersome parachute things, so today I think I'm just going to wish that gravity doesn't exist so that I can go skydiving without a parachute!!!"

Would you not think that this person was off his or her rocker? And yet, this is precisely how "lyn" and her Calvinist brethren sound when they say that we atheists "vainly wish there were [no God]". No sane person is going to "wish" something that they know to be true to not be true just so they can live recklessly or satisfy some other fantasy.

Arg. The stupid.....it hurts.

The Problem of God's Complicity

The other day there was a discussion taking place on a website that I peer into from time to time, and in this instance that discussion was centered around whether or not God was complicit, specifically, when it comes to, a) those who reject God, and b) the Problem of Evil, a problem for which we are to believe "sin" is a consequence.

The author of the submitted article to which I refer is someone who goes by "Ben Love", and this author contends that for any person who rejects the Christian god, that God is therefore complicit in the matter, calling this dilemma "The Problem of God's Complicity". The author maintains that it was these problems, mainly the latter, that were the leading factors for him leaving the Faith.

To encapsulate, his argument is as follows.....

"The one who enables the choice must be considered complicit in the end result".

Before I jump into this I'd like to iron out a few things: For starters, I don't advocate when the non-believer's position is portrayed as "rejection"[of "God"], whether a theist does this, or whether an atheist does this. To "reject" someone (or something) implies that said someone (or something) exists. From an Atheist POV, there is nothing to "reject". Notwithstanding, I do understand how and why some atheists discuss the issues under the pretense that God exists, which is usually in an attempt to make a rhetorical point. I do this often. Of course, some theists take this and run with it - that is, they assume that because an atheist might make a reference to "God" in a discussion, that, oh, this is evidence that atheists really, really do believe in God after all, and that they just reject God. This sort of "gotcha!" mentality is as ridiculous as it is false.

To illustrate just how flimsy this sort of mindset is on the part of believers, just imagine if I'm having a conversation with a UFOlogist and I ask them, "Okay, then why do you supposed that alien abductions are never documented, given that nearly everyone these days has a recording device on their person a large percentage of the time?"

Do you see what happened there? I used the words "alien abductions" in a sentence to make a rhetorical point.

Now, which of us here, if any, honestly believe that my using those words in a sentence must mean that I truly, deep down, in my heart of hearts, believe that aliens travel here and abduct the inhabitants of Earth? I sincerely hope that no one does, but yet, I know that some people have unfortunately adopted such a mindset.

So, it's no different when it comes to "God". In other words, I just may discuss "God" as if such an individual exists, and I may do so for no other reason than to illustrate to my interlocutor that in fact no such individual exists. For instance, I may rhetorically ask, "Why do you suppose that God stands by as little children get raped and molested?"

Now, in the context of my question, is my using the words "God stands by" necessarily indicative that I believe that God is necessarily standing somewhere? I maintain that the answer is "no" and that the reason I use those words is to make a rhetorical point.

But getting back to the subject at hand, the author of the above-referenced article was getting some feedback from various people, a few of whom I safely assumed to be Christians attempting to defend Christianity. They were arguing that God gave its creation "free will", and that without it, we'd be the equivalent of "robots".

In other words, their defense is that since we were endowed with the ability to choose between two or more options, e.g..right/wrong, good/evil, etc., then God is therefore not complicit. They argue that all of the responsibility is our own.

Okay, at face value this might seem like a fair enough argument. But let's do the usual and dig a little deeper.

I think we all must first agree that if the God in question exists, then this God also has things like options and free will, yes? Yes, I think so, otherwise, this God couldn't be a free, personal being. A God who that cannot do things like make choices and change its mind is not a "who", but rather, a what. It's essentially an automaton.

Thus, if god X has the free will with which to make choices, then god X can simply choose to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with the image of god X, a nature that is consistent with what it would require for the creation to not disappoint god X. For example, if Christians define their god as a being who can do no wrong and one who is incapable of error; and further, if this god seeks to not be disappointed by its creation, then the solution is so obvious that a 6th grader could probably figure it out.

But before we talk about that solution, let's look at what we have on the table so far:

1. the Christian god is a personal being who can freely make choices

2. the Christian god has a nature by which this god has no inclination to error(e.g.. "sin")

3. the Christian god has a will(e.g...has dreams, desires, plans, etc.)

4. the Christian god's will is that his creation not displease him, yet, retain free will

Does *anyone disagree with those 4 premises? If so, please feel free to speak up.

*unless you are Reformist/Calvinist, since according to Calvinism's 5 points, your god had prescience of who will be saved and who will be damned to hellfire before the foundation of the world. In which case, this is all moot to you; everything is preordained. We are all puppets following the Puppeteer's script.


The Solution:

Per 1, above, the Christian god of the bible could have chosen to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with achieving its will(see 4, above). Note, this would not adversely affect..e.g..circumvent, render useless, etc., the creation's free will(see 1 and 2 above).

Conclusion: Based on the above premises, having a nature that is devoid of the proclivity to error does NOT preclude free will. Note, this is in accordance with Christianity's very own doctrine. In other words, this is not merely my "opinion"; this is a logical, reasonable conclusion, even allowing Christianity to define the terms.

So, here's where the reasonable among us should see the first red flag:

The Christian god did not choose(when it could have) to give his creation a nature that is consistent with 2, above. Nope. The Christian god mysteriously chose to give his creation a human nature, which, by definition, includes the proclivity to error. It is human nature to make mistakes, just as it is the nature of a goldfish to be "wet". You would not create a goldfish with gills and then turn around and blame it for being "wet", now would you? No, of course you wouldn't.

The same should hold true for a being whom we are to believe transcends our mere mortal intellect a bazillion fold. This god, the Christian god, chose to give his first two prototypes a nature that allows for error, or more in line with Christian theology, an evil inclination.

Thus, where "The Problem of God's Complicity" is concerned, the Christian god is most certainly complicit should those two prototypes make a choice that displeases this god. This is especially true considering the chronology error in the Bible, and the error of which I speak is that Adam and his accomplice were expected to know right from wrong(ergo, good from evil) before they had eaten from the very tree that presumably would give them that sort of knowledge.

Time and time again Christianity comes up intellectually bankrupt when put under the microscope. And what are we told? That "God is mysterious."

 Now, really...is it? Is it  that God is mysterious? Or could it just be that there isn't such a thing?

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Okay, suppose that you want to know more about, say, anti-lock braking systems. Do you consult an auto mechanic? Or do you consult a botanist?

How about if you want to learn which snakes are venomous and which are harmless? Do you phone up a herpetologist, or a seamstress?

Suppose that there's a Hindu and a Mormon sitting at the bar and you want to know what Hindu's believe. Do you ask the Hindu, or do you ask the Mormon?

I think most of us get the picture. I found the above meme on Facebook. 'Dollars-to-doughnuts a Christian whipped up this little gem of a meme. How can I tell? Okay, well, it's full of misinformation, red herrings, and generally just plain idiotic rhetoric, and we see this sort of thing being perpetuated by the far Christian Right these days. So, that's how I can tell that a Christian whipped it up.

So, Christians, if you genuinely(key word) want to learn more about what we atheists do or don't believe, then I suggest that you ask someone who's actually an atheist. It only makes sense, doesn't it? I think so. Seriously, you really need to cease and desist from projecting onto atheists, and it would be nice if you would stop getting your information on what atheism entails from other theists. Please, just stop it.

With that little request out of the way, please know that it is secularists who believe that there should be a church/state separation. In other words, not all secularists are atheists. Please stick that in your memory bank, Christians.

Now, as far as those who believe that one's religion "should be behind closed doors", again, this isn't solely atheists who advocate this. No. Because if one's religion happens to be, say, Islam, then you can bet the farm that Christians want that sh*t hidden behind the church Mosque doors. In fact, many(most? nearly all?) Christians don't even tolerate the Mosques, themselves, never mind what goes on inside them.

Of course, I don't want to sit here and resort to the very same sorts of tactics that I decry and turn around and generalize. For that reason, I need to be clear: Certainly not all Christians advocate the lovey-dovey parts of the bible, exclusively. No. In fact, very recently I encountered a few Christian bloggers who argue that other Christians who extol God as the "God of Love" have it the wrong way around. To them, the Christian deity is way more about things like "justice" and "wrath".... grrrrrrrr.  See, their rendition cherry-picked version of "God" gets its jollies creating human beings just so that he can turn around and torture most of them mercilessly for all eternity. It "pleases Him", they say. In their eyes(and according to their blog), doing so is an example of God's *"Perfect Justice".

*except when their "God" is feeling "Gracious", then "Perfect Justice" becomes "selective justice".

Anyway, about one's sex life being paraded down the street, yadda, yadda. Again, this is a feeble attempt on the part of some Christians to demonize all atheists. Maybe some atheists don't mind one's sexuality being paraded around town; maybe some do mind it. Either way, what most atheists who've read the bible can probably agree on is that the bible gets the Adult Video AwardXXX for explicitly lewd and lascivious behavior. Let's see, there's the instance of two sisters getting their father drunk and taking turns with him in the sack. But that's somehow not nearly as offensive as two same-sex people holding hands in public, right? Which would you have a harder time explaining to a child? I think I'd have a harder time explaining the former.

In closing, for those of you Christians who are getting your information on atheism from your churches, from your favorite Christian websites, and from each other, please just stop it. If you have questions about what atheism entails, you can ask those questions here, or if you wouldn't dream of asking a question here because of my "trashy", direct approach, fair enough, you can find the "Friendly Atheist" blog and ask him. But posting memes like the one above just tells me and other atheists that you're not really interested in what atheists believe and that preserving your beliefs will always take precedence over reality, even if it means lying. You know who you are and you fool no one.

A Quote by James Montgomery Boice

Clicking around the blogosphere this Sunday morning I stumbled upon an interesting post. And by "interesting", I mean eyebrow-raising. But then again, since this blog(Boomslang's Lair) is pretty much dedicated to putting theism and particularly Christian theism under the microscope, perhaps my readers, both vocal and silent, already know that when I say that something is "interesting" that I'm more or less saying it's sketchy.  

But in any case, the post to which I refer today is centered around a quote by a man named James Montgomery Boice. Boice was a Reformed theologian. So, yeah, we're talking Calvinism again. I've said it before and I have no problem saying it again, but as far as Christianity goes, it is the theology of John Calvin that I find to be the most repugnant, and by extension, it is Calvinism that I find to be the most deserving of scorn.

So, the author/owner of the blog on which this quote appeared was focusing on how one gets "saved", and in fact, said author/owner must be fixated on the topic to some degree since the name of the blog itself is "Saved by Grace". Not the most original name, but either way, it is pretty clear that the blog's author/owner believes that one can only be saved by "Grace"(in other words, not by "works" or anything else), hence the Latin term, Sola Gratia  (.i.e.."Only Grace")in the above graphic, which also appears on the post in question.

Now for the quote, itself.....

"The words sola gratia mean that human beings have no claim upon God. That is, God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins. Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it. Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace. By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith. It is grace alone expressed through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from death to spiritual life." ~  James Montgomery Boice

Okay, line by line, let's have a look at this and try to figure out why people put their faith into such things.

"human beings have no claim upon God"

Really? Okay, isn't it strange then that theists of opposing religions claim to know that their (version of) God is the true God, and all other versions are counterfeit and their adherents, mistaken? And more damaging to the claim that humans have no claim upon God, even within a given religion, take Christianity and its One Truth 33,000+ denominations, believers claim to know God's Will. In fact, the very idea of knowing how the (supposed) creator of the universe "saves" people is a claim to know something about God that they could not possibly know. Interesting, that.

"God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins."

If God only owes us "just punishment" for our "sins", isn't it curious how this God turns right around and makes an exception for some people? In other words, when we think of the word "just" or "justice", I don't know about you, but I think of someone getting precisely the punishment they deserve. That's what "justice" actually means. But yet, while in one breath we are being told that their god is "just", in the next breath we're being told that their god is also "merciful". So, which is it? The two things exclude each other. Any Reformists out there who want to take a stab at it?

 "Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it."

So, by extension, I guess it also "pleases him" to not save those whom he arbitrarily decides to not "save", those whom we are told get incinerated in hellfire as a consequence of God just, oh, deciding to not save them . Nice "God" you've got there, Calvinists. 'Good thing there's not one scrap of evidence that the doctrine known as "Calvinism" is true.

"Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace."

Or for that matter, everyone could be saved if God so chose to do it. But alas, being the "good" parent that God is, God has zero qualms saving some of his children, while letting others burn. And BTW, what's with this whole "regenerating" rigmarole? You mean God subcontracts this "Holy Spirit" thingy to regenerate people of his choosing?...people that might not otherwise choose him of their own volition? God makes it so that some people literally cannot resist him?? So much for that "free will" junk, I guess.

"By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith."

Noting that in Calvinism, even if someone is brought to "faith", this is still no guarantee that John Calvin's god has elected them. Remember, John Calvin's god could be toying with his creation for no other reason than that it pleases him. But as far as what "the Reformers" were insisting, human beings have been insisting stuff since time immemorial. People can insist things until kingdom come(no pun). But here's the rub: The insistence, itself, doesn't make the stuff they are insisting true.

So, again, "the Reformers" were pretending to know things that they couldn't possibly know, and via indoctrination, they passed along this operating under the pretense meme onto today's Reformists. Welp, the thing is, today we have more information and better ways for acquiring it. In other words, today we can know that the Reformists of the past had mistaken ideas about how the world works. We can know (if we choose to know) that what Calvinism proposes is not in the realm of possibility for the same, exact reasons we can know that "square circles" and "married bachelors" are not in the realm of possibility. Or...we can choose to not know it.

Make America Great Again!

Oh, cutts. Really?

Altogether, now....... BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Okay, with that out our systems, let's attempt to understand what Trump-supporters are talking about when they promote this idea that America has taken a turn for the worse, you know, since President "Obummer" was elected, and that Donald Trump is the guy who is going to save the day.

So,  Trumpers, let's hear it......."great", as in..? What? Do you mean prohibiting anyone who isn't white from drinking out of public water fountains? "Great" like that?? Or maybe you mean that we should go back to making it illegal for women to vote? After all, women should be seen and not heard, you know.

 Or wait, maybe we need to go further back in time to when America was really, really "great". Like, back to the wild, wild west era, you know, when everyone was packin' heat. 'Gotta disagreement on where to park your horse car? No prob'....shoot 'em! Cut in line at the saloon McDonald's? BANG! Pop a cap in their butt with your open carry six-gun Mack-10. Not far enough back? Okay, how about when witches people with mental illness were burned at the stake? Or wait, how about when being non-Christian could get you a seat on the Judas Cradle?

Okay, okay. Let's go ahead and give benefit of doubt to Trump and his supporters and say that Trump's readiness and willingness to speak his mind and tell it like it is really is a good quality, one that is surely indicative of a great leader.

Okay, done.

Uh-oh! 'Know who else speaks his mind(if you let him)? A guy named Charles Milles Manson. Yup, and this Manson guy doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about political correctness, either. Nope, he calls it like he sees it. He's happy to tell you exactly what's on his mind. And this of course makes him a good candidate for POTUS, yes?

Did I mention that Trump has gone on record to say that he admires his daughter? And noooo, not just her mind, because after saying that he'd "date" her if she wasn't his daughter, he comments on how she's got a "good figure". Eww. Weird fetish? This is the kind of guy we want representing America in a room full of other world leaders, is it? I'm going to build a wall....and it's gonna be huuuuge!  

I know, I know.....there's going to be hell toupee for this post! But, whatever---I'll take my chances :)