Radical Atheist

Saint Peter is watching the gates of Heaven, but he really has to go to the bathroom. He asks Jesus to watch the gates for a few minutes, and Jesus agrees.

As Jesus is standing there, he sees an old man leading a donkey up from Earth to Heaven. He notices the old man has carpenter’s tools with him. When the old man gets to the gates, Jesus asks him to describe his life and explain why he feels he should be admitted into Heaven.

The man explains, “In English, my name would be Joseph, but I didn’t live in America or England. I lived a modest life, making things out of wood. I’m not remembered very well by most people, but almost everyone has heard of my son. I call him my son, but I was more of a Dad to him — he really didn’t come into this world in the usual way.

I sent my son out to be among the people of the World. He was ridiculed by many, and was even known to associate himself with some pretty unsavoury characters, although he himself tried to be honest and perfect. My single biggest reason for trying to get into Heaven is to be re-united with my son.”

Jesus is awe-struck by the man’s story. He looks into the old man’s eyes and asks, “Father?”

The old man’s face brightens; he looks at Jesus, and asks, “Pinocchio?”

(This joke’s been around for a while but it never fails to make me chuckle. It also brings to mind a real situation. If you study history you’ll notice that all the elements in the story of Jesus are similar to the elements in other god-man stories. His history isn’t unique.)

Print Friendly

Should gay people, individually or singly, be allowed to adopt children?  Should single straight people be encouraged to adopt?

In a rational world the criteria to be adoptive parents, or parents of any kind, would be based on practical concerns about those things of direct benefit to the child. The prospective parent’s preparation for parenthood, the parent’s financial and social security. Do they love each other, if a couple? Treating their sexual persuasion as a minor element is appropriate.

Of course if the heterosexuals could ever learn to control their animal natures and treat procreation as something special and make births less common this wouldn’t be as much an issue. As long as straight people can’t control themselves there will be more kids waiting for homes than there are straight, Christian couples enjoying their patriarchal family hierarchy to adopt them.

Christians would do well to think of the best interests of the children and not be so concerned over matters they can’t show make a lick of difference to the welfare and happiness of the children.

Print Friendly

The parallels should be obvious.

Print Friendly

[Now I've got to get a copy of this book and read it for myself.]

Elijah Muhammad’s Teaching

from Message to the Black Man (1965);

One God but Polytheistic – 25,000 years. Bible and Quran written by 24 scientists – one scientist was appointed to be God. p.108

The black race created the heavens and the earth and created themselves. p.42.

The black race gave birth to a God named Yakub. p.110. He lived only 150 years. p.116

Yakub, a black scientist, created the white race 6,000 years ago. p.9

6,000 years ago the black race gave birth to Allah, He is the mightiest God since creation born after Yakub. p.111.

Orthodox Islam must bow to Black Islam (God’s choice) p.50. Arabs misunderstand the Holy Quran when they don’t accept me [Elijah Muhammad] as a prophet. p.250.

Moses used dynamite with a fuse to kill 300 of his followers. p.120. –An amazing miracle; dynamite was not invented for 2400 years!

Jesus is not God. p.9, 140

Black [Christian] preachers’ mouths are controlled by devils; there are a great hindrance to the truth of our people. p.18,47,84,89,96

Elijah Muhammad says the Bible is 2/3 pro-phecy. p.89. He says prophecies are a small percentage of the Bible on p.90.

The mountains were created by bombs from spaceships circling the earth. p.90

Wallace D. Fard is God [Allah]. p.1, 11, 27, 46, 52, 141, 155, 172, 237, 294.

(Source)

The source could well be too biased to be giving accurate, in context, quotes.  So I want to see it in context.  But I can say that any group that could accept those beliefs is out there, out where the Jim Jones’ and the David Koresh’s hang out.  Go ahead, drink the kool-aid.  I’m sure the human race will be better for it.

Print Friendly

I love the word loco. While it suggests something isn’t quite right in a person’s head, it stops short of presuming actual insanity. Loco is even more meaningful when linked with its most common modifier, plumb. “Boy, you’re plumb loco” conveys my amazement that anyone would think, do or say something so dangerous/insipid/moronic. And we know that “motive” refers to motivation, the reason for something. So a loco motive would be religion, for example; a crazy way to reason about reality.

Could anything exert a more powerful influence on humanity than religion? Is there closer to a common human language than the notion of gods?

Yes, several things. Food is one item that transcends divisions, as is music and dance.

I don’t know that I fully understand the difference between Humanism and humanism. In general I’m a lower-case kind of guy, so I’ll confess that I consider myself a humanist. I am fascinated by my fellow humans, I think we’re a very interesting species. I feel a strong kinship with other humans. Religion offends me because all the various expressions of belief in gods include an element of divisiveness. It encourages a feeling of separation from other humans. Unlike religion, you don’t have to be taught how to dance or sing. They are instinctive behaviors.

Combine music, dance and people, especially children, and you have a compelling reason to be optimistic about the future of our species. Many things I see every day tempt me to become a complete pessimist. Then I see something like the following video and I realize I’m still the foolish romantic, still a humanist. Watch and enjoy.

Print Friendly

“God doesn’t show himself to us because he wants us to believe by faith alone.”

And why should that be important? If his greatest desire was that every person would meet him, why should it matter how that happened. Whether you came to believe in him philosophically or needed direct evidence, it shouldn’t matter. All that should be important is that you got there. So evidently having faith is more important than knowing god himself.

Who says faith trumps skepticism? When and by whom was it decided that the gods could only be believed in, not required to be here among us in the flesh? Why should it be unreasonable to ask any god for a sign, an unmistakably unnatural sign, in order to believe…if belief is the ultimate goal for humans?

Theists complain that we just don’t know their god [insert reason here]. That’s the whole point. We don’t know your god, or their god, or those gods over there. You know why? For a vast variety of reasons. Ask any atheist why they don’t believe. No two answers will be the same. Theism doesn’t have a single “fail” point. It has millions. As many as there are people who don’t know your god.

Theists, here’s a free tip: Many atheists are offended by your attempts to discredit atheism by attacking evolution (as if that were some sort of condition upon which our disbelief relied) without bothering to learn anything about the topic. It’s insulting to expect us to defend misstatements and misrepresentations. I understand the reason few theists know anything about evolution. When you sit down and look at “evolution” you find it’s not a single branch of study. It’s a part of biology, geology, cosmology and I’m sure a few “ologies” I”ve forgotten. It’s a massive range of sciences that contribute to evolutionary science. It’s so much easier to only have a single textbook, to only be responsible for skimming it.

Quit trying to make it seems as if your religion is scientifically sound, logical, practical or any other similar justification. It’s not.

Go back to the old ways. Religions should be mystical, mysterious. Humans love a good mystery. By trying to make your religion practical, you kill off the mystery and replace it with poorly understood misinformation. When religion was a mystery, it was much more compelling. It was also harder to counter. It’s hard to oppose what’s done in secret.

Now, both the major religions around here, Christianity and Islam, have stripped the mystery away and exposed the seedy underbelly of religion. We see the inability of a religious belief to make any substantial difference in the lives of its followers, except in the most extreme cases. Religious differences are still fueling wars, being honored as excuses for murder and abuse, still failing to provide the improvement they claim among their own number.

You need to get the mystery back.

Print Friendly

No wonder it’s so hard to be a prophet these days.  Reality just refuses to play along.

Print Friendly

…it’s the god of nature.  Whatever gives life is god.”

That’s just watering down the characteristics of the god you believe in until it means nothing.  “Whatever it is that gives life”?

I, too, am immensely grateful to whatever it is that gives life.  I don’t care what that is: it could be a one-off, totally blind bit of pure chance.  It could be your god, or your god ,or your god <pointing around>.  I will always and for as long as I’m aware be grateful to whatever it is that gave me this chance to live.  That’s a debt no one can repay.

So on that we agree.  I just don’t see any need to personify whatever that thing is.

Considering our place in the overall scheme of things in the universe, it should be obvious we don’t rate very high in “important impact”.  A comet has more significance to the universe than we do.  For that reason a human-like god is unlikely to the point of absurdity.  No less silly than believing that the ultimate creator and god is a tree, a wombat.  Life as we understand it is so rare in the known universe that our influence on reality is less than minuscule.  It’s the height of pride to think that anything we do, anything we say, anything we believe, matters one iota beyond the bounds of this one single planet.  Prove me wrong.

Show me the influence of humankind anywhere in the universe beyond this planet, what impact have we had on anything anywhere else in the universe.

Print Friendly

Watch this, if you can:

Then read this excerpt from Sam Harris’ The End of Faith:

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question (i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us) religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.

The next time you encounter moderate Christians who claim Phelps is not a “true Christian”, ask them to read this post and respond.  Their expectations of tolerance from non-believers is what empowers unevolved life forms like Phelps, in the same way pleas for acceptance from moderate Muslims is what allows bin Laden to practice terrorism and hatred.

Print Friendly