The God of the Old Testament is extremely bloodthirsty. All over the bible, we can find stories of tribe murdering tribe in the name (or usually by the direct command) of God. Here's just one example and this one makes a great bedtime story.
Bathe Her, And Bring Her To Me
Read over Numbers 31. In it, Moses is instructed by God to have the Israilites kill all of the Midianite children, any child still in the womb, all of the men, and every woman who as slept with a man.
Let's ignore all the problems involved with an all-loving God ordering these "hits" and look at how the story plays out. After the Israilites kill all the Midianite men, they take the women, children, livestock, and plunder back to the camp. But Moses is furious with them. "Kill all the male children! And kill all the women who have had sex with a man!' Moses orders.
And the best part of the spoils of war..."But spare the lives of the virgin girls. Keep them for yourselves!"
I can raise the issue of keeping other people as property, but I won't. I can raise the issue of men doing as they please to virgin girls, but do I really need to? I could ask, "How would they know who the virgins were?" but my imagination brings dark imagery.
The story claims there were 32,000 virgins that were divided up among the camp. Half were assigned to those who fought in the war and Moses gave the head priest the portion set aside for God (32 girls), as ordered by God himself.
Again, as with all stories brought to light in this series, the immorality is stomach-turning. Every time I read these stories I find it inconceivable that the book which contains them is lauded as the pinnacle of human morality and a guide for how we should live our lives. The fact that we've learned that the kind of behavior taken by Moses is wrong is not due to God (for he is supposedly the one ordering such massacre), but rather due to where we actually get our morality from -- not from any gods, but from society, observation, empathy, media, upbringing, history, and instinct.
-STA
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Unholy Word: A Love To Die For
With the atrocity that is "National Bible Week" in full swing (though I haven't seen any effects of it, thank goodness), let's delve into another look at this Unholy Word.
Dinah Blow Your Horn
Today the tale is from Genesis 34. Dinah, a Jewish girl, is raped by a man named Shechem. After he rapes her, he goes to his father and pleads, "I've fallen in love with her, you gotta get her for me, I must marry her!"
Shechem's father goes to Dinah's father, Jacob, and says "My son raped your daughter...but he loves her, so let's have them marry. Even better: let's swap daughters between our two tribes and form a peace treaty! We'll rule this area together and be strong!" He is so infatuated with her that he asks, "Set the bride-price as high as you want and we'll pay."
The sons of Jacob were there and they said, "Sorry, our sister can't marry anyone who isn't circumcised. That's just the way it is. As a matter of fact, if you want to create a peace treaty, your whole tribe will have to convert and be circumcised."
Well evidently Dinah was Helen-of-Troy hot, because not only did Shechem agree to be circumcised, his entire tribe took the snip in order to seal the deal and make up for raping Jacob's daughter. That's real dedication!
Three days later, while all the men of this tribe were sitting around sore, two of Jacob's sons come in and slaughter all of them. They kill every man in the city, including Shechem and his father. Then they grabbed all these men's sisters and wives and headed home. Then the rest of Jacob's sons showed up and plundered the city, taking livestock food, children, everything.
Jacob was mad at his sons; they'd runed any chances at a peace treaty with any other tribe -- who would trust them again? His sons said, "So we should have just let them treat our sister like a whore?" There's nothing more on the story, it just ends there.
Too Many Bad Ideas
I guess the moral is that if your family member gets raped and your original ludicrous demands are met, you're justified in killing, pillaging, and enslaving to get even. But I could be wrong; like a lot of these old stories, simple moral points tend to get added and mixed. To some the point is not to disobey your father and the consequences of killing your new-found friends. Or maybe it's a sad story about how a guy lost his one true love. Its a tortured jumble of lessons that weren't being thought out as they were being put together.
Of course, I can understand anyone being enraged to the point of murder at the rape and forced marriage of your sister. (Yes, keep in mind that woman didn't get a say in who thy married. They were treated as property and bargaining chips.) But the actions they took were unjustified and immoral. These kinds of stories fill this antiquated book that so many will point to as being the backbone of modern American society and good moral values. If only these people would just read the thing!
The bible offers more instructions on rape in Deuteronomy 22 if you weren't sure how to get away with it.
Good stuff. Read it to your kids or at the dinner table between the turkey and the pumpkin pie.
-STA
Dinah Blow Your Horn
Today the tale is from Genesis 34. Dinah, a Jewish girl, is raped by a man named Shechem. After he rapes her, he goes to his father and pleads, "I've fallen in love with her, you gotta get her for me, I must marry her!"
Shechem's father goes to Dinah's father, Jacob, and says "My son raped your daughter...but he loves her, so let's have them marry. Even better: let's swap daughters between our two tribes and form a peace treaty! We'll rule this area together and be strong!" He is so infatuated with her that he asks, "Set the bride-price as high as you want and we'll pay."
The sons of Jacob were there and they said, "Sorry, our sister can't marry anyone who isn't circumcised. That's just the way it is. As a matter of fact, if you want to create a peace treaty, your whole tribe will have to convert and be circumcised."
Well evidently Dinah was Helen-of-Troy hot, because not only did Shechem agree to be circumcised, his entire tribe took the snip in order to seal the deal and make up for raping Jacob's daughter. That's real dedication!
Three days later, while all the men of this tribe were sitting around sore, two of Jacob's sons come in and slaughter all of them. They kill every man in the city, including Shechem and his father. Then they grabbed all these men's sisters and wives and headed home. Then the rest of Jacob's sons showed up and plundered the city, taking livestock food, children, everything.
Jacob was mad at his sons; they'd runed any chances at a peace treaty with any other tribe -- who would trust them again? His sons said, "So we should have just let them treat our sister like a whore?" There's nothing more on the story, it just ends there.
Too Many Bad Ideas
I guess the moral is that if your family member gets raped and your original ludicrous demands are met, you're justified in killing, pillaging, and enslaving to get even. But I could be wrong; like a lot of these old stories, simple moral points tend to get added and mixed. To some the point is not to disobey your father and the consequences of killing your new-found friends. Or maybe it's a sad story about how a guy lost his one true love. Its a tortured jumble of lessons that weren't being thought out as they were being put together.
Of course, I can understand anyone being enraged to the point of murder at the rape and forced marriage of your sister. (Yes, keep in mind that woman didn't get a say in who thy married. They were treated as property and bargaining chips.) But the actions they took were unjustified and immoral. These kinds of stories fill this antiquated book that so many will point to as being the backbone of modern American society and good moral values. If only these people would just read the thing!
The bible offers more instructions on rape in Deuteronomy 22 if you weren't sure how to get away with it.
Good stuff. Read it to your kids or at the dinner table between the turkey and the pumpkin pie.
-STA
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Righteous Judge
From "Tim" to The Non-Prophets internet radio show:
So I was driving 66 in a 65 mph zone, got pulled over, given a ticket, and had to go to court. The judge said that because I had broken the law I had to serve the minimum sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole at a maximum security penitentiary that makes HBO's Oz look like the merry old land of Oz.
I thought the sentence was a bit steep, but I later realized that we all fall short of the glory of the judge who never broke any laws whatsoever and cannot tolerate even the slightest unlawfulness, so I had no choice but to accept my punishment.
However, the judge did take pity on me. He called his son in and proceeded to brutally whip him with a cat 'o nine tails until he was raw and bloody, and then nailed him to a cross until he was dead. He then told me to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I did, and after that I was free to go.
I walked out of the court room a free man, as did the serial child molester who also ate the judge's son's flesh and blood (he was a cannibal, so really didn't mind). However this other woman said she didn't want to cannibalize the judge's son and that she didn't do anything wrong. But the judge just said that all have committed crimes and all must be endlessly punished for them, and the only way for her to escape was to eat his son. The woman still refused so she was sentenced to life in prison.
I guess I kinda felt bad for her spending the rest of her life in prison. Nevertheless, I know that she deserved it because the judge was truly a good man. I mean you'd have to be a really, really good person in order to brutally beat your own son and then crucify him and have his flesh and blood consumed so that me and a serial killer could go free. Truly these are actions of a righteous man. Well I guess it just sucks to be her.
Anyway, I'm a free man now, although my schedule is pretty full. I've been spending most of my time at the judge's house, thanking him for freeing me and telling him how great he is over and over and over and over and over again.
So I was driving 66 in a 65 mph zone, got pulled over, given a ticket, and had to go to court. The judge said that because I had broken the law I had to serve the minimum sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole at a maximum security penitentiary that makes HBO's Oz look like the merry old land of Oz.
I thought the sentence was a bit steep, but I later realized that we all fall short of the glory of the judge who never broke any laws whatsoever and cannot tolerate even the slightest unlawfulness, so I had no choice but to accept my punishment.
However, the judge did take pity on me. He called his son in and proceeded to brutally whip him with a cat 'o nine tails until he was raw and bloody, and then nailed him to a cross until he was dead. He then told me to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I did, and after that I was free to go.
I walked out of the court room a free man, as did the serial child molester who also ate the judge's son's flesh and blood (he was a cannibal, so really didn't mind). However this other woman said she didn't want to cannibalize the judge's son and that she didn't do anything wrong. But the judge just said that all have committed crimes and all must be endlessly punished for them, and the only way for her to escape was to eat his son. The woman still refused so she was sentenced to life in prison.
I guess I kinda felt bad for her spending the rest of her life in prison. Nevertheless, I know that she deserved it because the judge was truly a good man. I mean you'd have to be a really, really good person in order to brutally beat your own son and then crucify him and have his flesh and blood consumed so that me and a serial killer could go free. Truly these are actions of a righteous man. Well I guess it just sucks to be her.
Anyway, I'm a free man now, although my schedule is pretty full. I've been spending most of my time at the judge's house, thanking him for freeing me and telling him how great he is over and over and over and over and over again.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Why I Left Atheism - A Critique
During a recent conversation I was challenged to read Why I Left Atheism, a paper by a guy named John N. Clayton who runs DoesGodExist.org. The autobiographical "booklet" details Clayton's story of becoming a Christian, and I was encouraged to read it in the hopes that I'd find it convincing. Thus I sat about hear out the exposition of this so-called former atheist-turned-evangelical with an open mind. Here's what I found:
Common Caricature
Very early on, Clayton begins making the common mistakes we see Christian evangelists make. In the second paragraph, he states that he used to be an atheist and the life he led was a stone's throw from pure evil. Clayton writes, "...that kind of life and conviction led me to do and say things and to be something that was really very unpleasant. I lived a life that was immoral and which reflected a lack of belief in God. I lived in a way that was very self-centered and that satisfied my own pleasures and desires regardless of whether or not other people were hurt in the process of what I was doing."
It is in this manner that Clayton shows us the first face of his ignorance. He equates being an atheist to living a "self-centered", "unpleasant", and otherwise "immoral" life. He argues from morality, assuming that all atheists are immoral by default, and that that kind of lifestyle is a reflection of not believing in God.
He couldn't be more wrong right off the bat. To falsify his claim we'd only have to find one person who doesn't believe in God (that is of course, the Christian God) and who leads a life that is not "self-centered", "unpleasant", or "immoral". Shouldn't be too hard.
We Don't Know Yet
Clayton then tells us that he was raised, nay indoctrinated as an atheist by non-believing parents. I'll give Clayton the benefit of the doubt, although this composition is already taking on the standard tone of the "once-blind-but-now-I-see" crowd. Things really start to get shady when Clayton claims to have had a discussion with one of his college professors on the "creation of matter from nothing" (apparently during an astronomy class where the topic was "origins"). Upon asking the professor which theory best explains creation ex-nihilo, Clayton is told he needs to learn to ask intelligent questions. Indeed, that's the smartest line so far, for Clayton should understand that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as per the First Law of Thermodynamics. The professor supposedly tells Clayton that these are questions not for the scientist but for the theologian, and Clayton is stunned that science doesn't know everything. The tone of this paragraph (and the following one) is reminiscent of the old email that has made the rounds a few times, the one about the atheist professor and the Christian student who "defeats" him with science.
The point of the paragraph seems to be that we are to focus on the answer the professor gave, about origins not being within the realm of science. Richard Dawkins covers this topic well in Chapter 2 of his book, The God Delusion. Put simply, religion falsely claims the right to answer why questions, and science gets the how. But not only is such a thing as a why question nonsensical, but the fact that most of the claims made by God-believers about their deity require some sort of physical interface, as it were. Dawkins writes, "The moment there was the smallest suggestion of any evidence in favour of religious belief, religious apologists would lose no time in throwing NOMA out the window." (NOMA being non-overlapping magisterium, the idea that science can't answer questions about God.) If God interacts in any way with the physical world, that point where the transaction occurs is (or should be) a place of testability.
Nevertheless, Clayton's unoriginal idea that science can't solve poorly-worded questions continues throughout the missive. Clayton moves on to the next professor (who always seems to be "one of the great XYZ professors in the country"), this time, biology. Again Clayton poses the question of origins to the all-knowing scientist, and again he is told that it is a question for religion, not for science. He then attempts to slip in a little argument-from-authority: "I guess what was happening to me was the same thing that Lord Kelvin, a very famous British scientist, described in his writings when he made the statement, 'If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God.' That is what happened to me. I began to realize that science had its limitations--that science, in fact, strongly pointed to other explanations than natural ones to certain questions."
A very famous scientist said science leads to God, so it must be true. More importantly, science doesn't know every answer to every question, so therefore Magic-Man done it! Clayton is just not seeing the problem here. An explanation has to stand on its own two feet. Even if the whole of science turns out to be a load of cow shit doesn't mean that God, FSM, Bigfoot, or Santa Claus wins by default.
Science is making progress; a thousand years ago people thought that lightening was caused by an angry god throwing bolts down to earth, and that illness was caused by evil spirits. We've come a long way to closing those gaps in our knowledge, but still some remain. Those gaps -- however convenient a hiding place to stuff a deity into -- do not suggest anything "supernatural" simply because they are unknowns. This God-of-the-gaps argument is the most-used attempt offered by theology. Not knowing something isn't a proof for anything except ignorance.
How The Bible Is Accurate
Clayton's next words reek of absurdity. While keeping the bad-boy image of living an evil immoral atheist life, Clayton reads his bible in the hopes of discovering scientific contradictions. You guessed it, he finds none! I'm not sure what his definition of "scientific contradictions" is, but I'm pretty sure "bats = birds" should qualify.
The intellectual bankruptcy continues for the rest of the paper, all the while Clayton cherry-picks bible verses and reiterates the view that he could do whatever he wanted to -- because after all, there was no God. He talks about his rebellious youth and implies that children who don't believe in a supernatural father-figure can't be good moral people and this is what's wrong with society today. Clayton recounts having to lie to his mother about certain happenings with a girl whom he had taken out the night before, and because "that was the last thing I was going to tell my mother", he learned to lie reeeel good. He then points to a bible verse that says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger", thus blaming his lying, stealing, and general wickedness on the sins of his parents as strictly forbid in the "inerrant Word".
And of course no theistic proclamation is complete without the classic Psalm 53 attack: "The fool says in his heart there is no God"! Ouch, John. That always stings us heathens! Why you gotta do that?
The Need for God
Clayton admits to thoughts of suicide, recounting how his immoral atheistic lifestyle drove him to sink so low. It's the same old story you hear again and again about the drug-using rebellious hedonist who's hit rock bottom, then they "find Jesus" and all their problems just melt away. Even Clayton himself admits this and writes, "Have you ever wondered why it is that when a person gets clean from drugs, gets rid of the problem of alcohol, or conquers some of the problems like the ones I had, that the person always seems to get involved in some religious cause, halfway house, or something like that? Why is that?"
I'll tell you why that is. First off, it's easy to believe in God given the standard definition of his attributes. You can't see him, touch him, etc. but he'll take all your cares away and you'll even get to survive your own death! What's not to like about that, given your current state of mind?
But most importantly the reason lies in a common misconception (one that Clayton himself admits to subscribing to). There is this perception that you're either a godless, immoral, no-good asshat OR a god-fearing, virtuous, upright religious pillar. It's the idea that somehow religious people automatically receive respect simply because they're religious. By starting out claiming that you were a somewhat shitty person because you had no sky-master demonstrates this fallacy. According to this false dichotomy, what other choice do the run-downs think they have? People who think in this manner can't seem to understand that human beings don't need a god to be good.
Even if religion was proven to be the best way at dealing with these stereotypical problems, that would not make any of its claims true one bit. Being helpful doesn't equal being real. Beneficial? Maybe. But can anyone give me a benefit that religion offers that can't be provided by secular means?
Picking A God
Clayton next claims that he sought answers from other religions and "found that [they] taught many things I could not accept. There were teachings in their writings concerning what life was like after this life that were unrewarding and unrealistic and there were descriptions of God that were illogical and inconsistent."
Oh? And the omniscient/omnipotent or infinitely-just/infinitely merciful inheritances are logical? Streets of gold and worms that never die are realistic? Since he can't find anything to suit his personal taste, Clayton picks the bible as the only obvious truth (since truth is based on what suits you best). "I decided that if I ever came to believe in God, it would be a belief based upon the Bible." Statements such as these reveal Clayton as a poorly-reasoned atheist.
After picking out which flavor of Christianity he liked best (Church of Christ, apparently), Clayton finally gives us "the final straw" that took him from godless heathen to moral sainthood. Again, it's one of his "leading atheist" professors. This time it's geology, and Clayton ends up his somewhat contrived banter by telling his professor, "Sir, you have not really shown me any contradiction between what we have studied in this course and in what the Bible has to teach," to which he replied, "Well, I guess if you really study it, there is no contradiction." So again, he paints the picture of science (or scientists) not being able to solve his ill-formed questions...therefore Yahweh exists and the bible is literally true.
John Clayton finally sums up his "lesson" by saying if you're not with God you're against God. So remember, if you're not with the Tooth Fairy you're against the Tooth Fairy -- you can't be both!
Fail
This laughable tale has no hope of convenience any intellectual to take him seriously. At every point he incorrectly summarizes the state of things as we know them with regards to science, logic, and reason. He assumes first, and since no satisfactory answer is found, he turns to untested dogmatic irrational thinking that lacks any evidence whatsoever. Clayton's only arguments are from incredulity and morality. As for the latter, he doesn't get that he was just an immoral person, not because there was no God to tell him what to do or think, but because he didn't respect himself or his fellow man.
Clayton may indeed have been an atheist, although a poorly-informed and irrational one. Still, he displays an enormous lack of understanding about the scientific method and the fields of biology, cosmology, and geology. Those of us who hold our position due to reason and intellectual rationalization can quickly point out the flaws in Clayton's pesudo-arguments. This exercise has not truly been a waste, however, for the doors of conversation remain open, and the bright light of knowledge is still shining through and rousing the ill-informed.
-STA
Common Caricature
Very early on, Clayton begins making the common mistakes we see Christian evangelists make. In the second paragraph, he states that he used to be an atheist and the life he led was a stone's throw from pure evil. Clayton writes, "...that kind of life and conviction led me to do and say things and to be something that was really very unpleasant. I lived a life that was immoral and which reflected a lack of belief in God. I lived in a way that was very self-centered and that satisfied my own pleasures and desires regardless of whether or not other people were hurt in the process of what I was doing."
It is in this manner that Clayton shows us the first face of his ignorance. He equates being an atheist to living a "self-centered", "unpleasant", and otherwise "immoral" life. He argues from morality, assuming that all atheists are immoral by default, and that that kind of lifestyle is a reflection of not believing in God.
He couldn't be more wrong right off the bat. To falsify his claim we'd only have to find one person who doesn't believe in God (that is of course, the Christian God) and who leads a life that is not "self-centered", "unpleasant", or "immoral". Shouldn't be too hard.
We Don't Know Yet
Clayton then tells us that he was raised, nay indoctrinated as an atheist by non-believing parents. I'll give Clayton the benefit of the doubt, although this composition is already taking on the standard tone of the "once-blind-but-now-I-see" crowd. Things really start to get shady when Clayton claims to have had a discussion with one of his college professors on the "creation of matter from nothing" (apparently during an astronomy class where the topic was "origins"). Upon asking the professor which theory best explains creation ex-nihilo, Clayton is told he needs to learn to ask intelligent questions. Indeed, that's the smartest line so far, for Clayton should understand that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as per the First Law of Thermodynamics. The professor supposedly tells Clayton that these are questions not for the scientist but for the theologian, and Clayton is stunned that science doesn't know everything. The tone of this paragraph (and the following one) is reminiscent of the old email that has made the rounds a few times, the one about the atheist professor and the Christian student who "defeats" him with science.
The point of the paragraph seems to be that we are to focus on the answer the professor gave, about origins not being within the realm of science. Richard Dawkins covers this topic well in Chapter 2 of his book, The God Delusion. Put simply, religion falsely claims the right to answer why questions, and science gets the how. But not only is such a thing as a why question nonsensical, but the fact that most of the claims made by God-believers about their deity require some sort of physical interface, as it were. Dawkins writes, "The moment there was the smallest suggestion of any evidence in favour of religious belief, religious apologists would lose no time in throwing NOMA out the window." (NOMA being non-overlapping magisterium, the idea that science can't answer questions about God.) If God interacts in any way with the physical world, that point where the transaction occurs is (or should be) a place of testability.
Nevertheless, Clayton's unoriginal idea that science can't solve poorly-worded questions continues throughout the missive. Clayton moves on to the next professor (who always seems to be "one of the great XYZ professors in the country"), this time, biology. Again Clayton poses the question of origins to the all-knowing scientist, and again he is told that it is a question for religion, not for science. He then attempts to slip in a little argument-from-authority: "I guess what was happening to me was the same thing that Lord Kelvin, a very famous British scientist, described in his writings when he made the statement, 'If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God.' That is what happened to me. I began to realize that science had its limitations--that science, in fact, strongly pointed to other explanations than natural ones to certain questions."
A very famous scientist said science leads to God, so it must be true. More importantly, science doesn't know every answer to every question, so therefore Magic-Man done it! Clayton is just not seeing the problem here. An explanation has to stand on its own two feet. Even if the whole of science turns out to be a load of cow shit doesn't mean that God, FSM, Bigfoot, or Santa Claus wins by default.
Science is making progress; a thousand years ago people thought that lightening was caused by an angry god throwing bolts down to earth, and that illness was caused by evil spirits. We've come a long way to closing those gaps in our knowledge, but still some remain. Those gaps -- however convenient a hiding place to stuff a deity into -- do not suggest anything "supernatural" simply because they are unknowns. This God-of-the-gaps argument is the most-used attempt offered by theology. Not knowing something isn't a proof for anything except ignorance.
How The Bible Is Accurate
Clayton's next words reek of absurdity. While keeping the bad-boy image of living an evil immoral atheist life, Clayton reads his bible in the hopes of discovering scientific contradictions. You guessed it, he finds none! I'm not sure what his definition of "scientific contradictions" is, but I'm pretty sure "bats = birds" should qualify.
The intellectual bankruptcy continues for the rest of the paper, all the while Clayton cherry-picks bible verses and reiterates the view that he could do whatever he wanted to -- because after all, there was no God. He talks about his rebellious youth and implies that children who don't believe in a supernatural father-figure can't be good moral people and this is what's wrong with society today. Clayton recounts having to lie to his mother about certain happenings with a girl whom he had taken out the night before, and because "that was the last thing I was going to tell my mother", he learned to lie reeeel good. He then points to a bible verse that says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger", thus blaming his lying, stealing, and general wickedness on the sins of his parents as strictly forbid in the "inerrant Word".
And of course no theistic proclamation is complete without the classic Psalm 53 attack: "The fool says in his heart there is no God"! Ouch, John. That always stings us heathens! Why you gotta do that?
The Need for God
Clayton admits to thoughts of suicide, recounting how his immoral atheistic lifestyle drove him to sink so low. It's the same old story you hear again and again about the drug-using rebellious hedonist who's hit rock bottom, then they "find Jesus" and all their problems just melt away. Even Clayton himself admits this and writes, "Have you ever wondered why it is that when a person gets clean from drugs, gets rid of the problem of alcohol, or conquers some of the problems like the ones I had, that the person always seems to get involved in some religious cause, halfway house, or something like that? Why is that?"
I'll tell you why that is. First off, it's easy to believe in God given the standard definition of his attributes. You can't see him, touch him, etc. but he'll take all your cares away and you'll even get to survive your own death! What's not to like about that, given your current state of mind?
But most importantly the reason lies in a common misconception (one that Clayton himself admits to subscribing to). There is this perception that you're either a godless, immoral, no-good asshat OR a god-fearing, virtuous, upright religious pillar. It's the idea that somehow religious people automatically receive respect simply because they're religious. By starting out claiming that you were a somewhat shitty person because you had no sky-master demonstrates this fallacy. According to this false dichotomy, what other choice do the run-downs think they have? People who think in this manner can't seem to understand that human beings don't need a god to be good.
Even if religion was proven to be the best way at dealing with these stereotypical problems, that would not make any of its claims true one bit. Being helpful doesn't equal being real. Beneficial? Maybe. But can anyone give me a benefit that religion offers that can't be provided by secular means?
Picking A God
Clayton next claims that he sought answers from other religions and "found that [they] taught many things I could not accept. There were teachings in their writings concerning what life was like after this life that were unrewarding and unrealistic and there were descriptions of God that were illogical and inconsistent."
Oh? And the omniscient/omnipotent or infinitely-just/infinitely merciful inheritances are logical? Streets of gold and worms that never die are realistic? Since he can't find anything to suit his personal taste, Clayton picks the bible as the only obvious truth (since truth is based on what suits you best). "I decided that if I ever came to believe in God, it would be a belief based upon the Bible." Statements such as these reveal Clayton as a poorly-reasoned atheist.
After picking out which flavor of Christianity he liked best (Church of Christ, apparently), Clayton finally gives us "the final straw" that took him from godless heathen to moral sainthood. Again, it's one of his "leading atheist" professors. This time it's geology, and Clayton ends up his somewhat contrived banter by telling his professor, "Sir, you have not really shown me any contradiction between what we have studied in this course and in what the Bible has to teach," to which he replied, "Well, I guess if you really study it, there is no contradiction." So again, he paints the picture of science (or scientists) not being able to solve his ill-formed questions...therefore Yahweh exists and the bible is literally true.
John Clayton finally sums up his "lesson" by saying if you're not with God you're against God. So remember, if you're not with the Tooth Fairy you're against the Tooth Fairy -- you can't be both!
Fail
This laughable tale has no hope of convenience any intellectual to take him seriously. At every point he incorrectly summarizes the state of things as we know them with regards to science, logic, and reason. He assumes first, and since no satisfactory answer is found, he turns to untested dogmatic irrational thinking that lacks any evidence whatsoever. Clayton's only arguments are from incredulity and morality. As for the latter, he doesn't get that he was just an immoral person, not because there was no God to tell him what to do or think, but because he didn't respect himself or his fellow man.
Clayton may indeed have been an atheist, although a poorly-informed and irrational one. Still, he displays an enormous lack of understanding about the scientific method and the fields of biology, cosmology, and geology. Those of us who hold our position due to reason and intellectual rationalization can quickly point out the flaws in Clayton's pesudo-arguments. This exercise has not truly been a waste, however, for the doors of conversation remain open, and the bright light of knowledge is still shining through and rousing the ill-informed.
-STA
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
For Goodness Sake
Once again, I'm going to piss Christians off. Specifically, Christian parents.
They don't seem to understand that they should teach their kids right from wrong. Instead, they want laws and restrictions put in place for every conceivable frowned-upon action; they want the government to do it.
If We Don't Chain Them Up, They'll Run Naked!
They seem to think that unless there are laws in place, kids will do whatever they want. Even their own kids will become swayed by the evil influence of non-believing children! Christians don't realize that they should be the ones teaching their children about morality. There's a novel idea, huh? That way, when the children grow up, they won't want to do just anything -- not because it's illegal, but because it's simply not the right thing to do.
This is the common false moral argument from theism: if kids learn there is no invisible God watching their every move (and thought), then they'll become evil, bloodthirsty savages. I've written pages on secular morality so there's no need to rehash it here. I instead want to focus on the reason why somebody would think this way.
He Knows If You've Been Bad Or Good...
More than likely, the problem originates from their mindset -- their religion and theology molds this sort of thinking. In the Christian worldview, God places rules and laws on you because you're innately evil. According to their Master, they would do whatever they want if they ignore God. This is obvious to any Christian who uses the "just look at the horrible state of society these days!" argument. They blame humanity's "rejection" of Jesus for everything wrong with the world (even though over two billion people believe in Christianity).
Theism fundamentally changes your way of thinking and leads to this sort of mindset. Ethics, morality, and integrity therefore fall in to fit this worldview. Christians necessarily believe in punishment for thought-crime (and take their moral lessons from horrible scripture stories). It's all according to God's List, so you'd better make sure you're on it!
Giving a child the sense to take responsibility for himself is one of the jobs of being a parent. If you're teaching your child that they can be absolved of their responsibilities simply by talking to their ceiling, they're not going to develop a sense of integrity. They won't have that pain in their gut when they realize they've done something wrong...nope, Jesus will forgive them! They won't understand that they need to make up for the wrongs they commit in this life. They won't learn to avoid behaviors that are "wrong" not because they're afraid of hell, but because they're afraid of the sour taste of guilt and injustice it leaves.
-STA
They don't seem to understand that they should teach their kids right from wrong. Instead, they want laws and restrictions put in place for every conceivable frowned-upon action; they want the government to do it.
If We Don't Chain Them Up, They'll Run Naked!
They seem to think that unless there are laws in place, kids will do whatever they want. Even their own kids will become swayed by the evil influence of non-believing children! Christians don't realize that they should be the ones teaching their children about morality. There's a novel idea, huh? That way, when the children grow up, they won't want to do just anything -- not because it's illegal, but because it's simply not the right thing to do.
This is the common false moral argument from theism: if kids learn there is no invisible God watching their every move (and thought), then they'll become evil, bloodthirsty savages. I've written pages on secular morality so there's no need to rehash it here. I instead want to focus on the reason why somebody would think this way.
He Knows If You've Been Bad Or Good...
More than likely, the problem originates from their mindset -- their religion and theology molds this sort of thinking. In the Christian worldview, God places rules and laws on you because you're innately evil. According to their Master, they would do whatever they want if they ignore God. This is obvious to any Christian who uses the "just look at the horrible state of society these days!" argument. They blame humanity's "rejection" of Jesus for everything wrong with the world (even though over two billion people believe in Christianity).
Theism fundamentally changes your way of thinking and leads to this sort of mindset. Ethics, morality, and integrity therefore fall in to fit this worldview. Christians necessarily believe in punishment for thought-crime (and take their moral lessons from horrible scripture stories). It's all according to God's List, so you'd better make sure you're on it!
Giving a child the sense to take responsibility for himself is one of the jobs of being a parent. If you're teaching your child that they can be absolved of their responsibilities simply by talking to their ceiling, they're not going to develop a sense of integrity. They won't have that pain in their gut when they realize they've done something wrong...nope, Jesus will forgive them! They won't understand that they need to make up for the wrongs they commit in this life. They won't learn to avoid behaviors that are "wrong" not because they're afraid of hell, but because they're afraid of the sour taste of guilt and injustice it leaves.
-STA
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Unholy Word: Love Thy Father
To assume the truth of your opponent's worldview and then deconstruct their arguments from the inside out is a common and very effective way to argue. This series bypasses the need to first find out if the Judeo-Christian bible is credible and reliable. Instead it simply examines the stories and analyzes the flaws -- absurdities and all -- by taking it to its logical conclusions.
We continue the series with a story from Genesis featuring a man called Lot. This man was supposedly the most moral and upright person in the town of Sodom. In fact, everyone else in the town was so immoral that God sent fire to wipe it off the planet!
There's Incest In 'em Thar Hills!
After their city is destroyed and their mother is turned into salt, Lot's two daughters escape with him to a cave in the mountains. The night before this, Lot had offered his two virgin daughters to a mob to be raped (we'll cover this in a future Unholy Word). Apparently they're still really horny, because they proceed to get their father drunk and have sex with him...on two consecutive nights. Lot doesn't seem to be aware that these are his own daughters.
Genesis 19, verses 31-32 state: The elder said to the younger, "Our father is an old man, and there is no one here to marry us in the normal way of the world. Come on, let us ply our father with wine and sleep with him. In this way we can preserve the race by our father."
So the eldest daughter gets good ol' righteous dad hammered on enough wine to make him forget where he is and who he's with, and precedes to engage in a little father-daughter coitus. Any man of God would do the same, right?
When I Drink My Dick Hurts
The next day, the eldest tells her younger sister what she did, and advises that she do the same. So here's poor old Lot, just lost his wife, all his friends, and his hometown because of immorality. For the second day in a row now, he's getting shit-faced drunk and pleasured by some strange woman -- "though he was unaware of her coming to bed or leaving." (19:35) Have you ever been that drunk; so drunk you didn't realize you were having sex?
After that night, and presumably mysteriously to Lot, both of his daughters became pregnant. Maybe he thought that the guys from the mob knocked them up. Neither Lot nor his daughters are criticized here or anywhere else in the bible. He probably didn't know about Leviticus 18:6, so we should blame him, huh? Even 2 Peter 2:7-8 cites Lot as "just" and "righteous". Professor Richard Dawkins muses, "If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone."
Family Values From "The Good Book"
I suppose we are to look upon this fictional story as a metaphor of some kind. We're to understand that Lot's "race" seeded the nations of Moabites and Ammon, from each respective daughters' child -- two nations that are subsequently slaughtered by and/or for God. Some of you may be saying that it was the daughters who were wrong. If so, why did future-seeing God let them go when he was burning down Sodom and Gomorrah? Even still, I wouldn't call Lot blameless. Do you? After all, the poor girls just wanted their children to be good like daddy, and not heathen scum.
-STA
We continue the series with a story from Genesis featuring a man called Lot. This man was supposedly the most moral and upright person in the town of Sodom. In fact, everyone else in the town was so immoral that God sent fire to wipe it off the planet!
There's Incest In 'em Thar Hills!
After their city is destroyed and their mother is turned into salt, Lot's two daughters escape with him to a cave in the mountains. The night before this, Lot had offered his two virgin daughters to a mob to be raped (we'll cover this in a future Unholy Word). Apparently they're still really horny, because they proceed to get their father drunk and have sex with him...on two consecutive nights. Lot doesn't seem to be aware that these are his own daughters.
Genesis 19, verses 31-32 state: The elder said to the younger, "Our father is an old man, and there is no one here to marry us in the normal way of the world. Come on, let us ply our father with wine and sleep with him. In this way we can preserve the race by our father."
So the eldest daughter gets good ol' righteous dad hammered on enough wine to make him forget where he is and who he's with, and precedes to engage in a little father-daughter coitus. Any man of God would do the same, right?
When I Drink My Dick Hurts
The next day, the eldest tells her younger sister what she did, and advises that she do the same. So here's poor old Lot, just lost his wife, all his friends, and his hometown because of immorality. For the second day in a row now, he's getting shit-faced drunk and pleasured by some strange woman -- "though he was unaware of her coming to bed or leaving." (19:35) Have you ever been that drunk; so drunk you didn't realize you were having sex?
After that night, and presumably mysteriously to Lot, both of his daughters became pregnant. Maybe he thought that the guys from the mob knocked them up. Neither Lot nor his daughters are criticized here or anywhere else in the bible. He probably didn't know about Leviticus 18:6, so we should blame him, huh? Even 2 Peter 2:7-8 cites Lot as "just" and "righteous". Professor Richard Dawkins muses, "If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone."
Family Values From "The Good Book"
I suppose we are to look upon this fictional story as a metaphor of some kind. We're to understand that Lot's "race" seeded the nations of Moabites and Ammon, from each respective daughters' child -- two nations that are subsequently slaughtered by and/or for God. Some of you may be saying that it was the daughters who were wrong. If so, why did future-seeing God let them go when he was burning down Sodom and Gomorrah? Even still, I wouldn't call Lot blameless. Do you? After all, the poor girls just wanted their children to be good like daddy, and not heathen scum.
-STA
Friday, January 23, 2009
STA Answers Frank Turek, Part 1
In a recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, hosted by the United Secular Alliance at VCU in Richmond, Virginia and focused on the question, "does God exist?", Turek employed the oft-used apologist tactic of volume -- that is, listing off as many "proofs" of God as he could in the hopes that at least a couple would stick. While I'm not going to dissect the debate (you can watch it for yourself), I would like to answer Turek's arguments, worn-out and defeated as they may be, for myself.
Turek gave three main arguments (two of which I will separate) and four minor points for why he believes in a theistic universe (note, specifically theistic, not deistic), and peppered Christian theology in along the way. He also offered a list of attributes for this deity: a space-less, timeless, immaterial, personal, powerful, intelligent, moral creator. I shall deal with these throughout my discussions on his arguments.
#1 - The Cosmological Argument
Turek summarizes this as "how could something come from nothing"? Hoping that if no one can answer this question scientifically then his premise must be true by default, Turek offers the idea that time, space, and matter all came into existence at the same time -- effectively, nature was created in the Big Bang -- and therefore the Big Bang can't be explained naturalistically because nature didn't exist to cause it, and can only be explained in supernatural terms.
I have no problem in saying that nature came into being during the Big Bang. I am not a scientist, but I do know that what is said in Big Bang cosmology is that space-time itself expanded. Turek himself has no problems with Big Bang theory at all and even did a fairly decent job in providing some proofs for it. The only difference is that he thinks he knows for sure "who banged it", that is to say, he believes his particular God was the root cause of the Big Bang expansion. As I said, he's fallacy is that since no one can provide the answer as to what was "before" the Big Bang, then it must have been Jesus's daddy. Obviously this does not follow -- you simply cannot move from the question "what caused the Big Bang" to theism. I, just as his opponent in the debate did, will grant deism as a slim possibility, but one requiring evidence to first be put forth as an answer.
Since it created space, time, and matter, Turek apples the first three attributes to his God here including that it must be powerful because "it created out of nothing", yet Turek offers zero evidence for this claim. Turek then asserts the following: "you can't go from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence without making a choice", therefore this God is a personal deity because only personal beings make choices. Yet again, he offers no evidence for this bold-faced claim. The onus is still on you, Frank Turek, to bolster your claim that existence demands choice.
#2 - The Teleological Argument
Turek uses the standard fine-tuning argument to try to prove theism. Essentially he states the various ways at how things seem to be precisely set just for us to exist -- the position of the sun and other planets, the tilt and rotation of the Earth, the force values of gravity, etc. He didn't have time to get into them all, but doing a simple internet search will provide you with these standard Christian apologetics for the argument from design.
Frank Turek is effectively capitalizing once again on the ignorance we, as the human collective, have. We do not yet have full understanding of all the laws of the universe. We don't know for sure that messing with any of the constants would result in complete absence of life. Regardless, even if we did know for sure that no life could exist with any other configuration of constants, the fact that he's using it as an argument for a specific brand of theism misses the point altogether: we wouldn't be here talking about it if it hadn't been the case. Welcome to the Anthropic Principle, Frank.
#3 - Irreducible Complexity
Continuing on his buffet of tired old arguments, Turek cites the complexity of DNA as a reason for the existence of a particular God. This tied in with the argument from design of course, being touted out as a reason for the intelligence attribute Turek ascribed to his God at the beginning. The amazing amount of information contained within our DNA, as well as various quotes mined from Collins, Crick, and Hoyle, was given as a proof for a theistic God that must also be intelligent.
Again, Turek is guilty of capitalizing on the ignorance of his audience (as well as a non sequitur). A simple search through any reputable source for evolutionary biology will yield extensive amounts of research and results that stifle the argument of "irreducible complexity". I won't waste time here, read them yourself.
#4 - Objective Morality
One of the major arguments Turek gave (and indeed a topic that Hitchens spent a great deal of his time on) dealt with morality. Turek made it clear that he wasn't saying that atheists can't be or are not moral people, nor that atheists don't know what morality is. His argument was, "atheists cannot justify morality" because there's no authority outside of them.
I personally think that morality can be justified without the need of a deity, but as an argument for the existence of a specific God, Turek's argument is pretty weak. I've written on matters of morality before, so I won't go into it here. Nevertheless, as Turek is strained to point out, the subject is objective morality. Perhaps in some sense there cannot be objective morality? We don't need an authority to be moral, Turek freely notes that he doesn't need Christianity to be moral. And, as Turek is arguing for the Christian God's existence anyway, wouldn't Yahweh's rules on incest and rape and murder have to be the objective moral standard? If so, count me -- and millions of other sane, compassionate human beings -- out. (This also raises the question of God's morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma, subjects covered elsewhere.)
I'll post Part 2 soon.
-STA
Turek gave three main arguments (two of which I will separate) and four minor points for why he believes in a theistic universe (note, specifically theistic, not deistic), and peppered Christian theology in along the way. He also offered a list of attributes for this deity: a space-less, timeless, immaterial, personal, powerful, intelligent, moral creator. I shall deal with these throughout my discussions on his arguments.
#1 - The Cosmological Argument
Turek summarizes this as "how could something come from nothing"? Hoping that if no one can answer this question scientifically then his premise must be true by default, Turek offers the idea that time, space, and matter all came into existence at the same time -- effectively, nature was created in the Big Bang -- and therefore the Big Bang can't be explained naturalistically because nature didn't exist to cause it, and can only be explained in supernatural terms.
I have no problem in saying that nature came into being during the Big Bang. I am not a scientist, but I do know that what is said in Big Bang cosmology is that space-time itself expanded. Turek himself has no problems with Big Bang theory at all and even did a fairly decent job in providing some proofs for it. The only difference is that he thinks he knows for sure "who banged it", that is to say, he believes his particular God was the root cause of the Big Bang expansion. As I said, he's fallacy is that since no one can provide the answer as to what was "before" the Big Bang, then it must have been Jesus's daddy. Obviously this does not follow -- you simply cannot move from the question "what caused the Big Bang" to theism. I, just as his opponent in the debate did, will grant deism as a slim possibility, but one requiring evidence to first be put forth as an answer.
Since it created space, time, and matter, Turek apples the first three attributes to his God here including that it must be powerful because "it created out of nothing", yet Turek offers zero evidence for this claim. Turek then asserts the following: "you can't go from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence without making a choice", therefore this God is a personal deity because only personal beings make choices. Yet again, he offers no evidence for this bold-faced claim. The onus is still on you, Frank Turek, to bolster your claim that existence demands choice.
#2 - The Teleological Argument
Turek uses the standard fine-tuning argument to try to prove theism. Essentially he states the various ways at how things seem to be precisely set just for us to exist -- the position of the sun and other planets, the tilt and rotation of the Earth, the force values of gravity, etc. He didn't have time to get into them all, but doing a simple internet search will provide you with these standard Christian apologetics for the argument from design.
Frank Turek is effectively capitalizing once again on the ignorance we, as the human collective, have. We do not yet have full understanding of all the laws of the universe. We don't know for sure that messing with any of the constants would result in complete absence of life. Regardless, even if we did know for sure that no life could exist with any other configuration of constants, the fact that he's using it as an argument for a specific brand of theism misses the point altogether: we wouldn't be here talking about it if it hadn't been the case. Welcome to the Anthropic Principle, Frank.
#3 - Irreducible Complexity
Continuing on his buffet of tired old arguments, Turek cites the complexity of DNA as a reason for the existence of a particular God. This tied in with the argument from design of course, being touted out as a reason for the intelligence attribute Turek ascribed to his God at the beginning. The amazing amount of information contained within our DNA, as well as various quotes mined from Collins, Crick, and Hoyle, was given as a proof for a theistic God that must also be intelligent.
Again, Turek is guilty of capitalizing on the ignorance of his audience (as well as a non sequitur). A simple search through any reputable source for evolutionary biology will yield extensive amounts of research and results that stifle the argument of "irreducible complexity". I won't waste time here, read them yourself.
#4 - Objective Morality
One of the major arguments Turek gave (and indeed a topic that Hitchens spent a great deal of his time on) dealt with morality. Turek made it clear that he wasn't saying that atheists can't be or are not moral people, nor that atheists don't know what morality is. His argument was, "atheists cannot justify morality" because there's no authority outside of them.
I personally think that morality can be justified without the need of a deity, but as an argument for the existence of a specific God, Turek's argument is pretty weak. I've written on matters of morality before, so I won't go into it here. Nevertheless, as Turek is strained to point out, the subject is objective morality. Perhaps in some sense there cannot be objective morality? We don't need an authority to be moral, Turek freely notes that he doesn't need Christianity to be moral. And, as Turek is arguing for the Christian God's existence anyway, wouldn't Yahweh's rules on incest and rape and murder have to be the objective moral standard? If so, count me -- and millions of other sane, compassionate human beings -- out. (This also raises the question of God's morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma, subjects covered elsewhere.)
I'll post Part 2 soon.
-STA
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
And Their Eyes Were Opened
I find that I can’t argue with someone unless one of us accepts the other’s framework of reference. Therefore, most of the time you’ll see me take the “let’s-assume-this-is-all-real” approach when I’m blogging. I’ll be doing the same for this post as well. After all, if we believe it’s 100% true then we’ll be more likely to throw it out when we see it doesn’t fit with reality.
According to the book of Genesis, once Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she and her husband became “as gods, knowing good and evil”. I say having knowledge is never a bad thing, but that’s not the road I’m on here. Assuming their lineage passes down to us (and that there is a standard of Good and Evil apart from God), we should have the same knowledge about what good and evil are that god does. In a sense, we should be in agreement with decisions God makes (and vice-versa) regarding right and wrong, right? Furthermore, we humans should all be in agreement with each other about such matters.
Since this isn’t the case in either way, we must resolve this by one of three ways: 1) the godly knowledge Adam and Eve acquired was not passed down to us, 2) either God or humanity is going against the Knowledge, or 3) God’s views on good and evil ARE the same as the views of us humans: to each his own, so to speak. I won’t speak to number one, but for number two, I can personally judge God’s knowledge of good and evil to be at odds with my own. I make this judgment based on his record of inhuman and evil acts all throughout the book of which Genesis begins. Perhaps I do so via number three – morality is subjective.
Genesis says that once they learned right from wrong, Adam and Eve clothed themselves. Nudity is bad. Remember, when they were clueless, being naked wasn’t shameful. So we see that one of the edicts of this god-like knowledge of good and evil is that being naked (as we were created?) is evil. Nope, not in my book (pardon the pun). My morality doesn’t decree such an inane idea. So without having to leave the book of Genesis, we can come full circle and resolve the issue of this divine secret that God tried to keep from his creation.
Sure, it’s fun to psychoanalyze and tear down these old stories, but it’s best to realize that they aren’t real. Genesis is not a history book. It was written by people trying to make sense of it all, and trying to tie together the ideas that were around during their time. The fact is that we don’t need a God or a book to tell us how to be kind to one another, what good and evil mean to us, or whether or not being naked is wrong. If you think we do, read this book again and try to practice the morality it prescribes. Oh, and have fun in jail.
-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
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Unholy Word: No Laughing Matter
Disclaimer
Many Christians believe that the bible is the true "Holy Word of God", 100% inspired (if not written directly) by the Almighty Himself. With this new series, we'll take a look at some of the stories in this profane book and see just how "holy" it is.
Warning: Some may find this and other fairy tales in the Christian Bible to be extremely disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.
Can't Take A Joke?
The first bible story we'll look at is one of the sickest things one can read. If you'd like to follow along, open your bible to chapter two of the second book of Kings. Here we find Elisha, successor of the supposed prophet Elijah (who had just ascended into heaven). Elisha is going up the road into town when a group of youths gather around and start to make fun of him, particularly his lack of head-hair. (The phrase they used is reported to be "Go up, thou bald head, go up".)
Keep in mind this is a book supposedly written by God to tell us ignorant humans how to be good and get tickets to Jesus Land.
So how does the pious Elisha handle this mocking? 2 Kings 2:24 says, "And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
I'll let that sink in a bit...
This wise "man of God" can't take being made fun of -- BY CHILDREN -- and asks the Lord to do something about it. As if that's not bad enough, the all-loving Creator responds by sending two bears to rip the kids apart!
This is one of the most obscene and objectionable stories in the bible. Any moral and wise adult would realize that children can sometimes be asses; why can't an all-knowing, all-loving, God understand that?
Of course, some bible versions try to soften the blow by referring to the group of kids as a "gang", but come on, he wasn't dealing with the Yakuza or the Hell's Angels. And even if he was, does it merit them being ripped to shreds by a couple of Kodiaks?
Good Moral Values
Think about how the parents of these forty-two kids would have taken the news. "Well, I guess it was just God's Holy Will. Little Billy always was a trouble-maker; I told him he'd get it one of these days!" They'd have one hell of a time trying to pick out the bloody pieces of their child from the rest. Have you ever seen a mauling?
What does this passage say about an omniscient, omnibenevolent God? What does it say about morality, or dealing with bullies? What does this say about a perfect, timeless book given by an ultimate moral law-giver? Maybe I should get in good with the Lord so I can use this trick the next time those damn Girl Scouts want $38 for cookies.
I personally think it's just another insane story told by delusional men in the desert over two thousand years ago -- back when people were even more stupid than they are today -- just to scare blasphemers or tempt readers with the awesome power of God. Wouldn't wanna make a man'o'God angry if you heard that they could call forth wild beasts at will, would you?
That's enough for now; my stomach is turning just thinking about the horrible stories that are in this book (that parents give to their children!!!). Believe it or not it gets worse. We'll look at some more immoral and objectionable passages in the next installment of the "Unholy Word".
-STA
Many Christians believe that the bible is the true "Holy Word of God", 100% inspired (if not written directly) by the Almighty Himself. With this new series, we'll take a look at some of the stories in this profane book and see just how "holy" it is.
Warning: Some may find this and other fairy tales in the Christian Bible to be extremely disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.
Can't Take A Joke?
The first bible story we'll look at is one of the sickest things one can read. If you'd like to follow along, open your bible to chapter two of the second book of Kings. Here we find Elisha, successor of the supposed prophet Elijah (who had just ascended into heaven). Elisha is going up the road into town when a group of youths gather around and start to make fun of him, particularly his lack of head-hair. (The phrase they used is reported to be "Go up, thou bald head, go up".)
Keep in mind this is a book supposedly written by God to tell us ignorant humans how to be good and get tickets to Jesus Land.
So how does the pious Elisha handle this mocking? 2 Kings 2:24 says, "And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
I'll let that sink in a bit...
This wise "man of God" can't take being made fun of -- BY CHILDREN -- and asks the Lord to do something about it. As if that's not bad enough, the all-loving Creator responds by sending two bears to rip the kids apart!
This is one of the most obscene and objectionable stories in the bible. Any moral and wise adult would realize that children can sometimes be asses; why can't an all-knowing, all-loving, God understand that?
Of course, some bible versions try to soften the blow by referring to the group of kids as a "gang", but come on, he wasn't dealing with the Yakuza or the Hell's Angels. And even if he was, does it merit them being ripped to shreds by a couple of Kodiaks?
Good Moral Values
Think about how the parents of these forty-two kids would have taken the news. "Well, I guess it was just God's Holy Will. Little Billy always was a trouble-maker; I told him he'd get it one of these days!" They'd have one hell of a time trying to pick out the bloody pieces of their child from the rest. Have you ever seen a mauling?
What does this passage say about an omniscient, omnibenevolent God? What does it say about morality, or dealing with bullies? What does this say about a perfect, timeless book given by an ultimate moral law-giver? Maybe I should get in good with the Lord so I can use this trick the next time those damn Girl Scouts want $38 for cookies.
I personally think it's just another insane story told by delusional men in the desert over two thousand years ago -- back when people were even more stupid than they are today -- just to scare blasphemers or tempt readers with the awesome power of God. Wouldn't wanna make a man'o'God angry if you heard that they could call forth wild beasts at will, would you?
That's enough for now; my stomach is turning just thinking about the horrible stories that are in this book (that parents give to their children!!!). Believe it or not it gets worse. We'll look at some more immoral and objectionable passages in the next installment of the "Unholy Word".
-STA
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)