A story at Christian Post laments the new "Moral McCartheyism" evidenced by President Obama's withdrawal of his invitation for Pastor Louie Giglio to speak at his inauguration:
"There's been a lot of speculation about the smaller crowd expected for this year's inauguration – and now we know why. The president seems to be disinviting all the Christians! The purging started with Pastor Louie Giglio, who had been scheduled to offer the benediction until homosexual activists dug up a 20-year-old sermon and were shocked to find the Christian minister preaching a Christian message on sexuality. Giglio vanished from the inauguration program 24 hours later, despite his successful ministry for human trafficking victims."
Unfortunately for CP's readership, that's not true. Pastor Giglio withdrew voluntarily after pressure from a Christian group, as reported by a pro-Christian website.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Comments on the Comments: Jefferson Bible Edition
Over at Christian Post, the comments made by the site's supporters are often as telling as the stories themselves. Below, I will respond to some of comments made on a recent story about the American Humanist Association's new version of the Jefferson Bible. I would love to respond directly on CP, but they have in the past banned me for blasphemy.
John McNama: "It amazes me how the creation thinks it can improve on the Word given by the Creator of all things."
My response: Why? It happens all the time. I assume you have the same criticism of the Conservative Bible Project.
Islanderwaab: "Just imagine a law school been given an edited form of the U.S. Constitution."
My response: The Constitution has been edited 27 times; there's a process in place for that, unlike with religious texts.
Tripoli55: "When the created assumes the role of the Creator, beware."
My response: The idea that creativity is a sin is news to me. Better let everyone who's ever produced an illustrated version of the Bible know.
Bill Halverson: "Surely the Holy Spirit will fill in the parts that are removed. And if the Holy Spirit is denied, then the very rocks will cry out."
My response: Since the Holy Spirit is also God, and God is all-powerful, how would any human being be capable of denying it.
Felshamboy: "So if I understand the humanists, they are making a determination what in the Bible is worthwhile and what isn't."
My response: Of course; everyone does. I've never met a single Christian who's sold everything he owned and given the money to the poor. It's in there.
Russell: "by making up their own Bible they declare that their own thoughts and feelings are their ultimate authority, which is exactly the self-deification of which we accuse them."
My response: Except that they aren't. They taking the existing Bible and removing things from it. So by that logic, everyone who has ever produced an abridged version of the Bible, or published individual sections of it, is guilty of self-worship.
Rfong: "The proof is in how many people actually use it for spiritual edification and growth."
My response: Actually, proof would be evidence that any of the Bible's claims are true. Christians have been very bad at producing such evidence.
Paladin: "yeah that would go right in the trash where it belongs"
My response: Couldn't have said it better! Do that with the parts they removed as well!
John McNama: "It amazes me how the creation thinks it can improve on the Word given by the Creator of all things."
My response: Why? It happens all the time. I assume you have the same criticism of the Conservative Bible Project.
Islanderwaab: "Just imagine a law school been given an edited form of the U.S. Constitution."
My response: The Constitution has been edited 27 times; there's a process in place for that, unlike with religious texts.
Tripoli55: "When the created assumes the role of the Creator, beware."
My response: The idea that creativity is a sin is news to me. Better let everyone who's ever produced an illustrated version of the Bible know.
Bill Halverson: "Surely the Holy Spirit will fill in the parts that are removed. And if the Holy Spirit is denied, then the very rocks will cry out."
My response: Since the Holy Spirit is also God, and God is all-powerful, how would any human being be capable of denying it.
Felshamboy: "So if I understand the humanists, they are making a determination what in the Bible is worthwhile and what isn't."
My response: Of course; everyone does. I've never met a single Christian who's sold everything he owned and given the money to the poor. It's in there.
Russell: "by making up their own Bible they declare that their own thoughts and feelings are their ultimate authority, which is exactly the self-deification of which we accuse them."
My response: Except that they aren't. They taking the existing Bible and removing things from it. So by that logic, everyone who has ever produced an abridged version of the Bible, or published individual sections of it, is guilty of self-worship.
Rfong: "The proof is in how many people actually use it for spiritual edification and growth."
My response: Actually, proof would be evidence that any of the Bible's claims are true. Christians have been very bad at producing such evidence.
Paladin: "yeah that would go right in the trash where it belongs"
My response: Couldn't have said it better! Do that with the parts they removed as well!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Basic Math Fail at Christian Post
Nothing brings out the Liars for Jesus like the chance to take rights away from people. And the prospect of those people being women gets the good folks at Christian Post so hot and bothered that they lose their grip on basic arithmetic.
A recent article at CP claims that Planned Parenthood gets $1622 from the government for every abortion that it performs. Let's set aside the falsely-implied causal connection (that is, the implication that their funding depends on the number of abortions) and look at the numbers.
First, let's look just at the numbers CP gives (although it should be noted that it cites no source for them). They claim that PP performed 995,687 abortions over a three-year period, including 333,964 in one year. That means that the other two average 330,862 each.
CP then claims that PP gets $547 million dollars over a different two-year period; already, CP's being dishonest by comparing unequal time frames. Dividing the $547 million by $1622, we get 337,238; this is a figure that appears nowhere in the article and is, in fact, even higher than what they claimed.
The article goes on to say that one abortion is performed every 94 seconds. Dividing the number of seconds in a year by 94 gives 335,489, which is also higher than their initial claims. Anyone with a calculator can confirm that CP's math is either in error or a lie. Given the fact that the numbers are probably rectally-derived in the first place, a lie is the more likely conclusion.
Now let's look at the real numbers. CP suggests that 92% of PP's services are abortions. This is brazen bullshit; the real number is 3%. How any self-respecting Christian can tolerate such whopping lies from CP is beyond me.
PP estimates that its contraception and education services have averted 277,000 abortions per year. Dividing the funding figure into that number, we can see that the government gives PP $1975 for each abortion it prevents.
Christians should be celebrating what Planned Parenthood has accomplished with government funding! So why aren't they? Because they recognize that this is a false connection. PP's government funding has nothing to do with the number of abortions it prevents. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the number performed either.
To all Christians who come to this realization: Congratulations; you've just seen through the lies of Christian Post. Now ask yourself why would ever go back to getting your information from such a bullshit source.
A recent article at CP claims that Planned Parenthood gets $1622 from the government for every abortion that it performs. Let's set aside the falsely-implied causal connection (that is, the implication that their funding depends on the number of abortions) and look at the numbers.
First, let's look just at the numbers CP gives (although it should be noted that it cites no source for them). They claim that PP performed 995,687 abortions over a three-year period, including 333,964 in one year. That means that the other two average 330,862 each.
CP then claims that PP gets $547 million dollars over a different two-year period; already, CP's being dishonest by comparing unequal time frames. Dividing the $547 million by $1622, we get 337,238; this is a figure that appears nowhere in the article and is, in fact, even higher than what they claimed.
The article goes on to say that one abortion is performed every 94 seconds. Dividing the number of seconds in a year by 94 gives 335,489, which is also higher than their initial claims. Anyone with a calculator can confirm that CP's math is either in error or a lie. Given the fact that the numbers are probably rectally-derived in the first place, a lie is the more likely conclusion.
Now let's look at the real numbers. CP suggests that 92% of PP's services are abortions. This is brazen bullshit; the real number is 3%. How any self-respecting Christian can tolerate such whopping lies from CP is beyond me.
PP estimates that its contraception and education services have averted 277,000 abortions per year. Dividing the funding figure into that number, we can see that the government gives PP $1975 for each abortion it prevents.
Christians should be celebrating what Planned Parenthood has accomplished with government funding! So why aren't they? Because they recognize that this is a false connection. PP's government funding has nothing to do with the number of abortions it prevents. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the number performed either.
To all Christians who come to this realization: Congratulations; you've just seen through the lies of Christian Post. Now ask yourself why would ever go back to getting your information from such a bullshit source.
Monday, January 7, 2013
No takers, huh...
This blogging thing is new to me, and I've discovered a feature I really like. I can see how many page views each of my posts has received. The most popular one so far: My post asking why Christians oppose slavery when the Bible endorses it.
Yet, despite more people having viewed this post than any other, no one has dared answer it. I can see why. As Christians, they are duty-bound to check out what a non-believer asks in a post called "Perhaps a Christian Could Enlighten Me." But when it turns out to be an uncomfortable question? Forget it.
Easy to be an evangelist until you get challenged, huh.
Yet, despite more people having viewed this post than any other, no one has dared answer it. I can see why. As Christians, they are duty-bound to check out what a non-believer asks in a post called "Perhaps a Christian Could Enlighten Me." But when it turns out to be an uncomfortable question? Forget it.
Easy to be an evangelist until you get challenged, huh.
More nonsense from Christian Post
In an article posted today on Christian Post, Dan Delzell claims that the atheist's rejection of God-claims comes from a "moral resistence" rather than "intellectual reasoning." This is a retread of the old "atheists know there's a god and are pretending there isn't" argument; it's as false as it is tired.
Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel." This, we agree on. His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.
He's missing the real reason: that none of the "evidence" is really evidence. All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted. There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist.
But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs. He can't examine evidence objectively. God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence. So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.
Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.
Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel." This, we agree on. His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.
He's missing the real reason: that none of the "evidence" is really evidence. All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted. There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist.
But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs. He can't examine evidence objectively. God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence. So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.
Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.
Goofy proof of Islam
I've been playing around with the "destroys atheism" videos on YouTube, looking for interesting ones to address. It's amazing how many take the form of such-and-such question destroys atheism. It seems a bit dishonest to me to ask a question, not wait for an answer, and declare oneself having destroyed a belief. But we would expect that from religious activists, wouldn't we?
Here's a goofy one I found:
Islam Destroys Atheism by Modern Scientific Facts. I'll list the ridiculous points below:
1) The fact that iron is produced in stars is listed as evidence for Islam, and the video seems to single out iron as being special in this way. All elements are produced in stars, not just iron.
2) It states that novas are caused by too much iron building up in stars, which is patently absurd.
3) It states that iron does not form on earth, which is bizarre. Iron is one of many elements that formed the crust of the earth as it cooled and formed, so it's actually very common on earth.
4) It negates its own argument by admitting that the seventh-century writers of the Koran could not have known anything about stellar and planetary formation. It follows logically that the Koran's writers didn't mean what the video's poster is interpreting the verse to mean.
5) It points out that if you manipulate the numbers associated with the verse so that they add up to 26, that happens to be the atomic number of iron. As though that has anything to do with anything.
But most ridiculous of all is the central claim of the video: that because a known fact about science happens to correspond with a particular interpretation of one verse of the Koran, all of Islam is correct, and atheism is somehow "destroyed." Wow. The video's producer makes this claim even having admitted that the verse's writer couldn't have meant what he's suggesting it means.
Keep on destroying atheism, guys. You're doing the anti-theists' job for them by making your own religion look foolish.
Here's a goofy one I found:
Islam Destroys Atheism by Modern Scientific Facts. I'll list the ridiculous points below:
1) The fact that iron is produced in stars is listed as evidence for Islam, and the video seems to single out iron as being special in this way. All elements are produced in stars, not just iron.
2) It states that novas are caused by too much iron building up in stars, which is patently absurd.
3) It states that iron does not form on earth, which is bizarre. Iron is one of many elements that formed the crust of the earth as it cooled and formed, so it's actually very common on earth.
4) It negates its own argument by admitting that the seventh-century writers of the Koran could not have known anything about stellar and planetary formation. It follows logically that the Koran's writers didn't mean what the video's poster is interpreting the verse to mean.
5) It points out that if you manipulate the numbers associated with the verse so that they add up to 26, that happens to be the atomic number of iron. As though that has anything to do with anything.
But most ridiculous of all is the central claim of the video: that because a known fact about science happens to correspond with a particular interpretation of one verse of the Koran, all of Islam is correct, and atheism is somehow "destroyed." Wow. The video's producer makes this claim even having admitted that the verse's writer couldn't have meant what he's suggesting it means.
Keep on destroying atheism, guys. You're doing the anti-theists' job for them by making your own religion look foolish.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Response to "Questions Atheists Can't Answer"
This
post is a response to the questions posed by this website:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=4096
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=4096
- What was in the beginning?The Big Bang model states that the universe began as a singularity.
2. How will life on earth end?No one knows.
3. What happens after death?The body decomposes.
4. What is the purpose of existence?Existence has no purpose other than whatever purpose each individual creates for himself or herself.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?I would need to know what the questioner means by the terms “order” and “creation.”
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?No civilization would function without morality.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?I'm not sure that every civilization does; there are a number of predominantly non-religious societies in the modern world.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?Like all human traits, conscience is a result of evolution.
9. How did nothing create everything?I have no idea what is meant by the question.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Dinosaurs
laid eggs long before chickens evolved.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Perhaps a Christian could enlighten me...
Christians as a force for ending slavery? Perhaps someone could educate me on how you reconcile that with the fact that the Bible clearly endorses slavery...
Crystal Dixon and the University of Toledo
Let's start with one of Christian Post's favorite techniques: the misleading headline:
Woman Fired From University over Gay Rights View Appeals Decision
As with many of their headlines, this is intended to provoke outrage. Of course, who wouldn't be upset if a teacher were fired merely for expressing an unpopular opinion?
The catch is, that isn't what she is, or what she did.
As this article points out, the woman in question (Crystal Dixon) isn't a teacher; she was an administrator at the University of Toledo. So this was not a case of an educator encouraging discussion.
More importantly, she didn't express an opinion; she stated a falsehood as a fact. As the Christian Post article points out, Dixon believes that homosexuality is a choice; this is a claim for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. So she didn't express an opinion; she made a factual claim, which in inaccurate.
I agree with her being fired. All those employed by institutes of higher learning have a responsibility not to go around spreading falsehoods. She's entitled to her own opinions; she's just not entitled to her own facts.
DVD
Woman Fired From University over Gay Rights View Appeals Decision
As with many of their headlines, this is intended to provoke outrage. Of course, who wouldn't be upset if a teacher were fired merely for expressing an unpopular opinion?
The catch is, that isn't what she is, or what she did.
As this article points out, the woman in question (Crystal Dixon) isn't a teacher; she was an administrator at the University of Toledo. So this was not a case of an educator encouraging discussion.
More importantly, she didn't express an opinion; she stated a falsehood as a fact. As the Christian Post article points out, Dixon believes that homosexuality is a choice; this is a claim for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. So she didn't express an opinion; she made a factual claim, which in inaccurate.
I agree with her being fired. All those employed by institutes of higher learning have a responsibility not to go around spreading falsehoods. She's entitled to her own opinions; she's just not entitled to her own facts.
DVD
New introduction
Hello everyone,
I've decided to revive my blog as an outlet for expressing my opinions about religion. This comes from the need for an area of the internet that's safe from censorship by religious people. Without fail, every single religious person I've ever engaged in an online discussion on their turf has banned me. I want to make specific mention of Christian Post, a place I used to spend a lot of time. They claim to support free speech, but they then banned me for blasphemy.
So I've decided to use this as a zone in which I can express whatever outrageous ideas I'd like, with no danger of being censored. This is an exercise for me alone, but I certainly invite comments and conversation. Hopefully you'll enjoy; if not, there's a whole wide internet out there.
Thanks,
DVD
I've decided to revive my blog as an outlet for expressing my opinions about religion. This comes from the need for an area of the internet that's safe from censorship by religious people. Without fail, every single religious person I've ever engaged in an online discussion on their turf has banned me. I want to make specific mention of Christian Post, a place I used to spend a lot of time. They claim to support free speech, but they then banned me for blasphemy.
So I've decided to use this as a zone in which I can express whatever outrageous ideas I'd like, with no danger of being censored. This is an exercise for me alone, but I certainly invite comments and conversation. Hopefully you'll enjoy; if not, there's a whole wide internet out there.
Thanks,
DVD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)