Archive for the 'christianity' CategoryPage 2 of 7

Is Christianity to blame for Bible-inspired sexism?

Seen on Friendly Atheist: a female referee was forbidden to ref a boys’ high school basketball game because it would mean putting her in a position of authority over males. Which, according to the Bible, is a big no-no.

To condemn this as bigoted and repulsive would be redundant, since others — even some Christians — have already done so. Therefore, I’ll address this question: is Christianity to blame for this, considering that most Christians don’t actually agree with such first-century bigoted “morals”?

I believe that, yes, Christianity is to blame.

Consider the facts:

  1. the Bible includes that passage. And it’s in the New Testament, after Jesus, so one can’t use the old “oh, that’s in the OT, Jesus changed all the rules” excuse which allows Christians to ignore the prohibition on eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabric, but to believe homosexuality is still an “abomination”.
  2. many denominations, and therefore many believers, believe (and teach) that the Bible is 100% true, and the literal word of God. (think about why they refuse to accept the fact of evolution: it’s not because it disproves God (it doesn’t), but because it means that Genesis isn’t literally true.)

Now, Christians could have changed the Bible. It’s not like they didn’t do it often in the first couple of centuries after Jesus, after all. Or they could have left that passage in there, but with a warning that it corresponds to Paul’s bigotry, not to what God actually wants. More liberal church leaders could actually denounce that passage as unjust and incompatible with a “god of love”. Or, like some other denominations do, simply accept that the Bible had many authors, many of its parts are parables or myths, and it was a product of its time, not to mention that it was edited often in the beginning, so it’s quite possible that someone inserted his own beliefs and agenda in it — which at the time would almost surely include bigotry.

But no. They still insist that the Bible is the literal word of God, 100% accurate, and so on. Which means God is a sexist bigot. And they’re OK with that.

If Christianity says “this book is 100% true”, and that book includes sexism, then Christianity is sexist, and is to blame for the sexism it causes.

90 day Jane

Like Hemant and Shnakepup, I am convinced that the latest idiocy, “90 day Jane“, is nothing but another dishonest attempt by the religious to fight the “rise of eeeeevil atheism”.

Consider her description:

I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It’s simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I’m not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose. My generation has had no great depression, no great war and our biggest obstacle is beating Halo 3.

“… as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose”? Gee, that sounds just like what theists love to say about atheists… and what atheists either don’t say, or say literally; in other words, the lack of a “greater” purpose just means that we don’t have someone telling us what to do, so we have to (responsibility! scary!) decide for ourselves, come up with a purpose on our own.

Quoting Shnakepup:

Expect “Jane” to start laying the nihilism and hedonism on thick, all the while spouting off about how pointless it all is. Then, closer to the due date, we’ll see more and more posts featuring Jane reconsidering her godless, wasteful existence , and pondering if maybe there’s something more. Cue religious friend who sets her straight on the lie of atheism, and who tells her all the church has to offer in it’s place. Instead of killing herself on Day 90, we’ll see her changing her mind and deciding to live her life with Jesus! Warm fuzzy music plays and everybody learns a valuable lesson.

Indeed. Now, I wonder… as an atheist, I would never do something like this (say, “faking” a deconversion). Why? Because it would be dishonest, and the same love of truth that makes me an atheist prevents me from even considering something like this. The belief in “saving souls” for brownie points in heaven, even if you have to cheat, lie, and hurt people to do it, is, apparently, something very typical in evangelical Christianity.

EDIT: it was just an experiment, after all. Either that, or they aborted it because they can’t follow their plan to talk about the emptiness of atheism for 3 months and then “find Jesus” on day 90, because we were on to them on day 4. Nothing to see here, folks.

Presidential Candidates and Evolution

Alonzo and vjack have already blogged in more detail about this, so, as there’s really nothing to add to them in a serious way…

… I have, naturally, to invoke Monty Python. :)

Now, some people — even non-creationists (a.k.a. people who don’t ignore evidence just because it contradicts a book written by Bronze Age desert nomads who could only imagine supernatural explanations for anything they didn’t know, and who thought the world was just a few generations old) are saying that people will be electing a president, not a biologist, so the candidates’ stance on evolution doesn’t really matter.

In other words, they’re free to believe in something really absurd, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, but “otherwise, they’re perfectly all right”.

Remember the classic mattress sketch?

Groom: Er yes. We’d like to buy a bed…a double bed…about fifty pounds?
Verity: Oh no, I’m afraid not, sir. Our cheapest bed is eight hundred pounds, sir.
Groom: Eight hundred pounds!
Lambert: Or, er, perhaps I should have explained. Mr Verity does tend to exaggerate, so every figure he gives you will be ten times too high. Otherwise he’s perfectly all right, perfectly ha, ha, ha.

and, later,

Verity: Lambert! Will you show these twenty good people the, er, dog kennels, please?
Lambert: Mm? Certainly.
Groom: Dog kennel? No, no, no, mattresses, mattresses!
Verity: Oh no, no you have to say dog kennel to Mr Lambert because if you say mattress he puts a bag over his head. I should have explained. Apart from that he’s really all right.

See what I mean? It’s not “really all right”. In at least one thing, they’re showing that they’re either a) completely nuts, or b) cowardly pandering to those who are. They’re unwilling to think critically, to consider the available evidence, and to ask the experts on the subject… or they’re dishonest, cowardly, and devoid of any integrity.

And you want those guys to run your country?

Pope: "Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty…"

Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty

Source: MattBors.com

"The Fred Phelps of 1000 BC" :)

A commenter to a post called The Church of Hate at Pharyngula wrote:

Deuteronomy orders that disobedient children be taken to the city gate and stoned to death.

Sounds pretty drastic and these days that would get you a long jail sentence.

What struck me as odd, no one has ever found piles of tiny bones at the gates of ancient Jewish cities. Nor AFAIK, has anyone ever done anything like this.

My best guess. When whoever was writing Deuteronomy was frothing at the mouth and ranting and raving, the average Israeli just shrugged their shoulders, said what a nutcase, and ignored him. Maybe he was the Fred Phelps of 1000 BC.

For some reason, I loved it. :)

Hitchens on Genesis

Here again one sees the gigantic man-made fallacy that informs our “Genesis” story. How can it be proven in one paragraph that this book was written by ignorant men and not by any god? Because man is given “dominion” over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia — the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new ‘Eden’ — was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood, it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had “dominion” over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity.

– Christopher Hitchens, “god is not Great”

Does anyone ACTUALLY "hate God"?

Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

- Psalm 139:21-22 (King James Version)

No, wait! I’m not going to use those verses in the way you are probably thinking (the Bible incites hatred, etc.).

That would be too easy. :)

Instead, I’ll address the “them… that hate thee” part. As this post’s title says, does anyone actually hate God (”God” meaning, here, the Judeo-Christian one)?

Now, theists are fond of saying that atheists hate God (which a simply dictionary definition would correct — hello!? we don’t believe there is one!?), or that we know, deep inside, that God exists, but are too arrogant to submit (which is actually insulting — how would they like to be told that they don’t really believe in their God, but enjoy too much being seen as “highly moral”?), but I’m not talking about those obvious errors. No, I’m talking about Really. Hating. God.

That concept presupposes that one does believe in God (and, again, I’m talking about the monotheistic, all-powerful Judeo-Christian creator deity people worship and pray to, not about any form of deism or pantheism), but, somehow, for some reason, hates him.

Does that make any sense? I find that very contradictory, not to mention potentially suicidal: so you believe that this omnipotent being is holding all the cards, can do whatever he pleases with you, including damning you for eternity… but he just wants to be loved, worshipped and believed in… you do believe he exists, and yet you hate him?

Now, my question, both to atheists and to those without the “a”… do you think that there are actually people like that? That someone, out there, actually “hates God”?

Thinking about it, I can imagine a few possibilities. A believer who gets the short end of the stick, so to say, might temporarily hate and curse God for the current injustice — without disbelieving for an instant. But that would probably pass soon, and he’d feel guilty and ashamed afterwards.

The only other possibility I can imagine is a Satanist — not a member of LaVey’s “Church of Satan”, who wouldn’t actually believe in God (or Satan) as entities, or a Black Metal fan, or an atheist who enjoyed annoying believers. No, a real Satanist, who believed God and the Devil were real, but somehow identified more with ol’ Lucifer than with Yahweh, and chose the former’s side. Of course, unless that person believed the Bible to be his enemy’s “propaganda”, he’d know that his side was destined to lose… but, who knows, maybe some people are like that.

To conclude: I’ve never heard someone say anything like “I believe in God, but I hate him”. But I’d like to hear your thoughts. Have you ever met or known of someone like that?

EDIT: and, please, no semantic games, such as “everyone who does X hates God”. I’m talking about conscious belief and hatred.

I see, the hairdryer is supposed to make all the difference…

The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

— Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Fun with the Church Sign Generator

Church sign 1

Church sign 2

Church sign 3

Church sign 4

Try it yourself: the Church Sign Generator!

I don’t like Microsoft…

… so when do I take their side? Why, when they’re attacked by homophobic fundamentalist Christians, of course! :)

You can’t make stuff like this up (any emphasis is mine):

A black conservative Christian pastor of an evangelical megachurch has vowed to take over Microsoft by packing it with new shareholders who will vote against the company’s policy of championing gay rights.

He told Microsoft executives at a shareholders’ meeting last week that he would be their “worst nightmare” if they continued to defy him.

Antioch Bible Church attracts around 3,500 worshippers for its services and Mr Hutcherson is a powerful figure in the Christian conservative movement.

And…

An advocate of a “biblical stance” against divorce and homosexuality, Mr Hutcherson, 55, is asking millions of evangelical activists, as well as Orthodox Jewish and other allies, to buy up Microsoft shares and demand a return to traditional values.

Microsoft, he declares, will be just the first company targeted in an escalation of the culture wars between evangelicals and corporate America.

“There are 256 Fortune 500 companies alone pouring millions upon millions of dollars into pushing the homosexual agenda,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

“I consider myself a warrior for Christ. Microsoft don’t scare me. I got God with me.

Not to mention, of course…

“I told them that you need to work with me or we will put a firestorm on you like you have never seen in you life because I am your worst nightmare. I am a black man with a righteous cause with a whole host of powerful white people behind me.”

Mr Hutcherson’s office is decorated with the heads of deer, elk and a buffalo – “when I run into animals, I kill them and bring them home and eat them” – as well as invitations to the White House and signed pictures of himself with President George W. Bush.

It boggles the mind. Any sane mind, that is. I’m sure there are those out there to whom this is perfectly normal…

Moderates and Extremists

While this post hasn’t got any replies so far (mainly, I believe, because the image has already been posted by other members of Planet Atheism, so it’s probably not new to readers of this blog), its equivalent on my technology blog did draw a few ones, which inspired me to write this (right here, because it’s really not appropriate for the other blog).

Consider the three Abrahamic religions. What do they have in common?

First, they tell you how the universe / world began, using a story that was clearly the best thing that some primitive desert nomads or shepherds could come up with. Most “sophisticated” believers, these days, don’t take those stories literally, and accept evolution, an old earth, heliocentrism, a huge universe, a round earth, and so on. Only American fundies and Muslims seem to take those stories literally, no matter the opposing evidence; they probably believe their god put that evidence there as “a test of their faith”.

Then, the religions give believers some rules:

1- the first kind are rules that, while not terribly original, are, in general, a good idea. Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill someone just because you feel like it, and so on.

2- then come the laws that can be annoying to follow, but it’s not the end of the world. Don’t eat that type of food, don’t wear this, wear that, do this on that day of the year, and so on. As I said, these can be annoying (for instance, what if you’re forbidden to eat your favorite food?), but most believers can live with them and obey them.

3- finally, there are the “harder” rules. Kill people who do this. Kill people who do that. Stone to death those who don’t do this. Or those who do that on a particular day of the week. Fight tooth and nail against the “enemies of God / the faith”. In fact, giving your life for that is the greatest thing you can do, and with the greatest reward.

Now, it should be obvious that a “moderate”, as usually described, is someone who follows just 1 and 2, while an “extremist” follows 3 as well.

But… how can the latter be called an “extremist”? Doesn’t the term imply that he is distorting his religion, or using it as an excuse for something unrelated, or adding something to it? To me, it does. But that’s not the case at all…

… it’s the moderates who are distorting religion, by removing things from it! Either because they don’t want to end up in prison or dead, or because their morality has evolved beyond those of the holy books’ writers, and so they recognize the immorality of those parts of their religion, but are nonetheless incapable of applying that judgment to the rest.

Are Bin Laden, or the 9/11 hijackers, or American abortion clinic bombers, “extremists”? Not at all, in my opinion — unless you call call a man who pays his taxes in full “an extremist taxpayer”. They’re simply not ignoring the unpleasant parts of their faith. They’re the only devout believers out there.

Which really paints a nice picture of their religions…

Dawkins on "atheism takes as much faith as theism"

Other people have already mentioned this review of Hitchens’ “god is not Great” by Richard Dawkins, so merely telling you about it is fairly useless. However, I just have to share this bit with anyone who didn’t read the full article:

The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief. The devout churchgoer recites the Nicene Creed weekly, enumerating a detailed and precise list of things he positively believes, with no more evidence than supports the unicorn. Now that’s overconfidence. By contrast, the atheist says the humble thing: of all the millions of possible entities that one might imagine, I believe only in those for which there is evidence – trombones, pelicans and electrons, say, but not unicorns or leprechauns, not Thor with his hammer, not Ganesh the elephant god, not the Holy Ghost.

Lovely. :)




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal