Loved the one about coveting your neighbor’s ass. 
For more about Space Moose, see Wikipedia.
Archive for the 'religion' Category
Source: Times Online
A lot of Catholics have been complaining about Benedict 16’s utterly immoral statement, and, on one hand, one can’t fault them for it: it just shows that they still have some sense of morality, that they’re not mindless robots obeying “Dear Leader”.
On the other hand… do those Catholics (and Christians in general) know their own religion at all? Why are they surprised? Why aren’t them just nodding because, well, the Pope is Catholic and he’s just stated a Catholic / Christian position?
People, the basis of your religion is that this life is just a test! That one shouldn’t “love this world”. Earthly suffering is immaterial; the only thing that matters is whether you’re “saved” or not. If unspeakable suffering leads one to God / Jesus and therefore that person is saved, to a Christian that’s perfectly OK; in fact, one couldn’t ask for more.
If God exists as they think, and is absolutely against all forms of contraceptives / sex not for reproduction as they think, then better for someone to suffer horribly and die of Aids, with a chance of going to heaven, than to live a long, healthy, happy life and end up in hell with certainty. This is only logical, if one accepts their premises. Which, of course, I don’t, what with being an atheist and everything.
Christianity is a life-hating death cult.
“If I’m wrong and God doesn’t exist, then I’ve wasted all my life promoting the oppression of gays because of a lie. That would make me feel pretty bad. Therefore, God exists.”
Imagine that you had two options, and you could choose now, with no chance of going back later:
Choice A: there is no heaven or hell; no afterlife, no consciousness after you die.
Choice B: there is an afterlife, in heaven (eternal bliss) or hell (eternal torment), and you have a 10% chance of going to hell.
Which would you choose?
To me, if you don’t choose A instantly, you have never thought for a minute about what “eternal torment” – or even just the “eternal” part – means. Because the mere possibility of that, no matter how remote, should be enough to make anyone live in absolute terror.
Even eternal boredom is infinitely worse than the worst of monsters that ever lived deserves. Because there’s no escape, no reprieve, absolutely no hope of an end, of a sweet oblivion.
Now, as an atheist, I believe there’s no choice here: it’s A whether we want it or not. A theist probably believes the opposite.
Why don’t theists live their lives in abject terror? Well, some of them will use the “my god isn’t a monster and doesn’t send people to hell” argument. Of course, since that deity has no biblical basis, it’s obvious that it’s a god they’ve made up, with the traits they believe God should have. Since I don’t think belief shapes reality, I can’t accept that the god you or him or her or them – or me, if I wanted to – have invented can possibly exist. (As I’ve said many times on this blog, if you believe in a good god, you’ve made him up, and he can safely be dismissed.)
Others will believe that hell exists, but will be certain that, somehow, they’re completely free – or “saved” – from it. They’re sure that they have the proper “get out of jail free” card. Because they have faith in Jesus, because they have said the magic words, because they obey most of Moses’ law or Mohammed’s rules. Somehow, they’re certain that they belong to the right religion – the right branch of the right religion – even though most of the world doesn’t. They probably have the same religion as their parents, making their religion – and, according to their beliefs, whether they’re saved or not – a matter of chance, of geography.
And they don’t think there’s a non-negligible chance of ending up in eternal torment. They’re not in complete terror every moment. They can lead normal lives.
It boggles the mind.
I couldn’t resist…
Seen on Expletive Deleted:
A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (1991), p. 24.
Quite true. However, what is the alternative to a literal interpretation, if not a made-up-on-the-spot one?
“God”, like he’s described in the Bible, is evil (Dawkins’ famous “The God of the Old Testament…” quote is right on the money).
However, the moment you say “my god isn’t like that, he’s a loving god”, you’re worshiping a god of your own creation.
The former is evil, and the latter is an intellectually dishonest creation of yours (really, how can you make up something on the spot and then say it created everything and is worthy of worship?!); both are, fortunately for everyone (including theists1), quite fictional.
- this may deserve a post in the future [↩]
A few days ago, I asked, as an experiment, which of these two statements was more offensive: “there is a god” and “there is no god”. While most of the replies I got were perfectly reasonable (paraphrasing vjack, neither statement is offensive, but one of them is false), the lack of responses by either “normal” theists – especially of the typical, born-again, Protestant kind –, and “non-militant” atheists (the ones who have no belief themselves, but take special care not to offend believers) prevented this experiment from uncovering the kind of replies I wanted: the ones that say that “there is no god” is offensive, but can’t explain why; they just feel that it is. Having atheists say so would have been particularly interesting.
Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist.
Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.
However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.
“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:
- I’m right and you’re wrong
- I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
- You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
- (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
- Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
- Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
- It’s because of people like you that evil exists
- If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
- You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.
(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)
Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:
- I’m right and you’re wrong
- You’re stupid
- You were conned
- You’re brainwashed
- You’re a sheep
- You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
- You’re irrational
- Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
- You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.
The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.
This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”
Following the discussions about the FFRF’s atheist sign (see here, for instance), I just want to ask any readers of this blog the following: which of these two fictional signs (imagine them being shown to thousands, in a public place) is more “offensive”?
Sign A:
There is a God.
Sign B:
There is no God.
I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.
Seen on Salad is Slaughter: Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion. The best bit:
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
Say that again? “Religious freedom”?
Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.
“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.
“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.
If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?
The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.
The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.
I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it.
– John McArthur, Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement
Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments