Church Marquees

Sometimes I seriously don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Okay, so there's a church in the neighborhood and the new message on the marquee says....

Son block prevents sin burn!

Oh, boy.

Compartmentalization Revisited

Somewhere within the several hundred blog posts I've authored here, I'm nearly certain that I've mentioned my sentiments when it comes to differentiating between beliefs and the person holding the beliefs. But today I'm going to devote an entire post to the subject.

So, I guess the best place to start is right here:

I absolutely, positively do not think that all Christians(or any other people who hold certain religious beliefs or philosophies) are necessarily stupid or lack intelligence. It's difficult to not sound patronizing, but I just don't know of any other way to state it, and furthermore, this is really being declared in response to the many times that I hear Christians say that atheists think that they are "know-it-alls" and that they think all Christians are a bunch of idiots. True, maybe some atheists do think that. I, however, do not.

The main reason why I don't harbor such a position is that I used to be a devout, sincere, dyed-in-wool believer myself, and while I was and still am ignorant on many subjects, I've never once considered myself to be a stupid nor close-minded person.

With that now out of the way and on public record, it's very noteworthy to point out that before I became a non-believer, I was necessarily open-minded, because if not, I would not have changed my mind to begin with. I hope everyone catches that part, because it's crucial.

That's right, even as a devout believer, I was obviously not so convicted to my beliefs that I wasn't willing to change my mind. And again, I'm not suggesting that those who are unwilling to change their minds, or who aren't willing to even entertain an opposing view, are automatically stupid. However, I do contend that said people compartmentalize their beliefs. That is to say, they use their intelligence selectively.

Perhaps a good example of what I'm talking about is the Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, a guy whom believers hold to be a great Christian apologist, if not the best. While Savant Craig's whiny voice and various hand gestures admittedly make him difficult to watch on video, I can put that aside and say that he's able to effectively deliver his defense of Christianity in a calm, intelligent manner.

That being said, he's really, really good at keeping the already-convinced convinced. And alas, this is what apologetics are ultimately for..i.e..quelling the doubts of those who might be struggling with their faith. And why wouldn't people be struggling with their faith? Those believers who simply accept, unquestionably, what their bibles and preachers tell them are not who I mean. No, I mean those who are bold enough to question and would change their mind if shown to be in error. This is where the intellectual prowess of people like WLC come into play.

With that much being established, at what point(if any) does savant Craig's intelligence become suspect? Personally, I think it becomes suspect the minute that he says things like that murdered children in the bible are "better off", since, it eliminates the chance of them defecting from the faith as adults. Thus, WLC, concludes that the slaughtering of children in the bible was moral.

Okay, again, this is where I part ways and contend that WLC (and those who support him) are throwing their intelligence to the wind and siding with Christianity for no other reason than that they want it to be true. Seriously, such a defense is morally reprehensible. If someone contended that we all kill our children because it would ensure them a place in "heaven", thus, avoiding "hell", we would have their butts thrown in a loony bin, and rightfully so.

This is the essence of defending religious convictions via compartmentalization. Notwithstanding, I still do not think such people are necessarily stupid; they are just indoctrinated, and no one asks to be indoctrinated.

All of this being said, I do not and will not respect such deplorable beliefs, and I will continue to unapopolgetically denounce them. Note, I have nothing against WLC or any other indoctrinated individual as a person. And this is where I make a distinction between person and belief. Things like "beliefs" and "heritage" don't automatically deserve our respect. They just don't. If someone's beliefs propagate falsehoods and/or mislead people, and if people suffer as a result, the moral thing to do is to denounce those beliefs. If someone's "heritage" is one that promotes inequality or bigotry, the same applies.

I thank all my readers, both vocal and silent, and I hope that I have now once and for all set the record straight on where I stand. But especially, if there's anyone who previously got the impression that I think all Christians are stupid, I hope that they now accept that that is simply not true.

Non-Belief: Not a Choice

Okay, this post is going to be a short one, one where I'm going to quickly cover three separate but related topics. The reason being, something came up in my FB notifications again, which was the result of me chiming in on a meme that a mutual friend posted.

The topics are, 1) belief Vs non-belief(what's a choice, and what is not a choice), 2) No true Scotsman fallacy, and 3) the false dichotomy of "Heaven" and "Hell".

Again, keeping it simple:

1. Belief is a choice, but non-belief is not always a choice. For instance, I've read, cover-to-cover,  L. Ron Hubbard's book "Dianetics". I find the claims therein unbelievable, and much of it downright absurd. No matter how many times Tom Cruise types on his Twitter page, "Scientology is true!", or "Dianetics changed my life!!!" it's not going to matter to me until I see some objective evidence that it's true, and until then, I don't believe it, and furthermore, to think that I can just "decide" to believe it, is just plain asinine. The same holds true for ANY proposition or belief-system, including Islam, including Christianity, including Buddhism, and on and on.

2. Saying that "True Christians" do X, Y, and Z(or that they don't do A, B, and C) is to commit the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman". The most glaring problem with this is the sheer fact that Christians try to distance themselves from those Christians who are crooks or scammers. But why? Take for instance, "Joel Osteen", who bilks millions of believers out their hard-earned money. IOW, he's a scammer who preys on people's gullibility and faithfulness. Which believer can say with any certainty that "Joel Osteen" isn't forgiven? Under what authority can a believer tell another believer that they're not a "True Christian"??? Answer: There is no such authority, because, by mere definition(according to the bible), ALL believers are "sinners" and "fall short". And then of course there's, "Thou shalt not judge".

3. What if I told a Christian..."Look, you're in danger of ending up in Jahannam if you don't accept and bow down to the Almighty Allah!!". Do you think that that would phase them one little bit? No, right? Right, because of course, those aren't the only choices. A third choice is pointing out that Islam is a bunch of man-made nonsense, and that such a "dilemma" is a figment of someone's imagination. Welp, it's no different with "Heaven" and "Hell". Telling me that I'm in "danger" and that there are two things to choose from..i.e.. 1) choose to "be saved", or 2) choose to suffer bodily harm, is a false dichotomy(and yes, being thrown in a "lake of fire" constitutes bodily harm, so, no, "Hell" isn't just a "separation from God").

One last thing, debating the issues isn't "an attack on Christianity". This is where Christians and other theists have it wrong. They believe that their respective religion is somehow above criticism or close examination. And, well, that's just not so.

Somewhere Better

Out of a lot of trial and error; after dead-end, after dead-end, after dead-end, I finally found my childhood friend.

So, without further ado, here he lies, beneath a grave marker here in town, a cemetery now overrun with debris and anthills, although, you can't really tell by the photo. It's Sarasota Memorial Park, and the *photo is something I found on "Find a Grave".

Robert "Bobby" Spegal was a childhood friend of mine back in my elementary school days, and in fact, we lived in the same neighborhood. And although he rode his bike to school and I walked, because I lived a bit closer, he passed me everyday as we both headed to Southside Elementary, the school that we kids in the neighborhood all attended.

One sunny day back in the early 70s, Bobby passed me on his way home from school, and little did I know, that would be the last time I'd ever see him. In a flash, that sunny Florida day suddenly turned very dark.

I got home that day, did my homework and chores, and then headed over to another friend's house. 'Strange as it may sound, I rarely if ever told "Billy" when I was heading over; it was just a ritual to hang out after school until around dinner time. This time, this day, something unusual happened, though, as Billy came running up to me as I approached his house, sobbing and in tears. He was trying to find the words, which came out, "Bobby Spegal's dead!" I said, "Whaaat?" Repeats, "Bobby's Spegal's dead!".

That little exchange sticks in my head to this day, as if I just heard it yesterday, despite that this was nearly four and a half decades ago.

Bobby, who rode East on Tuttle Ave., was passing in front of Billy's house, just as he did every day, but this time he would not make it home.

By the time I got to Billy's house, the ambulance had left with our school mate's lifeless, mangled body in the back. I know his body was mangled, since the other kids who came running up upon the gruesome scene had reported about it the next day. Billy didn't see Bobby's lifeless body because his mom understandably kept him in the yard during the whole ordeal. A retired Air Force officer was pulled over and detained, charged with DUI, and later on, charged with vehicular manslaughter. The man was 68 yrs old at the time, so I assume he died serving his 25 yrs without parole.

To set up the scene, Bobby was not on the right of way, but instead, riding against traffic on the sidewalk, which was about 6 or 7 feet away from Webber St., the street on which Bobby rode home every day. The driver, who was elderly, at least in comparison, was heading West on Webber, and he veered off and hit Bobby head on. While I never got the actual speed of the drunken man's vehicle, my guess, now, is that it was double the speed limit, since Bobby was hit so hard that his shoes never left the point of impact. He was literally knocked out of his shoes like something you'd see on a Saturday morning cartoon.

Bobby ended up in the bushes about a one street block away, my guess is about 30-40 yards from the point of impact. Killed instantly, of course. Nine years old. Seen 45 minutes earlier, now, gone forever.

Being nine years old, myself, I couldn't fathom what had just happened. It just didn't compute. I blocked the rest of the day out, and I couldn't even begin to tell anyone what sort of comfort or consoling was offered to me later that evening when my parents got wind of the horrendous incident.

As I grew up, I found that I could not just sweep the "why" part under the carpet. It's natural to want to know why bad things, despicably bad things, happen. The explanation I would get from my devout Christian, maternal grandparents was that Bobby was in a "better place". He was "in Heaven", presumably "at peace"



So, I tried this "A better place" stuff, because I was desperate for answers.

My initial reaction was, "Really?"....a better place??? Somewhere "better" than with his mother, the person who carried him in her womb for 9 months?? Somewhere "better" than playing catch with his Dad? Somewhere "better" than playing fetch with his dog? Somewhere "better" than watching TV with his siblings? Somewhere "better" than visiting his grandparents? Somewhere "better" than with his school mates? Oh, really?

I didn't buy it as a teenager, and needless to say, I don't buy it now. Christian explanations didn't make sense to me, even as a child, let alone, as an adult. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with attempting to buffer the harshness of reality. We're only human, and it's human nature to seek to minimize suffering, even if that means not being completely truthful with ourselves. The problem is not that I won't lie to myself; the problem is that I can't.

RIP Bobby.

Addendum:

My initial search wasn't to find my friend's grave site, but to find a living relative(if any)..e.g..mom, dad, siblings, etc., just to let them know that at least one of his former classmates hadn't forgotten him.

Five Facts

'Got tagged in something called "Five Facts", where you're supposed provide 5 facts about yourself, and then tag others. This will be a nice change-up from the usual Theist/Atheist stuff.

 So, here goes, in no particular order.....

1.  I played B flat clarinet in Concert band in Jr. High School, which required that I learn to read treble clef. After graduating, I dropped clarinet, taught myself electric bass and managed to eventually secure a position in a fairly well-know progressive-rock band. To this day I can't read bass clef, although, I know all the 7 church modes by memory.

2.  a 7' snake lives in my spare shower.

 

3. I like liver....calf, chicken, beef, goose, and mullet gizzards aren't too bad, either.

4. I co-parent two teen aged girls whose biological father left them and their mother when they were 2 and 3

5. I once prepared veal chops for George W. Bush and his friend, the Ambassador of Italy, the latter of whom lives about 1 hour north of me.

I'm going to forgo the tagging part, since the blogs that I visit I can pretty much count on one hand, so the people I'd tag are already tagged = /

Sauce for the Gander

One look around the atheist/theist blogosphere, and one thing becomes very clear: Atheists are seen as a great threat to moral values, a threat to society as a whole, and generally thought of as a bunch of big meanies whose sole purpose is to run around trying to persecute Christians.

I will now try to put a few things in perspective:

Okay, imagine a scenario where, at the end of every conversation I had with a Christian, I said something like......

"Well, you can deny the truth and believe there is a God all you want, but when it's all said and done, guess what....your body will attempt to inhale one last time, you'll gasp for oxygen, and that'll be it! Yes, and after that last breath, you can be sure that gases and fluids will start to accumulate in your lungs and other organs, and from there, it won't be long before post-mortem hypostasis sets in! That's right, your skin will turn blueish-purple and your once beautiful eyes will become discolored and cloudy! From there, you will pay a visit to the mortician, be cut open, have your organs removed and crammed back into your lifeless, blood stained carcass! Mark my words, Nature will have her way, you'll see! But don't worry, you won't even know that you died or had ever even lived! In a few generations, you'll be completely forgotten!!!! You'll be worm-food, and don't say I didn't warn you!"

Now, think about that. If I and all atheists made such remarks when the realization set in that we aren't going to change theist's minds with our arguments, no matter how sound those arguments may be, we would be seen as some pretty ugly, mean people(never mind for a minute that many of us are already seen that way).

And yet, most of you knew where this was going when it started, and you'd be right if you thought I was making a parallel reference to when Christians threaten atheists with their "Hell" doctrine. Sauce for the gander, anyone? And yes, I realize that many of today's liberal Christians don't believe in a literal "Hell"(thank goodness!), so, I'm mainly addressing the moderates and fundamentalists who do believe there's a literal place called "Hell", and in my experience, their defense would undoubtedly be something along the lines of..."Well, the truth hurts!", or "God is Just!", or "God can't tolerate sin!", and the like.

Well, news flash---atheists could just as easily use the same empty tactics and say.."The truth hurts!".

And if evidence matters at all, there's actually mounds of evidence that Christians and everyone else will suffer the fate that I described above, when in contrast, there's not one iota of evidence that we survive our physical deaths and go to a literal place called "Hell" or "Heaven", the former of which, of course, is a place where non-Christians will allegedly be kept alive and perpetually tormented with fire.

But yet, despite that whatever objective evidence we have that leans to side of human beings expiring in the same, natural way as every other living organism, we atheists still don't feel the need to pull this sort of scare tactic out. Why is that? Simple---because we don't need to. Our arguments stand on their own merits; we don't need to run around trying to frighten theists into seeing things our way.

That's pretty telling, if you ask me.

Knowledge Vs Belief

Breaking news: Christians know what the Bible says.

In other words, forget that "think" and "believe" junk; Christians don't merely think and believe that what the Bible says is true. No, they know it's true.

Okay, so, the problems are many, but let's begin here:

Even if Christians know what the Bible says, then, without committing the fallacy of begging the question, aka, a circular argument, can someone tell me how they know that the Bible is an accurate, infallible document? I mean, we can all sit here and claim to know what all sorts of things "say". For instance, we can all know what "Jack and the Beanstalk" says by reading the story, and we would more than likely all agree on what it says, provided that the story didn't inform our moral views or political views, because if that was the case, you can wager a lot of money that there wouldn't be any consensus on what it says. But that's for later.

An encounter with a believer awarded me the following response.....

“Christians do not merely think we know what the Bible says. Because we place such high value on it as God’s Holy Word, we study it; we employ methods, such as reading whole passages in context; we investigate possible interpretations then pray for insight for the correct interpretation.”

Okay, so, yes, Christians place such high value on the Bible as to believe it really is "God's Holy Word".

Nothing really new there, right? Right, we "get" that part.

Here's the part I don't "get": What about all of the parts of the Bible that are demonstrably false and that directly conflict with what we know today about how the world really works via modern scientific discovery??? For instance, we know that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, but yet, the Bible "SAYS" the latter.

So, sure, I can look at it from the perspective that Christians might very well know what the Bible says, but then I guess they'd have to not mind looking in error about the position of the earth in relationship to the sun should they believe what the Bible "says".

And of course, that is just one of myriad scientific blunders found in "God's Holy Word". We know that "demons" don't cause mental illness; we know that the sun never "stood still"; we know that a domestic ass cannot speak Hebrew; we know that people cannot camp out in the digestive tract of a whale and live to tell about it. We know these things, just like we know that a boy never went gallivanting around the sky by shimmying up an over-grown beanstalk that reached into the clouds.

These are legends, and no matter how much "value" we place on legends, it will never make them true.

Next up is asking for insight as to what the Bible says, which, at face-value, you'd have to admit that this sort of looks like you don't really "know" what the Bible "says", after all.

But once more, let's put appearances aside and assume for sake of discussion that the "correct interpretation" can be gleaned by "praying".

Okay, done.

The first obvious question - well, at least to me it's a very obvious question - is why isn't there consensus on what the Bible "says", if insight and proper discernment is presumably given to all those who pray for it? What's going on, here? Does the receiver of these pleas for insight get a cheap thrill out of steering some of his followers in the right direction, while deliberately misleading others??? It seems perverted, at best. 'Definitely not convincing in my mind.

But here's the interesting part in all of this:  All of these difficulties seem to mysteriously vanish if one just entertains the notion that there is no receiver of "prayer". Think about it: If there was no "God" providing "insight" as to what the Bible really "says", we'd totally expect to see Christians divided on matters, and lo and behold, that's precisely what we see. If the Bible wasn't the "Holy Word of God", but instead, just the words of man, and on top that, ancient man, we'd totally expect to see numerous scientific blunders in it. And? Again, this is precisely what we see. 'Coincidence?

Open Questions to Christians

I'm one of those lunatic persons who doesn't limit his reading to only those views that support his own views.  I know, right? ::sigh:: Yes, it's true, dissenting views don't make me run the other way. I mean, if that were the case, I'd likely still be a believer, right?  So, yeah, I welcome dissenting views, because the truth has nothing to hide, after all.

So, making the rounds, a Christian blogger saw fit to ask why I was posting on a Christian blog, and he adds...

rather than saying something that adds to the conversations, you make inflammatory comments about Christianity. 

 This brings me to question #1:

Is it possible to express disagreement without being "inflammatory"? If "yes", what would an example of that look like? 

Another Christian writes.....

I must have hit a nerve. Even though I don’t agree with your thought on the subject, thank you for your opinion. God bless you.

Question #2 becomes:

Is it possible for an atheist to respond on a Christian blog and not come across as though a nerve was hit? If "yes", what would that look like. An example, please.

Christian 1 also remarked.....

Are you so unsatisfied with your traffic that you need to use other, more successful blogs to be heard? I’ve read your blog posts and am unimpressed by your sophistry, and yet I do not feel the urge to correct you.

It seems to me that if I was unsatisfied with my own traffic that I'd have tags on every post and would be hyper-linking all over kingdom come. As for my blog posts amounting to "sophistry", if that were really the case, I pointed out what a marvelous ministry tool it be for him to correct me. I mean, right? Yes, and even if he didn't produce arguments that had me running back to church, his attempt to correct me would, if nothing else, look like he had enough faith in his beliefs that he'd actually defend those beliefs. This looks good to those believers who may be having honest doubts. It would look good to those people who are currently in the shoes that I was once in.

But alas, atheists aren't the ones making excuses for why they "don't feel the urge" to respond to Christians, and as a former believer who carried honest doubt himself, this was something that played a role in my deconversion.

So, how about if women never "felt the urge" to respond to those who once said that women shouldn't vote? Where would they/we be?

 'Don't feel the urge? My a$$.

Another Victory for Satan!

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

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

This proves my hypothesis: Satan is GAY!

The Dregs of Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ho, Ho, Ho....

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

They write...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Cakes

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

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

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

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

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

Illuminating Truth

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

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

The young female author writes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument from False Analogy

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

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

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


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

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


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

Susan writes....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan?

More damning:

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

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

Under the Microscope: Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is an earlier excerpt of my conversation with her. 

The red type is her engaging another blogger:

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

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

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

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

There is still time ~ Susan Z.

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


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


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

So, moving on.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem with Atheists...

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

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

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

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

The author writes....

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

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

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

This quote nails it:

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

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

The Impossible Game

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Point(or ignoring the big picture)

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

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

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

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

  

Miracle Baby!

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



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

Arg...::sigh::

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

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