god

You are currently browsing articles tagged god.

Top 5 Reasons Why Lent is Bullshit

March 9, 2010 in Uncategorized | No comments

1. GIVE IT UP. Every Lent it never fails: my Facebook news feed is loaded with Christian acquaintances posting what superfluous toy or food they have decided to deprive themselves of for 40 days. I vaguely recall a passage in the gospels where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for publicly displaying their fasting and how god will not “count” it on the list he is supposedly making and checking (twice). You poor martyrs! How terrible that you have to do without soda, candy, chocolate, video games, TV, etc for a WHOLE FORTY DAYS. Have you given any thought as to all those who live in abject poverty and NEVER have ANY of that stuff? How arrogant of you to think that your god will reward you for giving up such luxuries when so many starve to death every day because they have nothing to eat? Four years ago I gave up eating all processed sugars, sodas, fast food and excess. I have never owned a video game and have not owned a TV for 3 years. I do this because it benefits my health and encourages exploration of the world. I fail to see how you giving up candy for Lent and complaining about it does anything to benefit you or those who go without every day of their lives. For Lent, try giving up God and see how clear things become.

2. FISH. If you have ever cooked a meal for Christians on a Friday in Lent, you know about how they “deprive” themselves on Fridays in Lent (only 4-5 Fridays in the year) and make a big deal to make sure everyone knows they can’t “eat meat”. The last time I checked, fish was meat. This whole fish on Fridays tradition has an interesting metamorphoses through history. Fasting rules for Catholics in particular used to be very strict. It progressed from no meat allowed on EVERY Friday of the year to only Wednesday and Fridays during Lent and then lastly to “no meat” on only Fridays during Lent. Then, as people tend to do, the faithful found a loophole in their rules because they did not “count” fish as meat by saying that it came from water animals, not land animals. After decades of their flock bending the rules so they could have fish on Fridays, the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI decided to allow Fish on Fridays in 1966. Now, I don’t mind accommodating my vegan friends, people with allergies or intolerance to certain foods. What does bother me is the “poor me” message that “fasting” Christians bring to my dinner table and to the world. McDonald’s even caters to their “fast” season, commercializing and capitalizing on the pointless tradition of one religion. I fail to see how eating expensive fish, now in short supply is a sacrifice.

Another problem with Christians eating Fish on Fridays is overfishing and how much Christianity has helped to decimate global fish populations.1 Fish is an expensive, rare meat on our over-fished planet. Christians are happy to help themselves to the almost extinct Tuna and Salmon in the name of their religious “fasting”. Eating a delicacy is a far cry from depriving one’s self in the name of Jesus. I also fail to see how encouraging people to consume fish during Lent is an example of good stewardship of the earth.

3. OBESITY. The thin priest will talk about it, but the fat ones won’t touch the subject. Gluttony, one of the ’seven deadly sins’, plagues a large swath of the faithful across all Christian divides. They sit in their pews and hear about how they should give in charity, deny themselves pleasures. Yet they exit church each Sunday to find a doughnut at the community hall and fail to connect how eating 2 to 3 times the amount of calories needed to live each day equates to starving children dying in third world countries. Even here on American soil, families are finding it difficult to find enough food to survive and the pious obese flock to church every Sunday to be reassured by their pastor that they are checking off all the necessary dates to be admitted into heaven. This type of hypocrisy abounds during Lent when the biblical reading encourage homilies about abstinence, moderation, charity and self denial. Obesity is perhaps the most un-Christian behavior of all, exercising gluttony, sloth, greed, addiction, destruction of your “god-given” body and a complete lack of compassion for those who have no food to eat. I fail to see how being 200 pounds overweight exemplifies Christian behavior.

4. TRADITION. If you ask a Christian why they celebrate Lent, the common response is because Jesus went into the desert for 40 days. There he supposedly ate no food and was tempted by the Devil. The irony in this is that to remember this improbable story, Christians “deprive” themselves of American comforts and “fast” on Fridays, even though they found the loophole of eating meat. It is almost as meaningless as reenacting the cannibalism of eating the flesh and blood of Jesus with wafers and cheap wine. Oh wait… they already do that.

5. HISTORY. Let’s put the record straight. There are rumors out there that Pope Paul IV had monetary interest in seeing a budding new fishing industry succeed. It is not improbable, but still devoid of sources. Pope Paul IV was rumored to have had a mistress who’s husband owned a fishing fleet. What is known about Pope Paul IV was his strong Antisemitism and his major role during the Inquisition. In 1555 he issued canon law forcing Jews to live separate from Christians, which created the Roman Ghetto. He strengthened and reorganized the Inquisition and believed that outside of Catholicism there was no salvation. He also had fig leaves painted over the nudes in the Sistine Chapel. 2, 3

———————————————————————————

REFERENCES

1. The Pope and the Price of Fish, Full article

2. Pope Paul IV, Biography

3. NNDB

Documentary: The God Who Was Not There

March 8, 2010 in Atheism And Religion | No comments

Sam Harris, author ofThe End of Faith andLetter to a Christian Nation, narrates this definative documentary on how Christianity is in no way a unique religious story. “The God Who was Not There” details the inconsistancies in the Bible’s　A new perspective about the Apostle Paul reveals that Paul never mentions any of the Jesus story written in the four gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus as an idea, not as an actual human being with the narrative in the Gospel writings.

Where do you think this quote comes from? “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation” Sounds like it came from John’s gospel and indeed, John did say something very similar when he put these word’s into Jesus’ mouth: “Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you have not life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live in me and I in him” The first quote is from the Mysteries of Mithra, a deity who was worshiped hundreds of years before the gospel writers. Mithra’s popularity as a deity grew alongside Christianity, with it’s high point occurring in the 3rd Century AD. Mithra’s narrative parallels that of Jesus with striking similarity.

Get information on the Documentary at TheGodMovie.com

Dennett: Religious Feet held to the Fire

March 3, 2010 in Atheism And Religion | No comments

Daniel C. Dennett frequently contributes to NewsWeek but this recent article caught my attention. Mr. Dennett, renown atheist, philospher and best selling author tackled the subject of religious taboos in American culture. The following is a quote from Dennett’s article titled ‘Religious No Longer A Protected Class’:

“Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.

I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.” - Daniel C. Dennett

Circular Reasoning of the Bible’s Credibility

February 2, 2010 in Atheist Humor | No comments

The Double Standard: Outspoken Atheists verses Outspoken Religious

January 22, 2010 in Atheism And Religion | No comments

Quoted from Alternet.org:

“Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.

The only thing that would make atheism a true article of faith would be if atheists said, “Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star.” And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.

Finally—and maybe most crucially of all:

When we speak out in any way about our atheism—and when we continue to organize, and to make ourselves and our ideas more visible and vocal, and to generally turn ourselves into a serious movement for social change—we are accused of being hostile, fanatical, rude, evangelical, bigoted and extremist.

But if we don’t speak out, if we don’t organize, if we don’t forge ourselves into a powerful and visible movement…then the bigotry and misinformation and discrimination against us will continue unabated.

Why this is untrue and unfair: We really can’t win on this one. Even the most mild forms of atheist activism and visibility result in believers accusing us of disrespect, intolerance and forcing our beliefs on others. If we do something as mild and unthreatening as putting up bus ads saying “You can be good without God” or “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” you can bet good money that plenty of believers will get worked up about how those terrible atheists are insulting Christians and other believers. The purest act of visibility—the simple act of standing up and saying out loud, “Atheists exist and are good people”—is treated as another example of the offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism of the atheist movement.”

Haiti’s misfortune brings the problem of ‘good and evil’ to the forefront.

January 18, 2010 in Atheism And Religion | No comments

Since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have been patiently waiting for any religious person I know to excuse god for the disaster and blame “mother nature”. I didn’t have to wait very long. Haiti’s misfortune brings up the blaring inconsistency in religion, especially the monotheistic religions: the problem of good and evil.

Pat Robertson, Christian TV evangelist was so disabled by this conundrum that he publicly claimed the reason Haiti suffered such great misfortune was because they had “made a pact with the devil”. For Pat, this was a sufficient explanation for the recent Tsunami, Hurricane and now Earthquake that has brought this country to its most desperate hour.

Haiti serves as a prime example of the problem of “good and evil”.

Naturalists point out that if a god who is claimed to be omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) controls the universe, by definition such a god must take credit for EVERYTHING that happens, not just the good stuff. Such a god would know that an earthquake was about to happen and have the power to prevent it from happening. With this information about the omnipotent, omniscient god, we must conclude at least one of the following:
1. Such a god is intrinsically evil by allowing the disaster to hit
2. Such a god does not exist (omnipotent, omniscient)

A theist will disagree here and say that god does not control the evils in the world because Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity must suffer because of their sin. This leads us to conclude that the omnipotent, omniscient god has no sense of what constitutes a “just” punishment for the “sin” of two humans. We must also consider that if the theist’s argument that “evils like Tsunami’s are not god’s fault” rests on the existence of two storybook characters in Genesis the argument falls apart. We begin to doubt the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story because it is embedded in a creation myth that sets the earth at 10,000 years old, having been fashioned in 7 days by a sky-god.

But most importantly, the counter argument to those who say “evil is the devil’s doing, not god’s” places the omni-god in a position of NOT being omnipotent. If the omni-god is not in control of nature, this by definition deems him not omnipotent. This leaves us to conclude that the omni-god is either:
1. Not actually omnipotent or
2. Unjust in dealing out his punishments and hence, if he be doing the punishing for Adam’s sin, he IS responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters (omnipotent)

This past weekend I listened to a Catholic homily by a deacon who was trying to help his congregation understand how to reconcile god with the Haiti earthquake. His best shot was to tell a little story about a mother in Haiti who dug her children out of the rubble of her home and saved their lives. All three of her children lived (after extensive medical surgury and the science of medicine). She told reporters that “now she knew that god loved her”. The deacon pointed out that good can come of such atrocities like this women who finally knew that god loved her. He failed to bring up all the other thousands who perished or the other mothers whose children were crushed and killed. Did ‘god’ love them? It was perhaps the weakest argument of the century. What a fickle god Christians daily defend.

Don’t pray or wish that Haiti be helped, do something to help. Donate to a non-theistic charity organization dedicated to helping Haiti.