Atheist Revolution

Fools for Christ

2009-09-30T05:40:00.000-05:00

Happy Blasphemy Day! There was a great post at ExChristian.net by agnosticator on the arrogance of faith, and I think it is perfect for today. Using a quote from a Christian reader, the author illustrates the extreme arrogance which seems to be common among self-described people of faith. This was my favorite part:

We are called fools for being wise (i.e., intellectual or educated), while anyone who believes the New Testament's "good news" is called wise-even if he is not too bright. God loves us and wants to save us, but if you use the brain he gave you....you might reject his offer. So, let us become fools for Christ!

It makes perfect sense to me that anti-intellectualism was necessary to maintain Christianity during the Enlightenment. It is, however, sad to see the lengths to which some Christians will go even today to maintain their religion. Those who oppose education, attack a scientific worldview, or disregard the contributions of experts do humanity no favors.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Free Speech, "Offensive" T-Shirts, and Christian Privilege

2009-09-17T05:25:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I cannot count the number of times I've encountered Christians wearing t-shirts that could be described as offensive. I remember the Campus Crusade for Christ shirts my fellow students used to wear during my college and their bloody Jesus imagery. I remember the "Nuke Iraq" shirts adorned with Christian bible verses during America's first blood for oil campaign in the Persian Gulf. More recently, there are the shirts opposing reproductive rights depicting aborted fetuses, flaunting anti-gay bigotry, atheist bashing, anti-democracy, and the like. And yet, no matter how much some of these shirts might irritate me, I am happy to defend the right of those wearing them to do so. They are exercising their right to free expression and more power to them.

Check out the t-shirts that were the subject of a recent post at Friendly Atheist. I am not going to get into the subject of children wearing such shirts at school here because I want to focus on a more general issue. Imagine an adult wearing one of these shirts in public. I may not agree with their message (i.e., "Islam is of the devil"), but that is irrelevant. I still support such an exercise of free expression.

Since many atheists have a rather low opinion of Islam, you may say that this particular shirt is an easy one to support. Fine. Imagine that the shirt instead said "Atheism is of the devil," "Atheists are evil," or even "Kill all atheists." I would still support the right of a Christian to wear such a shirt. I wouldn't like it, but I would still recognize it as free expression.

Here's the catch - the right to free expression goes both ways. I defend the right of the Christian to wear such a shirt, and I expect the Christian to defend my right to wear a "fuck the skull of Jesus" t-shirt (I don't actually have such a shirt, but I do fantasize about it often). The thing is, I would be shocked if more than a handful of Christians would actually defend my right to wear such a shirt. And yes, this is pure hypocrisy.

At least in the U.S., a Christian wearing a blatantly anti-atheist shirt is going to emerge unscathed. On the other hand, I cannot imagine an atheist wearing a blatantly anti-Christian shirt surviving long here in Mississippi. Even pro-atheist shirts are going to be perceived as vile assaults on Christianity!

This tells me that the playing field is far from level and that Christian privilege is pervasive. Their cars will not be vandalized on account of their Jesus fish, but I cannot display a Darwin fish. Disparaging comments about atheism are commonplace, while criticism of Christianity incurs wrath. Christian billboards are all over the place, but atheist billboards are rarely tolerated. I could go on and on, but I am confident that you get the idea.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Pastor Claims Husbands Should Have Right to Rape Wives

2009-08-27T05:50:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

It is currently legal for a husband to rape his wife in the Bahamas. Who knew? Oh, and before we get all self-righteous about that "backward" country, let's remember that marital rape was legal in the U.S. until 1976 and continues to result in lesser sentences than rapes committed by other perpetrators in many states today. So yeah, we don't have much excuse for looking down on them.

The Bahamian government is now trying to outlaw marital rape via the Sexual Offenses Act, and Amnesty International is supporting their effort to do so. Bravo! I'm glad to see them doing the right thing and happy to hear that they have Amnesty's support.

Who would oppose such legislation? Evidently, some Christians. You know, I'm not sure why this even surprises me anymore.

From The Bahama Journal:

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is "simply unnecessary."

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

And yes, he's referring to the Christian bible.

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

This has to be a misreading of the Christian bible, doesn't it? I mean, rape is rape, isn't it? Surely, no member of the clergy would agree with such views.

According to The Tribune,

Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple, gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract.

I've said it before, and I am sure I'll say it again: it absolutely boggles the mind why any self-respecting woman (or man who doesn't hate women) would want to call herself a Christian.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Baptist Pastor Calls Tornado a Warning to Lutherans

2009-08-24T05:31:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Pastor John Piper of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis claims that a recent tornado which damaged a Lutheran church is evidence of his god's displeasure with a proposal being considered by the Lutheran Church to permit homosexual clergy. According to The Advocate, the pastor "wrote a blog post on Thursday that called the tornado a 'gentle but firm warning' for the Lutheran general assembly. Evidently, Pastor Piper's god is a fan of religiously-motivated bigotry (or perhaps it is just Piper).

At least we won't have to worry about any hurricanes hitting Florida this season thanks to Gov. Charlie Crist.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The "Real Christian" Smackdown: Liberals vs. Fundamentalists

2009-08-04T07:43:00.000-05:00

Image by wallyg via Flickr

I suspect that any atheist who has brought up examples of Christian hypocrisy during interactions with Christians has heard some version of the "not a real Christian" claim. The idea is quite simple: "real Christians" do not do bad things and so anyone who does bad things is de facto not a "real Christian." The Christian making such a claim is willing to ignore the entire body of evidence supporting the perpetrator's Christianity prior to the bad act and dismiss it all because "real Christians" do not do whatever the perpetrator did. But there is another even more important way in which it is meaningful to discuss who is and is not a real Christian. There may even be a role for atheists can play in such a discussion.

If we view Christian belief along a continuum with liberal Christians on one end and fundamentalist Christians on the other, we typically see that each pole accuses the other of not being genuine Christians. Liberal Christians love to point out that the fundamentalist beliefs emphasize a wrathful Old Testament god and miss the compassionate character of Jesus. They criticize the fundamentalists for refusing to allow their religion to evolve with the times.

On the other hand, fundamentalist Christians are equally fond of criticizing the "cafeteria Christianity" practiced by liberal Christians. They accuse the liberals of simply omitting whatever parts of their bible suit them and failing to honor the divinely inspired word of their god.

Indeed, the tension between these two camps focuses on who has the right to regard oneself as a "real Christian." Each side views the other side as missing the point of Christianity and as not being true to the "holy" spirit.

I'd like to suggest that the part best played by atheists in this discussion is one of facilitator and critic. Simply put, we can encourage both sides to think. We can ask the liberal Christians how they justify ignoring the many parts of their bible with which they disagree, and we can ask the fundamentalists to consider the implications of a literal reading of the Christian bible in our modern world. We can ask the fundamentalist Christians why their god seems so angry and punitive when Jesus allegedly spoke of forgiveness, and we can ask the liberals why something "holy" seems to require so much interpretation.

At this point, you may be asking yourself why atheists should even care about this debate within Christianity? In my opinion, we should care because we live in a predominately Christian culture in which the nature of this debate has implications for us. The future of Christianity is relevant to us even as many of us hope to see a continued decline in its potency.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Virgin Mary Appears in Alabama...Well, Sort Of

2009-07-07T06:09:00.000-05:00

Image by mermay19 via Flickr

It is often said that nothing is wrong with talking to gods as long as they do not talk back. When gods talk back, one is likely psychotic. Of course, a great many people claim that gods speak to them. Some are undoubtedly suffering from serious mental illness, but the majority are either lying to manipulate others or deluding themselves in a way that would not result in a psychiatric diagnosis. This sort of self-delusion is not only socially acceptable but is sometimes met with incredible praise and admiration.

Take the case of Marija Lunetti in Shelby County, Alabama. A reader, BamaGal, sent me an article from the Birmingham News about Ms. Lunetti, and it is a great example of why someone might claim to converse with gods.

Over 2,000 people have traveled from all over the U.S. to rural Alabama simply because Ms. Lunetti claims to have daily visions of the Virgin Mary. According to the article, these "pilgrims" make the journey "hoping to feel the presence of the mother of Jesus."

One would think that rural Alabama would have plenty of folks who think they are in communication with spirits, but Ms. Lunetti came all the way from the former Yugoslavia to have her "visions" promoted.

Marija Lunetti, whose reports of daily visions of the Virgin Mary have drawn millions of pilgrims to Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, has spent the past week in Shelby County. She continues to have her daily visions, including Thursday and Friday at 10:30 p.m.

How nice that her "visions" occur on a consistent schedule. Why, one could probably sell tickets!

Although the pilgrims can't see the apparitions, they believe the Virgin Mary appears and speaks to Lunetti.

Of course they do.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

How Many Christians Really Believe What They Claim?

2009-07-03T06:19:00.000-05:00

Image by karmablue via Flickr

It recently struck me that one of the recurrent themes that has surfaced again and again at Atheist Revolution involves the question of whether most Christians actually believe much of what they claim to believe. Not only have I written a few posts directly posing this question, but it seems to emerge in some posts and linger just beneath the surface in many others. As I look at it head on, I still do not feel like I have made much progress in finding a satisfactory answer.

Christian Hypocrisy

A common route to this question are the many examples of apparent Christian hypocrisy that show up here and on countless other atheist blogs. Mojoey at Deep Thoughts has done a commendable job tracking Christian hypocrisy, and he has much company throughout the atheist blogosphere.

Blatant examples of what appears to be Christian hypocrisy do make us wonder whether we are seeing genuine hypocrisy (i.e., someone who is acting contrary to a cherished belief) or something more akin to a con being exposed. Of course, it all looks like real hypocrisy because a good con is going to profess belief as well as the true believers.

When we see the parade of fallen pastors, we have to ask whether they really believe what they have been preaching. It often strikes us as more likely that they were simply saying what they needed to say in order to get close to their marks.

Not a "Real Christian"

As we know, whenever a Christian is caught doing something sufficiently bad, other Christians quickly conclude that the offender is "not a real Christian" because a "real Christian" could never do such a thing. This is a popular psychological defense mechanism among Christians and one that they sadly have ample opportunities to use.

These situations also bring up the question of whether many Christians believe what they claim to believe, only this time, the question is raised by other Christians. Surely, they insist, someone who really believes in the Christian god could not commit such acts. How can they have so little fear of hell?

When Behavior Betrays

We find beliefs useful primarily to the degree that they help us understand and ultimately predict behavior. If there was no relationship between what someone believed and how someone behaved, it would be hard to regard belief as relevant. We care about belief largely because it helps us predict behavior.

It is not surprising, then, to be puzzled when we encounter someone who is acting contrary to his or her professed beliefs. We wonder whether such an individual has been lying about what he or she believes, has not bothered to seriously consider the implications of his or her beliefs, or is impaired in some way.

Ken claims to be a "bible-believing Christian" who regards his preferred bible as the inerrant word of his particular god. And yet, he does not expect his wife to submit to him (Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1), does not forbid her to wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:2-6), and would never dream of offering his daughters up to rapists (2 Peter 2:8. Ken helps his widowed sister out financially even though his bible says he should ignore her plight (1 Timothy 5:5-15). And believe it or not, Ken actually lets his wife come to church with him without either covering or shaving her head (1 Corinthians 11:5-7)! So much for taking his bible seriously, huh?

What are we to make of Ken? If he really believes that his bible is inerrant, he has a very odd way of showing it. His behavior is certainly not consistent with what he says about his beliefs.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Bill Donahue

2009-05-23T08:06:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and attention it shall receive! Right here in the weekly Idiot of the Week series. A new winner will be announced right here each Saturday.

I must admit that this is the first time since I started the Idiot of the Week series that there really hasn't been much competition. Well, that didn't come out exactly right. Of course there's competition - there's always way too much competition. What I mean is that this is the first time that I had such an obvious winner in mind before Saturday rolled around.

Following the release of a damning report by Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse in which pervasive child abuse by Irish Catholics and a conspiracy by the Catholic Church going back to the 1930s to conceal the pedophiles among them were revealed, Bill Donahue had the following to say:

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. . . . The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.

By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

For more, see this post by outraged Catholic, Bitch Ph.D. And to give credit where credit is due, I'd like to point out that Bitch Ph.D. is precisely what many of us have been waiting for - a Catholic loudly and forcefully saying that Donahue in no way represents her:

Let's sum up.

Bill Donohue is defending a powerful institution, the Catholic Church, by minimizing and excusing the abuse and neglect of children, including deliberately overlooking oral rape, digital rape, rape with objects, or forced masturbation.

For some of our winner's "greatest hits," check out Media Matters' research on Bill Donahue.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Catholic Responses to Irish Child Abuse Conspiracy

2009-05-22T07:58:00.001-05:00

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

Confronted by mounting evidence of the scope of their crimes, a conspiracy to protect the perpetrators from prosecution, and a growing public outcry (at least I sure as hell hope it continues to grow), some Church officials are issuing apologies while others are simply continuing to ignore the issue. In this post, I will examine some of the statements which have been issued so far by Church officials, former Church officials, and assorted Catholics speaking out.

We're Sorry

I'd like to start with the apologies. After all, many people will commend the Church for issuing them at all. Cardinal Sean Brady, described as the leader of Ireland's Catholics was quoted as saying the following:

I am profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions. Children deserved better and especially from those caring for them in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Sisters of Mercy, one of the homes for girls where the systemic pattern of atrocities were documented, stated that they:

Accept that many who spent their childhoods in our orphanages or industrial schools were hurt and damaged while in our care. There is a great sadness in all of our hearts at this time and our deepest desire is to continue the healing process for all involved.

Several victims have refused to accept these apologies, and I can't say I'm surprised. It wasn't just that the abuse occurred or that it was chronic and widespread. One must also remember that the Church successfully conspired to prevent prosecutions of the perpetrators and worked out a deal with the Irish government to limit the amount of compensation they would have to pay to victims and their families. In light of this long-term conspiracy, these apologies seem hollow.

We Didn't Know Child Abuse Was A Crime

As hollow as the apologies might seem in light of the horrific material contained in the report, I suppose they are somewhat better than the response from retired U.S. Catholic Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland:

We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature.

This accused rapist says that he had no idea that sexually assaulting children would have long-term consequences on them. He says that he:

Accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it’.

Wow! I'm not sure what else to say about this.

Ignore It or Throw Faith at the Problem

And then there is what I expect will be the most common response of all - simply ignore the issue. This is from Fr. Roger J. Landry and was written in 2002 in response to the Boston abuse scandal:

We can focus on those who betrayed the Lord, those who abused rather than loved those whom they were called to serve, or we can focus, like the early Church did, on the others, on those who have remained faithful, those priests who are still offering their lives to serve Christ and to serve you out of love. The media almost never focuses on the good "eleven," the ones whom Jesus has chosen who remain faithful, who live lives of quiet holiness. But we, the Church, must keep the terrible scandal that we've witnessed in its true and full perspective.

This reminds me of the "bad apples" claim used by Bush administration officials to explain away detainee abuse after the photos from Abu Ghraib first surfaced. I do have to give Landry credit for one thing though. He does an absolutely outstanding job of unintentionally summarizing one of the things that makes faith so dangerous:

No matter how sinful a priest is, provided that he has the intention to do what the Church does — at Mass, for example, to change bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, or in confession, no matter how sinful he is personally, to forgive the penitent's sins — Christ himself acts through that minister in the sacraments.

Read those words again and let them sink in. See the problem? Yeah, it is a big one. I wouldn't have thought to include Landry's response to the Boston scandal here except that a self-described "faithful Catholic" presented it as an answer to the Irish scandal. That she regards it as an answer is disturbing.

Atheists Are Evil!

The only thing that could be better than ignoring the issue or attempting to obscure it with faith and Christianspeak would be ignoring the issue while demonizing everyone's favorite target...the atheists.

This appears to be precisely what outgoing Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, decided to do.

He said, rather controversially perhaps, that a lack of faith is 'the greatest of evils.' He blamed atheism for war and destruction, and implied it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

Hmmm, I didn't realize we were the ones raping children and concealing it. I didn't realize we were the ones making sure that those who committed these despicable acts would never be held criminally responsible for them.

What would I like to see in the aftermath of the news out of Ireland? I'd like to see the fall of the Catholic Church, but I'm not particularly optimistic that I will live to see that. However, there is something that I would accept as a consolation prize. I would like to reach the point where any discussion of Catholicism inevitably mentions widespread child abuse, systemic efforts to avoid prosecution and protect the perpetrators so that they may continue to prey on children, and the dangers of faith. Yeah, I think I'd take that.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Guest Post: Why I am an Atheist and Who Cares

2009-05-11T05:54:00.000-05:00

Image by freestone via Flickr

One of the things I would like to do more of here at Atheist Revolution is provide my fellow atheists who do not already have their own blogs with a forum to share their thoughts. By contributing a guest post, you get to reach an established reader base, and I get a nice little break from writing blog posts.

The guest post below was submitted by BrandonAtheist. He is a married 67 year-old U.S. Navy veteran with two grown daughters and three grandchildren. BrandonAtheist has worked as a public relations specialist, professional ad copywriter, and newspaper reporter and photographer. I am pleased to bring you his guest post.

Why am I an atheist and who cares?

What’s in a name? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare.

Atheist. Agnostic. Secular Humanist. Non-believer. All names that characterize and define someone who does not for whatever reason accept the traditional belief system in god, gods, goddesses, supernatural personages, good spirits, bad spirits, devils, angels, afterlife, before life, or mystical interventionist in human or other affairs.

What mankind has not been able to understand and explain has been attributed to some supernatural force. Greeks, Romans, fellow citizens, American Indians, East Indians, South Americans, Aleuts, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrews, people of the middle east, and far east, all with different belief systems. Far more erudite and learned men and women than I have pondered this age old question of religious belief systems, gods and goddesses. I have arrived at my on conclusions independently but with their input.

There is sufficient historical data in texts on comparative religions and the history and evolution of religion to ascertain that men with motive and resource have written, rewritten, manipulated and distorted belief systems for power and personal gain.

Some rulers were (are) nuts. They gave themselves the status of god or goddess as a justification for taxing and rule. Of course, the primarily ignorant masses, ill educated, obeyed without question.

There is historical evidence that John the Baptist existed. The Romans kept meticulous records. But there is no Jesus recorded for historical evidence. Was he a composite of other contemporary Jews?

Roman and Hebrew historical records indicate that indeed there was a reformation of Judaism, and the Romans had their hands full. Pilot remembers John but not Jesus. Strange. The only records are from learned scribes and Greeks like Luke or Romans like Paul. Paul was the single most influential figure to promote and spread Christianity. There are Roman records of his existence. He was citizen of Rome. It’s his ‘rasslin’ matches I question.

Paul and his troupe were instrumental in creating and manipulating the legend and figure of the Old Testament promise of a messiah. The Jesus figure was fabricated by the Pauline intellectual line of early church rulers and no doubt in collusion with the Roman leadership. Why? Create an opiate for the masses was the goal. It was successful then and remains so today.

Why did they back then, and believers of today, fight tooth and nail for the various religions to prosper? Is it for salvation, redemption and an after life? Naw. Follow the bucks and power, it has been and is for power, money, self aggrandizement, and rabid narcissism in what is now the most expanded and wealthy good ol’ boys club in the world: The classical and historical Christian churches. I opine this mentality and like motivation have spread like a cancer into the latter day Christian protestant churches of the world.

My question now is, “Where’s the beef?” There is no scientifically, independently documented proof of any supernatural beings or acts. We are asked to take it on faith. We’ve been told from proselytizers of “faith,” like Jim Jones, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and all the others, too many to name to take their word for god’s existence. Even when they are exposed for the frauds they are, they cry and plead to forgive them and remember to have faith—“because I told you to.” All practicing men of the cloth pound the message home at every meeting and opportunity. If asked for proof of god's existence and the story of Jesus, they by rote, regurgitate the word and tell us, “You must accept it on faith!”

Conversely, when you inquire as to why in this year 2009, that there is projected by the World Monetary Fund and World Health Organization that 300,000 plus children under age five are going to die of starvation alone, as broadcast on NPR, recently. But yet abortion or birth control is “against god’s will.” The world’s natural resources are being depleted. Worldwide the quality of life is deteriorating. Women’s rights in many Islamic countries are backsliding. Burkas are back big time. Clitoris removal is in vogue. Girls are thrown out of school, again. India and Pakistan can’t agree on anything and have more religious sects than there are politicians and lobbies in Washington.

What kind of world-god, or god of the 0T, Talmud (angry), or the New Testament (loving and forgiving), would sit on his or her throne and basically say, “Let them eat cake.”

Everyday, science is discovering more about the creation of the universe and life forms. Synthetic DNA has successfully been created and repeated in creation at a number of Universities and research centers.Genetic mapping and manipulation of genomes has been accomplished. Embryonic stem cell research is showing great promise to heal and help, from AP reports, Scientific American, etc. The brouhaha over the embryos’ use is from superstition. Besides, the fertilized embryos are about to be discarded anyway. This is hard science, not voodoo supernaturalism.

Hard scientific fact has stripped the hypocritical mantel of faith-based religion away and exposed it for what it is: Intelligently designed, superstitious manipulation of the masses for political and monetary gain (again, follow the bucks).

The sad thing is that most of the dupers are as innocent and blinded by social and psychological mind-myths as their flocks. They all have drunk the Kool Aide.

I found freedom in atheism once I came to the intellectual conclusion that religion, all of it, is a lie perpetuated by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning--mostly men--with an agenda for job security, self-promotion, power, money and a few of the seven deadly sins.

I still believe the big ten are good rules for everyone to obey. It keeps us civilized. I also believe when we live in fear of our gods, when we are scolded and shamed for natural thoughts and instincts by pompous preachers, and when we hold ourselves in self-righteous indignation about how others look, believe, and think, that it simply says volumes about what we think of ourselves and our own guilt heaped upon our heads by religion and its toadies.

One might say a good dose of atheism is a catharsis for the constipated ideas of faith-based religion. Take a dose, you’ll like it.

I was a biology major with a minor in physical anthropology. I have also taught at the college level. I have been a professional copywriter and in the advertising agency and public relations business. I have been married to the same lady for 45 years, have two children and three grandchildren. I am a veteran of Viet Nam. I sleep good at night.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Finally, a True Miracle!

2009-05-02T08:07:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

One of the most popular questions atheists get from Christians is, "What would it take for you to believe?" The question is sometimes intended to obtain support for the popular misconception atheism involves some sort of faith. Other times it reflects genuine curiosity about the sort of evidence atheists would accept as supporting the theistic belief claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). Atheist responses vary (mine is here), but one of the more common involves the direct experience of a god appearing in the absence of altered states of consciousness or mental illness. What we now have is not quite this convincing, but it does appear to be a true miracle. I expect many atheists will soon convert to Christianity upon hearing this news (many probably already have).

The Associated Press broke this amazing story late this week. I am saddened that it has not received the attention it deserves and am no wondering about some sort of atheist media bias. After all, what else could explain why the following miracle is not the lead story on every major news network?

CALEXICO, Calif. – The hottest thing on the griddle at the Las Palmas restaurant these days isn't the food — it's the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that a cook says she saw on the griddle.

Restaurant manager Brenda Martinez says more than 100 people have flocked to the small town of Calexico on the California-Mexico border to gaze at the likeness of the Virgin Mary since it was discovered as the griddle was being cleaned.

Among the awe-struck was a group of masked Mexican wrestlers who arrived Thursday for an exhibition at a nearby swap meet.

One, known as Mr. Tempest, says: "This is amazing. It's a true miracle."

Since the discovery, the griddle has been taken out of service and placed in a shrine in a storage room.

I'd like to offer the following observations about this story:

It really does not seem to take much to get a group of religious people to "flock" somewhere.
Any story mentioning "masked Mexican wrestlers" deserves way more attention than it is likely to receive.
I enjoy the whole people-seeing-religious-figures-in-shit meme entirely too much.

H/T to Alison W (@Ali_Cat71 on Twitter)

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Support for Torture

2009-04-30T17:31:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

CNN is reporting some interesting results of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Evidently, church attendance is positively correlated with support for the torture of suspected terrorists among American Christians. Church attendance is a widely used index of religiosity, which is distinct from spirituality.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

And yet, we atheists are supposed to be the immoral ones.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tricking People to Believe

2009-04-15T05:30:00.000-05:00

Image by william couch via Flickr

College feels like a long time ago (probably because it was), but I do not feel as out of touch as I might otherwise since I work on a university campus. One of the things I remember from my college days and see quite a bit of in my current workplace is Campus Crusade for Christ. The thing is, their tactics have changed quite a bit. As Friendly Atheist pointed out in a recent post, they are increasingly resorting to trickery and deception to promote their superstitious nonsense.

When I was in college, you could spot the Campus Crusaders a mile away. They used to wear these t-shirts depicting a bloody crucifixion of a certain mythical figure they desperately wanted to tell everyone about. I remember sitting behind one of them in class on more than one occasion and feeling queasy (although whatever I'd had to drink the night before probably had something to do with that).

They went out of their way to insult anyone who appeared to be having fun. There were a few in the hall of my dorm, and they were never content to keep to themselves. Instead, they would sit in their open door ways and ask intrusive questions about where I was going so late and wouldn't I rather play cards with them than go to a party, etc. I had no qualms about telling them to fuck off and keep that Jesus shit to themselves, but I never initiated the interactions.

From what Friendly Atheist reports and what I have seen in my workplace, the crusaders have changed their tactics a bit. I see the sort of random messages, web addresses, and the like all the time. The goal is quite clear - put out an ambiguous message to arouse curiosity and then spring the trap when people investigate. I suppose this tactic makes sense. After all, when one's message has become aversive to so many, trickery may be one's only option.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Listening to Christians

2009-03-30T07:06:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

A minority group ignores a much larger and more powerful majority at its own peril. We atheists simply cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. We must continue to listen to Christians as a matter of survival. This is why I remain grateful for those who scan the Christian scene and report the essential news of which we atheists need to be aware. Here are a few examples:

There are many other excellent sources. Most atheist bloggers help to spread the word on issues of likely relevance to the atheist community as well. The point is that we need to listen when Christian leaders (e.g., Joel Osteen, James Dobson, Rick Warren, etc.) speak.

Anything resembling an atheist movement in the U.S. is still in the early stages. Raising awareness must remain one of our important goals for the foreseeable future, even if we have passed the point where it could be our only goal.

I fear that reports of waning evangelical influence are being drastically overstated. The Christian right is not simply going to evaporate, and they certainly are not finished meddling in U.S. politics. This is no time for complacency.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Keep Your Ridiculous Christianspeak to Yourself!

2009-03-25T05:24:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

A friend of mine was in a bad automobile accident a couple days ago. I do not have all the details yet, but I was relieved to hear that everyone involved was okay. She had her children with her, and I am sure they were frightened, but it is good to hear that all were unharmed. It sounds like her car was pretty badly damaged and had to be towed away. Sadly, this unfortunate accident provided an opportunity for a misguided Christian to spew Christianspeak to an audience not particularly interested in hearing it. At least this offered me some intriguing insight about another friend.

I learned about the accident when a friend spread the word via social media. She provided a brief account of what had happened and that everyone was okay. In response, one of her other friends with whom I am not acquainted posted a reply crediting the Christian god with the lack of injuries and basically gushing Christianspeak.

I submit that thanking gods for allowing one to come through an accident unscathed is ridiculous for many reasons, not the least of which is why one was in the accident in the first place. If we are to assume that a particular god intervened to facilitate survival, then why wouldn't the god have acted a fraction of a second earlier to prevent the accident in the first place?

Perhaps even more important, if we credit gods with allowing some to live through accidents, what are we to make of the countless people who are not similarly rescued every day? What if one child had been killed or seriously injured? Would we praise gods for this while not bothering to ask why the one was not saved?

I'm sure you have gathered by now that this sort of thing pisses me off just a bit. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. You see, the friend who initially shared the news seemed even more annoyed than I was with the Christianspeak. She's no atheist, but she replied something along the lines of "Or we could recognize that modern safety features like airbags and reinforced steel kept them safe." Right on.

If Christians really think that their god is going to protect them, why bother with safety features at all? And you know what else? I am sick and tired of the anti-science types reaping any benefits from science and technology!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Emergency Numbers

2009-03-19T06:15:00.001-05:00

One of the mildly upsetting things about Facebook involves learning which of my classmates all those years ago ended up becoming fundamentalist Christians. In checking my page this morning, I found a note from a woman who I remember as quiet, funny, and extremely smart. I recall that she was in the honor society and everyone expected her to do great things. Below, I have reproduced the note she left on Facebook. I am sure this canned bit of drivel has been doing around, so you've probably already seen it. However, this was my first time. So sad.

Emergency Telephone Numbers
These are more effective than 911
When -
You are sad, phone John 14
You have sinned, phone Psalm 51
You are facing danger, phone Psalm 91
People have failed you, phone Psalm 27
It feels as though God is far from you, phone Psalm 139
Your faith needs stimulation, phone Hebrews 11
You are alone and scared, phone Psalm 23
You are worried, phone Matthew 8:19-34
You are hurt and critical, phone 1 Corinthians 13
You wonder about Christianity, phone 2 Corinthians 5:15-18
You feel like an outcast, phone Romans 8:31-39
You are seeking peace, phone Matthew 11:25-30
It feels as if the world is bigger than God, phone Psalm 90
You need Christ like insurance, phone Romans 8:1-30
You are leaving home for a trip , phone Psalm 121
You are praying for yourself, phone Psalm 87
You require courage for a task, phone Joshua 1
Inflation's and investments are hogging your thoughts, phone Mark 10:17-31
You are depressive, phone Psalm 27
Your bank account is empty, phone Psalm 37
You lose faith in mankind, phone 1 Corinthians 13
It looks like people are unfriendly, phone John 15
You are losing hope, phone Psalm 126
You feel the world is small compared to you, phone Psalm 19
You want to carry fruit, phone John 15
Paul's secret for happiness, phone Colossians 3:12-17
With big opportunity/ discovery, phone Isaiah 55
To get along with other people, phone Romans 12
ALTERNATE NUMBERS
For dealing with fear, call Psalm 47
For security, call Psalm 121:3
For assurance, call Mark 8:35
For reassurance, call Psalm 145:18
ALL THESE NUMBERS MAY BE PHONED DIRECTLY.
NO OPERATOR ASSISTANCE IS NECESSARY.
ALL LINES TO HEAVEN ARE AVAILABLE 24 HOURS A DAY.
FEED YOUR FAITH, AND DOUBT WILL STARVE TO DEATH

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Morality: Belief Over Behavior

2009-01-28T05:41:00.000-06:00

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeChristianity is quite diverse, with many different sects holding what are sometimes very different beliefs. In this post on Christian morality, I'd like to focus on the group of Christians who describe themselves as "born again" or "saved." I'd like to examine the core of their view of morality and consider some interesting implications of holding such a view.

I believe that the essence of morality for this group of Christians can be effectively summarized as follows: How one behaves is less important than what one believes.

First, the group of Christians to which I am referring here frequently preaches that the path to salvation lies in belief rather than in deeds. Good deeds are encouraged too. I am not denying this. However, the key to salvation is assumed to lie through accepting Jesus into one's life (i.e., belief).

Second, we see these Christians willing to forgive even the most despicable acts as long as one ceases the bad behavior and embraces the belief system. Stopping the bad behavior alone is insufficient. The belief is necessary in order to receive forgiveness.

Third, these Christians insist that even the best behaved atheist imaginable is bound for hell. Without the belief, the number of positive acts matters little to the god of such Christians. Unlike Santa Claus, who is depicted as keeping track of good deeds and bad deeds, the god of the "born again" Christians cares less about deeds than about beliefs.

Finally, and this may be the most difficult to grasp, these Christians have elevated thought to the level of behavior. That is, impure thoughts are not distinguished from impure acts. Cursing one's god in thought is equally bad as doing so aloud. Again, this helps to elevate belief to the highest level.

Some of the implications of this sort of morality:

The incentive to behave well is weakened by the "get out of sin free" card such Christians believe they can obtain from belief. Regardless of one's bad acts, all will be forgiven if one ceases to engage in the bad acts and accepts Jesus as one's savior.
Because there is no valid way to determine the sincerity of one's professed beliefs, these Christians are highly vulnerable to exploitation. Perhaps this has something to do with the number and type of crimes committed by their clergy.
The system is structured to maintain belief, even at the expense of good behavior. Is it any wonder why the belief system is so resistant to change?

It is not my intention in this post to argue that any particular form of secular morality is superior to the morality of "born again" Christians I describe here. However, I think it should be apparent that this version of morality, one where belief has primacy over behavior, is seriously flawed.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Believe As I Do Or Burn

2009-01-27T05:05:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaThis is a fun follow-up to my recent post about motives for door-to-door proselytizing and an excuse to fire up my new scanner. I've told you many times about how much I despise it and the measures I have taken to prevent it, including a large "no soliciting" sign in my front yard and a no proselytizing decal near my door. These methods have been very effective at reducing the unwelcome knocks on my door, but that does not mean that visitors manage to refrain from leaving debris behind.

Imagine my surprise when I found this business card n my flower bed, approximately 8 inches from the base of the "no soliciting" sign!

Pretty damn cool, isn't it? Someone thought that this threat might help convert me to his or her belief system. Fascinating!

The back of the card was blank. No phone number, no church name, no way of contacting the poor sod who left it behind to ask him or her how best to begin groveling at the feet of an imaginary deity.

Heck, I don't even know how I am supposed to accept Jesus as anything. Even if he was not merely a mythical figure as I suspect, he would be quite fully decomposed by now unless...no, that would make him a zombie. I may be crazy, but I'm certainly not zombie-worshiping crazy!

I guess I'll have to face him later if that is my only other choice. I have no idea how to make myself believe something I know to be false. If that means I have to wrestle a zombie, I guess I'll have to take my chances.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists Visiting Christian Blogs

2009-01-02T06:05:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaIn a recent post, I wrote, "There are many excellent pro-religion blogs out there, but this is not one of them." Since I have had a couple of readers contact me to ask about where they could find good pro-religion blogs, I thought I'd address that here. I'd also like to ask what I hope will be a thought-provoking question: Should readers of atheist blogs make a habit of visiting some pro-religion blogs?

When I think of good pro-religion blogs, I automatically think of Christian blogs. This is a function of where I live and who has visited this blog. I am not saying there are not good blogs representative of other religions, but I am not familiar enough with them to comment.

The first good Christian blog that comes to mind is HarvestBoston. I can't say I read them regularly, but I probably have visited them as much as any other Christian blog. Besides, I found them open to - and even interested in - having some constructive atheist-theist dialogue a few years ago.

The blogs associated with Sojourners also come to mind as decent examples of progressive Christianity. Another solid progressive Christian blog is CrossLeft. For conservative Christian blogs, see the list of the best Christian blogs complied by the Evangelical Outpost in 2007. Just remember that the Evangelical Outpost is fairly conservative, so you won't find many progressive blogs on their list. I suspect that some of my readers may have their own favorites, so feel free to add some in the comments thread.

Turning now to the question I asked in the introduction: Should readers of atheist blogs make a habit of visiting some pro-religion blogs? I am tempted to say "yes" because doing so may provide us with opportunities to learn from them, correct misconceptions about atheism, get some productive dialogue started, and find potential allies. We often lament the unwillingness of progressive Christians to denounce the extremists in their midst, but we do not always notice and give credit when they do so. What do you think?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Wake Up, Indeed

2008-12-22T05:30:00.001-06:00

Image by TheFemGeek via FlickrJustin Panzer, Pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Abilene, KS, wrote an opinion piece in The Abilene Reflector-Chronicle titled simply "Wake up people." At first glance, it offers nothing but the same tired Christian lament over the evils of atheism you've heard again and again. But read more closely, I must say that Panzer's article is a particularly schizophrenic bit of writing that should not be missed.

Pastor Panzer (he-he) hopes that his article will "encourage others to start fighting back...by increasing your awareness and raising your voice." He focuses on a recent Newsweek article on gay marriage and claims that the article's author makes "logical fallacies" regarding what his bible says about marriage. True, Pastor Panzer seems to have little idea what is meant by "logical fallacy," but we can forget about that and consider the heart of his complaint.

The good pastor is convinced that his religion is being attacked by people who have little understanding of it.

Christian teaching and beliefs are being attacked all over. Here are some recent examples: the lighting of the “non-denominational holiday shrub in Boston”; the “atheist creed being placed by the nativity scene in the Washington State capital”; the attack of “Prop 8 proponents in California in regards to those who supported the defeat of the gay marriage amendment.”

With the possible exception of the atheist sign in Washington, how can any of these examples be construed as attacks on anything but intolerance?

But Panzer's inconsistency kicks into high gear when it comes to his bible. His words will likely do little but confuse already confused believers. After appearing to proudly accept the fundamentalist mantle, he immediately reverses himself by implying that his bible is open to correction.

So, call me John the Baptist if you will. I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God written for our teaching, rebuking, and correcting. I believe that it’s just as valid and certain today as it was back then. Its purpose is to point us to Christ for our redemption, life and salvation. So, call me Patrick Henry too. I believe in the blood of the soldiers who have given us this great country with so many freedoms, including the freedom of capitalism. I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that they are just as valid and certain for us today as they were back then.

If his particular bible is "the inspired, inerrant Word of God," how can it have been "written for our...rebuking, and correcting?" Does Pastor Panzer not know what "inerrant" means? Who is he to rebuke or correct the word of his god?

Wake up, pastor. Articles like this make Christians look stupid, and that really isn't fair. Many are not stupid in the least. You do your congregation a disservice here.

Update: Some readers have pointed out in the comments to this post that I may have misread what Panzer was saying. They believe that his point was not that his bible should be corrected by us but that it should be used to correct us. I agree that it is possible to read his statements this way and that it probably makes more sense to do so.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Do Christians Have To Live For?

2008-11-24T05:40:00.000-06:00

Image by givepeasachance via FlickrA recent post at Separate Spectrum started me thinking about this question. What do Christians have to live for? Some will answer that they live for their god. Fair enough, but I'm not sure how they do this? Many will claim to believe in some sort of afterlife, but most still fear and avoid death. Do they live primarily for this imagined afterlife? If so, that seems like it would be an awfully empty sort of existence. Nothing in the here-and-now would matter except insofar as it affected a poorly characterized afterlife.

Many Christians are clearly uninterested in making the world a better place. They obsess about something called "the rapture" and imagine that there time here will be too brief to make any sort of impact. I suppose these Christians are in fact living for some sort of afterlife.

But others at least claim to care about improving their present worlds. Why is this important to them? Is it because they think they will be rewarded for it, or are there other reasons?

And how about morality? Some Christians believe that one of their deities (Jesus I think) already somehow guaranteed their place in "heaven." When he died, their sins were forgiven. For these Christians, I wonder how they could refrain from raping and murdering at will. After all, if they are already destined for eternal rewards, why would they remain moral during their brief time on Earth?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Rethinking the War on Christmas

2008-11-17T05:41:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaThe month of November brings both Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving, but it also heralds something even more special - the war on Christmas. It is almost unfortunate that this war is nothing more than a marketing campaign by Christian extremists to solicit donations from their deluded supporters. If only the war was real, it could bring atheists together to denounce Christian privilege as a potent cultural factor for maintaining extremism. But sadly, the war on Christmas is nothing more than an exercise in atheist-bashing where we become the boogeyman long enough to fill right-wing coffers. For this season, I have but one simple question: is there any way we could use this imagined war to benefit ourselves and our compatriots in reality?

I realize that this may seem like a strange question, and to be honest, I'm writing this post without much idea of where it will end up. That is, I'm not sure how we could turn this war to our advantage. It only occurs to me that it might be a question worth asking.

The Christian right has a platform from which to loudly blather about our fictional attacks on their religion. Each year, representatives from atheist groups set the record straight, pointing out there there is no such war. It makes no difference, and the dance is repeated next year.

What if we went off script? What if we embraced their imagined war and made it real? I don't mean armed conflict, of course, but an unflinching war of ideas. Perhaps this would give them exactly what they most want - an enemy they could use to incite fear and raise dollars. But in a way, they already have this even without our participation.

Instead of using our limited public forums to defend ourselves against Christian extremists, what do you suppose would happen if we went on the offensive? Imagine an atheist saying something like the following on national TV:

We all know that there is no actual war on Christmas and that windbags like Bill O'Reilly talk about it just to raise money for Christian extremists groups. But maybe there should be a war - not necessarily on Christmas itself - but on the Christian extremism responsible for spreading hate and blocking our educational and scientific progress as a nation.

If nothing else, might this force the mainstream media to discuss Christian extremism and how it impacts our nation? I submit that this would be an excellent starting point.

Personally, I'm on board with boycotting Christmas altogether as just another celebration of superstition. But I recognize that this idea has little traction in the atheist community and am fine with that. Christmas isn't the problem; Christian extremism (and arguably Christianity itself) is the problem.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Happy Zombie Jesus Day

2008-10-31T06:47:00.000-05:00

Image via WikipediaAh yes, Halloween is here again. Time for all good Southern Baptists in my neck of the woods to take their children to church, remind them that Halloween is evil, and prevent them from having any sort of fun. And yet, every day is Halloween for many of these Christians. They are convinced that they are in the midst of a struggle between demons and angels, with their zombie Jesus presiding. Hell is real for them, at least as a way to condemn those who disagree with them. Some American Christians would even like to elect their favorite member of the walking dead to the office of the President.

Bring on the bad zombie flicks. For this one day a year, even those of us in the reality-based community can willingly suspend our disbelief to have some spooky fun. And what could be more fitting on Halloween than to remind ourselves that we are literally surrounded by people who believe that they are drinking human blood and eating human flesh at church? What could be more appropriate on this day than to realize that our neighbors are positively ecstatic at the idea that we will spend eternity in their hell? It is time for zombie Jesus!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Church Advertising Fun

2008-10-12T08:36:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia What can we learn about Christian churches from how they advertise themselves? At the very least, we should be able to tell something about how they see themselves and the sort of people they are hoping to attract. I received a fantastic ad in my mailbox recently from a local church. One side featured the words, "Kingdom Come: Understanding the End of the World" in capital letter surrounded by a regal looking border. But the other side...well, the other side was even better.

I flip over the ad, not knowing what to expect. Here is what I found, spelling and grammatical errors intact:

Join us Sundays in April as we explore these and more...

THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES
ARMADGEDDON: THE EARTH'S LAST BATTLE
MARK OF THE BEAST: A LOOK AT ANTICHRIST
RAPTURE: THE BLESSED HOPE

Join us Wednesdays in April as we explore these current events and Bible Prophesy...

666: SATAN'S MASTER PLAN
2 BILLION TO DIE
THE PROPHETIC DESTINY OF EUROPE
MIDEAST PEACE

Odd that they are promoting April events here in September, but I assume that is just another typo. I sit here looking at the add and wondering how scared I should be. These people are my neighbors!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Morality and Hell

2008-10-10T07:32:00.002-05:00

Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via FlickrAmong the many accusations some Christians direct toward atheists is the notion that we are immoral. Without belief in their god and their bible, they argue, we have no moral foundation. And yet, a belief system which includes the expectation that the majority of the world's population will suffer the horrors of their hell while a select few are magically transported to some sort of heaven is considered morally just. If this is their idea of morality, I'd suggest that we are better off finding our moral grounding elsewhere.

To be fair, some Christians have jettisoned this concept of hell from their dogma. They realize that it is not possible to reconcile the forgiveness they want to preach with eternal damnation. Sadly, they seem to be in a small minority. For many Christians, hell is a central part of their belief system (and it shows).

Christians are quick to explain that their god provides everyone with a choice. Their hell can be avoided by conforming to the will of their god. But how is this choice - do what I say or suffer for all eternity - a moral exemplar? I am reminded of an abusive parent and see little evidence of love here.

Most of all, I am concerned about what Christians' hell-belief does to their interactions with nonbelievers in the present. How can I expect to be treated as an equal, worthy of respect and dignity, when interacting with someone who is convinced that I am destined for the worst sort of punishment they can imagine? And not only am I destined for this fate, but I am assumed to deserve it!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution