Another Victory for Satan!

Okay, everyone's probably heard that gay/lesbian marriage is now legal in all 50 states. So much hoopla,  and all for what? All because people want to be treated equally? Truly bizarre, isn' it? And of course, now we need to be concerned that the "sanctity of marriage" is in grave danger. What I mean is, prepare yourself to see thousands and thousands of Christian husbands and wives lining up in divorce court(try to block out the fact that Christians had the highest divorce rate before this latest decision).

Yes, it's true, a percentage of my fellow male Americans are evidently secretly scared that certain male anatomy is really scrumptious after all.

This proves my hypothesis: Satan is GAY!

The Dregs of Religion

In order for the idea of "extreme" or "extremist" to have any meaning, you'd need examples of things or people that are ordinary. The reason being, you'd need ordinary to be able to show the contrast between "ordinary" and "extreme". This is just common sense.

Thus, the entirety of a group of people, by definition, cannot be "extremist". It makes zero sense, and so, when Christians and Muslims say, "We're not all extremists!", they are stating the obvious. Non-theists and those who speak out against religion already know that not all religious people are extremist nut-jobs. So, when/if you hear someone say this, feel free to point this out to them.

Moving on, the fastest growing religion is, you guessed it....non-religion. There's a pattern, though, and I can attest to this pattern, based, both on my own deconversion, and also having had literally thousands of conversations with others who've left the faith. Of course, there's usually exceptions to every rule, so I don't pretend to know every person's journey out of faith, but by and large, when it comes to Christianity, should doubt and/or cognitive dissonance occur within staunch believers who believe that the Bible is infallible, the process of working through these doubts is gradual and it happens in increments.

For instance, when believers get confronted with scientific facts that directly contradict their Bibles, say, for instance, the age of the universe, one of two things usually happens; either they are forced to look for ways to get around the contradictions, or they cling even harder to their faith---or as some would say, they jam their fingers in their ears and say, "Ah-la-la-la-lah...I can't hear you!".

So, yes, there are millions of Bible-believing Christians who accept the scientific explanation for the age of the universe, as there are millions who accept the theory (and fact) of evolution by natural selection. If, say, someone points out how the doctrine of "Hell" is immoral, the same applies. That is, if the new information causes dissonance in the believer's mind, one of two things will usually happen, which are, they'll either look for ways around it..e.g...say that "Hell" isn't a literal place or attempt to water it down and say it means "annihilation", OR, again, they'll cling to their faith even harder, possibly saying things like, "Sin must be punished!", "We send ourselves to Hell!", and the like.

For many people, myself included, the former approach quells doubts for a while, but it eventually fails, usually because there simply aren't any good reasons to believe that Christianity is true in any objective sense. The bits that we can salvage might be nice for a while, but even those aren't anything exclusive to the Christian faith. In other words, some of us can get "Christian Lite" to "work" for a while, but eventually even that gets ditched because it becomes indistinguishable from plain ol' water.

So, getting to the point-----we can reason together and see that a gradual progression is taking place, a progression by which, eventually, the only religious people left standing will be the most staunch, most dogmatic, most impervious to reason people out there.

And where will the religious "extremists" fit into all of this? It's a no brainer---they'll comfortably fit in right along side the above-mentioned people. What we'll be staring at are the dregs of religion, and I contend that it should be cause for concern. Who will be left to combat this highly foreseeable problem? Who? Will it be the apathetic atheists who hold to weak atheism? Will it be the passive, non-vocal agnostics? Hmmm....    

Ho, Ho, Ho....

Making the rounds again, I encountered a recent post where a Christian blogger attempts to encapsulate the position of former-believers-turned-Atheists, concluding that it "doesn't make sense".

They write...

I too have been having dialogues with atheists, many claiming to have been saved and now being abandoned by a God who doesn’t exist….yeah I know it doesn’t make sense to me either.

Okay, seriously, what in the heck is so difficult about the concept of changing one's mind??? Someone tell me.

Take the following proclamation: "I used to believe in Santa Claus, now I no longer believe."

Well? Can any grownup keep a straight face and tell me that they are actually stumped by that statement? Is anyone saying to themselves, "Hey, that just doesn't make sense!!"????

I seriously hope not. But just in case, let's back up and start from the beginning:

Once upon a time when I was wee-little child, my parents told me a story about a fat, bearded man in a red suit who went around in a reindeer-powered sleigh, leaving all sorts of wonderful toys for the children who behaved. The children who didn't behave wouldn't get any toys. To convince me that this story was true, one December 24th a long time ago when my brother and I had gone to bed for the night, my parents wrapped toys that they had purchased and stuck them under a tree that my mom had decorated. They also stuffed the two stockings that were hung on the mantel. When my brother and I woke up the next day, we were like, "Wow! This is awesome"[or a reaction very similar]

The "clues" had convinced my brother and me that Santa Claus was in fact real. We believed it with every fiber of our being. 

For years, each time December rolled around, this went on. My mom would even get clever and put out cookies and milk for Santa, and lo and behold, when we'd wake up, the cookies and milk would be gone
and trail of cookie crumbs would lead straight to where else? Yes!... the chimney! Wow! I mean, what else could it be, right?

Wrong. See, these are the signs that had me, and millions more children too young to think for themselves, fooled into believing that Santa really existed and that he watches our every move.

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________



Fast foreword into adulthood and we recognize that the sane and intelligent among us know that Santa has no referent in reality. Santa doesn't exist. We know this. Being the gullible children that we were, we had been duped.

But who, here, would take serious the person who said, "Well, I've been having some dialogues with people, many claiming to have received toys in their stockings, but who now claim that they've been overlooked by a Santa that they no longer believe exists. Yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense to me, either"

Okay, let's get real, can we? Would you not think that the person who utters such things was slightly off his or her rocker?

It's a simple concept: There was once a time that we believed that Santa existed, and now we no longer do. We changed our minds on the proposition that Santa exists, similar to how former believers in "God" changed their minds on the proposition that "God" exists.

In the same way that I don't believe that Santa "abandoned" me, I don't feel that God "abandoned" me, albeit, at the time that I still believed that there was a "God" actually there, yes, I felt "abandoned".

Well, those feelings were misguided and built upon incomplete information. The "feelings" were real, yes; the basis of those "feelings" was not real.

Why don't Christians "get" this? By their "logic", an ex-wife was never really married, to which I can only say, 'Ho, Ho, Ho!'.

Two Cakes

I've been occasionally peering in on the whole "Bruce"/"Caitlyn" internet saga. The way I see it, the "guy" just doesn't feel comfortable as a man; "she" feels comfortable as a woman. Whatever. Do I find it a tad bizarre? Yeah, I do. But we can observe things waaay more bizarre than that in the human species. Let's see, there's people born with two heads, and in rare cases, they actually survive and share a body. There's babies born with no brain, only a brain stem. And list goes on. (I'll come back to this in a minute).

I see Christians chiming in on the "Bruce"/Caitlyn" debate, saying that "God doesn't make mistakes", yadda, yadda, their reasoning of course being that Caitlyn was born a man(Bruce), so becoming a woman is/was therefore a "sin" and goes against what God intended. In other words, God just wouldn't make a mistake as heinous as putting a woman in a man's body. While they say they aren't judging and are only passing along God's perspective on it(never mind that they can never seem to agree on what that perspective is), what I contend is that, um, yeah, most of them are judging, but most revealing, they are wanting their cake and to eat it, too. In other words, time and time again the Christian "solution" is to make two cakes.

Caitlyn does not feel comfortable in her own skin(as the male gender) and never has, and Christians just cannot (refuse to?) wrap their minds around it. They go on about how God doesn't make mistakes, but when they do this, they clearly want things both ways.

Well, folks, something must give---that is, either, a)  God doesn't make mistakes, and therefore, two-headed people, conjoined twins, anephecalic babies, people born with extra limbs, people born with extra chromosomes, transgendered people, and everyone else and all in between, are "perfect" and precisely the way that God intended them, or b) God makes mistakes(a crap-load of them), and therefore isn't "perfect", in which case, he's not worthy of the title "God", and certainly not worthy of my worship or admiration.

Look, if it's "okay" for conjoined twins to feel as though they were born in the "wrong body" and to choose to be surgically separated, then it should be "okay" for people who identify as transgender to feel that they were born in the "wrong body", and thus, choose to be "separated" from that old gender. 'Thoughts?

Illuminating Truth

On a social networking site, the news feed is blowin' up over the whole Bruce Jenner "change" controversy.

Anyhow, I stumbled upon a blog called, "Illuminating Truth", on which the owner/operator authored a recent post, titled: "Bruce Jenner is Not a Hero"

The young female author writes...

 Today, Bruce Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, dressed as a woman and introducing himself to the world as “Caitlyn Jenner.” You see, he has decided that he is a woman and that by saying it and probably some very extensive surgery, he can make it so. In today’s world, we think gender is something we get to choose, like our career path or our clothes. So, people across the nation have lauded him as a hero. Certainly, this is the current opinion of the masses, but I have to say it. The emperor has no clothes and Bruce Jenner is not a woman.

Now, I don't care to dive into the whole sex vs gender debate or whether or not one can choose such things. No. I want to touch on something else I read, which was in the comments.

The author, who also appears to be a young female, writes:

Just to address something you said, Christians aren’t called to tolerate and accept sin. Yes, we are called to unconditionally love everyone. BUT that means sharing the truth of the Gospel, which means telling people they are sinful and in need of Christ. We don’t believe we’re better than anyone, because we are just as broken and sinful as everyone else. But we’ve tasted and seen the goodness of God and want to share this eternal hope with everyone. We know the way of redemption and are we really loving people if we’re not being completely honest with them? I’m willing to step on a few toes if it means God can save a few souls.

So, this little mini-sermon is just another prime example of why religious indoctrination needs to be stamped out. Here we have a young girl, who, as best as I can tell, is in her early to mid-teens, and she is telling me and the rest of world how we are "sinful" and "in need of Christ". If anyone were to ask her how she would know such a thing, dollars to doughnuts, she would say, "because that's what the Gospel says!". She goes on to say that she, like the rest of her brothers and sisters in Christ, have "tasted and seen the goodness of God", and how she wants to, "share this eternal hope with everyone".

Well, no. What she wants to share is the beliefs that she was force-fed for most of her young life, which in all likelihood, started when she was in diapers. What we're talking about here is some good ol' fashioned religious indoctrination. Part of that indoctrination process, an integral part - in fact, a part so integral that the Christian meme would not survive without it - is the belief that if they don't show others this supposed "Truth" of theirs, aka, spreading "The Word", that this somehow means they aren't being loving.

Well, young lady, it might begin to look loving if you could actually demonstrate that what you believe has a referent in reality. But as it stands, it just makes you look like a little self-righteous bigoted robot, repeating what your parents and Sunday school teacher taught you. I need that kind of "love" like I need four flat tires. In fact, until/unless you or any other Christian can provide some compelling, extra-biblical evidence that I am in need of "saving", your "good news" would be on equal ground with a scenario in which I saw you walking down the sidewalk, and like a linebacker, and I came running up behind you and shoved you into a wall. And when you ask, "Hey!?...why'd you do that?", I would answer, "Because!... there's an evil imp driving a big invisible bus around town, and he just about ran you over! I saved you because I love you!"

Argument from False Analogy

When theists and non-theists discuss/debate, it is common for them to use analogy in an attempt to better understand each other's position. An analogy is an inductive type of argument, so, while analogies don't prove anything(nor are they meant to prove anything), they can be very helpful in demonstrating to others what we believe to be true, and why.

In my last post about Calvinism and how I entered into a discussion with a Calvinist blogger, the conversation that was taking place on this person's blog came to a swift end with little to no common ground being achieved. Of course, this isn't entirely shocking, because when dealing with *people who have convictions, specifically, religious and/or spiritual convictions, the chances that we will change their minds are practically zilch.

*people will invariably say, "Gee, boomslang, it seems like you have a conviction, too". Well, I can sort of understand why they might think that, but ultimately, I don't fit that description, because I spent 2/3rds of my life on the other side. So, in other words, I changed my mind once, and I'll do it again under the right conditions. And yes, it was peering in on discussions just like these that changed my mind.


A lot of times when we blog and we feel that we've reach a dead end in certain discussions, we may start a new post in an attempt to encapsulate and/or recap our positions. Well, this is precisely what the aforementioned blogger has done, here:

http://susanflutterbys.blogspot.com/2015/06/gods-timing-and-gods-will-vs-mans-will.html


In a brand new post, this woman, henceforth, Susan, has attempted to re-address the contentions I raised regarding the internal contradiction between an omniscient God who knows the future, and a merciful God who, in the Calvinist's case, has something called "Irresistible Grace".

Susan writes....

The Bible likens the believer's relationship to a child and a Father. A child can demand all kinds of things at every whim or fancy, but does that obligate the father to give in to the child at that moment of the request? 

The short answer is "no", the father is not required to give into the child's every demand.

Now, with that out of the way, Susan's use of analogy is inapt. Her analogy is incongruent with her faith; it doesn't coincide with the (supposed) relationship between man and God as described in the bible. It's not analogous. It just isn't.

In order for Susan's analogy to be truly analogous, the child in her analogy would have to be in grave danger of some sort. {This grave danger would represent the biblical "hell"}

Next, the father in Susan's analogy would have to know that the child is in grave danger, and further, this father would have to refuse to act, and I reiterate, REFUSE TO ACT on the child's behalf until/unless the child asks to be saved from the grave danger. {This would represent how the biblical God sits hidden in the clouds with arms folded, knowing that his (supposed) children are in grave danger of being tossed into a "lake of fire"}

Now, the sane and compassionate among us know that it is absolutely, positively never okay to sit idly by when our children are in grave danger. Yes, we occasionally teach our children lessons by letting them make their own mistakes, but no parent knowingly lets their child make the mistake of doing something that will get them burned alive. No parent sits back and smugly says, "I might save you, or I might not, but if I do, it will be on my own time!"

It is for these very reasons that I contend that each and every one of you, including Susan, are a better parent(or would make a better parent) than the God described in Bible, the very God that Susan attempts to defend with her "father/son" analogy.

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________


Moving on to "God's Timing", etc., Susan attempts to reconcile a God who acts in time(His own time, according to her), and a God who, by a process known as "election", picks and chooses who he will save and who he will not, and this has also failed. Remember, Susan's God has already determined who he will save and who he will let suffer in "Hell", and according to Susan's Calvinist faith, this election process took place before time ever existed, described by John Calvin himself as, before the foundation of the world.

 Did you catch that? Before the foundation of the world.

So, right this second as you are reading this, the God that Susan worships knows who he has elected and who he has not elected. He knows who's bound for "Heaven" and who's bound for "Hell". He KNOWS.

Thus, for those of us who actually value things like reason and logic, we know that Susan's version of God, a God who has a knowledge of the future, carries some very serious implications. One of the more obvious implications is that God cannot change his mind. No amount of "irresistible grace" is going to matter if God has already decided that I'll die an Atheist.

Thus, when Susan ministers to her readership about how God does things on his own time, etc., etc., it directly contradicts her Calvinist faith.

Let's have a look at John Calvin's own words:

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."  

So, there it is in unambiguous, crystal clear language.

Susan?

More damning:

It is categorically stated by the principle founder and developer of Christian Theology, later, Calvinism, that it is God's Will that some people be created for the sole purpose of an eternal existence of hell fire and damnation. Preordained death.

I really have to ask how people like Susan sleep at night. But alas, that's what religious faith is for----it allows us to believe what we know deep down isn't true.

Under the Microscope: Calvinism

In my previous post, I talked about how I was apprehensive about posting a comment on a blog owned and operated by a Christian apologist, specifically, a Calvinist. This apprehension was due, in part, to having encountered her comment policy and disclaimer, but also, because of a few brushes I've had with her on another blog that I frequent. Or to be more precise, a place where I (and others) have dismantled her Calvinist arguments and challenged her on her various mini-lectures, most of which, at the end of the day, can be filed under bare assertion fallacies.

Bare assertion fallacy: When a premise is introduced as a conclusion without substantiation.

Ref:: https://logfall.wordpress.com/

Now, this woman's repertoire is not limited to assertion fallacies, mind you. No. Also common, are ad hominem, begging the question, and strawman fallacies. An example would be when she arrogantly asserts that any person who loses their "faith" was never really saved to begin with. Another would be that, to her, any non-believer has "rejected God", by proxy.

 It is these sad and inane sorts of arguments that I will deal with in this post. Why? Well, because as I've said many times, the religious, too many times, use their religion as a "license" to, a)  be insensitive, judgmental jerks, and b) claim to know what they cannot possibly know.

While I never got around to commenting on her post entitled, "The Problem with Atheists", I did attempt a comment on a post titled "Another Post on Hell":

 http://susanflutterbys.blogspot.com/2015/03/another-post-on-hell.html

Just as I suspected, my comment was not permitted to go through. Ooo, shocker. And that's funny, because I thought "the Truth" had nothing to hide(?) But evidently, it does.

UPDATE:  The blogger in question eventually responded. My new responses were allowed to go through, but she has since closed comments

Below is an earlier excerpt of my conversation with her. 

The red type is her engaging another blogger:

I guess that is the most revealing part to me that you never were saved ~ Susan Z.

My response: "So, in other words, once saved, always saved, is essentially what you're saying(on top of claiming to know people's experiences and intentions better than they do)

If I'm understanding correctly(and I'm confident you'll correct me where I'm wrong), 'God' elects someone as 'His' by no will of their own, aka, 'saving' them, and once that happens, 'saved' is the way they'll stay until their last, dying breath.

If I'm right so far, feel free to explain to me and your readership exactly where 'free will' comes in after the point of election. As it stands, once elected, one presumably cannot do anything to change that by any will of their own. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a 'robot'. But again, perhaps you have an explanation that I haven't heard yet."

There is still time ~ Susan Z.

My response:  "Still time? For what? What can [fellow deconvert] or any other 'unsaved' person do if it all boils down to who 'God' elected(past tense, because this election process presumably took place before 'creation')???"


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now, before I go a step further, I feel it's imperative that I point out that people of religions besides Christianity, and yes, even non-religion, can be things like insensitive and judgmental. But here's the rub: As an Atheist, I don't have the luxury of pointing to any mandates or invisible, supreme beings in an attempt to affirm or objectify my actions, attitude, or position. No, all I have is my sense of reason. Without that, I have nothing. "Faith"? That is an intellectual cop-out.

So, moving on.....

In Calvinism, which, in my opinion is the most despicable of all the upwards of 33, 000 denominations/split-offs of the Christian faith, proponents invariably want to have things both ways. That is, in one breath, they'll insist that the elect are predetermined, and in which case, they did nothing to earn this status. In the same process, this obviously leaves a balance of all those (supposedly) bound for "hell".

Again, this ratio of elect to non-elect was determined before "creation"...before the foundation of the world. And what are the implications? There's a few of them. Firstly, it means that if Calvinists are "right", then the "God" they worship and revere could have created a world inhabited with only those he elected, and not brought into existence those bound for "hell". But he didn't do that. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the Calvinist version of "God" brought countless millions into existence just to toss them into a "lake of fire"(See, "double predestination")

 Thus, the Calvinist version of "God" is an immoral, jerk-wad.('good thing there's not one scrap of objective evidence for such a being)

Secondly, if Calvinists are "right" - and this is what Calvinists like Susan Z will tell you - those who stray from the faith were never really "saved".

In other words, they weren't elected to begin with.

Okay, why do these people, in the next breath, tell those who deconvert, things like, "There's still time", when things have already been predetermined/when election has already taken place, and in which case, the implication is that the election process isn't reversible?

Well? Hello? Again I ask... "time" for what, exactly? Susan? Dr. Craig? "God"? "Jesus"? Anyone?

Remember, the Calvinist' "God" already knows which people he elected and which he did not. Do these *non-thinking disciples of John Calvin actually think that their "God" doesn't already know who will die an Atheist and who will die a Calvinist??? If, at the exact time that you finish reading this sentence, the Calvinist' "God" has prescience(foreknowledge) that I will die an "Atheist", then the time between now and then doesn't mean jack-squat. It's immaterial. My "free will" is an illusion at best, a lie at worst.

 So, if you're a Calvinist and you value logic, don't tell us "there's still time!". And if you tell us anyway, then fine, I guess you're going to have to not mind looking like a **an imbecile.

Disclaimer: Here*, and here**, I've used ad hominem. Truth be told, I find it extremely difficult to not use ad hominem with the Susan Z's of the world, who, BTW, aren't limited to just the Christian philosophy. Notwithstanding, an "ad hominem" is when you attack a person's character instead of addressing their argument. It should be clear that I have not done that. I have thoroughly pointed out the contradictory tenets of Susan Z's worldview. Moreover, while she censors her comments, I do not. She can come right in here and defend her position and/or offer a perspective I've not considered. In fact, I welcome it. The last thing I want to do is sit here and defend my errors. 

The Problem with Atheists...

Bouncing around the blogs, I encountered a blog post titled, "The Problem with Atheists". The blog's owner/author is a female Christian apologist, who, by her own admission, is a Bible-literalist. In other words, she believes that the Bible is the literal, infallible "Word of God", despite the mounds of observable evidence that, no, it is chock-full of inconsistencies and heinous scientific blunders, and therefore, cannot be the words of any all-perfect, all-loving "God". But that part is for another discussion.

Anyway, while I may get around to posting a response on the above-mentioned blog, I want to post my response here, first, since I'm nearly certain that I will encounter comment moderation there, especially after having read her comment policy/disclaimer, which closes with the following:

However the bottom line to remember is that this is my blog, not yours. You can say and do as you like, and I have the prerogative to remove it if it doesn't meet up to my standards. And also remember that if your comment is really ridiculous, I might just leave it up for everyone to see the proof that you really are that stupid.

Hmmm, I wonder how she defines "really ridiculous". For some reason, I get the impression that it means... anything that disagrees with me. In any case, my response will be here, and I'll let others judge whether or not it's ridiculous.

The author writes....

Interestingly the topic of what atheists believe and think are explored in this story and the hero of this story struggles with these amoral people from the context of his Russian Orthodox beliefs.

It's ironic that the charge is that atheists are "amoral"..i.e..neither moral, nor immoral, because, interestingly, I contend that that's precisely what theists are. Yes, theists are the ones who are amoral in all of this. That is, when faced with having to decide between "right" and "wrong", they make no moral judgement(s), whatsoever, but instead, they merely (claim to) obey what "God" has (supposedly) told them.

Okay, that's not being "moral"(or immoral), that's merely obeying(or disobeying). Think about it. When a toddler steals daddy's letter opener off the coffee table and starts playing with it and daddy says, "No! Don't touch!", are we really to believe that the child has made a moral judgment? Is the child being "moral" if it obeys?(or "immoral" if it disobeys?). Again, that is a simplistic analogy, but I think it makes the point rather well. I can sort of see where one might be prompted to say that it's not analogous because "adults should know better"(whereas toddlers do not), but that won't fly, because if adults know better, then they don't need to be commanded to do the "right" thing in the first place.

This quote nails it:

Morality is doing what is right no matter what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told no matter what is right.

That theists don't "get" this isn't a problem for atheists, it's a problem for theists.

The Impossible Game

When I was a believer, one of the things that I wrestled with the most was this idea that the most supremely intelligent being in all of existence, AKA, "God", would expect its crowning jewel creation(i.e..you and me), to search for and accept "Truth" in the manner as laid out in this video by Theramin Trees.....

Let's face it, he's spot-on, and after having watched this short, one minute and fifteen second video, it becomes even more apparent to me that such an idea is plain ludicrous. "Faith", as a means to acquire knowledge, is an intellectual cop-out. It really is. Add to that, the plain, observable fact that most believers end up believing/accepting the "Truth" that's prevalent in the region in which they are born and raised...e.g...in the West, Christianity; in the Middle East, Islam; in the Far East, Buddhism, etc., it very quickly becomes a no-brainer: All religions are man-made.  

 

Missing the Point(or ignoring the big picture) Part II

It's been brought to my attention that it seems as though I'm attempting to hold the peaceful and harmless of those of the Christian community, the Muslim community, the New Age community, and possibly other schools of thought, at least partially responsible for the actions of the extremists around the world.

So, I should be clear: Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying, except that I'd add that it's the method by which these people hold their beliefs, not necessarily their actions, that facilitates the actions of the extremists. The method to which I refer, again, is "faith".

If person X believes that the "creator of the universe" wants them to do A, B, and C, but they cannot demonstrate this belief, then that belief is an article of faith. It's problematic because person Y can then look at that and say, "Oh, yeah? Well, my Creator wants me to do D, E, F and G!". Neither can prove the other wrong.

This is especially troubling when these people insist that sometimes the "creator of the universe" wants people to do despicably horrible things for "good" reasons, commonly and affectionately referred to doing it for "The Glory" of said creator.

This dynamic, I contend, takes place in other areas of  life. For instance, if person Z goes through life believing that disease can be healed by a "shift in consciousness", then we can expect to see self-professed healers and gurus going around propagating that notion, not only cashing in off of those who are ill and desperate to be cured, but putting lives at risk in the process.

Case-in-point: Like it or not, beliefs have consequences. This much is beyond argument.  

Missing the Point(or ignoring the big picture)

So, it's true, praying and having faith in Christ doesn't make a person an extremist anymore than having a gun makes a person a murderer. Owning a copy of John Edward's "One Last Time" doesn't make a person a charlatan. Being a Muslim doesn't make a person a suicide bomber. Being a scientologist doesn't make a person a fruitcake, and so on, and so on.

Notwithstanding, there's the big picture to consider, and this big picture continually gets ignored. There are some not-so-subtle implications for being a Christian, a Muslim, a New Ager, a member of the Church of Scientology, and more. For instance, while it's true that having faith in Christ/Jesus/God doesn't make one an extremist, the belief, itself, most certainly gives extremists a leg to stand on. The belief that our deceased relatives are alive and well enables charlatans like John Edwards and James Van Praagh. The freedom to own a gun makes a deranged killer's job easier. The belief that Muhammad was Allah's prophet is used by terrorists as license to kill non-Muslims.

There is no slippery slope, here. All of the above is demonstrably true. Unfalsifiable beliefs, specifically, those held on "faith", make the world we live in a more dangerous place than it needs to be. To say, 'Yeah, but I'm not like them!' misses the point.

If you are a liberal Christian, you might very well be the furthest thing from an extremist that there is, and for that I thank you. However, at the end of the day you must accept the fact that the wack-job extremists use the same "faith" that you use to defend, excuse, and justify their extremist actions. They, like you, use "prayer" to get the thumbs-up from "God". Think about it.

  

Miracle Baby!

Earthquakes, which, incidentally, have been occurring long before certain holy texts predicted they'd occur, are perhaps one of the most devastating of all natural disasters. As most people with access to the modern world probably know, there was an earthquake in Nepal, located in South Asia. Well, long story short, among the survivors was a baby(pictured to the right)



Rescuers were commenting on how it's uncommon for there to be survivors after 72 hours. 'Not unheard of, but uncommon. In any event, on a certain social networking site Facebook I was noticing Christians commenting in my news feed, saying how it's a "miracle from God"(and phrased various other ways, too).

Arg...::sigh::

Now, of course, I'm happy that there were survivors, whether likely, or unlikely. Where happiness turns into frustration is when certain people completely ignore the fact that upwards of 7000 people had to die in order for this supposed "God" to work this supposed "miracle". Moreover, when we consider that the same "God" who presumably worked this "miracle" could have just prevented the earthquake to begin with, it becomes all the more *head desk* evoking. And then of course, if "God" really wanted to prove its existence via a "miracle", could he have not seen to it that not one person perished? Now that would give cause to believe that something miraculous had taken place, given that history shows that earthquakes as big as this one always have a high death toll.

But noooo. Nope....forget about it. Mysteriously, the results are always what we'd expect to see if there was no "God" in the mix. IOW, just like all big natural disasters, we'd expect to see a few lucky people among the gaggles of very unlucky people. It's a pity, and in more ways than one.

Lunch........... with a Twist

Usually I don't talk about personal matters on here, or anywhere, really, because I am a very private person.  However, sometimes I'll make exceptions depending on the topic.

So, the man who raised me..i.e..the person I called "Dad" is deceased. The guy who fathered me is alive, and while we have lived in the same town for several decades, we see each other roughly 2-3 times a year, max. The reasons for this sparse interaction are many, but mostly it's an issue of time and lack of a father/son bond(again, he didn't raise me).

I'm nearly certain that in previous posts from years ago I mentioned that my bio-father's side of the family is devout Christian. If I didn't mention it, I'm mentioning it now. IOW, I have gaggles of uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, all of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are of the Christian faith.

Anyway, a few weeks back I met with my bio-father and his wife(yes, they have names, but I'm respecting their privacy) at a local bar and grille. Let me say straight away that these are good, nice, down-to-earth people, albeit, I'm not what you could call very close to either of them. It's a work in progress.

Anyway, the topic around these lunches usually centers around the things that he and his wife are into, which is mostly the stuff he repairs and/or the various domestic projects he takes on. They also own a cabin in the mountains, and he recently built a fence around the property. His wife had pics' on her phone and she showed me his work. Suffice it to say that he's a very creative individual, especially when it comes to trouble-shooting.

As for me, they inquired about my musical endeavors and what I do to occupy my time. When the subject of music comes up, I usually find myself giving a crash course on the music industry and why playing music, alone, just doesn't sustain me(or 99% of musicians out there, for that matter). Part most of the reason for this is illegal downloading. But this is for another discussion.

This might come as a shock, but I do everything in my power to avoid the topic of religion or politics. Why? Because I know I won't be able to bite my tongue if I sense that some good 'ol fashioned evangelizing is about to come my way. As I've said before, I don't particularly care that there are cultural Christians out there. Where I do begin to care, however, is when/if said Christians attempt to lure me back into the fold. Think of a scenario of a guy who goes waltzing into an AA meeting and says, "Have you tried Miller Lite, yet?".

Now, of course I know that any Christian readers would likely say(or think), "Yeah, but that's different because your eternal soul is as stake!". So, yes, I know that they believe this, but at the end of the day they cannot demonstrate this in any meaningful way, and I'm sorry to have to report that my bio-father was no exception. I love the guy, and all, but his apologetics fell flat.

So, how did we end up on the topic of religion? When our waitress dropped off the bill, I ask my bio-father if he had change for a ten dollar bill. He handed me two fives. I stuck one of them in my pocket, and dropped the other on the table(yes, only 15% that day because our service was quite bad). He looked at me funny and asked if I noticed anything different about the money. I didn't bring my readers, so I picked up the bill and noticed that something was stamped on the face of Abraham Lincoln. Upon closer inspection, I could make out:

YOU ARE FORGIVEN

ACCEPT CHRIST

FOR ETERNAL LIFE

I immediately took the other five out of my pocket and checked it, and sure enough, it had the same stamp on it! Eee-gads!

At that point - and taking the affectionate smirk on my bio-father's face into consideration - I knew what was up and what was about to go down. My biological father actually had a stamp made that says "YOU ARE FORGIVEN. ACCEPT CHRIST FOR ETERNAL LIVE", and he evangelizes by stamping bills and sending them out into circulation. Can anyone guess my first question to him? It had something to do with the mentioned passage. I'm sure a few of my fellow non-believers will guess it. It's this: "So, are non-believers forgiven, too?"

Paraphrased from memory, the (roughly hour and a half) conversation continued ...

"Yes....everyone!....everyone is forgiven"

Me: "So? Then what's the problem?"

(laughs)

Him: "There is no problem!"

Me: "Then why the need to stamp money with this message?"

At this point, he went into some of the central tenets of the Christian faith...e.g..."sin", "the devil rebelled", "Jesus died on the cross", "the bible says", etc., etc. IOW, preaching to the choir, telling me all of the things I was taught as child and young adult, all of the things which, as an adult, I now reject because it just doesn't stand up to reason.

We covered all topics..e.g. "sin"(and how one or two people making a one-time poor decision that adversely affects other people, spits into the face of personal accountability). We discussed "mercy"(and how God cannot be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just). We discussed "Salvation"(and how substitutionary atonement makes a mockery of "justice"). We discussed "faith"(and how "faith" and "trust" are not necessarily interchangeable, including how the latter of which is built upon a proven track record). We discussed "evil"(and how it's not necessary for "free will" if there can be no "evil" in "Heaven", but yet, there can be "free will")

All of his apologetics that day were met with calmly delivered counter-arguments, none of which he seemed to be able refute. But perhaps the most disturbing thing to me was when I asked him how he could be happy in "Heaven" knowing that his own flesh and blood was being eternally tormented. He sat quietly for a few seconds and offered, "Heaven will be like starting over".

Me: "Oh? What about J***?"[i.e..his wife and mother of my half sisters, sitting silently next to him]

Him: "Well, yes.....I'll remember her."

Me: "So, what you're saying is that it's not really like starting over. It's just that God will erase your memory of nonbelievers, including me. Right?"

Him: "Yeah"

The Higher Source is You

K.O.

Isn't that the truth? What this meme seems to be talking about are those individuals who are quick to create situations or circumstances that give them immediate benefits and/or satisfaction in life, while never once considering that, in the long run, they could be affected adversely by the very situation or circumstance that they created in the first place. They create a "storm", and then when it "rains" on them, they get all bent out of shape and shell-shocked. I'd venture to say that every one of us knows the type.

But what makes this sort of situation even more frustrating is when we try to admonish the person to think about what they're actually doing or about to do, but they pay us no mind. In situations where risks are taken, the person might even point out how we're too calculated, too boring, or maybe some other pejorative label, which, in all likelihood, is just an attempt to put them above us and make what they're doing seem "okay". Most of us see right through this. I know I do.

The dynamics here can apply to a variety of things in life. For instance, when it comes to lifestyle, you may encounter a person who hasn't the slightest respect for money, so subsequently, maybe they are unable unwilling to budget money, spending every penny they take in on a lavish lifestyle that they've somehow come to believe they're owed. Throw in some recreational drugs, some booze, some open relationships, and some weekend getaways, and you've got a massive storm brewing on the radar. Point this out to them? Well, watch how fast you're called "negative" or "pessimistic".

But alas, whether you point it out, or whether you sit back silently and watch it all unfold, the "storm" eventually hits. For the weekend warrior, they have to fund all of this, right? Yes. And then there's this: What are they teaching the people closest to them..e.g..friends and family? Spouses? Children? If one doesn't respect money, health, sex, or other things that most people hold sacred, then what message is that sending? Here's something that's probably not ever occurred to these people: You teach the people around you what's important to you(or what's not).

When living a precarious lifestyle backfires, someone's bound to get hurt, and we shouldn't be too shocked when it's the person who created the conditions under which they got rained on. Yet, what we often see is that it's these very same people crying the blues after hitting rock bottom, and more perplexing, blaming everyone else around them. Look, if one sexual partner is a bore, then fine, sleep with multiple partners, share wives, make stag flicks...have a heyday. But don't complain if your partner strays and/or if you or they come down an STD.  

Seriously, if Jim Morrison is your role model and John Holmes is your idol, again, fine, but remember...........they're dead.

God is Love(or a refreshing snow cone on a hot summer's day)

It popped up again, just like it does from time to time. Every now and again you will hear or read the slogan, "God is love!".

Okay, so what does that even mean? It seems to me that we'd first have to define/explain what we mean by "God" for such a proclamation to have any meaning. For sake of discussion - and since Christianity is predominately the religion and "God" of choice here in the US - let's say that "God" is the central character described in the Holy Bible.

Okay, done.

Now let's take the word "described". We generally give a description of something (or someone) when trying to explain the appearance and/or characteristics of that something (or someone) in situations where that something (or someone) is not readily available to observe for one's self.

What I'm getting at is this: We cannot directly observe the characters mentioned in the Bible, so all we have to go on are descriptions jotted down by the Bible's redactors.

2000 years ago.

Translated multiple times.

Moving on....

So, essentially, we have to rely on the second-hand testimony of dead eyewitnesses for accurate descriptions of what "God" is. This wouldn't be so bad if we weren't faced with having to read descriptions of a deity who, one minute, shows love, but the next minute he shows revenge, jealousy, hate, and a few other not-so-admirable characteristics.

What we get are descriptions of a "God" who gives good advice at times, but then other times, we see this same "God" giving some really crappy advice.

So? How do we handle this? There's a couple of different ways. One's first inclination might be to simply embrace the times that the Bible's central character is described as a loving "God", and then ignore, write-off , or "spin" the times that he's hateful, vengeful, jealous, a hair-trigger, petty.....in other words, not loving at all.

Simple enough, I suppose, but let's get real here, can we? Seriously, can anyone keep a straight face and tell me that this is how they've come to determine that "God is love"???? Is that being honest? Or is it simply a case of determining, a priori, what "love" means, then filtering the Bible's descriptions of "God" through that determination in order to decide what holds up, and what doesn't????? I contend that it's the latter.

So, if we take that route, we see something very interesting happening, that is, we see that "God" is simply anything and everything that we find wonderful or fulfilling. That's really the long and short of it. Yup, we could say, "See that fluffy kitty? That's God!!"..or..."God is a refreshing snow cone on a hot summer's day!"

Bottom line: "God" is self projection. That's it, in a nutshell, and it also coincides with the fact that, curiously, "God" seems to agree with every believer's views of the way things should be, and yet, no two believer's views are quite the same. Red flag much?

And then there's another way to approach the Bible's descriptions of  "God": Simply consider that, at face-value, the "God" described in the Bible is just not a very good example of what we've come to believe "love" is. Is a "God" who drowns women, children, and innocent animals an example of "love"? Is burning witches "love"? Is dashing children's heads against rocks "love"? Is punishing people by way of burning them alive an example of "love"? If we are honest (and sane), we must answer "no", and the reason we know the answer is "no" is because of this:  "God" is not "love"; LOVE is love.

The Spark Went Out

For going on 15 years now, I've been outspoken on the blogosphere. Admittedly, much of the time spent blogging is/was dedicated to my advocating a certain sphere of thought, and that is one of  humanity before religion, reason before faith, evidence before feelings, and for today, it will be science before pseudoscience.

Recently there's been another victim at the hands of pseudoscience being peddled as science, or more precisely, someone is dead because of alternative medicine being peddled as modern, real medicine. A young woman who was very popular with the alternative medicine camp has succumbed to a rare form of cancer after a 7 year battle. She was just 30 years old. Actually, the way it was described by her and her league of online supporters, many of whom, BTW, are students of this woman's former school of thought, is that she "thrived with cancer", ever since her diagnosis in her early 20s until her death. Her name was Jess Ainscough, AKA, "The Wellness Warrior". You may have heard of her, but if not, you can do your own research if you please. For the purpose of this post, and mostly for brevity, I'm going to try to encapsulate the details based on the limited reading I've done on this young woman's life. In other words, this isn't so much about one person's fight with cancer, but more so, it's about the *big picture, which is this: The danger of opting for unproven medical alternatives over those actually proven to work.

To back up a bit, at around 22 yrs old, Jess Ainscough developed a rare form of cancer called Epitheloid Sarcoma . I should interject right now that her mother had died from terminal breast cancer, and the reason for this was because Jess' mother opted for alternative, natural treatments, in lieu of modern, conventional treatments, just like Jess did. The treatment that Jess and her mother used in an attempt to cure their own cancer was called Gerson Therapy, and this was the very same "therapy" that Jess peddled online, making multiple videos and even making personal appearances, appearances that mainly involved "how to" presentations and inspirational talks. This, in part, included instructions on vegan dieting, juicing, taking vitamins, and exercising. Jess charged $100 a head.

In other words, Jess would come to make a fairly lucrative living selling pseudoscience. Needless to say, she had a lot riding on this, so much so that she was forced to start lying after it started to become very clear that her "self-treatment" was failing. She would have go into hiding, in fact.  

The biggest hit came when Jess' mother's treatment didn't work, and she died. Now, Jess, who opted for, promoted, and even made a living selling her personalized "approach" to dealing with cancer..i.e..Gerson Therapy, is dead too. The Gerson Therapy, an unproven natural method of healing, failed these two woman, and now they're both dead. In Jess' case, her cancer doctors told her that her best chance of surviving her disease would be to amputate her left arm at the shoulder blade, because it was her left arm that was the origin of the cancer, which eventually progressed to open, bleeding wounds the size of a golf ball.

Jess opted out of the doctor's recommendations, deciding to take on her cancer herself. But here's the million dollar question:  Where did she get this idea that she could heal herself? She certainly didn't pull it out of thin air. So?... who told her that she and her mom could beat their own respective cancers with "natural healing" methods?

And alas, this is the problem, one that I contend will continue to needlessly claim lives until/unless something is done about those who continue to perpetuate and extol unproven medical methods, and in some cases, demonstrable false methods. It should be noted that in this particular case, Jess Ainscough started out right, seeking the advice of qualified, medically-trained oncologists. However, since she didn't like what she heard, she opted to take a chance rather than be disfigured the rest of her life. Well, she lost. Her "faith" in bad ideas did her in.

Leading up to the end of Jess' life, excuses we're eventually being made as to why her public appearances, her "how to" videos, and her blog posts, were becoming more and more sparse, when she seemingly vanished from the public eye entirely.

The next-saddest thing to a woman being struck down from cancer in the prime of her life - and this is perhaps the scariest part - is that her supporters still stand by her decisions, and it will only be a matter of time until similar life-decisions are made for the same reasons, yielding the same results. And when I say this, I don't mean that Jess' decision to treat her own cancer isn't or shouldn't be her own decision; I'm saying that, even in the face of evidence that something does not work, people still support it. It's sickening, really, and this is one of the most irresponsible, not to mention, deadly, schools of thought plaguing mankind today. At its face-value, it's barely less superstitious than the olden days when they thought that they were "healing" leprosy by smearing bird's blood on the patient.

In a twisted sort of way, Jess Ainscough is like a "martyr" for pseudoscience. That is, the impression given is that she'd have rather died than admit that her "faith" was misguided. And just as sad(and scary), her brethren in "woo" are right by her side.

The one who was seen as a "bright spark" is now dead. The spark went out.

RIP Jess Ainscough http://jessainscough.com/in-loving-memory/

*Disclaimer: I am not suggesting nor advocating that modern medicine is fail-safe, and anyone who attempts to counter anything I've said herein misses the big picture when/if he or she interjects that fact.

Consequentialism: FAIL

Because I am not one to back down at the first sign of disagreement, and/or, because I'm very direct in my approach, and/or, by sheer virtue that I'm an Agnostic Atheist, I am frequently accused of things like being a contrarian, "negative", a "know-it-all", "close-minded", "difficult", a big meanie, and most recently, I wasn't given the benefit of doubt when it came to something that most of us take for granted, such as, which personal attributes are noble to acquire and keep.

As one might guess, I contend that I am none of the above, and instead, I would chalk it up to the fact that I just have a low tolerance for bull$hit. It's more complex than that, of course; that was just in a nutshell. And what most likely led to this intolerance is the fact that I was fed bull$hit, even starting as early as prior to when I had theory of mind..i.e..2, 3, 4 yrs old.  Of course, I speak mainly of my indoctrination of Christianity by Christian relatives. From those early years until about my mid-30s, I wasted a good chunk of my life believing bull$hit was actually "good", and good was actually "bull$hit", or as one of my fellow bloggers puts it, "good is evil", and "evil is good"(thanks Alice)

See, Christianity and its Christians teach consequentialism, which holds that consequences for the way one acts are the basis for the judgement of those acts. IOW, "moral" and "immoral" depend on the consequences of an act. Welp, sorry, but no..... wait....not just "no", but hell, no(pun intended).

For starters, if one behaves in a certain way simply because they're commanded to do so, then they're neither being "moral" or "immoral"; they're merely obeying orders. And? You know the next question, right? It's this: How do you know that what you're being commanded to do is actually "moral"????? Answer: You filter the command through your own, innate sense of morality and common sense, that's how. If you're commanded to "love your neighbor", that's a no brainer, because you know damned-well that since you expect to be treated with respect, you can therefore safely conclude that you should do the same for your neighbor. What if your neighbor looks at your wife and thinks, "Dang, I'd like to hit that!"(assuming they tell you they just thought that)??? Should they be put to death? Did they just commit "adultery"??? Or wait.....what if your neighbor actually invites men into the bedroom? Is that which is technically "adultery", still immoral?

These questions require good answers, and I contend that religion and its "consequentialism" cannot provide such answers, and in fact, it can only provide the lousiest of answers.

In the last post I talked about instances where "black'n white" thinking is actually a good thing. Now I'm going to shift things around and talk about instances when such thinking is a bad thing. I contend that it is a bad thing to do something/refrain from something based solely on the respective reward/punishment. In doing so, you're not even acting as moral agent; you're simply acting out of fear and selfishness. And really, it goes beyond "good" Vs "evil", because with Divine Command Theory, there is no "good" or "evil"; there is only what "God" commands.

IOW, with DCT, rightness and wrongness instantly becomes a relative thing, and therefore, it isn't, and cannot be, the objective morality that believers claim that it is. If nothing prevents "God" from commanding something that we'd all agree is evil, then the problem becomes obvious. On the other hand, if something external prevents "God" from commanding something that we'd all agree is evil, then that very clearly illustrates that this "God" follows an external standard of "morality".

And then of course there's the fact that, since my becoming an Atheist - and subsequently, since I no longer believe in "Hell" - not once have I got the urge to ax murder anyone or eat any babies. So far, something besides a shallow threat is keeping me from doing all these vile things that Atheists supposedly are "free" to do. And if it's "written on my heart", that sort of flies in the face of "free will", doesn't it???

Like clockwork, it just doesn't add up.

User-Friendly

When we think of  "user-friendly", I'll wager that some of the words that come to mind for most of us are words such as "ergonomic", "convenient", "comfortable", and the like. In other words, we think easy-to-use.

Okay, let's take something like the driver's manual:

Operating a motorized vehicle is something that most every adult does at some point in their lives. But it's not quite as easy as it sounds, because if people got a hankerin' to go somewhere and they just hopped in the nearest car or truck and hit the gas, the intelligent among us know that this would prove to be a monumental disaster.

'Point being, we need rules and regulations in place if billions of people are going to be sharing the same roadways. For instance, if someone doesn't know what to do at a stop sign, it will only be a matter of time before someone gets T-boned, seriously injuring them, or possibly even resulting in death(s). Or, if someone doesn't know that driving while intoxicated is lethal and that it's therefore against the law to drink and drive, then someone's going to get hurt or killed. It's just a matter of time. And note, I'm not talking about whether or not laws are broken, here. They clearly are. There's no "debate" about that. I'm talking about consensus that DUI is breaking the law, and if you cannot understand that, your driving privilege is revoked.
 
So, it would seem that any manual or book that exists for the express purpose of delineating the "ins 'n outs" of driving would need to be concise, comprehensive, and thorough. Getting around is important, but public safety is more important. This, I contend, is one of the those instances where a "black 'n white" application is not only fine, but is completely necessary. We can't, on page 3, read that a complete halt should be made at all red, octagon-shaped signs with the letters "S T O P" on them, and then in chapter 7 read that we can circumnavigate that sign as long as it's on a Tuesday. If we read in chapter 11 that the laws don't apply to the law-makers, IOW, that the ones who make the laws don't have to follow them, we'd think something is totally screwy and amiss, and we could easily foresee HUGE problems.

That only makes sense, and speaking of which, if we can't agree that a book or manual as important as the driver's manual needs to make sense, then all discussion on the matter is utterly pointless. The idea of  "user-friendly" swiftly becomes disconbobulated mess. We instantly see that "intuition", while it can be useful at times, it has its limitations.

If all I've said makes sense so far, then let's proceed a bit more: What about something even more important than operating an automobile? What about, say, "spirituality", specifically, the religious claims of knowing what's important in life and how it will affect us in the next life? In Christianity, we see that it attempts to have a monopoly on such knowledge. If true, it is definitely more important that we understand the Christian philosophy than some measly ol' driver's manual.

So, by extension, there should be consensus that the Bible, which we are to believe is the most important, reliable source for learning about the Christian philosophy, be a user-friendly document and make complete sense. This is especially true and reasonable if we are to also believe that the Bible's redactors were inspired and overseen by the Bible's leading character, "Yahweh", aka, "God", a being that we are to believe is the most supremely intelligent entity in existence.

Well, a fellow blogger who also fairly recently deconverted from the faith wrote on the topic of  "healing", a topic that led to an exchange on "black'n white" thinking, and the defense of one of her Christian readership was that, since fallible man took the dictation, then the parts that don't make sense to us we can simply write-off as man getting "God" wrong. Conversely, the balance..i.e..whatever makes sense and resonates with us, we can safely conclude that man got "God" right. 

In other words, we were admonished to not read the Bible with a "black 'n white" mindset, and this reader further suggested that such thinking is "dangerous" in nearly every situation.

So, let's go back to the driver's manual for a second: Is it dangerous to read the driver's manual in "black'n white"? We've already established that, no, it's not only not dangerous, but if there's any real danger at all, it's to not read it in "black'n white". We don't get to pick and choose which rules of the road resonate with us, and throw out the rest. In other words, the danger, if any, is when we cherry pick the Bible or driver's manual, because any resultant interpretation is then indistinguishable from our own, subjective take on things. For instance, when it comes to the Bible and its claim to be an objective moral guide, what it boils down to is believers filtering the passages through their own innate sense of  "right" and "wrong", AKA, cherry picking. All believers do this.

There is evidently a thin line between "user-friendly" and recipe for disaster.              

Open Letter to Christians

This post is going to be kept short 'n sweet, getting right to the point:

Dear Christians,

As most of you know, a Jordanian pilot was recently burned alive. If you haven't seen the video, feel free to see the provided link at the bottom of the post. Once you do that, here's my question for you:

If it makes you cringe to watch a fellow human being be incinerated while still alive; if it's an unsettling feeling to watch a man scream in agony as his skin melts off of his face and drips to the ground, OR..if the video description alone is just too grotesque for you to watch it, then I'm curious, how are you okay with most of humanity suffering a similar fate, only worse, because they are not permitted to die and must suffer the agony 24/7, for all of eternity. Well? Anyone?



 http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips