If I were a god.

If I were an all-powerful, evil god:

I'd kill people at random. For no reason at all. At every age. And I'd do it in a variety of ways.

Car accidents. Plane crashes. Slipping and falling and hitting the head in just the right place. 

I'd let babies be born with hideous conditions guaranteed to kill them, just to fuck with people.

Some I'd let suffer. Some I'd kill instantly. Some I'd just maim permanently until they died of complications from those injuries. Some I'd let off Scott free with only the memory of how close they came to buying the farm. Again, for no reason.

I'd destroy things at random. Again, for no reason at all. Hurricanes? Tsunamis? Earthquakes? Wildfires? Plagues? Droughts? Floods? Whatever I was in the mood for.

When these random sufferings or injustices took place, I'd blame the people I'd created for that suffering. I'd say things like: "See? You could've prevented this, but you didn't because you rejected me and I withdrew my protection." I'd also say things like "who are you to question me?"

I'd have a book of rules. And I'd send those rules through random intermediaries that people could easily confuse with lunatics. And rather than one copy in one language written in clear prose that everyone could easily understand with no room whatsoever for misinterpretation, I'd put it in multiple languages, rely on translators to interpret it, and then sit back with glee as wars erupted over what my will actually was.

I'd create people with sexual drives and instincts and various degrees of orientation, then set the rules to work in opposition to these things.

I'd create imperfect people, and command them to be perfect or face eternal damnation after death.

I'd offer to relieve them of the threat of this eternal damnation in exchange for their everything: their identity, their loyalty, their reasoning, their basic needs. Their life would have to be dedicated to praising and serving me every day until they died. At which time, I'd reward them for their years of faithful service by letting them come live with me so they could praise me and serve my needs up front and in person for all eternity.

Now, if I were an all-powerful good god:

I'd ask you to do nothing, and in return, I'd give you something that you could use in this life: cars, money, real estate, a gift certificate to that Brazilian steakhouse your buddy was bragging about, a date with that lady from the AT&T ads, two weeks in Bora Bora. Something. 

As far as interfering with your life, I'd pretty much leave you alone. Unless you started fucking up really bad.

My rules would be simple, and in many cases, instinctual. In line with your humanity, not in opposition to it.  Don't harm children. Don't make unwanted sexual advances. Don't kill anything without a damn good reason. Don't bother people. Respect people's space.

I'd give you really cool music to listen to. Not just stuff about how awesome I was.

I'd give you really good movies to watch, not just poorly acted, poorly told stories based on chain-letter memes that turned into full blown suburban legends.

And if someone tried to cause harm to someone else that was incapable of self-defense, I'd stop it. Every single time. Not just on those random occasions where I felt like it.

Bruce Jenner

I will admit.  

I do not understand Bruce Jenner.  

I do not understand what makes a person feel like they are not the gender they are supposed to be. I don’t understand the psychology of it. I don’t understand the biochemistry of it. I don’t understand a lot about transsexuality. Of course, there’s a lot about run of the mill sexuality in general that I don’t understand either.

I can not imagine what kind of mind hell a person must be living in to feel like they’re in a body that’s not theirs.  I can not imagine being willing to go through the pain, the expense and the years of psychological and drug therapy one must undergo to change one’s physical gender.

Just as a person who is not left-handed can never understand what I’ve had to go through as a left-handed person, a person who is not transsexual will never fully understand or wrap their mind around transsexuality.  

But…

I don’t have to understand it.  I don’t have to understand any of it.

I am under no obligation as a decent human to fully understand what my fellow primates go through on a day to day basis.

So now that the burden of understanding is lifted, what now?

Well, I can be compassionate.  I can be sympathetic.  I can be sensitive.

And even if I can’t be those things.

I can at least not be an asshole.

The Case For Christ, Chapter 4

CFC Chapter 4

Is there an incident in your life in which you doubted someone’s story until he or she offered corroborating evidence? How is that experience similar to learning about the kind of corroborative evidence that Yamauchi presented?

Yes. And my experience is not similar to this story at all.  

Yamauchi's corroborating evidence consists of:

-Josephus (born 4 years after Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection) whose work Yamauchi admits was corrupted by “interpolations.”

-Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, who add nothing to the conversation except that Christians existed and were persecuted in Ancient Rome about 100 years after Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection.

-Thallus, who wrote in 52 AD that a total eclipse occurred in 33 AD. (He doesn’t mention if there were dead saints walking around Jerusalem, though)

-Paul, who Strobel admits “never met Jesus prior to Jesus’ death,” but whose accounts can be considered reliable because they are in line with what the Gospels say, which Yamauchi admits were written after Paul’s letters.

Yeah, me too.

2. What do you consider to be the most persuasive corroboration that Yamauchi talked about? Why?

None of the above. See previous answer.

3. Ancient sources say that early Christians clung to their beliefs rather than disavow them in the face of torture. Why do you think they had such strongly held convictions?

For the same reason that early Mormons who personally knew Joseph Smith were willing to suffer and die for him.

For the same reason that millions of Germans were willing to die for Adolf Hitler.

For the same reason that Jews persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs.

For the same reason Buddhist monks in South Vietnam were willing to commit ritual suicide in protest of the Diem regime.

For the same reason that radical extremist Muslims are willing to die (and kill) for what they believe.

The willingness to suffer and die for what a person believes to be true does not validate that belief. Period.

These people all sincerely believed in the things they were (and are) willing to suffer and die for.  

I don’t doubt the sincerity of their beliefs one bit.

I adamantly doubt the truth of what they believe.

Case for Christ Chapter 3: Documentary "Evidence"

1. Having read the interview with Dr. Metzger, how would you rate the reliability of the process by which the New Testament was transmitted to us?

Not very highly.

What are some reasons you find this process trustworthy or not?

The process seems highly subjective and riddled with opportunity for errors, censorship of dissent and addition of later insertions.

2. Scan a copy of the New Testament and examine some of the notes in the margins that talk about variant readings.  What are some examples you find?

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain Mark 16:9-20”

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain John 7:53-8:11.”

How does the presence of these notations affect your understanding of the passages?

It only raises more questions.  Who added these passages? When were they added (they were not included in the first compiled copies of the New Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which Metzger dates at 350 AD)?

3. Does the criteria for determining whether a document should be included in the New Testament seem reasonable?

The criteria:

1. Apostolic authority. Must have been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle.  We have already established that this is damn near impossible to determine empirically, and is therefore ultimately determined by Church tradition.

2. Conformity to the rule of faith: congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.  Second verse, same as the first.  Basically, Church tradition formally  recognized as Church tradition.

3. Continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.  So, basically an argumentum ad populum.

Based on these three criteria, it seems that Church tradition and the “vox populi” basically determined what became the New Testament.  This is not an objective process where we are interested in finding the truth of the matter.  The fact that neither Strobel nor Metzger addresses any critiques or alternative arguments other than a passive dismissal shows a blatant dishonesty on the part of both men.

Taking on Lee Strobel: Chapter 2

Continuing on in Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"

1. Overall, how have Blomberg’s responses to these eight evidential tests affected your confidence in the reliability of the gospels? Why?

Blomberg's responses have done absolutely nothing to give me confidence that the gospels are reliable, just as he did nothing to convince me that they are even eyewitness accounts.

2. Which of these tests do you consider to be the most persuasive and why?

The corroboration test. If the facts don’t match the story that is a huge red flag.  Blomberg doesn't seem interested in it and his answers are weak and unconvincing. He admits that archaeology has "presented some problems" but quickly shrugs it off without elaborating.

3. When people you trust give slightly different details of the same event, do you automatically doubt their credibility or do you see if there is a reasonable way to reconcile their accounts?

This is a loaded question, but I'll play along and say that when two reliable sources give contradictory accounts and we do not have enough evidence outside of these two sources, we acknowledge this fact and revert to the default position which is "we don't know for sure."

How convincing did you find Blomberg’s analysis of the apparent contradictions among the gospels?

Not very. Blomberg fails to provide any good reasons for why we should accept the validity of the gospels other than suppositions and excuses, much like the reasons he gave for how we can know the gospels are "eyewitness" accounts.

In answering if it was the stated or implied intention of the writers to preserve history, Blomberg says we should take Luke and John's word for it because they say so and there are no “outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing” like those found in other ancient writings. I wonder if he means the crazy shit you find in other myths like being born of a virgin, being the offspring of a god, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, and coming back to life after dying. Maybe he is referring to some other kind of "blatant mythologizing" like having to go through some big long struggle or vision quest like ... Oh, I don't know, having to live in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights while being tormented by an arch-nemesis.

When answering if the writers were able to reliably record history, Blomberg says in oral traditions, much had to be committed to memory and was via poetry and songs, with a 10-40% variance of incidental details.  I’ll come back to this.

As far as whether or not it was it in the character of these writers to be truthful,

Blomberg says yes. We have no reason to believe that the gospel writers weren't truthful (except for some glaring contradictions and all that non-blatant mythologizing) and they were willing to die for what they believed.  The willingness to die for what you believe to be true does not verify the truthfulness of your claim.  If it did, we could believe in the veracity of more claims than just the Christians’.

Now when it comes to whether or not there are irreconcilable discrepancies that undermine the trustworthiness of the accounts Blomberg says that once you allow for a 10-40% margin of error, they are consistent.  Oh, and too much consistency would be suspicious.  Strobel brings up inconsistencies like “Gadara” and “Gerasa” and Joseph’s genealogy, which Blomberg buries under excuses like “mistranslations,” “Mary’s genealogy in disguise,” “Legal vs. biological parentage,” etc.

Of course, the “hard-hitting” Strobel helpfully pitches him softballs.  He does not bring up:

-That only Matthew and Luke seem to know that Jesus was born of a virgin. Shouldn’t that warrant mention in the other two?  If, as Blomberg suggests, there were “fixed points that were unalterable” in oral accounts, shouldn’t “born of a virgin” be one of them? Considering how many mythological figures were born of a virgin, maybe they felt that sort of thing was just mundane.

-Where and when did the Ascension take place? I can understand getting names like “Gerasa” and “Gadara” mixed up (hell I’ve gotten them mixed up in this post), but what about “Bethany” and “Mount Olivet”? In Luke, the Ascension takes place in Bethany the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:50-51).  In Acts (supposedly written by Luke!) it takes place at Mount Olivet 40 days later (Acts 1:9-12).  Is this just an “incidental detail” that we should expect Luke to disagree with himself about?

Did Jesus go to Egypt after his birth? Matthew says yes, (Matthew 2:13), Luke says no (Luke 2:39). The prophecy (according to Matthew) called for the messiah to be called out of Egypt. Why did Luke get this wrong? Or did Matthew get it wrong? Or is whether or not Jesus fulfilled a messianic prophecy by coming out of Egypt “incidental?”

Did Herod order the death of all boys under the age of 2? Matthew says yes, Luke makes no mention of it.  That seems to be a crucial part of the story and the reason for Jesus coming out of Egypt. So who was wrong, Luke or Matthew?

Did Jesus go to Galilee after his resurrection (Matthew) or Jerusalem (Luke)?

Where and to whom does Jesus first appear after coming back to life? To Mary Magdalene (and possibly other women, two accounts seem to be at odds) at or near the tomb (Matthew, John), or to Cleopas and an anonymous companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke)?

Why don’t the oldest manuscripts of Mark (the ones without 16:9-20) mention Jesus appearing to the disciples after his death? Who added Chapter 16:9-20 and when?

Why weren't these contradictions addressed as opposed to Strobel;s batting practice fastballs?

When addressing if the gospel writers had any biases that would have colored their work,

Blomberg basically says that they were too biased to be biased and so biased that that they were unbiased.  

Roger that.

In addressing if the people, places and events mentioned corroborated historically, Blomberg essentially says “yes, because I say so.”

In writing about this question, Strobel writes a note to himself:

“Get expert opinions from archaeologist and historian.”

Apparently he didn’t think too much of Blomberg’s answer to that question either.

Coming Out/Taking on Lee Strobel

So  I recently came out and told my wife that I no longer accepted the existence of a deity.


She did not believe me and used the extremely emotional episode as yet another opportunity to psycho-analyze (berate) me.  Apparently, I am "thinking about it too much," as opposed to just "following the heart" and apparently atheism is the new hip thing to do and that's why i'm doing it. 

Because i'm such a follower...apparently

I am "taking the easy way out" because "society has made it difficult for people who believe in the Bible." She also went off on a rant about homosexuality, coincidences that can't be coincidental and "Cosmos" is why I quit believing in god.

Yeah.

So anyway, the discussion actually went very civil despite her 8th grade understanding of pretty much everything I was talking about.  As far as the psychoanalysis, hell i've been married to her for nearly 20 years.  That was mild compared to what i've gone through before. And in the interests of domestic tranquility I agreed to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

Incidentally, Steve Shives over at YouTube does a great video series where he reads and reviews "The Case for Christ" from the skeptical perspective  Great, great stuff. Here is the first video.

Now, let me back up and say that I have been in a writing funk lately and it shows from previous posts.

Fortunately, Lee Strobel asks questions for study and reflection at the end of each chapter.

Here are my answers to the first chapter, which deals with the gospels, or as Strobel calls them, "the eyewitness evidence."  He interviews Dr. Craig Blomberg, PhD. and asks him a series of softball questions which Blomberg responds to with a mix of excuse-making, bad logic and faulty analogies.  Strobel, a former section editor for the Chicago Tribune and a Yale Law School graduate, displays none of the skills you would associate with a person with those credentials.

1. How have your opinions been influenced by someone’s eyewitness account of an event?
As a teacher, I rely on eyewitness testimony quite a bit. There is one incident that stands out, though. A boy had been accused of a misdeed. He and his father had set up a conference the next day to clarify what happened as the accused boy was insisting that he was not the only one who should have gotten in trouble. One of his cohorts had sold him out to avoid trouble himself and a third boy, not involved in the situation at all, confirmed that the second boy was involved as well and the second boy was immediately punished.

2. What are some factors you routinely use to evaluate whether someone’s story is honest and accurate?
First and foremost, I look to see if it is in fact "eyewitness" testimony. If Susie comes to tell me that Joey saw Jessica cheating, that is merely hearsay, and I need to talk to Joey directly. Then, I look at whether or not it fits with the corroborating evidence. Does the eyewitness account fit the other facts of the case? Does Jessica’s test show any signs of cheating? Sometimes, people don’t see or hear what they think they see or hear. I know my students (and some parents) have a tendency to jump to conclusions and are prone to flights of fancy, so what they see and hear may be colored by that. I also know that sometimes, people lie. Next, I look at whether or not it fits into how I know the world works. If Joey tells me that Jessica was cheating using the powers of mind control or a magic talisman, I am immediately suspicious of the claim. Last, I look at the witnesses themselves and their vested interests. What are they getting out of this? What do they have to gain by lying? What do they have to lose by being honest? In my first answer, the boy who came in and straightened everything out at the end “didn’t have a dawg in the hunt.” He wasn’t friends with either of the other boys, didn’t really have a lot of regard for either of their opinions of him, and quite frankly could have pummeled either one or both of them if they'd tried to come after him. He did not have a vested interest either way.

3. How do you think the gospels would stand up to that type of scrutiny?
Well, the problem is Dr Blomberg flat-out admits that “strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.” Then he quickly retreats and assures us that “the uniform testimony of the early church” was that the Gospels were written by who they are named after, but he states no source for this “uniform testimony.” Despite his retreat, the cat is out of the bag.

Second, he admits that Mark is based on the recollections of Peter (hearsay), Matthew draws from Mark (hearsay OF hearsay), that Luke wasn’t even in the 12 disciples, and that John’s gospel has “some question about authorship” and “may have finalized by an editor.” In any other context, these are HUGE red flags. But for some reason, the gospels get a pass.


Third, his “proof” that these gospels are written by who they are attributed to consists of

1. His word that the “uniform testimony of the early church” said so.

2. Papias, a church bishop who wrote 90 years after Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection that the authors were the people they are attributed to because he said so and so did the people he talked to.

3. Irenaeus, another church bishop who wrote 50 years after Papias what amounts to “Yeah, what he said!”

All that being said, I do not see how the gospels can even be called “eyewitness accounts” at all.

But for the sake of argument, i’ll play along and grant that all four were written by the men they are attributed to.

Why should I believe them?

Why should I believe stories of a man about whom numerous spectacular claims were made
when we know that these claims run contrary to our understanding of how the world works?

I can more than likely find four people who claim to have done just about anything you could imagine who aren’t being intentionally dishonest and won’t deny it on pain of death.. Why should I believe the gospels over them?

50 Shades of Belief

"In every ... community there are varying shades of ... opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic."

-Phil Ochs











Say what you will about fundamentalists, they are at least intellectually consistent.  One of the shadiest groups of religious types are the liberals.  I concluded this after reading Michael Robbins' review of Nick Spencer's Atheists: The Origin of the Species on Slate.

Two things jumped out at me.  First of all, Robbins scoffs at the notion that religion is (as Richard Dawkins has suggested) "a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life," calling the notion "bullshit."  Robbins points out:

To be sure, several scriptures offer, for instance, their own accounts of creation. But Christians have recognized the allegorical nature of these accounts since the very beginnings of Christianity.

"How con-VEEEE-nient," as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say.

"Sure that Genesis stuff may sound like complete unscientific balderdash, but it's all just an allegory! And TRUE Christians have known that all along." 

I'll table the question about which version of the Bible with its Genesis account is THE Bible with THE Genesis account and focus on the little problem that we have now.

How much of the Bible (or THE Bible, if you can produce it) is to be taken as allegory and how much is not?

Follow-up question: Who gets to decide this?

Either the Bible (or the Quran, or the Baghavad Gita or the Tripitaka or the Book of Shadows) is to be taken literally and at face-value, or it is not.  If it is not (as Robbins suggests) then he has created the problem of how much (if any) of the scriptures are to be taken literally.  If none of them are to be taken literally, then I am curious as to what kind of religion this "Christianity" of his actually is that would treat allegedly holy writ as fundamentally no different than any other piece of literature.

He has also created the problem of why one should choose his religion over the myriad of others ... unless he is suggesting that all religions are essentially the same, which is pretty much what "New Atheists" suggest.

My second issue is that Robbins asserts that the "New Atheists" just don't understand what religion is and what it does.  Nor do they understand "God."  He praises a commenter called "Saint Cecilia" who noted:

The “pitch” of Christianity, she points out, has “nothing to do with the Big Bang or evolution or anything like that at all.” Nor is the existence of God a scientific proposition: “Christians aren’t talking about a math problem, they’re talking about a Person. And in the vast experience of people who claim to have had a genuine encounter with the Personality called Christ, there are certain things that are involved, such as willingness [and] humility.”

"Saint Cecilia" also adds:

"If someone is really interested in whether or not God exists, I’d say the best way is to have a little humility and experiment, with an open mind and heart, with the paths that Christians have claimed take you directly to him, in the ways that have worked." 

"So basically, just forget about all that mumbo-jumbo and science stuff and focus on how there's all these people who have had an encounter with this guy Jesus."

Yeah, so...these "encounters"...were they real-world encounters like the time I met Waylon Thibodeaux, or were they "virtual" encounters that took place in the mind, like the time I dreamed that I met Knute Rockne? 

How much of this Jesus personality is real and how much is an invention of your own mind?

Did the Jesus you worship actually exist or have you given him features that he didn't and couldn't have had?

How do you know this?

So we come now to the crux of the whole problem with religion:

How can your claim of a divine encounter be fundamentally different than anyone else's? 

How is your claim any different from the figment of an active imagination, a drug-induced hallucination, a hysterical delusion or an outright fabrication?

Until you can answer those questions with something other than "You just gotta have faith" or "Open your mind and your heart," then I cannot take your claim seriously.

For all of Robbins' disdain for "New Atheists" and "Evangelical Atheism," in the shadow of his many words, is very little substance.

The Theist Challenge.

Picture a devoutly religious man.  He follows another man who is considered to be a prophet.  This prophet talks to a particular god on a daily basis and (more importantly) this god talks back, relaying instructions for the other man (and his fellow believers) to follow.

On a typical morning, the devoutly religious man gets out of bed and receives an order from the prophet.  According to the prophet, the god has ordered the devoutly religious man to go kill another man who may or may not be equally religious but who definitely does not believe in the same god or follow the same prophet.  Aside from this difference of opinion, the devoutly religious man has no quarrel with the man he is ordered to kill.  But all that aside, the devoutly religious man goes and kills the man he is ordered to kill by his god who ordered him to do so by way of the prophet.  The other man was one of “them,” and had to die.

Why didn’t the god not just tell the first man to kill the other man himself? Why not just speak to him directly.  Why was a prophet necessary? Better yet, the god is a god. Why not just kill the other man himself and cut out the middle men altogether? But I digress.

The devoutly religious man has killed another man of more or less the same level of devotion to a different god for no other reason than he was just following orders, and the other guy was one of “them.”.

So now that we’ve seen the wind-up, here’s the pitch:

Is the devoutly religious man:

A.) A jihadi terrorist on September 11, 2001?

B.) A member of the Waffen SS in 1944?

C.) A Christian Crusader outside of a Turkish village in 1100?

D.) An Israelite outside of Jericho as described in the Book of Joshua?

E.) A member of the Manson Family in 1969?

Let’s be honest: without a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics, special pleading, “yeah, but”s and other excuse making, you can’t tell the difference.  Neither can I, which is why I am an atheist.

Now, some of you will try to say that I am oversimplifying and taking things out of context.

From where I am sitting, I have provided all the context necessary to make the point. 

But, I don’t claim to have a monopoly on truth, so if you can provide the right "context," be my guest.

How to convert an atheist in 7 easy steps.

Converting an atheist into a believer is really quite simple.

I would argue that it is a lot simpler than converting a believer into an atheist.

Having gone through the latter, I can attest to how hard it was.

But converting back to a believer would be a very simple process.

Not nearly as hard as christian apologists would have you believe it is.

So here is my very simple process for converting a atheist into a believer.

Step 1: Under controlled circumstances, establish and demonstrate the existence of a supernatural or transcendent reality or state of existence beyond this one.

Step 2: Under controlled circumstances, establish and demonstrate that a "god" exists in this supernatural or transcendent state of existence.

Step 3: Establish an independently verifiable means for a "god" in this supernatural or transcendent state of existence to directly influence the natural, discernible universe.

Step 4: Demonstrate, using independently verifiable means, that a "god" in this supernatural or transcendent state of existence DID, in fact, create this reality that we presently inhabit.

So you think you are done at this point?

No so fast.  

Step 5: Demonstrate, using independently verifiable means, that only one god can exist in this supernatural or transcendent state of existence, OR demonstrate, using independently verifiable means, that MULTIPLE gods exist in this supernatural or transcendent state of existence.

 Step 6: Demonstrate, using independently verifiable means, that your particular god (the one you worship) or gods is/are responsible for creating this reality we inhabit.

Step 7: Demonstrate, using independently verifiable means, that all competing claims about your particular god or gods are false.

Christians say the darnedest things...

Ran across two gems on Facebook.

"Atheism teaches us that we can have morals but not a God."

No,  it doesn't. "Atheism" is not a philosophy any more than "monotheism" is a religion or "sound" is a type of music.  You can have a sound that is called "music," or a religion that is "monotheistic," or a philosophy that is "atheistic," but there is no "philosophy of atheism."

"Atheism fails to deliver valid or consistent solutions to life's toughest issues concerning truth, morality, rational thinking, logic and common sense."

There are an estimated 41,000 different versions of "truth" just within Christianity.  Just within Protestant Christianity, (less than half of the world's Christian population) there are anywhere from 20 to 30 thousand different (often competing) versions of "truth."  And Christianity is the tip of the iceberg as 2/3rds of the world's population isn't even Christian.

And within each version of "truth," there are completing versions of "morality" as well.

So what is a "rational thinking" person supposed to do with this information? What sort of "logic" and "common sense" can we use to draw a conclusion from all this?

Possibility 1: Everybody's right.  This is impossible as it violates the fundamental assumption that logic works from (if A = A, then A can never = B.  In other words, 2+2 cannot equal 3 and 4 simultaneously.  It must equal one or the other. There cannot be "two right answers" to such a question.)  These competing versions of truth and morality are often at odds.  So it is impossible for them all to be "right.".

Possibility 2: The "right" answer is hiding among the many "imposters."  If this were true, then religions would get less divergent over time as imposters would be exposed as such and would be discarded.  That also means that there would have to exist a way to independently verify "true" religion from false.  Since religion and it's claims deal with some sort of "Super-reality" outside of the one we currently inhabit, we would also need some way to independently verify the existence of this "Super-reality" in addition to a way to independently verify any claims made involving entities or consciousnesses from this "Super-reality." If such a thing exists, it is the best-kept secret in the world.

Possibility 3: All religions are based on equally unverifiable and unreliable claims and accepting one over all others doesn't make any sense.If this were true, then the thing to do would be to not "hitch your wagon" to any one particular system and remain "unaffiliated" and "unconvinced" as far as such things are concerned.

Sounds right to me.

R. U. a Misogynist?

Meet Justin Lookadoo.

He has absolutely no professional credentials whatsoever when it comes to education, child or adolescent development, child or adolescent psychology, human relationships, human sexuality or counseling, but he was a juvenile probation officer for six years and he allegedly has a "biology degree" from Tarleton State University.

All that makes him the "perfect" guy to write a book telling teens whether or not they are "Dateable."

It also makes him a great person to invite to a public school where he is given a captive audience to preach his brand of hipster christianity.

So what makes someone dateable, you ask?

If you are a boy, some of the advice is pretty generic and can be found in any "Pick-up Artist" seminar, like being a gentleman, being honest, being confident, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da.

But it also means:

-Knowing that you "are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous" than the opposite sex.

I wonder if that means from time to time that you have to "put 'em in their place?" 

So what if you are a girl?

Well:

-"Dateable girls know how to shut up."

-"God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!"

-"A Dateable girl isn’t Miss Independent."

-"You are soft, you are gentle, you are a woman. Don’t try to be a guy."

 -"The sexiest thing on a girl is happiness."
 
(Don't believe me, go look this shit up http://www.rudateable.com/cool_rules.php)

So according to Pinhead from "Hellraiser"'s bastard son up there, girls need to shut up, be happy, don't try to out-do the boys, and above all, be dependent and let the boy be the boss.

Quick Quiz:

Which advice came from Lookadoo, and which came from "Ridiculously Bad Advice From the 1950s."?

 "To make him feel important, you have to forget your own desires for importance. Compliment him. The worst mistake a girl can make is to make a man feel intellectually inferior or inadequate as a male. We men need a lot of reassurance. So lay it on thick but subtly. Stroke his ego. Let him think he's king much of the time. He will love you for it, and, you know, it will make you feel extremely feminine."

"You’re a girl. Be proud of all that means. Guys like you because you are different from them. So let your girly-ness soar"

"Complaining, whining, comparing, sneering, harping – the nagger may specialize in one or be a general practitioner of all these forms of mental cruelty."

"[good girls] aren’t downers, they love life."

"[good girls] don’t monopolize the conversation. They don’t tell everyone everything about themselves. They save some for later. They listen more than they gab."

"Let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. [R]elax and let guys be guys. Which means ... don’t ask him out!!!"

"Let him lead."

"If he's made plans for the evening, don't try to change them."

 "A young woman should begin in her teens learning the things that keep a home running smoothly. She can watch how her mother cooks and bakes. There are also many opportunities for a daughter to observe how Mother handles Dad when he’s had a tough day at work."

If you can't tell the difference, neither could I.  And THAT is the problem with Justin Lookadoo.

Presuppose This.

Theist: I believe in god X.

Atheist: On what do you base that belief?

Theist: I can't tell you.

Atheist: Why not?

Theist: Your presupposition is that there is no god X; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show his existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no god.

Atheist: Um, no. My "presupposition" is that you cannot make a claim that you cannot provide evidenciary support for.

Theist: If I were to have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had prophecies from a really old book fulfilled in a book not as old, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.

Atheist:  Do you have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven?

Theist: Well...umm..no.

Atheist: And these thousand eye-witnesses, got any names?

Theist: Well...umm...no. But they were there and saw it,  because this really old book that was written back then says so.

Atheist: Great! That must mean that there exists some sort of corroborating evidence to confirm it.  Maybe something not written by the authors of that book?

Theist: Well.....not..exactly.

Atheist: Oh. Well....OK...Well these prophecies...are they specific and precise to the date and time and exact names of the people involved?  Are they all internally consistent and free of contradictions?

Theist: Well....no.

Athiest: So a lot of them are vague and could be interpreted a number of ways.

Theist: Bingo!

Atheist: And did the authors of this not as old book...did they have access to these prophecies? Because if they did, there is a chance they could have written the narrative to suit the prophecies which would call into question how much of these prophecies were accurate predictions.

Theist: Ummm.....well, they sort of did.

Atheist: Well, do we know who the authors of these texts were?

Theist: Not exactly.

Atheist: Yikes! That's problematic.  It's not looking good for your claim.

Theist:  See? I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.

Atheist: How do you figure *my* presupposition is the problem?

Theist:  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?

Theist: No.

Atheist: What do you have?

Theist: What kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.

Atheist: Show me a god.  Any one will do. Or just give me one logically consistent reason to believe that one exists or can exist.  Then give me one shred of evidence that can establish that not only does a god exist, but this god is your particular god X.  How do claims about god X fundamentally differ from the thousands of other claims about the thousands of other gods that might also exist when all these claims are based on the untestable claims of people who have claimed some sort of interaction with a divine agent that could may as well be a figment of that person's imagination?

Theist: Ummmm......I don't exactly have any of that stuff.

Atheist:  Well....what do you have?

Theist: A list of "escape hatch" questions! Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: I find it very dangerous to deal in absolutes and I try to avoid positing them.

Theist: Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: Dude, I just answered you....

Theist: Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: I have no fracking idea.

Theist: Is it absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists?

Atheist: I have no fracking idea.

Theist: C'mon! You have to say "Yes" or "No!"

Atheist: Either one would be a dishonest answer.

Theist: But you have to pick one.

Atheist: Why?

Theist: Because.

Atheist: That's a stupid response.

Theist: And once again the angry atheist resorts to name-calling!

Atheist: If I say "yes," I would be contradicting myself and that is dishonest. If I say "no," I am also contradicting myself because if I don't know whether or not absolute truth exists, then it follows that I can't know whether or not I know that for certain.

Theist: Do you know something is true?

Atheist: I assume truth. I assume that things are what they appear to be.  We couldn't get through life without doing that.

Theist: Does logic exist?

Atheist: The concept of logic exists as much as the concept of anything else does. Like math, it is a demonstrable concept....unlike gods, for instance.

Theist: Does logic change?

Atheist: It would require a fundamental shift in our perception of reality to do so.

Theist: Is logic universal?

Atheist: As far as we know.

Theist: So, if logic is universal, immaterial, unchanging...then it follows that god X exists, because god X is also universal, immaterial and unchanging.

Atheist: The *concept* of logic is also demonstrable.  Is god X demonstrable?

Theist: Well....ummm....no. 

Atheist: So basically, you are saying that something exists as long as the *concept* or it does?

Theist: Yes.

Atheist: So you are telling me that unicorns, dragons, sugarplum fairies, Jedi Knights and wizards all exist simply because the concept of them does?

Theist: Those things are imaginary! They're not real! God X is real!

Atheist:  How do you know that?

Theist:  You can't prove anything without god X, you proved logic exists, therefore god X exists.

Atheist: So.....what you are telling me is: proving the existence of anything at all proves the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity because the existence of everything is predicated upon the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity's existence?

Theist: Yep, that's about it.

Atheist: But how do you know that?

Theist: I simply declare "I believe god X exists" as my starting point and base everything I think say do and feel as though that were true....because it is.

Atheist: But how do you know that it is?

Theist: How do you know that it isn't?

Atheist: I am not claiming that it isn't, but I have no reason to believe that it is and I would like to know why you do.

Theist: I can't tell you.

Atheist: Why not?

Theist:  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?

Theist: No.

Atheist: Then shut the hell up!

An Open Letter to proponents of school prayer.

Let me just say: I get it.

I am a parent too.

I know that you think certain things are important for you to pass on to your kids.

I get that prayer is something you believe in, and something that you believe is important for your kids to do.

I know that it is important to you that your kids be around people who pray and who believe as you do.

I know that it is important to you that your kids hear prayers in school and even pray in school themselves.

I *totally* get it.

But here's what I don't get.

Why is it important to you that *my* kid pray at school?

Why is it important to you that *my* kid be around people who pray and who believe as you do?

Why is it important to you for *my* kid to hear prayers in school?

How does *my* wish to not have *my* child put in a position where he will be harassed for his (or my) lack of belief violate *your* rights?

Kirk Cameron: Probably Not a "Recovering Atheist."

Try to watch this without vomiting.

So, aside from the fact that the kid who played Mike Seaver is all preachy and stuff, I have several problems with this.

I seriously doubt that Kirk Cameron was ever an atheist.

No, this is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not claiming that he never was a "true good atheist."

I simply doubt that he was an atheist.

Rationale: The atheist (unless he or she is an anti-theist) does not claim that "there is no god," nor do they "hate him." The atheist doesn't "hate god" anymore than they hate the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.  The atheist is no more angry at one particular god than they are at Zeus or Thor.  The atheist denies that there is sufficient evidence to support any of the numerous claims that gods exist.  And not just Kirk Cameron's god, but any god, goddess or any supernatural entity that people worship.  An atheist knows this.  A "recovering atheist" (if such a thing exists) would as well, or would at least acknowledge that this is the case.  

I came to be an atheist after a long, slow painful process of examining my beliefs, and why I believed them.  I still have to conceal the fact that I am an atheist for reasons I have previously explained here: 

Kirk Cameron has relayed no stories like this, or like other atheists who came about their disbelief the "hard way."  So this casts serious doubts on his claim.

So this leaves open for speculation the question as to why Cameron would claim to be a "recovering atheist" when he doesn't really talk like someone who was.

I have several  theories.

Theory A. He never really thought about belief and what he believed until a charismatic evangelical got a hold of him sometime during his formative and vulnerable adolescent years. This person painted a false picture of "a typical atheist" for him that he somehow identified with and that false picture remains in his mind today.  If this is true, then Kirk Cameron's intellect (like his acting career) peaked in his teens and he hasn't learned a damn thing in 30 some odd years.  This is troubling, because it means that what ever anti-aging potion he's using has affected his brain.  

Theory B. He suffered some childhood trauma that made him "mad at god," so he responded by declaring that god didn't exist out of anger, only to feel bad about it later and repent for his "atheism."  The problem here is if that is the case, then he never *really* stopped being a believer.  Ergo, he never *really* was an atheist.

Theory C.  Kirk Cameron is a liar and a shameless opportunist who is using this as an angle to gain "intellectual street cred" for his empty and weak arguments so that he and his used car salesman partner can continue to make money off of delusional people.

Now if this is true, we'd have to have some sort of evidence to show that Cameron and his cohort Ray Comfort are dishonest.

Judge for Yourself: