The Problem of God's Complicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Solution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Ya Gonna Call?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Quote by James Montgomery Boice

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

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

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

Now for the quote, itself.....

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

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

"human beings have no claim upon God"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make America Great Again!

Oh, cutts. Really?

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, done.

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

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

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

%$#@ cancer!

Disclaimer: If you are offended by certain four-letter expletives, please either skip to the next post or simply navigate away at this time, because I won't censor these words for the remainder of this post. Thank you.



Interlude begin: 

Interlude end:



Fuck cancer. Yes, you read that right...FUCK cancer. For a lot of people who've dealt with losing loved ones to this totally despicable, dignity-robbing, life-destroying disease, saying "FUCK cancer" might actually feel good, and as well, it might release pent up anger and/or ease the helplessness we often feel, even if for only a few seconds. At least, for me it does.

But in any case, you know what they say when it comes to anger, don't you? Yes, they say, "Don't hang on to anger!"? From men of the cloth, to your New Aged gurus, from your family, to your coworkers----people admonish us to not hang on to anger.

Okay, on its face, that seems like reasonable enough advice, doesn't it? Sure. So, now what? What's the best way to not hang on to anger? Welp, best as I can tell, you let that shit out, that's what. Yes, so that's just what I'm about to do, and again, if you are easily offended by four-letter expletives, I suggest that you navigate away at once, although, I've already typed "fuck" 3 times and "shit" 1 time, and you're still reading, so....

Anyway, yeah, cancer can fuck off. And by the way, I'm not only talking about anger and frustration that tends to arise when one feels totally helpless when faced with having to watch a loved one wither away to nothing - sometimes in a matter of months, other times in a matter of days - but in this case, I'm also talking about anger and frustration that arises when I witness something else that's truly mind-boggling. It's something that certain people with whom I share the planet, do. They do it, and the shit needs to stop.

So, let the record show that my sentiments towards the disease called "cancer" extend beyond the disease, itself. Yes, my sentiments towards cancer are extended to this notion, the bullshit notion, that cancer is somehow a warranted, necessary consequence. And no, I don't mean in what some might call a self-induced instance of cancer, like from smoking or chewing tobacco - although, I do confess that it can be unnerving to listen to some of the excuses that come from people who have a nicotine addiction - I mean a consequence to an imaginary trespass called "sin".

I should be clear: If someone believes that cancer and other human suffering is a direct result of "sin", then it's them I'm addressing. However, it should also be noted that I'm not saying, "Fuck cancer... and fuck you, too". No, I'm talking about an idea, here. I'm talking about a despicably horrible idea, one for which there is not one shred of evidence for being true. I'm talking about in instances when people will tell you with a straight face that cancer and other human suffering is because of "sin", well, except when it's someone they know. In that case, we hear things like "God needed another angel!", or "They're in a better place!", and the like.

Let's get one thing straight: There is no "better place" for a child than with his or her parents, the people who love them the most; the people who are actually, physically present, providing the things that, you know, a child actually needs? Seriously, now, does anyone really believe that a child would rather be singing some goddamned gospel hymns to a ghost, than be with his or her family pet??? If you do, you must've somehow forgotten what it's like to be a child, or maybe you never had a pet.

But that's animals, and that's one thing. There's our moms and dads, to consider, too, and that is quite another thing. 'Anyone ever see a small child become separated from his or her parents in a public place? Okay, now imagine that child being separated for another 40, 50, 60, etc. years from his or her parents(assuming for sake of discussion that a deceased child doesn't age in "Heaven" because the "spirit world" is not bound by space-time).

If you are a Christian, fine. And if you mean well, even better, but please think before you attempt to console grieving people by saying stupid shit. Yes, stupid shit. "They are in a better place!" is just stupid, unless by "better place" you mean dead, even though "dead" isn't technically a place.

Here's a suggestion, how about.... "They are no longer suffering"? Look, it's thoughtful, and it's actually factual, too. Imagine that.

Last month my aunt..i.e..my mom's younger sister and only sibling died of lung cancer that spread to her brain. She fought it for around 9 months. In a bizarre twist of fate, I and another family member went in one evening to visit her at hospice and noticed that she had fallen asleep early, so we decided to leave and check back later, since the hospice wasn't too far from my house. But then I noticed and even mentioned how bad my aunt looked, and a fraction of a second later I noticed no respiratory movement in her chest. She was dead. We had gone in, actually walked past a few nurses and into my aunt's room, and we discovered for ourselves that she had died only moments before.

Do I still have anger over certain things? If I said "no", I'd be a damned liar. My aunt, a life-long smoker, started smoking when she was 9 years old, and she died from it at age 66.

How does one respond to a heavy smoker who started smoking, essentially from the age of a flippin' child, when, in the midst of disease, they interject..."I was the last person I thought this would happen to"? Um...whaaa?...? No, god dammit, you're at the very top of the list of people who get lung cancer! Sheesh!

Of course, I didn't say that, but did I think it? Yes, I most certainly did think it. Anger? Yup, got it---angry at such mindsets; angry at myself for not handcuffing her and dragging her to the doctor approximately 5 years ago at the onset of symptoms, because that's what it would have taken to get her to the doctor. Yes, my aunt, along with my maternal grandmother, had the ol' "I know my own body better than anyone else!" mentality.

My aunt self-diagnosed, writing-off her daily morning dry cough as "allergies", and now she's dead because of it. This is not to say that cancer would not have taken her life eventually, but she could've bought more time had they caught it earlier, and they could've caught it earlier had she listened to our multiple pleas to get it checked.

But alas, you cannot make adults, especially ones with substance addictions, do what they do not want to do.

As time goes on, the anger (and guilt) has subsided... some. Make no mistake, I loved my aunt very much. She was the most selfless person I had ever known, next to her mom(my grandmother) and her sister(my mom). I am writing this mostly to vent openly. It is like therapy, in a sense.

While I loved "Tia" very much, I very much hated some of her mindsets, one of which, directly shortened my time with her on this planet. Look, we can love people, but yet, hate ideas. There are, yes, some ideas that I hate, and it's particularly unnerving when we can demonstrate some ideas to be bad and even false, but people still cling to them. But that's what "faith" is for, isn't it? Whatever.

But no matter how you slice it, human suffering is part of life, whether we contribute to it directly, or not. I just choose to accept this, and in doing so, the need to make flimsy excuses for why we suffer vanishes. And besides, in a world with no "Divine" overseer, we'd fully expect to see disease and human suffering, and voila, that's precisely what we see. There just isn't enough "faith" for me to write that off as a big "coincidence".



RIP "Tia"

My Opinion Vs Facts in the Bible

Opinion: 1. a belief, judgement, or way of thinking about something: what someone thinks about a particular thing

Fact: 1 something that truly exists or happens; something that has actual existence. a true piece of information

ref: Merriam Webster

Welp, in another short-lived, face-palm inducing discussion between myself and a Christian blogger/apologist, I was eventually admonished to check out a link that they provided after I chimed in and poked a hole or two in what they had written. The provided link took me to a page called "101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible". The article dealt chiefly with how certain Muslims contend that the Bible contains contradictions, and how any document that claims Divine authority by an omniscient being must be consistent with itself and not contain any errors, including contradictions. I agree with that criterion, BTW. Any document claimed to be authored by a perfect, all-knowing entity should be 100% free of error, including contradictions, both internal AND external.

To back up a bit, the link was provided, in part, because said Christian blogger, by their own admission, gave a simplistic example of how two or more people can discern something and formulate completely differing opinions - in this case, it was the temperature outside - but yet, they opined that those opinions can, quote... "support each other in describing the real facts of the matter". 

They write.....

Today is a gloriously sunny day, much like last Easter (resurrection) Sunday was, except the day before yesterday it was warm and sunny and today it is quite chilly. It had me thinking about the seeming contradiction in it. One person describing today might talk about the beautiful sunshine, birds singing, etc, and another might describe it as very bone chilling cold, the need for extra warm clothing, etc....and on the surface at a quick glance the descriptions might seem to be opposing and contradictory, and yet they are not, the two depictions actually give added information and support each other in describing the real facts of the matter.

Okay, so if you're thinking....'Huh?!?', well, that was exactly my sentiment when I read this particular attempt at Christian apologia. 

For starters, the above analogy ventures into subjective territory. That is, despite there being an objective way with which to measure the temperature outside, two or more people may still have drastically differing feelings on whether or not that temperature is comfortable. Ergo, feelings are subjective. E.g...one person may feel that it's "warm" outside, while another person may feel that it's "bone-chilling". I don't disagree that that is possible. 

Another example, maybe one person says that they saw three people standing at a tomb, and maybe another person says they saw twenty-three people standing at a tomb. Me? I frankly don't give a rat's patooty about that at the moment, simply because I was raising a different type of Bible contradiction, specifically, those of the external type. Examples of external Bible contradictions would be when the Bible contradicts knowledge/information that we acquired independently of the Bible. For instance, knowledge acquired via modern scientific discovery. 

Here are some examples of external Bible contradictions:

In the Bible it states....

• that smearing bird's blood on someone with leprosy can cure them
• that the earth is geocentric
• that demons cause mental illness
• that bats are birds(fowl)
• that a firmament holds up the sky(which they believed was "water")
• that the earth is stationary
• that the moon emits light

I could go on and on, but the astute among us get the picture. Yes. Those "Bible facts" that the apologist speaks of? Well, those are contradicted by science. And this isn't merely my opinion; this is a hard fact. 

The Bible's redactors were not "inspired" by any omniscient entities; they were pulling things out of their hindquarters. Sure, they might've been doing their best with what they had, but that is beside the point: The Bible got those things and gaggles of others, wrong. FACT. 

Now, why would someone be so disingenuous as to contend otherwise? The answer is simple: They have a religious conviction that they are not willing to examine, much less change. Sure, they examine that which confirms their beliefs all the day is long, and they would like those of us who were brave enough to examine our own convictions and who now opt for critical thinking over "faith" to examine that which they believe confirms their beliefs. Well, no thanks. As I said, Christian apologetics are not for winning over skeptics. No. Christian apologetics are for quelling the doubts of the already-convinced. 

It should be noted that in this particular encounter, part of the discussion was later censored. I know, shocker, right? No, this is nothing new. We come to expect these sorts of tactics from Christian apologists. What happened to... the truth has nothing to hide?  'Odd, because apologists censor, delete, dodge, ignore----basically, whatever it takes to avoid having to face their greatest fear, that being that their lives are based on a lie. 

For those who might say, 'Gee, Boomslang, aren't you being a bit crass about it?". Perhaps so. But as long as there are those who use their "faith" as a pseudo-license to second-guess the personal experiences of their fellow human beings---in other words, as long as people use their "faith" to pretend to know things that they cannot possible know, then I have zero qualms about being "crass". I am keenly aware (and thankful) that there are some Christian bloggers who actually refrain from judging nonbelievers, at least attempting to imitate Jesus the times that he wasn't being judgmental. That Jesus never judged? That is debatable. 

Lead? Or Follow?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Own Wisdom (and yours)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Perfect Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Let's explore the answer together...

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

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

Whaaaaaa?!?!?!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premonition, or Something Else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast forward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's his baby picture : )

What Does the Religion of Peace Teach about Violence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding with.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check, criteria met.

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

Check, criteria met.

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

*Quotations denote a paraphrasing.

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

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

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

Dilemma: Bite Tongue, or Unleash Hell?

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

Here it is.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Hoping everyone's New Year is a good one!

Finding the Appropriate Season's Greeting

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

Ready? Here it is.....

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

Tribute to a Friend

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

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

RIP David Van Landing 1964 ~ 2015

Psy·cho·so·mat·ic

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

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

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

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

Arg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four more days of uncertainty and biting the bullet.

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

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

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

Objective Right and Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

Let's start from the top:

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

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

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

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

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

Made Me Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand Alone