Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Happy Mr. Patrick's Day!

Happy St. Patrick's Day from a guy with no time for saints!

Take an argument for God to appraise
Debunk it and watch them rephrase
To language that confuses
And maintains their excuses
To feel superior to atheists and gays

The bible is a guide to morality
(Providing we ignore the brutality)
But the guide is unwise
When it no longer applies
To any semblance of modern reality

Biblical spectacles were so ambitious
Now consider their absence suspicious
Yes, the poem is satirical
To show a divine miracle
Is, was, and forever will be fictitious

Here are a few from the archives.

Here are some others I found via Google+.

Maybe I should get into Haikus. :-)

Friday, March 1, 2013

The Truth Is Out There, We Just Can't Reach It

I used to debate theists on the merits of evolution, the origins of the universe, and the foundations of morality. I never thought I’d say it, but those were the good ol’ days. I’ve had seven of my last ten apologetic opponents throw literally everything into question as soon as they realized they weren’t debating a newb. It's finally happened. They've come to the conclusion that there’s only one defensive strategy when the entirety of human knowledge is mounting against their belief: to throw human knowledge under the bus.

Epistemology (\i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē\) is the study of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. Apologists have their own theory on the validity of knowledge--that is, knowledge is only valid when grounded in the divine. There is no truth, only Truth. The capital “T” relates the word to the imaginary and changes the definition to the less accepted yet, in their minds, more accurate attribute and/or synonym of God.

The apologist is applying the philosophical argument that objective truth is impossible to determine to the naturalistic worldview. This speaks to my aversion to pointless philosophy, and yet, I must admit, I can’t refute their claim. When I take into account thought experiments in which our reality could be an elaborate holographic simulation or our brains could be drugged and electrically stimulated to perceive things that are false, I intellectually have no choice but to accept that any objective truth is out of my jurisdiction. Where the apologist goes wrong is their claim of exception.

Any philosophical argument for why I can’t know what I believe can also be applied to Catholics, Fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, Buddhists, Pagans, Occultists, Rastafarians, whatever. In a naturalistic framework, we are all in the same uncertain boat. Claiming divine revelation of capital “T” Truth isn’t an argument based on reason or logic, it’s a claim of exception based on probable myth--which tends to be unconvincing to those who actually value reason and logic. Moreover, believers face further uncertainty simply by subscribing to a supernatural worldview. Sure, their brains could be in something as pedestrian as vats, but also could their brains be telepathically manipulated by any number of magical entities (gods included,) forever beyond our ability to quantify. For the supernaturalist, all bets are off, giving any epistemological high ground to the naturalist.

While I can’t deny philosophical uncertainty, I see no reason to apply it. Absolute truth is beyond our grasp, fine. Then there’s no point in trying to grasp it. I’m pragmatic. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck--that’s good enough for me. It’s a duck--especially if others agree. There is something to be said for consensus reality. Essential truth is what we can ascertain about our consensus reality, and science is the most objective method to ascertaining this truth. When I say something is true, I mean it is the best, most objective data available. It’s not capital “T” Truth, but then nothing is.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

What To Give The God Who Has Everything?

I’ve written before about how the omni-traits of the Christian God make him logically impossible. We've got the common paradox asking whether God could create a stone so heavy even he couldn’t lift it. Then we've got paradoxes that show God is in some ways less capable then us puny humans. For example, I can make a sandwich so big that I couldn’t eat it, which God shouldn’t be able to do without exposing a limitation. I can also commit suicide, which is off the table for any eternal being.

Now, beyond the paradoxical, I thought of another way Jehovah can’t be omnipotent--because he either needs or wants glorification. A common theme of the bible and therefore Christianity is the call for humanity to worship the Almighty and give all glory God. This is obviously very important to the big guy. My question is: can a being who needs or wants for anything be omnipotent? I’d be interested in my readers thoughts on this.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Don't Assume Your God is an Asshole


Pascal's Wager is a gamble for a favorable afterlife built on one wild assumptions after another. If you use this, you're assuming there is a God first and foremost. Then you assume there is an afterlife. Then you assume there are multiple versions of the afterlife. Then you assume that belief can dictate where you go in the afterlife. Whether your assumptions are correct or not is no big deal up to this point, but that all changes when you assume that you know the very specific nature of God and what he wants from you. If you're wrong, then you could be the one forfeiting heaven just as easily as anyone else--Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, whatever. In fact, by making the wager you are worshipping a false idol, a damning sin in most deities books. The end result of the wager is the same for everyone. You are guessing at something that, if you are wrong, could earn you hell. Opting out of the wager is the safest move to avoid the "having other God's before Him" scenario.

The only reason to make the Christian assumptions is to accept the authority of the bible, and, let's face it, if nonbelievers did that then there would be no need for Pascal's Wager in the first place. Turning the gamble on it's head by assuming God will reward atheism and punish theism suddenly puts believers at risk. Why would God reward atheism and punish theism? I could answer "mysterious ways" here and make my wager just as valid as the next apologetic argument, but if you think about it, it is consistent with our own nature. I don't want my kids to worship at my alter, I want them to think for themselves. If I was an absentee father I certainly wouldn't expect them or likely want them to the look for me. Since God shows no sign of his existence, at least to me, He is like an absentee father, but if theists want to assume He's a narcissistic asshole as well, I hope they are comfortable in their very real codependency with a very imaginary master.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Gay Marriage Opponents are Bigots

It’s no secret that the religion fueled, hot button issue of the day is gay marriage. Like it's religion-fueled issue of abortion, gay marriage one of those nasty debates where generalized accusations fly based solely on one’s stance. Gay marriage supporters are endorsing immoral behavior. Gay marriage opponents are bigots on the wrong side of history. Both sides not only deny the accusations, but frame them in such a way that they no longer makes sense. I’ll argue that only one side of the issue has internally consistency.

Gay marriage supporters deny the claims by refuting the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible, which is the only possible reason homosexual behavior can be seen as immoral. This makes me happy on a few levels. Since the America is pretty evenly divided on the morality of homosexuality, that means roughly half the population refute the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible. Considering how many people belong to Bible-centric religions in the US, this means that most of them aren’t nearly as sold on their faith as survey data shows. They are my favorite kind of Christians--those that are Christian in name only. The most secular gay marriage supports make the accusations against them nonsensical in their warranted rejection of “sin” as a concept.

The opponents of gay marriage originally pushed that homosexuality was a choice, but this argument didn't hold up. First, there was a problem calling the majority of those who are an authority on homosexuality, gays themselves, liars. Second, there was a problem that if homosexuality is a choice, then so should heterosexuality be a choice. The straight opponents refused to accept this. Now, opponents deny claims of bigotry with their “hate the sin, not the sinner” rhetoric. Denying a person rights and branding them immoral for who they fundamentally are is the definition of bigotry, but focusing their intolerance on the one action that separates the gays from the breeders (that is, homosexual sex) is a loophole in the bigotry label--at least in their eyes.

This loophole is many things, but internally consistent isn’t one of them. Since the only way to see gay sex as immoral is by appealing to Abrahamic religious traditions, then we should measure their entire argument by the same standard. The bible repeatedly states that sins of the heart and mind are just as damning as sinful actions. Hell, it’s even in the commandments. Thou shalt not covet is an entirely separate command from thou shalt not steal. When using the bible as their guide, the unavoidable and internal homosexual attraction is just as sinful as the active and external homosexual sex act. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that gay marriage opponents are, in fact, bigots.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Divine Entrapment

I'm on a Noah kick this week. I know it's an easy target. I know not all Christians take it literally....but if you are a theist who doesn't take it literally, I have to ask why not? I would guess it is because it is too unbelievable, but if that's the case...why believe the resurrection? What makes return from the dead more believable than world-wide flooding?

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Noah, the Animated Series

I keep seeing illustrated bible's around bookstores and waiting rooms. They are a great way to show horrible stories to children. I submit a more accurate, yet kid-friendly, addition.

Monday, January 14, 2013

The Twofold Problem of Fairness

Christians believe, by definition, that there is but one way into heaven and that is the acceptance of Jesus Christ. From here, there are as many disagreements as there are churches. I picture a sliding scale with “live according to Christ’s teachings” on one side and “have complete faith that Jesus died for our, and, more importantly, Adam and Eve’s sins” on the other. Most Christian traditions value both ends of the spectrum, but all seem to implicitly or explicitly place more weight on one more than the other. I’d argue both premises for the most widely distributed religion in the world are flawed by something I call the problem of fairness. In fact, I will argue it, right now.

Let’s look first at “live according to Christ’s teachings.” This is already ambiguous in that the biblical carpenter sends mixed (if not contradictory) messages about how to live. While a problem in it’s own right, it doesn’t factor into my argument from fairness, so let’s imagine Christ’s message is wholly positive and consistent with modern values.

The problem of fairness lies in the fact that not every person has the same opportunity to be good. A poor child without a positive role model--say with a deadbeat dad and an alcoholic mother--statistically has a much higher likelihood to sin than an upper-class kid with an intact family. I’m talking about the BIG sins here--theft, rape, murder--harmful deeds rather than the less-than-honorable thoughts some theists claim are their equal.

Ask yourself, why would God judge someone born into a culture that doesn’t value ethics and must sin to survive as harshly as someone who wants for nothing and was raised into a compatible moral code? As the world is, the Almighty needs to grade on a curve. If He was truly fair, we’d all be put on the same playing field and terms like “the cycle of violence” would have no meaning.

On the other end of the spectrum we are more concerned with belief and less with sin, yet the problem of fairness is still in full effect. For a child born into the “correct” faith of such-and-such flavor of Christianity, indoctrination makes acceptance of Christ natural, but consider a Indian kid who dies before he is ever exposed to religion outside Hinduism. Consider people of a different place and time isolated from evangelization. Consider someone like me who has a skeptical disposition and seeks truth in the form of evidence and logical consistency. If, in fact, it’s Christ’s way or the highway to hell, God has screwed us all with a scarcity of or an aversion to the one true God.

Atheists often cite the problem of evil as a defeater of a benevolent God, but I tend to opt out of this cliche despite it’s obvious truth for two reasons. First, Christians often have a response chambered from their apologetic source of choice--usually placing the responsibility of evil on man, citing free will or the fall from Eden. While neither avenue is valid (considering that God’s omnipotence in regards to the future implies a lack of free will and the fall was preceded by evil serpents) the chambered response shows they’ve heard it all before and have defended their mind against conflicting input. Second, an atheist admitting that evil exists at all will prompt some Christian debaters to detour the conversation to the argument from morality because they only define “evil” in terms of their religion. I’d rather the debate stay on topic. Replacing “evil” with “fairness” is both more specific and more accurate for my biggest problems with religious dogma.

Sadly, the world isn’t fair. This leaves two options: the universe is unguided and shit just happens, or the universe is guided by a force unlike what the Abrahamic religions have to offer.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Seventh Day Revisions

Resting for an omnipotent being seems odd to me--especially for one who apparently didn’t do anything with His eternal life up until the book of Genesis. It’s one of the many (many, many) reasons I don’t accept the bible at face value. This got me thinking...what could the bible say about that 7th day to make the story just a little more believable? I’ll give it a shot. Update your holy books, Christians, you can thank me later.
  • On the 7th day, God went off his medication.
  • On the 7th day, God planted fossils to cover his tracks.
  • On the 7th day, God created a talking snake to undermine his plans.
  • On the 7th day, God developed multiple personality disorder.
  • On the 7th day, God adds defective genes, unused biology, occasional congenital diseases and birth defects, and other design flaws to his creations.
  • On the 7th day, God establishes a place of eternal torment to send those who refuse to believe he is a loving god.
  • On the 7th day, God created narcissists and sociopaths in his image.
  • On the 7th day, God gave man the imagination to come up with crazy notions like, well, gods.
  • On the 7th day, God rested...and every day thereafter. Amen.
Have a 7th day revision of your own? Add it in the comments!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

All We Need Is A Little Context

Pose a question of biblical consistency you'll find the apologetic Christian’s chambered response often deals with context. This is a valid response...if it is indeed valid. Taking a thing, anything, out of context to elevate, degrade, or otherwise warp it’s meaning is universally unfair--but please know that just because a dirty, rotten atheist quoted your holy book doesn’t mean it was taken out of context. An explanation as to why context is relevent and how it was misused is always necassary. For clarity, I’ll provide an example.

Let’s take a passage beloved by all Christians, John 3:16.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
If I knew nothing about Christianity, I might read this passage thinking that God’s child saved his supporters from some impending doom. I might even fill in the blanks with a heroic story like that of Zeus sending Hercules to resuce loyal Greeks from the intensions of Hades. Overall, a positive depiction of the biblical God that merits eyeliner advertising on quarterbacks nationwide. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

In context, this passage refers to Jehovah, a god who’s son, Jesus, was born to be sadistically murdered in order to overturn a rule that Jehovah himself created that condemned every man, woman and child to hell because an ancient decenant of humanity was tricked by a snake that (again) Jehovah himself created.

In context, God’s “love” is too little, too late. A more honest passage might read something like this:
For God so needed validation that he sacrifed his one and only son, that whoever worships him shall not be condemned to death.
So, theists, please, if I’m ever out of context, enlighten me. I’ll do the same.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

For God So Loved the World that He Drowned It


For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:15-17

but first...

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Genesis 6:16-18

God's timing always confuses me. Why was Jesus born when he was? Was it because humanity really needed saving at that point? If so, didn't humanity really need saving in Noah's day? I thought the reason God sent the flood was because they were so sinful. Jesus probably could have helped then. Unless of course, they were beyond saving....but if this is beyond God's abilities, then why call Him omnipotent?

Monday, August 6, 2012

Fairness & The Performance Enhancing Deity

I've been thinking a lot lately about fairness. For a society that values fairplay, I can't help but wonder, what in life is fair? It is not fair to ask the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. On the other hand, it is not fair that the wealthy to have more opportunities than the poor. It isn't fair for someone to be born an English Royal while another child is born starving in Africa. Beyond a birthright of luxury, some are born with the genetic potential to succeed over others. I.Q., physical beauty, an ambitious personality--all kinds of attributes contribute to one's eventual success of failure. It isn't fair.

Conservatives want us to believe that success is all about elbow grease, and most of it is, but not nearly all. No one trains for success more than the athletes competing in the Olympics. A friend of mine was a near Olympic-level cross skier. He was in better shape than I could ever hope to be and constantly skied in the winter and ran in the summer. Yet, he was only near Olympic-level. Truth is, I could never be the best cyclist or the best swimmer because I don't have Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or Michael Phelps' body shape. I'm too short to play for the NBA and too tall to jockey. I'd me mad if I didn't understand, but I do. Life isn't fair. Life is random.

If God exists, why is life random? Why set some up for heaven on earth and leave others to suffer? The "blessed are the" whatevers argument has us to believe that the meek and poor will inherit heaven while to rich will need to work hard to find their place. Truth is, those who suffer on earth are more likely to suffer in the afterlife as well, assuming Christian doctrine is correct. The poor are the more likely to set down a path of commandment-breaking actions if only to survive. The deck is stacked against them in this life and the next. If life isn't random, then what is the apologetic answer for God's haphazard cruelty?

Some must think God helps counter his previous bad decisions by deciding to help those who ask. Let's double back to the Olympics for this example. There are strick rules against athletes using human growth hormones because they give an unfair advantage. Even though I have argued that certain athletes already have a natural unfair advantage, I totally agree that man should not add to the problem. Why is it okay for God to add to the problem? Why should some athletes have a supernatural advantage? The faithful's impulse to pray to God for a win isn't practically unfair--because, of course, it does nothing--but it certainly shows the athlete's intension to be unfair. The only reason that the Olympic Committee and the people of the world allow this holy appeal is because we all know it doesn't work. Belief, in this case, is topical. It's right there on the surface, but deep down, we know. We know prayer doesn't work. We know life is random. Deep down, we're all atheists.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

American Bible Challenge

So Jeff Foxworthy is hosting a Bible trivia show on the Game Show Network.

I have to admit, the Bible is trivial, so it might be a good idea. I've never been a huge fan of Foxworthy, but I'm sorry to see his career go downhill. He's steadily moved deeper into cable the last few years. What comes after deep cable these days? Deep Internet?

I have some questions about the Bible I'd like answered, but I doubt they'll go there. I have some questions about the show too. The promo makes it look like church members will be playing for charities. Will they let atheists play for secular organizations? Studies show the average atheist knows more about the Bible than the average theist. I might tune in for that. Hell, The Bible is generally my best category on Jeopardy.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Random Thoughts on a Friday

If I made this blog a book it might be called Don't Sweat the Supernatual Stuff.

I kinda wish someone would write a prequel to the Book of Genesis. What was God doing in the dark for eternity?

It was easier for the Aurora theater shooter to get a M-16 rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol than it was for him to find the correct color hair spray. Well done, NRA, well done. I can't wrap my head around the idea that the shooter was obsessed with Batman or the Joker if he didn't at least wait to see The Dark Knight Rises before commencing with the carnage. It's terribly sad news overshadowing a pretty awesome movie.

We live in a world where people think Adam and Eve really happened, and yet we've been to the moon. Humanity has some crazy range. Granted, we haven't been to the moon lately, but...

Since an idealized God can do anything and only does somethings over an infinite time frame, one more "omni" should be used to describe him. Omnibored.

Theist logic breaker: When did God create time?

I had a daydream about a modern day Noah hearing the voices in his head warning him of a flood. Imagine how embarrassed he would be returning all those ark supplies to Home Depot when it doesn't rain.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Happy Father's Day!

Y'know, assuming you're not Christian. Anyone accepting the New Testament as the word of God probably shouldn't celebrate.
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9 New International Version
(Strange that priests are called "Father" considering this scripture. Am I missing something?)

Monday, June 11, 2012

Does the Bible Represent an Omniscient God?

I've previously posted as to why an omniscient God makes no sense, but theists continue to claim that the Lord is all-knowing. I assumed they came to this belief from the Bible, but now I'm not so sure.

Let's look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abe is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his faith and obedience to the Lord. Abe moves ahead with the order preparing for the ritual killing and just before he lights his kid on fire, the Almighty says...
“Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. ” 
Genesis 22 : 12 New International Version 
God knows now, meaning he didn't know then. If God knew then, why the charade of testing Abraham in the first place?

So where did the idea of omniscience come from, if not the Bible? Well...it still kinda came from the Bible. This is one of it's less publicized contradictions, even in the atheist community. The two passages that claim omniscience, according to About.com, are from Psalm and Isaiah. Let's check them out.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 
Psalm 139:2-6 New International Version
I've read emo-school-girl poetry more interesting than this. This Psalm is clearly not the word of the Lord, it's a poem to the Lord. Surely the Genesis bit is more telling of God's superpowers, it is a direct quote, after all.
13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding? 
Isaiah 40:13-14 New International Version
Again, this is someone other than God talking about God. In fact, this guy's just asking questions. Rather good questions, actually. I'm guessing the answer is supposed to be "no one" meaning that God is omniscient, but I see these as skeptical questions that show another paradox of God's nature.

So there you have it, a couple believer's musings are the foundation for God's omniscience while the Lord acknowledges his own blind spot in regards to Abraham. How the hell is the Biblical take away an all-knowing deity? I don't get it.