Surely we can find some example of hilarious and absurd behavior among the religious to mark the passing of this year's Christmas season. Oh, here's a fun one...
Following up on our earlier miracles post, a viewer emailed Tracie with some other examples of miracles and, while not entirely endorsing them, still seemed to think there might be something to them. One of these was the story of eight Catholic missionaries who supposedly survived the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima without so much as a scratch, or any trace of radiation poisoning in their bodies. I responded to the effect that, if this story were true, it would paint a rather unpleasant picture of God.
First, I couldn't find any source for this claim that was not from a Catholic site, or that didn't simply copy-and-paste the exact text from said sites. So until I see something credible from a neutral, scientific source, I have to remain skeptical of the claim, since I am well aware of religion's history of coming up with all kinds of miraculous claims.
But it's known that some people survived the bomb, even those very close, if they were in structures that managed to absorb the worst of the explosion. In fact, this year marked the death of 93-year-old Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I just happened to know about him because he was featured in a Cracked.com article a few days ago.
But think again of what this miracle claim is really saying below the surface. The atomic bomb at Hiroshima killed an estimated 150,000-200,000 people instantly. Many of these people were women and children.
And we are supposed to be in awe of a "miracle" in which, out of all those people, God chose to save not any women, children, or little babies — but eight missionaries!? Uh, thanks a lot, asshole.
If this were actually a miracle, it would be the miracle of a god so completely morally reprehensible and evil that it would not be sufficient to disbelieve in him. The only morally appropriate act would be to angrily repudiate and reject him. Seems to me the Church really ought to rethink using this one as part of their sales pitch.
And it's not even Christian hate mail. Hell, that stuff's almost always penny ante.
No, this is someone who claims to be a fan, but who has his head...well, let's just say that the attitudes expressed here reflect a level of clueless douchebaggery and stupidity that I've rarely seen. I suppose this way of thinking might fly in the Christian Quiverfull community, or among 13-year-old boys who've learned everything they think they know about females from torrenting Girls Gone Wild videos. But to hear it coming from an (choke) admirer of ours is creepy to say the very least. One gets the impression he's the sort of fellow who wonders why women only want to go out with "jerks" and not "nice guys" like him.
Why post it here? Simply because I think this is the sort of thing that deserves public shaming. Rock-stupid condescension and male-entitlement attitudes like this continue to thrive when those who express them are brushed off with a "boys will be boys" dismissal, rather than being subjected to the castigation they deserve. So, castigate away.
Subject: message for jen peeps
I think you're great, and your current look is excellent suits you very well.
I am only saying the following advice because you're good and thus deserving of my advise
You look hot here
this seems to be your current look
Long hair is very important.
It's a minority that look reasonably good with short hair, and even those that do, would almost always look better with long hair.
You look bad with short hair.. As in
It might be better if I don't elaborate on that or get too blunt, because women can burst into tears over that kind of thing.. and you're nice I don't want you to burst into tears or even to get upset. And there's no reason to, this is a very positive message that you look hot -now-. and that it's so easy for you just don't cut your hair short. And since you're so logical, I know you will take this message as a positive thing since it should be, and it's not spun either.
A secondary issue, is your clothing in that older video is frumpy rather than modern-sexy.. women usually look sexier in a t-shirt than in frumpy clothing, and you are no exception. I know you're not trying to look sexy even when you do.. but no point dressing in a frumpy way. Really since i'm a guy I don't care about type of clothes.. but as a woman you're familiar with clothes and you'd understand if I said your clothing there was frumpy.. and it was. The recent video where you wore the t-shirt is better than the frumpy clothes.. though you'd look hot either way.. since as I said clothing was secondary. From a guy's perspective, something less frumpy might not hide you as much. I hope you get a nice partner, like Russel , a particular hero of mine, and have lots of intelligent logical discussion and kids like you two! or like almost any on AE, at least 5 or 6 of you are incredible and really leading atheist thinkers.
In 15 years you'll look quite bad.. and after that you'll look as disgusting to a man(A man with standards) as any other very middle aged woman is just expired and at different stages part their expiration date. So look good and sexy and enjoy the experience while you can. And be glad that you can..
I am very happy that you are hot, because you deserve to be!
It's a gorgeous day in Austin today. Cold, but sunny and blue. In a few minutes, I'll throw on the old hoodie, fire up the old iPod, leash up the old dog, and take a walk in the old park. Might even look for that old geocache that eluded me last time. In all, it's simply too awesome a day, and, as the sort of godless person who does his best to make each day count knowing I don't have an eternity of them waiting for me in Candyland, it's entirely conducive to my best of moods.
Which is why I just don't have any incentive to get all riled up by a text I got from a Christian acquaintance of mine this morning which read Merry christmas. Thank god for the gift that keeps on giuing 'jesus (Errors in the original, but most people text without regard to proper spelling, capitalization and punctuation.)
The confrontational nature of communication between believers and atheists is a matter that often takes center stage. Having been involved in AETV since 1999, it's not as if I shy away from such confrontation. I frequently enjoy it. I'm also a firm believer in holding the feet of believers to the fire, so to speak, to force them to argue competently for their beliefs and listen with some degree of actual understanding to atheists' rebuttals.
Still, sometimes I find it fun to sit back, watch a believer do what he does, in situations where no forceful rebuttal is needed because the fail is apparent from the outset. Take Mike (not his real name), this fellow who texted me. Now, he and I get along in person. He knows I'm an atheist. When we talk, we don't argue religion, not because I don't want to, but because I'm perfectly happy to let him make the choice of whether or not to do that, knowing I can pretty well deflect anything his ORU theology degree can throw.
What Mike does is, in a way, more entertaining. He tries very passive-aggressive — often to the point of indifference — forms of proselytizing. You'd think a fellow armed with a bachelor's in theology (which I don't see as being any more relevant to reality than a similar degree in Star Wars Trivia) would have few worries about his game. But instead of taking me on with overwhelming force and shock and awe, he's done things like play soppy Christian pop and R&B on the occasions we carpooled. (There are some good singers on those R&B tracks, I will admit.) So, it's like a challenge. But it's more like throwing down a mitten than a gauntlet.
When it was my turn to drive, I wouldn't play Dimmu Borgir or Scandinavian death metal in retaliation. I wouldn't play music at all — so he could sleep. Did he notice that gesture? Did he notice I was taking the high road? Did he notice, especially, that I was saying to him, "Okay, your approach here? It's so not working." Probably not, I don't know.
It's like this. You'd all agree that as atheists, we live good and happy lives without gods, invisible or otherwise, guiding our days. Christians see this, and it disconcerts them. It doesn't fit the narrative they've been sold all their lives. So here we are, living the positive atheist life, and religion is this thing that people keep wanting to put in our way. It's like the old story (is it one of Sagan's? it might be...) about the two guys admiring a beautiful garden, and one says to the other, "You know, there are fairies tending this garden, that's why it's so beautiful." Huh? Why can't the beautiful garden be admired on its own, without introducing imaginary and superfluous fairies into the picture?
I get the idea Mike has been looking for that opening with me, but not in such a way that I'll be alienated. In its way, this text marks something of an escalation, in that it's the first time he's come right out and directed a Jesusy remark to me. That it's the kind of thing you'd read in a greeting card means the level of conviction he's willing to put behind it still doesn't entail too much risk. But the point is I saw this coming, more or less, and am utterly unruffled by it.
I'd be the last person to deny that many forms of Christian proselytizing are not nearly so harmless and feeble. In fact, just this morning we got an email from a viewer describing a distressing situation a friend of his is facing and asking for advice.
My question is in regards to a friend's situation at work. He was told by his boss that his hours were being cut from 3 twelve hour days to 2 twelve hour days per week and that he needed to use this time to find god. He was also told to email a response to his boss about how he was going to find god. His boss is a fundamentalist Christian and we live is South Carolina. I know that this is illegal and completely asinine but I need some advice on how to encourage him. He needs to keep his job to support his family but he does not want to conform to his boss's demands. He is not an atheist or if he is he is not out yet. His wife is a Christian and even she knows that its wrong. How can I help him?
This is, of course, the most egregious sort of bullying. I hope our correspondent takes my suggestion to have his friend contact the ACLU at once. More often than not, religion is exactly this appalling in its disregard for common decency, and in all such cases it must be smacked down forcefully.
But then there are situations like Mike and his text message, that put a little grin on my face because they reveal just how weak the whole enterprise really is. Did Mike think hearing CD after CD of silly Christian songs might woo me to the Lord? Mostly, I couldn't help noticing how the lyrics of every single one of these songs had the same trite message: "My invisible friend is totally awesome!" And then all I could think was, "Dude, you went to college and got a degree in a discipline designed to do nothing more than slap a veneer of intellectual respectability on the inane sentiments of these lyrics? Yeah, 'heaven' forbid you'd actually want to be a doctor or scientist."
I mean, when it's all shown in this light, proselytizing is simply funny. I look at the sort of half-hearted evangelism reflected in this text message, and I find myself playing the role (okay, work with me here, people) of an attractive woman in a bar who's just heard Lame Line #563 from the fifteenth clueless beta-male who's tried to approach her all evening. What do these women do in situations like this? Sure, they could laugh in the guy's face, berate him in front of his and her friends until he dissolves into a puddle of ectoplasmic humiliation on the floor. But what these women usually do is simply walk away. Lameness of such lameitude barely merits notice, let alone an impassioned retort.
I'm sure some atheists would get a text like I got, and fire back with everything they've got. Dude, fuck u! I'm an ATHEIST and Christmas is bullshit ripped off from Saturnalia anyway. So stick ur Bible up ur ass sideways!!! Again, I saw this coming, and I don't rise to the bait quite so easily. I did finally text Mike back: Hope you're having a great Christmas! And I'll just leave him scratching his head over that.
Like I said, I'm having a lovely day.
Happy Newtonmas, everyone. (And most importantly, happy birthday to my Non-Prophets partner in crime Gia Grillo!) Here's an announcement I epically borked, but hopefully I can make up for it. The fine crew of Seattle's Ask an Atheist is shifting to AM radio in January. They have run up against a phenomenon that is sweeping cable television nationwide: to wit, the loss of public access channels. Very few cities now have those any more, let alone the ability to offer shows that take live calls. In that regard, we're still quite lucky down here Austin way.
The gang held a benefit comedy show earlier this month, which I totally failed to announce in time. But they are still accepting donations on their site to make the transition easier. Best wishes to Mike Gillis and the rest of the SeaTac crew in the continuation of their fine contribution to godless media! We need more dedicated shows around the country and globe. And not so long ago, AETV felt like a tiny oasis in an endless desert...
I was wondering, if there is no higher power, how you would justify morality in an atheist at all? Please don't misunderstand, as a young person on the verge of apostasy, I'm not saying that atheists have no morals, although I have met 'christians' who have claimed as much. After all, if there is no higher power, then there is no objective truth, ergo no objective morality, meaning all morality is subjective. If that is the case, then to say that a murderer is immoral is surely a fallacy, as he no doubt acted as his morals saw fit. If morality is subjective, then he is as moral for acting out the murder he saw as moral as you are for not acting out a murder you saw as immoral.
Hi, Mr. Glasser,I doubt you remember me, but we had a discussion about religion and so on just under a year ago. I have since become an atheist and I thought I'd drop you an e-mail to thank you. The video I e-mailed about in the first place was the first real faith-shaking material I had come into contact with, and from there I kept investigating my religion scientifically, historically and morally. Obviously, I found it wanting and, as I said earlier, have since renounced it. I thought I'd let you know a few of the final arguments in convincing me that the bible, at least, is wrong, not really in case you hadn't heard them (I'm sure you have), but rather because, since our discussion must have been frustrating for you, I'd like you to know. One is that the God of the bible forced us into sin, and therefore knowingly and willingly condemned literally billions of people to hell by creating the Eden situation in the first place, for he knew what would happen but did nothing to change it. This is an act of incredible cruelty, and is unjustifiable, giving trouble even to my own father (a minister). That's a moral argument, I suppose, but also shows a biblical contradiction (if God is all loving and unchanging then this act (among dozens of notable others) should be impossible). The second is the fallibility of the bible. I wonder if you knew that Luke, in his gospel, lists 28 generations between Joseph, Jesus' father, and David, whereas Matthew gives 41. On top of that, the census Luke wrote about never happened, and the local census upon which it may have been based happened long after Herod's death.Those are just a few, but anyway, thanks again for showing me another way of thinking, and it's thanks in part to you guys and what you're doing that I am being fascinated and amazed every day by the way that the world works without resorting to the 'Don't ask questions, God did it' train of thought.
Theist: "God must exist. Unless there is a god, many features of the universe are unexplainable."Atheist: "What's your explanation for God?"Theist: "Don't be ridiculous! We can't explain God. He is outside of time and space, and cannot be understood by mere human minds."Atheist: "But then how do you know that a god exists? Do you have evidence?"Theist: "Of course I do! The universe is evidence for God."Atheist: "The universe definitely exists, but that's got nothing to do with providing positive evidence for god. Your argument about having 'no other explanation' is just special pleading, granting yourself the authority to invent something that is also unexplained. Not only does it not solve the problem, it invents new ones. So again: Do you have evidence that there is any such thing as a god?"Theist: "Don't be absurd! Since God is beyond our understanding, we must rely on faith."Atheist: "That seems like a really bad strategy for actually finding out what is true."Theist: "Nonsense! Just think about all the other things that scientists accept without complete evidence."
Today I was made aware of a Facebook group called — are you ready? — "catholics against 'the atheist experience'". That I know of, this is the first expressly anti-AETV Facebook group yet formed. Not that it's a big thing or anything, with only 55 members at this point, the vast majority of whom appear to be atheists. The Wall posts are a blast to read.
Saith the group's creator, Nathan Boucher, who is only two years out of high school...
so i came across this video today on youtube about these atheists who have a show...Now it is freedom of speech but what really annoyed me was the host was totally bashing catholics and he actually gave out the audience consecrated hosts or what he said were.
its not right to make fun and mock that which you don't understand!
Which I do believe can be roughly summarized as "hurr de durp durrr." I suspect Mr. Boucher is referring to this clip here.
First, the fact that students in this country continue to graduate from high school with writing skills as abysmal as the above remains this country's greatest shame. Secondly, we don't make fun of and mock the church and its practices — both spiritual, like communion, and material, like boy-fucking — because we do not understand them, but because we do. Religion promulgates ignorance, medievalism, tribalism, and anti-intellectualism, and protects the grossest immorality under the shield of its authority. Frankly, mockery of such vile filth is fairly light treatment. What we should be doing is arranging to have Pope Ratzo arrested and imprisoned for life. We've been letting the Church off lightly if all they can whine about is mockery and ridicule.
I would like to know how and why atheists can knowledgeably ignore the laws of physics when considering such things as creation?
It's interesting that you would say that, because it turns out that physicists tend to be atheists far more than most people. According to fairly recent surveys, while around 85% of people in the world believe in some kind of God, somewhere around 60% of practicing physical scientists have doubts about the existence of God, and among members of the National Academy of Sciences -- one of the most elite groups of scientists in the world -- only about 7% are believers.It seems that more advanced a person is in scientific disciplines, the less likely they are to believe in God. Maybe you should take up your question with them.all the laws of physics prove that nothing can come from nothing, so how did this universe come into exsistance, if not from nothing, where did that original "something", most often referrred to as matter or ssome other form, come from?
Big Bang theory doesn't attempt to address this question. The universe came to its present state around 14.5 billion years ago. Before that, everything in the universe was compressed into a small enough state that known laws of physics can't be applied properly.
Therefore, the Big Bang is not an assertion that anything came "from nothing." Could have always existed. Could have been generated out of matter from a meta-universe. Could have spontaneously come into existence through a matter/antimatter reaction. The responsible perspective is to accept that we don't know, and won't until a new way to collect evidence is worked out.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you do know. And your belief is that the universe was in fact created from nothing, by a being who either always existed or, in turn, came into existence from nothing itself. I think it's remarkable that you don't see the irony in that position.
more importantly, id like you to address cosmological singularity, which has been accepted by most, if not al physicists, concluding that there is, and always has been God,
I don't know where you're getting your information from, although my guess would be that it's from within a certain part of your body. As I've already pointed out, you can get actual information from scientists about how much they believe in god, and it's considerably less than the general public. Besides which, even scientists who believe in God would very rarely claim that this believe is in some way scientifically proven. Most of them hold to some form of Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria," claiming that faith in god and scientific evidence should be held as dealing with separate domains.Almost no formal papers have been published in mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journals addressing the question of a god's existence, and those that have slipped through are generally not cited as relevant by any other scientific works. This is so widely acknowledged that creationists routinely claim that the "scientific establishment" is involved in a massive conspiracy against their work. This is, of course, baseless paranoia, since the reason that their work doesn't get published is that it's a load of poorly supported, pseudoscientific quackery.
therefore disproving the core of atheist beliefs. in such a society today that is so scientifically based, it is ignorant to ignore such things as cosmological singularity, as well as other laws of physics, including einstiens relativity, and quantum mechanics, which even led einstien to believe in the exsistance of God.
Somebody's been lying to you, dude.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
thank you for your time, tho you'll be wasting your efforts trying to disprove the laws of the universe to justify your living in denial.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Ta ta!
lol you actually wasted youre time to rely to me ??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!1
THANK YO SO MUCH FOR MAKING MY DAY! hahahahaah! thank you! wow you really would waste youre time like this wouldnt you!!! hahahaha!
im glad to know that you "care" enough about your "public" to reply to this! hahahahahahaha!
YOU ARE A FOOL!!!!!
(by the way my email contained a virus)
have a "wonderful" life and then die!!!!!
There has been some concern among certain folks in the skeptical community that "expressing an opinion strongly and with conviction" constitutes "being a dick," because it might bruise the tender feelings of believers. This concern is misplaced. From England's green and pleasant land we have a literally staggering act of actual dickishness. Said to be nearly 2000 years old and planted by Joseph of Arimathea (and whether that's true or not really isn't relevant to the situation), the Holy Thorn Tree of Glastonbury has been a popular destination for believers on pilgrimages. The other night, some vandals hacked off all its branches, leaving nothing but a naked stump.
That, I submit, is dickishness of the first water.
All we like sheep
Have gone astray
We have turned everyone
To his own way
And the Lord hath laid on him
The iniquities of us all!
You might recall I did T-shirts featuring the red on black logo in the sidebar there. As of today I have 4 Mediums and 5 Larges left. If interested, don't comment, just send me an email to the TV show address with subject "FAO: Martin" and I'll reply directly.
I'm considering hoodies.
By now, you all know that the Creation "Museum" has plans to build what they think will be a full-size replica of the mythical Noah's Ark, in order to fleece the drooling, uneducated rubes, of whom there are an unlimited supply. Setting aside exactly how he knows this replica will be authentic (hey, maybe the original had racing stripes — were you there?), it occurs to me that this could be a prime opportunity to do some actual science.
The first thing that should be done is that the ship should not have any modern construction methods brought to bear. The whole thing must be assembled by one old man (it's unlikely we'll find a 600-year old, but we'll split the difference and hire a septuagenarian) using nothing but pitch and hand tools. (Gen. 6:14) Next, assemble all the animals as described in Genesis, and tow the monstrosity out into the middle of the Atlantic, where it will be left for ten months without any resupplying while all of the animals are cared for by a crew of four men and four women inhabiting a grand total of three decks. Assuming the ship floats at all, we'll see who's alive at the end of that time. Deal?
Oh, what's that? This isn't a scientific enterprise at all, but a theme attraction? But gosh, isn't the whole sales pitch of Answers in Genesis that science is really on their side? What a fine, fine opportunity to make a real experiment out of all this. Just think of the look on that crusty old fellow Dawkins' face when it's all been proved! He'll be crying into his tea and scones, the blighter! Praise Jesus.
You know, take a minute to think of what $24.5 million would mean to — oh, take your pick. Research in childhood leukemia. Feeding the homeless. Getting people clean and sober and helping them with job training. Christians go on and on about how much more they're about the milk of human kindness and charity than anyone else. I don't see anyone being helped by this at all, except Ken Ham and Ken Ham's checking account. Like so many in the evangelical world, he plays multiple choice with his holy book.
Apparently, the success of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows "renews concerns that children are being lured to Satan." After "concerns" they left out "...among dumbshits..."
If you try posting a comment, and a window comes up telling you that what you wrote was "too large," ignore it. Your comment almost certainly posted anyway. Blogger is just messed up like that sometimes.
So this idiot punk-ass Somali kid decides he wants to be a big jihad hero and set off a bomb in Portland, and is exactly dumb enough to walk right into a sting. I imagine the FBI was having a hard time not laughing as they handed him the cell phone he thought would trigger a massive explosion. "Dude, it'll be just like on 24, except this time you're the good guy!"
On Sunday some clodhoppers decide to retaliate by burning down the Islamic Center the kid attended, though they only managed to scorch part of it a little bit and cause some smoke damage.
In the midst of all this, we have the unsurprising spectacle of Christopher Hitchens turning Tony Blair into thin strips of beef tripe in a debate over whether religion is a "force for good" in the world. The only debate there is whether anyone who would answer yes to that question is merely deluded or maliciously ignorant.
Religion, more and more, is being revealed as a haven for lunatics willing to commit all manner of lunacy to curry the favor of an imaginary father figure. I see precious few good guys, only idiots with competing holy books trying to outdo one another's monumental acts of barbarism. Whatever good "faith" may be doing anyone is well hidden from view, at best. Can everybody please just let it go already?
...Sorry. Slipped into a little reverie there. Back to bad old reality yet again.
Enjoy. There will be other parts. I understand you need to turn the sound up.
Here are the first three (of nine) video installments of the debate between Matt and Fr. Hans Jacobse at The University of Maryland, Baltimore County, yesterday. According to the writeup, Fr. Jacobse "views the current world as a battle between competing moral visions of the secular and the sacred, and hopes that Christianity can restore the moral tradition of the gospels." Whether this involves angrily killing fig trees is, I suppose, left to be clarified. (Zing!) Anyway, enjoy. (Note: I'll be embedding the rest of the vids as they are posted to YouTube, and will offer my assessments as I watch and absorb them.)
Final addendum, 9:30 PM 11/20: All 9 parts are now embedded, using the playlist embed code provided by the lovely and multitalented Catherine Blackwell. Thanks!
So the Rethuglican Taliban are on the warpath, and once again they're all about using the government to shove Jebus down all our throats (all the while pontificating that they got back into power because they're all about "less government," of course). So far, we have one gasbag here in Texas wasting no time in making sure that Ten Commandments slabs are erected in every school in the state. Just how many lawsuits over idiocy like that do we need before they figure it out? And the San Antonio paper has a poll, in which jackbooted theocratic thuggery is currently ahead by a two-thirds margin. We aren't Pharyngula (I and several other folks I know have emails out to PZ at the moment), but perhaps we can "AXP" this poll just a tad in the direction of religious freedom and sanity.
Anyway, to those of you on the left who sat out the mid-terms because you were disappointed that Obama didn't fix the world fast enough, welcome to your new Saudi America.
Addendum: PZ has now posted and the squid hordes have acted, and the poll is where it should be, at over 90% against.
I wish we could make these up, gang. I really really do. But we get these emails. How many are Poes and how many are the real crazy? All I can tell you from experience (as I'm willing to bet we at AETV are on the receiving end of Poe-age more than most) is that when people Poe us, they're usually very nudge-wink obvious about it (like, they really overdo the misspellings, cap locks, and 1's in place of !'s), and they pretty much always wrap up with "Haha! Just kidding, I'm an atheist too! Your show rocks! Keep up the good work!", as if we'd actually just been masterfully punked.
So, when we get something like this, it's usually the real deal.
Death doesn’t exist. The plan after death is like this we live. When people die they see their clothes, their utensils, objects and common residences, buildings, houses, flats. There is no more masons, doctors, manufacturing cooks handling with matter, because this plan is mental.(Indeed it is. —MW) You only need mind power and the work is done. Food, clothes, cars, modern objects is all the same. This plan is like here, no bureaucracy e everyboby deals with his reality, creates it, sceneries, nature by his own. We, the living beings, the plants, everything remains. Everybody can create his reality, for example: A person has a thought car. We think even buildings and make them exist. In order to avoid destruction in case of strikes is the same situation. They multiplied to a number of 849 billion people, all is possible there. I believe changes will begin in 2012 and will end in 2014. The Earth will be spiritual, a state of mind. In this plan, there are no myths, no mythology, only human beings and their will expanding to other planets. You have sex with a person in the shape you want.
I just knew he was leading up to a big finish there.
Face this fact: there are deeply, epically irrational humans in the world. And they write to us! So, you know, we really need some hugs about now. In whatever shape you want.
Aaaand we get email! Yesterday, we heard from a fellow who objects to our objections to Christianity, because, as he goes on to explain, all other Christians are "ridiculous" because they've read the Bible all wrong, and he's the first one ever who's got God all figured out. Thing is, I don't see his version as being much of an improvement on the concept...
My replies, as written in my email back, appear within.
(And PS: The first person in the comments who makes the usual "Oh, I just can't believe anyone could be this stupid, this guy must be a Poe" remark gets to wear the Pointy Hat in the corner for 24 hours, and doesn't get any pudding after supper either.)
I'm a Christian.
Your anti-biblical arguments are strawmen, and your anti-theistic arguments are typically childish, because you are arguing against mainstream definitions of God, which themselves are ridiculous definitions. Shame on those of you who claim to be "former Christians" because you, like the rest of Christians, never attempted to define the biblical God in any kind of logically consistent manner.
So you're off to the races with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy right out of the gate? Look, we won't stop you from claiming that you are the only Christian out there who isn't working from a definition of God that is "ridiculous," but honestly, isn't that a matter for you to take up with your fellow Christians and not us? Shouldn't all of you come to some kind of consensus as to what this being is you worship, and want us to worship, whose supposed edicts you want enacted as laws that will affect all the rest of us? I really don't see how you can blame us for critiquing the concepts of God as they are presented to us by the vast majority of believers who contact us, even when you agree with us that these are "ridiculous" concepts. Really, where's your beef with us?
The only way to resolve the problem of evil, or to make sense of the biblical accounts, is to define God as a being subject to certain needs, weaknesses, and limitations. For example, the biblical God obviously lacks foreknowledge, because a loving God would not create Lucifer, Adam, and Eve knowing in advance that they would freely choose to fall. The most loving thing to do would be to create only those persons foreknown to freely chose righteousness.
WHY did God give Lucifer, Adam, and Eve enough freedom to hang themsleves? The only solution is to define God as a being who has an emotional need for voluntary fellowship. Had I the space, I would explain precisely WHY God has emotional needs.
Well, I suppose one can imagine a weak, stupid and insecure god just as easily as one can imagine an almighty, powerful, omniscient and omnipotent one. I think you're going to have a harder sell where your fellow Christians are concerned, though. Why worship someone with weaknesses and limitations? What believers want in a God is a being just like them, except idealized and perfect. Otherwise where is the appeal? I don't see too many religions thriving whose sales pitch is, "God! Just as pitiful as you!"
Next question. On what basis would the biblical God indict the whole world for the sin of Adam and Eve? The solution is quite simple. A soul defined as an immaterial substance is a logical absurdity beccause it leads to the insoluble mind-body problem, as the church father Tertullian pointed out in 200 AD. Therefore the soul must be defined as a tangible substance.
Lovely. Then it ought to appear on a CAT scan, an MRI, an X-ray or somewhere in the human genome. Let me know when you find it.
Let's assume for the moment that God created only one tangible soul named Adam. After Adam sinned, God extracted most of Adam's soul from his body and held it in suspended animation. At every human conception He mates a portion of this soul to the embryo. In other words, YOU are Adam. You were born guilty of sin because YOU are part of the Adam that originally sinned even though you don't remember living in the garden.
I see no reason to assume any of these things, but I do think you probably have a fantastic career ahead of you writing for Marvel Comics. Seriously, there's a plot here worthy of an entire series.
The biblical writers wrote with great brevity. Therefore we really don't know how severe Adam's rebellion was. For example we don't really know how many times he partook of the forbidden fruit before God pronounced sentence. But if we give God the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that Adam's sin was severe enough to merit hellfire, although personally I don't believe that hell is everlasting. And since all men merit hellfire, we cannot regard the biblical God as tyrannical merely because he sent a Mesopotamian flood in Noah's day, or rained burning coals upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or allowed babes to starve to death. All are guilty in Adam.
Well, that all sounds like a pretty raw deal for every human being born since Adam. So far, what you've been describing are the actions of a god that I can only consider an incompetent clod at best and a malevolent psychopath at worst. Why, exactly, would God only create one soul, watch it epically fail, then continue reinstalling tiny bits of that same soul in all subsequent humans in the hopes that — what — it'll work this time? Why not just go back to the drawing board and keep plugging away until he's ready to launch the new and improved Soul 2.0, now with new sin-negating algorithms?
Remember what I said about your promising writing career? Scratch that, you have serious problems with story logic, even worse than the conventional Christian mythology you've dismissed as ridiculous. Exactly where is the sense in God suspending a broken and malfunctioning soul so you can keep using it, despite knowing it's broken and malfunctioning? I mean, even for religion, that's silly.
Let's move to another topic. Why believe in Christianity? Subjective experience is the only way for God to reveal Himself unfailingly. In other words He must persuade the heart that Christianity is the true religion, if in fact it is so. Why doesn't He give this revelation to everyone? Again, because He has needs and limitations. It COSTS Him, emotionally, to show kindness to people who regularly sin against Him even after they get the revelation.
Then frankly, he should have gone about his business in a less idiotic way. Stop re-using the same old broken souls for all of humanity, and get rid of the completely unjust sentence of hellfire and damnation for refusal to believe in something that you admit he is too incompetent and emotionally dysfunctional to communicate properly in the first place. Sorry, but if you're trying to cast your version of God in a sympathetic light, it ain't working. As you describe him, he's petulant, unintelligent, rash, given to tantrums, and incapable of following through on anything he's started, or even understanding the consequences of his own failed actions.
For the long-term safety of the universe, He will not emotionally expend Himself to the extent of mentally destabilizing the Godhead (because were that to happen, we WOULD end up with a capricious God).
No, the being you describe is already capricious, because he's not even in control of his own emotional health and compounds his mistakes by punishing people for his own failures, rather than simply correcting those mistakes. And apparently, if he gets extra pissy he'll blow up the universe or something. Talk about a buggy system! It's really sounding like God should have put together a better angelic QC team before creating stuff.
You know, your God isn't really much different or any more appealing than the conventional Christian concept after all.
The Bible says that God is love. This IMPLIES that He is already expending Himself to the max, that is, to the very brink of destabilizing the Godhead.
Therefore He needs our help in getting men saved. When we Christians pray to Him and worship Him, this ministers to His emotional needs - you might say it raises His pain threshhold - and thereby enables Him to impart the saving revelation to more and more unsaved people.
You know, Jerry, when you say stuff like this, do you know what we hear? We hear something like this: "In Thor #whatever, Thor, like all Asgardians, is shown to be not truly immortal but relies upon periodic consumption of the Golden Apples of Idunn to sustain his lifespan, which to date has lasted many millennia. After Odin's death, Thor inherited his father's power, the Odinforce. Thor becomes capable of feats such as reconstructing the Earth's Moon, willing the Asgardian monster Mangog into nothingness, and, by focusing his entire power into a hammer throw, decapitating a Desak-occupied Destroyer."
Yes, I got all that from the Wikipedia entry on the Thor comic book. Which is the point: to us, your mythology sounds no different than that one. You can describe this being you have imagined all you wish, but in the end I'm going to ask you the same question I ask all those other Christians with their "ridiculous" version of God: How do you propose to demonstrate that your God is real and not merely something you are imagining?
I claim to be the first person in Church history to provide any kind of reasonable, legitimate theodicy,
I think this claim is open to doubt.
but unfortunately I don't have time right now for a full exposition. Feel free to contact me with any objections and, if I have time, I'll provide you with more details on my views.
All I ask is that stop reading the Bible in a silly manner. Don't start with the assumption that God is insusceptible to weakness, because such assumptions makes the Bible look ridiculous. I realize that's how Christians have been reading it for 2000 years, but this kind of silliness is precisely why I haven't attended church for many years. I reached a point where I just couldn't stand it anymore.
As you've described it, your variation on the myth is no less silly. In places it's even moreso, as I've described above.
The incarnation demonstrates God's susceptibilty to weakness. Jesus became fatigued and needed rest. God is not, therefore, inherently strong. Strength is rather something He aquired over a long time, as the Ancient of Days. Nor is He inherently omniscient, as shown by the fact that Jesus arrived on earth as an ignornant babe. God therefore aquired His knowledge over time. Note well that a God defined as susceptible to learning would quite naturally create the species over a period of several billion years. Learning takes time.
Scientists tell us that the fossil record is consistent with a slow process of evolution. But it is also perfectly consistent with a creative Being who is slowly educating Himself, experimenting with various species.
You could also say evolution is "consistent" with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, provided you define that being the same way you're defining your god: a cosmic tinkerer who's just kind of messing around without really knowing what he's doing. Again, I fail to see why Christians should be eager to embrace this klutzy, inept, Aspie God you seem to find appealing.
If you actually study evolutionary theory (or any field of science for that matter), you find that what is so beautiful and elegant about them is that they make recourse to supernatural explanations totally unnecessary. Gone are the days when people had to fear that sickness was due to evil spirits clogging our humors. The more you study nature, the less need there is for cosmic tinkerers.
Does this imply that He is cruel to innocent animals? Again, let's not read the Bible in a silly manner. The Bible says that God is love. Therefore He isn't cruel to animals, in which case we can safely assume that animal souls are actually Lucifer's followers who already deserve hellfire. Therefore it isn't capricius for God to run experiments on animals, for they already deserve any suffering experienced.
Joe Rhodes has been one of AETV's producers since well, since I was host, I do believe. How the time it do fly.
Anyway, he's given us both good news and bad news. The good news is that he's gotten a job in the Portland, OR region, and the bad naturally means that this will entail leaving us. Joe's hard work on the show over several years has been invaluable. The old cliché that we couldn't have done it without him here holds true, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. So this coming show will be his last, after which we wish him happy trails! I'm sure there are enough AETV fans in that area to make him welcome when he settles in.
1. Open display of worship (prayer in schools and government functions).Barton allegedly got these directly from the Ten Commandments. I wanted to point out how self-serving his interpretation is.
2. No killing of innocents (abortion, Pro-life).
3. Honor your father and mother (traditional marriage, family only - no gays).
4. Protection of private property (no government eminent domain seizures).
Yeah, I know, it's been dead around here lately. I've been busy, I guess Russell and Tracie and the rest of the gang have too. Not much to talk about at the moment...except go vote! As Patton Oswalt asked so eloquently, who will win today: the spineless pussies or the psychotic loons? What lovely choices we have each election cycle.
We'll try to kick it back into gear soon, gang. Anyway, how are you?