I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. – M. Cole
A Jewish congregation, Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor, has sued the nitwits in Florida over their abortion law. Unsurprisingly, conservative Christians, in their attempts to create a theocracy that is only for them, ignore that other people, including other theists, don’t agree with their baseless nonsense.
“Florida’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy violates the religious freedom of Jews because Jewish law requires the procedure in some cases, a Boynton Beach synagogue said in a lawsuit.
Repeatedly, it is demonstrated that conservative Christians are just out for control, nothing more. They care for nothing but themselves. They have no interest in helping families and children after the child leaves the vagina, consistently attempting to cut any aid. We can see that desire to in Gov. Scott’s proposal that “Under Point Six, which aims to shrink the size of the federal government, Scott writes, “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” Scott also writes that he would: “Force Congress to issue a report every year telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt.””
Now, Factcheck.org (source of the quote above) tries to claim that this doesn’t exactly say that Republicans, and therefore, conservative Christians want to kill entitlements. They are right, it doesn’t literally say that they will. However, we have seen them try to kill these programs for decades. It is naive to think that they will not do their best to at the very least cut these programs to the bone. The people at Factcheck also state that Scott was lying when it claimed that Social Security, Medicare would go bankrupt, which is yet another part of the false claim invented to get rid of these programs.
We can see this demonstrated as recently as the last administration, with their tax cuts for the wealthy and no replacement for that funding. This is old Republican tactic as noted here:
“Starve the beast” is a political two-step that first generates deficits through tax cuts and, second, points to the alarmingly high deficits to attack government spending and reduce entitlements. Credited to an unnamed Reagan administration official in 1985 and long associated with Reagan economic guru David Stockman, the notion of “starve the beast” emerged from around the time of Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, which were not paired with simultaneous spending reductions.
Reagan held that higher deficits would naturally lead to budget reductions: “We can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.”
Today, you can see the “starve the beast” tactic clearly in the 2017 tax cuts—the main cause of the projected record deficits—to future spending cuts. Trump’s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow, a veteran of the Reagan administration, has made this argument himself. He explicitly invoked “starve the beast” in a 1996 Wall Street Journal op ed:
“Tax cuts impose a restraint on the size of government. Tax cuts will starve the beast… Specifically, tax cuts provide a policy incentive to search for market solutions to the problems of Social Security, health care, education and the environment.”
Unsurprisingly, and unfortunately, you simply can’t believe these conservative Christians and Republicans when it comes to promises they won’t try to force their religion on others and remove necessary government programs.
Some of the big holidays/months for the abrahamic religions happen this month. Easter is this weekend. Passover starts on Friday. Ramadan is the whole lunar month.
Passover – we have a celebration that the Israelites got their freedom, the “exodus”, but it’s not quite that simple and requires the death of children and people who had no choice in the matter where this god was mind controlling a man in order to show off. There’s no evidence for this nonsense at all.
Easter – we have a celebration because a god needed a blood sacrifice by torture of part of itself to make itself happy because of its failure at the very beginning of the creation myths. No evidence for the victim, torture or supposed resurrection.
Ramadan – we have a celebration because a man claimed an angel showed him magic writings in a cave that would become the holy book for a religion. At least there is no direct death involved here. There’s also no evidence for this story either.
For my new followers, here are some oldies but goodies on Easter and Passover. I don’t have much on Islam on my blog. I’ll have to correct that at sone point. Here’s a post about how similarly silly it is to the other religions of the “book”.
Wow, one of the more unpleasant videos by conservative Christian liars I’ve seen in a while. I found this on a Christian blog by a Dr. Bob. It’s about how even atheists really need to teach their kids about the Christian god. For their good, of course. It’s a few years old but still a lovely sample of how much some Christian rely on deceit to spread their false claims. Just like ol’ C.S. Lewis in his encouragement to lie to potential Christians about the contradictions between Christians and their hate for one another.
No need to tell children about an imaginary being who damns people to eternal torture for no fault of their own. A vicious god that kills children for no fault of their own.
I do love the video since it shows just how vile conservative Christians can be. It shows that Komisar (evidently a jewish believer), and christians, have no problem with making false claims about religion and misrepresenting that Harvard study. The study was for all religions, not just christianity, so it is not the faith, but the community that is the influencing factor. Unsurprisingly, this research was funded by the Templeton Foundation who has an investment in wanting religion to be promoted.
So any religion is fine, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Christianty, Judaism: nothing special.
Komisar also goes on to try to lie and claim that nihilism is equal with non-belief in her god. Alas, that is not the case at all. Komisar says to lie to your children aka “Fake it”. She excuses her lying by saying that all parents falsely promise their children that nothing bad will ever happen to them. Hmm, this is rather close to this god saying that it will take care of every believer like the lilies. It doesn’t do as promised and all believers have is blaming victims to excuse their god e.g. You didn’t pray enough, etc.
Amazing how that works when this god of Komisar’s says never to lie, not even if you think you are lying *for* it, Romans 3, or if she is jewish “No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.” Psalm 101 and “11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19. She also claims that the only way for a child to be taught gratitude and empathy is by organized religion. Of course, she means her version of Christianity, no other. Alas, we have millions of people, who needed no religion to be humane humans. Observation outweighs her lies.
In conclusion, all she has is “think of the children” as a basis for her attempts at recruitment for religion. It’s so sweet to see her false concern for free choice of religion offered as a reason why parents should bother their kids with baseless myths. Ah, the pure hypocrisy there.
“prager u” is not a university at all, just a conservative media company known for its false claims.
So, we have a Christian, Andy Bannister, who wants to ask “Why are some atheists so afraid of changing their minds?”. This is a video, and of course, the comments are turned off. So much for being the “confident” Christians that Solas claims on their website, eh?
Unsurprisingly, the video starts off with the usual false claims about atheists, how rude we all are for not blindly accepting what the particular Christian says, that we all evidently can’t come up with anything ourselves but have to repeat what other atheists say (which begs the question “since we are all repeating someone else, who is actually the originator of these things?”), that we have bad grammar and spelling (oh do call the kettle black, pot), and of course trying to be insulting by equating atheist with idiot, in the ever-so clever “village atheist” comment.
We end up quickly in the claims somehow atheists are fearful and this is “why” atheists don’t engage with the “best” arguments for Christianity. This isn’t a new claim, it is just the “sophisticated theology” bit of nonsense that many Christians trot out, that atheists only pick the low hanging fruit to address. This excuse is, of course, dependent on the theist being willfully ignorant about how atheists have indeed addresses those “best” arguments too. This video isn’t for atheists, it is for a Christian to reinforce the false beliefs of himself and other Christians. Apologetics aren’t for atheists, they are for theists.
Unsurprisingly, Andy says that atheists should “properly” examine the claims of the Christian faith. The term “properly” comes up often in apologetics and the definition that is used this context is “in an acceptable or suitable way” not “in an accurate or correct way”. It is nothing more than a code word for agreeing with the theist and not questioning what they say, something that is “acceptable” to them.
Andy goes on to appeal to authority in the form of Alistair McGrath, who evidently must be correct because he has a degree. This fellow, anglican priest at Oxford (who defines atheists as ” I became an atheist – somebody who deliberately and intentionally does not believe in God and thinks that anyone who does believe in God is mentally deficient or seriously screwed up.'”, supposedly received a letter from a student that who became a Christian after reading one of McGrath’s books and the “very best” Christian philosophers. Of course, this student was an atheist, because that makes the story. This atheist never ever read the “other side of the argument” but when he did, poof, he became a Christian. This of course ignores reality since this doesn’t happen every time, and indeed, atheists often become atheists because they did read the holy book of Christianity and realized what nonsense it is and read other books to see that the bible didn’t reflect reality. To see McGrath’s other use of failed apologetics, here is a video/transcript of an interview with him. This is the “quality” of McGrath’s arguments: “Number one, there are a very large number of scientists who are religious believers; and these are not stupid people at all. ” Quite a pathetic start, an appeal to authority fallacy. Here‘s a more thorough take down of McGrath’s arguments. If he is one of the ‘best’, Christianity doesn’t have much to support it.
Andy goes on to repeat the claim that atheists don’t address the “best” arguments for Christianity by recommending these “best” authors like Rebecca McLaughlin. Now, Dr. McLaughlin is one of those with again degrees, beloved by Biologos and is an entirely awful apologist. This is her on her ‘one minute apologetics.” “The Jesus of the Gospels is either God in the flesh or a terrible imposter. There is no middle ground.” That is really all she has, nothing different from Paul saying, yep, we believe becuase we gotta believe. She wrote a book, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion. That’s one assumption right in the title, since we know that Christians don’t consider each other Christians by the millions. Looking at the amazon preview of the book, we see the usual apologetics, that somehow Christianity has dibs on every good human action and is the only thing responsible for human rights, the claim that persecution makes Christianity true, that somehow atheists have no morality, etc. In other words, the same false and baseless claims, nothing new or “sophisticated” here at all.
He also of course tries to claim that atheists don’t read these arguments with an open mind and accusing atheists of being cowards and not “serious”, to again try to claim that we aren’t being honest or brave or seriously considering the material. He also insists that pointing out that a Christian is wrong is being “rude”, doing the typical appeal to politeness when he has nothing else. Nothing like a Christian accusing someone of lying and having no evidence for it.
It is interesting that Andy never mentions what a single one of these “best” arguments are. One would suspect that is because when one of the arguments is dismantled, he can insist that wasn’t one of the “best” ones and then run to the next, never taking responsibility for his claims.
Atheists aren’t afraid of changing our minds. We have no reason to .
since this research took a little time, no reason to waste it since the Christian I was replying to has prevented comments that show him wrong from showing on his blog. As usual, this Christian, Michael, ignores what he doesn’t want to admit to, and resorts to false claims to defend his need to invent a Christianity that has done no wrong. Nothing new here if you know your history.
Let’s look at some of Hitler’s quotes from Mein Kampf and his speeches. There is no problem in imaging these words from any conservative Christian:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. ”
“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God”
“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
“For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’”
And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.
” That’s because he despised Christianity (or as he called it, “the religion of the catacombs”)”
– a false claim from our Christian. no source for that quote at all. This is a false claim.
”The Nazi philosophy itself was antithetical to Christianity, and Hitler knew this and planned for the eventual elimination of Bibles, crosses, worship of Jesus, etc.”
Nope, not at all, as you can see from the quote above.
The swastika was a common sign of good luck in pre Nazi says. The state library here in Pennsyvlania has hundreds of swastikas in it that are part of the ornate railing around the floors. The swastika, also known as the fylfot was a common thing in Christian culture.
We also have the problem when Christians try to claim that Nazis weren’t christians when they banned books on evolutionary theory, just like conservative Christians try now. This list is from the 1935 Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation “guidelines” during the second round of “purifications” (saüberung).
1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland). 2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism. 3. Pacifist literature. 4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann). 5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig). 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). 7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn). 8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).
So, conservative Christians, do you recognize yourselves?
Again, I had to quote the information on the links given since our Christian tried to ignore what they said. This is what got me banned, daring to show him wrong to his followers.
“The Fylfot was widely adopted in the early Christian centuries. It is found extensively in the Roman catacombs. A most unusual example of its usage is to be found in the porch of the parish church of Great Canfield, Essex, England. As the parish guide rightly states, the Fylfot or Gammadion can be traced back to the Roman catacombs where it appears in both Christian and pagan contexts. More recently it has been found on grave-slabs in Scotland and Ireland A particularly interesting example was found in Barhobble, Wigtownshire in Scotland.
Gospel books also contain examples of this form of the Christian cross. The most notable examples are probably the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels. Mention must also be made of an intriguing example of this decoration that occurs on the Ardagh Chalice.
From the early 14th Century on, the Fylfot was often used to adorn Eucharistic robes. During that period it appeared on the monumental brasses that preserved the memory of those priests thus attired. They are mostly to be found in East Anglia and the Home Counties.
Probably its most conspicuous usage has been its incorporation in stained glass windows notably in Cambridge and Edinburgh. In Cambridge it is found in the baptismal window of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, together with other allied Christian symbols, originating in the 19th century.” – Wikipedia
“Its “Discovery” and Meanings in Modern Europe The symbol experienced a resurgence in the nineteenth century, as a result of growing European interest in the ancient civilizations of the Near East and India. During his extensive excavations, the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann discovered the hooked cross on the site of ancient Troy. He connected it with similar shapes found on pottery in Germany and speculated that it was a “significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors.” Other European scholars and thinkers linked the symbol to a shared Aryan culture that spanned Europe and Asia.
In the beginning of the twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe. It had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness.” – US Holocaust Museum
So we have a symbol meaning good luck and auspiciousness (auspicious: showing or suggesting that future success is likely) taken by Hitler who wanted to pretend that his reich would exist forever, who was a Christian who knew the use of the symbol, and then used it.
Again, we see that Nazism was built from Christianity from Hitler’s own words in Mein Kampf. “Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us–the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.”
And “Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.”
And “Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts’ content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.”
The Nazis added their own spin to Christianity just like every Christians does, for weal or woe. However at its root lies the need for a religion to create an “other” to hate and the lie of being a chosen people who must strive against those who disagree with them. Christianity isn’t not alone in this.
Rabbi Gellman, who used to be part of the God Squad with a catholic priest, still has a syndicated column. I occasionally address them there. This time it’s a column that in my paper is titled “why don’t animals talk”.
Now many cultures have myths on why this is. They are just-so stories like Kipling wrote. Raven can’t talk anymore because he stole fire for mankind and carried it in his beak.
The answer we have from the rabbi to ostensibly a third-grade girl is that it is somehow to teach humans “not just about right and wrong but also about wrong and right and even more right.” (Italics mine) What the hell? This certainly drives a spike into the objective claims of morality from theists. If this god allows something that it kinda isn’t good with, but there is a better idea, then why not require the truly “good” idea? The rabbi wants to have it that eating meat is okay with his god but its better if we could eat without causing some animal to “suffer and die”.
In this column, Gellman mentions Genesis 1:29 and Genesis 9:3. They are, with a little added for context (the specific verses are italicized):
“26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”27 So God created humankind[e] in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Genesis 1
0 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
22 As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
1God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.” – Genesis 8-9
So, we have a god that has no problem with killing and burning animals for its own pleasure, so Gellman’s claim that this god is all about veganism isn’t true in the slightest. This god is so all about meat is that he rejects Cain’s offering of fruits and vegetables, and approves of Abel’s offering, also making it questionable why Abel was bothering with killing animals at all since they weren’t eating them, and why this god had to kill and skin animals to make clothes for the newly naked Adam and Eve. The rabbi claims that his god gives the allowance to Noah to eat meat “grudgingly”. That is no where in the verses.
The rabbi then gives a rather horrible little story (midrash) about how Noah wanted a hamburger. He has the snake being truthful and saying one has to make a hamburger (and seemingly implying that it was being evil, which begs the question, why was this snake on the ark?). Noah, for no reason other than personal want, kills and eats his friend the cow. This is from a person who chats regularly with this god. The end of the story is that animals don’t talk to humans because that Noah ate one of them and they are upset.
So are animals upset with this god too since it demands their death?
Which of the cows did Noah eat and how does this work with the other utterly silly story in the bible where it can’t make up its mind on how many animals Noah took with him on the ark?
If we can eat “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” then why the claims we can’t eat some of these things in Exodus and Leviticus? This god is so forgetful, losing things, forgetting what he’s said before.
This a prime example of theists making up nonsense thoughtlessly and making things ever worse for their bible’s claims.
“Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do not say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests had not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not use, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked. Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests “for revenue only,” but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without revenue.” – Robert Ingersoll (lots more excellent quotes here for those who don’t think atheists used to be as feistyt as they are now)
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.
Club Schadenfreude 