Merry Mythmas, Everyone!

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.

I Don't Care What They Say, It's Symbolic.

According to the Roman Catholic Church, sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."

That last bit, “with the required dispositions” effectively gives up the scam. Let me explain.

I personally received this cracker post-transubstantiation.
Still look crackery to you?

As someone who was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church, I’ve heard the pitch for sacraments from priests, deacons, and Joe-believers alike. They all go out of their way to explain that the sacraments are not symbolic, but literal.  Take the Eucharist, for example. During communion, little disks of bread literally turn into the body of Christ. It’s called transubstantiation. Strangely, the bread still looks, smells, and tastes identical to bread after Jesusification. Unlike other sacraments that affect the unseen (your soul or something,) the Eucharist should change if it is literally changing, correct? The Catholic retort ranges from “yeah, but still” to expecting me to believe a piece of bread is changed spiritually rather than materially. I was unaware yeast had a spirit, but who am I to argue--I’m obviously not “with the required disposition.”

The disposition required is complete and utter gullibility. This form of artificial skeptic-proofing is a hallmark of religion and pseudo-science worldwide. I wonder if a Catholic would accept a failed psychic’s criticism of their closed mind or “negative energy.” If unwavering faith in something had any affect outside our own mind, children and mental patients would be seen flying around on a regular basis. If faith in God is required, I would have seen the miracles I honestly believed would occur back when I was a mark believer.

Spare me the magic clauses that put your beliefs beyond honest inquiry. Either show me a wafer that suddenly contains DNA or just call your morbid pageantry what it is--symbolic.

Penguin Post: Can't Be Friends

I'd never want to rule out a friendship with anyone, but I have an honest question. Since friends are defined as people who care about each other and enjoy each other's company, can an atheist ever really be friends with a Christian who believes that anyone without faith will eventually go to hell? It seems to me that either conversion must always be a topic of conversation, making the Christian bad company, or the Christian doesn't care enough to try and save the atheist from their supposed fate, making him not care much for the atheist.

Mortality Week: Could God Kill Himself?

Could God create a stone so heavy even He couldn’t lift it? How does God know what it is like to learn if He has always known everything? These are just a couple examples of logic busting paradoxes that an idealized deity runs into. I’ve posed these questions to apologists who explain them away as illogical...but that’s kind of the point. If they think God can hold his omnipotent title while being confined by logic, fine. Thinking about mortality this week, I thought of a new question. Could God kill himself?

There is nothing illogical about this question. Suicide is something you or I can do fairly easily (although I don’t recommend you try.) I’ve reached out to a few high-profile apologists with this question. No answers. None. I’ve never gotten such a lack of feedback from these people.* I guess it’s because they know the repercussions of the question.

I’ve come to realize that I may never be able to convince a true believer that God is imaginary, but if this question can convince them that God is either mortal or less-than-omnipotent, I’m at least making some headway.

From my understanding, the biblically accurate answer is that yes, God could kill himself. We are made in his image, so anything we can do, he should be able to accomplish. A theist might argue that God can’t sin and suicide is a sin. To this I say that He clearly sins in the bible by wiping out masses of people on more than one occasion. The theist would then either have to grant me that God sins or take the stance that anything God does is inherently not a sin, which makes suicide not a sin if and when God commits it. This isn’t a question of whether God would commit suicide, it is a question if He could.

Any theists who would like to weight in on this, please do so in the comments or by email or on Twitter or by...carrier pigeon? Anything, just show me how I’m wrong. Until then, let’s just agree that your God ain’t what He used to be.

Upon further Googling, I realize that I'm not the first to ponder this question--even though I arrived at it organically. The only answers out there from the theist perspective I have already covered or fall under the "puny humans can't comprehend God" category. These same people then go on to explain all about God...paradoxes within paradoxes.

Infographics Show Many Pastors Hellbound...If You Believe That Sorta Thing. Also, Aliens!

Last week I came across an interesting infographic, but it wasn't totally relevant and certainly not worthy of a post of it's own. This week I was thinking about how almost every apologist and evangelist is selling books and lectures. I started to wonder, how much must these guys make? I found two more infographics, each dealing with church wealth.

This one shows the crazy growth and cash flow of megachurches.

While this one breaks down income levels of the worshipers of various faiths compared to the national average. (Jews live up to their stereotype, by the way.)

It's kinda ironic. According to the bible, the wealthier church goers and church leaders are very likely going to hell.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. ~Matthew 19:24 (KJV)

I've heard that the word for camel and the word for rope are very similar in the original text. Rope makes much more sense here than camel, but I guess fitting a rope through the eye of a needle just isn't difficult enough.

Oh, almost forgot, the original infographic I was talking about was an editable Drake Equation. The DE is a way to calculate how many alien civilizations there many be in the universe. Only problem is, we aren't sure what numbers to input into the equation for an accurate output. This infographic lets you input whatever you want.

The Church of the Pigskin

Football season is upon us! (American, not soccer) I love this time of year. It is a time to gather with friends and share the common experience of rooting for your team. It's infectious.

I hope this confession doesn't revoke my man-card, but I didn't get into sports spectating until college. A big reason for this is because I was never that in to sports performing either. A combination of laziness and anti-social behavior kept me in my shell until the needed quantity of Jack Daniels and fellowship was applied. At the University of Georgia, it was near impossible to not identify as a "dawg." I rooted for Georgia because everyone rooted for Georgia. It was the culture and I fucking liked it.

The college football culture is so strong in the south that whenever someone says "I'm a Georgia fan" or "I love Alabama" or "Let's go Florida" it is understood that they aren't talking about the state--they are talking about the universities, more specifically the athletic programs. This may not be a ringing endorsement for the region at large, but the conversational fact is that one's sports team is often indistinguishable from one's location. Hell, this time of year, it's one's identity.

Oh, wait, this is an atheist blog, right?

It occurs to me that people's obsession on this or that team relies on one of two factors the vast majority of the time. You root for team "X" because you either are geographically located near team "X" or your parents root for team "X." What do you think the percentages are that the same two factors play a heavy role for religious preference? Do most people you know practice the same faith as their parents? That may be anecdotal evidence, but statistics show this as well. It's impossible to argue that Hinduism isn't primarily practiced in Indian. Muslims and Christians have spread out some, but stick together just the same. "Jewish" as a term is so intrenched in cultural heritage that it identifies ethnicity every bit as much as faith. And I thought sports franchises and locations were interchangeable, Judaism has taken it to a whole new level.

You probably think it's silly for me to say that the Georgia Bulldogs are the objectively right team, but that is what the religious are saying. It's important to consider that belief in Jehova, Yahweh, Allah, or Vishnu is more dependent on convenience than correctness. If you have to believe in something, make it the dawgs!

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.

Alpha & Beta

My dog, Alpha

I got a dog the other day, his name’s Alpha. I really went all out accommodating the pooch. I made the entire house a canine playground. I put a different bowl of food in every room. I installed ramps so that every inch of furniture could be his domain. I maxed out my treat budget. Seriously, all I ever heard where squeak toys. I even gave Alpha a friend, a female named Beta. They were good dogs.

“Were” being the operative word. I told Alpha and Beta that the only thing in the house that was off limits, was my lucky tennis ball. I pointed at the ball and said “no!” They saw me do this on more than one occasion, but the little buggers couldn’t help themselves. I don’t think she knew I was watching, but Beta brought my ball over to play with Alpha and they launched it right out the window.

Disobedience is something I do not tolerate! I removed all the food and treats from the house. I threw out the ramps and fenced off their “fun rooms.” Their toys? They went straight into the trash. From then on, I made Alpha work for his food. Beta too. To remind them of their indiscretion, I installed traps randomly around the house--a snare here, a foothold there. Some would hurt the animals and others would just cage them for a while. I even drip a little rat poison in their food occasionally. There’s no rhyme or reason to it really, I’m just keeping them on their toes.

Sure, it’s within my power to buy new tennis balls, actually I already have another, but that won’t teach any lessons. I plan on continuing this punishment for the rest of their lives. Come to think of it, I better keep it up for their offspring and any other pets I may bring into the house. Alpha and Beta’s single disobedience should be felt for all future generations.

Don’t call PETA on me, this is an analogy. I don’t want to overstate the obvious, but on topics of religion I’ve learned that clarity matters, so here I go.

• The narrator/dog owner = God
• Alpha and Beta = Adam and Eve
• The house pre-disobedience = The Garden of Eden
• The tennis ball = The Tree of Knowledge
• The house post-disobedience = Earth
• The traps, poisons and other canine dangers = Natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.)

If you don’t think of the narrator as a loving and forgiving master, than you probably shouldn’t be a huge fan of God either. The good news? You don’t need to hate God because this fable of pet ownership is no more imaginary than the fable of Genesis. There is no one to hate.

I could carry this story to it’s illogical, yet Biblical, conclusion. A few generations later the master might sacrifice a dog in order to atone for Alpha and Beta’s original sin, but why bother? It’s not like dogs go to heaven.

All Bets Are Off.

I’ve been debating a baker’s dozen of Christian Apologists and they all claim to have the logical high ground. After all, the best way to demonstrate that you are the most logical is simply by stating “I’m the most logical.” (read:sarcasm) This got me thinking, once you evoke the supernatural, does logic even matter?

Merriam-Webster defines logic as “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” The words “science,” “validity,” “inference,” and “demonstration” all lose meaning against the supernatural. Gravity is not valid to Superman. I can’t accurately infer anything about the actions of a genie. Someone, please, demonstrate God.

If the supernatural exists, all bets are off. God can exist, but so can literally anything. You may be praying to Allah, but only because a telepath is forcing it upon your mind. Jesus could return, or he could be shapeshifter in disguise. God himself may be unwittingly doing the bidding of being that can conceal his influence even from the Lord.

If you think God is, by definition, the top dog and creator of everything thus making the above scenarios nonsensical, I ask you, how could you possibly know in a supernatural universe? Maybe an otherwise unknown mystical creature possessed the authors of the Bible just to mess with humanity. Suddenly we can’t trust our senses. We can’t even trust history since everything that once was may have been rewritten last Thursday.

An all-powerful being is capable of every deception. Just because your God wouldn’t do such things doesn’t mean a random supernatural entity wouldn’t. As a theist you must not only believe the supernatural is possible, but also that your particular flavor of the supernatural is real in the face of no evidence. Even if you suddenly you had evidence, it could be contrived by malevolent magic. All. Bets. Are. Off.

It appears as though the universe has rules that have made everything happen in a manner that is understandable, even if we don’t yet fully understand it. Sure, each rule could just be an illusion waiting to be turned on it’s head, but I choose to believe in only the natural. If a theist ever convinces me that the supernatural is possible, I’ll suddenly have many more questions...each crazier, yet entirely possible, than the last.

The Case for Raising Children with Religion

Christians are often Christian because their parents were Christian and raised them Christian. The same can be said for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and just about every other faith. It’s tradition, and tradition is a lousy reason to believe anything. It’s barely a reason at all. It’s just, well...tradition.

Don’t get me wrong, if I was raising my kids in a cultural vacuum, I’d never introduce Allah, Vishnu or the Force into their education. Fortunately, the U.S.A. is not a vacuum. It’s rich, diverse culture includes not one, but all possible deities. I can’t pretend this doesn’t exist. Therein lies the problem.
I have two choices.

1. Indoctrinate my children in a new tradition of atheism.
2. Allow my children to reach their own conclusion regarding the existence of gods.

Indoctrination into reality is preferable to indoctrination into myth, but why pass up the most important critical thinking lesson of their life? I plan on introducing my kids to God (the Christian one, because he’s most popular around here) in the same way I will introduce them to Santa. When, not if, they ask questions like:

• How does Santa travel to every house in one night?
• How did God part the Red Sea?
• Why don’t we see miracles like in the Bible anymore?
• How does Santa get back up the chimney?
• Why are there different Santas at different malls?
• Why are there different gods at different churches?

I will help them reason their way to the their own conclusions. If they decide that the most likely outcome is, yes, magic is real and allows for jolly gift-givers and personal deities, then I will accept that. Somehow I doubt they will.

The Faith Trilogy

This was posted way back in '08 by a message board parton known only as "RandomFerret." It's still one of my favorite analogies for the Abrahamic religions.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.
Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels. Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn’t count. The Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much, they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.