Should Christians be trusted?

Okay, so now that we've established that Christians don't trust atheists, is there any reason why anyone should trust Christians?

Let's look at the evidence:

They believe their book is true because their book says it's true.  This means they'll believe almost anything they are told, so you can't trust anything they say.  Not only are they repeating something that might be untrue, they are so nonchalant about the truth that they may be making up their own lies.

They believe all their sins (including telling lies) have been forgiven by someone else's sacrifice for them.  This means that they can do whatever they want and it's been forgiven.  Some might say that Christians need to behave themselves after being saved, but we all know there's no limit to the number of times a Christian can "find Christ."  Just ask Jimmy Swaggart or any of the many philandering preachers who have repented and been welcomed back to the church.  Sure, the Catholics look at things differently but they still have a way of erasing their sins.  Protestant or Catholic, they believe they will or have been forgiven.  No personal accountability at all.

They believe their God loves them... and presumably hates everyone else.  That's a recipe for creating a bully if ever there was one!

They believe that Heaven or Hell are eternal destinations based solely on belief.  Sure, the Catholics have "mortal sins" in theory, but how many of them really believe they'll go to Hell for the lies they forgot to confess about?

They shop around for belief systems if they don't like the one they grew up in.  They don't usually travel far, like going to a more or less strict Protestant denomination or switching from Catholicism to Orthodox or Episcopalian.  If they can't be trusted to stick with one moral code what's to say they're not really making up their own moral code before they've switched?

They forgive the most outlandish garbage their "leaders" have perpetrated.  They say it's because forgiveness is a Christian thing to do, but it's really because they respect authority figures.  Even in the case of pedophile church leaders, probably 90% of the victims keep mum.  So you can bet that when they achieve some measure of authority they will feel the rules don't apply to them.  Everyone else who achieves authority does this too, of course.  Christianity does virtually nothing to stop misbehavior.  Look at the "C Street" politicians.

They don't trust atheists, so they may proactively screw us.  They probably do the same to members of other religions or denominations.  Jesus said turn the other cheek, but not getting slapped in the first place obviates all that feel-good lovey crap.  Screw others before they screw you.

They have a very short list of things that are "wrong."  They threw out over 600 rules because they felt like it (Christ didn't tell them to), and they picked out a few that fit with their prejudices, like men not screwing men.  Anything goes otherwise.

They are an overwhelming majority in the U.S.  This means they lack any perspective of what constitutes trampling on the rights of others, if they even imagine such a thing could be wrong.

They believe their god provides for them.  The most delusional are the "C Street" types who also believe that if they got elected it must have been God's will (not deceptive negative advertising paid for by corrupt lobbyists)

Book Review, Part Deux: The Belief Instinct

More on Jesse Bering's book on the psychology of belief . "The Belief Instinct" continues harping on the issue of "theory of mind" throughout, but the points are interesting if not valid (I'm not one to judge).

Whenever I encounter a reference to the naturalness of belief, or basically any claim to the universality of some religious virtue, I want to hear about the unnatural examples.  This book delivers.
Toward the end of the particularly delightful chapter titled, "When God Throws People Off of Bridges," Bering refers to studies of autistics and aspies, and how their reactions differ from those of "normal" people. There are also studies of atheist reactions to "coincidences."  I found both of these particularly validating, as they prove my suspicion that though religious sentiment (or instinct) may be natural, it is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of or reaction to reality.

The surprising and uncomfortable result of studying atheist reaction to coincidences and unfortunate events is that we, too, want to believe in Fate or some guiding hand making things go the way they're supposed to.  He relates this to his pet theory (Theory of Mind) of course, but the very fact that atheists, myself included, feel a kneejerk reaction to these events says to me that 1) religious stories are the window dressing of human thought processes, not the other way around and 2) wishful thinking in atheists is the result of human psychology, not a suppressed belief in the supernatural.  This speaks to the "no true atheist" and "there are no atheists in foxholes" cannards.  Unlike less developed species and less-developed humans (i.e. autistics), most healthy humans not only survive by relating to the minds of other, but by hoping to find comfort and answers by reaching out to those minds.

Research has shown humans to be more susceptible to religious sentiment during trying times.  These are times when our usual social network has let us down somehow.  If you depend on your family for comfort and you get lost in a snowstorm, a fantasy creature that can hear your thoughts will make a fine substitute.  If your spouse has died, the person you would still feel an impulse to turn to is that same person whose death has distressed you.  Believing that your ancestors are watching out for that person will be a comfort both to you and to the spouse you assume will be equally as distressed.  If a tornado roars through town, everyone else feels the same way and they are dealing with their own traumatic stresses.  Enter the all-loving "Creator" (who allowed the destruction) they can gather together to pray to.

And speaking of Death... this is another feature of the Theory of Mind.  Bering cites studies showing that people have a very difficult time handling the idea that their mind will not continue after their body dies, a kind of theory of one's own mind.  He extrapolates this to the death of others, but I think that's the reverse.  We are utterly dependent on other people from our first breath to our last.  Christianity plays up the personal, but Eastern religious play to the theory of mind of others much more.  Ancestor worship and shrines to them play a role in some religions.  I think the difficulty of letting go of the individuals that have made our individual lives possible explains the belief in an afterlife much better.

Even Christians, who supposedly believe that souls go to Heaven or Hell, often want to believe their loved ones are waiting for them or watching over them.  My grandmother used to talk to my grandfather about the events of the day, even decades after his death.  I have heard people talk much more about their loved ones' afterlives than their fears or hopes for their own.  Angels take little children to God because he loves them.  (that one always makes me gag)   And then there's the Rainbow Bridge story, which has taken hold in a surprisingly short time.

I suppose these constitute what apologists like William Lane Craig call "properly basic beliefs."  He even cites the belief in the presence of other minds as a properly basic belief.  Craig tries to argue that some things are just so obvious that they can be treated as givens in philosophical debate, not debatable points themselves.  Alvin Plantinga makes this claim too (interesting video, even though he's full of crap).  Of course I find that idea that you can extrapolate from other humans existing to a supernatural god-human existing laughable, but with this Theory of Mind in mind (so to speak) it's a little easier to understand how Craig and thousands of years of religious thinkers have rationalized seriously irrational beliefs.

As an evolutionary psychologist, Bering believes this theory of mind is part of what gives humans a leg up in the survival of the species.  I can go along with that, and I appreciate the work of psychologists to study the phenomenon scientifically.

In order to appreciate the ease with which the people like Craig and Plantinga can convince people (and themselves) with such slim arguments I think we have only to look at a few logical fallacies.  The main problem with believing that belief in god is correct because it's part of human psychology (properly basic) is the fallacy called an appeal to nature or naturalistic fallacy.  The difference from the classic examples of natural = good is that it associates natural with correct, or justified.

We do unnatural things every day in modern society.  We fly in planes rather than walk barefoot to our destination.  We crap into the toilet rather than in the woods or over a hole in the ground.  We live into our eighties thanks to vaccinations, water sanitation, and antibiotics, among other things.  We wear glasses.  We eat Twinkies.  We blog on the internet.   Even the Amish will get into their horse and buggy and go into town on paved roads. 

None of us lives a truly "natural" life and we don't question it.  But yet when it comes to letting go of our cherished Sky Daddy and imagining our loved ones and ourselves truly becoming "dust into dust," then suddenly we (I mean "they") cry "properly basic" and "oh yeah? then where do you go when you die?"

Atheism is unnatural and difficult to get used to, but once you've freed yourself from the fairy tales, you find yourself wondering "Could I really have believed that?  How could I have tried so hard to believe something so false?"  This book gave me some answers to those questions.

And just as people are sometimes tempted to wizz by the side of the road or crap in the woods, we will sometimes revert to nature and wish a Sky Daddy or our grandparents were watching over us.  That's only natural.

Don't forget to check out The author's site, or read the book yourself.  I've probably garbled his message by putting in my own two cents. It's definitely a mind-changer, and I can imagine some minds being changed because I have a theory that other minds do indeed exist.

Bible verses make bad songs good... uhhh sure

"Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning" by Alan Jackson was sung on American Idol tonight. I'd never heard it before, and I'd never heard of him before, and I'm very very glad of that. What a stupid stupid song.

Stupid stupid stupid

The lyrics of the verses are tear-jerking remembrances of what "you" might have been doing (assuming you were a man) when you heard about the Twin Towers. So far so good. Everyday life grinds to a halt when something unthinkable happens. So far so good. Get out the hanky and prepare for a sappy chorus.

But wait.. what is this? The chorus is an uplifting Biblical non-sequitur. WTF?

I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us
And the greatest is love

So this song is really a celebration of religion-induced ignorance?  As long as you remember a few words from the Bible it doesn't matter if you're ignorant of foreign affairs?  And what did that have to do with September 11?

The song was premiered in November of 2001, so I guess it can be forgiven for being stupid in the heat of the mass stupidity gripping the nation at the time.  I found a lot of the "patriotism" post -9/11 really shallow and cheap and bordering on jingoism. Just wave a flag and put a pin on your collar and you're a good Amurkin. The same people who hated Washington & New York suddenly said "we" had been attacked. I was living in Texas at the time and it was sickening. This song reminds me of that, but there's something really sinister about throwing a bible verse into a song about a national tragedy without connecting the dots.

I was living in Fundyville, TX in 2001.  Until then, I got the impression that Texas was a whole 'nother country and they had no use at all for New Yorkers and anything in DC.  Then on 9/11 everyone's a New Yorker. I was devastated because I'd lived in both cities, and I was homesick for my friends.  Not to mention, I used to see the WTC from my bedroom window, so it was the first and last thing I saw every day as I opened and shut the blinds.  And I knew people who worked in the Pentagon. 

So I can definitely relate to the other parts of the song -- I remember where I was when I heard about the attacks.  But I don't get how you can say it follows from being shocked and sad that being ignorant and knowing a minimal amount of Biblical theology.

It's one thing for someone to be ignorant about foreign affairs and to have only a slim acquaintanceship with their own religion, but actually bragging about it in song is beyond me.  Bragging about it in the context of a national tragedy is downright insulting to the victims and to the rest of us who were equally touched despite not being ignorant Christian hicks.


p.s. it was a clever move on the part of the singer on American Idol, though.  Nobody's going to criticize his "song choice"

presenting christ to terminally ill atheist

"presenting christ to terminally ill atheist" was one of the search strings used to arrive at this blog recently. I tried that search, and it retrieves my post about prayer not being effective. So not really satisfying the searcher, and probably wasn't read....  but now I'm curious.  Why would someone want to do this?"

How many atheists in Europe or the Americas haven't heard of Christianity?

My mother was hospitalized in a religious hospital some time ago.  It's the only hospital around, and the one that her Medicare will allow her to go to.  (Is that Constitutional?)   They didn't push religion at all, until the resident social worker came by to talk about where mom would go after being released.  She offered to lead us in prayer.  My brother, mother, and I got very squeamish.   Even if we believed anymore, we wouldn't have appreciated an un-ordained random lay stranger making shit up for God's ears in our name.  We grew up Episcopalian.  It was a very awkward moment, and she took the hint. 

My town in Texas had only one hospital, a Seventh-Day Adventist one.  (They stayed open on Saturdays, though)  I went to the E.R. a couple of times and had to have an X-Ray once, so I was subjected to some bland Christian-themed posters.  I would never have denied myself health care because of where it was located, but it still pissed me off.  Hindus and Muslims are a real presence in our medical schools.  Atheists too, though not obviously so of course.  How many of these hospitals are losing out on the top talent because of their religious affiliation?  If I were a Hindu I wouldn't want to go to work every day in an institution that promoted Christianity.

Christians are proud of their history of having hospitals.  Should it really be a point of pride?  If they use them for conversion it's the lowest form of deception.  (a BIG complaint against Mother Teresa) And it's not like other religions haven't done the same.

This letter-to-the-editor brought this up for me. The title is "Christians build hospitals; why don't atheists?" but the writer is objecting to a lawsuit involving a church and the local school system.  In typical Christian fascism, oops fashion, the writer deflects from the legitimate issue of whether their local government was un-constitutionally promoting a single religion to whethr her religion had done good things.  Who could complain about forcing such a noble religion on children?  This ignorant writer probably has no idea what the Constitution says or how it's been applied over the past 200+ years.

She probably also doesn't consider the long history of Jewish hospitals or those of other religions, either. 

Of course, healing people is a good thing, so arguing against religious hospitals is a losing proposition.  "It might help, and couldn't hurt" is the default position on prayer.  Suggesting that prayer and religion could be harmful is politically incorrect.  Of course, by claiming innocuous motives and results, they defeat their own position.  If it's so innocuous isn't that the same was worthless?

Then there's the issue of quality control...   Just like pedophile priests, a religious organization controls decisions about incompetent or misbehaving believers.  They can address the problem, ignore it, hide it, and those are the same choices as non-religious organizations, of course.  The one choice they have and seem to use when it's convenient is that they can rationalize cruelty if conversion is the outcome.  Did Mother Teresa abuse her patients?    Who cares?  She's on her way to sainthood.

http://www.atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals

Proud to be an Atheist, by Dusty

He lives in Mississippi, and he's an "out" atheist. He lives his motto, "Be Brave, Bitches!"

Questions for Christians

Christians ask themselves questions that conveniently have answers in Christianity.  Here are some questions that I'd like to see Christians ask themselves.

How many other religions have you studied?

Of all the world's possible religions, why do you think the stories of the Bible are more valid than the stories of the other religions?

If you were a Martian and landed on Earth having never heard of a concept of God, how would you decide which, if any, of the world's religions had merit?

If someday there would be definitive proof of the non-existence of God, would you still be a Christian?

Why do you believe what you believe?  (Favorite question on The Atheist Experience)

If you knew with 100% certainty that you would be going to Hell, would you still be a Christian?

Of all the denominations there are, why do you belong to the one you belong to? 

Have you read any of the scholarly theological literature of your denomination?

Have you read every word of The Bible?

How do you reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bible?  (There are many.  Refer to this list at the Secular Web if you have not realized the Bible is loaded with them)

How do you know which parts of the Old Testament can be disregarded by Christians?  If you don't know, then why not?

David Barton vs. Jon Stewart

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-may-4-2011-david-barton

That "Wallbuilders" creep who is rewriting history textbooks tried to convince Stewart that he's not really just promoting a revisionist history that supports his theocracy agenda.   uhhh yeah...  He brings up the old chestnut of States' Rights.... that State Constitutions were allowed to be religious at the start of the country, as if the Fourteenth Century never straightened this problem out. 

He claims to have thousands of documents to prove all this, yet somehow the National Archives isn't pounding down his door to get to them. 

Conspiracy, I guess.

I'd like to see these "documents" he has that supposedly disprove the Constitution, the amendments, and the case law that defined them.  I'd like to see where the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee that all people have the same rights in whatever state they live in.

I wish those theocrats would just go ahead and take over Mississippi and be done with ... oh wait... they're all lazy asses who wouldn't be able to tolerate cotton picking in the hot sun.  I wonder how they would solve that...