You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Christianity’ tag.
The deconversion process does some pretty wacky things to people. We join Evidence and his tale of his journey away from the theism that held him prisoner for so long.
It is a lighter Disservice today, kick back and laugh at the profound religious stupidity of Eric Hovind and the baffle-gab he extrudes.
Anti-Citizen X does a wonderful job of listing some of the ways that shifty christian apologists spin their mendacious web. Arm your self against their rhetorical nonsense with this fine video.
Dark Matter2525 takes on the religious idea that somehow because we have free will their grand ooga-booga is somehow a less terrible entity for creating and sending people to hell.
The title of this video is “what if you’re wrong” and yes atheist friends DM2525 does touch on that venerated old chestnut of Pascal’s Wager, but like M. Night – Can’tmakeagoodmovietosafehislife- with a twist – there are questions and consequences that the deluded must face.
If your god happens to be the right one, how is it merciful to condemn some 5 million other people to hell? How do you know your god is the “right” one, given the sectarian nature of the christian and muslim faiths you might be on the right team, but sitting in the wrong seats; so off to hell you go.
Did you ever get the feeling that religious people don’t stop to question their faith? Because a serious examination of the just the numbers presented here would indicate a pretty good chance of being FUBAR’ed right from get go. Even contemplating stuff like this makes the faithful bust out their jesus approved cotton balls ready to jammed down auditory canals served up with a side of “LALLLALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!!!”. But then again, reality is a fraught with anxiety, existential and otherwise and who wants to be staring down the barrel of that gun 24/7 (other than us hell bound atheists, of course).
I know, I know. Belief in magic is not really the best way to run anything, but rather than focusing on the silly nature of believing in the Grand Oooga-Booga, lets look at how those in power keep their ‘base’ ignorant and happy to continue to lap up all mendacity that spews forth from the Party of No. Alter.net author CJ Werleman has a nifty article about biblical illiteracy in America, so lets go over the highlights.
“More than 95 percent of U.S. households own at least one copy of the Bible. So how much do Americans know of the book that one-third of the country believes to be literally true? Apparently, very little, according to data from the Barna Research group. Surveys show that 60 percent can’t name more than five of the Ten Commandments; 12 percent of adults think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife; and nearly 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple. A Gallup poll shows 50 percent of Americans can’t name the first book of the Bible, while roughly 82 percent believe “God helps those who help themselves” is a biblical verse.”
So really, the obedient masses can be fed just about any line of bullshite and they won’t bat an eye.
“The truth, whether Republicans like it or not, is not only that Jesus a meek and mild liberal Jew who spoke softly in parables and metaphors, but conservatives were the ones who had him killed. American conservatives, however, have morphed Jesus into a muscular masculine warrior, in much the same way the Nazis did, as a means of combating what they see as the modernization of society.
Author Thom Hartmann writes, “A significant impetus behind the assault on women and modernity was the feeling that women had encroached upon traditional male spheres like the workplace and colleges. Furthermore, women’s leadership in the churches had harmed Christianity by creating an effeminate clergy and a weak sense of self. All of this was associated with liberalism, feminism, women, and modernity.”
Funny how much of a threat Conservatives see women to the established order. I take it as a sign we are moving in the right direction.
“For instance, when Republicans were justifying their cuts to the food stamp program, they quoted 2 Thessalonians: “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” One poll showed that more than 90 percent of Christians believe this New Testament quote is attributed to Jesus. It’s not. This was taken from a letter written by Paul to his church in Thessalonica. Paul wrote to this specific congregation to remind them that if they didn’t help build the church in Thessalonica, they wouldn’t be paid. The letter also happens to be a fraud. Surprise! Biblical scholars agree it’s a forgery written by someone pretending to be Paul.”
Being fact averse seems to be the default setting for much of the Republican party and concomitantly most their followers. The stupid leading the blind is not a winning recipe for running a nation.
“The best argument against a historical Jesus is the fact that none of his disciples left us with a single record or document regarding Jesus or his teachings. So, who were the gospel writers? The short answer is we don’t know. What we do know is that not only had none of them met Jesus, but also they never met the people who had allegedly met Jesus. All we have is a bunch of campfire stories from people who were born generations after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. In other words, numerous unidentified authors, each with his own theological and ideological motives for writing what they wrote. Thus we have not a single independently verifiable eyewitness account of Jesus—but this doesn’t stop Republicans from speaking on his behalf.”
Not that making stuff up is new for politicians.
“The price this country has paid for biblical illiteracy is measured by how far we’ve moved toward Ayn Rand’s utopia. In the past three decades, we’ve slashed taxes on corporations and the wealthy, destroyed labor unions, deregulated financial markets, eroded public safety nets, and committed to one globalist corporate free-trade agreement after another. Rand would be smiling down from the heaven she didn’t believe in.”
Fantastic. Well we should be applaud the republicans for packaging up self-immolation so nicely – all decked out with rainbows and jesus stickers. It would be cute if it wasn’t underpinning the destruction of a nation.
Religiously deluded, bigoted, right-wingnuts say the darndest things. Just the other day, Manitoban PC leader Brian Pallister wished the very best to “all you infidel atheists out there”.
Say again?
“All you infidel atheists”
He didn’t say that.
He really did. On camera. Check the vid.
Pretty amazing, right? But it gets even better. This video spurred an understandably unfavourable response from the secular community. Pallister did have some defenders though. They suggested that it was a joke, albeit in bad taste. Damn liberal media sheep, they whine that the poor conservatives are too uptight, but as soon as one delivers a little joke, they get all offended. Except that it wasn’t a joke – not that it would actually excuse this if it was.
Later, in a response to the fallout of his holiday greeting, Pallister defended his wording by stating that, according to the dictionary, ‘infidel’ means ‘non-believer’. He was just being inclusive. “I’m always disappointed when people misrepresent the meaning of the words. What I was trying to do there is include everyone in my best wishes over the holidays” Riiiiiiiight. Let’s explore why this is total bullshit.
First, no one identifies as an ‘infidel’. Quite a few non-believers don’t even identify as an ‘atheist’. I mean, sure, I’m also a non-stamp-collector, but it has no inherent meaning to me. However, if people were being ostracized, abused, discriminated against, and even killed because they didn’t collect stamps, I’d have to speak up as a non-stamp-collector too. So saying that he was trying to include ‘infidels’ when the only people who think the term means anything are non-infidels, is beyond suspicious. It is a blatant affirmation of the religious ‘us vs. them’ mentality.
Second, whereas ‘atheist’ is purely descriptive – absence of theism, ‘infidel’ is riddled with negative overtones. Sure one of the definitions listed in the dictionary is simply ‘one who doesn’t believe’, but dictionaries aren’t known for deep explorations into connotation or social context. ‘Infidel’ is the name that members of an in-group call members of the out-group. It is a term meant to belittle, demean, and undervalue. An atheist is a non believer, period. An infidel is a non believer, understood as an unworthy subhuman piece of filth. Pallister’s comment is analogous to someone attempting to be “racially inclusive” by using the word ‘nigger’ then defending the slur by saying that it just means ‘people with dark skin’. No, it’s offensive, divisive, and hateful, I don’t care how happy the surrounding message is. And Pallister knows it.
If he really thought ‘atheist’ and ‘infidel’ were as synonymous as he claims, then there would be no reason to use both words. Pallister’s defence is that all he meant to say was ‘non-believing non-believers’. There is no justification for such a redundancy. The negative hateful baggage is jammed right into the word ‘infidel’ and it is the only reason for Pallister to have used it. I am willing to concede that it may not have been a conscious decision, not that it would be a redeeming admission. It would mean that his religious elitism is so ingrained that he automatically demeans the irreligious without thinking about it.
If he was just some guy, Pallister’s words would just make him an asshole in need of good chewing out. But the standards for our elected officials is higher than that. Especially in a country that thankfully separates church and state, such a slur should be met with much harsher repercussions. Manitobans, please see too it he is not re-elected. Manitoban conservatives, get him evicted from your party. If you ever want to be in power in Manitoba again, step 1 would be to distance yourselves from ignorant jackasses like Brian Pallister.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…