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.

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

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.

Filed under: Current Events, People of Reason, atheism, de-conversion | 3 Comments »

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Brother Sam Singleton, the only honest evangelist (scienceblogs.com)

Filed under: People of Reason, Personal, atheism, culture war, humanism | No Comments »

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• And the Truth Shall Set You Free (new.exchristian.net)

Filed under: Religion, anti-intellectualism, god, image of god, logic, miracles | 3 Comments »

Last week, while on my vacation I heard about something which must make the Religious Right go even more insane then they are already. I heard about the latest technique in women’s breast augmentation… using Stem Cells!

During the Bush administration the Religious Right pushed to limit Stem Cell Research. Their view on this was two fold. First, embryonic stem cell research is worse than abortion. Second, it is a slippery slop to playing God. I guess they didn’t realize that Stem Cells could also be used for breast implants. If they had, they would have had a third objection.

Basically, cosmetic surgeons can liposuction some fat out of a woman’s ass, thigh, or other body part (surprisingly not the brain) and using their own stem cells, can move that fat into the breasts. While these are adult stem cells rather than embryonic, I am sure the Religious Right will still be mental about it.

I should point out that studies have been done that show that women who get breast implants do it because they believe that guys want them to have bigger breasts. Those same studies show that guys don’t request and don’t really care if women have larger breasts. It is basically a self-image issue.

Still, there is nothing wrong with getting cosmetic implants (for women or men). If these implants are safer, then I am all for them. That being said, I don’t think women should feel the need to have them unless it is what they want.

Filed under: Religion, culture war, science | No Comments »

Let me tell you a true story. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, there were star wars. First there was a massive clone war and then there was a rebellion against a galactic empire. Just because I have no evidence for this, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. I derived this knowledge from faith, which is an alternative means of knowledge from science which requires objective evidence. But it is equally valid, right?

Let me tell you another one. I won the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge last night in a poker game. The problem is that I live in Pennsylvania and have no desire to move to New York right now so I need to sell it really cheap. I’ll sell it to you for a fraction of what it’s worth. I’ll sell it to you for $5000. It is worth 5 million. This is the truth, why won’t you buy it? Oh, you want evidence? Just take my truth on faith. That is a different kind of knowledge, right?

The fact is that faith isn’t a different way of deriving truth it is just a way to claim truth. Anyone can claim truth, but being able to show truth requires evidence. Just because there is no evidence don’t mean that something isn’t true. But we can’t call it knowledge. We can only claim knowledge when we have sufficient valid evidence and can objectively show that something actually is true.

Religious people don’t believe anything on faith alone except for their particular religious claims. Isn’t that interesting? Why are religious people just as skeptical about other people’s religions and about matters involving money and the world we live in, but when it comes to their own religion, faith suddenly becomes an alternative and equally valid way of deriving truth? The real truth here is that religion is just as much of a scam as my deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Faith and Foolishness (scientificamerican.com)

Filed under: Alternative Worldview, Religion, culture war, faith, god of the gaps, science, truth | 1 Comment »

It used to be that only fundamentalists would tell me that science was a religion, but these days even some moderate religious people are using this type of poor reasoning. Their view is that science claims to have the only method for understanding the world. In other words, science claims to have a monopoly on the truth just like fundamentalist religions do.

Yes, science is the only reliable method for understanding the world. No other method can reliably tell us about the world. The major difference however is that science can prove its claims objectively. This is why every person in the world uses science and relies on science despite any rhetoric they might implore.

God didn’t create the internet. No one has faith that when they turn on a light switch that it will go on. We don’t pray over our meals to cook them. Science is the only method which we can accurately rely on to get the job done. In short, science works. It works consistently, repeatable, and objectively.

The day religious people stop using the scientific method and all advances that science has produced is the day I will concede that science might be a religion and that science might take things on faith. When religious people can pray into existence anything even remotely as cool as the internet is the day I might be willing to accept that science isn’t the only reliable method for understanding the world.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Science vs. Religion (dangeroustalk.net)

Filed under: Atheism NOT Religion, Religion, anti-intellectualism, culture war, science, truth | No Comments »

Over the weekend, I was putting together an Examiner article on the upcoming PhillyCoR Picnic. This is an event that I have been promoting for months so I was very excited to be writing the article. However, I noticed that the PhillyCoR website was down and so I contacted the PhillyCoR president to find out what was up. It turns out that the PhillyCoR is falling apart. The Picnic is being organized mainly by the Philly Humanist Society (one of the eight groups) with almost no support from the other organizations.

To make matters worse, just after I published the Examiner article, I found out that the Picnic’s special guess (who I have also been promoting for months) may not be able to make it. Rosco’s wife and campaign manager Cari fell out of a 60 foot tree and is in the hospital. They were supposed to leave Montana this Tuesday for Philly to perform the Sam Singleton, Atheist Evangelist show at Sunday’s Picnic and two additional shows.

Cari is doing well, but is banged up pretty badly and I don’t know if she will be up for the trip. The Philly shows were going to be part of a larger tour around the nation. One really distressing part of the whole thing is that they don’t have any health insurance because Atheist comedy shows don’t make a whole lot of money.

This gets me thinking about politics. While I was one of the few people well aware that Obama was not a progressive during the campaign, even I am surprised at how much he has continued the Bush policies and has done little to nothing to fix the problems facing this nation. During his great Health Care reform speech, he said that this was the last time America would have to deal with this issue and that we were going to do it right once and for all. What a joke.

If Obama had done it right, Rosco and Cari wouldn’t be without health care. In fact, part of the current problem is that even those who do have health care are not entirely sure that our medical expenses are actually covered. As it stands now (after HealthCare reform) we still have to pay the Health Insurance companies, but they don’t have to actually perform the services for which we are paying them. There are loopholes all over the place and Health Insurance companies have tons of lawyers who are looking for as many as they can find.

Sometimes I get discouraged. During the Bush administration, people told me that they were going to move to Canada and I discouraged them. I reminded them that America was the last battlefield and if we left, the Religious Right would take control and use America’s nuclear arsenal against the rest of the world. We won the last election, but it doesn’t seem like a victory. While it is true that we would be in far worse shape if the Republicans won, I am still so discouraged and disheartened that Obama seems unwilling to do much of anything except make great speeches.

He said that he didn’t want to play the game better, but wanted to change the game. But the fact is that Obama is just playing the game. What good is fighting hard to gain a political victory if that victory is hollow and meaningless?

I must admit that over the weekend, my wife and I actually had a serious conversation about perhaps moving to Canada. This health care issue is really motivating us to consider what I once thought was unthinkable. We actually went on the internet and started researching houses and areas to get an idea of costs. We definitely can’t afford to move anytime soon, but we are thinking of taking a vacation trip to scout out the possibilities.

Sometimes I get discouraged.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Brother Sam Singleton, the only honest evangelist (scienceblogs.com)

Filed under: Obama, Politics, church/state, culture war, healthcare | 5 Comments »

Dangerous Talk is now 95% back up and running. Over the last few months the site has been continually hacked. Basically, the hackers have been inserting spam links hidden at the top of the website. The links can only be seen when Java has been disabled.

At first, a few readers informed me of the problem and I had to reinstall some of the theme components of the site and tweak the code. As it had started to happen more and more, I began checking the site every week or so. Basically, on Friday I got tired to having to do all this and figured I could just update the software and maybe stop this problem altogether.

That ended up being a much bigger problem than the original hacking problem. At one point on Friday I was actually freaking out a bit. By Saturday the site had been restored to the point that readers shouldn’t have noticed any difference in the site. But from my standpoint, I basically was locked out.

Now I have full access and most of the site is working great. I still don’t know if any of this will stop the hacking, but I am hoping.

I want to thank all my readers for your patience and for your continued support. I will be taking the rest of this week off from blogging to get the remaining 5% of the site back to where it should be and to work on other Dangerous Talk projects. Please feel free to go through the Category section and check out some of the older blog articles that you might have missed. Also, I hope you will check out my Examiner page as I will be writing a few more articles there this week.

Once again, I want to thank all the readers and supporters out there because you are all Dangerous Talker and you all mean the world to me.

-Staks

Filed under: Personal | 1 Comment »

Yesterday I had a twitter conversation with a Christian over something I talked about in one of my Examiner articles. The interesting thing is that it wasn’t even the main point of the article and there is already another article in the “Atheism 101” series which addresses the issue in more detail. In any case, I thought I would discuss the issue.

The article focuses on the “No True Scotsman” fallacy however this particular Christian decided not to address that issue at all. Instead, he focused on the part of the article where I talked about how if the Bible was a written by a perfect deity to be a perfect guide for humanity, then it fails. The fact that reasonable people can get diametrically opposed views from a holy book alleged to be written by a perfect being is logically inconsistent.

The Christian makes two interesting claims. The first is that even though the Bible is “difficult” to understand it does not invalidate the claim that it was written (or inspired by) a perfect being. Again my claim is that if it was written by a perfect being as a guide for humanity then that being would be able to communicate his message perfectly and it would be crystal clear to everyone.

To claim that the Bible is “difficult” to understand is an extreme understatement. The fact is that somewhat reasonable people can and do get diametrically opposed interpretations from this book. Dr. Seuss’s “The Lorax” is not nearly as “difficult” to understand. That book was written to have a message too and that message is crystal clear to any reasonable or even somewhat reasonable person. It is one thing for a book to be difficult to understand, but for a book to be open to such diametrically opposed interpretations really says something about the author. Claiming that the author is perfect at this point just seems silly.

If I were reading a guide to plumbing and I interpreted it in a diametrically opposed way as my neighbor, we would both have to acknowledge that the author didn’t convey his or her instructions clearly. But if the author was God and claimed to be perfect, then this poorly written guide would be strong evidence to the contrary.

The second point that this Christian made (ironically after he accused me of making the Red Herring fallacy among others) was that scientists disagree on interpreting data all the time. The analogy that he is trying to make here is that just because people get diametrically opposed interpretations from the Bible shouldn’t invalidate the Bible. But there is a very distinct and important difference here. The Bible is alleged to be perfect and written (or inspired) by a perfect being. Scientists may get different interpretations from the same data, but they are not perfect. That is why when this type of thing happens in science, scientists have to design new experiments and/or studies so that they can be repeatable with some degree of accuracy. If an experiment or study yielded diametrically opposed results, then the experiment or study was faulty and needs to be re-examined, fixed, and/or re-done completely.

That is the real difference between religion and science. Science tries to get it right and keeps trying while religion claims to have it right regardless of the results. This makes religion a poor guide to life. Claiming to have the answer isn’t the same as actually having the answer. Science tests its results and is not afraid to re-test them over and over again. Science encourages critics and criticism while religion just asserts their answer without regard to the evidence or the facts.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Open For Interpretation (dangeroustalk.net)

Filed under: Biblical Scholarship, Religion, conversation, the bible | No Comments »

Yesterday, I received an interesting e-mail from an atheist in Pakistan. He is in a day to day struggle to keep his mouth shut out of a very real and legitimate fear that should a hint of his disbelief get out, he will probably be killed.

Such a serious situation prompted me to turn to my liberal Muslim friend from the scary streets of Chicago for advice. My Muslim friend has traveled to that very same city in Pakistan and there is a branch of his liberal Muslim Mosque there that might be able to help (although I worry that they might try to convert him to liberal Islam rather than trying to help in some other way).

This got me thinking about just how important the internet is to the rise of atheism. I have never met either of these two individuals personally and yet through the internet I can communicate with both of them. My new atheist friend in Pakistan relies on the internet to keep his mind thinking and to help save his sanity from having to hide his disbelief. My Muslim friend may or may not be able to help but at least it is through the power of internet developed by science which holds the key to solving this problem.

The internet is so dangerous to the Muslim world that Pakistan is seriously considering blocking facebook and other websites which could be used to criticize and/or question their religion. I think it is really important to form a strong atheist community on the internet and for atheists around the world to help each other. Whether it is simply promoting reason and reasonable ideas or whether is it reaching out to isolated atheists in overly religious nations or states, we need to help each other.

Religions have form communities which help out their members. Many atheists miss those types of communities even though they tend to be dogmatic. Through the internet we can form a new kind of community which serves some of the same functions of local Church communities without the dogmatism. An internet community is even stronger than local communities because we are non-localized. But we should start building local communities too.

The hard part for most atheists is building and being part of a community since the only thing really binding us together is a lack of belief. However, most modern atheists have also rallied behind common principles of rationalism, humanism, science, and to a lesser extent progressivism. We can build our internet and local communities around these things.

Filed under: People of Reason, culture war, free speech, humanism, islam | 1 Comment »

I hope everyone had a happy 4th of July weekend. I celebrated my independence from gods by taking the family on vacation to Carl Sagan’s old stomping groups in Ithaca New York. There we took the Sagan Planet Walk and Paced the Space.

We walked from the Sun marker to the marker of the Earth (probably about 50 to 100 feet) in the scaled down solar system (one-fifth billions of the actual size). When I walked back over to the Sun marker, I read that in this scaled model, our neighboring star Alpha Centauri would be located somewhere in Hawaii. So while our solar system is scaled down to ¾ of a mile, the next nearest star would be nearly 5000 miles away.

I can almost hear Carl Sagan’s voice informing me about the vast emptiness of space and how humbling it is, reminding us that the Universe was not created for us, but rather we are simply a part of a great big Universe so immense that our nearest neighbor would take multiple lifetimes to reach.

Religious people often talk about how God made the Universe for human beings. But a glance through a telescope shows just how ridiculous such beliefs really are. Why would a God create our closest star (aside from the Sun) so far out of our reach? What does that tell us about the vastness of the rest of the Galaxy or even the vastness of the entire Universe as we know it through science?

Filed under: Argument by Design, Disproving God, People of Reason, education, god, humanism, science | 1 Comment »

In case you were not aware, July is Global Atheist Blasphemy Month. While the details are explained in the Examiner article, the gist of the occasion is for atheists to claim blasphemy. Instead of being offended by all the usual suspects that religious people are offended by, this month is our turn to be offended by their symbols.

Even though the group that started this is advocating a form of censorship, I think it is better to avoid pretending to be like the religious people on this one. Instead, I think we should play the blasphemy card in a more humanistic way. This month, I don’t think we should hide our atheism from the world at all. We should go out of our way to wear atheism on our sleeves so to speak. When someone says “God bless you” we should not just inform them that we don’t believe in a god, but also let them know that saying such a think is rude and even blasphemous.

This month we should actually get offended by religious symbolism and we should let people know that we are offended. I am not advocating reporting the symbolism as hate like the facebook group is doing, but we should make those who plaster religious symbolism all over the place that it is offensive, rude, and inconsiderate.

Many religious people may not even realize that they are being inconsiderate. Others know it all too well and just don’t give a damn. For those people, we have to expose their hate for what it is. We should let the rest of the world see just how hateful some religious people actually are.

Here is a great video that I saw which show just what it is like to have a bit of role reversal with religious people:

Filed under: Blasphemy, Religion, atheism, culture war | 3 Comments »

Christians have a saying taken from John 3:16 of the Bible, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Atheists have a saying too although I don’t think it is in any book yet, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him will believeth in anything.”

I was in the religion section of a bookstore today and there was actually a book about how Jesus told the founding fathers about a secret code. This was not meant to be a fictional book either. In fact, not counting the obvious fiction of the Christian narrative there are a lot of books that have divergently ridiculous narratives.

It seems that if someone is willing to swallow the obvious fiction of the Bible, they seem to be susceptible to other wacky narratives. There are Bible codes, secret knowledge imparted to important people, space Jesus, claims of alien angels, demons, etc. The wackiness doesn’t end with God.

I bet there is some good money in books of this kind. I am almost tempted to write something wacky based on the Bible and call it non-fiction. Any ideas? The crazier the better.

Filed under: delusion | 5 Comments »

I have a 16 month old child and the other day we were at his library program and they were singing a song about bedtime routines. Part of the routine in the song was to say your prayers. As someone who grew up in a moderately Jewish home, I am curious, how early do Christians teach their children to pray?

I can’t really remember how old I was when my parents pushed religion on me. I know I was going to Hebrew school classes by the time I was 3 or 4. But it occurs to me that most people have religion forced on them when they are much younger. How old does a child have to be to confess his sins to a Catholic priest so that the child might avoid eternal torture in Hell? Is does God have a grace period so that if you sin before a certain age it doesn’t count?

Children and religion just sees like a bad idea. Children often believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the boogieman, etc. how hard is it really to indoctrinate them about God and Jesus? When a priest or other religious leader convinces a grown and competent adult their ridiculous story, that is one thing, but going after kids who have no bullshit immune system seems very wrong to me.

I don’t think it is necessarily child abuse on the same level as actual child abuse, but it does seem pretty close. In some ways, it is probably even more damaging to the child than a beating would be. The guilt and other psychological damage may never be healed.

Filed under: Catholics, Mainstream Christians, Religious Manipulation, culture war, prayer, sin | 2 Comments »

The other day I got an e-mail from my father that I found interesting. It was a link to a video which talked about how God blessed us with perfect eyes to see such beautiful colors. The video mostly featured a series of images first in black and white and then in color to show how great the human eye is. I should note that my father is not all that religious any more and probably just enjoyed the visuals.

Of course, this type of argument is laughable. For starters, the human eye doesn’t see very much. So little of the electromagnetic spectrum makes up visible light to humans that one really needs to ask not why God has blessed us with color, but rather why God has cursed us by practically blinding us. Of course the reality is that God didn’t bless us or curse us. The human eye wasn’t designed by an intelligent designer with a plan, but rather was designed by the process of natural selection.

Second, the Intelligent Designer fails again when we look at the internal aspects of the human eye. God really fucked it up for humans. For some reason our optic nerves block much of the light from reaching our photoreceptors. The fact is that there are animals in the world whose photoreceptors are not blocked by their optic nerves. So it certainly seems like God designed the snail’s eyes better than the eyes of humans. Maybe snails have souls and humans don’t.

The real problem is that it is too easy for some ignorant Christian to throw up some black and white photos and contrast them to color photos and claim that humans are number one without having the slightest idea of what is out there or what he or she is talking about. People like my father like looking at the “eye candy” and some people might even get suckered in with that and fall victim to the ridiculousness of the argument being quietly put forth.

The Christian cloaks his or her self in being uplifting when they are really just been ignorant and/or dishonest. In some cases, they are using people’s sense of awe and love of beauty as a way to push their product and sucker people. We can still experience the awe of color and the beauty of the world as we see it and still admit that human vision is far from number one. In fact, through the magic of science humans can now see much better than our flawed human eyes normally allow.

Microscopes and telescopes allow us to see things both big and small. Glasses and contacts correct people’s flawed vision and other scientific instruments even allow us to observe much more or the electromagnetic spectrum than our “God” given eyes possible could. Isn’t science wonderful? The collection plate in located in the side bar in the form of a contribute button. Thanks!

Filed under: Argument by Design, evolution | 4 Comments »

On Saturday, I was at the mall and walked past a Chick-Fil-A. Most people are aware that Chick-Fil-A is very religious right. Because of this, my rule of thumb is that I will never buy anything from Chick-Fil-A, but I will take their free samples. In fact, I will go out of my way to take multiple free samples because I know it costs them money. Every penny counts. Saturday, their free samples were pieces of their new Spicy Chicken sandwich.

I admit that I was a little nervous about trying this sample because I have a low tolerance for spicy food and I refuse to buy a drink from Chick-Fil-A. I might have had to suffer for a few minutes while I found a more respectable food establishment to buy a drink from. As it turns out, I didn’t need to.

I guess that the new product people of Chick-Fil-A are so frightened of Hell, that they are afraid to make a chicken sandwich spicy hot as it might remind them of Satan. The Spicy Chicken was not spicy at all. If it was really spicy, I would probably be writing today’s blog jokingly accusing them of being in league with Satan rather then jokingly accusing them of being afraid of Satan. It just goes to show you that if you really want a spicy chicken sandwich, Church’s Chicken might be a better choice. Despite the name, they actually aren’t religious.

Filed under: culture war, hell | 4 Comments »

I have often talked about how we choose what offends us and how we could just as easily choose not to be offended. However, some things have a reasonable expectation of being offensive. The Crucifix should have a reasonable expectation of being offensive and it offends me.

When I say that something has a reasonable expectation of being offensive, I am referring to something that a reasonable person could find offensive. For example, an individual may find a particular song offensive because it might remind him or her of an unpleasant experience. This is their choice but there is no reasonable expectation that such a song would be offensive. On the other hand, the Nazi swastika is a symbol which represents racial purity and a reminder of the brutal murder of over 6 million people. It is still a choice to be offended by such a symbol, but there is a reasonable expectation that most reasonable people would be offended by such a symbol.

The crucifix is a torture device. It represents cruel torture. To a Christian, it represents the cruel torture of Jesus and their belief that the torture of Jesus was a sacrifice for their immortal soul so that they will not be tortured for all eternity in Hell. This is of course the core of the Christian belief system.

It is understandable why someone who claims to be Christian will display a crucifix it is also understandable why someone who believes in racial purity would display the swastika. I am not equating the two belief systems but I am pointing out that to the represented of each system of belief these symbols are not offensive. It is to the non-represented that the symbol becomes offensive. In other words, whether a symbol has a reasonable expectation of being offensive is not up to the represented, but rather it is up to the unrepresented.

For example, the American flag is also a symbol which represents those who live in America and to most Americans it also represents liberty and justice for everyone. If one is not represented by the American flag, then they get to be the ones who decide whether or not it has a reasonable expectation of being offensive. During the Bush (Jr.) Presidency, some people in other countries were offended by the American flag and had good reason for being so. Today, fewer non-American are offended by the American flag. The reasonable expectation of offensiveness is less.

For a non-Christian, the crucifix represents a torture device. It also represents the core message of Christianity which is that all non-Christians will be tortured for all eternity by a loving deity. It is also a reminder of all the cruelty done and being done in the name of the Christian God. So while there is no reasonable expectation of offensiveness within the community of believers, Christians should realize that there is a reasonable expectation of offensiveness outside of their community.

If Christians want to be considerate to non-Christians, then they ought not to display their offensive symbol. To do other wise would be at best poor manners. It could also be interpreted as a hostile act of aggression.

Filed under: Offensiveness, People of Reason, Religion, culture war, morality | 3 Comments »

Last week, I got into an interesting conversation with a fellow atheist about de-converting Christians. My new atheist friend expressed the opinion that he thought moderate Christians were easier to de-convert and I expressed the opinion that I thought fundamentalists were easier to de-convert.

I am not actually sure that either of us could prove our position, but I do think we each had some interesting arguments to draw on. His main argument was that moderates were already more reasonable people and already value reason most of the time. So it is just getting them to think reasonably about religion that is the issue. Logically, this makes perfect sense but in practice, I have to disagree.

My view is that moderates just don’t care. I think both fundamentalists and moderates use reason (although fundamentalists don’t value reason as much) so in both cases it is merely getting the Christian to apply their reasoning to religion. The thing is that fundamentalists take their religion very seriously. They are heavily invested in their particular and literal interpretation of the Bible while moderates are quick to play the “metaphor” card for every unreasonable Biblical verse that is pointed out to them.

The moderate will just brush off criticism and stick with their view that Jesus was a hippy regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Because the fundamentalist is so heavily invested, they will actually put the time and energy into trying to defend their unreasonable position. But doing so, they start the de-conversion journey of self-discovery. Their fundamental passion becomes the tool of their de-conversion… in my opinion.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t try to de-convert and educate moderates about their own religion. We should, it is just that in my view fundamentalists are easier to de-convert. This argument is actually more of an interesting academic exercise between two atheists since I really don’t think it matters whether or not I am correct or my friend is correct. What are your experiences, stories, or logical arguments on this topic?

Filed under: Religion, atheism, conversation, de-conversion | 4 Comments »

Since well known atheists like Richard Dawkins and others have been vocal in their criticism of religion there has been a backlash by a few other atheists like Greg Epstein. Some atheists have been inspired by the “four horsemen” while other have decided to take a different approach. That’s fine, not all atheists have to agree but for some reason some atheists have actually taken the position of defending Christianity.

I understand that some atheists think we can work with liberal Christians against the religious right. But when atheists go out if their way to defend Christianity and act as Christian apologists, that just seems perverse. Currently, the most famous of these atheist Christian Apologists is S.E. Cupp. Most people suspect that she is probably religious right tactic rather than someone who personally doesn’t believe in a deity. On the other hand, I have talked to a (small) number of atheists just like S.E. Cupp, but without the beauty and the book deals.

Part of this type of anti-atheist atheism comes from a resentment of Dawkins and/or a resentment of the growing atheist/humanist community. These apologists see any atheist who is critical of religion as a “Dawkins clone” and yet many of us have been critical of religion long before “The God Delusion” was published.

Christianity preaches that people ought to believe in certain facts about the world on insufficient reasoning. Faith is the virtue and (poor) reasoning is a mere justification for those who aren’t virtuous enough to believe on faith alone. It boggles my mind that any atheist would defend such a world view. What is more mind boggling is that these atheists admit that the Christian world view is wrong and yet they will defend that view rather than promoting critical thinking and a legitimate search for real testable answers to life’s questions.

This should not be confused as supporting and defending someone’s right to believe in wrong and even unreasonable positions. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about the ideas themselves.

It is like defending the proposition that 1 + 1 = 3 and then saying that you really know that it is 2, but that the previous proposition shouldn’t be marked wrong just because it actually is wrong.

Filed under: Religion, anti-intellectualism, atheism, culture war | 4 Comments »

It is a pet peeve of mine when fellow people of reason call themselves, “Evolutionists.” I get it when fundy Christians call people that, but when people of reason use that label on themselves, I get annoyed. They should fucking know better!

Creationists use that label on others because they are trying to lower the science of evolution to that of religion (which they seem to realize is actually quite poor). Their claim is that evolution is a mere belief just like their mere belief in God, Jesus, etc. All beliefs are equal and therefore their belief in the literal Genesis is just as valid as the scientific view in evolution.

The thing is that all beliefs are not equal. Some beliefs have evidence and some don’t. Evolution has mountains of evidence while creationism has zero. This is where the creationist usually points out that evolution is “just a theory.” To the creationist, the terms “theory” and “belief” are interchangeable. This is why I like to creationists that I am a gravity-ist. I believe in the theory of gravity.

The thing about labels is that while one can have more than one belief, the label one uses generally represents the strongest belief and one which dominates ones life the most. So by calling someone an “evolutionist” they are making a judgment that evolution is the strongest belief that a particular person of reason has and that it is the belief which dominates our life.

As a person of reason, all scientific theories of such weight play equal dominance in my life. I hold the theory of evolution in the same level of certainty that I hold the theory of gravity. Both play equal dominance in my life although a case could be made that my “belief” in gravity actually places more dominance in my life. So if creationists are going to label be based on the scientific theories that I believe in, than it would make more sense to call me a gravity-ist than an evolutionist… although, creationists aren’t trying to disprove gravity… yet.

Filed under: Religion, culture war, education, evolution, science | No Comments »

Christians have an answer for everything. If you ask a fundamentalist Christian why they believe their religion as opposed to some other religion, they have a standard dogmatic response. They will tell you that all other religions tell you how to reach God, but in Christianity, God reached out to man in the form of Jesus Christ.

This answer of course doesn’t make much sense. It simply is a difference in doctrine and I am not even certain that it is an accurate difference. But it does seem odd that we can look at a map of the world, pick a country, and guess with reasonable accuracy what someone from that country’s religious beliefs are based merely on their geography. Obviously, there is a correlation between religions and geography. This is obviously because the various Gods have marked their territories, lol. Seriously, it is probably because religion is a product of culture and indoctrination. Sure there will be people who go against the culture or who are influenced by someone else’s culture, but for the most part the correlation holds.

Most religions are based around magical thinking in some way. Religious people hate when their beliefs are described as magical, but they tend to have no problem describing other religions as magical despite the similarities to their own. It is precisely because of these similarities that Christians have to find something to distinguish their beliefs from that of other beliefs.

This is why they came up with the idea that other religions seek God but in Christianity, God seeks man. This distinction is purely arbitrary. They could have just as easily said that other religions claim that God is a singular entity, but Christianity preaches God as a trinity. The point is that it really is an arbitrary doctrinal difference. They might as well be saying that other religions don’t view Jesus as God.

The fact is that any religion can find some kind of doctrinal difference to separate themselves from other religions. What gives the one doctrinal difference that Christians have carved out any more validity than the doctrinal differences that other religious people use to justify their religion?

Filed under: God reach man | No Comments »

Today, I am continuing this series with an e-mail using the carpet bombing strategy on the Christians for a change. My bet is that most Christians won’t even attempt to address these issues and will simply reply with a “Jesus loves you” or a “I’m praying for you” type of response.

Dear Christian,
I am an atheist because Christians have not made the case for their deity of choice. Arguments like the First Cause, the Argument by Design, etc. are poor arguments and don’t even attempt to prove your deity, just a deity. Your deity (as described in the Bible) is quite simply ridiculous to me.

For starters, that deity has evolved from the Canaanite pantheon of deities by taking successful characteristics from other deities in that region of the world. Even the Bible has changed over time to reflect the ever changing political landscape. If you don’t believe this, then tell me where in the Bible does it say that slavery is immoral. The fact is that during the civil war, the southern pro-slave Christians had the Biblical high ground and yet today every Christian insists that the Bible stands firm against slavery.

The Bible also is far from inerrant. Even some of the so called historical narratives in the Bible were in fact not historical. The Jews were never slaves in Egypt and there was never an Exodus. The Tower of Babel was never built much less destroyed. But that story does talk about how Heaven in up in the sky. Interesting, isn’t it?

The so called prophecies in the Old Testament are nothing of the sort. They are a mix of verses taken out of context with the intent to call people to immediate action. Rabbi Michael Skobac debunks these so called prophecies in a series of videos on youtube. Oh, and the Miracles? Please, Sri Sathya Sai Baba performs many of the same miracles on youtube for all to see. Besides, doesn’t the Bible also say that Satan can do miracles too?

You may have had some sort of emotional personal experience which you feel is particularly compelling, but such experiences are usually don’t prove your particular deity and tend to be vague. You probably haven’t really tried to explain your experience through natural means, but rather have probably jumped to the religious conclusion.

Ultimately, your religious beliefs will rest on faith alone. The thing about faith is that it can justify any religious belief or any belief at all. The Muslim, the Hindu, and even the Scientologist all have the same faith-based arguments. All these religions are asking people to believe on insufficient evidence some pretty extraordinary claims. Faith is really the only thing one can use to get someone to believe in the ridiculous.

Oh, and don’t you think that the God of the Bible is a pretty immoral being? He defines morality as his whim in a pretty relativistic way. If God decided that rape was now moral, I don’t think it would be the case. He is always smiting people for some pretty petty things like working on Saturdays, being gay, and eating shell fish. And Jesus goes around telling people to hate their families and to cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes or they’ll go to Hell to be tortured for all eternity. I think he just needs to get laid. What do you think?
In Reason,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist

Filed under: Preaching, Religion, conversation, culture war, discussion, ignorance | 1 Comment »

Yesterday, I talked about how Christians sometimes carpet bomb with arguments praying that at least one of them sticks. Today, I want to make a preemptive strike that can be used when a Christian starts their carpet bombing of piss poor arguments. Of course there are many more arguments than I can put into one blog, but these are some of the top arguments used and some pithy responses in the form on a letter:

Dear Christian,
In the beginning God did not create the universe, the Big Bang did. The evidence for this is almost as big as the universe itself. Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south-pole. Space and time are linked and so before space there was no time. The design you think you see in the world is actually a result of your brain looking for patterns. The only design that actually exists is that which has come from a process called natural selection. People are not perfectly designed. Our balls (which are the most vulnerable part of our body) are located outside out body in a very vulnerable location. That seems to be a very poor design. Besides, these arguments don’t even attempt to prove your god, just a god and they fail miserably at that.

I know, I know, I will be singing a different tune when I am before your God and see that he will threaten me with eternal torture for not believing in him based on no valid evidence. It is probably a good bet to just say that I believe, but Pascal’s wager really wouldn’t be able to fool your god anyway, right? Besides, can’t we make that same wager for any god? You should be a Muslim and a Buddhist too, right? I know you think you are trying to save me from this horribly unjust eternal torture. If there was a bomb in your car and I knew about it, I would do everything I could to stop you from going inside. This means that I would actually show you some evidence for the bomb. Short of that, I doubt you would believe me especially if you drove the car a 1000 miles and nothing happened and I still insisted there was a bomb inside and that it could explode any minute… no one knows the time or the day.

The fact is that we all die my Christian friend. Life isn’t Super Mario Brothers and we don’t get free lives. Do you remember what happened before you were born? I have a feeling that is exactly what it is like after you are dead. This isn’t depressing! This is pretty cool, actually. It inspires us to live full lives because we know that life is short. I still look to the future and try to make the world a better place because I have friends and family that I care about. I want to make sure that the world is a better place for them and their children and their children’s children. Besides, who really wants to live forever anyway? Eternity is a long time and you are sure to get bored after a few billion years.

Why would you believe the Bible anyway, we don’t even have the original version. Besides, it was written by people who thought that the Earth was flat and that pi was exactly three. These guys owned slaves and considered women as property and you are relying on them to give your absolute truth? The so called prophecies in the Bible are bullshit. There are no such prophecies in the Old Testament, just ask any Hebrew scholar. Most of the so called prophecies aren’t even related to a messiah.

As for morality, I don’t think the Bible is a very good guide for that. Plus, the god of the Bible is a relativist. If the Bible provides such rock solid moral grounding, then why is it that so many so called Christians disagree on what is is moral and what is not? Besides, I really don’t think that if God came down and said that rape was moral, that it would be so. I think morality is based on human empathy and human compassion much more than it is based on the God of your Bible. Thank goodness for that, right? I mean the God of the Bible doesn’t actually condemn rape, in fact in many stories God seems to actually support the practice. What a jerk, I don’t think I would worship such a god even if he did exist.
In Reason,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist

Filed under: Argument by Design, Car Bomb Argument, First Cause Argument, Preaching, Religion, conversation, culture war, discussion | 1 Comment »

A popular Christian strategy for winning converts is basically to see how any arguments they can bombard you with in as little time as possible. The idea is to carpet bomb their mark with lots of arguments with the hope that at least one of them will resonate with their mark.

On the off chance that these Christians get a well informed atheist, then they demand full answers to each of these arguments and turn each one into a fight. The thing is that these arguments are usually old arguments that we have all heard a million times. They range from the First Cause Argument, to the Moral Argument, to Pascal’s Wager, etc.

Sure, I can sit with a Christian all day long knocking down each of these arguments in turn, but at the end of the line they always fall back to faith anyway. My strategy is to point them in the direction for them to find the answers to these arguments on their own using the interwebs. I don’t even have to send them to an atheist website usually. Although, I have gone through a lot of trouble of debunking most of these arguments right here on Dangerous Talk and on my Examiner page in the Atheism 101 series. So I sometimes send them there first. But if they want a non-atheist site, I just send them to good old Wikipedia.

One idea I had was to create a short list of one or two line answers and to carpet bomb these types of Christians with the answers before they even ask the questions. I haven’t tried that yet but I will probably work on that list soon. If anyone has any short and pithy answers to the standard Christian questions, let me know.

Filed under: Argument by Design, First Cause Argument, Ontological Argument, Religion, Religious Manipulation, atheism, conversation, culture war, discussion, god of the gaps, ignorance, prophecies | 2 Comments »

Over the weekend, I went to the geek convention known as Wizard World. When we were leaving the convention there were a lot of people handing out fliers for their comics, art, bands, websites, etc. There was also a woman handing out religious pamphlets. I of course took one, but didn’t have the time to converse with her about it. The pamphlet is all about May 21st, 2011… the End of the World!

The flier is being distributed by Family Radio, a Christian ministry not affiliated with any church. I am actually pretty familiar with Family Radio. When I was in college, I used to sit in my friend Greg’s dorm room and listen to the group’s leader Harold Camping tell his followers that the End of the World is coming on September 23rd, 1994.

My friend Greg was a devout follower of Camping back then. He is still a pretty crazy Christian but at least can admit that Camping was wrong. But Camping knows how to milk a profitable enterprise when he sees one. So when the world didn’t end in 1994, he just switched the date. I don’t know how many dates he predicted the end of the world for, but his current one is May 21st 2011.

First the pamphlet assures the reader that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it is unchanged and that each and every word is original. This is of course not true. Even most fundamentalist Christians acknowledge that some insignificant words have changed. For the record, quite a lot of the Bible has changed, but that is beside the point. The pamphlet then goes on to state that “by careful study of the Bible we learn that in the year 4990 BC God brought a flood.” God told Noah that he would have seven days to escape the flood. Since a day to God is a thousand years to us, that means 7000 years. Then the calendar was off by a year so that means 7000 years after the flood would be 2011 AD. Camping does other bullshit calculations for the day and the month, but suffice to say that it really is fascinating bullshit.

It really does amaze me that even with Camping horrible track record that people still believe him. Camping makes millions with this stuff and has a small army of loyal believers in cities across the nation handing out these pamphlets. This shows the real power of religion and why I can say pretty definitively that all religions are false.

The mere fact that Harold Camping has been able to dupe so many people with such obvious bullshit time and time again shows just how easy it is to fool people. I bet this woman is not stupid either. She is probably a pretty smart lady. Yet she has been fooled so completely by such obvious bullshit. This is a microcosm of all religion; smart people being duped to believe some super retarded stuff.

Filed under: Biblical Scholarship, End of the World, Preaching, Religion, culture war, prophecies, the bible | 1 Comment »

Tomorrow (Saturday), I will be attending the Wizard World comic and sci-fi convention in Philadelphia. I attend this convention every year because I love sci-fi. This year I have learned the Stephen Baldwin will be at the convention. Stephen is the fundamentalist Christian Baldwin. So I thought I would write him a letter and hand it to him personally at the convention. I also hope to talk to him about his “extreme faith.” Here is the letter, feel free to offer suggested changed before Saturday:

Dear Stephen,
I understand that you are a bit of a spontaneous type of guy. You are not someone who does anything in half measure either. This is a great trait to have at times. But sometimes it isn’t such a great trait to have. Sometimes people ought to be thoughtful and look before they leap.

With this in mind, it is no surprise that you became a born-again Christian. Becoming a born-again Christian is a spontaneous conversion process. It generally happens when people are in an emotional state or when they have hit rock bottom. It rarely occurs through a long and thoughtful process. Leaving religion on the other hand does often take such a long and thoughtful process.

Stephen, I want to start you on that journey. Now I know that your gut reaction is to dismiss me right off the bat. That is perfectly natural and most atheists experienced the same gut reaction when they were religious. If you really have the one and only Truth, you should not have a problem examining that Truth in the light of reason. In fact, you should welcome sure an examination to further prove to me and more importantly to yourself that your faith is justified. So let’s begin.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is not inerrant. As someone who grew up Jewish, I attended years of Hebrew School and learned all about how the Jews were slaves in Egypt and God helped them through the Exodus. This is often cited by many as historical and yet it never happened. The Jews were never slaves in Egypt and the Exodus never happened. If one of the “historical” and more believable stories in the Bible is a myth, it is a good bet that Genesis and some of the other less believable stories are almost certainly not true.

So let’s turn to the New Testament since after all, Paul tells us that the entirety of Christianity really does rest of the historical truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly enough, there is no real evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus even existed. The Bible of course has changed over time significantly sometimes even for political reasons. For example, the parable of “he who is without sin” was added much later to the Bible. The Gabriel Scrolls also show that there was an earlier draft to the Jesus myth based around someone named Simon.

But I digress; what about God? Well, let me put it this way. If I were God, I would have written the Bible to paint me in a more friendly and favorable light. Let’s face facts. The God as described in the Bible is a real jerk. All I have to do is open up my Bible to any page and see God smiting someone for something… or at least ordering the smiting of someone for something. Jesus is even worse with his massage of eternal punishment in Hell for those who don’t believe in him. I mean what kind of loving deity gives that kind of ultimatum? The insecure and immoral kind I guess.

This brings me to the big Ten Commandments. These are God’s Commandments. The most important top ten things God does NOT want you to do. Some of them make sense (but those actually predate the Bible). Some are very tribal and dated. Needless to say, there commandments were so important that God actually physically set them in stone (although like Joseph Smith’s Golden Plates they are no where to be found). Notice what laws God didn’t think were that important. There is nothing about slavery or rape and nothing about the rights of women or treating people with dignity. But there is a law against working on Saturdays. Guess what Stephen? I am here at this Wizard World convention for pleasure but you are working on this Sabbath Day. I know you fancy yourself as Job and everything, but even Job followed the Ten Commandments. According to the Bible, I would be well within my rights to stone you to death right now.

Don’t worry, I don’t believe in that sort of thing. I’m an atheist. The way I see it, morality is a human construct and it is both relativistic and absolutist. Morality is principle based and based on human empathy and compassion. Human beings are still learning about morality. While it can sometimes be hard to figure out what is right, it is often easier to discover what is wrong and for the record, stoning people for working on the Sabbath Day is wrong. Sorry God, score one for human beings.

Sure it would be nice to have an easy list of “thou” and “thou nots” but life isn’t always easy. There are no rules set in stone for us to follow. Morality is a journey Stephen, just like life. Your journey has taken you to extreme faith and now I hope that you will start your journey to extreme reason. Faith can’t be tested or verified by definition, but reason can be. This is why both you and I use reason every day. It is time to use reason and think deeply about faith. I encourage you to search the internet and learn more. You can start on my website where I write a daily blog discussing religion, DangerousTalk.net. Search the category drop down menu for articles on various topics.

I wish you and your family well and I hope to see you in Bio-Dome 2: The Eye of Braxis soon.
In Reason,
-Staks Rosch

Filed under: Preaching, Religion, conversation, de-conversion, faith | 5 Comments »

Science and religion have pretty much always been in conflict. Both claim to be a means of determining knowledge and yet it is only through science that such a claim can be verified.

It really is amazingly ignorant of fundamentalist religious people to tell us through a computer that science is based on faith or that science is just another religion or that religion is better at determining truth. The fact is that ALL religious people use science EVERYDAY (even the Amish). Religion simply put is not a valid method for determining knowledge or truth. If it were, then religious people would not need to rely on science.

There are some people who claim that both science and religion focus on different types of knowledge (non-overlapping magisteria). This is their way of taking advantage of science while still believing in their ridiculous religious superstitions. This is of course bullshit. When religion makes claims about the world those claims can be tested using science. If they want to simply say “God” then they can escape the scrutiny of science, but the moment they say “God Exists” they are making a claim about the natural world and such claims can be tested through science. If any supernatural being acts or exists even in part in the natural world, then the claim is no longer non-overlapping.

For thousands of years, religion (Christianity) has done everything it could to stop people from using science because they wanted the monopoly on determining truth. This way they can make up any truth they wanted and there would be no way of testing their claims. But religion simply doesn’t have the predictive power and the ability to test and verify claims that science has. So religion realized they could not beat science. If you can’t beat them, claim that there is no conflict and continue to make stuff up.

Recently, Stephen Hawking recently 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.” PZ Myers added to that quote by stating, that “science works, and every charlatan in every church dreams of hitching a ride on its record.”

Religion is losing this culture war.

Filed under: Alternative Worldview, Decline of Religion, Religion, anti-intellectualism, culture war, god of the gaps, science, truth | 1 Comment »

Yesterday, I spent my blogging time writing up my Examiner article (because they pay the bills… well, not really… so contribute bitches). In any case, the article was about Helen Thomas’s remarks and the misunderstanding that followed.

I am not going to defend Helen Thomas here; I leave that to the Examiner article. But I do want to talk about a few of the conversations I had on this subject with various Jews and Gentiles. It seems that whenever someone criticizes a political issue related to Israel, Jew groups are quick to yell “antisemitism.” Sometimes there actually is antisemitism and sometimes there really isn’t.

It is my view that when people misuse and overuse terms like antisemitism, bigotry, racist, and/or rape they are weakening those terms. Those terms have specific and serious meanings. There are real people out there who really out to be labeled with those terms, but we can’t simply label anyone we disagree with, with those terms.

The label of “Jewish” has two distinct meanings which are often confused. In one sense, the term refers to a religion and in another sense it refers to an ethnicity. Thousands of years ago there was an ethnic tribe of nomads called Jews. Everyone in that tribe believed in a bunch of made-up bullshit. Today, there are people who are descendant from that tribe and so they are Jewish. Someone them still believe that made-up bullshit and some of them don’t. Some people who are not descendant from that tribe believe the made-up bullshit too.

The point is that being Jewish has two distinct meanings. One is religious while the other is ethnic. I think it is perfectly fair and justified to criticize and ridicule the religious ideas of Judaism. I don’t however, think it is fair or justified to criticize or ridicule someone because of their ethnicity. We can change our ideas (whether political or religious) we can’t go back in time and change who we are descendant from. We can’t change our ethnicity.

The term “anti-Semitic” refers to ethnicity, NOT religious or political beliefs and/or opinions. Questioning whether or not Israel (as a political state) should exist is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Nor is it anti-Semitic to question whether or not God really did give a patch of worthless desert to a tribe of bronze-aged sheep herders.

I’m sorry, but religious and political Jews can’t hind behind the cloak of antisemitism to hide from criticism. There are real anti-Semitic people out there. As an ethnic Jew, I have seen it. Racism is wrong regardless of what the race is. Those who believe all Arabs are anti-Semitic are just as racist as those who believe all Jews are aliens from another planet leading the Illuminati in their evil plot to take over the world (Yes, I have met those people and they really believe that).

Filed under: Orthodox Judaism, Religion, Religious Manipulation, culture war, ignorance, jews, journalism, language | 4 Comments »

Recently, I have been telling a lot of Christians and atheists alike that I have heard so many arguments both for and against religion, that it seems like I have heard them all. I have even told some people how excited I would get if I actually heard a new argument. Today I heard a new argument and I am fucking excited.

The argument I heard is actually from a fellow atheist (it seems creative thinking is on our side today). So I want to thank Dusty Smith from the Cult of Dusty for introducing a new argument against religion. It is what I am going to call the Socialized Religion Argument. Dusty points out that the tax-exempt status of religions in America actually amount to Socialized Religion. Many fundamentalist Christians are part of the Christian Right which has demonized socialism. So by supporting the tax-exempt status of religion, these teabaggers, libertarians, conservatives, social conservatives, and all around Republicans are supporting socialism.

Dusty also claims that the tax-exempt status of religion is a direct attack on God. If God is all powerful, then he should be able to provide enough money so that the Churches can pay taxes and still spread their message effectively. I think these are some great new arguments and pretty obvious ones at that. I really don’t know why I haven’t heard them before. Watch Dusty’s video about this subject:

Filed under: Capitalism, Religion, church/state, culture war | 2 Comments »

The Bible (or any Holy Book, really) seems to be open to lots of various interpretations. Frequently when I point out a particular issue I have with the Bible to a Christian they will inform me that I am interpreting it incorrectly. If I take a liberal view of the Bible, the fundamentalists say I am interpreting it wrong and if I take a more fundamentalist view, then the progressive Christians make that claim. The way I see it, there are only two ways to interpret the Bible, a reasonable interpretations or an unreasonable interpretation.

What do I mean by “reasonable” and “unreasonable” in this context? I mean that if the average person were to read through the Bible, they would have good reason to support a particular interpretation. On the other hand, an unreasonable interpretation requires some form of mental gymnastics and manipulation of the text in order to reach the interpretation in question.

Let’s take Matthew 10:34 as an example: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” Frequently Christians tell me that this doesn’t actually mean that Jesus is advocating violence or hostility. They then continue to hold the position that Jesus was a “Prince of Peace.” The claim is that this is a metaphor, which it clearly is. It would be unreasonable to assume that Jesus was actually wielding a sword. But a reasonable interpretation is that the metaphor of a sword represents violence or at the very least hostility. The fact that the character of Jesus explicitly states that he is not coming to bring peace, makes the interpretation that he is the Prince of Peace an unreasonable interpretation.

You know people are making unreasonable interpretations of the Bible when there are books out there called, “What Jesus Meant.” The fact is that the Bible is a straight up book. Sure, the reader should know something about the times it was written in, the various target audiences, and the themes with each book. But there really is no need for Biblical scholars with decades of learning the mental gymnastics needed to make some bizarre interpretation. There is no need for volumes of books telling us the proper way to understand it. The Bible should be understood on its own (especially if it had a divine author).

So yes, the Bible is open to some interpretation, but there are reasonable interpretations and unreasonable interpretations. Most Christians have the latter.

Filed under: Real Christians, Religion, context, language, the bible | 2 Comments »