Under the Microscope: Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is an earlier excerpt of my conversation with her. 

The red type is her engaging another blogger:

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

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

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

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

There is still time ~ Susan Z.

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


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


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

So, moving on.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem with Atheists...

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

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

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

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

The author writes....

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

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

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

This quote nails it:

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

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

The Impossible Game

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Point(or ignoring the big picture)

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

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

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

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

  

Miracle Baby!

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



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

Arg...::sigh::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU ARE FORGIVEN

ACCEPT CHRIST

FOR ETERNAL LIFE

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

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

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

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

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

(laughs)

Him: "There is no problem!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Him: "Yeah"

The Higher Source is You

K.O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, done.

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

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

2000 years ago.

Translated multiple times.

Moving on....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Spark Went Out

For going on 15 years now, I've been outspoken on the blogosphere. Admittedly, much of the time spent blogging is/was dedicated to my advocating a certain sphere of thought, and that is one of  humanity before religion, reason before faith, evidence before feelings, and for today, it will be science before pseudoscience.

Recently there's been another victim at the hands of pseudoscience being peddled as science, or more precisely, someone is dead because of alternative medicine being peddled as modern, real medicine. A young woman who was very popular with the alternative medicine camp has succumbed to a rare form of cancer after a 7 year battle. She was just 30 years old. Actually, the way it was described by her and her league of online supporters, many of whom, BTW, are students of this woman's former school of thought, is that she "thrived with cancer", ever since her diagnosis in her early 20s until her death. Her name was Jess Ainscough, AKA, "The Wellness Warrior". You may have heard of her, but if not, you can do your own research if you please. For the purpose of this post, and mostly for brevity, I'm going to try to encapsulate the details based on the limited reading I've done on this young woman's life. In other words, this isn't so much about one person's fight with cancer, but more so, it's about the *big picture, which is this: The danger of opting for unproven medical alternatives over those actually proven to work.

To back up a bit, at around 22 yrs old, Jess Ainscough developed a rare form of cancer called Epitheloid Sarcoma . I should interject right now that her mother had died from terminal breast cancer, and the reason for this was because Jess' mother opted for alternative, natural treatments, in lieu of modern, conventional treatments, just like Jess did. The treatment that Jess and her mother used in an attempt to cure their own cancer was called Gerson Therapy, and this was the very same "therapy" that Jess peddled online, making multiple videos and even making personal appearances, appearances that mainly involved "how to" presentations and inspirational talks. This, in part, included instructions on vegan dieting, juicing, taking vitamins, and exercising. Jess charged $100 a head.

In other words, Jess would come to make a fairly lucrative living selling pseudoscience. Needless to say, she had a lot riding on this, so much so that she was forced to start lying after it started to become very clear that her "self-treatment" was failing. She would have go into hiding, in fact.  

The biggest hit came when Jess' mother's treatment didn't work, and she died. Now, Jess, who opted for, promoted, and even made a living selling her personalized "approach" to dealing with cancer..i.e..Gerson Therapy, is dead too. The Gerson Therapy, an unproven natural method of healing, failed these two woman, and now they're both dead. In Jess' case, her cancer doctors told her that her best chance of surviving her disease would be to amputate her left arm at the shoulder blade, because it was her left arm that was the origin of the cancer, which eventually progressed to open, bleeding wounds the size of a golf ball.

Jess opted out of the doctor's recommendations, deciding to take on her cancer herself. But here's the million dollar question:  Where did she get this idea that she could heal herself? She certainly didn't pull it out of thin air. So?... who told her that she and her mom could beat their own respective cancers with "natural healing" methods?

And alas, this is the problem, one that I contend will continue to needlessly claim lives until/unless something is done about those who continue to perpetuate and extol unproven medical methods, and in some cases, demonstrable false methods. It should be noted that in this particular case, Jess Ainscough started out right, seeking the advice of qualified, medically-trained oncologists. However, since she didn't like what she heard, she opted to take a chance rather than be disfigured the rest of her life. Well, she lost. Her "faith" in bad ideas did her in.

Leading up to the end of Jess' life, excuses we're eventually being made as to why her public appearances, her "how to" videos, and her blog posts, were becoming more and more sparse, when she seemingly vanished from the public eye entirely.

The next-saddest thing to a woman being struck down from cancer in the prime of her life - and this is perhaps the scariest part - is that her supporters still stand by her decisions, and it will only be a matter of time until similar life-decisions are made for the same reasons, yielding the same results. And when I say this, I don't mean that Jess' decision to treat her own cancer isn't or shouldn't be her own decision; I'm saying that, even in the face of evidence that something does not work, people still support it. It's sickening, really, and this is one of the most irresponsible, not to mention, deadly, schools of thought plaguing mankind today. At its face-value, it's barely less superstitious than the olden days when they thought that they were "healing" leprosy by smearing bird's blood on the patient.

In a twisted sort of way, Jess Ainscough is like a "martyr" for pseudoscience. That is, the impression given is that she'd have rather died than admit that her "faith" was misguided. And just as sad(and scary), her brethren in "woo" are right by her side.

The one who was seen as a "bright spark" is now dead. The spark went out.

RIP Jess Ainscough http://jessainscough.com/in-loving-memory/

*Disclaimer: I am not suggesting nor advocating that modern medicine is fail-safe, and anyone who attempts to counter anything I've said herein misses the big picture when/if he or she interjects that fact.

Consequentialism: FAIL

Because I am not one to back down at the first sign of disagreement, and/or, because I'm very direct in my approach, and/or, by sheer virtue that I'm an Agnostic Atheist, I am frequently accused of things like being a contrarian, "negative", a "know-it-all", "close-minded", "difficult", a big meanie, and most recently, I wasn't given the benefit of doubt when it came to something that most of us take for granted, such as, which personal attributes are noble to acquire and keep.

As one might guess, I contend that I am none of the above, and instead, I would chalk it up to the fact that I just have a low tolerance for bull$hit. It's more complex than that, of course; that was just in a nutshell. And what most likely led to this intolerance is the fact that I was fed bull$hit, even starting as early as prior to when I had theory of mind..i.e..2, 3, 4 yrs old.  Of course, I speak mainly of my indoctrination of Christianity by Christian relatives. From those early years until about my mid-30s, I wasted a good chunk of my life believing bull$hit was actually "good", and good was actually "bull$hit", or as one of my fellow bloggers puts it, "good is evil", and "evil is good"(thanks Alice)

See, Christianity and its Christians teach consequentialism, which holds that consequences for the way one acts are the basis for the judgement of those acts. IOW, "moral" and "immoral" depend on the consequences of an act. Welp, sorry, but no..... wait....not just "no", but hell, no(pun intended).

For starters, if one behaves in a certain way simply because they're commanded to do so, then they're neither being "moral" or "immoral"; they're merely obeying orders. And? You know the next question, right? It's this: How do you know that what you're being commanded to do is actually "moral"????? Answer: You filter the command through your own, innate sense of morality and common sense, that's how. If you're commanded to "love your neighbor", that's a no brainer, because you know damned-well that since you expect to be treated with respect, you can therefore safely conclude that you should do the same for your neighbor. What if your neighbor looks at your wife and thinks, "Dang, I'd like to hit that!"(assuming they tell you they just thought that)??? Should they be put to death? Did they just commit "adultery"??? Or wait.....what if your neighbor actually invites men into the bedroom? Is that which is technically "adultery", still immoral?

These questions require good answers, and I contend that religion and its "consequentialism" cannot provide such answers, and in fact, it can only provide the lousiest of answers.

In the last post I talked about instances where "black'n white" thinking is actually a good thing. Now I'm going to shift things around and talk about instances when such thinking is a bad thing. I contend that it is a bad thing to do something/refrain from something based solely on the respective reward/punishment. In doing so, you're not even acting as moral agent; you're simply acting out of fear and selfishness. And really, it goes beyond "good" Vs "evil", because with Divine Command Theory, there is no "good" or "evil"; there is only what "God" commands.

IOW, with DCT, rightness and wrongness instantly becomes a relative thing, and therefore, it isn't, and cannot be, the objective morality that believers claim that it is. If nothing prevents "God" from commanding something that we'd all agree is evil, then the problem becomes obvious. On the other hand, if something external prevents "God" from commanding something that we'd all agree is evil, then that very clearly illustrates that this "God" follows an external standard of "morality".

And then of course there's the fact that, since my becoming an Atheist - and subsequently, since I no longer believe in "Hell" - not once have I got the urge to ax murder anyone or eat any babies. So far, something besides a shallow threat is keeping me from doing all these vile things that Atheists supposedly are "free" to do. And if it's "written on my heart", that sort of flies in the face of "free will", doesn't it???

Like clockwork, it just doesn't add up.

User-Friendly

When we think of  "user-friendly", I'll wager that some of the words that come to mind for most of us are words such as "ergonomic", "convenient", "comfortable", and the like. In other words, we think easy-to-use.

Okay, let's take something like the driver's manual:

Operating a motorized vehicle is something that most every adult does at some point in their lives. But it's not quite as easy as it sounds, because if people got a hankerin' to go somewhere and they just hopped in the nearest car or truck and hit the gas, the intelligent among us know that this would prove to be a monumental disaster.

'Point being, we need rules and regulations in place if billions of people are going to be sharing the same roadways. For instance, if someone doesn't know what to do at a stop sign, it will only be a matter of time before someone gets T-boned, seriously injuring them, or possibly even resulting in death(s). Or, if someone doesn't know that driving while intoxicated is lethal and that it's therefore against the law to drink and drive, then someone's going to get hurt or killed. It's just a matter of time. And note, I'm not talking about whether or not laws are broken, here. They clearly are. There's no "debate" about that. I'm talking about consensus that DUI is breaking the law, and if you cannot understand that, your driving privilege is revoked.
 
So, it would seem that any manual or book that exists for the express purpose of delineating the "ins 'n outs" of driving would need to be concise, comprehensive, and thorough. Getting around is important, but public safety is more important. This, I contend, is one of the those instances where a "black 'n white" application is not only fine, but is completely necessary. We can't, on page 3, read that a complete halt should be made at all red, octagon-shaped signs with the letters "S T O P" on them, and then in chapter 7 read that we can circumnavigate that sign as long as it's on a Tuesday. If we read in chapter 11 that the laws don't apply to the law-makers, IOW, that the ones who make the laws don't have to follow them, we'd think something is totally screwy and amiss, and we could easily foresee HUGE problems.

That only makes sense, and speaking of which, if we can't agree that a book or manual as important as the driver's manual needs to make sense, then all discussion on the matter is utterly pointless. The idea of  "user-friendly" swiftly becomes disconbobulated mess. We instantly see that "intuition", while it can be useful at times, it has its limitations.

If all I've said makes sense so far, then let's proceed a bit more: What about something even more important than operating an automobile? What about, say, "spirituality", specifically, the religious claims of knowing what's important in life and how it will affect us in the next life? In Christianity, we see that it attempts to have a monopoly on such knowledge. If true, it is definitely more important that we understand the Christian philosophy than some measly ol' driver's manual.

So, by extension, there should be consensus that the Bible, which we are to believe is the most important, reliable source for learning about the Christian philosophy, be a user-friendly document and make complete sense. This is especially true and reasonable if we are to also believe that the Bible's redactors were inspired and overseen by the Bible's leading character, "Yahweh", aka, "God", a being that we are to believe is the most supremely intelligent entity in existence.

Well, a fellow blogger who also fairly recently deconverted from the faith wrote on the topic of  "healing", a topic that led to an exchange on "black'n white" thinking, and the defense of one of her Christian readership was that, since fallible man took the dictation, then the parts that don't make sense to us we can simply write-off as man getting "God" wrong. Conversely, the balance..i.e..whatever makes sense and resonates with us, we can safely conclude that man got "God" right. 

In other words, we were admonished to not read the Bible with a "black 'n white" mindset, and this reader further suggested that such thinking is "dangerous" in nearly every situation.

So, let's go back to the driver's manual for a second: Is it dangerous to read the driver's manual in "black'n white"? We've already established that, no, it's not only not dangerous, but if there's any real danger at all, it's to not read it in "black'n white". We don't get to pick and choose which rules of the road resonate with us, and throw out the rest. In other words, the danger, if any, is when we cherry pick the Bible or driver's manual, because any resultant interpretation is then indistinguishable from our own, subjective take on things. For instance, when it comes to the Bible and its claim to be an objective moral guide, what it boils down to is believers filtering the passages through their own innate sense of  "right" and "wrong", AKA, cherry picking. All believers do this.

There is evidently a thin line between "user-friendly" and recipe for disaster.              

Open Letter to Christians

This post is going to be kept short 'n sweet, getting right to the point:

Dear Christians,

As most of you know, a Jordanian pilot was recently burned alive. If you haven't seen the video, feel free to see the provided link at the bottom of the post. Once you do that, here's my question for you:

If it makes you cringe to watch a fellow human being be incinerated while still alive; if it's an unsettling feeling to watch a man scream in agony as his skin melts off of his face and drips to the ground, OR..if the video description alone is just too grotesque for you to watch it, then I'm curious, how are you okay with most of humanity suffering a similar fate, only worse, because they are not permitted to die and must suffer the agony 24/7, for all of eternity. Well? Anyone?



 http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips

You God Haters!

Making the rounds on a popular networking site, I encountered and chimed in on a discussion on the topic of evolution. Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read the misinformed views spewed by the conservative Right these days.

Already in progress, one person wrote...

Yes, once again, a Theory of something being taught as fact....aka.... The Theory of Evolution. With absolutely no proof to back it up. Gotta love you God haters.

Okay, did you catch that? The theist(yes, theist. How'd you guess?!) bleats, "absolutely no proof to back it up".

No proof, eh? Really? Okay, for starters, how about transitional fossils and the fact that fossils are ordered in the strata, simpler, to more complex? 'Just a ginormous coincidence, is it?

Anyhow, I replied....

Yes, once again, a "theory" in science isn't just a "hunch" or "wild guess". E.g...gravitational theory and atomic theory aren't just wild guesses. I don't see anyone complaining that those theories are taught in the science classroom. 

To which the same theist/creationist then asserts... 

IF, the Theory of Evolution were true, then why haven't humans "evolved" for numerous centuries now. If anything, the(sic) have devolved.

Notice that theist/creationist doesn't make it clear whether he's talking about humans (not) evolving in the biological sense as a species, or if he's talking about us (not) evolving sociologically. I get the impression that he intended the latter, since he put quotations around "evolved". But either way, we've most certainly evolved(changed) over time, so his question is as ridiculous as it is false. I mean, consider that we no longer burn "witches" at the stake. Consider that we no longer smear bird's blood on people to cure them of disease. Consider that we no longer keep slaves or throw rocks at rebellious teenagers. Consider that you don't see anyone baking bread over a dung fire on the cooking channel.

And BTW, all of the above is biblically supported and was carried out back when we were, um, more "evolved" than today. Yes, nothing like following the archaic "moral" advice of a bunch of uneducated fisherman who thought that a rape victim should marry her rapist.

In any case, rather than try to convince my creationist interlocutor that he is in error(which we all know is a futile endeavor), I was willing to wipe the theory (and fact) of evolution off the table. IOW, I was willing to throw it out for sake of discussion in the hopes that we could examine his scientific evidence for "creation".

Of course, the astute among us know that when a creationist spends all of his or her time bashing evolution, they likely do this in the hopes that we won't notice that their premise is a big, fat non-sequitur. Yes, when creationists spend all of their time bashing evolution, this is smoke 'n mirrors. That is, they try to divert us in the hopes that we won't notice as they erroneously assume that if they can somehow convince people that evolution is not a legit' theory in science, that this somehow makes their bible's "In the Beginning [yadda, yadda,]" the default "truth", thinking that the "theory" of "Genesis" explains the diversity of life we see today, when in fact, "creation" is neither fact nor theory, and "Genesis" explains no such thing. 

When it comes to the diversity of life we see on this planet, there is not one speck of evidence that "God did it!!!". None; zero; zilch; nadda.

So, as it went, a few more comments were exchanged, and as you might've guessed, the creationist had nary evidence for his "God did it!!!" worldview. However, in true Christian form, he had some insults and threats, bleating.....

Oh, yes [...], you have "won" the debate, oh you well educated man. Believe what you will. I'm just glad to not be you.

 He's no doubt glad to not be me because he's likely under the (mistaken) impression that something really, really bad awaits me for my rejection of his Christian worldview, a view that he likely inherited from his parents, which, of course, is a view that posits that non-believers are going to be tortured unmercifully, 24/7, for all of eternity. Little does he know that I'm about as worried about that happening to me as he worried about getting sent to "Jahannam", which is Islamic "Hell", which, according the "Holy Qu'ran", is what one receives for rejecting "Allah".

IOW, kind sir, I'm not worried in the slightest flippin' bit, since both places exist only in the minds of the duped people who've been handed the family belief-system, whether that be "Islam", or "Christianity".

Cheese 'n Crackers!

Okay. Imagine if you stumbled across a quote that said.....

"When any child daycare facility mistrusts its children with scissors, it's sending a clear message: It no longer trusts its children, because such a daycare facility has evil plans!"

Now, the astute among us of course know that the real and much more likely reason that a daycare doesn't trust its children running around with scissors is that it's for the children's own safety. It's to prevent, or at least, it's to lessen the chances, of accidental injuries. A no-brainer, right? 

Okay, now I present to you the latest in Facebook memes: 

 

Note, while no analogy is perfect, I think the daycare comparison makes a valid and fair point: Just because a governing body regulates something doesn't mean that that governing body has sinister intentions. And BTW, I'm not even sure if it's a legit' quote, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't, because, after all, we are talking the National Gun Rights camp, here. Yeah, these are the same people who bring you bits of wisdom like...."Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Okay, really? 'Funny, then, that we don't send soldiers to war bare handed! C'mon!....think of the trillions of dollars we'd save in the manufacturing of weapons!?! Cheese 'n crackers!

POE's Law

Okay, if this was a legit' quote, as in, if this woman actually said this, then I'm sorry, but she's a complete idiot. Yes, an idiot. This is not to say that all conservative creationists who disbelieve in the theory (and fact) of evolution are idiots. They aren't. Many are just uninformed or misinformed. 

In any case, I researched this meme and it turns out that it's false---she did not say it. Phew! 

But that sigh of relief is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that I had to research it to find out if it was true or not, because I couldn't tell if it was a parody, or factual, and I couldn't tell, simply because equally idiotic words come from the mouths of creationists every day. This is where POE's law comes into play. POE's Law is where, in lack of a clear indication from the author of a written piece, one cannot tell if the author is being sincere, or being sarcastic, as in, writing a parody. Again, I want to reiterate that I absolutely, positively, do not think that all creationists are stupid. Notwithstanding, I do opine that most (all?) willfully ignorant people are superstitious. IOW, there's a connection there. Thoughts?    

Alternative

Since the "password protected" route didn't function quite as I thought it would, I suppose I'm going to go back to the "add readers" method that I tried once before. While I'm not keen on limiting readers, I see no other option at this point.

At this point

With blogging comes attention, both good and bad. If we happen to be in the public eye, say, from other things we do in life besides just surf the internet..e.g...artist, musician, actor, etc., we often times receive praise and attention in addition to what we do as bloggers, sometimes even in light of it.

While the people in this sort of situation can enjoy the praise and attention from legitimate, well-meaning fans, there are very rare instances when things go beyond a fan just being a little over zealous. Being enthusiastic about one's favorite writer, musician, athlete, actor, etc., is natural, and that is one thing. Exhibiting clingy, tenacious behavior and/or public ambivalence toward that person is quite another thing.

If we factor into all of this that people's most deeply-held, core beliefs are at stake, sometimes even people's careers, it's easy to see how people's livelihoods are hanging in the balance, and subsequently, we see how people might become indignant and/or put-off when/if they encounter people who are skeptical of what they hold to be true. As bloggers, we know that this is the case when we discuss religion and spirituality. But as bloggers, we also know that if we venture out from our own blogs onto someone else's blog, we are responsible for what we may find, whether it changes us, or not. IOW, "risk" comes with the turf when we bounce around the WWW checking out different perspectives.

 In conjunction with being a bass player/writer, I consider myself a "reporter", of sorts. I report what I believe to most accurately align with reality, just as other people do. After many years of doing so, I am of the position that there just isn't a nice way to report to someone that they are wrong about their core-beliefs. I know that people will disagree with this and tell me things like, "You can attract more flies with honey!", etc. While that may very well be true, the person telling me this is simply doing what I'm doing, but they're being clever about it. That's it. The potential result is that the foundation of the person with whom we are conversing could very well crumble, albeit, no one can induce a "light-bulb moment" in someone; something must take place from within.

In any case, if we can agree that it's perfectly acceptable for someone's spiritual foundation to crumble into the sea as a direct result of our discussing things with our blog guests, then that, I contend, is the common denominator in all of this, in which case, the means by which it happens is immaterial.

If you'd like to remain reader of BL, please submit your email addy, along with your blog(or where I'd know you from), here:

ice_dawg514@hotmail.com

Thx.

[EDIT] Update: For the time being I've altered my blog viewer settings back to public. Using the "add readers" email method is too limiting, and really, I shouldn't let one incident silence my voice. I recall the day where I could have used the very perspectives I share today.      

Supernaturalist Translator

• "God wants [X]!" = I want [X]!
• "God doesn't want [X]!" = I don't want [X]! 
• "I'll be praying for you!" = I'll keep my fingers crossed!
• "My soul [.....]" = My personality [.....]
• "God works in mysterious ways!" = I know it doesn't make sense, but I believe it anyway!
• "God has a better plan for him/her!" = Death is bad. There must be a good reason that he/she died! 
• "They're in a better place!" = I know your loved one was ripped away from you, but this is really all I got. 'Sorry!
• "I know in my heart!" = I don't know, but I'm going to pretend that I do!
• "God bless America!" = North America rules, I'm a patriot, and everyone else can buzz off! 
• "Spirit" = some thingamabob that I can't define or explain, except in terms of the negative
• "Energy can't be destroyed!" = Co opting from science makes me sound more legit'!
• "Atheism takes faith, too"! = If evidence for my beliefs is flimsy, so is yours! Neener, neener!
•  "Just believe!" = If you hear anything that opposes your beliefs, just stick your fingers in your ears like I do! 
• "Praise the Lord!" = Join me in my delusions! 
•  "God is Love!" = Love is love! 
• "Turn back before it's too late!" = I know I can't prove my beliefs, so I'm going to scare you into believing!
• "Militant Atheist" = any person who claims to not believe in God
• "You worship science!" = Everybody worships something, so if not God, then science!
•  "You just want to argue!" = I keep giving you my thoughts. How dare you keep responding and not agree!
• "You seem satisfied with your position" = You're as confident as I am, maybe even more so, and I just don't like that!
• "God is my co-pilot!" = I need my life micro-managed at all times. Being soley responsible for my own life is just too scary!

The Greater Shock

What is it that we are trying to discover? I think most of us would answer that we are trying to discover things like peace, contentment, happiness, etc. Having enough to survive..e.g...food and shelter, is one thing, and that certainly brings a certain sense of contentment. But beyond that? What else...and why?

My old beliefs promised me that a permanent sense of happiness could be had......well, under the right conditions, of course. But think about that for a minute: A perpetual existence where there's never a conflict, never a set-back, never a thing over which to have anxiety, never any loss, whatsoever? Never one single problem, and thus, nothing to solve........ever?

Borrrrring.

If we put feelings and opinions aside, by nature, we are pattern seekers and problem solvers. That's a fact.  Remove problems in their various forms, and I contend that we'd become automatons with that part of our nature completely missing. More damaging than that considering some people's worldview, problems are necessary for free agency to exist among us humans. Without any contending negative thoughts and/or without any negative circumstances, we'd be the equivalent of robots that were programmed to be content.

It is for the aforementioned reasons that I would contend that seeking to impose a permanent sense of happiness on one's self is in-flippin'-sane, and furthermore, the sort of "Utopia" that religion offers, and as well, that of what other spheres of thought centered around seeking "fulfillment" and "Oneness" offer, we would ultimately be in a living "hell" if ever achieved.

'Good thing no human being ever achieves it. Can you imagine never being able to turn "off" your thoughts? Of course, as it stands, we do this for several hours every night because our survival as physical beings who burn energy(physical energy, that is) depends on it. To exist atemporally as non-corporeal beings, we would not require "rest"(sleep) because we wouldn't burn any energy. Good grief, can you imagine never sleeping? No naps?!?!? Such an existence would be one long run-on thought, never deviating from a perpetual state of "bliss". Never needing to contemplate the good and bad ramifications of any "choice" would make "choosing" obsolete. IOW, arrivederci "free will", and just one more reason why my former belief in "Heaven" was misguided, at the very best.

Moving away from a "hereafter" and focusing on here and now, it's really the same misguided sphere of thought when we examine the ceaseless optimism being peddled from certain communities and their  philosophical standpoints. I can see bits of truth in wanting to have a positive outlook, as in, at least knowing the pluses and minuses of a situation or future event. But there is now compelling evidence that ruminating on, or better, imagining a positive outcome can actually lessen your chances of achieving that outcome. One of the reasons is because focusing too much on a positive outcome dulls the need to achieve that outcome in the first place.

It makes sense: If I want something from someone while putting it out of my mind, but then at a later time I get what was sought from that person, it can be a quite shocking surprise, in contrast to it being a much greater shock to not get it after ruminating on it 24/7 for months or years.

"The Secret" got it wrong, I'm afraid. There is no evidence that the "Universe" is conscious and/or that it is aware of our thoughts, much less that it will return that on which we intently focus, be it positive, or negative. Was the child who felt uncomfortable around his or her new step-father asking for it on the day that his or her step-father decided to molest them? Did the child do something horrible in a past life and this his or her payment, a cosmic "justice" meted out by a conscious "Universe"? Bull'.

As reasonable adults living in the 21st century, we must answer "no" to these questions. The aforementioned concept of "divine justice", while it might make us feel better to know that people who do bad things are "punished", it is, yes, legendary thinking that has carried over from days gone past and it has no basis in reality.

None of this is to say that there's necessarily anything wrong with submerging ourselves in "fantasy" at times, but it should be done with caution. There's times when lines can be crossed. Reality is bound to become dangerous at some point if one lives in a fantasy world 24/7. Ethical lines can also be crossed in instances where people are given false hope when they are desperate and/or at their most vulnerable. Yes, some people can find comfort in false hope(provided of course they don't know it's false). But this is nothing more than the type of "faith" that religion offers. The self-help book "The Secret" even uses scripture, alluding to the idea that people of "faith" will get what they ask for in prayer. Not only is that type of "faith" an intellectual cop-out, it can prove deadly.