Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Dangerous Talk is an atheist/progressive daily blog discussing the three most dangerous topics of polite conversation: Religion, Politics, and Sex. Our goal is to fight back against the Religious Right and push for a more free and rational society.

While this blog is primarily about atheism and our target audience is intended to be atheists, we of course welcome the opinions of religious people (particularly Christians). Dangerous Talk is different than many other atheist blogs in that our emphasis is not as much on news of interest to atheists, but rather on philosophical issues and arguments. As such, feel free to search the categories in the sidebar for past articles which may be of interest.

Also, I just started up the Amazon Bookstore here on Dangerous Talk so now if you plan on buying anything from Amazon, please stop by Dangerous Talk first and either click this link or go to either the bookstore tab at the top of the website or the book list on the side bar. Then just click the Amazon logo at the top corner of the bookstore page and shop away. Dangerous Talk gets a very small commission from anything you buy through that link. Please help support Dangerous Talk without having to donate directly. Of course donations are always appreciated (see the Contribute button). Thanks,

-Staks

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

What does it mean to claim that we “know” something? Religious people often throw this term around in relation to their deity of choice. They know that their god is real. But what does that really mean?

For starters, we have to understand what it means to know. I could say that I know that the front door is locked and that our solar system has eight planets. But if my wife asked me if I am sure that the door is locked, I might have to think about it for a moment. Do I remember locking it? No, but I usually do. So while I claim to know that it is locked, I am not entirely certain of that claim. But I am reasonably certain that it is since I usually do lock it. As for the solar system, maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson will change his mind and make Pluto a planet again (just kidding Neil). In any case, should that happen, do to the new circumstances my knowledge of the solar system would be incorrect. Here my knowledge is provisional. My knowledge can change.

The main issue here with knowledge has to do with the level of certainty we have in our knowledge. When I say I know something, I mean it as knowing it with reasonable certainty. That knowledge might be wrong, but I have reasons (presumably good ones) to suggest that I am correct in that knowledge.

But when most Christians claim that they know that God exists, they aren’t talking about reasonable knowledge, they are almost always claiming absolute knowledge. This knowledge they don’t think is provisional based on evidence, but rather it is impossible for them to be wrong or for new information to change their knowledge.

This takes us to how we know what we know. Using our observations and our ability to think about what we see, we get a clearer picture of the world around us. But sometimes our senses can play tricks on us. Sometimes our thinking is faulty and we miss something. This is why we came up with the Scientific Method.

The scientific method helps us to observe the world accurately. It opens our observations up to objective scrutiny so that we know exactly what degree of certainty we actually have concerning our knowledge. In this way, the chances for self-delusion are minimized and we are able to say more accurately exactly what we know and to what degree we really know it.

Without the scientific method, anyone can claim to know anything and everything and there are no ways to validate those claims. I can state that the moon is made of green cheese. Whether that accurately matches up with reality or not, I can call that knowledge without the need to justify that claim with evidence or reasoning.

When religious people claim to know God and offer up no evidence or sound reasoning for their claim it isn’t actual knowledge they are referring to. It often seems like believers only know what it means to believe something is true without any evidence or valid reasoning and claim this is what it means to know.

Filed under: Religion, atheism, faith, logic, science, truth | 1 Comment »

One of the things I like about the Academy Awards is that it is live and watched by millions. Hollywood is very liberal and so it is not unusual for a big celerity to take a moment out of his or her acceptance speech to discuss a politic or social issue. The host is usually an edgy comedian who makes an off color jokes or two and someone gets offended. This didn’t happen this year. This year the Academy Awards were boring.

For starters, Steve Martin has never been a “wild and crazy guy.” He has never been edgy and he had nothing edgy to say last night. Alec Baldwin on the other hand isn’t even a comedian but when he did guest appear on Saturday Night Live, he was at least edgy with his “Schweddy Balls” and jokes at his overly religious brother’s expense. Of course we had none of that at the Academy Awards either.

The rumor was that Sasha Baron Cohen was going to dress up as a Na’vi from Avatar, but of course he is too unpredictable. You never know what or who he would try to plug his tail into. So instead they had Ben Stiller do it. Stiller is the safe bet because he will joke about plugging his tail into James Cameron but won’t actually try to do it. Don’t get me wrong, Ben Stiller was funny, but safe funny.

Another missed opportunity for some politically relevant fun was when Tina Fey came out on stage as… herself. Seriously? No Sarah Palin? She didn’t even read off her hand. Tina Fey should be in her Sarah Palin character 24/7 until Palin is no longer news relevant.

This year, no one gave any politically or socially relevant speeches at all. The most controversial part of this year’s Oscars was a very cryptic acceptance speech by Best Supporting Actress Mo’nique who thanked her lawyer and implied that there was some behind the scenes controversy related to her win. I wish I knew what that was about because it seemed like the most interested part of the evening.

My issue with the Academy Awards this year isn’t about films. It is indirectly about censorship. It is more directly about how the Academy has become afraid to take risks and afraid to offend. They have created a sanitized environment full of jokes that aren’t funny and comedians who aren’t allowed to be funny. Actors have been discouraged from using their fame and platform for the good of others and outspoken filmmakers like Michael Moore won’t be nominated out of fear they may win and say something interesting. Save the dolphins!

Filed under: Political Activism, censorship, culture war, free speech | 1 Comment »

Atheism is on the rise in America and the world and as such we have become a bigger target for religionists. Many religious people attempt to make it seem like being a vocal atheist is something new and militant but the fact is that there is nothing new, mean, or hateful about criticizing ridiculous ideas.

While I talk about a more detailed definition of atheism in another article, being vocal about atheism basically boils down to the pretty simple concept of criticizing ridiculous ideas. The modern atheist movement is not about murdering religious people. Nor is it about making religion illegal. That would be what real militant atheists might advocate if they actually existed. But that is not reality.

The modern atheist movement also is not trying to convert religious people to some other ridiculous supernatural idea. We leave that type of evangelizing to the religionists.

Modern atheists tend to advocate a free market of ideas in which every idea is thought about and scrutinized. Bad ideas get criticized and ridiculous ideas are ridiculed because they are… well, ridiculous. It isn’t the fault of atheists that religious and supernatural beliefs tend to be ridiculous. If religious people don’t want their beliefs ridiculed, then they shouldn’t have such ridiculous beliefs.

The thing is that most religious people know that their beliefs are ridiculous. They know that in the free market of ideas their beliefs won’t hold up. So instead of abandoning those ideas in favor of more reasonable ideas which present a more accurate model of reality, they often try to place their beliefs above criticism.

Religionists have dominated our culture in an attempt to form a monopoly on the free market of ideas. They have made it socially unacceptable to criticize their ridiculous beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize political ideas, philosophical ideas, literary ideas, etc., but when it comes to religious ideas, criticism is seen as impolite, rude, and even hateful. Why is that?

If an idea or belief is ridiculous then people should be free to criticize it as being such. In fact, people are free to criticize and ridicule ridiculous ideas and beliefs in every other avenue of discourse except in relation to religion.

Now religion’s monopoly has been broken and their ideas and beliefs are going to have to compete in the fair market of ideas like every other idea and belief. Not surprisingly, religions aren’t holding up and that is why atheism is on the rise.

Filed under: Atheism NOT Religion, Decline of Religion, People of Reason, Religion, atheism, censorship, culture war | 3 Comments »

Christians are always jibber jabbering about how God gave us free will. It seems that free will in the Christian excuse for everything. Why is there suffering in the world? Free will! Why does God send non-believers to Hell? Free will! Original sin? Free will! You get the idea.

Sure there is no evidence for free will and yes, science has figured out that our decision making is based on a combination of nature and nurture behaviorism, but that is all beside the point. Even if we gave Christians their free will concept, it still has a huge fucking problem.

Introducing the fair and just concept of “informed choice.” If I’m a used car dealer and show you two seemingly identical cars, but one is $3000 cheaper only an idiot would choose the more expensive one. But that choice would not be an informed choose since as soon as you get the cheaper car off the lot it literally falls apart on you. In America, we have disclosure laws which make it illegal for companies to fail to disclose certain things. So what does this have to do with free will?

Well, Christians run around the planet telling everyone who will listen (and even some who won’t) that God will torture people for all eternity is they don’t believe and yet they still have the free will not to believe. The problem is that according to these Christians, God expects people to make an uninformed choice. We don’t know what these Christians say is true or not. These Christians could just be used car dealers trying to sell off a lemon of a religion. We remain uninformed by God.

If God wants us to choose between Heaven or Hell, he has to make it an informed choice otherwise it ain’t free will. If God is all-powerful, it shouldn’t be too difficult for him to beam the truth of his existence into the minds of every human being. Then we would be able to make an informed choice (for the record, I would still choose to reject the Biblical God as my Lord and Savior).

Unfortunately God has not beamed said information into the brains of every human on the planet. Many people like me don’t believe in God and many more believe in a different God. Those that do believe in the Biblical God don’t even agree on what that God is like despite the completely well written and clear Holy Book he allegedly wrote (sarcasm).

We are left with a few possibilities. 1. God is an asshole. 2. God is not all-powerful. 3. God is incompetent. 4. God doesn’t exist.

Filed under: Religion, free will, god | 20 Comments »

A University of Texas San Antonio student group called The Atheist Agenda has created a program on their campus called “Smut for Smut.” The atheist group is giving away pornography in exchange for Bibles. This apparently has caused quite a stir both among Christians and surprisingly among other atheists.

I get why Christians are up in arms. For one thing, most Christians haven’t read their Bibles and don’t realize that there are a few passages in Psalms which are very smutty. Those passages are of course at odds with the passages in Corinthians and other parts of the Bible which are very anti-sexuality.

So with one “stroke” so to speak, the Atheist Agenda encourage Christians to read the best book to de-convert people from Christianity (the Bible), expose the smut of the Bible, expose the prudishness of the Bible, and expose the contradiction to that same inerrant Bible. Oh, and it gets a lot of attention and is a fun and entertaining program.

It’s a win in every which way. Yet for some bizarre reason some friendly atheists (I’m looking at you Hemant) are very angry at the Atheist Agenda for this program. Yesterday I was commenting on a popular atheist blog debating this topic. But why debate it there when I can debate it here?

The cons of this program appear to be that it offends Christians. Oh shit, we don’t want to do that. Do I have to remind my fellow atheists that Christians got offended by the “Don’t Believe in God” billboards and the “Good without God” billboards? So if Christians are going to be offended no matter what atheists do, why not make it entertaining and have fun with it?

I support the smut for smut campaign and hope that they have a large variety of porn to give out. I think it would be particularly helpful if they had some gay porn too since fundamentalist Christians in Texas seem to really hate that type of thing. It will get them good and offended. Plus, the gay community is a natural ally to the atheistic community. So that too would be a win/win.

What do my fellow Dangerous Talkers think about this campaign? What other creative campaigns do you think atheist groups should consider?

Filed under: Atheism NOT Religion, atheism, billboards, culture war, discussion, free speech | 21 Comments »

Over the weekend I watched a documentary titled: The Education of Shelby Knox. The documentary is about a teenaged girl’s attempt to bring comprehensive sex education to the fundamentalist controlled city of Lubbock, Texas.

Shelby Knox is a Christian. Her whole family is Christian and the film portrays the city as being almost entirely fundamentalist Christian. Throughout the film, she starts to have doubts about her religion as she continues to push for comprehensive sex education in her school and as she begins to get involved with the gay rights movement. While she never breaks from her religion entirely in the film, she does become much more liberal as a Christian.

I found her wrestling with fundamentalist Christian positions to be interesting. The religious people she talks to are quick to quote the Bible to her and all she can say is that a loving God wouldn’t act in those ways. Sadly, she never makes the connection that the Christian God is not a loving god.

As far as the main focus of the film goes, Lubbock, Texas has a rather large teen pregnancy problem and a problem with sexually transmitted deceases. The city is convinced however that abstinence only education is the only solution to these problems.

Knox works with the City Youth Council to campaign for a more effective method in dealing with these issues. The church and those who are more fundamentalist in their beliefs (which is almost everyone) campaign against her and threaten to end the City Youth Council completely if they don’t end their campaign on this issue.

But just when you think that the kids of the City Youth Council are the good guys in the film, the budding gay rights fight enters the stage and shows that even the more progressive people in the town seem to hate gays just as much as the adult fundamentalists that they are fighting against on the abstinence only front.

Only Shelby seems willing to work with the gay community and finds herself at odds with her parents and with her friends on the City Youth Council.

I think this is a great movie which really shows how fundamentalist Christianity shapes and controls politics for the harm of society. The Education of Shelby Knox is well worth watching.

Filed under: Evils of Christianity, Gay Issues, Religion, Vague Higher Power, church/state, culture war, education, family values, sex | 3 Comments »

Despite President Obama’s rhetoric about transparency in government, the White House has made the delegates from the Secular Coalition of America (SCA) take an oath of secrecy.

I have talked about this more in my Examiner article which I hope everyone will check out. But I want to say a bit more about this issue. Since we don’t know what the White House has actual said with regard to our issues we have to infer from their past performance.

The Obama Administration has continually promised the gay community change on several issues and yet to date, none of those policies have actually changed. With regard to atheist issues, it is unlikely that the Obama Administration will make any of the changes which they may or may not have promised.

What we as a community need to do is to make sure that our voice is heard. We can do this in two ways. First, we can continue to bombard the White House with our concerns. They have a contact page and I would recommend using it. For simplicity sake, I would recommend that we stick with the message that the SCA brought to the White House briefing: Child abuse and neglect by religious parents, military proselytizing, and ending government funding of faith-based initiatives. Okay that last one I tweaked a little.

Second, we should attempt to meet with our representatives in congress and our senators… in person if possible. If not, then I recommend a snail mail letter. E-mail letters ought to be the last resort.

Filed under: Current Events, Obama, People of Reason, Political Activism, Politics, atheism, church/state, culture war | 9 Comments »

Often times when Christians find out that I am an atheist, they will ask me why I hate God. Usually I inform these Christians of the obvious by asking them how I could hate something that I just said I don’t believe even exists? This rarely satisfies them and maybe they are right. After thinking about it a little, I can now honestly say that I really do hate God.

I hate God on two levels. First I hate the character of God as he is portrayed in the Bible. God is a villainous character who claims to be the hero of the story. He does horrible things like order rape, murder, and genocide just to name a few. God is a character that any moral person ought to hate. He just seems like such as asshole and a character that the audience is supposed to hate.

On the other hand though, sometimes villains are cool characters. Darth Vader is an awesome villain and so is his master, Emperor Palpatine. I love those villains even though they do hateful things.

This brings me to the second reason why I hate God; the literary reason. God is not a well written character at all. He has no motivation. We don’t know why God does all the horrible things he does and we don’t really understand where the character is coming from. We can’t identify with God at all.

God is a chaotic character but not in the same sense as the Dark Knight’s Joker. The Joker’s motivation was chaos, but that is more of a motive than the character of God. The character is just so poorly written and so evil and yet the audience is expected to love him and even worship him.

I can understand how a character like the Joker can seem cool and gain followers because of his style and attitude, but God has no style at all and his attitude just doesn’t seem interesting at all. He seems like a little bratty baby at times and even that is giving the character far more depth than the character actually has.

In conclusion, I hate God because the character is a hateful, evil, asshole of a character. I also hate God because he is a poorly written character with no style or depth. The writers of the Bible clearly suffered from a lack of imagination.

Oh, I don’t want to leave out the Holy Spirit. I hate the Holy Spirit too. That character is not even really needed for the story and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Filed under: Blasphemy, Religion, god, image of god, the bible | 5 Comments »

I hear Christians tell me all the time that they are the true Christians and that other people who claim to be Christians but don’t agree with them one hundred percent are not true Christians. It’s the old “No True Scotsman” argument. Well, I searched the Bible and found that there is one very clear way to tell who is a Christian. Real Christians can’t sin!

Before I get into that I also want to point out that all the Christians who go around telling people that everyone is a sinner are not real Christians according to the Bible. I hear that line all the time and from a business model it really is a great line for Christians to use.

By acknowledging that everyone is a sinner Christianity creates a problem and then comes along and offers the only solution to the problem it just created. Unfortunately, the Bible wasn’t written with that kind of business model in mind. Modern Christianity has conflated a coherent narrative out of various different beliefs.

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” – 1 John 3:9-10

To quote Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, “The Bible is pretty black and white.”

Filed under: Mainstream Christians, Preaching, Real Christians, Religion, sin, the bible | 1 Comment »

It seems to me that Christians who proselytize are actually making a case against their position. Their claim is that their deity of choice is all-powerful and wants everyone to worship him but can’t seem to convince people on his own. God seems to need the Christian to proselytize.

Why would such an all-powerful deity need people to tell other people about him? Can’t God let people know he exists by himself? Instead of just writing a poorly written bronze-aged book and expecting everyone to believe all the magic and make-believe sounding stuff, couldn’t this all-powerful God just implant the knowledge in our brains?

The very fact that God didn’t implant the knowledge of his existence into everyone’s brain and therefore needs Christians to run around the planet telling everyone about barbaric blood sacrifice of God’s son Jesus is evidence against his existence or at least against his all-powerful abilities.

The fact is that an all-powerful god wouldn’t need Christians to spread his message. He would be all-powerful enough to get his message across to everyone himself. Sadly, this all-powerful god can’t even get his message accurately to all Christians let alone all the people of the Earth. So many Christians have so many differing interpretations of God’s infallible divine will that one has to wonder why God doesn’t set the record straight about all this stuff.

God wouldn’t need to use any booming voice from the sky and he certainly wouldn’t need a burning bush. He’s God, right? Can’t he just “make it known” to everyone on Earth at once what his divine will actually is. Instead, he seems to tell different people different things. He told George W. Bush that war was good and told the Pope that war was bad. He told James Dobson that gays were evil shouldn’t be allowed to marry and told Jim Wallis that gays were evil but should marry. He even apparently told Rick Warren that gays should be killed and then told him that he was just joking around.

The point is that if Christians really had faith in their deity they would shut up and let God do his own dirty work. If God wants someone converted to the correct version of Christianity so that they could spend eternity with God, God will make that happen. Just a thought.

Filed under: Disproving God, Preaching, Religion, conversation, discussion, god | 14 Comments »

As many people in the greater atheist community know, Angie the Anti-Theist has just gotten an abortion. She has been blogging and tweeting her experiences during the process.

When I was younger, there was a short period of time in which I considered myself pro-life. But during my early college days I had more than one friend who faced the choice first hand. One of them really respected my opinion and asked me to for advice. At the time it really felt like I was making the choice for my friend and so I felt the weight of that choice. For the record, I was not part of the tango leading to any of these dilemmas. Nevertheless, I am very happy that at this time in America women still have a choice and can make these decisions for themselves.

The thing is that we value life, but we often forget that life carries responsibility. Some people are not ready or do not want that responsibility. In these cases, we have to decide what is best for everyone involved. We have to weigh the potential quality of life vs. the potential quantity of life. There are many choices available and people ought to be free to make those choices for themselves depending on their particular situation.

One philosophical question dealing with this topic has always been the question of when exactly does life begin. Now, I don’t want to state the obvious, but I have always thought that life begins at birth. No one says that a baby is minus 2 years old. That would just be silly. But we can say that a fetus is a potential human life in that it is not yet a baby.

When fundamentalist Christians talk about being pro-life they don’t seem to understand the difference between actual human life and potential human life. To these particular Christians God created all life before it was born. They view potential life as actual life in God’s mind. What they forget is that if everything is part of their God’s divine plan, then the choices that people make concerning life and death must also be part of God’s plan.

Of course their God isn’t real, so that doesn’t really make any difference. However the idea that these people are some how preserving life is just silly. Human life does not begin at conception. Every sperm and every egg are not sacred. The closer a fetus comes to being actually born the more rights society gives to the fetus. But until it is born, it is not yet a human life.

When we measure our age, we don’t tack on 9 months for the time we lived inside the womb. We measure our age and our life by the time spent… alive. Still, I think it is better for fetus to have the chance to actualize their potential in many circumstances. But decisions like this have to be made on a case by case basis and so that is why abortion must be kept legal and the decision must be made by the people involved.

Filed under: Parenting, abortion, culture war, family values, responsibility, sex | 55 Comments »

I was listening to Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza recently. He made an interesting argument in which he claimed that science didn’t have the answers to three very important questions.

1. Where did we come from?
2. What is the point of our lives?
3. Where are we going?

The first question science is working on. Dr. Stephen Hawking has some great theories about how the universe got here and of course the theory of evolution through natural selection shows us the method of how life has evolved here on Earth. D’Souza knows this already and if he doesn’t, he really should because he is a well educated person.

As for the other two questions, they are not scientific questions so of course science doesn’t have an answer to them. Let me put it another way. Everyone reading this please take out your cell phone. Hold it up. We all know that we can talk into our cell phone and someone hundreds of miles away can hear it on their cell phone. How does this happen? Religion has no answer for this. It isn’t a miracle. God doesn’t lend out your ear so to speak.

No, religion has no answer. Religion steals science’s answer to this question and well it should. Science gives us a method for accurately understanding the world and making real predictions that we can test and observe. This method has allowed us to create cell phones and many other tools including the computer you are reading this blog on and the internet you are using to connect to this blog.

Religion predicts the end of the world almost every year. The Bible predicted that Jesus would have his second coming within the lifetime of those living at that time (Matthew 24:34). This was the one thing religion was supposed to predict and it can’t seem to do it accurately at all. Christians will say that the Old Testament predicted Jesus, but that is neither testable nor observable.

So what is the point of our lives? For this we have to turn to philosophy, not science. The existential answer to the purpose of life is to live a life of purpose. The idea is that our existence precedes our essence or purpose. It is not the other way around. We define our purpose in the universe.

Where is humanity going? If religion has anything to say on the matter, humanity will be extinct so that our “souls” can either kiss God’s ass for all eternity or be tortured for all eternity. Personally, I’ll pass. I think Humanism and science can create a much brighter future for humankind. This is what we call vision and hope. The human imagination and history help to guide our path through time. We learn from these things and work toward a brighter future.

As far as where we are going personally (i.e. after we die) the answer to that is simple enough. When we die, we are dead. However, we live on in the memories of those who come after us. What we do in life affects the lives of others. Ben Franklin said it best, “Remembered. If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten; either write something worth reading or do something worth the writing.”

Filed under: Dinesh D'Souza, End of Days, Hope, Religion, death, evolution, prophecies, science | 18 Comments »

Christians seem to have the greatest public relations department. Even many atheists seem to think that Jesus was some white guy with a long beard who wandered the Middle East trying to bring about world peace. According to the Bible, Jesus was a real asshole.

Sure everyone knows about the golden rule and the character of Jesus does have a few other great messages too. But they are few and far between especially when you read some of the other things that Jesus preached.

While everyone knows that the character of Jesus said to love one’s enemies and turn the other cheek, he also said the opposite of that very same philosophy:

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.” - Luke 19:27

Some Christians think Jesus was all about loving everyone, but if one actually read the entire Bible rather than just the parts of the Gospels that are preached in church, people would see a very different side of Jesus. Let’s see what Jesus has to say about family values:

”If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” - Luke 14:26

People seem to think of Jesus as the “Prince of Peace” and yet that title never appears in the New Testament at all. Not only is Jesus never once referred to as the “Prince of Peace” the character of Jesus actually seems to be a pretty violent character.

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.” - Matthew 5:29

Plus, Jesus specifically refutes the idea that he came in peace. I don’t know if the character could have made it any clearer than this:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” - Mathew 10:34

Christians always tell me that this is a metaphor. Well no shit. I didn’t think Jesus actually wielded a sword around. But what is it a metaphor for? If Jesus had said that he didn’t come to send peace, but flowers then we might conclude that he was more about love than peace. But a sword is a metaphor for violence and fighting. So when someone says that they came with a sword, it seems to mean that they are looking for a fight. Add to this that he specifically states that he didn’t come to send peace and the meaning couldn’t possibly be clearer. The only way we can interpret that to mean that he was the Prince of Peace is if we took to words to mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean; sort of like Michael Jackson’s use of the word, bad.

Finally, there is a story that is rarely told about Jesus in which he pretty much acts like an asshole. His friends who seem to be better people than he is have to really put some peer pressure on him to do the right thing.

“And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” - Mat 15:22-28

Christians tell me that Jesus was such a great moral teacher and that even without the blood sacrifice he was the greatest guy who ever lived, but I really don’t see it. He seems no different than any other cult leader who is concerned more about himself than he is about others. In short, the character of Jesus just seems like an asshole.

Filed under: Neighbor, Preaching, Real Christians, Religion, family values, image of god, morality, the bible, wwjd | 17 Comments »

I get a lot of e-mails from Christians. One e-mail forward that I get often is a Christian idea of a joke at the expense of atheists. Stop me if you heard this one:

An atheist was walking through the woods.

‘What majestic trees!’
‘What powerful rivers!’
‘What beautiful animals!’

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, ‘Oh my God!’

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. ‘You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don’t exist, and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?’

The atheist looked directly into the light and said, ‘It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?’

‘Very Well,’ said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

‘Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.’

The morals of the story are that there are no atheists in the foxhole. When an atheist believes that he will die, he falls on his knee to God. Atheists are prideful and can’t admit that they are wrong even with clear evidence. Being a Christian means that one is virtuous and good.

The irony of this little tale is that the character of God in the Bible actually does use bears as a weapon to kill people… children no less. This e-mail forward was probably inspired by the story in II Kings 2:23-24. But that story was not really funny and had questionable moral value. So some Christian probably took that story and did a re-write.

The funny thing is that some Christian thought that he could improve on God’s divine tale and that he actually did. This story of the Christian bear maybe stupid, but it is better than God’s version in which two bears slaughter 42 kids for making fun of someone’s bald head.

As far as humor goes, I think I have to give this one to God though. The story in II Kings is much funnier but mainly because it is meant to be serious. I mean really, “Go up, thou bald head.” That insult alone is hilarious.

Filed under: Bears, Religion, the bible | 6 Comments »

Last night, I went to my county’s Democratic convention. If you don’t know anything about politics, this is where all the candidates gather to seek the endorsement of the County Party. I always find these conventions interesting because you can tell a lot about the candidates from how they handle themselves in this environment.

Here in Pennsylvania, we have a few statewide races that a pretty exciting. Our Senate race for example has a primary that the entire nation is watching. Former Republican Arlen Specter vs. my current US Congressman Joe Sestak. Specter has Obama on his side as well as the Governor and the Democratic Party’s State Committee, but I don’t think he will actually win the primary.

Last night, Sestak entered the convention like a rock star and gave a great speech that was vague and empowering. You know the type I am talking about. Remember Obama’s “Hope and Change” speeches or any of Reagan’s speeches? Any politician who actually talks specifics on issues during a speech is at the disadvantage next to those who are vague and inspiring.

Specter didn’t show up for this convention. That alone is okay because most voters understand that it is a statewide race and he can’t be everywhere at once, but he didn’t even have any staff members there to advocate on his behalf. There was a signing petition there for him, but no one had signed it.

As for the governors race, there are four candidates running. Personally, I am supporting my good friend Joe Hoeffel who didn’t run away from me when he was a Congressman and saw me in Washington D.C. with a large “Democracy Not Theocracy” sign rallying for the Separation of Church and State. Although I love Hoeffel, I thought that his speech seemed rushed. At times he was hard to hear and at other times he seemed frustrated. While I understand the frustration since he is the only progressive running and the previous speaker made a point to say that all the candidates were the same on the issues, I don’t think Hoeffel should have made his frustration so visible.

Then there were the long shot candidates. They usually have to read from a prepared speech or spend a lot of time yelling. Good candidates need to be loud, but not Al Sharpton loud. They can’t be screaming or yelling. Projection is the key, no anger.

Over all, I was glad that no candidate talked about religion and only one or two thanked God or anything like that.

Filed under: Politics | No Comments »

If you ask fundamentalist Christians, they will tell you that many well known atheists in history have had deathbed conversions to Christianity. Among the names that I have heard from Christians include Voltaire, Sartre, Mark Twain, Thomas Paine, and of course Charles Darwin. Of course, these well known freethinkers never really had a deathbed conversion.

It isn’t hard to look into each of these individual cases and see that none of these atheists converted to Christianity at the time of their deaths. What I find interesting though is that according to the Bible, someone else had a deathbed change of heart.

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” - Matthew 15:34

Christians generally translate this to mean, “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me.” But that is not entirely accurate. Eloi is translated as “My God” but it is not a generic form of god as most Christians seem to think. It is a particular god and not the God Yahweh.

Eloi refers to the God `Elyōn who like Yam (Yahweh) is a Canaanite deity. In the Canaanite pantheon of gods, `Elyōn was the “Most High” father deity. He was the Zeus of that mythology. Yahweh was one of `Elyōn’s sons. The Bible also mentions Yahweh’s brother god Ba’al Zebul (the fertility deity).

So when Jesus was being crucified, he was not calling out to himself because that would be just a little silly. Instead, he was calling out to a Canaanite deity.

Filed under: Religion, death, deathbed conversion, image of god | 13 Comments »

Over the weekend, I was driving in the Washington DC area and came across two interesting billboards. On the surface, I thought these billboards were put up by religious groups because of what there message appeared to be. I was wrong and the messages were much better than I assumed they were.

Here are the two billboards in question:

Both billboards were put out by the same group called, “Campaign for our Children Inc.” were some very “Focus on the Family” like. I looked through there website quite a bit and found that they are not religious and in fact not what I thought they would be.

My original thought was that the marriage billboard was trying to encourage people not to have sex and/or live with each other until marriage. If the billboard were put out by a religious group like “The American Family Association” that would surely have been the message. Instead, the message is to encourage people to wait until marriage to have children.

That brings me to the second billboard. The obvious thought was that it was promoting abstinence only education. But what I discovered was that the Campaign for our Children (CfoC) promotes “abstinence plus” education. In other words, they are all for safe sex with condoms, the pill, or other contraceptives. Of course they think it is better to wait to have sex and I don’t necessarily disagree with that. This type of family values campaign I can actually support.

I am a little bothered by the CfoC resource list in which they do link to a few fundamentalist front groups like the Family Research Council and The Heritage Foundation. But for the most part, CfoC seems to be a secular group.

I am interested to see if secular groups like this one can compete with the fundamentalist religion social advocacy groups. Will groups like CfoC force groups like Focus on the Family to alter their message or force them out to the advocacy business entirely?

What do you think about these billboards? Would you think they were religious at first sight? What do you think about them now that you know they are not religious? What do you think about secular family values groups?

Filed under: Parenting, Religion, billboards, culture war, discussion, family values, responsibility | No Comments »

When it comes to science, so many Christians are quick to point out how scientists don’t know everything or how science gets it all wrong. They push to put their Creationist beliefs into science classes, argue against scientific research on stem-cells, and on global climate change. They just seem to hate science.

Of course, not all Christians are anti-science and but according to the last Harris Interactive Poll on this issue, over one-third of Americans support Creationism and more than half reject the well established scientific theory of evolution. Those are not small numbers.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really think that this means that Christians hate science, but it does seem only fair to say so since whenever I criticize the doctrines of Christianity I often get asked by Christians, why do I hate Christians or God or something. So I think it is important to draw attention to this type of faulty (and illogical) reasoning.

Obviously, every Christian and every person in the modern world relies on science every day. If you are reading this blog, you are doing so entirely because science has allowed us to harness electricity and to create computers and the internet. When we get sick, the science of medical technology and drugs helps us to get better. The cars we drive, the homes we live in, and even some of the foods we eat are all products of science.

Still, a large number of Christians claim that bronze-aged fiction is a better guide to knowledge than the scientific method. How we know what we know and to what degree we know it is the issue here. Science takes us on a journey which enables us to understand the world we live in step by step. Science doesn’t have all the answers, but it knows that and so it is one step further than faith will ever be.

Yet, seventy-five percent of Americans believe in miracles (which for the record is the suspension of the natural laws of physics by a supernatural deity). Considering that only eighty percent of Americans are Christians, this amounts to almost all Christians in the country. I wonder how many Christians believe we can just know things without science but rather through some divine intuition or through faith alone.

Religions took us into the dark ages and science pulled us out. Science builds buildings and religion flies airplanes into them.

Filed under: Religion, anti-intellectualism, culture war, faith, global climate change, miracles, science | 8 Comments »

Even though it is pretty well established that I am an atheist, I still get e-mails for “Prayers” or to join “Prayer Chains.” On social networking sites I also see these stupid things. How ought an atheist respond to such things?

For starters, I have to figure out what these people are hoping to accomplish with their prayer requests. Fundamentalists of course believe that prayers might change God’s divine plan or something, but moderate believers use them simply as a way of showing some sort of support for their friends and family.

When someone is sick or hurt, I understand that people want to help even when there is no real help that they can do. So I get that prayer requests can in some cases be simply a way to ask for some support from friends and family. Some, atheists let people know that they are “thinking of them” or that we will “keep them in our thoughts.” These are good ways to deal with the whole prayer request thing, but still they don’t seem like they are any more rational than prayers.

So I am wondering what ideas people have which convey that we are there for our friends and family without resorting to these less rational alternatives? One possible thing that we can say in response to a prayer request from someone we know is that we can offer to help out if they or those closest to them need anything or just need someone to talk to.

Maybe we can come up with some social convention which can take the place of the “prayer request” like maybe a comfort request or a compassion request. Just some thoughts, let me know your ideas.

Filed under: Hope, atheism, morality, prayer | 6 Comments »

Recently, I stumbled upon an interesting atheist YouTube video. Yeah, I know there are a million of them and atheists pretty much own YouTube these days, but this one pointed out something that is really obvious. The Bible is boring.

The best selling book of all time really suck from both a literary and entertainment standpoint. The writing is just bad. I think I wrote about this once before, but I think it needs to be addressed again.

The Bible is long and boring. Apparently the creator of the universe can’t write for shit. God is alleged to be all-knowing and yet he doesn’t know how to write an interesting, entertaining, or consistent series of books.

Think about it, what would you rather read the entire Harry Potter series twice or the Bible once? I think this should be a challenge to all Christians. I don’t care if someone is a mainstream Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, or some other type of Christian. I think every Christian should be asked which they would rather read cover-to-cover (Harry Potter series twice vs. Bible once). I don’t mean in a hypothetical way either. I think ever Christian should actually commit to doing one or the other.

I wonder how many Christians would pick the Bible? The Harry Potter series is long and reading it twice is a bit much, but we have to make this challenging more interesting, because if it was just the Harry Potter series once, every Christian would pick it wands down.

In any case, here is the YouTube video that gave me the idea:

Filed under: Religion, god, the bible | 7 Comments »

One of the things, which really helped the gay community in gaining more mainstream acceptance is the portrayal of gay characters on television. Shows like Will & Grace were able to introduce many who have never met a gay person to that community and to show that gay people are just like everyone else. Today, the same thing is happening with atheism.

While Dr. Gregory House may not be the best role model, he is one of the most visible atheists on television and a genius. Dr. Temperance Brennan and her team on Bones also showcase atheism as role models. It seems that all the smart television characters are atheists these days. Even the “fab four” of geniuses on The Big Bang Theory reject the concept of an all-powerful deity.

Adult cartoons like The Simpsons, The Family Guy, and South Park all take shots at religion in favor of a more atheistic point of view. The creator of The Family Guy is an outspoken atheist. The character of Brian on the show is the most intelligent member of the family and is openly atheist.

The more and more atheist characters that show up on television, the more mainstream Christians will be forced to think about their beliefs. In the past, science fiction was the only real genre in which religion was openly criticized. Shows like Star Trek, Stargate, and others were all long in this regard. Now, with mainstream television drama’s taking on these types of issues and showcasing these types of characters, atheism is becoming more mainstream and more acceptable.

Filed under: Decline of Religion, Religion, atheism, culture war | 5 Comments »

Recently, a Christian commented to me that the fundamentalist worldview makes more sense than the atheist worldview. The idea is that either people see the world with a fundamentalist worldview or they see it with the alternative atheist worldview. The interesting thing about this is that there is no atheist worldview.

I think this stems from the confusion that some fundamentalist Christians have between atheism and secularism. Since scientific theories do not address the metaphysical beliefs in deities, many fundamentalist Christians see these secular theories as atheist theories. While it is true that most (if not all) atheists accept the secular scientific worldview called “reality” that does not make the scientific worldview an atheist worldview.

By framing science as atheism, these fundamentalist Christians can take the objectivity out of science and metaphorically write off any scientific theory or fact that they don’t like as being atheist propaganda.

The fundamentalist Christian/Creationist worldview is defined by their religious beliefs. As such, they mistakenly think that science is defined by a belief that God does not exist. The fact is that science is open to the possibility of a deity, but has not seen any evidence for such a proposition. Science deals only with the natural world (the only world we know) and not the Christian metaphysical or supernatural world. This doesn’t seem to register with these fundamentalists.

Recently, I had a conversation with a graduate from Liberty University. When I talked about how they have an obvious bias, he told me that he had also studied at atheist universities. There are atheist universities? His view was that if a University didn’t have an obvious fundamentalist Christian bias, then by default, it must have an obvious atheist bias. Atheism is the alternative worldview in his mind.

Interestingly enough, these fundamentalists rarely even consider that there are other religions out there or even other perspectives on their religion. In their minds, people either have a fundamentalist Christian worldview or the alternative atheist worldview. There are no other possible worldviews.

Filed under: Alternative Worldview, Atheism NOT Religion, Religion, culture war, science | 4 Comments »

I want to once again stress that I am not trying to defend Scientology, but I do think that Scientology performs a valuable service to our society for the moment. Right now, it serves as a comparison to show the dangers of Christianity.

In a previous blog, I talked about why I think that Christianity is wackier than Scientology. Today, I am going to talk about how in my view Christianity is far more dangerous both physically and psychologically than Scientology. My goal is to helps bring people of the Christian faith to reason when they are confronted with the comparison so that they can view the dangers of the Christian religion next to the dangers of a religion which most people view as very dangerous and show very simply which is actually more dangerous.

Let’s look at Scientology a little bit. One of the very valid criticisms of Scientology is that members are told to cut off contact with family and friends who are not Scientologists. SP’s and TPS’s are to be avoided and Scientologists ought to “disconnect” from them.

There are many different forms of Christianity, but many fundamentalist Christians view non-Christians as “heathens.” Those who are atheist activists are often viewed as “agents of Satan” or doing “the Devil’s work.” When college kids convert to fundamentalist Christians, they often hang out exclusively with their new Christian “fellowship” in meets, Bible studies, retreats, etc. until they are “strong enough in their faith.”

Scientology charges believers money for training classes so that they can advance along the “Bridge to Total Freedom.” Scientology uses brainwashing techniques to convince believers that they need this in order to be free of Thetans.

Christianity gives the Bible away and offers free Bible Studies. However there is a catch. There is always a catch. Church leaders use guilt to convince their believers to freely “donate” to the “collection plate.” How much one puts in the “collection plate” is between them and “God.” In other words, the all-powerful judge knows if you have donated properly and so believers are encouraged to donate sufficiently. God favors those who sacrifice more. The less you have the more you ought to donate. Believers are often praised for donating more than they can safely afford. Some Christians even brag about donating money they needed to pay the rent.

It is also important to note that not even counting the 2000 plus year head start Christianity has, the various Christian churches and Christian advocacy groups swindle more money a year than Scientology has swindled in their entire history.

There have been allegations that higher level Scientology members have beaten and physically abused lower level Scientology members. Those allegations are probably true. But put that next to the Inquisition, the Crusades, Catholic priests continued sexual abuse of boys, etc. etc. Scientology doesn’t even come close to being as dangerous as Christianity.

People often complain that Scientology goes after critics with an army of lawyers. This is a fair complaint, but Christianity not only has armies of lawyers, but also whole law schools and an army of legislatures who actually push to change the laws in their favor. There are huge mega-church movements why wage protest and letter-writing campaigns to private companies and legislatures.

The fact is that Scientology is newer and has not yet perfected the brainwashing techniques nor have they created the infrastructure of institutions needed to be anything close to as dangerous as Christianity. Scientology also doesn’t have the number of members to empower them to take the dangerous actions that Christianity has taken on issues like stem-cell research, abortion, contraceptive limitations, medical treatments, science education, etc. The list is nearly endless.

On every measurable level, Christianity is more dangerous than Scientology. In fact, even cult experts have been forced in to silence with regard to Christianity. Awhile back, I read off the list of “cult criteria” to a leading cult expert and asked him if Christianity fit that list. He told me no. Even though I sited example after example, reputable cult experts are afraid to put Christianity in the same category as they put Scientology which is far less dangerous and far more manipulative and self-destructive.

Filed under: Evils of Christianity, Most Dangerous Religion, Religion, Religious Manipulation, culture war, scientology | 11 Comments »

I have noticed that often times when I am discussing and/or debating Christians they assume the worst about me and my arguments. This I think is a symptom of their belief that humans are all evil sinners. It is hard to have a friendly conversation with someone who won’t give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let me give a few examples. One time I was discussing the Ten Commandments with a fundamentalist Christian. I mentioned that the third commandment forbids working on Saturdays. He promptly accused me of lying. As it turns out, I was simply mistaken. The forth commandment forbids working on Saturday, not the third. It was an honest mistake, but instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and trying to find out what I was referring to or why I thought what I did, he claimed that I purposefully tried to deceive him.

This was not an isolated incident. Similar instances of Christians expecting the worst from others is pretty common place in my experience. Another example is when I wrote that according to Christianity, the original sin came about because Adam and Eve ate an apple. Again with razor quick speed, there were Christians lining up to tell me that I clearly haven’t read the Bible because if I had, I would know that it wasn’t an apple. I actually had to laugh out loud. Of course it wasn’t actually an apple. The tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is a bit of a mouthful though and since this fruit is usually depicted as looking like an apple and I wanted to simplify what I was saying, I went with apple. Everyone knows what the apple represented, so I didn’t feel that I was being misleading, just symbolic.

I could go on all day with examples, but the point is that a thief believes that everyone steals. Christianity preaches that we are all evil sinners and we can’t help ourselves. So rather than trying to be the best people we can be, some Christians don’t try to actually deal with undesirable desires. Instead, they mask those desires with Jesus.

These particular Christians put themselves in my place and say to themselves, “If I were trying to prove my point, I would just lie. But I don’t want to go to Hell, so I won’t.” Knowing that atheists don’t believe in Hell opens the door to lying in their mind.

This is also when so many Christians think that without God there is no morality and atheists should just rape, steal, and murder anyone we want. It is after all what many of them would do if they didn’t have Jesus.

The idea that people are inherently evil affects the way Christians view other people. Instead of giving people the benefit of the doubt they tend to think the worst of people. This is beyond cynical and borders on paranoia. It is important to note however that no all Christians are like this. In fact, I don’t usually assume that they are. Instead, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Filed under: Evils of Christianity, Religion, conversation, discussion, morality, responsibility, sin | 6 Comments »

Ever since I was in college I have had evangelical Christians coming to my door to “witness” to me. Many of these evangelicals like to tell me about how they became “saved,” “Born again,” or whatever other cult-term they come up with. I like when they tell me about their story. It is a perfect tool for me to use to unwitness to them.

Almost always, there is an emotional element to their conversion. Sometimes it has to do with physical body issues and feelings of insecurity. In these cases, society judges them or they feel like society judges them. Then along comes someone to tell them about Jesus who doesn’t care what they look like, but knows who they really are on the inside. This makes them feel all tingly inside and puff, the Holy Spirit touched them in that “special way.”

Sometimes, the evangelical had to come to grips with the emotionally powerful subject of death. Sometimes it is the death of a loved one or perhaps they themselves had almost died. This is where some one told them about how Jesus got beaten, crucified, and died for three measly days so that some how they can go to magic happyland forever. They might also be told that if they don’t accept the bribe of magic happyland, the evil boogieman will torture them for all eternity in Hell.

They may be other stories too, but the one thing in common with all of these stories is that the person is overly emotional at the time and not thinking rationally. So when the evangelical comes to my door and tells me their emotionally charged “born again” sob story, I ask them to think about their story rationally. I ask them if they would still be born again if they were not in an overly emotional state of mind at the time and if they could think rationally about the Christian story.

Why did Jesus have to die for their sins to be forgiven? Why does God “need” a blood sacrifice? Since Jesus is alleged to have come back to life after three days before spending eternity in Heavenly bliss, is that even a sacrifice at all? Why does God “need” to work through flawed humans? Can’t he do his own dirty work? Etc.

It is rare if an evangelical were to turn to me and say, “Golly gee, you’re right. This Christianity stuff is crap.” But what usually happens is that they will try to argue the point and then go home and think about it for awhile.

It is easy for people to fall prey to emotional trickery. It takes no time at all to feel like you are feeling of seeing something you are not. But thinking takes time. People need to have time to ponder, consider, and contemplate for there minds to overcome their emotions. This is how atheists unwitness.

Filed under: Preaching, Religion, Religious Manipulation, conversation, de-conversion, delusion, discussion, missionaries | 2 Comments »

If I had a dime for every time a Christian told me that, “You Just Don’t Understand the Bible,” I would be a rich man. Maybe they are right and I really don’t understand the Bible. That is certainly a strong possibility.

I have read the Bible cover-to-cover and I have spent some time reading various people’s opinions about what it all means (from various believers and non-believers). I a have discussed the Bible with various believers in depth. I’ve gone to Bible Studies and Hebrew Schools. Even so, it still maybe true that I really don’t understand the Bible.

However, if the Bible was writing by the Hoy Spirit of God through inspired chosen people, than one would think that the perfect creator of the universe would make his divine text easier to understand. This is especially true if you consider hat if someone doesn’t understand it correctly, they could be tortured for all eternity in Hell (I think I understood that part correctly).

Besides, many Christians tell me that the Bible says contradictory things. One Christian tells me that God loves all people while others tell me that “God hates fags.” The Bible says that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination and even suggests that gay people should be murdered and yet murder is against the Ten Commandments. So I am a little confused. Most Christians tell me that Jesus is all about peace, but the Bible says the exact opposite. Matthew 10:34 states point blank that Jesus didn’t come to bring peace, but rather came to bring violence.

Maybe I don’t really understand the Bible, but after reading it I am not all that sure that most Christians understand the Bible either.

Filed under: Biblical Scholarship, Real Christians, Religion, ignorance, the bible | 23 Comments »

Since the only thing that all atheists must have in common due to their atheism is a lack of belief in deities, it is only natural that atheists will argue with other atheists over other issues. That makes sense and I don’t have any problems with that. However, there are too few atheists and far too many religious to be fighting among ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong, I think when two atheists want to debate philosophy or politics it is fun and insightful. But when it comes to arguing with atheists over atheism, I think we are just wasting our time.

Greg Epstein comes to mind. I have written about this before. I fully support Epstein’s efforts to form a religious atheism even though I don’t really think it is for me. I also support his efforts to form a strong atheist community. But my issue with him has been that he spends more time arguing against other atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett than he does promoting his brand of atheism.

I have been a strong advocate of multiple approaches. While my approach has traditionally been more in line with Harris and Dawkins, I think atheists like Epstein should try to play nice with those on the Religious Left.

The fact is that Epstein and Dawkins have the same goal and that is to promote reason over faith. We are all on the same side and while we may disagree with each other on various points we should be united in our goal. More importantly, we should spend out time, energy, and efforts on that goal rather than going after those within the atheist community we disagree with.

If you see an atheist that you think is giving atheism a bad name (whatever that means), I think it would be far better to simply let people know that atheism isn’t a religion. We aren’t all on the same page and that you don’t support that person’s approach. Your approach is different. Then you can talk about your approach.

This applies to the anti-Bill Maher crowd too. It is one thing to disagree with other atheists on particular issues and to have that discussion on those issues. But keep it on that issue and not on the person or their efforts to promote reason over faith.

Filed under: Atheism NOT Religion, People of Reason, atheism, culture war | 5 Comments »

There is an issue that generally comes up with creationists in particular. For some reason, some creations believe that if they attack Charles Darwin, they are attacking the scientific theory of evolution. What they don’t understand is that while Darwin wrote the book The Origin of Species, he isn’t the authoritative source of evolution.

When people of reason question whether or not the gospels were actually written by the names ascribed to them it is a direct attack on Christianity itself. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even Paul (although he wasn’t a Gospel writer) didn’t actually write the New Testament, then those parts of the New Testament are meaningless from a religious standpoint.

Why is it that atheists can attack the Bible by attacking its authors, but Christians can’t attack evolution by attacking the author of the Origin of Species? Simple, we are dealing with two different types of books.

Some books are written by people who have observed things that anyone could have observed. Or, perhaps the author of some books had written about something that he or she has researched, but that anyone can take the time to follow the author’s trail and do that research for themselves. These books are information based books. Their authority comes not from the author, but rather from the information presented.

On the other hand, there are books which are from a more eyewitness perspective like the Gospels or a memoir. For example, I read a fascinating book about the Fundamentalist Mormon Church (FLDS) called Stolen Innocence by Elissa Wall. This book was her first hand account of being in the FLDS Church and how she escaped from it. If for some bizarre reason, someone could show that she had nothing to do with the writing of that book, then the book would no longer have authority because it is a first hand account.

The Gospels are alleged to be first hand accounts and so if those accounts are put into question, then the entire New Testament and all of Christianity are called into question. On the hand, if Kirk Cameron’s accusations are true and Darwin hated women and supported Nazism, does that reflect negatively on the scientific theory of Evolution? Not in the slightest bit do those accusations even if true (which they aren’t) reflect on the theory.

First hand accounts like Stolen Innocence or the Gospels only have the authority that is given to them by their authors. If we discovered that the author of a first person account was a pathological liar or a drug addict that would reflect negatively on their account. But if a book’s authority is derived from the knowledge within the book rather than its author, then attacking the author does nothing to attack the book’s authority. This is the difference between authoritative vs. information based books.

On a side note: I would highly recommend Stolen Innocence by Elissa Wall. It was a fascinating look at how religion can poison and control people. In fact, I just added it to the Dangerous Talk Amazon Store so if you buy it from there Dangerous Talk will get a small commission.

Filed under: Authority, Biblical Scholarship, Religion, evolution, ray comfort | 1 Comment »

Back in the day, there was a popular religious phrase that people used. People didn’t ask whether someone believed in God but rather asked if you were a “God fearing” individual. In the age of public relations and individual empowerment, theists no longer use this phrase.

Today, people don’t like to be afraid. When most people fear something, they usually have a good reason for such a fear. Terrorism is a good example. After 911, people were afraid of terrorists. Does that mean that terrorists must love us? Of course it doesn’t. That doesn’t make any sense. But that is how believers viewed God.

If you don’t worship the cloud that God floats on, he will smite you and damn you to Hell to be tortured for all eternity. You should be afraid and you should worship him. That was the way people viewed God not all that long ago.

Today, this reasoning doesn’t resonate with most empowered Americans who don’t like to be afraid. The stick doesn’t work on the modern American in the same way, so religion tends to use the carrot a lot more now. God is love and he cares about you and will reward you in Heaven with an eternal paradise of bliss. Oh, and when you get to Heaven there will be trillions of dollars waiting for you and a porn star (because 72 virgins just doesn’t cut it here in the States).

Personally, I like the “God Fearing” phrase because is shows the bronze-age thinking that has gone into these religions. I’m a more modern American and when someone threatens to send me to be eternally tortured, my first instinct is to fight back. I think many religious people feel that way too and that is why you don’t hear people asking if someone is “God fearing” anymore.

Filed under: God Fearing, Religion | 3 Comments »

Today is the President’s first official State of the Union Address. But what is the state of our union with respect to atheism?

According to the ARIS Poll done at the end of 2008 non-belief has been up not just all across the nation but in every single state. Obama has reversed Bush’s policy on Stem Cell Research, and state-after-state have been pushing to legalize marriage for everyone. While Obama had given non-believers a shout-out at his inaugural address and included us in some meetings, he has increased the faith-based initiative.

Politics aside, atheists have organized a lot over the course of the past year. With the help of UnitedCoR, atheists have been able to work together with other non-believers. The billboard and bus ad campaigns have generated publicity and new members to atheist organizations.

Atheists have continued to command a strong presence on the internet. There are large communities of atheists on the various social networking sites and on YouTube. Atheist Nexus has continued to grow and has become a safe haven and networking tool for atheists around the world.

Greg Epstein has pushed his atheism 3.0 and helped to give a positive face to atheism. Even though I am critical of Epstein’s 3.0 in that he seems to want to fight against atheists rather than theists I still see his efforts as useful.

We still have a long road ahead of us and we still need to not only keep up these efforts but come up with new efforts that will help advance the cause of reason over faith. New ideas are welcome.

Filed under: People of Reason, atheism | No Comments »