• Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Adsense

  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • Atheist Blogroll

    Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

Welcome to Dangerous Talk


 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.

Breaking News: Stephen Hawking Doesn’t Believe in God

Even though physicist Stephen Hawking has been an atheist for quite some time, this seemed to be breaking news yesterday. Don’t get me wrong, I think Hawking did make breaking news yesterday, but it wasn’t his lack of belief in a deity.

The media has a really short attention span, because it was just three months ago that they had the same breaking news when Hawking gave an interview in which he stated, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

Still, for some strange reason, the media is convinced that Doctor Hawking was a fundamentalist Christian because he stated in his book, “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.” To a scientist, such a statement is equivalent to saying “God bless you,” when someone sneezes.

As for the real breaking news, Hawking stated that the gap in our knowledge which was filled with God pertaining to the creation of the universe has been closed. According to Hawking, based on the evidence there is no reason why a deity would be needed to create the universe. He has actually suggested something similar before, but now he has the evidence to back it up.

This means that a god is not needed to fill the role of a creator and toward the end of the year Sam Harris will show the evidence which will close the god gap in morality. As we keep closing these gaps, God is finding a hard time finding things to have done. In other words, Christians are running out of things to give God credit for. Soon, the only thing left for God to claim credit for will be some touchdown or rap award.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Holes in the Jeffersonian Wall

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from someone who works at a state agency in the Bible Belt. The head of the agency often uses working lunches and meetings to conduct a short prayer session. According to the e-mail, this happens often and most people just go along with it rather than risk their jobs. Most may even be religious and have no objections to it.

First, this is illegal and anyone who experiences anything similar to this should contact their local ACLU right away. These types of religious people have no problem forcing their beliefs on everyone else and they are not afraid to break the law to do it. In their view, they are obeying God’s Law.

In addition to the ACLU, there is someone else that should be contacted. I am a member and former board member of the Freethought Society. At the time that I was a board member, we were mainly just a Philadelphia organization, but now the organization is becoming more of a national group. This organization has been trying to document discrimination against atheists. This information might be used in larger national cases down the road, but for now it is just important to document them and make sure they are on the record. Find out more about the Freethought Society’s Anti-Discrimination Network HERE and if you are a victim of discrimination due to your lack of belief, please download this PDF form and send it to Margaret Downey of the Freethought Society.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bitter and Angry Much

It seems that no matter how jolly I am when it comes out that I don’t believe in a deity; Christians always assume that I must be bitter and angry just because I don’t believe in their deity of choice. While I can be critical of their God and their whole religion for that matter, I rarely do it in a bitter or angry way despite the fact that Christianity ought to make any sane and rational person angry.

It seems that the fundamentalist Christian view is that without Jesus, people are bitter and angry by default. Perhaps they believe that only atheists are angry and bitter. It seems to be a stereotype that Christians have about atheists that has no real basis at all. Being in the greater atheist community, I rarely if ever meet atheists who are angry and bitter people. They do exist, but no more than in the general population.

On the other hand, there is a stereotype that many fundamentalist Christians seem to exhibit. It seems that fundamentalist Christians often are as George Carlin put it, “more then happy.” They seem to hide their true emotions and put on a Ned Flanders type front. Underneath the super jolly front, they hid a lot of anger and bitterness.

Maybe these fundamentalist Christians are just projecting their own anger and bitterness on atheists. Or perhaps they see atheist actually express their feelings openly rather then hid them as they do.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are Atheists Charitable?

Of course atheists are charitable. That is a pretty silly question. We can point to the fact that atheist billionaires have donated half their fortunes to charity and have encouraged other billionaires to do the same.

The fact is that most atheists don’t donate in the name of atheism. We just donate to organizations on our own as individuals. But how much are we donating to atheist infrastructure?

Almost every atheist organization I know is always in need of funds. Whether it is a local atheist group or larger groups like American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Center For Inquiry, or others are all in desperate need of donations. While it would be great if Brad Pitt and Bill Maher would donate a ton of money to these groups, the fact is that atheists with slightly less money need to donate too; even if that is just a $35 donation every now and then. Consider these donations to be investments in reason.

Speaking of donating to atheist causes, let me remind you that there is a contribution button on the sidebar… hint, hint.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Devil’s Due

Jean-Luc Picard
Image via Wikipedia

A number of years ago, I met a young Christian who was telling me his story about how he used to be addicted to drugs, alcohol, and sex. He told me that his life was spiraling out of control and no one he could do could save him. Then along came Jesus to the rescue. Now that he was “Born Again” his life had gotten so much better and he couldn’t have done it without Jesus. So I had to tell him about the one true God, Jean-Luc Picard.

The story that this Christian told me is a very popular narrative and I have heard it or some variation of it many times. Of course Jesus had nothing to do with the Christian’s recovery and Captain Picard from Star Trek: The Next Generation made the best argument against Jesus saving these people’s lives.

There was an episode called Devil’s Due in which the Enterprise received a distress single from a planet that was suffering from mass hysteria. The people on the planet have lived in peace and relative harmony for a thousand years and now all of a sudden everyone was in a panic and violence was breaking out. According to the Bible… I mean “ancient scrolls,” a thousand years ago there planet was at war fighting over resources, there was lots of pollution in the air and water, and the planet was in general bad shape. Then the Devil came and offered them a thousand years of peace in return for their immortal souls at the end of the thousand years. Well, not the end of days has arrived and the people of this planet feared the Devil’s return to collect.

Captain Picard of course tried to reason with them and to assure them that there is no Devil, but the people on the planet insisted that they could not have saved themselves and that the story about the Devil was real. To Captain Picard’s surprise, the Devil actually showed up.

Picard of course had to challenge the Devil in a sort of trial and at one point he had the planet’s president on the stand for questioning. He asked him about the state of the planet prior to the deal with the Devil. Again, the president was convinced that the Devil saved the planet and that they couldn’t have done it without the Devil’s help. When Picard asked the President about the actual nuts and bolts of the changes that occurred, the truth was revealed.

Did the Devil wave her magic hand and stop all wars? No, the leaders of the various nations got together and realized that they could not keep fighting over resources so they made a series of treaties. Did the Devil wave her hand and magically clean up the air and water pollution? No, the people switched from an industrial based society to an agrarian based life. Did the Devil hand out food to the hungry? No, with the new agrarian lifestyle they had plenty of food to feed the hungry. Did the Devil “even so-much as pick up a single piece of trash?” The answer to all of the questions was obvious. The Devil didn’t do damn thing, it was the people of the planet that did all the work “all by themselves.”

Now, swap out the Devil for Jesus and the planet’s problems for the problems of drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Did Jesus magically suck the poisons out? Did Jesus flush away the hidden stash? Did Jesus even pure a single glass of alcohol down the drain? No, the addict did it all, all by his or her self.

All Jesus actually did was to provide an excuse for the addict to decide for themselves that it was time to clean up their act. Jesus at best is a placebo and at worst, Jesus acts as a replacement addiction. Christian simply trade one addiction for another.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Woe is it to be a Christian

I always have to laugh when some Christian cries about the horrible persecution they suffer because they aren’t allowed to discriminate against gays or force their religion and values down everyone the throats of others like they used to. Woe it is to be a Christian today, lol.

Yesterday, I blogged about how the Catholic Religion is nearing the tipping point that might send it into the pit of dead religions. Well, after tweeting the link to the blog, some Christian sent me a link to his page where he talked about how in Britain, Muslims don’t have to wear a motorcycle helmet and no one objects to Muslim women wearing their head scarves at work yet one airline apparently prohibits the wearing of crucifixes.

Let’s analyze this a little bit. First, while I think he makes a valid point about the motorcycle helmets, I don’t typically think of Muslims rolling in on Harleys. It is a bit weak. As far as no one objecting to the head scarf, that has to do with people’s attitudes and belief in tolerance. Interestingly enough, there is currently a case in which a woman was fired from her job for wearing her head scarf in America. The issue was to do with work place dress codes. This ought to apply to crucifixes too as it appears it does with that one airline in Britain. It isn’t about religion at all.

This Christian then complained about how Christians can’t run adoption agencies on “Christian principles” because they want to discriminate against gays. Cry me a river. Oh know the western nations are actually treating Christians equally instead of giving their ridiculous cult special exemptions from the law; except of course the whole exemption from taxes, the free advertising on currency, in our national motto, in our pledge, and from just about every politician in the nation. And that is just the beginning of Christian woes in western nations, lol.

What a bunch of whinny bitches, no wonder Christians are always so nostalgic for the past when they could discriminate, torture, and burn people to death just for a hint that such people might not agree on the official Church doctrine. Ah yes, George Carlin put it best when he said, “Do you believe in God?” “No.” Boom! Dead. “Do you believe in God?” “Yes…” “Do you believe in my God?” “No.” Boom! Dead. “My god has a bigger dick than your god!” What he should have added was, “Do you believe in my God?” “Yes.” “Do you believe in my God in my way?” “No.” Boom! Dead.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Catholic Church Doomed?

While the media has a short memory and have already stopped talking about the massive child rape, child molestation, and the Vatican’s efforts to cover it all up, many actual Catholics haven’t forgotten so easily. As a result, many Catholics are leaving (or at least attempting to leave) the Church. How close is the Catholic Church to the tipping point of doom?

The problem isn’t just the sex scandals; they have been going on for decades. The Church is facing other challenges that the former Pope recognized, but that the current Pope does not. Modernity is a bitch and she is slapping the shit out of the Catholic Church.

Don’t get me wrong, the last Pope thought that homosexuality is a sin, that condom use is mass murder, and all the other absurdities. The difference is that this Pope is actually saying this stuff out loud in a very vocal fashion. In America, the Catholic Church now has a fundamentalist wing most represented by Bill Donahue’s Catholic League and now Michael Voris’ Real Catholic TV. The Catholic Church has clowns running around as their spokespeople and a nut as their ringleader.

The Catholic Church has been around for almost two-thousand years, so I don’t expect it to come to and end overnight. But if they continue on their current course, they may reach the tipping point and start going down hill very quickly. With that in mind, I think it is important to keep the pressure on them and to continue to expose the dangers of even moderate association with the Church.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Satire Evangelists vs. The Real Thing

Yesterday, I shared a video from my new favorite Christian, Michael Voris. When I first saw his videos, I wasn’t sure he was for real. Many other people had similar doubts. On the other hand, many atheists who initially watched Edward Current videos on YouTube thought he was for real despite being so over the top in his obviously satirical fashion. What does this mean?

I think that it is really interesting that Christians have gotten so bat-shit crazy that it is actually hard to tell the Christian satire from the real thing. How do you lampoon a religion which pretty much lampoons themselves? I am not sure how one can do religious satire anymore with out someone thinking that they might be serious.

I wonder how over the top a satirist has to go for people to say, “Oh, that is obviously satire.” What if a “Christian” advocated a dictatorship? Would that be so over the top that it just couldn’t be a real Christian? Surely something that ridiculous must be a satire, right? Wrong, my favorite Christian Michael Voris had just such a video. It seems that his video got a lot of negative reactions from people so he took it down. But not to worry, once someone says something that crazy in front of a camera, there is no way to erase it. For the record, I actually did see the original on his channel a few days ago and Voris actually commented on the video in another of his daily self-lampoons.



Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

My New Favorite Christian

Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with Christians on the nature of reality and I think that Christianity is the most dangerous force humanity has ever known I have nothing against Christians as people. It isn’t their fault they have been so fooled by the Christian system. Because no two Christians are the same, so I do have my favorites. Especially among the evangelical and apologist Christians I have my favorites.

Last week, thanks to the all powerful Twitter, I stumbled upon a Christian evangelical apologist I had never heard before on YouTube. I watched a few of his videos and I have to say that this guy is great. In fact, he is my new favorite Christian.

What I like about this guy is that he is completely ridiculous. When I first watched one of his videos, I actually wasn’t sure he was for real. Part of me actually thought his video was satire, but as it turns out he is completely serious.

I also love how in some cases, he actually argues against other Christians and in so doing, makes my points for me. The thing is that he is too wrapped up in his own bullshit to realize that the arguments he makes against the other Christians apply just as well to his own brand of Christianity.

So without further ad due I give you Michael Voris of Catholic TV:


Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Atheist Nay Sayers

I think this is a problem with any minority group which has had to fight for acceptance so I don’t think atheists are in general pessimistic. In fact, most atheists I know tend to be pretty optimistic. But for some reason, whenever an atheist is trying to make a difference and to do something for the good of the community there tend to be those atheist nay sayers.

Here is a great example. Over the weekend, I wrote an Examiner article about a candidate for US Congress who is openly atheist. While I certainly got a fair amount of people who are encouraged by this and who have decided to donate a few dollars to his campaign, I got far more responses from people telling me how this guy can’t win because atheists can’t win in politics.

Now maybe these nay sayers are just trying to come up with an excuse for not donating to his campaign, but there really shouldn’t need one. No one is guilt tripping them into donating to his campaign (but it would be helpful if they did). The best thing about the internet is it is anonymous. So how the fuck would I know if some other atheist in Nebraska didn’t donate to some politician in Virginia? No one is watching how much money to put into a collection plate if anything at all. I think it is helpful to donate to an atheist politician who values reason and has a progressive agenda. But that is just me.

What isn’t helpful is this bullshit that the guy can’t win because he is an open atheist. It is that type of negative attitude which helps to keep atheists from actually running for office and prevents other people from taking us seriously. We have an up hill battle for acceptance as it is and there are always going to be negativity from religious people about everything we do. We really don’t need Debbie Downers from our own camp.

With that being said, constructive analysis is always welcome and encouraged on any endeavor, but the defeatism is just unproductive. What would these nay sayers have us do, give up and let the Religious Right demonize us unchallenged? Should we just let the Religious Right continue to force their ridiculous superstitions on us and not attempt to fight back or stand up for ourselves?

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 5): Masturbation

In this final installment of my response to Jeffrey T. Kuhner’s article “Why God is Great,” I want to talk about a few paragraphs within his article dealing with sexuality. In fact, I would like to even focus on Mr. Kuhner’s particular view of masturbation.

First, I would like to give credit where credit is due. Kuhner actually did have a paragraph in which he came close to articulating Christopher Hitchens’ actual position on a subject. While in the last blog article, I pointed out that Kuhner claimed Hitchens only hates the Catholic Church because of their alleged anti-communistic position, but in the previous paragraph of his article, Kuhner went on to give some of the real reasons Hitchens has such a dislike of the Catholic Church. Is Jeff’s memory so short that he couldn’t remember what he had written just one paragraph earlier? Here is what Kuhner has to say:

“The one institution Mr. Hitchens despises above all, however, is the Catholic Church. In his view, it is a primitive, medieval institution founded upon lies, anti-Semitism and sexual oppression – the means by which a clerical theocracy controls human beings by dictating their sexual behavior. He has smeared – without any concrete evidence – Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict not only for purportedly coddling pedophile priests, but for encouraging mass “child rape” and “child slavery.” Moreover, he stresses that the church is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of AIDS victims because of its stance on contraception – despite the fact that, if followed, the church’s teachings make the sexual transmission of the disease impossible.”

For the record, the Catholic Church is a primitive, medieval institution. It certainly wasn’t created yesterday. Also, since the Church has yet to prove the existence of their deity and has arguably built a business and an empire around lies, this claim seems to also be true. Does anyone remember indulgences? That was the practice in which the Catholic Church told people that they would go to Heaven if they paid the Church enough money. I have to think that the Church officials at the time knew this was not true. I can’t believe they could have honestly been that delusional. But I guess when dealing with the deeply religious anything is possible.

The claim that the Church was at one time and perhaps still is to some extent anti-Semitic is obviously true. This isn’t to say that all Catholics are anti-Semitic, but it is to say that at certain points during the Church’s history the leadership was certainly anti-Semitic. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and the Church leadership at the time did give some support to his efforts. With that said, there were of course brave clergy who did the right thing during that difficult time and hid Jews just as there are brave clergy today who do what they can to protect the victims of clerical rape. But the leadership of the Catholic Church is not so brave.

As a point of fact, there is evidence to support the claim that John Paul II knew that child rape was going on and gave the current Pope the job of dealing with it. There is also stronger evidence that Pope Benedict before becoming Pope was chiefly responsible for moving priests around the world to evade being caught. This is of course the current scandal which has gotten a lot of press all over the world.

As far as the AIDS epidemic on the African continent goes, the Pope’s view of contraception and the Catholic Church’s propagation of the idea that it is better to die from AIDS than to use condoms and live costs millions of lives a year. That is a stone cold fact.

But Kuhner also mentioned that Hitchens believes that, “clerical theocracy controls human beings by dictating their sexual behavior.” This is where I will post another brief paragraph of this article:

“Mr. Hitchens also champions anti-Catholic bigotry because the church opposes the left’s radical sexual agenda. Mr. Hitchens is a virulent supporter of abortion, homosexuality and even – I am not making this up – masturbation.”

That’s right folks; Jeffrey Kuhner is not making this up. Christopher Hitchens actually supports masturbation. Holy fucking shit. After centuries of Catholic lies to school aged children about masturbation causing hairy palms, boldness, and eternal torture in Hell, here comes crazy old Hitchens telling people the truth that masturbation is completely harmless.

As much as I find it interesting that Kuhner considers a woman’s right to an abortion and homosexuality to be a “radical sexual agenda,” the fact that he considers masturbation to be even more radical is fascinating. Yeah, we have all heard the Church’s position on abortion and homosexuality before and yeah, we have even heard the Church’s opposition to masturbation before. That isn’t anything new. But few Catholic apologists actually focus on masturbation these days. To my knowledge, no one except Kuhner considers it even more radically deviant than abortion and homosexuality. That’s kind of new to me.

If that is really Jeffrey Kuhner’s priority then there is no wonder he is so sexually frustrated. He probably has a huge hard on for Hitchens but is afraid to masturbate to him. It does seem like all these wacky Christians who are anti-gay turn out to be gay, so I wonder if Kuhner will get caught literally with his pants down any time soon.

As for me, I plan on printing out Mr. Kuhner’s article and masturbating all over it just so God will send me to Hell for it. How awesome would it be if when I got to Hell, Satan asked me why I was there and I told him that I “spilled the seed” on Jeffrey Kuhner’s crappy article. Of course there is no Satan and no Hell, so maybe I’ll just settle for going to a Catholic confessional and relating my “crime” to some sexually frustrated priest. But if he asks me to go into the back room, I am so out of there.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 4): Fellow Traveler

In my forth blog post addressing Jeffrey T. Kuhner’s Washington Times article, “God is Great” I will focus on Kuhner’s ignorance about history and logic. I will also discuss his unquestioning political dogmatism. In the article, Kuhner makes a point to his fellow conservatives that Christopher Hitchens is NOT a “fellow traveler,” but rather Hitchens is an evil Communist. *Face Palm*

“Because of Mr. Hitchens’ support for the war on terror, many conservatives have falsely embraced him as a fellow traveler.”

Really Jeff, do you not know the history behind the phrase “Fellow Traveler?” This was a phrase used largely during the McCarthy Era to describe Communist supporters. So in one simple line of this article Kuhner equates conservatives with Communists. The irony is that almost half of Kuhner’s article deals with trying to label Hitchens as a Communist.

“That Mr. Hitchens remains a militant atheist should come as no surprise. He is an unadulterated Bolshevik.”

This is the text book definition of the ad hominem fallacy. Before we get into the nearly half of the article which attempts to label Hitchens as the before mentioned, “unadulterated Bolshevik,” it really needs to be pointed out that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Labeling Hitchens as a Communist does nothing to discredit his arguments addressing religion nor does it support any arguments in favor of religion. It is simply a red herring.

As mentioned before, Kuhner took almost half of his article to attacking Hitchens’ alleged political leanings. He went on at some length to point out that Hitchens opposed the Vietnam conflict and many of Reagan’s foreign policy decisions. This he considers supportive of Communism. The interesting reality is that most Americans were opposed to the Vietnam conflict and many Americans considered the particular foreign policy decisions of Ronald Reagan that Kuhner points out to be poor and even illegal. While Kuhner has every right to try to defend the invasion of Grenada and arming the Contras, calling those who disagree with him on these issues Communists is silly.

I don’t think one can put simple labels on Hitchens’ political philosophies throughout the years. While he certainly supported certain aspects of socialism it is ridiculous to insinuate that he supported the systematic murders of tens of millions carried out by Stalin. Despite the lengthy attempt to link Hitchens to the worst crimes of Communism, Kuhner really doesn’t go into any real depth in the nuances of Hitchens’ positions. Kuhner’s argument amounts to, “Hitchens thought Lenin was a great leader, therefore Hitchens is an evil Communist who supported everything Lenin and anything other Communists did.” One can admire someone’s leadership ability and even some aspects of their philosophy without having to support everything they do.

Why is all this important? It really isn’t, but according to Kuhner, “Mr. Hitchens loathes Catholicism for one simple reason: It was the Church that stood as the most powerful and consistent force against the communist occupation of Eastern Europe.” And I thought Mr. Hitchens loathed the Catholic Church because large numbers of Catholic priests fucked and continue to fuck children and the Catholic Church systematically has tried to cover it up. Among other atrocities of course.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 3): Christian Morals

Today’s installment of the series dealing with Jeffrey T. Kuhner’s article entitled, “Why God is Great” deals with one of my favorite subjects, morality. But Kuhner isn’t making the old moral grounding argument this time. Instead, he is making the moral norms argument.

Interestingly enough, I first heard this argument while watching Christopher Hitchen’s film “Coalition.” In the film, Hitchens and fundamentalist Christian Douglas Wilson go behind the scenes of their debate tour. Wilson introduces quite a few arguments in the film and Hitchens does not counter them in the film. This “moral norms argument” is one of the arguments Wilson makes.

This argument asserts that the western world has received our morality directly from the Christian tradition. The interesting thing about this argument is that it actually refutes the better known Christian moral grounding argument. In other words, we have two competing arguments for the origins of morality from Christians. The first is that God has divinely grounded morality in every human being’s soul and the second is this argument that Christians are responsible for the moral norms of society.

While there is some overlap within these two ideas, they do actually compete. Both of them cannot be true at the same time in the same way. Either God put morality into our “souls” or Christians created our moral norms. Yes, Christians claim to have gotten those norms from God, but that isn’t enough of an overlap to solve this contradiction.

The really interesting part is that Wilson and Kuhner are in some cases correct in this “Christian moral norms” argument. There is no doubt that at least some of America’s moral norms do come from the 2000 plus years of Christian tyranny. I will get into some of the specifics of those “moral norms” in a later article in this series.

Kuhner states in his article: “He (Hitchens) denounces the existence of God while simultaneously living off the ethical norms established by the Judeo-Christian tradition.” He claims that one example is “the sacred nature of human life,” which Kuhner claims is a “direct result of our Christian heritage.” While I am willing to admit that some of the moral norms in America do come from a Christian heritage, this isn’t it.

It seems that according to Kuhner, the only reason why Americans consider human life sacred is because the Bible says so. In other words, every tradition that was not established by the Judeo-Christian tradition must not value human life. The Jains must be stone cold killers.

I think atheist George Carlin put it best when he said that “the leading cause of death was God.” He went on to say:

“Do you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. Why? Because we’re alive; self interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that life is sacred. You don’t see Abbott and Costello running around talking about this shit, do you? We’re not hearing a whole lot from Mussolini on the subject. What’s the latest from JFK? Not a fucking thing because Abbott and Costello, Mussolini, and JFK are fucking dead and dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life.”

Sorry Jeff, but the sacred nature of human life doesn’t come from Christianity. In fact, most of our moral norms don’t either. It seems that the only moral norms that actually do come from Christianity have to do with Christianity’s hatred of sexuality. But that is an article for later in this series.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 3): Christian Morals

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 2): Catholic Bigots

In Jeffrey T. Kuhner’s article, Why God is Great, he makes the ridiculous claim that, “Mr. Hitchens is unable to restrain his anti-Catholic bigotry.” This is not a new claim that Catholic apologists make and I have probably even written about it before. But it is worth addressing again.

You can’t be a bigot against an idea. I know that people are indoctrinated into religious ideas to the point that many people seem to think that religion and race are the same, but they are not. Race is something you are born into and cannot change (Michael Jackson not withstanding). Religion is an idea which can be abandoned in light of better ideas.

In a resent article on The Daily Beast, Sam Harris wrote the following:

“It is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.”

Harris was actually talking about Islam here, but it just as easily applicable to any religion including Catholicism. Just as Islam is not a race, Catholicism is also not a race. So one cannot be racist against a religion nor can someone be bigoted toward a religion. Hitchens is very good at criticizing the Catholic belief system and he has no problem criticizing the behavior of particular members of the Catholic Church (i.e. pedophile priests, Vatican officials, and the Pope).

Criticizing an idea, belief, or belief system is not the same as hating people who hold those beliefs. In no instance that I am aware of has Christopher Hitchens stated or implied that he hates ALL Catholics. All Mr. Hitchens is guilty of is criticizing the beliefs that Catholics are supposed to hold (note that not all Catholics actually hold all those beliefs).

On the charge that Hitchens is a “Catholic Bigot,” Jeffrey T. Kuhner fails to prove his case. The idea is that the term “bigot” has a negative connotation and so Kuhner thinks that he can win points by labeling his opponent with such a term.

A good way to cement this point is to use the old Nazi analogy. It is important to note that whenever Nazis are used in an example people want to make the leap that a comparison is being made with the Nazis. This is not the case and I want that to be very clear. The Nazis are used in an example because they are universally despised (rightly so).  Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, here is the analogy:

If someone were to make a statement that the Nazis did lots of immoral things, few if anyone would consider this a bigoted statement against all Nazis. Surely, one isn’t suggesting that every single Nazi was immoral. But rather that the Nazi leadership did immoral things and/or that Nazis ideology is immoral. Like Catholicism, people aren’t born Nazis. It is an ideology. So when someone like Hitchens claims that Catholicism is immoral, he is not claiming that every individual Catholic is immoral, but rather the leadership and the doctrine are immoral. That is not a form a bigotry.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Hitchens is Great (Part 1): Introduction

On Friday, a Dangerous Talker sent me an interesting article from the Washington Times. The article was written by conservative columnist and talk show commentator, Jeffrey T. Kuhner and was entitled, “Why God is great.” It was basically an attack piece on Christopher Hitchens.

After reading the article, I thought that I would spend a week or more addressing some of Mr. Kuhner’s points because they are ridiculously weak and some of them have been used by other religionists on a somewhat regular basis.

I know it seems odd to spend this much time on one article, but I think it will be worth the journey. There are many interesting points in this article and are worth dissecting. Keep in mind that I said “interesting,” not “valid.” Sometimes the worst arguments for a position can be just as interesting as the best arguments. At nothing else, the worst arguments are at least entertaining.

I will make one note in advance that while I am planning to write at least a week’s worth of blogs on this one article, if some other breaking news story or issue of interest comes up, I might have to interrupt this series.

If you would like to read the article, here is the link. But I should warn you in advance that it is long and crappy. Part 2 of this series will be about the idea of “Catholic Bigotry” or any type of religious bigotry or that matter.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Open Letter to Anne Rice

I know the Anne Rice thing is getting old. The story has been around for a few weeks now and I just can’t let it go. Like I did with Stephen Baldwin, I have written an open letter to Anne Rice. I am confident she will read it since she has been so accessible in the past. Let me know what you think before I will send it to her on Monday.

Dear Anne,
I was a big fan of your Vampire Chronicles growing up. My favorite book was Pandora. But when you had returned to Christianity I was crushed. I am glad that you left Christianity again, but I worry that the tentacles of the Christian system of belief still has such a hold on you.

Many of my atheist and humanist friends consider Christians to be stupid. They often think about the Fox News watching, fundamentalist, homophobes who blindly reiterate the talking points of their priests and popular fundamentalist apologists when they make such claims. I never really thought that Christians were stupid though. I have many Christian friends who are very intelligent and there are also many famous Christians who are obviously intelligent like Francis Collins. Of course, most atheists and humanists were also at one time Christians and yet many of these very same people are the ones calling Christians stupid.

The point I am trying to make here is that despite the fact that the Christian story has more plot holes that a Michael Bay film and is ridiculously stupid, it has created a system of belief which can bypass the intellect of moral people of all levels of intelligence.

It starts at a young age. Most people in our society are indoctrinated with religion before they are able to think clearly and independently. People learn about God before they even learn about Santa Claus. Even if some people like yourself are about to break away from this indoctrination, it is still there. It lies dormant and waits for the right moment to reassert itself. People don’t reason back into belief because the story of Christ is unreasonable. No, the belief waits until someone is in emotional turmoil. It waits for when a person’s emotions are clouding their intellectual abilities and then it reasserts itself as a callback to the time when the person was young and felt the joy and comfort of a child.

The comfort of our childhood is linked to our indoctrination in religious ideas and beliefs. So the brain is tricked into accepting these ridiculous ideas out of a craving for our youthful innocence and comfort. This is how religion gets people, Anne.

What happened in your life which brought you back to religion back in 1995? Were you in emotional turmoil or did you reason the Christian system of belief after reading the divine logic that is the Bible. Surely the vicarious redemption for wrong doing through barbaric blood sacrifice is not intellectually convincing? Such a convoluted scheme is not worthy of any all powerful deity and yet even though you have rejected Christianity, you still seem to cling to the belief that Jesus died for people’s sins.

The evil of the Christian system of belief is that it is extremely difficult to break from that belief system even when one breaks from the religion itself. While it is sometimes more comforting to believe in happy fairy tales, the reality of this world is infinitely more comforting in the long run. It is the knowledge that we are still learning and that we don’t yet have the certainty that religion claims o have. It is the knowledge of human potential and that while we were not created special by an all powerful being; we have the ability to become special through our continued education about the universe we live in.

Look at what we have learned about the universe we inhabit. We discovered these things as a species. This wasn’t divine knowledge passed to us passively. No, we figured this stuff out on our own and we are still figuring things out because we are smart and clever. We have devised a system that helps us to learn what is true and what is not. That system is the scientific method and it doesn’t rely on someone’s chaotic emotional state, but waits until someone is as clear minded and objective as one could be.

Faith and Science are in conflict Anne. Faith is belief based on things hoped for by yet not seen. It is belief with no evidence. Science and reason are based on the evidence.

We are all on a journey to find meaning in our lives and while I am happy that your journey has taken you away from Christianity, your journey has not yet come to an end. Please Anne, keep searching for meaning and keep examining your beliefs and re-examine your beliefs. Socrates once said that that un-examined life is not worth living. With that in mind, I wish you all the best on your journey.
In Reason,
-Staks Rosch

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Doctor No Says Yes on Proposition 8

There are a lot of Libertarian atheists out there for some bizarre reason. Many worship Congressman Ron Paul the way Christians worship Jesus even though Congressman Paul considers America to be a Christian Nation. I wonder what these Libertarians think about Paul’s position on Proposition 8.

Libertarians always tell me that they want government out of people’s private lives and on the issue of gay marriage… or straight marriage for that matter, Libertarians often take the position that government should not have any involvement at all in issuing marriage licenses. This is a position I actually agree with, but recently the Pope of Libertarianism Congressman Ron Paul came out against same-gender marriage in favor of Proposition 8 which for a short time was a California constitutional ban of same-gender marriage largely funded by the Mormon Church.

I find it interesting that the guy who wears the Constitution on his sleeve seems to have not actually read it. I guess it is a lot like Christians who wear the Bible on their sleeves. I discussed this before when Paul claimed that the Constitution was “replete with references to God.”

Paul’s position is that the people voted to deny gay people the right to marriage and therefore, the State of California should have the state’s rights to deny gay people the right to marry. However, the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) was designed to protect people’s rights from the government (federal and state).

The tenth amendment makes it clear that the states have the power to do whatever they want when it doesn’t conflict with the federal Constitution. It’s a sad day for Ron Paul because the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution provides equal protection under the law for all everyone.

The philosophy behind the Constitution is that we are all born free and that the job of the government is to protect person freedom as much as possible. People can’t simply vote other people’s rights away. That’s not how the Constitution works. Could you imagine if it did? Next election, we could vote away the rights of Republicans to vote.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Speaking Engagement

I have been a vocal atheist for almost twenty years now and have been an active member of the greater atheistic community for about half that time. Over the years, I have discussed and argued with people from many different religions and many different sects of the varying religions. A few years back, I even had the opportunity to appear on television as a representative of the atheist community for a half-hour debate show seen all over Pennsylvania. But I have not had the opportunity to speak in front of a group of people before… until now.

The Lehigh Valley Humanists have asked me to speak at their October meeting. I am pretty excited about it and have a few different topics I am thinking about discussing. As the new coordinator of PhillyCoR, it seems like I should probably speak about organizing atheists and atheist groups. This type of talk would deal with the “good cop/bad cop” problem within atheism. Such a talk would also include the rise of internet atheism and the rise of atheism in America.

On the other hand, my expertise has always been in the argument front. A discussion about de-conversion might be the way to go. This discussion would feature the corruptive force of the Christian system of belief and how it preys on people at their weakest moments.

I might even do a combination of the two. It could be a two act discussion. In any case, it is pretty exciting and I am really looking forward to it. I hope to be able to do more of these types of speaking engagements in the future. Some of the discussion afterward might even help me with the book I am slowly working on writing. Let me know if you have any thoughts about what should be included in my talk.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Coordinating Cats

It’s official; I am now the coordinator of the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason. Basically, this means that it is my job to help the seven atheistic organizations in the Philadelphia area to work together to promote reason and humanistic values.

The problem with coordinating atheists is that we are frequently described as herded cats. We tend to all want to do what we want and not act well as a group. Then we form groups, but those groups tend to not want to work together. So I have my work cut out for me.

While I have had quite a few leadership positions before, I have never been in a leadership position within the atheist community. Already, I have gotten reminders from people that my position is more of a coordinator than a leadership position. Still, I think bringing some leadership to the position might be helpful but the real trick is to not overstep that leadership.

The first step with any type of new position is always to gather knowledge. So that will be my first step. I will be learning about the organizations that I have not had experience with and getting to know their leaders and members. I will essentially become a member of all of these organizations.

The thing that I am most looking forward to with this new position is getting to work with Fred Edwords of UnitedCoR. If you don’t know him, you should. He has quickly become one of my heroes ever since he kicked Bill O’Reilly’s ass on his own show. Don’t believe me? Check it out for yourself:


Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Picnics of Reason

It has been a busy weekend and I will take a few days to talk about everything. Today, I want to talk about the Lehigh Valley Humanist picnic featuring Sam Singleton atheist evangelist… sort of.

I think it is really important for people or reason to have summer picnics. It gives us a chance to hang out and talk. While some of those conversations tend to discuss religion since our unity is centered on our lack of belief, we also talk about other topics too. It is good to know that we can discuss other topics with people who value reason over faith.

At the Lehigh Valley Humanist picnic for example, I got into conversations about politics, science, philosophy, book publishing, and of course the future of the greater atheist movement. Unlike Church conversations, atheists tend not to agree on every issue. This makes conversations more interesting since we get into sometimes heated conversations without resorting to faith or to “that’s what I believe” type bullshit. Everyone is trying to be reasonable and to make their points while willing to change their position if the evidence is convincing enough.

Sam Singleton, Atheist Evangelist was originally supposed to perform at the PhillyCoR picnic a few weeks ago, but his tour had to be re-scheduled. While there was no way to make up the PhillyCoR picnic he was able to schedule the Lehigh Valley Humanist picnic instead. Unfortunately, between Rosco’s car breaking down and getting lost, he came very late to the picnic.

Finally, Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist made it to the picnic and performed a small part of “Patriarchs and Penises.” Sam even ate a baby. It was a fun time and I think more atheist groups should have summer picnics and just casual gatherings just to hang out.


Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Supremely Skeptical

Yesterday, the United States Senate confirmed this nation’s newest Supreme Court Justice, Elana Kagan. But while many of my progressive and freethinker friends are celebrating, I remain skeptical.

For starters, the Court is still middle of the road at best. We have four extremely right wing Justices who will nine times out of ten support the Religious Right on any and all issues that they bring forth. It is all but certain that they will vote to overturn Proposition 8 for example. Then you have five middle of the road Justices any one of which might support the Religious Right if a seemingly strong argument can be made.

There really isn’t a strong progressive Justice to make those strong arguments that might sway the middle of the road Justices. Kagan, is known for being very vocal as is Sotomayor, but will they make strong progressive arguments? It doesn’t seem like they will.

At best the Court is still exactly where it was under Bush and at worst, the absence of Justice Stevens weakens the Jeffersonian Wall. Stevens didn’t just rule to support separation of church and state, he was a strong advocate for that position. Hopefully Kagan will be as strong of an advocate. But that is by no means certain. In the end, time will be the ultimate judge of Obama’s Supreme Court picks.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Do You Like This Proposition?

I am really getting tired of always being on the defensive. Why is it that the Religious Right are always trying to make these ridiculous laws and we are always trying to stop them? I think it is time we go on the offensive for a change.

Dangerous Talk has obtained this video (from YouTube) of Religious Right’s Tamara Scott talking about how we ought to enact Biblical Law and how gay marriage costs tax payers 280 billion dollars according to the fair and balanced Family research Council:

Well, I know of something that costs tax payers a whole lot more that 280 billion dollars a year. It’s called Church Tax-Exemptions and Faith Based Initiatives. Why haven’t we pushed Proposition 666 which would tax all Churches and end federal funding for Faith Based Initiatives? Oh I know, it wouldn’t pass, right?

So what? The fact is that just pushing such a proposition would cause these groups to go on the defensive. Maybe they will think it won’t pass either and not campaign hard against it and be surprised at how many Americans are tired of Churches getting away with all this stuff.

The Mormon Church funded most of the Proposition 8 campaign, why have they not lost their tax-exempt status for political activism? The Catholic Church fucks kids; you would think that would be enough to get their tax-exempt status revoked. Some fundamentalist churched are actually praying for the death of the President and they don’t even have to pay taxes.

I want to push some propositions against these people. It’s time to go on the offensive. Contact your representatives (state and federal) and tell them it is time to fight back against the Religious Right!

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

New Atheist Community Forming

Social media is a big thing these days. Facebook and Twitter have become missive hubs of global communication. Not surprisingly, atheists tend to have a larger than proportional presence on these mediums. Atheists dominate the internet. Now there is a new social network that atheists need to take over.

I recently joined a website called Empire Avenue. This social media outlet allows people to buy and sell stock in each other. By linking your facebook, twitter, and blog to your page, Empire Avenue is able to measure your influence on the interwebs. This makes your stock more valuable.

Empire Avenue is like a game, but it also is a networking and promotional tool. The more your stock is worth; the more people will want to see what you are up too.

The site is pretty new and already an atheist community is forming on there. But we are not alone. Christians are also on the site. In any case, I have been on this site for a few days to check it out and I really like it. So I would like to recommend that atheists join the site and join the atheist group there. We can join each other’s facebook and twitter pages and check out each other’s blogs and youtube channels. We can also make fake money and have lots of fun. My stock name on there is: STAKS – so buy my stock with your fake money when you join the site. ;-)

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Atheism of the Vampire Chronicles

A lot of people have been asking me why I keep talking about Anne Rice’s decision to leave Christianity. One reason is because it is personal to me. Growing up, I was a big fan of most of her Vampire Chronicle series. They were the first vampire series that I am aware of that was strongly atheistic.

When Anne Rice started the series, she was an atheist and that is definitely reflected in her work. Most vampire stories before Anne Rice portrayed vampires as some sort of demonic creature which came about through some bad dealings with God or some deal with the Devil. This was not the case with Anne Rice’s vampires.

While there was certainly supernaturalism involved with the origin of vampires in the Vampire Chronicle universe, it had nothing to do with God or the Devil. It was an accident involving spirits, but with no purpose divine or demonic. In this universe, vampires don’t fear crucifixes or holy water. In fact, at one point in the books, there were some young vampire cult which claimed to be demonic and they were seen as silly and stupid. In fact, these vampires who focused on religion (even though they claimed to be Satanic) acted much like the religious fanatics of God fearing Christianity.

Now of course Anne Rice writes Jesus books. I confess that I haven’t read any of them and I stopped reading the Vampire Chronicles toward the end of the series. But I think Anne Rice has contributed a lot to the world of atheism by taking supernatural creatures like vampires (which everyone loves) and making them less religiously based. This was an important step in the vampire mythos.

Anne Rice’s books were well written and pretty well researched historically. What I mean by this is that she had a really good grasp of the history she used as a back drop for her vampire characters. In other words, Anne Rice is no dummy. She is an intellectual. This is reflected in her recent statement that Christianity is anti-science. Don’t get me wrong though, she isn’t an intellectual on the same level of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, but within the literary world, she generally values knowledge and reason.

Now the task is to get her to move further in that direction.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Short Dialog with Anne Rice

Last week, Interview with the Vampire author Anne Rice made news when she publicly left Christianity… but remained “committed to Christ.” Pretty soon after her announcement, I wrote an Examiner article on the subject. I even started to follow Anne Rice’s facebook page. I was surprised at how approachable she was for someone of her level of fame. The following is a very brief conversation we had on facebook:

Anne Rice:

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.

Me:

I’m an optimistic atheist and live a very happy life without the need for deities and vicarious blood sacrifices. Not all atheists are pessimistic. Just follow reason Anne. You don’t need superstitions or to believe in anything without sufficient reason (i.e. faith). The universe is a wondrous place without the magic of bronze-aged myths.

Anne Rice:

Staks, I understand. There are many optimistic atheists. I wasn’t one of them. But I brooded constantly on history and suffering. And of course when I came to Christ, I did not really know anything about Christian pessimism. And still don’t embrace it, of course. But I am sure you are right. There are many happy atheists.

I will be writing a longer and more thought provoking letter to Anne Rice shortly. Let me know what you think of this first exchange.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

President With Guts

During the presidential primary, I was one of a few progressives warning everyone that Obama was a moderate at best. One campaigner told even told me that he thought Obama was the next Robert Kennedy. Sadly that seems unlikely.

On just about every issue Obama has let down his progressive base and continues to try to get Republicans to like him. The thought that we will be stuck with Obama for six more years is scary, but the scarier part is that the Republicans may get Sarah Palin or some other wack-job in office because Obama has lost his base.

For the good of the country, we can’t let Obama go unchallenged in his re-election campaign. It is time for the progressives in the country to run someone against Obama during the primary. If for no other reason it could light a fire under Obama’s ass and get him to actually do stuff.

While I love Kucinch, his image has been tarnished beyond repair. Kucinich might be able to make Senator, but I don’t think he could beat Obama in a primary even with Obama’s low approval rating and he certainly wouldn’t be able to beat the Republicans in the general election. The best chance we have to beat Obama in the Primary and to win in the general election is Congressman Alan Grayson.

Grayson, is a strong progressive in a right wing congressional district. Despite the fact that every Republican talking head is gunning for him and he lives in a strong Republican district, he seems to be in little danger of losing his seat. It seems that Grayson has discovered the formula for political success… guts.

To help persuade Grayson to run in a primary against Obama, I have started a facebook group. The way these things work is that we need at least a million people to join this group so that the media takes notice. Grayson will probably only run if he sees that there are large numbers of people who want him to run. So please join this group and spread the word.

Bookmark and Share

EAVB_DYSMKLFUYY

The Friendlier Atheist

I am pretty well established vocal atheist. On the scale of atheism, I am often lumped in with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris as a “New Atheist” or “militant atheist.” I prefer to see myself more as a “bad cop” of atheism. So imagine my surprise when I found out that on at least one issue I am a friendlier atheist than popular atheist blogger Hemant Mehta, better known as “The Friendly Atheist.”

I will admit that I am not generally a fan of his blog, although I do check it out from time to time. I tend to be more of a PZ Myers fan. Still, in my book we are all on the same side and we should all do our best to help each other out.

Late last night, I found out that former Catholic, turned atheist, turned Catholic Anne Rice has once again left Christianity. I quickly wrote up an Examiner article about this. I loved most of Rice’s Vampire series and to this date still consider her vampire mythology to be the standard for all vampire stories (Twilight stacks up poorly compared to Interview).

While Rice hasn’t broken completely from the Christian mythology, she has made a giant leap in a very public way. De-conversion is a journey and rarely happens overnight. Still, Hemant Mehta was not so friendly about Rice’s announcement.

On his blog, he criticized Rice for falling into the “follower of Christ” camp. While there is a place for this criticism, I think the more important message is that Christianity is being called out for being immoral. Even many atheists who commented on Hemant’s blog think he was a little mean and off base with this one.

For me, it is a chance to say that on this issue I am friendlier than the Friendly Atheist. ;-)

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Coalition of Reason

Last weekend was the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason’s annual Unity Picnic. This year however, when I was putting together the Examiner article to promote the event I learned a few things. I learned that the local Humanist group was pretty much doing all the work and that the rest of the coalition was really doing much at all. Some groups didn’t even publicize the event. For all practical purposes PhillyCoR was practically dead.

The thing is that Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist was scheduled to perform at the picnic but due to a climbing accident, his manager and wife was hospitalized a week earlier. As a result, the Sam Singleton tour had to be pushed back and a few weeks. He had contacted me about trying to put together an alternative event since he wouldn’t be able to make the picnic.

With PhillyCoR practically dead, there was no way to put together an alternative event. So I tried to put PhillyCoR back together. As a result, I am pretty much the new coordinator of PhillyCoR. It isn’t a position that I necessarily want, but it is a position that needs to be done.

I have always talked about the importance of atheist groups working together and this is a necessary consequence of that philosophy. The way I see it, we are fighting a culture war and atheist groups need to work together if we are to spread the ideas of reason, critical thinking, and science.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta

Christians Aren’t Thinking Omnisciently

I love it when Christians try to use logic to show why God can’t do something or why God must do something a certain way. Don’t these Christians realize that they have created a character that is too perfect for their own good? I keep hearing the voice of Doc Brown from Back to the Future in my head, but instead of telling Marty that he isn’t thinking forth dimensionally, these Christians aren’t thinking omnisciently.

According to a Christian (or any theist for that matter), God is all-powerful. He created the laws of logic (see my argument against Presupposition Theology). In fact, most Christians maintain a belief in miracles and in prayer. Both of these beliefs require God to bend and/or break the laws of physics and sometimes logic. So if God can break these laws for a miracle, why can’t he do it where it counts?

Let me give you an example. When I asked a Christian about the Problem of Evil, her answer was that God created evil/suffering/Hell so that we could choose to love him. Her argument was that without evil, people would be forced to love God and that wouldn’t really be love. It wouldn’t be a real relationship.

That type of argument might cut the mustard if God were an alien (okay, not even then), but as it is God is alleged to be all-powerful. God can redefine the laws of logic so that we could choose a relationship with him without the evil/suffering/eternal torture. God is too powerful for Christians to satisfactorily address the Problem of Evil.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Viagra online
  • Order cheap cialis
  • Buy viagra no prescription
  • Cialis online
  • Buy generic cialis
  • Order propecia no prescription
  • Cheap propecia online
  • Propecia online pharmacy
  • Order levitra online
  • Cheap price cialis
  • Online pharmacy levitra
  • Buy viagra online
  • Buy discount levitra
  • Cheap cialis online
  • Propecia hair loss