Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: A both-and blog Previous entry: Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ral!

Jeebus the scapegoat

Religion

I don’t know if I should be grateful or annoyed that Ezra linked this post by Ross Douthat.  One one hand, it’s the most annoyingly pretentious thing I’ve read in at least a week.  On the other hand, it’s the most entertainingly pretentious thing I’ve read in at least a week.  In a way, it’s hard to blame the hardcore believers, especially those whose attachment to Christianity is rooted in a need to project their own misogyny onto a god so they don’t have to take responsibility, because pretentiousness is all you’ve got when logic has failed to come through for you.  It’s really a fascinating post, in that his main argument—-that the ideas of Christianity have a substantial impact and if you could somehow disprove them in a way that made believers actually give up belief, that would change a lot of things—-is correct, but everything else about it is so wrong.  For instance, he wrote the post because he’s taking a swipe at Christopher Hitchens for being right about something (atheism), and so he misrepresents what Hitchens is trying to say.  Hitchens is making the benign observation that the Big Questions are bigger than Christianity or Islam, and that the absence of one specific faith wouldn’t change those.  Douthat wants to be right-er about something, because he’s wrong about the important thing (whether or not there really is a god), so he splits hairs and points out that Christianity is too important!!11!!!!1!!1!!!  So important that even you atheists need it! So there!

Beware: There is unnecessarily flowery language ahead times ten.  You may want to have your stomach treatment of choice on hand.

Consider, for instance, the way in which the dominance of the Christian story has actually sharpened one of the best arrows in the anti-theist’s quiver. In Western society, especially, the oft-heard claim that the world is too cruel a place for a good omnipotence to have created derives a great deal of its power, whether implicitly or explicitly, from the person of Christ himself. The God of the New Testament seems more immediate, more personal, and more invested in his creation than He had heretofore revealed Himself to be. But this arguably makes Him seem more culpable for the world’s suffering as well. Paradoxically, the God who addresses Job out of the whirlwind is far less vulnerable to complaints about the world’s injustice than the God who suffers on the Cross - or the human God who cries in the manger.

He’s not wrong in this argument, but the implication—-that Christianity is that awesome—-is laughable.  Many atheists from a Christian background will be the first in line to tell you that the Christian god is especially hard to believe in, and that the problem of evil requires you to either believe in a malevolent or at least indifferent god, or that there’s multiple gods competing for power. Or you could believe in no gods at all, which makes the most sense. I’m impressed that someone can realize this about the concept of a loving god, and yet won’t allow enough intellectual honesty to kick in and go the next step, which is to abandon the incoherent religious belief.  It’s clear to me that if you accept that the Christian god is impossible, then you’re on tap to change religions or, hopefully, become an atheist. 

But of course, the implications of atheism are too much for some people to bear, and I’ve not hidden in any way that I think one of the implications of an atheist worldview is that you have to accept that women are equal and that using their ability to get pregnant as an excuse to hurt and control them is a human decision, not something that’s done by humans at god’s bidding.  You also have to accept that marriage is a decision between two people, not an institution blessed by god, and you have to accept that the morality of being gay should be measured by the harm done (no more than being straight does) instead of by your irrational judgments that you pretend are god’s.  For the Ross Douthats of the world, god is the ultimate scapegoat—-you can put all of your sexism and homophobia and anal retentiveness on god, claim that’s what he wants, and that it’s not up to you.  So you get your ugly cake and you get to eat it without responsibility, too.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:39 PM • (97) Comments

Many atheists from a Christian background will be the first in line to tell you that the Christian god is especially hard to believe in, and that the problem of evil requires you to either believe in a malevolent or at least indifferent god, or that there’s multiple gods competing for power.

Exactly. Any diety that rapes a teenager in order to specifically produce a son who must be murdered in order for us to not be tortured for all eternity after we die…well, calling that god malevolent is being nice.

And I don’t even want to know the people who are evil enough that they have done something so rotten that it’s an equivalent exchange for another human being’s execution.

Comment #1: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/03  at  05:45 PM

And that all of that is to say nothing of the genocides that the said “loving” deity has both required and perpetrated.

Comment #2: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/03  at  05:45 PM

The humanity of Christ is totally ruined by that whole Above-and-Outside-Original Sin thing, and the rebirth nonsense, plus the miracles.  Fishes and loaves is one thing, but that Lazarus stuff?  Total fabrication if you ask me.

Now Buddha was something I can understand: rich bastard prince a-hole who gives it all up?  That’s the kind of story for me.

Comment #4: jon  on  01/03  at  06:09 PM

order for us to not be tortured for all eternity after we die

...a torture that He ordained in the first place (and could obviously rescind at any time) because he gave the original two humans curiosity, but not the ability to tell right from wrong. 

But take it a step further: since Jesus is more-or-less universally believed (among modern Christianity, at least) to be the avatar of God, that makes the whole story an act of cosmic self-mutilation.

Comment #5: Seraph  on  01/03  at  06:16 PM

...a torture that He ordained in the first place (and could obviously rescind at any time) because he gave the original two humans curiosity, but not the ability to tell right from wrong.

Well, there is that, too.  Truly a vile monster.

Comment #6: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/03  at  06:17 PM

Now Buddha was something I can understand: rich bastard prince a-hole who gives it all up?  That’s the kind of story for me.

Including his wife and kid(s?).  I can’t really admire him for that.

Comment #7: Seraph  on  01/03  at  06:17 PM

So, who’s first?  McGreevy? James? cookie?  Which one relishes the torture and which protests the “goodness” and “love” of the cruel monstrosity they worship?

Comment #8: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/03  at  06:19 PM

rapes a teenager

About this, though: a very big deal is made of the fact that Mary consented to carry Jesus.  Bravely volunteering to do the Greatest Service Ever, especially knowing that her life would be in danger if Joseph decided to get litigious about it and all that. 

Granted, there was a literally infinite power imbalance…

Comment #9: Seraph  on  01/03  at  06:23 PM

About this, though: a very big deal is made of the fact that Mary consented to carry Jesus.

“God” didn’t ask, he told. She had no choice.

Comment #10: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/03  at  06:26 PM

I’ve not hidden in any way that I think one of the implications of an atheist worldview is that you have to accept that women are equal ...

I was with you until this.  Atheism is definitely not a worldview or a paradigm or philosophy.  It is the lack of a belief.  There are no “implications” of atheism other than no deities.  A good many atheists will make the argument that “rights” are human inventions, not intrinsic truths.  As such, no atheist will ever “have to accept that women are equal” because of atheism.

Comment #11: Ordained Atheist  on  01/03  at  06:29 PM

Okay.  The Atlantic.

This is the magazine which gave him endless pages to intellectually [sic] masturbate over whether or not porn-wanking was infidelity.  (I’ll save you the trouble of reading his turgid and convoluted essay: his answer is `yes, and you’re bad’ while pretending to be objective.)  Is any of us surprised that pitching Christianity is the next thing? 

I think if we are going to talk about higher powers why don’t we start smaller: the editors at the Atlantic who keep printing this nonsense.  At what point does an Atlantic editor slide Douthat’s work back across and say, “look, Ross, Christianity has either had a monopoly or enforced or tacit dominance of Western thought and discussion for two millenia now.  It’s pretty much said whatever it needed or wanted to say.  And even it it hadn’t, Ross, there are several multi-billion dollar industries out there committed to its propagation social dominance, so it really doesn’t need the help of The Atlantic.)”  .... ? I wonder.

Comment #12: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  06:31 PM

The humanity of Christ is totally ruined by that whole Above-and-Outside-Original Sin thing,

Why?  He still felt pain and fear, needed to eat, sleep, take a dump…all the stuff that an omnipotent being might understand if he’s also omniscient, but would never have experienced.

rebirth nonsense, plus the miracles.  Fishes and loaves is one thing, but that Lazarus stuff?  Total fabrication if you ask me.

Probably, but I don’t see why one miracle is more difficult to believe than another.  Heck, raising Lazarus (and himself) merely involves re-inserting a soul into a body.  The loaves and fishes thing involved rewriting at least one law of physics.

Comment #13: Seraph  on  01/03  at  06:31 PM

a very big deal is made of the fact that Mary consented to carry Jesus.  Bravely volunteering to do the Greatest Service Ever, especially knowing that her life would be in danger if Joseph decided to get litigious about it and all that.

consented how, exactly? first of all, the immaculate conception implies that she was predestined, based on her birth as designed by god, to agree. which is about as manufactured as consent can be. And then to top that off, “you can carry the savior and the world will be good, or everyone, now and forever, including you, will go to hell and suffer for eternity”

“Have sex with me or I will torture you and everyone you know” doesn’t exactly meet the legal standards of a fair choice.

but I suppose Douthat is right about one thing. If the world were such a place that no one believed in a benevolent god, and that prayers worked, atheists would have little reason to ask people why they pray to gods who ignore their prayers and make the world suck. Because, y’know, it would mean no one was praying.

Comment #14: karpad  on  01/03  at  06:34 PM

“Have sex with me or I will torture you and everyone you know” doesn’t exactly meet the legal standards of a fair choice.


He he he he he he.

But, to be fair, it does rather fit Abrahamic monotheism’s definition of “free will”, which is “do as you’re told or suffer agonies for eternity”.

Comment #15: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  06:46 PM

Re: Atheism, the big problem is that arguing against theism is like trying to nail KY-flavored jello to the wall.

In our society, the idea of “God” comes with certain definitions and concepts. It’s intelligent, humanistic (not as in being humane, but as having human traits), communicative, and active.

And that’s something that a lot of people who say that they are theists don’t believe in. It’s not their experience…it doesen’t make sense. But yet they feel something. And it’s that something that is “God”.

Which is fine, if you ask me. The real problem is that as a group, these people often are required to pay deference to ideas that they do not really believe, and in this way, it becomes impossible for them to further themselves spiritually. So they get angry and they lash out.

Just my opinion.

Comment #16: Karmakin  on  01/03  at  06:46 PM

let’s also not forget that religious power is political power.

You become a true atheist?  You lose any political power or credibility you might have had as a believer.  Even more to the point, I suspect it’s quite difficult to be a republican and be an atheist.  I don’t doubt there are plenty of Randians who are stone atheists (kinda goes with that territory), but the vast majority of the GOP VOTING base is deeply theist. 

Therefore, if ol’ Russ became an atheist (that is, he followed the natural path of his own thinking) he would probably lose every bit of credibility he has as a young conservative.  Moderate Republicans can’t be atheists.  Just doesn’t happen.

Russ knows this.  Remember Sinclair’s useful dictum:  “it is impossible to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on him NOT understanding it.  Whatever it is.”

This dictum of self-interest explains nearly all human behavior.  Including Russ’s.

Comment #17: LL  on  01/03  at  06:49 PM

You know, the sad part about it is, if you separate Jesus from the God he supposedly represented/embodied, he was a pretty good guy with some ideas worth following.  Some not-so-admirable ones too, I’m sure - he lived in a barbaric time.  But this is a guy who preached civil disobedience (that turn-the-other-cheek thing?  Was not submission.  It was defiance.), treated women like human beings in an age that did not, backed down a lynch mob on a slut-hunt, reached out to the sick and other untouchables, defied the corrupt authorities of his time (most interpretations I’ve read about the rampage in the temple - which admittedly, violated his own principles of nonviolence - was that he was angry that God’s name was being used to fleece the poor.  Tell me now, who hasn’t wished, just once, for the opportunity to clock some televangelist who’s gotten rich on lonely old ladies sending him their pension checks?)...what would it be like if Christians actually followed those teachings, instead of attributing whatever they already want to believe to Jeebus?

Comment #18: Seraph  on  01/03  at  06:50 PM

Laughable is possibly the nicest thing you could say about Douche-hat’s excreta.  The man is an embarrassment to the human species.

Comment #19: DrDick  on  01/03  at  06:59 PM

But, to be fair, it does rather fit Abrahamic monotheism’s definition of “free will”, which is “do as you’re told or suffer agonies for eternity”.

Pretty much.  She had as much “free will” as Abraham or Moses or Jonah (though I’ll admit that the Immaculate Conception thing does render that kinda iffy), and as much as YHVH “asks” anybody anything, He “asked” her more nicely than He did them.  She gets an angel hailing her name as the mother of the salvation of her people, she gets to ask a few questions, she finally says “okay, I’ll do it”. 

They get: Sacrifice your son, bring down divine wrath on the people who raised you, travel to a far distant land to deliver a message that might get you killed.  Go.  Do it.  Now.

Not that this is actually helping YHVH’s case any…

Comment #20: Seraph  on  01/03  at  07:01 PM

I think Ordained Atheist makes an important point. I think it’s a mistake to make assumptions about what judgments and values one can come to as a result of being an atheist. As much as the right wing is dominated by crazy religious hatemongers, there is also various right wing atheist belief sets usually tied in with crazy libertarian/social Darwinist type ideas. And there is also a history of religious progressives in our country which should not be ignored. That said, I myself consider myself an atheist and I personally believe that organized religion is responsible for more evil then good.

Comment #21: AdamN  on  01/03  at  07:04 PM

oops one extra myself there…

Comment #22: AdamN  on  01/03  at  07:06 PM

Is any of this surprising from Douthat, at all?  This is the same man who wrote a lengthy essay on the return of the paranoid style in American film-making which was half mere on-and-on-and-on listing of past films and shows in prose form - - he lists about fifty on just one of three webpages, for example) - -  and half condemning film-makers as suspicion-mongers whilst avoiding the base question of whether there is actually something here of which a free society need be suspicious and frightened!.  In both cases he ends up telling less about his essay’s topic and far more about what he is: an accidental apologist for unrestrained power.  And isn’t that pretty much a textbook definition of a doctrinaire theist?

Comment #23: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  07:13 PM

If anybody’s wondering why I’m being a touch defensive of Jesus, though not modern Christianity and certainly not YHVH, it’s because <a hfref=“http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/12/clean-shoes.html#comments”>this post</a> by Fred Clark is fresh in my mind.  There’s an example of what Christianity is supposed to be about. 

They could be so good.  No shit.  Imagine if the Christianity we have today was suddenly replaced with people who thought like that.  Instead, we’ve got just another tribal religion, something to fight over and use to exclude and oppress.  All that good shit I mentioned above, and all they can glean from it is “we must keep the fags and the sluts in their place!”

There are times it brings actual tears to my eyes.

Comment #24: Seraph  on  01/03  at  07:20 PM

Excuse me.  That would be this post.

Comment #25: Seraph  on  01/03  at  07:21 PM

The bigots always blame their bullshit on God.  The southern racists claimed segregation (and slavery before that) was divinely ordained.  It is supposed to shut up all argument.  They are really pissed off that so many of us today are unbelievers.

Comment #26: DrDick  on  01/03  at  07:25 PM

They are really pissed off that so many of us today are unbelievers.

I’m sure it does.  Have you ever seen an argument - online or IRL - where a Believer tried to argue against an atheist (or any non-Christian, really) with Bible quotes?  It’s not just that they take them to be the ultimate authority, they assume that they’re magically persuasive somehow.  Like the Chick Tracts where the Sinner wasn’t even aware of Jesus until the Good Christian evangelized to them, but they convert instantly when they finally get a glance at the Gospels. 

When it doesn’t work that way IRL - when they lay out their carefully-prepared, magic-bullet arsenal of Bible quotes - and the atheist responds with: “I don’t accept the authority of your book or your god.  Got any real reasons?” you can practically hear the sirens going off and see “DOES NOT COMPUTE” scrolling across their eyes.

Comment #27: Seraph  on  01/03  at  07:32 PM

<blockquote>I’m sure it does.</blockquote.

Make that “I’m sure they are”.

Comment #28: Seraph  on  01/03  at  07:36 PM

As such, no atheist will ever “have to accept that women are equal” because of atheism.

True, there’s nothing in concept of not believing in God that forces someone to not be a douche.  You can be an atheist and jerk - the internet has enough evo-psych fans to show that.  But take away the Adam and Eve story and you’re forced to come up with something a little better to justify sexism and racism, and a quick glance at history shows that none of the pseudo-scientific justifications for treating women and/or minorities as inferior have even a fraction of the staying power as the religious ones.

Comment #29: Kyso K.  on  01/03  at  07:41 PM

“Exactly. Any diety that rapes a teenager in order to specifically produce a son who must be murdered in order for us to not be tortured for all eternity after we die…well, calling that god malevolent is being nice.”
Not to mention all the genocides committed in the name of said god (or committed BY him). Evisceration of pregnant women, smashing babies on rocks, taking the virgin girls as loot, all that good stuff…

“...a torture that He ordained in the first place (and could obviously rescind at any time) because he gave the original two humans curiosity, but not the ability to tell right from wrong. “
And he didn’t even bother keeping the snake out of the garden (or even bothering to go “hey, if you run into a talking snake, don’t believe anything it says”.)...

To say nothing of that whole Exodus thing. Nothing like raining down death and destruction on peasants for their ruler’s decisions, and then “hardening the heart” of said ruler so you can inflict more suffering…

Comment #30: Devonian  on  01/03  at  08:06 PM

<u>or that there’s multiple gods competing for power. Or you could believe in no gods at all, which makes the most sense.</u>

Almost, Amanda:

It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.

Just a side (snide?) observation. It pains me to no end to be on the same side of any position as Christopher Hitchens, so I take comfort in the fact that I’m not a douche about it like he is.

Funny thing is, when you boil down Douthat’s argument to its basics, it’s not all that different from this gem from Charlie Daniels.

Comment #32: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  01/03  at  08:32 PM

“the dominance of the Christian story has actually sharpened one of the best arrows in the anti-theist’s quiver”

Nah.

Existance of a god is just as hard to prove whether you god’s name is Jesus or Sam.  Sure, it’s harder to prove that god exists and his son is a magician than to just prove that god exists, but that doesn’t mean the story of Jesus puts it over the top.

And it’s silly to say the god of the New Testament is “more involved” when the god of the Old was always going around talking to people, telling them to do this, smiting them for doing that, and so on.

Comment #33: Notorious P.A.T.  on  01/03  at  08:37 PM

This was the Douthat line that I thought was most interesting: “But fundamentally, the Christian story is evidence for a particular idea about the universe: It recounts a series of events that, if real, tells us something profound about the nature of God, and His relationship to His creatures, that we couldn’t have been expected to understand or accept in precisely the same way without the Gospel narratives.” My emphasis added…

Um, so let me understand something here.  If a particular story is real, it tells us something profound about God(s) and provides evidence for a particular idea about the Universe.  And we wouldn’t understand that something profound or accept it the same way without that story.

Wow, that’s like so deep!  I mean, what if The Lord of the Rings is real?  Maybe we really are living in a universe where White Magic conquers Black Magic, and god or gods really do think that Hobbits are very important.  Sauron must be the Devil’s real name!

Or how about aboriginal American Coyote myths, like this:  “Coyote figures prominently in several creation myths. In one myth, Coyote creates the first people by kicking a ball of mud (sometimes a bit of feces) until it formed into the first man. In another myth Coyote is able to successfully impregnate an evil woman who has killed off all the other men in the world during the sexual act.”  If that was real, just think about what that would say about the Universe!

Of course, Christian stories are fundamentally different, somehow.  So you can never, ever, compare the Christian bible and Christian dogma to, say, Buddhism and its sacred texts.  I mean, those crazy Buddhists believe we’re all trapped in a horrible cycle of death and rebirth that we can only escape by achieving enlightenment.  Doesn’t that sound insane? 

But Christians have coldly sane beliefs like if we’re all really, really good, believe the right things, say the right magic words in the correct way, when we die we might be allowed to be reborn in a magical place of endless delights where we’ll be perfectly free to serve God forever and ever.  See what I mean?  Those Buddhists are nuts.  Christians are the only people who understand God’s secret messages, which we can use for our personal benefit…

Comment #34: MikeEss  on  01/03  at  08:42 PM

“There’s an example of what Christianity is supposed to be about.”

Well, not really.  Not to sound snarky but no one who has actually read the “good book” can think that.

Comment #35: Notorious P.A.T.  on  01/03  at  09:00 PM

Doesn’t that sound insane? 

Not insane. Horribly insulated to a particular worldview, certainly, which is what any religious person who truly believes that his or her belief is “the one true religion” suffers from.

Comment #36: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  01/03  at  09:04 PM

“Wow, that’s like so deep! “

I know! ! !  Maybe I’m missing the boat with this religion stuff if it can provide such profound insights!! !hehe. 

I’m still trying to figure out what is so “profound” about god if the story of Jesus is true.  All I can come up with is:  someone who sends his son to die a horrible death to correct a mistake he, himself made is profoundly evil.

Comment #37: Notorious P.A.T.  on  01/03  at  09:12 PM

Anyone for *good* theology?  Kierkegaard?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Comment #38: shah8  on  01/03  at  09:46 PM

Well, not really.  Not to sound snarky but no one who has actually read the “good book” can think that.

Heh.  If you read Fred Clark, you know that he has read it.  It’s just that he picks and chooses the good parts, rather than using biblical references to justify his own hate. 

Which I suppose means that he would be a decent, kind-hearted person regardless of what he believed, just like Douthat and those like him use their “beliefs” to justify their own assholery.

That having been said…

When I say “that’s how Christianity is supposed to be”, I mean that’s what they would be if they:

1) Lived up to their own self-image as generous, loving peacemakers (a self-image that tends to fly directly in the face of their actual actions)

and

2) Lived up to the principles set forth by their supposed founder, Yeshua be Yussef of Nazareth.  See my post at 4:50.  I have to divorce those teachings from the figure of Jesus the Christ and the god he supposedly represents for them to make sense, but Fred can reconcile them somehow. 

Most American Christians (most Christians period, really) don’t do either.  They “believe” in Jesus - which pretty much means saying the right words at the right time and believing all other gods are foolishness - then behave pretty much like they would have anyway.

Comment #39: Seraph  on  01/03  at  09:49 PM

I’m still trying to figure out what is so “profound” about god if the story of Jesus is true.  All I can come up with is:  someone who sends his son to die a horrible death to correct a mistake he, himself made is profoundly evil.

Not just evil; mentally ill.  Remember: “the Son is one in being with the Father”.  If the story of Jesus is true, then God is a cutter.

Comment #40: Seraph  on  01/03  at  09:50 PM

Well, not really.  Not to sound snarky but no one who has actually read the “good book” can think that.

Fred Clark has read the Bible, and he thinks that.

Comment #41: The Devil's Advocate  on  01/03  at  09:55 PM

Shah8,

I think Buellerism is a damn good way to live.  Those Rooneyite assholes on their quests against frivolity can all fuck off.

Comment #42: jon  on  01/03  at  09:56 PM

When it doesn’t work that way IRL - when they lay out their carefully-prepared, magic-bullet arsenal of Bible quotes - and the atheist responds with: “I don’t accept the authority of your book or your god.  Got any real reasons?” you can practically hear the sirens going off and see “DOES NOT COMPUTE” scrolling across their eyes.

This reminds me of the new TLC series about that clown car womb family, The Duggers.  I was watching it the other night and they were on a family vacation to that monument of batshittery by Ken Ham, The Creation Museum.  Daddy Dugger was explaining to the viewing audience how the bible was scientific because it was written by god and thus, all the proof needed to answer any “scientific” question.  Those poor, poor children.

Slightly OT, but does anybody else besides me watch that show?  Holy crap.  The oldest Dugger boy (Joshua?) just got married - of course to a girl just like dear ol’ mom.  This Joshua kid is about the creepiest “man” I’ve ever seen.  Watch it sometime.

Comment #43: kac90b  on  01/03  at  10:01 PM

Ordained, it’s possible for an atheist to have all sorts of wacky beliefs.  But that’s different from saying that atheism has certain implications.  Atheists are free to ignore the implications.  But it’s true that one implication if you don’t accept that god created the world is that magical claims about god, such as the belief that he puts souls into embryos, are just silly.

Comment #44: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  10:11 PM

Many atheists from a Christian background will be the first in line to tell you that the Christian god is especially hard to believe in, and that the problem of evil requires you to either believe in a malevolent or at least indifferent god

Well, there’s always the loving god who so believes in free will for his children, humans, as a species, that he’s completely hands off.  Pray, and He will fortify your soul for the trials ahead, but you and your fellow humans are totally responsible for the shit you pull on each other.  We could make this world a paradise, should we choose, or we could make the Holocaust look like a day in the park.

The threat of hell is sort of like the idle threat of “DON’T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!”

Jesus’ message that the most important thing, and the best way to honor god, is to love each other as ourselves, is pretty damn unassailable.  No lying, cheating, scamming, killing, wounding, etc. happens if you try to treat others fairly and as you wish to be treated.  Turning the other cheek is incredibly important, since revenge and simmering hatred really don’t help anyone, even the one who’s simmering.

I’m always amazed at how many folks can say the Lord’s Prayer and seem to blip right over “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”.  You basically promise that if you’re a nasty grudge holder, it’s okay for god to hold a grudge against you.  I’ve also discovered that forgiving people frees you—way too much time and energy can be spent being pissed off at someone who did something nasty years and years ago.  Forgiving them is forgiving yourself—you allow yourself to move on.

Doesn’t mean you have to be stupid about it and let them take advantage of you in the future, just means that life in general works better if you let stupid people be stupid and ignore them.  Impossible when the stupid are in power, but in situations among compatriots, it works pretty well.

The problem then becomes: what’s the difference between a god that believes interfering in a substantial meaningful way is “spoiling the kids” and wants us to behave independently and with free will as a species, and simply living independently and with free will as a species without a god at all?

Comment #45: Caren  on  01/03  at  10:15 PM

“I’ve not hidden in any way that I think one of the implications of an atheist worldview is that you have to accept that women are equal ...”

Moronic.  One could just as easily argue the opposite:  that atheism puts the emphasis on the physical world, and because men on average have greater physical prowess then women, atheism necessarily classifies women as inferior.

Please note, the above does not represent MY view… just pointing out that an argument for gender hierarchy could emerge from the Atheist position just as easily as an argument for equality.

Plus some of the most systematic despisers of women… think of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche (“Thou goest undo woman?  Do not forget thy whip!”)... have been atheists.

Comment #46: MonkeyShines  on  01/03  at  10:25 PM

Well, there’s always the loving god who so believes in free will for his children, humans, as a species, that he’s completely hands off.

That reminds me of the later issues of the Lucifer comic book, where YHVH withdraws from Creation so He can observe something at work that he (to paraphrase) breaks just by touching it - randomness. 

Of course, that opens a whole ‘nother can of worms.  Why is He so hands-off now, when He was so interventionist on behalf of a single nomadic tribe of shepherds a mere 6,000 years ago or so?

Also, if God made his wishes known at some point in the past, at the founding of the various religions, why doesn’t He make his wishes known now, when some yahoo uses religion as an excuse to do something murderous? 

The threat of hell is sort of like the idle threat of “DON’T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!”

Except, in this case, Dad will stop the car.  And throw you out in the middle of the worst neighborhood imaginable in the dead of night.  And not come back.  Ever.  Because you didn’t love Him enough.

Comment #47: Seraph  on  01/03  at  10:35 PM

Why is He so hands-off now, when He was so interventionist on behalf of a single nomadic tribe of shepherds a mere 6,000 years ago or so?

Also, if God made his wishes known at some point in the past, at the founding of the various religions, why doesn’t He make his wishes known now, when some yahoo uses religion as an excuse to do something murderous?

That is one of the questions that occurred to me way back when I was a wee one and I would pose these questions to my christian friends who would either ignore it or tell me that the death of Jesus as our “savior” was the last appearance for good ole gawd, if we didn’t “get it” after that then there was no need and it was up to the christians to soldier on behalf of god. (naturally).

(of course, Muhammed to them was just a crazy man on a mountain).

Comment #48: UltraMagnus  on  01/03  at  11:58 PM

“...In Western society, especially, the oft-heard claim that the world is too cruel a place for a good omnipotence to have created derives a great deal of its power, whether implicitly or explicitly, from the person of Christ himself. The God of the New Testament seems more immediate, more personal, and more invested in his creation than He had heretofore revealed Himself to be. But this arguably makes Him seem more culpable for the world’s suffering as well. Paradoxically, the God who addresses Job out of the whirlwind is far less vulnerable to complaints about the world’s injustice than the God who suffers on the Cross…”

Okay, so if you’re a Professional Explanator (the way Ross Douthat is) whose job is to make clear to Underlings on behalf of their Overlords that their problems are not of much importance in terms of the Great Chain Of Being or of the Grand Scheme Of Things and that their lives do not rate highly after all (the way Ross Douthat’s is)——why would you wish to tout Christianity by emphasizing that Jesus Christ is a wuss, the weak and feeble refuge of the mass of wastes of skin?  Because that’s what Douthat appears to be doing here.  Or am I mistaken?  Or is Douthat just having his little joke at the expense of his readership (which wouldn’t surprise me a bit)?  Is this one of those coded communications whereby neocon gods on mountaintops tip the wink and the nod at each other over the bent and fuzzled heads of the teeming, breeding Swarmers On The Plain Below?  Or am I wasting my time worrying over the possibility that Douthat meant anything whatsoever, when the smart betting says he probably did not?

On reflection I’ve decided that the last possibility is by far the most likely.  Whew.  That’s better.  Such a solid, one might almost say blessed relief…

Comment #49: bekabot  on  01/04  at  12:09 AM

“I’ve not hidden in any way that I think one of the implications of an atheist worldview is that you have to accept that women are equal ...”

I think this would be more clearly stated as something like: Thinking and living as an atheist puts an intellectual hurdle in your way when you want to argue that women are inferior, because you don’t have religion to do it for you. That wouldn’t leave room for morons to come along and accuse you of thinking atheism itself implies anything positive.

Comment #50: junk science  on  01/04  at  12:39 AM

Sorry Amanda, I don’t have enough faith to become an atheist.

If ‘feminists’ really cared about women, they would be against the billion-dollar pornography industry that abuses women and treats them like animals.

Comment #51: James  on  01/04  at  12:44 AM

I honestly can’t believe James hasn’t wandered into traffic yet, or remembers how to walk upright. A miracle.

Comment #52: junk science  on  01/04  at  12:48 AM

Okay, can we ban James now? Some of the trolls that show up here are giant assholes, but they are trying to engage in conversation (only in order to show us how wrong we are, but they still TRY to make arguments). Some of the trolls that show up here just make stupid statements with no proof or evidence. James used to be that kind, but now he’s apparently crossed over into bringing up non-sequiturs and saying feminists support the porn industry when most of us are emphatically against the industry and Amanda has denounced misogynistic porn like a billion times.

I know it’s feeding the troll to point out that I was enjoying this thread so much until James’ comment, but seriously, this was such a good thread, and now it’s derailed. Can we please, please ban this assclown?

Comment #53: Lauren O  on  01/04  at  12:56 AM

Lauren O,

Whats the matter, you need mommy Amanda to protect you from the truth?

Feminists are pro-porn and always have been. They say it’s ‘liberating’ for women, as is the right for a women to kill her unborn child.

Feminism is a sick, sick lie that has done so much damage to our culture.

Comment #54: James  on  01/04  at  01:08 AM

Sorry Amanda, I don’t have enough faith to become an atheist.

But that’s the best part! YOU DON’T NEED ANY! smile See how that works.

And can we feed the trolls if we stuff them like ducks for foi gras? (sp?). (let it be known I have never, and will never personally eat foi gras, just trying to make a joke).

Comment #55: UltraMagnus  on  01/04  at  01:09 AM

Feminists are pro-porn and always have been.

Now you’re just pulling stuff out of your ass. Cause Catherine McKinnon, Gloria Steinem and a few other first wave feminists would beg to disagree.

Comment #56: UltraMagnus  on  01/04  at  01:12 AM

And he didn’t even bother keeping the snake out of the garden (or even bothering to go “hey, if you run into a talking snake, don’t believe anything it says”.)…

The best part? Everything the snake said was the truth.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened

Comment #57: asdf  on  01/04  at  01:21 AM

That depends on how you read that asdf,

In some translations Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of “life” which I had been taught meant they would be immortal. Because they broke the rules about the tree of knowledge, they were kicked out of Eden and no longer had access to the tree of life, thus they were doomed to die.

It took a long fucking time but they did eventually die.

However, there are some translations where God commanded that “on that day you shall die” so in that regard the serpent was correct, they didn’t drop dead the moment they ate of the fruit. It all depends on which version you read.

Comment #58: UltraMagnus  on  01/04  at  01:27 AM

“The best part? Everything the snake said was the truth.”

See?  God WANTS you to be fat, dumb, and ignorant!  That’s why you should listen to and obey your church leaders.  And don’t try to think for yourself or you’ll become a dirty hippie atheist who’ll burn in hell forever…!

Comment #59: MikeEss  on  01/04  at  01:30 AM

Having trouble understanding God?

p-p-paaayyyy attentionnnn, Insect.

Comment #60: karpad  on  01/04  at  01:50 AM

“The best part? Everything the snake said was the truth. “
There’s that too.

Comment #61: Devonian  on  01/04  at  02:24 AM

When it doesn’t work that way IRL - when they lay out their carefully-prepared, magic-bullet arsenal of Bible quotes - and the atheist responds with: “I don’t accept the authority of your book or your god.  Got any real reasons?” you can practically hear the sirens going off and see “DOES NOT COMPUTE” scrolling across their eyes.

And that is why it is so funny to watch missionaries at work in Japan. Highly educated population, nearly all of whom have a working knowledge of basic Christian doctrine, less than 1% of whom are actually believers. I swear sometimes you see smoke coming out of the missionary’s ears…. not out of anger but just from a mental meltdown.

Comment #62: sunsin  on  01/04  at  03:32 AM

2) Lived up to the principles set forth by their supposed founder, Yeshua be Yussef of Nazareth.

Bullshit!

Neither “Yeshua be Yussef” nor Jesus Christ, Son of God left any original writings.  Those accounts we do have were written decades later by unknown authors and attributed to his contemporaries. (And let’s not forget that Johnny-come-lately Saul of Tarsus who never even met Jesus).  The “authoritative” accounts that appear in the New Testament were not assembled as authoritative until four hundred years after the death of Yeshua, and even then, their authority was a function of their coherence with the dominant theology, not their historical accuracy.  The historical-critical method would have to wait several more centuries.

The idea that Christianity is good if it only followed the true teachings of the real Jesus is ahistorical apologetics.  Setting aside the fact that *every* Christian group claims that it is following the true teachings of the real Jesus, this “Yeshua be Yussef” version is particularly weak because it presupposes knowledge of what the historical Jesus did or said—when the absence of such knowledge is precisely the ill it seeks to remedy.

If you want to accept good ideas and reject bad ones, by all means do so, but do it on the merits; let’s not pretend that there’s some mystically pure, “true” Christianity.  That’s just a recipe for more foolishness like Douthat’s.

Comment #63: Thom  on  01/04  at  05:06 AM

James:

Sorry Amanda, I don’t have enough faith to become an atheist.

If ‘feminists’ really cared about women, they would be against the billion-dollar pornography industry that abuses women and treats them like animals.

Zounds. I don’t think it’s possible to be any more “stick rule” than that. Applying the word “stupid” to James is an insult to stupid people.

Comment #64: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  01/04  at  08:13 AM

Ordained, it’s possible for an atheist to have all sorts of wacky beliefs.  But that’s different from saying that atheism has certain implications.  Atheists are free to ignore the implications.  But it’s true that one implication if you don’t accept that god created the world is that magical claims about god, such as the belief that he puts souls into embryos, are just silly.

I agree, Amanda.  Similarly, one can’t make a statement like “women and men are intrinsically equal” without invoking Magical Thinking either.  (We should treat each other as equals in most things of course, but that precept evolves out of the complexities of [some] civilizations, and is not a implication of atheism.)

Comment #65: Ordained Atheist  on  01/04  at  10:22 AM

Similarly, one can’t make a statement like “women and men are intrinsically equal” without invoking Magical Thinking either.

Of course one can. As much as sexists would love to think they’re smarter than women, or better at attracting sex partners, or more emotionally stable, or whatever they’re flattering themselves about this week, reality continues to fail them. Unless you read that sentence disingenuously literally as “women and men are intrinsically equal in absolutely every aspect, including body size and strength” or interpret “equal” as “exactly the same,” which a sexist is of course likely to do to distract the issue.

Comment #66: junk science  on  01/04  at  11:42 AM

Our life is a gift – including the suffering. It’s time we stopped spitting at the gift-Giver. Atheists who rant pompously against God are a little like ants, muttering and sputtering furiously against man, believing themselves superior to him (if he even exists!).

Life is not only a gift from God, but it’s supposed to be magical – or maybe “miraculous” is a better word – and full of adventure and discovery. I’m not referring to our outer journey of life, which may or may not be particularly exciting, but to the inner adventure we’re meant to experience – a journey of discovery whereby through progressive realization and repentance our character is gradually perfected for the Creator’s purpose. The enchantment of such a life is subtle and private – no one else will know about it – but it’s more magical than anything in “Harry Potter” or “The Lord of the Rings” or “The Narnia Chronicles” or any other fantasy from the mind of man. Because we are living characters, set in a story not from the mind of man, but from the mind of God. And that story is full of wonder.

An acorn falls to the ground, dies to itself, and effortlessly grows into a towering oak tree – a transformation which, if it occurred in a few seconds, we’d consider pure magic. But, since that same magic unfolds in slow motion over the course of 50 years, we think nothing of it. We walk past such marvels constantly and shrug, just as we bypass the potential miracles of character growth within each of us – dying and being reborn – because we don’t understand God’s methods. Sometimes there is miraculous transformation in suffering – but only if we endure it with patience and dignity, and not with resentment.

God works miracles through the things we suffer. Even Christ, the perfect Son of God, learned obedience that way, Scripture tells us.

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:8-9 KJV)

So, even if we suffer, even if we lose everything like Job, what of it? The magic of redemption is in the air when we suffer with patience and humility and without anger – and allow God to transform us at our core, into the giant oak. This is a great mystery.

And what of the atheist? He also breathes a kind of magic air, but of a very different variety. He is his own god, or so it seems. That kind of freedom has a sort of sweet stench – a little like those green Christmas-tree-shaped air fresheners that people hang from their car’s rear-view mirror, meant to make the car smell better but which actually emit an offensive odor. Just so, the “sweetness” of pride, of being your own god and master of your destiny, has a spiritual scent that is noxious to sincere seekers of truth.

Comment #67: Michael Mcgreevy  on  01/04  at  12:17 PM

Moronic.  One could just as easily argue the opposite:  that atheism puts the emphasis on the physical world, and because men on average have greater physical prowess then women, atheism necessarily classifies women as inferior.

Not really.  I mean, I know you’re not real smart, so you can’t read big books by atheist thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir, but it’s actually easy enough to put this argument down.  Hell, she’s a woman!  So of course you think she’s dumb, so maybe you should try.  I’m sure in your world it has to be dumber than your favorite form of literature, Archie comics. 

In sum, the argument is that men do in fact beat down women and blame god, but beating someone down doesn’t make you right.  I’d add, in fact, that the fact that men have needed to make up a god to excuse beating women down actually proves that they know it ain’t right, for the same reason I pointed out that you have to have a god to justify controlling women’s fertility, because there’s no rational and decent argument for doing it yourself.

Maybe someone can put that into an Archie comic for you so that you can understand it?

Comment #68: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:36 PM

Was the pro-marital rapist whining about the porn industry?  And he’s trying to argue for religion?  Wow, further evidence that god destroys your moral sensibility, that you think terrorizing your wife is morally sound, but looking at consensual nekkid pictures is a great evil.

Comment #69: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:38 PM

Michael, you’re proving my point that pretentiousness is the fallback position of people who don’t have an argument.  Jerking off on the screen doesn’t prove there’s a god, but it does prove you’re a bore.

Comment #70: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:38 PM

McGreevy, thanks so much for that lovely sermon.

Unfortunately, since I was touched by His Noodly Appendage, and can no longer bring myself to believe your naive and simplistic Christian religion, your attempt at brainwashing falls on my deaf ears.

So, if you don’t mind, I’m going to load some Bibles and some babies into my Prius, and then we’re gonna pitch a wang dang doodle all night long…

Comment #71: MikeEss  on  01/04  at  12:39 PM

Nice plagiarism, McGreevy.

Comment #72: allison  on  01/04  at  01:00 PM

Mcgreevy @10:17, I’ve never seen such a flowery paen to submission to arbitrary authority outside of the D&S;/S&M;community—and at least the participants in those relationships are both human. In the parlance of that community, I believe you’d be the Invisible Bearded Sky Man’s™ “bottom” or “sub.”

You’re welcome to enjoy your relationship with a sadistic supernatural entity—all we atheists ask is that you keep it private and personal, and stop poking your prudish and self-righteous nose into other people’s business, and into the business of the state. Sound good?

Now for the other believer in sky fairies…

Feminists are pro-porn and always have been.

What an extraordinary demonstration of rank ignorance of that which you criticise, James. At least read up on the names Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon before you spout your rubbish. I disagree with both about porn, but there’s no denying that they’re considered radical feminists by anyone with even a passing knowledge of feminism—a knowledge you clearly lack.

Amanda, I have to agree with Lauren O: beyond being a clownish living caricature of RWA relgious fantasists, James contributes zero value here.

Comment #73: Gracchus  on  01/04  at  01:02 PM

Nice plagiarism, McGreevy.

Oh, for goodness sake! Do we now have to check every bloody post McGreevy makes to make sure he hasn’t lifted it from someone else?

McGreevy, if you don’t cite or credit the original author of a piece of work (David Kupelian, apparently) or otherwise make it obvious you didn’t write a piece, you’re stealing (as in “Thou Shalt Not”).

Or is it ok to do wrong because some random man in a wooden booth makes it go bye-bye by insisting you spout some mumbo-jumbo?

Comment #74: Gracchus  on  01/04  at  01:11 PM

James -

A significant stream with feminism—including feminists such as Diana Russell, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Brownmiller, Dorchen Leidholdt, Ariel Levy, and Robin Morgan—argue that pornography is degrading to women, and complicit in violence against women both in its production (where, they charge, abuse and exploitation of women performing in pornography is rampant) and in its consumption (where, they charge, pornography eroticizes the domination, humiliation, and coercion of women, and reinforces sexual and cultural attitudes that are complicit in rape and sexual harassment).  . . .
Beginning in the late 1970s, anti-pornography radical feminists formed organizations such as Women Against Pornography that provided educational events, including slide-shows, speeches, and guided tours of the sex industry in Times Square, in order to raise awareness of the content of pornography and the sexual subculture in pornography shops and live sex shows.
. . . Boreman’s criticism focused feminist attention not only on the effects of the consumption of pornography (which had dominated feminist discussions of pornography in the 1970s), but also the effects of the production of pornography, which they claim is rife with abuse, harassment, economic exploitation, and physical and sexual violence.
. . . Some anti-pornography feminists—Dworkin and MacKinnon in particular—advocated laws which would allow women who were sexually abused and otherwise hurt by pornography to sue pornographers in civil court.
. . . Many anti-pornography feminists describing themselves as “sex-radical” such as Ann Simonton and Nikki Craft and other members of Media Watch have advocated working against pornography and been arrested for public nudity and apply civil disobedience against corporations by ripping up single copies of magazines that contained violent pornography that they insist glorify rape as sexual entertainment. They advocate rejecting the representations of sexuality as exemplified in publications like Hustler and Penthouse. . . .

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement#Feminist_objections

Of course, there are a variety of other views within feminism as well, also discussed briefly at that link.

(And Michael McGreevy, did you see what I did there?  How I took that big chunk of text lifted off of Wikipedia and put it between two little typographical symbols called *quotation marks*? (You can find them, if using a standard keyboard, just to the left of the RETURN (or ENTER) key).  It’s a way of saying that you’re quoting something that someone else said or wrote, as opposed to implicitly claiming that it’s your original contribution - that is, plagarism; that is, lying, and a kind of theft, unless you’re actually David Kupelian.  I also put the quoted text in italics, to further mark it off, for easy distinction on-screen.  (You’ll also note that there are places where I have three little dots (. . .); these are called ellipses, and indicate that there’s material in the quoted text that you’re leaving out, to avoid giving a misleading impression.) 

An alternate approach is to use the blockquote function, which puts the text you’re quoting in a little box (see Gracchus at 11:11, quoting allison’s comment “Nice plagarism, McGreevy.”  You make those like this: {blockquote}text{/blockquote}, but with pointy rather than curly brackets, thusly:

text

Either way, the miracle of the internet means that it’s both easy and appropriate to link to the quoted text, if available online.  Why don’t you give it a try?  I know you can do it!

Then,  maybe, we can talk about the concepts in that piece, including the common confusion, strawman building, and false witnessing about what atheism is and what atheists believe (and perhaps the possible impact of childrearing practices on both theological imaginings and personality traits, too)).

Comment #75: Dan S.  on  01/04  at  02:33 PM

let’s not pretend that there’s some mystically pure, “true” Christianity

There’s nothing mystical about it.  I’m well aware that Jesus Christ is a mythical, possibly even fictional person.  There must have been a real founder to the sect way back there in first-century Palestine, but he may or may not have any resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels, and he definitely had no resemblance to the crowned, glowing, King of Kings that modern Christianity rallies around, which is the distinction I was trying to make by using the name “Yeshua ben Yussef”. 

All of that having been said, I think that the character of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, had a lot more good ideas than bad ones, some of which were well ahead of his time.  Most of these ideas don’t really require that much interpretation; he showed by word and deed that he wanted people to help the poor and the outcast. 

As you point out - as I pointed out - it’s an unfortunate fact that very few historical Christians have actually followed those ideas…at least, outside the small ingroup that they would have treated well anyway.  Instead they’ve come up with tortured interpretations - many of them based on the teachings of Saul of Tarsus, as you said, though they ignore anything they don’t like from him as well - that let them act pretty much like they would anyway, all the while ignoring the words that are right there in their book.

Comment #76: Seraph  on  01/04  at  03:11 PM

Saul of Tarsus

Every time, I inevitably read that as “Saul the Tarsier”.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsier).  And apparently I’m not the only one . . .
(http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/01/what_in_creatio.html - see A.D. 70.  “A.D. 1215: Mega Fauna force King John to sign Magna Carta” is also pretty good, too”)

Comment #77: Dan S.  on  01/04  at  03:23 PM

One of the most important aspects about Simone de Beauvoir’s career is that she was reacting against the sexism and misogyny of not just society in general but her contemporaries, including other existential atheists. Despite my agreement with your point of view in general here, I still don’t think atheism is a natural enemy of all kinds of ignorance, just religious based ignorance. Religion has just been one tool in enforcing the patriarchy, but there are certainly others including at times the medical/scientific establishment.
Sadly I still think there are plenty of sexist, racist, and homophobic atheists (god knows I have run into the homophobic ones). They many not have the cover of religion for their “intellectual” arguments but assholes seem to always think of new arguments anyway. But, yeah, at least there is none of that “I love you even though you are a sinner” nonsense with ignorant atheists.

Comment #78: AdamN  on  01/04  at  03:45 PM

Jesus’ message that the most important thing, and the best way to honor god, is to love each other as ourselves, is pretty damn unassailable.  No lying, cheating, scamming, killing, wounding, etc. happens if you try to treat others fairly and as you wish to be treated.

There is a problem even with the basic Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have done to you” or “love each other as ourselves.”  What if you hate yourself? 

If you believe in sin, are aware of your own sinful nature, consider yourself too weak to resist the temptations of that sin, and judge that weakness to be wicked and deserving of punishment then it follows that the evil that befalls you or that others do to you is actully righteous and just, no more or less than you deserve. 

Therefore, you may treat others as badly as you believe yourself to deserve. 

With the moral and religious authorities constantly reminding you of your own sinfulness and humanity’s depraved nature, treating others as you believe yourself to deserve can lead to some pretty awful shit.

Comment #79: RobW  on  01/04  at  11:56 PM

Atheists who rant pompously against God are a little like ants, muttering and sputtering furiously against man, believing themselves superior to him (if he even exists!).

That’s an “interesting” analogy. What’s to be said of it:

Formicidae will almost certainly outlast Homo sapiens.

Mcgreevy likes to stomp on anthills to remind himself how awesome he is. Or, apparently because ants are muttering shit behind his back. Or maybe because they go on about their business acting like they don’t give a crap about Michael, but they’re totally deliberately ignoring him, just to be assholes. Ants want to keep on living in sin without any consequences, but a good stomping or a great flood with a garden hose will put them back in their place!

Comment #80: asdf  on  01/05  at  05:27 AM

An acorn falls to the ground, dies to itself, and effortlessly grows into a towering oak tree

Someone was homeschooled.

Comment #81: asdf  on  01/05  at  05:30 AM

There must have been a real founder to the sect way back there in first-century Palestine

Probably a mistake to assume that a set of campfire tales had only one founder.

Comment #82: asdf  on  01/05  at  05:36 AM

An acorn falls to the ground, dies to itself, and effortlessly grows into a towering oak tree

This analogy’s been bugging me since I read it.  For starters, “effortlessly” is hardly a good description, and there isn’t any real sense in which an acorn “dies to itself,” - somebody doesn’t know their basic botany (and yes, figurative language, but that’s the point; it’s jarringly bad figurative language).  I almost want the original author to have used the caterpillar/butterfly one instead - hackneyed, yes, and not as satisfyingly long, thick, towering & mighty, but considering that the caterpillar really does ‘die to itself’ - being reduced to a kind of soupy mess that is then almost entirely reconstructed . . .  But that’s (if known) a bit messy for the writer and intended audience, I suppose, and a bit too close to the mortal reality that they’re (understandably) trying to deny .

Atheists who rant pompously against God are a little like ants, muttering and sputtering furiously against man, believing themselves superior to him (if he even exists!).

This is a bit like Warren’s silliness about apparently refusing to vote for an atheist because they think they don’t need god; it’s part of a package of silly myths for internal consumption - and almost solely reflecting internal concerns - about atheists and atheism.  (In this case, that atheists are rejecting god/s because we’re ‘prideful’.)  We don’t believe we’re ‘superior’ to god/s, nor is there any ‘if he (she/they) even exists’.  We don’t have belief in God. (Just like - to any uncertain theists who might be reading - you don’t have belief in Zeus, or Thor or etc.).

Comment #83: Dan S.  on  01/05  at  09:25 AM

Actually there is another formulation: that evil is a consequence of human inaction. It exists so that it can be eliminated by humanity, and without endemic evil humankind’s freewill would be reduced.

”Atheists who rant pompously against God are a little like ants, muttering and sputtering furiously against man, believing themselves superior to him (if he even exists!).”
ISTM that the best atheists don’t rant pompously whilst the best (at least in his view) theists do.

Comment #84: me  on  01/05  at  10:52 AM

“Thinking and living as an atheist puts an intellectual hurdle in your way when you want to argue that women are inferior, because you don’t have religion to do it for you. That wouldn’t leave room for morons to come along and accuse you of thinking atheism itself implies anything positive. ” junk science

“[O]ne can’t make a statement like “women and men are intrinsically equal” without invoking Magical Thinking either.  (We should treat each other as equals in most things of course, but that precept evolves out of the complexities of [some] civilizations, and is not a implication of atheism.) ” Ordained Atheist

“Of course one can. As much as sexists would love to think they’re smarter than women, or better at attracting sex partners, or more emotionally stable, or whatever they’re flattering themselves about this week, reality continues to fail them. Unless you read that sentence disingenuously literally as “women and men are intrinsically equal in absolutely every aspect, including body size and strength” or interpret “equal” as “exactly the same,” which a sexist is of course likely to do to distract the issue. ” junk science

But it does take Magical Thinking or perhaps dualism to see the brains and bodies of men and women, from which emerge their minds, as unaffected by their chromosomes.

And of course even if men and women (statistically speaking) have different strengths and weaknesses, that doesn’t mean that sexism can’t exist. One can make unwarranted assumptions about capabilities of an individual. Talents typical of one gender can be awarded more highly than the other. Feminism is still vital.

I think there’s also an is/ought to confusion here. Should individual men and women be regarded as equal pending further data? Yes, though that’s not intrinsic to atheism as discussed elsewhere: one can be a douche-atheist. Are they equal in every respect? To me, clearly not—and I consider that belief a consequence of the application of reason.  Rationalism is perhaps more important than atheism but not something everyone is capable of (*). It would be demeaning to humanity if capacity for rational thought were placed above all other capabilities. I think a problem with Dawkinsian atheism is that it assumes people can be rational. Even if it’s intrinsically true, there is not the educational infrastructure in many countries for it to be so. Another approach is needed.

(*) I am certainly not talking about the author or for that matter the majority of the posters here.

Comment #85: me  on  01/05  at  11:26 AM

...and I’ve not hidden in any way that I think one of the implications of an atheist worldview is that you have to accept that women are equal and that using their ability to get pregnant as an excuse to hurt and control them is a human decision, not something that’s done by humans at god’s bidding.

No, no you haven’t.  One might argue that you border on mania regarding the subject.

Comment #86: Ginger Joe  on  01/05  at  03:09 PM

“About this, though: a very big deal is made of the fact that Mary consented to carry Jesus.”

“God” didn’t ask, he told. She had no choice.

Umm, really, no.  Nothing in the Bible asserts that statement.  There’s enough risible nonsense in the book that foolish fabrications aren’t required.

Comment #87: Ginger Joe  on  01/05  at  03:14 PM

Nothing in atheism necessarily implies equality of men, men and women, gays and straights, races, etc. Arguments against equality are perfectly compatible with an atheistic world-view. I might consider these arguments to be without merit, but they have been made (must-not-break-Godwin’s-law). Likewise, it is perfectly possible to alter a religion to be compatible with a philosophy of equality. Some religious adherents might consider such a move to be heresy, but change is inevitable.

Comment #88: NancyP  on  01/05  at  04:18 PM

Nothing in atheism necessarily implies equality of men, men and women, gays and straights, races, etc.

It’s more than nothing in atheism mandates ignoring the reality that men and women/whites and blacks/gays and straights are equal, since nothing in atheism mandates ignoring any kind of reality.

On the other hand, religion is all about ignoring reality. Once you’re in the habit of ignoring reality in favor of wishful thinking, why not ignore an inconvenient reality of equality?

Comment #89: Chet  on  01/05  at  04:24 PM

Ginger Joe, if we are to be in the business of debating folk tales then we have to admit that nothing really speaks against the “no consent” position.  I kinda think that a frightened teenager in a patriarchal culture who has the Power of The Lord appear and tell her that she has been chosen to get pregnant - - not asked, mind, told - - is hardly a perfect example of the free will in action.  The reasonable evaluator has to come down on the She Had No Real Choice side.

Comment #90: seeker6079  on  01/05  at  04:27 PM

In an atheist world-view, “decisions” for or against equality may or may not be argued as being volitional decisions by individuals (I assume that’s what Amanda means by “human” decisions). The sociobiologists and many others argue that certain human behaviors are inherited by the species as a whole and are compelling, reducing the role of conscious reasoning and will in decision and action. The argument here is over which behaviors are “instinctual” and to what degree, but I think most biologists admit that some behavior does have an instinctual component (eg, avoidance of smelly spoiled food). Some neurobiologists suggest that conscious reasoning and decision is an effect and not a cause of (simple motor) action, and that a great many lower level “decisions” producing motor actions are made subconsciously, motor cortex sends signal, and a third of a second later, the consciousness becomes aware of having made a decision. Anyone who plays an instrument or a fast-moving sport knows that there is a zone where motor activity flows without requiring mental instruction - that practice is the way to end up in this zone.

Comment #91: NancyP  on  01/05  at  04:36 PM

Mere atheism does not preclude delusion, illogical thinking, prejudice, very short-term thinking pattern, pure self-interest or class-interest, etc. All atheism does is remove God as a philosophical or logical justification for actions, ideology, and philosophy. Atheism is not a comprehensive philosophy, merely a component that can be joined with other components.

Comment #92: NancyP  on  01/05  at  04:44 PM

Atheism is not a comprehensive philosophy, merely a component that can be joined with other components.

I’ve never understood people who think this. It’s like you expect that an atheist thinks “huh, I guess there’s no God” and then their mind shuts down permanently, forever.

Here in the real world, atheism has consequences that have to be puzzled out by atheists. Atheism isn’t just “belief in no God”, it’s also all the consequences to our understanding of reality and human action that have to be evaluated. I may not go so far as to say that atheism is a comprehensive philosophy, but it would seem to me to be impossible to separate atheism from the consequences atheism imposes on our philosophy.

Comment #93: Chet  on  01/05  at  08:51 PM

Umm, really, no.  Nothing in the Bible asserts that statement.  There’s enough risible nonsense in the book that foolish fabrications aren’t required.

Mark: Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Luke: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

God didn’t ask. He told. Show us where Mary was asked for her consent.

Comment #94: asdf  on  01/05  at  09:41 PM

“Many atheists from a Christian background will be the first in line to tell you that the Christian god is especially hard to believe in, and that the problem of evil requires you to either believe in a malevolent or at least indifferent god, or that there’s multiple gods competing for power.”

Or, you know nothing about the responses to the anemic argument from evil. Read Plantinga for a start. (Or, more appropriately, have him read to you.)

Comment #95: Congested  on  01/06  at  05:24 AM

“Exactly. Any diety that rapes a teenager in order to specifically produce a son who must be murdered in order for us to not be tortured for all eternity after we die…well, calling that god malevolent is being nice. “

Less sodomy, more reading, IdiotJeff. (Reading in legitimate disciplines, that is. Not your bs, fluff field of sociology.)

Comment #96: Congested  on  01/06  at  05:32 AM

I don’t mean to feed the unusually rude troll - don’t they have some billy goats to harass or something? - but my ears perked up at the mention of Plantinga.  After all, his anti-naturalist argument
http://www.naturalism.org/plantinga.htm
is so remarkably boneheaded* - what could he managed if let loose on theodicy?  And he doesn’t disappoint.  His argument about moral evil is an interesting logic-chopping twist on the classic free will defense, but when it comes to natural evils . . . well . . . um, evil spirits, I’m afraid. 

* that’s a bit unfair.  a bit better might be something about a clever mind shackled to an untenable belief. **

** Seriously - one of his arguments is that one doesn’t need silly little things like ‘reason,’ ‘arguments’  or ‘evidence’  for belief in God to be perfectly rational and justified.

the anemic argument from evil

Well, anemia can be pretty bad. 

Not your bs, fluff field of sociology.)
Wouldn’t that be a ba?

Less sodomy, more reading
As noted in a later post, this is a both/and blog . . .

- You know, given that this world is what we have, and all that we have, I’ve just wasted an irreplacable dawn reading Plantinga and responding to a troll with a nasal condition rather than watching the birds wake up.  Oh well - off to a few minutes looking at juncos . . .

Comment #97: Dan S.  on  01/06  at  09:30 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.