Monday, August 29, 2005

Killing Me with "Kindness"

Dear Internet Diary,

When I was 19 and in college, I was attacked in the night by a drunken rapist who had broken into my apartment.

To make a long story short, I successfully fought him off, called the police, moved into the dorms, and so on.

That summer, I was told that I should have counseling, "because the affects of a trauma don't always show up right away," and "besides, it's free in Washington State." They were very knowing, and very wise, and I reluctantly accepted and dutifully went to my appointments with a psychiatrist.

My first appointment I found myself broken down, confessing my problems with my Dad, and wondering what else she might find "deep down in there." It was very painful.

After a couple more appointments, I realized that she wanted to go in directions that had nothing to do with my coping with the attack. She was very interested in my sexual curiosity and my artistic choice of clothes (hey, it was the 80's. I liked The Cure), and, as I feared, she was looking for repressed memories.

Luckily, sometime after the fourth visit, I got a summer job working as a camp counselor. I couldn't make the appointments, and boy, was I relieved. The job was just the ticket. I no longer lived in fear, and handled "the bear incident" really well. I got to be away from the city all summer. I went back to school that year with enthusiasm.

Looking back, I realized that, barring the actuial event, no trauma was anywhere near as bad as trying to go through "the cure." Everyone insisted that I wasn't strong enough to handle it, and I'm not required to be. I'm glad I stayed away from the counseling community that was my home town. Soon after it sank into one of the worst repressed memory/sexual abuse /witch hunt scandals that the country has ever known. Some of the innocent are still in prison.

This memory was inspired by an article in Reason Magazine I read today, about trauma counseling, and "the cure is worse than the diisease." I feel so validated!

The Mental Health Crisis That Wasn’t
How the trauma industry exploited 9/11

On September 14, 2001, three days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a group of psychologists sent an open letter to the American Psychological Association. The 19 signatories, all established experts in trauma research and treatment, were concerned that thousands of people in New York City and elsewhere would receive dubious, even damaging, counseling. “In times like these,” the letter said, “it is imperative that we refrain from the urge to intervene in ways that—however well-intentioned—have the potential to make matters worse.…Unfortunately, this has not prevented certain therapists from descending on disaster scenes with well-intentioned but misguided efforts. Psychologists can be of most help by supporting the community structures that people naturally call upon in times of grief and suffering. Let us do whatever we can, while being careful not to get in the way.”

The letter voiced a second powerful warning: not to mistake normal reactions—intense sadness or sleeplessness, jumpiness, and so on—for mental abnormality. The letter was posted online and picked up by a New York Times science reporter who fast-tracked the controversy into Sunday’s paper, five days after the attacks. As Gerald Rosen, a Seattle psychologist and one of the letter’s authors told the reporter, “The public should be very concerned about medicalizing what are human reactions.”

Thanks for listening, diary.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Attack of the Bots!

I'm temporarily closing down all commenting until the Bot Swarm lights upon someone else's blog.

But keep visiting, and I'll keep posting.

Buy! Buy! Buy!

I just found Blog Shares, a pretend stock market site that trades in Blogs. Click on the link and you will find how I'm doin'. I guess I'll have to thank the "good people" at The Evangelical Atheist for creating so much trading activity with my blog. If you're a regular, your blog's probably there too. What a nice surprise! It seems that your blog's worth is partly due to activity and hits, and a lot to do with who links to you. I'm afraid some of my blog activity might change according to its activity on this site.

Why not?

Friday, August 26, 2005

Gay and Christian?

Dear Internet Diary,

I was having a discussion with someone about a website. The website attempts to argue with homophobic evangelicals by claiming that Christianity is not homophobic. The person thinks that might be a strong argument against homophobia. And besides, many gays are Christians.

First of all, there is no argument for homophobia. Arguing that Christianity is not homophobic is not an argument against homophobia. It is an argument for Christianity. I sure can't support that.

Being gay is the default position in the argument between being gay and being Christian. Christianity is a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not.

Jesus may not have said anything about being gay. But he say that he supported the old laws and followed them. The old laws were not wishy-washy on the concept of homosexuality. It was a mortal sin, meaning punishable by death. Now, if you have to appeal to Christians for some reason, there is an argument. That is, the same chapters that condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin also condemn many other behaviors as mortal sins--behaviors that most if not all Christians consider perfectly fine. Other mortal sins are not considered "that bad" by Christians.

Thanks for listening.

Righter of Wrongs, Clearer-up of misconceptions everywhere.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Jesus the Omen II

Dear Internet Diary,

Have you noticed how many movies and tv shows with demonic/Christian themes that are being previewed on tv lately? "It doesn't matter if you believe in demons--they believe in you" or some such crap.

I'm feeling a little conflicted. The best path for this is just to say "this is all stinky-pants crap" and stop worrying.

When I was a kid in the seventies, there were no movies that didn't have someone anally violating a heathen of some kind with a crucifix dipped in battery acid--I mean, "holy water." All movies of the seventies involved infant offspring of Satan. All movies of the seventies with the exception of Fiddler on the Roof were Christian-Demon movies--and even Fiddler on the Roof had Jewish demons. Demon-Haunted Hollywood--and Demon-Haunted Calvary Bible Church ruined my childhood, damnit, and I want it back!

I don't hate Steven King. I think he's pretty talented, actually. If he read this, he would know more about it than I do--that Christianity is the source and basis for the richest vein of horror--pretty much the only source of horror--for the American market. All classic horror? Christian--or, at least, "christendom." But Stephen King does something in his books that you just can't do in movies: he makes it very clear that no matter how much he talks about God and crucifixes and such, everything he writes is pure popcorn fantasy. I'm willing to bet that most writers of horror would agree with that. Stephen King is a very outspoken fighter for the right of free speech and expression. (As should all writers.) For that reason I shouldn't balk at his presentations...

...but I can't help it. I believed that stuff. Maybe that's his whole Stephen Kingy-thing. Kids believing that stuff is real. But it's not that kids can't separate fantasy from reality. It's that The Church does. All christian churches should send everything in their collection baskets to the writers and producers of horror movies. What's the difference between movies where people fight satan through faith in Jesus? The only problem is they have to put a little muscle into it, too.

You ever notice who is still getting killed by the demons in these movies? Sinners. First to go are People who Have Sex. Bad! I don't know if they are still killing off That Black Guy. It's like I'm back in that red chapel with the pews and the crosses and that spitfire preacher! The next to go is someone whose faith is weak, a fallen minister or someone. Perfect. almost Jack Chickian. Finally, it's a fighting priest or a strong figure, if it's a more thoughtful movie. A faithful one martyred. It's okay, because he was surely rocketed to the right side of etc etc.

Why go to church at all? Anyway, why is all of this coming back to haunt me? Am I forced to revisit it to kill off the demons in my mind? I already did. These movies can't scare me anymore. I think they want to, deeply. Either it's a conspiracy by christians, or Stephen King is right--he's just doing a good job. So conflicted.

You know what does scare me? It's those damned Japanese copies, like The Ring. Devil and Demons are nothing. Little corpse girls with hair in their faces--TERROR.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Big Brother as Moral Compass

Dear Internet Diary

On 20/20 tonight, John Stossell introduced us to some parents who monitor their children's bedrooms with electronic equipment. They claim to check the cams every 10 minutes, and closely monitor all computer activity.

The segment showed, to my surprise, a dissenting opinion that was decidedly secular. I don't remember if he was a psychologist or something, but he said that child spying was wrong because the kid no longer can make moral choices. He simply does what his parent wants because the parent is watching.

Sound familiar?

I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. What I really was thinking was, "this poor kid can't masturbate!" Of course, I'm sure he's figuring out how to beat the system (pun intended). I guess, for some Christian viewers, this is good news. I can only wonder if that's what this kid's mom is trying to prevent in the first place. If you've been around some of these people long enough, you know that they think that masturbating is not only a terrible offense to God, but will somehow cause teen pregnancy, democratism, and something called "ideas."

This mom claims that she is checking on her son to make sure he does his homework. I suppose asking him when she gets home from work is out of the question. I wonder what her boss thinks about her wasting company time watching her son pick zits in his room?

I was disappointed in the segment, in that they didn't say anything more about the comment by the "expert." What did he mean by saying that spied-upon children won't learn how to make moral choices? Of course, Christians would (or should) have no trouble thinking that it is perfectly okay to learn "right from wrong" in this way--that you do the right thing because you are being watched. That's exactly what their religion teaches. You are not allowed to make moral judgements on your own. That's for God to do. Unless you are pulling rank in the whole Christian family heirarchical system. But this is why these parents are so goddamned idiotic. Do they really make all of their choices in life with the image of an angry parent yelling in their head? Or a vengeful God? If they do, why do they want to inflict that on their kids?
If they refuse to hold and pass on the virtue of independance, why in the world did they ever take away their kids' pacifiers and blankies?

Here's to the kids. May they find decent apartments off-campus at a college many, many miles away from home. There but for the grace of Reason go these Monitored Kids.

Thanks for listening, diary.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Religion Helps us Cope...with Religion

Dear Internet Diary,

This is a short and simple answer to a somewhat simple person. I felt it might be worth really writing or talking about on the show someday.

Khai says:
Religion or belives, are not made to confuse one, we confuse each other. Religion/belives are a way to cope with the every day struggle that is life. Don't you understand that there are people out there that can't see pass there own exsistance, that can't deal with the fact that we are all going to die no matter what. Or that lifes a struggle with no purpose. From the momment one wakes up to the day you die all the struggle done inbetween those two points is meaningless and alot of people can't deal with it. so what does one do?! delusion. one made up a great excuse/reason some few years ago that

I respond:
The idea that religion "helps people cope with suffering" is a marketing tool, not a truth.

Religions create suffering in order to pretend to jump in and say they can relieve that same suffering. We are not alone. Religion tells us that people, and the things in the world that matter to us are not important--even that they are evil. It tells us that the only thing that is real is what they are selling.

Please reject this nonsense. It's a common tactic in product marketing to "create a need" or a problem in order to make the item necessary. If "the world" and everything in it is trivial or evil, then of course imaginary Happy Land is the answer. If your values and desires are empty, and nothing in the world can "comfort you in your time of need, " then of course the answer is Jesus.

They want you to be weak so you have to join their groups. Being an atheist can peel these things away, and show you that your values ARE meaningful, and you ARE strong enough to handle all kinds of suffering that life really gives you. You no longer have to accept that the world and your values are meaningless.

So what do you think? Is it true that people who "cannot cope" with death and suffering are trained to think they can't cope, by religion? Exactly how are they not coping, anyway? Are christians incapable of going into deep, clinical depressions after the death of a loved one? Are there people who, if convinced that there is no afterlife, will just die of grief or kill themselves? (I guess that would be the definition of "not coping." I'm sure there are, but I seriously doubt they match the actual population of true believers out there.

True Believers who, by the way, couldn't be convinced of no afterlife anyway.

The excuse that "people are too weak to handle suffering without God" is, I think, a smokescreen. Who doesn't have to cope with suffering, in real, tangible ways? Besides--they are coping with suffering without God. There are no Gods.

Are some people, maybe afraid that they can't survive any suffering without their belief? I think so. Don't they see that there is much coping going on by atheists and people who believe in "the wrong gods?"
Are these the kind of people who don't realize that there is existence outside of their own minds?

Thanks for listening, diary.

Monday, August 15, 2005

The Eden Set-Up

Dear Internet Diary,

Very few people actually believe the Garden of Eden story. This is strange, because what happened there is really the basis for Christianity. Without it, there's really no point.

I'm speaking of Original Sin. The naked kids ate the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told them not to. Since God was a Very Important Person, this offense to Him is worth banishing them from his sight, and is worth the ultimate curse against them and all of their offspring (and all the animals that were innocent bystanders in the way of God's Wrath): death, menstrual periods, and labour pains both female and male. I wonder if the labour pains of female mammals is also the result of God's punishment? But where is the male mammal equivalent--the pain of having to provide for a family (wah wah wah), since most male mammals do not provide food or stay monogamous with female mammals?

We can see clearly that it is a myth, an unoriginal one at that. There are dozens of gardens and trees in world mythology, like the Sumerian Eden story:

In the myth of Enki and Ninhursag it is related that the mother-goddess Ninhursag caused eight plants to grow in the garden of the gods. Enki desired to eat these plants and sent his messenger Isimud to fetch them. Enki ate them one by one, and Ninhursag in her rage pronounced the curse of death upon Enki. As the result of the curse eight of Enki’s bodily organs were attacked by disease and he was at the pain of death. The great gods were in dismay and Enlil [the chief god] was powerless to help. Ninhursag was induced to return and deal with the situation. She created eight goddesses of healing who proceeded to heal each of the diseased parts of Enki’s body. One of these parts was the god’s rib, and the goddess who was created to deal with the rib was named Ninti, which means “lady of the rib”.---The Babylonian Origins of the Creation-Myths

In refuting the garden of eden story, we are not concerned with disproving the literal events in the story: that would be absurd. What we are refuting is the lesson it supposedly teaches, the biblical concept of a God-Subjective Free Will, and the concept of a divine moral basis and objectivity. Adam and Eve sinned against God, therefore they, and all of us, were justifiably punished, thereby necessitating a Savior to keep our inherently evil-because-of-Eve selves from Hellfire.

We are evil because our ancestors disobeyed God. First problem. Nobody believes in the Garden of Eden, so exactly which ancestors of ours committed such a crime? Maybe we aren't inherently evil, and maybe there was no need for a Messiah?

Now I have to assume a real flesh-and-blood Adam and Eve. Why not? Let's play.

The Trees. We tell the story of the Garden, and we just assume the trees were just there. We don't ask ourselves what the fuck was Jehovah thinking? So Jehovah creates a tree whose fruit somehow imparts knowledge by eating it. Then he forbids its fruit from being eaten. Why? Why the magic tree, God, why?

Here is where we are sure its a story made by men. Is there, anywhere in the world, a food that, when eaten, "enlightens" the eater? Why, yes. Of course. There are many foods that cause hallucination. Psyllocybin in particular, can cause the eater to imagine that his thoughts are deep and significant. He thinks that he has become enlightened, that he finally understands something very exciting. He (in this case, "she") might even try to write down or express these thoughts. Unfortunately, when the effects of the drug wear off, so does the "enlightenment." Your paradise is lost, and you might even experience a temporary dark episode--maybe shame? Not always, but you follow me, right?

So why God why. If he intended Adam and Eve to live in bliss, he didn't have to create that tree. But he did, and we can only assume that, since he "knows everything," that he intended the tree for them in the first place. (Who the fuck else was it for? The Unicorns?) And don't give me that snot about a "test." Snort! A Test? The Being that knows the future needs a test. Take away God's omniscience, and you have to ask yourself, why the test?

The issue of Adam and Eve's disobedience is up for debate as well. What is this "disobedience," in a world with no negativity, no pain, no death? And for that matter, no knowledge of Good and Evil? How could they know before eating this fruit?

I have heard the argument that God was protecting his children from harm by telling them not to eat the fruit. It was said that it was like a parent telling his child not to walk in the street when a car is coming. If they disobey, they'll get hit by a car! God's being a good parent.

If I were a parent, I would watch my kids. No parent with half a brain thinks that telling a toddler who has never walked across a street "don't do this" will be enough to keep him safe. God, what a lazy parent! Especially since I built the car, and there is no one to drive it. There are a lot of cars out there to play in, but the red convertible thunderbird is the deadly one. I refuse to say why I made this one car that can run down my kids, as opposed to all the other benign cars out there. It's not like I need it, or would ever want to drive it. I sure made it attractive to look at, what with the candy red color, orange flames, and white leather interior. (And the ice-cream freezer in back.) I made it so that if the kids go near it, it will automatically run them over. Neat, eh? Rotten kids.

Thanks for listening, diary.

Monday, August 08, 2005

The Devil's Playground

Dear Internet Diary,

I'm watching a documentary about "rumspringe," the time in an Amish kid's life (after 16) when he or she can decide whether to join the church and "become Amish." The Amish don't believe in baptising children, and that they should decide for themselves when they reach the age of majority.

But the point of the movie, to me, is that there is still not a real choice, not really. These kids are not educated--maybe Amish kids in the single digits have been allowed to go to a real school. Their "schools" go until eighth grade, taught by 13 year-olds like junior camp counselors. They don't learn about sex. They don't learn about biology or science. These kids start dressing "english," turn on MTV and watch movies for the first time, and immediately immitate what they see the kids on tv doing. They furiously smoke and drink, and have adult-sanctioned parties out in the fields, drinking until they pass out, smoking pot, snorting (and dealing) crank. They have no idea what they're doing, and the tv is their crash-course. They are given sanction to have "bed-courtship," where the girl can spend the night in the boy's bed.

Is it surprising that they have a bad teen pregnancy problem?

This is pretty sly of their tradition, to keep these kids coming back at a 90% rate. The girls, who are taught to care what their moms and dads think, join the church, and are the main pressure to get the boys back in. It works. What works better is pre-marital pregnancy, all tacitly encouraged by this grand tradition.

What do these kids have to look forward to when they get back in? Jobs in factories. That's what these kids on their sprees are doing for spending money. What do you do on an eighth grade education?

What kind of choice do these kids have, really? No support from parents to leave. No education. No knowledge about the world. The world, the religion teaches, is evil. That's why they want to be set apart from it.

The commentary was interesting. The directors were so conflicted. They actually make me want to scream. On the one hand, they understand that this system is awful, and, as the director notes, "maybe shouldn't be allowed." But then they become wistful about it. They say "they have everything set up, it's so peaceful and simple, they know they're going to heaven." They start complaining about life with cell phones, high-speed internet connections, and video games. It was better before, they imply.

What crap! I wish I could come across a few more intelligent, creative and productive people out there who could just show a little appreciation for the choices they are blessed to have. Why do we have cell phones, and high-speed internet connection? Because it's better. It saves work. It makes us happy. If we didn't want those things, are we trapped in a world that will shun us if we choose not to use those things? Do we face pressure from our families if we choose to limit our access to the internet? That seems rare. How about, instead of complaining about all the great choices we have, all the ways we can see into worlds we've never known, hear music from cultures we couldn't have dreamed about 30 years ago, learn about things we couldn't have inmagined, we try to be thankful for it?

I suppose it's only natural that we sometimes long for lack of freedom, because it represents no having to be responsible for ourselves anymore. In this culture, there is no more "self." There is community. "Individual" is a dirty word. The parents entice their children back home with the promise that everything will be easy for them. All their needs will be met. All their choices will be made for them.

To counteract the feelings brought up by this film, I should watch Pleasantville. That film demonstrates the beauty and gives appreciation for the world as it is, with all its scary, dirty, and dangerous freedom. That and Wings of Desire. I wonder how the kids in Devil's Playground would react to those films, and if they could relate to them? Not bloody likely.

Thanks for listening, diary.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Thoughts on Ted Jesus Christ God the Great I Am

Dear Internet Diary,

I don't know whether I am dealing with one spammer or another, but I thought I'd post Kiwi's response to reading our webpage on Ted Jesus Christ God. Unfortunatley, his site was removed for one iniquity or another, so you can't actually see it. But you can look at what we wrote about it--for now.

More thoughts on Ted:

I'd never heard of the guy until I read the above rant but having posted my response to that, I did have a pang of guilt that I was being unfair to him and looked at Alleee and Franc's Insolitology page on him.

Now, maybe there's a whole lot more that I don't know but on the basis of what I found there I'd have to say "Oh come on guys, give him a break." Sure it's incoherent but we can't all be linguistic rocket- scientists. Maybe he just had a lousy, inadequate education. Even if that was his fault for skipping too much school, at that age can it really be said that he ought to have known better? Maybe he just got away with what most of us wanted to do but were too scared of the authorities to try.

So he hates the Pope and priests. So do I in a polite, restrained, cerebral kind of way that allows them all sorts of "good intentions" and "ends justify means" kinds of excuses and rationalizations. I could never use language like that because I like to think I can use words like a rapier rather than a bludgeon but I'm probably fooling myself that I can achieve even a pin-prick with them. It's harder to dodge a bludgeon. The sex thing? Hey I've felt that way about a girl or two, 'specially when I was younger, but was and am far too repressed and sex-shy to tell them about it, especially as I'm damn sure I would only have scored 3/10 on their cards. Don't think I've ever had sex like that, though. If Ted has, I'm green with envy and I'm afraid I'd probably be after it again like a dog after a bitch in heat, too. Maybe overall it's best that I didn't ever get it like that - or at least that it didn't seem like that because I had too much else to think about even at such exquisite moments.

So he thinks he's Jesus Christ/God. If he can't tell the difference between JC and God neither can most Christians who are forced to grapple with the received wisdom that JC was Father, Son AND Holy Ghost - presumably that same Holy Ghost who impregnated his mother so that he could be born immaculately in a kind of ultimate incest. If Ted's mind becomes unhinged grappling with that kind of thing I think it only proves he's actually bothered to think about it more deeply than your average Christian.

As for taking the name, Hell, thousands of Latin mamas call their sons Jesus every year. Do they think their son is the real thing? To take a name is to take a pre-packaged identity and I'd rather take a lift with someone who's borrowed JC's name to that of Jack the Ripper.

Ted even knows he's not the real thing. He can't walk on water. He knows that now. How many of us know that we can't walk on water? Did we ever try? No. We were told we couldn't and said, "OK. We can't." Yet don't we atheists pride ourselves on thinking for ourselves?

Are we not all Gods in our own private Universes? Don't we play "Doom", "Warcraft" and "Sim-City" - and maybe publish web-pages about ourselves and maintain blogs - so that we can be even more Godlike? Ted chooses to make his private Universe public warts and all which is not the kind of thing our Anglo-Saxon sensibilities encourage but, hey, that's our problem.

Sorting through the incoherence and grammatical shortcomings of his text - and I've seen worse - are his ideas really so mad? So the end of the world is nacht. Some eminent scientists are a saying much the same thing in erudite papers with the words 'global warming' somewhere in the title. Avoid genetically engineered foods? New Zealand has a political party in Parliament dedicated to that. Avoid animal-based foods? A respectable position. Go back to the land and become responsible for yourself? Damn it, that's what I'm trying to do.

Flee the US as it's governed by dishonest lunatics? Sounds reasonable to me. I even know several people who've done that very thing!

Women shouldn't ride horses? My wife rides horses. The single most erotic sight I have ever had in my life was of a pretty girl in a tiny bikini riding a magnificent white horse. Would anyone have heard of Lady Godiva had she passed through the streets of Coventry in foot? Horse riding is a female thing, more females do it 'for pleasure' than men I'm sure. Do they get orgasms doing it? I've no idea. Wonder if there's ever been a survey done. The only woman I feel I can ask about it says she never has but supposes it is possible and admits there is a certain eroticism to riding a horse. 'Eroticism' is just a posh word we intellectuals like to use instead of 'feel horny' so I don't think Ted is barking up the totally wrong tree. Personally it wouldn't bother me if every woman keeps her horse as a masturbation aid (tho' it's an expensive one!) but Ted thinks otherwise I must defend his right to think it and if he takes the view that if women didn't have horses they'd have to make more use of us blokes I'm not even sure I'd disagree!!

Avoid Christmas trees and stage-plays? Didn't the Pilgrim Fathers say the same thing?

Don't play chess. To say of someone that they treat life as a chess game is generally regarded as uncomplimentary, I think. Chess is combative 'to the death', manipulative and involves the coldly-calculated 'sacrifice' of one's own pieces either to further one's own aims or defend one's- self. Good generals are usually good chess-players, and usually good butchers of men. Learning to play chess hones ways of thinking that are basically anti-social. Personally, chess doesn't bother me but boxing does and I think it should be banned tho' I'm not doing anything about it, which denies me the moral high ground here.

"Avoid like the plague modern medicine..." (Actually - and probably accidentally - there is extraordinarily subtle imagery here.) And there is a qualification - "that is into drugs and pharmaceuticals..." &tc. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he's not saying don't go to your doctor. Just don't let them fill you up with the latest and greatest drug from the Corporates, particularly when it's a Canute-like attempt to stave off the inevitable. According to an article in a recent and respected local magazine here (the 'Listener') Pfizer, which made a mint from Viagra, has just identified a previously unknown medical condition called FSD (female sexual dysfunction), which results in women preferring to curl up with a good book rather than responding with excitement to their paunchy middle-aged partner's Viagra-induced erection! Don't worry guys, there's now a pill they can take for it!

Likewise I've suffered a life-time of depression and debilitation which several reputable authors have suggested resulted from significant amounts of mercury having been shoved into my mouth by dentists when I was a child and trusted they knew what they were doing.

While people died at 40 in the Stone-Age and in the European Middle-Ages, there is evidence that in unstressed, pleasant, easy places to live like the Nile Valley, the fertile crescent, Ethiopia, sub-tropical India, 'primitive' peoples lived to our 80+ and beyond reasonably easily. So if Ted's saying that if you find a pleasant spot to live, eat wholesome foods, don't get stressed by the 'phone, keep yourself busy without overdoing it, have great sex and don't envy your neighbour's knight on q4 you can live to a ripe old age without enriching Pfizer's shareholders I'd say he's probably right.

Don't have an organ transplant to save your life. OK, that's his view and he's entitled to it. If the life you get as a result isn't worth living I'd probably agree.

Didn't get a chance to see what Ted's fantasy-life looks like as your ISP blocked it! (look up "Ted Jesus Christ God" on Google Image Search. You'll see dozens of pictures of blonde beauties and some pics of him. Small, but still there.--Alleee)

So OK, he's ignorant, illogical, barely literate, incoherent, frustrated, and passionate. I'm probably his complete opposite in all of these things. Probably much of what he is, is not his fault. Everything I am is my fault. Which of us is the better person?

Agreed this kind of thing frightens the horses and maybe we ought to have someone walking in front of it with a red flag but is not the only question that really matters, 'Is he dangerous, to others or himself.'?

If he's dangerous to others - if he's going to step over the line from argument to force - he needs to be taken in hand as his rights to do and think what he wants stop at that line. If he's a danger to himself I personally believe he has the right to do whatever harm he wants to his own body, and own life, as long as he is in possession of all the facts. What he does with those facts is up to him. I believe people should be saved from ignorance. I don't believe they should be saved from themselves.

I can well understand he could be a pain in the a***. Trouble is, other's people's freedoms being a pain in your a*** is the price you pay for freedom.



Friday, August 05, 2005

Testimony for Show # 64: Witnessing Non-Belief (part three)

Here we go:

Christmas is a mystery. One great big "How can it be?" I don't understand it all, but I believe in it. I believe because I need to believe. If the mystery of Christmas is not true, then we are alone in this world. If hope was not born at Christmas, if love did not come as a baby, if God was not made flesh, then we are alone and helpless. So I believe in Christmas with all my might, because without it I am without hope.

How can this be? It can be because God Almighty says it can be. Christmas is impossible by human designs and devises and conceptions. But with God nothing is impossible.---Sermons for the 4th Sunday in Advent

First of all, he's not saying December 25th, so I'm going to ignore the whole issue. I'd get carried away.

If Jesus was not born, then "we are alone in this world." Helpless. That's the essence of atheism, isn't it? There are 6 billion people on earth, and he says we would be alone without one mythological figure. There are maybe 10 sextillion stars in the galaxy. Maybe 10 million billion planets. It's possible that none of them but one have some kind of life. But I don't think so. And without a mythological figure, one that has many copies in the myths of the world, we are alone? So I have to wonder if this "need to believe" exists. Maybe it's the Christians who are the hopeless ones! This business of "if God were not made flesh then everything would be terrible!" is even more unbelievably sad. How sad are christians? But luckily with God, everything is possible!

So, if everything were possible, then this God could have made it so people have hope without God making himself into a man. He could have made it so humans never sineed, yet have free will. He could have made it so people lived forever on a clean and lovely earth. But he didn't. He made suffering, then went down to earth in a great show of "suffering" where he "suffered" for two days, tops, to "save" us from himself. Inspiring.

I believe in Christ because to do otherwise would require that I ignore the overwhelming evidence around me. I believe because I must--to do otherwise would be irrational. God has offered a lifeline, and I have chosen to reach out and take hold of it. God has offered a gift, and I have chosen to receive it.--Tim Krell

So much for faith. But a person who believes on evidence must ignore the overwhelming evidence around him of either terrible cruelty on God's part or natural processes. That's a lot of ignored evidence. Every time one claims supernaturalism, every time one says "God did it" has chosen to stop looking for evidence and rest on his desires. What did he say about being "irrational?"

He said, "I don’t believe because you believe, I don’t believe because my parents believe. I believe because when I ride my bike in the park in our neighborhood, I feel God’s presence and I know God is real.--Turning Doubt into Faith

How noble.

This is the "I feel good, therefore God exists" argument. There are many ways to achieve this feeling. actually, I make a mistake in saying "this feeling." The feeling of "God's Presence" is subjective. There is a physical anomally that caises that specific feeling, (temporal lobe seizures can give you the massive feeling of significance, and such huge rightness that people should follow you) and is really the only objective "I feel god's presence" feeling. But many people interpret many different feelings to be God's Presence, because they want to think that God acknowledges them personally. They want to feel special.

I know that many Christians would never believe me, but I am certain that I have felt the same rush while alone in nature that this young person has. It could be called "the warm fuzzies," but it feels so much more important than that. There is a deep, spiritual lift, a feeling that all is well with the world, one knows one's place in it, and one may feel one's connection to it. Some things in the world are inspiring. Mount Rainier, for one. The Tumwater Canyon near Leavenworth, Washington. The Columbia River Gorge. Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. Shostokovich's 5th. Beethoven's 6th and 9th. I even felt that in New York City the first time. Once, I felt it when I was around 8 and my mother tucked me into bed. This is life. This is not death. This is material. This is not supernatural. The fact that your brain sent signals to release hormones does not diminish the experience in any way. It's just one of the greatest physical benefits I can think of. What that girl felt was real. Not God.

*Always be open to possibilities* I have become very much in touch with my spiritual side and soul, therefore allowing me to grant myself much enlightenment on a vast variety of subjects. I stand greatly by what I believe, because, truthfully, it is all I can be sure I really know. As long as I believe what I truly believe, then that is all the truth I'll ever know, yet all the truth I shall ever need. I've finally become more in touch with my totems (Cat, Wolf, Crow, and Horse) and I know that my soul is that of a cat. Therefore, I am a cat's soul inside a human "anchor". As for my religion: I'm a Pagan (though not a Wiccan) with my own, individual beliefs.--Animal Spirit Guides and Totems

I thought I'd throw this in to illustrate how very little people know about the nature of belief and knowledge. And it's not just believers, of Dear Readers. If you are reading this, I would like your assignment for today to be a short essay on the difference between belief and knowledge. Send it to me if you want me to mark it and send it back!


Thursday, August 04, 2005

More Christian Testimony

Luxiquin (June 19, 2004):

I've been diagnosed bipolar three months now and my life has turned into a living hell. None the medicines work so far; I've baffled my doctors. I've been hospitalized and still can't seem to get anything to work.

I will write I am a Christian, because I choose not to be anything else, but I don't understand God in my life anymore. Looking back on my life I feel like all the times I thought God was close, they just seem false and manufactured. I believe I'm beginning to lose my faith.
I'm writing here because my mother insisted I should. I figure it won't hurt if I do or don't. "Find people who are like you," she says. "Talk to them; you're not the only one." I don't think she understands that I don't care if I'm the only one or not.

So here is my question, Why rely on God and follow His plan, when you're programmed not to?

This is all hypothetical, though. Hypothetically, someone might be in a situation where he would be spending a lot of time with a person like this, someone who drops the bomb "I think I'm questioning my faith. Someone who cares would want to help this person learn how to think for himself. A good way is to get him out of religion, which takes away his ability to judge. Unfortunately, it's very easy to push someone back into it stronger than ever. It coudl be possible, though, that someone who is able to question, is able to find this all out for himself.

What do you say to people in this predicament? Is this person looking to be reassured in his faith, or looking to be reassured in his lack of faith? I would start off by asking him why he "chooses not to choose." I might ask him to explain what he means by false and manufactured, and I might go on to realte my own feelings about that topic. I know exactly what he means, as I spent many years in church feeling very much apart from the whole thing. I felt that people were acting the way they thought they should, rather than being genuine.

I would have to find restraint, however, and try to limit what I'm saying, as he might not relate to my experiences. I would try and relate to him, but briefly. I am tempted to talk about the whole "being programmed not to" thing. What do you suppose he means? Perhaps we should discuss what "God's Plan" means. I would want to ask how there could be a plan in the first place, and how could anything God planned not happen, when He would certainly know the outcome. He would have had to intend for the outcome to happen. He would certainly have planned for me to be an atheist. Why would he do that? However, I tend to go on and on, and I would have to resist telling him exactly what I think of it, and instead hint about it and let him discover it on his own.

What would you say? Ask shorter questions?
"Wow, you would think God wouldn't need a plan at all!"
"Do you think God's plan could fail, since He knows everything that's going to happen anyway?"
"Why do you suppose God lets us muck around, deciding what we are going to do next, when we're just going to do what he wants, anyway? Can you imagine that God would be cruel like that? It's like we were just toys."

I don't go to church every Sunday. I don't openly participate in religious debate, keeping my views to myself. However, I am a Christian, because I believe in the true words that Jesus Christ spoke and his actions toward mankind. If that makes me religious, I hardly feel any reason to apologize for it.---Andrew

I would not be speaking to this person. But if I did, I would probably ask him what words, and why he agrees with them? I would have to wonder why he agrees with Jesus about the Apocalypse and Hell. I don't know how to tread lightly on this subject. If he denies that Jesus said these things, then I would have to challenge him on what other reference to Jesus there is, than the gospels, that makes him "agree" with Jesus. We wouldn't speak of Jesus' existence. We would speak of our own values, and whether they were Jesus' values as well. This sounds like a debate! Maybe it's not Jesus he agrees with. Maybe it's good, sound values. Are they consistent with Jesus' words? What would you do?

I must add: if you know what the character Jesus said in the book, what use is it if you can't tell a Christian? ;)

I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in Jesus Christ because of the Bible.

It bears to mention at this point that I believe in the Bible not because I have thoroughly read it and conclude it to be the sacred truth. As I have said, I have read only portions of the Bible. I do not even know how the books of Genesis and Exodus were written.


As I will explain later, I do not believe it would be necessary for me to do so.

I believe in the Bible because when I called on its God, I received a response. The God of the Bible has three persons and three names. I call on them all although I call on Jesus most.---Yaw and Mog

I threw that one in for fun. Anyone see the merry-go-round?

Somebody had to tell us the story of Jesus, had to live the faith before us, had to serve as our exemplar. We Christians call it, grace, a word that means simply, gift.

I know that is why I am a Christian. I might like to tell you that I am a Christian because I made a careful study of all the world’s religions, carefully comparing their beliefs and ethical systems and decided that Christianity was superior. Therefore I am a Christian. --Duke Chapel

So, what would happen if you did make a careful study of all, or some, of the world's religions? What would happen if you didn't find Christianity superior? Therefore, you are a Christian because you are a Christian? How do you know that this "gift" you were given was given by something good, and not deceitful? You have to make your own judgement on that, don't you? Then, why not make a judgement of Christianity and other religions and non-religions? If your christianity is a gift given by God, then nothing bad will happen. If it was given to you by some trickster god or yourself, then you'll be able to nip this thing in the bud! That was close!

This is not a well thought-out scenario. I doubt I would seriously try to witness to this person. If so, we would try to find common ground and leave it at that. Not much to go on here. I'll let him finish:

But despite any reservations you may have about the liturgical propriety of my baptism, at least you have to admit that it worked. Here I am, telling you the story of what was done to me, a story that I did not think up myself, but one that was laid over my life. Christians believe we are Christians, not primarily because of something we do, or decide, think or feel, but rather because of something that God in Jesus Christ does to us, something that the church lives before us and tells to us. We call it grace.

The claim is that Christianity is put upon you, whether you like it or not. At baptism? This is unclear. He also says Jesus Christ insinuates Himself upon us. This begs the question: is everyone invaded by Christ, including the little babies in India? Is the belief in Christ as God somewhere in the brain so that little babies in India can "refuse" him and go to hell or eternal Almighty Ignorance? Aren't they already ignored by God, and isn't this cruel? Or does Jesus rape--I mean, "give us his gift" at a certain age? Or are only certain people given the gift of Jesus couch-surfing on our souls? Is that what God means by "chosen people?" Why does God choose some people, then, to go to hell? They would have no choice in the matter. That doesn't seem fair at all! God is pretty mean.

God's Threat-Deuteronomy

Dear Internet Diary,

Recently some folks have reacted with incredulity when I described for them a passage in the bible wherein women are forced to eat their newborn babies, as a threat to disobedience. SOme have suggested it was all "made up." I thought I'd get on that and provide the passage so that they may repeat at will. Note how God is definitely not a "right-to lifer."

Deuteronomy 28:45-57 NLT

If you refuse to listen to the LORD your God and to obey the commands and laws he has given you, all these curses will pursue and overtake you until you are destroyed. These horrors will serve as a sign and warning among you and your descendants forever. Because you have not served the LORD your God with joy and enthusiasm for the abundant benefits you have received, you will serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you. You will be left hungry, thirsty, naked, and lacking in everything. They will oppress you harshly until you are destroyed. "The LORD will bring a distant nation against you from the end of the earth, and it will swoop down on you like an eagle. It is a nation whose language you do not understand, a fierce and heartless nation that shows no respect for the old and no pity for the young. Its armies will devour your livestock and crops, and you will starve to death. They will leave you no grain, new wine, olive oil, calves, or lambs, bringing about your destruction. They will lay siege to your cities until all the fortified walls in your land – the walls you trusted to protect you – are knocked down. They will attack all the towns in the land the LORD your God has given you. The siege will be so severe that you will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters, whom the LORD your God has given you. The most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion for his own brother, his beloved wife, and his surviving children. He will refuse to give them a share of the flesh he is devouring – the flesh of one of his own children – because he has nothing else to eat during the siege that your enemy will inflict on all your towns. The most tender and delicate woman among you – so delicate she would not so much as touch her feet to the ground – will be cruel to the husband she loves and to her own son or daughter. She will hide from them the afterbirth and the new baby she has borne, so that she herself can secretly eat them. She will have nothing else to eat during the siege and terrible distress that your enemy will inflict on all your towns.

Skeptical of the NLT translation? Here's some of KJV:
57And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.

God is love, ladies and gentlemen!

Do you still want to call this "free will?"

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Only A Housewife

Dear Internet Diary,

If I thought I were "only a housewife," I would want some kind of "ultimate motivation" too. Not christianity, though. I'm always looking for a motivation of some kind. I suppose if one finds oneself unfocused enough to accuse oneself of being "only a hosuewife," one is frustrated and bored. I would suggest a hobby, like internet audio shows blasting christianity. I tend to be a dilletante, I've tried everything. I went on a "choose your religion" rollercoaster for awhile. It was fantastic for me.

Then there was art, music composing, more recording, acting, sewing, more crafts, music history, rock and roll, punk rock, Riot Grrrl, feminism, objectivism, travel...there's just too damned much to do in this world to find myself dissatisfied with what I am, and what I'm doing. I have flashes where I wonder if I'm "supposed" to be "more successful," as if there's some kind of magical being that says "ok, now, at age 25, you were required to do this. Then, at 30, you were supposed to (have babies) do X..."

Of course, I know that just ain't so. It can be tough sometimes to be an individualist, and an atheist, because you have to challenge all these notions that crop up all of the time. What you're "supposed to be," for instance. Or the idea that you're supposed to be serving this ideal, or that husband, or this god, or that country. No such animal as "s'posed ta."

I think so many of us dismiss the things of the material world as being unimportant. We want to feel important, so we have to be doing lofty things. But we forget that the little things, the building blocks of life --and I don't mean primary particles in particualr--ARE lofty. They shouldn't be dismissed, they should be celebrated. After all, if we believe in God, we should believe that God made those things possible anyway. We turn to our bibles and see the passage that says "consider the lilies." Then we realize, even if we are christians, that we aren't so insignificant after all. As atheists, we tend to see the universe bigger--we see the earth in the context of the universe. We know that all the aspects of it are really, equally important as much as they are equally insignificant. As Christians, we get so hung up on the notion of God's favorites and God's plan, that we get tunnel vision. We think humans are the be all and end all, and we'd better damned well be worthy--although we know from scripture we're not.

Atheists don't have that obstacle.

Shouldn't we celebrate the astronomical odds that allowed the universe to give us music, delicious food, love, art, beauty, thrills? Rollercoasters, trees, coffee, ice cream, Mozart, The Beatles, Angelina Jolie, Ryan Phillipe (beautiful people), Richard Dawkins, ballet, puppies, pizza, mp3s, movies, Homer Simpson, Winslow Homer, Mark Twain, Penn and Teller, Houdini, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Margaret Sanger (fighters), Bessie Smith, Gene Kelly, Ruby Keeler, Ira Glass, Sarah Vowel, Dan Savage, sex, orgasms, Japanese Gardens, mountains, rivers, rainbow trout, kittens, snow, the seasons, winter solstice, christmas trees, chocolate, kissing, finger painting, cartoons, housewives, house husbands, the internet, books, Harry Potter, baseball, I missing something?

Of course I am.. Isn't that great?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Tearing Away Hope

Dear Internet Diary,

Today, a lady made a post on a fundy board. She is a fundamentalist Christian, and her husband is an atheist. I won't comment on them because it's private. Her post made several challenges to atheists. I don't have the thread or the message board anymore, sorry. But Franc does reference some of her questions. She seemed pretty angry. In fact, later on she says she hates atheism more than anything in her life. Below is Franc's response:

First of all, I understand your anger. You have invested a lot of your life towards a religious institution, church, belief system, and you realized that a lot of people think it's hurtful. I realize you want to lash out at us atheists for saying it, but if your goal is to help people, then you should consider whether we're actually right. If what you're doing is not helping people, but in fact hurting them and depriving them of their happiness, wouldn't you want to know it ?

Secondly, I would invite you to read some ex-Christian testimonies, on a page such as : Ex Christian Testimony

This is my wife's testimony. There are many other testimonies on that site. A friend of mine, Lance, has literally turned his life upside-down since he became an atheist. He is now mentally and financially free, and on his way to a great career. This kind of transformation is going on all around the world. Is taking control of your mind and life a bad thing ? I don't think it is. I think it's a wonderful gift.

When you become an atheist, you don't become depressed, hateful or suicidal. Most deconverted atheists live good lives, although they have problems just like Christians do. The only difference is that they deal with problems on their own terms, with full confidence in their own means, instead of using excuses to explain away failure and evil behaviour.

An atheist knows there is only one life to live, and if you don't live it to the fullest, you don't get a second chance. If you commit evil, there is no one to save you - you are responsible for your own actions. And that we must accept people as they are, and deal with other people on our own terms, not on the terms of a book written thousands of years ago.

All that becoming an atheist does is take away the belief systems that keep you away from your compassion and your personal values, and gives you the control and responsibility of your own life. If you love your husband right now, you will love him as an atheist. And he will be there to support you. That's the most important thing. You have friends and people who appreciate you, you have resources, and most importantly you have your own values - all these things are not going away.

Let me answer some other of your points :

* We are not trying to tear away your hope. If you have hope right now, you will still have the same hope when you are an atheist. Whatever you are hoping for, the only way you will get it is by dealing with the real world.

* I don't think it is okay to teach children Santa Claus, unless it is taught as a story. Same for Jesus, God, Zeus, Zarathustra, and any other character. It's good for children to have a healthy imagination, but it shouldn't interfere with the quality of their lives. The doctrines of Hell (being told that they will burn forever if they don't obey) and original sin (being told that they are worthless) are traumatizing to children.

* What would happen if everyone was an atheist ? We would have an entire society of people who deal with life on its own terms, instead of using religious excuses to commit irrational or evil behaviour. People who don't believe things simply because they want them to be true. People who accept other people on their own terms. We would have a tremendous society.

May I assume that you are American for a moment ? Why do you think the United States has the highest incarceration rate of ALL countries in the world, highest crime rates of all developed countries, and close to the highest rates of racism and homophobia (next to Japan) ? Think about it for a minute. If Chrisitanity really did make people better, shouldn't the United States be a country full of moral, upright people ?

* When you become an atheist, you will not become unhappy, suicidal, bitter, depressed and anguished, unless you are right now. And if you are, the love of your husband and doing something about your problems will help you - prayer will not. But first you have to want to solve your problems. On that, I can't help you, and no one else can help you.

* If you love your husband now, you will continue to love him - then why would you leave him ? If you don't love him right now, then you still won't love him - then why should you stay with him ? Right now your personal values are buried in a religious "commitment" which has nothing to do with you. What do YOU want to do with your life ?

* There is a lot for you to look forward to. There are things around you that make you happy right now - these things are not going anywhere. Everything ! All the little pleasures of life ! A good meal, music, nature, family and friends, food, learning new things, doing the kind of things you enjoy, movies, art, parties, birthdays, weddings, books, travel, whatever you want to do. But once you become an atheist, you will be able to do even more, if you want.

What do you have to look forward to ? Everything that this life has to offer. No more limit !

* Christianity is not making you a better person. Christianity teaches horrible things, and people who really follow the rules in the Bible are criminals and psychotics - killing or rejecting people for being who they are, leaving their loved ones, repressing their sexuality, and generally acting against their own values and making themselves and everyone around them unhappy. You are NOT a psychotic, you are already a good person. You have good values. They are still IN THERE, inside you, but your beliefs are pushing them back and make you feel depressed and isolated from your own values.

Aura, I've been turning people away from Christianity for more than ten years. I am not turning them away from "their ultimate motivation in life". I would never want to do that. Their ultimate motivation is in their personal values, whatever they are. All that I'm doing is freeing people from the belief system that is keeping them in bondage and releasing their creative values into the world. We're making a more peaceful and productive world. Isn't that what we all want ?

If you want to talk to me, I'll always be there. My address is .
And if you'd prefer not, remember that there are always people out there who will be ready to help you, if you ever need it.

Thanks for listening, diary.

Monday, August 01, 2005

LIVE with Hellbound Alleee and testimony

Dear Internet Diary,

We all need help to get the best out of life. I need a financial advisor as I don't understand all that accounting stuff. I need doctors as I don't understand all that medical stuff. I need Jesus because I don't understand all there is to know about life and eternity. ---Trevor Hawes: Introduction to Christianity

Does his financial advisor know all there is to know about accounting, and, if he did, is it his job to teach you everything there is to know? If you did know "all that medical stuff," (and it's possible to find out an awful lot) why wouldn't you still need a doctor? To this person I would have to ask why it is necessary to know all there is to know about life and "eternity?" Why does this person presuppose this need to know? Do people just assume that after we die, there is a "we" that finally gets to hear all the answers?

And, taking a page out of Douglas Adams, what exactly is the question?

Mr. Hawes, how would you feel if you found out that Jesus is not going to tell you all the answers to life's questions? (Is that in the bible?) Would it matter, since you don't know all the questions? Is it painful for you, right now, to not know?

I need Jesus because I cannot bear meaninglessness, my sinfulness, and my inability to better myself.--Josh McVey

My instinct is to challenge him with the idea that the world is full of believers of meaningless religions and meaningless gods. How sad that is! Entire countries of the devout towards meaninglessness! Yet, I agree. I think gods are all meaningless. I just think his are, too. Not that this would be the best thing to say to someone who sounds sort of depressed and lost. I would have to argue that he can better himself, very easily, and perhaps a "better him" is not too far away. (I can think of one way!)

Six Reasons to Believe in God -- Every Student
1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.

Yes. Many people believe in gods. Note I am saying "gods," not "a god," as they have. Are they making arguments for believing in Vishnu and the Hindy panoply? If so, heed thine own arguments, Christians.

2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

If complexity is an argument for design, then God must have a creator. Who created God? Of course, the creator of God must be infinitely more complex than an infintiely complex god. Wow. That blows the mind, doesn't it! and on we go.
3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.

First of all, it is not creation. "Mere chance" is a strawman. Invalid argument.

4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

Do I have to? We went through this before, and apparently many atheists agree with this statement. Too bad for them. I do not. But of course, the statement "sense of right and wrong" is not the correct phrase. Lets not have another flame war. A sense of value is biologically inherent.

5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.

What can be observed in nature is natural process. Obviously, other religions have interpreted natural process to be the result of whole populations of animal and human gods, and that the earth and sky are gods themselves. What they call "apparent" is merely cultural perspective (thanks, David Eller). So are bibles and scripture. The Vedas reveal a whole lot more gods than the Jewish/Christian bible (although it seems even this has several gods). The Hindus win! Jesus--these people really think they can ghet away with that suck argument? The bible? Wow. Just, wow.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.

And Jesus was an amalgamation of earlier godman myths, evolved from Mithraism, Greece, Egypt, China, etc. It's all been told before, over and over, about different guys with different names and different religions.

So they are claiming their god is the best god, eh? So I guess they only have five (bad) reasons to believe in God, since it sort of cancels out their reason numero uno: "C;Mon! Everyone else does it! Why don't you?"

Piss poor. Sorry for the sad leavings today, folks. I'm running out of steam today. Maybe it's all this Live show stuff.


Hellbound Alleee LIVE!

I failed to announce on the blog that our show is going live every Sunday at noon eastern to 2 pm. We have a chatroom, and soon, you will be able to call in and talk to me! Yeah, even theists. Especially theists, of course! Find out all about it at the Hellbound Alleee Live page.
But don't stop listening to our regular Saturday shows on Live 365 and on our archive pages. We're still chugging away.