Ah-hah!.....gotcha!

Previously, in discussing "free will" - specifically, to what degree our "will" is actually "free" when it comes to actualizing the outcomes that we desire - one of my readership pointed out that when someone is told not to do something, that this, many times, is practically a guarantee that they will do it. But why is this? Could at least part of it be because of our innate curiosity, which is inherent in our being human? And can other factors come into play, too, like sexual attraction and/or the need for acceptance of others? And what about our past experiences? I say, "yes", to all of the above.

So, let's take another look at the whole garden incident and its two human prototypes and their overseeing protagonist, "God"---or more specifically, "Yahweh".

First off, Yahweh, who is presumably "omniscient", would've had to have known that the two prototypes would eat the "forbidden fruit". In other words, what we're talking here is a set-up, AKA, a sting operation. Yes, that's right, Yahweh knew damned-well that Adam & Co. would eat the "forbidden fruit", and for contrast, Yahweh knew this with even more certainty than Dateline and Brian Hanson knew that middle-aged man "X" was going to take the "bait",  jail bait, that is, when they arranged for said bait to personally call and invite middle-aged man "X" to her house. And it's interesting that, in the latter scenario, "X" can be arrested for mere intent; he need not actually "eat the fruit"(no pun), whereas, in the garden parable, the duo must act on their "will" to constitute an actual "trespass". In other words, "God" realizes that the subjects in his sting operation are going to at least contemplate doing what they were warned not to do. But this is for another discussion.

Entrapment

 So, when Yahweh placed the talking snake in the Garden to tempt the ill-fated duo, it's reasonable for us to conclude that this was nothing less than a set-up----**the two didn't stand a chance. To compound the unfairness, the penalty for the duo's "trespass" is all of humankind's penalty---that is, we are all labeled inherently "evil", and worse, we are all held accountable, according to Xian doctrine. But what about Yahweh's "Perfect Justice"? Even if we had all chosen to eat the apple of our own volition, how in the hell does a one-time offense make us inherently "bad" and not worthy of Yahweh's (or anyone else's) trust?!? What... you or I screw up royally one time, and that means that we're destined to repeat it? LOL! I don't think so, albeit, there are clearly some cases where people shouldn't be extended benefit of doubt..e.g..child molesters, serial rapists, etc.

**In a previous post, I talked about how/why "God" is actually dependent on "evil", and in which case, he was not only counting on Adam & Co. to eat the infamous apple, he needed them to eat it.

  So, to my onlooking Christian readership, this is an open invitation to put this into terms that make sense. And if the central tenets of Christianity don't make sense, in this case, "Original Sin", I think we are being reasonable to discard them, which is precisely what I have done.

Because History Proves It!

Today, two days before Easter Sunday, I read a post on a popular networking site that said that Jesus' crucifixion "firmly established an historical event". This friend went on to say......

"we should all bow our heads to reflect and praise the history of Jesus' passionate life and death"

Okay, well, in short, "history" cannot establish (or prove) outrageous claims, and in this case, outrageous, supernatural claims. We can learn from "history" what most likely happened(or most likely did not happen), but "history" doesn't establish or prove claims of the supernatural. For instance, we can learn from history that George Washington was our first President. And since Washington, himself, left autobiographical writings behind, we can take this bit of history and safely conclude that he actually existed and was our first President. But did he really throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River? History says he did. So?...does that settle it for you? It shouldn't. That is a fantastic claim, and you have every right to be skeptical. That little anecdote was probably started as an embellishment made by a supporter who sought to exaggerate Washington's physical strength to make people fear and/or look up to the President.

So, we can conclude from history that people exaggerated or embroidered the truth because they had an agenda.

Moving on....

The Empty Tomb

If there was an empty tomb at one point in history, the notion that a man came back from the dead(AKA, became a zombie) and walked(or floated) out of that tomb is at the very bottom of a list of what most likely happened. Xian: "Yes, but wait, this is the BIBLE we're talking about!" Me: "Yes? And?...so, what?"

Moreover, just because there was supposedly eyewitnesses to this event means practically nothing, since, well, dead eyewitnesses - in other words - eyewitnesses that we cannot question or interview, carry no weight. If a lawyer told the Judge, "Your Honor, the state would like to call an eyewitness to the stand, but he's dead, so now what?", that lawyer would get laughed out of the courtroom.

The outrageous claims in the bible can only be taken on "faith", and BTW, I have no problem with that. But we should all be skeptical of "history proves it" sphere of thought.

Free Will, or not

I was trying to figure out how I'd start this topic out, and then it occurred to me that in choosing the corresponding photo(just above) that I could have chosen from literally hundreds of photos that didn't have anything to do with feet, and yet, I chose the one with feet. 'Shocker. Well, sure, I was "free" to choose any photo, but was I "free" to choose against my most desired and sought end result? In retrospect, I don't think so. I'm not convinced that I could have picked something else over the perfectly shaped and beautifully painted toes, above. But even if I had thought to myself, "Nah, I like that foot photo the best, but I don't want people to think I'm a weirdo", that would still be in accordance with choosing the most desired end result...i.e...not wanting people to think "X" about me. So, in this instance, choosing the likable foot photo for my post on free will took precedence over giving a rat's patooty if people think "X" about me. 

What about if I wanted to fly to the grocery store instead of drive there? Can I just choose to sprout wings? No, of course not---I'm a human, after all; I'm not a bird. Or what if I wanted to become a tightrope walker or trapeze artist because, I don't know......maybe it would be a good way to come into contact with beautiful show-women. Could I wake up tomorrow and choose to forget about my fear of heights and just start prancing around on a high wire? I don't think so. 

So, is my "will" truly free? 

That is the question, and it demands an answer if we are to get to the bottom of the whole free will Vs determinism conundrum. The determinist believes that our past actions totally influence our future decisions. And really, how could they not? If a rape-victim finally gets the courage to leave her apartment 4 years after the fact, sure, she was free all along to leave, as in, she had the "freedom" and wherewithal to unlock her door, twist the handle, and walk outside. But she didn't do that. Is that not because her fear, directly based on her past, took precedence over leaving her house? Isn't it because feeling safe was her most desired end result? I believe so. 

I think we have naturalistic free will, but I believe that this free will has limitations. Think about it. We have competing thoughts pretty much from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep. In order to make truly free choices between competing thoughts, we'd need to be devoid of any and all recall of the past. Fact: That is impossible. Also, if we can contemplate possible future consequences for our choices, that, too, puts limits on freedom. Christianity and its "carrot and stick" (Heaven and Hell) dichotomy is a prime example. No one is choosing freely if they firmly believe they'll suffer dire consequences for making the wrong choice. E.g., the mugging-victim is perfectly free to not give the mugger his or her valuables. But since the mugger has a .44 magnum pressed against the victim's temple, that would be a bad choice, assuming the most desired end result is to go on living.

Foot Worship

And now for something totally different: Fetishes, and in particular, the foot fetish. While I cannot speak for everyone with this type of fetish, for me, it started in second grade when my teacher, "Mrs. Addy", a tall, slender redhead, routinely wore spiked, strappy stilettos while teaching us the ABCs. Many times she would wear open-toed stilettos, which would reveal her exquisitely high arches and perfectly-painted red toes. Without going into too much detail, this produced a "tingly" feeling when I'd stare at them long enough, so I'm guessing that there must be some biology at play here. 

So, yes, from those days up until now, a woman's feet are the second thing I notice about her, her face, of course, being the first. And where I'm from, it's nearly always flip-flop weather, so, this makes sorting out the "yays" from the "nays" easier, should I happen to be doing some casual foot-watching. And again, I suspect that this must have something to do with choosing a mate--for instance, it's seems right in line with being drawn to women with curves..e.g..large hips, which are good for supporting her body during pregnancy; large breasts for feeding the child once it arrives, or so the theory goes. One neurologist even postulated that an attraction to feet, when sexual, is caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, which is the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch. IOW, there might be some crossed wires involved. And while I'm not sure of the reason why I'd prefer to "touch" an attractive pair of feet over an unattractive pair - in fact, now's a good time to say that I would not only not touch an unattractive pair of feet, I'd run from them - I don't really care; it doesn't really matter if I ever know the reason.  

Atheism: Cross Examination

This time I'm doing a 180. That is, instead of putting Christianity(my former beliefs) under the microscope, this time I will be putting my current worldview, atheism, under the microscope. I intend to discuss where atheism is lacking, in my view. Why? For a few reasons: One, so that my theist readership (and/or critics) can see that I didn't discard Christianity and replace it with atheism for purely emotional reasons..e.g...."Oh, because I like atheism better!"

So, let's start here: As an atheist, I know that many times during my lifetime I am going to get the type of phone call that we all dread, and that is the phone call where someone is letting me know that someone I know has died. None of the relationships I have with the people I love are going to go on forever; those relationships are all going to end, most of them abruptly. As an atheist, I do not(and cannot) believe in a mind/body dualism. Or more simply put, I do not(and cannot) believe that our "personalities" survive the death of our physical bodies. And for every piece of reasoning that my spiritual, god-believing friends (or critics) offer in support of an afterlife, I can offer a dozen reasons why what they believe doesn't make sense. In fact, I contend that the concept of a mind/body duality is so nonsensical that it's highly, highly improbable if not impossible, and therefore, that it doesn't merit my belief nor anymore of my time wishing it were true. And trust me, I spent a lot of my time wishing it were true.

That said, let me tell you that being aware of this cold, hard reality sucks, and nothing...nothing makes up for it, in my view. Yes, I can(and do) focus on the time we have in this one life, and yes, the time that we have right now is precious precisely because it is limited. And, yes, of course when I am dead too, it won't matter or affect me then. But truth be told, it affects me now, and the above-mentioned things don't buffer, or at least, they don't buffer enough, the disturbing and inevitable reality that there will come a time when I will never see the ones I love/care about ever again. IOW, the above atheist principles, in my view, don't completely make up for the comfort that Christianity once provided on the subject of death.

Here's another:  Unless I have an accomplice, then I, and I alone, am responsible if I wrong someone. If I wrong someone, I need that person to forgive me. Of course, forgiveness has to be available, and let's face it, we know that it is not always is available, because some people are already so wounded from within that they can only think retaliation and hatred for the offender. But in any case, the idea that some third party can come waltzing into the situation and blurt out " you're forgiven!", is a bad idea, and it doesn't do jack' for the person I offended. And worse, a completely innocent third party taking my punishment for me is nothing less than scapegoating. In having a scapegoat, I have essentially dodged responsibility. But that is for another discussion.

So, while it would be convenient to, when/if I wrong someone, blame a "Devil" and then pile my guilt onto the back of an innocent man who claims that he loves and forgives me, I must put what is actually right over what is more convenient and what makes me feel better.

Here's another: being unpopular and not fitting in, Vs being popular and fitting in nicely with the majority. Atheists are very unpopular with most believers, despite being one of the fastest growing (non)religious groups. Coming out as an atheist takes courage. And let's face it, fitting in just feels better.  

So, there you have it---those are a few ways that I firmly believe that atheism is lacking in areas when compared to what Christianity has to offer. But alas, I'm not finished yet, and if you are an atheist reading this, you might know what's coming next. Yes, I'm talking about the non-sequitur that, 9 times out of 10, goes unrecognized by the believer. What I mean is that the believer invariably takes the erroneous position that, since atheism is lacking in comparison to what they already believe - and this is even according to some  atheists, themselves - then what they already believe must therefore be true by default. They are wrong when they take this position. Again, it is a non-sequitur....or in simple terms, it does not follow that since atheism doesn't provide all of the comfort and fuzzy feelings that Christianity offers, that it therefore cannot be the correct worldview. If you are a lurking Christian, I ask that you please remember that about atheism, if nothing else.

Guns: Shot Down in Flames

Okay, where to begin. Oh, hell, let's start here: Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, that felt good, but I still have more frustration to get out. What I'm seeing on Facebook, and one person's views in particular, is inducing so many *head-desk* moments that I may just have to start wearing a football helmet when I'm logged on. Serious sh*t.

So, in no particular order, I'm going to go through what I feel are some of the major problems with the  arguments I'm seeing from the people on the NRA/pro-gun side, the side that this person advocates, and I'm doing this in an attempt to illustrate why their mind-set and ad campaign is unconvincing at best; a steaming pile of guano, at worst.

The other day, the above-mentioned Facebook friend, who also happens to be a real life neighbor, shared and "liked" a pro-gun internet meme that consisted of a picture of about a dozen Latinos with guns. These guys wore bandannas, had tattoos, and wielded firearms of all kinds......you know, the whole stereotypical, "gang-banger" enchilada(no pun). Well, the point of this lil' internet meme was to attack the pro-gun control position, and oddly, the anti-gun control camp "think" that this position is this: Having stricter guns laws will get criminals to turn in their weapons!!!!

First question: Did the people who propagate this utter frickin' abortion-of-logic just score some crack?!?!? Seriously, did they just hit the pipe!? You've got to be kidding me! If you are reading this and you are an anti-gun control proponent, I ask that you please let this penetrate your cranium: No sane person thinks that having gun laws (or stricter guns laws) will get criminals to turn in their weapons! That notion is absurd. But thankfully, the astute among us know what's really going on here, and that is that the pro-gunners have concocted and propagated a completely caricatured argument of their opponent's position, and they've done this so that it's easier for them to "knock down" that position, AKA, erecting a strawman(fallacy).

Next, the dishonesty of the above-mentioned people continues when they propagate another meme that goes something like this: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!". Their thinking on this is that, since guns are, oh, just inanimate objects with no conscience of their own, then guns couldn't possibly be part of the problem. This of course is false----guns can, and do, CONTRIBUTE to the problem, since said inanimate objects are made for killing and some of them are made to kill multiple people in a short span of time.

No one needs a flippin' machine gun to defend themselves against a cat-burglar or to hunt moose.

Lastly - and perhaps the most disingenuous of all - these people (pretend that they) cannot tell the difference between the following two terms:

1) gun-control

2) gun-ban(emphasis intentional)

Oh, they know the difference, alright, but again, it's easier for them (think shootin' fish in a barrel) to attribute something that very few if any pro-gun control people are proposing, and then turn right around and shoot it down and/or object to it. Not one single person I have encountered who is pro-gun control is advocating that guns be banned . That is simply a type of diversion tactic(red herring) that the pro-gunners are using, and it stems from an irrational fear that many of them apparently hold. This paranoid, delusional fear of theirs is that the government, because said government cannot be trusted 100%, have a plan to go door-to-door to take everyone's guns away, and this order, to them, will be per our current administration and Commander in Chief.....you know, that black, African-born, "Muslim" Barack Obama? Yeah, him. I guess it never occurred to these people that if our government does this and uses military force to carry out this dark, sinister plan, that people like me will be wondering how all these good 'ol boys are thinking that they and their AKs are going to be a match for an Apache helicopter? Maybe my neighbor will chime in and elaborate on how in the hell that he and his pro-gunner ilk intend to go about this. I think it goes without saying that I will not hold my breath.

UPDATE: The person who prompted this post and who is also a real life neighbor, has, more or less, since given me no choice but to delete him as a FB friend. Out of a base-amount of respect for him, which, BTW, I give to all people, I will not go into detail as to what he did that has led to this decision, simply because he is not here to defend himself. Notice that he hasn't not chimed in and defended his "pro-gun" stance, and I suspect that he won't. But on the off-chance that he does chime in, I will pull no punches in shredding his ignorant views, with a calm, cool, and reasoned smack-down.

Bulletproof

Hi, all

Being a former believer,  I have family members - both close relatives, as well as distant relatives - who are still devout Christians. And of course, individuals from both groups are on Facebook, and so, the other day I happened upon something in my news feed, and I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it, but it was something that I would've bought into back in my Christian days. It was the following parable, which is essentially an apologetic that attempts to reconcile why bad things happen to people, including devout believers, who, presumbly, are God's very own disciples. It goes like this....


Me: God, can I ask You a question?

God: Sure

Me: Promise You won't get mad

God: I promise

Me: Why did You let so much stuff happen to me today?

God: What do u mean?

Me: Well, I woke up late

God: Yes

Me: My car took forever to start

God: Okay

Me: at lunch they made my sandwich wrong & I had to wait

God: Huummm

Me: On the way home, my phone went DEAD, just as I picked up a call

God: All right

Me: And on top of it all off, when I got home ~I just want to soak my feet in my new foot massager & relax. BUT it wouldn't work!!! Nothing went right today! Why did You do that?

God: Let me see, the death angel was at your bed this morning & I had to send one of My Angels to battle him for your life. I let you sleep through that

Me (humbled): OH

GOD: I didn't let your car start because there was a drunk driver on your route that would have hit you if you were on the road.

Me: (ashamed)

God: The first person who made your sandwich today was sick & I didn't want you to catch what they have, I knew you couldn't afford to miss work.

Me (embarrassed):Okay

God: Your phone went dead because the person that was calling was going to give false witness about what you said on that call, I didn't even let you talk to them so you would be covered.

Me (softly): I see God

God: Oh and that foot massager, it had a shortage that was going to throw out all of the power in your house tonight. I didn't think you wanted to be in the dark.

Me: I'm Sorry God

God: Don't be sorry, just learn to Trust Me.... in All things , the Good & the bad.

Me: I will trust You.

God: And don't doubt that My plan for your day is Always Better than your plan.

Me: I won't God. And let me just tell you God, Thank You for Everything today.

God: You're welcome child. It was just another day being your God and I Love looking after My Children...

Now, if you are outside of the Christian bubble looking in, it is pretty easy to see what is happening here. Basically, the author is trying to sell us on the idea that there are good reasons why we struggle and suffer, reasons that we might not understand at the time. While the excuses that "God" proceeds to lay out above may satisfy the person in the above illustration - for instance,"God" didn't let the person's car start because there was a drunk driver enroute who would have hit him/her -  the fact is that hundreds if not thousands of people still get hit by drunk drivers daily, often times maiming or even killing the victim, and this includes Christians. 

 If  "God's Plan" is always, without fail, the ideal, "right" thing - from the most trivial setback(e.g..a stalled car) to the most despicable outcome(e.g..a person dies in a deadly DUI wreck) - then the believer is forced to believe and accept that there is a "higher" reason for whatever happens, mind you, one that they might not agree with or understand, but still, one that he or she believes is ultimately "good" and for the best. IOW, if, next week, the person in the above illustration gets in his or her car and it cranks right up, and then about halfway to work a drunk man runs a red light, T-boning the driver's side of the car and subsequently killing the driver, believers will still be feeling "blessed" and praising "God". IOW, they will view it as "God" intended it, and view it as a "win", saying things like, "God needed him/her more than we did", or, "God has called him home!"  

It appears that Christian's have created a "God" who is bulletproof.. There was a time when I said and thought those same things when people died, but today I just feel sad when I hear these things. 

Open Season

Hi, there

Below is a poem written in the wake of the recent Sandy Hook school shooting. I have never had to bury my own child, yet, I have witnessed my parents having to bury a child(my sibling), so I know first hand how parents are tormented having to prepare for something that they are not, and never can be, prepared for. It is for this reason that I would not want to take away the only comfort that a parent in this tragedy might have, and in this case, that is to believe that their child has not really died, but lives on in a "hereafter". 

Here is the poem, by author Cameo Smith.....

 Twas' 11 days before Christmas, around 9:38

when 20 beautiful children stormed through heaven's gate.
Their smiles were contagious, their laughter filled the air.
They could hardly believe all the beauty they saw there.

They were filled with such joy, they didn't know what to say.
They remembered nothing of what had happened earlier that day.
"Where are we?" asked a little girl, as quiet as a mouse.
"This is heaven." declared a small boy. "We're spending Christmas at God's house."

When what to their wondering eyes did appear,
But Jesus, their savior, the children gathered near.
He looked at them and smiled, and they smiled just the same.
Then He opened His arms and He called them by name.

And in that moment was joy, that only heaven can bring:
Those children all flew into the arms of their King,
And as they lingered in the warmth of His embrace,
One small girl turned and looked at Jesus' face.

And as if He could read all the questions she had,
He gently whispered to her, "I'll take care of mom and dad."
Then He looked down on earth, the world far below,
He saw all of the hurt, the sorrow, and woe,

Then He closed His eyes and He outstretched His hand,
"Let My power and presence re-enter this land!
May this country be delivered from the hands of fools
I'm taking back my nation. I'm taking back my schools!"

Then He and the children stood up without a sound.
"Come now my children, let me show you around."
Excitement filled the space, some skipped and some ran.
All displaying enthusiasm that only a small child can.

And I heard Him proclaim as He walked out of sight,
"In the midst of this darkness, I AM STILL THE LIGHT."

Notice that the author goes one step further than merely assuring the parents and other believers that the deceased children live on in a land of pure, unadulterated bliss, AKA, "heaven". Yes, he goes further and makes it political, attributing such statements as, "I'm taking back my nation. I'm taking back my schools!", to the god he worships, in this case, the Christian god. The implication, of course, is that we mean atheists/secularists have driven their "God" out of school and out of our nation, yadda, yadda, and this is the reason for tragedies such as Sandy Hook and other mass shootings. This, I contend, is malarkey on many levels.  

Bottom line, when the author tries to combine politics with his religion, his religious beliefs then become open season as far as I'm concerned. Does it suck when certain people's only source of comfort gets caught in the crossfire? Yes, it does, but that's the cost of the religious trying to force their spiritual beliefs into public affairs. You see, if believers can get themselves to actually believe that their deceased children can be happily skipping around and filled with "joy" after having been ripped away from everything they've ever known...e.g..their parents, their siblings, their home, their friends, their toys, their family pets, etc., that's fine by me; they should believe it to their heart's content. However, the minute that they say something so stupid, so insulting, and something so demonstrably false as the reason for these types of shootings is because "God" is missing(or "not welcomed"), all bets are off. Yes, the notion that a belief in "God" precludes "evil", is demonstrably false. A few examples that affirm this would be "Hitler"(Catholic), and the numerous churches where "God" is most certainly invited, and yet, kids are molested right in "His (supposed) House". And what does "God" do? Nothing. 'Coincidence?

 Perhaps it's time we start investigating other ways to find comfort when we lose loved ones, that is, if we can't keep what gives us comfort out of political affairs. 

R.I.P.

Three letters that we all dread typing, but nonetheless, three letters that we will all more than likely type at some point in our lives. But when we desire our loved ones who pass on to "rest in peace", is that what we really mean? Well, it appears not by the looks of what some people say when attempting written eulogies. Mind you, this is not to say that people aren't well-meaning; it's only to say that they might not be thinking things through before they hit the keyboard. A friend and former band mate from back in my jammin'-cover-songs days passed on recently, and on a popular networking site, some of the comments from mutual friends really had me thinking. You see, with musicians, it's evidently really popular to talk about how the deceased is jammin' away with other musicians who preceded them in death. Of course, I mean jammin' away in "heaven". One person even commented, "He has moved on to bigger and better things".

But what is this mentality really saying? Bigger and better things? Really? What... as if what my friend accomplished in his lifetime was small and in need of improvement? The results of my friend's efforts as a musician left so much to be desired that I now have to pretend that he's achieving "bigger and better things"? Really? What if my friend was fully content with his achievements and wanted music to be a closed chapter in his life? Shouldn't he have that option? I think so. In other words, what if he really wanted to rest in peace?

So, I think that what is happening here is that while people might be well-meaning and trying to find comfort in an uncomfortable time, they are projecting their desires and beliefs onto the deceased---as if to say, what you gave us in your lifetime was not enough!!!!... we must have more, more, MORE!  And honestly, reading such comments only compounds the sadness. And I guess now is the ideal time to go on record to say that in the event that I die unexpectedly, I'm done with music. I don't want to keep jammin' in some perpetual "afterlife"; I don't want to see my favorite movie over and over or eat my favorite food day in and day out for all of eternity. I want to "rest".

Moral without God?

Actually, the answer is yes. Now, this is not to say that we human beings always, in every single situation, make the moral decision. Of course we don't. But that fact doesn't make us inherently immoral(aka, inherently "evil") . IOW, the Christian philosophy sets up a false dilemma: It posits that since Adam & Co. ate the forbidden fruit, that this made them, and subsequently the rest of the human race, "inherently evil", a result of what it calls, "Original Sin".

This is fallacious reasoning, and it can be easily demonstrated to be fallacious reasoning by just reversing the situation. IOW, what would have happened had Adam and his accomplice not eaten the fruit? To be consistent, wouldn't we have to say that this would have made them inherently good? I think so. But yet, to say that we are "inherently" one way or the other flies in the face of free will, for if we were incapable of wrong-doing, we'd be the equivalent of robots programmed to never to do wrong. But of course, Christianity would have us believe that we are "inherently evil", and yet, look, we aren't incapable of doing "good". The inconsistency is glaring. But for the time being, let's move on to the supposed moral "standard"---the standard from which we supposedly fall short.

In a few short steps it can be demonstrated that the biblical standard of morality - that is, the morality that we're to be shooting for - is subjective.

If "wrong"(aka "sin") is defined as going against whatever God says, then right away we see that "wrong" is a relative thing, not an absolute thing. If "God" doesn't get his/her/its sense of "right"/"wrong" from an external source, but instead, IS the source, then whatever this God deems "good" at any given moment is completely arbitrary. This, BTW, is very dangerous. Think about it---if nothing prevents this God from waking up one day and deciding that slavery is "good", then from a theist POV, slavery is "good" if God says so. On the other hand, if there is something preventing this God from deciding that slavery is "good", then right away we see that there are values outside of/independent of this God to which he/she/it adheres. And for the record, I used slavery in my example because the bible condones slavery. If the apologetic(defense) is that this is Old Testament/Old Law, etc., and therefore such things are obsolete, then this is yet more compelling evidence that biblical morality is relative to the time, and in which case, it is not "objective", as the bible and Christians claim it is.

"BaNg!"

I would wager that, of all those who know me and follow my posts - both in the blogger world, and on Facebook - many would love to ask me the following question:

"So, Jeff, if you don't believe in hell, then why does it bother you so much when Christians raise the issue in conversation?"

First off, these people would be 100% correct in that I don't believe in "hell"(or "heaven", or gods/devils). True. There is not one iota of objective confirmation for any of it. Notwithstanding, I frequently discuss "hell" under the pretense that it exists, simply to make a few rhetorical points to those who do believe in it. Two of which points are:

1) believing a proposition simply because you're afraid to not believe it, is bankrupt from the get-go; it is not a good reason to believe something.

2) this whole concept that there is a place where people are kept alive and tormented with fire for all of eternity is an immoral concept, just as worshiping any being who implements and condones such a place is immoral.

Re: 1., I wonder if I should also be afraid of "Jahannum"(Islamic "hell")? Moreover, I wonder if Christians are afraid of "Jahannum"? Well, the answer to the latter, of course, is no---Christians are not afraid of Islamic hell. Why? because they don't believe in it, just as I do not believe in it. Would it be wise for those of us who don't believe in "Jahannum" to believe in it, just in case? The answer, again, is no......'no more wise than to sleep with the light on just in case the Boogieman is in your closet.

The point being, if you want me to worry about going to "hell", then you should know that all of your work is ahead of you, simply because you would first have to proffer some evidence that, a) our "personalities"(the closest natural explanation of "soul" I can come up with) can exist independently of our brains(the scientific evidence says otherwise, BTW), and b) that Christianity and its "heaven and hell"(AKA carrot and stick) are real(again, to date, there is no objective confirmation for any of it)

As for the thinly-veiled threats that Christians make..a la... "I'm just concerned for your soul!". It would seem that I shouldn't be offended if I don't believe in "hell", right? Bzzzzzt....Wrong. I'm offended by threats of "hell" in the exact same way I would be offended if your child walked up to me with his or her plastic gun, put the barrel to my temple, pulled the trigger, and said "BANG!".

In other words....

Yes, we know that plastic guns aren't real; we know that real bullets don't come out of pretend guns. But that is besides the point, isn't it? Yes, it is. We know that it's just plain rude and insulting when/if children do this sort of thing. Well, when Christians threaten me with "hell" - which, to me is likewise "pretend" until/unless they can prove that it is a real, literal place - it is no different....well, except that it is possibly even worse, since they are adults.

Decisions, decisions...

Most if not all Christians fall into one of two groups:

1) those who have read their bibles vertically, from cover to cover.

2) those who have not read their bibles vertically, from cover to cover.

For the time being, I'm going to talk about the former group.

Okay, for those who have read their bibles as delineated in 1, I contend that one of two things will invariably happen when these people encounter scripture that creates cognitive dissonance..i.e..ideas that don't make sense; ideas that raise an eyebrow.

Since many Christians like to extol Jesus, and while at the same time, they attempt to "divorce" or distance him and their relationship with him from "religion", let's go ahead and look directly at some of Jesus' own advice, advice that we should all be able to agree is crappy advice if anyone else were to give it:

- Do not plan for the future:

³⁴ Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

(Matthew 6:34)

- Do not save money:

¹⁹ Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.²⁰ But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

(Matthew 6:19-20)

- Sell everything and give it to the poor:

³³ Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

(Luke 12:33)

- Don't work to obtain food:

²⁷ Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

(John 6:27)

- If someone hits you, invite them to do it again.

³⁹ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

(Matthew 5:39)

So, again, I would wager that we would all agree that this is some pretty horrible advice. But yet, people who remain in group 1, above, will look for ways to defend the above-quoted verses.

This brings me to my point from above:

When people from group 1 encounter these verses(and more verses like them), one of two things will take place. Either, a) they will be forced to look for ways to defend/reconcile these verses, aka, employ apologetics, or b) they will deconvert from Christianity. IOW, these people will be faced with a decision.

*It should be noted at this point that there could be Christians from group 2 reading this right now who didn't know that the bible contained such passages(I contend that there are Christians out there who have not seen such verses). In this case, these people are perfectly within reason should they rethink and change their minds about Christianity. IOW, should they come to an understanding with themselves that they can no longer honestly sustain their belief that Christianity is true, and/or, something that they need, they are being reasonable to discard/dismiss it. We can throw the proverbial "baby" out, right along with the dirty bath water.

You're being so negative!

::sigh::

I get this charge a lot, both in general..e.g....as theists accuse atheists of being "negative" in general, and also, sometimes in my personal life. Now, if anyone wants to attempt to convince me how making a conscious effort to confront reality head-on at all costs is being "negative", we can start there, but in all seriousness, you've got your work cut out for you. I say right up front that I don't like false hope. Nope, 'no likey. Why? Simple---because it's false. Shit happens, and why shouldn't it happen? There is not one scrap of evidence that demons and devils cause shit to happen. When shit happens, wish-thinking isn't going to change the fact, and many times, wish-thinking can even cause more shit later on.

For those who believe that a god does all the good stuff and a devil causes all the shit, you are perfectly free to believe that, but here's a few things to consider: 1) blaming an invisible bad guy when shit happens takes focus off any viable solution to the problem, while conveniently deflecting responsibility in cases where  people actually cause shit to happen. 2) a world in which there is a devil and god causin' shit and fixin' shit, respectively, is totally indistinguishable from a world in which we sometimes get lucky, and other times, we get unlucky...aka "shit happens".

Now, how, pray-tell, is it being "negative" to accept and live in the simpler, much-more-likely "world"? One saves so much time and avoids so much potential aggravation by dealing with what's in front of them. If common sense - in conjunction with things like logic and reason - tell you that something ain't right, then we owe it to ourselves to accept and confront that "something". Seriously, if we cannot trust our own ability to reason, then we've essentially got nothing. To do the polar opposite of using common sense - that is, to look for ways to reconcile utter nonsense - is to do ourselves a disservice. But yet, trusting our reasoning abilities makes us "negative" and "pessimists" according to some. Sad, but true.

I'd like to conclude with the following analogy:

If an alcoholic overcame their drinking dependency and he or she started a blog - say, a blog both to raise awareness to the disease and also as a form of self-therapy - who on earth would have the cajones to call him or her "negative"? How is this analogous to anything, you might ask?  Here's how: I have stopped be dependent on religion, namely, my inherited, Christian beliefs. I am now free to actually use my brain to its fullest potential.(negative?). I no longer believe that someone is watching me 24/7, listening in on my every flippin' thought.(negative?) I try to be good for goodness sake, despite that I am not perfect at this and have made many mistakes.(negative?) I have spoken very frankly about things on this blog(and at times, on Facebook) because I know that there people out there just like me who have honest doubts about what they were taught to believe, but yet, they are too afraid to question it, simply because they are taught to not question it.  Well, I feel that I am giving these people real hope, where their "faith" and/or their church might be giving them false hope, which is the equivalent of none at all. 

Represent.

As some of you know, I am co-founder/co-song writer and bass player for a progressive heavy metal band. Well, it's been brought to my attention that a few people with whom I work closely are concerned that my being atheist will be a turn-off to any existing or potential fans of our music, since our former singer(now deceased) was heavily into mysticism/spiritualism, which, as you might imagine, became the inspiration of a good deal of our songs. Well, I can respect that concern, because, after all, music is a business as well as an art-form. However, my simple response is that it really shouldn't matter, and that their concern is a bit irrational. Let me attempt a rhetorical point by asking this simple question: would people stop buying Stephen King's books or watching his movies if they found out that he doesn't really believe in zombie-cats? I don't think so.

 There is fiction, and there is non-fiction. There is reality; there is fantasy. Subject matter that is fiction/fantasy doesn't become less intriguing or less entertaining if the author doesn't actually believe in that which he writes. While there was a time when I believed in a god, angels, a hereafter, etc., I have since changed my mind. Notwithstanding, I think writing about such things makes for interesting subject matter. And then on the other hand, the truth really does seem to be stranger than fiction a lot of the time.

Prayer

This is the ritual of taking a moment of silence to ask god to do stuff for you---from giving you a really great parking space, to healing your loved ones, to getting a promotion at work. Or, in some cases, it's simply asking god to do "His Will". And BTW, now's a good time to interject that I used to do all of the above. But, the truth is, there is not one scrap of conclusive evidence that "prayer" actually does anything(aside from acting as a placebo). Prayer is, IMO, redundant at best; a complete waste of time, at worst.

Take, for instance, the god to whom Christians pray(and to whom I once prayed). An omniscient god, by definition, possesses all knowledge, including the past, present, and future. If god knows the future, as Christianity and its Christians proclaim, then this god knows, with absolute certainty, the outcome of the future set of events. If this god knows the outcome of the future set of events, then logic says that the future is fixed; the future is carved in stone, so-to-speak. Thus, this god knows what your needs, desires, and preferences are before you "pray". This is problematic for another reason, too, and that is that this god is not a free agent if he is omniscient. For example, an intercessory prayer for the purpose of healing a loved one is a pointless endeavor, simply because god already knows if your loved one will live or die, and more importantly, he cannot change this outcome. For god to be able change the outcome of any future event would mean that this god never knew the future to begin with.

Then there's the quagmire of why the god to whom believers pray answers some prayers with a "yes", but others with a "no". If you view this from outside the believer's bubble, you'll see that it's simply a case of bad luck versus good luck. Curiously, the aforementioned yes/no "answers" yield the same results we'd expect to see in an uncaring, impersonal world with no guidance, whatsoever..i.e...sometimes we get lucky and get a great parking space; sometimes we don't. Sometimes our ill loved ones recover; sometimes they don't.

Another question that surfaces if one digs a little bit deeper, is why the god to whom believers pray will (presumably) suspend the laws of nature, say, for someone's grandmother to recover from her bunion surgery, but yet, will let untold millions starve to death, including children. Again, what is going on here? What's wrong with this picture? The simplest and most likely explanation is this: No one is suspending any natural laws, whatsoever. Children die of hunger for the pure and simple reason of the location they're born. Someone's grandmother has a successful bunion surgery for the pure and simple reason that she may have been born and raised in a civilized and developed country, which lends itself to having good medical care.

In conclusion, the only meaningful prayer that can be uttered is to ask god to do his "Will". But even that is totally redundant since his "Will" was established from the on-set and cannot be changed. Thus, when people say, "God has a plan", they really, really mean it! This is not to say that most people's prayers aren't well-meaning; in a lot of cases, they are. But the down-side is that it can give a sense of false hope.

Atheism vs Agnosticism

I won't lie. It is my encounters with believers, namely, Christians, that supply me with much if not most of my blog material. A recent encounter prompts me to talk about Atheism and Agnosticism, simply because one believer has insisted that I must choose between the two. IOW, he understands the two to be mutually exclusive. In a word, false. Atheism deals with belief(in this case, lack of belief); Agnosticism deals with  knowledge(in this case, what cannot be known).

I'll start with the latter:  If we are talking a "God" that is unknowable, incomprehensible, immaterial, invisible, etc., then I do not, and by definition, cannot, know if such an entity exists. However, that doesn't preclude me from believing or disbelieving that such an entity exists. To break it down----I do not know if such a being exists(Agnostic), but I don't believe that one such being does exist(Atheism). Thus, I am an Agnostic Atheist. This should be very easy to understand.

All that said, the type of "God" that Christians worship is NOT the above-mentioned type of god. No. The god that Christians worship has specific attributes, and according to Christians, "He" is most certainly knowable(since they claim to have a personal relationship with said being) ,and what's more, this being lives inside their hearts, guiding them daily in their personal affairs. Putting aside the fact that if this is true, then this "God" is clearly give people conflicting advice, I nevertheless know that this "God" not only does not exist, but cannot exist. How do I know this, and how can we know this?? Simple---because the characteristics assigned to it by believers and their bibles are mutually exclusive in some cases. For example, the concept of "infinitely just" contradicts the concept of "infinitely merciful". And there's "omniscience" contradicting "omnipotence". It is for these reasons and more that I can say that no such being exists, and I can say it with as much certainty as I can say that a "square circle" doesn't exist.

Spirituality: A License to Protest(aka whine)?

An acquaintance I met through a popular networking site who happens to be the former g/f of a late friend - and incidentally, this late friend was someone I was very close to myself, partially because of our past of playing in a band together - has made it clear on several occasions that she doesn't like the fact that I challenge people's religious beliefs....or, in her case, her "spiritual" beliefs.(yes, she's one of those who thinks that she can divorce her "God" from religion).

In any case, she continually goes on and on about how we're a "free country", yadda, yadda, and that we're free to believe whatever we wish. It should be noted that I have never once disagreed that we're free to believe whatever we wish. In fact, I say it quite frequently in these types of discussions.

So, here's the rub, because as you might've guessed, it's coming:

While we are, yes, free to believe whatever-the-hell we wish, the fact is, in some cases, people's personal beliefs become collective beliefs, and if/when people's collective beliefs turn into actions, those actions have consequences. For example, when the collective beliefs of a certain group of people turn to trying to teach "creationism" in the science/biology classroom, a consequence of this is going to be getting a challenge from people who know that "creationism"(or if you prefer the dressed-up euphemism, "Intelligent Design") is NOT "science". Now, if you are reading this right now and you are a proponent of creation/ID, *feel free to provide a physical street address of where scientists(key) are currently conducting tests on special "creation".

(*Note, you won't be able to provide any such address, but you can try. You won't be able to, because special "creation" by invisible, conscious, creator-beings, is NOT "science")

You see, in order for "creation" by magic, or ESP - or however "God" supposedly does it - to become a scientific theory, we must be able to do things like study it, observe it, test/falsify it, and make predictions on it. Well, we can't do any of the above. Thus, "creation" doesn't qualify fact or theory.

This, of course, is dealing with all of what exists. Then there's the subject of us homosapiens and where we came from.

D****** writes....

"did you see [so 'n' so's] baby???..where's the evidence to believe such a beautiful creature so unlike an ape evolved from a primate/single cell amoeba???"

She concludes that a baby human is nothing like a newborn ape, does she? She's obviously never seen an infant ape.

In any case, anti-evolutionists like to spend all of their time being critical of evolution, despite the undeniable fact that, at a minimum, we can directly observe new baby humans evolving directly from other mature humans. Yes, we can SEE it. The stork doesn't bring babies; babies aren't spontaneously being "created" out of thin air. No, the evidence shows us that life evolves from other life. So, taking this into consideration - in conjunction with the fact that bashing evolution is one big non-sequitir - the anti-evolutionists have all of their work cut out for them when it comes to proving their "lookist", creationist beliefs---beliefs that we can rightfully challenge. In fact, it's our duty to challenge them if we don't want our kids indoctrinated(brainwashed) with nonsense.

The irony. It STINGS

Aside from being extremely ticked off, what would your opinion be of the guy who, while you're pulled over in the middle of the desert reading a map, or texting(or whatever), flattens your tires, and then proceeds to stick his head in your window and says "Hey?.....'need a lift?"

Would you not think this person is bat-sh*t crazy? If you consider yourself a normal, sane person, then you know damned-well that your opinion of him would not be a good one. Welp, I've got news for you if you are a Christian: you are dealing with the same exact type of lunacy if you accept the cornerstone tenet known as "Salvation". That's right, God will "save" you from the very problem that he created..i.e.."evil".

First, let's look at the obvious:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" ~ Isaiah 45:7

Now let's look at the case of when one of God's angels rebelled against God:

Okay, so, an angel gets a wild hair(or maybe a feather?) up his butt, and not only did God NOT destroy this defiant angel on the spot, knowing that said angel would be a blight on humanity, but he gave him his own flippin' resort. He even gave him a really cool name..i.e. "Lucifer"(why not, "Dick"?). Oh, and he left him in charge of the whole resort and its occupants. Oh, wait, there's more ....and God made it really, really hot, just the way a DEVIL likes it! Oooo, ouch! Yeah, nice going, "GOD"! Sheesh! lol

Now let's look at something a little more subtle:

Christianity would have you believe that this Lucifer fellow is influencing people to commit their own "evil" acts in his name. Yes, that's right. For instance, as you read this, a child is being raped and/or beaten, and where is "God"? Well, lo and behold, he's standing there with arms folded watching it all go down(assuming he actually exists, of course). And why is he standing there being useless? Why, because he cannot tamper with the perp's "free will", as the standard apologetic goes. Yes, that's right, according to Christian apologists, preserving this slimy bastard's "free will" is evidently more important than the well-being of the child(victim).

Now, if you consider yourself a faithful, bible-believing Christian, then you leave me no choice but to believe that you more or less buy into the above chunk of illogical nonsense. If you are a cultural or moderate Christian, then, well, you implicitly buy into it, that is, unless you don't believe that "God" is things like all-loving and all-powerful. Like I always say, if you'd like to be the first person to offer an angle that you feel I haven't considered, you are welcome to chime in. By no means do I want to do the same thing that irks me to no end when believers do it, which is, to sit here and defend my errors.

Dear Believer,

Give me a good reason why "God" must allow Lucifer and his "evil" to exist, and I may just change my mind. In the mean time, I will work on a scenario for a future post that would allow for "evil"(if it MUST exist), allows criminals their "free will", and the best part...... no one suffers......EVER. 'Sound impossible? It's not.

Gusher

A week ago-yesterday, I wacked my index finger on my left hand cutting some chateau with 10 inch Wusthof. This one was a gusher, but fortunately, the cut was more diagonal to my finger(a flap of skin), as opposed to perpendicular. Four hours and five stitches later, I was out the ER door. A few days later I picked up my bass to see if I could play, but it was out of the question. Notwithstanding, I sat there and played making a conscious effort to NOT use my index. This, of course, left me limited to what I could play, but I was playing, nonetheless. Where am I going with this?

Here: After only one week of making a conscious effort to not fret any strings with my index finger, I have to now make a conscious effort to re-incorporate my index back into my game. One part of my mind is telling me, "Hey, dude...you can use your index finger here and there now, it's almost completely healed"...and another part of my brain is telling me, "Don't use that cut finger, dude!". I find it really weird that a lifetime of using all fingers can be "undone" with only a week of training myself to NOT use my index.

Moral of story, unless you LOSE a finger, do NOT attempt to relearn to play during the healing process. You will screw yourself. Arrrg.

Creationism: 101

"GOD DID IT!.......


.....class dismissed!"