I spend a lot of time in online forums, chat-rooms, and the comments sections of blogs and videos talking with people about religion, philosophy, and theism. Often I have great, civil discussions with my "opponents", but in almost every case, I can find that guy whose not willing to offer anything other than bible verses and wild, unjustifiable statements. And I still attempt to communicate with those individuals until it becomes pointless.
That's because I understand that in those cases I'm not going to change that person's mind. But there are other people watching and listening. Debates are often not about the two debaters; they're for the audience. As in a courtroom, the truth isn't necessarily reached simply because one side has more charismatic orators. I'll answer a person's hate-laced attempt at conversation specifically for the benefit of those who happen to read the exchange (in part as a testament to how civil a nonbeliever can be).
On the Nature of Addressing Walls of Brick
When it was announced that Bill Nye would accept Ken Ham's challenge to a debate at Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky, many were disappointed or even outraged that Nye would do this. Scientists should never debate creationists, many said, because it gives the impression that there is something to debate over. As the late Stephen Gould pointed out, you have lost the moment you step on the stage because what they want is the oxygen of respectability -- to be seen on stage debating a real scientist. It lends a credibility that is unfounded, similar to an obstetrician debating a stork-theorist.
Now, I'm not a scientist (unless you count computer science), though I am scientifically minded. Nevertheless, I'm of two minds on this issue. should scientists debate creationists?
On the one hand, I agree that it grants them with far too much clout and makes it seem to an audience that they have an argument that is on equal grounds with established scientific fact. However, 33% of people reject evolution, despite the observable evidence for it. That number might seem small, but it makes up for over one hundred-million people in the U.S. that don't accept reality for whatever reason. That's an insanely large number. Many of those people are teaching their children to eschew scientific methodology in favor of faith. Many of those people will never attempt to actually understand what the theory of evolution says on their own, preferring instead to stay inside their bubble of self-confirming feedback.
So yes, at some point those should be forced to confront the evidence. They have to have the chance to understand if we're going to make any difference at all in lowering that number. I see it as compassionate, even though we elevate them up to the stage of equal footing with science. It basically says, "Look, here's your beliefs. It's okay to believe things, but here's why we believe differently". I've found in my discussions with them that the less marginalizing you start with, the more they actually listen to.
But we have to be careful how we go about it.
They Win Anyway
Ken Ham announced yesterday that he's raised enough money to begin construction on his Ark
Encounter project, due to be finished by the summer
of 2016. He said the debate with Bill Nye earlier this month helped boost support for the
project.
The debate in many ways was a win for Ken Ham and creationism the moment Bill agreed to it. It was held at the Creation Museum, so the money went to them. The "museum" sells DVDs of the debate, so proceeds go to them. It projected the idea that creationism was worth debating for those 33%, so they rallied more money. Ken knew what he was doing all along.
But it was good to at least force science into the closet of faith for the believers and creationists who watched it, and being a life-long educator and champion of science, Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' was the one to do it. If 33% of the population actually believed that babies come from storks and vehemently rejected the observable evidence to the contrary, at some point a scientist would have to stand up and say, "No, you idiots! Look at the evidence!". For the sake of our future as a species, learn what knowledge we know, people. Learn real science.
-STA
Showing posts with label christian proselytizing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christian proselytizing. Show all posts
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
Relationships Need Input
I'm often encouraged by my opposition to "seek a personal relationship" with the deity they espouse. And indeed, that sounds like a good idea to someone who is curious about a particular god. Despite the fact that I was a tongue-talking Christian for a lot of my young adult life, I'm implored by the religious to get into a relationship with their savior.
1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, Exodus 34:14
But what exactly does that mean? A relationship has at the least, two people. Unless a "personal" relationship is akin to the way a stalker feels about his victim. And since I'm hard-pressed to find a theist who believes their god is a physical person, it seems like the latter is the direction one has to go in.
In an actual relationship between two people, each party grows, changes, and effects one another. Each participating member benefits from the others' involvement. It is possible to be in a relationship and not contribute to it, and those relationships don't last long. I realize that from a theistic standpoint, one can hope to change and grow "in God" or "in Jesus" or "in Minerva", but that really only proves the case for a one-sided relationship.
What can a changeless, all-powerful, all-knowing god hope to gain from a relationship? Gaining something itself implies a lack of something in the first place. If the god knows all in the future, no excitement or surprise can come, so there's no benefit there. Such a deity can't change, can't grow, can't be effected.
I realize at best I'm arguing for deism here, and I don't intend to. Let's turn the focus back to the idea that each worshiper has their own "personal relationship" with God. I don't think I can do a better job of illustrating the flaws with this idea than what has already been done by YouTube user NonStampCollector:
Put simply: there wouldn't be so many differing views on the wishes of a (supposedly) singular entity if all those who profess to engage in a personal relationship with said entity actually did so.
Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Find someone -- a real person -- with whom you have an actual, personal relationship with, and spend some time with them.
-STA
1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, Exodus 34:14
But what exactly does that mean? A relationship has at the least, two people. Unless a "personal" relationship is akin to the way a stalker feels about his victim. And since I'm hard-pressed to find a theist who believes their god is a physical person, it seems like the latter is the direction one has to go in.
In an actual relationship between two people, each party grows, changes, and effects one another. Each participating member benefits from the others' involvement. It is possible to be in a relationship and not contribute to it, and those relationships don't last long. I realize that from a theistic standpoint, one can hope to change and grow "in God" or "in Jesus" or "in Minerva", but that really only proves the case for a one-sided relationship.
What can a changeless, all-powerful, all-knowing god hope to gain from a relationship? Gaining something itself implies a lack of something in the first place. If the god knows all in the future, no excitement or surprise can come, so there's no benefit there. Such a deity can't change, can't grow, can't be effected.
I realize at best I'm arguing for deism here, and I don't intend to. Let's turn the focus back to the idea that each worshiper has their own "personal relationship" with God. I don't think I can do a better job of illustrating the flaws with this idea than what has already been done by YouTube user NonStampCollector:
Put simply: there wouldn't be so many differing views on the wishes of a (supposedly) singular entity if all those who profess to engage in a personal relationship with said entity actually did so.
Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Find someone -- a real person -- with whom you have an actual, personal relationship with, and spend some time with them.
-STA
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Put Down Your Old KJV Red Letter, The Good Book Just Got a Whole Lot Better
The Holy Bible. It's been translated into 2400 languages and over 300 English translations alone, but when you get right down to it, they all contain the same boring, outdated, hard-to-get-through dry text.
But not any more!
How Many Meters in a Foot?
Now there's a way to read about the loving power of the Ultimate Father-Figure in Kyle Holt's "The Bible in Rhyme". Yep. Rhyme.
How many ten-year-olds can stand to sit through a dreary sermon that involves phrases like: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Ugh. Can't you feel your eyes glazing over?
Now take a gander at this little ditty from Genesis 3, with rhyme:
You can't help but try to sing it as you dance and smile, reading about God's wonderful forgiving spirit. Be sure to pick up your copy today, and get your kids involved! They'll have a great time learning how to regurgitate doctrine while beginning a long-lasting emotional attachment to ideas that make them feel good. 'Cause come on, I dare you to read this and not feel good:
(From page 7, Genesis 9:18 - 11:32. And remember kids, the perfect word of the Living God contains ZERO contradictions or errors because it was inspired by a god who does not author confusion!)
I dread how they sugar-coat the Numbers conquests.
-STA
But not any more!
How Many Meters in a Foot?
Now there's a way to read about the loving power of the Ultimate Father-Figure in Kyle Holt's "The Bible in Rhyme". Yep. Rhyme.
How many ten-year-olds can stand to sit through a dreary sermon that involves phrases like: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Ugh. Can't you feel your eyes glazing over?
Now take a gander at this little ditty from Genesis 3, with rhyme:
"Never will your kind view Eden again.
All are shut out for your cognizant sin.
Man, you shall toil and work in the earth.
And woman, your pain will come giving birth.
You’re banished! Get out! All three of you go!"
Then God set a guard at the Tree of Life so
we’d not be let in, but always we’d know
that this was how woman and man fell so low.
You can't help but try to sing it as you dance and smile, reading about God's wonderful forgiving spirit. Be sure to pick up your copy today, and get your kids involved! They'll have a great time learning how to regurgitate doctrine while beginning a long-lasting emotional attachment to ideas that make them feel good. 'Cause come on, I dare you to read this and not feel good:
Though everyone knew of the things God had spoken,
the men muttered angrily, "Our God is broken!
Why worship Him? Can He not see our power?
We're greater than Him. Come, let's build a tower
and show Him that He should be worshiping us."
But God saw their plan, and was filled with disgust.
"Man never changes, so I must change him."
So he twisted their tongues and confused all of them.
And he scattered mankind, confounding the rabble
and that's why it's called the Tower of Babel.
(From page 7, Genesis 9:18 - 11:32. And remember kids, the perfect word of the Living God contains ZERO contradictions or errors because it was inspired by a god who does not author confusion!)
I dread how they sugar-coat the Numbers conquests.
-STA
Friday, November 20, 2009
Same Camp, Same Colors
A Mild Delusion
I sometimes hear from Christians that don't accept the ways of the fundies. Though we can both agree on their outrageous antics, we disagree when it comes to who takes the blame. That's where I put moderates in the same bucket as the fundamentalists. It doesn't matter what the amount of delusion is, it's the problems at the core that tie them all together.
Moderate and liberal believers act as a safe house for fundamentalists and provide a shield for them. Whenever the majority becomes comprised of relaxed moderates and anything bad happens that would cause them to think God is angry with them or the world or whatever, the moderates begin thinking, "What did we stop doing that would cause God to be vengeful? What changed?" They most often find the answer in fundamentalism.
If You Can't Beat 'em, Keep 'em Around
I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, growing ever increasingly moderate all the way out. Even though my tactics and reasoning were changing, I still had a mindset of a core fundamentalist. I'd see someone going "a little too far" on something, but I always knew their heart was in the right place. We had an elderly couple who began to grow more and more vocal over the choice of clothing the girls in the youth group wore to church: the dreaded and sinful pair of jeans. "That's no way for a woman to dress!" they could be overheard exclaiming as the congregation filed out of services. I didn't think God gave a damn about something as materialistic as pants, they backed up their objections with claims from the bible. I don't recall any particular passages, but it's not uncommon for a believer to say, "well, that's Bible!" when it comes to something they firmly believe -- whether or not it is actually stated in there. The point is that none of us less-sexist of the flock could shake the couple's certainty of the sin being committed, and we couldn't show them otherwise using the same "logical" tactics and arguments from the bible and faith. Those types of disagreements always come down to, "I'll have to pray about it".
The harboring of fundamentalist ideals is performed by all believers, be they liberal, moderate, or extremist. It's because the ideological framework is built using the same wood from the same tree (if you'll pardon the labored metaphor, and those that follow). The scaffolding may reach differing heights, but the foundation is the same unfounded illusion. Until the entire structure is torn down and can be rebuilt using actual knowledge and sound critical-thinking methods, the intellectual groundwork of moderates is indistinguishable from even the most delusional fundamentalists.
-STA
I sometimes hear from Christians that don't accept the ways of the fundies. Though we can both agree on their outrageous antics, we disagree when it comes to who takes the blame. That's where I put moderates in the same bucket as the fundamentalists. It doesn't matter what the amount of delusion is, it's the problems at the core that tie them all together.
Moderate and liberal believers act as a safe house for fundamentalists and provide a shield for them. Whenever the majority becomes comprised of relaxed moderates and anything bad happens that would cause them to think God is angry with them or the world or whatever, the moderates begin thinking, "What did we stop doing that would cause God to be vengeful? What changed?" They most often find the answer in fundamentalism.
If You Can't Beat 'em, Keep 'em Around
I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, growing ever increasingly moderate all the way out. Even though my tactics and reasoning were changing, I still had a mindset of a core fundamentalist. I'd see someone going "a little too far" on something, but I always knew their heart was in the right place. We had an elderly couple who began to grow more and more vocal over the choice of clothing the girls in the youth group wore to church: the dreaded and sinful pair of jeans. "That's no way for a woman to dress!" they could be overheard exclaiming as the congregation filed out of services. I didn't think God gave a damn about something as materialistic as pants, they backed up their objections with claims from the bible. I don't recall any particular passages, but it's not uncommon for a believer to say, "well, that's Bible!" when it comes to something they firmly believe -- whether or not it is actually stated in there. The point is that none of us less-sexist of the flock could shake the couple's certainty of the sin being committed, and we couldn't show them otherwise using the same "logical" tactics and arguments from the bible and faith. Those types of disagreements always come down to, "I'll have to pray about it".
The harboring of fundamentalist ideals is performed by all believers, be they liberal, moderate, or extremist. It's because the ideological framework is built using the same wood from the same tree (if you'll pardon the labored metaphor, and those that follow). The scaffolding may reach differing heights, but the foundation is the same unfounded illusion. Until the entire structure is torn down and can be rebuilt using actual knowledge and sound critical-thinking methods, the intellectual groundwork of moderates is indistinguishable from even the most delusional fundamentalists.
-STA
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wedding Hells
I recently attended a wedding reception and there was one thing that bothered me (enough to sit down and rant about it today). And no, it wasn't the "blessing" that was given before people ate the buffet. A song was sung to the newly-weds; a narrative offering advice on how to stay together. A line in the song suggested, in effect, when times get tough to turn to God and he'll fix it.
Bad Chord
I'm finding several issues I personally have with the otherwise great original song. First off, like so many other theistic pronouncements, it assumes that a) the speaker's God and the audience's God are the same, and b) that the audience even has a God. It's akin to singing a poignant song about real-life things such as love and marriage, then including a line about finding leprechauns grading gold at the end of rainbows. It kills the mood of the song and makes you look small-minded.
Keep-Away
The biggest beef I have with it is the idea itself. Let's look at it from both the viewpoint of the believer and the atheist. First, the former. Using the idea of the Christian God, one may easily see how seeking His guidance is obviously the route to take. He is all-knowing, after all. According to their theology, God has a plan for everyone. Thus, when a couple's marriage is on the rocks, a quick voice-mail up to the clouds and all should be well. But how many Christian marriages fail, even with the fervent prayers of not only the betrothed but often times their families and friends as well? If the answer is as easy as asking God what to do, and getting the sense that the answer is "be kind to and TALK with each other", then why do over half of all theistic unions fail?
Assuming God does exist with all the superpowers generally attributed to him, it goes without saying that such a being is, for lack of better terminology at the moment, a giant prick. In fact, those reading this right now, be they theist or atheist, are probably more moral and ethical than the Christian deity. For how many of you would, if you knew the answer to healing the hurting hearts of two people, would refuse to administer your aid until asked? Would you wait to poor out your miraculous blessings upon the hungry until all of them sought your help? Would you withhold a cure that would strike leukemia from a dying girl until not just the girl asked for it, but her family, the whole ward floor, the entire hospital, town -- or continent -- agreed you could?
It Takes Two -- Me and You
Since I am one of the millions who do not subscribe to such egotistical bullshit, I will say that the obvious course of action is not to turn to some imaginary friend to fix your martial issues, but instead turn to each other, the flesh-and-blood human being with whom you committed your life to. Seek the problem at its source. Talk with each other. Listen to each other. Find out what the hell is going on and do not cower from it. If you need to involve beings from outside of yourselves, turn to your family, your friends. I'm sure there's at least one person every married couple can talk to (we all had at least one witness, right?). Find the bug. Hunt it down like a heat-seeking missile. The point is that the answer is within you; it's not going to come from some mysterious force outside of you. Both of you -- whether you knew it or not -- took the necessary steps to fall in love. It's going to take both of you again to stay that way.
And if he's reading this, let the songwriter know that this is in no way an attack on him directly. He's one of the best and most upstanding guys I know, and a wonderful friend. The contention is merely with the message and wording of his outstanding and touching song -- a small disputation, yet one I think worthy of mention.
-STA
Bad Chord
I'm finding several issues I personally have with the otherwise great original song. First off, like so many other theistic pronouncements, it assumes that a) the speaker's God and the audience's God are the same, and b) that the audience even has a God. It's akin to singing a poignant song about real-life things such as love and marriage, then including a line about finding leprechauns grading gold at the end of rainbows. It kills the mood of the song and makes you look small-minded.
Keep-Away
The biggest beef I have with it is the idea itself. Let's look at it from both the viewpoint of the believer and the atheist. First, the former. Using the idea of the Christian God, one may easily see how seeking His guidance is obviously the route to take. He is all-knowing, after all. According to their theology, God has a plan for everyone. Thus, when a couple's marriage is on the rocks, a quick voice-mail up to the clouds and all should be well. But how many Christian marriages fail, even with the fervent prayers of not only the betrothed but often times their families and friends as well? If the answer is as easy as asking God what to do, and getting the sense that the answer is "be kind to and TALK with each other", then why do over half of all theistic unions fail?
Assuming God does exist with all the superpowers generally attributed to him, it goes without saying that such a being is, for lack of better terminology at the moment, a giant prick. In fact, those reading this right now, be they theist or atheist, are probably more moral and ethical than the Christian deity. For how many of you would, if you knew the answer to healing the hurting hearts of two people, would refuse to administer your aid until asked? Would you wait to poor out your miraculous blessings upon the hungry until all of them sought your help? Would you withhold a cure that would strike leukemia from a dying girl until not just the girl asked for it, but her family, the whole ward floor, the entire hospital, town -- or continent -- agreed you could?
It Takes Two -- Me and You
Since I am one of the millions who do not subscribe to such egotistical bullshit, I will say that the obvious course of action is not to turn to some imaginary friend to fix your martial issues, but instead turn to each other, the flesh-and-blood human being with whom you committed your life to. Seek the problem at its source. Talk with each other. Listen to each other. Find out what the hell is going on and do not cower from it. If you need to involve beings from outside of yourselves, turn to your family, your friends. I'm sure there's at least one person every married couple can talk to (we all had at least one witness, right?). Find the bug. Hunt it down like a heat-seeking missile. The point is that the answer is within you; it's not going to come from some mysterious force outside of you. Both of you -- whether you knew it or not -- took the necessary steps to fall in love. It's going to take both of you again to stay that way.
And if he's reading this, let the songwriter know that this is in no way an attack on him directly. He's one of the best and most upstanding guys I know, and a wonderful friend. The contention is merely with the message and wording of his outstanding and touching song -- a small disputation, yet one I think worthy of mention.
-STA
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Paying for Prayer
Are you sitting down? Good. Here's a couple news items from this week.
An All-Christian Prison
Oklahoma plans to build a Christian-run prison to give Christian inmates special privileges. So where's the all-atheist prison, or the all-Muslim prison? Sure, that's exactly what they need. Pray to an invisible friend that will take away all the bad things you've done in your life so that you can feel better about yourself, and read your bibles that tell stories of unicorns, dragons, satyrs, and talking donkeys. "Ninety-eight percent of offenders are going to get out of prison," says the project's leader. "What kind of offender do you want living next door?"
Priest Same As Doctor
Congressional members are again kowtowing to Christian Science by sponsoring a provision in the health care reform bill to allow prayer to be considered medicine. The Christian Science Church has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. That's right, I said paid prayer practitioners. Their job is to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors. Imagine having a job where you just pray for someone to get better all the while earning doctor's wages! I guess if you don't have a conscience or care at all about people, that's the best job in the world. If praying for someone to get better counts as medicine, shouldn't praying for someone to die be considered an attempt at murder? Does praying to win the lottery amount to fraud?
-STA
An All-Christian Prison
Oklahoma plans to build a Christian-run prison to give Christian inmates special privileges. So where's the all-atheist prison, or the all-Muslim prison? Sure, that's exactly what they need. Pray to an invisible friend that will take away all the bad things you've done in your life so that you can feel better about yourself, and read your bibles that tell stories of unicorns, dragons, satyrs, and talking donkeys. "Ninety-eight percent of offenders are going to get out of prison," says the project's leader. "What kind of offender do you want living next door?"
Priest Same As Doctor
Congressional members are again kowtowing to Christian Science by sponsoring a provision in the health care reform bill to allow prayer to be considered medicine. The Christian Science Church has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. That's right, I said paid prayer practitioners. Their job is to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors. Imagine having a job where you just pray for someone to get better all the while earning doctor's wages! I guess if you don't have a conscience or care at all about people, that's the best job in the world. If praying for someone to get better counts as medicine, shouldn't praying for someone to die be considered an attempt at murder? Does praying to win the lottery amount to fraud?
-STA
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Today from Ray: What Have You Been Doing?
In a small effort to spice things up around here -- and get me blogging more -- we're starting a new running series. I like to argue. More importantly, I like to help people. I feel that pointing out errors aids in the stamping out of ignorance.
Our good friend Ray Comfort has loads of such ignorance spewing forth from his blog here on blogger. Ray's "Comfort Food" blog is now "Atheist Central", and since I fit the description of his target, I've tried to regularly participate. The only problem is that of censorship. The only comments that are shown are those that Ray judges as appropriate. He'll even cut off discussions if you fail to capitalize specific words like jesus! (You can read his rules for commenting just below his title graphic full of argumentum ad verecundiam.) So since taking him on on his own turf is rather ineffectual and self-defeating, I'll have to answer Ray's criticisms and characterizations of atheism here. Occasionally we'll take a look at what's going down on Ray's blog today.
And Ray, if you want to comment here, I don't give a rat's ass how you type "jesus".
Big Words From Little Woody
Jumping right into what I find displayed on the page right now, Ray's October 18th drips with his basic Way of The Master rhetoric. "When the atheist stands before God," Ray writes, "it will be a waste of time telling Him what he thinks of Him." Ray fails to convince atheists with this kind of "logic" by failing to see the enormous assumption. After all, what will Ray really have to say to FSM when he stands before him, huh?
The snide title of the post comes from the fact that Ray quotes atheist Woody Allen and then calls him a "sad man who is fearful of dying". He somehow gets that out of Allen's words: "God has some explaining to do". Indeed, I'd ask the same from God if I died and met Ray's deity in the clouds. Aside from reading in a fear of death, Ray fails to see that if his god is real, it would already know exactly what it would take to convince every single non-believer on the planet. This is the point of Allen's quote. It's not a matter of being hostile towards religion, or just wanting to be a naughty little sinner. It's not that he's scared of dying, or scared of finding out he was wrong, it's the fact that a god with qualities that Ray and other Christians profess wouldn't and shouldn't expect a surprise run-in with an atheist.
You're an idiot, Ray. This is going to be harder than I thought...I'm going to go lay down and try to get rid of the headache I got from pulling my hair out.
-STA
Our good friend Ray Comfort has loads of such ignorance spewing forth from his blog here on blogger. Ray's "Comfort Food" blog is now "Atheist Central", and since I fit the description of his target, I've tried to regularly participate. The only problem is that of censorship. The only comments that are shown are those that Ray judges as appropriate. He'll even cut off discussions if you fail to capitalize specific words like jesus! (You can read his rules for commenting just below his title graphic full of argumentum ad verecundiam.) So since taking him on on his own turf is rather ineffectual and self-defeating, I'll have to answer Ray's criticisms and characterizations of atheism here. Occasionally we'll take a look at what's going down on Ray's blog today.
And Ray, if you want to comment here, I don't give a rat's ass how you type "jesus".
Big Words From Little Woody
Jumping right into what I find displayed on the page right now, Ray's October 18th drips with his basic Way of The Master rhetoric. "When the atheist stands before God," Ray writes, "it will be a waste of time telling Him what he thinks of Him." Ray fails to convince atheists with this kind of "logic" by failing to see the enormous assumption. After all, what will Ray really have to say to FSM when he stands before him, huh?
The snide title of the post comes from the fact that Ray quotes atheist Woody Allen and then calls him a "sad man who is fearful of dying". He somehow gets that out of Allen's words: "God has some explaining to do". Indeed, I'd ask the same from God if I died and met Ray's deity in the clouds. Aside from reading in a fear of death, Ray fails to see that if his god is real, it would already know exactly what it would take to convince every single non-believer on the planet. This is the point of Allen's quote. It's not a matter of being hostile towards religion, or just wanting to be a naughty little sinner. It's not that he's scared of dying, or scared of finding out he was wrong, it's the fact that a god with qualities that Ray and other Christians profess wouldn't and shouldn't expect a surprise run-in with an atheist.
You're an idiot, Ray. This is going to be harder than I thought...I'm going to go lay down and try to get rid of the headache I got from pulling my hair out.
-STA
Saturday, September 19, 2009
An Updated Origin
November 21, 2009 will mark the exact 150-year mark since the publication of Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species, and a group is actually going to provide over fifty college campuses with free -- yes, FREE -- copies of the book. Who is this group, and why would they go through all that trouble? Why, for God, of course!
That's right folks. The group is the 'Living Waters' ministry. But why would I care that a Christian evangelical collective is giving away Darwin's book? Because this is not the book Darwin wrote. This special-edition version includes a hidden 50-page introduction written by Ray Comfort. And therefore, as you should be able to guess, starts the book off by claiming evolution can't happen, and then proselytizing for Jesus. I say "hidden" because the book does mention Ray's name until after the introduction.
Ray's Fractal Wrongness
You can read Comfort's introduction at the Living Waters site. Here's some random lines from Ray's special introduction, to give you an idea into Ray's way of thinking:
"Here’s the argument: There was nothing. Then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the English alphabet." -pg. 9
If you're familiar with Ray Comfort's style of argument, then this should be par for the course. Ray thinks that evolution is cosmology and abiogenesis all rolled into one. He thinks natural selection should explain the expansion of the universe, and that the traits of animals just popped into being.
"Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer?" -pg. 11
Ray thinks because Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, thinks God made DNA (and he IS a scientist, after all!), then DNA = ID = Jesus. He also mentions Anthony Flew's conversion, as if it made a difference.
"There is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it!" -pg. 13
"Here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why?" -pg 23
Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and the like have never understood evolution, nor do I think they ever will.
After citing hoaxes of "missing links" (which were discovered using science!), Ray quotes Darwin out of context, and even uses the oldest trick: quoting the bit where Darwin admits that the evolution of the eye seems absurd, and then stopping before quoting the VERY NEXT LINE that shows how. Ray does however mention that next line, here:
"Even more incredible, though, is that Darwin went on to say that he believed the eye could nonetheless have been formed by natural selection. He was right on one point. If a Designer is left out of the equation, such a thought is absurd in the highest degree." -pg 28
The oldest Creationist canards are stuffed into these 50 pages of drivel. All the misunderstandings a religious person who is uninformed about science could make are in here.
"But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only prove devolution? This fits well with the Law of Entropy— that all things deteriorate over time." -pg 29
Ray not only fails to understand evolution, but he also fail to understand any tacit of science, it seems, including Thermodynamics. And after showing us he can't comprehend things such as biology, palentology, geology, cosmology, and physics, he goes on to show how racist and sexist Darwin was -- as if that has anything at all to do with his ideas.
The next logical (for him) tact is to claim that believing in evolution creates people like Adolf Hitler.
One of his funniest lies is this:
"If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius, can’t make a grain of sand from nothing....Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the world’s hunger problem?" -pg. 31
Remember, he's arguing for an intelligent creator god who CAN make things ex nihilo. So Ray, why doesn't your God solve the world's hunger problem?
"Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title 'atheist,' because he understands that something must have created everything. He said, 'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' " -pg. 37
This comes after Ray redefines the term "atheist" to someone who doesn't accept an initial cause. Wrong again, Ray.
At the end of this special introduction, Ray gives us the meat of what he's really after: evangelizing for Jesus.
"Please think about your sins, then think about the Savior and what He did for guilty sinners such as us." -pg. 40
Ray offers a scenario of four choices (the Mona Lisa original, a car, a million dollars, a parachute), says you can pick just one, then tells you "but first you have to jump 10,000 feet out of an airplane". You're supposed to pick the parachute out of necessity. He then takes this same logic and offers the choice of all the world's religions, then goes into his have-you-ever-broken-the-Big-Ten spiel. You're supposed to pick Christianity, because it fixes the problems it creates.
The rest is pure proselytizing, spewing unfounded claims about God and Hell.
They're delivering this bastardized version of the Origin of Species to college campuses nationwide on November 19. They're also calling on people to buy copies and give them out at their schools and churches.
Might Be Okay?
As I was writing this, I was thinking about how scarily-ignorant America is when it comes to science -- BASIC science -- and how this will only continue to fuel the problem. But then I started thinking, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. I mean, they will be getting the copy of the book into people's hands for free. As far as anyone knows, the rest of the book is unchanged. That means that thousands copies of Darwin's work will be in churches all across America. Hopefully, some people will actually read it and realize how what they thought Darwin said and what he actually said were two totally different things.
Another side affect is getting the book to college kids, and hopefully people who know Ray Comfort is full of shit. I think a lot of college students are intelligent and can easily spot the flaws that a 9th grade science student could find. Plus, they won't have to pay for a copy of Darwin's book. They'll just have an easy reference to the "counter-arguments" that fundamentalists make.
-STA
That's right folks. The group is the 'Living Waters' ministry. But why would I care that a Christian evangelical collective is giving away Darwin's book? Because this is not the book Darwin wrote. This special-edition version includes a hidden 50-page introduction written by Ray Comfort. And therefore, as you should be able to guess, starts the book off by claiming evolution can't happen, and then proselytizing for Jesus. I say "hidden" because the book does mention Ray's name until after the introduction.
Ray's Fractal Wrongness
You can read Comfort's introduction at the Living Waters site. Here's some random lines from Ray's special introduction, to give you an idea into Ray's way of thinking:
"Here’s the argument: There was nothing. Then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the English alphabet." -pg. 9
If you're familiar with Ray Comfort's style of argument, then this should be par for the course. Ray thinks that evolution is cosmology and abiogenesis all rolled into one. He thinks natural selection should explain the expansion of the universe, and that the traits of animals just popped into being.
"Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer?" -pg. 11
Ray thinks because Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, thinks God made DNA (and he IS a scientist, after all!), then DNA = ID = Jesus. He also mentions Anthony Flew's conversion, as if it made a difference.
"There is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it!" -pg. 13
"Here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why?" -pg 23
Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and the like have never understood evolution, nor do I think they ever will.
After citing hoaxes of "missing links" (which were discovered using science!), Ray quotes Darwin out of context, and even uses the oldest trick: quoting the bit where Darwin admits that the evolution of the eye seems absurd, and then stopping before quoting the VERY NEXT LINE that shows how. Ray does however mention that next line, here:
"Even more incredible, though, is that Darwin went on to say that he believed the eye could nonetheless have been formed by natural selection. He was right on one point. If a Designer is left out of the equation, such a thought is absurd in the highest degree." -pg 28
The oldest Creationist canards are stuffed into these 50 pages of drivel. All the misunderstandings a religious person who is uninformed about science could make are in here.
"But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only prove devolution? This fits well with the Law of Entropy— that all things deteriorate over time." -pg 29
Ray not only fails to understand evolution, but he also fail to understand any tacit of science, it seems, including Thermodynamics. And after showing us he can't comprehend things such as biology, palentology, geology, cosmology, and physics, he goes on to show how racist and sexist Darwin was -- as if that has anything at all to do with his ideas.
The next logical (for him) tact is to claim that believing in evolution creates people like Adolf Hitler.
One of his funniest lies is this:
"If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius, can’t make a grain of sand from nothing....Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the world’s hunger problem?" -pg. 31
Remember, he's arguing for an intelligent creator god who CAN make things ex nihilo. So Ray, why doesn't your God solve the world's hunger problem?
"Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title 'atheist,' because he understands that something must have created everything. He said, 'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' " -pg. 37
This comes after Ray redefines the term "atheist" to someone who doesn't accept an initial cause. Wrong again, Ray.
At the end of this special introduction, Ray gives us the meat of what he's really after: evangelizing for Jesus.
"Please think about your sins, then think about the Savior and what He did for guilty sinners such as us." -pg. 40
Ray offers a scenario of four choices (the Mona Lisa original, a car, a million dollars, a parachute), says you can pick just one, then tells you "but first you have to jump 10,000 feet out of an airplane". You're supposed to pick the parachute out of necessity. He then takes this same logic and offers the choice of all the world's religions, then goes into his have-you-ever-broken-the-Big-Ten spiel. You're supposed to pick Christianity, because it fixes the problems it creates.
The rest is pure proselytizing, spewing unfounded claims about God and Hell.
They're delivering this bastardized version of the Origin of Species to college campuses nationwide on November 19. They're also calling on people to buy copies and give them out at their schools and churches.
Might Be Okay?
As I was writing this, I was thinking about how scarily-ignorant America is when it comes to science -- BASIC science -- and how this will only continue to fuel the problem. But then I started thinking, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. I mean, they will be getting the copy of the book into people's hands for free. As far as anyone knows, the rest of the book is unchanged. That means that thousands copies of Darwin's work will be in churches all across America. Hopefully, some people will actually read it and realize how what they thought Darwin said and what he actually said were two totally different things.
Another side affect is getting the book to college kids, and hopefully people who know Ray Comfort is full of shit. I think a lot of college students are intelligent and can easily spot the flaws that a 9th grade science student could find. Plus, they won't have to pay for a copy of Darwin's book. They'll just have an easy reference to the "counter-arguments" that fundamentalists make.
-STA
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I Help Edit A Book!
Yep, a friend of mine on YouTube named Todd Allen Gates asked me to help edit his 2008 edition of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer".
The book takes a different approach to talking with fundamentalists. Based on the Socratic method, Todd crafts a series of arguments that ultimately force the theist to question themselves. It's sort of a long approach, but getting a believer to become internally conflicted is much more fruitful then just attacking them "from the outside", so to speak. Anyway, it's a great read for anyone who is skeptical, questioning, seeking, or doubting (and I'm in the credits!).
Buy a copy today!
Here's Todd talking about the book.
-STA
The book takes a different approach to talking with fundamentalists. Based on the Socratic method, Todd crafts a series of arguments that ultimately force the theist to question themselves. It's sort of a long approach, but getting a believer to become internally conflicted is much more fruitful then just attacking them "from the outside", so to speak. Anyway, it's a great read for anyone who is skeptical, questioning, seeking, or doubting (and I'm in the credits!).
Buy a copy today!
Here's Todd talking about the book.
-STA
Monday, February 25, 2008
Moderately Nuts
I'm with Penn Jillette on this one...
28% Believer
Moderate Christians piss me off. I'm tired of them; I'm sorry, but I am. I don't care what you believe, just as long as you believe it 100%. None of this wishy-washy, flip-flopping kind of belief. I'm talking about the real deal!
I'm just fed up with these "so-called" believers who like to keep it on the down-low. Know what I mean? They don't tell anyone what they believe, just assuming that everyone is a Christian like them (same believes and all).
Their own bibles instruct them to judge people, preach to them, and give reasons why they believe.
Yet how many lightweights do you see every day who want to just live and let live? That's not the way it should be at all! It's like believing in Santa Claus, but just that he's a nice old man who gives what he can to kids in his area for Christmas.
Tell It Like (You Think) It Is
I say get out there, you fradycat fence-walkers! Start telling your sister, your son, your grandma, your mailman, your defense attorney, and your Wal-Mart greeter that you worship Jesus H. Fucking Christ, and let them know that if they don't accept his gift of true love, their eternal souls burn forever in a pit of fire when they croak!
Or maybe you're a cherry-picking Muslim? Maybe you think that women shouldn't be submissive, or that you should just get along with your Hindu neighbor friend. You'd better read the rulebook a little closer. Same goes for every other nut-job belief system.
You see what I'm getting at here, people? If you're gonna believe something, you should believe in it whole-heartedly.
It'll be easier to spot the crazy that way.
-STA
28% Believer
Moderate Christians piss me off. I'm tired of them; I'm sorry, but I am. I don't care what you believe, just as long as you believe it 100%. None of this wishy-washy, flip-flopping kind of belief. I'm talking about the real deal!
I'm just fed up with these "so-called" believers who like to keep it on the down-low. Know what I mean? They don't tell anyone what they believe, just assuming that everyone is a Christian like them (same believes and all).
Their own bibles instruct them to judge people, preach to them, and give reasons why they believe.
Yet how many lightweights do you see every day who want to just live and let live? That's not the way it should be at all! It's like believing in Santa Claus, but just that he's a nice old man who gives what he can to kids in his area for Christmas.
Tell It Like (You Think) It Is
I say get out there, you fradycat fence-walkers! Start telling your sister, your son, your grandma, your mailman, your defense attorney, and your Wal-Mart greeter that you worship Jesus H. Fucking Christ, and let them know that if they don't accept his gift of true love, their eternal souls burn forever in a pit of fire when they croak!
Or maybe you're a cherry-picking Muslim? Maybe you think that women shouldn't be submissive, or that you should just get along with your Hindu neighbor friend. You'd better read the rulebook a little closer. Same goes for every other nut-job belief system.
You see what I'm getting at here, people? If you're gonna believe something, you should believe in it whole-heartedly.
It'll be easier to spot the crazy that way.
-STA
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
STA Answers Email: Talking about God
I was recently asked by a reader to talk a little bit about how to go about discussing God, particularly from a non-believer's standpoint. By the way, I welcome all emails at thesmalltownatheist@gmail.com, and any comments you're willing to share here.
No Thanks
So how exactly do you broach the subject of God with a believer? Each encounter will be different, but is there some way of
When beginning a conversation with a Christian, the first step of course is to find out just what kind of "Christian" they. Are they fundamentalist or liberal? And to what degree? Do they believe the Bible is 100% inerrant Word of God, or that the Earth was created in a week? Do they believe in the Heaven/Hell thing, and is Jesus the son of God/savior/out to lunch but will be back soon, or what?
For almost *every* Christan, there is a new brand of Christianity. Simply, it's a cultural idea that is evolving. Every believer cherry-picks around their particular religion, or perhaps they'll choose bits here and there from among several religions or philosophical ideas. That's how religions are born.
Breaking the subject has as much to do with your reason for breaking the subject as anything. Perhaps you're ready to "come out" to a friend or family member. Maybe you're just making an off-hand comment, or you might be fed up with a certain someone at the office who's always spouting off about deities. Naturally, the point you're attempting to make will skew your approach. Now I don't necessarily think that a nonbeliever should seek debate. I much prefer to answer questions and react, rather than actively start disputes (because it's largely irrelevant to daily life), but to each his own.
Speaking of off-handed comments, I sometimes will reply "no thanks" when someone blesses me when I sneeze. If someone jokingly rejoinders "we're going to go to Hell for that, aren't we?" it provides a wonderful opening. I would also suggest investing in a t-shirt or hat or something that reflects your beliefs or lack thereof. You just have to use the conversation or environment to your surroundings.
Chipping Away
Once I began to debate (both in person and online), I was amazed at how much of the common tactics were used by my opposition. It's like you can write a script for nearly every single encounter (at least the ones with those who haven't really debated before, or haven't given much thought as to why they think what they do), and it would almost always turn out the same:
Not only that, but every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith, they say, is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Obviously, this is bullshit and is no sane way at all of proving reality, but that's another topic.
Play It By Ear
Every person is different, with a different level of skill in communication, and differing knowledge on the subject. Like most other things, you just have to play it by ear and chip away at each retort.
If you've been in your opponent's shoes before, try to understand how they feel, and how they're thinking. I couldn't really blame some of the people I've talked to about god -- I'd probably have said the same things when I was a Christian.
It's also important to know what you're trying to get out of the debate or argument. I usually just try to plant little seeds of doubt and let my opponent question their own beliefs. I really want them to think about the questions after the encounter is over. If I can leave them with even a little hint of doubt, it might start a journey for them, which is often in attempt to restrengthen their faith.
-STA
No Thanks
So how exactly do you broach the subject of God with a believer? Each encounter will be different, but is there some way of
When beginning a conversation with a Christian, the first step of course is to find out just what kind of "Christian" they. Are they fundamentalist or liberal? And to what degree? Do they believe the Bible is 100% inerrant Word of God, or that the Earth was created in a week? Do they believe in the Heaven/Hell thing, and is Jesus the son of God/savior/out to lunch but will be back soon, or what?
For almost *every* Christan, there is a new brand of Christianity. Simply, it's a cultural idea that is evolving. Every believer cherry-picks around their particular religion, or perhaps they'll choose bits here and there from among several religions or philosophical ideas. That's how religions are born.
Breaking the subject has as much to do with your reason for breaking the subject as anything. Perhaps you're ready to "come out" to a friend or family member. Maybe you're just making an off-hand comment, or you might be fed up with a certain someone at the office who's always spouting off about deities. Naturally, the point you're attempting to make will skew your approach. Now I don't necessarily think that a nonbeliever should seek debate. I much prefer to answer questions and react, rather than actively start disputes (because it's largely irrelevant to daily life), but to each his own.
Speaking of off-handed comments, I sometimes will reply "no thanks" when someone blesses me when I sneeze. If someone jokingly rejoinders "we're going to go to Hell for that, aren't we?" it provides a wonderful opening. I would also suggest investing in a t-shirt or hat or something that reflects your beliefs or lack thereof. You just have to use the conversation or environment to your surroundings.
Chipping Away
Once I began to debate (both in person and online), I was amazed at how much of the common tactics were used by my opposition. It's like you can write a script for nearly every single encounter (at least the ones with those who haven't really debated before, or haven't given much thought as to why they think what they do), and it would almost always turn out the same:
- Attack #1: Shift the burden of proof ("Can you prove God doesn't exist?")
- Attack #2: What did God do to make you so angry?
- Attack #3: Can you prove love?
- Attack #4: Pascal's Wager
- Attack #5: Watchmaker and other painter/painting Ray Comfort BS pesudo-arguments
- Attack #6: Offer personal experiences (you can't say I'm wrong now...I just feel it!)
- Attack #7: Since science doesn't know how we got here, it must be God
- Attack #8: Everybody else believes in God!
- Attack #9: Then what DO you believe in? (meaning of life, morality, etc.)
- Attack #N: see Ways to Annoy an Atheist
Not only that, but every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith, they say, is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Obviously, this is bullshit and is no sane way at all of proving reality, but that's another topic.
Play It By Ear
Every person is different, with a different level of skill in communication, and differing knowledge on the subject. Like most other things, you just have to play it by ear and chip away at each retort.
If you've been in your opponent's shoes before, try to understand how they feel, and how they're thinking. I couldn't really blame some of the people I've talked to about god -- I'd probably have said the same things when I was a Christian.
It's also important to know what you're trying to get out of the debate or argument. I usually just try to plant little seeds of doubt and let my opponent question their own beliefs. I really want them to think about the questions after the encounter is over. If I can leave them with even a little hint of doubt, it might start a journey for them, which is often in attempt to restrengthen their faith.
-STA
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Best Explanation Never
I recently received the following email. My comments to it are in italics.
-----------------------
BEST EXPLANATION EVER!
This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen:
Oh? Well you'd first need to prove that God exists in the first place, but I'll let that slide for now. I've been waiting for a "good" explanation.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
'I don't believe that God exists.'
'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.
'Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.'
For those of you who are not familiar with it, read the PROBLEM OF EVIL
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: 'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.'
I'm guessing that if barbers did exist, you wouldn't be able to find a pair of scissors?
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'
That's your "best explanation"?? Permit me to jump in for the barber here. So I'm to believe that there exists a supremely powerful, all-loving magical force that would gladly stop all the pain and suffering in the world, if only we'd first acknowledge its existence? Um...isn't that *conditional love*?
If this being is so powerful and all-mighty, why does he give a flying fuck what his supposed "creation" thinks about him? Why would it matter, if this "God" really loves us and wants to help us? That's like watching someone drown and saying, "if you only acknowledge my presence, then I'd save you. I don't want you to drown...I love you...but you don't believe in me, so I can't help you."
If such a being exists, it is morally bankrupt, as are the people who subscribe to such teachings.
If you think God exists, send this to other people--If you think God does not exist, delete it!
I'll do better than just delete it. I'll tell anyone who thinks this trash represents "good, wholesome moral values" -- or that it represents "proof" of anything -- that they need to stop and think.
-----------------------
Hey, Where Did All The Barbers Go?
Let me get this straight...you're "proving" that the Judeo-Christian "God" Yahweh exists (that is the right "God" we're talking about here, isn't it? It's not Zeus or Anu, right?), with all the magical qualities generally attributed to him, by hinging it on a lack of belief it said being? So that means if we just believe, then we'll believe?
If you're shaking your head, I'm not sure you realize this one important thing: what you believe cannot change what is and what isn't real. You can believe all you want that there's a billion dollars in your bank account, but your beliefs cannot affect reality. (Of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't hope to one day be a billionaire, and that you shouldn't strive to become one. I'm saying that because you believe you have the money right now doesn't make it magically so. But this is getting a little off topic.)
Belief Beats God
I don't think such a god exists (and not just because of the Problem of Evil). If there is a "higher power", it 1) doesn't know about the pain, evil, and suffering -- in which case it isn't omniscient; 2) knows about the pain, but can't stop it -- in which case it isn't omnipotent; or 3) it knows about the pain and has the power to stop it, but chooses not to -- in which case it is not omnibenevolent. Again, read about the Problem of Evil if you can't quite understand where the barber is coming from.
The fact is, it cannot be proven that a "higher power" with any of these qualities exists. This spam's so-called "explanation" hasn't provided a single SHRED of evidence to support its absurd claims. Maybe you're worshiping the wrong god. Maybe we should go to Odin or Shamash for help. Not only that, but it promotes the callous and harmful belief that the world is fucked up because it's your fault. Try this: next time you see a two-year old, give it a razor blade. Then wait until it comes to you bleeding and crying for help before you do anything. Like I said, even if such a god exists, I wouldn't want to worship its sick, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, ego-stroking self
The email above basically amounts to: You know why there's bad stuff in the world? Because everybody doesn't believe in my God. So, God exists!
By that logic alone, believers should NEVER experience pain or suffering.
The Devil Made Me Do It!
A "god" is not the reason there's pain and suffering in the world. There are several reasons, perhaps several for every type of pain or every cause of suffering (viruses, hatred, greed, ignorance). It is sad though, to think that a large portion of pain and suffering since earliest recorded history has been the divisive concept of a God.
If we want to help rid the world of suffering, we should start doing more to be good to each other and help one another--not because some "god" said so, but because we don't want others to suffer. I wonder if the unkempt man on the street was homeless. Did the customer offer him something to eat, or help him find a shelter? If so, did he do it because of an idea of god, or did he do it for goodness sake?
Think about that as we approach the Winter Solstice.
(PS: thanks for the quote, Professor!)
-STA
-----------------------
BEST EXPLANATION EVER!
This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen:
Oh? Well you'd first need to prove that God exists in the first place, but I'll let that slide for now. I've been waiting for a "good" explanation.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
'I don't believe that God exists.'
'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.
'Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.'
For those of you who are not familiar with it, read the PROBLEM OF EVIL
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: 'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.'
I'm guessing that if barbers did exist, you wouldn't be able to find a pair of scissors?
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'
That's your "best explanation"?? Permit me to jump in for the barber here. So I'm to believe that there exists a supremely powerful, all-loving magical force that would gladly stop all the pain and suffering in the world, if only we'd first acknowledge its existence? Um...isn't that *conditional love*?
If this being is so powerful and all-mighty, why does he give a flying fuck what his supposed "creation" thinks about him? Why would it matter, if this "God" really loves us and wants to help us? That's like watching someone drown and saying, "if you only acknowledge my presence, then I'd save you. I don't want you to drown...I love you...but you don't believe in me, so I can't help you."
If such a being exists, it is morally bankrupt, as are the people who subscribe to such teachings.
If you think God exists, send this to other people--If you think God does not exist, delete it!
I'll do better than just delete it. I'll tell anyone who thinks this trash represents "good, wholesome moral values" -- or that it represents "proof" of anything -- that they need to stop and think.
-----------------------
Hey, Where Did All The Barbers Go?
Let me get this straight...you're "proving" that the Judeo-Christian "God" Yahweh exists (that is the right "God" we're talking about here, isn't it? It's not Zeus or Anu, right?), with all the magical qualities generally attributed to him, by hinging it on a lack of belief it said being? So that means if we just believe, then we'll believe?
If you're shaking your head, I'm not sure you realize this one important thing: what you believe cannot change what is and what isn't real. You can believe all you want that there's a billion dollars in your bank account, but your beliefs cannot affect reality. (Of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't hope to one day be a billionaire, and that you shouldn't strive to become one. I'm saying that because you believe you have the money right now doesn't make it magically so. But this is getting a little off topic.)
Belief Beats God
I don't think such a god exists (and not just because of the Problem of Evil). If there is a "higher power", it 1) doesn't know about the pain, evil, and suffering -- in which case it isn't omniscient; 2) knows about the pain, but can't stop it -- in which case it isn't omnipotent; or 3) it knows about the pain and has the power to stop it, but chooses not to -- in which case it is not omnibenevolent. Again, read about the Problem of Evil if you can't quite understand where the barber is coming from.
The fact is, it cannot be proven that a "higher power" with any of these qualities exists. This spam's so-called "explanation" hasn't provided a single SHRED of evidence to support its absurd claims. Maybe you're worshiping the wrong god. Maybe we should go to Odin or Shamash for help. Not only that, but it promotes the callous and harmful belief that the world is fucked up because it's your fault. Try this: next time you see a two-year old, give it a razor blade. Then wait until it comes to you bleeding and crying for help before you do anything. Like I said, even if such a god exists, I wouldn't want to worship its sick, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, ego-stroking self
The email above basically amounts to: You know why there's bad stuff in the world? Because everybody doesn't believe in my God. So, God exists!
By that logic alone, believers should NEVER experience pain or suffering.
The Devil Made Me Do It!
A "god" is not the reason there's pain and suffering in the world. There are several reasons, perhaps several for every type of pain or every cause of suffering (viruses, hatred, greed, ignorance). It is sad though, to think that a large portion of pain and suffering since earliest recorded history has been the divisive concept of a God.
If we want to help rid the world of suffering, we should start doing more to be good to each other and help one another--not because some "god" said so, but because we don't want others to suffer. I wonder if the unkempt man on the street was homeless. Did the customer offer him something to eat, or help him find a shelter? If so, did he do it because of an idea of god, or did he do it for goodness sake?
Think about that as we approach the Winter Solstice.
(PS: thanks for the quote, Professor!)
-STA
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
U.S. of J.
I suppose that even though it's been refuted again and again on the websites listed to the right (as well as countless others not listed), and by numerous authors in major best-selling books, articles, columns, videos, and blogs, I guess I'll have to make my own rant for those not yet aware of reality.
America was NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY!!!!
Please don't take me yelling it as a reason to trust it. I'll prove my point with evidence.
Nature's God
I will not deny that a lot of our Founding Fathers were religious; many were Episcopalian, some Presbyterian, even a Catholic or two. In reality, there were over ten different "faiths" among the lot.
But most were Deists. A Deist believes in a God who created the universe and everything in it (including humans), and then just sort of "let it go", like a wind-up toy. The Deist God doesn't answer prayers, write holy books, or care about your sex life. Some modern Deists take the explanation of evolution by natural selection as the way that this "First Cause" God set things up. I think Deism a cop-out answer, because there's no evidence for the claims of God, but it's one of the steps most people take when reconverting from a religion where God cares what you think.
But we're not talking about Deism today, and I'm not suggesting that America's founders were idiots or deconverters. I wanted to make it clear that most of these men thought of God in the Einsteinian sense of "Nature's God"; an idea synonymous with the way nature works. This obviously has nothing do with anyone being nailed to a cross because the first humans ate off-limits apples. It has nothing to do with any religion.
The 10 Command-stutions
Of course, the Christians never cease with there claims that America is a Christian nation, and anyone who doesn't agree should just leave. They also claim that the Framers of the Constitution used God's 10 Commandments as a cornerstone to our nation's laws.
Really? Let's look at a couple real quick:
Commandment #1 (about not worshiping anyone 'cept Jesus's Daddy) is contrary to our right to freedom of religion and against the establishment of State-sponsored religion. As Dan Barker puts it in his book "Losing Faith in Faith": This is better suited to establishing the nation of Israel, not the USA.
Commandment #2 is contrary to freedom of speech, and the Catholics don't seem to mind it at all!
Commandment #3 is also against free speech, and dissenting opinion is what built this country.
I'll cover the rest in an upcoming post more suited to attacking these commandments, but needless to say these are not good morals, wise guidelines, or American law.
The Words of our Forefathers
The Fathers of our country understood what it was like being ruled under a theocratic dictatorship. They knew how it felt to have absolutely zero church-state separation, and having to support the religion of the King. They wanted to be free to worship as they saw fit and to think and debate concepts of God and other taboo conceptions. They knew that in order to have freedom of religion, there must also be freedom FROM religion. These brave men deliberately set up a secular Constitution--which makes no mention of a God, and certainly no Christ.
Sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men are endowed with inalienable rights "by their Creator", but this document did not establish US law. The Constitution does.
And the Puritans wanted a Christian Nation, but they preceded the founding of the nation by more than a century.
"In God We Trust" was established as the national motto in 1956, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (62 years after Francis Bellamy wrote it) -- all as a reaction to "godless communism" during the Cold War McCarthyism era.
Let me allow our Forefathers speak for themselves:
"What has been Christianity's fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." -George Washington
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." -John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
One Nation, Indivisible
Freedom of religion helps churches -- you're free to go into any church anywhere and believe whatever the hell you want (or don't want). Think of what life would be like if the Constitution said that we must support Jainism.
If you honestly have a "love it or leave it" mentality toward people of opposing faiths, I'd implore you to look into the empathic teaching of your own religion. Sure, the Founding Fathers weren't 100% right or "good" in everything they did (Washington, Jefferson, and others, owned slaves). But that doesn't mean that we have to accept things the way they are. Why not "make it better"? That's what those men (and indeed, women) of the past fought and died for. For our freedom to believe, to question, to think, and to change.
And just because the majority of Americans are Christian doesn't make it right to call the United States of America a "Christian Nation". The majority of Americans are also white. Does that make America a "white nation"?
-STA
America was NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY!!!!
Please don't take me yelling it as a reason to trust it. I'll prove my point with evidence.
Nature's God
I will not deny that a lot of our Founding Fathers were religious; many were Episcopalian, some Presbyterian, even a Catholic or two. In reality, there were over ten different "faiths" among the lot.
But most were Deists. A Deist believes in a God who created the universe and everything in it (including humans), and then just sort of "let it go", like a wind-up toy. The Deist God doesn't answer prayers, write holy books, or care about your sex life. Some modern Deists take the explanation of evolution by natural selection as the way that this "First Cause" God set things up. I think Deism a cop-out answer, because there's no evidence for the claims of God, but it's one of the steps most people take when reconverting from a religion where God cares what you think.
But we're not talking about Deism today, and I'm not suggesting that America's founders were idiots or deconverters. I wanted to make it clear that most of these men thought of God in the Einsteinian sense of "Nature's God"; an idea synonymous with the way nature works. This obviously has nothing do with anyone being nailed to a cross because the first humans ate off-limits apples. It has nothing to do with any religion.
The 10 Command-stutions
Of course, the Christians never cease with there claims that America is a Christian nation, and anyone who doesn't agree should just leave. They also claim that the Framers of the Constitution used God's 10 Commandments as a cornerstone to our nation's laws.
Really? Let's look at a couple real quick:
Commandment #1 (about not worshiping anyone 'cept Jesus's Daddy) is contrary to our right to freedom of religion and against the establishment of State-sponsored religion. As Dan Barker puts it in his book "Losing Faith in Faith": This is better suited to establishing the nation of Israel, not the USA.
Commandment #2 is contrary to freedom of speech, and the Catholics don't seem to mind it at all!
Commandment #3 is also against free speech, and dissenting opinion is what built this country.
I'll cover the rest in an upcoming post more suited to attacking these commandments, but needless to say these are not good morals, wise guidelines, or American law.
The Words of our Forefathers
The Fathers of our country understood what it was like being ruled under a theocratic dictatorship. They knew how it felt to have absolutely zero church-state separation, and having to support the religion of the King. They wanted to be free to worship as they saw fit and to think and debate concepts of God and other taboo conceptions. They knew that in order to have freedom of religion, there must also be freedom FROM religion. These brave men deliberately set up a secular Constitution--which makes no mention of a God, and certainly no Christ.
Sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men are endowed with inalienable rights "by their Creator", but this document did not establish US law. The Constitution does.
And the Puritans wanted a Christian Nation, but they preceded the founding of the nation by more than a century.
"In God We Trust" was established as the national motto in 1956, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (62 years after Francis Bellamy wrote it) -- all as a reaction to "godless communism" during the Cold War McCarthyism era.
Let me allow our Forefathers speak for themselves:
"What has been Christianity's fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." -George Washington
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." -John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
One Nation, Indivisible
Freedom of religion helps churches -- you're free to go into any church anywhere and believe whatever the hell you want (or don't want). Think of what life would be like if the Constitution said that we must support Jainism.
If you honestly have a "love it or leave it" mentality toward people of opposing faiths, I'd implore you to look into the empathic teaching of your own religion. Sure, the Founding Fathers weren't 100% right or "good" in everything they did (Washington, Jefferson, and others, owned slaves). But that doesn't mean that we have to accept things the way they are. Why not "make it better"? That's what those men (and indeed, women) of the past fought and died for. For our freedom to believe, to question, to think, and to change.
And just because the majority of Americans are Christian doesn't make it right to call the United States of America a "Christian Nation". The majority of Americans are also white. Does that make America a "white nation"?
-STA
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Arguing From The Bubble
Recently, I was in a pseudo-debate with a Christian on an internet forum. After enduring several claims of "fact", appeals to emotion, and general lack of cohesive reasoning from said Christian, I reached the conclusion that he was either A) too ignorant--and too blissfully therein--to ever understand his fallacies, or B) he was simply disregarding logic and formal rules of argument for the, pardon the pun, hell of it. I hope the latter wasn't the case, but even the former brings me grief to consider. I also hope I planted at least one seed of doubt in him. Whatever the case, it spurred me to make this post.
Does Not Compute
Einstein once said, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." My Christian opponent had an expansive imagination. He didn't (or chose to discard) the basic principals of logical reasoning, and I'm sure other apologists don't either.
Logic, as the study of the rules of correct thinking have shown, is fundamentally necessary for an argument to hold any weight or be taken as true in any useful sense. For it to remain consistent, an argument must provide set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, and the rest as premises supporting the conclusion. In other words, a statement along with the evidence that supports it. If your conclusion isn't held up by evidence, you've committed some kind of logical fallacy; you've broken the laws of logic. I cover these fallacies on this blog every Friday, so I need not go into them now.
Above I stated that most apologists don't hold to these principals, though I'm sure they all disagree. One might wonder how this could be possible. How could any religion survive for centuries if they aren't logically sound? The answers to these questions cover an extremely large amount of topics that I am not qualified to discuss (biology, psychology, sociology, history, etc.), and besides that it isn't the purpose of my blog. A more simple and purposeful answer: they are.
Superman, Hands Down
Yeah. Some religions are logically sound, but (you really didn't think there wasn't a kicker, right?) they are only sound internally; on the inside. Here's what I mean: If, for the sake of this example, Jesus really was the son of God...
Sorry, I nearly passed out just thinking of the number of leaps of faith that would take to believe. Anyway:
-If Jesus really was the son of God, then walking on water would be simple. He could do it.
-If the Hindu gods really drink soma, the moon would naturally wane because the gods are drinking away some of its properties.
-The angel Moroni must have told Joe Smith the truth, because the angel was from God, and angels can't lie.
-If Adam and Eve were oblivious to their nakedness, then eating from the Tree would indeed open their eyes.
All of the above logically follow from the premise. The problem is of course that the premises must be rejected outright, or at least backed up by something that, in turn is backed up by another thing, which is in turn backed up by another, which is itself backed up by another--how ever many or few steps this takes--all with sound reasoning. This is the labyrinth of logic that theists get lost in.
The point here is that yes, you can argue just fine within the bubble of your religion. This same principle is the reason why Trekkies can argue to the point of exhaustion regarding the layout of the Enterprise, or the inner workings of hyperdrive or whatever the fuck it is. The same goes for arguing a case for Neville Longbottom fulfilling the prophesy instead of Harry Potter, or what would happen if Spiderman fought Superman. The point is: THE SHIT AIN'T REAL.
A Ship of Corn Flakes Upon a Milk Sea
I don't give a fuck if you can convince yourself and your 8-year old daughter that humanity is suffering, and the only way to not suffer for the rest of eternity is to find Jesus. You must still show how any of that shit makes logical sense IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
I'm sorry for this rather blunt way of putting things, but this stuff really gets in my craw. Of course it's fine to argue and speculate on who would win in a fight between superheroes, or even what would happen if Jesus came back. The problems arise when you take these fanciful arguments as truth without backing up their underlying proposition. Even worse when you start taking actions against others for not agreeing.
It is in the best interest of your children, your countrymen, and yourself to learn to think critically, and learn how to logically get from A to B.
-STA
Does Not Compute
Einstein once said, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." My Christian opponent had an expansive imagination. He didn't (or chose to discard) the basic principals of logical reasoning, and I'm sure other apologists don't either.
Logic, as the study of the rules of correct thinking have shown, is fundamentally necessary for an argument to hold any weight or be taken as true in any useful sense. For it to remain consistent, an argument must provide set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, and the rest as premises supporting the conclusion. In other words, a statement along with the evidence that supports it. If your conclusion isn't held up by evidence, you've committed some kind of logical fallacy; you've broken the laws of logic. I cover these fallacies on this blog every Friday, so I need not go into them now.
Above I stated that most apologists don't hold to these principals, though I'm sure they all disagree. One might wonder how this could be possible. How could any religion survive for centuries if they aren't logically sound? The answers to these questions cover an extremely large amount of topics that I am not qualified to discuss (biology, psychology, sociology, history, etc.), and besides that it isn't the purpose of my blog. A more simple and purposeful answer: they are.
Superman, Hands Down
Yeah. Some religions are logically sound, but (you really didn't think there wasn't a kicker, right?) they are only sound internally; on the inside. Here's what I mean: If, for the sake of this example, Jesus really was the son of God...
Sorry, I nearly passed out just thinking of the number of leaps of faith that would take to believe. Anyway:
-If Jesus really was the son of God, then walking on water would be simple. He could do it.
-If the Hindu gods really drink soma, the moon would naturally wane because the gods are drinking away some of its properties.
-The angel Moroni must have told Joe Smith the truth, because the angel was from God, and angels can't lie.
-If Adam and Eve were oblivious to their nakedness, then eating from the Tree would indeed open their eyes.
All of the above logically follow from the premise. The problem is of course that the premises must be rejected outright, or at least backed up by something that, in turn is backed up by another thing, which is in turn backed up by another, which is itself backed up by another--how ever many or few steps this takes--all with sound reasoning. This is the labyrinth of logic that theists get lost in.
The point here is that yes, you can argue just fine within the bubble of your religion. This same principle is the reason why Trekkies can argue to the point of exhaustion regarding the layout of the Enterprise, or the inner workings of hyperdrive or whatever the fuck it is. The same goes for arguing a case for Neville Longbottom fulfilling the prophesy instead of Harry Potter, or what would happen if Spiderman fought Superman. The point is: THE SHIT AIN'T REAL.
A Ship of Corn Flakes Upon a Milk Sea
I don't give a fuck if you can convince yourself and your 8-year old daughter that humanity is suffering, and the only way to not suffer for the rest of eternity is to find Jesus. You must still show how any of that shit makes logical sense IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
I'm sorry for this rather blunt way of putting things, but this stuff really gets in my craw. Of course it's fine to argue and speculate on who would win in a fight between superheroes, or even what would happen if Jesus came back. The problems arise when you take these fanciful arguments as truth without backing up their underlying proposition. Even worse when you start taking actions against others for not agreeing.
It is in the best interest of your children, your countrymen, and yourself to learn to think critically, and learn how to logically get from A to B.
-STA
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Day In The Life: Labor Day
Small Town Celebration
I recently attended our town's Labor Day celebration. I was helping my dad's band, who had the honor for playing the celebration for the third year in a row. The incredibly long day started at 6:30am, when we arrived to set up the equipment on Main Street. Soon, the street began to fill with people, and the band played for an hour or so. Afterward, the Labor Day parade kicked off.
If you've never lived (or stayed) in a small town, you might not be able to appreciate the full effect of such an event, but try to imagine. There were several marching bands competing for a $10,000 prize (which some of them desperately needed!). The September sun was shining brightly, and children ran into the streets to catch the candy thrown from the decorated floats. The floats carried winners of beauty pageants and office-elect hopefuls...and church members.
Nearly every church and religious organization within a 50-mile radius
marched in the parade. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't mind that fact at all. I live in a country that safeguards everyone's freedom to express their religious beliefs, and I support these organizations right to march and demonstrate. I was a bit astonished at the number of churches, and disappointed that there were no floats promoting any other opinion (but this was in the Christian Right of the Bible Belt).
And instead of tossing candy from their trucks and floats, some of these Christians threw tiny booklets for proselytizing...for children. I was (un)lucky enough to catch one of these little booklets, and the thing made my skin crawl. I wanted to take the microphone away from the parade announcer and yell a warning to the kids. Yet again, it is these churches' right to express their believes, but like I said, the book irritated me (along with other events that day) enough to start this blog. I'll try to explain this booklet and hopefully you will see what I mean.
FUNDIE PROPAGANDA
The booklet, being only three-by-three-and-a-half inches big, begins with its deceiving cover: A cartoon image of Albert Einstein on a solid light-blue background with the text, "Hey Kids, Test Your Memory...See if you are a GENIUS!" in various pink and yellow fonts. I'll admit that I wasn't aware of what the booklet was, as I didn't see the Christians who threw it. My wife handed it to me, and I thought -- for a fleeting nanosecond -- that maybe, just maybe it was about science.
Not a chance in this town. As I turned the tiny page and read "Test Number One", my fears were confirmed: "Memorize the Ten Commandments using these special picture figures, then test your memory and grade yourself!"
The booklet continues to instruct the child (it's targeted reader) to use visual symbols as a way to memorize the Ten Commandments. For example, Commandment #1 (the "you shall have no other gods but me"), is represented as a little image of a 1st place medal (cause God should be Number One). After the tenth and final Commandment, the child is able to grade how many they are able to memorize in this fashion with a ranking system: at least five means you did okay, but you need to try again; six...you did well; seven...good; eight...very good [with an underline]; nine...wonderful!; and ten declares GENIUS status.
Test Number Two is a simple question that holds the ultimate purpose for this booklet. Your "host" throughout the booklet is a child with a dirty face and hands, because according to this particular faith (and the answer to question two), God gave us the Ten Commandments as a mirror to help us realize what a bad state we are in. Then the real preaching begins, and I noticed that the style of sermonizing was familiar:
Do you remember #9? Have you ever lied? What about #5? Have you always obeyed your parents?...The Bible says if you hate someone, you've committed murder...Have you ever stolen something...or been greedy?
I quickly turned the pamphlet over to confirm that it was adapted from a book by Ray Comfort. The booklet goes on with the basic fundamentalist drivel that God doesn't want you to be punished [even though he made the system]. It also re-conveys the story of Jesus via a short tale of a man who had a son who was "really bad" and did bad things like lying and stealing. This boy soon found himself in trouble with the police, who said he'd have to pay a $50,000 fine or go to prison. The boy couldn't pay the fine and was about to go to jail when his dad stepped in a plopped down his life savings so that his son could go free. "That's how much he loved his son."...blah blah blah...accept Christ or burn in Hell...blah blah blah...live forever...blah blah blah...
The final page mentioned something about "Read your Bible every day--it's full of incredible stories". That really made me laugh. "Incredible" is right. The back cover was honestly the reason I decided to begin speaking out. It depicted a human brain with a thought bubble containing the words "...for kids who like to think".
And honestly, I hope the kids who caught a copy of this booklet really DO think. It's logic and reason that got me to where I am today: religion-free. I was "saved" by reason. Actually, taking this tract's advice and reading the bible is a great way to start.
Sorry if this rant was too long, but some things you just gotta say.
-STA
I recently attended our town's Labor Day celebration. I was helping my dad's band, who had the honor for playing the celebration for the third year in a row. The incredibly long day started at 6:30am, when we arrived to set up the equipment on Main Street. Soon, the street began to fill with people, and the band played for an hour or so. Afterward, the Labor Day parade kicked off.
If you've never lived (or stayed) in a small town, you might not be able to appreciate the full effect of such an event, but try to imagine. There were several marching bands competing for a $10,000 prize (which some of them desperately needed!). The September sun was shining brightly, and children ran into the streets to catch the candy thrown from the decorated floats. The floats carried winners of beauty pageants and office-elect hopefuls...and church members.
Nearly every church and religious organization within a 50-mile radius
marched in the parade. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't mind that fact at all. I live in a country that safeguards everyone's freedom to express their religious beliefs, and I support these organizations right to march and demonstrate. I was a bit astonished at the number of churches, and disappointed that there were no floats promoting any other opinion (but this was in the Christian Right of the Bible Belt).
And instead of tossing candy from their trucks and floats, some of these Christians threw tiny booklets for proselytizing...for children. I was (un)lucky enough to catch one of these little booklets, and the thing made my skin crawl. I wanted to take the microphone away from the parade announcer and yell a warning to the kids. Yet again, it is these churches' right to express their believes, but like I said, the book irritated me (along with other events that day) enough to start this blog. I'll try to explain this booklet and hopefully you will see what I mean.
FUNDIE PROPAGANDA
The booklet, being only three-by-three-and-a-half inches big, begins with its deceiving cover: A cartoon image of Albert Einstein on a solid light-blue background with the text, "Hey Kids, Test Your Memory...See if you are a GENIUS!" in various pink and yellow fonts. I'll admit that I wasn't aware of what the booklet was, as I didn't see the Christians who threw it. My wife handed it to me, and I thought -- for a fleeting nanosecond -- that maybe, just maybe it was about science.
Not a chance in this town. As I turned the tiny page and read "Test Number One", my fears were confirmed: "Memorize the Ten Commandments using these special picture figures, then test your memory and grade yourself!"
The booklet continues to instruct the child (it's targeted reader) to use visual symbols as a way to memorize the Ten Commandments. For example, Commandment #1 (the "you shall have no other gods but me"), is represented as a little image of a 1st place medal (cause God should be Number One). After the tenth and final Commandment, the child is able to grade how many they are able to memorize in this fashion with a ranking system: at least five means you did okay, but you need to try again; six...you did well; seven...good; eight...very good [with an underline]; nine...wonderful!; and ten declares GENIUS status.
Test Number Two is a simple question that holds the ultimate purpose for this booklet. Your "host" throughout the booklet is a child with a dirty face and hands, because according to this particular faith (and the answer to question two), God gave us the Ten Commandments as a mirror to help us realize what a bad state we are in. Then the real preaching begins, and I noticed that the style of sermonizing was familiar:
Do you remember #9? Have you ever lied? What about #5? Have you always obeyed your parents?...The Bible says if you hate someone, you've committed murder...Have you ever stolen something...or been greedy?
I quickly turned the pamphlet over to confirm that it was adapted from a book by Ray Comfort. The booklet goes on with the basic fundamentalist drivel that God doesn't want you to be punished [even though he made the system]. It also re-conveys the story of Jesus via a short tale of a man who had a son who was "really bad" and did bad things like lying and stealing. This boy soon found himself in trouble with the police, who said he'd have to pay a $50,000 fine or go to prison. The boy couldn't pay the fine and was about to go to jail when his dad stepped in a plopped down his life savings so that his son could go free. "That's how much he loved his son."...blah blah blah...accept Christ or burn in Hell...blah blah blah...live forever...blah blah blah...
The final page mentioned something about "Read your Bible every day--it's full of incredible stories". That really made me laugh. "Incredible" is right. The back cover was honestly the reason I decided to begin speaking out. It depicted a human brain with a thought bubble containing the words "...for kids who like to think".
And honestly, I hope the kids who caught a copy of this booklet really DO think. It's logic and reason that got me to where I am today: religion-free. I was "saved" by reason. Actually, taking this tract's advice and reading the bible is a great way to start.
Sorry if this rant was too long, but some things you just gotta say.
-STA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)