Under the Microscope: Divine Command Theory

Previously in a recent discussion on morality, "Divine Command Theory" came up.

Divine Command Theory, henceforth, DCT, will often pop up when the topic turns to morality, simply because theists who argue as moral objectivists claim that there exists a moral standard that is "Absolute" and that said standard comes from "God". "God" is the standard, they would argue. And moreover, in some but not all cases, the theist will argue that atheists must account for an objective morality if they reject that morality comes from a Divine source. This is false, but what atheists need to account for (or not) is for another discussion.

So, ethics - aka, "right" Vs "wrong" - are contended to be grounded in a theistic framework, claims the theist.

For example, Christians would likely say that the god of their bible is the moral standard, while Muslims would contend that morals come from "Allah", the god of the Holy Qu'ran.

Okay, so this essentially leaves *two choices for the people who claim to get their moral standard from "God": Either, 1) God can command anything at all and it is seen as "good" by sheer virtue of the command coming from "God", or 2) God commands certain things because certain things are "good", and by extension, God would refrain from commanding things that are "bad"(or "evil").

*if I've left an option out, I'm willing to have a listen to what that might be, preferably with examples. 

Option 1 is more or less DCT, encapsulated.

Here's how Wikipedia defines the term:

Also known as theological voluntarism, [DCT] is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. 

Perhaps the biggest clue here that something is amiss is the word "whether", because it's implicit that there's some contingency or stipulations to be found. In other words, we're being reasonable to conclude that "or not" is implied, as in, "an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether or not it is commanded by God."

So, if certain things might not be commanded by God, the very first question we must ask, is why not? Who or what would prevent even God from commanding certain things if this God is presumably where the buck stops? Not to mention, the very notion that there would exist a "who" or a "what" that would prevent God from commanding certain things should be all the evidence that anyone needs to conclude that DCT completely crumbles if anything or anyone exists that might prevent God from commanding certain things.

In the past what I've used as an example was the command to kill all non-Christians. The response I got, in short, was that "God" would not command such a thing because if he did, then he/she/it wouldn't be "God".

I guess this depends on which "God" we're talking about, because in both the Bible and the Qu'ran, passages can be found commanding the death of the respective infidels.

In fact, in Luke 19:27, the bible states....

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Nice, huh? Okay, well, to be fair, according to some apologists, Jesus is speaking in parable here. Fine. So what is parable mostly used for? It's used to illustrate some finer, spiritual lesson.

So, here, the finer spiritual lesson is evidently that it's in one's best interest to be Jesus' disciple. 

But rather than debate the "true" meaning of what was intended, I prefer to just use other examples. For instance, if God commanded our soldiers to secure the children of our enemies and to then dash their heads against rocks, the question we can rightfully ask, is this:  Does dashing the heads of children become the "moral" thing to do if God commands it? By the way, no Christian can use the, "God wouldn't be God if God commanded that", defense, because in this instance, it is clear that we have the OT deity of the bible, aka, "Yahweh", commanding precisely that. (Psalm 137:9) There's even a special twist, because said God is not saying that this act should be done regrettably, but instead, that we should feel "blessed" or righteous to perform such an act.

While this example might not put all theists in the hot seat, it most definitely puts Christian theists in a bit of a quandary, because assuming their deity actually has a referent in reality for sake of discussion, what if Christians were commanded such things today? How, exactly, would Christians respond to such commands? If one subscribes to DCT, then, in theory, such a despicable act and others just like it, become "moral" by mere virtue of the command coming from God, who we are to believe is the objective Moral-Giver.

So? What's stopping you? What would stop you from following such orders?

It seems to me that the only option would be to flat-out disobey God. In fact, from where I sit, that would be the one and only choice; the right choice. After all, there is nothing inherently "good" about following orders.

Consider that human beings have followed the orders of sinister people since time immemorial. Horrible, despicable acts, all carried out because people evidently either couldn't think for themselves or were too afraid to disobey. And again, some theists would surely be quick to point out that atheist dictators commanded evil things, too, and while I would not deny this, I would contend that they did this, not because they didn't have enough religion, but because they were following the tenets of religion a little too closely.

And let's examine something else: When a child follows the orders of a parent, is that child making a moral judgement? I would contend that, no, the child isn't making a moral judgement. Sure, said child is a free agent, but he or she is neither being moral, or immoral; he or she is just following orders. The end.

Most of us as normal, reasonable adults know that we must filter anything we're told to do, whether it comes from a person of authority, or not, through our own, innate sense of right and wrong. If it's contended that this "screening" process is totally subjective, and therefore, unacceptable, you know, since it's based on nothing outside or independent of ourselves, then he who contends this must consider that with DCT this is no different. The mindset, "Yeah, but this is God we're taking about!" amounts to special pleading, and at the end of the day, it ends up being a circular argument.

So, something's got to give, here. The one and only way that DCT can "work" as defined above is if the moral objectivist who's advocating said theory follows, without question or apprehension, any and every command or order that God gives them. The DCT proponent doesn't get to sit back and say, "Hmm, is this something that God would command?" To be apprehensive of, or to flat-out disobey such commands, instantly suggests that one is evoking their own, subjective sense of right and wrong and then projecting the conclusion onto the situation, which of course then flies in the face of the very idea of DCT.

There's no "wiggle room" here, folks.  If one wants to introduce things like "wiggle room" and nuance when one talks ethics, fine, but then they are talking situational ethics, not anything Absolute.

Skepticism

Okay, so in the wake of the two previous blog posts, posts which actually involved some pretty intense and even heated debate with a Christian I came across on social media, a few things became apparent to me:

For starters, my blog statistics show that the two previous posts are the most viewed in relation to the amount of time they've been published. Hundreds of views in just a matter of days. In other words, there's evidently more people following along in the conversations that took place in these last two posts than there was in previous posts. In other words, I think it's fair to conclude that people as a whole are drawn to conflict and dissension, despite that many people would likely claim just the opposite. There seems to be an innate curiosity there when ideas diverge. 

The second observation was that it seems like the biggest stumbling blocks in said conversations, were, 1) morality..i.e..where our moral standard comes from, 2) origin of the universe, and 3) burden of proof.

Maybe I'll revisit each of these in future posts. For now, I think it's safe to conclude that we, as human beings, at least in this society, become enamored with conflict and controversy, and particularly so in scenarios like this where one set of core beliefs is pitted against another set of core beliefs, so we like to see how our own views stack up when others represent those views. Although, I should point out right now that if every atheist at some point become a theist, I would still be and remain an atheist until I encountered evidence that I found credible enough to change my mind. In other words, I'm not an atheist because it's trendy or fast-growing. I'm an atheist because I'm not convinced by the claims of theism.

But back to debate---even if someone is declared to be a "winner" in a debate, this often means nothing more than one person is just a better debater than another. For example, Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is a great debater. He is knowledgeable on the bible, he is well spoken, and he quite the wordsmith. A similar example on the atheist side would be Sam Harris.

When these two guys debate(and they have debated, for anyone interested), dollars to doughnuts you will have atheists saying that Harris clearly won the debate, just like you will have Christians insisting that Craig clearly won the debate.

But again, a "winner" in a debate doesn't necessarily prove anything. Should Harris or some other atheist be declared the "winner" of a debate on God's existence, this doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of "God". And by the same token, if Craig or some other Christian was declared the "winner" of a debate on God's existence, this wouldn't necessarily prove that "God" exists.

So, where does this leave us? In my view, it leaves us with having to use other methods for determining which guy in the debate is arguing for a worldview that is actually true, because, after all, both atheist and Christian agree that someone can actually argue for a worldview that is false. There is no denying this if we just stop to consider that there actually exist Muslim scholars who debate the existence of "Allah", arguing for the Islamic faith, and as well, there are Jewish Rabbis who debate the existence of "El", arguing for the Jewish faith.

So, the long and short of it is this: both the Christian and the Jew think the Muslim believes in error. Both the Jew and Muslim think the Christian believes in error. Both the Christian and the Muslim think the Jew believes in error.

And the atheist? The atheist thinks they all believe in error.

But the point here is that all four are skeptical of someone else's claim. This is interesting, because the atheist contends that the theist doesn't apply the same skepticism to their own "faith" as they do to the other guy's faith.

But when they do apply it do the other guy's faith, what does this entail? What methods are theists using? What method is a Christian or Jew using to determine that a Muslim's personal experience is a figment of their imagination and/or that the Holy Qu'ran is man-made..i.e..not "Divine"? Isn't it the same methods and skepticism that atheists use when they arrive at the same conclusion about Muslims and the Islamic faith? I contend that the answer is yes.

First and foremost, to disbelieve in someone else's core beliefs and the related claims, there has to be at least some skepticism present. After all, skepticism is basically applied doubt. Skepticism weeds out error; it keeps us from being duped in our daily lives, just as it keeps us from being duped by false religions. From vacuum cleaner salesman who come to our doors, to emails from people in Nigeria offering us a share of a large sum of money, to products that promise to slow down the aging process, and on, and on, and on, skepticism is a useful and necessary tool to navigate through life.

So, for me the question then becomes one of, if Muslims, Christians, and Jews are each skeptical of the other guy's religious claims, even to the point that they've all concluded that the other guy is self-deceived and subsequently believes in a man-made religion, why, then, are atheists seen as unreasonable, or "too scientific", or "too logical", or "too legalistic", or "too" this, that, and the other thing, when atheists are simply applying the exact same skepticism that theists use on each other? Atheists have determined that all religious people have been duped and that all religions are man-made, but evidently, this rubs quite a few theists the wrong way. Why is this?

Could it be because theists are only good with skepticism up until the point that someone uses it to determine that they have been duped and/or believe in error? I tend to think so. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods, all of which have been believed in throughout history. Atheists are skeptical of all of them, while Christians, Muslims, and Jews are skeptical of all of them except one.

To me, this seems suspiciously close to atheism. In fact, the following word and its *definition immediately come to mind....

1. Compartmentalize: transitive verb to separate into isolated compartments or categories.
(ref: Merriam Webster)

In psychology the mental process of allowing conflicting views to co-exist in one's mind without explicit acknowledgement is called compartmentalization.

Okay, so if theist Y is not going to accept the religious views nor the personal experiences of theist Z - say, for example, because theist Z believes that in the distant past his religion's prophet performed feats of the supernatural kind, specifically, things that conflict with what science currently tells us about the physical laws of the universe - but yet, theist Y, himself, holds the view that his own religion's prophet did precisely that..i.e...performed feats of the supernatural kind, then theist Y is not being consistent.  He's not applying the same skepticism to his own religion's supernatural claims as he is to the other guy's religion and related supernatural claims.

What theist Y is doing, is, he is "roping off" a section of his brain and is disallowing skepticism or critical thought to enter. In other words, theist Y is compartmentalizing.

And how about the personal or religious experience? Same. If theist Y is not going to accept the personal experiences of theist Z - say, when theist Z claims to have had a direct, one-on-one experience with the deity of his chosen religion - but yet, theist Y expects theist Z and everyone else to accept and not discredit his own alleged one-on-one experience with the deity of his chosen religion, this, again, is compartmentalization at work.

So, again, the atheist simply rejects the religious doctrines and personal experiences of both theist Y and Z. The atheist does not make an allowance for one or the other, nor does he partake in special pleading, which brings me to this:

If someone is going to set forth an argument that follows a given principle or rule, for instance, say, that all bachelors are single, but then later on argues for the existence of a "married bachelor", he or she is special pleading. In turn, if the person arguing that special pleading has been employed holds the user of the fallacious argument to the definition of "married bachelor", he or she is not being unreasonable. Bottom line: Words have meaning. Definitions exist to convey meaning. Does this rule out things like nuance in certain circumstances? No. But are there some circumstances in which there just isn't any "fudge" room? Yes. "Married bachelors", by definition, cannot exist, and therefore, do not exist. The only "fudge" or wiggle room is if you discount or completely change one or the other definitions---or, eliminate one of the two words altogether.

I guess the trick would be to avoid or eliminate beliefs or premises that rest on special pleading? It seems so, but perhaps that's easier said than done, depending on which philosophies or religious doctrines one is upholding. If nothing else, at least try to understand that everyone..e.g...atheist and theist, alike, is skeptical of someone else's claims. "Skepticism" is not a bad word.

Fallacy of Composition

In the previous post an interesting exchange took place between theist and atheist. While I'm not exactly sure how much common ground was achieved, if any, a question was raised(directed at me, the atheist). And while I felt it was a loaded question, and I said as much, I do think that I may have an idea where this question was going.

I'm still waiting on the clarification, so the discussion could very well continue, but in the meantime I'm going to roll forward and dedicate a separate post to this question in an attempt to address it and lay it to rest, and I'm doing so under the pretense that my hunch is correct about what the question is ultimately implying.

So, the theist guest with whom I was exchanging ideas, a guy who blogs as "Deus Aderit", asked me the following...

What is outside evolution to an atheist? 

To try to add a little context, this was immediately followed by him also remarking , "Saying love is an instinct is like saying violin music is cat gut scrapped over horse hair."

Okay, so the impression I'm getting here is that Deus somehow thinks that since atheists don't believe in God, then atheists must substitute something else for "God". And by the looks of things, what we substitute for "God" is evolution.

This is incorrect on a few different levels. For starters, this mindset makes the assumption that all human beings must derive purpose in life from an original source, in a Christian's case, it would be an ultimate source.  For example, it's a safe bet that many (most? all?) Christians will claim their origins are rooted in "God" and possibly even cite the Genesis narrative of "creation".

In other words, Christians get their purpose in life from God, and/or, Jesus, and/or, the Holy Spirit.

If Christians want to believe or claim that, that's fine and all, but what they don't get to do is assume that since atheists came about by evolution, then... oh, atheists must get their purpose from evolution and everything that atheists experience in life must be explained by the process of evolution.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong. For one thing, evolution does not attempt to say or explain anything about origins. That topic is abiogenesis, not evolution. The latter is simply an explanation of the diversity of life we see on earth.

Secondly, why does there have to be an explanation for everything? Thirdly, how does "God did it!" explain anything? Until any of us learn how a God or gods did something, theists are simply putting a question mark over another question mark. They are no more knowledgeable about the mechanics of origins than anyone else.

I, as an atheist, am content with saying, "I don't know for certain". *From what I can tell, theists are not at all content with it, hence, "God".

*Note, I do not want to over-generalize here. I'm inferring that theists are not comfortable with not knowing things, in this case, the answers to life's greatest questions.

Moving on to love, music, and art, etc., maybe someone can explain why I, as an atheist, have to know where love or music originates in order to enjoy it? Where is it written that I must know why or how love exists for me to be able to love or be loved? Best as I can tell, it's not written anywhere and "love" is an instinct that ensures our survival. If the human species wasn't capable of love, they'd be flippin' extinct. And for that matter, so would any other species of animal that isn't capable of love. A female cat gives birth to a litter of kittens. She instinctively loves her young, because if she didn't, they surely get eaten or suffer in some other way. There are, of course, lower, non-sentient creatures that might not feel "love", but these creatures have still evolved by the process of natural selection to propagate the species. Surviving is job one.

To be able to love benefits a species. Love is a life-affirming emotion. From a naturalistic standpoint, "love" originates in our brains. But the supernaturalist will no doubt say that our brains are, oh, just a bunch chemical reactions, or something of the sort. For those who take such a position, I'd tell them that this is the fallacy of composition. This is where someone (erroneously) infers that just because something is true of the parts of something, it is therefore true of the whole. For example, the chemical formula for water is H2O. What would you say to the person who told you that since water is just some chemicals, then water couldn't possibly be wet? 'Sounds a little off, doesn't it? What about a stringed instrument? Say, a violin? Sure, at a fundamental level we can say it's cat gut and horse hair. But put together, it can produce some beautiful tones, can't it?

These are crude analogies, but they work. Just because "love" is the result of some chemical reactions in our brains, that doesn't mean that love is nothing more than just some chemicals and that it cannot be something beautiful to experience.


"We are most often inspired and motivated by fallacy rather than logic" ~ M.F. Moonzajer

Purpose in Life Revisited

I'll get straight into it: An encounter with a social media theist happened and a discussion ensued because of a remark I made in response to one of his comments:

Atheists often claim that life is irrelevant

I started by asking for examples of this claim, and I specifically requested examples where the word "irrelevant" was used, because, curiously, I don't recall ever encountering an atheist, either online, or in real life, whose sentiment on life's purpose is that it's "irrelevant". It sounds very grim, doesn't it? Well, in my experience with theists and moral objectivists, this is no accident. No. See, they need it to sound grim in order to bolster or fortify their belief that life can't possibly have any purpose if there's no gods/God, which of course, is where they (claim to) get their purpose.

This person came back with a Bertrand Russell quote(see above).

So, okay, putting aside the fact that the word "irrelevant" is nowhere to be found(yes, it could be considered a nitpick), there is still a distinction to be made here, and that is that Russell(an atheist) is saying that the question would be meaningless unless one assumes a God. He does not disclose his own personal feelings on life's purpose one way or the other; he is talking about the question, itself.

 And, so, here's where I'm willing to give benefit of doubt:

Even if atheist X cannot see/find/secure/obtain, etc., any objective purpose to life and he or she regards life(not the question, but life, itself) as "irrelevant", that does not preclude me from finding subjective purpose in life. It just doesn't. Maybe there just isn't any "higher" Purpose to Life. Fine, whatever. That does not mean that there can't be any purpose in life---"in", being the operative word, here.

See, I decide if I find purpose in life. This is not something that other people get to decide for me, much less complete strangers on social media. Sorry, but nah.

I do "get it" to a degree, though, because for some people, fathoming their own non-existence is just out of the realm of possibility, hence, why they postulate (wish for) an afterlife, an unproven "realm" in which they never really die and life goes on forever and ever and ever..i.e..to infinity. I mean, if life ended, then theists would apparently be forced to conclude that everything up until that end is meaningless or "irrelevant".

But do theists live this mindset, is the question. I contend that, no, they do not.

Imagine you have a friend who identifies as a Christian and you invite them to the movies and his or her response is, "You know, I appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to pass because the movie will eventually end, so it would be a meaningless night out in the grand scheme of things".

'Sound silly? It is, but let's keep going, though, because all of these things end, too...

- a nice, frosty mug of beer

- going on a picnic with friends

- taking a hike in the wilderness

- a snow cone on a hot day

- reading a good book

and on, and on, and on, and on. 


This whole mindset that we get from religion that teaches us that life has to last forever in order for us to have meaning and purpose while on this earth is short-sighted, at best. When I used to harbor this very mindset myself, my perspective was short-sighted. It's actually easy to see, once on the outside of the theist bubble.

And let's back up a bit. If theists get their "purpose" from somewhere else, call me crazy, but it's not their own purpose at the end of the day. How ironic, then, that it's the ones ministering to us non-believers on the topic of  "purpose" who don't have a purpose of their own????

Then there was a follow up comment regarding a "moral absolute". Not too shocking, though, because in my experience, these two subjects often go hand in hand when theists claim to want to understand what we atheists believe/do not believe.

Welp, as I've stated many times on this blog, I don't believe that morality is "absolute," nor that there even has to be an "absolute morality" in order to have morals(act ethically). I contend that the closest that one can get to an absolute morality is the avoidance of unnecessary harm.

But once again, I'm willing to point out the irony here, which is that so-called moral objectivists are in the same subjective boat in which they like to put me, the atheist.

Here's how and why: When theists - let's take for example, Christian theists - claim to get morals from their bible, they are filtering every passage on ethics or morals through their own, subjective moral standard. To think that we get morals from a book that condones owning and beating other human beings; to think that we learn "right" from "wrong" from a book that says one should feel "blessed" to take their enemy's children and dash their heads against rocks, is the height of craziness.

And the dead give-away? How would Moses or any other human being know the difference between a slab of "good" commands and a slab of "evil" commands? This is a no-brainer.

We do not get morals from gods or holy books.

Conflicted

Back when I was new to the internet, and particularly, when I was a silent lurker in a few atheist/theist discussions, I remember a few things that atheists would point out to theists, namely Christian theists, that would stand out. Certain things said would just stand out more than others, and one day an atheist put personification to good use. His Christian opponent was arguing for anthropic principle, but at some point the atheist wrote back[paraphrased], "'Lookit how perfectly I fit into this hole in the road! It must've been made just for me!', said the mud puddle."

That was a "light bulb" moment for me, despite already having doubts as young as nine years old and carrying those doubts into adulthood..e.g..Captain Noah and his ark, things just springing into existence, etc.

Long-story-short, I lost faith in faith because I eventually could no longer ignore the conflicted thoughts.

______________________________________________________________________


Changing gears, someone asked another person, "How can you eat something that has a face?"


: /


: (


>: (

This got me thinking(more like a nagging feeling, actually), to the point that I cannot simply choose just to not think about it anymore, albeit, I was able to not think about it for most of my life.

But how? Compartmentalization? Say it isn't so. Indoctrination? Indoctrinated to believe that eating other sentient creatures is A-oh-fu(king kay? Why not? I mean, that's exactly how I became "okay" with an innocent person being executed for my shortcomings. That's how I became "okay" with someone holding me accountable for something I have zero control over...i.e..being human. That's how I became "okay" with some of my fellow human beings being incinerated alive in a place torture chamber called "hell" for not believing as I believed.

After ruminating on this, it seems to me that, yes, this is exactly how I was able to have stuffed animals as "friends" as a child, but could be called to the table to eat a sandwich made out of ground up farm animals, gobble it right down, then be back playing with my stuffed animals.

Q: Why didn't I make the connection?

A: Indoctrination.

You're taught that doing X, Y, and Z is "normal", so you don't ever question it. You see a BLT in front of you, what do you do? Why of course, you eat it.

Mmmm....bacon. Right? I'd venture a guess that if you could somehow know people's thoughts right before they are preparing to jam cured and smoked pig flesh down their gullets, you would not see many thought bubbles with the above-pictured in those bubbles. After all, such thoughts might cause conflicted feelings. And yes, I'm aware that there's people who have no qualms keeping and eventually slaughtering certain animals to put food on the table. After all, that's the way they always done it, ain't it? Yes, just ask the "Motor City Madman", himself, Ted Nugent......::eyeroll::

But it seems that, yes, for millions, that's how they've always done it. And of course, the more longstanding the tradition, the more it must be right. Right? Arg.

For those who might answer "no"..e.g...me, the solution is simple, isn't it? Yes, I just stop eating meat, and voila!

Okay. But as with many other things done out of habit, tradition, and convenience, this is easier said than done. And to make matters worse, just how in the hell does a saucier avoid foods with animal proteins?

So, again. I want to do what I feel is right, ethically, but muuuuch easier said than done. This is going to be tough, because once again, you cannot "unring" a bell.

Atheists are Intellectually Dishonest

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but recently in a discussion it was argued that Atheists are "intellectually dishonest," and the theory here is that this is because someone would have to essentially be God in order to simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, which would be necessary in order to know that there is no God. For this reason they argued that atheism is intellectually dishonest, adding that agnosticism is the better, more honest choice, if one is going to dare to be a non-believer(as if non-belief is a choice?)

Anyway, I contend that this line of thinking is not entirely correct. While I do agree with the part that a person would need to be omnipotent to be able simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, that dilemma could also be solved with either omnipresence or omniscience, both of which many believers also attribute to God. If, say, you're omnipresent, then by definition you're already everywhere at once. If you're omniscient, then you know everything, including if gods exist, or not.

But what I'm also contending here is that one needn't have any of those three attributes to conclude, in a practical sense, that there is no God/are no gods. More on this in a minute.

For now, let's look at two types of atheists: (1) those who believe that there is no God, and (2) those who simply lack a belief that there is a God(there's a meaningful distinction there, BTW).

But before I get too far into this, I should point out that it is possible and reasonable for someone to be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. Yes, contrary to what many people believe, the two positions are not mutually exclusive, because one deals with belief; the other deals with knowledge. In other words, it's two totally different subjects. I know I've covered this a half a dozen times on this blog, but it seems it can't hurt to repeat it as long as people are going to repeat misinformation or out'n out falsities.

To attempt to illustrate how I or anyone can be both atheist and agnostic, consider that I do not know for sure, and thus, I cannot say for certain that leprechauns do not exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm agnostic when it comes to leprechauns).

Notwithstanding, I still do not believe that leprechauns exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist when it comes to leprechauns). Note that this is slightly different than me saying, "I believe leprechauns are non-existent!", and it's much different than me saying, "Leprechauns don't exist!".

So, on the one hand I could simply be suspending belief in something until there's conclusive evidence for that something's existence, all the while admitting that I don't know for certain. On the other hand, I could be saying that X doesn't exist and it be implicit that I mean it in a practical sense, not an absolute sense.

Neither of these is being intellectually dishonest or unreasonable, whether agnosticism is overt like in the former, or whether agnosticism is implied, like in the latter.

If we encounter a person who believes that God does not exist, or if someone proclaims, "There is no God!", the same thing applies; this person need not know with absolute certainty that no God exists to be intellectually honest with one's self and others.

Case in point, in the same practical sense that we can say that leprechauns don't exist, we can also say that invisible, supernatural, creator beings don't exist. If someone says that they don't believe in leprechauns, no one tells them that they're being foolish and/or intellectually dishonest. I mean, imagine how that would sound. Well, I contend that it sounds just as absurd to say that non-believers are "intellectually dishonest", including when they profess Atheism instead of Agnosticism. Sorry, I don't have to choose between the two.

Now, with all of that being said, could I, an agnostic atheist, be missing a greater truth? Yes! Of course I could! How about a more awesome truth? Ditto! But here's the rub: I'd only be doing myself a disservice to accept such a greater, more awesome truth on "faith". Once I start accepting things on "faith" and/or because something sounds more awesome than something else, at that point I have chosen a constructed truth over a truth built on facts and evidence. If someone finds fault in truth that's built on facts and evidence, then I don't know, maybe it just could be that I'm not the one who's being intellectually dishonest?

Social Media Christian no. 2,899,761

Hi, all,

Okay, yes, I pulled that number out of thin air :p

But seriously, it really does seem like I've had conversations well into the millions with Christians on social media. Well, yesterday I crossed paths with yet another social media Christian(friend of a friend), a guy who I quickly found out had some very bizarre views on the topic of morality, which of course, he claims comes from Christianity(this is demonstrably false, but that is for another discussion)

It all started with a meme that a mutual friend posted, one where pop skeptic Penn Jillette is pictured and is quoted, saying....

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

The reasonable among us understand the point he is making. But at least one person, a guy who I will simply call "jj"(his initials), either pretended to not understand the point being made, or willingly misunderstood it, countering back....

Believe me...no true Christian thinks that a 'person' is watching over them.

I remarked back that the distinction he made is irrelevant, because Penn Jillette is simply making the observation that he finds it inconceivable that the only thing stopping some people from murdering and raping is the notion that they're being watched, with the possibility of being judged at a later time.

So, like clockwork, jj fires back....

Anyone who actually KNOWS and believes in the Spirit of God is not going to be drawn to raping and murdering

Did you catch that? Okay, anyone who's ever read a newspaper headline or a social media news feed knows that this is false. For starters, Christians, themselves, are some of the first people to admit that they are drawn to "sin", but always add that the "Holy Spirit" protects them, well, unless they slip up and get caught. When that happens, then they are sure to let you know that they are "forgiven", and this seems to align with one platitude in particular that goes, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

We all know that one, don't we? And yet, in this instance when I called the apologist out, rather than him point out that Christians aren't perfect and can "sin" like everyone else, he instead attempted the ever popular, "Not a True Christian!" argument, aka, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, the learned Christian apologist proffered that, while Christians can act immorally or unethically, no "True Christian" could ever rape or murder. 'Funny, because just a cursory look at the bible and we see that murdering people is in fact approved by the very character whom jj will no doubt claim makes him and every other "True Christian" incapable of murder. There are countless murders of people commanded by biblegod, including the murder of women and children. Now, are the ones who followed the orders not "True Christians", then? I think of what a great ministry tool it would be if someone could clear this up. But I wouldn't recommend the holding of one's breath.

In any case, at this point I interjected that, statistically, Christians are just as capable of rape and murder as anyone else, which, in hindsight, might not have been the best choice of words. Notwithstanding, there are statistics and studies that have shown that prison populations have a higher number of inmates who identified as Christian than those who identified with other faiths.

But of course, jj latched onto the "statistic" comment like a fly on guano, demanding that I provide said statistics, which, by the way, I did, but a few of them were given by way of a bar graph. I provided graphs (and sources) for two separate years, clearly showing that Christians make up most of the prison population.

Here is one of the actual links I provided...

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

Lo and behold, my Christian interlocutor contested the link, calling one "a meme" and another "vague", while complaining at length because it lacked the precise percentages of the inmates who are in prison specifically for rape and murder, never mind that there are also charts that actually do show these percentages:

So, inmates who committed violent crimes, including rape and murder, make up more of the prison population than those who committed lesser offenses. Given this data, we are then being reasonable to deduce that a very large percentage of that section identify as Christian. It's a matter of doing the math.

And yet, this sort of evidence will not satisfy, and I knew it wouldn't, which is why I didn't even bother with posting the above pie chart. Why didn't I post it? The answer is simple and obvious: Because the social media Christian has taken the intellectually lazy way out and simply redefined what "Christian" means. This way, with a wave of a hand, he can simply say that any person who rapes and murders isn't a "True Christian". How's that for convenience?

I'm sure that I am not the only one who sees how vacuous this sort of argument is. I certainly saw it, so using one of my favorite literary tools..i.e..sarcasm, I pointed out that things like armed robbery, child molestation, and child pornography are not deal breakers in this guy's world; you can still commit these 'not-so-immoral' acts and be a "True Christian".

Of course, this is what all Christians do. I did it when I was a Christian. They all subjectively draw their lines. They all project their own idea of how morals should be.

As one might have guessed, there was dead silence on this issue. Not one iota of interest shown in clearing it up. Not that this is shocking, or anything.

Happy New Year!

Wishing my commenters and lurkers a happy upcoming year!

Goodness: All for Nothing?

Above is an image of a galaxy taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. To be precise, it's a barred spiral galaxy called NGC 5398, and it's about 55 million light-years away.

Now imagine upwards of two trillion of these. Seems unfathomable, right? But this is actually the latest estimate that astronomers give for the number of galaxies in the observable universe.

Factoring in this number, ask yourself this: Is it possible that we earthlings are the only intelligent life in the entire universe?

I think I'd have to say, sure, it's possible, but not bloody-likely. 

But for sake of discussion, let's say that religion had it right and that we are alone in the universe. Done.

So, whether you believe that we are here because a god set things up this way, or whether you believe that we essentially won the cosmic lotto, one thing we must agree on is that the life-giving energy from our sun is limited. The sun, like any other star, will eventually succumb to star death.

When the sun has burned off all of its hydrogen, it will go through an expansion process in which it will eventually become a red giant. When this happens, scientists say that this could actually swallow "near by" planets like Venus and Mercury.

Bottom line, though, is that at some point the earth will no longer support human life. Humans, who are presumably the crowning jewel of the universe if one accepts religion's explanation for how and why we got here, will become extinct. Gone. Kapoot. If one holds to a naturalistic view, the same---nature will have simply run its course, and death will have become the final result of life, as it is for every other living thing.

But again, regardless of which position one holds, one thing is for certain and that is that a virtual infinite list of potential humans will be ixnayed. Think of it as trillions upon trillions of potential human beings who will never see the light of day(literally), meaning that trillions upon trillions of people will never exist to experience what I, and you the reader, have experienced. They will never experience childhood. They will never experience the unconditional love of a pet. They will never experience a good book, a good moive, an orgasm, having children, eating, sleeping........none of it.

When it comes to the human experience, another thing we can likely agree on is that there are bad experiences along with the good. On the one hand, we are here, when in fact so many potential people just like us will never even get that chance. This is something that, when I sit back and really think about it, it makes me feel extremely lucky. And if you're religious, you might say "blessed". Either way, it's one of the good things to know while we're here.

Conversely, one of the bad things about our human experience here is that the longer we live, the more we will become witness to our loved ones vanishing before our eyes. There is, of course, this idea that our dearly departed aren't really dead at all, but are still "alive" in some otherworldly realm. But so far there is no objective confirmation for this. In fact, the current scientific data on the subject tells us that it's wish-thinking at best.

In my case, I would say that I am cursed to go where the evidence leads when it comes to this subject. I mean, if it was just a matter of willing myself to believe that which I find unbelievable? Hell, I would do just that, and then maybe my human experience would be a little more bearable when it comes to this topic. As it stands, however, I'm left to believe that at some point I will never again see those whom I love the most. And upon my own death, all my achievements and memories, including the memories of the people gone before me, will end up in the abyss of nothingness.

As one might imagine, this doesn't make for very pleasant subject matter on which to ruminate. And if it's not bad enough that I'll never see friends and family members ever again, in many cases I will first watch them wither away from despicable diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer's. That, or they may become witnesses to my suffering the same fate.

That this is unsettling is the understatement of the century. But of course, reality does not give a rat's patooty about what you or I think, nor does it care about what we hope or feel. Nope. Reality will go about its business of being reality. If there's any saving grace at all, the day will come when I, too, vanish, at which point, I won't even know that I'm dead nor that I had ever lived. My "existence" will be on par with those from the infinite list I mentioned earlier, that is, non-existence. And let's be honest, none of us were sad or inconvenienced before we were born, so there's no reason to think it'll be any different after we've died.

But back to our relatively short stay on this earth---another thing that I find unsettling, especially lately, is how the legacies that we may leave behind could be overshadowed by a simple lapse of judgment while we're here. Subsequently, any and all good that we have done in our lives is, for all intents and purposes, for nothing. And no, I don't mean guys like our 45th President who was caught on tape talking about grabbing women's nether regions, the same guy who gives a nod of approval when his daughter is regarded as a "piece of ass".

So, no, I don't mean people who have a long trail of instances when their credibility and ethics were called into question. I mean people who are seemingly decent, caring, smart, talented individuals who slip up and who use poor judgement a time or two throughout their lives.

It's almost like, in the blink of an eye, any goodness that we do in our lives can be wiped off the table. It doesn't seem quite fair. But as mentioned before, life isn't about fairness, and reality doesn't care about how we feel, so I've more or less answered my own question.

We are suppose to be an intelligent race of beings, so I can only hope that the intelligent among us will continue to see the good in people even in spite of our imperfect nature. And I should point out that this is provided that we're not talking about those who are amoral(without morals)...e.g...John Wayne Gacy, Charles Mansion, and the like. The former was an artist, so most certainly his artistic accomplishments will be overshadowed by the fact that he was a serial murderer.

In closing, I want to point out that I do understand that people who choose to be in the public eye have to be more careful. I also understand that there are real victims out there, as in the case of the current situation where women are coming forth and making allegations about certain celebrities and politicians. So none of this is an attempt to trivialize or delegitimize any victim's experiences. But alas, we are all victims of someone else's error in judgment at some point in our lives. Perfection is unobtainable. It's a myth, and chasing myths is a form of insanity. So it seems that doing our best and hoping for the best is all we can do. It's what I will do.

The Stark Difference

Okay, so, you know there's something fishy going on when you're discussing the Problem of Evil with someone - for instance, if you're discussing why, if there is a "God" who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, does a child die of hunger every seven seconds - and the person with whom you're discussing this topic fires back.... "What have you done to help a starving child?!?"

I'm going to venture a guess that most of us see the fallacy of the argument right away. And while it might be true that I've never offered food to a child in need, it doesn't address the actual argument being made. No, it sidesteps it. It's a red herring.

In other words, whether I help starving children or not, is totally irrelevant. Remember, I'm not asking, "Why is there world hunger?"; I'm asking, "If there is a God who is both all powerful and all loving, why is there world hunger?" Two different questions, not necessarily the same implications. 

For starters, I'm not the one claiming to be (or being claimed to be) things like omnipotent and omnibenevolent. No, my resources, and most assuredly my powers, are totally limited. I admit this.

 Furthermore, I'm not the one claiming to be able to feed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. If I had gone on record to claim something so extraordinary, then sure, at that point questioning my motives or powers would be warranted.

So, if God presumably has the above-mentioned powers, but yet, children starve to death daily, why isn't questioning God's powers and motives warranted? How is an individual who mysteriously never has to lift a finger in the way of helping his supposed "children", able to get all the "glory", while we the "children" get all the responsibility and blame? Does that seem right to you? Because if I, and I alone, could stop world hunger and human suffering in general, particularly that of children, I would. I guess that is the stark difference between me and "God".

1 Corinthians 2:14

Welp, as the story goes, the reason that I and other atheists reject Christianity is because we don't understand it. In fact, when certain bible verses are employed, the already eyebrow-raising assertion that we don't understand Christianity is then taken even a step further, as we are told that the reason we don't understand Christianity is because we can't understand it.

I give you 1 Corinthians 2:14

 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

To discern the problem with this verse (and hundreds more just like it), you don't need to be given any special powers, or codes, or passwords. You needn't become something otherworldly or non-human. No, you need only do one thing, and that is to use common sense.

But let's back up a bit, first. If I'm told in no uncertain terms that it's not possible for me to understand X, Y, and Z, then what person in his or her right mind would hold me responsible for not understanding X, Y, and Z??? And how about punishment? Punished for not understanding something that I'm presumably unable to understand????

Secondly, even if there was a way for me to obtain the magical or secret component that's required for understanding X, Y and Z, I would still need complete access to this component, now wouldn't I? Yes, I'm damned near certain that that would be the case. If A, B, and C is required for my discerning X, Y, and Z, then I would need to be given access to A, B, and C. Again, common sense.

But alas, where the Christian philosophy is concerned, the creators of said philosophy didn't think things through too well and seemed to forget that some people actually have common sense, because in their attempt to demonize non-members of their club and write them off as things like "heathens" and "foolish", said creators screwed up royally because they employed circular reasoning when it came to membership requirements.

See, if a person such as myself presumably can't know God until/unless I can discern that which is "spiritual", but yet, if I can't discern that which is "spiritual" until/unless I know God, the problem sort of reaches out and smacks you in the face. And that is clearly the problem with the Corinthians verse, which can be brought to light better reading the verse like this...

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

So, certain things come from this so-called "Spirit of God", and one those things is evidently the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". Hello?

Folks, this is mental sleight of hand, which is to essentially say that you have to just decide, a priori, that Christianity is true, and then the rest will fall into place. In other words, ignore the circular logic, take the leap of faith, and then and only then will you magically possess the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". How convenient, right?

As Sam Harris would say, this is like playing tennis without the net. And he is being kind, here.

Your Closed Minded!

Okay, admittedly I've never thought about owning a "closed minded", much less what I'd do with one. Ha! :)

But okay, possessive wrongly used for contraction aside, when you call your interlocutor close-minded for merely disagreeing with you, this amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. Yes, because you are essentially suggesting that if I don't agree with your worldview then, oh, my mind must be closed.

Alrighty, let's see how this mindset stacks up if applied elsewhere:

Suppose that a Christian and a Muslim are in a debate and the topic of the debate is which faith's holy writ is truly inspired by a supernatural entity, and which faith's holy writ is a bunch of man-made nonsense.

Okay, so in closing arguments the Muslim tells the guy representing the Christian faith that he is "close-minded" because he was ultimately not swayed by the Muslim's arguments that the Holy Qu'ran is in fact the divinely inspired Will and Testament of the creator of the universe, not the bible.

Question: Will the Christian debater accept the Muslim's charge that he is close-minded? And what about any Christians in the audience? Will they accept that they, too, are close-minded, and all because they remain unconvinced that the Qu'ran holds the power that the Muslim debater and the Qu'ran itself, say it holds?

The answer on both counts of course is NO. The Christian debater is simply not convinced of the claims of Islam or its book, and dollars to doughnuts the same would be true for any Christians in the audience.

So now let's switch it up for a moment: Suppose that the Christian debater was instead an atheist, and suppose that the Muslim made the same charge in his closing arguments, telling the audience, "Atheists reject the Qu'ran, so we must therefore conclude that atheists are close-minded!".

Now, would the Christians in the audience agree with the Muslim debater that the atheist debater is "close-minded" for rejecting the claims of Islam and its accompanying book? If we're honest, we must admit that the answer to that question is "no", because if we can conclude that atheists are "close-minded" and thus write them off for rejecting the Qu'ran, then by extension we ought to be able to conclude that Christians are also "close-minded" for rejecting the Qu'ran. Needless to say, Christians don't like being written-off any more than anyone else likes being written-off.

So, see, when Christians reject the claims of other theists, it's not because Christians are necessarily close-minded; it's because Christians are skeptics just like atheists are skeptics. The difference is that Christians don't apply that same skepticism to their own theistic claims, whereas, atheists apply skepticism to all theistic claims.

In other words, when internet Christians trot out the argument that nonbelievers are "close-minded" for not accepting their bible, this is just another in a long line of intellectual cop-outs. It's also no coincidence that this is nine times out of ten employed as a parting shot, when nothing else in their ministry has worked.

Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101

This one is sort of a continuation of the previous post, "Comment Policies", albeit, it dives into something else later on.

So, aside from bloggers having policies set up for guests who may want to leave a comment, there is often times a disclaimer, which is basically letting your readers know your blog's terms and conditions. Most of the time a disclaimer works to avoid liabilities. For example, to attempt to make it so that you can't be held accountable if someone relies on your website/blog content.

Another thing that might be included in the terms and conditions is a copyright notice. This lets your readers know your writings are yours and that they are protected and should not to be copied or reproduced without permission.

Okay, so bouncing around the blogoshpere the other day I linked to a blog on which the blog's owner/operator delineates some copyright terms and conditions. In part, this stated that visitors cannot download or reproduce any part of the website in any way, shape, or form, without written permission. However, it goes on to say that just linking to the website or to a specific blog post is perfectly fine.

So, if, for example, I provide a link to a blog post on the above described website, my readers can then link to it directly and read this blogger's written work(s). However, if I copy that work and paste it here without written permission, I'm apparently in violation of the site's terms and conditions, unless I've misunderstood something.

I confess that I've not taken the time to look into the legalities of it, so I will just post a link to the website and specific blog post I want to address, and then take my chances:

  http://savedbygracebiblestudy.blogspot.com/p/how-can-we-know-god-exists-and-if-well.html

Disclaimer: any and all type herein that is in the color red was not authored by me and I am in no way trying to take credit for it. Furthermore, nothing in this post, "Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101" that is in red type reflects the views of this blog/website, Boomslang's Lair.

We know God exists because we see His creation all around us ~ SBG

False. You don't know that a God exists, and claiming that that which exists is "creation" is the fallacy of begging the question, aka, affirming your conclusion in your premise. It is also an argument from personal incredulity, which is a type of argument from ignorance.

It takes this form:

1. I cannot fathom how things can exist without a creator.

2. Therefore, there's a creator

When we see a fine watch, we know that someone had to design it because it is too complicated, beautiful, and high functioning for it to have "evolved" by accident from scrap metal ~ SBG

False. If we're walking around in nature and we come across a "watch" on the ground, whether it be "fine", or a broken piece of junk, we can know that it was designed because we know that watches don't occur in nature. In other words, we can distinguish between things that occur in nature and things that do not  occur in nature. Also, not everything in nature is "complicated"; not everything in nature is "beautiful"; not everything in nature is "high functioning". Rocks can be "beautiful" for sure. But are they "complicated"? Are they "high functioning"? No, and no.

As for "evolved by accident", for starters, how something evolved isn't necessarily the same subject as how it came to be. Origins is one topic; evolution is a different topic. As for "accident," creationists and ID proponents conveniently ignore the "selection" part of the process of "Evolution by natural selection."

 The same is true for the human body, the stars in the universe, and all the miracles of nature -- a Being of unlimited intelligence, power and good had to design and create these ~~ SBG 

False. Once more, calling things (or occurrences) in nature, "miracles of nature", is the fallacy of begging the question. If we observe a tapeworm hanging out of a dog's rectum, have we just witnessed a "miracle of nature"? Or is it simply nature? How about when a tsunami drowns ten thousand people? Does anyone call this a "miracle of nature"? No, of course not---it's just nature, albeit, some people do believe that bad weather is to punish people. This of course is superstition at work, and curiously, some of the worst weather in the U.S. occurs in the Bible Belt. Enough said.

God does not want to force Himself on us, so He made us with the ability to choose Him or to reject Him ~ SBG

We can still choose (or reject) an individual that we know for certain exists. In other words, we're being asked to accept God's existence on faith. So in essence, we're being told that the faith is necessary, because if we knew for certain that God existed, this would somehow compromise our free will and we'd be "forced" to accept him. This notion is as silly as it is false. The "Divine Hiddenness of God" argument has been thoroughly debunked. On top of it all, God was making personal appearances all throughout the Bible..e.g..to "The Twelve" and to over 500 other people, and this didn't harm anyone's "free will". And yet, today the only appearances God makes is on a piece of toast or on a tree trunk.

 There is no evil or darkness in God -- He is perfectly pure, holy, and just ~ SBG

False/false.

a) God created evil [Isaiah 45-7] . To bring evil into existence would require evil. To allow evil (when you can prevent it, but don't), makes you complicit.

b) to be perfectly "just" would require giving the deserved punishment each and every time, no exceptions. Thus, being merciful, aka, granting clemency, even once, precludes "perfect justice".

  So we have all broken the Ten Commandments ~ SBG

Yes? And? So, what? There is no evidence that we get morals (or ethics) from the Bible or its "Commandments". Besides, how would we even know good commandments from evil ones? What standard would you use to tell them apart? And what if God commanded Christians to kill all nonbelievers?? Would killing nonbelievers then become "good"? Is this a command that you'd obey? Be honest, now.

But God found a way to make peace between sinners and Himself. He loves us so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus, to take the punishment that we all deserve ~ SBG

Someone taking the punishment for what someone else deserves? So much for that "perfectly just" stuff. Christianity's Substitutionary Atonement spits into the face of justice.

He paid for all our sins, past, present and future ~ SBG

Then what's the problem? A debt that is paid doesn't usually require any other actions from the debtor. But yet, for some reason in Christianity words and language never quite mean what they actually say, and in the case of Jesus taking the punishment to pay off the "sins" of the "sinner", there are clearly strings attached. Yes, strings attached, aka, conditions. So, in the end, no, Jesus didn't pay "for all our sins"; he paid for the sins of Christians, exclusively, because they are the only ones who benefit from having their sins paid. Christianity amounts to favoritism.

  No matter what good things we do, it never outweighs the fact that we are sinners and deserve to go to hell ~ SBG

And there is it again. "Sinners" deserve to go to hell. The very definition of "justice" is giving someone nothing less than what they deserve. But does God give all sinners what we are told they deserve? No. Thus, the God described in the Bible is not "perfectly just". "Justice" and "mercy" contradict one another. This is how we know that Christians create and speak their own language. Colloquial word meanings are turned on their head. Only in God-speak 101 can an individual be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just.

 It doesn’t matter to God how many bad things we have done in the past or how terrible those things were, because He knows that each of us is guilty ~ SBG

And this is exactly the reason that those who actually care about things like reason, compassion, and justice should be denouncing Christianity, a philosophy by which a serial rapist can feasibly have their crimes swept under the rug and be rewarded a never-ending life of pure, unadulterated bliss, meanwhile, a person of another faith or no faith at all who has never harmed a hair on another human being's head, gets incinerated in "hell." A rapist need only profess Christianity and accept its god into their heart, and they're good to go. Despicable. Utterly despicable. Thank goodness there's no evidence that any of it is true.

Comment Policies

As an atheist and as someone who values truth, from time to time I will check out blogs that are owned/operated by people who hold views and beliefs that run contrary to my own. Even 180 degrees to the contrary. After all, the truth has nothing to hide, so if one of our goals is to accumulate as much truth as possible, in other words, acquire as much knowledge that corresponds to reality as possible; and by extension, if it is our goal to discard as much false information as possible, that being, that which does not correspond to reality, then exposing ourselves to all sorts of views shouldn't be a problem or concern for us. In fact, if we care about truth, we should be inviting views that dissent from our own. We should invite those views, consider them, and be able to entertain the idea that they could be right views and that we could have wrong views. The quote that comes to mind is the one about being able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.

But yet, conversing/associating with people who think/believe differently than we do is a big no-no for some bloggers. Anyone who blogs on a somewhat regular basis might be able to tell which blogs are run by such people, and one clue is a blogger's commenting policy, albeit an inconspicuous clue.

For those who have no comment policy or disclaimers, it's pretty much a given that comments are welcome and that comments will post without having to pass moderation. This blog, my blog, is set up that way. Since its inception, I've only had to ban one guest, but this was for reasons other than just disagreement.

For other blogs and their bloggers, the commenting policies are short and to the point. For instance, in the comment section, one blogger simply writes...

Your comments are always welcome

 Another blogger writes...

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts

So, again, some bloggers choose simple and to the point. With policies such as these, there is a level of trust and confidence exuded, in contrast to, say, exuding distrust and paranoia.

Now let's have a look at an example of a different kind of commenting policy...

Please be as gracious as you would like others to be to you. Thank you. Please try to keep your comments on the topic of the post you are commenting on. If there is a link to an article or podcast, or if there is an embedded video please view these before airing your views on the posting. If you clearly did not watch video/read link I may choose to remove your comment or leave your comment and then not respond to it..particularly if you have a question that is already answered on link or video. Opposing viewpoints are of course allowed here, however, I will limit such discussions to two or at most three further comments on one topic, so do try to get all your criticisms in while keeping that in mind, and don't take it personal.... I just don't want to be bogged down with a constant barrage of replies that go and on like a dog chasing it's(sic) tail in circles.

While it starts off on the right foot, it slowly dive-bombs. Instead of confidence and trust, it exudes an air of superiority, a la, 'I know I'm right, so I won't waste my precious time with you if you don't agree with me.'

Notice that four sentences in, they state, "If you clearly did not watch video/read link[SNIP]"

I would just love to know from this person how they are able to "clearly" know that someone didn't read a link and/or watch a video that they posted, other than that their guest might simply disagree with the conclusions. I mean, it's a sad day if we're not allowed to disagree with some damned YouTube videos, isn't it? Yes, because otherwise, we'd have to believe claims that the world is shaped like a pancake and that large-footed community apes are prancing around in people's backyards.

Moving on, we see a veiled admission that this particular blogger is not good at defending their beliefs with written language. Either that, or they're a lazy-ass. I mean, they're only going to allow and respond to two comments that disagree with their views? Maybe three if they're feeling motivated that day? Good grief.........::eyeroll::

Then, most amusing of all, this person, the one that wrote, "Please be as gracious as you would like others to be to you", caps off their disclaimer with some ad hominem, writing, more or less, that they just don't want to be burdened with having to deal with views that don't agree with their own. You know, views that amount to a dog chasing its tail. How "gracious", right?

I don't know about anyone else, but I see right through the arrogance and inflated sense of confidence exuded in this mindset. What I see is a person who will avoid having to defend their beliefs like the plague, not because doing so would be too time consuming and/or off-putting, but because they know deep down that their beliefs are a house of cards that will crumble from the slightest draft.

It's strange, because those with religious convictions are often the ones with such attitudes, but imagine how many people would be missing out on their profound intellect and wisdom. Imagine how great of a ministry tool it would be for such people to actually use their intellect and wisdom to engage those whom they call "lost".

Lost?

(it stings!)

 

Make Fat thy Bones; Make Thick thy Head

Okay, okay, so, yes, I probably need to disclaim my usage of scripture, since, as a *former believer, I no longer believe scripture is of a "Divine" origin. The bible isn't and never was "inspired" by any "Perfect" or "Divine" beings, and the fact that said book is chock-full of contradictions, scientific blunders, and overall crummy advice, is all the evidence that any person conducting an **objective evaluation of the Christian faith needs to know this. And sure, one could argue that parts of scripture could be inspired by God, and others, not, but that's not what the Bible claims, plus, a perfect being inspiring anything less than perfection is utterly nonsensical.

*former believer.

For anyone skeptical of the term "former believer", please take note of the following:

Former: 1. [attributive] Having previously been a particular thing

(ref: Oxford Dictionary)

Example: Jimmy previously believed that Santa Claus had a referent in reality. Jimmy no longer believes that Santa Claus has a referent in reality.

Applied to the topic at hand: Boomslang was previously a Christian who previously believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God. Boomslang is no longer a Christian, and by extension, Boomslang no longer believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

**objective evaluation

Objective. adj 1. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

(ref: Oxford Dictionary)

Example: When examining the truth claims surrounding the ancient Egyptian gods, historians tried their best to be objective and impartial, and thus, they were prepared to accept the findings even if they hated those findings. 

Applied to the topic at hand: When examining the truth claims surrounding God, Jesus, and the Bible, Boomslang tried to be objective and impartial, and thus, was prepared to accept the findings even if he hated those findings. 



Note, my apologies if it seems like I'm being extremely meticulous with my wording and sardonic in demeanor, but it's for a good reason. Please bear with this former believer  :)

Okay, since it is Christians, not atheists, not agnostics, not people of other religious faiths, who are bound by the writings/teachings of "Christ", then the words of their "Christ" apply to them. 

In other words, my directing a Christian to their own teachings doesn't require that I, too, believe in their Christ or their Christ's book. I know it might seem like a really unnecessary thing to have to point out, but unfortunately, people have tried this sort of  "Gotcha!" argument before, haven't they? Yes, they have. But I digress.

Here in Matthew 15:8, Christians..i.e.. "these people" are being rebuked by Jesus for only paying lip service to his teachings instead of living said teachings. Did you catch that? Jesus is disappointed when self-professed Christians honor his teachings with their eyes 'n ears, but not with their mouths and keyboards.

For instance, say, like when Christians judge others. Since when do we put credence in a lecture on sin when the lecturer herself is a sinner?

We've heard it before: "Jesus HAS THIS under His control!". They say this, but then they proceed to claim to know what's best for other people, or more outrageous, they claim to know the personal experiences of other people better than the people themselves? What's up with that bull ca-ca? 

Oh, and if only God can know a person's heart, then why do some Christians pretend like they, too, can know another person's heart, whether that person is a current believer, or former believer, or whatever? And speaking of knowing what Christians cannot possibly know, why, oh why, for those Christians who are quick to give mini-sermons on "free will" do they often times in the next breath say things like, "Once saved, always saved!"?? What? once I accept Jesus into my heart I can't change my mind and conclude that "He" was never there to begin with?  So much for that "free will" malarkey.

And if a believer who struggles with his or her faith ultimately loses that faith, isn't God, who is presumably sovereign, knows what's best, and has a Plan, the one IN CONTROL?!? If so, why not give it a rest and just let him be in control already? Why do self-professed Christians who believe in a God that decides everything, read....EVERYTHING, regardless of the will of man, spend their time writing blog posts that second-guess this God? Especially given verses like, "Blessed be God who hath blessed us in Christ, according as He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world".

If God elected who he wanted to elect from the onset, then his mind is already made up and he cannot change it. Meanwhile, you'll find some denominations of Christianity, such as Lutherans and Calvinists, happy to talk at length about what you need to do or avoid to make the cut. Um, no. Stop it. Just stop it.

So, the long and short of it is, maybe there are some people who aren't "true Christians" either in their hearts, or their minds. These things I point out, these pesky attributes and tenets, and so forth, this isn't stuff I'm pulling out of my hindquarters. No, these are things that are confirmed by the Christian book and by the Christian's own words---by their own blog posts.  

And yes, taking one's own advice is always a good move, but this isn't just about taking one's own advice; it's about taking the advice of an individual that you claim to love, worship, revere, follow. 

Selective Design: Revisiting the Theory (and fact) of Evolution

It's chilly and rainy outside here on Florida's West coast, so it's a good day to stay inside and revisit an old topic.

On social media a friend and former colleague posted a video depicting a snake-mimicking caterpillar that inhabits Peru, South America and surrounding countries. When agitated or threatened, this caterpillar, which is the larva of a Sphinx Hawk Moth (Hermeroplanes Triptolemus), pulls its legs in and turns its hindquarters upside down, and the result highly resembles a snake. But not just any snake(and this is key), it resembles a green tree viper. Why is this important? It's important because said viper is a snake that also inhabits that region. This is evolution, aka, adapting to one's environment, in action.

Anyway, I remarked that this was an example of evolution underneath this friend's post, and lo and behold, someone retorted...."Now THAT is intelligent design. Awesome."

Since I had a pretty good feeling that my friend would jump in at any time, I watched and waited, and sure enough, the author of the I.D. comment was challenged by way of comparison, in this case, having it pointed out to him how the human eye, which is presumably "designed" by the same "Designer", falls way short of "perfection". And of course, my friend makes a good and fair point when pointing this out.

It also begs this question: If this caterpillar's defense mechanism is an example of "awesome" design, then can we conclude that any caterpillar that does not or cannot mimic a viper, and subsequently gets eaten by predators in nature, is an example of poor design? If not, why not? Why the double standard?

So, the mistake that I.D. proponents make is that they look at what they call "design" in nature, selectively. This of course is a form of cherry-picking. That is, they look at all the astonishing and/or advantageous attributes of things found in nature and insist the credit must to an "Intelligent Designer", while totally ignoring the seemingly odd or downright shoddy "design" that is also seen in nature. Ironically, this even includes us homo sapiens, who we are to believe are the "crowning jewel" creation of the supposed "Designer".

Let's see, eyesight that craps-out midlife. Intelligent design? A breathing passage that's right next to a passage for swallowing food and water? Organs and teeth that we don't even need? A "tailbone"? Intelligent?

But anyway, when challenged, the I.D. proponent, aka, creationist - because let's face it, what we're talking here is "creationism" all gussied up - resorts to ad hominems and victim-playing. After multiple exchanges, he finally writes....

"These posts can go on for days. I'm just not that interested in putting people down because of their beliefs".

Not surprisingly, not one of the three other people in the conversation put him down. But of course, these are the sorts of things said when someone knows they've been defeated, or at least, it's the sort things said when someone can't produce evidence to back their biblical views. Emphasis on "their", since the views of believers seem to be as unique as fingerprints. In any case, this was no exception, and yet, ironically, we were told that we must not know anything about religion when the subject shifted to the bible.

In this particular case, this Christian accepted that things evolved within their "kinds", but he kept shifting to the whole "something from nothing" argument, which is not related, since one topic deals with origins; the other topic, diversity.

The bible unambiguously delineates that animals that "crawl on the ground" were created as is. Genesis doesn't mention anything about bugs or insects "evolving," much less how some of them developed the wherewithal to mimic deadly snakes. But yet, believers will cite certain passages, then they'll extrapolate until it ends up supporting what they want to believe(and by extension, ignore what they don't want to believe).

This is how apologetics work. But in the end, the I.D. guy was right about one thing, that is, these sort of posts can go on for days. What doesn't go on for days is the part where disingenuous tactics are used. There is no mystery here. A dose of facts usually nips that part in the bud. No one is fooled except for those fooling themselves.