Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts

Monday, June 14, 2010

No "under God" in Porkys Pledge of Allegiance

Prior to 1954 the words "under God" were not in the pledge of allegiance. They were added under pressure from Christian leaders in a time of heightened nationalism and Communist fear in America. This period in American history was heavily authoritarian and ripe with the automaton conformity of it's citizens. Today, only 3/4 of Americans believe in the Christian god mentioned in the pledge. Therefore, tens of millions of US citizens are left out.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The good god fearing people - Lets All Pray For Presidential Brain Cancer!

 

Some of you may remember the major league asshole Steven Anderson.

Copyright ABC

Recently he has gotten a bunch of attention for a sermon titled “Why I Hate Barack Obama”. Here is a great quote from all that:

“I’m not gonna pray for his good. I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell.”

Very Christan of him. Now when most people fuck up, they try to rectify the problem. Apparently this guy is wayyyyyyy to good for all that. On Sunday he made this comment:

I hope that God strikes Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy. You know, and I hope it happens today.

Wishing BRAIN CANCER on somebody. Isn’t that atleast slightly fucked up? They let this asshole be a pastor? While this might not be what every Christian thinks, he still is a representative of Christianity. Also, he uttered this sentiment during an interview with FOX. So of course you can watch the clip in all its glory:

So just being a douchebag and praying for the president to “melt like a snail” or calling him a “murderer” isn’t enough. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t go along very well with the whole love theme of their religion. Also, his flock was quick to defend this bullshit too. The man who brought an AR-15 to Obama’s speech had this to say:

“I concur, I think we’d be better off if God would send (Obama) where he’s going now instead of later, (Obama) is destroying our country.”

What the Hell is wrong with these people? I don’t even wish death on Christians. Here is some good evidence that religion is dangerous and really not healthy.

 

(VIA Godless Blogger)
Jake Collyer
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:31:16 GMT


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, August 30, 2009

A Few Virgin Births Before Christ

(via Proud Atheist)

virgin_birth
(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


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

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 BibleDenis 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

LAM1

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.

Lam2

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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leprechauns and Gods

(From: Proud Atheists)

leprechaun-714945
jupiterzeus

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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, August 20, 2009

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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

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.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

God says: You're not rich (yet)

Filed under: Ripoffs and Scams, Charity

If you're not rich yet: it's because God doesn't want you to be.
No, instead, he wants the leaders of the sort of "Christianity" known as "prosperity gospel" to be rich. If that means you have to eat peanut butter & jelly sandwiches so you can help pay for the pastor's Citation X private airplane, well, so be it.
And thanks to the spiritual version of the Ponzi scheme (which reminds me of the "dispensations" bought by Medieval believers), followers of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland believe they will receive special prayers if they send the duo enough money.
And that will lead to prosperity for the 386,000 "partners," according to this doctrine. If you believe that the Copelands have time every day to pray for 386,000 people's wealth, and that money can buy you God's favor, in turn bringing you more money -- well, I have a position on the "Elite CX Team" to sell you.

Continue reading God says: You're not rich (yet)

God says: You're not rich (yet) originally appeared on WalletPop Blog on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

God says: You're not rich (yet)
Sarah Gilbert
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

God Has A Plan




FFreeThinker


"I'll Believe in God When This Happens" by
http://www.youtube.com/DarkMatter2525

"If I were God, you wouldn't need to ask me (pray) to heal your child's cancer. I'd just fucking do it. If you believe that God "intervenes", that He performs miracles, or that He has a grand plan, then you are utterly thoughtless. Look around you. The complete randomness of the world suggests that there is absolutely no scheme going on behind the scenes. If there is, however, then God is one scary motherfucker, deserving only fear - not praise". (DarkMatter2525)

---

Subscribe to Science & Reason:
http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker2
http://www.youtube.com/BestOfAtheism
http://www.youtube.com/AtheistExperience
http://www.youtube.com/TheAtheistExpe...
http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
http://www.youtube.com/SagansCosmos






Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Why Bring in an Unnecessary Middleman?

 

Father Jonathan Morris appeared on FOXNews again…

He was there to speak partly about Kara Neumann’s parents, the people who let her die because they wanted to heal her sickness through prayer instead of modern medicine.

His goal was to defend God, while at the same time saying what the parents did was wrong. His argument is essentially that God gave us doctors, so let’s use them — something I imagine a lot of Christians who hear this story are saying to themselves.

Here’s my favorite line, though:

Well, I would say faith does heal. God heals. And our faith in God certainly brings forth that power from God. But, sometimes God chooses to heal us through doctors. And we have to take advantage of that. When we say we don’t want doctors to get involved, what we’re saying is “God can only do it one way,” and I don’t believe that…

One problem, though, is that religious people (like the Neumanns) may not know when a doctor is needed. I think anyone with some common sense would’ve known that Kara’s predicament was one of those times when you get a doctor involved.

Also, there’s plenty of obvious evidence that doctors heal quite often. Sometimes, medicine does the trick. Sometimes, you body just fixes itself via evolutionary developments.

There’s no need to put a god into that mix.

(via Atheist Media)

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Why Bring in an Unnecessary Middleman? Hemant Mehta Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:00:24 GMT

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Larry & Mr. Deity 03: Eye For An Eye




Larry asks Mr. Deity about "an eye for an eye."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, July 5, 2009

The Argument from Quantum Mechanics, for the Non-Existence of the Christian God


This is another original Atheological argument
I innovated, that shows how Quantum Mechanics proves the Christian God does not exist.

The importance of disproving God cannot be
stressed enough:

God, and the God concept, subsist upon
the invalid metaphysical Ontology of
the Primacy of Consciousness, over the
Primacy of Existence. Because of that, if God
were real, this would have disastrous
consequences for the Uniformity
of Nature, the Intelligibility of the
Universe, and would mean there could
be no truth or factuality to existence.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, June 28, 2009

The Argument from Maximal Greatness, for the Non-Existence of God!

This is another original Atheological argument I
innovated, as I continue to do my job as a strong
atheist, to substantiate the veracity of my position.

The importance of disproving God needs to be
more stressed and explicity stated:

God, and the God concept, subsist upon
the invalid metaphysical Ontology of
the Primacy of Consciousness, over the Primacy of Existence. If God were real, this would have
disastrous consequences for the Uniformity
of Nature, the Intelligibility of the Universe, and
would mean there could be no truth or factuality to existence.





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, June 26, 2009

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right. | | AlterNet
Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

By Greta Christina, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2009.

Thinking you're right and trying to persuade other people you're right is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy.

Whenever the subject of atheism comes up, anywhere that isn't an atheist discussion group or something, one sentiment almost inevitably comes up:

"I wish atheists wouldn't talk so much about atheism."

The sentiment gets worded in many different ways. "The new atheists are so evangelical." "This atheist criticism of religion is just intolerant." "You atheists are just as close-minded as the hard-line religious believers you're criticizing."

But the essence of it is the same: The fact that many atheists are talking publicly about our atheism, and are trying to persuade people that we're right about it, shows that we're ... well, evangelical, intolerant and close-minded. So today, I want to explain why so many atheists think it's important to talk about atheism ... and why many of us try to persuade other people that atheism is correct.

The first answer is the most obvious: Anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists talk about atheism because there's a lot of misunderstanding and hostility toward us. It's nowhere near as severe as racism or sexism; but it does exist, and it has real-world consequences.

Parents are denied custody of their children for being atheists; people are harassed and and their homes vandalized by their neighbors for being atheists; teachers are suspended for being atheists; teenagers are harassed and suspended from school for being atheists; politicians whip up anti-atheist fear to try to get elected. (And that's just in the U.S. I'm not even talking about parts of the world where atheism is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.)

Making ourselves visible, coming out about who we are and what we do and don't believe, is the best way we have to counter that.

That's only a small part of the story, though. Another part -- and probably more important -- is that many atheists see religion not just as a mistaken idea but as a harmful one. We see it as a serious social problem, a type of belief that on the whole does significantly more harm than good ... and one that, because of its ultimately unfalsifiable nature, has little or none of the reality checks that other belief systems eventually have to measure up to.

We see people bombing buildings, abusing children, committing flagrant fraud, shooting political dissenters, etc., etc., etc., all behind the armor of religion ... and we feel a need to speak out.

Even that, though, is missing the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue, the most important answer to the question, "Why do atheists have to talk about atheism?" is this: Why shouldn't we?

Thinking you're right, and trying to persuade other people you're right, is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy. That's how it works: people explain their ideas, debate them, make arguments to support them, revise or refine or drop them in the face of valid criticism, make snarky jokes in the face of stupid criticism.

The marketplace of ideas won't flourish if people don't bring their ideas to the market. Being close-minded doesn't mean thinking you're right; it means refusing to reconsider your position, even when the evidence suggests that you're wrong. And being intolerant doesn't mean thinking other people are wrong; it means refusing to listen to them, and dismissing them entirely as stupid or wicked, simply because you disagree with them.

Think of it this way. Is it intolerant or close-minded to say that single-payer is the best plan for the American health care system? That public funding for solar power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil? That global warming is real? That the theory of evolution is right? Is it intolerant or close-minded to try to persuade people to come around to any of these points of view? And if not ... then why is it intolerant or close-minded for atheists to explain why we don't believe in God and to try to persuade people that, of all the ideas people have about religion, atheism is the most plausible?

See, here's the thing, atheists see religion as a lot of things. But for many of us, religion is, above all else, a hypothesis about how the world works and why it is the way it is.

Obviously, we think it's a mistaken hypothesis: inconsistent with itself, inconsistent with reality, unsupported by any good evidence. We can't prove our case with 100 percent certainty -- that's pretty much impossible, especially when you're trying to prove a negative -- but we think we can make a pretty good case.

But more to the point: We see no reason to treat religion any differently from any other hypothesis about the world. We think it's valid to ask it to support its case just like any other hypothesis ... and just like any other hypothesis, we think it's valid to poke holes in it in public.

And we think one of the main reasons religion has survived for so long is that it's so impressively armored against criticism and indeed against the very idea that criticism of it is an acceptable thing to do.

So we therefore think criticizing religion is not only valid, but important. It doesn't just chip away at religious beliefs themselves. It chips away at the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism. It chips away at the armor that religion has used so effectively for so many centuries to shield itself from any and all questions and critiques.

Now, playing devil's advocate for a moment: Some may argue that I'm being hypocritical; that I'll decry the evangelism of evangelical believers, but am willing to defend it in atheists.

But I don't, in fact, have a problem with evangelical believers trying to persuade others that they're right. Don't get me wrong: I think many of their specific beliefs are mistaken. I think many of their specific beliefs are bigoted, hateful and harmful. I have serious problems with many of the methods they use to persuade, with their reliance on fear and false promises and, in some cases, outright lies.

And I think far too many of their rhetorical devices simply deflect legitimate criticism instead of answering it. But I don't think it's wrong of them to express their beliefs and to try to persuade others that they're right. Again -- that's the marketplace of ideas. And I'm in favor of that. I can disagree passionately with someone's ideas without thinking they're jerks simply for wanting to share them.

I think a little historical context may be in order. This "I'm so tired of hearing about (X), proponents of (X) who advance their views in the public eye are intolerant" trope has been used against every major social-change movement I can think of.

Queer activists were "in your face"; civil rights activists were "hostile"; feminists were "strident." And now atheists who make our case are "intolerant" and "evangelical." When people speak out, not against atheism, but against the very idea of atheists persuasively expressing their views, I always want to ask if that's really the side of history they want to end up on.

Besides, it's not like we're standing outside anyone's window with a bullhorn at 3 a.m. We're not holding a gun to anyone's head and making them read Pharyngula. We're not even knocking on people's doors at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning to share the good word about Darwin. (Well, except for that one guy...)

If people don't want to hear what atheists have to say, there is a wide, wide world of blogs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, YouTube videos, movies, TV shows and oodles of other media available with just a flip of the page or a click of the remote or the mouse. If someone is seriously angered because they occasionally see the word "atheist" in a headline, or have to change the channel if Richard Dawkins is on, then I have to wonder if what's upsetting them is not the evangelical intolerance of atheist activists, but the very idea of atheism itself.

Now, if someone disagrees with us, then by all means, I want them to say so. If someone thinks that there's solid, reliable evidence supporting religious belief, or that the good done in the name of religion outweighs the harm, then I strongly encourage them to bring their ideas to the conversation and to make their case.

But there's a world of difference between, "Here's why I don't agree with you," and, "You are a bad person for even opening your mouth." The former is an attempt to engage in the conversation. The latter is simply an attempt to shut us up.

If someone comes to the marketplace of ideas and the only thing they have to offer is, "How dare those atheists set up a stand here! They're trying to convince us that we're mistaken and that their ideas are better! That's so intolerant!"... then I don't see any reason why I should take that seriously.





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

Posted on commonsenseatheism.com

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

calvin_arguing

A reader asked me,

Do you ever feel a [sense] of futility when arguing with believers? What drives you to argue as much as you do?

After giving some examples of arguing with stubborn and ignorant Christians, he concludes:

Sorry about this rant I have just been arguing with some frustrating people as of lately. Arguing with people who think they are “masters” concerning the skeptic position and “skeptic psychology” even though though they have never read a skeptic book, this drives me nuts! I am thinking in my head… damn it, please go educate yourself and read some skeptic books and a couple of logic books [while] you are at it!

How do you decide who or who not to argue with? What are your thoughts about the merits of arguing with the religious?

I have already explained Why I Write This Blog – I’m not just trying to win converts to logic and atheism, though that’s part of it.

Arguing with people can be a frustrating experience. People generally have many deeply held but poorly examined beliefs – theists and atheists alike! Most people don’t like having their beliefs challenged; it is uncomfortable for them.

One of my most fortunate developments was to enjoy having my beliefs challenged. Reading strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God – or anything else contrary to my current beliefs – is actually “mental masturbation” for me, except that challenging my beliefs not only leaves me excited but sleepy, but may actually bear fruit in my life.

Christians are especially vulnerable to holding unexamined beliefs because for them, beliefs have moral and eternal implications. A good way to make someone resistant to examining one’s beliefs is to tell them it is not only immoral to doubt God, but that doubt may usher them into a world of eternal, excruciating torture.

I argue with stubborn believers a lot, but I can’t remember the last time I was frustrated by this. When I tried to guess as to why I’m not frustrated, I came up with the following advice on how to argue with believers and not get frustrated:

  1. Lower your expectations. If you think you’re going to deconvert a believer or even change his mind about something, you need to lower your expectations. Things don’t usually work that way. I never expect to deconvert someone or change their mind about an important topic. Instead, I take a lesson from my early days as a Christian evangelist: I seek only to “plant seeds.” Back then, I planted seeds of faith in an invisible friend. Now, I plant seeds of doubt. The arguments I give are not going to impact someone in the moment, but the seeds I plant may sprout fruit sometime later. The theist may consider my arguments at another time, or remember them when confronted with something in the real world. Perhaps when visiting a hospital, he’ll think, “Isn’t it nice that God can be source of comfort for all these people? But wait – why would a loving God allow so much innocent suffering in the first place? Luke may have had a point, there.”
  2. Detach yourself from the outcome. This is useful pretty much any time – when taking exams, when picking up women, when writing an article, whenever. You need to realize that your efforts are not the only cause of a given outcome. If a theist doesn’t see the flaws in his own reasoning even when you carefully explain them, realize that there are many causes for this that are outside your control – his upbringing, his psychology, his emotions, his ignorance of science or logic, etc. Focus on what you can control: your presentation of atheism. If you gave a concise, clear, and compelling presentation of atheism then you should be proud of that. And if you did not, then you “win” anyway because you can learn from the experience. Perhaps you need to refine your argument to avoid common objections, or perhaps you need to research a particular issue more. Remember, one reason the theist didn’t change his mind may be that your arguments weren’t compelling. In this case, the theist himself, if he is trained in logic, may help to improve your own argument by pointing out flaws in your reasoning. This is a big bonus to you even though the theist did not deconvert on the spot.
  3. Value the conversation. Part of detaching from the outcome of an argument is to value the conversation for its own content, not for its result. Personally, I enjoy a good back-and-forth. I have to think on my feet and run everything through my critical thinking filter in real time. Such conversations tell you a lot about how believers think. The more you talk with believers, the more you’ll realize what their most common arguments or assertions are. Then you can tell yourself, “I should really come up with the shortest, stickiest, most persuasive rebuttal possible for that point.” You can even try different rebuttals on different people and see which ones have the best effects. Arguments about religion – regardless of their outcome – can be fascinating anthropological studies. I am often surprised by what believers really think, and how their belief structures are built. Most of them are wacky, some of them are educated and novel, and some of them are just pitifully uninformed – like the parents who threatened to call in the FBI to deal with their atheist daughter. What does it take to become that kind of person? That’s fascinating.
  4. Have fun. If it fits the situation, I try to make lots of jokes when arguing with a believer – and not always at the believer’s expense! I’ll fit in jokes about atheists and other topics, too.
  5. Respect the other person. This can be hard. How do you respect an adult with a magical invisible friend? imaginary_friendSometimes you get lucky and argue with someone who has studied logic and philosophy and has some sophisticated arguments – I don’t find it hard to respect someone like Mark Linville or Peter van Inwagen. Other times, you’ll have to remind yourself that this person is probably skilled and knowledgeable about many things – just not their own religious beliefs. Remind yourself that you have many beliefs (about morality, politics, psychology, dating, whatever) that are probably really stupid because you haven’t taken the time to study ethical philosophy, political philosophy, psychology, and the science of social dynamics. As a last resort, you can respect the person on the grounds of determinism. If you had had the same genes, the same development, the same parents and friends, the same life events – then you would have been a believer, too. The believer is a product of genes and circumstances just like you are – you just got lucky and scored some genes and circumstances that lead you to have true beliefs about a very particular subject – gods. It’s not like the believer stepped out of the causal chain, considered all the evidence, and simply chose to cling to a comforting belief in an All-Powerful Protector King. Respect that they are a product of genes and environment just like you.
  6. Be a team. Frustration comes easy when you view the believer as an opponent who refuses to go down when beaten. Not so when you view them as a partner or teammate in your search for truth. I think of an argument with a believer as a Socratic dialectic, in which the back-and-forth can help lead us to truth and clarify each other’s thinking – and that is something to which we both contribute. And if I phrase the dialogue in that way – “Well, the thing that confuses me about that is…” rather than “No, that’s a stupid argument because…” – then the ‘argument’ goes more smoothly and can indeed be transformed from a gladiatorial battle to a mutual journey for understanding. And that’s a lot less frustrating.

As you can see, these tactics will work just as well as advice for How to Argue with Atheists and Not Get Frustrated. And I think my advice is slightly better than Dave Barry’s.

But these things are easy to forget. If you find yourself getting frustrated in arguments with believers, come back to this post and read it again.





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Rock Music and the Occult

This TV preacher uses irrefutable logic to prove that only the Christian's god is real.

"Have you ever seen somebody working on a fence and takes a hammer and hit their thumb and go "Awww... Buddha!" You ever see them do that? How many hit a gold ball like I hit a golf ball and they go "Ohhh... Mohammed!" Why do they call that name? You know what they do? They go "Jesus Christ!" "Jesus Christ!" Why do they call that name? Because I believe when a person gets hurt or they get angry, they wanna blame who? They want to blame God.

I guess that settles it!

Gareth Branwyn (who sent me the link to this video) told me this preacher's line of reasoning reminds him of his grandfather's argument against hippies. Gareth's grandpappy used to say, "If God had wanted men to have long hair, he would have given it to them."

The preacher also shares many other equally profound insights with his rapt audience: Satan uses LPs to control people, and burn victims are lucky because they've gotten a taste of hell.

(Thanks, Gareth!)






Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why I am Unconvinced that there is a god

nogod
Why I am Unconvinced that there is a god
1999

Because there is no proof, not one shred, that a god of any sort exists. Be honest... there is no physical evidence. If there were evidence, there wouldn't be any need for faith. There is also no evidence of heaven, hell, a devil or demons, or angels, or an afterlife.

Because there is no need, or use for, a god. A god is not necessary to explain the origins of things, or people, or morality-- there are rational, worldly explanations that actually make sense.

Because we cannot speculate on what a god is made of, or how he came into existence. We cannot imagine how he creates things and people, knows everything, or why he did what he allegedly did. Because a god just doesn't make sense.

Because a good god would be useless if he were not powerful, and a powerful god would not deserve worship unless he is good-- but there is no all powerful, good god, otherwise there would be no imperfection or suffering in the world.

Because the bible, the most widespread "proof" of god, is unreliable as a source of accurate information. It is internally inconsistent and contradictory, historically wrong, and filled with deep moral problems. The bible cannot be considered or consulted in the question of whether or not there is a god. It is no evidence at all.

Because the history of god-belief is rife with ignorance, superstition, intolerance, persecution, cruelty and hatred. Those people believed just as firmly in their faith as anyone alive today. This makes it more likely that religion was invented by people who wanted to control other people.

Because theology has fought and resisted nearly every major scientific discovery. Instead of embracing new knowledge, religion fears it. Religion resist liberty and reform, and freedom of information and freedom of thought.

Because god-belief was invented in the earliest days of man's ignorance. People did not know anything yet. They thought the world was flat, that disease, hurricanes, earthquakes, thunder and droughts were all caused by gods. It is unbelievable that primitive man guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered "the truth" about the origin of life. It is more believable that god(s) were invented by primitive people for the following reasons:

* to explain natural events that they couldn't understand
* they had an inability to cope with their fears of a death that was final and absolute
* they had a need to provide enforceable laws with divine penalties
* they had a child-like need to feel watched over and protected by a loving, powerful father-figure

Another reason for the continuation of religion is that the positions of power held by holy men depended on the beliefs of their followers.

Because everything that science has now described in detail were previously believed to be the exclusive handiwork of god-- from the origins of life, to the cause of natural phenomena (earthquakes, lightning and volcanoes, in fact all of the natural world), to the formation of stars and our own world, to the causes of mental illness and diseases...virtually everything you can think of. Religion retreats, loses ground, whenever a new fact is discovered. No new discovery HAS EVER supported a religious explanation of ANYTHING.

Because there is no evidence of communication with a god of any kind. Prayers are answered no more often than by flipping a coin, despite the fact it says in the bible that you need only ask, and ye shall receive. People report having a personal relationship with god, but they cannot demonstrate that this is not merely their imaginations and self-delusion.

I am unconvinced, and all the threats of eternal damnation cannot convince me.

I'm like Doubting Thomas... I'll believe when I put my hand in Christ's side.... until then, no. When someone can tell me the following, then it would at least be possible to accept the existence of a god:

What God is made of?

What is "spirit" made of?

Where are heaven and hell?

How did God make everything, and from what did he make it?

Where did God come from?

Why did God exist alone in an empty nothingness for an eternity before creating the universe?

How can he continue to exist without ingesting some sort of energy?

How can he exist in every point of the universe at once?

How can he know everything, past present and future?

Where are souls kept within our bodies?

Where were our 'eternal' souls before we were born, (or how can immortality begin at conception)?

When someone can provide these answers, then I could believe. Until then, my mind will not let me believe. I have no choice. I cannot accept that such an entity is possible.

The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. When you come to realize why you do not believe in Zeus, you will understand why I do not believe in your god.




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Related Posts with Thumbnails