An Imperfect God

Where's god's perfection if he admits to mistakes? Genesis 6:6 clearly states he "regretted that he had made human beings".  The god of the bible is a deity created by man, in the image of man, not unlike hundreds of other mythological deities made up in the same Iron Age era. Claiming that there is only one true god is a rejection of religion's documented history, particularly because 1) there is not a shred of evidence any of these mythological gods ever existed. (It's what secular history teaches us.) And 2) it's just a small slice of the much larger picture of religion's ages-long evolution from polytheism to monotheism.* 

In light of this, claiming the superiority of one god over hundreds of others is nothing but a fool's errand. More so, even the historical inaccuracies of the bible lend credence to the very questionable origins of the Abrahamic religions.

From Wikipedia:

Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE.

In the Iron-Age South Asian Vedic period, a possible inclination towards monotheism emerged. The Rigveda exhibits notions of monism of the Brahman, particularly in the comparatively late tenth book, which is dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya Sukta. Later, ancient Hindu theology was monist, but was not strictly monotheistic in worship because it still maintained the existence of many gods, who were envisioned as aspects of one supreme God, Brahman.

More recently, Karen Armstrong and other authors have returned to the idea of an evolutionary progression beginning with animism, which developed into polytheism, which developed into henotheism, which developed into monolatry, which developed into true monotheism

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism)

* In its early stages, the Israelite religion was derived from the Canaanite religions of the Bronze Age; by the Iron Age, it had become distinct from other Canaanite religions as it shed polytheism for monolatry. The monolatrist nature of Yahwism was further developed in the period following the Babylonian captivity, eventually emerging as a firm religious movement of monotheism.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions)

Another pertinent reference: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

Old Testament Genocide

Here's a Christian apologist trying to justify old testament genocide (Joshua 6:20-21):

"This, generally speaking, is how Christian theologians have interpreted the Old Testament “ban” (Hebrew cherem). This term refers to God’s strict commandment to grant the heathen no quarter, to take neither prisoners nor spoil, but to destroy everything found in the cities of their enemies. Repulsive as it sounds to us today, this ruthless brand of warfare was not technically “genocide.” Not in the modern sense of the term. According to most biblical scholars, it was actually an expression of God’s judgment upon the Canaanites." *

Sorry, but this word salad is nothing more than trying to put lipstick on a pig, and that's putting it lightly. The justification begins with the premise that God cannot do wrong; that he can toy around with his creation as he sees fit. And that the concept of needing to eliminate any threats of sin influencing his chosen people somehow requires them being snuffed out. A very fitting description of a god contrived in the minds of ancient authors creating angry and jealous spiritual entities that they think everyone should bow to. Cuz, well, MY god is better and more superior than YOUR god. 

Blood-soaked religions use this backdrop of sacrifice for dealing with sin (either for ethnic cleansing, and/or salvation). It's very telling, for example, that many of the south American cultures (including the Maya and the Mexican) believed that human sacrifice nourished the gods. These brands of religion survived eons of criticism because mankind has an innate need to be guided by a father figure that both intimidates and comforts us. 

All these qualities of an easily explained story have strong underlying archetypical elements of salvation and eternal life. Stockholm syndrome, really. Very understandable how it has such a grasp on our psyche. A cursory study of our subconscious archetypes go a long way in explaining all this... It takes a lifetime of unearthing and becoming aware of these influences in order to extricate oneself from their control and grasp. Once done, you are free to be an independent thinker... 

* Reference: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/christian-struggles-with-biblical-accounts-of-genocide-and-holy-war/

The Mythic Jesus: Let’s Get Our Facts Right

1,700 words

Intro:
I’m an atheist. To me, there is a thorough lack of evidence for the existence of an Abrahamic God as described in the scriptures of the Christian faith. There is also a lack of consensus amongst biblical scholars as to the accuracy and veracity of these writings, which is enough for me to remain an unbeliever. It’s all myth, allegory, and an attempt to literalize a book written and edited by a church wanting to control the uneducated with the Fear of God. And his chosen priesthood, of course.

That said, there is “fake news” out there asserted by many who state that the explanations for god and Jesus are rooted in Egyptian mythology; that Jesus himself is just a plagiarized version of a multitude of these gods, particularly Horus. This is primarily based on the writings of Gerald Massey, a self-taught Egyptologist, and made popular in the movie Zeitgeist.

I’m not arguing that Jesus actually existed—but what I am doing is disclosing the facts behind falsehoods that make atheists and agnostics look bad. My point here is to disregard these sources of misinformation if we want to appear credible.

The source of this theory: *
Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.

Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academic, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts. More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.

In all of the cases of his “crucified saviours,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.

Adonis	Adonis dies when he is gored by a bull on a hunting trip.
Attis	In a moment of madness, Attis commits suicide by emasculating himself.
Baal	The text is unclear, but it appears Baal is slain in personal battle with Mot, the Canaanite god of death.
Bacchus	Bacchus is the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, whose body is almost completely devoured by the Titans, who leave only his heart.
Balder	In the Norse myths, Balder is invincible to all known objects, except for mistletoe. One of the gods’ pastimes is throwing objects at Balder, who cannot be harmed. Loki crafts a magical spear from this plant and tricks the god Hodur into throwing it at Balder, killing him.
Beddru	Supposedly a Japanese figure. Either Graves had a bad source, or he simply invented the name, as no figure with this name exists in Far Eastern literature. It may be that he meant to say “Beddou,” who is a Japanese figure some have equated with the Buddha. Regardless, there is no record of the crucifixion of this individual, if he even existed in any of the literature.
Devatat	This is uncertain, but appears to be the name of the Buddha in some places in the Far East. The literature states that the Buddha died at 80 of a natural illness, though some say he was poisoned. Either way, he never died on a cross, and Buddhism has no need of a personal savior, anyway.
Dionysus	The Greek god of wine and the grapevine had a tough childhood. When an infant, the Titans devour his body, leaving only his heart behind. He is later reborn.
Hercules	Hercules dies when he is burned alive on a funeral pyre.
Hermes	Hermes never dies in the Greek myths.
Horus	Horus never dies in the Egyptian myths.
Krishna	Krishna is mortally wounded when a hunter accidentally shoots him in the heel with an arrow.
Mithras	Mithras does not die in the Persian myths.
Orpheus	In one account, Orpheus is torn apart by Maenads, the female followers of Dionysus, for failing to honor their master. In other accounts he either commits suicide or is struck by one of Zeus’ lightning bolts.
Osiris	Osiris is killed when his brother Seth drowns him in the Nile. Seth later recovers the body and dismembers it.
Tammuz	Originally called Dumuzi by the Sumerians, Tammuz is taken to the underworld when his lover, Inanna, is given a deal where she can be released if she finds a substitute. She is enraged that Tammuz is not mourning her death, so she chooses him to take her place in the realm of the dead. There is no mention of crucifixion.
Thor	Thor dies in Ragnarok, the final battle that will end the world, when he is bitten by a giant serpent.
Zoroaster	According to one ancient source, Zoroaster was murdered while at an altar.

Massey cites numerous other parallels of Jesus actually being a plagiarized Horus without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. The following few milestones in the bible’s writings of Jesus’ life show how wrong he was...

Jesus’ Birth:
He (Massey) states Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.'

According to the Egyptian legend, Horus' father was Osiris and his mother was Isis (but there is nothing to connect this name with Mary / Meri). Osiris was killed by his brother Set who wanted his throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died and she later gave birth to Horus. Horus then killed Set. The combination of Osiris and Horus became linked in Egyptian mythology with the idea of death and rebirth. As in all pagan religions, there was a connection with the seasons (winter = death, spring = rebirth) and with the sun setting and rising. In the Egyptian myth it became associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and thus with the new harvest each year in the Nile valley.

According to this myth Isis was not a virgin, there is no link to the name Mary, however there is a death and rebirth story in line with the nature gods of paganism and fertility rituals. While this may be of interest in understanding the ancient religions of the world it has absolutely no bearing on the events recorded in the Bible. Horus was supposedly born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), and not on December 25th, a fact that does not make any difference to the claim that both Horus and Jesus were born at the same time since the Bible never says that Jesus was born on December 25th!

When stories detailing the birth of Horus are examined, there is no star or three kings who come to visit him. Trying to link this to Christianity fails in any event as the account of Christ's birth in Matthew has magi (wise men, not kings) coming to Jesus with their actual number not being stated.

Jesus’ Baptism:
He states that Horus was "baptized" by Anup and started a "ministry." The only accounts remotely related to Horus and water are the stories told of Osiris (his father who is sometimes combined in ancient accounts with Horus to form one individual) whose body was cut up into 14 pieces by his enemy, Set, and scattered throughout the earth. Isis supposedly found each part of the body and after having Osiris float in the Nile; he came back to life or became the lord of the underworld, depending on which account is read. 

Jesus’ Death & Resurrection:
The claims of Horus being buried for three days and resurrected are not to be found in any ancient Egyptian texts either. Some accounts have Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and going to be the lord of the underworld. But, there is no mention of a burial for three days and no mention of his physically coming out of a grave in the same physical body he went in with and never dying again. In addition, there is certainly no account of Horus dying for others as Jesus did.

Conclusion:
There you have it—a sound rebuttal to the misleading theory of a mythic Christ borne of previously conceived gods of ancient lore. This article is not to be taken as evidence of the Christ story being real, or even true, (a debate for another time) but rather to educate and therefore disarm Christians’ accusations of atheists using flawed and erroneous information when “attacking” Christianity. 

Go ahead and check the accuracy of this research as I have: it doesn’t take much snooping around online to confirm the various god’s lack of paralleled lives when compared to Jesus. The first rule of debating is to use accurate and true data, not unfounded stories.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* With thanks to Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D. for the original full length article found at https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=973 which was heavily borrowed from and edited here for brevity.

Sarah Salviander’s Reasons for Converting to Christianity: A Response

Jim Hutchison

1,918 words

Introduction

An email came across my computer earlier today from something called the “Atheist Republic”, an on-line web based community of atheists who support and educate like-minded people.  The headline read “Christian Astrophysicist Has 5 Reasons She’s No Longer an Atheist”. This undoubtedly caught my attention, as the usual pattern is the opposite - that as we become more educated, particularly in the sciences, the less likely we are to believe in anything that has no evidence or backing by the scientific method.

Admittedly,  my bias in this area had me pre-judging her reasons and motives for such a paradigm shift, but being a truth seeker with an open mind, I was very curious to find out how and why she “flipped” from one end of the spectrum to the other. My pursuit of truth and meaning keeps me on my toes, as my beliefs are from a constant evaluation of the latest and most accurate facts and evidence. Facts and evidence divorced from any emotional need to feel comforted by any kind of non-truth.  I’d rather believe in the right things for the right reasons and be miserable, than the wrong things for the wrong reasons just for the sake of feeling all cozy and comfy.  There’s nothing more sacred than the truth.

The email was actually a link to a video blog with two participants from Atheist Republic who discussed her five reasons for turning from atheism to Christianity.  Their treatment didn’t go deep enough for me, so I delved into her writings, testimonies, and various articles on her web sites (references below), and have come away with what I think is a good understanding of her reasons and motivations.  I’ll touch on each one, and add my own comments. Her reasons are:

1 – Genesis is consistent with science

2 – The legal-historical case for Jesus is strong

3 – Christianity is the source of things I cherish

4 – Christianity is the best explanation for evil

5 – Christianity gives me meaning and hope

There’s two groupings in these reasons: her facts as she describes them, and personal reasons.

Her Facts

Statements 1 & 2 are claims of fact.  Let’s deal with the fist one, as this is the most contentious between scientists and creationists.  Firstly, it is important for the claimant to define their position; i.e.: are they claiming the bible to be literal, or allegorical? It’s a very important distinction, in that the allegory stance could conceivably be shoe-horned into a natural explanation of the origins of the universe, earth, and humans, although the order of events in the bible still contradict modern science’s knowledge of our origins thanks to generations of geological, botanical, anthropological, and cosmological study.  But it suits many people who have a prejudiced belief in the god of the bible.

The second option is belief in a literal 6 day creation, which is a huge problem for the most fundamental and simple laws of science and physics.  Reconciling a literal take of the first two books of the bible with modern science requires such denial of facts that it requires them to be thrown away and dismissed as man-made foolishness; the result of man worshipping his own intellect and holding it above god’s authority.  (Their words, not mine.)  It is patently obvious that to believe this, one must possess such strong prejudice and favouritism towards belief in the god of the bible, that all else is nothing in comparison. It’s called confirmation bias, and anyone possessing it will dismiss and explain away (usually quite poorly) any and all evidence to the contrary.  The most silly one I’ve ever heard is “Well, it’s a mystery. Who can know the mind of god?”

Ms. Salviander’s interpretation of the bible is to take it literally.

“How can someone with such education have strong favouritism for something so easily disproven?” you may ask.  The answer is actually in items 3 to 5, but I’ll get to that after I address point 2.

“The legal-historical case for Jesus is strong”.  No need to spill a lot of ink (...pixels?) on this one, as the historical basis for Jesus’ existence is muddied with enough doubt thanks to the geo-politics of second and third century Christianity that even biblical scholars don’t agree on.  There are well articulated arguments on both sides - that Christ was a real character, and his followers started a massive following with enough inertia that Constantine had to declare Christianity the official religion in the 3rd century.  The flip side of this story (again, argued well by scholars) explains his existence as a contrivance of religious clerics for the purpose of controlling the masses through fear of hell.

There is a palpable lack of any history of Jesus’ life, especially considering the apparent impact he had on his contemporaries.  No Roman writings, or otherwise. The only “proof” of his existence outside of the bible are the writings of a historian named Josephus, who wasn’t born until after Jesus death. His references to Jesus are strongly suspected to be identifiable additions after his death.  More fodder for the theory of Jesus’  life being non-factual.

So with substantial evidence on both sides of the debate, the claim of item #2 isn’t so iron-clad.

Items 3 to 5: Personal and Emotional

These next points clearly indicate the absence of scientific critical thinking; they are founded purely on the emotional need to feel coddled and safe.

“Christianity is the source of things I cherish.”   Someone please explain to me how the foundation of this statement in any way justifies converting to Christianity other than a need for emotional security and comfort.  Put another way, it seems her psychological requirements trump fact, evidence, and truth.  She says so herself in not so many words.

“Christianity is the best explanation for evil.”  People can be so sickened by man’s inhumanity to man that they disassociate the action from the person, and blame an external entity for such behaviour.  He’s called “the Devil”, and if I were him and god really existed, I’d be complaining about all this unwarranted accusation.  I jest of course, but people are quite capable of evil all on their own.  It’s easy to see as an outsider that when we and/or those we love experience incredible harm, there’s a need for an explanation; a focal point for our anger and sense of injustice.  But, shit happens, and sometimes so randomly, that finding an explanation is futile.  That irks us, so we invent “evil” as its own force and entity.

All that said, there’s an interesting verse in the old testament that was quoted in the Atheist Republic’s v-blog:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isaiah 45:7, KJV.

Christians seems to miss this one... if blame for evil is to be placed anywhere, it’s on the god they say created everything from scratch.  So technically, Ms. Salviander is correct in that her belief indeed explains evil.  Perhaps not the way she thought, but I can’t put words in her mouth.

“Christianity gives me meaning and hope.”  Nice for her, but again, these are emotional - albeit legitimate - needs we all have and share as humans.  Logically though, she is putting the cart before the horse by believing in something for its selfish benefit, rather than basing a belief on its merits alone.  It’s just like Fox Mulder’s poster on his office wall in the TV series “The X-Files”.  It’s an illustration of an out-of-focus UFO, with the words “I Want To Believe”.  This is blatant confirmation bias, where evidence is filtered for the sole purpose of supporting a predisposed and foregone conclusion.  The absolute opposite of the laws of logic and science.  Discovery of facts and evidence are meant to formulate and support a postulate with eventual confirmation of a theory - which then becomes established as scientific fact.  Like I said, item #5 is just the opposite.

Ms. Salviander’s Testimony

In her own words, Ms. Salviader’s eventual conversion is hallmarked by feelings and emotions, often precipitated by loss and pain.  You know where I’m going with this... Like any and all such conversions, they stem from the experience of needing meaning, explanations for things science can’t articulate, and the comfort of finally relinquishing the fate of your own life into the hands of god.  It’s a huge relief (ask me how I know), and the resulting sense of “finally coming home” is nothing more than adult thumb-sucking.

Three quotes from her web site:

(Following her daughter’s death:)

“I finally had a clear vision of our little girl in the loving arms of her heavenly Father, and it was then that I had peace. I reflected that, after all these trials in one year, my husband and I were not only closer to each other, but also felt closer to God. My faith was real.”

“I walking across that beautiful La Jolla campus. I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God! I was so happy; it was like a weight had been lifted from my heart. I realized that most of the pain I’d experienced in my life was of my own making, but that God had used it to make me wiser and more compassionate. It was a great relief to discover that there was a reason for suffering, and that it was because God was loving and just. God could not be perfectly just unless I—just like everyone else—was made to suffer for the bad things I’d done.”

“[But] the only way we are free is if the universe and everything in it was created, not by some unconscious mechanism, but by a personal being—the God of the Bible. The only way our lives are unique, purposeful, and eternal is if a loving God created us.”

Please visit her web site to see that none of these quotes are taken out of context, and you may gain a better understanding and explanation of her beliefs.  Most of it is based on a couple concepts.  1) The big bang is proof that Genesis is correct, in that the universe had a beginning, therefore it had to be created (quite a stretch, I know), and... 2) The first days of creation are accurately described as such because it was GOD watching the clock, not us... the expanding universe bent time enough to equate billions of years to 6 days.

All interesting theory if you’re trying to shoe-horn facts into a bias that is rife with preconceived ideas, concepts, and conclusions.

Conclusion

So yes, my initial take on her 5 reasons proved true after careful examination.  Scientists of her ilk (and I’ve known some personally) use Aristotelian logic, but with unfounded assertions and highly theoretical associations between "facts".  One example being how the stretching of time due to universal expansion explains the literal 6 day creation story.  Additionally, what’s not explained is the messed up order of creation; that the earth existed before stars were created.  I didn’t find an explanation for that one, though I’m sure the creationists find some way...

So, the current world view I adhere to has been undergirded by yet another poor attempt at using the bible to explain everything by a mindset firmly grounded in god-belief.  Justification for this belief is so full of logical fallacies, that someone seeking truth outside themselves, free of bias and need for comfort, can only conclude that Christianity (well, all three Abrahamic religions really), base their foundation on centuries old fables, fiction, and regurgitated legends written by (perhaps) well-meaning authors trying to understand the age old archetypical search for meaning and purpose.

~~~~~~~~~~

Quotes and research from:

• https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/05/23/former-atheist-astrophysicist-sarah-salviander-explains-her-journey-to-christianity/
• https://sarahsalviander.com/
• https://sixdayscience.com/
• http://evangelicalfocus.com/science/881/Sarah_Salviander_The_journey_of_an_atheist_astrophysicist_who_became_a_Christian

Critical Thinking is at Risk...

The discipline of critical thinking is taking a shit kicking these days.  Just look at the latest in American politics and the religious right’s support of it.  Those who willingly lack this discipline stay at the mercy of the manipulators, controllers, and fear mongers because to them, their arguments make sense. Religion and belief in god is at the root of so much garbage. Pls read on.

(For the sake of brevity in these few paragraphs, I’ll use the word “bible” to also mean the koran and talmud... they all come from the same root Abrahamic writings.)

By the basic rules of truth, logic and philosophy, the god of the bible cannot exist. The mass of contradictions in each of the Abrahamic “holy” writings is too overwhelming for the serious inquirer to take seriously, unless they are picking and choosing what they want to believe. 

See, there’s this little problem of evidence of god’s existence.  When challenged with this point, many immediately reply “Prove to me he DOESN’T exist.”  Oh please... it’s like me asking you to prove the easter bunny doesn’t exist.  Can’t do it, can you?  It’s a fundamental law of logic: you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, when all is said and done, when someone claims that god exists, I can as easily dismiss that claim due to the lack of evidence. 

The burden of proof is on the person making any claim without evidence; it isn’t up to the other person to prove they’re  wrong.

An inherent and significant fallacy of any faith and religious belief is as follows: say I settled on a particular interpretation of the bible (there are thousands by necessity...)  stating mine was the right one...  have I not placed myself in a position of unquestionable authority over the bible, god, and everyone else? Yes I have.  Simple logic, because I have claimed that my “take” is right one.  I’ll agree with others that agree with me, and reject all others with differing views.  Instant logical fallacy.

Sorry, we can’t wiggle out of this one by saying there’s “your” truth, and “my” truth because THAT my friends is broken, faulty, childish logic.  Terms must be defined: there can be many interpretations,  but there can only be the ultimate undeniable, provable, untenable final truth.  Like the law of gravity.  No arguments there!

The last protest to this logic is always “It’s a mystery. We cannot know or understand the mind of god.”  Well, isn’t that convenient?  Believers use this as their last argument; their last resort to demolish any kind of challenge to their beliefs.  They pull the rug out from under us by saying they have no need to provide proof because of the nature of god... that he can make and brake rules as he sees fit.  Funny how they are experts in total non-logic, contradictory facts, and claim to be best friends with the author of this universe that has no rules. They get to make up them up as things progress.  THAT is the purest definition of total non-accountability, and is the reason why religious faith is dangerous...

Please THINK critically.  It’s becoming a rarity these days.

Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

Let's once and for all settle this idea that Islam is a peaceful religion.  The media calls Jihadists "terrorist extremists", intimating they take their religion too seriously and too far.  The majority of Muslims are peaceful, and are called "moderates"; i.e. they don't take their religion too seriously because they believe in peace and harmony.  Good on them.

But saying Islam is peaceful is a blatant fallacy. Those "extremists" are ONLY following what their Quran tells them to do; the moderates are simply not following all of the teachings of Mohammed. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.  Tell me what you think after reading these translations from their holy book:

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

And finally:

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."


I could go on, but I think you get the point.  The Quran is very articulate and specific about how unbelievers and hypocrites are to be treated. These verses are not metaphors, or constrained by historical events. They are literal instructions that are to be obeyed, or else be called a hypocrite.

So, no, Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. To say so is uninformed and naive, and to call anyone "Islamaphobic" (a term recently used by the politically correct) is bullshit for the above stated reasons; I say call a spade a spade.

Last point: if anyone thinks this article is generating bias against Muslims, you haven't fully understood what I have written.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just today, 12 people in France were slain by Islamic terrorists.  The world is tiring of the bloodshed in the name of Allah...

Jesus and Sugar Pills: They have more in common than you think.

In the last couple of days, there's been some very overt Christian content in a couple of reality shows that I enjoy.  In one case, the person was in a physically demanding situation that required him to gather up enough courage to jump from one cliff edge to another. His safety was assured by the climbing ropes his guide had provided for him, but this was his first experience at such a physical and mental challenge. So he paused to pray and speak in tongues, describing it as his direct line to God. Earlier in the show, he described how as a professional sportsman his life of status, power, and sex had become shallow and unfulfilling, so he turned his life over to God.  Following that, he became fulfilled and happier.

The second person on a different show, though not faced with an immediate physical threat, spoke of a need to give his life back to God, because whenever he did this, his life would straighten out and things went better for him.  Later in the show, he rededicates his life back to Jesus, and was baptized.

What both of these people have in common, and what attracts people to, and holds them in, this life of faith in God is a sense of emptying oneself and letting God take over.  This need to have a crutch and let someone much bigger and powerful than you take control is the lure of this mindset. Watching these TV shows put me in mind of my own journey into, and out of such a belief; a belief that required total dependence on something larger and greater than myself.

The question that burdens me mostly is this: what would have convinced these people in their time of need that the strength they sought was already available to them? Courage comes from within, but somehow having a dependence on something outside ourselves seems more attractive.  Having lived this life myself in the past, I can best describe it is a lack of gumption; "intestinal fortitude".  It's easier to throw the responsibility onto someone (something?) else when you feel at the end of your rope. We feel the need to reach out in crisis, so God becomes a convenient resource, particularly if you're convinced he is omnipotent, and happens to be the creator of the universe. The religious message is to just give up and let God take the reigns.

Another factor that explains the "letting go and letting God" phenomenon is the pervasiveness of the message, thanks to evangelists and mass media.  The success stories of celebrities, ex-cons, ex-drugies, etc. who gave their life to God in a church meeting, or in a cell, or a hospital bed have been turned into movies and books, forever enshrining - and legitimizing - the born again experience.  It helps us feed on our need to believe in something bigger than ourselves.  I frankly refer to it as adult thumb-sucking.

So back to my question: what do we have as a society that can replace such unfounded beliefs and behaviours?  The truth is, we have nothing as potent and as powerful as religion, and this is thanks to the placebo effect.  The believer is truly convinced that their treatment will work, and it in fact does. Even sham surgeries used in scientifically controlled studies have resulted in healing heart disease. So it is with any closely-held belief system in which the outcome of healing, strength, and comfort is most desired.

I'm convinced that we're at a place in our evolution as a species where the perceived challenges to our survival are strong enough that they elicit a powerful attraction to superstitious beliefs in unseen forces, no different than how our ancestors worshipped various gods, sacrificing to them for the purpose of better weather, crops, health... in essence, prosperity and protection.  Until our fears and stress are addressed and rooted out with logic, evidence, and common sense, our dependence on superstitions will continue. As will the trappings of old-school religion that plague our society and hold us back from real advancement and progress.

Till next time,

Jim

Don't get me wrong, I may look like an atheist... but...

Many of my posts on this blog would leave one with the idea that I belong to this new atheist movement some of you may be familiar with. The big names that everyone quotes (me included) are Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Hawkins. Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us (R.I.P.). They're sought-after keynote speakers, authors, scientists, and philosophers. I've read most of their publications, and agree with 100% of what they say when criticizing traditional religion.

But - that does not say I believe 100% of everything they say. No one should believe everything anyone says anyways. If you do, shame on you.

The point is that although I agree with these atheists' arguments against religion, I do not make the stretch to say that science has discovered everything we need to know, and therefore reject anything and everything spiritual or unexplained. These people mock things like chiropractors, Eastern medicine, distance healing, Reiki... basically anything that traditional science hasn't proven with years of funded research.

So, before swallowing the new atheist movement's pill whole hog, consider where they come from... they are hard core philosophers and scientists who don't give an inch to anything not backed up by pure (read: traditional) science. In contrast, me and a bazzilion other people have legitimate and very real experiences with these "unknown" areas of spirituality, so I take their opinion on these matters lightly.

My underlying point here is that personally, I have indeed turned my back on traditional Christianity (as anyone who reads the Bible cover to cover should), but there's a massive difference between being religious and being spiritual. I brand myself the latter. Just so you know...

What Happens if you REALLY follow the bible?

Sam Harris once again shreds the idea that the bible/god/christianity is all about love and peace. If we really took the bible seriously and lived by it, we'd all have slaves, beat our children, and stone our new wife if we found out she wasn't a virgin... give it a quick listen...

In light of recent news about hurricane Sandy, I thought this would be a good conversation starter ...but there's not a lot more to say than what's in the graphic above. It's hard to argue with pure logic, isn't it?

Perhaps there are Christian apologists who would suggest a fourth option; that God is standing by, waiting for this clock he wound up 6,000 years ago to come to it's fruition. But the gymnastics required to back that up would fill a book, and would require the use of a book that is full of contradictions. Christianity is supposed to be so simple that a child can understand it, so bzzzzt!  Religion fails yet again.

Why is SO much unquestioned respect given to faith?  It's as if anything believed under the umbrella of religion is somehow immune to the scrutiny of common sense.  We actually know the answer: it's because our relatively recent history as a society was enveloped in the dark ages, where religion governed all aspects of life.

My challenge to the reader is to examine your own emotions and judgements (good and bad) next time someone asks your head to be bowed at a family or communal meal, even if the majority present aren't religious. That behaviour is an indicator of our society's undue respect and over-tolerance for unfounded and irrational faith, which came from that time in history when superstition and religion where one in the same. The church held power over government. Priests were gods. That's not the case any more, but you wouldn't know it by the remnants were still carry...

It's high time we throw away that rabbit's foot.

The scary thing is, there are Christians today who would defend this kind of behaviour, not just slavery (...because, well - God says it okay), but the beating as well. In my Christian days, I was exposed to various teachings about submission, and one common interpretation is that submission to any and all authority is non-negotiable. That goes for Peter, above...

You see, a face-value interpretation of the Christian bible should actually make atheists out of any reader. But why doesn't it?

Some of you who know me have heard about my brush with evangelical christianity.  Well... more than a brush actually - more like a life-changing, immersive experience. While in that environment, I was an eager non-stop learner, always asking about this and that. Sometimes the answers made sense, other times not. That always niggled my brain: basic questions of scientific evidence were brushed aside as evidence of a lack of faith.

Wow, I'm glad I moved on. I now see the wisdom in non-stop searching; non-stop questioning; non-stop challenging my OWN beliefs about what reality is. I've concluded, quite firmly, that old-school religion is a crock. A crock based on new evidence revealed by the last 200 years of scientific evidence. Face it, the church elite could get away with telling those old bible stories to the ignorant masses who knew no better. Now we do.  Or do we...?

(click image to enlarge if you find it hard to read)

Even the most cursory understanding of genetics is enough to blow the whole creation story out of the water.   The above is one simple example; there are others.

I actually had my DNA examined by the National Geographic "Genographic" project, in which over 500,000 people from across the globe participated. They are able to trace back our lineage to tribes that migrated over 60,000 years ago from central Africa by determining the specific haplogroup one belongs to. This is possible due to random, though infrequent, mutational errors in DNA.

So, did you get that?  60,000 years ago. Not 6,000, not 10,000, which creationists place creation at. 60,000.

So, no, Eve did not come from Adam's rib.  I mean, c'mon... If you believe that, then I have a bridge for sale in Florida I think you should invest in... If you still want to argue that God created everything with age, then I suppose I too have the right to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Which of course YOU can't see, but I happen to believe exists. So there...

Sounds logical, right? Only to 43% of Canadians. The rest, well, would rather believe in fairy tales and imaginary friends. YES! It's true!  Take a sampling of - say - 20 people. Statistically, about 11 of them will be religious, claiming they believe the bible over science. Ask them if they would leave behind their religious beliefs if it could be proven that the earth is far older than 6,000 years (try millions...), and that we came from primates, and you'll see them stick their fingers in their ears and go "La - la - la - la..."

I see it all the time. Religious people will simply not accept hard core evidence that disproves the biblical account of creation.  People are offended by my stance, saying "But that's what you believe, you shouldn't push your beliefs onto them."  Sorry dudes and dudesses, the truth is the truth is the truth. Evidence is not a philosophy or a religion or a parlour game. It's what's in your face. It's the clothes on your back, it's the food you eat. Do you say "I believe in food"? No, you eat because it's there. You know it's there. It's evidence that you or your loved one went to the grocery store.  It's proof that farmers exist. It's proof that tractors exist that do the harvesting, and 18-wheelers deliver it to Costco, and store clerks, and... and... well, you get it.

It's no different than the evidence that exists for the age of the earth. Or that we evolved. Either believe that, or stick your finger in your ears and go "La - la - la - la - la - la ...................."