Immersion Therapy for Whom?

Really?

I'm struggling to find the words to adequately express myself here, so I think I'll simply say that only religion can lead to such an effed up situation.

Mormon intolerance towards gays

Those people that come to your door to tell you all about their god are generally either Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons. And, those mormons are always dressed in nice clothes (but not too nice) and very clean cut. Oh, they must be such nice people...until you learn about the bigotry that pervades this church. Until only a couple decades ago blacks were thought of as cursed and wicked. But, more recently, we have the efforts of the Mormon church to block equal rights for LGBT citizens of California.

While Proposition 8 still sits in the courts (why it's even there I can't fathom considering it should be a no-brainer to grant equal rights to gays citizens and all citizens really) we know how it got there. I recommend anyone interested to see story behind the scenes to pick up the documentary, 8 the Mormon Proposition. In it, you can learn about how the Mormon church and some of its members are so anti-gay that they took money from their own children's college funds in order to make sure that gays can't enjoy full citizenship status. It's truly insane - and that's not all of it.

Why don't they get rid of the pretext and formally join forces with Fred Phelps.

Would you go back?

So, what would you do if you were running a religion facing multiple scandals and dwindling attendance to the point that you were becoming almost completely irrelevant. Well, if you're the catholic church, you spend money on a website and make ads in order to get people to come back.

Apparently, they've discovered that people can be influenced by television ads, so they've decided to give it a try in order to bring more suckers...I mean worshipers in the door.

Of course, their website is designed to not really address the issues. I mean, in the FAQ on morality, there's nothing in there about how old is too old for young children to be molested by their priests who will then be shuttled around and shielded from both any type of enforcement (law or otherwise.) But, hey, they're giving us "god's words" right?

I really hope that people don't fall for this obvious BS and the church continues to dwindle into oblivion. The catholic church is a beacon of dogma, irrationality, intolerance, and criminal activity. It has been for a long time now and it's high time that civilized, rational folks toss the idea of the church into the waste bin.

New Attempted Defense of Genocide

From the epic fail logs...

Yes, we have a pretty new defense of the Amalekite genocide.

Point #1-The Amalekites were not sitting around playing tiddly-winks, committing various, pagan inspired acts of charity and leading the Ancient Near East toward any sort of awe-inspiring enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ah yes, the "Amalekites were evil" defense. See, the Amalekites attacked the Jews on their exodus (which never happened - but we can assume it did for the purposes of the argument) and god now wants revenge. So, he waits for how many years and then has his people go and utterly wipe his enemies off the face of the Earth. Of course, those enemies are probably long since dead by the time god comes to punish their descendants for their heinous crime that god could have stopped, but thought it was better to let more people die so that he could come later and have a genocide.

Ah, but the Amalekites also killed their own children...so what better way to put a stop to that than wiping them all out, especially killing the children. Let's see those dead Amalekites kill their dead children now! That'll show 'em.

Point #2-The killing of the animals owned by the Amalekites actually had a purpose.

Yes, because genocide that doesn't make you wealthier somehow makes it OK?

Point #3-The weight of evidence suggests that God was being hyperbolic when he commanded the destruction of the Amalekites.

Yeah, right. And, god was being hyperbolic in all instances where he demands genocide, and it's clearly denoted in the text...oh wait, it's not. Of course, here the apologist is basically tossing out the Bible and saying that we can't trust god's word. If that's the way he wants to play it...well go ahead. I agree, let's not trust the Bible. Now, why is it that you're a Xian again Mr. apologist?

I really wish Xians would stop trying to defend such monstrous notions in the Bible and leave their tired, archaic, bloodthirsty, and evil superstitions behind. It's time that we all stepped into the modern age and stopped trying to live with and defend the petty and barbaric writings of past generations.

Let's Blame [Insert Hated Group] for [Insert Natural Disaster Here]

Whether it's Boobquake or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on everyone he hates it seems that now-a-days you can't swing a dead cat around a disaster site without some ghoulish religious a-holes blaming it on people they hate. So, on the heels of my last post, let me present to you the "Christchurch Quake."

Yes, that's right, it's not horrific enough that the death toll stands at 154 in this terrible disaster, but some religious group is taking it upon themselves to use it as a tool for hatred against others. It's just another shining example of religious non-tolerance.

[Note: As it turns out, the actual website is suspended at least for now, else I would have linked it. Also, although no one has explicitly claimed this for any religious group that I know of, it's pretty obvious that it's a religious group, probably Mormons.]

Religious Intolerants

This may end up being a post series, since there are so many examples that one could cite for the religious being intolerant of others. Whether it's Muslims flying planes into buildings (no link needed I trust) or rioting/killing over cartoons of Mohammed, Xians petitioning for their right to be bigots or killing abortion providers, or Jewish communities that try to impose their religious values on all those around them or theocratic Jews making pronouncements about the role of gentiles (to serve the Jews) - examples abound.

Instead, today I'd like to focus on something else - a sports story from the midwest.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Fourteen-year-old wrestler Cassy Herkelman doesn't need anybody protecting her from anything. She's broken her collarbone, split her lip, deviated her septum, wrecked her elbow, all from wrestling. She's about as dainty as a forklift.

She's her district's pony-tailed, 112-pound champion wrestler, boy or girl, kangaroo or camel. She's not a tulip, isn't a Jane Austen character, and doesn't wilt in the heat.

So why did her first opponent in the Iowa state high school wrestling tournament default rather than wrestle her?

Because "wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," said 16-year-old home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, in a statement. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."

Why am I not surprised that Joel is home-schooled? But, yes, it's a matter of his faith (religion) that he's not supposed to competitively wrestle a young woman and it shows another example of religious bigotry, this time aimed at women.

"We believe in the elevation and respect of woman," the father told the Des Moines Register, "and we don't think that wrestling a woman is the right thing to do. Body slamming and takedowns -- full contact sport is not how to do that."

Yes, of course, the old, "We respect women, so we have to ensure that we treat them like delicate flowers that need to always be protected and kept away from anything that might offend their delicate sensibilities." Nevermind the fact that she had earned her way to the state tournament by...(wait for it)...wrestling. But, if his religion teaches him this, then it's quite plainly teaching him sexism and intolerance.

I do, however, need to take issue with one thing the author states:

I don't feel as bad for Cassy as I do for Joel. He was the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state at 112 pounds. He was 35-4. He had a chance to win the whole thing. In Iowa, that means a lifetime of people buying you lunch. It's corn-state royalty. To give all that up to protect a girl who loathes being protected? What a waste of a dream.

In no way would I ever think that him throwing away his chance at winning a competition should make us feel sorrier for him than the sexism that she has endured in this. I do, however, feel some sympathy for him, and here's why. This stance of his is a learned behavior. He's been indoctrinated into a religion that teaches sexism and intolerance. Here's to hoping that one day we can all throw off the shackles of religious intolerance and make the world a better place.

Urgent Message: Riddles to Follow

If your house were burning down around you and I was trying to inform you of that to save your life, which would be the most effective way of communicating that to you?

1. Should I tell you directly, "Your house is on fire! You've got to get out now!"

or

2. Should I say something like, "jyot hnhus jsk jskjfa najkhei nkhand laliike laieh akjsk fjksjks jeisjg kjstj sljeijasn andksi," and then inform you that, "The string of gibberish is actually a code that looks foolish only to those who haven't been granted the magic decoder ring, and given that ring, you'll know the truth of what I'm saying."

Most rational people would say that approach 1 is the best one to use. Xians, OTOH, should claim that approach 2 is the best to use.

You see, god really, really, really wants us all to be saved, so he writes a book about it. But, the book looks like foolishness to all those who don't already believe, which is a gift bestowed by...wait for it...god. So, god has to hand you the magic decoder ring in order to read his own book and make heads or tails of it (or at least not see it for the contradiction ridden and superstitious mythology it is), although he really wants all of us to understand and be saved from the fire. It's method number 2. Seeing as how Xians believe that god is perfect, they must believe that this method is the perfect method to use to get across such important life or death matters.

Me, I see it as a huge logical failing on god's part if he were to exist, and on the part of the Xian myth.

Benevolence and Happiness

My previous post has sparked some lively commentary (starting here and going forward) from one of our resident anonymous theists (Xians). Apparently writing a post about a specific theistic complaint and pointing out that it is a straw man is the same as being dishonest because somehow I'm claiming that happiness equates to what is best for us.

So, let's open up this thread for our anonymous thread hijacker to go ahead and defend his accusations and to defend his positions. For my part, I'll go ahead and open.

It's a rather complicated thing to talk about happiness, what is best for us, and omni-benevolence. So, I will try to keep the discussion from getting too deep and sum up my position.

First we have to think about what we mean by the terms and what conditions we are going to accept. We should conclude that happiness is that which makes people happy. Sometimes people are happy by getting ice cream or having a back rub, while others are made happy by getting handcuffed and whipped. What is "best for us" would be that which enriches or betters our lives. As for conditions, are we talking only about this world, this time, or are we talking long term and any possible world?

This is important, because what is best for us at this moment may not be what is best for us in the future. Also, delayed happiness now may lead to greater happiness in the future, so time is an important factor.

The final important factor is the supposed attributes of god, of which omni-benevolence is one. It's important that we don't leave out the rest, however, since many contradictions arise from trying to accommodate all of god's supposed qualities.

So, should god do what is "best for us," and is that the same as happiness? I think it's quite clear from the above that that question isn't very well answerable without setting the parameters that pertain to the question. It's far easier to talk about god's role in all this. Should he indeed do what is best for us? Let's consider the possibilities. Given the limitations of humans and this world, god may be justified at times in allowing us to learn lessons "the hard way." Of course, I would put limits on that. I wouldn't think that a child shooting himself in the face is a very justifiable way of "learning the hard way," that guns are dangerous. Innocuous things, however, we may be able to look past.

But, the problem with this is that is ignores the roles of the rest of god's attributes. If god has the power to eliminate evil, why create it at all? Would not it have been better to not create humans at all if it meant that evil would also not be created? Why would a perfect god need to create humans at all - god is already perfect and wants for nothing. god can't create more good by resorting to evil, since god was already perfectly good. This leaves us with the conundrum of the problem of evil, which theists have no answer for. A truly perfect and omni-max god would not have created us to begin with and therefore the ideas that happiness is what is best for us would not have ever been formulated. We would never have known about it because we would never have existed.

Now, I happen to enjoy existence, but it's simply incompatible with the idea of an omni-max god. Another way of looking at it would be that true happiness and what is best for us wouldn't even be considerations, because we'd never have to worry about either of them. So, in the end, I object to the theist's accusations and I object to the theist's straw man position.

Don't Want him?

How often have you heard or uttered the following phrase, or some variation of it:

The problem with atheists is that they don't want to believe in god.

It's a common complaint of theists. Us mean old nasty atheists don't want no god runnin' our lives. But, why should that be considered a problem?

Belief in god does not make one more moral.

Why would we want to have a god around if that god is the one described in the Bible. This god goes on murderous rampages and makes life horrible for many people. Then, not content to simply make our lives brutish and painful, this god decides that he should also sentence us to eternal torture for even the slightest transgression (moral or otherwise) which we have no choice but to commit at some point in our lives (since no one is perfect). Why should anyone want that sort of god?

Of course, the person here is saying that there is something wrong with us for not wanting any sort of god, but that's simply not true. If there truly were a benevolent god that could make us all happy, why would we not want that? IOW, the original statement is quite possibly a straw man for many atheist who would be quite happy to have an actual benevolent god looking over us. Unfortunately, the facts simply don't support it.

Can You Prove It?

Why believe in that which can't be shown?

The theist may assert that it makes more sense to believe in god than not because it can be shown that god exist while it can't be shown that god doesn't exist. IOW, the atheist is taking an unprovable position while the theist is taking one that can be confirmed. Therefore, the argument goes, the atheist is taking on a position that can never be confirmed, only disconfirmed, which is a losing bet. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to be an atheist, since you can only be proven wrong, but never proven right.

This is a variation on the oft-heard argument from theists that, "You can't prove my god doesn't exist, so I'm gonna believe until you can." And, yes, I've heard both versions of this argument.

So, let's think about this idea for a bit. If we went by this "logic," we'd also have to decide that it's better to believe in unicorns, leprechauns, etc. Isn't it an unprovable position to take that unicorns/leprechauns/etc don't exist? Well, of course it is. It's just as unprovable as the idea that god does not exist. So, if the theist is justified in believing in god, then everyone is also justified in believing any other idea/creature/etc for which that non-existence is unprovable.

Of course, this is an untenable position to take for the theist. Claiming that their god belief is warranted while other beliefs are not would simply be a case of special pleading. This is why we should rightly recognize that the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive declaration - a position the theist holds by claiming that god exists. Without meeting this burden of proof, the rational position is to simply not accept the claim that god does exist, regardless of whether it can ultimately be proven or not.

Behold, here endeth the blaspheming!

Let us pray, and let us rejoice, for Jesus is Lord of all and saviour of the righteous! O, Jesus, how beautiful art thou! Here endeth the post.

Hellish Contradictions and Legalism

Well, Tracy has a post up about hell which Tink responded to and I went ahead and commented on (both posts actually). And, it got me to thinking about hell, the doctrine of faith alone leading to salvation, and the age of accountability. So, somewhat off-topic, but here goes - and I think this will just add to the mix...

So, Tracy was a bit upset at contemplating the idea that Anne Frank may right now be in hell, right alongside Hitler. While I may contend that Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven, so Anne may not be beside the leader behind her being killed, that's not the point here. Even if they are both in hell, it's actually much, much worse than that.

John 14:6 says:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

As I pointed out in the comments on those other threads, this means that Anne Frank (unless she was lying about being Jewish and secretly believed in Jesus) is in hell right now. But, as I said, it's worse than that. When a woman conceives, Xians believe the soul enters the fertilized egg, meaning that that soul now can go to heaven or hell. Since a fertilized egg is incapable of belief in Jesus (lacks the brain function) then if that egg dies due to abortion, miscarriage, etc. that soul goes to hell. That is the fallout of this Xian doctrine.

Ah, but some Xians may claim that there's an age of accountability that allows such unfortunate souls to get a free ride to heaven. Too bad this directly contradicts the stated Bible passage above. No one attains salvation, except through belief in Jesus. If some do attain salvation without belief in Jesus, then Jesus was at best wrong, and at worst lying, and the Bible is in error. At this point, the Xian must accept that the Bible may be wrong, or must accept that miscarried fetuses go to hell (or even young children that don't yet understand the idea of belief in Jesus). Is it any wonder that I find this sort of doctrine to be barbaric, abominable, and evil?

Ignorance is a Miracle

Are ya'll Xians down wit' the clowns? You should be, since they seem to think that everything is a miracle and are pushing Xianity through their raps. Unfortunately for them, "clowns," is an appropriate moniker for them and their brand of ignorance.

Yeah, I know, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel, especially since all their supposed "miracles" are pretty easy to explain. But, are they really that much different from all the other Xian apologists out there?

"The Earth is not round, we will burn you for your heresy."

"Why would I want to put that metal rod on my building? Lightning strikes are god's way of punishing people"

"Evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong, now give me my antibiotics."

Whether you're the ICP, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, or William Lane Craig the schtick is the same, "We don't know this or that, so goddidit." It's all an abject refusal to deal with reality and a glorification of ignorance, no matter how much they protest and try to wrap up their apologetics in pseudo-intellectualism.

They Just Don't Get It

Apparently, the issue of pedophile priests in the Catholic church is all a front to attack the church. Apparently it's the fault of the Jews, the liberal media and intellectuals, homosexuals, or anyone and everyone else. They are pointing fingers, and the fingers are continually pointing away.

And, why not? Why should we hold the people who actually covered up these acts as accountable? Why should we hold the people who aided and abetted these sexual predators as accountable? Why should we hold those who hid the truth from us for so long accountable?

Why? Because people who do the above things, as the Catholic hierarchy has, deserve to be told to go pound sand. They are not moral people as they have repeatedly demonstrated quite capably. They are inhuman and immoral and they should be shunned and prosecuted for their crimes. They shouldn't be defended or held up as examples of goodness and light. Quite the opposite, we should continue to uncover their immoral deeds and hold those crimes up to the light of day. They have no moral standing and they should be left on the scrap heap of history with all the other immoral monsters that we rightly regard with disgust.

Theism Predicts (Part V - Conclusion)

Well, this series is almost at an end as there are only three more predictions to go. So, let's get started, shall we?

12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

Ah yes, the Cambrian explosion that IDers like to go on and on about. Let's start with the obvious issues in that even if the Cambrian explosion showed what IDers claim it does, it would not help in their quest to prove Adam and Eve and all that stuff. So, it seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory at best.

Still, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we do have a good fossil record and that the Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution.

Once again our theist is simply making things up.

13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils.

I've already dealt with the numerous transitional fossils claim above, so I won't rehash that, and it should be noted that this idea of sudden appearance and rapid diversity does not help the theist. Besides, is the theist arguing that god came down every couple million years and re-did his handiwork to put new animals on the ground and make the old ones extinct?

And, let's also look at this claim that, "Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils." What Chutzpah. The only people truly contesting the existence of these transitionals are the creationists! Evolutionary biologists (scientists) do not dispute these. The small disputes that do arise are over minute details that do not impact the overall theory. It would be like arguing over whether a large city has 10,345,632 or 10,345,658 inhabitants and having the creationist claim that this means that the city doesn't exist.

14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

OK, numerous problems here. First of all, man didn't suddenly appear. We have quite a large collection of hominid fossils. Also, it must be noted that the we have observed instances of speciation.

Also, it's simply not true that there should be speciation on a "somewhat constant basis." Speciation happens when certain conditions are met. There's no guarantee that these conditions will be met on a "somewhat constant basis." Once again we see the theist doesn't actually know what he's talking about and argues against strawmen.

Conclusion:

This series has focused on 14 different claims made by a theist, and not one has really been worthwhile. Most (if not all) make claims about materialism or theism that simply are not true. Also, the theist has repeatedly made erroneous claims in order to try and buttress his already tenuous assertions, and has shown a complete ignorance of science, how it works, and what we know from it. If it were really as easy as this theist claims to say theism predicts this or that, then he would still be playing a losing hand.


Other posts in this series...

Relative Morality, What god Should Have Done, and Historical Context

When pointing out immorality in the Bible, often the rejoinder is that we have to consider the historical context and the time the book was written. Atheists are often accused of being shallow thinkers who haven't considered all the nuance of the historical period in which the book was written. Unfortunately for the Xian, this criticism falls flat on its face when examined.

For example, let's examine the Biblical treatment of women. Women are treated as property in the Bible. We might be tempted to simply shake our heads and say, "Well, that's just how it was back then," but it's not so simple. One of the Xian tenets is that absolute morality exists and is displayed by god (god being perfectly moral and all that). Yet, this defense relies on an appeal to relative morality. This is a big no-no for the Xian, as it directly contradicts the idea of an absolute morality.

To expand on that idea, the Xian is in effect saying either that the treatment of women back in Biblical days was indeed moral, that it was moral at the time but isn't now, or that it was never moral. The first in the list leads to the absurd conclusion that treating women as property is indeed a moral thing to do. I'm not going to waste much space on that idea.

The second leads to the destruction of the idea of absolute morality. If morality changes (treating women like property was good then and now is not) then it is not absolute.

The third leads to the idea that god did not display perfect morality because he instructed, in his holy book, immoral attitudes and behavior. Instead of telling the Israelis that their attitudes and culture were immoral, he sets up rules that enforce and propagate that immorality, which is, in itself, an immoral action.

To anticipate one objection to this, the Xian may claim that god knew the Israelis would not follow certain moral strictures, so he did not promote them. But, this too fails for a couple reasons. The first is that it would still be moral for god to outline his perfectly moral behavior and not simply concede that "Boys will be boys." The second reason is that the story of the OT is one long story of the Israelis rebelling against god's wishes, yet that didn't stop him from putting forth rules that he knew they wouldn't follow in those areas.

In the end, the appeal to relative morality or the culture of the times is a bad appeal and should not be taken with any weight. Instead, we should push to find out why a supposedly perfectly moral god would include immoral instructions in his holy guide to life.

Easter Reflections

The day after Easter seems like a good day to think about Jesus and what his "sacrifice" (really, how can it be a sacrifice for an omni-max god to do anything, especially if he simply rose from the dead afterward?) means to us. I mean, Easter is the most holy day for Xians, since it's the day that Zombie Jesus came to life and started to figuratively eat people's brains (making them incapable of rational thinking). So, in the spirit of Easter, I have decided to ask myself the following question (supposing for the sake of argument that Jesus did exist and that Xianity is true):

What has Jesus done for me?

1. Jesus created me as a sinner that somehow deserves to go to hell by virtue of simply being born. See, all humans fall short of the glory of god, so therefore by being born we are destined for hell.
2. Jesus has not contacted me to save me from the hell that awaits me due to being born (he hasn't returned a single call.)
3. Jesus demands that I believe in things that defy logic and reason, like the idea that people can rise from the dead or that believing that an innocent person died somehow absolves me of all my moral responsibilities (see number 4 below).
4. Jesus decided that instead of bringing all humans to heaven after death or even simply not having us exist, we should be tortured for eternity unless we believe that transference of sins onto an innocent being makes sense and helps us in some way - because we should be happy that an innocent was tortured and killed, right?

In a similar vein, maybe we should also ask, what has Jesus done for humanity?

1. Jesus created the idea of hell which has been directly or indirectly the cause of untold amounts of suffering.
2. Jesus left very ambiguous words behind (the Bible) which has been the cause of untold amounts of suffering as people have fought over what the meaning of those words are.
3. Jesus has been an absentee landlord of the Earth and non-existent partner in the "relationship" that Xians claim to have, leading to all kinds of untold amounts of suffering.
4. Jesus has allowed all manners of natural evil causing untold amounts of suffering.
5. Jesus has created faulty beings that are necessarily headed for hell unless Jesus himself stops it, causing untold amounts of suffering for all eternity.

I'm sure I could list many more terrible things Jesus has done (if he existed, and some of these have happened regardless of whether he existed or not). Yet, I'm really struggling to think of one positive thing. Odd that for a religion that claims that it has absolute truth and perfect morality.

Ethiopian Brides

One may even have to make Biblical marriage illegal...like what's practiced in Ethiopia. See, good Bible believing men know that in Deuteronomy, the following passage can be found (Deut. 22:28-29).

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So, what do you do if you want a woman to be your wife? Well, you simply take her, rape her, and then she has to marry you by Biblical law.

Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?

Don't You Touch My Organs

The Israeli government is reportedly looking into a law where those who agree to be organ donors will get preference if they ever need an organ in return. "Wow," you might think, what a fair idea. Yet, as it turns out, some orthodox Jews are upset because their religion forbids them from being organ donors and they don't want their place in line bumped.

Is anyone else catching the hypocrisy of a religion that says it is not OK to donate organs, but it is OK to receive other people's donated organs? How selfish and self-centered does one need to be in order to believe that god wants for you to keep your organs, even when you aren't using them anymore or if you have more than you need, but wants all those other sorry saps to give their organs up for you should you require them? I think this is just another instance of irrationality on display from religion.

Why Won't god Heal Amputees?

I'm sure that everyone here is aware and familiar with the website named in the post title, right? If not, please check it out.

Now, I happen to think it's a very good question. If you listen to some Xians, however, it's a stupid question to ask (12th comment in and later). Apparently, it's so stupid that the person who asks only deserves mockery and scorn. This is not the first time that I've run into this sentiment either.

But why? I've yet to hear a response as to why it's a dumb question. This is especially true when some Xians boast of the miraculous results of their faith healings. From remission of cancer to cures for disease - even to lengthening of limbs (this blogger has routinely claimed as much as well as other outlandish claims) - god supposedly heals people. If god can make limbs grow longer, what's to stop god from making limbs regrow? But, apparently it's easier to heap scorn upon someone else for daring to ask the question than to examine one's own theology to see if there are any issue with it. One might have to face up to the possibility that one's theology doesn't make sense.