Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Gaslighting, theist style

The Christians at GotQuestions? (self-described as “Christian, Protestant, evangelical, theologically conservative, and non-denominational” aka Christians who have also invented their own nonsense) have a video on gaslighting. What is gaslighting? | GotQuestions.org – YouTube Now, gaslighting is when an abuser tries to convince their victim that they are wrong in someway.   The gotquestions folks have it like this (the quotes are from the autogenerated transcript on youtube):

“Gaslighting has three main components: First) Convincing the victim that the abuse  she suffers is her fault, Second) Convincing the victim that she did not experience what she  thinks she did, and Third) Separating the victim from people who support her. The tone of the victimizer can alternate between being concerned and kind and angry and abusive. The victim slowly learns to mistrut her own judgement, perception and even sanity  until she relies on the abuser to define reality for her.”

Not a bad set of examples.

The problem for the Christians is that their religion does *all* of these things to its followers.  

“Not all gaslighters are aware of what they are  doing. Some have so deceived themselves they actually believe the lies they’re telling. Others  are so afraid of the truth that they do anything they can to hide it”

Hmmm. 

“gaslighting is sin and comes from a place  of selfishness and a desire to control.In fact, gaslighting was utilized in the  first temptation mentioned in the Bible. Satan first prompts Eve to question what she  heard God say about the tree of knowledge, and then he asserts that her account  is wrong. That is gaslighting,”

Actually, it’s not.  The snake doesn’t say her account is wrong.  The snake, either allowed in intentionally by this god or this god was unable to keep it out, points out what this god said exactly.  Let’s look at what was written for this scene:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.””

and then we have, Eve, who didn’t hear the above since she wasn’t in existence and this god thought aarvarks and zebras would make suitable mates for Adam.  The snake chats her up and says “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.”

Eve actually gets the story wrong.  She doesn’t mention the whole dying the day you eat the fruit part.  The snake points out that this god’s claim is false, and it is since, nope, they don’t die and the fruit worked just as it said.  There is also a couple of problems: the first version of the genesis story has this god saying *everything* in the garden is for Adam and Eve; no mention of the magic trees at all; and if being naked is a sin *and* there is objective morality, then being naked is always a sin and this god has no problem with sin, until he wants to throw a tantrum. Eve became wise and decided to give the fruit to Adam too. This god appears to be terrified of wisdom.

Who does the gaslighting here?  God.
 
“Gaslighting is also common in cults and abusive  “churches,” as well as politics. It can be seen in abusers who convince children they deserve  or desire their abuse. In preachers who tell  questioning parishioners that their request  for clarification on spiritual matters is  

sinful mistrust of God and disrespect of the  pastor. Or in parishioners who criticize and  then vaguely praise their pastor in an attempt  to control him. In the political arena,  when a leader or even a country flatly denies  doing or saying what they publicly did or said, others may find it extremely  difficult to counter the lie,  especially if the media provides cover, or  to address the issue in a meaningful way.”

Gaslighting is indeed common in cults and religions, and as we see above, right from the beginning it needs gaslighting to keep control over others, by misinformation and by fear. 

Chistianity is built on the idea that everyone deserves death and worse.  Christianity is built on not asking questions but obedience.  Christianity is built on assuming someone else is your only path to being “saved”. Christianity is built on being told to believe in things that aren’t in evidence.

The bit about leaders denying things is pretty rich from conservative Christians that we can pretty much know supported known liars.   

“For by the grace given me  I say to every one of you:  Do not think of yourself more highly than  you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God  has distributed to each of you” (Romans 12:3).

“Be devoted to one another in love. Honor  one another above yourselves” (Romans 12:10).

If you realize—or you’re told—that you are  manipulative and controlling, please seek counseling. It’s likely there is a deep-seated  wound that only Jesus can heal. And He is willing!”

“For the Abused – God made us to be interdependent  on others in the church, but He did not make us to abandon all reason and rely solely on another’s  judgment. God wants us to live in the truth.“Guide me in your truth and teach  me, for you are God my Savior,  and my hope is in you all day long” (Psalm 25:5).”

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is  true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,  whatever is admirable—if anything  is excellent or praiseworthy—think  about such things” (Philippians 4:8).

“For the Spirit God gave us does  not make us timid, but gives us power, love, and  self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7).

“If you suspect you are being gaslighted, please  seek counseling. Do not isolate yourself from godly friends. And, if need be, keep a journal  so you can remind yourself of the facts.  If the gaslighter is a partner in a  dating relationship, seriously consider  ending that relationship. If you  feel gaslighted in the church and  discouraged from finding answers to your  spiritual questions, visit GotQuestions.org!”

Amazing how the recommendations above are *exactly* what a gaslighter would say.  Others are to be listened to, for the only “counselors” would be pastors for these people. Only be around those who agree with me.  Only accept manipulation.  Believe only me. 

No wonder they don’t allow comments.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – aw, another Christian sure that he has a question “no atheist can answer”

oh my. It’s always great when a theist makes yet *another* claim about a supposed question that atheists can’t answer.  Poor Trent, so sure that his Christianity version (Catholicism) is the right one, and he can’t even convince other Christians, much less an atheist.

Now, out of all of this talking, it *seems* that the speaker’s question is “what would prove god exists”. It’s hard to know for sure. He goes on… and on… about why the responses by atheists aren’t evidently good enough for him, and argues that those events offered by atheists could happen because of “undiscovered or unknown natural explanation”.  He even admits that he himself and other christains wouldn’t believe that the events were caused by some god. 

Which causes a problem since Christianity is based on the evidently unbelievable claims in the bible.  JC, per the bible, says that those unbelievable events are the only thing that supports his claims.  So, if those can’t be trusted, even by believers, what use where they? 


The god of the gaps argument is not quite what the speaker says.  It is an argument, offered by theists, that if we do not currently know something, then their god must have been the cause.  And atheists have noted that the gaps close constantly since we keep discovering new things.  The “god of the gaps” argument is dependent on the demand that we cease thinking and looking for information. 

Yep, Christians shouldn’t act like fellow Christian Bill O’Reilly in his nonsense about tides, but they do and their religion is built on the presupposition that their god must exist. 

Our speaker doesn’t have to worry at all about atheists leaning “too much” into the god of the gaps argument at all.  Your lack of evidence is what supports our conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. You offer an unfalsifiable god in your excuses for why no one can find this god. 

 
The answers given to the question “what would prove god exists” are based on the claims of Christians and their bible.  This god is nicely defined in the bible and there are quite the set of promises made there.  So, there is no reason why this god shouldn’t be able to heal amputees, burn victims, etc, via the methods described in the bible. There should be no reason why it can’t move the stars, them being only lights on a surface per the bible, and not enormous spheres of hydrogen undergoing fusion billions of miles away from us.  There should be no reason that it can’t use DNA to send a message, or write on a wall or cause the offering on a soaked altar to catch fire.   

This is the answer to “why would these particular things convince you god exists”.  It’s because your bible says so, and you do say it is right, don’t you?  It is not the reasoning that we don’t know what would cause a limb to be healed, etc.  If your god was the cause, we could see that, couldn’t we?  It wouldn’t be mistakable for anything else, would it?  If it could be, then the theist has the problem, not the atheist.  If they can’t show that their god is anything more than physics or slight of hand, then this god isn’t what they worship.

Yes, there could be another unknown reason that such events happened, but the bible says that this god would be the reason, and thus we can assume that such an event would be evidence for this particular god. 

It’s more telling that our speaker is upset that his philosophical arguments aren’t considered true by an atheist.  It’s rather notable that he knows that his god can’t do anything like it is shown to in the bible at all.  All of those arguments can be posed for any god, not just Trent’s, and that is why I, and other atheists, just laugh at them when they are claimed as “real evidence”, since they all depend on a presupposition that a god must exist and that has not been shown to be the case at all.  “Classical arguments” aren’t true just because someone whines that they are “classical”.  That’s just the logical fallacy of the argument from tradition. 

As for the universe coming into existence from nothing being evidence for this god, well, we have a perfectly fine explanation on how that can happen without a god.  There’s also the problem again with “which god?”  It seems that Trent wants to claim yet again that since we don’t know exactly how the universe came about, it was his god, aka the god of the gaps argument.  We know how a limb would regrow, seeing it in other animals, so if god gets busy, we’ll know how it did it.  Now, the Christian will claim “But but this is just expecting this god to be within natural occurrences”.  Yep, that’s what Christians claim until they find that it doesn’t work.  They claim that this god is what tis behind material effects and forces, but when science doesn’t agree with that claim, then they must claim “nonoverlapping magisterial”.   God magically becomes only findable with baseless claims, aka philosophy.

Oh, and Trent, the existence of minds is easy, since not one can be shown to exist without a brain.  If these minds are free floating, but can interact with a electrochemical organ, then we should be able to sense them with other electrochemical devices.  But i’m sure you’ll try the “dragon in my garage” arguments.  As for moral truths, funny how Christians can’t even agree on them. 
And, as for the claims of this god knowing what would convince an atheist, yep, it’s a valid argument *if* your god really does want everyone to follow it.  So are you saying it isn’t true about your god?  I can get behind that since your god, per the bible, intentionally keeps some people from accepting it, destroying free will. 

No, a person can’t rationally believe in a being that has no evidence for it.  Can a person rationally believe in fairies?  If you say no, you have a problem, and your philosophical arguments that fairies must exist are just like this:“so you’re never going to get a hundred percent consensus on these philosophical questions”  Yep, since they are no more than baseless opinion.

Oh, here’s another question for us atheists “what is the best argument for the existence of god and what’s wrong with it or what is the least problematic argument for god and what’s specifically wrong with it”

so, the idea of “best” is subjective, and then the theist will whine it really isn’t the “best”.  And you must define what “God” is since even Christians can’t agree.  But if we should go with Catholic Christianity, I would say that the best argument is “first cause” and then it fails since nothing can show that the particular god claimed exists.  At best you have a vague “force”.  And don’t waste your time with Blackwell, or Swinburn or Aquinas, et al since they offer nothing more than has been offered here. All Trent is doing is using a logical fallacy of appeal to authority; authorities no one cares about but him and his fellow Catholics. Alas, there’s an army of other TrueChristians(tm) that claim he’s wrong.

Such a bunch of frauds.

Unsurprisingly, an atheist can again answer the question that a theist is ever so sure can’t be answered.  At best, Trent has an argument for some vague god.  That’s not what he worships. 

What the Boss Likes – Bloganuary – “What is a cause you’re passionate about and why?”

I’ve skipped a couple days of “inspirations”, just not feeling it.  So I start again with the question “What is a cause you’re passionate about and why?”

My current readers wont’ be surprised that it is the separation of church and state and standing against the harm that religions do.  And it isn’t just Christianity, but that’s what I’m most familiar with.

I’m a former Christian, Presbyterian version, and now an atheist. In my journey, I’ve studied a lot of religions, and their sects. I’ve read the bible, the qu’ran, etc.

I’ve seen friends tormented because of the lies of Christianity, with its bullshit that some god only wants you to love the “right” people, that some god only approves of certain behavior, that some god will condemn you to eternal torture if you don’t do things “right”.  

I’ve seen people sure that they are broken or wrong because of the victim blaming that is part and parcel of most religions, excuses invented because this god does nothing at all.  It isn’t anyone’s fault that it does nothing.  It is imaginary. 

Religion is a bane of humans.  It is the delusion that some magical being agrees with certain humans, and that they are somehow better than everyone else, the “chosen”.  Alas, they can’t even agree among themselves what their various gods want. 

Religions have gotten away with far too much under the guise of being “good” and it’s time to stand up to them, showing just how false they are.  They deserve no respect, only acknowledgement and to be exposed for what they are: human fantasies, often sadistic ones.

What the Boss likes – Bloganary – “Who is someone that inspires you and why?”

This was a hard one.  I am inspired to keep dealing with humanity by my spouse and my cats.  Until I win the lottery, I’m stuck with dealing with people.

I am inspired by those who keep trying.  Although, if I were a health care worker, I’d have given up because of the stupid selfish fucking morons here in the US. 


I have great hope in humanity but I really can hate humans.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation: the problem of suffering and how a Christian excuses his god

A fellow who I’ve crossed swords with before has listed 7 reasons why his god, one of the versions of the Christian one, isn’t a bastard for allowing suffering in this world. I asked him about how heaven fits into all of this and it quickly became an excuse fest that this god “could” create a world without suffering, but didn’t for some mysterious reason. It also ended up in a rather strange claim that there are “classes” of angels, which means rank is important to a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent god. Where is that lovely equality that so many Christians claim? I suspect the answer would be that the angels are “satisfied” with their position. Seems I’ve heard that argument somewhere else….

Where is an omnipotent god that can create a world without suffering and with free will? Why is this god now limited? As for my opponent’s claims that it is not immoral to create a world with the possibility of suffering, he has one problem: the question is missing something. What the question should be: Is it immoral to create a world where it is guaranteed, perhaps not for a certain individual, but for someone else? Shall we not care what happens to our fellows? As I have observed before, Christianity is a religion based on selfishness. Everyone is out for his own place in heaven.

BTW, there is nothing new here in content. If you are a frequent reader, you’ll see the same points again.

  1. Free will necessitates the possibility of suffering.

The first problem here is that the bible doesn’t support free will. As soon as the bible claims that everything is this god’s will and plan, free will ends. As soon as this god interferes with any human action, free will ends.

He also tries to claim that suffering is “always a possibility” if free will exists. Nothing supports this either. As for refusing to follow this god’s directives, do tell what those directives are since Christians do not agree on what their god wants. If they have no idea what this god wants, then there is no way to “cause unnecessary suffering” by not doing something.

  1. God’s plan of redemption and glory far outweigh all suffering.

A baseless assumption since there is no evidence of this god nor that any plan that it might have exists. This is to make a promise that never can be checked out, something quite necessary for a charlatan. The fraud selling his miracle elixir to a townsfolk is never around to be held accountable if the liquid doesn’t do what is promised.

My opponent tries to claim that some suffering results in improvement, which is true for a few things. The problem is when the suffering serves no purpose at all. Recently, a poor fellow’s 5 month old baby died of brain cancer. To try to claim that the suffering was beneficial is simply a sycophant’s excuse for his tyrant. The reward is never always greater.

“God’s promised eternal glory is more than enough to inspire faithful, joyful perseverance.” A promised never fulfilled is worthless. And since this promise is also accompanied with threats of eternal torture, it is nothing more than the actions of an abuser.

  1. God’s just judgement will right all wrongs.

Another baseless claim and we can see from the bible, that justice is not important to this god at all. Justice is based on fairness, equalness in treatment. This god has no problem at all in harming humans for the actions of others. There is nothing “just” about killing a child for the actions of its parents, nor damning an entire species for the supposed actions of two of them. If we are held accountable for things we cannot change, then free will is again destroyed.

Our Christian tries to claim that this god somehow takes into account what we could/would have done, and nothing in the bible supports that invented bit of nonsense. This was made up in order to invent a new Christian god, one that isn’t the vicious one in the bible. If this bit of nonsense were the case, it makes no sense for this god to hold all humans responsible for “original sin”, since if it takes other realities into account, it would be negated for everyone.

He also tries the claim that suffering can “create space for greatness” aka “builds character”. Nothing shows that this is needed, especially in the bible where Job got no better from being abused by this god.

  1. Suffering is not evil in itself and can actually be a means for good.

Hmmm, tell that to the 6 million+ who died in the Holocaust. Do they say how great it was to suffer and they would have preferred it not be “easy”?

No.

And if suffering is so great, again, how does heaven fit into this apologetic excuse? Why should a child starve in some country and I have no problem in gorging myself to repletion? Per our Chrsitians argument, the child should be happy for the misery.

They aren’t. What we have is an apologetic made up by a first world Christian who wants for nothing, and piously tells others how they should be happy to suffer. Gee, it must be god’s plan for this to happen, and then our Christian doesn’t have to feel responsible.

  1. Suffering teaches important lesson.

See the argument against this pious bullshit above. That a god has to harm people to teach others is nothing more than a tyrant making an “example” of some people to keep the others in line. To say that this god makes harm happen so we are dependent on it shows this god to be no more than an abusive parent or spouse.

This argument is where the Christian thinks he is so important that other people deserve to be harmed for his benefit. Someone can starve to death so he can learn compassion. Someone can be killed by terrorists so he can learn to not be complacent.

Again, the selfishness inherent in the religion rises again.

  1. God shared in the suffering of his creation.

Actually, no it didn’t, not even per the bible. At best, this god had an uncomfortable weekend when it decided it needed to have itself killed by a blood sacrifice by torture to make itself happy.

There was no loss, and per the gospel of John, not even a moment of fear. I do love the hilarious list of what this imaginary character went through. Poverty? No. Shame? No. Ridcule? Per the bible, he didn’t care. Physical pain and torture? Depends on what gospel you read. Death? Nope, he didn’t die at all, but just kept on living. Difficult travel? Nope, nothing supports that even in the bible. Isolation? Nope. Abandonment? Again, depends on what gospel you read. Rejection? Didn’t care. Danger? He managed to get out of situations by just disappearing. Emotional stress? Again, which gospel? Celibacy? Per the bible, this is the best thing to do, so no suffering presented. Ignorance? Well, that’s not limited to this god or ol’ JC, and again, rather hard to be ignorant if it is omniscient. Homelessness? Not at all, he was always welcomed unlike most homeless now. The struggles of fame? Depends on what story the Chrsitian wants to claim: either everyone knew ol’ JC or no one did. The loss of a loved one? He just raised them from the dead, rather impossible for humans. Submiting of one’s will to God the father? He is this god and again, per John, no problem with this at all.
This god stepped into nothing at all and deserves no respect for a blood sacrifice by torture that was needed by it because its failure in Eden.

  1. God could morally create an almost limitless number of possible worlds, this is just one of them.

Rather curious that a Christian would try the multiverse hypothesis to try to claim that it’s okay that this god causes suffering here because maybe in the next one over, it’s just fine. Doesn’t do much for the person suffering from intractable pain here. Immorality doesn’t change if you happen to do a benevolent things somewhere else. Hitler may have liked dogs, but he still was an immoral bastard.

It ends with the Christian being aghast that someone might look at suffering “negatively”. Yep, we should all just ignore how this god fails so we can keep thinking we get our magic presents.

Sorry, I’m not that immoral. If a human tried offering any of the above excuses for malevolent actions, they would be laughed at and scorned. That such excuses are okay for a god shows how followers don’t question tyrants, either imaginary or real.

For more on the problem of suffering, John Loftus has compiled a new book “God and Horrendous Suffering”. It’s a little salty in price, though I’ll probably get it, but you can see some of the arguments on his website, Debunking Christianity.





Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a couple of questions I have for my Christian followers

I have a couple of questions for my Christian followers. I know you are indeed out there.

Are you honest enough to respond?

First we have this from a TrueChristian(tm), Geri Ungurean.

“I would agree that Fauci is full of hot air, but not senile. I believe that he is demon possessed and knows exactly what to do to expand this mass genocide and Fear. I call him Mengele 2.0.

poor dear Christian with her vicious sadistic fantasies. If Fauci is “demon possessed” why can’t she dismiss the demon? She is a TrueChristian(tm), right? It should be no problem for her.

Alas, she is just a fraud.

I do love how Christians like her make false claims about Fauci being like Mengele. It shows just how much they depend on lies, ignoring the words that their god supposedly spoke about not bearing false witness against others.

So, my Christian followers, what say you about the above? Yay or nay? Will you speak out against Geri? Many of you claim you don’t want to be lumped in with such Christians, but will you say something showing you aren’t like her?

We also have the horrible events of the tornado outbreak this weekend here in the US. But not one Christian says it is their god’s punishment for something, despite the claims that this god will punish the US for having equal rights for people that many Christians consider “sinners”. Of course, those promises of punishment never happen, showing quite a few false prophets out there, still being accepted without question by Christians. When a majority Christian state gets hit, unsurprisingly it is just “nature”, not that they have kept electing Republicans who do their best to ignore their supposed messiah’s word to help others.

We have claims of some people surviving being a “miracle” when others just down the road died. Quite a need for some people to declare that this god was watching out for *them*, but screw everyone else. My christian followers, what excuse do you have for such selfish claims?

Donate to the American Red Cross if you can, or any other organization that actually helps people. I rather favor the Foundation Beyond Belief.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – abortion and the hypocrisy of Christians

Currently, the conservative Christians here in the US are doing their best to eliminate the right of women to control their own bodiesby trying to nullify Roe V. Wade in the Supreme Court. 

They natter on about the “right to life”.

One has to wonder how they worship a god that kills children for the actions of others.

Now, I know a lot of Christians follow my blog.  I’m guessing a good many of them would deny this, but we can see it repeatedly, especially when this god kills David’s son for the actions of his parents.

Where is their concern about the “right to life” here?  Why do they worship such a being if they are so concerned about children?

Oh yes, that concern doesn’t exist since their morals are built on might equals right.  Nothing more.  That’s what you get from a morally stunted people who are greedy, selfish, desperate to be obeyed and willfully ignorant, creating their god in their images.   

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – yep, the wannbee nazis also want a theocracy

Unsurprisingly, the QOP and the Trumpees have said the quiet part out loud. Conservative Christians have repeatedly claimed that they dont’ really want a theocracy, but we get to see loony ex-general Michael Flynn saying: ““If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God, and one religion under God.””

Of course, that “one nation under god” nonsense was added to the pledge long after the US was founded. Any reference to this silly Christian god were added by ignorance and fearful men to the pledge, the currency, etc in a vain attempt to get their god to pay attention. It never did, and that crap added to the pledge of allegiance was after the US won both WWI and WWII, so evidently this god didn’t need to be placated or it never existed in the first place.

What would happen, if something so stupid ever occured, would be immediate civil war between Christians, since none of them can agree on whose version is the right one. Christians hate each other far more than they care about anyone else.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – “It disappoints God.”

Christians are very uncomfortable when a non-christian points out that Christians don’t agree on much at all. C.S. Lewis was so afraid of the problem, he advocated to lie to any potential Christian when it came to the many many internecine contradictions between Christians (preface, “Mere Christianity). That’s a bit of a problem when the bible has this god really hating lies and liars, with exceptions given even if the believer thinks they are lying *for* this god (Romans 3).

We also have another Christian making the same protests, that the disagreements between Christians on the most basic claims of their religion really don’t show that their religion is nonsense. His arguments fail.

“Disagreements among Christians is NOT evidence for the falsity of Christianity. Scientists disagree on all sorts of things. Just take a look at the numerous theories about the origin of the universe. People will always interpret evidence differently.”

There are not “numerous” theories about the origin of the universe. We have the BBT, which is confirmed by prediction and observation. How it exactly happened is up for debate, but not for much. Theists have as many different ideas about the creation of the universe as there are their gods. Not one can show that their gods exist, much less are the creator or how this creation was done. Young earth creationism, anyone? Old earth? Theistic evolution?

Bedard also has the problem that each theist claims a divine and absolute truth being given from a perfect, omnipotent, benevolent being. Why and how could it not get its message across? This god is limited by its creations if it somehow *can’t* make itself understood. How curious. If it won’t make itself understood, then it wants the death and misery that these misunderstandings cause.

Not very flattering for this god in any case.

“I understand when a person is confident in their convictions but that doesn’t give them the right to publicly attack the other person or be disrespectful.

No one should do this but Christians should especially avoid this behaviour. It turns off non-Christians. It injures the body of Christ. It disappoints God.”

Bedard decides he can speak for his god here. And every single theist pretends that their god agrees with them. Bedard is disappointed so his god is too. Bedard doesn’t like the dirty laundry of Christianity exposed, so this god doesn’t either. This god could clear things up with a word, but strangely doesn’t.

Bedard is also mistaken in his insistence that no one has the right to publicly show someone wrong. If this were the case, then no one should dare question wannabee Nazis, white supremacists, etc. Happily, this attempt to claim that showing someone wrong is “disrepectful” is simply nonsense.

If someone is so desperate to depend on lies to try to avoid challenges, then their claims are suspect immediately.

“It is okay for us to have differences of opinion. I would even say that it is healthy. What is not good is when we get nasty.”

Really, good to have differences of opinion is good when it comes to the supposedly divine truth that will determine if you are “saved” or not? That’s rather silly. It’s even sillier since Christians have been far more than “nasty” to each other over these differences. Christians have killed many of each other over these differences. No god to be seen to stop that.

Happily, now most countries have secular laws to keep these nitwits from continuing their murderous ways.



Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – trying hard to keep the kids indoctrinated

Atheists are indeed known for asking tough question.  The reason is most of us were theists at some point and are often much more familiar with a given religion than the current practitioners of it.  I, as an example, didn’t go easily into atheism, so I did my homework, thinking that I should go to the source rather than trust some Christian’s claims. 

My research didn’t work out so well for Christians but it did work out grandly for me since I don’t have to try to excuse a vicious god so I can still cling to the idea that I won’t have to die. 

in the following, I’m replying to a Christian who really is afraid of Christian teens finding out that their religion isn’t quite what is presented.  The title of his blog post is “Tough Questions From Christian Teens – Was It Right For Israel To Kill Children? (Part One)”

Christian teens do believe in Jesus and in this god of the bible. I was one of them. They often haven’t a clue what the bible actually says.  They just accept whatever the priest/pastor/parent tells them, mistakenly thinking that Christianity equals good.  I think they all should read the bible, front to back.  That is a great way to discard such nonsense. 

The author offers many of the common apologetics when it comes to defending a god invented by the ignorant and fearful from a couple of thousand years ago.

The bible has this god repeatedly committing or condoning genocide.  It doesn’t start in Deuteronomy, it goes back to Genesis e.g. the magic world-wide 28,000+ foot deep flood.  The author mentions Deut 20: 16-20 “16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.”

This is a good place to start.  It shows that this god requires genocide *and* this god and its people fail at it.  As we know, “it’s the thought that counts”.  Those peoples were never destroyed by this god or its people.  History does not notice or corroborate the baseless claims in the bible.   So, we start off from the point that this nonsense never happened.

But if it did…

There is a difference between war and genocide. Both are quite awful, but I personally know WWII veterans who were part of the freeing of the concentration camps who did know that war, all though awful, was worth stopping what was going on.  Genocide is not war.  Per the UN, genocide is defined as: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a.Killing members of the group; b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d.  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

What the bible god commands is genocide; it is not war.  War does not require what genocide does; war is against militaries and economies.  Innocents do indeed die but they are not the focus of the conflict. 

It is no surprise that our author tries to put quotes around “innocent” when he refers to anyone but his god’s supposed “chosen”.  He has no evidence that they are anything but innocent but he must try to imply they are not and somehow “deserve” what this god supposedly does to them.

Our author then mentions the story of the “curse of Ham”. This is just after the flood, where Noah is drunk, and something happens between Ham and Noah.  Even scholars aren’t quite sure.  The interpretations go from Ham just seeing Noah naked (if this is a sin, I do wonder how Jewish ritual baths worked), to Ham having raped Noah, to Ham having slept with Mrs. Noah.   So we have the story of the flood, where this god committed genocide by drowning against all except 8 humans, and this drunkard and his family are the best that he could find.  Hmmmm. 

Going further in the story, Noah, rather than cursing Ham, curses his son, Canaan to be the slave (not servant) of his uncles.  This is a lovely example of how this god has nothing to do with fairness or justice, harming someone who did nothing for the actions of another.  To be blunt, this is simply stupid.  However, this god repeatedly does this, starting with punishing all humans the actions of two, Adam and Eve, to killing the son of David for what David did, up into the new testament, where this god uses the ‘original sin’ nonsense to condemn all humans that it didn’t allow to accept it.   These stories belie the false claims of Christians that their god wants free will, the unfettered ability to choose. 

As an aside, the term Canaanite is from the bible and covers many Semtic people in the middle east.  The Israelites are considered Canaanites and there is no evidence at all that they were some how separate and came from Egypt after being enslaved.  They are just another tribe that tried to make itself important.   Canaan is mentioned in historical texts.  History doesn’t notice the rest, like the lies about the tower of babel and its supposed effect on linguistics.  Even the bible itself can’t get that story straight, with it saying before the tower of babel myth that there were already many different languages. 

The maps that our author uses are not quite true, only invented to support the nation building myths of the bible.  There is nothing that shows that some god “gave” the rights to a chunk of land to any one people.  But they certainly love to pretend it has.  “I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”  Well, evidently this god wasn’t paying attention during the Holocaust, when this favored people, plus many many others were exterminated in the desire for genocide. It likes genocide, maybe it just didn’t care.  (FYI, Christians will often make a claim that since the Jews don’t agree with them, they somehow lost that favored status.  Problem is that no one picked it up just as if it were imaginary.)

The author goes onto try toclaim how “evil” other gods were.  No evidence of this at all.  These gods are as imaginary as Yahweh, the bible god.  Unsurprisingly, our author is concerned about sex, and goes onto attack those gods since they were often fertility gods.  They were often war gods too, just like a typical mountain god like Yahweh.  He forgets that worship of his god was full of violence, sacrifices of animals are violence.  And then we have the incest promoted in the bible repeatedly, from the “first” family, Abraham, Lot, etc.   The argument will often be that since this god didn’t mention that it was wrong until the whole nonsense with the laws, then it was just peachy.  That makes a problem with any claims of objective morality.  If a moral is objective, it is always in play. 

There’s also no evidence of child sacrifice, at least no more than what we find in the bible e.g. Abraham and Isaac, Jephtha’s daughter, various mentions of dedicating *all* first borns for sacrifice, etc. 

 Still being concerned with sex, our author has to mention where the term “sodomy” comes from. Yep, it is part of the bible myths, and what our author forgets is that Sodom’s worst sin was being greedy “49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. “ Ezekiel 16.  It has nothing to do with sex.  The only mention of sex in that episode is when Lot offered his daughters, his property, to a violent crowd. 

Our author goes on to repeat the baseless claims that this god gives certain land to certain people as an excuse for genocide being fine.  One of the more amusing bits of this is that those supposedly awful people, the Midianites fine for Moses to marry into.  “But Moses fled from Pharaoh. He settled in the land of Midian, and sat down by a well. 16 The priest of Midian had seven daughters. They came to draw water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17 But some shepherds came and drove them away. Moses got up and came to their defense and watered their flock. 18 When they returned to their father Reuel, he said, “How is it that you have come back so soon today?” 19 They said, “An Egyptian helped us against the shepherds; he even drew water for us and watered the flock.” 20 He said to his daughters, “Where is he? Why did you leave the man? Invite him to break bread.” 21 Moses agreed to stay with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah in marriage. 22 She bore a son, and he named him Gershom; for he said, “I have been an alien residing in a foreign land.”” 


Later “Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel. Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.” Numbers 25 and of course we can’t forget the genocide in Numbers 31.  This god certainly needs an editor.

Next we get a common excuse of a Chrsitain for his god, and completely in line with approving of genocide.  “It may also be helpful to remember that Amorite children grew up to be Amorite adults whose iniquity would continue to worsen.”  NO evidence of this, especially not if there is free will.  If there is not, then a lot of Christians have a problem.  This argument is that “It’s better to kill the kids since they might be like their parents”  aka not like us.  This is why genocide often requires the children to be killed or taken away and indoctrinated.  Christians tried that with various Native American tribes. 

Here’s another excuse “. Using the term ‘children’ in an argument can mislead unless we consider the history of a people, especially in light of how they sinned against God.”  Aka, they shouldn’t be considered children since that might make someone question their orders.  Hmmm, the same argument is given when a tyrant wants genocide “They aren’t human.” 

Our author has caught up with Exodus now.  He has that this god will take the Israelites to the “promised land”.  Land already occupied, but genocide will work here. 

The events in Exodus can also be considered an attempt at genocide.  In the same 3 chapter of Exodus, we have this “19 I know, however, that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand.[c] 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonders that I will perform in it; after that he will let you go. 21 I will bring this people into such favor with the Egyptians that, when you go, you will not go empty-handed; 22 each woman shall ask her neighbor and any woman living in the neighbor’s house for jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing, and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters; and so you shall plunder the Egyptians.””  

Nice little bit of mind control there with allowing the Israelites to steal.  Now, we have Moses asking for a three day weekend, and this god saying he will do things to Egypt to make the pharoah let the “people” go.  However, as the story goes on, this is not this god’s plan at all.  He wants to show off, and mind controls the pharaoh so he doesn’t allow the Israelites to go and this god has a chance to keep killing and killing.  Men, women, children, animals, who have no control in the situation, killed just so this god can show off.  ““Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them—so that you may know that I am the Lord.” Exodus 10

Christian teens, humans of all ages, do question religious claims and excuses.  If your elders have to invent arguments to convince you it is okay to kill kids to take their land, to kill kids as punishment for the actions of others, etc, then your religion has already lost the moral high ground.  All you have is might equals right.

Humans are better than that.