Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – now the QOP finds another group they’ve ignored to use as an excuse

Currently here in the US, we have the usual conservative Christians trying to force their lies on everyone again, this time trying to stop legal abortion.

We also have them being ever so concerned about children in the US being “starved” by immigrant families being given infant formula, which is in short supply here in the US for various reasons. they of course blame President Biden, which is always hilarious since a president doesn’t have that kind of power, no matter how they tried to invest their orange moron with it.

These people have consistently tried to eliminate any help for mothers and children, be it SNAP (food assistance), WIC (a program to help women and children get care and good nutrition), and basic welfare like good public schools and affordable housing. But ah, now that they can try to be claim how concerned they are about these people, just so they can excuse their need to deny help for their fellow humans.

This happened the last time when the conservative Christians insisted how much they cared about the “homeless veterans” when they wanted to also keep immigrants out, claiming housing shortages and job that “should” go to “Americans”. They of course dropped their concern as soon as they realized that it wasn’t working as an excuse.

Those veterans are still homeless and the working poor’s kids will still be hungry when they kick them to the curb too. Nothing like a conservative Christian to show just how worthless their cult is. They aren’t “pro-life” they are pro-theocracy and their selfish, petty, greedy religion.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – it’s time to stand up, liberal Christians

Unsurprisingly, conservative Christians are doing all they can to turn the US into a theocracy.  They want to control everyone, not just women, not just LGBT… folks, not just people of different religions, etc. Everyone.  All based on their belief that some god wants this.  They of course can’t show this god even exists or theirs is the right version.  They find they must invent a god that agrees with them. 

They are trying to claim that the US constitution determines the laws of this land and if it doesn’t mention something, those laws can’t be on the federal level.  McConnell is of course now wanting a federal level law to make abortion illegal, which shows just how much conservative Christians lie when they have claimed how much they want states to have the ability to rule on abortion the way the people want:

“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies — not only at the state level but at the federal level — certainly could legislate in that area, And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible.”

They don’t care about that at all.  They want their way no matter what, democracy be damned. And evidently their god be damned since it says not to lie and they have chosen to do so.

It’s notable that some of the justices are also now shown to have lied under oath with their claims of respecting precedent.

Of course, these cowards are sitting behind a fence to protect them, something that they refused to allow when it came to women getting their legal healthcare. 

It is time for everyone to stand up against this, and for anyone who wants to claim they are a Christian, just not THAT type, to be loud to show us there is a difference.  If not, they are going to be responsible for the destruction of the freedoms of the US because of their tacit acceptance of this nonsense.   If there is a theocracy, there can only be one “church”.   

Which is more important?  Your freedoms or your need to circle the wagons to protect your religion? 

Not So Polite Conversation – my discussion with Alexander part 2

Unsurprisingly, the comments got a little hairy looking on the prior post.

Alex seems to have determined he doesn’t want to debate things anymore. This often happens when the theist finds they have nothing when it comes to supporting their claims. In this case, Alex was unable to give examples of his accusations against various people, me, Joe Biden, etc, and give examples of evidence that supports his version of Christianity.

Alex, as the typical theist is wont to do, tried some classic logical fallacies, and some of the supposed “logical” arguments for god, but forgot that those arguments aren’t for his god but for some vague force and the theist can’t get from them to their particular god since there is no evidence for those gods. Despite the myths claiming that this god has repeatedly caused events on the earth that should produce evidence, there is none to be found.

Theists, like Alex, and bibledog who showed up later into the conversation, should consider their religion from an outsider’s point of view, like John Loftus recommends. They could simply place another god’s name in place of their own and consider how valid their arguments sound coming from a religion they did not have a personal stake in.

Here is what I’m guessing is his final post. Often theists do return to continue the conversation, unable to stick with their dramatic exits. We’ll see. I’ve put in paragraph breaks where I think appropriate since all I was left with is a block of text.

“You know what? I think our discussion has come to a close. No matter how hard I try, or how much evidence I provide, I know that in your current state you will never change your mind.”

This is a common attack by a Christian who has no evidence for his claims. He has provided no evidence. He has tried to use the various arguments, cosmological, teleological, etc for his god and they do not show that any version of the Christian god exists. At best, these arguments *may* offer a possibility of some vague “force” to accomplish what they claim. He has also used claims of this god personally doing things for him, which I suspect he would not accept from any other type of theist. Since no theist has evidence of divine intervention, there is no reason to accept this as evidence.

“You insist on standing by your science which is wonderful but seems unable to cure things like cancer. Tell me, if we didn’t need God, then shouldn’t science be able to solve all of our problems? Shouldn’t science be able to make sure that parents never get divorced? Shouldn’t science make sure that wars never happen (instead of helping people develop nuclear weapons?) Shouldn’t science be constant, never changing, always true, instead of always being refuted?”

Alex uses the science he attacks so vigorously. Science can indeed cure some kinds of cancers, which is yet another instance of Alex’s willful ignorance coming into play. Therapy, part of the psychological science, can help parents not get divorced. Science does help prevent war by increasing available resources which are often fought over. Science doesn’t constantly change, as Alex falsely claims. It is refined and since we don’t yet have complete knowledge of everything, we are limited in discovery of facts, e.g. what is true.

Now, compare this to the Christian claims of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and supposedly omni-benevolent being. This being cannot be shown to exist nor can it do anything that Alex claims science can’t do at all. It has not cured one kind of cancer, kept parents together despite the admonitions in its supposed “holy book”, and Christians themselves cannot agree what this god wants, making it always changing.

“See, the bottom line you guys, is that you can call my claims baseless or unfounded, and maybe they are (that’s why we have faith after all), but your claims are just as baseless. You cannot prove to me that some divine hand did not create the universe simply because there is evidence it had to do with physics”

Yes, I, and we, can show that all of Alex’s claims are baseless and unfounded and we have the evidence to support that conclusion. I’ve asked Alex for evidence for his various accusations and he either can’t or won’t. I can indeed show that there is no reason to assume that Alex’s god exists since we have no evidence for any of the events it supposedly caused. I suspect that Alex would deny that any creator god I might name created the world since there is no evidence for them either. Physics doesn’t need a god, so why assume one?

“I can throw a rock and you can tell me all the reasons why it flies in the path it flies based off of weight and velocity, the fact remains however, that I threw that rock, not physics.”

Yep, we can indeed describe the physics that allow a human body to work and how a thrown object behaves. Physics allows Alex to throw that rock. Without physics, no Alex.

“And you are all upset about me “lying” about you guys. Okay, how’d I lie? By pointing out that in world with no afterlife, it doesn’t matter how far science advances to make us comfortable we can never prevent death, therefore there is no point in us existing anyway and we might as well just clean up the population problem by removing people who are making it hard to live our pointless lives? If that’s what your mad about then I’m afraid you’ll have to deal.”

Alex requests evidence of his lies. Okay. He has repeated false claims about people, including atheists, Joe Biden, other types of Christians, etc. He has been offered the chance to provide evidence to support his claims. He has refused.
“For instance, the Bible says no to worship anything besides God, that means that Catholics practices of praying to saints and such is wrong.”
“Well, Biden does not seem to have it altogether mentally, and because of him gas prices are really high. “
” I mean, by an atheists logic, they are going to die, there’s no way to stop them and nothing to tell them before they do so we might as well get rid of them, especially the ones who are using up all the resources in India and Africa and China.”

All false claims made with the intent to spread false information for the benefit of the Christian and to try to take away the ability of informed decisions from others.

He unfortunately doubles down on his false claims. “By pointing out that in world with no afterlife, it doesn’t matter how far science advances to make us comfortable we can never prevent death, therefore there is no point in us existing anyway and we might as well just clean up the population problem by removing people who are making it hard to live our pointless lives? If that’s what your mad about then I’m afraid you’ll have to deal.”

none of this is true. It is a rather pathetic attempt to claim that atheists must be nihilists. I will indeed “deal” with this by pointing out how these baseless claims have failed.

“After all, you called my God both a liar and murder, not to mention that you didn’t mention a single good thing about Christians. Do not judge others lest they judge you by your own standard, (there’s one you ought to like). Call me a chicken, call me a fool, or even a child. I happen to like chicken. God hath chosen the foolish things to triumph over the wise, so the more foolish I sound to you the better. And as for a child, well I like to think that I’m still a kid at heart.”

Alex has missed the difference between being child-like and childish. Why should I mention anything good about Christianity when it isn’t good? That some Christians do good, and do so by ignoring their bible, is nothing special or new, nor does it make his nonsense true. Humans can and often are quite good, no god needed. We aren’t the “dirty rags” that Christianity claims.

Alex has also tried very hard to steal the accomplishments of humans and falsely claim his god is the one responsible for the hard work of humans. Alas, for Alex, even if this bible of his claims this god chooses the foolish over the wise, it’s not happened that the foolish has triumphed over anything at all.

“I have done my best to be kind and courteous and all I got for it in return was a couple f-words from a lot stiff necked people. It’s funny though; I’m very mad and frustrated with y’all but my God would still forgive you and show compassion to you, so I will too. You are all welcome at my blog anytime so long as you keep it civil (to my standards). I appreciate all the time you took to set this up and the traffic, however short lived, you sent my way. I hope you all will find within you that thing Elizabeth was talking about. She might not have presented it the right way but it’s in there, and I hope that those of you have fallen out of faith will come back and those who have never had one will choose to accept Jesus into their hearts. Best wishes to all of you-AP”

Making and repeating false claims is not kind or courteous. Alex is the one who has described being friendly as *only* not using curse words, nothing else, which is telling. He is indeed mad and frustrated and his god is still a baseless claim. No one needs forgiveness from this imaginary god nor from Alex for showing him to be wrong.

I am quite happy that I engaged Alex and linked to his blog. His actions did more than I could ever do to show how poisonous religion can be.

Now, to the denouement to show how Alex wanted to support Elizabeth, who tried so very hard convince her self that everyone really agrees with her.

“Now we’re getting down to the Elizabeth thing and then I’ll move onto the next of the comments you made. I think Elizabeth was right but went about the wrong way trying to prove it. She tried to prove that everyone agreed with her and not with God. But wouldn’t it make sense, that if God really did create the universe that everyone would know Him somewhere inside? You are actually correct that this statement contradicts my earlier one to Nan, about the Bible not being perfectly downloaded into our conscience. I suppose then it’s our human nature that causes us to suppress the knowledge. Let me know your thoughts.

As for me not being able to drive out demons and protect myself from sickness, that’s again where you have to look at it in an artistic manner. Christians do drive out real demons, but we also drive out the demons of sadness, insecurity, fear, etc. negative things. Protecting ourselves from sickness. Well, we still get sick, but when we have God we are able to worry less about all sorts of stuff, essentially protecting ourselves from the sickness of fear.

Now, a debate is a debate. But as my brother likes to point out to me, debates have an outcomes, and arguments don’t. I can feel that this is becoming more and more of an argument. I’ve have done my best to stay friendly, but if you can not do the same then I’m afraid our discussion might be coming to a close.”

No evidence that Alex’s god did anything, so no reason to assume his baseless claim to be true any more than Elizabeth’s. No knowledge, so no knowledge to supposedly “suppress”.

Alex’s inability to do what his supposed messiah promised is nothing new. He must try to claim that this messiah only meant “metaphors”, and now this god is again depowered to excuse its, and alex’s failure.

Debates do have outcomes and Alex has lost this one.

Addendeum – 5/4/22 4:41 EDT.

As predicted, Alex is back.

“Oh, is that what all those quotes were for; the ellipses and all the numbers made it kind of confusing. Well if that’s what you think, that’s what you think, I really hope you reconsider though. One last thought. Why exactly is it that atheists choose not to believe? If what you have told me is true, and they live to help people, and they expect that they’re going to die, then why not put their faith in God and if it turns out Christianity is real they go to heaven and if it isn’t then they don’t. Your problem seems to be that you think God is a murder and somehow wrong for orchestrating His creation, but if you look at the Bible in it’s entirety, you’ll see he really does care, and does do what is just, and does want the best for us. Are there parts of the Bible that we don’t understand? Yes. If you think about it, why would the affairs of an allpowerful God make sense to a human being anyway? If you accept that God is visible in the surrounding world, and not simply only the supernatural, then it becomes very hard for me to understand why there are atheists at all. I mean when it comes down to it, the difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that a Christian believes that, if a person asks Jesus for forgiveness and repents of their sins, then they get to go to a wonderful place. When you think about it that way, it almost doesn’t make sense that there are atheists at all.”

Why would I reconsider?  Your god is a horrible character.  I wouldn’t worship such a thing even if it were real.

I don’t choose not to believe in Alex’s version of the Chrsitian god, since that’s all you have. There is no evidence. I can’t believe in things with no evidence.   Atheists do what they want, and they do and don’t help others. 

All  you have offered is Pascal’s wager.  This makes your god particularly stupid if it accepts anyone who believes “just in case”.  I have better moral standards than your god so I don’t care about its heaven or hell. 

Your god is a murderer and a liar, and imaginary.  I’ve read the entire bible and there is nothing in it that shows it cares about anything but being stroked off.  So your claim fails already. 

There is no part of the bible I don’t understand.  It is the ignorant and vicious belief of humans in a vicious and ignorant god.  There is nothing mysterious about your god, it is as pathetic as any god invented by humans.  And dear, I don’t even remotely accept that your god exists,much less is “visible in the surrounding world”.   

Again, Christians make up what their god disapproves of e.g. “sin”.  Why should I care about what you’ve made up?  There is no evidence of a “wonderful place”.  And your “wonderful place” is a horror, with a moronic god that kills people for no reason, who commits genocide, who approves of slavery.  This “city of heaven on earth” is quite the demented wealth fantasy, where everything is this tacky mess of gold, jewels etc.  I can’t be bribed with such garbage.  Christiansn can’t even agree on what this “wonderful place” is.   The complete ignorance of Christians on what their bible actually says about the supposed afterlife is hilarious. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – the conservative christians want a theocracy where no one has privacy

I’m guessing most of my readers have seen that a draft opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States, was revealed to the public. This opinion is to end the legality of abortion in the US at the federal level, and that original case was built on the fact that no government has any right to breach the privacy of an individual.

Now we can see that conservative Christians want government to control your life, as long as it is *their* government.

““Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”” – Justice Alito “Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al petitioners vs Jackson Womens Health Organization et al”

The argument is that since the right to an abortion isn’t in the constitution, regulating should be given to the states. Now, with that argument, we see that personal privacy is also up for grabs per Alito’s argument. We’ve heard repeatedly from conservative that they are supposedly horrified of government involvement with the privacy of citizens when it comes to guns, to religion (the deal with the devil between Catholics and evangelicals who hate each other and ae sure each other are going to hell), schooling, books, etc. They are of course hypocrites and liars.

Is this what balkanizes the US? When will the civil war start between Christians over who gets to rule? We’ll see.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a great paper on how cults rationalize their nonsense

Just a link to a very good paper on how cults, aka religions, can invent nonsense and end up believing it to be true. Thanks to John Loftus over at Debunking Christianity for giving the link.

“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?” — by Kris Komarnitsky

The information about the Marian Keech cult was interesting. I hadn’t known that UFO cults were so early.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a three-fer this year

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”.  (you can find links to the other parts at the bottom of the post)  And thou shalt of eat of this guinea pig in rememberance of me

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – happy ridiculous holiday weekend!

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Christians are atheists too

I, and many other atheists, have pointed out to theists that they are atheists too.   They simply don’t believe in other gods, often for reasons just like I do: there is no evidence.  They often get upset by this revelation, since it neuters their common attacks on atheists e.g. atheists are those scary communists, etc.

Nothing much new here. I’m just writing responses to various theist since I am desperately bored at work. A month’s shutdown is wearying. There are some fun memes at the end if you want to just scroll down.

Now, unsurprisingly, the Chrisitans who put up this bit don’t allow comments on their website.  As usual, they don’t want anyone actually thinking about what they claim is true and definitely don’t want anyone to think that someone can show them wrong.  (Dave has put up a response to this post that you can read here where I put it in the comments, since he was too afraid of posting it here as a comment and having to deal with responses. He certainly is concerned by how I wrote and manages not to refute my points: )

Dave Williams, the Christian making the claims starts with this baseless bit of nonsense “Now, belief in the one true God can only come through revelation as he speaks to you, reveals his true character and causes you to see your need for him.”  Well poof goes free will then.  But, as I know very well, Christians don’t agree whether free will or predestination is a thing and neither side can show their nonsense to the right answer. 

This assumption has nothing to support it.  It assumes that there is only one god, and that Dave’s version is it, as well as that this god talks to anyone.  We can see that claim as being rather doubtful since this god supposedly talks to every Christian per their own claims, and funny how this god gives entirely contradictory information to its “chosen”.  For all of Dave’s claims of “serious logical missteps” he’s already made a few. 

Dave’s claim is that there simply has to be a right version of Christianity. There does not.  I would make the educated guess that Dave would not agree that there must be a right version of Islam, though his argument “that there are many different options does not take away from the potential truth of one” would make Islam with just as much chance of being true as his version of Christianity.  Dave also gets rather confused trying to claim that atheists would not want our conclusion that there are not gods set along side the many claims of theists for their gods.   Since he also claims that there are no gods, in each individual case, other than his god, he has his own no god option.  How is that to be put alongside his god option? 

As usual, the theist has little idea about how logic works.  He does indeed need to show that other gods don’t exist and his does, and proceeds to offer illogical and indeed baseless claims as truth. 

He promptly defines his god as the only possible definition of a god.  He claims a binary choice when there is none.  This is a false dichotomy fallacy e.g. “there being a god or there not being a god.”  There could be many gods, there could be two.  They could work in gestalt, they could each have a function in a process, and on and on.  There is nothing to show that his god is the only god.  That is his baseless premise and thus makes any conclusion from it worthless. 

Dave claims “Now, even at this stage we are not putting all the god options in competition with each other.”  He then promptly says “The discussion is now between people who do believe in God’s existence. The priority now is to make sure that we are talking about the true and living god. The aim is to make sure we know him correctly and worship him properly.”

hmm, where did that other possibility go, that there are no god or gods or that there are multiple gods?  Oh yes, Dave assumes there is a god required.  He also tries to claim that polytheism isn’t really putting up their pantheon against a single god.  Really?  Then why the difference in terms?  These gods are indeed rivals to Dave’s god in their ontological status.  He tries to pretend they aren’t, by insisting that his god alone deserves worship, but he gives no reason why this should be he case.  There may indeed be considered a vague power over these pantheons, but again, why does only Dave’s god deserve worship? 

Dave claims then that this somehow “boils down into one question ““Do you believe in an eternal, personal, loving God who created the World, continues to sustain it?”” and then claims that the only possible answer is that one must.  Funny how that works. 

All of this doesn’t end up leading to Dave’s god, no matter how hard he hopes it does so he can be validated. We still have other gods possible, and there is no problem with worshiping something, no matter if it is “distant and unknowable”.  Dave’s claim “Then, we have in fact denied the eternal and personal God and in practice chosen the atheist option.”  Aka “If you don’t believe in my god, then you are an atheist” Is entirely false. 

The point that Christians are also atheists and disbelieve in other gods, therefore being atheist towards them, still stands. I could wish that the term “pan-atheist” would be accepted for those of us who disbelieve in all gods, but that hasn’t happened yet. So we are stuck with atheism potentially meaning two things, the lack of belief in a god or gods, and the lack of belief in all of them.  

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – lying is no problem for a conservative Christian who want to claim persecution

This is about a case going to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“The case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, involves a Washington public high school football coach, Joe Kennedy, who wants to be able to pray publicly with students. Kennedy had a long history of leading his players in prayer, in the locker room and on the field. When this was brought to the attention of the school administration in 2015, he was asked to stop. He refused, insisting he must be permitted to pray publicly with students.

Kennedy and his lawyers at the Christian extremist First Liberty Institute advance the narrative he was fired for praying silently and privately. First Liberty claims: “The school district fired Coach Kennedy for taking a knee and praying a silent, 15-30 second prayer.” The truth is that Kennedy refused an accommodation that would have let him pray silently and privately, and his contract was not renewed because he demanded to be able to pray audibly and publicly with students.”

How not surprising at all. I guess that the poor dears find that their god’s words against liars don’t apply to them and/or that they can treat their god as a vending machine, demanding forgiveness for the sin they chose to do.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – and yet again a Christian fails in their claims of what makes someone leave their religion

A fellow in my home state, Mark Farnham, from a relatively close by bible college, has decided to make a list of why people have left his religion.  And of course it’s the same baseless claims, and ignorance.  He has this nonsense on a rather vehement evangelical conservative Christian website called “Sharper Iron”, and claims he wants comments.  Of course, you can’t comment there unless you agree with these Christians (and like all Christians they are quite sure that only their version is the right one).  So here we go.   As always, nothing new here that I haven’t written before, so feel free to ignore. 

So, Mark, did you ever actually talk to an atheist?  Seems not, and you just made up nonsense to convince yourself how great you are. 

Per your own bible, no one can be “rescued” since your god has already chosen who it will let accept it and then it just damns the rest for no fault of their own.   But let’s look at your claims.  I do note that no one can comment on your nonsense unless they agree to the doctrinal statement of “Sharper Iron”, which is nothing more than typical fundamentalist Christian, and therefore, baseless claims. Always good for being able to spread false claims without challenge;  So much for this: “Comments, input, and corrections are welcome.”  

“1.They have experienced some hurt, trauma, or abuse at the hands of professing Christians, churches, and/or pastors.”

Nope, not at all, and many Christians love to hope this is true so they can ignore what non-christians say because is “just emotional”.   I don’t believe in your version of the Christian god, and other gods, because there is no evidence for them and plenty of evidence against them since not one event claimed to have been caused by a god can be shown to have happened.

“2.They have spent too much time reading, listening, watching, and talking to people espousing weak theology, heresy, and the hiss of the serpent asking, “Did God really say?”

This is the common claim of “sophisticated theology”, e.g. non-christians haven’t heard the “real” religion.  I have and I’ve also looked into all of those versions of Christianity that you claim are wrong.  Funny how you can’t show yours right, just like them. 

I did indeed spend a lot of time reading about Christianity, its many many contradictory sects, and other religions.  I found that religion has nothing going for it.

“3.They have wittingly or unwittingly absorbed and adopted naturalistic, atheistic, and hedonistic assumptions and presuppositions and then critiqued the Bible in light of those. As a result they find the Bible objectionable, ludicrous, or repugnant.”

The bible is indeed objectionable, ludicrous and repugnant.  I’ve read it cover to cover.  This is the typical claim of the Christian about “rebellion”, and daring to think differently than they do.  They don’t like the bible to be critiqued like any other book, “holy” book or not. 

I quite “wittingly absorbed” information that shows that Christianity fails, because I dared to read something other than Christian books, and was smart enough to follow the information, not my wishes that some god existed.  That’s why knowledge is death to religion.  Religion depends on willful ignorance and fear to keep its followers in line.

“4.They have tired of the scorn, ridicule, and pressure of the unbelieving world, and find it easier to abandon the faith to just get along.”

Nope, not at all.  I grew up in and lived in a society that has a ludicrous amount of respect for religion. So no “pressure” at all.  I was indeed tired of the scorn, ridicule and pressure amongst Christian sects, and found it pathetic. 

“5.They had deeply-felt expectations for life and what God would do, and when disappointed, could not bear the thought of worshiping the God they feel has let them down.”

Oh this is a good one.   Funny how the bible’s promises fail and the believer should ignore this fact per Mark.  What’s even more amusing is that it is a common Christian argument that one should join their religion since it doesn’t fail like other ones that they claim are only to idols.  It fails with the exact same frequency. 

I found it was ridiculous to keep making up excuses why this god doesn’t do anything.  Apologetics is just that, making up excuses and if your god needs this, you don’t have much.

“6.They have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Bible’s revelation about the character and actions of God, and have come to believe that they are more moral than God, and now stand in condemnation of God’s character and his actions in the pages of Scripture.”

This is the same as #2, where the theist insists that everyone but them misunderstands what the bible really says aka “sophisticated theology”.  Yep, I have no problem in pointing out that this god is a moral monster.  The Christian will find it rather hard to use their arguments for objective morality when they excuse this god for doing that they, hopefully, would find abhorrent if a human did them.   Their morality is subject to who/what something is, not the action itself.  If it’s wrong for a human to kill children, then it would be wrong for a god to, if there were indeed objective morality. 

“7.They grew up in legalistic churches and families where an abundance of man-made rules were added to the gospel and to God’s moral law. At some point they tired of these oppressive environments and could not separate true Christianity from the legalism, and so left the faith.”

This is also #2 again, with the Christian insisting that only his version is the TrueChristanity™.   Alas, poor Mark can’t show that his version is “God’s moral law”.  He’s just one more crab in the bucket. 

I grew up as a Christian, then when I was questioning it, I went straight to the horse’s mouth, and read the bible, asking this god for help.  Unsurprisingly, nothing at all happened.

“8.They fed on liberal social justice and incipient Marxism, and found the Bible’s acceptance of inequality because of the curse of sin and the Bible’s call to suffering wanting, according to their new belief system that salvation is deliverance from inequality.”

I do love this.  Alas, for this Christian, Jesus was quite the communist and social justice warrior, at least sometimes depending on who the anonymous writer is inventing.  And hmmm “the Bible’s acceptance of inequality” ??  I seem to recall a certain supposed savior that claims equality for all, again at least some of the time.  Hmmm, what was that?  Oh yes: “16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant[c] is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen.” John 13  (and oopsie there’s that bit that shows that there is no free will).

“9.They simply no longer wished to be bound to the biblical ethic, most often related to the Bible’s clear restriction of sexual activity to one man and one woman in a monogamous covenant of marriage. They wanted to have sex and not feel guilty about it.”

Nothing more than #3 again.  This is the common Christian “you only want to be a rebel” nonsense that always fails since poor Christians can’t agree on what morals aka “biblical ethis”, their god wants.  Alas, the bible doesn’t restrict sex to one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship.   One has to wonder if Mark ever read his own bible.

So, gee, that can’t be why people leave poor Mark’s Christianity. BTW, I’ve been in the same relationship for 33 years so that isn’t the reason I left. 

10.They were never true believers to begin with. They are apostates who posed as Christians, very convincingly and for a long time. 1 John 2:19–22 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. [20] But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” (ESV)”

The typical false claim of a desperate Christian who needs to pretend that no one would ever disagree with him.  It’s rather like the Muslim nonsense of needing to kill apostates out of fear too. It’s very easy for a cult to make this claim, and since Christianity is just a cult, they do.  I was indeed a faithful believer, and Mark does nothing more than lie when he claims otherwise.

it should be entertaining to see him fail “unpacking each of these” in the coming weeks. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – prophecy nonsense

The Associated Press has an article about the magical nonsense invoked by Christians, specifically the Pope.

Way back when, there was the Fatima nonsense, where people saw Mary floating around and giving prophecies. Now, again, its being claimed to be “fulfilled” which is always rather silly since it apparently has already been claimed to have been fulfilled.

We also get to see greedy christians trying to make believe that everyone agrees with them.

““Therefore, Mother of God and our Mother, to your Immaculate Heart we solemnly entrust and consecrate ourselves, the Church and all humanity, especially Russia and Ukraine.” It adds: “Grant that war may end and peace spread throughout the world.””

Now, for catholics, consecrate means that we are expected to obey this god and thank it. Such utter bullshit, and no better than the Mormons who try to baptize dead people into their church to inflate their numbers and their need to pretend that more members means more real.

This nonsense does give yet another bit of evidence that prayers are useless and amount to nothing. I’ll bet 1 million quatloos that nothing at all happens and prayed for. Gee, will anti-Catholic Christians point out that the pope’s prayers fail? Probably not since it underlines that theirs do too.