No, Virginia...

I just learned about “Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus”.  I learned about it from a animated movie about the story, but have since read up on the original source.  And I have to say, I’m a little steamed about it.

The story, as I understand it, is that a little girl wrote a letter to the editor expressing skepticism about Santa Claus.  Some of her friends say he’s not real.  She’s not sure.  “Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?” she asks.

Here is the full text, for reference.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/yes-virginia/68502/

What really chaps me about this is that I read the honest, heartfelt pleading of a girl who is confused and yearning for the truth.  I admire her so much for her desire to fine the line between fact and fiction.  She’s clearly confused, and goes to what she feels is the ultimate source for the truth.  So what answer does she get?

“Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.”

Bull.  Shit.  Her friends are dead-on right.  There is no Santa Claus.

“Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies.”

Yes.  You might as well not believe in fairies.  In fact, I don’t think you should.

“Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus.”

And

 “Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there.”

This is true enough, but that’s not how we go about determining what is real.  We don’t start with “everything is real until proven otherwise”.  You can’t say “Fairies are real until you prove they are not.”  That is a terrible strategy.  Instead, I claim we should take the opposite approach.  “Nothing is real until it is demonstrated to be real.”

Now, before going too much further, it bears discussing the terms “real” and “exists”.  Do ideas exist?  Are emotions real?  That totally depends on your definition of the words.  If you want to say that Santa Claus exists as an idea - as a representation of the Christmas spirit, then I agree.  The idea of Santa Claus exists (inasmuch as any idea exists).

I think it’s helpful to remember the context of Virginia’s question.  I think that kids are generally taught that Santa actually exists as a real, physical entity.  You know all the stories.  It isn’t until they get older that they begin to have very real, and very valid questions.  How does he travel to millions of houses?  How does he carry so many presents?  In short, how is this possible at all?!

Of course, the correct answer is “It’s not possible.  It’s a deliberate lie that some people tell their children to make Christmas more fun.  And good for you for using your big brain to determine that it’s all a fraud!”  Our children should be commended for seeking out the truth, and not only that, but seeking out the proper strategies for determining truth from fiction.

So it breaks my heart that young Virginia, when asking for the truth, had it denied to her.  Or, at the very least, twisted and distorted.  She wasn’t asking about the metaphorical Santa (I don’t think).  She was asking if he was real in the literal sense.  And the answer she got was misleading.

Now, as an adult, I think I know where the editor was going.  And this is probably what you, dear reader, have been screaming at me the whole time.  He’s saying that Santa exists as the metaphor of the Christmas Spirit.  He exists as emotions of generosity and love and imagination.  Without “Santa”, we’d have no “childlike faith, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.”  To a certain degree, I can get behind this.  There is room in our lives for both fact and fantasy.  For love and for art and beauty.  But where the editor and I part ways, I think, is that I don’t think that Faith or Belief is an integral part of those things.  We needn’t trick ourselves into believing fairy tales, and our lives lose nothing if we strive to cut out fantasy from reality.  There is enough beauty in reality to last more than a lifetime.

Copypasta from reddit

From /u/iopha

"Hi Unsuremother,

First, off, though I am an atheist myself, I want to empathize a little: this must be difficult for you and your family. Your faith commitment is an important part of your life and it is bewildering to have your own child turn away from this. I don't know exactly what you believe, but you might be worried about his soul in the next life, or his behaviour in this one. If you don't believe in God, how do you know right from wrong? If you reject God, how will you be reunited with Him in the next Kingdom?

The most important thing to understand is that these kinds of concerns, while very vivid and real to you, only make sense within a belief system your son no longer accepts. There is no sense in making threats of Hell or damnation anymore: atheists do not believe such a place exists. We don't believe such a place could exist. The thing that is important to remember is that while we no longer believe that there are places beyond the world, the world he lives in has now become all the more important. That's all we have. That's all we ever have. His world is family, and school, and friends: all these things structure his life and he will need them more than ever. He needs you. He's still a kid, and he's a kid dealing with Really Big Questions in the only way he can: honestly and critically.

Most of us have come to this point honestly. This must be emphasized. We're not angry at God, we're not trying to get attention or going through some cultural phase. We looked at the arguments on both sides and came to the best conclusion we could. We only have 70 odd years on this planet. We make mistakes, too; we are fallible creatures prone to error and haste. We do our best. And sometimes our best is 'well, I don't think any of this is right.' I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't rightly know where the universe came from, or how life began at first. But I don't need all the answers to know that some answers are the wrong ones. I don't know, and I don't think Christians, or Muslims, or Taoists know either. They claim to know; I claim to not know.

Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose your son is wrong. I'm standing outside the pearly gates and St. Peter, or God Himself, gives me one chance to explain myself. What would I say except "I'm sorry--I got it wrong. I really tried. But I got it wrong. I saw all the different religions, each saying different things, all changing over time. It seemed just a part of human culture, not ultimate truth. I saw unnecessary suffering and couldn't make heads or tails of it, if you were good and all-powerful. It didn't make sense to me to posit something existing to explain existence: that gets it backwards. I'm sorry, God, that I didn't believe in you, but it wasn't malicious--I just--I just screwed up."

What would Jesus say to that? Would he send me to suffer forever? Do I deserve to be tortured eternally because I read Lucretius as a young man--the 2,000 year old Roman poet who professed his atheism before Christ ever walked desert sand? Because I looked at the ontological argument and found it wanting?

Or would he press me to Him and forgive me? And wouldn't I desire that forgiveness---?

If there is a God that would send me to Hell for making this mistake, I don't want it in my life. Nothing justifies torture. Nothing at all. And He would not be worthy of worship--or even respect. If He is merciful, then I will apologize. If I am right--and he doesn't exist--then I live my life as a free man.

And that is how atheists live: under actual freedom. The German philosopher Nietzsche wrote that 'freedom is responsibility'--genuine freedom. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. So: how do I live? What do I do? Do I want to live in a society where everyone does what they can get away with? What standards do I hold myself up to? This is the essence of the atheist's morality: his freedom, his rationality.

Before even Lucretius wrote his atheistic treatise De Rerum Natura, there was another man, Socrates, who asked a simple and startling question: Does God say something is Good because it is good, or is something good because God says it is? We must be careful here. If what is good is whatever God says is good, then we have no morality at all, but caprice. If God says: kill your son! it is good to kill your son. If God says: from henceforth, children shall be murdered--then it is good, by definition, that children be murdered. But that's not morality. That's authoritarianism. And if you say: "But God would never do that," I ask: why? Because if there is a reason, then goodness is independent from God after all. It is grounded elsewhere. In what? Well: maybe in reason itself? Or maybe morality is just part of the universe--a different kind of part, not like your sofa or TV or the moon is part of the universe, but the way numbers, or relations (like 'equal to')--an abstract object, none less the real.

There is a very, very long tradition of ethical thinking that is, in fact, older than Christianity itself. In philosophy classes we teach wisdom that was recorded a millennium before Christ. If it is impossible to be good without God, there wouldn't be one virtuous atheist. Yet there are millions of us non-religious men and women on the planet, and we live our lives, as best we can. Atheists don't fill the newspapers with tales of carnage or debauchery--clearly we can figure it out on our own.

Well. Not quite on our own. We have each other. No one else--just each other. And that's enough. So be there for your son."

Found on reddit

I thought this was an interesting story from someone who had lost their faith...

The reasons I left the faith are twofold, mostly.

Growing up, I was subject to the stereotypical "God is good and forgiving" line that is tantamount to modern day apologia.

I was taught Creationism, and some of the evidence was really convincing, to be honest. It made me question some of the evolutionary teachings I had heard in school, and I had to truly re-evaluate what I believed.

Then, at some point, it just clicked. It doesn't matter if you think God is real, it matters if you think God is worth following and supporting.

As I read through scripture, I was confronted with story after story that demonstrated, to me, the behaviour of an all-powerful kindergartener, not a loving deity.

I realized that in the case of the Garden, assuming it's true, we were set up to fail.

We were held accountable, as a species, for believing a lie. Humans, according to scripture, had never been subject to deception before. Literally, before the serpent, 100% of what Adam and Eve had heard was true. There was no reason to doubt the serpent, because skepticism comes with knowledge.

Then there was the fact that humans were punished, for "sinning."

I had two problems with that.

If they hadn't eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," then by definition they didn't know right from wrong. It's irreconcilable. And punishing someone for a crime they didn't understand isn't gracious.

If Eve, by eating the fruit, introduced Original Sin into the world, then there's a whole mess of other problems. For instance, that means that the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin. If the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin, then Lucifer rebelling against God in the first place wasn't a sin. If rebelling against God wasn't a sin, then questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin. And if questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin, then salvation is unnecessary.

Then there's the image of God as a father figure. I like to make an analogy in this case.

If you had a two year old kid, then there's a pretty good chance that they don't fully understand right and wrong yet. That's a pretty good comparison for Adam and Eve, being as they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge.

Now, as a responsible parent, you tell the kid not to touch the stove, which is on. You tell them that touching it will burn them, and it will hurt. You step out to make a call, and leave the stove on. This is a fair comparison for leaving the tree in the garden unattended.

Enter me. I'll be the serpent in this one. I go to your kid, and tell them that touching the stove won't actually hurt. You were mistaken. I say to touch the stove. You know what the kid does? They touch the stove. They are inclined to believe me.

Here's the part where humanity surpassed God in grace. You know what you do when your kid burns themselves? You bandage them. You kiss their boo-boo. You explain that there are people out there who you mustn't believe, and tell them to learn from the experience.

You know what you don't do? You don't kick them out. You don't cut off their college fund, or subject them to the horrors of working in the adult world. You don't curse them.

You yell at me. I'm the one responsible for your child's injuries, not the child.

If God were a parent worth having, he would have done the same. Instead, he did everything on the "don't" list, times a hundred.

That was hard for me to accept.

But there's more.

The Tower of Babel.

This was really one of the final straws for me.

In the passage, God says:

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

As a parent, you're preparing your child to succeed without you. It's the point. You want them to be self-sufficient. It's the measuring stick of a parent, how their child fares without them. That's not what happens here.

God is made insecure by humans capabilities. So he cheats. He breaks down their ability to communicate. Petty. It's tantamount to changing the answers on your kids homework because they no longer need your help with it.

That would make you a bad parent, so why is it "good" if the Almighty does it?

Then there's the salvation story.

According to this source, the number of people who have existed is 107,602,707,791. That's mind-boggling.

Now, I'm going to be very generous here. Let's assume that half of everyone went to heaven. That means, by default, that an equal half went to hell. That's over fifty billion souls, burning eternally.

And for what? Free will?

I ask you this: is free will worth it? I can only speak for myself, but if giving up my ability to make independent decisions meant that just one person would be spared that torment, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

And lets be honest here. God doesn't really want free will anyway. The Tower of Babel demonstrates that unequivocally. When we "choose" something that's displeasing, he intervenes and cheats.

That means that fifty billion people are burning for the illusion of choice, so that his "praises" are a little more convincing.

He created, and doomed, a sentient species just to get an ego boost. How could I justify following someone who seemed so needy and petty?

I can't.

Then there's the Egyptian story.

One man, the Pharaoh, speaks for an entire people. God, when he doesn't get what he wants, kills all the firstborn of a people who didn't make the decision.

Let that sink in for a moment.

You wouldn't support a guerrilla fighter who massacred children to get what they wanted, so how could you support a god that did the same thing?

Then there's the gap between the Fall and Jesus.

Being conservative here, going off Creationism, lets say it's roughly 4,000 years. That's four thousand years worth of people who were doomed to burn for the misfortune of being born outside of the Jewish people.

The Jews, by the way, are another evidence against a gracious God.

He chose one people, and favored them. He intervened in war and such, causing countless deaths against other people. He helped them take land, and encouraged them to kill the children of their enemies.

How gracious is that? It's like a child, playing army. He chooses one side, and stacks the deck against all others.

Not all-loving, that.

Then there's the shear inefficiency of spreading the Gospel via humans. What about people in Africa who died the day after Jesus was crucified?

What was their sin? Being born in the wrong place? Not having internet?

Assuming God is all-powerful, there's no excuse for taking 4,000 years to rectify the issue, nor is there an excuse for allowing such rectification to take so long, given that it's human souls on the line.

In short, there's no way I could ever respect God as an equal to humanity, much less revere him as our superior. Simply put, we're better than him.

And there's no way I could dedicate my life to someone or something so temperamental, selfish, needy, lazy, infanticidal, and generally unloving as the Christian God.

I'm sorry that the answer was so long, but it's not one that bears being short.

Balboa Park 2

I found myself in Balboa Park with the family.  While they were busy, I wandered around, and happened upon a little booth that looked like a religious thing.  As it happens, it was an atheist group.  I was pleased to see them out and about, and chatted a bit about what they were doing, what their goals were, what it was like to talk to people who come up and challenge them, etc.  I was pleased to see some general representation of the atheist community, and hope that they are able to inform the public about what they are all about.

As one of them said, most of what people learn about atheists come from their pastors, and that might be a slanted view.  So they enjoy reconciling those differences when people come to chat with them, and finding out exactly where they disagree.

Further up the road, I came across a tent with people handing out free water.  The water had bible verses on it.  I approached, and one guy greeted me warmly and asked if I had any questions.

So I asked him my question.  I said that I want to go to heaven, and I don't want to go to hell.  What do I need to do to make that happen?  This is indeed an honest question of mine.

He seemed a little taken aback, and showed me his water bottle, with John 3:16 on it, and read it to me.  Whoever believes in Jesus will have everlasting life.

So all I have to do is believe in Jesus, and I'll go to heaven?  That's it?  It doesn't matter what I do?

He sort of turned back to the water bottle, then stumbled around a little.  I let him off the hook, saying that I was "playing dumb", but that I really was interested in the answer.

He called over someone whose name was close to Janet.  I posed the same question to her, and she responded back with questions of her own, asking about my religious upbringing and background.  I shared that with her, but at the same time questioned why that mattered.  She just wanted to know where I was coming from, she said.

She then asked if she could share her personal testimony with me.  Sure, knock yourself out.  She said she grew up godless, and got into lots of trouble as a kid.  And when she got older, and got married, she had miscarriages.  I sympathized.  But then she got pregnant, and she went in for that ultrasound, and was so impressed by the miracle of birth, and started saying things like "only through the grace of God could that happen".  That's where I stopped her.  How do we KNOW that it's through the grace of God?

She then went to the old "well look around... look at the sky, look at the TREES!".  I knew I was in trouble when she went to the trees line.  How do you think this all got here?  In my head I was labeling this as a classic "argument from ignorance".  "We don't know how this got here, therefore God."  The first guy piped in, saying that I was a software developer, and it was just like writing computer programs.

I said I was still having problems understanding.  She then went through the Ray Comfort "have you ever told a lie?  Have you ever stolen something?"  I even completed her next thought, saying that I'd looked upon a women with lust.  Her expression was like "Oh, you've heard this before?!"  She asked about sin, and I said that sin was such a loaded word.  It basically presupposes a god and his rules.  I said that I don't really believe in sin as such, since I'm not yet convinced that there is a god to back it up.

At some point, she asked me if I was "from that other booth".  I told her I was not, and really did try to impress upon her that I wasn't pulling her leg or jerking her around.  I was asking honest questions, and really was interested in hearing her answers, which was the truth.

In an effort to try to get her to understand my point of view, I said "Ok, let's say that I tell you about a different God.  Call him God2.  Do you believe in God2?"  Of course she didn't.  She asked if this god sent Jesus to earth to die for our sins.  I said triumphantly "No, but he sent his son Jesus2!"  The other guy piped up about needing evidence, like fulfilled prophecies.  I said that in the Bible2, there was a book of Isiah2 with fulfilled prophecies.  Did they believe me now?  Sadly, they did not.  I had a hard time getting them to grasp my rhetorical point, but I think they finally got there in the end.  Was there anything I could tell them that would make them believe in God2?  No.  Was there anything they could tell me that would make me believe in God?  She finally admitted that it "just comes down to faith", and that I'd basically need to wait for some sort of revelation.  That, to me, is the end of an intellectual conversation, so I politely disentangled myself and left.

All in all, it was a really interesting conversation, and I enjoyed it.

Alcohol

A Mormon friend asked on Facebook “Why do people drink?”  I don’t think she was asking rhetorically, but really wanted to know the motivations behind people who drink alcohol.  I think the answers were all pretty standard:  tasted, relaxation, fun.  A couple non-drinkers piped in, one of whom said there’s nothing you can get from booze that you can’t get from Yoohoo.  I thought that was cute.

A more interesting question to me is why don’t Mormon’s drink?  I’ve heard a few answers.  If you search online, you’ll quickly discover the “Word of Wisdom”, a section of one of the LDS scriptures (D&C 89).  “Strong drinks” are not for the belly, nor are “hot drinks”.  That’s the literal reading, at least.

After skimming some commentary, it all gets sort of fuzzy.  These are not “thou shalt not” type commandments, but just kind of suggestions.  “Hot drinks” doesn’t mean ALL hot drinks, it just means coffee and tea.  This could be interpreted to actually mean “caffeine”, but that’s not actually called out specifically.  So there’s a lot of various ways to read this, which is probably why different Mormons feel comfortable eating and drinking different things.

One thing I read in a number of places is that it that makes them stand apart from everyone else.  I can respect that, I guess, although I'm not sure I understand the point.  Another article said that people who can deny addictive things will be stronger and more able to deny other evils, so maybe it’s more an exercise in restraint just for the sake of resisting something, anything.  This makes some sense, I guess.

As I was pondering this, I remembered the story of the great flood and Noah.  God saw the world was full of wickedness, and he regretted making us.  That’s funny to me.  In any case, he decided to wipe us all out, except for Noah.  Noah was a righteous and blameless man.  You know the story.

Well what’s the first thing in the Bible after the story of the Flood?  The very first thing he does is plant a vineyard, make wine, and get naked and drunk.

There are a few conclusions we can draw from this:

1)  God is ok with people drinking (since he chose Noah because of how good and righteous he was)

2)  Noah used to be a good guy, but changed his behavior after the flood (which God neglected to foresee, I guess)

3)  Something else: the stories are metaphorical or allegorical.

4)  This is fiction

I don’t really know what to draw from it, but it is an interesting little intersection of God and a righteous man and alcohol. 

My Great Grandmother

My dad recently recounted a story that his grandmother Eva told him when he was younger.  Eva was raised in the strict household of a Methodist minister and his wife.  The mother was very strict about not doing any work on Sunday, or else the devil would come.  “Work” included even mundane tasks like using scissors to cut paper.

Eva and her sister decided to test out this “truth” one Sunday.  They went up into their attic, and one of the girls cut up some paper while the other stood watch and looked out for the devil.  He didn’t appear.

I love this story.  It’s skepticism in its purest form.  We have this idea that is presented as fact, but is it really true?  Can we come up with some way to test it?  And what brave young girls to put their own lives and salvation on the line to conduct this experiment.

I thought it was great, and felt proud to be descended from such stock.

Prayer, Part 2

Two weeks ago, I prayed for a sign.

One week ago, I happened to find thing on my body that was of some medical concern.  I was pretty worried about this, and decided I should probably call the doctor, but decided to wait a couple days to see if it changed or went away.  Luckily, it did go away and now it's gone (like, 100% gone).

Also in the last two weeks, there have been some crazy meteor sightings (Cuba and Russia), as well as this asteroid flyby.

Are these the signs from God that I was praying for?  Particularly the first one...  is this a sign from the heavens that says "I gave you life, and I can take it away at a moments notice"?  Or is it just a coincidence?  How on earth can I possibly make that determination?  Or is there even such a thing as a "coincidence"?

Prayer

I prayed last night.  Honestly and sincerely.  I said that I knew that my mind had been closed to God, but that I earnestly wanted to learn the truth.  I said that God has used so many people for His glory throughout the years, and that I hoped that he could use me in a similar way.  What a wonderful prophet I would be, the atheist turned believer!  I prayed that my eyes would be opened and my heart would be opened to His holy spirit, in Jesus' name, amen.

Now what?

Ray Lewis

Ray Lewis gave an impassioned speech after his recent AFC Championship victory.

“When you sacrifice something for God… He will give you anything that your heart desires… if it aligns with His will.”

He then talks about his challenges and torn triceps, but “God just kept telling me that ‘no weapon formed against me shall prosper…  no weapon formed against my team shall prosper.’  Anytime you trust in God, man can’t tell you what you can’t do.”

Regarding the sign predicting his retirement, he says “Man can’t dictate that… God dictates that”, and then he’s whisked away.

I love prayer in sports.  It brings up so many interesting issues, it’s almost overwhelming for me.

First:  God will give you anything your heart desires…

Here’s an interesting Bible verse:

21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

Does anyone believe this?  Does anyone, even the most holy and faithful and repentant, believe that they can actually wish for a mountain to throw itself into the sea, and that it will actually happen?

“… if it aligns with his will.”

Ahh.  Here’s the rub.  God answers prayers, and sometimes the answer is “no”.  If you are holy and faithful and you pray for something, and that something doesn’t happen, either it didn’t align with God’s will, or you’re not has faithful as you thought you were.  Seriously, if part of the success of the prayer is that you must not have any doubt, and you pray for something impossible and it doesn’t happen, wouldn’t that only increase your doubt? 

Another interesting question:  Does ANYTHING happen that is against God’s will?  It strikes me that the answer must be “yes”.  I think Christian theology is all about man’s free will, choosing to sin, and repentance and redemption through the shed blood of Jesus.  But that implies that God is not omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, doesn’t it?

Why Won't God Heal Amputees covers this topic in much greater detail than I could.  It’s a good site to browse around.

Secondly:  Isn’t this terribly pompous and egotistical of the winning team/player?

Mr. Lewis is saying that his team won because he sacrificed so much and God willed it to happen.  But what about the losing team?  Isn’t possible that they sacrificed equally as much, if not more?  What if there was someone that was equally impassioned on the losing team.  What is their take on the loss?  What if the Ravens ended up losing because of some blown call by the refs?  What would Ray’s post-game speech be?  The only possible thing I could imagine is that it would be something about how God’s will was done.  If it’s all up to God, then why do players even bother to work out and train?  Why even play the game at all?

If I have a headache and I take an aspirin and pray for the headache to go away, and in half an hour I feel much better, what does that mean?  Was it the prayer or the aspirin?

I once watched a show about MMA fighters.  Before the show, both fighters sincerely prayed for victory.  It made for a very exciting fight.  Whose prayer would God answer?!  It was like a mini holy war.

“God just kept telling me that ‘no weapon formed against me shall prosper…  no weapon formed against my team shall prosper.’”

Again, what if he lost?  Or rather, what if someone who sincerely believed this was on a losing team?

He’s just emotional and obviously sincere in his belief, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.  Which is part of the reason I write in this blog… to try to reconcile that gap. 

Story time!

In spite of her troubled past, Jessica was a highly successful high school student.  She escaped a troubled home life and abusive step-father by diving into her schoolwork.  As a result, she earned a full-ride scholarship to a well respected university, and flourished in college life.

She met Todd at a party and was immediately smitten.  In contrast to Jessica, everything seemed to come easily to Todd.  He was well liked, a star athlete, and on the student council.

At the party, Jessica had a bit too much to drink, and is quick to accept a ride home from Todd.  Instead of taking her home, though, they drive to a lookout point.  She tries to say no, but he’s too strong and powerful, and he rapes her.

In the months following Jessica deals with severe depression.  She was saving her first time for marriage, and is too embarrassed to go to the police.  Word gets around, and she gets branded a slut.  She loses her faith and stops going to church.  How could God have let something like this happen?  When she finally can’t take it anymore, she hangs herself with a belt in her closet.

After her death, Todd feels guilt.  He becomes more involved in his church, and earnestly prays for forgiveness.  He feels like his prayers are answered, and considers himself “born again”.  A month later, he is tragically hit by a random drunk driver while walking home from the library and killed instantly.

This is a contrived story, but it’s plausible, isn’t it?

Some questions:

Would you consider Jessica to be the victim of a crime?

Would you consider Todd to be a criminal?

Who, if anyone, is in heaven?

Who, if anyone, is condemned to hell?

Poe's Law

Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Is the following video real?  Or parody?

Education

So this is kind of awesome...

2 Peter 3:5 says "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

So there you go.  "Atheistic evolution" claims that "matter evolve from nothing."  Not only that, but scientists are all part of a conspiracy where they know the trust, but choose to deny it.

Newtown Part 2

Another point of view from a Christian minister:

Newtown Shooting

If you were dropping off your child at their school, and you saw a shady looking character with a couple guns walking around and starting to shoot at innocent children, what would you do?

It’s a tough question.  Would you duck and run for cover?  Would you attempt to tackle the guy?  I find hard to know how I’d react.  I like to think that I’d act heroically, but I also know there’s a good chance I’d just duck and run for cover.

Now, what if you somehow magically were granted knowledge that you wouldn’t get hurt in the incident.  Then what would you do?  I think it’s probably safe to say that we’d take out the gunman as soon as we possibly could.  Any decent person would, right?

What if you had absolute, airtight knowledge that this event was going to occur before it actually happened?  I think any decent person would call the police or otherwise get the authorities involved before it happened, right?  That’s a no-brainer.

If you accept that an omnipotent and omnipresent god exists and watches over us, then we must accept the fact that he ALLOWS these events to happen, while having the power to stop them.  I think this is referred to as “the problem of evil”.

On a very surface level, we could say “God had the power to stop this event, and he didn’t.  Therefore, God was complicit in the crime.”

This is a simplistic view, and there are some responses to this:

1)  We have free will.

I don’t buy this argument.  Every description of the Christian god that I’ve read compares him to Santa Claus.  He knows what we’re thinking, and whether we’ve been bad or good, and what is “in our hearts”, whatever that means.  He also, apparently, has the power to influence people and to make actual changes in the world.

So while we might have free will, God also supposedly has power and influence over us.

2)  Evil exists as a test or lesson to humanity

A few evangelicals have come out and blamed the shooting on our godless society.  Mike Huckabee said:

“And since we've ordered God out of our schools, and communities, the military and public conversations, you know we really shouldn't act so surprised ... when all hell breaks loose.”

James Dobson said:

“…but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us.  I think that’s what’s going on.”

So there it is.  Gays, abortions, and atheists make God angry, and therefore he allows innocent children to be slaughtered as a punishment.

Or this jackass:

The implication here is that God is spiteful for being kicked out of public schools, and therefore allowed the shooting to happen as a response.

Do people really think that?  I can’t see how anyone would want to worship a god who would do such a thing.  If God had a problem with gays or abortionists or atheists and did something SPECIFICALLY to punish those people, that would make a little more sense to me.  But allowing innocent children to die and putting their families through agony and torture as a result of the sins of someone else doesn’t make any sense to me.

But then again, punishing someone for the sins of someone else seems to be central to Christian dogma.

3)  “Part of a bigger plan”

Another possible response is basically “We don’t know why this happened, but we have faith that it must be part of a bigger plan.”  This, in my opinion, is just giving up any rational thinking and succumbing completely to faith.  Like me, they can’t comprehend how something could happen, and just have to assume that God is in control and things will work out ok in the end.

There is a final response, which is the “hands off” God, who created the universe and set it into motion and then let things progress how they may.  Mentally disturbed people do bad things.  Good people do good things.  People live and day and life happens as it may.  I submit that a “hands off” God is indistinguishable from God not existing at all.

As an atheist, how do I approach the shooting?  Obviously with horror and disgust.  So much so that I’m actively not following the story too closely as an act of informed ignorance.  Reading about the children who died, and looking at their little faces is painful to me, and I don’t believe that it will change my behavior or teach me anything I don’t already know.  I already love my daughter and tell her that every day.  I can’t possibly hug her more than I do.  I don’t think this shooting has changed my stance on guns, violence, religions, or school safety.  Looking at raw statistics, the number of people killed in mass slayings is far outnumbered by death by car accident, not wearing a bike helmet, and other poor decisions that are very preventable.

In the end, it just sucks. 

Coughing

If I designed people, I wouldn't put the mouth-hole and the breathing-hole in the same place.  Jeez.

Praying on Survivor

I’m a big fan of the game that is played on the TV show Survivor.  One thing that has been interesting in the past few seasons are some of the more religious people that have been on the show.  There was one lady in China who won a trip to go visit some sort of Buddhist monastery, but walked out of a “non-religious” ceremony that involved bowing.

Then, most recently, there was a big event that was going to change the course of the game.  Before the event, some players got together to pray.  They didn’t pray for anything specific to happen, and in fact one of them said that she was the not the kind of person to pray for her football team to win.  Instead, they just prayed to God that his will would be done. 

It struck me as so odd.  There they were, eyes clenched and holding hands, earnestly asking that whatever was going to happen, please let it happen.  I mean, if you pray for something specific to happen, that makes some sense to me.  “Please heal my grandmother, who is dying of cancer” or whatever.  But if you pray for anything and everything to happen the way that it would EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T PRAY, what’s the point?

It seemed to make them feel better, though.  And for the record, the plan they hatched (but didn't specificially pray would work) didn't work.  The guy they were hoping to blindside won the event and was safe from being voted out.  Perhaps if they'd just prayed a little harder.

This clip wasn't on the show, but references it:

I also heard about someone mentioning this, and did some Googling around.  There is a movement called “Pray Until Something Happens”, or PUSH.

From the top website:

The way to get real-life results in prayer is to seek God with an attitude that says, “No matter how long it takes, or whatever I have to do, I will not be denied”. This is not arrogance, it’s Godly hunger. It is not about pushing God, but about pushing yourself into God. This is not praying for the sake of praying. This is praying to see the hand of God move. This is desperate hungry praying. This is the type of prayer that gets answers.

So, if I want to get “real life results” about something, I should pray for/about it.  And if I don’t get an answer?  Keep praying, "no matter how long it takes".  Is that really good advice?  I wonder how long people actually keep this up before they either change the prayer to something more reasonable, or accept whatever reality is facing them, or just give up.

Perhaps I pray for some extra money, because I’m struggling to pay bills.  I pray earnestly every day.  Then one day I find a dime in the street.  That might not be the intent of my prayer, but I could see someone thinking it was the work of God and teaching some lesson in humility or something.

What if I prayed earnestly and constantly for the ability to fly?  Or for my amputated arm to grow back?  Is there really any reason why God couldn’t answer those prayers?

What if I prayed for someone’s cancer to go away, and they end up dying?  Did I not pray correctly or hard enough?  What if they end up living?  Would I then be stronger in a belief that prayer actually does something?

It kind of makes my head spin.  I just don’t get it.

Yoga in School

There's been a big hubbub recently about yoga being taught in local elementary schools.  I've found it fascinating how some parents have come out against it for fear of their children being indoctrinated into Hinduism.

What's I find really striking is how much I agree with them, if for different reasons.  I'm sensitive to any whiff of religion being taught as fact in the classroom.  That is a job for parents.

The people I've seen quoted in the news, however, are against it because they think their children are being "indoctrinated" into a "false religion".  In my mind, if you follow what I consider to be a false religion, the worse thing you are doing is deluding yourself.  In their mind, they are at risk for real eternal problems.

So what defines yoga?  Is sitting quietly in a room and stretching a bad thing?  What about paying attention to your own body?  What if you say "namaste"?  Where is the line for what is dangerous flirting with a religion and simple healthy living?

One comment I heard was that you should be spending your time with your thoughts on God.  And yoga teaches you to focus your energies inward, rather than outward.

My thoughts are a little muddled, but it's all so fascinating to me.

Bill O'Reilly has lost it...

This is unbelievable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/28/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-not-a-religion-its-a-philosophy/



Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

WHAT?!

When I saw the headline, I thought perhaps he mispoke, or it was taking some quote out of context or something.  But he states very clearly, multiple times and directly, that it is a FACT that Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

What am I missing with this?  How can that possibly make any sense?

Small World

The Bible says that somewhere around 4500 years ago, there were eight people on the earth.

Eight.

And from those eight people, we got all the ancient and modern civilizations that we have today, with all their rich cultures, traditions, and even religions.

Let that sink in.  Ancient Greece and Roman civilization.  China and Japan, which have histories dating back thousands of years (actually even before the flood (oops!)).  Vikings.  Africa.  Aztecs.

The Origins of the Universe

Many (perhaps most) arguments and debates I hear begin with "Where did the universe come from?"

Is that really the best place to start?  Isn't God more relevant in today's world?  Why not miracles?  The power of prayer?  Faith healing?  The human condition and God's affect on the world today?  The veracity of the Bible?

If God exists and has a manifestation in this modern day, then convince me of that.  But leading with "Well, the universe must have come from somewhere..." strikes me as starting on shaky ground.

It's all a big argument from ignorance:  "We don't know where the universe came from, so let's label that unknown thing 'God', and start from there."

It assumes that the universe came from somewhere.  Why is this a valid assumption?  If you're going to base an argument that begins with "The universe was created, therefore..." you first need to demonstrate that the premise is indeed true.

I was recently on an airplane, and the lady next to me crossed herself as the plane was taking off, as well as after it landed.  Did that help reduce the chances that something bad would happen to the plane?  I didn't cross myself.  Did that have an effect?  If everyone on every plane ever crossed themselves before and after, would we have fewer plane crashes?

These are much more interesting and potential convincing discussions to me than "Well, were do YOU think the universe came from?"