When Dominionists Try to Control Media

I've recently found a charming (tongue firmly in cheek) little blog called GetReligion. It is supposed to be a blog where discussions of journalism and religion stories happen where the authors discuss how to make the stories more balanced. There's a recent article about the cross to be placehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd at ground zero where we find out that the article isn't as good as it could be because there are no mention of atheists that don't want a lawsuit to block the cross. Apparently, the article lacked because it didn't paint atheists in a negative enough light.

The next article they published showed us how articles that report on the gay marriage victory in NY are flawed unless they include people who are upset by this because they are acting on their deep, religious principles.

In short, it's a religious apologetics site that whinges that there's not enough pro-Xian and anti-everyone else stuff published in certain news reports. At least that's what I surmised from reading and commenting. It doesn't take a genius to scan through their articles and start to see the hints they leave. Gays = bad. Atheists = bad. Not enough mention of Xianity in a positive light = bad. Story supportive of Xianity = good. Etc. My comments were also routinely edited and/or outright deleted for not being sufficiently focused on journalism, while other comments not at all related were approved - so long as they supported the Xian stance. When called out on it, they started to make accusations of bigotry against journalists, which is funny since I never uttered a word against journalism or journalists (In fact, if they had to delete my comments for not being about journalism, how can I then be accused to posting bigoted rants against journalism/journalists?) I figured they were the run of the mill clueless gobshites that one meets all over the web. But, of course, it actually goes deeper than that.

I had linked to my blog on my comments, and wouldn't you know it, one reader hopped over here to post an excellent link that shows this blog for what it really is (HT to Jay in the comments). It turns out that GetReligion is a front for Xian Reconstructionists AKA Dominionists. These radicals want to make the Bible into our law book with such draconian measures as death for such "crimes" as homosexuality. In short, they are theocrats that want nothing more than to turn the US into a theocracy with their version of Xianity being the rule of law. And, this GetReligion blog seems to be a front for them.

Yet, the GetReligion group tries their best to proclaim that they are merely interested in journalism and they try to advocate in measured tones. This is nothing short of rank dishonesty on their part. And, what does it tell you when the advocates of Xian theocracy feel they have to lie about their motives? Well, for one it says that even they probably recognize the ridiculousness of their aims and that they can't hope to actually gain converts without deceit. It also points out the contradictory nature of a group that would seek to install Biblical law -thou shall not bear false witness - by doing just that, bearing false witness. It also shows that to them, the ends justify the means. Their vitriolic hatred of others (gays, atheists, etc) burns so hot and bright that they will do whatever they can in order to strike out at those others, no matter what it takes and no matter how dishonest and underhanded they have to be. What makes someone hate their fellow humans so much? Oh yeah, I remember - it's fundamentalist religion.

Bravery of the Skeptic

Sometimes I peruse some of the older posts on blogs that I frequent and it leads me down some interesting rabbit holes. Going through some of PZ Myers' old stuff I came across a book review, which lead me to an apologist's blog, which lead me to a curious entry from said apologist wherein he claims that skepticism and freethought are cowardly positions to take.

I thought I would address some things about his piece:

1) I highly doubt he makes a good skeptic.

2)

Bob, on the other hand, is making a definitive statement that he is prepared to back up.

Since Bob in this case presents the theist and is willing to make positive statements that he is prepared to back up...where is the backing up of Xianity? Why can no one put forth coherent, cogent, and compelling reasons to actually believe?

3) Um, causality does not always hold in the quantum world - so the gotcha put forth is not really a gotcha after all.

4) The big bang shows that the universe was not eternal and unchanging, not that the singularity popped out of nothingness. But, time is an element of the behavior of light in this universe, and so asking about time "before" the big bang may very well be meaningless. Causality also happens to be a concept that depends on time and the laws of physics, which the author points out break down during the big bang, thus defeating his own argument.

5) The reason for the argument that the universe must have a cause is so that the theist can seize upon the idea that goddidit. This is nothing more than a fallacious god of the gaps argument, however, and further it leads to turtles all the way down once one asks what caused god. (The theist will reply that god is uncaused which is special pleading, or that god is uncaused and eternal and therefore didn't come into being and does not need a cause, which is also special pleading and destroys usual Xian ideas that god is perfect and unchanging in the process.)

But, all that aside, the reason I wrote this is because he seriously misconstrues why it's brave to be a skeptic! Sure, in terms of the belief itself, it's a bit more brave to put oneself out there and make a claim that could be wrong. It's more rational to hold the atheist's position, and therefore safer in a way, but that completely misses the point.

Going against the herd is always difficult, especially for social animals like humans. The easy thing to do is put one's head down and simply agree with the rest of the people around you and mouth your prayers and hymns to a god that you don't believe in. Doing this at least gets you peace and quiet.

People have, throughout recorded history, been killed for the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, and heretical thought. Socrates was killed for his heretical stance that went against the political tides. But, even now people can still be killed in many parts of the world for not believing in a specific deity or conforming to the beliefs of the majority, whether it's fatwas in the Muslim world or people performing abortions in the Bible belt. Being a skeptic raises the ire of the people who fervently believe and puts the skeptic at risk simply for daring to have different thoughts and a rational standard of necessary evidence before swallowing the superstitious claims of theists.

When Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up to protest school prayer, she was called the "most hated woman in America."

Vocal atheists like Justin Vacula routinely receive hate mail.

Webster Cook was threatened with bodily harm and death for taking a communion wafer and not eating it, which touched off the whole "Crackergate" controversy.

Damon Fowler) has received death threats, intolerance from school officials and fellow students, been thrown out of his house by his own bigoted parents and forced to move 6 hours away to a new state and live with his brother and all for skepticism.

It would be much easier for all of them and all of the rest of us to just be quiet and not rock the boat. We could sit there and watch as the majority runs roughshod all over our rights and tries to silence us all through abuse and threats of violence, but many people don't. Many people take the skeptical stance and stand up to be counted. Many people don't simply accept what's been spoon-fed to them all their lives and don't simply go with the herd. That's what's brave about it.

It's Not Learned or Taught

"Religion teaches us..."

"What we learn from religion is..."

How many times have we seen these phrases or something similar? I have an idea, let's stop using them, because they are invariably followed by some inane ramblings that are either nonsensical, untrue, or both. For example:

'Religion teaches us about our relationship to god.'

Really? It teaches us something that's nonsensical and completely fabricated? And, whose religion? How does anyone know that the claims made by this religion are true or make sense? They don't? Oh, I see.

If we are being honest, there's nothing we can claim that we learn from religion or that we've been taught by religion, as religion is nothing more than made up claims that talk about nonsensical ideas that can not actually be evaluated. We may as well claim that religion has taught us that yjujkfdi saiojnn snoaing as that makes just as much sense as any claims to made-up invisible sky faeries and our relationships to them. Let's expunge these phrases from our lexicon for truth's sake.

Abuse, Abuse, and Abortion

A trio of recent news items have caught my eye, and I wanted to pass them on as well as some thoughts and comments.


1. A couple weeks ago the US Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a report on the abuse cases happening here in the US. Miranda Celeste does an exceptional job of pointing out what is wrong with the report (actually, exceptional isn't a strong enough word). To sum up, they rely on limited and untrustworthy data from dubious sources, redefine "pedophilia" in order to make their percentages look better, and make numerous attempts to re-locate all the blame on other sources, such as the prevailing culture and lack of training (in how not to abuse children). In conclusion, Ms. Celeste says:

Time and time again we have seen that the Church will do whatever it takes to downplay and/or cover up their failings and crimes. They have shown their willingness to fight dirty, and one of the most useful and effective tools in their arsenal is their dominance of the discourse and conversation (both in the media and elsewhere) about these issues. The Causes and Context study is a textbook example of this: when the media reports its “takeaways” without providing context, they are, in effect, doing the Church’s face-saving dirty work for them.

...

Don’t shut up, even when you feel like you’re repeating yourself. It took me a while to realize that the reason I’ve sometimes been repetitive when writing about this is that the Church itself has repeated the same crimes and the same institutionally sanctioned cover-ups over and over again. They repeatedly refuse to admit their culpability or to face legal punishment when appropriate. And, most importantly, they repeatedly deny outsiders access to their files that contain information on the sexual abuse of children and the cover-ups of that abuse.

Until the day that they allow that access, until the day that the light of public scrutiny is finally able to illuminate and reveal the darkest and most disturbing aspects of the Church, we owe it to the victims to never, ever shut up.

She hits the nail on the head. And, it can not be stressed enough that the crimes of abuse are horrible, but what really gets me going is that the church has facilitated these crimes, covered up these crimes, made excuses for these crimes and cover-ups that point all the blame elsewhere instead of owning up to it, and shown no regard for their actions and made no attempt at atonement or responsibility.


2. And, speaking of abuse, one California mother thought it a good idea to slit her children's throats because of the rapture. Luckily the children were saved and she's incarcerated right now, but this illustrates quite well the real harm that such religiously derived irrational beliefs can cause to the people who uncritically accept such ridiculous beliefs.


3. But, hey, on the lighter side of things, if you ever want to go to a fun, hip, happening place to kill some babies, the Abortionplex is for you!

What Part Actually Happened?

A recent commenter was extolling the historical accuracy of the Bible and I got to thinking about it. So, let's focus on the stories of the OT for now and actually look at the historicity of the Bible.

Genesis - god creates the universe in 6 literal days - didn't happen.
Adam and Eve - didn't exist.
The Exodus - didn't happen (there's no evidence for it and the evidence we do have indicates that the Jews were never in Egypt).
Jonah and the whale - didn't happen. Whales don't eat people.
The conquest of Canaan and all the genocides - much as I like to harp on theists for this, they didn't happen. Of course, I still feel justified because they are in the book and described as their perfect, omni-max god's actions, so it's fair game.

The more I think about it, the more difficult I find it to think up any story in there that actually is historically accurate. Anyone care to stand up for the Bible's (OT - I'll talk NT in a later post) historicity?

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.

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.

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.

Beyond the Empirical

Some (many) theists claim that god is beyond scientific/empirical scrutiny, that god, being supernatural, can not be detected by scientific/empirical means. This is usually accompanied by a smug attitude, of course, about how science/empiricism is not the only method for acquiring knowledge.

OK, so here's my very simple question:

What other method do you propose to use to detect/prove/evidence god, how do you go about using it, and how do you know it works?

It's all well and good to complain about science not showing their god, but the theist should put up or shut up and show us their methodology and see how well it works. My guess is that these theists that claim that science doesn't work will either be unable to answer the question, or will try to rely on empirical methods in the end.

Maybe god Told him to?

It seems another man of the cloth (this time a baptist) is accused of raping a 13 year old (6 charges brought against him) and assault as well.

Not to make light of this, but he should have chosen better. He should have been a Muslim where Mohamed had a child bride and it wouldn't be looked down on. At least if he had been Catholic, they might have hidden him away and quietly paid off the girls he raped (allegedly I suppose). Or, maybe god is telling all these priests and others to rape girls and boys. How can we tell that that is not what is happening?

When religions boast of the power of private, personal revelation, how can religionists them justify claims that one has not had a private communique from god that raping young children is what god wants of them? I've asked this question numerous times in numerous forms, and no Xian (or theist) has ever had an answer for it. The usual pablum is that stuff like this is against the Bible, but what they don't get is that their answer is certainly open to interpretation and they can't prove that it is against the Bible. This is especially true since god has ordered rape in the past.

It seems the theist is trapped. We have no real mention of god, except through personal revelation, but if that is true, then we have no way to evaluate the veracity of one person's revelation vs. another person's version. If we toss out personal revelation, then there's no argument for god (not that it's an argument anyway, but theists seem to think it is). So, theists, which is it? Can we discern which personal revelation is bunk and which is valid, or is personal revelation useless to us in discerning the truth of the existence of god and what this god wants?

How To Helpfuls

Let's say you're a Xian who really wants to convert heathens like me, but you just don't know how. Well, you're in luck, because the helpful people at wikiHow have a guide just for you. Make sure you are adequately prepared with tidbits like these:

Conversion is an act of love. A gift.

It's a gift all right to be convinced that you deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity out of love.

...increase your friendship before attempting to influence their religious beliefs.

Because emotional blackmail is a great way to get people to convert.

Pray to God.

Because that's always helpful, right?

It's not all dumb though. There are some good points made, like this one:

Do your homework. If you are a Christian, and you believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, then certainly you have read most of the Bible, especially the Gospels, right? If not, you may find the person you are trying to convert is better versed in the Bible than you.

This is actually good advice.

Similarly the rest of the piece has its ups and downs, but overall it's pretty humorous I think.

And, of course, for those new converts who just don't know how to believe in god, there's a guide for you too! Of course, it can be summed up pretty quickly by saying simply shut off your reasoning faculties and simply believe.

Respect

Must we respect people's religious beliefs?

We often hear theists complain that atheists don't properly respect their beliefs, that we don't give them the proper deference. Because the theist holds deep beliefs, about serious, religious stuff dealing with the nature of the supernatural, these beliefs are to be held sacrosanct, by all. One is not allowed to question those beliefs, or else one is intolerant. One must simply accept those beliefs as valid and rational and act as if those beliefs are very important and worthy ones to have. (The theist, of course, is under no obligation to reciprocate or treat theists of other religions with the same deference.)

Well, sorry but "Homey don't play that." People should be respected. Rights should be respected. People have the right to believe as they do and I respect that (just don't try to foist it on me or complain if I also speak out). Beliefs themselves, however, are not automatically worthy of respect. Beliefs must be rational and defensible before they are worthy of respect. A belief in magic crystals is not worthy of respect when (because) there is no accompanying evidence for it. Same goes for a belief that one is physically eating the flesh of her god when taking communion. If a theist wants their beliefs to be respected, then that theist should present respectable beliefs. I am, however, under no obligation, morally or in terms of rights, to treat all beliefs as if they are worthy of respect.

In fact, I would go further than that. I am under an obligation to speak out when one presents beliefs that are irrational, unsupported, and are detrimental to society. This is why I speak out against religion.

Does Belief Hurt America?

Here's an interesting article that goes over some research done that measured national success vs. the degree of secularity. The findings show that the most secular states end up performing the best in area of societal and economic stability.

Paul is quick to point out that his study reveals correlation, not causation. Which came first — prosperity or secularity — is unclear, but Paul ventures a guess. While it's possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life.

This is probably true. How often do we see religious apologists trying to prey upon the downtrodden, the old, the sick, etc. It's because religion very often targets those who are most vulnerable. When people aren't vulnerable, they are less likely to be religious, which is why we see such a significant shift away from religion in developed countries.

This study also shows that religion need not be the backbone for a moral society. In fact, the US, which is more religious than the other countries studied ended up on the tail end of just about all of the moral and social indicators used. And, we don't see the implosion of those secular states which are leading the way. So, for those who believe in belief (as Dennett puts it) have one more data point to have to explain away.

Theism Predicts (Part II)

Let's just jump right in (for the previous post, the link is at the bottom).

3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. -

OK, so let's break this down. Different religions have all had different ideas about the formation of the Earth, where some believe that space was always around and other didn't. This particular theist has included Psalm 89:12 as evidence that he believes god created space. Um, let's look at that psalm, shall we?

89:12 The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.

Well, it doesn't really indicate that god created space. Nor, coincidentally, does Genesis, which this theist is really pushing for. The reality though is that once again materialistic science (not religion) figured out that space was a result of the big bang, and it is not a problem for a material universe to be composed of "space." Once again the apologist is barking up the wrong tree.

4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

This one is just plain bizarre (as if the others aren't?) Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality to the components of our universe, but it doesn't defy our concepts of time and space. I don't know where he's getting this. To make matters worse, how is this in any way tied to the idea of an infinitely powerful and transcendent Being?" Here, the apologist is simply reaching for anything that he thinks he can use to say "goddidit."

5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)-

Actually, that time was not relative was pretty well accepted by all, both theists and materialists alike until Einstein came along. Then, when Einstein's ideas were accepted, materialists accepted the findings and moved on, while we still have creationists that try to argue that time is not relative.

Still, I fail to see how relativity relates to a god that is supposedly outside of space and time. Is the apologist arguing that god travels around at the speed of light and so doesn't experience the flow of time? This would be at odds with most conceptions of the Xian god where god is simply not a part of the timeline of the universe, i.e. that god exists separate from time. god is timeless, which is different from god moving around at the speed of light.

The impression that one is left with is that the apologist doesn't really understand the science behind what he's saying and is really flailing around for something, anything that he thinks he can apply to his cherished beliefs.

Other posts in this series.

Living With Sin

So, apparently god is really, really perfect and stuff, and that means that god can not live with sin, so that's why he sends people to hell. You see, it's not his fault that he's perfect and can't live with sin, and it's not his choice, it's just the way things are. So what if he created beings that by design can't live up to perfection and therefore can't not sin? He's perfect after all.

But, seriously, this brings to mind a couple issues. First, god is supposedly omnipresent, so the existence of hell kind of calls that into question if it is supposedly a place where sinners go and god can't be around sin. Also, sin supposedly exists right here on Earth, and god would be around it if he were omnipresent, so I guess something's gotta give. I'll leave it up to the apologists to decide which part of their story they want to jettison (although I predict that most apologists will cling to the notion that nothing is amiss in their idea).

Secondly, how can it not be god's choice that the system is set up so that people will sin and then go to hell because god can't be with them? Why set up the universe in that way? This makes god out to be either extremely cruel and vindictive or extremely stupid. Even a non-omniscient being should be smart enough to see the problem with this arrangement, yet a perfect god didn't? It's just another story from Xianity that strains credulity.

Xian Side Hugs

So, apparently, this video is not for real. It's pretty funny, I gotta admit.

Too bad that most people couldn't actually tell it was a joke. Poe's Law was definitely in action which is actually the funniest thing about this.

It got me to thinking though about the whole abstinence before marriage idea. Why are people who wait until marriage always convinced that it somehow makes it better? Um, how would they even know? I don't know if it's better or not, but it doesn't make sense that it would be. Sex is something that requires practice (lots of it preferably). How many of you really knew what you were doing the first time? Why would we think that throwing together 2 people who both don't know what they are doing is somehow better simply because they've gone through some ceremony that really doesn't change anything except for their tax and legal status?

Perfect Justice

Many Xians claim that god is the author of justice, and as such gives us perfect justice, both in this world and the next. For the purposes of this post, we can simplify the idea of justice to getting what one deserves. I've already dealt with the inherent contradiction between getting what one deserves and god handing out grace from the Xian perspective, but today I'd like to focus on something else. Does Xian philosophy really provide perfect justice (minus the grace part of course)? Let's look at a hypothetical example.

Let's suppose a tyrant. Let's let our tyrant be evil, vicious, cruel, and vindictive (no I'm not talking about Yahweh, but I could be I suppose). Let's further say that this tyrant is responsible for many deaths, much suffering, has tortured others, etc. This is a really bad, bad person. Is it just (perfect or otherwise) for this person to be tortured in hell for eternity? Of course not. No matter how bad this person was in life, that was finite and infinite torture for finite crimes doesn't make sense from a justice standpoint.

But, let's strengthen the argument. Let's say that the tyrant receives punishment that fits the extent of his crimes. For every murder he caused, he gets to feel what it felt like. He gets to feel all the pain and suffering that he caused, until he has felt it all when the punishment stops. Is this perfect justice? Well, it's vengeance for sure, but it's a bit more equitable than an eternity in hell. And, I'm sure that most Xians would thirst for this type of retributive vengeance, but it's still not perfect justice.

So, why is it not perfect? It's not perfect because the tyrant's actions allowed others to unjustly feel this pain and torment to begin with. Did the tyrant's victims get what they deserve in this life? When their lives were cut short, they lost the ability to fully live out their lives and attain their own balance sheets for their bout with finite vengeance after death. By god allowing this state of affairs, perfect justice can not be attained. In this sense, Xianity can not offer the hope for perfect justice at all, and that's even after using an argument that most Xians don't even subscribe to, which is the argument that after-death punishment would fit the severity and scope of the crimes done.

Who is to Blame?

How often have any of you heard this refrain:

"Blame people for bad acts, not Xianity..."

or this:

"People will use Xianity to prop up their evil deeds, but they'd be just as evil without it..."

It's an old refrain. People are bad/sinful/wicked/evil, and if we get rid of religion, they'll just find some other reason to be bad/sinful/wicked/evil. So, why focus our efforts on stopping religion?

But, is this really so? Certain behaviors and thoughts are learned, and learning that it is OK to be bigoted or sexist is not OK. Why should we not point out when a teaching fosters and encourages these types of thoughts or deeds? If someone grows up being taught that women are meant to be subservient to men and then acts on it thinking nothing is wrong, should we really lay all the blame on the man and not on the teaching that lead to his actions?

No, we should point out those teachings that are wrong and we should seek to correct them and/or end them. It's not enough to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "People are evil, what can you do?" We should raise up and proclaim quite loudly how immoral most religious teachings are and advocate that people should throw off the shackles of these antiquated religions and strive to become the moral people that they should be. It's a much better idea that giving up. In fact, that's just what apologists hope we will do so that they can continue to propagate their ideas without resistance and enjoy their unearned and undeserved place in culture. We must not let them have it without a fight.

Doubting Thomas

I keep hearing that Xianity is all about evidence, that Xians ask for evidence and receive it, and that god's cool with that. You know, he thinks we should be inquisitive and all that, and he'll provide evidence for us if we really want to see it. For an example of this, Xians often point to the story of Thomas. See, he doubts that Jesus has really come back from the dead, so Jesus literally has him touch the wounds that were inflicted by the crucifixion.

Wow, who could argue with that, right?

Except, there's still one small detail that usually gets left out of the story (and they say that atheists cherry pick from the Bible...) If you read just one more verse, you find this:

20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Notice the part that I took the liberty of bolding. Jesus shows Thomas the marks, and the rebukes him for needing evidence. He says that those who simply believe without requiring evidence are blessed, which doesn't include Thomas. This isn't Jesus saying that Xians should seek evidence, but that they should simply believe on faith. Instead of supporting the argument that Xianity is about evidence, it undermines it.