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$$.

Another Victory for Satan!

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

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

This proves my hypothesis: Satan is GAY!

The Dregs of Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ho, Ho, Ho....

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

They write...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Cakes

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

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

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

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

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

Illuminating Truth

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

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

The young female author writes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument from False Analogy

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

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

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


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

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


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

Susan writes....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan?

More damning:

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

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

Under the Microscope: Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is an earlier excerpt of my conversation with her. 

The red type is her engaging another blogger:

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

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

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

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

There is still time ~ Susan Z.

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


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


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

So, moving on.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem with Atheists...

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

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

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

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

The author writes....

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

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

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

This quote nails it:

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

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

The Impossible Game

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Point(or ignoring the big picture)

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

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

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

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

  

Miracle Baby!

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



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

Arg...::sigh::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU ARE FORGIVEN

ACCEPT CHRIST

FOR ETERNAL LIFE

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

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

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

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

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

(laughs)

Him: "There is no problem!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Him: "Yeah"

The Higher Source is You

K.O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, done.

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

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

2000 years ago.

Translated multiple times.

Moving on....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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