The problem is that there are enough educated people pretending there is no problem with religion. These people know better, and they have an obligation to destroy this notion of moral relativism.
It is true, for example, that a sizable percentage of women in Muslim societies agree that they should be subservient to their husbands. That they believe this way does not relieve us of our moral obligation to point out how and why this is wrong. This is nothing more than Stockholm Syndrome on a much larger scale; these women have been held hostage, literally and figuratively, since birth. They have been held hostage by misogynistic men who get their ideas from a correct reading of religious texts and teachings.
I never get any push back when I criticize the atrocity that is North Korea. We all agree that North Koreans live under an oppressive and tyrannical regime. North Korea is a religious state if ever there was one; you must submit completely to the will of the supreme leader and acknowledge his right to demand obedience. Indeed, we attack and condemn the government of North Korea at every opportunity. No one for a second would ever hold their tongue in chastising the leadership of North Korea for the treatment of its citizens, even though many North Koreans would be appalled to hear us say such things if they had access to outside information.
Why then do you remain silent on the situation of women living under Islamic tyranny? If it is because you fear violent backlash from within the Muslim community, now we're getting somewhere. If, however, it is because you argue from the viewpoint of moral relativism then you are a hypocrite, as evidenced by my North Korea example. No one would ever be tempted to say, "North Koreans have a right to believe that Kim Jong-Un can treat them however he pleases. Who are you to say their ideas are wrong?"
And so it goes with women living under Islam.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
The Bible is NOT Inspired
Any god who 'inspires' people to commit genocide and condone slavery and the subjugation of women can go fuck himself.
Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none alive."
1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."
Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"
How many more 'inspired' verses do I need to quote before you see how ridiculous your views are? Any god who inspires people to act in such a way and then to compile it in a book which purports to be the epitome of moral truth is, in a word, insane.
You cannot use the argument that the New Testament supersedes the barbarity of the Old Testament. The New Testament is far more barbaric because, along with the above verses, it introduces the idea of Hell. At least in the Old Testament you could fucking DIE to get out of the bondage of slavery and escape the rampant misogyny. Only when gentle Jesus (meek and mild) appears are we told that we deserve an eternity of torment for imaginary crimes.
Spare me your rationalizations about how Jesus is love. The same Jesus who would condemn billions to an eternity of torture for living moral lives and not lying to their children? That's not love. The torments of hell, vicarious redemption through human sacrifice, original sin...these are not moral teachings. But, these ARE ideas which are easily ascribed to Iron Age, semi-literate peasants.
When you read the bible for what it is, the ramblings of primitive goatherds, it ceases to be mysterious. "Why would god inspire and condone slavery, approve of sexism, and call for the mass murder of infants?"
The answer is, plainly, he wouldn't. It's all make-believe - just like God.
Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none alive."
1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."
Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"
How many more 'inspired' verses do I need to quote before you see how ridiculous your views are? Any god who inspires people to act in such a way and then to compile it in a book which purports to be the epitome of moral truth is, in a word, insane.
You cannot use the argument that the New Testament supersedes the barbarity of the Old Testament. The New Testament is far more barbaric because, along with the above verses, it introduces the idea of Hell. At least in the Old Testament you could fucking DIE to get out of the bondage of slavery and escape the rampant misogyny. Only when gentle Jesus (meek and mild) appears are we told that we deserve an eternity of torment for imaginary crimes.
Spare me your rationalizations about how Jesus is love. The same Jesus who would condemn billions to an eternity of torture for living moral lives and not lying to their children? That's not love. The torments of hell, vicarious redemption through human sacrifice, original sin...these are not moral teachings. But, these ARE ideas which are easily ascribed to Iron Age, semi-literate peasants.
When you read the bible for what it is, the ramblings of primitive goatherds, it ceases to be mysterious. "Why would god inspire and condone slavery, approve of sexism, and call for the mass murder of infants?"
The answer is, plainly, he wouldn't. It's all make-believe - just like God.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Old Father Hubbard
For my second mother, Syndi.
Some things are self-evident: Murder is wrong; kindness is good; 75 million years ago a ruler of a Galactic Confederacy rounded up billions of his own citizens and shipped them to Earth (then called Teegeeack), tied them to volcanoes and used hydrogen bombs to blow up their bodies; adultery is bad; lying is wrong...
L Ron Hubbard was a despicable human being and a charlatan. He was a failed writer of science fiction and was convicted of fraud. He took one of his alien spaceship stories and turned it into a tax-free ponzi scheme by claiming it was a religion.
Delusional people are the reason the Hubbards of the world are remembered at all. He should be no more than a footnote in a long list of failed writers who couldn't hack it.
People desperate to believe in something because they think they have to are how all religions are formed; not just the modern cults of Scientology and Mormonism, but all of them. L Ron simply did what countless other 'prophets' did before him: tell people a fairy tale.
Apparently, it's easier to get people to listen to everything you say and to pay you vast sums of money if you make up a story about flying horses or walking on water or Xenu the leader of the Galactic Confederacy. In fact, with what we know about the universe, the Xenu story is actually more plausible because we know horses don't fly and people can't walk on water; at least, not on earth.
L Ron tried to get people to read what he had to say and failed, so he simply changed the genre of one of his stories from Fiction to Non-fiction. Yes, that is how gullible people are, including anyone who follows any form of religion.
Some things are self-evident: Murder is wrong; kindness is good; 75 million years ago a ruler of a Galactic Confederacy rounded up billions of his own citizens and shipped them to Earth (then called Teegeeack), tied them to volcanoes and used hydrogen bombs to blow up their bodies; adultery is bad; lying is wrong...
L Ron Hubbard was a despicable human being and a charlatan. He was a failed writer of science fiction and was convicted of fraud. He took one of his alien spaceship stories and turned it into a tax-free ponzi scheme by claiming it was a religion.
Delusional people are the reason the Hubbards of the world are remembered at all. He should be no more than a footnote in a long list of failed writers who couldn't hack it.
People desperate to believe in something because they think they have to are how all religions are formed; not just the modern cults of Scientology and Mormonism, but all of them. L Ron simply did what countless other 'prophets' did before him: tell people a fairy tale.
Apparently, it's easier to get people to listen to everything you say and to pay you vast sums of money if you make up a story about flying horses or walking on water or Xenu the leader of the Galactic Confederacy. In fact, with what we know about the universe, the Xenu story is actually more plausible because we know horses don't fly and people can't walk on water; at least, not on earth.
L Ron tried to get people to read what he had to say and failed, so he simply changed the genre of one of his stories from Fiction to Non-fiction. Yes, that is how gullible people are, including anyone who follows any form of religion.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The Impact of Mass Delusion on Society
There is nothing more important than emancipating humankind from its mass delusion in the numinous. The reason is that doing so will also allow us to cure ourselves of countless other societal ills, not least of which are abject poverty and the ill-treatment of women.
It is no coincidence that many of the most impoverished societies on earth, and those where women are treated as chattel, are almost entirely religious. In every age, it has been true that where the clergy enjoy too great an influence in political or social matters, you will invariably find that enforced ignorance and poverty are rampant, and that women have no say, no choice, and, perhaps most importantly, no control over their reproductive cycle. You tacitly lend approval to these highly immoral actions when you defend religion or religious faith in any form.
We are allowed to recognize that religion only has the influence it has now because of the much greater influence it had in the past. We are allowed to recognize how barbarically religion behaved when it was strong. Don't be fooled by the modern face of religion with its outstretched hands and ingratiating smiles; that way lies only madness.
It is no coincidence that many of the most impoverished societies on earth, and those where women are treated as chattel, are almost entirely religious. In every age, it has been true that where the clergy enjoy too great an influence in political or social matters, you will invariably find that enforced ignorance and poverty are rampant, and that women have no say, no choice, and, perhaps most importantly, no control over their reproductive cycle. You tacitly lend approval to these highly immoral actions when you defend religion or religious faith in any form.
We are allowed to recognize that religion only has the influence it has now because of the much greater influence it had in the past. We are allowed to recognize how barbarically religion behaved when it was strong. Don't be fooled by the modern face of religion with its outstretched hands and ingratiating smiles; that way lies only madness.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Enough is Enough.
How
many Boko Haram groups do you want to see pop up around the world before you
start taking the issue of religion seriously?
Spare
me your half-assed attempts to rationalize. "This is not religion."
Sure it is, it just isn't your interpretation of religion. This is a direct
result of the 'tolerance' you speak of. It is a direct result of the fallacy
known as 'Islamophobia.' There is no such thing. Every time we allow these
religious types to cow us into submission (be it Danish cartoons or forcing
young girls to wear Hijab) we are giving up ground. Tolerance is not one group
being allowed to walk all over another in the name of religion.
Multiculturalism does not mean you are forced to tolerate an idea or a group
for fear of violent backlash.
The idea of 'Islamophobia' is a new one, and it has been used by Muslims (whether you agree with their interpretation of Islam or not is immaterial, they see themselves as good, practicing Muslims) as a way to silence any perceived criticism or slight as 'racist' or 'intolerant.' There is nothing racist or intolerant with not wanting little girls covered head to toe, and forced down our throats as 'dignity' or 'cultural/religious values'; there is nothing racist or intolerant with caricaturing an ancient Arab warlord; there is nothing racist or intolerant with wanting women to be literate and to have control over their reproductive cycle.
No, intolerance is imposing your cultural or religious values on others by force or the threat of violence, and this is exactly what is happening in almost every major secular, democratic society by Muslim groups whose worldview would be pleasing to the likes of Boko Haram.
The idea of 'Islamophobia' is a new one, and it has been used by Muslims (whether you agree with their interpretation of Islam or not is immaterial, they see themselves as good, practicing Muslims) as a way to silence any perceived criticism or slight as 'racist' or 'intolerant.' There is nothing racist or intolerant with not wanting little girls covered head to toe, and forced down our throats as 'dignity' or 'cultural/religious values'; there is nothing racist or intolerant with caricaturing an ancient Arab warlord; there is nothing racist or intolerant with wanting women to be literate and to have control over their reproductive cycle.
No, intolerance is imposing your cultural or religious values on others by force or the threat of violence, and this is exactly what is happening in almost every major secular, democratic society by Muslim groups whose worldview would be pleasing to the likes of Boko Haram.
'Tolerating'
religious moderation is not the answer. As I've said before, if you grant it
for one group you must allow it for all; or we will forever be hedging our bets
and arguing about who is allowed to claim they are following their religion and
who isn't. Never mind that some Saudi sheikh condemned the kidnappings; it was
Saudi-style Wahhabi Islam that midwifed the birth of this group and countless
others like it. And how dare Saudi Arabia claim the moral high ground? Theirs
is a nation where women are not even allowed to leave the house, let alone
drive, without male supervision.
No,
friends, I will not have it. Groups like this would not exist without religion,
and it is past time we realize it and do something about it. I invite you to
join me in doing so.
Freedom of Speech and Faith
There is an inverse relationship between freedom of speech and faith. I believe there ought not to be a limit on freedom of speech. However, if you grant the same for faith, I don’t think you want that any more than I do. Many of you have what appears to be a very lax, non-harmful form of faith; or so it seems to you. Your morality has been tempered by secular ideas and has pushed back at many (but not all) bad ideas associated with religion and faith. What you are saying, however, when you say people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, what you mean is “whatever they want, within limits.” And the closer to your worldview and ideas about faith the better.
So you have your faith, you largely keep it to yourself, and you don’t take it too seriously. You also feel a connection or sympathy to others who are like-minded. Fine. But saying people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, one of the most common, albeit weak, rebuttals I come across, gives implicit approval to anyone to believe anything. “Let people believe what they want, with the following exceptions that aren’t in line with my worldview…”
This is not a moral stance, or acceptance, or tolerance. Because you, like me, don’t want to be neighbors with people who believe a suicide mission will bring glory to their family and will allow them to ascend straight to heaven as a martyr. You don’t want your neighbors and friends to believe God cures diseases and thereby forego medical treatment. You don’t want people who believe that their leader, either religious or political, speaks for god and therefore anything they say or do is good and right by definition, no matter how immoral.You can’t just shrug them off and say, “that’s not what I meant, those ideas are crazy.” Is every Mormon crazy? Was every suicide bomber crazy? Was every Nazi crazy for that matter? No, and yet their BELIEFS allowed them to rationalize their clearly psychotic behavior. Shall I go on? Shall I insult you further?
So you have your faith, you largely keep it to yourself, and you don’t take it too seriously. You also feel a connection or sympathy to others who are like-minded. Fine. But saying people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, one of the most common, albeit weak, rebuttals I come across, gives implicit approval to anyone to believe anything. “Let people believe what they want, with the following exceptions that aren’t in line with my worldview…”
This is not a moral stance, or acceptance, or tolerance. Because you, like me, don’t want to be neighbors with people who believe a suicide mission will bring glory to their family and will allow them to ascend straight to heaven as a martyr. You don’t want your neighbors and friends to believe God cures diseases and thereby forego medical treatment. You don’t want people who believe that their leader, either religious or political, speaks for god and therefore anything they say or do is good and right by definition, no matter how immoral.You can’t just shrug them off and say, “that’s not what I meant, those ideas are crazy.” Is every Mormon crazy? Was every suicide bomber crazy? Was every Nazi crazy for that matter? No, and yet their BELIEFS allowed them to rationalize their clearly psychotic behavior. Shall I go on? Shall I insult you further?
Sunday, May 11, 2014
False Consolation and Our Place in the Universe.
It is a very consoling thought that when we die we get to be with our loved ones for eternity. The fact that it is consoling does not make it true, or even likely. We should learn how to grieve rather than lying to ourselves and to each other. We should console ourselves with how lucky we are to be here in the first place, and to experience life. As far as we know, we are the only lifeforms capable of understanding our place in the universe and how we came to be here. When we look up at the night sky we are looking at our own history, and that is a truly wondrous and majestic idea. We are all here by accident. There are any number of circumstances which could have led to my not being born, dating back to the beginning of the universe and the formation of the first stars.
People who say they can't imagine what it would be like to not exist after we die just aren't trying hard enough. It's not as though you will be stuck in an eternal state of conscious darkness. I think it was Mark Twain who said, "I was not alive for billions of years before I was born, and yet I was not inconvenienced in the slightest."
That life should begin at all was by no means a guarantee all those billions of years ago when the Earth was little more than a proto-planet. There was no oxygen atmosphere, the surface was constantly bombarded by asteroids and harmful UV rays. It is truly mind-boggling that in such a harsh environment a simple strand of protein was able to duplicate itself; and here we find ourselves some four billion years later.
So, the fact that we're all here for such a short amount of time, against astounding odds, I think shows that wasting time on wishful thinking and ancient superstition is idiotic and not in the least bit helpful. Do the best you can to ease the suffering of others, to find some joy and happiness in the world, and you will have lived an admirable life. Hoping against hope that there is something better after we die is to take your life for granted. It is to look back at the evolution and the majesty of the entire Cosmos and say, "No, thank you. I have a better explanation - I know the unknowable, because I can't imagine not existing, and it says so in my favorite book."
People who say they can't imagine what it would be like to not exist after we die just aren't trying hard enough. It's not as though you will be stuck in an eternal state of conscious darkness. I think it was Mark Twain who said, "I was not alive for billions of years before I was born, and yet I was not inconvenienced in the slightest."
That life should begin at all was by no means a guarantee all those billions of years ago when the Earth was little more than a proto-planet. There was no oxygen atmosphere, the surface was constantly bombarded by asteroids and harmful UV rays. It is truly mind-boggling that in such a harsh environment a simple strand of protein was able to duplicate itself; and here we find ourselves some four billion years later.
So, the fact that we're all here for such a short amount of time, against astounding odds, I think shows that wasting time on wishful thinking and ancient superstition is idiotic and not in the least bit helpful. Do the best you can to ease the suffering of others, to find some joy and happiness in the world, and you will have lived an admirable life. Hoping against hope that there is something better after we die is to take your life for granted. It is to look back at the evolution and the majesty of the entire Cosmos and say, "No, thank you. I have a better explanation - I know the unknowable, because I can't imagine not existing, and it says so in my favorite book."
Saturday, May 10, 2014
We can't allow people to believe whatever they want.
If your argument is just to let people believe whatever they want, then there is nothing you can say against the Westboro Baptist Church, Scientology, or suicide bombers. These people actually believe that what they are doing is good and right in the eyes of god. There is nothing you can say against people who refuse to vaccinate their children or seek medical attention for completely curable disease because they believe god will cure them. There is nothing you can say against people who believe stoning someone to death for premarital sex and adultery is completely justified. I could go on for hours compiling this list, but I hope you get the point by now.
Believing in something that would otherwise be thought insane, were it not protected from scrutiny by the respect we accord religious faith, is a direct result of not criticizing bad ideas. If you don't think this is a serious argument with global ramifications for the future of humanity, you are simply mistaken. While your idea of faith may seem harmless on the surface, I assure you it is anything but. As I've stated elsewhere, the 'extremism' vs 'moderate' view simply does not work. Religious extremists are just better at their religion, and believe more deeply that god is truly on their side. People who kill gays or blow themselves up on buses are often perfectly normal people driven to psychotic behavior because they believe with conviction they are in the right. Stop pretending people don't actually believe these things, or that this behavior is solely the result of economic desperation or a damaged brain. It isn't. Religious people of the world are telling us, ad nauseam, that they really do believe in some very crazy and dangerous ideas, and that we are not allowed to criticize their faith. This is a problem.
And hyper-sensitive liberals in the west are just as much to blame for this as anyone. Those of us who live in secular societies appreciate the centuries-long struggle and commitment it has taken to stop religion from running our lives. Why then do you kowtow to those whose views and morals are in complete opposition to your own? There is no room in modern, secular morality for acceptance, tolerance, or respect of beliefs which fly in the face of that very morality. How dare you say you support gays and women's rights, and in the same breath defend religions and people who torment and kill homosexuals, and force their women to live in cloth bags as illiterate baby-making machines? "Respecting" religion gives these people license to get away with far too much, and you are giving up too much ground that countless others fought and died for. Our secularism was born in the renaissance and in the revolutions of the 18th century against the divine right of kings, which for centuries was propped up by religion. We have long since emancipated ourselves from the shackles of ancient barbarism. But when you take offense on behalf of people who would love nothing more than to see your secular morality replaced with religious law and send us back to the Iron Age, you epitomize hypocrisy.
Believing in something that would otherwise be thought insane, were it not protected from scrutiny by the respect we accord religious faith, is a direct result of not criticizing bad ideas. If you don't think this is a serious argument with global ramifications for the future of humanity, you are simply mistaken. While your idea of faith may seem harmless on the surface, I assure you it is anything but. As I've stated elsewhere, the 'extremism' vs 'moderate' view simply does not work. Religious extremists are just better at their religion, and believe more deeply that god is truly on their side. People who kill gays or blow themselves up on buses are often perfectly normal people driven to psychotic behavior because they believe with conviction they are in the right. Stop pretending people don't actually believe these things, or that this behavior is solely the result of economic desperation or a damaged brain. It isn't. Religious people of the world are telling us, ad nauseam, that they really do believe in some very crazy and dangerous ideas, and that we are not allowed to criticize their faith. This is a problem.
And hyper-sensitive liberals in the west are just as much to blame for this as anyone. Those of us who live in secular societies appreciate the centuries-long struggle and commitment it has taken to stop religion from running our lives. Why then do you kowtow to those whose views and morals are in complete opposition to your own? There is no room in modern, secular morality for acceptance, tolerance, or respect of beliefs which fly in the face of that very morality. How dare you say you support gays and women's rights, and in the same breath defend religions and people who torment and kill homosexuals, and force their women to live in cloth bags as illiterate baby-making machines? "Respecting" religion gives these people license to get away with far too much, and you are giving up too much ground that countless others fought and died for. Our secularism was born in the renaissance and in the revolutions of the 18th century against the divine right of kings, which for centuries was propped up by religion. We have long since emancipated ourselves from the shackles of ancient barbarism. But when you take offense on behalf of people who would love nothing more than to see your secular morality replaced with religious law and send us back to the Iron Age, you epitomize hypocrisy.
In Man's Image.
I think we need to clarify our argument. Just because something can't yet be proven to NOT exist, does not mean it therefore DOES exist. It is erroneous, therefore, to argue along the lines of, "You can't disprove the divinity of Jesus." The burden of proof does not lie with me; I am not the one making fantastical claims about the suspension of the natural order.
Another false equivalency is when people say, "there is just as much evidence to substantiate the existence of Jesus as there was for Socrates."
The problem with this reasoning is that if it were proven Socrates did not exist, it makes no difference. However, if it were conclusively proven that Jesus didn't perform miracles, wasn't born of a virgin, or whose historical personage was a complete fabrication; this poses not only a crisis of faith, but a crisis of reality to billions of people who claim to follow the teachings of the historical Jesus. Their entire worldview would be shattered. The odd part is that there is not one shred of evidence beyond second and third-hand attestations to these supposed miracles which 'prove' he is divine and his teachings therefore true; and yet no one seems to require anything more by way of proof. Herein lies another inherent contradiction. We are told we must come to god or Jesus through faith alone; yet he had to physically prove to people 2000 years ago that he was god by performing miracles on every street corner. They didn't have to take it on faith; they got to witness the cheap parlor tricks, I mean Miracles, first-hand. Where is the faith in that?
The reason you're so good at coming up for answers to all these questions is that you're an expert at rationalizing the inconsistencies found within your faith because you've been at it for so long. The reason that there are so many inconsistencies and that they don't gel with everything we know about history, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology, is because they are nothing more than ancient myths. If you make the correct assumption that religion is man-made, then the books and teachings and the idea of faith for faith's sake cease to be mysterious; the ideas came from ignorance.
The only reason religion and faith are such problems and conflict with rationality and reason is because you make the false assumption that an all-knowing creator had some hand in the affairs of man. Once you come to the realization that all the stories, all the supernatural claims, all the views of the afterlife, and all the theories of god(s) were fabricated by primitive men, they cease to be mysterious. "Why would god condemn homosexuality when it exists throughout nature? Why would god again and again explain exactly how and why women are an inferior creation? Why would god destroy every living creature in a flood? Why would god speak in riddles and condone such barbarity?" The answer is, plainly, he wouldn't. It's all make-believe.
Another false equivalency is when people say, "there is just as much evidence to substantiate the existence of Jesus as there was for Socrates."
The problem with this reasoning is that if it were proven Socrates did not exist, it makes no difference. However, if it were conclusively proven that Jesus didn't perform miracles, wasn't born of a virgin, or whose historical personage was a complete fabrication; this poses not only a crisis of faith, but a crisis of reality to billions of people who claim to follow the teachings of the historical Jesus. Their entire worldview would be shattered. The odd part is that there is not one shred of evidence beyond second and third-hand attestations to these supposed miracles which 'prove' he is divine and his teachings therefore true; and yet no one seems to require anything more by way of proof. Herein lies another inherent contradiction. We are told we must come to god or Jesus through faith alone; yet he had to physically prove to people 2000 years ago that he was god by performing miracles on every street corner. They didn't have to take it on faith; they got to witness the cheap parlor tricks, I mean Miracles, first-hand. Where is the faith in that?
The reason you're so good at coming up for answers to all these questions is that you're an expert at rationalizing the inconsistencies found within your faith because you've been at it for so long. The reason that there are so many inconsistencies and that they don't gel with everything we know about history, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology, is because they are nothing more than ancient myths. If you make the correct assumption that religion is man-made, then the books and teachings and the idea of faith for faith's sake cease to be mysterious; the ideas came from ignorance.
The only reason religion and faith are such problems and conflict with rationality and reason is because you make the false assumption that an all-knowing creator had some hand in the affairs of man. Once you come to the realization that all the stories, all the supernatural claims, all the views of the afterlife, and all the theories of god(s) were fabricated by primitive men, they cease to be mysterious. "Why would god condemn homosexuality when it exists throughout nature? Why would god again and again explain exactly how and why women are an inferior creation? Why would god destroy every living creature in a flood? Why would god speak in riddles and condone such barbarity?" The answer is, plainly, he wouldn't. It's all make-believe.
Faith and Obesity.
I’m quite fond of analogies as you may know by now. I find that people of faith share a problem with people who are obese. The obese among us, once the medical community identified obesity as a disease, breathed a great, collective sigh of relief and thought, “See, it’s a disease, it’s out of my control.” It’s a way of shirking responsibility for your actions. Of course, what doctors were thinking was that if people thought of it as a disease, they would then try to CURE themselves of it. Needless to say that’s not what happened, as one in three Americans are now obese.
Similarly, people of faith are more than happy to shirk their responsibility to the rest of humankind. We hear it all the time, “It’s in God’s hands now.” This highlights the problem of religious faith, because it can be used to justify anything at any time for any reason. “God must have wanted this atrocity to happen” or “God gave us free will.” The free will argument only gets you so far, however. People of faith are constantly thanking God for the positives while simultaneously relieving him of responsibility for earthquakes and holocausts. It’s awfully convenient to be able to stop thinking about a problem and to fail to come up with a solution if you can attribute anything and everything to the will of God.
This is why faith is bad; it allows perfectly good people to ignore the problems of the world and do nothing, just as obese people go on eating and not exercising and using the ‘disease’ angle as an excuse.
Similarly, people of faith are more than happy to shirk their responsibility to the rest of humankind. We hear it all the time, “It’s in God’s hands now.” This highlights the problem of religious faith, because it can be used to justify anything at any time for any reason. “God must have wanted this atrocity to happen” or “God gave us free will.” The free will argument only gets you so far, however. People of faith are constantly thanking God for the positives while simultaneously relieving him of responsibility for earthquakes and holocausts. It’s awfully convenient to be able to stop thinking about a problem and to fail to come up with a solution if you can attribute anything and everything to the will of God.
This is why faith is bad; it allows perfectly good people to ignore the problems of the world and do nothing, just as obese people go on eating and not exercising and using the ‘disease’ angle as an excuse.
What it means to be an atheist.
Sky pixie worshipers seem to have an obsession with classifying atheism and atheists. They seem desperate to imply that there is a core set of beliefs that unites all of us or at least some of us. They are forever creating terms like "militant atheist" or "folk atheist".
There simply isn't any need for this kind of classification and it just reflects the obvious lack of imagination and capacity for rational thinking that theists all share. They simply can't conceive of people living their lives without any hint of religious beliefs. They desperately want to believe that the absence of belief is some kind of religion in itself. It's quite pathetic and really shouldn't be encouraged.
How did Jon Stewart put it when he was on Fox? “Because the soup you swim in is agenda-driven, you can't conceive of a scenario where that is NOT the case.” I believe this holds true with the vast majority of theists. Because they are more than happy to define themselves and be defined by others (the narrower the definition the better, it would seem), it's impossible for them to understand that, for some people, no definition or label is necessary. The term atheist is misused and misunderstood. Sam Harris uses the example of, "we don't have a term for non-astrologers." Atheists don't wake up in the morning going, "I don't believe, I don't believe..." the way that many religious people almost certainly spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves of their faith. The only thing that links all atheists is that they do not believe in a supreme being on insufficient evidence. Other than that, there is no linkage.
There is no church of atheism, there is no dogmatic ideology. They are just people who go about their day not worrying about superstitious nonsense and eternal salvation and the indoctrination of children.
That's all for now.
There is no church of atheism, there is no dogmatic ideology. They are just people who go about their day not worrying about superstitious nonsense and eternal salvation and the indoctrination of children.
Science Vs Con Artists.
"Science must confine its inquiry only to things belonging to the human senses, while spiritualism transcends the senses. If you want to understand the nature of spiritual power you can do so only through the path of spirituality and not science. What science has been able to unravel is merely a fraction of the cosmic phenomena ..." - Sathya Sai Baba
First of all, science tells us far more about things we can't detect with the senses than anyone thought possible only a century or two ago. The electromagnetic spectrum is just one of countless examples. I will, however, agree with the last sentence of his quote. We know that the observable universe is only 4% matter and the rest is dark matter. But science tells us more in every age, does it not?
Newtonian Physics isn’t wrong, it was just the beginning of modern physics. We have also advanced our medicine, our biology, our chemistry, and our mathematics considerably since then. The first automobiles weren't incorrect in their design, but they are primitive by today's standards. We have outgrown alchemy and astrology, both considered scientific fields just a few short centuries ago. Improving upon past discoveries does not make those discoveries wrong, it just means that we understand more. Consider the germ theory of disease - do you think when that was first proposed we knew everything we know now about the nature and variety of viruses and bacteria? Of course not, but the idea that microscopic organisms cause illness isn't being called into question. Similarly, just because Einstein came along and gave us relativity does not mean that the planets don't orbit the sun in an ellipse. Relativity gave us the concept of the 'fabric' of space-time and explained that the Sun is actually warping this 'fabric' and causing the planets to be drawn toward it. Newton made the initial observations and calculations, without which there would be no modern physics.
At any rate, the scientific explanation of the profound sense of wonder people feel and describe as 'spiritual experiences' does not, I think, take away from that experience. Knowing how stars are formed does not take away from admiring their beauty. Understanding the brain does not diminish a person's sense of euphoria either. And con-men like Sathya Sai Baba come along every so many years claiming to just 'know' things they can't possibly know, and people buy it. This is not good for the world.
Newtonian Physics isn’t wrong, it was just the beginning of modern physics. We have also advanced our medicine, our biology, our chemistry, and our mathematics considerably since then. The first automobiles weren't incorrect in their design, but they are primitive by today's standards. We have outgrown alchemy and astrology, both considered scientific fields just a few short centuries ago. Improving upon past discoveries does not make those discoveries wrong, it just means that we understand more. Consider the germ theory of disease - do you think when that was first proposed we knew everything we know now about the nature and variety of viruses and bacteria? Of course not, but the idea that microscopic organisms cause illness isn't being called into question. Similarly, just because Einstein came along and gave us relativity does not mean that the planets don't orbit the sun in an ellipse. Relativity gave us the concept of the 'fabric' of space-time and explained that the Sun is actually warping this 'fabric' and causing the planets to be drawn toward it. Newton made the initial observations and calculations, without which there would be no modern physics.
No Golden Age
By virtue of our place in history, we simply know more about the world and the way things work than every generation that came before us. There was no Golden Age, the ancients were not privy to divine secrets of which we are ignorant. Every single piece of evidence found throughout human history points to the fact that we have superseded every creation myth and every view of the natural word that were once thought to be universal truths. These facts are not to be ignored, they exist in reality whether you like it or not.
There is no book of divine commandments, ancient spiritual leaders didn't know more than we do, God didn't directly meddle in human affairs for a couple thousand years and then suddenly stop. The fact that people across all faiths can have and have had deeply spiritual and life-changing experiences proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the individual precepts of those religions are wrong. Under the right set of circumstances, a Christian is just as likely as a Muslim or a Hindu to have a once-in-a-lifetime spiritual experience. There are certain practices where focusing the mind can lead to a feeling of oneness with everything; I don't doubt that the plasticity of the human mind easily allows for such experiences.
That someone has such an experience in no way suggests that the precepts of their religious faith are thereby justified as true. Your mind may be particularly labile and allow you to experience consciousness in a way that others can't. Again, I don't say these things are not possible, and you can even go on calling them 'religious experiences' if you wish; but they are no such thing. They are 'Human Experiences'. And that, to me, is far more beautiful and compelling than ascribing it to metaphysics or the supernatural.
There is no book of divine commandments, ancient spiritual leaders didn't know more than we do, God didn't directly meddle in human affairs for a couple thousand years and then suddenly stop. The fact that people across all faiths can have and have had deeply spiritual and life-changing experiences proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the individual precepts of those religions are wrong. Under the right set of circumstances, a Christian is just as likely as a Muslim or a Hindu to have a once-in-a-lifetime spiritual experience. There are certain practices where focusing the mind can lead to a feeling of oneness with everything; I don't doubt that the plasticity of the human mind easily allows for such experiences.
That someone has such an experience in no way suggests that the precepts of their religious faith are thereby justified as true. Your mind may be particularly labile and allow you to experience consciousness in a way that others can't. Again, I don't say these things are not possible, and you can even go on calling them 'religious experiences' if you wish; but they are no such thing. They are 'Human Experiences'. And that, to me, is far more beautiful and compelling than ascribing it to metaphysics or the supernatural.
Attacking ideas is not the same as attacking people.
In my criticism on religion and dogma I know that I am offending people. But I'm also telling them that they're wrong to be offended. Rational people aren't offended when their view of something is disproved or challenged; that's just not how rational minds operate when they're really trying to get at what's true in the world. Religions purport to be representing reality, and yet there's this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous reflexive response to having their beliefs challenged.
There is no polite way to say to somebody, "You've wasted your life believing these things." Religion gives you comfort? There is comfort outside of religion. Religion gives your life meaning or a sense of purpose? Non-religious people have shown that religion is not necessary for either. Religion is the cause for so much good in the world? The most charitable societies and countries on the planet are non-religious. Religion is a source of morality? Not only is that laughable, but objective morality exists quite independently of religion.
There are thousands of examples of how science has given us answers where we previously looked to religion. There is not one where religion has disproved science. The problem is delusion compounded by ego. We can look back at successive points throughout human history where science trumped religion, and where the religious of the time still held to their beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence. It's also a problem of scale. We are far too short-sighted and we don't have an adequate concept of the passage of time. We live for a few decades, we are inculcated with stories and myths from a young age, and we spend our lives clinging to them rather than breaking the bonds of superstitious nonsense. In every age, religious people have pointed to the 'gap' which science can't explain. This is known as "the god of the gaps." And in every age, another gap is filled by a scientific explanation where once there was none. Our generation is no different. We are not special.
There are millions of dead who believed that a glorious rapture would occur in their lifetime. There are millions who believe it today. A majority of Americans believe Jesus will return In Their Lifetime. The arrogance of holding such a belief is staggering, to say the least. The Sun will be here for another few billion years. That humans will make it another few hundred years is by no means guaranteed, and we are on the precipice of either catapulting ourselves into a new renaissance or allowing our delusions to destroy us.
There are millions of dead who believed that a glorious rapture would occur in their lifetime. There are millions who believe it today. A majority of Americans believe Jesus will return In Their Lifetime. The arrogance of holding such a belief is staggering, to say the least. The Sun will be here for another few billion years. That humans will make it another few hundred years is by no means guaranteed, and we are on the precipice of either catapulting ourselves into a new renaissance or allowing our delusions to destroy us.
Doctrine, dogma, and faith are impediments to progress; they always have been. And I submit to you that reason, rationality, and logic are the only way forward. There is no middle ground. 'Tolerating' religious delusion is no longer acceptable.
Morality without faith.
It makes complete sense that people who don't believe in a personal god want to live good lives, moral lives, and long lives. This is the only life we have. Hoping for a life after death is, at best, wishful thinking. The hardest part about dying is not that the party ends, it's that the party is going to go on without you. People who don't believe in an afterlife, a personal god, and ancient humans with superpowers, have every reason to make the most out of this life. Morality is innate, being good for goodness' sake is enough. We don't need values from countless centuries ago imposed on our modern society as if they were universal truths.
The most immoral things I have ever come across come from religious texts and from people who believe them to be true. Enough. The people who believe these books to be the epitome of moral guidance have not, in fact, read the books. Just as the people who don't believe in evolution are usually those who know nothing about evolution. READ the books, line by line, and tell me they are moral. Then tell me why you ignore almost all of it and cling to one or two passages that make sense to you in a modern context. Then tell me why you believe in the teachings of people who claimed these immoral books were divinely inspired when they are clearly not.
If a mathematics teacher tells me their book contains the best mathematical theories ever conceived, and I find upon reading the books that they are full of penis doodles, I am going to call the book a piece of shit and the teacher an obvious fraud. 1st century and 7th century morality are no longer viable modes of living. The least informed of our children knows far more about how the world works than any of the authors of our religious texts. This is a problem, and one that can not, and must not, be ignored.
The most immoral things I have ever come across come from religious texts and from people who believe them to be true. Enough. The people who believe these books to be the epitome of moral guidance have not, in fact, read the books. Just as the people who don't believe in evolution are usually those who know nothing about evolution. READ the books, line by line, and tell me they are moral. Then tell me why you ignore almost all of it and cling to one or two passages that make sense to you in a modern context. Then tell me why you believe in the teachings of people who claimed these immoral books were divinely inspired when they are clearly not.
If a mathematics teacher tells me their book contains the best mathematical theories ever conceived, and I find upon reading the books that they are full of penis doodles, I am going to call the book a piece of shit and the teacher an obvious fraud. 1st century and 7th century morality are no longer viable modes of living. The least informed of our children knows far more about how the world works than any of the authors of our religious texts. This is a problem, and one that can not, and must not, be ignored.
Response to claim that atheism was the cause of the Holocaust and Stalinism
You've had your say. Now it's time for a rude awakening. Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism were effectively State Religions based upon a cult of personality. The term atheism is bandied about all the time without assholes like you stopping to think what it means. All it means is someone who does not believe in a deity. That's it. The millions Stalin killed was not because he didn't believe in God, you jackass. He killed them because he was a psychotic tyrant who ruled with an iron fist and didn't tolerate dissent in any form. He also had a population of superstitious peasants who were kept ignorant by centuries of Czarism and eastern orthodoxy. He wouldn't have been much of a dictator if he couldn't exploit a people who worship figureheads as a matter of course.
By your logic, if Stalin had been a 'believer' he never would have committed the atrocities he did. That is patently false. What is true is that most people who identify as atheist today are largely scientific minded, skeptical people who don't believe in a personal god. The healthiest societies on the planet are practically all atheistic. Look to Sweden, Denmark, S. Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, and most of western Europe. Those countries rank the highest in the Human Development Index. Guess where all the religious countries rank? At the very bottom. People might identify with a particular religion based on cultural tradition in the 'atheistic' countries; they still have weddings in churches and all that, but they are non-believers, atheists, whatever you want to call them. So, get your shit straight before you go spewing your vitriol about 20th century nationalistic movements and STATE RELIGIONS.
The examples you give are like North Korea today. The Dear Leader is practically a god on earth to his people. What people like Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris argue for is logic, and reason, and not taking anything on blind faith because it's in some stupid old book written by primitive, racist, misogynistic men. They argue that religion is harmful because it is the source of mass delusion and it effectively stops skeptical inquiry. It is religion and dogma (in the name of Islam, or Christianity, or Stalinism, it makes no difference) which are the causes of almost all of human suffering from the beginning of recorded history.
Everyone thinks themselves the chosen people, everyone has the right book and all the answers. The fact of the matter is it is all bullshit, and lies, and delusion. How dare you call us arrogant - we who strive for knowledge and truth. What can be more arrogant than a group of people claiming to know the mysteries of the universe and what happens after we die when they don't have a single shred of evidence other than ancient folklore and fairy tales and contradictory scripture?
It is the people of faith who are arrogant - claiming to know things they can't possibly know, killing others who disagree with them, and lying to their own children. May your lives be miserable and brief, so the rest of us can get back to the business of moving human civilization forward; and living in a world where superstition and mysticism are distant memories.
By your logic, if Stalin had been a 'believer' he never would have committed the atrocities he did. That is patently false. What is true is that most people who identify as atheist today are largely scientific minded, skeptical people who don't believe in a personal god. The healthiest societies on the planet are practically all atheistic. Look to Sweden, Denmark, S. Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, and most of western Europe. Those countries rank the highest in the Human Development Index. Guess where all the religious countries rank? At the very bottom. People might identify with a particular religion based on cultural tradition in the 'atheistic' countries; they still have weddings in churches and all that, but they are non-believers, atheists, whatever you want to call them. So, get your shit straight before you go spewing your vitriol about 20th century nationalistic movements and STATE RELIGIONS.
The examples you give are like North Korea today. The Dear Leader is practically a god on earth to his people. What people like Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris argue for is logic, and reason, and not taking anything on blind faith because it's in some stupid old book written by primitive, racist, misogynistic men. They argue that religion is harmful because it is the source of mass delusion and it effectively stops skeptical inquiry. It is religion and dogma (in the name of Islam, or Christianity, or Stalinism, it makes no difference) which are the causes of almost all of human suffering from the beginning of recorded history.
Everyone thinks themselves the chosen people, everyone has the right book and all the answers. The fact of the matter is it is all bullshit, and lies, and delusion. How dare you call us arrogant - we who strive for knowledge and truth. What can be more arrogant than a group of people claiming to know the mysteries of the universe and what happens after we die when they don't have a single shred of evidence other than ancient folklore and fairy tales and contradictory scripture?
It is the people of faith who are arrogant - claiming to know things they can't possibly know, killing others who disagree with them, and lying to their own children. May your lives be miserable and brief, so the rest of us can get back to the business of moving human civilization forward; and living in a world where superstition and mysticism are distant memories.
Remembering Hitchens
Religious people are always the first to take offense, and everyone else has bought into it. "You can't talk about my faith." Says who? It's only taboo to criticize religion and faith because the rest of us have allowed faith-based religions to achieve this charmed status. Criticizing bad ideas is how we make progress. All organized religion is ridiculous if you actually read the books and think about it for a minute; and they are deserving of ridicule. We can shame people into correcting their way of thinking about a host of other issues but religion is off-limits? In the same way that we can use evidence to silence the conspiracy theorists, so must we use evidence to enlighten the indoctrinated and brainwashed masses. I know it's possible because I have done it.
Even after Hitch, and Dawkins, and Harris, and all their books - you are still afraid to speak up when 'people of faith' try to bully others or feign offense at a non-existent slight against their religion or their faith. The irony is that the non-religious are worried about being rude to another human, while the religious have no problem offending the sensibilities of the rest of us, and they have the gall to claim humility. Humility! Of all things. And this from people of breathtaking arrogance; who claim to know the mind of god, that the universe was created with them in mind, that they know what happens when we die, and that the Celestial Dictatorship (Hitch) is ever-watchful.
Even after Hitch, and Dawkins, and Harris, and all their books - you are still afraid to speak up when 'people of faith' try to bully others or feign offense at a non-existent slight against their religion or their faith. The irony is that the non-religious are worried about being rude to another human, while the religious have no problem offending the sensibilities of the rest of us, and they have the gall to claim humility. Humility! Of all things. And this from people of breathtaking arrogance; who claim to know the mind of god, that the universe was created with them in mind, that they know what happens when we die, and that the Celestial Dictatorship (Hitch) is ever-watchful.
It was Hitchens who inspired me to become an outspoken critic of organized religion and delusion gussied up as 'faith', particularly when the practice of those ideas becomes harmful to the rest of us, which they often do. His memory lives on in all of us whose lives he has touched.
Try to 'faith' your way out.
Next time you find yourself in a pickle, try to 'faith' your way out of it instead of using logic and reason. Imagine what kind of show MacGyver would have been. "Let's see: I have some twine and a Swiss Army Knife, I'm stuck in a Colombian prison-hut, how do I get out of this one? I KNOW! I'll get down on my knees and WISH my way out! Phew, that was a close one."
The thinking man is the reason we don't have smallpox, and why we have all this wonderful technology, and why we live longer lives. Faith had absolutely nothing to do with it. Faith didn't cure polio, nor did it invent the lightbulb. Salk and Edison used their minds to solve problems, they didn't wish upon a fairy tale. For every mediocre, half-assed reason you can give me that faith might be good for you and others (it isn't by the way), I can give you thousands upon thousands of how reason and logic and science are better. Saying "I just prayed on it" is equivalent to saying, "I gave up my mind to silly, superstitious beliefs, and luckily someone else came up with an actual solution."
The thinking man is the reason we don't have smallpox, and why we have all this wonderful technology, and why we live longer lives. Faith had absolutely nothing to do with it. Faith didn't cure polio, nor did it invent the lightbulb. Salk and Edison used their minds to solve problems, they didn't wish upon a fairy tale. For every mediocre, half-assed reason you can give me that faith might be good for you and others (it isn't by the way), I can give you thousands upon thousands of how reason and logic and science are better. Saying "I just prayed on it" is equivalent to saying, "I gave up my mind to silly, superstitious beliefs, and luckily someone else came up with an actual solution."
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Prayer doesn't work.
I'm glad the god you pray to answered your prayers concerning issues in your life which already had a good probability of coming to fruition without said prayers. Of course, you never remember the countless times when your prayers went unanswered, but you easily remember the 'answered' ones. Has it occurred to you that an answered prayer is nothing more than a coincidence? You count the hits but ignore the misses, it's only natural.
In other news, 21000 children died today due to hunger and preventable diseases; and all the while their parents were praying for food and medicine which never came. If you have a direct line to god, would you mind sharing it with the rest of us, or at least passing the information on to those who need it?
If you got a raise, it's either because you deserved it or your company gives raises after a certain period of time. If you did good on an exam, you probably prepared for it. If the event you hosted was a success, probably had something to do with all the effort and planning you put into it. Anything you've ever prayed for which came true was already a distinct possibility, however remote.
This god of yours is perfectly willing to cure diseases which are curable through modern medicine; and to save people who were in no need of saving. But god has never healed an amputee. Not once. HE has never done anything which wasn't already agreed upon as being within the realm of possibility. If you didn't die in a hurricane, thanking god for answering your prayers is an insult to the hundreds or thousands who did die, many of whom were probably more virtuous than yourself. When the inexplicable happens - god is mysterious. When god got rid of your zit in time for your best friend's wedding - HE answered your prayers? Get the fuck outta here.
The arrogance of claiming that a supernatural being beyond comprehension cares in the slightest what becomes of you is ridiculous on a cosmic scale. You, who are no more or less deserving of happiness and joy than anyone else, who probably started life better off than three quarters of the rest of the world simply due to the geographic location of your birth or the education level of your parents, you have the audacity to claim that an all-powerful god cares enough to grant your wish, but not the wishes of people dying from hunger and disease in misery and pain? This is perhaps the greatest insult you can inflict on the rest of humanity; that your wants and desires are somehow more deserving when they are no such thing. And please, spare me the rationalizations, "god is mysterious; we have free will so it's our fault these people are dying, not his." If you want to argue the latter, fine, but then you can't say that there is such as thing as answered prayers, and the free will argument doesn't cover natural disasters and non-preventable, non-curable diseases. It IS our fault people die from starvation every day, or from lack of access to vaccinations and clean drinking water. But if god answered prayers, why would he answer yours and not theirs? Your answered prayer is a coincidence that you happened to remember and decided to attribute to an imaginary friend.
Again, the best example I've ever come across is god's fervent refusal to heal amputees. He has never and will never re-grow a limb for anyone. It's convenient that he's willing to cure diseases which are already curable due to the only true miracles, and which are completely man-made: science, and modern medicine. A prayer-answering god is as imaginary as it gets.
In other news, 21000 children died today due to hunger and preventable diseases; and all the while their parents were praying for food and medicine which never came. If you have a direct line to god, would you mind sharing it with the rest of us, or at least passing the information on to those who need it?
If you got a raise, it's either because you deserved it or your company gives raises after a certain period of time. If you did good on an exam, you probably prepared for it. If the event you hosted was a success, probably had something to do with all the effort and planning you put into it. Anything you've ever prayed for which came true was already a distinct possibility, however remote.
This god of yours is perfectly willing to cure diseases which are curable through modern medicine; and to save people who were in no need of saving. But god has never healed an amputee. Not once. HE has never done anything which wasn't already agreed upon as being within the realm of possibility. If you didn't die in a hurricane, thanking god for answering your prayers is an insult to the hundreds or thousands who did die, many of whom were probably more virtuous than yourself. When the inexplicable happens - god is mysterious. When god got rid of your zit in time for your best friend's wedding - HE answered your prayers? Get the fuck outta here.
The arrogance of claiming that a supernatural being beyond comprehension cares in the slightest what becomes of you is ridiculous on a cosmic scale. You, who are no more or less deserving of happiness and joy than anyone else, who probably started life better off than three quarters of the rest of the world simply due to the geographic location of your birth or the education level of your parents, you have the audacity to claim that an all-powerful god cares enough to grant your wish, but not the wishes of people dying from hunger and disease in misery and pain? This is perhaps the greatest insult you can inflict on the rest of humanity; that your wants and desires are somehow more deserving when they are no such thing. And please, spare me the rationalizations, "god is mysterious; we have free will so it's our fault these people are dying, not his." If you want to argue the latter, fine, but then you can't say that there is such as thing as answered prayers, and the free will argument doesn't cover natural disasters and non-preventable, non-curable diseases. It IS our fault people die from starvation every day, or from lack of access to vaccinations and clean drinking water. But if god answered prayers, why would he answer yours and not theirs? Your answered prayer is a coincidence that you happened to remember and decided to attribute to an imaginary friend.
Again, the best example I've ever come across is god's fervent refusal to heal amputees. He has never and will never re-grow a limb for anyone. It's convenient that he's willing to cure diseases which are already curable due to the only true miracles, and which are completely man-made: science, and modern medicine. A prayer-answering god is as imaginary as it gets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)