12.16.2011 – Christopher Hitchens: You will be greatly missed

The world is a slightly darker place this morning. We’ve lost a maverick, a pioneer,  a visionary. Often controversial. Often combative. Always brilliant! A literary mastermind was Hitchens. He could turn a phrase like none other. His mind seemed to be a Rolodex of information and life-experience that he had the ability to sift through and access any bit of information at any time and bring it to us in fabulous poetic prose.

As a part of the free-thinking, anti-religious movement he was invaluable. Loud and boisterous and yet always eloquent. He was a bright light of reason in an often dark ignorant populous. This is where I believe he will be missed the most.

I wish I could say I knew him personally, but through his writing I feel I had the privilege to get a peek into the machinery that was his thought process. I’m sure that his close friends and family are feeling this loss deeply and my thoughts are with them.

This evening I will raise my glass (several of them most likely) to the man who helped me on my personal journey from delusion to enlightenment.

To Hitch! You will live forever in the words that you’ve left behind!

09.18.2011 – What Grinds My Gears: Miracles!

I’m going to start a new series of posts called, completely derivatively: “What Grinds My Gears!”. Since I’m really good a bitching and complaining about various things, I figure I should be fairly good at putting my bitching and complaining down in words too! So, here goes…

The local news stations around here have, over the last several years, really started abusing the word ‘miracle’! Everything is miraculous anymore. “Miraculous car crash survivor“, “Miraculous surgery for conjoined twins“, “Miraculous birth“, etc etc. I find that this is really starting to cheapen the meaning of this word.

The lady in the car crash story above had to be removed from the car and is in the hospital recovering from her injuries. A miracle in this story would have been the truck falling over on the car, and the car staying completely untouched and the woman walking away unharmed.

The miracle surgery for the conjoined twins is nothing more than the amazing medical technology that we have developed as a society. The skill, talents, and knowledge of the surgeons and medical staff. To call it a miracle is to discredit the amazing work of these people. A real miracle in this instance would be the twins being separated after birth with NO intervention from surgeons or doctors at all.

The one that REALLY grinds my gears is all the people who tout the ‘miracle of child-birth”. “Our baby is a miracle”! “Childbirth is such a miracle”! Ugh! There are 7 billion people on the planet right now (not to mention countless billions of healthy births throughout human history). If child-birth is such a miracle, I would think that healthy human birth would have to be a truly rare thing indeed. However, it’s quite obvious that  is not the case at all. Humans are baby making factories. We pop the little packages out at impressive rates. Hardly what I would classify as a ‘miracle’!

To me, a miracle would be something that occurs completely outside of the normal operations of the natural world according to the laws of physics and science. When news, ministers, and average believers start labeling every day occurrences (even if they are surprising occurrences) miracles, I believe that really starts to water down the significance of that word. Granted, I don’t believe that miracles actually occur, but there’s definitely a threshold of occurrence and would give me pause, and NONE of these stories qualifies.

06.14.2011 – Judas – The Ultimate Fall Guy

All throughout my years as a Christian I remember hearing the story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. I remember hearing about how awful a person Judas had to have been in order to turn his back on his friend and teacher for a couple of pieces of silver. He was easily one of the most demonized figures in biblical teaching.

All that said, if you take into account the whole reason that Jesus came to Earth according to the bible, don’t you think that Judas kind of gets a bum rap? I mean, without Judas’ betrayal there would have been no trial of Jesus. Without the trial, there would have been no execution of Jesus. And without the execution of Jesus there would have been no opportunity for him to rise again, thus beating the bonds of death and serving as a stand in punishment for humanity’s sins. Doesn’t God’s entire plan fall apart without Judas?

It seems to me that Judas should be celebrated for what he did. What option did he have? It almost seems to me that he didn’t even have any free will in the process. The plan was made and executed exactly as God had laid it out. And Judas has taken the fall for it. When you actually take a step back and look at it this way, the story really seems silly (it’s silly for lots of other reasons too, but I’m gonna stay on topic here).

06.09.2011 – The Irresolvable Problem

I’ve recently asked a few members of my family a religious/philosophical question that they have not been able to give me an answer to. I feel that it’s a legitimate question, and I really would love to know how they are able to reconcile this. Though, ultimately, I believe it to be irreconcilable under their current belief system. I will post the question below (as was presented to them) and then their initial responses and some of my replies.

Here’s the question:

“You and I are riding in a car and have a horrific accident. We both die instantly. We come to find out that it WAS, in fact, true that there is a god and it’s YOUR god. So, you get to spend eternity in heaven and I, obviously get to spend it tortured in hell. Now, you’re my mother/brother/sister/etc, so please explain to me how heaven is going to be a wonderful place for you to be knowing that I (and probably many MANY other people that you’ve known and loved in life) am being burned and tortured in hell?”

I realize this is a rather harsh concept, but I feel it addresses a rather important issue for believers. They claim that their goal is to get to heaven and spend eternity in God’s presence, but I don’t think any of them have contemplated what it would mean to have their loved ones not there, and according to the doctrine they believe, they are in hell.

This is the response my mother gave:

“One thing i know, God is the only one that can judge your heart and mine. I know his word well enough to know he loves us both. I know you want an answer about how I could enjoy heaven at that thought. I couldn’t. Not the way I am now. How could I. But all of his promises and assurances from the time I gave him my heart to him, tells me I can trust him with all that I have all now, and what I will experieced in the future. He hasn’t failed me. He’s my father. My papa. He brought me through so much pain and gave me peace. He is a loving God and knows the heart.

I love you.
This is an overwhelming thought and I’m praying for a clearer answer.”

I replied to her that I was looking forward to a further response on the question, but one never came. We did talk about it over the phone briefly once, and her thoughts came down to the idea that those memories would be gone. So, she figures she’d have no memories of her lost family members. How is that concept of heaven something desirable? My family, wife, and daughter are the most important things to me. If there was a heaven, I would want nothing to do with it if those things weren’t part of it. Not to meantion that it certainly seems like you would have to be fundamentally changed from who you were in life in order to be that way in heaven.

I posed the same question to my brother (who actively serves in the ‘ministry’). Got the following response…

“I will respond in time, i appreciate your patience…”

That was two months ago. Nothing else has been forthcoming.

The lack of valid responses to the question leaves me to believe that there is no good response. I think it leaves them feeling very uncomfortable because it truly does cause problems with their beliefs. I know I couldn’t resolve this in my own head. I’m open to honest responses from believers. I really am. I’d love to hear from people who can try to explain how they would resolve this. I’ve considered this for quite some time, and for now, I find it to be the ‘irresolvable problem’.

06.08.2011 – God…The Great Contradiction

Last week, on Facebook, I posted a link to a Fox News video clip about an ex-atheist who is now a believer because he prayed for his mother to win the lottery and she did. While the problems with this are obvious (why is an atheist praying, etc), the ensuing discussion in the comments, as expected, became interesting rather quickly. In the ‘news’ story, the interviewer had the gall to bring up the tornadoes down south and how we are getting ‘signs’ of God all over. Like the fact that an entire town was destroyed, but a cross from a church was left standing. I brought up this fact and my mother commented:

“Hmmnnn, God/lottery…. Doesn’t really fit. God does permit people to die. His word says “it is appointed for man, once to die” though.”

And another, more distant, relative later responded:

“Sorry, disagree honey – we plan and God laughs…He’s the one in control….”

My reply was this:

And I would never, in a million years, do anything to take away your right to believe that. That said, I find myself in a very small minority whose voice is often lost in the throngs of the believing majority. Especially here on Facebook. So, because of that, I will never stop voicing what I believe to be a sound worldview based on logic & reason. What I find most interesting and has been very enlightening to me can be explained with what I was talking about earlier. Tragedies like the tornadoes, the earthquakes in japan and Haiti, etc make a lot more sense when you take god out of the picture. You no longer have to do massive mental gymnastics to reason why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god would allow these things to happen. When you take him out of the picture, the random functions of our natural world make a lot more sense, though, it does not lessen the tragic nature of those events. Nothing can!

 

I just can’t seem to resolve the obvious contradictions in the believers’ “logic”. The paradox is soundly resolved when you remove your belief that God is in control. It really does require an amazing amount of jumping through hoops to say in the same sentence that God knows all, and controls all, and then have to try to rationalize him allowing the awful things to happen in the world. Even if there WAS a God like this, I would find it very difficult to worship this deity. He comes across has an all-powerful bully. One who seems to take joy in the misery of his creation by playing these ‘cosmic games’. If this god did exist, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him.

 

 

 

 

03.11.2011 – Praying for Tsunami Victims?

I don’t often blog more than once a day. Hell! I don’t often blog more than once a week or month anymore. But today, I feel it’s necessary.

The religious folks I have on my Facebook page are blowing it up with posts calling for prayers regarding the Tsunami/Earthquake which happened near Japan overnight. One of the more recent ones was from a friend sending out his prayers for families he knows in Japan and California. He ended his post with “God is with you”.

It took a lot of my will-power to let it go, but inside my head I’m screaming “WHY THE FUCK WASN’T GOD WITH THE ONES THAT DIED?!?!? THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AT ALL!!!”. I just do NOT get that mentality. If you believe that God is sparing the ones you know/love from being effected or killed by such a tragedy, what about your plea to him works for those folks, but not for the ones that ARE effected? The answer really IS quite simple: There is no god answering or even listening to those prayers. And, as sad and tragic as it is, this is the result of natural forces and those forces have NO opinions on what their effect is going to be on human society. I really have a hard time getting what is so hard to understand about that? Isn’t it so much harder to rationalize in your head that a mystical being in the sky is picking and choosing who gets to live and who gets to die than it is to acknowledge that nature is a powerful, blind, non-biased force and sometimes human kind gets in the way of it?

That said, my heart and thoughts go out to the folks effected by this tragedy. I wish there was more that I could do. It’s incredibly sad!

02.18.2011 – He ‘rejected Christ’ because ‘He’s a father’

What a great read this is. It really shows the loving, kindness, and acceptance of some groups of ‘godly’ folks. (sarcasm heavily laced here).

After his run-in with the church folks, this writer ran into an issue when his son was upset and worried that he or is parents were going to die. His response is great:

As a father, I was about to tell my terrified son the fairy tale equivalent of this: “If he didn’t want to end up locked in a dark, dank basement filled with spiders and child molesters and murderers, then he should love me with all his heart and soul, and if I believed he was sincere, then I wouldn’t lock him down there forever. I would tell him I sacrificed myself to work very hard for him, and that I was giving him this gift of a chance to live upstairs with me forever. However, if he didn’t want it, then it was out of my hands and he would have to go to the basement and be locked in there, away from the warm beacon of my love forever.”

I couldn’t tell my child this. I couldn’t tell him that invisible demons were real.

 

It’s sad, to me, that the people of his church would get so bent out of shape about political issues. I don’t think this is a rare event either. I remember from back when I was going to church in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, that politcs where being ‘preached’ at that time. I can only imagine how much worse it is now.

02.03.2011 – Am I Happy?

This is a tough question.

At least, it’s a tough question for me personally. What I do know for sure is that I’m a TON more happy now than I ever was as  believer.  I can look at happiness as an average. Am I bouncing off the walls every day with joy? Of course not! I’d find myself in a padded cell wearing a nice new jacket with sleeves that tie in the back if I was. Am I completely miserable every day? Same answer as above. Over the last few years, however, I think that I’ve found that the average ‘level of happiness’ that I feel has increased steadily. There are lots of reasons that I can attribute this change too, but for the sake of keeping with the general topic of this blog, I’ll stick to the religious reasons.

I can remember with vivid detail the day that I finally admitted to myself that I was an atheist. (It was after a long period of teeter-tottering back and forth on the topic due to the fear of the stigma associated with that moniker.) I’ve told this to several people since then: the feeling was that of a thousand pounds of weight being lifted off of my shoulders. I felt like all the irrational guilt that I had been carrying around with me for years had finally rolled away. I was finally able to look at myself and the world objectively and determine that things are not nearly as dire as I was made to believe. I don’t have to fear infinite punishment for finite crimes. I don’t have to worry that my lifestyle (and the life I wanted to live) was in some way counter to the rules of some dictator in the sky. I don’t have to live according to a rule book that is so self-contradictory that my mind couldn’t make sense of it.

The result? A nearly immediate sense of happiness. Some of that initial ‘thrill’ so to speak, has of course subsided. But the over-all sense that life is much more worth living now continues to be tangible. I now find value in THIS life. I find value in the NOW! Not in aspirations of an eternal existence that not a single person in the world has a drop of evidence for. Why waste even a second of our time here worrying about a 2nd life? Every minute is valuable, because we don’t get that minute back. This outlook is not perfect, and it takes a conscious effort every single day for me to keep it in perspective. I fail OFTEN, but the trend, I believe is in the right direction.

12.08.2010 – Do Atheists Have To Be Assholes?

I apologize ahead of time. This is going to be a LONG post!

A few weeks ago I posted a video interview of Christopher Hitchens on my Facebook page. In the video he discussed his current prognosis regarding his cancer, and his outlooks on life and death. Most of this is unimportant in regards to the topic of this post. It’s the ensuing discussion on the posting that is really the matter.

I’ve pasted the entire conversation below. But I believe that I should include a little bit of background to set the stage. I’ve removed (painstakingly) all personal names as to protect the privacy of the individuals. Christian #1 is a very liberal Christian minister that I’ve found on a podcast online. While we obviously have theological disagreements, he’s one of the most open-minded religious folks that I ‘know’. He’s open to discussion and questioning, and relays his own doubts on a regular basis. Generally, a really good guy. Atheist #1 is a Facebook ‘friend’ whom I’ve never met. Before this conversation we’ve had next to NO interaction whatsoever.

For those that actually take the time to read this whole thing, I have some questions. Is Atheist #1′s approach to this conversation the way we, atheists, in general should handle our interactions with believers? Is there really ANY good that can come by being insulting, ignorant, and generally ‘an asshole’? Personally, when I have dealings with people like this, my mind shuts off to them. At that point, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing that they have to say that I need to give any consideration to. I believe tact should nearly always be in play. We should be ‘the bigger people’. If we want to be respected, we need to act in a respectful way. Talk in a respectful way. And generally exude calm, intelligence, and respect at all times. I’m genuinely interested in what other folk’s thoughts are on this. So, please feel free to provide some feedback.

The initial part of the conversation started on the day I posted the video and it the part between me and Christian #1 at the beginning. It then dropped off of my main page and a few days later Atheist #1 decided to start commenting (odd that he must have been scrolling my page to find it at that point, but whatever). Initially everything went along just fine. I actually wasn’t around during most of the early parts between those two. Then at some point Atheist #1 must have googled Christian #1 and found out some personal information about him. He decided at that point to use it as ammo for personal attacks. That’s when I started to intervene a bit.

Anyway, here’s the post. It’s extremely long. So…enjoy! 🙂



 

Christian #1:  The convicting thing about this video for me (a Christian) is that he seems to have managed the kind of comfort and peace of mind in the face of death that we (Christians) typically reserve for the converted.

 

Me:  I agree, Christian #1! Something to be said for that don’t you think? In his book that I’m reading he paraphrases Lucretius at one point in saying “the prospect of future annihilation was no worse than the contemplation of the nothingness from whice one came.” I find that there IS some comfort to be had when comtemplating the innevitable by looking at it in that way.

 

Me:  ignoring the typos of course!

 

Christian #1:  This is good food for thought as I am working on some homework for (another person not involved) in preparation for the next round of pod-casts.

 

Me:  excellent! I can’t wait until they are up on the website!

 

Atheist #1:  Christians are horrified of death. It’s those who don’t believe in fairy tales that can meet it with a rational mind.

 

Christian #1:  I’m not horrified of death, and I am a Christian. I do not like death, but I am not afraid of death.

 

 

Atheist #1:  Good for you Christian #1, but it would seem you are in the minority.

 

Christian #1:  You are probably right.

 

Me:  I would tend to agree that Christian #1 is not exactly cut from that same cloth as a lot of christians out there! and that’s a good thing.

 

 

Atheist #1:  But why is calling yourself a Christian something to be proud of? For millions, it is a sign of credulity and weak-mindedness.

 

 

Christian #1:  Well, just because many people who claim the title “Christian” are bad people, doesn’t mean that the title means “bad person” it means “follower of Jesus” which is what I am.

 

Atheist #1:  Ah and how is it you are so certain Jesus was actually a real person, or so sure of what his teachings were? And Jesus also said in matthew that he wishes not at all to discredit any of the laws from the old testament, but to uphold them, so he is in favor of slavery, genocide, stoning to death for adultery, infanticide and the subjugation of women. Yeah, he’s a remarkable guy.

 

Christian #1:  Well, I think it is reasonable to believe that he existed. I also believe that it is reasonable to believe that the gospels are historically accurate. Jesus actually said that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, which is not the same thing.

 

Atheist #1:  The gospels are historically accurate? You can’t be serious. Dude, do a little reading. They can’t even agree on which day he was supposedly crucified, or which day he was born. They have hundreds of discrepancies. Each of the four give a different account, and they aren’t just different on subjective things. They are different on the supposed facts.

 

Atheist #1:  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

matt. 5:17 So Jesus condones slavery. Why don’t you own slaves then Christian #1, you follow the teachings of Jesus?

 

Christian #1: 

I interpret his statements differently. When Jesus talked of abolishing and fulfilling Torah (the Law), he was using first century rabbinic language to describe his interpretation and application of Torah.

 

When someone misinterpreted the me……aning of Torah, first century rabbis would say that person had “abolished Torah.” Conversely, when a person interpreted the meaning of Torah correctly (or at least correctly in the mind of the Rabbi) they were described as “fulfilling Torah.”

 

So when Jesus said he had not come to abolish Torah but to fulfill it, he was claiming to have correctly interpreted the meaning of Torah. His interpretation (in part) is what follows in Matthew 5,6, and 7 or what we commonly call “The Sermon on the Mount” and can be summarized in his assertion that the central moral teaching of Torah is to love God and love people.

 

So yes, I think he was a remarkable guy.

 

Christian #1: 

As far as incongruities of the Gospels, I have read about it, quite a bit actually. For me, factual discrepancies do not at all discredit the overall record of the Evangelists. After all, Ancient Near Eastern concepts of history, historic……ity, and historiography were all quite different than ours.

 

Actually, I think the fact that these minor incongruities (and they are minor, and far fewer than “hundreds”) persisted throughout the transmission of the oral tradition and later manuscripts establishes the credibility of the original witnesses. They wrote what they thought happened, and obviously felt no compulsion to harmonize their account with the accounts of others.

 

Atheist #1:  Just like a Christian, to interpret the bible just how it suits them. The gospels are not a history, nor do they claim to be. They are simply the “good news.” You didn’t answer the question. Why do you not own slaves?

 

Atheist #1:  Minor incongruities? wow. There are hundreds of questions I could ask you about jesus and the answer you would give me would totally depend on which gospel you read. Get a clue man.

 

Atheist #1:  the central moral teaching of the Torah is to love god and love his people? Oh ok. I guess that excludes slaves, people god doesn’t like (because he commits genocide on them) and homosexuals, as well as women.

 

Christian #1: 

OK, I thought I answered your question. I’ll try this… I do not follow the moral/civic/religious code of the OT because Jesus reinterpreted it (as per the sermon on the mount) and established a new covenant between God and his people. Be…sides, the old code didn’t command people to own slaves, it simply commanded them to treat slaves with dignity.

 

As far as incongruities in the Gospels, the big stuff is consistent, the little stuff varies. This is what happens when different people record the same event from different points of view. It happens all the time. Just watch the news.

 

Finally you are mistaken about the Gospels and their claims to be history. Luke explicitly claims to be history (or at least an orderly account of what really happened) and Matthew strongly implies the same by starting with a record of

genealogies. Furthermore, the early church (first/second century C.E.) strongly relied on these documents as history and I suspect they were more familiar with the genre than you or me.

 

Atheist #1:  Ah Jesus reinterpreted it! Silly me! Of course he did! The big stuff is consistent? Who appeared first at the tomb of Jesus then Christian #1? That’s a pretty big thing. On what day was Jesus crucified? That’s a pretty big thing. What exac…tly did Jesus say while he was on the cross. That’s a big thing too. I could go on and on and on. Christian #1, no I’m not wrong. Luke is biased, and I don’t take my information from him, nor does any scholar. They simply claim to be the good news. If that is the case, name me one thing that happens in the gospels that actually happened in recorded history. yeah that’s what I thought.

 

Atheist #1:  And the genealogies don’t even concur. They can’t even agree on who the grandfather of Jesus is. What a surprise.

 

Christian #1: 

Yes Jesus interpreted the Law, this is what pissed religious leaders off so much, his interpretation of the law.

 

No those are not big things.

 

The resurrection is a big thing, who saw the empty grave first is a minor detail. The empty grave is a major detail.

 

The crucifixion is a big thing. What Jesus’ exact words when he was being killed is a minor detail. His death was a major detail. Same goes with the day of his crucifixion. Does it matter if one writer got it correct and another didn’t? They agree on the fact that he was crucified.

 

Certainly Luke is biased, most ancient histories are VERY biased (see Josephus) this doesn’t mean that what they wrote wasn’t history. Many scholars glean information from the history in Luke (we could trade lists, but that would probably futile, eh?)

 

Hmmm, historical events in the Gospels that are verified elsewhere. How about Pontius Pilate ruling as Roman Prefect in Judea? This fact is verified by Philo and Josephus.

 

Josephus also wrote about John the Baptist

 

Atheist #1: 

Josephus is not regarded as a reliable historian, I am sure you know this. I love how you just shrug off all the inconsistencies Christian #1, that’s very convenient for you. Why was Jesus in Bethlehem at the time of his birth? IS that a major …or minor detail? Hmmmm they dont’ agree on that either. You have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts. And the facts are, none of he gospels are reliable. Pontius Pilate was not a Prefect, they got that wrong too. He was a Praetor. Do your research. And that’s the only thing you can muster? hahahahahahh Herod is also mentioned and he was a real person. The writers of these books did that to try to make their stories seem believable. ANd what of this census of Quirinius? Never happened. Complete hogwash and made up. But you’ll say that is a minor detail. LOL. Come on man, get real.

 

Atheist #1:  And I’m glad the gospels agree that Jesus was crucified, because Roman authorities sure don’t there is no record of him at all. Funny you mention Philo because he was a contemporary of Jesus, and make not ONE mention of him in all his writings. As a Jewish historian PHILO would have found it very important that someone called himself the king of the jews and was crucified. Short answer. Didn’t happen.

 

Atheist #1:  Is naming Peter his successor a big deal? The gospels don’t agree on that either. THAT certainly is a big deal.

 

Atheist #1:  Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, which he claims took place in 6 CE. Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Luke contradicts himself, stating that John the Baptist and Jesus were conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but portrays Mary with child at the time of the census of 6 CE, creating, one of the rarely mentioned miracles of the New Testament- a ten year pregnancy!

 

Christian #1: 

Of course Josephus is not “reliable” by our standards but very little of Ancient Near Eastern history is reliable by our standards. It’s all we have though. Besides the general scholarly consensus is that Josephus’ citing of NT personalities are authentic (except for maybe the Testimonium Flavianum).

 

Yes, why he was in Bethlehem is a minor detail.

 

I do have the right to my own facts, or at least the interpretation of the facts. I cannot prove my interpretation any more than you can prove yours.

 

Philo may not have heard of Jesus, since he lived in Alexandria. Philo doesn’t mention Jesus, two reasonable explanations are that Jesus did not exist or that Philo never heard of him. Both are reasonable (mine is more reasonable I think), I chose one you chose the other.

 

Christian #1:  Again, their dates are off. Doesn’t bother me at all, in the slightest. Incorrect dating does not mean that the event didn’t happen.

 

Atheist #1: 

No you are wrong again to say that the general scholarly consensus is that Josephus is reliable.

 

Josephus- he mentions Jesus but critical scholarship has shown this to be a later addition to his text. It is not his same writing style, and …Josephus was in fact a pro-Roman Jew. Early Christians would have seized on anything written by Josephus as conclusive proof of the historical evidence of Jesus, but early Christians never mention him. It wasn’t until the 4th century CE that the bishop Eusebius, the propagandist of the Roman Church, suddenly produced a version of Josephus that contained the passages. ~ from the Jesus Mysteries by Timother Freke and Peter Gandy

 

Atheist #1:  I don’t have to prove anything about the gospels, because they don’t stand up to examination. You have the burden of proof, not me.

 

Atheist #1:  The gospels agree that Jesus’ father was Joseph, but Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob. Luke says it is Heli. They can’t even agree on one generation, and we are supposed to believe that Joseph traced his ancestry all the way back to David? Of course, if Jesus was born of a virgin, Joseph’s lineage becomes irrelevant.

 

Atheist #1:  I’m glad it doesn’t bother you Christian #1, because it does bother rational people.

 

Atheist #1:  I assume you don’t want me to continue to destroy you Christian #1?

 

Me:  lol…look at all the fun I’ve missed. Good discussion. I’ll let you guys continue if you like. Let’s keep it civil!

 

Atheist #1: 

I’ll leave you with a lovely quote from sam harris;

 

An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse- and there have been many ex…traordinarily arrogant scientists.

 

Christian #1: 

Actually, if it bothers you than you are being something less than rational. These are ANCIENT documents written in ANCIENT cultures and then transmitted by HAND for centuries. Not to mention the fact that the story of Jesus was likely transmitted via oral tradition for decades before it was ever written down to begin with.

 

Of course there will be discrepancies. To expect that there wouldn’t be is irrational. It also strikes me as ignorant of the processes of historiography and how those processes change over time and how difficult it is, even in our modern age with all our technology, to get every detail correct.

 

Atheist #1:  Yet you think Jesus was a real person and worship him and believe the teachings that are supposedly his. I find this very entertaining.

 

Atheist #1:  I’m sure you’re one of these Christians who believe evolution is totally compatible with their religious belief, right Christian #1? And why is it so hard for you to get rid of beliefs that were indoctrinated into your head by your parents?

 

 

 

Christian #1: 

So this is what it feels like to be “destroyed”? Hmmm, it feels more like discussing apples and oranges with someone who doesn’t understand fruit. Anyway, I am glad it entertains you.

 

My opinion is that it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus existed and that his teachings have been preserved.

 

Atheist #1:  If there is anyone who doesn’t understand something here, it certainly isn’t me. Your faith is just that, faith. Reason trumps faith every time. I use my reason to tell me that Christianity is despicable, and it is. Evidence is important to me, and obviously not important to you.

 

 

Atheist #1:  Every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim as you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. I don’t find either’s reasons compelling or rational.

 

Christian #1:  I never said anything about faith. My belief in Jesus and his teachings has very little to do with faith. Evidence is very important to me. You assume too much about me.

 

Atheist #1:  There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery. St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masters well. Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6: 1-4

 

Why don’t you own slaves Christian #1?

 

Atheist #1:  Yet you claim you are a Christian. Christians worship Jesus. It’s not that hard of a concept to understand. You have to have faith that Jesus existed because there is no evidence that he did.

 

Christian #1:  Because Jesus didn’t command his followers to own slaves.

 

Atheist #1:  He commanded his followers to “take no thought for the morrow.” Do you subscribe to that too?

 

Christian #1:  Yes.

 

Atheist #1:  hahahahah okay, then why do you have a job, a computer, and why aren’t you homeless. This is becoming even more fun.

 

Atheist #1:  The old testament is a part of the bible too. WHy do you cherry pick and decide not to believe all the horrible things in it? How convenient. Jesus this Jesus that. You didn’t answer my question about evolution. Do you believe in it or not, and how old do you think the earth is?

Christian #1:  Because Jesus teaching against worrying is not a command that we live in poverty. Not worrying about tomorrow does not equal not having a job.

 

Atheist #1:  Again, that’s your wonderful interpretation. You have such insight on what jesus really meant! You are truly gifted!

 

Atheist #1:  Is the concept of original sin a moral concept? It’s disgusting.

 

Atheist #1:  Jesus did NOT do away with the law of the Old Testament; he endorsed it. Matthew 5:18-19

 

Christian #1: 

You are going too fast, I can’t keep up!

 

OK, regarding the OT, I hold to the ancient Christian belief that the OT is empowered by God (not entirely sure what that means) and useful for discipleship (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This does not mean that the OT is morally binding, or even true, only that it is empowered and useful.

 

I am not sure what I think about evolution, it makes sense to me, but I think it is far from a forgone conclusion. I say let smart scientists wrestle with it for a few more decades and see what they come up with.

 

I think the earth is very very old.

 

Atheist #1:  Wow, you’re a pastor, no wonder your head is all muddled up. Good day to you and shame on you for preaching such screwed up ideals, most likely indoctrinating your children too, (which is child abuse) and robbing them of reason. You make me sick honestly.

 

Christian #1:  No, he FULFILLED it.

 

Atheist #1:  Evolution is a fact. You betray an utter ignorance of science if you do not think so.

 

Atheist #1:  Seminary! What a waste of a life! poor, poor choice. Brainwashed, that’s what I call it.

 

Christian #1:  You don’t know what I teach and how I raise my children. Again, you assume too much.

 

Atheist #1:  I see you are a pastor and I see that you went to seminary. Therefore my reason tells me you bring your kids to church and this is disgusting. Congrats on filling their heads with utter nonsense. Way to be a great parent.

 

Me:  and this would be a fine example of what i did NOT mean when I said to keep it civil! there’s NO reason for attacking the person! argue about the topic…fine. but leave out the personal attacks!

 

Atheist #1:  Delete me then, I don’t need a supervisor.

 

Me:  you seem very angry Atheist #1! I don’t need to delete you, but can’t understand why you don’t want to have a conversation without resorting to insults.

 

Atheist #1:  I very much enjoy ridiculing Christians. It’s all they deserve. Ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible propositions.

 

Jefferson

 

Me:  ridicule the position…not the person.

 

Christian #1:  It’s no big deal, Me, I can’t say I understand entirely where the vitriol comes from, but I think I get it. If Atheist #1 thinks that Christianity is a terrible thing, and he thinks that all Christians are terrible because of their religion, then of course he would be concerned that I am exposing my children to it.

 

Atheist #1:  I will ridicule whatever the hell I want to, thank you very much. And quit being such a pussy. Last time I checked, Christian #1 can defend himself. I think it’s despicable that he is a pastor and I, just like dawkins, would say he is a child abuser who fills his children’s head with bullshit. I have no scruples saying that.

 

Atheist #1:  Indeed, Christianity preaches fear and hate. It’s bigotry at it’s finest.

 

Me:  well enjoy your anger then. I prefer to enjoy life and not embrace anger so much. you and I are obviously very different people. You choose to insult, and choose rather to find common ground and have civil discourse. no good will ever come from firing insults.

 

Atheist #1:  Millions are concerned about it Christian #1, as they should be. You are telling your children if they don’t behave they will burn in hell for eternity, and filling their heads with the bullshit concept of original sin. It’s child abuse.

 

Atheist #1:  All because you were ensnared by the indoctrination of your parents, and don’t have the balls to think for yourself. Despicable.

 

Atheist #1:  You prefer to kiss people’s asses. IF you knew more about Hitchens, who you so like to post, you would know he has a hell of a lot more in common with me than you. Check out his comments about Jerry Falwell.

 

Me:  whatever dude. rage on!

 

Christian #1:  I do not teach my kids this doctrine of hell, because I do not believe it.

 

Atheist #1:  You call it rage, I call it being rational and expressing my frustration with people who believe in sky daddies. I can assure you I’m not throwing anything around my apartment. As you can see, Christian #1 conveniently doesn’t care about anything that questions his faith. Because it’s faith. ya don’t need evidence for it.

 

Me:  hitchens has civil conversations and debates with religious people ALL THE TIME! you should try his tact sometime

 

Atheist #1:  yeah, and he also calls them out and says they are delusional.

 

Atheist #1:  I’m far less tactful than Hitchens, quite true. I can be because I am not on TV.

 

Me:  saying their delusional and telling them they are horrible parents are two different things in my opinion. it’s about delivery. the points can be made without being an asshole!

 

Atheist #1:  Apparently you have not read much Richard Dawkins. I am an asshole, I make no bones about it. I pride myself on being a prick to religious people, because they are arrogant and bigoted, and their ideas and policies hurt society.

 

Atheist #1:  And moreover, pastor and reverend are not titles to be held in esteem. They are titles that denote a charlatan.

 

Me:  and you’re an asshole to people on your own side too, apparently. maybe you ARE just an asshole, but at least you admit it and are ok with it.

 

Atheist #1:  The sad thing is Me, you aren’t on my side because Christian #1 is your friend. However much you might agree with me, you play the nice guy because you don’t have any balls. I do, and I don’t give two cents what either of you think of me.

 

Christian #1:  I don’t think I am a charlatan. Besides, I always preferred the title “Bishop” or maybe “High Potentate”

 

Oh, and I want a hat to go with the title.

 

Atheist #1:  If I’m an asshole because I call religious people out and reiterate the point that they are dumb asses, then give me another drink of asshole because I haven’t had my fill.

 

Me:  then the feelings are mutual. I prefer to build relationship and bridges rather than instantly stick a wedge in the whole thing by being tactless. But it’s not sweat off of my brow either that you don’t like my style. I really couldn’t care less.

 

Atheist #1:  Indeed, at least we agree on something.

Me:  we agree on a lot of things whether you want to admit it or not. you’re just closeminded to the fact that there are people out there who are not wired the same as you are, and because of that…they a pussies and have no balls. I’d say that’s a personal fault that you may want to examine, but I highly doubt that you will.

 

Atheist #1:  I’m glad you don’t think you are a charlatan Christian #1. I’m hear to tell you differently. I’m not buying what you are selling and woe to the people who are. I hope your congregation abandons you, and I hope all your ushers steal from the offering plate.

 

Atheist #1:  If you can’t have the courage to say absolutely what you think, you are spineless. “The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks.”

 

Voltaire

 

Me:  I think you’re an asshole…does that count?

 

Christian #1:  Atheist #1, why would you wish harm on other people? Our religion makes us happy. Why can’t you just let us be happy? As an atheist, you should know that it is immoral to rob other people of their happiness. We do no harm, we sit here in the cornfields of the Midwest and enjoy our opiate. Who are you to say we cannot have this happiness?

 

Atheist #1:  excellent! That’s what I am talking about! Am I offended? No. Just as you shouldn’t be offended when I tell your pastor charlatan friend that he is a child abuser. If it isn’t the case, what’s the worry?

 

Atheist #1:  Your religion may make you happy, but that says nothing for it’s truth. The truth is everything, and I am sad that facts and evidence mean nothing to you. It is not admirable to tell someone a lie because it will make them feel better.

 

Atheist #1:  Those who give false consolation are false friends.

 

Me:  no worry. i just chose to not be an asshole. assholes are repellants. I prefer to not be a repellant.

 

Atheist #1:  The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”

 

Atheist #1:  Thanks for your opinion Me. Noted. Bye now.

 

Me:  yeah…it’s my wall…I can post my opinion if I likie. just remember…you knocked on MY door…not the other way around.

 

Atheist #1:  Christian #1, I really have to go now, but you are delusional and leading other lemmings to the slaughter. You personify the “ignorance is bliss” phrase, and that is not to be commended. Hopefully, 20 years from now, when you are rational and an atheist, you’ll remember this little spat, and how an asshole told you exactly the problems with your “harmless” faith. Adios.

 

Atheist #1:  And I told ya to delete me if ya don’t like what I have to say. Trust me, I don’t know who the hell you are anyway, so it wouldn’t be the end of the world. LOL

 

Me:  I know Christian #1 only slightly better than I know you. so what’s your problem. Do you go into your friends houses insulting them too?

 

Me:  nah…i won’t delete ya. that would give you too much satisfaction I think! I think I’ll keep you around and annoy you with my passivism!

 

Atheist #1:  My problem is religious idiots. I don’t have religious friends for that very reason.

 

Christian #1:  I guess there are angry, unreasonable, fundamentalist atheists just like there are angry, unreasonable, fundamentalist Christians. Atheist #1 you seem to fancy yourself a younger Christopher Hitchens, but I think your more like a younger Fred Phelps.

 

Me:  you seem to treat atheist the same way

 

Atheist #1:  Christian #1, should you go abuse your children by telling them some biblical parable before bed? Surely you have a sermon or something to work on? No Me, I just don’t like pussies like you who feel the need to jump in and defend the hopeless religious nut. It’s so funny to me.

 

Atheist #1:  And I find it so amusing also that as soon as Me comes in, it’s now an attack on Atheist #1  instead of the discussion that was at hand. I’d don’t blame ya Christian #1, you didn’t do such a good job defending your pathetic faith.

 

Christian #1:  You see Alan, when you say things like “Go abuse your children” all I hear is “God hates Fags” Different belief system, same ideology.

 

Me: 

wow…you really live in quite the hateful little world. must be a lonely existence. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

 

all I asked was for the discussion to maintain some sense of civility. it’s obvious now that you are completely incapable …of that. Adios muchacho!

 

Atheist #1:  I’m not concerned with what you hear Christian #1.

 

Atheist #1:  Goodbye fuckstick!

 

Christian #1:  ‎…and I feel I responded to all of your questions, and am happy to answer any more that you have.

Atheist #1:  You don’t have any answers. All you have is “that doesn’t matter to me.” You’re a delusional bigot, and someone I am happy I don’t know in person.

 

Christian #1:  I am going to go look in my Bible to see what it teaches about “fucksticks”

 

Atheist #1:  It’s a term I developed myself. I am quite proud of it.

 

Christian #1:  I actually would like to meet you in person. I feel like a couple of beers could smooth out the rough edges on this conversations.

 

Christian #1:  I sense a debate on the etymology of “fuckstick” emerging. En garde, pagan!

 

Atheist #1:  You really think I would want to have beers with a Pastor? No thanks. I’d rather such the pus out of an open wound.

 

Atheist #1:  I’m no pagan. They worship nature and are basically pantheists. Not quite as delusional as you, but similar.

 

Atheist #1:  Anyway, it’s been fun, a goodnight to you, I really have to eat.

 

Christian #1:  OK, take care. If you like we can pick it up later. Maybe through email. I hate to litter someone’s wall like this.

11.24.2010 – Hey! Us Atheists Get to be Thankful Too, Ya Know?

We are, once again, coming up on the holiday season. The first of these holidays is one of my favorites, Thanksgiving! I mean, what’s not to like? TONS of great food, family gatherings, and football. Not too shabby of a day if you ask me.

Obviously, though, there’s a more meaningful reason for recognizing this holiday. It’s an opportunity to give thanks. As an atheist, I’ve found the comments of some believers in the past few years to be a bit on the insulting side. The one that stands out the most is this gem “The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank”. The mother of one of my friends posted this as her Facebook status last year right before thanksgiving. I thought for a while before commenting on this. I was going to just let it go, like I do most everything else, but I felt compelled to respond and did so with this “There are lots of people I can thank” (fairly low-key and non-offensive if you ask me). Not too long after that, my comment was deleted (I mean after all…it WAS an awfully heinous response obviously), and then I was blocked. It’s a shame that we can’t ‘all just get along’, but the reality is that in her view there isn’t necessarily a problem what an atheist has to say, it’s that atheists exist at all.

My problem isn’t with this persons personal view, but that I believe that is the view of a lot of believers when it comes to atheism and this holiday in particular. The reality is, religious folks do not hold a monopoly on Thanksgiving and I have just as much right to celebrate this day as they do. In particular, because as I said, I DO have a lot to be thankful for. And I can be thankful directly to those other human beings rather than directing thanks to an intermediary god. Obviously the implication is that god is the ONLY entity that people can give thanks to. Maybe if people were more OPENLY grateful to the people around them directly, a lot of this petty squabbling would go away. The reality is that god is NOT a prerequisite for gratuity.

I’ve gone into my lists of things I’m thankful for many times before, but briefly here’s a few. I’m thankful for a loving family who supports me unconditionally. I’m thankful to be among the minority of atheists who haven’t been disowned or alienated by their families for going public with my unbelief. I’m thankful that throughout these incredibly tough economics times, I’ve been able to maintain employment and provide a comfortable life for my family. So for that, I’m thankful to my employer. I’m thankful to my wife for her constant love and support. I’m thankful to my daughter for being the amazing, funny, beautiful kid that she is. I’m thankful to the free-thinking, atheist, and agnostic community for welcoming me in and letting me know that I’m not alone out here in my beliefs (or lack thereof as the case may be). I’m thankful to our government and forefathers for the privilege and right of free speech, so I can speak my mind like this without fear of punishment or repercussion. I’m thankful to science and scientists for all the amazing things that they’ve done to make our world a more comfortable, exciting, amazing place.

I think you get the point.

Happy Thanksgiving! 🙂