As a child in Sunday School, I still vividly recall being lectured on Gods love. To demonstrate how you should love God, it was insisted to us that you must become as obedient as Abraham.

So we were taught the story of Abraham and Isaac.

"Then He said, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

It was insisted to us that Abraham's unquestioning obedience to God – even if he was to murder his son, was of a high moral imperative that we should emulate. 

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

We were told that God was on the side of good because he sent an angel to halt the sacrifice. Really? What kind of God would demand the death of his child? Our teachers said anything they could to absolve God from such a vile crime – anything to excuse the fact that it was God who wanted Abraham to kill his son.

In this child's mind at the time, I can still recall being frightened by things that God's would demand. I was to love God through this type of obedience? I was horrified – and as a fully indoctrinated, uncritical, fully trusting Christian child I wondered if God would make similar demands on my father and put me under the knife.

But do you Christians step back and think about your God's actions in this?

No.

If anything, the story of Isaac should lead you to question divine command - and especially of those who are said to represent Gods authority. Instead of calling out God for the brutality he represents, sensing, you position it as a virtue because you know deep down in your conscious, that the story of Abraham and Isaac illustrates unqualified evil.

And you qualify this type of obedience as love. 

This is the most twisted love I can think of.

The love of sacrifice.

The love of a God wanting you to kill your own.

The love of blood.

And if that's not bad enough, you worship and love this god who demands the death his own son because he simply can not forgive humanity.

It wasn't Satan demanding that Jesus be killed. No, it was God his father.

Any god that commands you to kill your family and then kills his own son out of debt to himself is evil.

Any religion that demands obedience and espouses obedience as virtue is about as antithetical to freedom of thought and the basic rights of humanity as one can get.

You worship an evil monster. 

And you just can't see it.

Among New Testament scholars there is the position that the man, the actual person of Jesus never existed and that the gospels are a style of writing – a type of religious narrative, based upon earlier religious beliefs given the synthetic environment from that period of Hellenization in which the gospels were penned. This position is known as the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. (JMH)

Who that actual person Jesus was beneath the scriptures, however, is still a matter of debate even among those NT scholars who believe that Jesus was a real, historical person. In fact, it is this very New Testament criticism which very honestly attempted to un-mythologize Jesus of the gospels that has lead to the development of the JMH.

While the JMH is a minority opinion among New Testament scholars, I personally (at least for now - until more substantial evidence of Jesus existence is uncovered from non-canonical sources) subscribe to the the myth hypothesis. (I consider myself a "student" of Dr. Robert M. Price in this matter.)

The JMH resolves many of the blatant contradictions within the gospels – not just facts or events, but of prose and internal differences in theologies. It is important to remember that the Synoptic Gospels were written many decades after Jesus' alleged life, and decades after Paul's letters by authors (yes, plural) unknown. (Some of which are pseudographic and not penned by Paul himself.) Yes, that's right, the sketchy biographical material that Paul could have read (because he never met Jesus himself) – which he did not, was penned many, many years after he became known as the great Evangelist. This New Testament chronology is generally accepted by critics and skeptics alike.

In my own research on the NT and the historicity of Jesus, I also found a similar mythicist position (Jesus and the Lost Goddess, page 205) as to the question of Muhammad's historicity, the so-called Prophet of Islam.

Sharing this mythicist view (but for different reasons), chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, observes...

"...with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven,"  "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."

Kalisch also believes that "the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins." I couldn't agree more.

Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.

What lead Kalisch to this conclusion?

"Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."

He's quite right and congratulations to his new found skepticism. Upon hearing this...

A spokesperson for the council (Central Council of Muslim), Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.

"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."

I think that would be a great idea, but it does not necessarily mean the religion dries up and disappears. (It would be nice though.) As Kalisch points out, only the literalism of the Koran would cease.

Of course, the doesn't stop the threats and reprisals from intolerant believers that Kalisch has received in the wake of his announcement.

I congratulate Kalisch for his courage in standing up against the tide of literalism.

And he's correct. Other western scholars should stand up as well.

(Source)

Last night humankind's savior was born!

A child born of man and god to "repair the breach" between God and humanity.

A being as perfect as God his Father. Who is simultaneously, God the Father. A divine being who is perfectly created like Adam – the first man, that somehow in his perfection was easily fooled and tempted to sin.

But never mind that, Jesus is now here. He has come to die for our sins, because God so loved the world he had to send his only begotten son. Of course, instead of sending chattel, God could just forgive – no, blood must be had and be had from the veins of the innocent.

Therefore today, celebrate the birth of the divine-chattel. And in a few months you can celebrate his torture death and rejoice in the blood and torture that is God's love you've come to respect, admire, and uncritically approve of.

And you dare to accuse atheists of arrogance and being ethically inferior?

Please.

Many people across the theological spectrum believe that when they die that their consciousness, or soul - the intangibles which make them tick, will be reunited with their bodies at some later date. Whether that body is a physical body, or an "astral-body" (a  "spiritual" projection of a physical body), the soul will have a new vehicle after death to animate it. 

A life after this life. A life that will never end. A life without pain. A life without trial. A life where you'll only make good decisions because there will be no bad stuff to corrupt you otherwise. A place where the soul shall never become permanently extinguished and will survive incorruptible through one eternity to the next.

It is the afterlife, of course.

Christianity posits such an afterlife, provided you believe the right things. If you don't believe the right things, you'll suffer an eternity in another, less happier address. A place to be tortured by fire for eternity - all by a loving God alleged to be omnibenevolent – the infinite expression of goodness and benevolence. Yet Hell, so egregiously inhumane, that many Christians I know, do not even wish the unbeliever in, despite their belief and tacit approval of this policy by a god they worship who exhibits less humanity, less love, than them.

My grandma died on Friday, December 5th, 2008. She lived a long, long life well into her late eighties and is survived by 9 surviving children, countless grandchildren and great grand-children.

Today is her funeral. Both Liberal Hammer and I will be attending. We are brothers, after all.

While my grandma did not have much material or financial wealth when she died, she had a very successful life. The very fact that she had a natural death is a success in itself, if you stop to consider the fecundity of life and the fecundity of death which unremittingly governs us all. You are more likely to die due to lack of resources, or succumb to disease or senility. Life is inherently hostile to itself.  A life, or universe, that has "precisely the properties we should expect if these is, at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

My wife's mother was not so lucky to live into old age. My wife's mother died of cancer in her early forties. Even worse, my wife's brother died when he was just barely an adult - and frankly this makes me angry. I'll never get to meet them, or know them. They will never be able to take apart of our lives, nor I them, and get to form friendships and bonds with my side of the family.

I am happy and proud of my grandma. To the very end she was full of humor and verve, even though these last few years she was sometimes grouchy and difficult to deal with.

In short, her life is to be celebrated. And today I will celebrate the contributions she made to my life and to the great-grandchildren she raised as her own with unswerving dedication and unrelenting love.

As many of you know, I am an atheist. I have not been convinced of the supernatural, and as a logical consequence, the afterlife I do not believe in. I will never see my grandma again. She will never see me again. This is why her commitment she made to her great-grandchildren I find that much more admirable. It was the meaning she brought to her life.

The "meaning of life" is no great secret to those that don't seek it in ancient texts and moral codes of less civilized men and from less civilized societies. You bring meaning to life by living it. Hopefully, you'll do it by minimizing your impact on it and have fostered a better world to live in after you've occupied it, like my grandma.

I've heard the afterlife described as a never ending baseball game. Imagine a game with one inning after another for eternity. A never-ending groundhog's day of sport. Three up. Three down. Forever. Sisyphus at bat for eternity.

That's not much of an existence I'd want to be assigned to forever and ever.

The very fact that life ends makes it crucial and urgent.  Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, stated about her husband that they lived "with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is" and that they "never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . ."

That's is why a afterlife beliefs only devalues the only life we have. In some cases, like the 9/11 bombers, the afterlife motivates people to do terrible, terrible things.

Life is like those nine, crucial innings of America's favorite past-time.

There is no afterlife. There is no scientific evidence and there are no philosophical arguments which make the survival of one's consciousness possible.

Draw your loved ones close. Realize this is the only time you have. Make every day crucial and urgent.

You've got nine innings, and if the game is tied or not at the close of the nineth, it is still all you'll get.

I love you Grandma Rische.

Goodbye and thanks!

I won't speak for all atheists, but many of us do many of the things that the religiously inclined do around this time of year. We shop. We put up a tree. We eat ferocious amounts of food. We spend time with our family and friends. Some of us even perpetuate the myth of Santa to our children. My wife and I are having that debate now.

If your a typical religious American you grudgingly attend church probably only twice a year – much like the Bible that you've barely read or perhaps cracked open once or twice in your life.

And like many Americans, you attend church in December for the commemoration of the incestuous impregnation of an underage, "virgin" teen by "God the Father" and the subsequent production of a hybrid human-god – known only to us by appellation, not name. And you might just show up in Easter, to celebrate the torture and death of said hybrid in the ritual savaging of his flesh and spilling of blood that in turn, quixotically pleases that same wily Father who is simultaneously that same said hybrid born of His seed. During this time, you incredulously wonder at this same hybrid's multiple postmortem zombie-like appearances, suspending your disbelief in favor for the suspect testimony from a people who lived in an age before science and in the backwaters of the Roman Empire.

In short, we do all the things that you do, but without the religious underpinnings and without the specious beliefs that are held as virtuous and not as the embarrassments that they are.

So it is no surprise that invariably this time of the year some diarrhetic pastor, or foaming mouth Christian, will state ignorantly that the atheist must be in real pain because we have no one (i.e. God) to thank or to appreciate the holidays as a defense of these specious beliefs and to claim ownership over these holidays. Ignorant and annoying garbage. It is also false. Yet as ridiculous as this is, it does not dissuade the efforts by the Christian to demonize the unbeliever and to prop up the thin veneer of their faith.

When I read such tripe, I am reminded of a time when I was asked by my best friend and his family to offer a prayer before one of our semi-monthly weekend grilling dinners – back when I was still living in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee.

Until the last few years has the state of my non-belief ever been anything of an issue to my best friend and his family. They are cool with it and are generally inquisitive as to what it is like to be without belief in the supernatural and they can discuss quite easily the Bible with me when we do. I don't mind the questions. In fact, I encourage them.

That evening, the discussion began with their then ten-year old's natural father (not my best friend – he is but a step-dad) is a youth pastor at an Pentecostal church – the crazies who speak in tongues. Their ten-year old was relating how he was pressured into speaking tongues and refused. We congratulated him and I added that his level of skepticism was a good thing and that all truth claims should be likewise questioned. (After much re-explaining - with help of his mom, that a ten year old could understand.) Of course, my larger point was about Christianity itself without attacking the religion head-on.

These open ended-conversations always drift into other tenets of the religion and its relation to the sentinel events of life. I was asked about faith by my best-friend. I informed him that faith is unnecessary when you have knowledge instead. I declared right then and there that my knowledge was superior to his faith in all ways. He didn't say anything and moved on to the next topic of interest to him.

I was asked about death. I think it's entirely self-evident that when the brain dies so to does the "soul" that inhabits your head is likewise extinguished. I went on to explain that every moment I am together with him and his family are precious moments. Moments never to be relived again. I also informed both of them that I just couldn't lie to myself and believe in Christianity was true. Doesn't the Bible instruct us not to lie? They agreed with me, of course. I also related the story that when I was in Sunday school my teacher had instructed us that if you did good for humanity without Jesus, you had in effect, done no good at all. They bristled at that.

These conversations are always rapid and free-flowing and directly following this rambling discussion, dinner was served. Crab legs, yellow fin tuna, mushrooms, Texas toast were all deliciously served under the twinkling summer sky. Just as I was about to sit down to eat, the ten-year old was about to offer the dinner prayer when his mother reminded him that the guest should say it.

Well, suffice to say, I felt broadsided at that request in light of our recent conversation just a few scant minutes ago. I did realize the good spirit in which it was offered. (At least, I hope so.) It's hard to think negative about my friends. I literally stuttered (I was shocked) and said very plainly "You know I am an atheist and haven't been a Christian in like, forever."

Instead a compromise was reached. I was prompted to say something nice. And you know what? I did.

I gave, from the bottom of my being - those things that I think that are the best about them and why I loved each of them and how important their company is to me. I meant it. All of it predicated on our relationship and the real love of humans. Not compelled because God tells us to love. Not forced by reward or punishment. Real human love.

And from the silence after my speech, I could tell they realized exactly what I felt. I talked about us, together in this life. The only life we have. No interfering God that is so far removed from the affairs of his creation that its like He doesn't exist at all. Funny that.

There is nothing intrinsically or even historically Christian about our holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter. Actually, if you dig into the history of each of these holidays, you will learn that Christians grafted their holidays onto already long established pagan days of celebration. In fact, the early church father, Dionysus Exegesis, had no clue when to place יֵשׁוּעַ's birth. He had to guess.

Our holidays are civic celebrations – secular. There is no need to thank the gods for the prosperity you, yourself create and the joy and love you receive and give to your family and friends.

God does not do this.

You do.

Rejoice in that.

If I had more time during the week I would be publishing more content daily.

Anyway, here's some odds-n-odds sitting on my back-burner.

Tell Obama No to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I like the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, however the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA or anything science based would be a disaster on the grounds alone that he is an anti-vaccination crank and promulgator of pseudoscience. I can only hope that President Elect Obama has not yet properly vetted this man.

Also Kennedy Jr. would just be too polarizing on these issues. We need a science guy in the White House where science informs policy, not someone playing politics with science like the Bush White House. Kennedy Jr. as head of EPA would be a bad choice. Now Gore for the EPA I think would be great, but would probably be to political of a choice.

Read more about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Orac, over on Science Blogs.

If good, science-base policy is a concern of yours, please contact the transition team and respectfully inform them how you feel. Rejecting Kennedy over this appointment is beyond partisan politics.

My letter:

Dear President-elect Obama and team,

Robert F Kennedy Jr should not be the head of the EPA nor should he direct health policy of any kind.

President-elect Obama made the statement to Scientists and Engineers of America that he would restore "scientific integrity" to the White House and in policy.

Robert F Kennedy JR would be a step in the wrong direction for his anti-science, anti-vaccination views.

President-elect Obama, I voted for you because I believed you would follow through on that promise to the SEA.

Thank you for your time,

MC Pickard

As always, it is the job of the people to govern and be the watchdogs over politicians in a democracy.

Besides, I can not stand Kennedy's voice – however that man ever made it on radio is beyond me...

Vatican Defends Beautification of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, otherwise known as Hitler's Pope, is on his way to becoming a saint.

In a move that I can only imagine is a bit of c.y.a, the Vatican will not open it's WWII archives on Pope Pope Pius XII stating that it would take another six or seven years to catalog all 16 million documents.

If you can rub two brain cells together, you have to wonder why they would make this move to canonize the former Pope on incomplete evidence?

The Catholic Church, lead by Pope Benedict Ratzinger - a former Hitler Youth and protector of pedophiles, is making this move to protect the Catholic Church from future and past criticism of the church's complicity in the extermination of the Jews. I can hear it now...

"Look the man is Saint  for chrissakes, I don't know what your talkin' 'bout."

On the decision, Vatican's Number 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, stated that the selection is an internal affair and "a religious matter that requires respect."

Really, they are telling you to shut up.

Just because this is a religious matter, like religious beliefs, does not protect that belief or actions from criticism or ridicule.

By the way, the criticism is being lead by Jewish groups.

(Source)

Pope Meets With Muslim Scholars
In a move to patch religious division and establish understanding, the Pope met with twenty-nine religious scholars of each religion.

"We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all"

They also issued a a joint declaration that "appealed for respect for religious figures and symbols."

I know the discussion is between the two religions, but sorry, just because you believe that you can communicate to an invisible sky friend and wear funny robes to parade your ignorance and believe that a cracker can become Jesus' flesh after you utter magic words, or that images of Muhammad are sacrosanct, it does not mean that I have to show you respect. These are ridiculous beliefs which has caused unimaginable amounts of human misery through the centuries.

Again, ridiculous beliefs require only one answer, ridicule. Respect of your beliefs does not eclipse my freedom of thought, expression, and speech. You'll just have to live with it.

However, one thing that both Catholics and Muslims can largely agree on is that "justice for all"  does not apply to the gay and lesbian. For evidence, witness the inequality for homosexuals and women in respect to the Catholic Priesthood.

Hypocrites. Every damn one of them.

Incidentally, the Pope was correct two years ago denouncing Islam as irrational and inherently violent - but so is Christianity. I wonder why the Pope would leave that out?

(Source)

Is there any wonder that Sarah Palin was at first an energizer to the McCain campaign, and then a drag?

Wow, this woman leaves me speechless. She'll vote against her and her husband's interest because she hopes Yahweh will pick up the slack?

Her reasons against Obama? His name. Not her brand of Christianity. Obama's father was a Muslim; his mom an atheist? All of which are incorrect. Obama's mother, Christian. Obama's father, at first Muslim then an atheist. Obama made the decision to be a part of the body of Christ.

This woman, Tracy, speaks in coded racism.

Oh my. So much here ... I don't know where to begin with this.

Apparently, God can not will McCain to win this election alone.

This weekend in Iowa, Arnold Conrad – a former pastor, declared in an invocation prior to a McCain rally that ...

"There are millions of people around this world praying to their god -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain's] opponent wins [Obama], for a variety of reasons..."

Okay, leaving aside this man ignorance, both Hinduism and Buddhism are religions, not names of deities. Furthermore, while Hinduism recognizes Jesus' divinity, Buddhism can be practiced without supernatural beliefs and is conditionally ATHEISTIC. Yes, that's correct, no belief in God is required to be a Buddhist. (In some cases, even I qualify as a Buddhist.)

In the case of Islam, Allah, is an Arabic word meaning "the one" and is not a name, and is the same God of Judaism and Christianity. Christians believe that Christianity replaces Judaism. Muslims believe that Islam replaces both Christianity and Judaism. Abraham is the patriarch of all three religions.

How is McCain a liability to God? The pastor explains...

"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."

Oh my. This erection... I mean this election, is a matter of whose God is bigger! The implication, of course, is that Obama is an outsider as are his supporters, because they pray to different gods.

Xenophobia anyone? Is seems that Conrad is continuing the McCain campaign tradition of stirring up unnecessary divisiveness. In the United States, religion is a more effective wedge-tool than politics.

By the way, what country does this pastor live in? Americans are overwhelmingly Christian in heritage as Obama is a practicing Christian.

Anyone with a little Biblical instruction can read between the lines in this sermon. What are good believers instructed to do when someone "serves other gods?" Chapter 13 of  Deuteronomy instructs that you should "surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword"  and "utterly destroy" it while re-asserting again that should it be done at the "edge of the sword."

Conrad speaks in the language of religious warfare. If McCain does not win, God is diminished. **

After the election, perhaps former Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, can give God a hand with a product he used to "pitch" for.

(Source)

 

** "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."  (Champan Cohen)

When discussing religion, it's impolite to mention that the Old Testament Jews were some of the first practitioners of religious warfare, later following Akhenaton in the Egyptian desert. Deuteronomy 2:33-36, God instructs the Jews that the people of King Heshbon, should be "utterly destroy(ed) the men, women, and the little ones."

Damn that's hardcore. Even children?

And that's only one incident of religious warfare, cruelty and violence, that God commands. Here's more. As to the number of innocents that God has killed,  2,391,421 not including, at least in some cases, women and children. And this doesn't account for the impending Tribulation. There are billions and billions of unbelievers in the world - Jesus will have much blood on his hands that day.

With this theme in mind, I bring you some good, Old Testament butt-kicking violence relevant to the news of today.

God will Rain Fire on the Islands of the Sea
Big surprise, Robertson calls again for the end of the world. Apparently he expects Israel to start a bombing campaign on Iran in the next 75 to 120 days.

Can you be any more non-specific?

I predict that in the next 75 to 120 days the Midwest will face extreme weather. Brilliant. Give me a funny robe and hat.

You think in Roberson's daily conversations with God, Robertson could get the old guy to clarify his "prophesies" that Robertson this time bases on various news reports and the Bible and not from direct intercessory prayer?

“It all will conclude when God has rained fire on the islands of the sea and on the invading force coming against Israel.”

The old kook doesn't just end with Isaiah 11 and the Middle East.

"However, we may not be spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities  in America"

Robertson answer to this apparently imminent event?

"If there was ever a time for fervent prayer, it is now."

If there is no attack, Robertson claims victory. If there is an attack, Robertson declares victory. Talk about fixing the game.

Who does Robertson think he is? If he's praying so that God will spare the rod because we've spoiled His "holy mountain" he opposes God's will.

Perhaps, Robertson is just slightly more moral than the God he magically talks to.

Unless, Robertson is praying that God will rain that fire and end the world?

Such is the morality of good, fundamentalist Christians these days.

(Source)

Gov. Sarah Palin's Anti-Pagan Coreligionists
If the right-wing wants to associate Obama with Wright, then its only fair to bring up the religious dirt on Sarah Palin.

Mary Glazier was the leader of not-then-Governor  Sarah Palin prayer group and in 2005 "anointed and blessed Sarah Palin as a political leader."

What is Glazier guilty of?

In 1995, Mary mobilized a prayer network for Alaska's prisons and began experiencing spiritual warfare as never before. She had received word that a witch had applied for a job as chaplain of the state's prison system... Mary recalls, "As we continued to pray against the spirit of witchcraft, her incense altar caught on fire, her car engine blew up, she went blind in her left eye, and she was diagnosed with cancer" ... "Ultimately, the witch fled to another state for medical treatment. Soon after, revival visited every prison in Alaska. At the women's correctional facility in Anchorage alone, 55 of 60 inmates found Christ. "Ask largely," Mary says. "Intercessory prayer is making a major difference in North America."

As pagan blogger Jason Pitzi Walters observes:

"Glazier and her prayer warriors claim to have made God blind and give cancer to a Wiccan chaplain. Is this anything but the most malefic of magic? Any Pagan who proudly claimed to have given a Christian cancer, or put out one of the eyes of a Christian, would be rightly shunned and rebuked."

Jason is correct. If a pagan or Wiccan had done that, you'd see the media equivalent of another Christian crusade against their coreligionists, the Cathars.

As far as magic that Jason comments on, I'll leave them to have fun with that.

(Source)

Go Slay In the Spirit
My wife once said to me that I was obsessed with God. That's not true, I am more obsessed with religion if anything. Lately, I've become obsessed with Jesus.

Myth or not, the man is a great pugilist. Hit them high. Hit them low. Turn the other cheek - Jesus delivers the knock-downs.

 

 

 

 

For a blasphemous good time, check out Faith Fighter.

I even put the hurt down on that upstart, Lord Xenu!

It's painfully apparent to many of you that I do not hide my lack of belief in the supernatural, god(s), and outright deny BibleGod. Actually, on these boards I am quite strident about my lack of belief and in my ridicule of other specious beliefs like big foot, visiting extraterrestrials, 911 conspiracies, compassionate conservatism, creationism and other woo. Yes, that's correct - belief in God is in the same category as these other crank beliefs.

For this - as you would expect, I get some attention for blogging in a community that is largely conservative Christian and historically Republican. This attention is usually from the soul-winner, busy-body Christian that assumes that I would want to spend an eternity with them. I am not complaining though. We non-believers and religious freethinkers, up until recently, have been a silent minority. To paraphrase PZ Meyers, it's about time we push our arms out and made room for ourselves in this society.

Invariably, the soul-winner fails to have a convincing counter-argument against the incoherence of their beliefs. Instead, the tactic they resort to is to prey on me. I mean, pray for me. Where no evidence or sound reasoning is offered, emotional blackmail is substituted. As insulting as this is, I am still open to the possibility that BibleGod will intervene and answer the Christian's prayer.

Awhile back, I was informed by different Christians on this board that they would pray for me. I challenged them to do so.

Here's an email conversation between myself and a Christian from June. I'll pick up the discussion where the attempt to convince me by prayer begins. I've annotated some of the responses for brevity and clarity sake and will keep the identity of the emailer anonymous. The busy-body is in bold. I'm in regular.

(NOTE TO READERS: I read the Bible literally like a Christian fundamentalist and take the view that the Bible is inerrant because it is God's word. In this respect, I am a fundamentalist. By doing so, I lay waste to the argument that I am interpreting, which liberals and moderates are so guilty of doing. IMO, fundamentalist Christian are the only true Christians - which makes them hostile to a free, civil society.)

Off to pray. And yes, I do pray for nonbelievers like you. You may have a serious problem if God and Jesus do in fact exist. Can't wait until the end, it will be too late for all.

Good luck with your prayers! Hey, instead of praying for all apostates like myself, just pray for me to come to God. When it fails, could you tell me why God has not intervene to reveal himself to me like Paul on his way to Damascus? Yes, I will end up in hell. But your going to Muslim Hell anyway as you believe that Jesus is divine. Whereas you reject Islam's threat of Hell, I go one step further and reject both. And don't throw free-will in the mix, as I will answer that if I don't not have full knowledge of God's existence, then how can I truly be making an informed choice?

I did pray for you again today. But God has come to you. You just won't accept it or admit it. I will go to no ones hell. I know I have a place with God in heaven.

Prayer. I guess your not a true Christian. Shucks...

How would you know Matt?

Well, for the Bible tells me so. "I tell you therefore: everything you ask and pray for, believe that you have it already, and it will be yours. ..(Mark 11:20-25). I have to ask you, where is your faith in Jesus? Only by having a true faith, will Jesus words as reported by Mark come true. We know that God never lies and that everything in the Bible is the inspired word of God. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16) Otherwise, all of the Bible is unreliable. Christians can not pick and choose what of the Bible is allegory.

But you already know of this. I'm sure you read your Bible and not just have it didactically feed back to you at Sunday only.

Since I have not come to your faith and threats and allusions of eternity in Hell "You may have a serious problem if God and Jesus do in fact exist." and after apologizing for calling me a liar, you go on to say in the course of this discussion "You just won't accept it or admit it."

You're way off base with this one.

I'm off base? I based my answer in the Bible and from what other apologists tell me. I was a Christian once. If you reject my answer as to why you are not a true Christian, then please take it up with God - he wrote the Bible.

My answer speaks volumes and speaks for itself.

I see. Well, it speaks to you, but to you only. Too bad that you can not write volumes based upon that "speaking" as well. I was looking forward to a good Biblical debate. :( 

Well, keep praying.

My reason is the one you never thought of: you don't want to learn about God and I'm not the type to shove it down your throat. But even more important is the fact that I know very few atheists and have had few, if any, conversation like this. I could see shortly on that you have no intention of believing in God. And it's not my job to go further to convince you. The nonbelievers I have met were all through our church. And they converted due to what I said has already happened to you: A sign from God.

I would love to learn about God. But first you must present your best evidence in order to convince me. You sitting on the other side of the internets stating that I've already received this revelation is silly. Did God communicate to you what this revelation was? If so please tell me.

You also assume that I have not tried to learn about God. My wife thinks I am obsessed with god, but really I'm obsessed with religion. It's a variety of human expression and experience and its been nearly the only way to speculate on the supernatural. Well, until science came along and we were able to determine more about the universe we live in.

Also, it makes me quite angry that you keep stating that I am lying in some way.

Turning from this, if you would like to present your best evidence or argument for God, please do. Feel free to cite the Bible or any other exegesis you like. If you would like to present your personal experiences, you may do so as well. However, what would be the point if you presented your personal experience only after I came to god? Is your evidence from personal experience not convincing enough? Apparently it must not be, and you seem to realize this anyway. Functionally, you make an appeal to blind faith. I am asking you to justify that faith on reason.

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to me. If the courage of your convictions can not weather my objections, then perhaps you should a) refrain from implying that I am lying b) threatening my soul with hell, and c) give me your best argument. 

I never called you a lair in these recent emails or suggested it.

You are quite unreasonable and I've been more than patient with you.

These are examples where you imply that I am a liar:

01. "Hi Matt...I did pray for you again today. But God has come to you. You just won't accept it or admit it."
02. "I could see shortly on that you have no intention of believing in God..."
03.  "And they converted due to what I said has already happened to you: A sign from God."

You keep asserting that some proof has come to me and that I am denying it. So am I a liar or not?

And in this quote you try to extort me with the threat of Hell:

"You may have a serious problem if God and Jesus do in fact exist."

There is nothing that I said about Christian belief that is not in concordance with what Christians largely believe.  

The reasoning of the busy-body is transparently hollow. When this emotional blackmail fails - the busy-body believer is left alienating the person he hopes to convince and possibly convert.

In nearly all facets of life we demand evidence.

Existence of big foot? Sure, possible - but a carcass of the animal would be conclusive proof. On the scale of unbelievable claims, big foot is on the lower end. Immaterial beings with no testable or identifiable characteristics that exist outside the normal universe and not beholden to its physical laws is on the extreme upper end. Off the scale, actually.

Yet, when the non-believer requests evidence for the existence of God, we are told by the believer to expect none and that faith without evidence is sufficient enough. It is this type of faith which is further reinforced as a virtue. In fact, all that is being reinforced is ignorance.

It was this pursuit of evidence that I had requested nicely of this busy-body what this "sign from God" was. Perhaps he did receive a revelation. That would be exciting! I would have evidence. And the more explicit this believer could be, the more likely that a god could exist.***

Instead, I was insulted and my non-existent afterlife threatened for a very reasonable request. 

Any they wonder why they fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

***There are caveats to this however. Failed explanation of one thing does not necessarily make another explanation more plausible. When this plead is made, we formally have an argument from ignorance. More on that later.
 

A really, really poor argument by a creationist is to assert that the beauty we find in the world or the universe is proof of a Creator - the God of Genesis. While needlessly creating a universe so immeasurably large that it dwarfs our itty-bitty pale blue dot in scale by comparison, this Creator went out of his way to make us nice stuff to look at and enjoy! Rainbows, flowers, butterflies, nebulas – invisible to the naked eye without the orbiting Hubble telescope, and children are all cited as incontrovertible evidence of this sublime, graphic artist.

This argument by a creationist seeks to focus our attention on the nice stuff, pulling at our heart-strings and appealing to our emotions. But why stop there? We know what beauty is from what is not beautiful. While it is delightfully easy and a joy to cite the good things in life, it is quite discomforting to face the things in life that are not beautiful, but ugly and just plain indifferent to our existence.

Very well. Let's talk about some of the ugly things and ask the question - just how evil and sadistic this designer is?

How do you explain this?

And what about the myriad other birth defects that affect our children and families?

• 1,040,865: congenital heart defects
• 323,904: neural tube defects, such as spina bifida
• 307,897:  haemoglobin disorders, such as thalassemia and sickle cell
• 217,293: Down Syndrome
• 177,032: G6PD enzyme deficiency

In fact, there are almost 8 MILLION children who are born with serious genetic birth defects.

Surely, in proximity to all of His creation, humans are more important than animals. He created us in His image, giving us souls, and took that same form to rescue us from Himself in his divine plan. Therefore, we must be of some importance.

No. The evidence says otherwise.

While Barack Obama's former pastor was criticized by the right wing for condemning US domestic policy where the plight of African-Americans are concerned, we find that Republican VP pick, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin shares many of the same views as a Christian Nationalist would. Any outrage from the right wing? Nope. She's just a drone in their army.

As a drone, Palin adheres herself to every right-wing belief in the denial of reality. Anti-science - creationism in the public schools. America the Christian Nation - the state should force you to worship one God and pay for it. As a "feminist" she is for freedom of choice - freedom of government to choose mandatory pregnancy for women. Even if that choice was made for them by a rapist. Anti-gay - of course.

Palin was vetted as the McCain campaign vigorously asserts, but vetted for her appeal to right wing Christians. Right-wing Christian Nationalists and social conservatives are suspicious of McCain for vacillating on abortion and for his past negative statements against Christian Nationalists and social conservatives like Farwell and Robertson. In order to curry the favor of this niche of the conservative movement, and of people like James Dobson, Palin must be a bridge for McCain's past criticism.

As with many people in the U.S. political values are predicated upon religious beliefs. We learn these beliefs as children, encouraged by our parents and reinforced by our religious leaders. Palin has been a lifelong member of Wasilla Assembly of God.

In a video all over YouTube, Palin explains the significance of Iraq at Wasilla. She states that America's service men and women are "out on a task that is from God." This task is according to a "plan and that plan is God's plan." This is from a candidate who could be Commander in Chief someday. In this regard, she is no different than President Bush who said that God told, "George go and end the tyranny in Iraq."

Senior Pastor Ed Kalnins of Palin's church in a somewhat recent sermon stated "What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world." Basically, the Pastor is drawing an analogy between the War in Iraq is like a war on Christianity - their brand, of course. And the best way to defend Christianity in the United States is to war in Iraq. Why? Kalninis needs you to understand that when he assures you "Jesus called us to die... He's called us to die."

Al Qaeda's war against the United States is a Holy War. When you die for Allah you are awarded in heaven. Iraq, for the United States, has become a Holy War. And they wonder why we call them these Christian nationalists the American Taliban?

One of the more lofty goals for a Christian in their daily struggle against sin, is that they are encouraged to follow Jesus in all things. Jesus is assured to us as the most perfect example of how one should live a moral life on this earth. Often, Christians are reminded of Mark 10:21 where Jesus admonishes his disciples to "..go and sell everything you own, give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me."

According to Kalnins, following Jesus means  "... we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life."

Apparently, the new route to heaven is throu