God's Punishment for Not Updating?

For over a month now (since August 9, to be exact), Japanese (I think) spammers have been commenting on my blog between 9pm and 10pm.




As such, I've enabled word verification for commenting. Hopefully this will eliminate this nuisance of the inbox.

On a content update, I'm planning on making a post here soon regarding my activities during my hiatus. I have been very active in freethought campaigns in real life which, I think, have been a much better use of my time. I do miss posting to this blog, though. After several well crafted, unique posts were overlooked by readers, I became disheartened with this blog and soon after ceased regular posting.

I do plan to return, likely with a different slant.

- JT

An Update and a Comment

The Update
I am a bit stunned to see how long it has been since I last posted. Updating this blog and interacting with everyone was always an enjoyable part of the day. I have, however, had the past few months constitute the worst period of my life. Writing that at such a young age I am sure that I will experience far worse. But having lived probably a third to a fourth of my life, now, I feel it's significant and has made me feel as though I've matured in thought, but yet to meet it in action.

The Comment
While I haven't been updating, I have been reading all my comments as they are emailed to me. I still receive at least once a week, even though I haven't been updating. I thought I'd share one I received last week that was rather entertaining. This one was posted to my entry Arguing for a Christian God which explained on a prompt I put forth for Christian readers to convince me, specifically, of the Christian God. This is from a reader named "searching_agnostic":

hi - I'd love to read a good justification for Christainity also, as far as I can tell, from what most historians believe Paul wrote ~50's AD, we can be moderately confident that Paul, Peter, John and James believed Jesus was God and was ressurrected. This to me gives only three possibilities, 1) they were claiming the truth, and He was God
2) Peter, John and James were lying for reasons unknown. - why tho? no satisfactory answer found.
3) Peter, John and James where fooled, Paul was lying, or nuts.
help required to work out the likelihoods of each.
as an asside I'd feel much more comfortable with my Agnostic beliefs if the big bang was false.

I wonder if there is a reverse-Poe's law. From the several comments I have received of theists pretending to be atheists, I am unconvinced there is.

The Unnatural Race

Something I've been encountering a lot recently with other people is the topic of gay adoption. (Could it be from the recent election wherein the various electorates voted against children in the system?)

Something rather baffling is how the point of homosexuality not being natural comes up. When this argument comes up in homosexuality discussions, my first thought to myself is why, by any logic, should laws be based on what's natural?

In gay adoption discussions, though, this line of argument is especially puzzling. What of the latter half of the phrase: adoption? I recently had a conversation with a Christian friend of mine along the following lines:

Me: Why are you opposed to gay adoption? As an adopted child, I would think you, of anyone, would support it.
Him: I do support adoption, just not gay adoption.
Me: Why not gay adoption? What's the difference between adoption by heterosexual or homosexual parent(s)? The result in both cases is an adoption. Shouldn't that be our objective?
Him: Homosexuality is unnatural, though.
Me: Why should that be a criterion?
Him: It's unhealthy for a child to grow up in that unnatural relationship.
Me: You're adopted, though, right? Adoption is unnatural too, and you're not against that.
Him: How do you figure?
Me: The natural order of things is that you have a child and then rear the child. It is unnatural to rear another's offspring. You just said that it's unhealthy for a child to grow up in an unnatural relationship; an parent-adopted child is an unnatural relationship.
Him: It's not unnatural, though. There are plenty examples of it in the animal kingdom of some dog taking care of a kitten or something.
Me: There's also plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, too, though.

It went on from there with him continuing to refute me using common refutations of the "homosexuality is unnatural."

After I began reading and thinking more, I have never understood the "nature" argument as any sort of defense of a law. There are plenty of natural things we prohibit. For example, defecation in the outdoors is very natural; however, we have chosen to prohibit people from defecating in public for good reasons (mainly sanitation).

There are also many (many) unnatural things we do not prohibit and, in fact, advocate. Blood donation, for example, is very unnatural. A needle is inserted into your arm, your blood is withdrawn and deposited in a bag, that bag is processed and stored, and then that blood is put into someone else's body.

There is a good reason we have chosen not to prohibit blood donation: the recipients need the blood. I could not fathom opposing blood donation under the banner of "it is unnatural." In the end, shouldn't we recognize the parallel to gay adoption? We should choose not to prohibit gay adoption for the same reason: the recipients need the adoption. How can people march under the banner of "it is unnatural" when there are so many children in need? Someone should contact Arkansas and find out. (Oh wait, the ACLU already has.)

JT: 1, Hemant Mehta: 4,913

While browsing Facebook to try to find some horribly offensive anti-Christian group title* (as payback for the barrage of Christian Right status updates Tuesday night), I came across a rather interesting one:

I wonder if that's anything like swallowing Jesus at communion only to throw him up fifteen minutes later.

* I had no such luck. The only "offensive" anti-Christian group titles were about 1-2 dozen groups all titled "Delete the 'Fuck Christianity' group."

Atheist Debate on Abortion

I'm not sure when my schedule will first allow for this, but I wanted to throw it out there.

I frequently hear atheists -- and I want to stress frequently -- claim that you can't be a thinking atheist and also against abortion. The rationale is analogous to homophobia. You can't be both a thinking atheist and against homosexuality because homophobia is solely a consequence of religion. The same claim is made about abortion: the arguments against abortion are religious in nature. To put it more precisely, there is no secular, rational basis for opposition to abortion.

As an atheist who was opposed to abortion up until this year, I must reject this when I hear it. Even when I do, though, I'm told I'm wrong and that it's still something kept from religion.

I have had several readers ask me for a further account of my transition from anti-abortion to pro-abortion (both legally and morally). Rather than giving dry details about the arguments which I was once persuaded by and later arguments which dissuaded me from my former conclusion, I thought I'd try something more interesting.


Is there any atheist who would be interested in doing a debate via blog on abortion? I'm not sure if there is something already out there of this nature, but I thought it would be a good opportunity to show that there are secular arguments against abortion. Even though I no longer hold these views (and it has been a while since I have pondered the philosophy around it), I will take the side of an anti-abortionist in this debate.

So, if there's anyone interested, let me know. The only qualification is you must be an atheist. You can be either pro-abortion or anti-abortion (either legally or morally), but you must take the pro-abortion side.

My Exceptionally Poor Sex (Education)

I was reading AiG's article today on posters and their messages. It concluded with the author discussing how most professors are anti-Christian and textbooks having a heavy anti-Christian bias. It made me think: what were some of my educational experiences? I thought of Columbus myths I learned, lies about the effects of drugs, and many other things. Nothing, though, is more stark than what I learned about sex: nothing.

(To note, I grew up in Oklahoma.)

Abstinence-only? If only.
The amount of sex education I received in school is roughly equal to the number of legitimate scientific criticisms Ray has regarding evolution: none. There were no health courses, no material handed out to students, no discussion of it at all. I had questions about various things relating to sex in middle school. Were they questions about the mechanics of sex? No. Were they questions about relationships surrounding sex? No. They were health-related questions.

Why weren't my questions regarding mechanics or relationships? I think by middle school most kids understand these fairly well. I actually had the awkward experience of being sat down for the mechanics talk by my father in middle school -- roughly three years after a guy had brought a Penthouse magazine to elementary school one day. As far as relationships, that's stressed ad nauseam by parents and television.

Questions a 13-year-old can't answer
What was lacking, though, was education about sex.

• What's the probability of getting pregnant the first time you have sex without contraception use?
• Can either party contract an STD if there is only oral sex?
• If the other person is a virgin, is there any chance of getting an STD?
• How reliable is contraception for preventing both STDs and pregnancy?
• Where can you get condoms and is there an age restriction?
  

Would answers to these questions have encouraged sexual activity? I can't say, as none of us had any sex education in school. What I can say, though, is that not having the answers to these questions didn't discourage sexual activity. Without any sexual education at all, most of the people in knew in middle school were becoming sexually active by no later than the eighth grade. Most of it, from what I remember, was either manual or oral sex -- acts generally considered not sex by middle school students and assumed to be safe.

Sampling educational material
I wonder if condoms had been available at school if that would have encouraged sexual activity? Again, I can't say, but I imagine, if anything, it would have encouraged responsible sexual activity. I knew a couple of guys who stole condoms from the store, but I wonder about those who didn't? Would the several pregnancies which occurred in eighth grade have occurred had condoms been available along with proper sex education? Again... I can't say.

My observations are limited to middle school as I had the privilege of going to an academically-accelerated school for high school (one to where you must apply). Visiting with my friends who went to the public high school was surreal. All they seemed to talk about was sex and recounting all the girls I knew in middle school who were now pregnant. While I imagine the details of most STD-positive individuals is kept private (for good reason), they could recite a list of diseased individuals.

Abstinence-only driver's education
I think ignorance is an invalid form of education. I reflect back on my driver's education. Most of it was about the mechanics of driving, but they set apart a third of the course for responsible driving. Did they make sure to avoid a discussion of drinking so as not to encourage it? No. Did they, in their discussion, urge us only to abstain from drinking? No. They educated us about it.

• What are the laws surrounding drinking, and drinking and driving?
  
• What are the physical and mental effects of intoxication?
• How does intoxication influence your driving?
• How much more likely are you to get in an accident if you're intoxicated?
• Is marijuana intoxication okay to drive with?
  

The science of their answers were pretty good. They gave us the facts, they gave us statistics, and they took questions. They knew kids would drink; it's inevitable these days. I imagine they figured it's better they know the facts about drinking so it could better shape their policies.

A foundation of ignorance
What if my driver's education had omitted the education on drinking? I could only imagine people thinking it's safe as long as you aren't traveling a long distance or at high speeds. I imagine their only education would be comprised of what they hear from others, such as drink coffee before you drive drunk to make you alert.

I don't think we would accept that for education on driving. Sadly, this type of education is what we accept for sex. Too many kids think oral sex is not sex and that there are no risks for disease contraction with it. Too many don't know whether there's an age restriction on buying condoms (which only compounds the fear of embarrassment at the checkout lane). Too many just don't have basic education -- neither from schools or parents.

Answers Ray Can't Not Contradict Himself In

To make up for the absence over the past two weeks, I have been preparing a series of posts entitled Common Christian Contradictions. Although I haven't been able to post recently, I have been following Ray's blog. His post today, though, was too good not to pass up, especially since it ties into the series I'm preparing.

In this post, Ray tries to show why atheists can't answer these questions. I'll start with #1:

#1: What was in the beginning?
Ray states:

If they say that there were gases (or something) in the beginning, then it’s not the "beginning," because the gases or the “something” already existed. Who or what made them?

Okay, ignoring the issue of time, Ray, what was in the beginning? If you say God was in the beginning, then it's not the "beginning" because God already existed. Who or what made him?

#2: Humans' intrinsic value
The above may not be all that interesting, but it's #2 that caught my attention and probably caught others' attention who have been following Ray's blog for a while:

If your pet dog and your neighbor are drowning, and you can only save one of them, who would you save?

That particular dilemma sounded very familiar to me. And there's a good reason why, as Captain Howdy posed it to Ray in regard to life beginning at conception:

If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out, and you could rescue either a trapped, screaming, terrified 2-year-old girl or a tray with 1000 2-week-old embryos in it--but not both--which would you choose? One of the two will burn; you can only rescue one.

To Ray, a two-week-old embryo has the same intrinsic value as a two-year-old girl, but the reply he posted seemed to endorse the decision of saving the two-year-old girl. So even if I consider that both a dog and a human have the same intrinsic value, obviously there are other considerations which are made in facing this sort of dilemma.

#3: What happens after death?
Not a contradiction, but worth examining nonetheless:

The only way any of us can speak with any authority about the subject of death, is to have reliable information from someone who has been there.

Good point, Ray. I guess I better be sure to die in combat, then, as the god Odin (who has been on the side of death) says that I must die in combat to travel to Valhalla, led by valkyries.

#4: The purpose of life?
Ray writes:

Without reference to a Creator who made us with the purpose of eternal fellowship, life has no real rhyme or reason.

God must live a really depressing life, then. We just float around in purposeless space for 80 years whereas God floats around without purpose for, well, eternity.

#5: Order in creation?
Ray writes:

Why do summer, fall, winter and spring come around each year, at different times of the year, in different parts of the world--always in the same order?

It's called science, Ray.

#6: Why's there morality?
Ray writes:

The only reasonable explanation is the one given by the Bible--that "the work of the Law is written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15)

Really? That's the only reasonable explanation? Really?

I think God must be doing too much as he seems to have his hands full (probably monitoring the thoughts of every person to make sure they don't think naughty things) as he managed to miss penciling in his notes on a few hearts on the production line.

#7: Why does every civilization believe in a creator?
Ray writes:

mankind has never found any civilization (no matter how primitive) that didn’t worship some sort of Creator, whether it be the sun, or an idol

I'm not sure if Ray really wrote that or someone hacked his blog. He points to people worshiping the sun as evidence for his position. I imagine some 9/11 Truther pointing to the prevalence of conspiracy theories and noting that "some even believe the moon's made of cheese."

#8: Why does everyone have a conscience?
It doesn't matter what Ray writes.

#9: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Again, it doesn't matter what Ray writes as it's a false dilemma. The midget came first.

#10: How did nothing create everything?
Ray writes:

Something had to create it, and the Creator of all things was and is the non-material Spirit of the eternal God, who dwells outside the dimension of time (see Titus 1:2), and is infinitely beyond the comprehension of human understanding. (emphasis added)

He should have added an asterisk at the end with: "* Except beyond the comprehension of Ray Comfort and every other Christian's understanding."

Frank Turek Speaks

So, I promised this week I would make up for my lack of posting last week. I lied! Most of you probably believed me, and most of you are atheists. And quoth the Bible: "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Fools.

My marathon of atheist events continued tonight by attending "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," presented by the co-author of the book by the same title, Frank Turek. First, I must praise him for slapping Christians' hands for rejecting the Big Bang (and maybe evolution) since the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it. That being said, all the rest was quite bad. He tried to use the Big Bang as proof there was a creator because it was the beginning of the universe. He then tied it to the argument "everything which beings to exist had a cause." Cause=God. QED.

The teleological arguments he gave were exceptionally poor, I felt. And morality arguments? He begins by saying there is absolute morality and those who say there isn't can make any moral arguments because it would just be their opinions. He then proceeds to give arguments for morals. And this was the man who begun his evening by arguing against self-defeating statements.


While I didn't like Frank Turek, the great stuff came afterward. I had an hour long discussion with a Christian over certain statements in the Bible and also biblical integrity. Some of the things we discussed were the NT statements of slavery, the integrity of the Bible, reliability of the Evangelists, and interpretations of the Bible.

I loved this guy. He was the most interesting Christian I have ever met in my life. He was very astute in his points and didn't have logic riddled with logical fallacies. He did have certain inconsistencies and fallacies. For example, claiming the onus is on disproving it and that devising plausible scenarios reconciles conflicts. Other than that, he was fantastic.

I found out why, too. He's majoring in philosophy of religion. I study religion in some of my free time. He studies religion in the majority of his time. He gave me his contact information as we had to cut our conversation off before we got into why we should believe Christianity over Islam. At this point I invited him to speak at our club. I discovered after this pointed that he has debated Zach Moore on the problem of evil.

I'm rather excited about talking more with him. It's such a nice break to have such an intellectual discussion with someone from the inanity of Ray's blog. It's refreshed my interest in studying Christianity.

I Am Identifying As Agnostic?

Agnostic: The Atheists' Four-Letter Word
At the Texas Freethought Convention, Terry McDonald (chairman of DFW Metroplex Atheists) took a polling of people in the room on labels for their beliefs, first if they identified by it and then if they did not identify by it:

• Agnostic
• Freethinker
• Atheist
• Bright
• Humanist
  

The only two labels which had votes against it were agnostic and bright. I found it particularly interesting that agnostic was voted against, given that most atheists I've ever met are agnostics. Agnostic has gotten a bad wrap in atheist circles, I have observed. The only thing worse than calling yourself religious to an atheist is to call yourself an agnostic.

A better label
He concluded the survey by asking if anyone identified by something else. The representative from CFI raised his hand and responded "skeptic." No one had any problems with that. People seemed to approve of it. It definitely didn't get the dirty reactions that agnostic did.

This reinforced something I have been thinking for a while now. Should I call myself an atheist over agnostic? Perhaps I should represent myself as agnostic instead of atheist. Perhaps all of us should.

A meaningless label
What does being an atheist entail? Nothing, except that you don't believe any gods exist. Does it tell you why you don't believe? Does it tell you how you approach the question? Does it tell you anything?

If you label yourself as a skeptic, though, what does that tell you? It tells you why you don't believe. It tells you how you approach the issue. It's a very good label. As such, I would use it as my view on religion.

A broader application
However, skepticism doesn't really apply to your view on the existence of gods beyond religion. I disbelieve religions because they fail with every application of skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry is just the method by which we assess claims through critical thought.

The essence of agnosticism, though, is that the truth value of certain claims cannot be assessed. I don't believe any religions are true because I am a skeptic; in other words, they collapse under critical examination. I don't believe in any gods because I am an agnostic; in other words, the claim that a "god exists" is one which I cannot even begin to assess.

Why should I identify as atheist?
Yes, I'm an atheist because I have no belief. It doesn't say anything about my disbelief, though. Why not use agnostic for my views on theism and skeptic on my views on religion? I certainly wouldn't describe my view on alien abductions as anabductionist; I would describe it as skeptic. Furthermore, I wouldn't describe my view on the general existence of aliens as analienist; I would describe it as agnostic.

Conclusion
Should I now describe myself as an agnostic? Or, perhaps, an agnostic skeptic?

Presuppositions Don't Require Extraordinary Evidence!

I googled extraordinary claims and you'll never guess what popped up as a top result A Christian apologetics website:



CARM. Humor.

I was googling it for a t-shirt I'm designing. The link that made it to #2 is an article on CARM about it. The author starts off saying how much he agrees with it:

The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence.

My thoughts as I'm reading it were wondering why a Christian site would have this. It became clear in the next paragraph:

Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow. (emphasis added)

Ah! He agrees with the statement, as long as there is an asterisk at the end. And the asterisk? For the special case of the extraordinary claims he believes without extraordinary evidence. His first argument (and the one after which I stopped reading) was trying to argue from presupposition:

In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.
Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God¹ would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions. (emphasis added)

Oh, I see now! I would accept the evidence for Jesus' resurrection without extraordinary evidence if I would first accept the existence of a personal God without extraordinary evidence. This is an amazing feat of rationalization the author is doing. Take his introductory example of aliens. Could you imagine who this author would argue against the maxim of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" if he believed in alien abductions?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an excellent maxim to live by. It introduces a healthy level of skepticism when assessing claims. I do have to make a note, though, that a qualification is needed for presupposition.

I presuppose that aliens are visiting Earth. Therefore, when I'm confronted with observations of lights in the sky, grainy photographs on the Internet, and much anecdotal evidence about being abducted by aliens, this is enough to convince those people who believe aliens are visiting Earth that aliens are also abducting people. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

But you, you skeptics! You have a skeptic presupposition that aliens are not visiting Earth! So, you are negating this claim by default. Therefore, the skeptic requires "exceptionally" extraordinary evidence in order to overcome his skeptic presuppositions.

Is there any difference? I would accept the same evidence you do of Jesus if you would first introduce the extraordinary evidence of a personal God. you can't just presuppose the existence of a personal God to circumvent the requirement of extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims you are making. You can't do it any more than alien conspiracy theorists can presuppose that aliens are visiting Earth to circumvent the extraordinary evidence needed for their claims.

Freethought Convention Reflection

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Hey, the first raffling is coming up in ten minutes. Those autographed Daniel Dennet books look sexy. Let's go get some tickets," she says, as we are waiting in our seats having just heard Blair Scott of the American Atheists Alabama speak. As we walk to the front to buy some tickets, we approach Matt Dillahunty. With a sword in a hand that he had been carrying, he is speaking with the event's organizer. Matt raises the sword above his head, leans his head back, opens his mouth and slides it down. With it swallowed, he bends over taking care to keep his spine straight.

We proceed to buy our raffle tickets. "Are you familiar with Guy P. Harrison and Daniel Dennet?" the attendant asks. Smiling, "Of course we do." We buy six tickets and head back to our seats.

As I pass by Matt again, I turn to my friend and marvel "Here we are attending an event of interesting lectures and we see someone swallow a sword!" She is silent for a few moments and remarks "You really believed that? My skeptic sensor went off."

---

The Texas Freethought Convention was enjoyable. We heard from:

• Joe Zamecki
• Zach Moore, North Texas Church of Freethought
• Matt Dillahunty, President of Atheist Community of Austin and host of The Atheist Experience
• Blair Scott, American Atheists Alabama
• Kathleen Johnson, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
• Terry McDonald, Chairman of Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex Atheists
• Clare Wuellner, CFI Austin & Secular Family Network
• Geoff Henley, author of Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Lawyer's Case for Disbelief in God

The speakers were all very informative and dynamic. I particularly enjoyed Geoff's presentation. He argued we should approach others who are in our fields and professions and apply concepts and standards in our fields to their religious beliefs. For him, he related the claim of God's existence to the plaintiff in a trial and our position as the defendants: the onus is not on us to disprove his existence; the onus is on them to prove his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. When they make their claim, all we need to do is create reasonable doubt. He made many more comparisons, such as relating Pascal's Wager to a contract of adhesion. I didn't buy a book there, but it's on my list now.

My main, and MAJOR, criticism of the event is the schedule. It was such that after every speaker/even there was 15-30 minutes of downtime. Further, most speakers didn't even use their full 30 minutes, so we wound up having at least 20-25 minutes between each event with nothing to do. It was great in the beginning as it gave us a chance to check out the booths, speak to people, and network. A third of the way through, though, I had met everyone and looked at everything.

I suspect many others did too as people began leaving in large numbers after the fourth hour. They accomplished in nine hours what should have been done in no more than six.

I forgive them this, though, as it was the first convention and these types of problems are to be expected. The speakers were good and the event was nice exposure to people. In the future I would recommend have speakers present in 2-3 blocks, and then allow for 30-45 minutes of networking between each. Also, for one of the breaks allow about an hour for a meal break.

All-in-all though, it was a really good experience. The only big problem was the schedule, so without that I would describe it as fantastic. I look forward to next year, anticipate an even greater pool of speakers, and hope for a better schedule.

Texas Freethought Convention

Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I'll make it up to you this week :-) I've been spending the past week working on several events. And now (one of the) fruits of my labor:

I will be attending the Texas Freethought Convention tomorrow... err... today, down in Austin. Perhaps I'll meet some of you there.

Since I need to be up by seven and seeing as how it's 3, I should probably turn in. But alas, I still have CDs to burn, ATMs to hit up, and reading selections to make.

Brittany: How Much Should Jesus Have Suffered?

In The People vs Joe the Plumber earlier this week, I looked at Ray's claim that the indication that God has high standards of justice is his severe punishment for even minor infractions (e.g. infinite torture for one lie).

In the second part of the post I looked at the claim that Jesus "paid the fine" with his death so that God could "legally dismiss the case." I pointed out that the "fine" is eternal torture and Jesus only suffered brief torture and then death. I noted that that is hardly "paying the fine."

One of the regular commenters here, Brittany, has finally returned and she had a few things to say regarding this post which I thought was worthy of a full post:

God's Standard of Justice

"By Ray's flawed logic, the greater the punishment, the greater the justice. I can't cite any figures, but for the crime of burglary of some small store I would think a just punishment would be a year or two in prison."

Yet what you and I would consider "just" is actually loaded with sin. Our standards of judgement are not pure, and are not right. God's justice is righteousness, and He cleanses out ALL sin.

I don't think this addresses the point I was making in that Ray's logic is flawed. He's making the argument that since the punishment is so severe, that indicates God's high standard.

To Brittany's point, though, what you're arguing is basically that whatever God does is just. (If I'm mistaken, please correct me.) Justice is defined by whatever God does. If this is the case, then any analogy to man's laws or standards (which is my point) is fundamentally flawed. Examine three main components of God's "justice":

* Every crime, no matter what it is, receives a punishment of eternal, infinite torture.
* Even if you were to live a perfect life, you would still receive a punishment of eternal, infinite torture as being born is a crime punishable by death; the sins of the parent are visited upon the child.
* The only -- only -- unforgivable crime is not believing in God. Did you murder, rape, or steal? That's perfectly forgivable as long as you believe in God.

I am not judging these, I am simply pointing these out. Are these his standards? If so, you are asserting that these are the highest standards for the mere fact that they are God's standards. If this is your assertion there is no way for me to argue the justness of them. I could just as easily define whatever I say to be just and there would be no way for you to argue with me as it would be my assertion. I am defining "just" as whatever I do. You are defining "just" as whatever God does.

Man's Standard of Justice
The point of my original post, though, is that God's "standards" are so different from ours that any analogy between ours and his is fundamentally flawed. That's why all of Ray's courtroom analogies where God is the judge and Jesus is the fine-payer are nonsensical. Our standards compared to his are:

* The punishment of a crime depends on the nature and degree of the crime. We do not give liars (perjurers) the same punishment as murderers. We do not give people who run a stop sign the same punishment as rapists.
* If you life a perfect life you will receive no punishment because the crimes of the parent are not visited upon the child.
* There are no forgivable crimes. A crime is a crime and if you are convicted, you will do the time.

What Would Constitute Jesus' Payment of Our Fine?

"I wonder what constitutes "paying the fine"? The punishment is infinite torture, but Jesus was only subjected to temporary torture (and not nearly as bad) and was then put to death. "

I wander, even if Jesus was subject to torture/death for a million years would that be enough to satisfy you? It seems that you are missing the main point though...Yes Jesus did die for mankinds sin...yet He rose from the dead and defeated death/sin. That is the main point...Jesus defeated the sin of the world...He saved ALL of mankind from death.

That's a good question. Well, a million years would not be good enough. The starting point has to be infinite torture. So, if Jesus were tortured eternally, would that be enough to satisfy me? In the realm of Christianity mythology, yes. If Jesus were really paying our fine, I would expect the fine he paid to be the fine levied against us. But I would have a second objection, then, as the numbers don't add up. So, Jesus paid my fine by being tortured eternally -- okay. Now what about you? Jesus paid my fine; why should his payment count twice as much in order to cover you? This is Ray's analogy and it doesn't make sense.

It Ain't Easy to Believe & Follow

He gave all mankind eternal life, all He asked in return is that you and I believe in Him and follow His ways. He never said it would be easy.

I agree that it is not easy for what he is asking. How am I supposed to believe in him when his own story doesn't make sense? To even begin to consider believing Christianity, I would expect it to at least make sense. As it stands, Christianity makes only a little more sense than Mormonism and a lot less than Judaism.

Free Yourself From Sin

I hope and pray that you recognize the sin in your life, and recognize that the only way to free yourself from that sin is in Christ. Accept Him, and not lean on your own understanding, because man's knowledge is nothing compared to Almighty God's knowledge and wisdom.

I recognize that I have a lot of "sin" in my life (as defined by Christianity). I also recognize, though, that Christians sin just as much. If I accept Christ, what would change? I probably wouldn't blaspheme as much, but from what I gather from Christians I see, I would still have a bunch of sin. Being Christian doesn't make you perfect. I'm sure you recognize this too and so what you meant by "free yourself from that sin" is that accepting Christ will remove your responsibility of that sin.

So, as I see it, both you and I sin. We both have sin in our lives. The only difference is that when I die I will be held responsible for that sin whereas you will not because you believed in God. Further beyond that, though, I will be punished for my life which contained sin whereas you will be rewarded for your life which contained sin merely because you believed in God. Is that correct?


If so, I have a follow-up question. If not, I'd like clarification.

More Lies From Expelled: Who's #1?

While checking out Beliefnet, I saw this advertisement they had for Expelled:

Sorry Ben Stein. Faith loses out to facts once again as Religulous is the #1 documentary of 2008.

Religulous, while opening is about half as many theaters as Expelled, surpassed Expelled in two weeks of being out. Even thought it's only been out for a few weeks, it has already grossed almost two million dollars more than Expelled (even though it's in half the theaters).

Furthermore, it's been even better received by critics with 70% Fresh rating compared to Expelled's 8% Rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The Case Against Beliefnet: Bill Maher's Fundamentalism

I started a series on Religulous posts starting with a criticism of the quotes Maher uses in the film. I discovered Steven Waldman over at Beliefnet started a Case Against Religulous series, beginning with his own criticism of the quotes. I posted a criticism on his criticism of the quotes, as he tried to blow them out of proportion as Maher's "thesis." Until now I couldn't continue following Waldman's blog as I could not access it (for whatever reason).

Waldman writes a short entry on Maher's "fundamentalism":

Maher declares at the outset that he's just a reasonable man who seeks to raise the status of "doubt." While religion sells a silly/dangerous "invisible product," he says, "my product is doubt."

But by the end he declares, with fervor that would make Jimmy Swaggert proud, "Religion must die if mankind is to live." There is no doubt, no shades of gray. There are no examples of religion ever doing anything good, ever. He casts his opponents as not merely mistaken but grotesque and dangerous to your very existence.

Maher's product is not doubt. [...]

What an amazing fallacy. I saw Religulous on October 3 when it first came out; I can't help but wonder what film Waldman saw when I read his reviews and statements. I did not see a film about how there are certainly no gods. In fact, I didn't hear any arguments against the existence of gods in general (perhaps because Bill Maher is not an atheist and indeed believes there is a God).

The fallacy in Mr. Waldman's post is a straw man. He starts off discussing Maher's doubt concerning the nature of God, the afterlife, etc, and then shifts this into a statement of how there are "no examples of religion ever doing anything good, ever." He shifts Maher's statement concerning the doubt of the nature of God to Maher's non-doubt concerning religion. Religion and theism are not the same thing.

The point of the film was not that religion does no good. In fact, I never heard that mentioned at all. The point of the film was the silliness of religion and its negative impact on rational thought and society.

Waldman ends the post on a rather bizarre note:

Maher's product is not doubt. It's certainty -- a black-and-white world view that demonizes religion in the same way that some religious fundamentalists demonize those who differ from them.

Maher is a secular fundamentalist.

Again, Maher wasn't discussing his doubt about the effects of religion; he was discussing his doubt concerning the nature of God. The oddness of the concluding note, though, is his labeling of Maher as a secular fundamentalist. What exactly is secular fundamentalism? What dogma and tenets does Maher take fundamentally? Religious fundamentalists take their holy texts to be infallible in morals and faith and take them literally.

Secularism means without religion or not connected to anything religious. How exactly do you go about being fundamental about that?

I'm Suing Ray Comfort

And unlike Patrick, I have a legitimate claim: copyright infringement.

Ray Comfort has announced he has written a bible for atheists. I have already completed a bible for atheists:

This lengthy 344 page bible covers every belief of atheism. If Ray's atheist bible is an accurate text on beliefs in atheism, it will be word-for-word identical to my unpublished text. A lawsuit will be filed once his is published, unless it's a straw man or completely irrelevant.

I have uploaded my completed atheist bible for free download:

http://disco-igno.godlesscreation.com/THE_ATHEIST_BIBLE.doc

I will close with a quote from page 187:

-- The Atheist Bible, pg 187

Very powerful, I know. It's even more inspiring in print:

Questions an Atheist Can Answer

So, Ray seems to think he has a list of ten questions atheists can't answer. This atheist can, though. Observe:

1. What was in the beginning?
Nothing

2. How will life on earth end?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster will boil the universe in a bowl of spaghetti sauce.

3. What happens after death?
Those who were one with His Noodliness will receive the most spectacular paperclip (which we can't even imagine) that we will have to play with for all eternity. Those who weren't will be subjected to watching a Ray Comfort floss for all eternity.

4. What is the purpose of existence?
To be touched by his noodley appendage.

5. Why there is order in all of creation?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so.

6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
They fear the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is obvious.

8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
I suppose the question is, why doesn't every person have a conscience? And why does society influence the conscience and values of the person? (Answer to both these questions: The Flying Spaghetti Monster)

9. How did nothing create everything?
Nothing created the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything. Isn't it obvious?

10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Neither. Nothing came first, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster came second, then a mountain, then a tree, then a midget, then the egg, and finally the chicken.

I Just Won £1,000,000!

Oh wow, look what I just received!

Dear Winner,

Congratulations Lucky Winner, Your email address has just won for you the sum of £1,000,000 (One million pounds Sterling's Only). From the online ballot held by Uk National Lottery few days ago we have been trying to contact you all this time. Your email address has attached to the Winning Number 76-99798-uk/2 and serial number LT-HLT/Th7.

To claim your prize it is important that you Contact the bellow officer sending Her your informations:

Name: Mrs. Carol Morgan
Email: carolmorgandep@yahoo.se
Tell: +44-703-199-5723
+44-703-190-6814

Send Her the bellow details for verifications.

Oh wow! I'm so lucky! I didn't even enter!

Now, to reply and send her all my details "bellow" for "verifications"...

The People vs Joe the Plumber

Ray Comfort has argued that God has a high standard of righteousness and justice. To support this claim, he points out that lying gets a death sentence, he considers hate to be murder, and lust to be adultery:

He knows that God's standard of righteousness is so high that the crime of lying demands the death sentence, and that He considers hatred of another human being to be murder. [...] If you lust after another human being, God considers you to be an adulterer. That's the height of His moral standard, and that will be the standard of judgment on Judgment Day.

First, allow me to tutor you on your religion, Ray. God's penalty for lying isn't death, it's infinite torture. Further, the mere fact that you were born is punishable by infinite torture, according to original sin.

But how warped is Ray's logic in this post? He points to God considering hate to be murder and lust to be adultery to be markers of his high moral standard. Where, exactly, is the logic in that? Shall I consider someone touching my hand to be rape? That seems to be a pretty high moral standard, then. Or, I could one-up God and consider mere dislike of a person to be murder.

JT-1, God-0.

But there's a second discomforting line of argument Ray appeals to. He takes punishment of lies with infinite torture to be a high standard of justice. By Ray's flawed logic, the greater the punishment, the greater the justice. I can't cite any figures, but for the crime of burglary of some small store I would think a just punishment would be a year or two in prison. If the judge instead sentences the person to 10 years, is that a higher standard of justice? How about life in prison? Or, wait, how about death? Or, better yet, how about unending torture for the rest of that person's life?

Yes, that's a very high standard of justice. If I were a judge, that's what I would adopt for that sort of burglary. In fact, I would adopt it for every case that comes before me.

Stole a car? Unending, life-long torture!
DUI? Unending, life-long torture!
Stole a pumpkin? Unending, life-long torture!
Stole a pencil? Unending, life-long torture!

But wait! Now that I have my high standard of justice like God, I now need a high standard of mercy:

He was manifest in the flesh and suffered for us, so that we could be free from the demands of Eternal Justice. His was a "vicarious" sacrifice. He paid the fine so that God could legally dismiss our case.

I wonder what constitutes "paying the fine"? The punishment is infinite torture, but Jesus was only subjected to temporary torture (and not nearly as bad) and was then put to death. So, he hardly paid the fine.

So, to constitute a high standard of mercy, I need to set up my court so that one person can "pay" a reduced "fine" and then anyone who comes before me can appeal to that. I will have Bob taken out back, tortured for thirty minutes, and then put to death. Now, whenever you come before, all you have to do is invoke Bob's name.

The People vs Joe the Plumber
Me, the Judge: It says here that you raped a child, is that correct?
Joe the Plumber: Yes.
Me, the Judge: Did you do it?
Joe, the Plumber: Yes, along with a lot of other things.
Me, the Judge: Alright, do you have anything else to say before I impose the sentence of unending, life-long torture?
Joe, the Plumber: Yes.
Me, the Judge: Speak and be heard.
Joe, the Plumber: Bob.
Me, the Judge: Case legally dismissed!

The end.

Christian Response #B-1: Daily Prayer

Submitted by: Brittany
Summary of Challenge: Pray for five minutes, daily, for a month.
Status as of Oct. 18: Accepted

---

As readers will be familiar with, I have an open request to Christians to convince me of their faith. I am not offering this request to show why I don't believe; I am offering it because I genuinely want to be convinced that it is true -- but only if it is true. If Christianity is true, then that's something I definitely want to know.

Brittany, a regular reader here, has given me a challenge on this request. Her submission is as follows:

I've been trying to find the proof of God's existence(besides the obvious, which I have found that many non-believers will not accept) that many non-believers seem to want/need beore they accept Christ.

[...]

Therefore I have a proposition for you JT, and any other atheist/nonbeliever:

Would you take 5 minutes of every day, for a month (give or take 30 days) and talk to God. Yeah I know you don't believe in Him, but could just try. [...]

She says she thinks I may find it childish, but what if I find that I'm wrong? I had the following questions for her:

I'm willing to pray daily for a month, and I'll be sincere in the prayers, too. I have a few questions first, though.

* What should I pray about?
* When should I pray?
* Where should I pray?
* Is there anything I need to pray?
* Do I need to read when I pray?

I want to be sure I do it correctly. I don't want to spend over two hours in a month's time only to find out I wasn't praying correctly. Also, should it not work, I don't want to be told that I didn't do it correctly. So, any advice you have, I'd like to hear it.

I do have a pertinent question, though. Ray has stated, categorically, that God won't listen to atheists' prayers. So, why should I even bother trying?

Finally, she has replied:

"* What should I pray about?"

You seem to have alot of questions about Christianity, heaven, hell, sin, proof that God even exists, etc. So why not start from the beginning. Just talk to Him, from my experience He has always listened.

"* When should I pray?"

Whenever the urge hits you. Christianity is not like the Islamic faith. We don't have certain times in the day where we have to pray. I personally talk to God throughout my entire day, where ever or with whatever I am doing.

"* Where should I pray?"

Anywhere. As I stated earlier I talk with God where ever I am; either it be outside at the grocery store, etc.

"* Is there anything I need to pray?"

You can pray about anything you want; as long as it is not evil. Just remember that while God listens to your prayers sometimes His answers to your prayers will be No. God knows what is best for you and if what you pray for is not in His plan for your life, He will not allow it.

"* Do I need to read when I pray?"

I assume that you mean reading the Bible. In my experience, I have found that after talking to God, I find the answers to my questions in the Bible. Remember that the Bible is the main way God talks to His people.

"I do have a pertinent question, though. Ray has stated, categorically, that God won't listen to atheists' prayers.

I beleive that what Ray was trying to say is that those who specifically talk with God with a PRIDEful heart will not be answered by God. You previously mentioned that you would be sincere in your talk with God, so ray's statement would not apply to you.

While I did pray often when I was younger, I will try it again now. I have no intentions of just going through the motions; that would be a waste of two and a half hours of my life. I'll give it my sincerest attempt. So, if I come away unconvinced of the Christian God, I don't want to be told it was because I wasn't being honest. If you're a Christian and you have any advice or feedback about an atheist praying to God, please comment.

I accept the challenge and I will pray daily for a month.