Monthly Archive for November, 2011

How Fix CFI Canada

Published
by
Larry Moran
on November 30, 2011
.
 
In my opinion, there are two immediate things we need to do to fix CFI.

The first is more openness. To that end I think the December 11th meeting in Toronto should be open to any member of the Centre for Inquiry. The meeting is at 10 am (Sunday). I assume it's at the CFI offices in Toronto.

I expect that several people, including Justin Trottier and the Directors, will want to speak at that meeting. The objective is to explain exactly what's going on and how we got into this mess.

The second thing we need to do is add more Associate Members. Candidates for Associate Membership can send an application to the Board of Directors.1 The Board must approve these applications. Associate Members elect the Directors. There are only a dozen or so Associate Members and it's not clear how many of them are active in the Centre.

If you have any ideas about what should, or should not, happen next, please bring them up in the comments below.

Check out ...
Ian Bushfield (Vancouver): Beyond CFI Canada–Reasons for optimism

1. You can contact me for the application form.

The Most Effective Methods used by Christians to Turn Me Off to Christianity

Published
by
Bruce Gerencser
on November 30, 2011
.

atheist_broke

Picture

Based on a sampling of almost 6,000 comments I am able to come to some conclusions about the methods Christians use to turn me, and many other people, off to Christianity. Their words speak volumes about their God, Jesus, and the Bible.  In their attempts to witness to me, evangelize me, set me straight, or deliver me from my delusions, they continue to show me that leaving Christianity and the ministry was the next best thing I have ever done. (The best thing was marrying my best friend and wife of 33 years)

So, here’s the list of Most Effective Methods used by Christians to Turn Me off to Christianity. Whatever their motive, Christians need to know that the things listed here DO NOT help them achieve their intended goal. (and I suspect most atheists and nonbelievers would agree with me on this, not that Christians care what we think)

Quoting Bible Verses

One of the favorite things that Christians like to do is quote Bible verses. They think the verses of Bible have some magical power and that if they put them in a comment that I will, all of a sudden, be convicted of the error of my way and coming running back to Jesus.

They seemingly forget that I know the Bible inside and out. Even today, six years removed from when I preached my last sermon, I can still quote from memory hundreds of Bible verses. The Bible is deeply imbedded into my mind. (as are the lyrics of hundreds and hundreds of Christian songs)

I know the Bible inside and out. Arrogant sounding, I know, but it is just how it is. I have yet to read a verse in a comment that I have not seen before. I have not read the Bible in over three years, yet my mind is still filled with the words of the Bible and Christian doctrine. I even find myself humming Christian songs or singing a few bars of my favorite hymns or praise and worship songs.

My problem is not a lack of Bible knowledge or understanding. I know all I need to know about the Bible and its teaching.

Fortunately, some commenters know this. I have observed that the less fluent someone is in the intricacies of Christianity the more likely they are to quote Bible verses. (proof texting) Mature, well educated Christians understand the problems I have with Christianity. While they still choose to believe, they understand why I don’t.  They may WISH I would return to Christianity but they understand that quoting Bible verses will not facilitate that return.

Preaching

Some Christians take to preaching in the comments. They view the readers of this blog and yours truly as a captive audience so they quote a few verses and preach away. They are not interested in interaction or understanding. They are only interested in getting a good word in for Jesus.

Sometimes, they aren’t really preaching to the me as much as they are preaching to themselves. Perhaps my writing troubles them. They wonder, “If a well-educated, seasoned pastor like Bruce can fall from the faith, so can anyone one!”  Very true, however, rather than carefully considering what I write and its implications, they circle the wagons and defend the home turf.  This is a normal response. We all do it when our sincerely-held beliefs and convictions are challenged.

Preaching may make the preacher feel good and it may reinforce their need to be right but it has a negative effect on people like me. Atheists and nonbelievers likely have heard enough preaching to last them a lifetime. I have preached thousands of sermons and heard thousands more. Lest you doubt the math……consider 50 years x 3 times a week + Sunday school, revivals, special meetings, pastor’s conferences, street meetings, nursing home services, and chapel services. I have preached and heard more sermons than the average Methodist or Episcopalian hears in 5 lifetimes.

Preaching doesn’t work but it seems that a lot of Christians like to hear themselves talk or read their own sermons. So preach away, dear Christian but understand, that to me and many atheists, your words are like sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1 Corinthians 11) They are just noise.

Ignoring Questions

Bible verse regurgitators and sermon preachers seem to have no time for questions. They are focused on whatever their objective is and can not be bothered with questions.  Recently, a commenter has been droning endlessly about law and grace. He has been asked several questions, yet he never answers them. It seems he expects everyone to just accept his theological pronouncements, even if they show a lack of nuance and understanding about the text of the Bible. He is above the questions of lowly atheists and nonbelievers. (even if his comments show a definite lack of understanding Christian doctrine)

Granted, I do not ask questions because I don’t know. I ask questions in hopes of getting the Christian commenter to think more deeply about their beliefs. Of course many Christian commenters are certain that what they belief is THE TRUTH, the ONLY TRUTH, so help them the triune God of the Christian Bible. They are absolutely certain that their interpretation of the Bible is absolutely correct. They expect people to bow in submission to their interpretation. Questions? When in the presence of certainty questions are not needed. Just believe!

Ignoring Educational and Professional Background

One of my favorite commenters is the one that only reads one blog post. Often, they come to the Fallen From Grace blog via a Google search. One recent commenter came to this blog via a Google search of “Todd Burpo Did Jesus have Wings?” I am not kidding. This same person then proceeds to argue Christian doctrine with me and tell me how ignorant I am of the Bible. Any person having to Google, Did Jesus Have Wings ought never to open their mouth about the teachings of Christianity.

Many of the prominent atheists on the internet were former Christian pastors or educators. Many of us spent decades studying the Bible. We spent countless hours reading books and dissecting the Greek and Hebrew text. We took seriously our calling and devoted our lives to knowing the Bible inside and out.  Like a doctor, lawyer or any other professional we knew our craft well.

Why is it then that little respect is paid to us? Why is it every Christian armed with a Strong’s Concordance and a Bible software program thinks they are an expert on what the Bible teaches?  Evidently, when we deconverted all our knowledge disappeared.

One recent commenter quoted Andrew Murray and then proceeded to tell me he was a non-Christian writer. Sigh…. She was trying to give secular proof of the existence of Jesus and her proof was 19th century Christian author Andrew Murray. Never mind that I have read most of what Andrew Murray wrote……I am ignorant and closed minded because I didn’t accept her no-proof proof.

Regardless of what disagreement I may have with a person, I respect those who work hard at knowing their craft well. I know that becoming proficient at anything requires hard work. Excelling requires total commitment to the craft.

While I can’t stop Christian commenters from disparaging and ignoring my 50 years in the Christian church, my education, and 25 years in the ministry, they should know that this approach causes me to shut my ears. If you don’t respect me why should I listen to one word you say or write?

Calling Names

This is a no-brainer. Calling names is a definite show-stopper. Yes, I know I have called people names a time or two. Yes, I know there are some well-known atheists who are quite proficient at name calling. Surely your mother taught you that just because someone else does something does mean it is a good idea for you to do the same.

Being told I am ignorant, a fool, an idiot, etc. causes me to stop listening to anything the epithet hurler has to say. Once again, it is about respect.

When I call names it is because I am angry, offended, pissed off, want to retaliate, or lack a good response. When I call names I am  reducing myself to level of my word-challenged critics. I must constantly guard against telling some commenters that they are brain-dead, illiterate, married to their sister dumb fucks. 

I see name calling as a coarse, degrading way of conversation. It rarely accomplishes anything. Sadly, some Christian commenters don’t see it this way. I wonder what Jesus would think of their name calling?

Some commenters think of themselves as prophets, called of God to speak truth to degenerate, atheist,Christ-haters like me. They see themselves as modern day speakers of truth, just like the prophets and apostles, and men of God of old. (sorry women really should keep silent in the comments) Smile  They think they are above the unwashed uncircumcised Philistines that frequent this blog so they can say whatever they want.

Invitations for Breakfast, lunch, or dinner

I like eating out. I like fellowshipping with other people. That said, eating out is not a time to debate over Christianity or atheism. Eating out is a time for good food, lame jokes, reflections on the past,and having fun. Eating out is meant to be free from dick measuring. (sizing each other up) As a home-bound disabled person, I look forward to going out to eat. This Saturday Polly and I are going to Toledo to shop and we plan to eat at Famous Dave’s while we are there. It is only Wednesday and I am already exited about our trip to the big city. I love spending time with Polly, eating good food, and spending money.

So, I ask you WHY would I want to share a meal with a Christian, a pastor, a “concerned” follower of Jesus? If they can read, my blog tells them everything they need to know about me. What will eating a meal together accomplish?

Listen, I understand their motivation. They refuse to accept that I left Christianity for intellectual reasons. They are certain there is some underlying emotional issue. Perhaps I am burned out or I have been hurt. They think if they just befriend me they can win me back to Jesus. They think if they are nice to me they can show me the “good” Jesus and I will then come running back to the fold.

While I will readily admit that there is an emotional component to my defection from the faith, the bottom line reason is an intellectual one. I don’t believe the Bible is truth. That’s it. End of story. No matter how friendly a Christian might be it is not going to change my beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Bible.

Dear Christian, you want to be my friend? Do you want to wine and dine me at McDonalds? Smile  Can you do this without ever bringing up Christianity or my atheism? (unless we mutually agree to talk about it) Can you do this without psychoanalyzing my past? Can you focus on the here-and-now rather than the sweet-by-and-by? Can you respect me as I am, where am? Can you respect why I am an atheist?

Before you answer YES……..consider that many have walked the path to my door before you. They all said YES, but over time the simply could not repress their native need to speak a good word for Jesus or to try and nudge, pull, or drive me back to Christianity. Maybe, you are different. I doubt it……but maybe. Knowing now what I have experienced in the past, you’ll forgive me if I don’t trust any Christian, especially a pastor, who says, “I want to be your friend.”  I am like the woman who has been married five times…When a Christian says “let’s be friends” I am immediately wary.

What else could be added to this post? What do Christians do that immediately turns you off or causes you to stop listening?

Related posts:

  1. If Christianity Doesn’t Matter Why Do You Bother With It?
  2. How a Minister Can Take 40,000 and Turn it into Zero Tax Liability
  3. No Bible No Christianity. Why Do Many Christians Distance Themselves From the Bible?
  4. A Question for Non-Christians. What Are Your Impressions of Christianity?
  5. Do Atheists Want to Turn America Into an Atheist Nation?

Abstinence-Only Group Tells Students To Sign Pledge That Expires on Wedding Day

Published
by
Hemant Mehta
on November 30, 2011
.

Over the weekend, reader Larry Mathys‘s brother and sister-in-law found something disturbing in their son’s bed:

That’s a card their son signed when a group called The Real Deal of Saline County visited his public school back in February. Larry points to the logo — which not-so-subtlely resembles a cross. Notice the expiration date on that pledge: “My Wedding Night.” (Apparently, after you get married, you can have all the illegal drugs and porn you want…?)

Without asking for parental consent, a group of Christians from the group came to the nephew’s school to promote abstinence.

The issue isn’t that it’s a Christian group. They didn’t mention faith in their presentation at all, according to the nephew.

The issue is that they’re spreading bad information. Larry explains:

Even if these deluded people believe that a significant number of teens, in the heat of a mutually consenting moment of heavy petting will suddenly put an end to it because they remember that they signed a 3″ x 6″ contract with the good people at, “The Real Deal”, there’s still the matter of valid data. I mean, if we’re going to address a real problem, then we have to be honest with ourselves and provide real data. And from everything I could find, teen pregnancy has been on the rise in Arkansas over the past 6 years.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, promoted The Real Deal this way back in 2002:

Abstinence by Choice operates in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targets 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students and reaches about 4,000 youths each year. A recent evaluation, involving a sample of nearly 1,000 students, shows that the program has been highly effective in changing the attitudes that are directly linked to early sexual activity. Moreover, the program reduced the sexual activity rates of girls by approximately 40 percent (from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent) and the rate for boys by approximately 30 percent (from 22.8 percent to 15.8 percent) when compared with similar students who had not been exposed to the program. (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade in the same schools prior to the commencement of the program.)

However, a paper by Dr. Douglas Kirby (PDF) (also from 2002, sponsored by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy) looked at several “Effective Abstinence-Only Programs” as listed by the Heritage Foundation and found that Abstinence By Choice wasn’t as great as it was made out to be:

Abstinence by Choice. This study did not meet the minimal criteria for Emerging Answers because it had a very weak research design (Weed, 2001). In particular, it did not have pre-intervention and post-intervention data from a comparison group of the same age.

It shouldn’t be this hard to get honest, accurate information about sex and drugs to younger students. According to The Real Deal’s own workshop notes, they teach kids to be abstinent by showing them slides of STDs, asking kids “what [it would] be like around school if others knew you had an STD,” and asking them how premarital sex will impede their life goals. It’s as if any form of premarital physical contact with someone you like is automatically evil.

There should be a place in school curriculums for serious discussions about these topics. But let’s have a honest discussion, not one based on faulty assumptions. One of the goals of sex education ought to be to make sure kids are aware of and mature enough to handle the consequences of sex (physically and emotionally) before they decide to have it, not to scare them away from it for good until some ill-defined “expiration date.”

If there’s a group like this coming to your children’s school, talk to the administration about getting it cancelled. They don’t have the facts, but they have no problem spreading lies and pretending like they know what they’re talking about.

Whose side is God on?

Published
by
PZ Myers
on November 30, 2011
.

On the side of the investment bankers and plutocrats, of course!

That’s a sign that’s gone up in Minneapolis. You want healthcare? You’re going to hell, you covetous sinner. You don’t think the obscenely rich ought to keep every penny they’ve got? You’re going to hell for that, too, Communist.

I guess it should be no surprise. Since the Bible says only 144,000 will go to heaven, he’s always been on the side of the 0.002%.


Eric Hovind Has Been Crying to PZ Myers

Published
by
Alex B
on November 30, 2011
.
Fucking HILARIOUS!

PZ has this to say -

Eric Hovind just called me. He wanted to inform me that my website contains misinformation.
I laughed and laughed. A man who peddles lies to children as his profession, believes the earth is less than ten thousand years old, and thinks the book of Genesis is a science textbook complained to me about misinformation on my website.
Anyway, he said no, they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. But then he let slip that the debate will also be included on a DVD they’re selling as part of a creationist curriculum (you can guess how much that won me over). Then you’re selling it, I said. No, he replied, they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. But you’re selling this curriculum, I said, and he said, yes, but they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. And it went around and around that way for a while. And I laughed.

I laughed as well.

Burzynski going ka-boom

Published
by
PZ Myers
on November 30, 2011
.

First, a nice bit of news: Marc Stephens, the lunatic who stirred up the recent blogospheric buzz with his clumsy thuggery, no longer has a “professional relationship” with the Burzynski clinic, that warehouse of quackery. One thing about charlatans is that they have a fine-tuned sense of who might be hurting their bottom line.

But the damage has already been done. The Burzynski clinic is getting scrutinized.

Josephine Jones is tracking all the commentary.

And this is rich: Jen McCreight digs into the Burzynski publications list. Would you believe it’s a collection of marginal, low-impact journals and unreviewed conference presentations? Yeah, I knew you would.

(Also on Sb)


The West Wing on Homosexuality

Published
by
Daniel Florien
on November 30, 2011
.
I love this scene. It’s so… satisfying.

Gals and show mares

Published
by
PZ Myers
on November 30, 2011
.

This video has been going around — it’s a group of women talking about the importance of evolution to the biological sciences.

I confess to cringing in a few places — there’s too much ready equation of evolution with natural selection — but I certainly wouldn’t question the competence of these accomplished scientists, even if I might argue with them a bit.

But now the clowns at Uncommon Descent have discovered it and given their assessment.

It shows sixteen female academics or science writers, mostly young, whose enthusiasm for evolution is so overwrought that they turn themselves into propagandists.

Eager to show how well they have been trained, they are like show mares who trot around the paddock jumping over each gate in turn. All the while they give the camera a look that says: “Aren’t I good?”

And then the conclusion:

Here, we’d wondered who would be the next Lynn Margulis. Our scouts can now save time by crossing these gals off.

“Gals”? Really? And since when do creationist hacks get to cross “gals” off the rolls of worthy scientists?

That’s right there in the article. There is worse in the comments; I know the site isn’t entirely responsible for what commenters say, but this is from one widely known freakish creationist who agrees with the sentiment in the article, that these women won’t cut it as real scientists. (There are also others that disagree with this guy; no one seems to have noted the patronizing attitude of the article itself.)

There is however a liberal establishment with a agenda to promote women and this means over more deserving men. Affirmative action , openly/secret, is powerful in nOrth america.
They want women to be as smart as men in these perceived smarter things.
They think it should be at least 50/50.
However it ain’t and it never will.

(Also on Sb)


Yet More on @GodsWordIsLaw aka Keith Roberts

Published
by
Alex B
on November 30, 2011
.
Disgusting homophobe and maniac, Keith 'GodsWordIsLaw' Roberts has made it to the Huffington Post!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/george-michael-hospitalized-christians-for-a-moral-america_n_1118654.html

He's also had his use of the image of Dave Butts emailed to.....Dave Butts! Let's see what happens next, I can't imagine Mr Butts being especially pleased that Keith has been using his image as a mask for his raging hatred. Just for good measure I made sure Dave got Keith's address, links to blog posts about him, and details of his company.

ReasonTV Nanny of the Month – November 2011

Published
by
Allen Small
on November 30, 2011
.

Bad Catholic Award 2011

Published
by
Scout
on November 30, 2011
.



Catholic Internet Watch has only been going since October, but I have already reported on enough Catholic lunacy, prejudce and hypocrisy to make it feel like I've been doing it for a year rather than less than 2 months. To mark the close of 2011, I am offering my readers the chance to participate in CIW's Bad Catholic Award contest to determine who has used their online activities to do the most damage to Catholicism in 2011.

There are so many worthy candidates competing for the prize that it was very difficult to draw up a shortlist, but I decided to nominate 4 entries each under the categories of Lunacy, Hypocrisy and Prejudice. Whoever gets the most votes by the end of December wins the award. Being the generous person I am, voters are also permitted to add candidates of their own to the poll.

Now for a rundown on the current candidates. Nominated for Lunacy are:

Nominated for Prejudice are:

Nominated for Hypocrisy are:

Wednesday Word: Dumbrella

Published
by
Bret Alan
on November 30, 2011
.
Dumbrella: the condition where you forget your umbrella is broken, until it rains

The Lie of Satanism: Why Satanists Don’t Exist but Everyone is Afraid of them Anyway

Published
by
Derek Murphy
on November 30, 2011
.

This post is prompted by TWO Yahoo articles concerning Satanism posted within one week of each other. The first, titled “Women Slash Teen 300 Times During Satanic Sex Ritual” (source) is about two Milwaukee roommates accused of slashing and stabbing a teenager 300 times in an apparent satanic sex ritual that lasted for two days. Actually the girls had some books on necromancy and dark magic – which is NOT Satanism.

The confusion is that for anybody within a Christian mindset (as the cops involved probably were) all magic and ritual is Satanic. However anybody who actually practices magic, ritual sacrifices, etc. are not Christian! Hence they don’t believe in Satan. Worshiping Satan is moronic because if you believe in him, then you also believe in God, Jesus and everybody else – so you know already that Satan will lose. What’s the point?

Nevertheless, it is firmly established in popular culture and social anxieties that there are Satan-Worshipers out there stealing babies and practicing blood sacrifice. Why? Let’s look at the 2nd article: “Therapist ‘Brainwashed’ Woman Into Believing She Was In Satanic Cult” (source). Lisa Nasseff, 41, of Saint Paul, Minn., is suing her former therapist, Mark Schwartz, after getting treated for anorexia, because while under hypnosis, her therapist convinced her that her family was Satanists, that they wanted to hurt and sexually abuse her, and that she had sacrificed her sister’s baby on a Satanic altar.

This is a modern story of how powerfully hypnosis can insert false memories. This can even be done accidentally; if the therapist asks leading questions like “What happened to you then? Was there an altar? Do you remember seeing a baby? What were they doing to the baby…” etc.

But wait – aren’t there historical cases of Satanism? Hasn’t everybody known a guy who’s known a guy who said he knew somebody who was involved in Satanism? Here’s the truth: In the 1980’s, the FBI dealt with nearly 50,000 cases of kidnapped children and abuse. They responded with the “stranger danger” posters, teaching kids not to get in cars with strangers or accept gifts or candy from strangers. Things got a lot more complicated when they realized that in the majority of child abuse cases, the abuser was a parent, friend or neighbor— someone the child already knew and liked.

Then things got really weird. There was an immense reservoir of belief in North America that underground Satanic cults were kidnapping, ritually abusing and killing children. These fears were fueled by two popular books, Michelle Remembers and Satan’s Underground. Michelle Remembers documented the alleged memories revealed under hypnosis of a woman who had been abused by “The Church of Satan”, which was reputed to have thousands of members and be particularly active in the Pacific Northwest. Lauren Stratford, the author of a memoir titled Satan’s Underground, was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show aired in May of 1989 and introduced as someone who was used in worshipping the devil, participated in human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism.

But these wild stories about satanic worship and infant sacrifice were part of a nationwide panic about child abuse that saw hundreds of people accused and dozens convicted for bizarre crimes that had no basis in reality. Historians believe the ritual abuse panic was sparked by several fraudulent memoirs, like Michelle Remembers and Satan’s Underground. The authors and publishers of these books are responsible for causing thousands of families untold harm. Not only were people falsely accused of ritual child abuse, but thousands of women seeking therapy for depression were led to believe that they had repressed memories of ritual abuse from their childhoods.

A 1992 poll in Utah revealed that over 90% of adults believe that Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) was happening in their state.

But the FBI has never found any evidence of a well-organized satanic cult. Michelle Remembers has been shown to be a hoax by three independent investigators. The abusive events described in the book are based on jazzed up versions of African native rituals. Satan’s Underground has been shown to be a hoax by Evangelical Christian investigators.

Nevertheless, by the late 1980s, various levels of governments, the FBI, state and local law enforcement had spent in excess of $200 million in a fruitless search for these nonexistent groups.

The appeal of the satanic conspiracy theory is twofold:

First, it is a simple explanation for a complex problem. Nothing is more simple than “the devil made them do it”. If we do not understand something, we make it the work of some supernatural force. During the Middle Ages, serial killers were thought to be vampires and werewolves, and child sexual abuse was the work of demons taking the form of parents and clergy. Even today, especially for those raised to religiously believe so, Satanism offers an explanation as to why “good” people do bad things. It may also help to “explain” unusual, bizarre, and compulsive sexual urges and behavior.

“The devil made you do it” helps people to understand and forgive.  This makes it even easier to deal with the child molester who is the “pillar of the community”. It is not his fault; it is not our fault. There is no way we could have known; the devil made him do it. This explanation has tremendous appeal.

“Satanism” is really just the perverse, backward, diversive, violent underbelly of mainstream religion; its strange “satanic rituals”, which include drinking blood, costumes, candles, and incantations, are little different from the holy rites carried out in churches across America. What appears to be “Satanism” is often just ultra-cultish behavior by religious fundamentalists; either those who believe in God but think themselves to be under the influence of Satan, or those who imagine they are doing God’s bidding.

Satanism is an enormously powerful temptation: If there are witches or Satanists in town, suddenly all behavior is permissible because there is a scapegoat. Suddenly we can do whatever we want, make up any kind of stories about the powerful forces who made us do it, against our will, and people will believe us. So if I’ve always a crush on my neighbor’s underage daughter, or homosexual fantasies, or violent urges, I can allow myself to act on these temptations knowing that I’ll be forgiven – both by God and my community.

How do you distinguish acts performed in a precise manner to enhance or allow sexual arousal from those acts that fulfill spiritual needs or comply with “religious” ceremonies?

In a religious content and setting, bad things seem to happen with greater frequency, because people believe that they will. People believe that Satan is tempting people to do terrible things… and paradoxically, these evil things, when blamed on Satan, indirectly ‘prove’ that their faith in god is justified.

People who believe in a supernatural world excuse themselves from all responsibility. Actions are either God’s will, or they are tempted by Satan. This is why successful preachers with thousands of followers can get convicted of child abuse, apologize and have their flock respond with pity, forgiveness and sympathy. Mankind was weak. Satan is powerful. Of course we can’t deal with our temptations. Of course we will fall. It’s in our nature. We can’t help it… the failure of the leader ironically strengthening his grip on his followers by expanding their fear: Satan is real and strong enough to convince this good man to do terrible things. If he fell, how much more easily am I in danger? So I better follow all the crazy rules and do whatever it takes to stay pure.

With God and Satan in the equation, humanity can quickly sink back to prehistoric shamanism, ritual, and nature magic involving expiation of sin, sacrifice, penance. They can be justified for forceful, obscene or ridiculous behavior, working long hours, inflicting physical and psychological pain and abuse.

Somehow, despicable accounts of sexual abuse, when blamed on the maneuverings of Satan, became a proof of the existence of God.

But take God and Satan out of the picture and you just have a sick fuck who likes to touch children, or a violent psychopath (interestingly, in my experience most psychopaths, child molesters or criminals are religious – religious belief and ideology is part of their pathology and justification for their actions.)

 



Incoming search terms:

What We Can’t Claim Credit For

Published
by
leahlibresco
on November 30, 2011
.
In light of the two most recent posts (on atheism’s weakness as philosophical movement and my inability to rebut a Ross Douthat thought experiment), it’s about time I got around to discussing the keynote at the DC Center for Inquiry … Continue reading →

The Virgin Mary Will Be Played By… Wait, What?!

Published
by
Emileigh
on November 30, 2011
.

Catholic media are not giving a “Hail Mary” to Pamela Anderson‘s casting as the Virgin Mary in the upcoming “A Russell Peters Christmas Special” featuring the Canadian comedian.

Anderson will play Mary in a sketch during the special, holding baby Jesus in her arms with Peters as Joseph at her side. Maybe I’m being presumptuous, but I’m guessing Catholics are offended about Mary’s casting because Anderson is no virgin. She’s famous for running on beaches in “Baywatch,” various nude Playboy photo spreads and a homemade porn video that was leaked years ago with her then-husband Tommy Lee.

National Post’s Rex Murphy writes that objecting to Peters’ choice in getting a “lewd exhibitionist to play Mary, to call in a pop-culture tart to play the very Mother of God” would be considered intolerance from Christians, and so, they should just turn the other cheek:

Of episodes of this kind there is no end, and it will surely be accounted a kind of prudery or humourlessness to make objection to them.

What a martyr.

Despite the attempt to hold his frustration back, Murphy misses a key element from this story: Russell Peters is playing Joseph. Is he chaste enough? I haven’t seen any actual proof one way or the other, but I’d be surprised if Peters’ a virgin. What about Jim Caviezel when he played Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ.” Was he a virgin at the time, too? It’s a shame we can’t ask for their bloody sheets. Do these casting choices also offend the Catholics who aren’t fans of Pamela Anderson playing Mary? Why the double-standard?

Murphy goes on to write:

It would be rather nice if so many people, the Christians of the West, who offer respect, tolerance and regard for beliefs other than their own, could be treated with equal civility and courtesy.

This, according to the adherents of a faith that believes nonbelievers are going to have a second death in a lake of fire and brimstone. How’s that for tolerance and regard?

Meanwhile, for those of us who can laugh at the silliness of virgin birth (and get Canadian TV), Peters’ special will air Dec. 1st at 9:00p ET.

New Climate Change Email Fraud

Published
by
Alonzo Fyfe
on November 30, 2011
.

It is . . . interesting . . . to discover that the world is filled with so many people eager to provide a smoke screen - often without pay - for those who are willing to profit from the destruction of lives and property on a massive scale.

This actually amazes me each time I see it - that such a large community of blatantly vile creatures should exist.

This disgust is directed at climate change deniers who are now using a new set of leaked emails to create another smoke cloud behind which millionaires can continue to profit from activities threatening the large scale destruction of lives and property of those who have very little to begin with.

Here is one of the quotes from those emails.

[T]he trick may be to decide on the main message and to use that to guid[e] what gets included and what gets left out.

Clearly, this is definitely proof of a sinister plot. First one decides on the conclusion one wants to peddle. Then, one cherry-picks the relevant data with an eye to including that which supports the conclusion and leaving out that which does not.

Right?

Actually, this quote comes from an email from Jonathan Overpeck to Ricardo Villalba on how to create a half-page summary of an article. Obviously, you can't create a summary by including everything in the article. You have to decide on the main message of the article (ignoring tangents and lesser concerns) and use that to determine what information to include in the summary.

Furthermore, the very next line in that email reads:

For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information.

Here is another of the quotes:

We really don't want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written . . . We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.

What is this bullshit that Michael (Schulz) had written that needs to be cut out? The context of the email tells us that Michael had was glossing over of the uncertainties and complexities in the climate science and thus presenting conclusions as being more solid than the evidence (others argued) was warranted. He was hiding the fact that some of the science was messy.

If the creatures who lifted this quote had included the next sentence in that email.

What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all, dubious dating, interpretation marginally better, etc.

There is no way that those who lifted the quoted material could have missed the sentences that followed. But those sentences gave the quotes a context that made the emails less useful, so the creatures who did this work left those sentences behind.

They then offered this material to an army of lackeys who they knew would care nothing about the truth of the matter and who would simply parrot the information provided, adding their own condemnation to the sinister scientists and government agents who were obviously conspiring to perpetrate a hoax for the purpose of gaining money. They pretend that they view this type of behavior as worthy of condemnation, yet they are engaged in the very type of behavior they are pretending to condemn.

The final result - the end that provides the initial motivation behind these activities - will be that harvesting of profits that will generate death and destruction people might have otherwise avoided can continue.

Make no mistake, these people would prefer to see you or your children or grandchildren dead over giving up a dime of profit or of putting an iota of effort into discovering what is true or false about the issue of climate change. You cannot explain the type of behavior we are observing here any other way.

When I see behavior such as this, I understand the interest in an afterlife in which these types of creatures get the treatment they deserve from a divine source of cosmic justice. There is some pleasure in the thought of them being made to suffer in proportion to the harms that their immoral behavior created for others. It would also be nice if this cosmic justice would give the victims of this behavior an after-life that had a quality that was denied to them on earth but creatures such as this.

However, cosmic justice does not exist.

And I wonder, at times, if a belief in cosmic justice in an imagined afterlife makes some of us morally lazy in this life. If one thinks that a divine justice will take care of these matters in the long run, does that make it easy to shrug off those injustices in the real world? Does it make it easier for villains to profit in this world? I hasten to add that the right to freedom of speech forbids one from responding to words with violence. But we can still make it clear to the world what types of creatures we are dealing with here - and we can still put effort into limiting the success of those who would kill, maim, and destroy for profit in this world.

You can find out more information on these emails at ThinkProgress The Climate Scientists Who Wrote the Hacked Emails Explain the Cherry-Picked Phrases