Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Christians say the darndest things

This is something I have to preserve for posterity.  A Christian told me this:

“Trying to cast a disagreement as a lie is symptomatic of primitive thinking. Look, there is no consensus among atheists that atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god. If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that pedophilia is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?”

So, my friends, do you agree atheism is a lack of belief in a god and only that?   have you seen any other definition for atheism offered by an atheist?

It’s so cute to see Christians have to try to cast aspersions so utterly ineptly.

Addendum (10/14/19): 

It’s even better to watch a conservative Christian intentionally lie when it comes to my comments and wondering just so “innocently” why I’m not answering posts: “Oh, and I noticed that many others have replied to you. Is there a reason you are ignoring them? Don’t you think that is kind of rude?” .  Well, he’s not allowing them out of moderation and his blog so helpfully show this:

The snipping tool is just so handy: michaels failure

it’s rather like Christians trying hiding fossils.  One might wonder if they’ve read their bible at all since lying isn’t looked upon favorably by their god.

 

Advertisements

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – answering “Answering Atheism’s Questions Part 1: Is God’s Character Abusive?”

Is the Christian god abusive? Well, that depends on which version since each Christian comes up with one they create in their own image.  The author of the blog post I’m addressing does want to claim that his version isn’t an abuser.

Generally, abusive would mean “ using or involving physical violence or emotional cruelty” (all definitions from merriam-webster.com). So, does god use physical violence? Yes, it’s hard to count how many times.  Does it use cruelty: the state of inflicting injury grief or pain? Yes. The bible has many instances of this, allowing Satan to murder Job’s family, killing david’s son for David’s sins, killing children for the actions of heir parents, using young girls as war booty for Israelites and for treasure for its temple, insisting that if a man is a slave and he is freed but his family is not, he has to choose between freedom and them, blinding a man so this god can show off, etc.

Some Christians, like Ed Croteau), try to make a division between Jesus and God (although perhaps not, but it’s hard to get exactly what Christians think about the trinity, and Christians don’t all agree that Jesus is god or that Jesus is not god), but that doesn’t work so well since this “son of god” says that everything his father does and commands is okay by him, and that all of those silly commandments in the OT have to be follows until earth and heaven pass away. They are still around.

I haven’t read Finch, but she seems to be quite happy to get away from the lies of evangelical Christianity, having recognized that Christians make up their own nonsense and then try to convince others that some magical being agrees with them and only them. Her quote ““So often for those raised within evangelical environments, any single moment of perceived failure, any mistake, any step outside the previously established lines can paralyze with life-altering fear, anxiety, shame, and dread, because the trauma of early teaching is essentially playing on a loop within us.” Is quite true since people use fear and ignorance to try to control people and it is especially hard on kids. And when those kids grow up and realize that they were lied to, it’s even harder since they really did trust those who lied to them.

I happily wasn’t an evangelical Christian, I was a Presbyterian, which has its own whole other bag of problems since Christians do get cranky when non-Christians wonder which is the real version, predestination vs free will, Catholic vs protestant, etc. I do know that Finch is a bit confused on her bible knowledge but her version is as good as any other for why this god had bit of a personality break between the OT and NT (depending on the author of each book of course).

Despite what Ed claims, there is no “clear message of Jesus Christ” and that is why a lot of younger folks (I’m in my 50s) realize that there is no reason to believe in Christianity at all. We have the god/Jesus of preachers like Jeffress who ignore their bible as long as they get power, we have Joel Osteen who is sure that prayers are answered like the bible promises and everyone can get rich, we have liberal pastors who are sure that this god doesn’t hate homosexuals or other Christian of varying sects and we have Christians who are sure that this god hate Catholics, or Protestants, or whatever flavor they don’t follow. I grew up watching protestants hate catholics.

They also realize that there is no evidence Jesus existed, or that he was the messiah described in the OT since he doesn’t fulfill those promises at all.

We also have the problem that the verses from Isaiah claimed in Luke weren’t about a messiah at all, but were Isaiah speaking about himself or this god. When such a false statement is so easily found out, there is little reason to believe the Christian who made it. The author of Luke claims that some prophecy is being fulfilled but has no evidence for that at all, but it does make a good story.

When the whole bible is read, one finds that this god is abusive. This god supposedly, per Paul, picks and chooses who can accept it and who cannot, damning those for something they did not do (Romans 9). This is analogous to a father beating his child for an action they did not do and could not do. We also have Jesus reportedly stating that he uses parables to make sure some people can’t accept him. So this belies Ed’s claim that this god wants to “free anyone”.

As to the claim that JC came physically back in 32 CE, Christians don’t agree on this, nor is there any evidence of any of the supposed rather dramatic events around the cruxifiction at any time they do float as the “truth”, the major earthquake, the sky darkening, and the dead rising from their graves and wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem around the Passover. One would think that the Jews would have noticed this and the Romans would have had their hands full.

If we are to believe the bible, this god either intentionally let Satan into the garden or was too stupid to keep it out, away from two humans who knew absolutely nothing at all, including that it was supposedly good to obey this god. Then this god blames the humans for its failure, and casts them out of eden. After supposed thousands of years, this god repeatedly tries to fix its mistake, with a flood (no evidence), with commandments (no evidence of an exodus) and then finally it decides it needs a human sacrificed by torture to make itself happy. It depends on Satan to make this happen since no “betrayal” then no supposed salvation.

We end up with this “Father” in Revelation, where this entity forces humans to work with Satan to accomplish what this god wants to have happen (Revelation 17). Then after this god kills every non-christian on earth, this god intentionally allows Satan to corrupt the Christians that are left.

This is not a loving father, this is a lunatic.

As Ed says “Put what you believe out in the open and it will make you stronger.”  I wonder if he would agree with that now?  I posted a comment on the blog post and we’ll see if it shows up.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – more low hanging creationist fruit

Fruit. See what I did there?  😀

Unsurprisingly, Ray Comfort, the fellow who thinks oranges are evidence for his version of the Christian god, is now trying to glom onto actual science again and insisting paleontology shows his myths are true.

And of course he’s trying to make money from repacking the same old creationist lies. Ray wants to claim this: “Why did the dinosaur disappear? Contemporary scientists have their theories:

  • Was it a massive asteroid?
  • Was it violent volcanic activity?
  • Did the dinosaurs kill each other?
  • Was it simply a matter of survival of the fittest?”

Hmm, just who are these “contemporary scientists” who think the dinos killed each other to the point of extinction or that it was “simply a matter of survival of the fittest”? That would be none. We do have evidence that it was likely a massive asteroid with some activity from massive volcanic areas known as traps.

Ray’s new video “Why did the dinosaurs disappear?” has a lovely trailer with a lot of rather ignorant people having no clue about dinosaurs and then Ray’s minions insisting that there has to be a designer.

That’s it. They tout a new discovery in Wyoming that supposedly agrees with their version of the bible.

Let’s take a look at that discovery.

First, it’s not new. Wyoming is a treasure trove of fossils thanks to where it is on the continent. It has one formation, the Morrison Formation, that has a lot of fossils in it. It’s made up of various beds of different sedimentary rock from conglomerates (big grain size) to siltstones (very small grain size) and limestones (chemical deposition and shells of critters). This indicates that there were different environments that deposited each layer. These layers were deposited within the Jurassic.

What Ray et al try to do is claim that there was their magic flood, and this was the reason dinos died. What they are too willfully ignorant to note is that there were dinos in other times too, the Triassic and Cretaceous. They weren’t the same ones as in the Jurassic.

There’s also the problem that massive floods don’t make layers like the Morrison Formation. Potholer54 does a great experiment to show this, an experiment that any child, or willfully ignorant theist, can do.

But heck, if you are going to invoke magic for one thing, why not insist that magic makes layers too?

What’s actually going on is that there is a thing called Mission Jurassic, where a lot of money and a lot of paleontologists will concentrate on a part of the formation thanks to the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis. Here’s a good article on it: https://buckrail.com/jurassic-dig-uncovering-hundreds-of-dinosaurs-in-wyoming/

It’s not surprising Ray et al want to try to spread their lies by hanging onto the coattails of science. Creations keep claiming “real soon now” that they’ll have evidence for their god being the one who created dinos and everything else. It’s rather like how they insist that their bible describes dinosaurs and that their god killed those same beasts, lots of false claims.

It’s rather quaint to see Ray try to claim that the behemoth described in Job (you know, where this god works with Satan to murder a family) is really a large herbivorous dinosaur. Let’s look at what the bible says and how Ray ignores what it actually says to invent his lies.

“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares” (Job 40:15-24).

The italics are Ray’s claims verbatim.

This was the largest of all creatures He made. It was plant-eating (herbivorous).

Alas Ray is too lazy to know about blue whales, eh? Dinos didn’t eat like oxen as far as the evidence shows.

It had its strength in its hips.

Loins, Ray, not “hips”, this bible critter had strength in its penis. And what the heck is this supposed to actually mean? The dinos had a lot of strength everywhere in their bodies. Being that dinos are likely from eggs, no navels either.

Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).

Ray has to directly ignore the bible here. The bible says “He moves his tail like a cedar” which indicates that somehow the tail moves like a tree. Not that the tail is the size of a cedar. We also have evidently a bible beast that has testicles with sinews that are wrapped together.

It had very strong bones.

Yep, so do humans and so do cows.  The bible says that the bones were bronze tubes, not “like” bronze.  Rhinos may have the strongest bones.

Its habitat was among the trees. Drank massive amounts of water. His nose pierced through snares. Then Scripture says, “…He that made him can make his sword approach to him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.”

Again, Ray has to lie about what his bible actually says. This beast supposedly drinks a river, the Jordan. Now that is a rather pitiful river, not wider than a creek here in the eastern US, but drinking a river is not just drinking “massive amounts of water”. Again, whales.

We can also see that the NRSV version of the bible doesn’t agree with Ray’s version. It’s so cute to see this god bragging like any child in a playground ““Look at Behemoth, which I made just as I made you; it eats grass like an ox.16 Its strength is in its loins, and its power in the muscles of its belly.17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are knit together.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron.19 “It is the first of the great acts of God— only its Maker can approach it with the sword.20 For the mountains yield food for it  where all the wild animals play.21 Under the lotus plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.22 The lotus trees cover it for shade,  the willows of the wadi surround it.
23 Even if the river is turbulent, it is not frightened;   it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth.24 Can one take it with hooks  or pierce its nose with a snare?”

Sounds rather like a hippo or rhino.   Alas, Ray and conservative Christianity fail again.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Now Oranges are evidence of the conservative Christian god

Yep, thanks to Ray Comfort, oranges are evidence of his version of the Christian god:

 

Of course no Christian can do miracles like Jesus Christ, Son of God. But heck, we should believe oranges are evidence of this god, just like bananas.

Screw the amputees, screw the cancer patients, oranges are evidence of God. Even Ray will choose a secular hospital rather than trusting that a Christian elder can heal him.  Sucks to need evidence, eh? So much for “faith”.

What complete idiots.

 

and this is the fellow that some atheists claim is a nice guy

 

S’right

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – oh the arguments over imaginary friends

This blog is quite bemusing.   Abrahamists are after each other on whose version of their god is right: https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/09/02/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-your-best-life

It does come down to “My imaginary god is the right one. No, mine is! Your holy book is contradictory. No, yours is.”

The blog is a great example of how theists use the same arguments and utterly ignore that they are attacking the same arguments they use when presented by an opposing theist.

Now, to get that taste out of your virtual mouth, here’s a great interview between Mike Shermer and Phil Zuckerman about  Phil’s new book,  What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion is not necessary for living an ethical life.