The Hidden Atheist - Hiding in plain sight: 08/01/2009

Sunday, August 30, 2009

(image from Atheist Cartoons)

The “virgin birth” of Christ
I have always wondered why is it that the virgin birth of Christ is only told in two of the four gospels in Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:26-35 The book of Mark was the first completed gospel, but yet does not mention the birth story of Christ at all. The book of John claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph and chooses to ignore or reject the birth stories in the earlier writings of Matthew and Luke. Yet, many Christians will claim the Bible as the inerrant word of God. When humans become inerrant, I’ll believe that one.

Here’s a short list of other “virgin births” of other deities:

Mut-em-ua

Tammuz

Zoroaster

Tukulti-Ninurta II

Ashurbanipal

Ra

Krishna

Karna

Attis

Auge

Dionysus

Horus

Melanippe

Mithras

Here’s a short clip from the documentary, “The God Who Wasn’t There” in which some of the deities mentioned were from “virgin births”.

Before Jesus, there were other savior figures whose myths inspired religions. These early “savior cults” came into existence long before Jesus is said to have lived.

No doubt some members of the Christian faith will dismiss these other deities as “Satan’s work” of deception in order to sway the followers of Jesus from the truth. Mythology has accompanied human life for thousands of years before Christ.

(Tweet us!)

A Few Virgin Births Before Christ
Mark
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:37:09 GMT

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Another Faith Healing Death

17-year-old Zachery Swezey died of a ruptured appendix a few months ago… his body got warmer, he began vomiting, and he suffered from severe diarrhea.

What did his parents do about all this?

During those three days, aunts, uncles and grandparents came to his bedside to pray. On March 17, his father did not call a doctor or an ambulance. Instead, he called elders from their church. They came to the house and anointed Zakk with olive oil, and prayed for him as Zakk’s family waited outside in the hall. Members of the Church of the First Born, the Swezeys believe in faith healing.

At midday on March 18, Zakk told his mother he loved her, and asked for his father to come to his bedside.

Shortly before 1 p.m, his breathing slowed. His hands got cold and turned a bluish color. With both of his parents at his bedside, Zakk Swezey died.

Parents Greg and JaLea Swezey say they offered Zakk the option of medical help in the last hours of his life, but Zakk may not have been in proper condition (or mindset) to accept that help and the parents never called on doctors. When you teach your children that medical help is unnecessary when you have faith, it’s not surprising the son would remain ignorant of what modern medicine can do and not want to call on doctors during the time he needed them the most. Not to mention he was still legally a child — it was his parents’ responsibility to get him the help he needed, and they failed.

“We don’t force our kids, our kids have a choice. At no time did Zachery ask to go to the doctor,” [Okanogan County Sheriff's investigator Josh] Brown wrote in notes from his interview with Greg Swezey. He also told investigators that his oldest son once broke his leg, and they gave him a choice of going to the doctor, but his son chose not to. Swezey put a cast on his leg, and later they saw a physical therapist who confirmed his son had broken his leg.

It will be tough to prosecute the parents. The law in Washington state, like in many states, provides exemptions to parents who kill their children because of their religious beliefs:

Most states, including Washington, have child abuse laws that allow some religious exemptions for parents who do not seek medical treatment when their children are sick.

Washington’s law specifies that a person treated through faith healing “by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned.”…

Judges must continue sending the message that religious beliefs should not trump the life and health of a child. They have to punish these parents for their neglect and ignorance.

(via Deep Thoughts)

Another Faith Healing Death
Hemant Mehta
Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:00:58 GMT

Reflections on Thunderf00t Ray Comfort discussion

Yup too much stammer. However I had to cover a wide range of topics, while all Ray had to say was 'I know God dun it'.

Anyways, yes, I was far too stuttery, stammering.
Having said that I kept my side of the deal and uploaded the lot... warts and all.

Im actually uploading this from within sight of the Hooker telescope (Im in the observation gallery)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9a)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 8)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 7)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 6)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 5)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 4)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 3)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 2)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 1)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

(Over the next few posts I will put up the videos)

Discussion between Thunderf00t (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic supporter (Pearlist)) and Ray Comfort (Creationist Christian).

Journal entry 22nd July 2009. (relevant bit, whole entry is too long for rest see beautyintheuniverse)

Up with dawnpeckish so found mcdonalds for breakfast. Back to Rays place where I had about 4 hrs to kill before our meeting at 11ish. Started adding placemarkers to the bible at the interesting bits I had found. By the time I had finished there was a lot of blue post it notes sticking out the bible. It has now also become clear to me that while my preferred modus opperandi has been in the defense of science, I have now read enough of the bible that I could utterly shred this shepherds myth. Its an interesting question should I set all the time I have spent going through the bible in detail to naught and just let Christianity have its peace, or should I actively engage in its demise. When the ministry opened at 9ish I went and introduced myself, and they gave me a rather officious line about not doing anything till the appointed time. No big deal for me, I put some effort into ordering the car and mending some bust electronics (resoldering wires etc). Stuff that had been put on the back burner for expediency on the road, but a more ordered man would have taken care of he went along. Saw Ray arrive by car, which raised an eyebrow as the 60 minutes thing said he cycled to work. Probably just he didnt want to cycle if he was going to be on camera. As a cyclist myself something I could empathize with. Ray is a small man, but chirpy and polite. Surprisingly Ray now informed me that there was no problem in me filming. Hmmm wtf?, but my only care at the time was the original deal was being honored. Shortly after he invited me in it was a little intro and pretty much straight down to business. The consequence of which was I only had a few minutes to brief him on points I wanted to raise. A point which I was keen on doing as I wanted the point I was making to survive robust scrutiny, and not to survive simply as they were bought up in real time (catching someone on the hop). The moments that raised an eyebrow for me was how quickly ray picked up on me lying to him, as an example of how religions are created an propagated. (by mechanism of the almighty Tod!) I am a poor liar. Its amazing though, how well even folk like ray can pick up on the bodylanguage. On watching the video you can see it all. How he gets uncomfortable and starts shuffling. I cant remember too much of the details (it was too much of a manic day) but I do remember seeing Ray being troubled by some of the points I was making. I could see the doubt of a man challenged with a concept altogether new to him. I could see it in his bodylanguage of his eyes. After that we went to lunch ray was buying. We took the camera man too who is obviously a hovind fan. Systematically I went through his points one by one and in the most mild of demeanors academically shredded them. The shame being that noone else at the table, other than myself would have been able to assess the academic veracity of my arguments. Ray offered to help me out by putting me up in a motel for a night (after a fashion). The offer was sincere and I think somewhat precipitated by rays sympathy for what he perceived as my hardship. I graciously thanked him for the offer but turned it down in that I like rough life in the wide open space. After lunch ray gave me a tour of the ministry. The place clearly oozes with money. Rays artifacts are very coy (a skeleton for the cupboard etc) He also has a collection of fake hominids not something to inspire someone with confidence about ones academic footing.

Then had a long chat with the camera man about the history of the earth (using the correlated history of earth poster). One by one I cut down the hovind arguments, and eventually all he had left was to simply say there are both sides of the argument.

Its amazing testament to the feedback mechanisms of the mind, that even after the foundations of his belief had been systematically and academically removed till none remained that he was still sure that there was two sides to the argument. Then had another chat with ray, which I wish I had recorded.. mostly about the bible. The things I really remember was that Ray believes in witches, wizards, demons and sorcerers. Hmmm thats usually a end of conversation type moment. He also thinks that the holocaust was gods way of punishing the jews. I told him very clearly that that was not going to make him very popular if he voiced such opinions in public.

Ray left and I spent an hour talking with his graphic design man. He clearly wasnt greatly interested in talking about points of contest, and we got on very well. He was a model maker and pilot. We talked teccie for an hour or so. A good guy!

The Bible Is Pro-Child Killing

I’ve pointed out before that the Bible nor the God it portrays is “pro-life,” but the BEattitude has compiled some more verses about the Bible’s stance on killing babies in the womb:

God will punish women by aborting their fetus through a miscarriage.

“Give them, O LORD–what will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” (Hosea 9:14)

God teaches the use of a bizarre ritual using cursed “bitter water” to abort a fetus who was conceived through infidelity. (Numbers 5:11-21)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

God promises to destroy the infants of Samaria and rip open the stomachs of pregnant women.

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be ripped open.

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

God commands the killing of infants and nursing babies.

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

God repays your enemies by destroying their babies.

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

The BEattitude makes a good point:

Apparently all life is precious to the god of the Bible, unless it is a fetus conceived out of wedlock or conception happens within an “enemy” nation that does not worship him. The Bible teaches that abortion is acceptable if God performs it or he commands it to be done through contaminated water or by violent force….

You can be a pro-life supporter, but leave your Bible at home. It’s horrific and violent stories against innocent infants and unborn children have no place in a discussion on morality and the value of human life.

Indeed. The “always pro-life” position does not come from the Bible, but from conscience. If a person really get their morals from the Bible, be afraid — you never know what God might tell them to do next, because God commanded just about every evil imaginable in the Bible.

(Via The Bible Is Pro-Child Killing - Daniel Florien - Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:26:34 GMT)

This book has NO answers! (Cartoon)

Got to love the Homer Simpson.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Penn Says: Evangelical Kung Fu

Get the latest Penn EVERYDAY: http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says

Because I'm the guy who gets proselytized to the most, I'm getting good at it. I'm becoming the Atheist/Evangelical Kung Fu master. You come at me with Jesus, I'll take you down to ChinaTown.

When Penn Jillette has an opinion it's a safe bet he won't hold back. Upload your own reaction and get the rants rolling! Tune in each week for new insight and agitation.

Follow PennSays on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pennsays

Hell In A Handbag

(Via Not Always Right)

This is just too funny

Me: “That will be 17.50, please.”

Customer: “Are you a Christian, dear?”

Me: “Why do you ask?”

Customer: “Are you?”

Me: “Well, no. Why do you want to know?”

Customer: “Oh. I would like to be helped by someone else, please.”

Manager: “Good morning ma’am, I hear you’ve been having a problem with the clerk?”

Customer: “Oh, she didn’t make any trouble, it’s just that I don’t want my money to be handled by someone not of the faith. You should be careful, she’ll probably nick from the till when you’re not looking.”

Manager: “You’re right, ma’am, I shall definitely have to reprimand her.”

Me: *surprised* “What for?”

Manager: “For failing to notice that the lady was not planning on paying for the three Mars bars and the map of Europe she must have put in her bag while you were fetching me.”

(The customer freezes for a second, then looks at her bag.)

Customer: “Good heavens! I must’ve been so distracted I didn’t even notice the devil putting them there!”

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah
This documentary-styled one-hour film sees Derren in America attempting to raise questions about the validity of certain religious and spiritual belief systems; belief systems that people are encouraged to base their lives upon - such as new-age faiths and mainstream Christianity. Can he get certain authority figures to endorse him as the real thing?
Website:
http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/news/?messiah

The New Christian Science Textbook

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What Causes Atheism?

Strongly felt religion has always been around; what needs explanation is its absence rather than its presence.

- Peter Berger

Religion had a stranglehold on humanity until the 20th century, when it suddenly lost its grip on nearly a billion people in the course of a single century (non-believers skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900 to 918 million in 2000, or 0.002% of world population in 1900 to 15.3% in 2000). What happened, so suddenly? What causes atheism?

Part of what happened is that a few atheist dictators took control of populous nations, burned all the churches, and wiped out religion as much as possible. The people in these nations did not choose atheism. As soon as the dictators were gone, religion sprung right back up again.

But in other places, Scandinavia in particular, people just stopped believing. Why?

One theory is that Scandinavians were never really that religious in the first place. But that’s hard to swallow. All the evidence suggests that Scandinavians were just as fervent in their beliefs as everyone else, until recently.

Another theory is that atheism can be caused by lacking the need for a cultural defense. The idea that when a society’s cultural identity is threatened, religiosity increases to strengthen cultural bonds (as with Catholicism and Irish nationalism). For centuries, Scandinavia has lacked the need for a cultural defense. They have not been dominated by a foreign conqueror with a significantly different culture or religion, and there have been no other popular religions to challenge Lutheranism’s dominance. However, many other isolated societies throughout history have not needed a cultural defense, and yet they did not secularize.

A third theory is that wherever one religion has a monopoly, it doesn’t need to compete for believers, it gets lazy and lets religiosity decline. This certainly fits Scandinavia, where Lutheranism has been state-supported for many decades. But many other religions have enjoyed a national monopoly for much longer than that and never gone secular.

A fourth theory is that it’s simply a matter of education. Denmark was the first country to provide free, compulsory elementary-school education, in 1814, and the rest of Scandinavia soon followed. Polls have shown a strong correlation between higher education and religious skepticism.

A fifth theory is that women are to blame. It has long been known that women are, on every measure and in every society, more religious than men. So it is plausible that it is women who have done the most to keep families interested in religion. But in the 1960s, women saw a dramatic shift in their identity and possibilities and moved into the paid workforce, leading to a “de-pietization of femininity.” Now that women were working and pursuing their own interests rather than keeping their families religious, religion declined. But then why did religion not decline in all the countries that saw a mass movement of women into the workforce, such as the United States?

Societal causes are complex things, and not easy to measure. Perhaps all of the above have contributed to the rise of atheism in some very complex way with other factors we can’t yet measure. But now let me turn to the explanation I find most persuasive of all.

Security

In Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (a great read, by the way; stuffed to the brim with charts, tables, statistics and careful analysis), Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue that when people experience less security, they tend to be more religious. This is what Marx said 170 years ago – that when things get tough, people turn to religion for comfort. But Norris and Inglehart actually provide thousands of data to support the theory.

And what about when times are not tough? When people have food to eat, clean water, adequate housing, jobs, cheap medicine, safety from natural disasters, political stability, and general contentment, they tend to be less religious.

This certainly fits with Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries consistently rank among the healthiest, most peaceful, stablest, and safest nations in the world. Thanks to the best-developed welfare systems in the world, Scandinavia boasts the smallest gap between rich and poor in the democratic world. Unlike the United States, nearly everyone in Scandinavia has access to health care and higher education. Moreover, the Scandinavian states all rank among the top 5 most peaceful societies in the world (the United States ranked 83rd).

Simply put, Scandinavian society is the most secure society in the history of our planet, and this may explain Scandinavians’ abandonment of religion. They just don’t need it anymore.

In Society Without God I showed that there are strong correlations between atheism and societal health. But I don’t think atheism causes societal health. Rather, I suspect that societal health causes atheism.

(Via What Causes Atheism?)
lukeprog
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:44 GMT

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

(Via Debunking Christianity)

"Almighty God and Christianity and the Bible professes 'DO unto others,' not, 'do NOT do unto others."--An Evangelical Christian explaining why he thinks Christianity alone is positive while all other teachings appear negative
I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."
Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis and William Barclay even cited numerous quotations of the negative Golden Rule from ancient sources to make the contrast appear more stark between what Christianity taught and what the rest of the world taught:
"Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.
Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga, 5.18)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." (Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983)
The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."
Christian apologists add that it is not (in their opinion) difficult to honor a negative Golden Rule, but it is "exceedingly" difficult to live by the positive Golden Rule Jesus taught. Such apologists seem to forget that a lot of Judeo-Christian morality is based on the "Ten Commandments," which are almost all negative rules, "Thou shalt NOT..." etc. Such apologists even forget that Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have struggled hard to resist temptation and resist sinnning, i.e., to NOT do things they were tempted to do, again a negative task. The whole story of Job is about a man tempted to "curse God," but he resists. So, for Jesus, Paul, Job and other Biblical heros, there appears to be just as much "difficulty" involved in avoiding sinful behaviors as practicing positive ones, (perhaps even greater "difficulty") regardless of what the apologists state.
Indeed, the so-called "negative" Golden Rule is itself a part of Christianity. It is found in pre-Christian Jewish writings as well as in the Catholic Bible and in a textual variant in the Book of Acts, see these examples:
Philo, the great Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, wrote, "What you hate to suffer, do not do to anyone else."
Hillel, a great Jewish rabbi who lived just before Jesus' day, taught, "What is hateful to thee, do not to another. That is the whole law and all else is explanation." (b Shabbatt 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26)
Even earlier than the saying by rabbi Hillel, the negative Golden Rule is found in Tobit, an apocryphal book that is included in the Catholic Bible: "What you hate, do not do to anyone." (Tobit 4: 14-15. 2nd century BCE.)
And in the Book of Acts: "Textual variants in Acts 15 :20,29 & 21:25 are quite involved... various Western texts add the Negative Golden Rule, 'Do not do unto others...' which is first attributed to the first century Jewish rabbi Hillel but also quoted in The Didache (a second century Christian text believed to consist of teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers and used to teach new converts) i.2." [from Tim Hegg and Beit Hallel's online article, "Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council: Did They Conclude the Torah was Not For Gentiles?" copyright 2001 www.torahresource.com]
And what about another claim made by Christian apologists, such as William Barclay, who argued, "The very essence of Christian conduct is that it does not consist in not doing bad things, but in actively doing good things." Was Barclay unaware of the fact that teachings that advocate "actively doing good things" are found in other ancient literature besides the New Testament?
Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before Jesus was born: "Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy." (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as cited in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Buddhist holy teaching: "Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
Buddhist holy teaching: "In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible." (The Dhammapada)
Taoist holy teaching: "Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
The Greek poet Homer: "I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need." (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).
Excerpts from a pagan's prayer: "May I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides...May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good. May I wish for all men's happiness...May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in danger...May I know good men and follow in their footsteps." ("The Prayer of Eusebius," written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murray's book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be "Christian.")
Islamic holy teaching: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)
The Positive Golden Rule is also found in Jewish literature (Mishneh Torah ii: Hilekot Abel xiv.I)
Lastly, there appears to be a flaw in the Golden Rule itself. If you simply try to "do unto other as you would like them to do unto you" then you could wind up doing things to others they might not enjoy as much as you do! Do you like listening to rap music? Then do it to others! Crank up those speakers so others can enjoy it as well! Do you like having sex? Then go out and initiate sex with others! Do you love your particular religious beliefs? Then initiate conversations with others about your favorite beliefs. Worst case scenario is that if someone fears they will be sent to eternal hell for doubting a particular religious belief, they might welcome being coerced and tortured to "correct" their beliefs and assure them eternal heaven, in which case the Golden Rule would imply that other people would be equally appreciative of being "corrected" rather than "risk eternal hellfire." So we need both the Golden Rule and also the "negative" Golden Rule, working together, to avoid the kinds of excesses mentioned above.
An even more "finely tuned" rule might be what some call "The Platinum Rule," namely, "Do Unto Others as They Would Have You Do Unto Them." In other words, take time to learn about your neighbor's tastes, their mood, their nature, and their temperment, before you start "doing" things "unto them." Treat others the way they want to be treated.
In all three cases -- the Golden Rule, the negative Golden Rule (also nicknamed the "Silver Rule"), and the "Platinum Rule" -- our similar biological and social/psychological structures ensure that our desires and fears will also be similar. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each others' inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are. So you can and should look within to sense the truth of what we all share. Hence, "you" have an inner window on what other people would like done to them. Just keep in mind that the exact "scene" that is displayed most prominently inside each person's "inner window" may differ from person to person, and you have to take that into account as well, before you "do unto them" as "they" would like.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics
Edward T. Babinski
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:45:00 GMT

the compassionate kid

My god and me

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?

(Via Dr Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room)

Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter or two for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.

Image linked from Beliefnet

In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:

So what’s the bottom line? Don’t go to the Bible to find scientific facts; go to Scripture to meet Jesus. In the same way that the Lord personally meets each of us wherever we happen to be, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the ancient biblical writers and employed their understanding of the physical world in order to communicate as effectively as possible life-changing spiritual truths. By using an ancient science in the Bible, God revealed the inerrant Message of Faith that He created the world, not how He created it.

And that kind of bugs me.

Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:

Evolutionary Creation

In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the “evolution-versus-creation” debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, he presents evolutionary creation—a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.

~~~~~~~~~

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.

In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution—an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. He contends that in the same way the Lord meets us wherever we happen to be in our lives, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the inspired biblical writers and used their ancient understanding of origins in order to reveal inerrant, life-changing Messages of Faith. Lamoureux also shares his personal story and struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity.

Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.

Both the Big Valley Creation Science Museum and the Red Deer based Creation Truth Ministry have on their websites a big black and yellow image of dangerous looking waste barrels with a label promising a debunking of “Dangerous Theology in Alberta”. The link goes to a now defunct website, www.emperorswithoutclothes.com, where apparently once resided an “expose” of Lamoureux by a certain Mike Biehler. Alas, a very quick google could not find a new home for the piece.

(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)

As far as I’m concerned, it is nice that Lamoureux is convinced of the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and anything he can do to minimize the damage to education in Alberta at the hands of the creationist fringe, the better. On the other hand, he hardly seems a champion of academics in general, and his program to convince evangelical Christians of the reality of evolution and an old earth should not be taken as too much of a victory for those interested in comprehensive educational standards.

I’ve gotten used to the idea that the University of Alberta (where I graduated in 1993 from Religious Studies a BA and did post-doctoral and sessional work from 1998-2002) has affiliated Christian colleges. I don’t like it, but what is one going to do? At least their courses are not transferable to a degree in Religious Studies (well, they weren’t when I attended). When I finished my BA, however, the university was facing massive budget cuts. There was some talk of farming parts of Religious Studies off to the Christian colleges. Fortunately, nothing came of this and although the dept. of Religious Studies eventually disappeared, the program of R. S. retained its academic integrity.

What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.

In fact, Holy Scripture features an ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and life. The diagram presents the world as conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the Word of God.

I really don’t think that term “science” is at all applicable to ancient cosmologies, biblical or otherwise. It seems to be an effort to cash in on the prestige “science” has in the modern world (at least among most folk). He seems to say that even though the Bible is to remain relevant without being a science book, it can still be a kind of science all the same. The Bible’s cosmological passages (along with a whole lot more) are myth. Why not call them that?

The Bible has virtually no “science” or “engineering” in it. Christian scripture has no astronomical treatise. There is no detailed taxonomy of different kinds of animals, insects or plants. No discussion of metallurgy, animal breeding, or the appropriate soils for each kind of crop. There is nothing on designing an irrigation system. Not a thing.

Lamoureux is right, the Bible is a book of religion. But rather than analyze the ancient religion from which the diverse biblical texts derived in its own right, he reads his own religion into it. None of the writers of any of the creation accounts in the Old Testament had a clue about the doctrine of the trinity let alone the myth of Christian salvation. They were not Christians. His is a deliberately anachronistic view of the Bible routed in Evangelical doctrine. God has to work behind the scenes, leading ancient scribes to write what they could not understand.

For Lamoureux, the ancient cosmology might be seen as a product of its own time, but the religion behind it must be Christianity. Folks concerned with the incursion of creationism in schools might be encouraged in some respects by Lamoureux’s writings, but if his books are reflective of his professional work, then he is really as far away from academic work on religion as creationism is from real science.

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?
Dr. Jim
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:17:00 GMT

We Need To Take Our Religion More Seriously! (Pic)

(Via Godless Blogger)

Well maybe that’s not such a great idea…

We Need To Take Our Religion More Seriously! (Pic)
Jake Collyer
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:44:19 GMT

Leprechauns and Gods

(From: Proud Atheists)

Can you prove that leprechauns exist? Can you prove your god(s) exist(s)?
As a religious person, you may laugh at someone that believes there are leprechauns or elves. Do you realize that many of us atheists view your belief in God as silly or deluded or irrational? It’s not because we hate your god or are just simply rebellious. To hate something requires acknowledgment of its existence. It’s not because a priest molested us or some bad childhood experience. We simply do not believe in deities as most people do not believe in leprechauns.

The typical silly response from some believers is, “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist!” No, we cannot prove that any god does not exist, nor can we prove that leprechauns do not exist. Does that make their existence as true as the existence of a god?

* No god or leprechaun has ever left any physical evidence of their existence on earth. Scriptures, temples and idols are man made.

* Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes continue to happen with no response from a god or leprechaun. Human response is needed to aid victims of these events.

* The Holocaust, the Inquisitions and other atrocities have occurred with no response from a god or leprechaun.

* Knowledge or belief in any god is based on ancient texts or scripture, not on an initial relationship before the learning through doctrine or one’s environment.

Leprechauns and Gods
Mark
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:55:51 GMT

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Another Religion Reporter Loses His Faith

(via Friendly Atheist)

William Lobdell’s time working as a religion reporter for the LA Times helped him become an atheist.

It looks like he has a counterpart in the UK.

Stephen Bates is a former religion reporter for The Guardian. His time reporting on religion led him to agnosticism.

The thing that astounded me was the vituperation directed not at other faiths (a degree of Islamophobia came later) but at those who happened to disagree within the same faith communities.

You get evangelical publications denouncing “liberals” within the Church of England and claiming they are not really Christian, there are reactionary Catholic publications sneering similarly at modernists and attacking those who do not wish for a return of the Latin mass as somehow lesser beings…

What rankled most was the hypocrisy, the fact that the Bible’s scattered and random words on homosexuality were uncontestable for all time and yet, somehow, divorce — which Jesus himself appears from the Gospels to have condemned — was somehow only a minor and changeable transgression…

…

I gave up covering religion for the paper after seven years, partly because I felt I could no longer report dispassionately on such events, or even give a fair shake to those whose views seemed to me to be both deluded and malign.

The last paragraphs are must-reads.

Atheism may be realistic, but without some humanism in there to provide compassion and support, it’s hard to get people to consider godlessness as a viable option for them.

(Thanks to Emma for the link!)

Another Religion Reporter Loses His Faith
Hemant Mehta
Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:00:08 GMT

Friendly atheist under attack

(Via The Good Atheist)

Ok, the title of my article is a little inflamatory, but how else can you describe a consentrated effort on the part of the Illinois Family Institute to get Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta fired from his job as a high school math teacher? Sounds like an attack to me.

IFL director Laurie Higgins is on a crusade to get the school faculty to punish him for writing an atheist blog on his free time, even though it plays no part in his teaching life. I won’t pretend to know all the details (go to his site for that), but I thought it might be fun to put up some choice quotes from the whole affair:

…even if Mr. Mehta does not view his math classes as opportunities to proselytize, there still remains the fact that he is a role model and he regularly engages in very public discourse on very controversial topics. For many parents, views on homosexuality and belief in God are two of life’s most important issues — issues that are critical to both civilized and eternal life.

I personally think that the illimination of hunger and suffering in the world are more important issues, but what do I know, I’m just a Godless heathen! Also, if that statement wasn’t ignorant enough for you, here is a classic one that should be put on a trophy for “Worst Anology ever made by a retarded Christian”

Many parents would recoil at having their children spend a school year under the tutelage of a teacher — particularly a charismatic teacher — who in his or her free time blogs favorably about racism and travels the length and breadth of the country preaching racism. Similarly, some parents may recoil at having their children spend a year under the tutelage of a teacher who spends his free time blogging favorably about atheism and homosexuality and traveling the length and breadth of the country preaching favorably about atheism.

So, let me get this straight: Hemant’s blogging on issues of gay rights and atheism is racist? This from a woman who has compared homosexuals to nazis? Do these morons ever listen to the delicious irony that sometimes spills out of their ignorant mouths? If it’s any comfort Hemant, she did called you charismatic at least…

Friendly atheist under attack
Jacob Fortin
Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:07:18 GMT

When to Stone Your Whole Family

OK, I admit it. I stole the title from the Brick Testament.

But the Brick Testament pretty much stole it from the Bible, so I guess it all works out OK.

Deuteronomy 13 gets my vote for the worst chapter in the Bible. But before we get into it, let's look at its context.

The last verse of chapter 12 says this.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deuteronomy 12:32

The person who is supposedly talking here is God, and he says to do whatever he says, exactly as he says, no more and no less.

And what does he say to do immediately after this verse? Three things.

Kill any prophet or dreamer of dreams. Even if they have cool signs and wonders.
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder ... that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death. Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Kill your family if they have religious beliefs that differ from your own.
If thy brother ... or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... Thou shalt not consent unto him ... neither shall thine eye pity him ... But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill everyone in every city that has citizens that believe differently than you.
If thou shalt hear ... men ... saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known ... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:12-17

But I'd like to focus on God's second command in Deuteronomy 13: When to Stone Your Whole Family.

If thy brother ... or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... Thou shalt not consent unto him ... neither shall thine eye pity him. Deuteronomy 13:6-8

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death. Deuteronomy 13:8-9

and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:9

So God commands us all to stone to death, without pity, our wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, or friend, if they have religious beliefs that are different from our own. (Our own beliefs are the correct beliefs, of course.)

And God said immediately before these verses that "what thing soever I command you, observe to do it."

Is there a believer that follows God's command in Deuteronomy 13:6-10?

Is there a believer who is not deeply ashamed that this is in the Bible?

If so, I'd love to hear about it.

When to Stone Your Whole Family
Steve Wells
Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:58:00 GMT

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Related articles by Zemanta

Related articles by Zemanta

Friday, August 28, 2009

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Security

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Related articles by Zemanta

Monday, August 24, 2009

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter or two for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.

In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:

And that kind of bugs me.

Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:

~~~~~~~~~

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.

Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.

(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)

What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.

Related articles by Zemanta

Related articles by Zemanta

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Related articles by Zemanta

Related articles by Zemanta