Not So Polite Conversation – the old saw that atheists have bad relationships with their parents

Always fun to see Christian liars like Stephen Bernard come out with armchair psychology and fail as usual.
Here’s what he claims:

“Before I was ever remotely interested in anything religious I noticed something about those I engaged with in the local pubs and clubs that confessed to being atheist. Most of them being atheist or agnostic were either of a wealthy privately educated background or had no father at all.”

No evidence for this, but the typical false claims.

“The former usually had poor relationships with their workaholic fathers who were never around while the latter never knew them. I noticed this even in working class families where the father was either abusive or the sons parents were divorced.”

and yet more baseless claims. I have a great relationship with my dad. Again, it seems that christians are desperate to invent any way they can to cast aspersions on atheists and try to gin up fear to try to dissuade their fellow theists from considering the facts.

“Either way a rupture in the family unit, abusive or absent father is a very common sight to see in atheistic communities. They’re acutely aware of this themselves so when I got a group of them together I asked them how their relationship with their father was going. They all became verbally abusive and refused to answer the question.”

hmm, gee, more lies from a theist voiced and the poor dear is upset that people get disgusted with him. And do tell how a theist got a group of “them” together. I also enjoy knowing that divorce equal or worse in christian families. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/marital-status/divorcedseparated/

https://www.barna.com/research/new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released/

and well, we all know how prevalent child abuse is in religious organizations, especially Stephen’s Roman Catholic church. There is also a book that looks quite interesting “Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment” by Janet Heimlich.

page 27 of Heimlich’s book

Add this plus the common Christain idea of physical punishment for children, and Stephen’s claims seem quite unsupported.

Here is an interesting bit from a NIH paper that shows that the Christian need to keep claiming this nonsense is based on little but weakly supported claims that are contradicted.

“Although religiosity seems to have beneficial effects for adjustment in child maltreatment survivors, prior research has reported that individuals experiencing child maltreatment are less likely to practice religion. Such findings may be explained by the correspondence hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005), which proposes that individuals who have experienced secure vs. insecure childhood attachments have established the foundations on which a corresponding relationship with God could be built. According to this view, maltreated individuals, who are more likely to have insecure attachment relationships with their primary attachment figures, are less likely to view God as loving and caring compared to nonmaltreated individuals. In contrast, the compensation hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005) predicts that individuals with insecure childhood attachment may be more likely to seek God for compensatory attachment relationships. Consistent with the correspondence hypothesis, empirical studies have reported negative effects of child maltreatment on religiosity demonstrating that survivors of abuse tend to have more negative views on God (e.g., Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1989Kennedy & Drebing, 2002). In particular, Bierman (2005) examined the effects of physical and emotional abuse on religiosity among adults and found that abuse perpetrated by fathers during childhood was related to low levels of religiosity. It is plausible that the image of God as a father led survivors of abusive fathers to distance themselves from religion. However, there is also evidence that maltreated and nonmaltreated children did not differ in their view of God as kind and close, although maltreated children perceived their parents as less kind and more wrathful than did nonmaltreated children (Johnson & Eastburg, 1992). Work is needed to understand the unique role of religiosity in child maltreatment survivors.” Religiosity and Interpersonal Problems Explain Individual Differences in Self Esteem among Young Adults with Child Maltreatment ExperiencesJonathan C. Waldron,a,* Angela Scarpa,b and Jungmeen Kim-Spoonc

“They knew the reason for my question. It branded their conscience like a red hot iron. This isn’t a fine rule for every atheist, but usually the majority have had some sort of troubled upbringing in a fractured family.”

yep, we know why you claim such lies, dear, to do no more than try to cast aspersions and gin up fear for becoming an atheist. No iron was there, only Stephen’s delusion.

“What is the correlation between absentee father and atheism? I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of calling God, “Father”. When you’ve had a terrible relationship with your father or never had one around, there’s an anger present there that if someone should even mentions the word “Father” a strong aversion to the concept soon follows.”

funny how there is no “correlation” at all. Stephen has no evidence for his false claims at all.

“It’s the same with children from a divorced family. Any mention of a “Holy Family” referring to Jesus, Mary and Joseph tickles a part of their brain that makes them go wild. I’ve noticed this in Catholic converts to Protestantism by women. If you dig a little deeper you’ll often find such female converts have had a bad relationship with their mother. In Catholicism we refer to Mary as our Mother and Protestantism removes such a requirement from any convert having to do so.”

Here’s a slightly new twist, a claim that us gals have a bad relationship with their mothers. Alas, Stephen simply lies again. Happily, me and spouse also had/have good relationships with our mothers.

“In the end what Atheists crave is the very thing they have a strong aversion for, a loving earthly and heavenly family with God as their father. They don’t know it. . . well. . . maybe some do. . . but they’ll never admit that is what they subconsciously desire because that would wound their pride and force them to come out of hiding and admit God exists.”

ROFL, poor Stephen, trying to convince himself that he’s so special, and that us atheists “really” do want what he thinks he has. We don’t.

He’ll of course try to claim he wasn’t “really” talking about all atheists as a way to dodge his own false claims.

No So Polite Conversation – a “new” failed theodicy

I’ve found a supposedly new and typically bad theodicy. This is “participation theodicy” by John Buck. I’ve snagged a copy of it here.

the abstract: “

Why does God allow gratuitous suffering to occur?

In this paper, the author puts forward a variation on the greater good theodicy, which rather than suggesting that every evil which occurs brings about some greater-good, the paper instead argues that for any great world God could have created by himself, God’s generosity would instead motivate him to allow creatures to participate in the bringing about of that great world. This scenario would require God to initially create a world that was ‘less-than as great as it could be’ (opening up the possibility for evils to occur), so that the creatures that would inhabit said world could causally contribute towards its achieving of greatness. Such a world would feature the goods of participation that would be lacking in a world God were to create by himself.”

So, it boils down to nothing new, but the old christian idea that it’s okay to hurt people as long as some are “taught” by that harm. I’m happy I’m not so selfish as so many christian.

Is God an Abuser?

a good post about how gods, especially the Christian god, has all of the marks of any abusive partner or parent.

The moral character of the Christian God is the question which eventually led me away from Christianity. After a decade of non-belief, I still can’t help but look back to the time when I was such a staunch Christian and ponder the effects it had on me, and the effects it is still having on billions of people around the world. Recently, I’ve become more aware of abusive relationships and the tactics abusers use on their victims, and I thought I’d take a look at the behavior of the Christian God as described in the Bible and by Christians themselves, as well as general observations about the world, to see if God’s relationship with humanity, and especially with His believers, is a healthy one.

For the purposes of this analysis, I’ll be going through this article on WebMD for how to recognize if you’re in an abusive relationship. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes in this blog post will be quoting this WebMD article. Before we get into the list of things to watch out for, let’s first define what an abusive relationship is. According to WebMD:

An abusive relationship will involve one party using their power over the other party to prevent them from doing anything except what the abusive person wants.

So, if the Christian God is using His power to prevent people from doing anything except what He wants, the relationship is abusive. Anyone who has read much of the Bible may already be noticing a red flag here, as so much of it revolves around obedience to God. Still, let’s hold off our judgment for now. Let’s see how God stacks up against this list of warning signs that your partner might be abusive.

Warning Sign 1: Communication Monitoring”

https://badventistblog.wordpress.com/2022/09/04/is-god-an-abuse

what the boss *loves* – when a trumpee website is its own best satire

Oh dear, there is a website called “The Conservateur” which is trying so very hard to lie about the vain not very bright trumpee women. One doesn’t even have to change the writing to make it utter satire (which is, yep, protected by US law). Now, I know, you’ll say, “Vel, this has to be a spoof site, but dear reader, it is not.

Let’s take a look at some of the photos from there:

Y’know because everyone who rides a horse wants to get horse sweat on their evening gown.

Poor Lara, who is claimed to have asked for horse at every birthday, but never actual rode it to know how stupid this picture looks to real horse women and men.

Then we get quotes like this “On frequent Fox News appearances and her weekly podcast, The Right View, Lara readily and articulately discusses the pressing issues confronting America. Before media hits, she “asks God to use her as a vessel.””

Hmm, while dressing exactly like this god supposedly says not to. Hmmm. I do love the writing here, nothing like pure sycophancy on the hoof.

I think it’s hilarious that either this dress will take up half a ballroom wrapping unsuspecting rivals like a spider, or poor Lara was convinced that it was “dramatic”.

Oh dears, no one is paying attention to Lara. Probably because she is just like orange moron senior, having no more taste than he does.

oh look , daisy dukes! (for those of you overseas, this is a reference to the Dukes of Hazzard (ridiculous redneck nonsense) TV show from the 80s where the females were generally in cutoff jeans shorts and midriff baring tops.

Then we can go to the pearl clutching of how Catholics are just be ever so abused. “Across the West, with secularization at an all-time high, there is increasing ostracization of religious people. Over the last few years, religious bigotry has escalated in Europe with the burning of Catholic churches and the terrifying return of rampant anti-Semitism.”

hmm, you mean anticatholicism like this lovely Jack Chick tract that “good conservative Christians” aka evangelicals still pass around?

Catholics aren’t very smart to learn who they are bedfellows with.

And then as lovely example of cultists showing that they are liars, we get this

“So my question to you is, what will it take for you to repeat Jesus’s words, “as You will?” I encourage you to willingly surrender to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then take up your cross and follow Him to Heaven. 

All to Jesus I surrender all. “

when gee, this is all about high couture and “culture”. Funny how they seem to forget the whole give up *everything* and follow me. They rely on “Hey, you aren’t asking that where I can hear it, so evidently you don’t want me to.” Wonderfully convenient, eh?

It’s hard to find a single page on this unintentionally hilarious website to that one can’t find some utterly unaware ignorant conservative demonstrating just how idiotic they can be.

“Astrology is not the only trend that attempts to replace or reinvent religion. Practices such as manifestation, witchcraft, voodoo magic, and tarot card reading are becoming popular among young women and teenage girls. Teen Vogue currently has an entire section dedicated to witchcraft, and many variations of tarot cards have flooded the market. Several of my friends and sorority sisters have gone out and bought a deck, (noticeably all secular). It’s clear that people who’ve rejected religion are desperate for spirituality and are looking everywhere but the church.”

yah mean, like what the sainted Reagans believed in?



and “From the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad to Dolly Parton to Miss USA, there are few things more American than big hair. While there’s nothing better than a salon blow-dry, you don’t have to go to the Dry Bar to get that perfect balmy blow-out. As someone who has dealt with puffy and thick hair my whole life, I have learned to embrace and style my big hair, and I’ve picked up a few tricks along the way! Today, I have you covered on my favorite tips for achieving a little more bounce and volume. I’m giving you the rundown of my at-home hair routine, products, and hot tools to help you style that perfect all-American hair.”

and yep, article accompanied by a 80s pic of a Dallas Cowboy (american football team) cheerleader.

It just can’t get any more ridiculous.

Oh dear, conservatives thanks for being such complete twits.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – it’s great fun when a Catholic lies

Well, let’s see what false things a Christian has come up with now.  There is a rather nasty Catholic, Trent, who is on Youtube, who has no problem lying and failing in this video “5 Atheist Double Standards“. Again, this is pretty much a typing exercise for me, to waste some time at work since we’ve had a small covid outbreak here in the leadership, nothing to do (and my throat is feeling funny…..arrgh.)

First we have the false claim that Trent says he doesn’t bring this up to “pick on atheists”.  He does do that, this being an attempt to cast himself as the innocent.  He isn’t.  he claims that atheists use “double standards” and “logical fallacies”.   That some atheists think they need to apologize for more aggressive ones doesn’t mean that the aggressive ones are wrong. 

There is nothing false about how Chrsitians worship a magical being that the bible claims to live in the sky aka “magical sky daddy”.   It demands that humans call it father, too.  Ridiculing false claims made by people who want to control others by what they claim this being says is deserved. 

Trent uses bad arguments too, though he would like everyone to think his are not. 

The first supposed double standard is what Trent calls the “ancient document” double standard, which is a common Christian claim that their bible should be considered an ancient document and treated like other ancient documents.   Alas, for Trent, all ancient documents are considered “guilty” aka suspect, unless there is evidence to support the claims in those documents.   If the claim is that someone was a general, or lost  battle, we know that there are generals and battles so there is less reason to consider a document about them to be suspect.  If the claims are about magic and gods, they are suspect since we have no evidence for such things.    

The bible is under intense scrutiny since it has no evidence to support its essential claims, which include that magic happens, gods exist and one should live according to what ones finds in the bible.   It is also under scrutiny since the authors are unknown in most cases, so the author’s intent, cultural background, etc are not known.  There is also the problem of it having events that no one could have witnessed but we strangely have records of discussions, events, etc presented as truth.

One cannot use a claim to prove that claim.  The bible is only a set of claims and those can’t be used to prove the bible’s claims are true.  It’s rathe like saying the qu’ran is true because the qu’ran says it is true.  A Christian wouldn’t accept that so there is no reason to accept their claim that the bible can be used as evidence for itself.  There is no evidence the bible isn’t a human document. 

One cannot use the bible to “prove mundane historical facts” since it is the only source of the claim that Jesus’ existence is a historical fact.  Again, it is only the claim, not evidence for the claim.  We have no evidence of either magic Jesus or delusional Jew Jesus.  There is no evidence that the apostles existed or were martyrs.  There is no evidence that anyone noticed Jesus at all as a faith healer, or as a fellow followed around by a literal Roman legion’s worth of men in Roman-occupied Palestine.  There is no evidence of a cruxifiction, or of a day that there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and Jewish dead wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. You’d think that maybe Caiaphas would have noticed that. 

Yep, people claimed to see Jesus.  People also claimed to have seen Elvis when he died too.  Baseless claims are wortheless.  Trent also has the problem that JC’s own people didn’t even recognize him, so claims of seeing Jesus are highly suspect. 

Trent doesn’t want to have to show that Jesus rose without the bible since he can’t.  All he has are baseless claims.  Trent can use the bible as a starting point, as any historical scholar would, and then support the document with evidence.  This is how any historical scholar goes about showing that Julius Caesar existed, that Alexander the Great existed, etc.  Until the various books of theh bible are supported by evidence they are not historical documents, except for being a recording on what a certain group believed at a certain time, not that what they believed is true.  The bible has no basic facts, they are, again, baseless claims, until evidence supports them. 

So, atheists treat the bible as any other historical document and Trent has made a false accusation.  We have given it a chance and it has been two thousand years of desperate looking by Christians that has failed to produce evidence to support their claims.  Tacitus, Josephus, etc all present claims by believers which is no evidence that what they believed is true.  If this is the case, then Trent must accept that any other writings about what believers of other gods believed makes those gods just as real as his.  Of course, he won’t.  He is as much of a liar about the actions of non Chrsitains as old Pope Leo.  Other sources do mention miracles and neither historical scholars, or Christians like Trent, accept those claims as true.  Tacitus claimed that a roman emperor did miracles just like jesus.  I’m sure Trent doesn’t accept that as true and neither do historians.  His bible is hearsay, nothing more.  And people die for many stupid things, but Trent has the problem that there is no evidence that the apostles were martyrs, and anyone after then would have been believing nonsense, like any Muslim who blows themselves up. 

trent has no “basic facts” more than there are in a spider-man comic book.   Which leads into Trent’s next failure, his “spider-man objection”.   Unfortunately, all Trent has is that it’s no problem that his bible contradicts itself, makes observable false claims, etc.  He and only he knows what the “good” parts are.  He doesn’t and again, has no evidence for his claims.  He is simply one more Christian who picks and chooses his way though the bible, making what he wants up in his own image. 

The writer of Acts, unknown, does get some places right.  So?  That doesn’t mean the rest of the nonsense is true.  Trent uses the logical fallacy of composition here. Per Trent, the bible isn’t a human document, so why is it wrong in so many cases?  The bible, and Christians, can show it is true, with evidence.  If they can’t show any, then there is no reason to believe them or it.  They claim it is true:  it’s their burden of truth to demonstrate that, no one else’s. 

Trent also claims that Josephus and Tacitus “missed important events”, when he can’t show that these events happened at all.  He assumes the events happened when there is no evidence for them.  Again, if Claudius expelled the Jews, and it was claimed in a document, that document would have to be supported by evidence since it is just the claim.   It’s also hilarious to see Trent try to claim that since the authors of the bible said it was true, then it must be, showing he is right back to that circular argument he claimed failed earlier.  He then tries to claim that absence of evidence supports his claims, that there weren’t as many people writing.  No evidence of that.  Like many Christians, Trent can’t decide if he wants Jesus to be well-known, or to be not known at all, and his arguments are not consistent when he wants to claim that no one noticed Jesus but then turns around and tries to claim gee, they really did notice him.   He wasn’t just a “faith healer” as Trent tries to claim. 

Jesus turns water into wine at the wedding in Cana

Jesus heals an official’s son at Capernaum in Galilee

Jesus drives out an evil spirit from a man in Capernaum

Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law sick with fever

Jesus heals many sick and oppressed at evening

First miraculous catch of fish on the Lake of Gennesaret

Jesus cleanses a man with leprosy

Jesus heals a centurion’s paralyzed servant in Capernaum

Jesus heals a paralytic who was let down from the roof

Jesus heals a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath

Jesus raises a widow’s son from the dead in Nain

Jesus calms a storm on the sea

Jesus casts demons into a herd of pigs

Jesus heals a woman in the crowd with an issue of blood

Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter back to life

Jesus heals two blind men

Jesus heals a man who was unable to speak

Jesus heals an invalid at Bethesda

Jesus feeds 5,000 plus women and children

Jesus walks on water

Jesus heals many sick in Gennesaret as they touch his garment

Jesus heals a gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter

Jesus heals a deaf and dumb man

Jesus feeds 4,000 plus women and children

Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida

Jesus heals a man born blind by spitting in his eyes

Jesus heals a boy with an unclean spirit

Miraculous temple tax in a fish’s mouth

Jesus heals a blind, mute demoniac

Jesus heals a woman who had been crippled for 18 years

Jesus heals a man with dropsy on the sabbath

Jesus cleanses ten lepers on the way to Jerusalem

Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead in Bethany

Jesus restores sight to Bartimaeus in Jericho

Jesus withers the fig tree on the road from Bethany

Jesus heals a servant’s severed ear while he is being arrested

The second miraculous catch of fish at the Sea of Tiberias

Part 2 – Paul can’t even get his origin story straight and is terribly ignorant about Jesus so there is no reason to think that Jesus appeared to him, or existed.   

Trent has number 3 as being that atheists claim that his god is evil but also claim evil doesn’t exist.   Hmm, I do wonder where an atheist has that evil doesn’t exist.   The silly satan doesn’t but I’m quite sure that evil exists, subjective as it may be.  Trent then quotes Dawkins.  Happily,atheists, at least me, don’t worship Dawkins.  I don’t care what he says.   In this case it is plausibly true that the Christian god is the most disgusting literary character ever.  It is demonstrably all of the things listed.  And Trent can’t show otherwise, unsurprisingly. The bible show quite a petty little god.  Then Trent quotes Dawkins again, which has Dawkins saying that there is no morality innate to the universe, which isn’t saying that there is no evil.  Evil is a human conception, what hurts us and others. 

Of course, Trent tries the argument from morality to defend his god.  Alas, not one Christian can show that this god exist or is moral.  They all make up what they want to think it considers moral and immoral, and surprise! don’t agree at all.  Morality is a human invention, likely starting from empathy, and ending up as laws in civilizations.  The less helpful ones discarded, the helpful ones kept.  I can happily judge Trent’s god as immoral since my morals indicate this and yep, they are subjective.  I can know that I don’t want to be killed by genocide and can imagine another human might want the same thing. 

Trent’s morality is also subjective, depending on who/what does an action, not that any action has an innate morality.  So he has no problem when his god commits genocide, kills a child for someone else’s action, and tells slaves to never seek their freedom.  There is no double standard, just a Christian who lies when he claims that his opinion is “objective morality”.  I do love Trent’s attempt to excuse his god’s evident allowing of suffering and his need to be a thought police type. There is no need of teleology, only human desires since the universe isn’t a thing that can care.   Happily, no one needs Trent or his god.  His worldview is consistent for any sycophant to a petty tyrant, and his morality is nothing more than might equals right: “life i’m not the author of life like god is but god created the whole universe he created everyone and he has the right to give us as long or as little life as he desires because he is the author of life.”

So far, Trent has made quite a lot of hay from his strawmen versions of atheists.  He also seems to think that all atheists must think the same.  We don’t.  Whatever Luke says isn’t necessarily what any other atheists believes.  And atheists must provide evidence, just like anyone else.  In my own experience, I’ve not run into any atheists who believe in moral objectivity.  I’m sure some do.  I don’t.

Number 3 supposed double standard is that how dare non-christians point out how many Christians are liars, failures, and generally nasty people and dare to think Christianity is harmful and false because of this.   Well, Trent, it’s because your god does nothing to stop this and “once upon a time” it supposedly killed those who didn’t do what it said.  It isn’t a comparison between good and bad Christian, it is an observation of your god’s impotence, thus demonstrating your religion and bible lie.  Atheists don’t claim to believe the same things; Christians do.   Atheists have one thing in common: a conclusion that there is not a god or gods.  Trent is an atheist too, btw.  Just not a pan-atheist like me.   We all have different morals and worldview, and yep, there are some asshole atheists.  Not because of atheism, because of them.

“i’ve never had to sign anything like [an anti-sexual harassment pledge} that at a christian conference”  That’s because your conservative Christianity doesn’t care if women are sexually harassed or not, dear.   Perhaps you shouldn’t have used that as an example. 

As I noted before, there is no one Christian morality since Christians don’t agree, and they are all hypocrites when it comes to each other’s “truth”.   His attempt to excuse his god’s failure by “there’s going to be bad people in every belief system” is just great since it shows that Christianity is nothing special, and just human invented like every other one. 

Amusingly, Trent tries to claim that atheists go around saying “look at this brilliant atheistic scientist or look at this really reasonable atheistic philanthropist aren’t they great aren’tthey such great examples of reason unchained from religion”  We don’t and this is why Trent has to claim that it’s “subtle” since he has no evidence for this at all.  There are no “virtues” of atheism.  Trent just made that up too in his attempt to pretend that everyone acts like ignorant Christians like himself.  Happily we don’t.

As for Martin Luther King, he did some good and he was evidently a cheat too.  Does Trent want to claim that for his Christianity?  He picked and chose through his religion just like Trent.  

Trent also tries to claim that if certain people had not become Christians their life would have been different, in evidently a bad way, which he has no evidence for either.  Yep, if Christianity were true, and if Christians could agree on what their truth was, we should be able to expect coherence and better behavior than we see.  WE don’t see this nor do we see any Christian able to do what Jesus promised, so no reason to believe this nonsense at all. It’s not a gotcha moment at all, just Christians having no evidence for their claims, and then whining when they are asked for some.  We can’t identify Christians by their “fruits” at all.  As for Trent’s promise of “other reasons”, funny how he doesn’t give them.

Number 4 is “ridiculing christian censorship but excommunicating atheistic heretics” sorry, Trent but we don’t’ have heretics and we don’t “excommunicate” them.   That’s a catholic thing.  Atheists have many worldviews, and not everyone agrees.  So we all go our separate ways and have no problem criticizing each other. Stephen Woodford can keep his beliefs, no one else has to appreciate them or not contest them.  He is responsible for his beliefs, no one else is nor does anyone have to respect them.  Again, atheists only have one thing common.  There is no atheist handbook.  And yep, every choice has a consequence. 

The point that Trent evidently is trying to make is that how dare atheists make fun of Christians who point fingers at each other and claim the Christians who don’t believe like they do are wrong.  He evidently thinks that we shouldn’t be making fun of Christians having contradictory “truths”.  Too bad, we will.   I do love that he thinks that sex offenders shouldn’t be considered pariahs by atheists, and the only reason he would say that is that the Catholic Church has quite a problem with those.  They didn’t consider sex offenders pariahs, so no one should? 

what Trent forgets is that his church killed people for not agreeing with them, not only exiling them.  We see that there is plenty of freedom of thought in Christianity, look at all of the sects that Trent thinks are wrong!  But each sect doesn’t want any freedom of thought, and pretends that only their version is the right one, even the RCC which says that everyone but them has only “part” of the right answer.

Hmm, I do wonder what Trent thinks is “secular liberal dogma”.  And where have atheists been “imposing” it?   By giving people who aren’t Christians the right not to obey them?  Hmm, the RCC and other Christian groups have spent millions in trying to get their imaginary nonsense into law so everyone must obey it. 

Then poor Trent plays his last card: a baseless claim that atheists don’t criticize Muslims like they do Christians.   He fails here too.   Happily, I and other atheists, are quite equal opportunity criticizers.   I have no problem telling Muslims they as ridiculous, violent and ignorant  as Christians.   The reason that Christians get criticized a lot is that they are constantly trying to force their lies on others here in the US.  Muslims, not so much.  From what Christians have done, we can see that yep, they do want to take over the US.   They want people to obey old testament laws (funny how they want the first ten commandments up in courthouses and schools).   In texas, we have idiots demanding that “In god we trust” be in every school.  Christians have shown they want to make women second class citizens, removing their rights.  No one needs an imagination, we see it right now.  Trent is quite stupid if he thinks he can lie about this.  He lies and claims that every Christian agrees with him and “just doesn’t want to be involved with evil”.   Poor dear, other Christians think that what he calls evil isn’t evil at all, and poor Trent can’t show that it is evil.  He only has a baseless opinion.  Making a cake for a wedding isn’t being involved in it, just like making a cake for a baseball game isn’t being involved in the game.  Only the doctor and woman are involved in an abortion, no Christians involved at all. 

Funny how Christians don’t want to left alone nor do they want to leave anyone else alone.  Currently there are Christians bothering people at the PP office just down the street.  So much for Trent’s lies. 

Where are the Muslims trying to impose their laws on people here in the US, dear Trent?  And then tell me where Christians have tried to keep them out too, since they have.  I have also ridiculed Muslims about how they treat people in their theocracies, theocracies that some Christians want too.  I would not stand for that here in the US, and advocate for Muslim countries to not be traded with because of their ignorance and violence. Yep, a Handmaiden’s Tale is what they have in those countries and is what Christiansn like Trent want here.   If a woman can’t make her own decisions, what does Trent think that is equal to?   

In “very christian subcultures” in the US, you *do* have women and girls not having the same education and opportunities as men, with the fundamentalist Mormons, the amish, etc.   In the US, Christianity is indeed the biggest threat to women, and other religions are in other countries with their ignorance and violence.  Trent’s whataboutism doesn’t make Christianity any better.  Christians and muslims have harmed non-christians and non-muslims purely because of their religion.  He lies when he has said that Christianity has promoted the “natural right to religious freedom”.  We got to see how that is a lie with how Catholics and other Christians tried to strip native peoples of their religion by the sword and by schools, and managed to kill lots, hiding the graves. 

All in all, we have lies from Trent. No surprise at all.  Good to know that Trent even acknowledges his god won’t protect him when he says he is afraid of criticizing Muslims. 

Not So Polite Conversation – “Catholic of Honor” tries to refute a post of mine, hilarity to follow

This is a long slog, so fair warning. Not much here is that new when it comes to counter apologetics. I just was amusing myself in responding.

Always good to see a Catholic who has decided to respond to my posts. He didn’t bother reading anything else on my blog, including my introduction. So he thinks I’m called “club schadenfreude”. Really, dear? Tsk. I’m pretty sure I told him I was Vel, when I commented on the false claims on his blog, which of course he banned me from, rather than showing I was wrong. Alas, the self-proclaimed “Catholic of Honor” shows he isn’t so honorable, when he claims I wasn’t being honest or contributing to dialogue. He claims that showing that his claims, and other claims are false is “harassment”. But that is typical for most Christians. If he didn’t like to do ban people, as he claims, no one forced him. It’s always good to see a Catholic trying to blame others for their actions.

Anyway, let’s look at what this “honorable Catholic” has to say. You can also see it here. as a pdf housed here on my blog. He has preloaded his excuses here so he can pretend that no one can hold him accountable for his claims: “Why should you listen to me? I am not a priest, nor saint, nor theologian, nor angelic doctor. I am only a man with a desire to spread the gospel. A member of the laity wit a passion. A sinner trying to fight the good fight. A Catholic of Honor.” There is no reason to listen to him and his baseless opinions at all. But we can indeed counter them.

CoH (Christian of Honor) quotes a fellow Catholic, who makes the claim that a god named Moloch exists, and that abortion has something to do with it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for Moloch, much the same that there is no evidence for CoH’s version of the Christian god. This fellow Christian, Kristor, who I’m sure some of you are familiar with, makes predictions that, surprise, never occur. “Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.”

Oh darn one more failed claim and a Christian who is sure other gods exist. How embarrassing! Then CoH says he agrees, but now it’s just a “metaphor “I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense.” Surprise, Christians don’t agree, not even Catholics.

I wrote this to respond to poor Kristor: “No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god”

CoH doesn’t like this. “Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.”

CoH is upset that I point out how apologetics fail and says I shouldn’t show that they are wrong. He claims “intellectual virtue”, something he’s made up so he can whine about how dare anyone shows that his fellow Chrsitians lie, and says that bluntly, supported by evidence. Yep, one can point lies on the spot and ridicule lies on the spot too. Oh dear, I was “impolite”, aka the typical Chrsitian who has yet to realize that no one has to be polite when it comes to their harmful and baseless lies. The dear ol’ “Mother Church” hasn’t come to terms that they aren’t in power anymore.
Then, we have CoH upset that I pointed out that the only humans who are happy with human sacrifice are humans. I said “Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.”

He wrote “I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.”

That he can’t tell simply is that he doesn’t want to admit that I am quite certainly using the term “literally” literally. Then he claims that somehow Jews and Muslims are happy with human sacrifice. They do indeed, if they accept that story about Jephtha’s daughter. I do like how CoH claims that Jews and Muslims worship demons, a lovely baseless and typically bigoted claim by a Christian. That’s quite a lovely “whataboutism” that ricocheted on CoH.

Well, let’s look at the next bit from CoH. “But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. “

Hmmm, the bible never says this. We have this god wanting the humans it chose to be on the city of heaven on earth; only 144,000 virgin Jews go to heaven.

“It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.”

This is the typical morality of Christians, might equals right. We see that CoH has no problem with human sacrifice when it comes to the story of Jephtha’s daughter. Then we have the baseless claim from a Christian and Catholic, making the claim that the children this god murders “go to heaven”. If this is an excuse, abortion would be a sacrament to Catholics, evidently guaranteeing that they automatically go to heaven. This is the excuse used by various people who have killed their children, murdered to “save” them from sin. This is from “Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention” SUSAN HATTERS FRIEDMAN1 and PHILLIP J RESNICK1

“Resnick’s review of the world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide (11) found filicidal mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Maternal filicide perpetrators have five major motives: a) in an altruistic filicide, a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child’s best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death); b) in an acutely psychotic filicide, a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill); c) when fatal maltreatment filicide occurs, death is usually not the anticipated outcome; it results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; d) in an unwanted child filicide, a mother thinks of her child as a hindrance; e) the most rare, spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child’s father.”

We also have that “church fathers” say that unbaptized Children go to hell, not passing god, not collecting $200. “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)”

Funny how a Catholic just ignores what he wants. Then he is offended that I mentioned how the Catholic Church doesn’t treat stillborns like children. He claims I take it “out of context” but does not show how. The catholic church is indeed hypocritical if it claims that fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs are children and then says still borns aren’t. If fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs are independently “alive” even if they can’t survive without the woman’s body without which they would immediately die, a stillborn fetus is just as “alive”. It is telling that CoH can only think of serial killers killing children. “As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved.” Well, per Auggie above, there is no reason to trust this god at all.

Unsurprisingly, CoH tries to claim my points aren’t “entirely accurate. They are, and CoH does admit that Catholics don’t agree yet on more things. “I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo.” Aka we just make nonsense up.

Alas, per CoH’s own arguments, he and the RCC (something that poor CoH can’t evidently figure out) do need to start baptizing fertilized eggs. He doesn’t like that conclusion, and tries this excuse: “The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.”

Surely it would be fine with a god that demands “children” be baptized to not send them to hell. Right? Or does CoH admit that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses aren’t children at all? Seems he is.

Science doesn’t show that fetuses are “independent organisms” at all. Again, until we do have the science to have an artificial womb, this potential human being needs another.

I do appreciate that CoH admits that Catholicism and Protestants have different, and contradictory, versions of Christianity, and not one of them can show their nonsense true. “As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything.” He, as usual, tries the baseless claim that only his version of Chrsitianity, and indeed Catholicism, is the only right one. Alas for him, every single Christian claims that they and they alone have “teaching authority”.

CoH kindly lists all of the Christians who don’t agree with him and like him, can’t show that he is even a real Christian, unable to do what the bible has JC promising. He tries to claim that only he has the right “understanding” and dismisses anyone who disagrees with his version. How not new or impressive. “I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere).” Aka, don’t hold me to account for making a baseless claim and calling you liars.”

“I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.”

So, another baseless claim, and attempting to deny that if no chrsitain can show that they have some “right” answer, there is no reason to doubt them all. At best, CoH could argue that there is a right answer, but since he can’t do what the bible promises, he admits his version, and the versions of every other Christians, is wrong.

CoH also mentions the term “bulverism” a term made up by the liar C.S. Lewis, a famous apologist. Bulverism is defined as “The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” “ Alas, CoH accuses me of this but has no evidence I have done this. What I have done is research the claims of CoH and other Christians, no presupposition, and then have presented evidence that they are wrong. From CoH’s own claims, my point ““As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.”” Is demonstrated as true since even CoH admits that Christians make up what they want, insisting that their personal interpretation is the only right one, contradicting their fellow Christians. They make up their god and their religion in their own image, show their internal desires and hates.

Now, if we do want to see someone perform “bulverism”, Christians are great examples, since each presupposes the other Christians are wrong, and then they try to show how. CoH is quite right here “It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.” And he does it repeatedly in his attacks on other versions of Christianity. Here’s an example from CoH’s typing fingers “When Luther first proposed Sola Scriptura, the idea seemed simple enough, but doctrinal controversy seemed to be sprouting all around from its very roots.” You can see the rest here.

Happily, I didn’t try psychoanalysis, I only compared the bible to a method of psychoanalysis. What I have shown is that there are many contradictions in Chrsitainty, and CoH has helped in showing how he is sure that only his version is the right one, which literally (yes, dear I mean that literally, ROFL), contradictions other Christianities.

CoH tries the excuse that I can’t point out contradictions since humans aren’t “infallible gods”. I’m not even thinking that. But gee, poor CoH claims to have a infallible god, and it fails hilariously since it can’t make itself understood, evidently. If there is some truth, an omnipotent, and omniscient, and supposedly good, infallible god must, by definition, be able to make itself clear, and not have to have its followers blame themselves for being at fault.

“we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.”

No need to be charitable to people who can be demonstrated as liars. This is again the Christian begging everyone to not show that their emperor has no clothes.

So what has CoH’s post taught us?

“So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics.”

He has nothing to support his claims and demands “charity” when none is deserved.

“Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization.”

CoH still has nothing to support his claims, and tries to lie that I haven’t done research and have shown that his “system of faith” is no different than those versions of Christianity and other religions he attacks. If he is the one TrueChristain™, he knows, from his bible how he can show this to be true. Unsurprisingly, he can’t do what it promises.

“Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.

Oh dear, an appeal to popularity logical fallacy is all he has. There is nothing historically intellectual about Catholicism, it depends on the same demonstrably baseless claims as any other version of Christianity.

“Bonum Certamen Certemus “which means “We’re sure it’s a good fight.” (translation courtesy of google.) Unfortunately, he’s wrong. And if you are a Christian who likes to claim that Catholics aren’t Chrsitians, your version isn’t any better.

Kitten update next!

at least Catholics generally know not to promises prayers for me since they know they always fail.

most likely CoH will complain that I post this. Sorry, I’ll bring this up every time some Christian tries to insist that their god has better morals than human beings.