Lead? Or Follow?

Over on Whatsoever Is Lovely, fellow blogger and fellow former Christian, Alice, authored a post in which she talks about being "Christlike". I think the gist of the topic can be encapsulated in the form of a good question that she raised, and that question was this:

"Can one be Christlike without even believing?" ~ Alice 

In order to answer that question, we'd have to first assume a few things, one of which, that being "Christlike" is actually a good thing.

So, okay, I'm willing to do that for sake of discussion. Let's say that following Christ and imitating his behavior is definitely a good thing. Done.

But wait, there's still a snag. How do we know what "good" even is? In other words, how do we know if another's actions are even worthy of imitation? If it's the case that we have an innate, preexisting sense of what "good" is - let's say, that which seeks to promote well-being and avoid unnecessary harm is "good" - then we don't even need to imitate anyone; we can just choose to do and be "good".

On the other hand - and as best as I can tell, the only alternative - if we rely solely on and/or put our trust/faith in the individual we intend to imitate/follow, then we've necessarily surrendered any innate sense of right or wrong; we've surrendered our innate sense of reason, etc., and at the end of the day, we're essentially just playing an adult version of follow the leader.

At this point, notice how the individual we intend to imitate/follow can feasibly do or say anything he (or she) darned-well chooses, and yes, this is even if it's things that we'd likely all agree would be monumentally idiotic if any of us did or said those things.

Now, if we actually look at some of the things that "Christ" said and did, it definitely shows the harm in opting for option 2, above. For example, it's frequently pointed out how noble and inspiring it is to love one's own enemies, per the Luke passage in the Bible. We should strive to love our enemies. We should strive to do good to those who hate us. If someone pops you in the face? Turn the other cheek, according to "Christ".

Okay, really? What if our enemy's mission in life is to see to it that we and our families be killed? What if I'm standing in line and someone cuts in front of me, and when I call them out, he or she slaps my face? Do I offer them my other cheek?

 As sane, reasonable people, we (should) know that ethics are situational, not absolute. We (should) also know that imitating someone who cannot or will not follow his or her own advice is a bad idea. And, well, the god of the Bible clearly cannot follow his own advice, nor can his son. In fact, if we're talking about "enemies", consider that biblegod's worst enemy seems to be the only individual who stays consistently within his character. But here is what I would like to know: Which Christian, if any, believes that God loves Satan? And if the idea of God loving Satan sounds preposterous, why then are we being asked to love our enemies? Does Jesus want me to "love" Satan, who's presumably my worst enemy???

In any case, to answer Alice's question, yes.....we can most certainly be "Christlike" without believing. But why would anyone need to be "Christlike", is the better question, especially when we can just choose to be good?

My Own Wisdom (and yours)

In my years as a bible-toting, church going Christian, I was taught things like how human reasoning is weak and unreliable, and that I can't even begin to solve life's most difficult problems..e.g...human suffering, human nature, etc., because, according to the bible, my own wisdom is "foolishness"(compared to God's wisdom).

In short, your and my wisdom is "worldly", and therefore, it is pretty much useless, according to the Christian philosophy. God's wisdom, on the other hand, is reliable, and therefore, our faith should be in God, not man.

So, just let that sink in a minute. Yes, let that sink in, and then think about when and where we use our own "wisdom", aka, our own reasoning and intellect, and then think about how and why we trust our own reasoning and intellect.

Done? Okay, now think about the frequency with which this "trust" happens throughout our daily lives.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I trust my own wisdom and reasoning because they actually work most of the time. Does my own wisdom let me down occasionally? Yes! Of course! But just because a function or process isn't perfect; just because a function or process isn't successful 100% of the time, that is no reason to scrap that function or process. Good grief, if we scrapped something just because it fail us occasionally, then no one would drive an automobile, because, oh, those things break down.

Speaking of cars, my own wisdom tells me that wearing a seat belt and following the rules of the road is the safe way to go. If the religious alternative is to have faith in God, why then do you suppose that believers wear seat belts if God is sovereign and in total control? Your fate, as a believer, is presumably in God's hands, right? Right, God has "a plan". Yes, you are to trust God's wisdom and the fact that he is "Sovereign", knows best, and that you are part of his perfect "plan"

So, two-part question: 1) why don't Christians use "prayer" exclusively when it comes to arriving safely at their next destination when traveling? And furthermore, 2) if unadulterated, everlasting eternal bliss is just a head-on crash away, then, well, what's the problem with not strapping in? Why adjust your review mirrors? Why check your tire pressure before a long trip?

• why lock your house when you leave?
• why go get doctor's checkups? 
• why go get teeth cleanings?
• why purchase home protection?
• why look both ways before crossing the road?
• why not give your SSN to the "IRS guy" on the phone?
• why throw the Watch Tower literature in the trash?(if you're not a Jehovah's Witness)
• why have a surge protector in case of a lightening strike?

• how do you know that planet earth doesn't sit on the back of an overgrown turtle?
• how do you know that Tom Cruise is deluded when it comes to Scientology?
• how do you know that Muhammad didn't really hop on a winged pony and fly off into the clouds?
• how do you know that Jack'n the Beanstalk isn't based on a true story?
• how do you know that large-footed community gorillas aren't traipsing around the North East?
• how do you know that Cleo doesn't really know the future? 

If you are a Christian, I contend that the answer to the above "why" set of questions is that you do not sincerely believe that God knows what's best for you. No, you don't sincerely believe that God is your "copilot", or at least, your actions do not coincide with that belief. Sure, just as I liked and agreed with "God's Plan" where it benefited me, the truth is, I questioned and second-guessed that "plan" when it did not benefit me, just like you do. Eternal bliss? A part of you does not really believe it. If I'm wrong, then why the seat belt?

From my POV, it seems your "faith" is nothing more than "hope", and please note, I absolutely, positively am not saying that having "hope" is a bad thing; I'm saying, have all the hope you'd like, but don't tell me that in matters of "hope" that said hope is in support of facts or knowledge(unless that you can demonstrate it). And perhaps most of all, please don't disparage me when I use my own wisdom to determine that your religion is likely untrue, when you sit there and use your own wisdom to determine the other guy's religion is not true.

I further contend that, if you are a Christian, the way that you arrive at the answers to the above "how" set of questions is that you use, yes, your own wisdom. Yes, that's right, you know that Tom Cruise is a nut-job; you know that Muslims are deluded, and you know these things, not because of any "faith" in a supreme being our reliance upon that being's wisdom, but because of your own god-blessed(no pun) wisdom.

Whether you are a Christian theist, a Muslim theist, or whatever theist, you use your "faith" selectively. For every facet of life except where you claim to need "faith", interestingly, your own wisdom works fine and dandy. I don't write this to disparage believers or insinuate that they are stupid; I only write it because, if you are going to go around disparaging those who use their "own wisdom", then you're going to have to not mind looking a bit foolish, and further, I guess you should become accustomed to being called out.


"Faith is for believing what you know ain't so" ~ Mark Twain

The Perfect Plan

When it comes to Christianity, you will frequently hear followers talk about their triune biblegod having "a plan". When this happens, it is more often than not the believer's way of rationalizing an outcome that was not desired. It's taking a situation, which, on its face, is undesirable, and then trying to make it "good", or at least, make it acceptable(in their minds).

And then there are other times when the "God has a plan" conviction is used as a means to buffer anxiety, say, where there may be uncertainty regarding an anticipated future event. After all, Christians are not comfortable with uncertainty, which is why you will frequently see them filling in the gaps in knowledge by proclaiming "God did it!", for instance, on the topic of the origins of life or the universe. Likewise, "God is control!" and "God is my copilot!" are frequently uttered in times where the future is concerned, when in actuality this is just another way of saying whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

But today I would like to know how the Christian who speaks of "God's Plan" squares-up this "plan" with things like "prayer", "free will", and god's (supposed) "sovereignty".

So, Christians? Why do you commence to "praying" if you truly in your heart of hearts believe that.....

• God is Perfect, Sovereign and nothing happens without his direction
• God knows the future with absolute certainty
• God knows what's best for you, despite what you want

Well? Please do chime in for my benefit and for the benefit of other non-believers. Yes, because, see, if you are so interested and/or concerned with the fact that I and millions more left your religion, just think of what a good ministry tool you could be in bringing us back.

Or wait.....can you be that ministry tool??? Is that even possible in a Christian worldview?

 Let's explore the answer together...

So, I occasionally encounter a Calvinist guest on another blog I frequent. I'll call this Calvinist guest "S.Z."

S.Z. subscribes to the philosophy of John Calvin, and under Calvinist doctrine it is stated in no uncertain terms that God predestines people into salvation. This is a cornerstone of Calvinism. It is further a cornerstone of Calvinist doctrine, aka, "T.U.L.I.P.", that Jesus died *only* for those predestined to be saved, and that God "regenerates" the person to where he or she wants to choose God(aka, "Irresistible Grace"), and it is then and only then that the person is able to "choose" God.

Whaaaaaa?!?!?!?

Okay, the astute among us see the problem(s) immediately. Seriously, this is even worse than the idea that we can actually choose God or not, and by extension, "choose" to go to "Heaven" or "Hell", which also has its share of problems.

One atheist YouTube video-maker who goes by "NonStampCollector" made a video in which he compares Christianity's "free choice" concept with that of the IRS allowing you the "free choice" of paying your taxes, or not. It's actually a good analogy, because while one is "free" in the dictionary sense of the word, one is certainly not "free" in the intellectual or emotional sense of the word. Our intellect and emotions are part of what make us human.

But interestingly, if we apply that same IRS analogy to the Christian doctrine that is "Calvinism", we'd have to seriously reconfigure it to make it truly analogous.

Let's see, to be analogous with the Calvinist worldview, the IRS would send out letters to everyone telling them that they are too frickin' stupid, wretched, and depraved to do their own taxes. Maybe it's because one couple seriously botched up their taxes, so now two people ruined it for everybody else, and subsequently, now no one can be trusted(this should sound vaguely familiar at this point, but if not, think "Original Sin", mainly, the idiocy of it).

A month later the IRS would send out a followup letter stating that they've elected to provide free tax services to those who qualify.

Lo and behold, a month after that another letter is sent out saying that no one qualifies and that all ineligible people will be penalized. However, as a kind gesture, and so that no one would lose faith in the good ol' IRS, the IRS decided to use an election process to choose a small percentage of people to be exempt from the newly instated tax laws and penalties.

A month later everybody receives a roster of names, and anyone on that list will not be penalized.

Now, if you consider yourself to be a rational, intelligent individual, then the above analogy should sound utterly bat-sh*t insane to you. And yet, while no analogy is perfect, it illustrates the lunacy of the Christian doctrine known as "Calvinism", specifically, that of "predeterminism". Just as it would be useless in the above analogy to phone up a person not elected to be exempt from tax penalties and to harass them and/or second-guess their tax preparation abilities, it would likewise be useless to tell someone not elected by God that they have failed or fallen short in some way.

So, again: If "God" has "a Plan", and if part of that "plan" is to elect some people to save, while not electing others, then guess what.... the non-elect are every bit a part of  "God's Plan" as the elect. Thus, asking for "Divine" intervention(AKA, "praying") on the behalf of the non-elect is counter-productive, at best. And yet, time and time again you will see the Christian bloggers (claim to be) throwing their hands up in the air in lack of their ministry doing any good.

"All we can do is pray", they say, and yet, we nonbelievers are evidently PART of "God's Perfect Plan"(assuming such a being exists for sake of discussion). But S.Z. and her Calvinist constituents blatantly ignore this. Every. time. Yup, S.Z. argues for "predeterminism", and she even confesses that it is up to her own supposedly "Sovereign" god to "open the eyes" of her non-believing counterparts.

So, maybe someone can explain how a "God" who already knows who will go to their grave a non-believer is "free" to open such a person's eyes. If "God" could "open my eyes", then I'm sorry, but that "God" couldn't have known with certainty that I wouldn't choose him.

This is applying basic logic in a world where we entertain the views of the illogical. If I said that I live next to a "married bachelor" and you correct me, but then next week I say the same thing, it is at that point that I become a damned liar. Well, it is no different for people like S.Z. when they repeat their errors.
 

Premonition, or Something Else?

Okay, so around 14 months ago we added a dog to our household. To be exact, it's an Australian Shepherd, "Red Tri Mini". The "red" describes the reddish-brown base color, while two other colors are mixed in, which are white and tan.

Anyway, this is only the third dog I've owned in my lifetime. My first dog was a Dachshund, aka, "wiener-dog". My parents got this dog when I was around 6 or 7 yrs old, and we became instant friends. To move the story along, one day while I was playing in the side yard I heard the screech of brakes. I quickly looked up just in time to see the duel tandem rear tires of a pickup truck run directly over "Joshua", our family dog. Naturally, little Joshua let out a yelp, but amazingly, he somehow managed to run back to our yard, and then right up to me.

My dad had heard the screech, too, and in short order he came running out the front door around to the side yard, panicked. He picked Joshua up, and it was only a few seconds later that the little dog became completely still in my dad's arms. Joshua was dead.

Witnessing such a horrible thing as a little kid naturally sent me into a bit of a shock, in fact, so much so that I straight-up denied that it happened and went on about my business, playing, or doing whatever it was I was doing just moments before. It was only later that night that I crumbled because my dog was absent. Instead of hangin' out around the dinner table like usual, Joshua was wrapped in blanket on the porch. There was no way around this; I had to face it.

While I never quite got over it, I managed to at least block it out much of the time.

Around 5 yrs later my parents bought a lot and built a new house. This place was only about 5 miles south of where we lived before. Long story, short, a buddy with whom my dad threw darts at a small pub called "Jake's", was giving away some puppies. I think it was a Poodle-Chihuahua mix. I'm not entirely sure what it was; I only know it was a mutt of some sort. I didn't become as attached to "Sammy" as I did to Joshua. Although it could've been because I was rapidly becoming interested in other stuff---stuff like girls in bell-bottom jeans, music, and sports, and so on, it might've been because I subconsciously was still emotionally crushed because of losing my first dog in a such a tragic way. I really don't know.

In any event, Sammy lived about 12 yrs, and I honestly don't even recall how he ultimately died.

Note, the "twist" to this story will be coming in just a minute. First I need to provide some background, which may or may not seem relevant in a minute.

Fast forward:

The youngest of my girls was bugging me to get her a dog. After months of this pleading, and after months of me stonewalling and giving all the reasons I didn't want a dog..e.g...fleas, up at the crack of dawn every day, shedding, food cost, shots, odor, yadda, yadda, I broke down and got her the dog of her dreams: A mini Aussie Shepherd.

I wasn't, and I'm still not, keen on what she named the dog..i.e..."Jatavian". To me it sounds like what Shaquille O'Neal might name his son. But, whatever, who am I to tell her that she can't name her dog what she wants to name it? Besides, I can always nickname him, and that's just what I did. He's not "Jatavian"; he's "JayJay".

Okay, now for the twist. You've waited this long, so without further ado...

Last week it was early morning and the cold nose of a little canine had not awakened me yet. No, what woke me this time was a dream that I had had, specifically, the horrendous ending. I was coming down a flight of very steep stairs, you know, the kind that zig-zag downward to the bottom. Well, someone behind me(it wasn't clear who it was) had JayJay, who was just a puppy, like when we first got him.

Anyway, the dog either leaped forward or fell, but whatever happened, as I reached out to catch him, he went sailing past me and over the side of the stairs, which BTW, had no railing. I peered over the side in horror as I watched the tiny animal spiral down and smash onto the concrete slab, upon which the whole staircase rested. I instantly woke up, breathing a sigh of relief, thinking.. 'It was just a dream.'

Fast forward to the next day, I was going to run an errand and I was going to take the dog, as he likes the whole windows down, ears-blowin'-in-the-wind gag. I had forgotten to close the back sliding glass door, so I left the dog in thr front yard for a split second, thinking it would be safe, because he never darts away when he knows he's goin' for a car ride. Well, I'll be dipped in sh*t if he didn't dart away. To hell with a car ride today(evidently).

So, I quickly ran to the middle of my street and looked both ways, calling his name. Nothin'. Then all of the sudden, I turned to face the nearest crossroad that intersected my street, and lo and hold, I saw JayJay running around near said intersection, but still on my side of the crossroad. In a split second, two female high schoolers were crossing from the furthest side of the crossroad onto my street, and thankfully they crossed the street before JayJay saw them, because if he had seen them first, he surely would have darted across the road towards them, being the curious, busy-body dog that he is. I yelled down to the girls to please grab him by the collar, and that he doesn't bite. One of the girls, who I later found out had an Aussie Shepherd at one time, grabbed JayJay and held him until I ran up to them. It was a seriously close call.

Now, with all of that disclosed, some people my "get it"; some may not. Me? I didn't make any connection between the two events. What two events, one might ask? Well, the fact that my dog just came within seconds of being hit by a car(and in all likelihood killed), when just the day before I had a dream that he died. Seriously, someone had to point out to me that JayJay was seconds away from getting hit by a car, and just the day before I dreamed that he died. I made no such connection, and I wouldn't have, if not for someone in my household pointing it out to me. When this individual reminded me of my dream after my telling them of the "close call" just minutes before, a chill went up my spine.

So, the question remains: Premonition? Or something else? A "sixth sense"? Or coincidence?

I thought about it a while, and then it occurred to me that I've had literally thousands of dreams before that which foretold nothing at all. In other words, if I'm going to sit here and convince myself that I had a "premonition"(or some sort of "psychic" ability), then that would require that I ignore the thousands of times that my dreams foretold nothing at all. IOW, in order to "validate" that I have some sort of "sixth sense", I'd have to ignore literally thousands of "misses" to count the "hit".

Whatever the case, I'm just glad that I didn't have to witness another "best friend" get run over by a car. Thanks to those two girls being at the right place at the right time, JayJay is safe.

Here's his baby picture : )

What Does the Religion of Peace Teach about Violence?

Okay, once again on social media I encountered a provocative political video posted by a longtime friend. The video was to essentially show how Muslims and Islam are the reasons for all of our problems here on US soil. In other words, a precursor to a head-desk moment.

To encapsulate, in the video, a young Muslim woman who identifies as a student asks a female journalist the following question:

"How can we fight an ideological war with weapons?" 

Now, the station producing the video is of course of the Right Wing flavor. In other words, it should now make perfect sense when I tell you that the female journalist goes on 5 minute rant but doesn't scratch the surface in answering the young woman's question. Zero; zip; nadda in the way of a direct answer to the question. But, okay, whatever.....par for the course. 

I don't want to focus on the video so much as I want to focus on what was posted in response to the video. To set up the encounter, an acquaintance of the guy who posted the video chimed in and posted a link to a website called, "The Religion of Peace"(addy: TheRelgionofPeace.com).

The title of the referenced article is, What Does the Religion of Peace Teach about Violence? 

'Ironic that both Christianity and Islam think of themselves as a "Religion of Peace", both taking the self-righteous attitude that.... Oh, it's the 'other guy who's the problem. But again, par for the course.

In any case, I thought that if someone was going to selectively extract the most violent and gruesome verses from the Qu'ran - in other words, if someone was going to cherry-pick verses to suit their agenda - then to give a fair and balanced perspective, we need to also point out that the same can be done with the Bible. And, well, that's precisely what I did, remarking......

"So, you cherry picked some verses that show violence, did you? The same can be done with the Bible."

Concluding with.....

 "So, no, the problem isn't just with 'The Quran's Verses of Violence.' The problem is the belief that certain books contain information "from Above" regarding the way we are to live our lives and treat others, etc., and unfortunately, a few of those books instruct to kill the infidel. One such book even talks about dashing the heads of your enemy's children against rocks. It doesn't get much more violent than that."

The person who posted the link and the guy who was now attempting to defend the Bible(I'll call him "Blake") responded with the following.....

"Nothing in the New Testament instructs believers to convert or kill non believers. Your example is from the Old Testament and is in a closed ended historical context. Evidently you failed to read the entire link and the additional links within"

RE: point # 1, um, yes, in fact there are passages in the NT that talk about killing non-Christians. One such passage is in Luke, where Jesus advocates, if not requires, that any person who does not want to be his "disciple" be brought before him and slain. I give you that unequivocal passage now....

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. ~ Luke 19:27(KJV)

"Blake" then gave a defense that this was a "bad example", arguing that it was in third person and was  "parable". Okay? So? It's "parable". But it's evidently a parable that uses VIOLENCE to make a finer point or to illustrate a poetic truth. In other words, "Blake" offered a red herring. He offered a tangential point of no practical value, a point that doesn't negate the fact that passages in the Bible contain violence.

And now is a good time to delineate what my argument is, and what it is not:

What I am arguing: I am contending that, in the same way that people can go into the Qu'ran and extract passages that depict violence, to include, but not limit to, the condoned killing of all non-Muslims, people can likewise go into the Bible and find passages that are equally violent. The Bible contains passages that are every bit as violent as any of those found in the Qu'ran. That is my argument.

What I am not arguing: I am not contending, asserting, suggesting, nor arguing that passages in the Bible depicting violence are inciting today's Christians to commit acts of violence, albeit, I contend that elements of the Christian philosophy influence certain individuals to commit violence..e.g...a Christian gunman believing that he is doing "God's Will" by shooting up an abortion clinic.

RE: point # 2,  the point of contention or apologetic that the OT no longer applies because the NT(i.e.."Jesus") made it obsolete is a debatable topic in itself. To avoid going down that path, I simply concede that point, and move on to the NT. After all, the NT is replete with barbarism, threats of bodily harm for noncompliance, and just downright stupid advice. Note, I'm not saying there aren't some gems in there. But it's not gems, exclusively.

RE: point # 3,  True, I did not read the entire link. Why? Well, for starers, I know all about how and why Christians believe that the OT no longer applies. How do I know? Simple, I was a Christian for 2/3rds of my life and I believed and spouted the same dishonest Christian apologetic..i.e..that the "Old Law" no longer applies, because Jesus!!! Yep, even as a believer I knew something was amiss, because then that meant that the "Commandments" were "Old Law", too.....you know, for the Jews? Excuse my French, but what utter guano..i.e..shit. This is especially true when factoring in Jesus' (supposed) own words in Matthew 5:18. But alas, there's an apologetic for that, too. It's utter insanity. The mental gymnastics required to reconcile it all are insanity.

Moving on, the second reason that I didn't read the whole link was because of some remarks I saw from the get-go. That is, the website in question, the one that amusingly claims not to represent any particular religion(true story), starts out by extracting two of the most vile, barbaric, violent passages they can find from the Qu'ran, passages that are presumably from "Allah" himself. Then what do they do next?? Lo and behold, they juxtapose those two passages with a passage that is (presumably) Jesus' own words, and that passage is the whole "love your neighbor" rigmarole.

Now, did you catch that? Well, of course you caught it! Yes, the website that claims to be "neutral" and to not represent any one particular religion, disingenuously compares the worst passages that they can find from the Qu'ran, and then they contrast them with the best, "Jesus meek'n mild" passage they can find from their Bible. Un-flippin'-believable. And yes, any "source" that attempts such downright dishonesty does not deserve me as their readership. I make no bones about it: To hell with that "source" and others like it. I am being completely reasonable to be skeptical of such tactics, and frankly, when apologists attempt this crap, I am being reasonable to dismiss them out of hand.

Throughout the discussion, "Blake" employs the disingenuous(and fallacious) tactic of moving the goal posts. In other words, his criteria changes slightly with every single post. First, it's "Show me the violent verses".

Check, criteria met.

Next, *"Okay, then show me the violent verses in the New Testament".

Check, criteria met.

Next, it's.. *"Show me where Christians are following the commands".

*Quotations denote a paraphrasing.

Well, while it would admittedly be difficult to show how Christians are bringing non-believers to Jesus to slay them before him, mainly because Jesus is a perpetual no-show(or doesn't exist), I can provide mounds of evidence that there does exist cases of Christian terrorism, and in fact, many of the most extreme instances of terrorism committed on US soil have been done by Christian extremists. This is factual data that anyone can research, mind you.

So, in closing, the underlying problem, and in fact what I contend is the the bigger picture, is that there are Muslims and Christians who follow their respective "holy" books a little too closely. We have Christians using their bibles as a license to blow up federal buildings, to bomb and shoot up clinics that perform abortion, and to overtake government dwellings, threatening violence if anyone confronts them.

We don't have a "Muslim" problem, "Blake"(and people like "Blake"); we have a religious certainty problem.

Dilemma: Bite Tongue, or Unleash Hell?

A relative on a certain social networking site posted a holiday meme the other day.

Here it is.....

Okay, I opted for biting my tongue rather than the alternative, which was to respond and then be seen as a big meanie atheist, which, sad to say, is likely how I'd be perceived had I commented and proposed a dissenting or skeptical view. That outcome would've been especially likely in light of what one of this relative's friends posted in response to the meme, which was the following:

"My aunt had her PET scan on [the] 23rd and she is cancer free. Prayers were answered."

First things first: I don't for one second think that my relative didn't mean well when posting the meme. I want to make that much really clear. So, yes, I  know she meant well. I mean, we can surely all agree that cancer sucks, that it ruins lives, and that the human race would be better off without it. Really, now, how great would it be if all those suffering from cancer were cured once and for all of this despicable disease? There's no better wish, is there? But alas, having a kind heart and wishing for reality to be changed for the better doesn't mean that it will be changed.

So, yeah, the meme is nice and all, but it still has its share of problems.

Firstly - and this is probably the most obvious - doesn't God already know that his children suffer and die from cancer by the millions, and if so, doesn't it seem odd that God would need to be asked (on a social networking site, no less)  to intervene on his children's behalf? I mean, what good parent do you know who wouldn't act to save their children's life unless they were first summoned or prodded to do so on social media? Seems a bit preposterous, doesn't it? Personally, I think so.

Secondly, and this is pretty obvious, too, but not all people with cancer who are prayed for have cancer free PET scans. True story. Yes, a lot of people with cancer die, even those for whom prayers were said. Surely every believer knows this, but yet, how do they reconcile this?

My relative's friend's aunt had a cancer free PET scan. That's truly great. But miraculous? How does this person conclude that it was "prayer" that produced the cancer free scan, and not the doctors and various treatments? And if her argument would be that it was God who saw to it that the doctor's treatments worked, then fine, but then why doesn't God just see to it that ALL doctor's treatments work? Is it because God is "mysterious"? Or is it more likely because some cancers have more successful cure rates than others, depending on which type of cancer, and depending on how early the cancer is diagnosed? Is it just a big coincidence that a world in which God heals some people with cancer, while letting others expire, looks precisely like a world in which some treatments for cancer work, and others do not? Is it more likely that someone with stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer was cured of their cancer and someone with stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer that spread to the brain died of their cancer, because one cancer was caught earlier than the other, or is it more likely because God said "yes" to the prayers asked of one person and "no" to the prayers asked of the other?

I must confess that this hits home because I've lost friends to cancer, but mostly because I am currently taking trips to a hospice several times a week to visit a relative whose days are numbered. Despite this, I still managed to bite my tongue on social media, and instead, post my sentiments here on my personal blog.

We need real solutions and cures for disease, not superstition and wish-thinking. And this poses a conundrum, because a kind gesture is meant to be kind, whether it's based on superstition, or not. Hence, why it's such a touchy subject. When a freethinker/skeptic points out that there could be other things at play when prayer "works", believers invariably see it as an accost on their beliefs, without ever once stopping to think, "Hey, they could be right about that."



Hoping everyone's New Year is a good one!

Finding the Appropriate Season's Greeting

The holidays roll around and each year and it feels like it's tougher to find an unoffensive, all-encompassing season's greeting. I think I've done pretty good, though.

Ready? Here it is.....

But seriously, to all my readers, both those who participate, and those who just read along, wishing you a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays....whichever applies. Believe it, or not, I still celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday, so I'm not one of those atheists who gets offended should someone say, "Merry Christmas!", and to be honest, I've never encountered another atheist who does. 'Funny, that

Tribute to a Friend

Back in the 90s I did a stint in a band called "Erotic Liquid Culture", "ELC" for short. We were a four-piece...i.e...drummer, bassist, guitarist, and vocalist. We recorded our demo in a bedroom on a six track recorder, which, believe it or not, utilized a cassette tape as the master tape. Dave, our lead vocalist, sat in a beanbag chair when recording his vocals. That should give you an idea of how casual our recording sessions were. With only one live gig under our belts, which was in Dave's hometown somewhere in Arizona, we parted ways back in the early 90s. The whole distance thing was too brutal and just wasn't practical, since Dave was there and the rest of us were here in Florida. Below is a tune that showcased Dave's vocal prowess.

Tragically, Dave(on the left) was killed in an accident a few weeks ago on November 17. Over the years I managed to speak to him every now and then. Needless to say, he was a great vocalist, but more importantly, he was a super nice, down-to-earth guy, and gone way too soon.

RIP David Van Landing 1964 ~ 2015

Psy·cho·so·mat·ic

A fusion of "art and science" was part of the description I read in a mission statement which was on the front page of a brochure I was handed at a chiropractic clinic last week.

To backtrack to events leading up to this, around this past October 4th I experienced some lower back pain which had no obvious explanation. I didn't think anything of it because the pain seemed to dissipate as the day went on. No biggie, plus, I've never had back problems. I'm in good physical shape and people generally say I look 5-10 years younger than what I am.

Okay, the next morning I found myself crawling, literally, crawling to the bathroom. The pain from the previous day had moved from my lower back to my left glute', and from there down into my left leg. Yes, I speak of sciatic pain, and if you've had chronic or acute sciatica, then you know of the pain of which I speak. Lie down too long? Pain. Sit down too long? Pain. Stand up too long?...more of the same.....pain. The most annoying, dull/stabbing, tingling, burning pain ever.

Thinking that this, too, would subside with time, I rode it out for the first few days. Nothing. At the advice of a few people, and also after minimal research of my symptoms on the internet, I made an appointment with, you guessed it, a chiropractor.

Arg.

I finally made it to this "chiropractic" place. Waiting to be seen I was handed a brochure that described the "art" and "science" behind what they do. When I saw the "doctor", we spoke briefly about my symptoms(about 4-5 minutes), and he suggested an MRI.

Okay, so 106 dollars later, I was hobbling out the door off to the imaging place that did MRIs, because luckily, they had an opening because of a cancellation. I was to get the results of that scan the very next day.

So, the next day the chiropractor dude called and said to come on in. When I got there he basically told me that he'd never seen a spine on a guy my age look so good. So, the results were bitter/sweet, because, while I had no sign of any trauma that would be causing such excruciating pain(in his professional opinion, anyway), it meant something else was causing the pain.

Welp, this sucked royally because I was now having chills and sweats along with the numbing leg pain. Okay, well, let's just say that according to a few credible medical sources, sciatic pain and unexplained fever, together, were "red flag" symptoms.

Upon learning this I marched straight down to the walk-in clinic and got a CBC(complete blood count).

The clinic called me the next day and said everything was normal, but if the elevated temperature got worse(higher), go directly to the ER.

Well, sh*t. "You seem to be okay, but if things worsen, go to the ER!"

After another day or so, my leg showed no improvement, but my feverish symptoms were getting worse. Sweats, chills, and overall not well-being. Of course, I was ruminating on things and catastrophizing in my waking moments.

Final I thought, 'Screw this, I'm not waiting'. So, I made an appointment with my PCP(Primary care physician)...i.e..a real MD, but unfortunately, the soonest I could get in was a Tuesday, and this was Thursday.

Four more days of uncertainty and biting the bullet.

Tuesday I was seen around 9:45AM. I had my MRI and CBC results with me, and after the doctor asked me a few questions, I handed him the results. He said the blood test looked good, and saw no sign of infection. He then looked at the MRI and was silent for about a minute(seemed like 10 years). He calmly said, "I see right away what's causing your leg pain." "Really?", I said. "Yeah", he said.... "It's right here....you've got a bulge on L5 and small bone spur going on."

So, my first encounter with a non-medical doctor, back manipulator, or whatever the hell they actually are, and he misreads my MRI, or at best, overlooks the things upon which I'm supposed to believe that he's an expert..e.g....spines, bones, vertebral columns, yadda, yadda.

Lesson learned, but most interestingly, once I got the "all clear" from a professional that I trusted, my fever and chills vanished by the time I drove home. Literally, gone. Proof positive that the mind can trick the body. Stress and anxiety can clearly manifest as physical symptoms, and in some cases, can be the cause of physical symptoms that would not even normally be present. Of course, the opposite is possible, too, which is the mind tricking itself into believing a physical ailment has been alleviated, when no medicine whatsoever has been administered, AKA, placebo effect. This, of course, depends on the aliment.  

Objective Right and Wrong

Okay, today's recap brought to you by Christian FB users who, a) erroneously think that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, but more to the point, b) erroneously conclude that since atheists cannot account for an objective "right" and "wrong", that therefore theism accounts for it by default. False/false.

First things, first, Adolph Hitler was a practicing Catholic, a guy who, on numerous occasions, spoke of doing God's will by the elimination of an entire group of people('should sound familiar). He even wore a belt buckle that said "Gott Mit Uns", which translates to "God with Us". He has been photographed in church proceedings. Atheists don't hang out in church.

Secondly, and more importantly, even if Hitler was an atheist, those theists who are moral objectivists would be wrong if/when they assert that an objective "right" and "wrong" can be found in theism.

To recap, either God adheres to an external moral standard, or he makes his own and/or he is that standard(i.e.."Divine Command Theory"). Both cannot be true.

If the former, we see the problem right away. If the latter, the astute among us see the problem right away, as well.

Let's start from the top:

In Christian theism, "sin" is relative to what biblegod deems "sinful", aka,"wrong".

Did you catch that? There's that one pesky but very important word, "relative".

If the concept of "right" and "wrong" is relative to what "God" commands, then "right" and "wrong" isn't objective at all; it's arbitrary, and thus, subjective. For example, if "God" arbitrarily decided that we should all kill our second born children and that it would be a "sin" to disobey him, surely we all agree that we're going "sin" and disobey the command. Anyone who would obey said command for fear of "sinning", please do speak right up. We want to hear from you. At least, I do.

Now, if one argues that "God" would never, ever command such a heinous, immoral act, then they must also offer what it is that would (presumably) prevent him("God") from commanding it. Let's wait it out.

UPDATE: The individual(theist) who posted the "Hitler" meme has informed me that he posted that meme as an example of what NOT to use on atheists, albeit, that explanation did not accompany the meme, itself. It was explained in the comments, which is a somewhat long thread. I nonetheless stand by what I've laid out regarding theism and its moral objectivists. I contend that there is no objective morality to be found in the body of Christ, or any other type of theism. 

Made Me Think

I saw something today that made me think. On another blog I read, the topic of faith came up, specifically, how faith provides hope and comfort for some people, but not others. For the latter folks, the thought of not ever knowing for certain that they are pleasing God evokes a certain anxiety, aka, fear. After all, God is presumably watching your every move and knows your every thought. Basically, when you're not sleeping, you're under surveillance. Nice.

Anyway, it was one blogger's observation that if faith causes fear, then it is not really faith at all.

This got me thinking: If "faith" provides believers with hope and comfort, then you'd be really hard-pressed to convince me that the thought of losing that hope and comfort would not cause at least some anxiety. But of course, if one can convince one's self to not allow such thoughts, then "faith" is doing precisely what it's intended to do: It's making your brain impervious to certain thoughts. E.g..it would literally be unthinkable that this life is all that there is and that the day will come that we'll never see our loves ever again.

So, if you could entertain the unthinkable, then, once again, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that there wouldn't be any aspect of fear there.

Notwithstanding, once a bell rings you cannot "unring" it. This is why atheists say over and over that, while belief is a choice, non-belief isn't necessarily the same simple matter of choosing. In other words, I cannot set an appointment next week to dupe myself... literally, dupe myself , just because there is a known method by which some people can buffer or even totally escape reality. And yes, unless we're talking solipsism, there is an objective reality that we all live in. I'm not going to sit here and assert that atheism doesn't have its hurdles, but there is something very freeing about shedding my faith in exchange for seeing the world as it really is, instead of(as opposed to) as I want(ed) it to be.

Addendum: After giving what I had written some more thought, I feel it's a good idea that I point out that the reason I deconverted from Christianity is not because I got tired of, and/or, could no longer cope with, not knowing if I was pleasing God. No. The reason I deconverted is because I no longer believe - in fact, I'm unable to believe - that the triune god of Christianity has a referent in reality. There are of course other contributing factors, but that's the conclusion of all factors. I didn't just decide I'm not going to not believe in God anymore because I'm sick of the question marks and/or because I'm disappointed with the constant no-shows. No. If I really believed God was there, I'd still be finding a way to make "faith" work, just like everyone else who believes there's a god actually there. If I don't believe there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, no amount "faith" is going to change that. Only evidence will. 

Stand Alone

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.

Somewhere Better

Out of a lot of trial and error; after dead-end, after dead-end, after dead-end, I finally found my childhood friend.

So, without further ado, here he lies, beneath a grave marker here in town, a cemetery now overrun with debris and anthills, although, you can't really tell by the photo. It's Sarasota Memorial Park, and the *photo is something I found on "Find a Grave".

Robert "Bobby" Spegal was a childhood friend of mine back in my elementary school days, and in fact, we lived in the same neighborhood. And although he rode his bike to school and I walked, because I lived a bit closer, he passed me everyday as we both headed to Southside Elementary, the school that we kids in the neighborhood all attended.

One sunny day back in the early 70s, Bobby passed me on his way home from school, and little did I know, that would be the last time I'd ever see him. In a flash, that sunny Florida day suddenly turned very dark.

I got home that day, did my homework and chores, and then headed over to another friend's house. 'Strange as it may sound, I rarely if ever told "Billy" when I was heading over; it was just a ritual to hang out after school until around dinner time. This time, this day, something unusual happened, though, as Billy came running up to me as I approached his house, sobbing and in tears. He was trying to find the words, which came out, "Bobby Spegal's dead!" I said, "Whaaat?" Repeats, "Bobby's Spegal's dead!".

That little exchange sticks in my head to this day, as if I just heard it yesterday, despite that this was nearly four and a half decades ago.

Bobby, who rode East on Tuttle Ave., was passing in front of Billy's house, just as he did every day, but this time he would not make it home.

By the time I got to Billy's house, the ambulance had left with our school mate's lifeless, mangled body in the back. I know his body was mangled, since the other kids who came running up upon the gruesome scene had reported about it the next day. Billy didn't see Bobby's lifeless body because his mom understandably kept him in the yard during the whole ordeal. A retired Air Force officer was pulled over and detained, charged with DUI, and later on, charged with vehicular manslaughter. The man was 68 yrs old at the time, so I assume he died serving his 25 yrs without parole.

To set up the scene, Bobby was not on the right of way, but instead, riding against traffic on the sidewalk, which was about 6 or 7 feet away from Webber St., the street on which Bobby rode home every day. The driver, who was elderly, at least in comparison, was heading West on Webber, and he veered off and hit Bobby head on. While I never got the actual speed of the drunken man's vehicle, my guess, now, is that it was double the speed limit, since Bobby was hit so hard that his shoes never left the point of impact. He was literally knocked out of his shoes like something you'd see on a Saturday morning cartoon.

Bobby ended up in the bushes about a one street block away, my guess is about 30-40 yards from the point of impact. Killed instantly, of course. Nine years old. Seen 45 minutes earlier, now, gone forever.

Being nine years old, myself, I couldn't fathom what had just happened. It just didn't compute. I blocked the rest of the day out, and I couldn't even begin to tell anyone what sort of comfort or consoling was offered to me later that evening when my parents got wind of the horrendous incident.

As I grew up, I found that I could not just sweep the "why" part under the carpet. It's natural to want to know why bad things, despicably bad things, happen. The explanation I would get from my devout Christian, maternal grandparents was that Bobby was in a "better place". He was "in Heaven", presumably "at peace"



So, I tried this "A better place" stuff, because I was desperate for answers.

My initial reaction was, "Really?"....a better place??? Somewhere "better" than with his mother, the person who carried him in her womb for 9 months?? Somewhere "better" than playing catch with his Dad? Somewhere "better" than playing fetch with his dog? Somewhere "better" than watching TV with his siblings? Somewhere "better" than visiting his grandparents? Somewhere "better" than with his school mates? Oh, really?

I didn't buy it as a teenager, and needless to say, I don't buy it now. Christian explanations didn't make sense to me, even as a child, let alone, as an adult. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with attempting to buffer the harshness of reality. We're only human, and it's human nature to seek to minimize suffering, even if that means not being completely truthful with ourselves. The problem is not that I won't lie to myself; the problem is that I can't.

RIP Bobby.

Addendum:

My initial search wasn't to find my friend's grave site, but to find a living relative(if any)..e.g..mom, dad, siblings, etc., just to let them know that at least one of his former classmates hadn't forgotten him.

Five Facts

'Got tagged in something called "Five Facts", where you're supposed provide 5 facts about yourself, and then tag others. This will be a nice change-up from the usual Theist/Atheist stuff.

 So, here goes, in no particular order.....

1.  I played B flat clarinet in Concert band in Jr. High School, which required that I learn to read treble clef. After graduating, I dropped clarinet, taught myself electric bass and managed to eventually secure a position in a fairly well-know progressive-rock band. To this day I can't read bass clef, although, I know all the 7 church modes by memory.

2.  a 7' snake lives in my spare shower.

 

3. I like liver....calf, chicken, beef, goose, and mullet gizzards aren't too bad, either.

4. I co-parent two teen aged girls whose biological father left them and their mother when they were 2 and 3

5. I once prepared veal chops for George W. Bush and his friend, the Ambassador of Italy, the latter of whom lives about 1 hour north of me.

I'm going to forgo the tagging part, since the blogs that I visit I can pretty much count on one hand, so the people I'd tag are already tagged = /

Sauce for the Gander

One look around the atheist/theist blogosphere, and one thing becomes very clear: Atheists are seen as a great threat to moral values, a threat to society as a whole, and generally thought of as a bunch of big meanies whose sole purpose is to run around trying to persecute Christians.

I will now try to put a few things in perspective:

Okay, imagine a scenario where, at the end of every conversation I had with a Christian, I said something like......

"Well, you can deny the truth and believe there is a God all you want, but when it's all said and done, guess what....your body will attempt to inhale one last time, you'll gasp for oxygen, and that'll be it! Yes, and after that last breath, you can be sure that gases and fluids will start to accumulate in your lungs and other organs, and from there, it won't be long before post-mortem hypostasis sets in! That's right, your skin will turn blueish-purple and your once beautiful eyes will become discolored and cloudy! From there, you will pay a visit to the mortician, be cut open, have your organs removed and crammed back into your lifeless, blood stained carcass! Mark my words, Nature will have her way, you'll see! But don't worry, you won't even know that you died or had ever even lived! In a few generations, you'll be completely forgotten!!!! You'll be worm-food, and don't say I didn't warn you!"

Now, think about that. If I and all atheists made such remarks when the realization set in that we aren't going to change theist's minds with our arguments, no matter how sound those arguments may be, we would be seen as some pretty ugly, mean people(never mind for a minute that many of us are already seen that way).

And yet, most of you knew where this was going when it started, and you'd be right if you thought I was making a parallel reference to when Christians threaten atheists with their "Hell" doctrine. Sauce for the gander, anyone? And yes, I realize that many of today's liberal Christians don't believe in a literal "Hell"(thank goodness!), so, I'm mainly addressing the moderates and fundamentalists who do believe there's a literal place called "Hell", and in my experience, their defense would undoubtedly be something along the lines of..."Well, the truth hurts!", or "God is Just!", or "God can't tolerate sin!", and the like.

Well, news flash---atheists could just as easily use the same empty tactics and say.."The truth hurts!".

And if evidence matters at all, there's actually mounds of evidence that Christians and everyone else will suffer the fate that I described above, when in contrast, there's not one iota of evidence that we survive our physical deaths and go to a literal place called "Hell" or "Heaven", the former of which, of course, is a place where non-Christians will allegedly be kept alive and perpetually tormented with fire.

But yet, despite that whatever objective evidence we have that leans to side of human beings expiring in the same, natural way as every other living organism, we atheists still don't feel the need to pull this sort of scare tactic out. Why is that? Simple---because we don't need to. Our arguments stand on their own merits; we don't need to run around trying to frighten theists into seeing things our way.

That's pretty telling, if you ask me.

Knowledge Vs Belief

Breaking news: Christians know what the Bible says.

In other words, forget that "think" and "believe" junk; Christians don't merely think and believe that what the Bible says is true. No, they know it's true.

Okay, so, the problems are many, but let's begin here:

Even if Christians know what the Bible says, then, without committing the fallacy of begging the question, aka, a circular argument, can someone tell me how they know that the Bible is an accurate, infallible document? I mean, we can all sit here and claim to know what all sorts of things "say". For instance, we can all know what "Jack and the Beanstalk" says by reading the story, and we would more than likely all agree on what it says, provided that the story didn't inform our moral views or political views, because if that was the case, you can wager a lot of money that there wouldn't be any consensus on what it says. But that's for later.

An encounter with a believer awarded me the following response.....

“Christians do not merely think we know what the Bible says. Because we place such high value on it as God’s Holy Word, we study it; we employ methods, such as reading whole passages in context; we investigate possible interpretations then pray for insight for the correct interpretation.”

Okay, so, yes, Christians place such high value on the Bible as to believe it really is "God's Holy Word".

Nothing really new there, right? Right, we "get" that part.

Here's the part I don't "get": What about all of the parts of the Bible that are demonstrably false and that directly conflict with what we know today about how the world really works via modern scientific discovery??? For instance, we know that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, but yet, the Bible "SAYS" the latter.

So, sure, I can look at it from the perspective that Christians might very well know what the Bible says, but then I guess they'd have to not mind looking in error about the position of the earth in relationship to the sun should they believe what the Bible "says".

And of course, that is just one of myriad scientific blunders found in "God's Holy Word". We know that "demons" don't cause mental illness; we know that the sun never "stood still"; we know that a domestic ass cannot speak Hebrew; we know that people cannot camp out in the digestive tract of a whale and live to tell about it. We know these things, just like we know that a boy never went gallivanting around the sky by shimmying up an over-grown beanstalk that reached into the clouds.

These are legends, and no matter how much "value" we place on legends, it will never make them true.

Next up is asking for insight as to what the Bible says, which, at face-value, you'd have to admit that this sort of looks like you don't really "know" what the Bible "says", after all.

But once more, let's put appearances aside and assume for sake of discussion that the "correct interpretation" can be gleaned by "praying".

Okay, done.

The first obvious question - well, at least to me it's a very obvious question - is why isn't there consensus on what the Bible "says", if insight and proper discernment is presumably given to all those who pray for it? What's going on, here? Does the receiver of these pleas for insight get a cheap thrill out of steering some of his followers in the right direction, while deliberately misleading others??? It seems perverted, at best. 'Definitely not convincing in my mind.

But here's the interesting part in all of this:  All of these difficulties seem to mysteriously vanish if one just entertains the notion that there is no receiver of "prayer". Think about it: If there was no "God" providing "insight" as to what the Bible really "says", we'd totally expect to see Christians divided on matters, and lo and behold, that's precisely what we see. If the Bible wasn't the "Holy Word of God", but instead, just the words of man, and on top that, ancient man, we'd totally expect to see numerous scientific blunders in it. And? Again, this is precisely what we see. 'Coincidence?

Open Questions to Christians

I'm one of those lunatic persons who doesn't limit his reading to only those views that support his own views.  I know, right? ::sigh:: Yes, it's true, dissenting views don't make me run the other way. I mean, if that were the case, I'd likely still be a believer, right?  So, yeah, I welcome dissenting views, because the truth has nothing to hide, after all.

So, making the rounds, a Christian blogger saw fit to ask why I was posting on a Christian blog, and he adds...

rather than saying something that adds to the conversations, you make inflammatory comments about Christianity. 

 This brings me to question #1:

Is it possible to express disagreement without being "inflammatory"? If "yes", what would an example of that look like? 

Another Christian writes.....

I must have hit a nerve. Even though I don’t agree with your thought on the subject, thank you for your opinion. God bless you.

Question #2 becomes:

Is it possible for an atheist to respond on a Christian blog and not come across as though a nerve was hit? If "yes", what would that look like. An example, please.

Christian 1 also remarked.....

Are you so unsatisfied with your traffic that you need to use other, more successful blogs to be heard? I’ve read your blog posts and am unimpressed by your sophistry, and yet I do not feel the urge to correct you.

It seems to me that if I was unsatisfied with my own traffic that I'd have tags on every post and would be hyper-linking all over kingdom come. As for my blog posts amounting to "sophistry", if that were really the case, I pointed out what a marvelous ministry tool it be for him to correct me. I mean, right? Yes, and even if he didn't produce arguments that had me running back to church, his attempt to correct me would, if nothing else, look like he had enough faith in his beliefs that he'd actually defend those beliefs. This looks good to those believers who may be having honest doubts. It would look good to those people who are currently in the shoes that I was once in.

But alas, atheists aren't the ones making excuses for why they "don't feel the urge" to respond to Christians, and as a former believer who carried honest doubt himself, this was something that played a role in my deconversion.

So, how about if women never "felt the urge" to respond to those who once said that women shouldn't vote? Where would they/we be?

 'Don't feel the urge? My a$$.