Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a big boondoggle in the “holy land”.

AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan has launched a $100 million master plan aimed at attracting 1 million Christian pilgrims to celebrations of the second millennium of the baptism of Jesus in 2030.

The ambitious plan was unveiled by a foundation created by the Jordanian government to develop the “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” area, on the east bank of the Jordan River, long venerated as the place of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. Archaeological discoveries of an ancient monastery at Al-Maghtas, Jordan, became a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2015.

Samir Murad, chair of the new foundation, said his group plans to provide Christians access to visit and worship at the site while respecting its integrity.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/12/15/jesus-baptism-site-jordan/

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – that talking ass

hmm, “write boldly” is on a Christian website that is afraid of allowing comments to appear with their nonsense.  I guess they can’t “defend” nonsense boldly.

this is doing to be a fun one.  Christians often don’t like when non-Christians make fun of how idiotic their bible is, and how much it is like any other set of myths from the bronze/iron ages.  

This particular Christian, “Pastor Ricky”, a Lutheran, is upset about the talking donkey: 

Numbers 22:22-41 is an account atheists love to bring up to “prove” Christianity is false. They take this account of Balaam and his donkey and say, “So you believe animals can talk?” As usual, this is a trick question. First, it’s not so farfetched that animals can talk. Some birds like parakeets can clearly mimic human speech. I’ve seen videos of dogs “saying” something that closely resembles, “I love you” (which is rather adorable). “

Some animals can, but donkeys physically can’t.   So, his first whine fails.  BTW, snakes can’t talk either. 

“Secondly, verse 28 says, “Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey.” God is the one giving the donkey the ability to speak here.”

Yep, it does.  So the bible claims magic works, and no evidence for this claim at all.   

This story is ridiculous.  There’s a guy, Balak, who is upset that the Israelites are bothering people during their imaginary exodus.  Then this guy summons some guy, Balam, to “curse” the Israelites. Balam seems to be a guy who chats with this god.  Balam for some reason, has no idea who the Israelites are.  Balam refuses Balak.

Balak sends better people to ask him and more stuff, but Balam still refuses.  Then, this god tells Balam to go with them, but this time to only do what God says.  Amazing, a supposedly unchanging god changes his mind.    

Then, even better, God becomes pissed off at Balam for doing what God wanted.  God sends and angel to bother the donkey balam is riding on, so the donkey is beaten for no fault of its own.  Then this god makes the donkey talk asking why it is being hurt.  This dialogue also makes little sense. 

Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ 29 Balaam said to the donkey, ‘Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!’ 30 But the donkey said to Balaam, ‘Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you in this way?’ And he said, ‘No.’”

Then the angels reveals he’s been tormenting the donkey because it wouldn’t go where he wanted, and where this god said for him to go.  The angels says he would have killed Balam if he hadn’t turned around.  Then the angel says don’t turn around and repeats what this idiot god said, “go but do only what I say”. 

So, the donkey was hurt for no reason at all except for these idiots. 

“If the atheist is willing to admit, for the sake of argument, that God, being the Creator of the entire universe, can do literally whatever He wants with His creation—even giving an animal the ability to speak human language clearly—then this account is not so difficult to believe.”

yeah, we don’t agree on the fairy tales of the gullible and the dishonest. 

 “If God can literally create everything simply by speaking, surely He can give an ass the ability to speak. If, evolutionarily speaking, animals like parakeets and dogs can mimic human speech, it’s not that difficult of a concept to wrap your mind around when you simply entertain the possibility that God’s creative sovereignty means He can do literally anything with His creation. That’s what makes Him, you know, God.”

Still a problem, no evidence for this nonsense at all.  And it’s not evolution in the bible, it’s magic. 

“Taking pride in being scientifically minded and rational people, they are willing to suspend their disbelief when it comes to ridiculous and entertaining science-fiction feats in sci-fi movies and shows, but cannot for a moment suspend unbelief when God does things only He can do. Therefore, when atheists are aware of animals today mimicking human speech and refuse to accept that God does impossible Godlike things because He’s God and use strawmen fallacies like above, they ironically talk out of their own ass.”

Alas, poor Ricky is lying when he thinks that us non-christians literally believe that what movies show are true.  Nope, we just enjoy them.  We have no need to “suspend unbelief” when a Christian comes out with the lie that donkeys can talk, and their god is as stupid as the book makes it out to be.  His god does nothing at all.

And Ricky, mentioning the idiocy of your bible isn’t a strawman fallacy at all.  At least know your logical fallacies before you accuse anyone of using them. 

No wonder Ricky doesn’t allow comments. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – always good when a christian attacks atheism and is too scared to allow comments

A christian has claimed this “Scientism is the great intellectual poverty of our age. It assumes its own intellectual superiority, but what it imagines to be ‘intellect’ is mere technical competence; the ability to programme circuits and switches to ‘behave’ in a desired way. This is not intellect. The Church, for all its failings — and there are many, stands on the back of the greatest intellectual tradition in the history of human civilisation. Theologians and moralists of the Christian tradition may not have the technical know-how to put a satellite into orbit around Mars, but we have always known why it is wrong to drop napalm on villagers and launch drone strikes on weddings.”

Hmm, funny they didn’t know enough not to burn people alive for disagreeing with them.

So much for the false claims of superior morality.

and in another post: “Knowing that the earth is spherical, the smarter among us simply give ‘Flat-Earthers’ a wide berth. They don’t need to engage with nonsense. That this kind of Atheist needs to — and really does need to — challenge every religious person they meet to a duel to the death tells its own story. They are not engaged in a good faith dispute. They are not launching into the fray so much as to demolish the arguments of their opponent as they are in the hope their own will be demolished, that they will get their moment in court with the God they believe has hurt them.”

Unsurprisingly, more false claims by a Christian. Alas, we really do need to stand up against christian claims since they do real harm in the real world.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a fraud caught

This won’t end well for the christian fraud. In case some of my overseas friends might not know, Tammy Duckworth is a US Senator, and Cooper Roberts is an unfortunate kid who got shot during a mass shooting. It’d be great if they were healed. I’m not betting on it, and frauds like this need to be squashed.

it should be interesting to see what happens first: excuses being given or the video disappearing.

Addendum: 11-13-2022 – gee, the fraud removed the video. Nothing like christians being liars and cowards.

Oh look, he’s promised that by afternoon on Halloween we’ll see these peopel healed.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – christian teacher spreading her lie

Here, a gal who evidently is a teacher of some kind, is all impressed with her self in spreading a lie to one of her students.

“Last night, I was surprised by the answer of my 11 year old atheist student when I asked him, “What will you do when the plane you’re in is about to crush?” This was during our discussion after reading a documentary story of a pilot and a fight attendant.

Student: I will write a letter to my family and pray to God.

Why am I surprised by his answer?
This student had been consistent in telling me that he didn’t believe in God nor in heaven and hell. Many times I was laughed at, insulted and humiliated. Nevertheless, I’m consistent at sharing to him that there is God, there is heaven and hell and about JESUS.”

aka she spreads a lie that this god will help people, when it does not. An adult lying to a child to brainwash him isn’t impressive.

“I didn’t know that through time, he has been affected by what I am sharing to him.

LESSON LEARNED: We may look foolish to the unbelievers for the moment but we don’t know God is already working on them. We just have to continue our part and God will take care of the rest. 

Atheists know that there is God but because of sins, they don’t want to accept or acknowledge God in their lives. That is the reason they keep on telling there is no God. But even so, in their death bed or in times of danger, I believe they also call on God for help. Let us not wait for this thing to happen that we only call on God as our last option. Let us live every day as if it is our last. “

Alas, for Kristel Jenny, she finds she has to lie about atheists, pretending that we really do agree with her and her cult when we don’t. Her religion depends on such lies to exist. Poor Kristel, christians don’t agree with what this god considers a sin, so you have quite a problem. Happily, atheists do not agree with you, nor do we call out to imaginary nonsense to save us. There are plenty of atheists in foxholes. It’s no wonder you don’t allow comments that will reveal your lies on your blog.

What the Boss Likes – CNN article on rapture nonsense

CNN has a good article on “rapture anxiety

““Rapture anxiety,” as it is often called, is recognized by some faith experts and mental health professionals as a type of religious trauma. Darren Slade, the president and CEO of the Global Center for Religious Research, has been studying religious trauma across several faiths and denominations for years.

“This is a real thing. It’s a chronic problem,” he says of rapture anxiety. “This is a new area of study, but in general, our research has revealed that religious trauma leads to an increase of anxiety, depression, paranoia and even some OCD-like behaviors: ‘I need to say this prayer of salvation so many times,’ ‘I need to confess my sins so often.’”

“Now imagine,” he continues, “You are taught that at any minute, you could be left here on Earth. What does that do to the teenager who just had premarital sex, or even simply took the Lord’s name in vain?””

No surprise here that religion can cause some awful problems.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversationn – and yet another failed apologist with more lies

Yep, I’m bored.

This is a response to an amazingly incompetent apologist, Mark Lanier, who supposedly is a “top” lawyer.  If he is, I certainly wouldn’t want him to represent me.   The poor dear has a new book, “Atheism on trial”.  Well, I guess he couldn’t use “evidence that demands a verdict”.  Here are excerpts from a podcast transcript from here

This is the lawyer trying to excuse why his religion fails.

“Among those factors that I identify is the failure of Christians to be authentic, authentic in their walk, and authentic in the way they treat other people. I think Christians tend to fall easily into traps of making it about us and them, of trying to impose Christian morality upon the world. And in a sense, or at least the nation, confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of men. And thinking that the kingdom of God is is equal to things that are world political systems. I think that’s a real danger, because I think it causes people to want to distance themselves from what they think is not an authentic faith. I think that’s just one factor. I think another factor is Christians have been, with the best of intentions, have have misread so much of Scripture and read it out of context that it’s made a lot of people think they have to make a choice between faith and science, as if they’re opposite ends of a teeter totter. And people don’t understand that the true Christian view is that science is real. It’s legitimate. It is a tool that God gave us to combat the horrors of this fallen world. So, we can learn the science of fertilization, to use fertilizers to be able to grow more crops so we can feed more people and reduce hunger. There’s the science of medicine, where we’re able to treat disease more readily. And all of these consequences of sin, that burden society that destroy lives and families, we have tools to combat those. And those tools include science. And so, I think the failure of Christians to, to fairly assess scripture has set a lot of people thinking they have a choice between science or God. And they don’t understand that, that God is the God of science.”

I do love when Christians insist that they are the only TrueChristians(tm), and have no evidence for that at all.   It’s even better when they try to lie about the sciences, sicne those sciences show that their bible is an incompetent set of myths written by humans. 

hmm, and this god evidently said “screw you” to anyone born before it got around to supposedly “giving” human such things.   His god is quite an idiot and it’s rather quaint to see christians trying to steal the honor and hard work of humans for their imaginary god.  Alas, science shows that the myths of the bible are utter nonsense.

Then we get the attempts to appeal to emotions as evidence for this god. 

“Why do we know there are black holes? Why do we know there are subatomic particles, not just the proof of the physical aspects, but the proof of the non-physical aspects, you know, love, honor, dignity, justice, fairness, these types of things need to be measured as well. And the arguments for these things need to be put into the scales as well. And when you do, frankly, I find atheism fails radically in that arena of proof.”

Well, considering that this god’s supposed actions, we can happily point out that it has nothing to do with justice or fairness.  All of these things are from the brain, and gee, no god needed.  We know that there are laws of physics and magic doesn’t happen, so we know that there are black holes, sub atomic particles, etc by evidence.  We know that people have love, honor, etc, because we have them.   Funny how the same doesn’t hold for this god’s existence. 

Finally, “Yeah, one of the biggest failures in the realm of proof, to me is atheism cannot set up a value system that’s objective.”

Yup, that good ol’, always failing argument from morality. 

hmmm, funny how Christianity hasn’t  set up an objective value system either.  Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants, nor can convince each other of that, having no evidence for this god at all.   You all make up a god that has the morals you want, in your image.  Add this to the fact that many, if not all, christians excuse their god for doign things that they would, hopefully, be horrified if a human did the same.   This makes christian morality entirely subject to who or what someone is, not the objective morality of an action.  

“Now, we’re told that, but if atheism is true, and there is no God, then there is absolutely no basis for believing that some person is not genetically different than another,”

whut?  Humans are genetically different from each other; science has demonstrated that.  Here, poor lawyer tries to claim that atheism should lead to eugenics.  Alas, since he’s an atheist too, one wonder how that works. 

“And so if there’s no God to say, everybody is created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, then why should there be equal rights? When people are not equal?”

God never said that. It’s not in the bible.  Equality between humans never shows up, despite the claims of Christians.  No one is ever equal to a Christian, the supposed “chosen” people.  This god treats no one equally.

“. But he said, you know, we like to pretend that there is subjective morality, we atheists. But wink, wink, nod, nod. We know there’s not. But you can’t go telling everybody that because the solution to it is nihilism.  Or it’s, you know, feast for yourself, otherwise, it’s the fittest that should be surviving.”

It’s also great to see him also lie about how atheists must be nihilists.   Alas, for him, we don’t have to be what a demonstrated liar says.  Funny how he can’t give a name for this supposed “atheist”.  He also demonstrates the usual ignorance of evolutionary theory.  Tsk. 

Lanier fails in his “trial” of atheism. No surprise there at all. Apologetics are only for gullible and fearful christians.

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.