The Lack of an Answer

One of the most commonly and openly committed logical fallacies that Christian apologists love to engage in is the use of mystery or the unexplained to propose that God is the best or only explanation that makes any sense. Often times they will steep a subject in it's own complexity and play up the intricate inter-workings or causes and effects that would have had to all come together to make this thing happen... so there must be some form of God, some agency, some purpose to it all.

This tendency to read agency into things is one of the foundations of superstition and therefore serves as a psychological crux propping up all of religion. The mysteries that apologists often exploit are those that human beings most desperately want answered. Where did we come from? What is the origin of the Universe? What is the meaning of our lives? Are we just here or do we have a higher purpose? And, if it is all by natural processes, how can that be so?

That last bit of question begging, asking HOW all this could happen by natural processes, is often the most plaintive of the questions, pulling at the hearts of everyone. Everyone wants to believe they were special and no one seems willing to accept the idea that natural processes can be responsible for everything.

Yet enduring mysteries, even ones that seem insoluble and without resolution, are not a call to invent something spooky or, even worse, to cower beneath the shadow of something spooky that ancient people invented thousands and thousands of years ago. It is utterly human to want to fill in those mysteries and even to invoke agency to do so but it is also ignorant and it is even more ignorant to merely choose whatever supernatural agent happens to have been handed to us by our parents or the society around us.

The fact that children most typically have the religion of their parents and that religious denominations are cut almost as hard as political and geographical borders is a telling one indeed. It says that many people share the psychological need or desire for a creator or some sort of superstition but it also shows how misguided they are to put their faith in the cults of the past.

And this brings in another fallacy, the idea that these ancient schools of superstition (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) are somehow MORE likely to be true because they endured thousands of years. Of course they've changed and evolved a great deal in that time and the beliefs of believers are not only vastly different today than they were five hundred or even a hundred years ago but there are so many varieties of belief even within those religions. Sects diverging like a thousand splinters from a bolt of lightning all with varying beliefs but all with the certainty that they understand the answer to the mystery better than the others.

We all understand, at least those of us outside the cult do, that something like Scientology is a load of shit, absolutely devoid of facts at its very core - an exploitative cult with bizarre ideas about ancient galactic empires and brainwashed alien spirits. But in the same breath people will praise the unseen hand of the Jewish God - a warlike plague-bringer who, sometime in the early 1st century, dispatched a constituent part of himself into the womb of a teenage virgin so that this incarnated divine child could set up a new more merciful covenant with humanity and then, through a blood-magic ritual of atonement where he dies and returns to life, save at least some of us from the wrath we all deserved because two ancient people in a garden somewhere took bad dietary advice from a talking snake. For some reason we can all tell Scientology is bullshit but as a society we give something as old and big as Christianity a free pass to be as full of magical mumbo-jumbo as is possibly imaginable.

Feel free to use this quote:

So when someone appeals to mystery in a talk about apologetics, when they appeal to the vastness of the Cosmos, when they start talking about the "improbability" of it all coming together just so and then they run and hide beneath some Middle Eastern deity who murders children, supports slavery and brings down horrid plagues on the heads of any who displease him their reasoning is flawed. They have forgotten the very mystery they were just praising and instead invested in some horseshit humanity made up to fill in the gaps. This is why it's called a God of the Gaps argument.

This came up earlier this year when I was discussing internet celebrity Joshua Feuerstein and his absurd 100,000 dollar challenge to disprove God, the good pastor Josh makes a great appeal to mystery where he draws a circle and then puts a dot at the center. Our knowledge of the Universe is the dot and the circle, more or less, is the rest of what's OUT THERE, all of the UNKNOWN Cosmic goings on. The problem is that Josh's answer to this isn't to be inclusive. He's not asking people to become New Age gurus who accept and cannibalize different parts of all religions to build one big UBER religion, he wants you to abandon the idea of the mystery of the Cosmos immediately after you've agreed to it and agree to his bullshit theology. He only wants you to acknowledge that HIS God and only his God might be out there and, because you can't disprove it, that you're a moron for disbelieving as strongly as you do.

The problem isn't that Josh's God is impossible or is definitely not out there, it's that Josh's God is no more likely to be out there than any of the other shit human beings have believed in since the dawn of superstition. Josh isn't actually open to the vastly weird Cosmic intelligences, gods or not, that might be out there. He isn't interested in talking about Bleebblarp from the Irulian Galaxy Cluster who is an almost omnipotent psychic being that can bend time and space however he sees fit. Josh doesn't want to find out and isn't open to finding out that a group of super-intelligent interdimensional bunny rabbits were contracted by an even smarter more intelligent being called Marvin the Space Penguin to build our Universe.

Apologists making these arguments aren't open to the mystery actually being answered, they want to shove their already existing beliefs into the gap they've just opened. This is part of the proof that apologetics is just verbal masturbation, or a verbal circle-jerk. Christians making other Christians feel reassured that they aren't wrong by fallaciously appealing to mystery or complexity and making sure their God sorta kinda could maybe work as an explanation if you squint real hard, clap your hands and say "I do believe in fairies".

Part of being open-minded is admitting that you could be wrong. I openly do this, I openly admit Gods could be out there. All kinds of weird shit could be out there and I want to know if it is but faith, superstition, they're a hindrance not a help, they're far more likely to close a mind than open it. The lack of an answer is not proof that your answer is the only one and sticking an even bigger mystery into an existing one does not help.

Author's Note:

Okay so this was a very off the cuff and spontaneous post but Hubpages (where I do most of my writing) has redesigned their site to look like shit, removed feedback features that are fundamental to the site and has basically shit the bed 100%. Chances are you (who am I addressing this to? No one reads this shit) will be seeing more posts here and over on my Bible study blog: fuckthebible,wordpress.com

Extreme Claims and Faith

Amongst people of faith that I've dealt with in my life I've noticed a disturbing trend. Even more disturbing is that this trend often extends to people who cannot be labeled as fundamentalists. Even intelligent people who know an awful lot about the world can be conned. We're not immune to gullibility, even those of us who are skeptical about a great many subjects. There have been great minds and vast intellects throughout history who fell prey to pseudoscience and superstition. The best example I can give is that of Isaac Newton. It isn't Newton's theism that I necessarily want to disagree with her but his belief in Alchemy. That's right, Newton, one of the most brilliant minds in history, believed in something as hokey as Alchemy. I've had numerous theists bring up Isaac Newton because Newton was a theistic scientist and they want to suggest that because an intelligent person believe in god that gives god claims some validity it didn't have. This idea is crushed when I bring up that Newton believed in Alchemy as well.

History is filled with this story time and time again and it truly shows the pervasive desire our species has to believe in the supernatural, or merely to believe. We want to believe but through trial and error and mastery of language we've learned not to accept most claims on faith. Oh sure I'll accept the idea that I exist and you exist, we must have some fundamental assumptions in order to get anywhere at all. I'll also accept basic information that is non-extraordinary, like if you tell me you shower daily or had a sandwich for lunch. The more mundane the information the more likely we are to believe it which is why lying is so effective.

So what drives otherwise rational people to believe the wildly unfounded claims of religion or of psychics and mediums and pseudoscientists? What causes them to abandon reason in favor of faith and why do they think this is ever acceptable?

(infamous photos of fairies which managed to convince famous author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Despite having dreamed up the always logic bound Sherlock Holmes Doyle was a spiritualist and believed these photos were genuine).

The More Extreme the Claim the MORE Skeptical we should be

When I discuss someone’s religious beliefs with them I sometimes get a statement that God must believed on Faith. That we ought to just “let go” and “believe” in God. It is as though the God concept, for whatever reason, receives a free pass. This bizarre “Get out of Criticism Free” card is played at different times but is used almost universally by religion. It is as if the people who use this KNOW full well that the claims of religion are not compelling enough to stand up to reason or scrutiny. Like many such beliefs these rely on emotional states. Someone having a really bad week or a really bad life might be excited to hear that Jesus loves them. A person wracked with guilt may hear that Jesus loves them regardless of their misdeeds and leap at the chance to be “washed in the blood”. I went through a great deal of just such emotional vulnerability growing up and each time I felt miserable religion was there to give me a little comfort. The false emotional high was sometimes enough to stave off the doubts, the guilt and the confusion that my beliefs had left me with.

In truth the more extreme and extraordinary a claim the MORE we should be skeptical of it. Claims involving the supernatural, magic, the occult, or non-mainstream “scientific” conclusions are worthy of scrutiny. There is a reason why mainstream science is mainstream, it’s been proven. There’s a reason pseudoscientists are ostracized or ignored by the actual scientific community and it has nothing to do with conspiracies of silence.

If you claim to talk to the dead, perform miracles or be in contact with God himself than you should be under MORE scrutiny and not less. I’ve often seen followers of various gurus and personalities give the person a pass when scrutiny is made. A classic example is David Icke. I have been known to criticize the claims made by Icke and his followers in regards to Reptilian shapeshifters and I often get a statement that reads something like:

“Say what you want about the Reptilians BUT...”

or

“Icke may not be right about everything BUT...”

This sort of defense works if you’re defending, let’s say, a politician who has made some good decisions and some bad ones. It does not work when someone is making wildly unfounded speculative claims about the supernatural, or, in Icke’s case, the completely batshit crazy.




(Was Jesus a Reptilian? If not than why is there is a lizard called the Jesus Christ lizard that can perform a miracle by walking on water?)



Strength in Numbers Fallacy

Another thing I see from theists again and again is this idea that they don’t have to justify their god belief or back up their claims that god(s) exist because a great deal of other people believe in it too. This is also known as an Appeal to People or Argumentum ad Populum. I find it truly amusing that Christians attempt to cling to their numbers as a support when they make up only one third of the world’s population. The majority of people on this planet are non-Christians, the majority are also non-Muslims, non-Jews and non-Hindus. There is no religious group that has more than two billion members and thus none form a majority.

Even if the majority existed that doesn’t bolster the fallacy, it only makes it worse. The prevalence of idea amongst the people is not contingent upon how correct the idea is. It was once widely believed that demons cause illness and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Both of these ideas are patently absurd by our standards today yet they would have passed for common knowledge at one time.

While theists in general do have a majority in the world they differ vastly in their opinions on god(s). Even two Christian theists will disagree on some doctrinal details or about their deity. The number of people who believe something does not lend it credibility and the fact that many people believe in the same God as you does not set your God free of the scrutiny of logic and skepticism.

One wouldn’t want to argue that because the majority of Nazis supported Hitler that Hitler was a good leader would they? (I’m not sure what the German citizens thought of Hitler, I’m just making a point).

Mediums, Prophecy and Astrology

In a similar vein with David Icke there is a wave of New Age sweeping the nation. In fact such beliefs are not new and spiritualism was fairly common as far back as the 1800s. The occult has always interested me mainly because I was never tempted to believe in it. Even back when I was a Bible believing Christian the occult seemed utterly preposterous. Even as my Father and other Fundamentalists warned me that Astrology and the occult could lead me astray I was already dismissing the claims of psychics and new agers. It was only later that I found my skepticism was well worth it.

Mediums are cons. Many of you may be aware how Cold Reading works and how masterfully some practitioners do it as they jump from person to person in a crowd. The crowd wants to believe already or else they wouldn’t be there. That isn’t to say skeptics cannot fall for the con but that the process works best with emotionally vulnerable and gullible people. If you WANT to be convinced chances are you will be as cold reading turns zero information into seemingly detailed contact with the dead in moments all with simple linguistic tricks and vague leading questions.



Vagueness, I would argue, is the key to all three of these things. Astrology and Prophecy thrive on being exceedingly vague. I noticed this first as a Christian when I would read so-called prophecies in the Bible and try to line the up to current events or ancient events and found it was easy to stretch the vague verses to fit almost anything. Astrology works in a far more general way, it is written to conform to the lives of thousands of readers. You are given the general dull dim prediction and than you attach meaning to it just like the person in the crowd attaches meaning to whatever comes out of the Medium.



When prophecies are too specific they set themselves up for failure.

False Comfort?

One of the defenses I have heard both for belief in God and belief in psychics, spiritualists and Astrology is the idea that it gives people hope, joy or comfort.

I agree. It gives people comfort in the same way that believing in Santa Claus made Christmas more fun as a kid. Taking a comfortable fantasy away from a child is one thing but taking a comfortable fantasy away from an adult is a worthy cause indeed. At some point you should be able to grow up and learn that Santa isn’t real and neither is the Easter Bunny. At some point the fairy tales and magic stop and you have to fly back from Neverland and leave the lost boys behind.

The false comfort of God beliefs are not worth all of the negative side-effects. Setting aside the millions who have died in the name of various god(s) these beliefs often hold back our current social progress. How many six year old Santa believers do you see protesting gay marriage? Yet we see grown men and women denying their fellow citizens equal rights by the mandate of an invisible magical being.

Of course you don’t see many Mediums holding back social progress either... they’re too busy conning grieving widows out of their money and filling people’s heads with false hope of an afterlife that may never come. It may not be as bad as discrimination but it is unethical. I’m talking here of those Mediums who know they are being dishonest, not those who are just as self-deluded as their customers.

Don’t Buy the Snake Oil



My conclusion - The greater your desire to believe a claim the more you should scrutinize it. I’d like to believe in a god of some sort and even in an afterlife (after all who really wants to die?) but that desire is a reason to become MORE skeptical of those selling a glimpse at God or a snippet of information from beyond the grave. Don’t be fooled and whatever you do DON’T BUY THE SNAKE OIL!

Ancient Astronaut "Theory"

During my twenty-three years of life I've come across numerous theories and ideas regarding the mysterious origins of man. The question of our origin is one that has fascinated and intrigued likely from the beginning of spoken language and certainly since the advent of written language. There are many stories and ideas, both old and new about how the human race became what it is today. It should come as no surprise that many are set in their ways about such ideas and reject outright the attempts of science to explain our origins via Evolution. Some want to claim that God, using divine power alone, summoned life into existence. Others claim that Evolution IS true but that God created mankind from a lesser form of ape. Today we'll be talking about a similar idea, ancient astronaut theory or AAT for short.

Ancient Astronaut theory is actually not a scientific theory but is a set of pseudoscientific beliefs about the biological and societal evolution of early man. After I left Christianity and Creationism behind this sort of pseudoscience was the first thing I gravitated to because, as we will see, it has its own brand of apologetics and requires faith on the part of the believer. Many ancient astronaut theorists also, like many Creationists, claim that there is a conspiracy of scientists trying to keep the truth from getting out.

The primary idea here is that extraterrestrial beings with superior technology landed on Earth in the distant past and hopped from civilization to civilization passing down knowledge to the ancient peoples of the world. Apparently everyone from the Aztecs to the Egyptians were contacted by these alien beings that descended which were mistaken as being gods.

Myths and Gods

This is the first idea that I take issue with, the idea that ancient myths about gods are actually recording alien encounters. In order to come to this conclusion one needs to rob a myth of all its context first. For instance many AAT proponents have mentioned the Biblical verse about God leading the Israelites as a pillar of fire. This pillar of fire sounds suspiciously like a UFO. In order to assume that this verse is talking about aliens you must ignore the context of the story. In particular I point to the burning bush as a counter. While it is possible to stretch a pillar of fire into a UFO it is hardly the same thing to stretch a burning bush into having ANYTHING to do with aliens, especially when the voice of God comes from the bush to talk to a guy who's been wandering in the desert looking for a lost sheep. So in most of these myths one has to ignore the rest of the story and ignore historical context not to mention having to apply MODERN UFO/Alien lore to ancient accounts.

I'm constantly reminded by ancient astronaut proponents of the Annunaki, a group of Sumerian deities, whose name supposedly translates as "those who came down from heaven" as if this means anything. This is meant to add credence to the story but I'm not sure exactly how it does. Imagine we're a thousand years into the future and I stumble upon a super-man comic book that says he arrived from Krypton from the sky... exactly how does this imply that super-man is real? Even if these myths literally stated that beings from other planets came down and showed them how to plant crops it wouldn't be conclusive evidence although admittedly it would be more impressive than the stretched interpretations of myth often presented by AAT proponents.

I've also been told by AAT proponents that the best evidence for their hypothesis is the fact that almost all gods supposedly come from the sky the way the Annunaki did. This is, of course, entirely false. There were gods for nearly everything. Volcano gods, wind gods, gods of the underworld, etc. If one is to look at it logically it doesn't seem that the domain of the gods is always the sky and they aren't always descending or ascending. It is true that the heavens are a common place for the gods to live but given the majesty and beauty of the sky and the lack of understand the ancients had for how weather works and what the son, moon and stars even are it is entirely understandable that many gods would originate or live in the heavens.

Monumental Mystery

Other supposed evidence for alien visitation comes in the form of massive monuments such as Stonehenge, the Pyramids and Machu Picchu. For some reason ancient astronaut theorists are unable to believe that human beings built these structures. While certainly there are many incredible feats of ancient engineering there is no archeological evidence that anyone BUT humans built these wonders of the ancient world. In fact there is ample evidence that human beings did in fact build them. It is true that for some of the monuments often touted the method of construction remains unknown however this is no reason to begin wild speculation. In this cast ancient astronaut proponents remind me of ancient storytellers attributing natural monuments to larger than life monsters. Case in point the Giant's Causeway:



The Giant's Causeway is a perfectly natural formation but has the appearance of design (Creationists should know that terminology) and was attributed to, well, a Giant. This is also akin to what is known as a God of the Gaps fallacy only in this case its an alien in the gaps. AAT proponents realize its still a mystery how many of these monuments were built and they don't think humans were able to build these structures by themselves and so alien intervention is a better explanation. They fill the gap with their knowledge with aliens without first having any evidence these aliens even exist.



To be entirely honest with you it bothers me that ancient astronaut theorists refuse to give credit to our ancestors for the feats the accomplished and the myths they compiled. There is a lack of respect for cultural context and the truth here that disturbs me greatly. This can be seen when they bring up something like the Baghdad battery, the Nazca lines, the pyramids or the Antikythera mechanism as proof of aliens. These are not proof of aliens they are evidence that human beings are a resourceful and creative species.

UFOS in ART?

Here is another subject that I ended up changing my mind on. Early on in my research into the idea I found ancient astronaut theory compelling primarily because of the artwork that supposedly depicts UFOs. Many paintings and works of art contain objects in the sky that can be interpreted to look like UFOs. There are numerous rebuttals of this but I think the strongest rebuttal is that actual scholars of art are not the ones claiming aliens. For anyone interested here is an excellent video debunking of some commonly held “UFOs” in artwork.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDcMYpuETw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzi6S3_wf58



So as you can see the idea that these are UFOs is essentially bunk but even if it wasn’t how exactly would the presence of UFOs immediately prove the presence of extraterrestrials. Afterall UFOs are merely unidentified flying objects and as such they cannot be identified otherwise they wouldn’t even be UFOs. So even if the ancients did see some weird things in the sky that they couldn’t readily explain does that mean that they were seeing aliens? Why presume such a thing without first having evidence? Furthermore why assume that what people see today when they see a UFO has any correlation with UFOs of the past. A flaming chariot carrying Elijah into heaven doesn’t sound anything like a shiny metallic craft moving stealthily across the night sky and Elijah hopping into the fiery chariot doesn’t sound at all like being taken from your home and floated out the window during an alien abduction. Yet that Biblical story is often touted as an ancient alien abduction.

Conclusions and Similarities with God Belief

There has never been a shred of conclusive evidence that alien beings have interfered with life on Earth either by altering us biologically or affecting our development of civilization. There is also the fact that many of the civilizations supposedly influenced by aliens were separated by centuries and had vastly different methods of doing things and vastly different myths. The Aztecs, for instance, built pyramids and are sometimes lumped in with civilizations that had alien visitors yet their empire was separated by THOUSANDS of years from the Egyptian civilization that built their pyramids. How long have the aliens been here and why have they left no evidence behind at all? Why didn’t they give ancient man real technology, why only teach us what we were capable to know for ourselves (agriculture, building techniques, etc).

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Because the evidence for AAT is lacking so heavily one is required to have faith in order to believe it. Much the same way that Creationists have faith those that believe in alien intervention must ignore scientific consensus and evidence that refutes their ideas while co-opting actual science and actual knowledge to make their claims. Blending modern UFO lore with ancient texts may be a recipe for interesting fiction but it shouldn’t be presented as producing facts. Once again, say it with me:

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Responsibility for Sin

Sometimes when I am in a discussion with a Christian theist they decide to tell me why it is they think I'm an atheist. You see to some reason is meaningless, faith is everything, so no one could ever have a REASON to reject religion or disbelieve in their particular sky-man. Faith is meant to trump reason, in fact it says so in the Bible.

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. " - 2nd Corinthians 10:5-6

So Christians are meant to take captive their thoughts, and demolish any attempt at argument or reasoning with, apparently, blind obedience. Anyway, back to the main point, I've had Christians tell me that I became an atheist to shirk my responsibility to God. The reason I've rejected theistic claims, they tell me, is because I don't want to be held accountable for my actions. Apparently I want to sin so badly that I pretend God doesn't exist so that I can sin behind his back but, according to them, I still believe in this God and indeed "know" he exists. This is a sort of defense mechanism for Christians because they don't want to believe that someone could actually leave the faith and stop believing in God. After all if someone is vulnerable to losing their faith than so are THEY and any amount of doubt in their beliefs is unacceptable. Remember that they have to take every thought captive, if a stray thought or doubt exists it must be "demolished".



I feel that there is massive hypocrisy in these sorts of claims because the entire Christian religion is actually based around losing responsibility for your sins. If I actually wanted to shirk responsibility for my actions I would REMAIN A CHRISTIAN AT ALL COSTS. After all Christians believe that all one needs to do to have ANY deed or sin forgiven (save blaspheming the Holy Spirit) is ask Jesus for forgiveness. The religion is based on Christ, an innocent man, DYING FOR YOUR SINS. Jesus takes your sin from you and many denominations teach that you leave your sins and burdens and pick up the "Cross". A Christian can commit a murder and all they need do for forgiveness is ask Jesus, they don't believe that any actual consequences or judgment from God are in order, once Jesus is accepted and forgiveness is asked for you get a clean slate.

As an atheist, I, on the other hand, understand that I am responsible for my actions in the here and now within society. I know that if I act like a douche chances are people won't like me and that if I do something seriously wrong (like theft, murder, etc) I will go to prison for it. I know that I will be punished here and now in this life for my misdeeds. Now it is important to note that not the entire Christian theology supports irresponsibility for sins, in fact Jesus himself TEACHES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN ACTIONS. This sort of contradiction should be enough to make your brain explode if you're a Christian and its one of the main reasons that, even when I was a Christian myself, I began to question the truthfulness of the Bible.

Jesus's Teachings:

The foremost example of Jesus teaching about responsibility for your sins is the principle of reaping and sowing. If you do bad things than bad things will happen to you, if you sow good into the world you will reap good back. This makes you responsible for your actions because if you do something bad you will face consequences here and now, not in some far off afterlife. This idea has been compared to Karma in Eastern Philosophy although the two are not entirely alike. Here's another verse where Jesus talks about paying attention to your own sins:

" 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5



So Jesus says do not judge and pay attention to your own flaws, not the flaws in people you see around you. Does this sound like a guy who wants to remove the speck from your eye? Or does it sound like he wants YOU to be responsible for yourself? You see this teaching contradicts what Christianity later became and the ideas that became prevalent within it. How on Earth can I be responsible for my sin AND have it instantly forgiven and avoid punishment? My own hypothesis is that the entire idea of Jesus dying FOR YOUR SINS is a fabrication although it is difficult to tell what is fact and what is fiction in the Jesus story.

The Requirement of Faith:

One of the more insulting aspects of Christianity is the requirement that we believe on Faith alone. Numerous times in the New Testament we are told that salvation is by faith (and through "Grace"). We must "believe" in Jesus. Rather than actually earning Salvation by being a good person Christianity establishes the idea that we're all worthless lousy sinners and that everyone, from Hitler to Gandhi, has to believe in Jesus on Faith alone to be forgiven. Which one do you have a better chance of seeing in Heaven in the Bible is true? If you answered this guy you'd be right:



The requirement of faith is another part of Christian theology that helps remove responsibility for ones own sin. As long as you show some remorse and ask for forgiveness and BELIEVE you will be cleansed of sin, no punishment required. Some Christians still do believe that God punishes you for sinning, perhaps he makes your wife leave you or lets your car break down, any bad circumstances that crop up are often chalked up to God. Even if you're living your life right and have all the faith in the world when bad stuff comes along it can often be claimed that God is "testing you". Remember Job? Apparently God can mess with you even if you've done nothing wrong... God has a habit of blaming those who are not to blame. Adam and Eve in the Garden, the First Born of Egypt killed for the sins of the Pharaoh and now Jesus tortured brutally despite being entirely innocent. That's right, that's how great of a Father God is, he had his own son brutally murdered rather than punishing those who were actually sinning.




Conclusions:

I'm still not entirely sure why some Christians won't accept the idea that I actually left their religion behind but it really grinds my gears when they claim I'm trying to avoid responsibility for my actions. I'm already responsible for my actions and so are you, we're responsible to each other and society at large, no magic man in the sky required.

Demoralization

To My Fellow Atheists and Agnostics

Have you ever had a conversation with a theist that was so intellectually frustrating it made you feel terrible? So bad that you actually felt physically ill and mentally demoralized? Have you spent countless hours with Christian friends and family members trying to crack their unyielding beliefs with simple sound logic only to be blocked by a closed-mind? Sometimes it can feel futile and pointless to even speak to those people. It takes an emotional toll whether those discussions take place in purpose or on the internet and even if you're trying to remove emotion it can be near impossible because of the closed-mindedness of some theists. I've felt that way, I feel that way a lot. Tonight I almost gave up because of a discussion (one of many) with my Father in which I tried to convince him that the Bible was not the Word of God. We spent some three-four hours discussing it but he didn't listen to a word I said and kept retreating back to the Bible. It was demoralizing and it made me want to stop blogging about and discussing religion with anyone, especially fundamentalists but I remembered that I am not alone. I remembered that unlike the theists who believe God is with them there are actual people who have my back - my fellow atheists and agnostics. Even those I don't know and have never spoken to have helped me innumerable times giving me access to logical arguments and well reasoned positions with which to refute blind faith.

The thing is that I used to be a Fundamentalist, at least I was raised as one. Perhaps I never bought into it all as hardcore as some have but I certainly believed the Bible was the Word of God (at least until I read it in its entirety). I used to be a Creationist as well. So while we all may get frustrated and feel demoralized and alone I want you to remember that the message does get through to some. Healthy skepticism and reason can seep in to even the most religious of minds. There are many other atheists who were believers and we cannot allow ourselves to be demoralized and sent back to being an unheard minority plagued by Dark Age rumors about our morality. It is bad enough as it is now but we cannot allow it to get worse for us when we are so far from equal. Tell people you're an atheist and some will look at you funny and treat you differently. That's not the way it should be but that is the way it is and it can only get worse if we do not speak up and be heard.

We must also be careful about being dogmatic or closed-minded ourselves. We must agree that if someone were to prove God with solid evidence we would believe it. Even if we are open-minded Christians and other theists will still say we are blind to the truth, that is fine as long as we do not live up to the lies they tell about us.

So I won't stop blogging about religion and fundamentalist Christianity and Creationism. I won't stop discussing it. I won't be silenced merely because of closed-minded individuals and will continue to find those few who are open to being reasoned with. You can't win all your "battles". Hopefully those few will find my blog or my hubpages hubs or my other discussions online and begin to question what they've been taught the way I did. We cannot allow ignorance and belief without evidence to get a free pass. They surely can co-exist alongside atheism but there will always be our counter-arguments. Right now the voice of faith is far louder than our own but they cannot drown out reason forever, they can, however, silence us and demoralize us if we allow it. Take it from me, a walking example that those beliefs can be broken - Don't give up! Know that there are others like you out there.


Many atheists out there know frustration

Salvation - By Works or Faith?

Salvation - By Works or Faith

Many people, both theist and non-theist, know that the Bible contradicts itself but most would assume that the majority of these contradictions are present in the Old Testament. Few are as familiar with the contradictions of the New Testament. One in particular is very pressing as it could decide the after-life of a believer. That is the issue of whether Salvation is by following the Jewish law or good deeds or by the simple act of believing in Jesus. Forgiveness, according to most Christians is a freely offered gift and all one must do is believe on the name of Jesus to be saved from Hell forevermore. But this idea raises a problem... if Salvation is by faith alone what point is there to following things like the Golden Rule? Why turn the other cheek if that has no bearing on one's eternal destination?

The key verse of scripture to look at is one that is considered a cornerstone of modern Christianity. I am speaking, of course, of John 3:16. Paraphrased it says that God sent his son and whoever believes in him shall never die, but will have eternal life. The scripture makes no mention of good deeds and promises immortality. One must wonder if the immortality offered is actually a spiritual one, the verse makes no clarification on whether Jesus was offering physical immortality or just a seat in the after-life. The verse suggests that faith alone is all that is needed but other verses contradict this.

Many verses, however, support this idea. Most of them come from the Apostle Paul. For those that don't know his story the Apostle Paul, formerly Saul, was a religious Jew known for his persecution of the new Christian sects that were cropping up in the aftermath of Jesus’ death. (as a quick note, if Jesus actually had been resurrected one would assume that Christianity would go forward UNITED, since he supposedly appeared before them after his death and gave the great commission - perhaps they were just unsure of taking the advice of a zombie). The Apostle Paul started out with a hatred of Christian. While on the way to the ancient city of Damascus Paul has a blinding vision in which a being he cannot see assumes Jesus’ identity and converts him. Paul never sees Jesus, so for all we know this being was Satan (or some other fictional character), the desert heat, or a complete fabrication.

Paul was known to write pro-faith and against the idea that a Christian NEEDED to behave a certain way in order to be saved. In Romans 3:20 Paul writes:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

So Paul doesn't find the old law entirely useless but he apparently doesn't think it will do much good in the Salvation or righteousness departments. A few verses later he repeats the same sentiment in verse 28 of the same chapter claiming that a man is justified by faith without following the Law. Of all the verses in Paul's writing Romans 10:9 is probably the most often one brought up by those Christians who are on his side of this argument.

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."




That settles it apparently, all it takes is the confession that Jesus is Lord. Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is a one way ticket to Heaven, a veritable Get out of Hell Free Card (why there needs to be a hell to begin with and why that is the default after-life for all humans is beyond me). Some other verses you can look at for similar sentiments: Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9

But the thing is those verses don't settle anything. Other scriptures that litter the New Testament paint a vastly different picture of Salvation, one that requires both faith and deeds. In fact the idea that God judges by deeds began in the Old Testament. Many believed that God smote the wicked and upheld the righteous. When a man was obedient to God he would see his life blessed but if a man turned his back on the law of God and sinned he would be punished. This didn't hold true in all cases, after all there was that whole Job debacle, but for the most part this was the sentiment held in the time of Jesus.

One such verse comes straight from the Savior's mouth in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 16 verse 27:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

So it seems that Jesus’ words should trump Paul's (despite the fact that Paul's work is dated to before the Gospels, but that's another story entirely) seeing as he is the Savior. So what is the deal here? Why is the Bible once again fighting it out with itself? This is exactly what should be expected when you have a book that is actually a composite text of numerous authors and sources. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God one would expect those under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to come to similar ideas and to express those ideas in simple non-contradictory language. So what do we have here? Well if you believe the fundamentalists and accept this as the Word of God what we have is a massive failure to communicate coherently by Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Ghost. But if you're open minded enough to see the Bible for what it is you'll understand that the Bible was written by men about another man who, though being a brilliant philosopher, was every bit as human as they were and died leaving a legacy of myth and teachings that would grow into a story of the supernatural. The embellishments are clear and the fact that his followers are left arguing in his absence is a hint that nothing supernatural is afoot.

Later on, in Matthew 19, Jesus says that in order to enter into life we should keep the commandments.

In Matthew 25 Jesus again tells a story that points to the author's emphasis on deeds over simple faith. In the story Jesus judges the dead by asking them if they were kind to the hungry, to the lonely, etc. If they were not friends to their "neighbors" than they would be sent away from Jesus for eternity.




James says that faith without works is dead, once again in opposition to Paul's notion of faith trumping works every time. Likewise he even espouses a different version of Abraham's story.

Both he and Paul use Abraham as an allegory to prove their point. James claims that Abraham's actions and deeds prove his loyalty to God and is therefore righteousness (James 2:21-25). Paul, however, claims that it was Abraham's unwavering faith in God's promise that was his righteousness. (Romans 4:13).

And then, last but not least, there is Revelation 21:8 in which, according to deed AND belief, people are sentenced to burn in the Lake of Fire. Those that believe in the wrong God or have no belief at all are sent to Hell but so are MANY who commit deeds such as lying, murdering, and being a magician.

So the New Testament is home to a battle royale of sorts. Two ideologies are battling it out and God is strangely silent on the topic regardless of how much faith they put in him to show them the way... Odd how that works isn't it? So I guess today we learned that the Bible disagrees with itself in the New Testament easily as often as it did in the Old and is not the coherent inerrant narrative fundamentalists would like you to believe it is. Thanks to this error literally BILLIONS of souls are on the line, if Christianity were true.

I have a few topics currently in the running for the next post:

- Clearing up misconceptions about atheism

- The Rapture

and

- Bear Attack in the Bible (the story of Elisha and the bears)

I probably won't be posting a new post for at least a week so that gives you (and by you I mean my one follower lol) time to decide which topic to do next.