The Money Bag

 

Bible scholars, particularly the Christian ones, are quick to boast about the reliability and fidelity of the Jewish oral tradition to explain away doubts about the period between when Jesus is alleged to have come back from the dead and 30-60 years later when it was first written down by the authors of the Gospels. To be fair, there is a tradition in Judaism where a deliberate, careful effort was made to pass some stories and some information on from master to student. I don’t know the research where the reliability of this tradition has been analyzed. What we have with documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think, are earlier copies of documents that we also have later copies of, so we can compare and check for drift and fidelity in written transmission. But checking the reliability of oral transmission from 2,000 years ago would be a much more difficult matter. No doubt much has been written on it. Here are some reasons to doubt that this method can really do what Christians claim it does. (What follows is a better version of an analogy I’ve used before).

For all of the repetition about the accuracy of the Jewish oral tradition we hear, there are some very basic points about reliability and transmission between people that are often overlooked. The problem is that we often overlook the cumulative effect of having information repeated again and again as it passes through different speakers. A simple example from probability theory can illustrate the point.

Suppose that a bag with a police escort arrives at a courthouse in Los Angeles. We can suppose that is part of the evidence in a trial. A court clerk receives the bag, opens it and finds a large sum of money. The clerk then asks the police who brought it in some questions. It turns out that the bag travelled from New York. Along the way, it was carried by three different police escorts. It changed hands for different legs of the journey. Let’s also suppose that the manifest has been lost so the clerk doesn’t know how much money started the trip in the bag. The clerk does some checking and discovers that there is corruption in the three police departments that had custody so that the general likelihood that a given cop is honest is .8. Let’s stipulate that if a corrupt cop gets custody of the bag, he or she will take some. And if an honest copy gets custody, he or she will deliever it to the next leg of the trip without taking any of it. The clerk wants to answer this question: What is the probability that the money that arrived in my office is the same amount of money that left New York?

The answer is the probability that the first cop will take some multiplied by the probability that the second cop took some multiplied by the probability that the third cop took some, or .8 x .8 x .8. The probability that the amount that arrived in Los Angeles was the same as the amount that left New York is .51. If you add two more cops at the .8 honesty rate it goes down to .32. And that is despite the fact that the majority of cops in each department are honest. If five cops with a honesty rating of .9 escort the money, there is only a 59% chance that all of it will arrive at the destination. If seven cops with a .95 honesty rating excort it, there is only a 66% chance that all of it will arrive without some being stolen. Of you can think of the a system that captures and relays information. It doesn’t take many generations of copies on a copy machine, particularly a poor one, for the text on the original to become unreadable and for the information to be lost partially or completely. What’s important to note here is that even when the links are highly reliable, the cumulative effect of transmission across multiple links quickly diminishes the fidelity of the system. And it doesn’t take many links, even when the links are 95% reliable for the odds to drop off to the point that it is more likely that the information/money did not make it through than the probability that it did. If there were 5 cops relaying the money from departments that were 80% honest, there is a 68% probability that someone stole some along the way.

(These numbers deal with the transmitters. If we add in a multiplier that represents the reliability of humans at reporting miracles--think of Mary telling someone she saw Jesus as being comparable to the first person who filled the bag and handed it to the cops--then the overall probability that Jesus came back from the dead becomes vanishingly small. See The Case Against Christ.)

Matters are made worse by other variables. Suppose the clerk has no independent way to know what was put in the bag in the first place; she was just handed a bag, afterall. Then she doesn’t know if it originally contained drugs, or diamonds, or cash, or bonds. She could ask the cop who handed it to her, or she could check the contents of the bag for some clue. Suppose there is a note inside the bag itself that says “This bag originally contained $10,000.” Then she counts it and finds $10,000. Now can she be assured that all of the original contents of the bag made it to her safely? No, she can’t. Notice that the note is part of the contents of the bag too. For all she knows, there was $100,000 in the bag, or 5 kilos of heroin, and when one of the cops took $90,out, or replaced the heroin with $10,000, she wrote the note and stuck it in there. Using the contents of the bag itself to determine that fidelity of the system that transmitted the bag is circular and completely unhelpful. What she needs is some independent (trustworthy!) source to corroborate the origination and transmission of the bag. If she put the money into the bag in New York, and then flew to Los Angeles with it, keeping her eyes and hands on it all the way, then she could be more assured (although a person’s honesty with themselves and even their witnessing an event are issues in many circumstances).

The point of the extended analogy should be clear. We are told by a book that has been transmitted to us across 2,000 years and countless unknown people in between that there were some important religious events that transpired in 30-35 C.E. Between those alleged events themselves and the first recording of those events into a system with relatively high fidelity (writing), there were 30-60 years. And during those several decades we do not know how many times the story was repeated or how many people it passed through before it got the authors and they wrote it down.
We have some semi-independent means of secondary corroboration. We have other historical grounds to think that the oral transmission tradition in Judaism at the time was fairly reliable. Part of our evidence is using written sources to check the error rate of stories that were written vs. relayed orally in different eras of history where we have both streams of information. But as far as we know, the stories about Jesus were spreading far and wide among the early Christians in the first two centuries. And while there may be some transmitters who have a higher fidelity than others, we’re not sure who or how many sources the authors of the Gospel stories consulted. There may be a stream of information running through the Jewish oral tradition that is more reliable, but there can be no question that people will talk, and when normal people talk and repeat stories, we know that they embellish, omit, alter, and improve either deliberately or unknowingly. We can see that the story of Jesus’ resurrection varies greatly among the Gospels. And we also know that a number of non-cannonized sources that gave even more contrary accounts were deliberately excluded. So it is difficult to accept some of the exaggerated claims about the reliability of the verbal transmission of the stories.

(Via Atheism: Proving The Negative)
Matt McCormick
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:17:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Case for Christ (reasonabledissent.com)
• Pseudoreality and Archaeology. Virtual Reality and Qumran (drjimsthinkingshop.com)

Have You Been Discriminated Against Because of Your Atheism?

 

The Secular Coalition for America is one of many groups fighting against things like Faith-Based Initiatives that allow religious groups to receive federal funding while at the same time letting them fire people who don’t adhere to their faith. It’s not right in so many ways.

To fight this, it would be helpful to cite personal stories of people who have been discriminated against because of their atheism (even if you wish to remain anonymous).

The following types of stories would be ideal to know about:

1. I was fired from my job working for an organization that receives government grants because I am either a) not of the same religion as the organization that I work for, b) not religious or c) a nontheist.
2. I volunteered with an organization that receives government grants for their work in my community and witnessed people who sought help at the faith-based community center being proselytized to and harassed while they were trying to obtain services (ex: A homeless person who wanted a bed in a church-run homeless shelter in my town was forced to pray before bedtime; I know for a fact that this center receives federal and state grants for their work).
3. I went to a religious organization to receive social services and was proselytized to. I know that this religious organization receives government money for the work they do (ex: I am a recovering alcoholic and was court-ordered to receive group therapy for my alcoholism. The only place in my town that provided this service was a religious organization. They received government money to run this alcohol-treatment center but I found that I was constantly proselytized to while going there but I had no other option that to remain in the facility.)
4. I do not believe in a god and I have been teased, harassed, or humiliated because I refuse to say “under God” in the pledge and/or I know someone who has been teased/harassed/humiliated for this reason.
5. I am a nontheist who attended a public school that only taught abstinence-only-sex-education. As a result, I received false or misleading medical information or religiously based information that resulted in…
6. I know of a religious childcare facilities in my state where children appear to be mistreated and/or endangered due to the unhealthy and unsafe environment of the facility.
7. As a nontheist in the military, I was harassed and discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

If any of these things have happened to you or anyone you know, please send an email to stories@secular.org.

You can help us reach out to politicians who may be unaware of these issues.

 

(VIA Friendly Atheist)
Hemant Mehta
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:00:06 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Abstinence-Only Sex Education No Longer Federally Funded (friendlyatheist.com)
• 'Friendly Atheist' and pro-family group wage public conflict (christianpost.com)

The good god fearing people - Deacon steals $300K

 

Image via Wikipedia

Saint Peter’s and Paul’s catholic church in Garfield Heights has fired Deacon Lawrence Cermak for allegedly stealing $300k from the parish.

"As your pastor, I want to assure you that I am committed to safeguarding the parish's assets and to doing whatever I can to ensure that something like this does not happen again," noted Matusz.

Catholic Diocese of Cleveland spokesman Robert Tayek said the diocese is also reviewing the financial record of St. Therese Church because Cermak kept the books for that parish as well.

What broke my heart was a short story I found related to this where a young man discusses a friend who left everything she had to the church when she died. All for what? So the Deacon could have a bigger house?

 

(Via Mojoey Deacon steals $300K)
noreply@blogger.com (Mojoey)
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:18:00 GMT

A Few Virgin Births Before Christ

(via Proud Atheist)

(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

This book has NO answers! (Cartoon)

Got to love the Homer Simpson.

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 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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ancient Science in the Bible? Really? (thehiddenatheist.com)
• The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire (godless.biz)
• The Jewish View Of Jesus (anatheist.net)
• The bones of the Apostle Paul (lifewithoutfaith.com)

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• A few good questions for my Pastor: The Reply. (reddit.com)
• An Atheist's Alpha Weekend (thedamned.iansbrain.com)
• The power of prayer (guardian.co.uk)
• A question for Christians.... The latest estimate is there are 38,000 forms of Christianity. What makes you so sure you engage in the "right" version? (reddit.com)

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• I may not be perfectly rational, but my magic invisible monkeys are! (scienceblogs.com)
• Can science kill god? (radicalatheist.com)
• *Your Religion is False* (marginalrevolution.com)

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Blasphemy Is A Crime in Ireland (reddit.com)
• Taxpayers should not shoulder the cost of 'spiritual care' in hospitals (freethinker.co.uk)
• Un-baptize Yourself (whyihatejesus.blogspot.com)

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.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• The great winepress of the wrath of God (How many will Jesus kill with his sickle?) (dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com)
• God's 13th Killing: God burns Aaron's sons to death for offering him "strange fire" (dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com)
• Does this make sense to you? It makes sense to Christians! (exchristian.net)
• The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire (theatheistmind.info)

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

Atheist Satire

Atheist Satire

Atheist Satire
(author unknown)
Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:25:56 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hey /r/atheism - Can someone point me to examples of atheists going door to door? (reddit.com)
• The mind plays weird games with us (atheistnexus.org)
• How to Convert Atheists (commonsenseatheism.com)
• Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Should I point out the BS that my teachers spout? (reddit.com)

God Has A Plan

FFreeThinker
August 08, 2009

"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

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Would It Take? (de-conversion.com)
• Elimination of religions and religious-psychosis in the world would be the greatest step for all of humanity. In fact, it would save the world! And I claim the right to challenge any psychotic nut wherever they're found. (reddit.com)
• A Purpose to Life: Whose Purpose Is It? (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)
• A Purpose to Life (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)
• Why Worry, Just Like It! (bleacherreport.com)

Is atheism an intolerant belief? It’s not a belief at all!

 

I know I don’t need to point out that atheism isn’t actually a system of belief, but I would like to point out that the interviewer has obviously already made up his mind that telling other people that their own beliefs have no basis in reality is the height of intolerance. It’s like watching a bunch of grown men act like babies. And as usual, the old canard that faith is all you need to believe is the weakest position any human can have regarding as important a question as: is there a God.

Sorry to burst your theological bubble guys, but the last time your religions were in power, life fucking sucked for everyone. Stop pretending that you’re the good guys and we’re the baddies. I haven’t condemned anyone to an eternity of torture for not believing in what I do.

Second video after the jump

Is atheism an intolerant belief? It’s not a belief at all! Jacob Fortin Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:17:04 GMT