DangerousTalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: God Fearing, Religion | 11 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason | 21 Comments »

It is kind of funny sometimes when religious fundamentalists claim that America is an atheist nation. Sometimes they even say that in the same breath as when they tell me that America is a Christian nation. Of course I have to inquire.

Sometimes religious people don’t understand the difference between atheism and secularism and as a result they often use the terms interchangeably. America is a secular nation. That is true. Does that make America an atheist nation? Well, yes and no.

Both atheism and secularism deal with a lack of deities. This is perhaps where the confusion occurs. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities but secularism isn’t a belief. Secularism is more like a lack of pertinence.

For example, public schools are secular in that they don’t pertain to gods and supernaturalism. People in the schools are free to either believe or not believe in those things. The schools themselves are not entities that are capable of beliefs. The educators and administrators are the ones capable of beliefs. The policy is that belief or lack of belief are not pertinent to the material that the school is trying to teach. That material is best left to others. In some instances, the terms secular and atheist can be synonymous, but they are slightly different terms.

The separation of church and state does not create an atheist state, but rather affirms that beliefs or lack of beliefs are not pertinent to the state. People can believe or not believe as they wish.

Christians love to feel persecuted and that is why some fundamentalists will mix up the terms atheist and secular. In this way, they can justify their persecution complex and claim that public schools and the nation as a whole are atheists oppressing God.

Of course God is helpless to fight back against the atheist schools and the atheist government so Mr. All-powerful God needs Christians to fight back against the persecution. Maybe God is helpless because he doesn’t exist. Just a thought.

Filed under: atheism, church/state, culture war, education, Religion | 4 Comments »

Many well reasoned atheists disagree on issues of taxation, foreign policy, states rights, etc. So I can understand why not all atheists are politically active and that all the atheists that are politically active may not all be Democrats. But what I can’t understand is how any well reasoned atheist could possibly be a Republican.

While the only thing that all atheists have to have in common by virtue of being an atheist is a lack of belief in deities however most modern atheists tend to also be humanistic atheists who value reason over faith.

The Republican Party has become the political party of faith over the last 30 or 40 years. It isn’t just that the vast majority of the current Republican Party are fundamentalist Christians. It isn’t even just that the Republican talking heads use religion as a wedge on just about every issue. It isn’t even just that the Republican Party focuses on issues like being against things like gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research. It is all of those things and more.

The Republican Party has waged a war on non-believers. The fact is that during the 2008 Republican Primary, three prominent candidates raised their hands as rejecting the science of evolution. John McCain was not among them, but had to take a moment to clarify his acceptance of evolution with his religious belief that God created the sunrise or something or other. It is also significant that McCain was advised to pick an overly religious vice-presidential candidate to help him empower the extremely fundamentalist religious base of the Party.

I can’t understand how any non-believer could possibly support a political party or a politician who believes that atheists are un-American and immoral simply because we lack a belief in a deity. I’m not saying that all atheists have to be Democrats, but just don’t understand how an atheist could support a party that hates them. It is like being a black member of the KKK or a Jewish Nazi. Those maybe extreme examples, but the point is that they illustrate that the Republican Party actively works against the rights and freedoms of atheists.

Filed under: atheism, church/state, culture war, evolution, free speech, Gay Issues, global climate change, palin, People of Reason, Politics, Religion, science | 22 Comments »

Christians often ask me for evidence for god’s nonexistence. Right from the start, that is a ridiculous demand. But as it turns out there is actually really strong philosophical evidence for god’s nonexistence. Christians created a God that is too perfect to exist.

The Christian theologian Anselm once defined God as a being in which no greater being can be conceived. I assume most Christians would agree with that definition since they are always telling me how all-powerful their deity is. But then they start telling me about Jesus and that is when Christians start to put limits on their deity.

For example, why did Jesus have to die on the cross? The standard Christian answer is that he died for our sins. But why did he need to die? The standard Christian answer is that God needed a perfect sacrifice. Why does Mr. All-powerful deity, the being to which not greater being can be conceived NEED a perfect sacrifice or NEED anything else for that matter?

Why do bad things happen to good people (the subject of my recent Examiner article)? The standard Christian answer is that God allows suffering to teach us about good. But why would a perfect deity NEED to cause suffering to teach us about good? Isn’t he God? Can’t he just snap his personified magic fingers and give us the knowledge and wisdom without the suffering?

God gave us Free-will, so that is why Hell exists. Why couldn’t God have given us free-will and made it so that we would all believe and follow him? I know that is a contradiction, but who are we to limit God? If God truly is a being in which no greater being can be conceived, then he can make a square circle if he wanted to. He could also give us free-will and make us follow and believe in him.

Christians can’t get past human logic because Christians are human, but God is allegedly not human. God is allegedly all-powerful. The laws of logic shouldn’t apply to God.

That being the case, the best evidence against the existence of God is Christianity. If God exists, then he doesn’t NEED the blood sacrifice of Jesus. He doesn’t NEED Christians to spread “the word.” He doesn’t NEED to have created Hell. He doesn’t NEED to have any of these elaborate schemes of religion at all. If God wants me to know him, then I would know him. No middlemen needed. But Christians need to limit their all-powerful deity to justify their religion and in so doing, they disprove the very deity they worship.

Filed under: blood sacrifice, delusion, Disproving God, free will, god, logic, Ontological Argument, Religion, sin, Vague Higher Power | 20 Comments »

There is a difference between knowing and believing. Fundamentalist Christians often think that if they believe something is true, that makes it true. They might even claim that it is “true for them.” More often than not, they will even say that their view of their religion is Truth.

I want to point out that these fundamentalists don’t say that their religion is true, but rather that their particular interpretation of their religion is Truth. They are not making a claim about how accurately their religion matches up with reality, but rather that their religion is reality itself.

This is cult-speak. It is a way to circumvent the reasoning process so that the fundamentalist need not even evaluate whether the claims actually match up with the real world. If the claims are present as a reality in and of themselves, then we don’t have to observe how accurate they are or in this case aren’t.

When someone makes a claim like “the door is open,” we have to observe the door in question and see whether or not the claim fits with our observation. If the claim does match our observations, then we can say that the claim is true. We would not say that the claim is Truth.

Christianity in general and fundamentalist Christianity in particular make claims about reality but instead of observing the world to see if those claims are accurate, they simply declare the claims as Truth. When asked to present evidence to support the “Truth” claim, Christians have a pocket full of failed arguments which typically play on people’s emotions, ignorance, and lack of critical thinking rather than on actual evidence.

It is one thing to say that you believe a certain thing to be the case, but are not certain that it actually is the case and another thing to claim that your beliefs are “Truth” without the need to justify that “Truth” with actually facts, observations, and evidence.

Filed under: delusion, Religion, truth | 2 Comments »

The Liberal Lion has been tea-bagged. At the time of his death, Ted Kennedy was the second most liberal Senator and now he is being replaced by someone who may turn out to be the most conservative Senator. How is that possible?

It’s easy. The Democrats have no balls. President Obama in particular has been a big disappointment. He talks a great game, but when the time comes to take the field and actually play competitively, he just goes into the backroom and makes a deal to throw the game.

Obviously Massachusetts is a state that favors progressive Democrats. So why would the DSCC push a middle of the road Democrat like Martha Coakley? Leadership is a top-down command structure. The fact is that Obama has not led the fight for healthcare reform, economic reform, gay rights, or in withdrawing our military troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before Obama even won the primary I criticized him for wanting make nice with the right wing of the Republican Party. I warned that he would not be successful in sitting down with the Religious Right. But he wasn’t listening. Sometimes compromise is another word for surrender.

Progressive Democrats are sick of this. We don’t want to support someone who promises change and transparency and then makes backroom deals with bankers and the insurance companies. Obama has gained no support from the right wing despite all his efforts and has now lost the support of progressives. The people in the middle respect politicians who will stand up for principles (even principles they don’t agree with).

Republicans have been saying that Democrats have 60 votes and can do whatever they want. However, Democrats have no leadership nor do they have a backbone. As a result, they have tied their hands behind their back and wondered why they couldn’t get anything done. Now we no longer have 60 votes. So now it is time to kick some ass.

It is time to scrap that worthless healthcare bill and write a real health reform bill. It is time to move that bill into reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes and pass the fucker. We don’t need Lieberman and we aren’t going to get Scott Brown.

Let this failure of the Obama Administration be a wake up call to get some balls. So I think it is a great thing that Democrats lost Kennedy’s Senate seat. It means that Democrats no long have an excuse for not getting anything done. The Democrats still have more Senators than Bush ever had and he was able to pass anything he wanted. Funny how that works.

Filed under: Current Events, healthcare, Obama, Political Activism, Politics | 25 Comments »

Often times when I get into a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian, they tend to get offended by the mere possibility that they don’t know everything. I think people of reason and fundamentalists have a very different view of knowledge and a much different view of what it means to lack knowledge.

As a person of reason, I am well aware that I don’t know it all. I know that there are things in the universe that I am ignorant about. The scientific method is the best tool we have to learn about things that we don’t know about and keeps our minds open to new ideas which may fit the evidence better than the older ideas.

Fundamentalist Christians however seem to get offended when they are forced to admit that they are ignorant about a particular subject or piece of knowledge. They seem to consider ignorance as an insult rather than an opportunity to learn.

It seems to me that this is in large part to their insecurity in relation to knowledge in general. Fundamentalist Christians subconsciously know that they are ignorant about science and the world around them. They know that they are hiding from their ignorance with the myth of their religion. To the fundamentalist, God is the answer to every question, but when their true ignorance is exposed they get defensive, angry, and insulted.

“Ignorance is of a particular nature; once dispelled, it is impossible to re-establish it.” –Thomas Paine

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, education, god of the gaps, ignorance, Religion | 5 Comments »

Whenever I talk about all the immoral and horrible things that Christianity is responsible for in the world, some Christian will always respond by reminding me that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian. Guess what? The Christian is correct Martin Luther King Jr. was indeed a Christian. So what?

Hitler was a Christian too. Does that then make Christianity responsible for the holocaust? The real question is did Martin Luther King Jr. become a model for non-violence because of his Christian faith? Maybe in small part he did, but there are plenty of extremely violent passages in the Bible to support a very different outlook of tolerance and equal right. Mostly though, Dr. King learned about the principles of non-violence from Gandhi rather than Jesus. Gandhi for the record was not a Christian. Gandhi also did not originate the principles of non-violence. He learned those principles from the Jains.

The Jains are so non-violent that they wear masks so that they don’t accidentally swallow insect. When the Jains say that they wouldn’t hurt a fly, they take it literally.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a hero to me. He was a champion of justice and tolerance. He believed that people can stand up to unjust laws without having to take up arms. He was also a Christian. But it wasn’t his religious views that made him great. He was great for his secular humanist dream that people ought not be judged my the color of their skin, but rather for the content of their character.

I don’t believe in judging people by their skin color or their clothing. I don’t believe in judging people by their gender or their sexual orientation. I don’t believe in judging people by how much or how little money they make. But I do believe in judging people by their ridiculous beliefs and by the content of their character in relation to those beliefs.

Dr. King spoke out against injustice and inequality. I speak out against one of the largest sources of those things… theistic religion.

Filed under: Evils of Christianity, Martin Luther King Jr., Religion | 7 Comments »

I often get into prolonged conversations with fundamentalists. Usually after a little while our conversation changes from antagonism to a genuine exchange of ideas. The fundamentalist then starts to see where I am coming from and begins to reason on his or her own through the theological bullshit that has been drilled into their head. Then all of a sudden out of seemingly nowhere, a brick wall goes up and he or she informs me that I should just give my life over to Jesus right now while I still have a choice in the matter. Apparently, in the Bible, God said something like every knee will bend to his will whether we want it too or not… or something or other (Romans 14:11).

When this happens, I often feel at first like all the progress that I made in our conversation has just been flushed down the toilet. But in reality, the opposite is true. This is one of the last desperate defenses of the fundamentalist who has run out of arguments. They are basically saying that they have nothing left, but are too stubborn in their indoctrination that they are not giving up. In fact, this line is often used as a way of transitioning out of the conversation all together.

Fortunately, I don’t see that line as a transition away from the conversation at all. Quite the opposite, I use it to bring them further into the conversation. If God is going to force my worship anyway, then what is the point of that whole free will thing? If God is going to force my worship anyway, then why is this Christian trying to convince me of anything? Why not wait for God to do it?

Most importantly however, why would I worship a deity who will force people to worship him if I still had a choice about it? Wouldn’t that be immoral? I mean think about it, if the leader of some country some how had this weapon that would force people to obey his commands (think James Bond plot), shouldn’t a moral person do everything they could to stop this tyrant from doing that for as long as the moral person could choose to do anything? Wouldn’t it be not only cowardice but also immoral to instead worship this tyrant before he made every knee bow and every tongue confess to him?

Filed under: conversation, discussion, Every Knee, free will, god, Religion | 3 Comments »

Yesterday Haiti was hit with a massive earthquake. It didn’t take long after the earthquake hit the news for televangelist Pat Robertson to say something stupid and insensitive in order to make money. The thing that gets me is that people seem surprised by this. What did you expect from Pat Robertson?

After the 911 attacks, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson talked about how the attacks shouldn’t be blamed on the people who actually attacked, but instead the attacks should be blamed on all the people Falwell and Robertson dislike and don’t agree with. Then they used the 911 attacks to raise money for their ministry (and themselves).

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Robertson went on the air to talk about how God made the land “vomit out” in New Orleans because abortion is legal in the United States… and then he started to raise a bunch of money for him ministry.

So now, Robertson says that the people of Haiti made a deal with Satan and that people should given him a bunch of money to help fight Satan. It is easy to chastise Robertson for being an insensitive ass-clown. Everyone is doing it, but the fact is that Robertson isn’t the problem here.

First and foremost, we have to help the people of Haiti. So I recommend that people donate a dollar or more to the secular Doctors Without Borders and/or International Red Cross. That is by far the most important thing you can do.

Second, understand that science and science education could help us to develop technology which could help us better understand and predict earthquakes. So we need to support our scientific community. Fundamentalists like Pat Robertson may think that earthquakes are punishments from God, but the fact is that the devastation in Haiti could have been avoided if the scientific community had more resources available to them to learn more about earthquakes and other acts of natural. Religious superstition is a detriment to our scientific progress.

Third, we need to stop blaming Pat Robertson. The fact is that he is an easy target. He goes on television and says something stupid and insensitive, but at the end of the day he makes a ton of money saying those things. Robertson can’t wait for the next natural disaster to hit. They are big money makers for him. A large number of Americans agree with Pat and as a result, they donate to his stupid 700 Club. If everyone thought Pat was ridiculous for the stuff he said, then he wouldn’t be making a shit load of money saying it and so he would stop. But the real problem is that a large number of Americans agree with him. How did we let that happen in our modern world?

Filed under: culture war, Current Events, pat robertson, Religion, satan, science | 8 Comments »

For many mainstream Christians (usually not the fundamentalists), religion isn’t about divine truth. In fact, to these particular Christians, their religion isn’t even about the Bible. Instead, religion basically boils down to one simple question, what would Jesus do?

When I say this however, I don’t mean that these mainstream Christians think that their religion is about the answer to that question, but rather the question itself. It seems that for the average mainstream Christian, Jesus is more of a role model than the only begotten son of God.

This position is both good and bad. For starters, in order to hold this view one need not even believe that Jesus really existed. In fact, one need not even believe in a god. There is no logical problem with using a fictional character as a role model. We do it all the time. Lots of kids look up to and admire Harry Potter. Harry is a great role model. The fact that we all know that Harry Potter is a fictional character does not diminish our ability to ask ourselves, “What would Harry Potter do?” In fact, we can put any character real or imagined into that role model position. Personally, I use Yoda or Batman (depending on the situation).

That’s all well and good, but can this really be called Christianity? Almost half the Christians in America seem to think it can and that makes arguing against Christianity a difficult job.

Another bad aspect of this position is that the only source material for Jesus is the Bible and while there are certainly some positive things that the character of Jesus says, he also says and does some pretty horrible things. It seems that many of these mainstream Christians have just not read their own holy book.

They seem to forget that the character of Jesus says that we own to cut off our hands and poke out our eyes if thus parts of our body tempt us. Sure the mainstreamers with claim it is a metaphor, but what is it a metaphor for, exactly?

The character of Jesus also states specifically that he did not come to bring peace, but rather that he came with a sword. Obviously he did not come literally with a sword, but typically a sword is a symbol of violence which seems to follow from the first part that he didn’t come to bring peace.

In the Bible, Jesus also states that in order to follow him, one must hate their entire family. Is this the family values guy? It just seems like he is a narcissistic asshole to me. I wouldn’t pick him as my role model. Even Eric Cartman would be a better role model than this ass-clown. I’m just say’n.

Filed under: Mainstream Christians, Religion, Vague Higher Power, wwjd | 6 Comments »

My father used to tell me this old Jewish joke about a Jew praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. There was this Jew who came to the Wailing Wall every day for ten years to pray. One day, someone asked him if any of his prayers were every answered. He responded by saying, “No, it’s like talking to a wall.”

It was a really lame joke, but it reminds me of two videos that I want to share today. The first is a classic video about prayer by GodIsImaginary.

The other video that I want to share is the new video by NonStampCollector.

One of the things I noticed in this video and can especially relate too is that no matter how many times I address an issue that a fundamentalist Christian brings up they continue to repeat the same issue over and over again. Sometimes it really does feel like I am talking to a wall.

Filed under: conversation, discussion, evolution, Religion | 8 Comments »

One of the big issues that I often have with fundamentalist religious people is that more often than not they will make wild accusations about atheists and sometimes these accusations even come in the form of a question. These questions often have implied answers which are not true and are just mean spirited toward atheists. For example: As an atheist, what is it like to live without hope?

Seriously, that was the question that a Christian friend asked me recently and it wasn’t the first time I heard such a question from a Christian either. It certainly wasn’t an isolated incident. I am pretty sure that other atheists have heard similar questions asked to them by the religious. How should an atheist answer such an absurd question or accusation? While there are many possible responses and every atheist is welcome to give their own, I do have a suggestion.

For starters, I love answering questions with more questions. It must be the philosopher in me. I usually ask the particular religious person, why they hate people? Of course I don’t think that the person actually does hate people (necessarily), but the point is that the question implies that the person does hate people and asks why that might be. Just like the question about hope implies that I don’t have hope and inquires about the reason for such a view.

I think it is important to explain this to the religious person and take a moment or two to call them out on the hateful tone of the question and on the unfounded assumption that the question implies. The religious person in question should have asked, as an atheist do I have hope and if so, what is it that I hope for? While still an ignorant question to ask, it at least doesn’t imply unfounded assumptions and accusations.

Then I attempt to explain to the religious person in question that as a humanistic atheist, I actually have a great deal of hope. I hope to make the world a better place and I hope for the continued progress of humanity and for our continued survival as a species. I also have hopes and dreams for particular people in my life.

The way I see it, fundamentalists Christians tend to be more selfish with their hopes. They usually hope for eternal bliss in Heaven for themselves. So I guess the real question is, why are Christians so selfish?

Filed under: atheism, conversation, Hope, Religion | 9 Comments »

While the holiday season is fresh in my mind, I wanted to talk about yet another aspect of Christian hypocrisy. During the holiday season, fundamentalist Christians often yell at the top of their lungs that if atheists are offended by Christmas crap, that’s too bad. O’Reilly friends have are happy to inform us that the Constitution doesn’t protect people from being offended.

Personally, I totally agree with O’Reilly and friends on this. In general, I am not really offended by Christmas crap (just disappointed). In some cases however there is a Constitutional issue but that is not what I want to discuss here. The issue that I want to discuss today is O’Reilly and other fundamentalists complete opposite view during the rest of the year.

It seems to me that in America the number one group of people who seem to be constantly offended and who play the “offended” card the most tend to be fundamentalist religious people (usually Christians). Whether it is radio, television, movies, or print media, Christian groups are constantly setting up letter writing campaigns and call-in campaigns to program sponsors and the FCC because they are offended.

The fact is that we choose what offends us. That being the case, maybe atheists and people of reason should choose to be offended by stuff too. For example, most Christians (fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists alike) tend to wear a symbolic torture device around their necks. Sometimes even with a mostly naked guy being tortured right on it. Now sure, I understand what this symbolizes to most Christians, but do you know what it symbolizes to me?

I see the Christian Crucifix as a symbol of intolerance. The Christian view is that if you don’t believe in Jesus you will be tortured for all eternity in Hell. I find that offensive. Do you know what else I find offensive? Have you every watch the 700 Club or Fox News? What about all the wacky religious radio shows, the televangelists, and church sermons which are hateful to gays and non-Christians? I find a lot of that stuff offensive.

So let’s write to the FCC and let them know that we find these threats of eternal damnation are offensive and hateful. Maybe instead of cracking down on curse words and baring a little skin, there bureaucrats will start knocking down church doors with fines of millions of dollars and the American people can get al least some of our tax exempt church back.

Filed under: Blasphemy, censorship, Christmas, culture war, free speech, Political Activism, Religion | 21 Comments »

A number of years ago, when I was doing the Dangerous Talk radio show on WCUR 91.7 FM in West Chester, I had a fundamentalist Christian preacher on. This particular preacher would travel to different Universities and tell everyone that they were going to Hell… even the other fundamentalists Christians.

In any case, I invited him on the show. He came to the studio with his wife and two sons, although he was the only one on the air. In our conversation, he told me that he follows Gods orders without question. This prompted me to ask him the ultimate “gotcha” question.

With his wife standing close by and his one son running around the studio I said, “If God ordered you to kill your son, would you do it without question?” The room got uncomfortable very quickly. His wife was staring at him waiting for him to answer and his son froze in his tracks. A few seconds seemed like hours. Then he answered that God wouldn’t give that order.

I remember he looked like he had dodged a bullet with that answer, but I didn’t let him of the hook. I reminded him about Genesis 22 in which God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. He smiled and laughed and said that Abraham didn’t actually kill Isaac because the angel stopped him. It was just a test.

But that didn’t satisfy me. I told reminded him, “Abraham didn’t know it was a test and so the question stands, “what if God ordered you to kill your son. What if you heard the voice of God in your head and knew it was the Lord would you kill your son?”

He looked at his wife and then at his son and then told me honestly that he didn’t know and that he would have to get back to me on that.

We hear about it in the news every so often, a parent kills their child because they claimed that it was the will of God. Most people claim that the parent in question was mentally ill or just plain nuts, but there is precedent within the Bible for this type of thing. Maybe the parent thought God would stop them and this was just a test like it was for Abraham. In any case, I think it is a good question to ask fundamentalists to see who they love more their children or their deity.

Filed under: blood sacrifice, morality, Religion, the bible | 10 Comments »

Yesterday, two of my favorite authors verbally attacked each other on the interweb pages of foreignpolicy.com. Sam Harris and Karen Armstrong have both written outstanding books. As an atheist, I frequently recommend Armstrong’s The History of God and The Bible: A Biography to Christians. I also recommend Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation.

Armstrong asserts that Harris and others blame all religion for all the world’s problems. I think there are two too many uses if the word “all” here. Armstrong is an intellectual and her view on God is more of a vague higher power wishy washy thing than that of the Abrahamic character we have all come to know and… you get the idea. The fact is that she can debate mythos vs. logos all day, but most religious believers really don’t ponder such things. On a practical level, religion in general has been and continues to be a destructive force in human society. Not all religion, but certainly, an extremely large majority of religion has been and continues to be a threat to human progress, human liberty, and even human survival on this planet.

There are good things about religion as Armstrong has mentioned (the quest for transcendence, the discipline of compassion, and the endless search for meaning). However, as Harris has mentioned in The End of Faith, we can do all of those things without believing in superstitions and mythologies especially without sufficient evidence.

Why should religion have the monopoly on these things? Atheists can and do quest for transcendence, tend to embrace the discipline of compassion usually more so than the average god-believer, and search for meaning in a more existential way rather then just forfeiting that meaning blindly to a bullshit deity.

I think Harris and Armstrong can agree that we need to educate religious believers about science and history. Once they learn and understand these things they will either end their faith or transcend their mythos in favor of their logos. But the important part here is not the ends, but the means. If the argument is that Harris is an atheist extremist and if education is the weapon of atheist extremism, then sign me up.

Both Harris and Armstrong are great educators and I strongly support them both.

Filed under: atheism, education, People of Reason, Religion, Vague Higher Power | 5 Comments »

Apparently, this weekend there will be a meeting of atheist leaders. I didn’t even know there were atheist leaders, but I digress. I’m sure my invitation must have been lost in the mail. In any case, one of the topics on the agenda is whether or not to have one huge massive atheist unity convention in our nation’s capital.

The idea for an Atheist Unity Convention is the brainchild of Margaret Downey, President of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. As a former board-member of that organization and a current member I have gotten to know Margaret pretty well over the years. If anyone can organize such a massive group of nonconformists together and herd the cats of atheism, it is Margaret. She is dynamic voice and an outstanding organizer.

The problem with this convention plan: Apparently many of the atheist groups have their own yearly conventions that they rely on for fundraisers. Being part of the Atheist Unity Convention might mean that their members won’t go to their smaller conventions.

Personally, I haven’t been to any atheist conventions because I’m poor and can’t afford the air travel. But if the convention was to be held in DC, then I can drive there. I really don’t care which atheist group is putting on the convention. If it is convenient for me to go and I can afford it, I will go. That being said, I would be more willing to scrounge up money to go to a large Atheist Unity Convention than I would a convention with less noble aspirations.

One of the reasons for a more united atheist convention is so we can let politicians in Washington and people in the media know that we are unified in some way and that we can be a voting block if we want to. Such a show of force (by numbers) will go a long way. So if you are a member of one of the larger atheist groups send them an e-mail before this weekend and tell them that if they decide not to support the Unity Convention, you will not support them. Let them know that a Unity Convention can be a great way to get new members.

Another problem with these kinds of atheist conventions is that there really aren’t atheist leaders the way there are Christian leaders. Atheism has spread in large part to the interwebs. There are some well know YouTube atheists and bloggers who would not be considered “leaders” yet they often carry more authority than so called leaders of big atheist organizations. A Unity Convention will need to reflect that. This weekend meeting of atheist leaders surely does not. That is one of the real differences between atheists and believers. We are all atheist leaders.

Filed under: atheism, Current Events, People of Reason | 6 Comments »

Over the break, I got a lot of e-mails asking me about my de-conversion story. To be honest, my story isn’t that interesting. I was never a fundamentalist nor did I have a lot of family pressure to stay religious. But it’s a new year, so I guess I’ll tell the story.

First, it is important to understand the demographics of the area I grew up in. I grew up in a small suburban town in Northern Jersey just outside New York City. The area is very diverse and liberal. More importantly, there are no fundamentalists. I never met a fundamentalist until I went to college. On Sundays, Christians might go to Church and on Fridays, Jews might go to Temple. But not everyone did. My family only went to Temple on the holidays.

My parents are Jewish and I grew-up going to Hebrew School on Saturdays and for a few hours after public school two days a week for about 8 to 10 years. I learned about God the same way I learned about science. I accepted that God was real and never even thought that it was something to be questioned.

Shortly after my Bar Mitzvah (13th Birthday), I started to have a rough time in school. I saw some kids in my school doing some illegal things and told my friend what I saw. My friend blabbed and as a result, I started to get harassed by those kids and their friends (many of whom probably didn’t know what was going on). The harassment really got to me and made me a social outcast. Looking back on it, it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but for a 13 year old it seemed like my whole world was being destroyed.

I remember asking God why this was happening. How could God allow these people who were doing illegal things to prosper? I was a good person and yet God did not seem to be on my side. Maybe God just doesn’t exist, I thought. That was the first time I ever even conceived the thought. I remember telling someone (can’t remember who) that I wasn’t sure that God existed. The person told me that I must be an atheist then.

However, when I told people at school that I was an atheist all of a sudden everyone got very religious. No one in my area was religious really and so this really surprised me. But I really didn’t think much of it at the time. Religion wasn’t that important to me and it really didn’t come up much in my small suburban town.

When I went to college in Pennsylvania that all changed. Early along, I met my core group of friends, but within the first few weeks I also met a group of people who were so nice. They went out of their way to be my friend and spend time with me. After hanging out with this new group of people for about a week or two, they asked me to come with them to their Christian meeting. I told them that I wasn’t Christian; I was a Jew. But they didn’t really care. They said that they thought I was open-minded enough to listen to new ideas. Nothing gets an open-minded person more eager to do something than challenging their openmindedness. So of course I went.

The group was called CIA (Christians In Action). When we got there, I saw about3 or 4 people doubled over each other outside as if they were all tackling a football or something. The thing is that they were all shaking. I asked one of my friends was they were doing and she told me, “Jesus was moving them through the Holy Spirit.” I had never seen anything like that and I have to say that it seemed really wacky to me at the time and even today. So I was already on my guard when I went into to meeting.

The meeting was a typical fundamentalist meeting. There was a rock band playing Christian music, everyone was waving their hands around and dancing in their seats, the Pastor gave his sermon, and then there was more singing. I just sat there and took it all in. Toward the end of the meeting, the Pastor asked everyone to stand. He then said that everyone who has been saved by Jesus should sit down. Now there were only a handful of us still standing and all eyes were on us. The Pastor then stated that he felt the Holy Spirit in the room tonight and that if anyone else felt it and has become saved this very night they can sit down too. The room was completely silent and everyone stared at those still standing until one by one they all sat down… except me. For about 5 minutes the room was silent, everyone staring at me, and it was very uncomfortable. Finally, it became clear to the Pastor that I was not going to sit down, so he told me that perhaps the Holy Spirit will save me next week and then the band started playing again and everyone broke out into song.

After the meeting, a bunch of us went out to a diner for a late snack and conversation. I loved talking to these people. They wanted to convert me so badly and I had a lot of fun discussing life’s issues. I of course went back to CIA the following week and became a regular at their meetings. I even started to go to other Christian groups too. I had never met anyone who made religion the center of their lives and it was fascinating to me. While I believed in God at one point in my life, I never really made that belief the center of my existence. In fact, I never really thought about religion all that seriously except that one time when I was 13. When I did think deeply about religion, religion just seemed silly. While in college, I was able to think deeply about religion all the time and I had a lot of religious people helping me. Yet the more I thought about it, the more silly religion seemed. But it was fun to talk about and I really was interested in learning more about why these people believed these crazy things.

It wasn’t long before I switched my major to Philosophy and started learning about other religions and other philosophies. It didn’t take long to realize that most of the points that my Christian friends would bring up had already been answered by philosophers hundreds and even thousands of years ago.

I still enjoy discussing religion with my fundamentalist friends.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, de-conversion, Religion, Religious Manipulation | 6 Comments »

Whenever someone is in a difficult time in life or is dealing with difficult circumstances, religious people are quick to push their religious beliefs. They often say something like, “God only gives us what we can handle.”

While I understand that the believer has the best of intentions and I understand that the message they are trying to convey is that the person can get through their difficulty, I still think that this is a retarded statement. To me, it once again shows how little religious people think about the things they say.

For starters, it is not factually true that people are going to be able to handle their difficult situation. They may not be able to handle it or they may need help in handling it and that help better be more than from just God, because if a person is waiting for God’s help alone, he or she will have to wait a long time.

Second, this line of thinking flat out blames God for the difficulties. If God gives someone what he or she can handle, then God gave them their current difficulty. Blaming God for one’s problems is no different than blaming the boogieman. Not only is it not true, it takes responsibility away from the real blame. Many difficulties in life are the result of poor choices made by the one in trouble. It is important to recognize that a person may have caused his or her own difficulty and that he or she needs to learn from their mistakes. That may not get someone through the difficulty, but it could prevent future difficulties.

Some of our difficulties in life however are not our fault. They could be the fault of others or of circumstances beyond our control. If they are the fault of others, blaming God serves no purpose. We must place the blame on those who are to be blamed. Then we can confront those parties and hopefully prevent future difficulties. We live in a world with other people and we need to learn how to get along with each other.

If the difficulties are the fault of circumstances beyond our control, then reaching out to God is not going to help. We must reach out to each other for help. God didn’t give people these difficulties. God can’t help people out of them. While difficulties sometimes seem insurmountable, often times when we stop focusing on the problems and focus on solving small parts of the issues separately we can solve our problems ourselves or with a little help from friends, family, or human organizations created to help out.

Rome wasn’t built in a day and sometimes it may take more then a day to solve a particular problem or multiple problems. Often times we just need to remember that a long journey begins with a single step and that first step is usually the hardest step to take.

Dangerous Talker Note: This will probably be the last blog of this year. I will however be posting new articles on the Examiner Page during the winter break. If you enjoyed the blog this year, please consider donating a dollar or two. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Filed under: discussion, god, People of Reason, Religion, responsibility, Self-Help | 2 Comments »

One of the things that Christian fundamentalists always tell me is that I should worship their God because he is all powerful. I talked about this in previous blogs about the praise-worthiness of the Christian God, but I think it is an important issue in and of itself.

If God were evil, would Christians still worship him? He would still be God for all purposes that matter. He still created the universe, humans, smallpox, and AIDS. We would still have our “God-shaped hole in our hearts.” But in your heart of hearts, you knew that God was not a nice guy.

The fact of the matter is that the character of God as described in the Bible is evil. The only hypothetical in this question really only has to do with God’s existence. But once you allow for that, then all you really have to do is read about God in the Bible and use your own moral compass.

So if God were evil, would Christians still worship him? The sad answer is yes. I can say that because there are Christians in the world who worship God and he is clearly depicted in his own book as an immoral deity. Now here is the tough question. How does that make the average Christian any different that the average Nazi soldier in that respect?

Filed under: god, morality, Religion | 13 Comments »

I am sure by now everyone is aware of the death of evangelical televangelist Oral Roberts. The man was a legend. He was considered by many to be the father of televangelism and the inspiration for Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.

Last night I wrote my very polite and politically correct perspective on his death on the Examiner. I encourage everyone to check it out and leave some comments there. Today I want to be a little more… dangerous in my perspective. Christians and prudish people may get offended.

The greatest thing about Oral Roberts has got to be his name. How funny is that that the guy’s middle name was Oral and he decided to use that as his first name as if Oral was less embarrassing than Granville. The jokes practically write themselves.

God Missed Oral. God Loves Oral. God Wanted Oral. Did you hear that Oral had a twin sister name Anal? And those are just the easy joke. What are your favorite Oral Roberts jokes? Post them below in the comments section.

But no one tells an Oral Roberts joke better than Oral Roberts himself:

Make sure you pay close attention to what he says 4 minutes and 45 seconds in to the video.

Filed under: Current Events, Oral Roberts, Preaching, Religion, sex | No Comments »

I know that Christianity is supposedly a monotheistic religion and everything, but after talking to various Christians throughout my life, it seems like various Christians are talking about two gods rather then one.

The Bible talks very specifically about God and who this character is. God is wrath and vengeance. God is an angry and jealous god. God is the creator of all things good and evil. God orders wars, rape, genocide, and sends powerful delusions (i.e. lies). In the New Testament, God even increases his demand for blood and introduces the concept of eternal torture. But God isn’t a bad guy at all. He is the very definition of goodness if he does say so himself… and he does.

But there is another god of Christianity and that is the god who is actually a good and moral God by our human standards of morality. This God loves everyone and wouldn’t send anyone to be tortured for all eternity in Hell at all. Everyone goes to Heaven to be reunited with their family, friends, and loved ones. God wants what is best for you, not for him. He is a selfless, charitable deity who sent his only son to Earth to teach everyone about peace and love and just wants everyone to give peace a chance. That god is John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Dali Lama all rolled up into one apparently.

This second God of Christianity isn’t in the Bible, but nevertheless, most Christians worship that god over the Biblical God. I think this is probably because most Christians haven actually read their Bible cover-to-cover because these two gods couldn’t be more different is they tried. There really is no way to confuse these two deities and yet more times than not, these two deities are confused by mainstream believers.

While neither of these deities are real, only one of them even has Biblical support and it isn’t the peace and love deity. I think more people would reject their belief in God if they realized that it is the first God which is the God of the Bible and not the second God. If more people realized that the second God is just what they wish God to be rather than what God was written to be in the Bible then they would be less supportive of the whole concept of a god.

Mark Twain put it best when he said that he didn’t know whether God existed or not, but he thinks that it would be better for his reputation if he didn’t.

Filed under: god, Religion, Vague Higher Power | 15 Comments »

Many times when I am engaged in a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian, he or she will ask me to read one of their apologists. They convince themselves that if only I read this other book, the Bible will make perfect sense. If only I read this other book all the immoral, unscientific, false history, illogical, contradictory, magical content of the Bible will be perfectly explained and make complete sense.

Often times, I will read the recommended apologist and find that the arguments put forth are old arguments that had already been answered by people hundreds and even thousands of years ago. While I do sometimes recommend atheist books to my Christian friends, I usually just recommend more classical philosophical works. Just the other day, I was recommended Plato’s Republic, Euthyphro, and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Unfortunately, many fundamentalist Christians are not interested in learning about morality, ethics, or any other topic of intellectual discourse. They already have all the answers in the Bible. They are also not interested in understanding my point of view and they are certainly not going to spend any time or effort to read anything I recommend even if it isn’t even an atheist author’s book.

While I have taken the time to read the Bible cover-to-cover (which is quite a considerable undertaking and one in which most fundamentalists haven’t even done I might point out) and I have taken the time to read some of the more influential Christian apologists, most Christians not only refuse to read atheist authors but they often even refuse to read classical literature and philosophy.

It often seems like a one-sided conversation. I read their books, listen to their arguments, think about their arguments, and even consider their arguments while they ignore almost everything I say. Fundamentalist Christians just don’t care to learn. They don’t want to understand the atheistic point of view nor do they want to learn about the world around them. The only reason they are in a conversation with an atheist at all is because they think the atheist is a mark for their con-game.

I understand that all Christians are different and so I think that it is important to learn why a person believes what they believe and what exactly do they believe. Oddly enough, I am often curious about why fellow atheists have rejected their former brainwashed beliefs too. It is rare that I hear a Christian articulate a new argument for their beliefs. Even the apologists seem to just rehash tired old arguments. But with every Christian that I discuss religion with, I look forward to being surprised.

Despite the one-sidedness of the conversation, I still think it is important to engage in these dialogs. The fact that they are only half listening to my arguments is actually encouraging on a subconscious level. Part of them still hears what I have to say and will nag at their thoughts day and night. At some point they will need to find answers to the questions that I pose.

I don’t expect my arguments to convince them on the spot that everything they have ever believed is a lie. No, I expect my arguments to gnaw on their brain for awhile and when they are can’t take it any more; they will start to look for answers on their own. At some point they might even pick up the Republic, Euthyphro, or the Nicomachean Ethics. They might even pick up The End of Faith or God Is Not Great.

Filed under: conversation, de-conversion, discussion, morality, Religion | 7 Comments »

Fundamental Christians often tell me that whether I believe in God or not, I will have to respect his authority. Of course, I inform them that even if their God does exist (and I am reasonably certain he doesn’t), I still see the God as portrayed in the Bible as immoral and would not follow such a deity. As such, I don’t recognize God’s Authority.

This is where the police argument comes in. The Christian usually argues, “Just because you don’t recognize God’s authority doesn’t mean you can ignore dealing with it. I could say I do not recognize the local police’s authority and break the speed laws or rob people’s houses.  The fact that ‘I don’t recognize’ the police’s authority doesn’t mean I will not have to deal with it once I am apprehended.”

I actually love it when a Christian uses this type of argument because it shows just how bronze-aged the Christian God actually is. You see, humans learn stuff and we progress socially, politically, and morally. God doesn’t learn. God doesn’t progress. While the Bible has certainly changed over the years, the crappy character of God has changed very little if at all. The God of the Bible was written in a bronze-aged time by bronze-aged people.

Getting back to the argument, the police are not the authority. We the people are the authority. The police just enforce our authority. America has an entire political system for creating laws, trying particular cases, and redressing grievances. If I don’t like the speeding laws, I can contact my representatives in government and lay out my arguments. If the law was enforced unfairly, I can take the issue up with the courts. Even if I am found guilty, I still have the right to appeal and I can still be paroled or given a reprieve. While there is no guarantee that I will win at any point in the process and there is of course corruption, there is still a system in place for people who do not respect the authority of the people.

God doesn’t even have that. In other words, our obviously flawed legal system is better than God’s perfect justice system. Our legal system sentences people differently depending on the wrong-doing, but God sends everyone to be tortured for all eternity for the smallest sin to the biggest. Whether you work on Saturday or murder 6 million people, you are going to Hell forever… except if you ask Jesus for forgiveness. Then of course you are free to go because according to the story, God drank Jesus’s blood or something.

To summarize, I don’t have to respect the authority of the police. The police can arrest me, but then I get the opportunity to make my case. The court system does their best to pick jurors who don’t assume that the police are always right. The Judge does his best to make sure both sides are treated fairly and the lawyers do their best to represent their side. If you cannot afford a lawyer to help defend your position, the court will appoint one to you. The character of God has no such process and among other reasons (like his non-existence) is why I don’t respect his authority.

Filed under: Authority, Judge God, morality, Religion, sin | 9 Comments »