DangerousTalk

A lot of discussions that I have with religious believers (usually Christians) all come back to the same really obvious and central problem that I have with religious belief. I really just don’t get it.

Let’s face facts here, religion tells some pretty fanciful stories. If any rational person (even religious person) heard these stories in a non-religious context they would not believe them to be true. In fact, they would laugh at how obviously ridiculous these stories are.

If religious people just forgot about their religion for a moment and changed he names of the characters and put it into modern times instead of ancient times, they would not believe these stories were true.

Imagine that I told you that I was at a friend’s wedding and my friend Bob turned water into wine. Really? No modern Christian would believe me. Did I mention that Bob is the son of God? Still don’t believe me? You don’t say. I just don’t get how anyone could believe this stuff.

The more I talk to Christians the more I am forced back to this extremely obvious fact that Christianity as a belief system is bat-shit insane. I really just don’t get it.

Filed under: delusion, logic, Religion | 9 Comments »

I recently overheard a very disturbing conversation. One woman was very upset because her friend was on his deathbed due to cancer. She was telling her friend about it and her friend asked her if the dying friend “knew the Lord.”

I was just overhearing this conversation and it wouldn’t be polite for me to interject, but in my mind, had this woman said that to me while I was upset about a dying friend, I would have really bitched her out. That is probably one of the most insensitive things I have heard in a long time.

It really isn’t all that surprising though. It isn’t unusual for Christians to use grief to propagate their ridiculous beliefs. But what really bothers me about this is that this woman actually thinks she is concerned about her friend’s dying friend. What if her friend told her that the guy was Jewish or Buddhist or even dare I say it… an atheist? How fucking comforting would that be?

“No, he didn’t ‘know the Lord,’ he was an atheist. So I guess he will be tortured for all eternity. Thanks for reminding me.”

I can’t believe that Christians actually believe that their God (as depicted in the Bible) is a loving God who send/allows (depending on the spin) people to be tortured for all eternity. That one aspect of Christianity alone makes it one of the most ridiculous belief systems on the planet. I guess that is why so many Christians just re-write the Bible in their minds so that Hell either doesn’t exist or is only for the really, really bad people.

The truth is that with people like this woman around, Sartre had it right; Hell is other people.

Filed under: conversation, death, deathbed conversion, Religion | 24 Comments »

Project Reason has officially launched their video contest. The goal of the contest is to have people make videos which help to spread scientific thinking and secular values. Nine videos have been nominated, but only one is really any good.

When you go to the voting page, all the videos are randomized and every time you go back to the page the videos appear in a different order to eliminate placement bias. When I first went to the page, the first video that I saw was one that I already had watched on YouTube and already thought was really good. But I wanted to watch all the videos before voting to make sure that there were no videos that were better.

As it turns out, all the other videos sucked. Don’t get me wrong though, I thought many of them had great ideas and had a lot of potential. But they couldn’t end the videos well or couldn’t really get the message right.

While the Reason Project… I mean Project Reason only allows a vote for first place, I would like to share my top few videos and why.

In first place is The Values We All Stand For:

This video was done by Evid3nc3 who has an awesome series of videos about his de-conversion. I love his voice which sounds very announcer like and commanding. The themes of this video are equality and unity and he hits on those themes in very strong ways. His message is clear, powerful, and secular.

In a distant second place, I would vote for The Fairy Scientist:

This video is really highlights scientific thinking and the girl is really cute. But the end was a little weak. It feels like the video was rushed. It would have been stronger if the video went through each set in the scientific method and then the girl was much clearer about her findings.

In a more distant third place is Just a Book:

This video had a really good idea in that other people were reading books out loud to the Bible thumper, but what was the message? I think it would have been much, much stronger if the other people were reading other holy books and someone of the bus shrugged his or her shoulders and commented about how they all sound just as ridiculous. But as it is, I don’t really see a message in this video except that people should shout down Christians which I don’t really think is a great message.

My very distant forth place goes to God Records a Public Service:

I don’t really have much to say about this one. It is what it is. I think the ending is the best. I think it puts God in prospective with other deities. But the video is slow moving and doesn’t really keep people’s attention.

Please watch all the videos and vote at Project-Reason.org

Filed under: atheism, culture war, Current Events, People of Reason, science | 2 Comments »

On a level playing field, good ideas are accepted and bad ideas are rejected. However, the world is still filled with bad ideas. If the premise is true and the conclusion is true, then we must assume that there isn’t always a level playing field in the free market of ideas.

We know that the world is still filled with bad ideas. All we need to do to show this is to point out any religion. Even if one were a Christian and strongly believed that Christianity was a good idea, he or she would still have to admit that Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are all bad ideas. This of course supports the conclusion that the world is filled with bad ideas.

So how can we distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas? This is what reason, logic, and the scientific method are for. Using these tools we are able to separate the bad ideas from the good ideas. Don’t believe me? If I were to state that the world is flat, we can apply our tools to figure out if this is a good idea or a bad idea. We see the shadow of the Earth in an eclipse, we have traveled around the Earth and observed that it is a sphere, and we have taken photos of the Earth from space and have observed that it is in fact not flat. So that would be a bad idea. We all accept this as fact even though we can stand on the Earth without falling off and that when we look at the ground it appears to be quite flat.

Now if we all accept that the Earth is not flat and is in fact spherical based on the tools of logic, reason, and the scientific method, why is it that religion more often than not attempts to bypass those tools through the concept of faith? Why is it that religion more often than not attempts to bypass those tools by spreading their ideas to people who are emotionally or intellectually unable to use those tools?

Let me clarify this last point. I am not saying that religion goes after stupid people exclusively. What I am saying it that more often than not, religion attempts to spread its ideas when people are too young to use the intellectual tools of reason, logic, and the scientific method. Also, religion more often than not, attempts to spread its ideas when people are in emotionally distress or turmoil. During these moments (sometimes they are brief moments) people are not thinking rationally. The tools of reason, logic, and the scientific method are being circumvented.

It certainly seems to me that the tools of the intellect, logic, reason, and the scientific method are used and accepted by everyone when it comes to everything except when it comes to religion. When it comes to religion, people through out the intellectual tools and instead use faith.

It seems that religion knows that it cannot compete on an open playing field with science and reason. As a result, religion has found ways to propagate itself by cheating the intellect. If religion is such a great idea, then why won’t it compete on an open playing field? Why has it become taboo to criticize religion?

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, culture war, Decline of Religion, logic, Religion | 4 Comments »

Society has been so dominated by Judeo-Christian beliefs that even people who don’t believe in a god are still brainwashed into using God language. How many times have you said, “God bless you” after someone sneezes?

“God Bless you” is just one example and many non-religious people have started to use other phrases instead of this very theistic one. Why do we say anything at all when people sneeze? The idea was that back in the day people believed that an evil spirit might enter the body when someone sneezes. This is of course ridiculous. In fact this is so ridiculous that no modern Christian still believes it.

“Oh my God,” I still say that phrase when something surprising or unfortunate happens. It is an unthinking reaction yet I still say it even though don’t believe in a god. Even “holy shit,” “God damn it” and “Jesus Christ” are used by most atheists today.

But the number one religious language holdover has got to be “goodbye.” Most people have no idea where this term comes from. It is short for the phrase, “May God be with you on your quest.” Of course, now goodbye has lost the religious component and has become a more generic farewell so I don’t really feel bad about continuing to use it. But the other terms and phrases that retain their obvious religious wording is a little embarrassing.

How should a non-theist deal with such things? Should we create and use more secular terminology and train ourselves into using different terms and phrases? Or should be just claim that those terms and phrases no longer have religious meaning to us and move on?

One thing is certain, even after the vast majority of people abandon religious superstitions and ridiculous beliefs, we are still going to be stuck with a lot of reminders of how these ridiculous beliefs have dominated the world.

Filed under: atheism, culture war, language, People of Reason, Religious Manipulation | 14 Comments »

We live in a religion dominated world. Over the last few years atheists have been more public with our lack of belief in imaginary deities. The OutCampaign has helped that a lot, but how “out” are you? How “out” should we be?

When I go out to a store or a mall, it is not unusual for me to see someone wearing a religious shirt. Often times those shirts are actually aggressively religious. It goes without saying that Christians and Jews wear religious necklaces like the crucifix or a Jewish star. There are also a ton of religious bumper stickers on cars.

Should atheists wear shirts and necklaces that identify us as atheists? Do you have those things and how often do you wear them? I have a few atheist shirts, but I usually only wear them to atheist meetings and/or events. I worry that if I wore them while out in the general public, my family and I might be the victim of violence. I doubt very much that Christians have that same fear from atheists. What does that say about them?

I want to know what other atheists have experienced in this regard. I have not received a lot of problems from my atheist bumper sticker, but that is I think in large part due to the fact that on the road there isn’t much people can do. I have once been solicited by a Christian at a gas station though and have had some college kids yelling about god as they drove passed me. But nothing really violent has come from my bumper sticker. This might be in part due to the fact that people are more accustom to being bombarded with bumper stickers with messages they don’t agree with. But I think an atheist shirt in a Wall-mart may cause a larger issue. What do you think?

Filed under: atheism, culture war, People of Reason | 13 Comments »

Recently a Catholic School in Colorado kicked out a student for having lesbian parents. But that is not what today’s blog is about. People have asked whether or not the Church has the right to have whatever rules they want since they are a private school. Most people including atheists say sure. It may not be right, but it is certainly legal. I disagree.

Normally, I would say let the market decide. If the people in the area think this is wrong they will pull their kids out of the Catholic School and put them into some other private school or perhaps public school. But the Catholic School has an unfair market advantage here since they are subsidized by the tax payers in the form of tax exceptions.

The fact is that all churches are essentially government subsidized. With that in mind, does this give the government (i.e. the people) a say in how these businesses conduct themselves. For example, there are laws against business discrimination and regulations pertaining to how businesses can conduct themselves.

Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor disagrees with me on this one. Before becoming a Supreme Court judge, she ruled on the case of Hankins v. Lyght. Hankins was a Methodist reverend who had reached retirement age but did not wish to retire. Under employment laws, he did not have to retire and an employer could not fire him for being over retirement age. But the Methodist Church did fire him for being over retirement age anyway. Sotomayor ruled that government laws dealing with employment do not need to be held by religious institutions. In other words, churches don’t need to follow the law.

As long as churches receive tax exempt subsidies, I think they should have to follow the laws of this country. In fact, as long as they are operating within the borders of this nation, they should have to abide by the laws of this nation. The fact that the churches not only can violate the law whenever they feel like it but can also get away with not paying their fair share of taxes makes no sense to me at all. The fact is that my taxes are higher because the churches don’t pay taxes.

Religion has been getting a government bailout ever since there was a government and it isn’t right. Every town has multiple churches and those churches are usually not small meek buildings either. Many are huge elaborate institutions sometimes with multiple buildings. They generally take up large tracts of land that if taxed would save most Americans quite a lot of money.

Filed under: Catholics, church/state, Law, Religion | 3 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: atheism, faith, logic, Religion, science, truth | 2 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: censorship, culture war, free speech, Political Activism | 4 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: atheism, Atheism NOT Religion, billboards, culture war, discussion, free speech | 22 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: church/state, culture war, education, Evils of Christianity, family values, Gay Issues, Religion, sex, Vague Higher Power | 6 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: atheism, church/state, culture war, Current Events, Obama, People of Reason, Political Activism, Politics | 12 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: conversation, discussion, Disproving God, god, Preaching, Religion | 29 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: family values, image of god, morality, Neighbor, Preaching, Real Christians, Religion, the bible, wwjd | 56 Comments »

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

An atheist was walking through the woods.

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

He said to himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Very Well,’ said the voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Politics | No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the two billboards in question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, culture war, faith, global climate change, miracles, Religion, science | 10 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: atheism, Hope, morality, prayer | 15 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: god, Religion, the bible | 9 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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