Demon Overlords or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Rapture

Well, the Rapture came upon us and demons own all of our souls now. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the demons will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new demon overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted atheist blogger, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground brimstone mines.

Update:

Well, this blogger was possibly a little hasty earlier - would like to reaffirm his allegiance to this country and its human president. It may not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have...for now.



But seriously, what will happen with this church? When will the excuses come, and what will they be? Or, will they walk away with the $80M dollars so far donated to their church? Of course a failed prediction in 1994 didn't stop them from gaining more followers and more income, so maybe they'll just ramp up the rhetoric and work towards even more followers and more income.

In their defense, the article does point out that Camping has not taken money for his own personal salary, so he may actually believe this stuff - which would be pretty sad. Still, the church is operating under the idea that, "A fool and his money are soon separated," which is morally problematic. Still, it should be interesting to see what comes of this, although if history is any sort of guide, the believers will find some way to rationalize the failed prediction. That's what happens when your position is not based on logic or reason.

(Shamelessly stolen from the Simpsons...)

Hawkings on Heaven

Stephen Hawking has said that heaven is a fairy tale, and really, who can argue with that? Heaven is completely unevidenced and not even well thought through. What is heaven like? Has anyone come up with a conception of heaven that isn't self-contradictory or at least contradictory to the ideas of the religion that spawned it?

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?

These People Already Played with Fire...

Touchdown Jesus is now set to be rebuilt as a new statue, and I have to wonder, didn't these people learn their lesson the first time?

If their god is omni-max then that means that the statue burning down was part of his divine plan, i.e. god didn't want that statue there any longer. Are they not once again risking the wrath of god by putting it back up? Next time god might smite the whole town or the whole state or allow terrorists to blow something else up or allow a devastating hurricane or earthquake to decimate a whole city. Who do these people think they are tempting fate the way they are. I say it's time for them to repent of their statue building ways and beg for god's mercy. Anything else might put us all in grave danger!

Administrative Note

A recent commenter has noted that her comment did not appear after she thought she saw it on the site, twice. I decided to check the spam filter and found that not only her comment was there, but a couple other comments have been deposited over the last month. I had not been checking the spam filter since it never seemed to actually block anything - until now. I will start to monitor it more closely. If you feel that a comment may be caught in the spam filter, please let me know and I'll see if it's there.

As for the comments that were in there, oddly enough some of them were the same as comments that were already posted. The ones that were not duplicates I went ahead and posted to the site (better late then never, right?) I apologize for the administrative SNAFU.

More Examples of how Religions are Anti-Women

Wow, it's another disgusting story of a girl raped by a Muslim who then is blamed and put to death. In a giant bout of blaming the victim, somehow it is this girl's fault for being raped and she needs to be punished. And, her family is now under protection because they are getting others in trouble for carrying out such a heinous act. Where is the sanity?

And, closer to home, we find this charming video. To be honest, I'm not seeing much difference between what the narrator is advocating here and the behavior in Bangladesh. The narrator sounds like a rapist in waiting, and further, he'd be fully prepared to blame the girl/woman for being too provocative.

It's time for these religious [expletive deleted] to grow up and start taking responsibility for their own lives and urges. Yes, you may be attracted to a woman on the street. Deal with it and join the human race.

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.