Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts

The Notoriety of Doofus and Dotty



_________________________________________________________________________

I stumbled across a blog in Australia in which the blogger decries the potential lunatic, fear-filled reactions of American Christians to the projected Obama/Biden victory. See: The anti-Obama Christian bloggers.

"Moreover, I have to say that I am starting to get concerned about where this will lead. Polls suggest a much greater chance of an Obama win than a McCain win, which means that a situation might arise in which a great number of angry, terrified Christians are faced with an Obama White House and a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

What will these Christians do? Hopefully they will settle down, look back at what they believed in the lead up to his victory and then begin to exmaine [sic] their beliefs more objectively. Unfortunately, given the propensity of American Christians to be convinced that fiction is fact (eg Harry Potter and Satanism) I don't think this is going to happen. I'm worried, though, that violence may occur in response to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi victory as Christians take up the arms guaranteed by the constitution, refuse to pay taxes and begin overt resistance to the world of evil that they believe exists in the form of Obama and the Democrats."
Dream on, buddy, "objective examination of beliefs" and fundamentalist Christianity are diametrically opposed.

Fundamentalist American Christians are "angry and terrified" because, in their ill-intentioned bid for power, Doofus (top left) and Dotty (right) have been telling lies and whipping up hatred against Obama, presumably because they read the unthinking emotionality of their "congregation" well.



(I probably did not need to clarify whom I am calling Doofus and Dotty.)

How else could Brat Maverick hope to win with a platform that can be summarized as: "Let's cut down on Washington waste while continuing to spend billions on a war that we will not admit cannot be won."?

In essence:
"He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it,and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
The writer is clear and fair, yet is an "evangelical" (what is Australia coming to?). I take this to indicate that he is familiar with the emotional reactivity that passes for thinking in fellow fundamentalists.

"That means I do believe in the spirit world, including the existence of Satan."
What an interesting example of philosophical tension!. He recognizes the disconnection between Harry Potter and the mythical "fallen angel", Mormon brother to Jesus, and yet he believes in equally ridiculous notions. Proof positive that otherwise intelligent people can entertain indoctrinated stupidities that are utterly without evidence. They call if Faith, I call it something completely different.

'Twas the Troll before Christmess

St. Faith's Generic Church : Please leave mind at door.
Why do Christians hang out on atheist blogs? This is a rhetorical question and definitely not an invitation for comments from Christians.

A friend suggested that they are probably there to bait atheists. I cannot imagine that they hope to convert atheists to Christianity.

Whenever I wish to read an opinion that I trust or to discuss a rational viewpoint, then I am delighted that scienceblogs exists and that fellow atheists belong to Mojoey's blogroll. These make it easier to find bloggers with a rational, humanist worldview.

I definitely am not interested in telling my de-conversion story, because I was so young when I decided that God was an invention that I did not suffer any emotional pangs over de-mything. If I wish to understand the emotional reasons for faith, or for pain at loss of faith, I need only read websites and blogs.

I don't lurk on Christian blogs, attempting to proselytize in the name of rationality. I don't go looking for an opportunity to debate Christians so as to prove the strength of my intellectual dedication to atheism, science, or morality. I did recently and inadvertantly stumble into just such a discussion on an atheist site. I came away less impressed than ever by the fallacious arguments so typical of Christian efforts at apologetics.

Perhaps because most believers entertain some secret doubts because there is no evidence to support their faith, theists seem to have great difficulty accepting that atheists do not suffer agonies of doubt over the rationality of logically following the evidence. How dare atheists feel certainty about their reasoned beliefs when theists struggle with doubt?!

Perhaps because so many Christians are fear-motivated, they have difficulty accepting that atheism is not fear-driven. This probably explains why so many theists suspect that atheists are merely trying to deny their fears – when, in fact, atheists suffer no fear about their nonbelief. I do admit that those nonbelievers who are in the process of escaping delusion probably do experience some lingering remnants of fear due to their early indoctrination.

Perhaps because so many theists struggle with self-control, they think that only fear of God and of eternal punishment could make people behave morally. Fundamentalist bigotry and the so-frequent report of religionist lapses from decent behavior certainly leave me suspicious that authoritarian upbringings more frequently precipitate than prevent moral turpitude.

Perhaps this explains why Christians go to such lengths protesting that Christians really are good people and that so much good is done in the name of religion. Jerry Falwell used some of the conscience money that poured into his televangelical ministry to set up charities to help the "fallen". This may have fooled Christians into believing that Jerry was a good man, but it did not fool Christopher Hitchens, and it certainly did not fool me.

I have almost invariably observed that many discussions between Christians and atheists quite quickly devolve into the Christians' directing personal insults at the atheists – not comments on atheistic actions, or the validity of beliefs, but comments on atheistic personhood. I guess that they cannot help themselves, but as soon as Christians start to fling ad hominems, then one knows that they have reached the bottom of their meager supply of logic.

Here's a hilarious example of a barrel-scraping attempt to retreat from a Godwin's Law faux pas:

"Not tu quoque I provided an amplification of YOUR point, that all people create religions."

Actually, no. The point that I had made was that "religions have been created by people."

This theist's "logic" would be equivalent to converting.

......."All children have teeth."

..........................into

......."All teeth have children."

Baby teeth, perhaps?

I'm not confident that he saw the difference even when it had been pointed out, but perhaps my doubt merely stems from my lack of faith in the cognitive capacity that ensures that people remain trapped by inculcated delusions.

Arcanum sums it up: "Most theists whom I have encountered on the Internet could not reason their way out of a wet paper bag."

Those who point out that they know some very intelligent Christians miss the point that in any nation where the majority have been indoctrinated, they are bound to meet some very intelligent Christians. Statistically, atheists are more likely to be intelligent than are Christians.

I too am sick of the polite refusal to acknowledge this statistic. I notice that this politeness concerning theistic intelligence is more often displayed on sites where Christians lurk. Perhaps I simply have not yet read sufficient Christian posts on these sites to be impressed. Having been bombarded with theistic message since I was a kid, I have heard quite enough and don't plan to waste my time reading their comments.



Home

Suffer the Little Children


Pariahjane on Information Paradox provides a link to a poll of opinions among 16 to 29-yr olds, conducted by a religiously affiliated special-interest group.

The good news is that young people are more skeptical than older people about the respectability of Christianity. And rightly so, I might add. Eventually, fundamentalists of any faith almost invariably earn their religion a bad name.

However, this poll was not conducted to offer hope of a more sanely secular society in the future, it was undoubtedly intended as a prompt to increase child-oriented evangelical efforts. "THE ENEMY HAS PLANS FOR YOUR CHILDREN— DO YOU?" It's amusing that they shout at one another in caps too. Perhaps they fear that readers will only consider something True if it is Capitalized.

The enemy has plans for your children? What, a good, rational education? Encouragement to think for oneself? Recognition of human rights? No wonder all creationists have hitched their wagon to the IDiocy campaign. At the heart of all fundamentalisms is fear, which is hardly surprising because fear-mongering is at the heart of what Dawkins decries as religionist child abuse.

I want to comment on this section:

"The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%)."
Let's look at a segment of the above:

"The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%)"

I would not actually consider that a positive! Presumably the designation of "positive" for this question was pre-assigned by the pollsters. Those interviewed were probably best acquainted with the Abrahamic religions, which make similar claims of beneficence, but which ultimately all derive from the same original OT patent of rule-by-divine-terror.

Recent studies have shown that most practicing Christians know little about the tenets of their own faith (not tenants, as so many Christians miswrite). Obviously, this suggests that they probably know even less about the history of Christianity and still less about the tenets of other faiths. So, particularly considering the age group polled, this 82% can hardly be assumed to reflect educated opinion. (This would cause no worry to the participants or the pollsters, American religionist society has been raised to believe that all opinion, no matter how ill-informed, matters.)

The poll invites a philosophical tension alert:

It's interesting that positives and negatives contradict one another, rather than being proportionally inverse. How can people simultaneously think that Christianity is judgmental (87%) and hypocritical (85%), yet has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%)?

In view of the post-Scopes resurgance of fundamentalist political-power ploys, I think that the negatives probably relate to the in-your-face-bigotry of fundamentalists. The positives probably reflect the claims that religious devotees make for Christianity, but which the church increasingly fails to deliver. Let's be generous to the intelligence of those polled, though. The apparent discrepancy may also reflect awareness of the huge, hypocritical disparities across Christian denominations. Some denominations actually do preach tolerance and love.



Home

bigotry, child abuse, Christianity, fundamentalism, intelligent design, religion, Richard Dawkins,

They are Not Amused

Obviously, my following remarks are not relevant to all Christians, not even to all fundamentalist Christians. At least, I sincerely hope not!

I stumbled across the following amusing links thanks to an icon on Felicia Gilljam' s Life before death blog.

The ever-innovative Google corporation, as suggested by its playful tinkering with its page-header logo, has a sense of humor. The following is not the best example of googlewhimsy, it merely happens to be the banner flying today.



Back to Felicia's icon – it ultimately lead to this tongue-in-cheek parody.



Judging by the hate mail that Google has received over this piece of irreverent whimsy, some Jesus groupies definitely lack a sense of humor.

Here's one of the more flagrant examples of X-purulence

"HATEMAIL #12

.....IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH U GUYS.......DO U SMOKE WEED OR SOME CRAP......HOW STUPID CAN U GET...LOL U JUST PROVED THAT STUPIDNESS HAS NO LIMITS.. u gay freaks how on earth can you THINK that God is google and satan is Microsoft..... you SERIOUSLY NEED A DOCTOR.....stupid lowlife COMPUTER NERDS go get a life..... i heard there sealing them at supermarkets... which are probably angels to you guy...HAHAH ROFL LOL LMAO....

From: Someone WAY smarter than you guys are..."

This mysterical twit got it wrong from beginning to end!

"Gay freaks"?

"go get a life.....i heard they're *sealing* them at supermarkets"? (emphasis mine)

Gift-wrapped lives must be on sale at this xtianist's local supermarket. Pity that they aren't installing brains at the local service station.



Home

The Immorality of Absolute Morality

Until Stevie Blunder weaseled his way into being elected Canada's PM, I was proud of Canadians, who are polite and quite tolerant.

This post is not about our slimy PM, though. Well, not directly. The Regressive Conservatives partly attained their minority government by fusing the slightly right Conservatives with the far right Reform-Alliance party that relies upon Canada's Bible Belt for power. Part of the Regressive platform relied on pandering to religious bigots who are upset about the fact that several Canadian provinces have OK'd gay marriage.

An earlier, far superior PM, Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said in 1967, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." The statement caused a tidal wave of controversy that rippled across Canada. "Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill brought issues like abortion, homosexuality and divorce law to the forefront for the first time, changing the political and social landscape in Canada forever."

Forty years later, most Canadians are quite accepting of gays and gay marriage–we have had popular openly gay politicians for years, and two prominent politicians have recently married their long-term partners, with a mostly positive public reception. Most Canadians believe that gay marriage does not affect them personally or Canadian society negatively.

Any damage to the fabric of society that results from 'moral' questions such as gay marriage seems to stem from the negative attitudes of bigots who make a stink about tolerance and progress. I think that the chief point behind any moral guidelines concerns the question of doing harm. Because religious bigotry intends or actually does harm to others, then religious bigotry is immoral.

Some religious bigots are quite open about their hatreds–many of Canada's imported Muslims and Sikhs, for example, openly attempt to drag our nation backwards to fit their rigid beliefs. The Regressive Conservatives woo their votes because both groups prefer narrow, regressive moralities that ignore sociological realities. Canadian Christian bigots mostly try to hide their prejudices and hatreds behind platitudes, scriptural quotes, and fallacies of logic such as slippery slope arguments. American Christian Bigots write books decrying any socially contracted morality that does not adhere to their Absolute Moral Interpretations of the Bible, labeling all non-absolute moral systems as selfish, laissez faire immorality, and warning of supposed danger to society in inviting moral mayhem.

Here's a typical rant from a religious bigot:
"With all due love and respect and with the risk of being hailed as a religious bigot, I fail to understand why gays should be allowed “to act according to the proclivities with which [they] are born.” It is the nature of fallen sinful man, when he gives into his natural proclivities to try to get whatever he wants in life, not caring who he hurts and treating people like objects. One sick comment that makes my skin crawl is when some sexist jerk says “women are just a like support system for a pu–y.” Another insensitive one would be the bumper sticker that says “No fat chicks.” This is usually on beat up pick-ups with gun-racks driven by inbred people name cyrus or homer whose teeth are green from chewing tobbacco. The point is, we humans often tend to be egoistically self sentered. BUT not everyone gives in to their baser desires. True a bunch of Los Angeles cops were disciplined for having sex with 14 year old girls a while back. True the perverts of NAMBLA feel its okay to have sex with little boys while spouting “sex before eight before its too late.” True that hate mongers like the KKK and the Black Panthers feel free to vent their venomous hatred. Yet it, even though it may result from following their natural proclivities, isn’t right. We have a responsibility to control our behavior. Women are NOT the property of man and Moses, the leader of the Jews who got the law from YHWH married a black woman. Divorce should be using sparingly as a last result. It can hurt children who often blame themselvs for their parents splitting up. Homosexuality has been a negative force, one that nihilistically erodes society. biblically it is wrong and from an evolutionary viewpoint it is not good for the survival of the fittest. I believe in treating gays with dignity and love but I will NEVER say its okay to be gay. Normal heterosexual men don’t freely give into their urges when attracted to young teenage girls. You don’t just steal things when you want them just because you might not get caught. We need moral standards." ¬ comment #2.

"With all due love and respect" is a typical religious-bigot opening that translates as, "with prejudice and lack of respect for the rights of others, but I just don't want to admit to such unchristian sentiments." The problem, of course, is that most Christians are not particularly christian; instead they attempt to try to cloak their prejudices in the disguise of scriptural morality.

We do need moral standards, but whose moral standards? Those of this bigot? The narrow prejudices of ancient tribesmen? The narrow standards of religions based on the supposed existence of supernatural deities?

How to define morality? How about primum non nocere? First do no harm.

Puffing on about not subjugating women or listing harm-to-others acts does not convince me that he is not a religious bigot. Acts such as pedophilia and racist violence have no bearing on the activity of the gay couple down the street who are committed to a loving relationship, or even to those gays who have casual, protected sex. He claims that he "believe[s] in treating gays with dignity and love", but I don't for one moment believe that he would actually do so in view of his vitriolic rant that lumps gays together with the pedophiles and the KKK.

He displays the type of hysteria that seems to be lamentably typical of religious bigots–these people don't think matters through logically, they merely emote out of their desire to control others. I'd sooner live down the street from a gay couple than the likes of this nasty, bigoted man.


Home





With thanks to qtr for the cartoon.

A Fundy is a Fundy is a Fundy

"What's in a name? That which is fundamentalist
By any other name would stink as badly."

¬ with apologies to William Shakespeare*

Following the ignomy that was the 'Scopes Monkey Trial', American Fundamentalists took to calling themselves 'Evangelical Christians', as though this ameliorated their regressive, literalist, politically conservative, dogmatism.

I refer to these creationist bigots as fundamentalists and I think that others should act likewise. In dropping the term Fundamentalist Christian, these literalists hoped that people would forget their ignominious history of prejudice. Fundamentalism, whether applied to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, shares regressive, power-mongering elements of bigotry and dogmatism.

* "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)




Home

Pray to Elvis

Pat Condell again — this time in response to all those angry Christians who have sent him hate mail.



Small Town, Small Minds, Big Problem

So much for Christ's teachings:



My heart goes out to the daughter who has been ostracized for being honest about not buying into stupidity. I'm willing to bet that some other kids at that school are atheists who dare not speak their mind.

Dawkins on Scripture




Dawkins on Scripture - Part I:

"The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction".


Dawkins on Scripture - Part II:

"Nobody not brought up in the Faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad."

Dawkins Describes God .



Audio-Visual Index