End Religious Indoctrination

The State is my Shepherd

2011-11-21T09:36:00.011-06:00

“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society.”--Hugo Chávez, Socialist dictator of Venezuela

Indoctrination comes in many forms, but religious indoctrination is certainly the most effective. In recent history, Socialism, the economic system and political philosophy, sought to replace Christianity with its government-based worldview. Vladimir Lenin, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution deliberately set out to recruit Christians into his political party in order to educate them in the spirit of the Socialist programs. He knew they were susceptible to indoctrination. Ludwig Feuerbach, a predecessor to Marxism/Socialism, advocated combating religion in order to renovate it and to invent a new, ‘exalted’ religion. I call this new religion the cult of government.

In the West, Socialist dogma is presented as an alternative to Christianity. The similarities between Christianity and Socialism make this possible. Socialist thought is rooted in Christianity. Karl Marx, the father of Marxism/Socialism, was deeply impacted by religion. Although Marx’s father was Jewish, the family became Christian when Marx was young. Judeo-Christian concepts were instilled at an early age. In one school essay, a young Marx reveals his early Christian indoctrination and his solidarity with the oppressed by writing, “Who should not gladly endure sorrows, when he knows that through his continuing in Christ, through his works God is honored?”

As a young man, Marx was introduced to the work of Friedrich Hegel, who he cited consistently
throughout his life. Marx was part of the Young Hegelians, a group of influential leftists who promoted their particular interpretation of Hegel’s work. Because of his religious upbringing, there is no doubt Marx was drawn to the Hegel’s use of Christian vocabulary.

Hegel concentrates on the sinful aspects of man’s condition. He cites the Christian apostle Paul who spoke of humankind being alienated in their thinking because of sin and ultimate redemption through Jesus. Marx saw the oppressed as needing salvation from the evil capitalists just as Jesus and Paul voiced the need for salvation from this world of sin. Both offered a plan of redemption—one though the State and the other through vicarious redemption.

While Marx ultimately distinguished himself from Hegel in many ways, the foundation of his dialectical materialism and other concepts are rooted in Hegel’s concepts, which were laden with rich Christian concepts of oppression, alienation, submission, and redemption. Hegel’s Master-Serf dialectic mixed with Marx’s inherited Christian empathy for the oppressed assembled a foundation from which the Marxist concept of class struggle was built.

Socialists see humankind as corrupt and in need of guidance through laws and regulations while Christianity sees humans as alienated from the supernatural realm and in need of “spiritual” guidance. Both attempt to legislate morality according to their precepts and standards. Just as religion uses threat of a torturous afterlife as a deterrent from its moral standards, many Marxist or left-leaning governments dictate morality through threats of imprisonment, bans and Pigovian or “sin” taxes. The idea of a sin tax is to place an excessive tax on a product or service as a means to deter their use. In many communist countries, pornography is entirely outlawed. In the United States, a progressively democratic-socialist state, there are numerous sin taxes, such as the excessive tax on cigarettes and environmental laws. In recent years, the US has instituted countless new sin taxes and proposes countless others—such as “fat” taxes on fattening food and carbon taxes on companies to reduce pollution. This cult of government, as religion, seeks to shape the morals of its citizens to conform to State-sanctioned morality through taxes and bans.

Christianity and Marxism/Socialism are nearly identical. The only glaring difference is one
postulates a supernatural utopia and the other an earthly one. Both must manipulate and control their adherents to achieve their utopias. Human freedom must be suppressed—whether it’s through new laws and regulations, through an unfeasible religious moral code or through fear and intimidation. Each has setup elite groups to facilitate the methodical overthrow of individual freedom and replace it with a collective morality, which leads to tyrannical behavior by the
leadership in the end.

In his essay “Two Concepts of Liberty”, the great 20^th philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin describes how governments seek to control its citizens as children and how they ultimately fall into tyranny and dictatorship, thus destroying freedom and brutalizing its individuals. This has been demonstrated throughout history with the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, the Crusades, the Taliban, and other Islamic governments. He states facetiously about the British Empire in an interview, “Human beings are children. We must first herd them together, create certain institutions, make them obey orders, and we hope later they will see how well we’ve done for them.... It always leads to bad consequences in the end.”

Marx, Hegel, and Feuerbach understood the value of Christian indoctrination. Christianity emphasizes empathy toward the poor and downtrodden. It teaches people to be dependent. They play on fears and demonize individualism. Marxists/Socialists have seized these doctrines and incorporated them into their dogma. They view us as children and the goal is a massive nanny state, whose ultimate end is totalitarianism and tyranny.

A freethinker opposes both religion AND socialism.

Occupiers complaining about tuition costs

2011-10-21T16:04:00.000-05:00

According to my calculations, the top 1% of universities in the US are sitting on over $230 billion in endowments. The total amount of all endowments is astronomical. Why are idiot students complaining about Wall St. when they should be complaining directly to the schools? This shows the idiocy of the movement.

The Usual Suspects

2011-10-12T08:33:00.006-05:00

Several people have asked my opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests and I feel it’s time to articulate my thoughts in a meaningful way. My initial reaction was based on past observations of similar movements and, honestly, stereotypes. Sure, I have a tendency—as all people do—to make rash judgments where hackneyed folk are involved (i.e. dirty hippies, smelly anarchists, etc.).

At first, I was unimpressed with what I saw. It was just another gathering of 20-somethings and hippie-rejects looking for an opportunity to lash-out at their wealthy parents for not “being there” when they were children, for not buying the car they wanted at 16, or for not sending them their first college of choice. It’s easy to assume these people are just looking for the next trendy social movement so they can feel part of something bigger than their tiny, enclosed world of iPads and Gears of War. It’s understandable. I was a rebellious 20-something myself once. It’s too easy to make these assumptions when the usual suspects are involved.

It’s tempting to think this entire movement is manufactured and orchestrated from plush conference rooms of organized labor and other special interest groups. It’s tempting to think the left-leaning groups supporting the protests are hoping for violence so they can swoop in to save the day and protect us from evil corporations. It’s easy to classify these protests as left-leaning events when Cornel West, Van Jones, Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, unions, socialist groups, and others are praising it.

It is too easy to point out that these same people were silent when the bail-outs were distributed in 2008 and 2009. It’s easy to point out that these same people were silent when Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were making fraudulent loans to families who couldn’t afford the mortgage notes. It’s easy to point out that in interview after interview the protesters are having difficulty articulating a clear and concise purpose and solution. It’s easy to think the protesters are provoking the police in hopes of capturing brutality on their iPhones to broadcast instantly across the world and cry foul. I won’t spend any more time stating the obvious.

Many average folks are unwittingly taking to the web to show solidarity. The sense of entitlement coming from these average Joes and Janes is what irks me most. Many of the “99%” are posting pictures of themselves stating their education level or qualifications followed by “I am the 99%.” For example, one I saw this morning stated, “I served in the US Army. Served 16 months in Iraq. Now I deliver pizza. I am the 99%.” Did he expect to come back from Iraq and have a cushy office job?

The only message I’ve been able to glean from the entire event is “Hate Wall Street.” That’s all fine and good. Now, what do you intend to DO about Wall Street between tokes of marijuana? Is this an “awareness” campaign, photo-op, or a precursor to revolution? Revolutions have agendas and goals—not vaguely worded “demands”.

The protesters are demanding free education for all and a $20 per hour minimum wage among other things. Education and jobs are privileges and not rights. Rights are inherent and do not require the infringement on others (Read: excess taxes) to institute. Rights are inherent and not granted by an all-powerful State. Privileges are perks.

Needless to say, I’m still unimpressed with the protests. Do these protesters think “change” will magically occur like everything else in their cushy lives? Do they think sitting around in one spot for an extended period of time accomplishes anything other making them look like lazy, trust-fund babies? I don’t exactly understand what the protesters are hoping to accomplish other than bitching and moaning and I don’t think they do either.

Hey, protesters, if I'm wrong, show me.

My prediction regarding the Rapture

2011-05-16T15:21:00.001-05:00

Mark my words: It will never happen. You, Christians, will be waiting and waiting for nothing. It will not happen May 21, 2011, and it will never happen. When you are on your death bed, remember my words: it won't happen.

What it would take for me to believe in your god

2011-05-14T00:25:00.001-05:00

I want to see him heal a retarded person right before my eyes.

Jesus was Evil

2011-04-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

Jesus was one of the most evil characters in religious fiction. Today, his followers take pride in presenting him as a loving, caring, mild-mannered desert magician/redeemer, but in reality he was cruel and vengeful. He is the first to mention “hell” in the Bible (Matthew 5:22, Mark 9:43, Mar 9:43-44, Mark 9:45). The context is always the same—it’s a consequence for not abiding by his/God’s commands. The threat is used to influence behavior and this makes him cruel and evil in my opinion. He does not love unconditionally as he is portrayed. His daddy/he establishes an unrealistic set of rules and then threatens to cast us to hellfire for eternal torture if we do not abide them. This is the epitome of love with condition.

Latest video from BioLogos

2011-04-27T13:50:00.005-05:00

Showing Christ's Love: Bed Intruder Song (Christian Version)

2011-04-27T09:41:00.001-05:00

Why I do not accept Jesus’ divinity (or anyone’s for that matter)

2011-04-19T10:04:00.001-05:00

Happy Easter, everyone. This is my favorite pagan holiday because it celebrates fertility—and who doesn’t appreciate that? Well, maybe those who have unintentional pregnancies, but that’s an entirely different topic. For now, I’d like to focus on the Christianized version of this ancient holiday—particularly Jesus’ supposed divinity, and his mythical resurrection.

I am not certain Jesus even existed. There is no clear evidence outside Scripture, which was most certainly written by those who wanted to perpetuate the myth. A majority of biblical scholars—conservative and liberal alike—concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. Most of Jesus’ followers were illiterate Aramaic speakers, while the authors of the gospels were educated Greeks. Therefore, we are certain the writers cannot vouch for Jesus’ existence. However, we know for certain Pontius Pilate existed because we have many outside sources to validate this—from local writings to Roman logs to physical evidence of his actual house.

If Jesus existed, we can be certain he wasn’t divine. First, there were a number of messianic claimants during this time in his particular part of the world. He was most likely just another uneducated peasant claiming the mantle of Jewish savior. Second, and most obvious, there is no such thing as “divinity”. None of his miracles can be substantiated. Nothing he did has been verified by extra-biblical sources. Most magicians and miracle workers during this time were charlatans and there is no reason to think otherwise about Jesus.

Finally, people cannot rise from the dead. It’s impossible. If he existed, was tortured, and lay in a tomb, his body was either stolen or he simply wasn’t dead and walked out. Either is more plausible than supernatural resurrection. There was no one living at that time in that part of the world to verify this event and we have no rational reason to believe it happened.

While some of what Jesus said was “good” and “moral”, we have no reason whatsoever to believe he was divine or supernatural. It’s highly likely the stories of Jesus of Nazareth were either outright fiction or embellished stories of one of many poor, radical Jewish miracle workers in the Middle East two thousand years ago.

My email correspondence with Apologist Kyle Butt

2011-04-18T12:46:00.004-05:00

As promised, below is the entire, unedited email conversation I had with apologist Kyle Butt. As you can see, his arguments are extremely weak and are not what I would expect from a trained apologist.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown

-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel

-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D

-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D

-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------

Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.

As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.

Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?

I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel

-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------

Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:

I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.

To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:

--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.

Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."

So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.

As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).

Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011

Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:

“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).

“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).

The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”

An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:

In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).

Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).

The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.

The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.

Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml; Hewlett, Martinez and Ted Peters (2006), “Theology, Religion, and Intelligent Design,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press); Scott, Eugenie (2006), “The Once and Future Intelligent Design,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press); “Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html; Sternberg, Richard (2008), “Smithsonian Controversy,” [On-line], URL:http://www.rsternberg.net/smithsonian.php; Wexler, Jay D. (2006), “From the Classroom to the Courtroom: Intelligent Design and the Constitution,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).}

Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).

What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:

Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).

We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.

Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).

It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/SETIFAQS.html; McDonough, Thomas (2004), “Two Decades of SETI,” [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/seti-history.html.]

Good to hear from you.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-------------------------------
December 20, 2011

Kyle,

Normally I respond more quickly. I've been trying to finish up several year-end projects. Thanks for the essay and I appreciate your renewed interest in the discussion.

Either you don’t understand the scientific process or you’re playing dumb. You and I both know that if creationism were supported by repeatable scientific processes, testing, and empirical data, it would be included in these prestigious journals.

I can’t believe you actually cited the weak paper by Meyer. Yes, I’m aware of the story. Wasn’t there a movie about it called “Expelled”? Don't hold me to that. I didn't see it. Let’s not rehash what’s in popular circulation, please. I’m also fully aware of how Sternberg was supposedly railroaded. Sternberg worked with Meyer exclusively going entirely against accepted editorial practices. I’m glad he was rebuked and I support it. They were obviously being deceptive to get the paper published published. Am I hearing you correctly that you support such behavior? As for the paper itself, it contained no independent research or lab results. It was nothing more than a review of others’ work. The scientific community and I want to see hard results that can be replicated in labs and tested. Please address this particular comment and do not veer around it.

Here’s my follow-up question: Can you cite ANY work that has been conducted in labs or otherwise to further the “work” conducted by Meyer in 2004? Have creationists just been sitting on their hands this whole time? Scientists work despite controversy if they are passionate about a subject. Where is the body of work or are Meyer, Sternberg, and you going to whine for 8 more years about Meyer’s pathetic piece of garbage? Can you cite other supposed-scientific papers being submitted as we speak or is this it for you?

Nice SETI strawman, by the way. You didn’t remotely answer my question correctly. I want evidence, not philosophizing. So, I’ll ask my question again: Can you cite PEER-REVIEWED EVIDENCE demonstrating DNA points to a creator? That’s really all I want from you at this point.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Brown

Unconditional Love

2011-04-16T09:33:00.001-05:00

Is there one instance in the Bible where God did something good without asking for anything in return?

Come, let’s reason together (Isaiah 1:18)

2011-04-14T11:14:00.000-05:00

In my former life, I wanted to be a Christian apologist. Seriously and don’t laugh. Christian apologetics is the attempt to offer a rational explanation for the faith. Apologists seek to defend the faith against objections through public lectures, debates, books, and websites. The idea is to argue that Christianity is reasonable and evidence-based, but requires metaphysical considerations. That caveat is where my contention lies. A common argument is God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of revelation, both in nature and through the Bible. This field has sprouted many famous apologetes, including St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaff, and Lee Strobel.

I’ve argued with plenty of Christians—laypersons and pastors alike—but I have never had an opportunity to debate a full-fledged apologist. Recently, I was meeting with my State House Representative, Sheila Butt, and she told me her son, Kyle, is an apologist who has written numerous books. He currently works at Apologetics Press, a publishing house established in the 70s and based in Montgomery, AL. He publicly debated Dan Barker, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2008.

I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.

Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,

“So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?”

I explained that indirect observation is but one component of science. Scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on inference alone while religion does. In science, indirect observation can be used at various stages, but ultimately we must have testable, measurable evidence if we are to send a spacecraft to the hypothetical planet. We wouldn’t dare send the craft without having exact measurements of distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc. The beauty of science is that it’s predictable. Sure, it’s fun to speculate or infer an intelligent agent as a source of creation, but ultimately you have to define this entity and it has to be testable and measureable if it interacts within the material world.

He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.

After my last email educating him on evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, DNA, and paleontology, I haven’t heard back. It’s been eight days and I suspect I won’t hear anything else. My repeated question as to how he personally determines the truth of a statement/proposition was left unanswered. So much for “rationally defending the faith”. I appreciate him being a good sport, but I expected so much more. Oh well, on to the next one.

Here is the entire conversation -->

Debate with an up-and-coming apologist

2011-04-04T15:38:00.000-05:00

I'm having a friendly email debate with a Christian apologist and author of numerous books. He has publicly debated a prominent atheist before a large audience. The video of his debate is available on YouTube, but I don't want to spoil the results. So I'm waiting to reveal with whom. Having a good discussion--so far. Details as I have something to report.

Creationist Politicans

2011-03-30T14:25:00.000-05:00

This is a copy of a letter I sent to several Republican TN State Representatives regarding HB 368--an anti-evolution bill. After the letter, see the response I received from one of the Reps.

---------------------

Dear Distinguished Representatives:

I appreciate the work you’re doing to lower taxes and keep the federal government at bay. I’m proud to have Republicans in control, but as I expressed this morning, the Republican take-over has become bittersweet. I wanted to take this opportunity to share my objections to HB 368.

The issue of evolution is something in which I have had profound interest in recent years. I was raised a Southern Baptist and was devout. I’m a licensed minister, worked as a youth minister, and even worked for the Tennessee Baptist Convention in Brentwood and the Southern Baptist Executive Committee in Nashville. So, there’s no doubt what I was RAISED to BELIEVE. However, I have researched this topic extensively and know it quite well.

Let’s not mince words. This bill seeks to bring creationism into the classroom. Unfortunately, neither creationism nor Intelligent Design has met the rigorous standards set forth in science. There are absolutely NO peer-review articles on the topic that have met the muster to be included in scientific journals. I’m familiar with all the creationist writers, have read their books, and understand their arguments completely. They’re just not up to par. Evolution on the other hand has over 150 years of rigorous testing and evidence to support it as fact. In fact, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, who was partially responsible for mapping the human genome, was critical in showing me the fact of evolution. To deny DNA shows the relatedness of all living creatures, one would have to deny DNA shows I am related to my father. It’s the same science. There is a mountain of evidence I could show you, but I won’t bother doing it here. If you have interest, I’d be more than happy to show you the work that has been done.

This bill is bad law, because a PA court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005 and the Bush-appointed judge whole-heartedly agreed that Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise. If we allow teachers to teach this unsubstantiated pseudo-science, ANY teacher of ANY religious affiliation can teach his/her view of creation. Creationism is just as unsubstantiated as some Eastern religion that says the universe was birthed by a pink cow in space. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to ridicule Christianity, but I am saying that it is clearly not science and has no place in the classroom--something ALL Republicans should agree with.

To create an atmosphere where teachers are encouraged to teach pseudo-science will dumb-down our students and will be a grave mistake for the future of Tennessee. I beg you to oppose this bill and keep non-science out of the classroom.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Daniel A. Brown

---------------

Response from Rep. Richard Floyd. All punctuation is as he sent it:

Dear Mr. Brown,

May I suggest that you might want to go back and read the book of Genesis one more .Thank our awesome God and His wonderful Son ,Jesus, that I was able to miss your professors.

Because He Lives !!!

Rep. Richard Floyd"

A Letter to Pastor Livengood

2011-03-25T10:03:00.001-05:00

I recently attend FBC Columbia, TN and you'll see my entry about the experience here. I wrote the pastor pointing out flaws in his church and sermon and have received no response. So I figured I'd make the letter public since I've received no response in 16 days. Enjoy.

-------------------

Dr. Livengood,

My name is Daniel Brown and I am a former member of First Family, a former employee of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, and a former Christian. I graduated from Belmont, after transferring from Union as a religion major. I worked as a youth minister for four years and preached occasionally while in college. Ultimately, I changed my major to design communication and used my degree to work for the Tennessee Baptist Convention and for the now-defunct Cooperative Program Development Division of the SBC.

Around 2003, I decided to become self-employed and use my free-time to research my faith deeper—delving into the origin of Scriptures in particular. I resurfaced with a rational approach to religion and decided the Scriptures couldn’t be authenticated and the miracles couldn’t be remotely validated. Thus, I denounced the church, Christianity, and Christ and now claim to be a rational, free-thinking, truth-seeking individual. Solid, irrefutable evidence is king. If a philosophical statement cannot be demonstrated as true or false, I suspend judgment. Therefore, the “God exists” claim is meaningless to me. However, I must say I thoroughly enjoy discussing religion with educated Christians.

I decided last week to begin visiting churches again on a regular basis to see if anything has changed in the way the Gospel is presented. Yours was the first church I’ve visited in over seven years.

There were several items that disturbed me about your sermon. First of all, you began with a direct assault on science, philosophy, and education in general. You praised the foolishness of the message of Christ, but did nothing to add a sense of validity to it. I hoped for some sort of paradoxical truth that would tie up the loose end, but nothing was offered. Repeating the mantra that “the message of the Cross is foolish” doesn’t make it a good position. It only reinforces the non-thinking required to be a Christian.

You invited the college-age students to seek you out for advice on how to process new information they receive in school. You made the typical, unlettered, 1970s Christian claim that “they (whoever THEY is) dated this-or-that to be several million years old when it’s only 30 years old” or something along those lines. You cited no source and made a wild, deceptive claim thinking no one would call you out on it. This is disheartening considering your level of education. Scientists use a variety of dating methods to verify each date claim made—Uranium-lead dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Samrarium-neodymium dating, potassium-argon, argon-argon, fission track, optical, luminescence, thermoluminescence, and many more. A quick Google search would provide you with this info. I am appalled by your complete negligence with this statement.

The church service did nothing to change my perspective on the church and was everything I expected. By the way, only one person spoke to me the entire time and he specifically said he didn’t know if I was a member or a visitor. You might want to work with your people on that.

I apologize if I’m coming off as irritated, but I am growing weary of Christians spreading false information. I expected to hear things I disagreed with, but not outright attacks on critical thinking, science, and rational thought.

I hope you aren’t too put off by my email and I’d love to engage you in further discussion.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Brown

PO Box 1331

Columbia, TN 38402

der_hammerman@yahoo.com

Typical

2011-03-21T20:47:00.001-05:00

The (Ir)Relevant Church

2011-03-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

Another week, another church. This week I visited Hope Presbyterian Church, a mega-church located in the suburbs of Memphis, TN, with an average weekly attendance of 7,500. As expected, it is full of wealthy, white families with a few black folks scattered here-and-there for good measure. After navigating the expanse of minivans and SUVs and dodging families with the standard 2.5 children, I made it into the front door. Once inside, I ran the gauntlet along the corridor where parishioners were dashing between vending machines and coffee kiosks to stock up before the big show.

Inside the sanctuary, I made my way to the 7th row for the best view. The show started promptly at 11:15am. The music was a good mix of contemporary and traditional songs, but was essentially a 30-minute concert starring the zombie-like choir and various musicians—from guitarist to drummer to saxophonist. When the music team finished, there was a customary offering and the pastor, Dr. Craig Strickland delivered his sermon. His homily was the third part of a seven-part series titled, “Seven Words from the Cross”. In the series, Dr. Strickland is lecturing on the seven comments Jesus made while hanging from the cross. By the way, these comments by Jesus are not consistent across the four gospels, but that is neither here nor there. Last Sunday, he discussed “love” citing John 19:25-27, where Jesus says to his Mother, “Woman, here is your son (John the disciple),” and, “Behold your mother,” speaking to John of Mary. He goes on to explain that loving your family and treating fellow believers as family is a good thing. The entire sermon was pleasant and non-judgmental. Because of its lack of substance, I won’t bother with further analysis.

This entire experience is a shining example of why Christianity is wrong and evil. Contemporary Christianity is deceptive. Believers focus on sweet and loving passages by Jesus and Paul, while ignoring the genocide and rape sanctioned by their god in the Old Testament. They emphasize Jesus as a loving, humble servant who only wants to save you from his vengeful father who seeks to cast you into eternal torment. The moderate, touchy-feely version of this religion legitimizes all the fringe denominations, which lie to children as a means of propagandizing them and psychologically and emotionally abuse them.

The truth is Christianity is VERY judgmental and preaches the wicked message of an afterlife of eternal torture to the gullible masses. This experience did nothing but expose the shallowness of contemporary Christianity. Christianity is an evil enterprise that seeks to perpetuate and “make relevant” a dim-witted proposition for financial gain and power.

Church website: www.hopepres.com

What's your favorite argument for the existence of God?

2011-03-18T16:03:00.001-05:00

I've seen plenty of arguments and none are strong. This is a list I found and LOVE it. It's hilarious. Which is your favorite? Check it out:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Jesus thinks Rape is A-OK

2011-03-18T08:04:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

John 10:30-33

A Visit to the Asylum

2011-03-08T18:38:00.001-06:00

Until this past Sunday, I had not sat through a church worship service in over seven years. After considering a number of churches for this adventure, I decided to attend First Family in Columbia, TN. About twelve or so years ago, this particular church—otherwise known as First Baptist Church—decided to build a large complex on Pulaski Highway south of town. After nearly sixty years on the corner of High St. and West 8th St downtown, the church left an enormous empty facility and a large parking lot where several historic homes once stood. This action demonstrated their arrogance and disregard for the neighborhood and lack of financial and environmental stewardship, but I digress.

The experience at First Family was as one would expect—mind-numbing, overly-repetitive praise music and a sermon full of the standard rhetoric with a spattering of conceited applause and AMENs. The pastor made the usual religious pleas and wisecracks to elicit an emotional response from the crowd. I was left wondering what had happened and how could I regain the hour I lost.

Before the service began, one person who happened to be sitting directly in front me spoke and shook my hand saying, "I don't know if you're a member or not, but hello." No one spoke to me for the remainder of the service—including during the time when everyone is encouraged to speak to their “neighbor”. I suppose I didn’t appear neighborly enough despite being dressed for the occasion with a sports coat and a genuine smile.

The first thirty minutes was a prolonged performance by a female who I would assume is the music minister. I don’t know her name, because it appears in neither the bulletin nor on the web site. There were the standard sing-alongs, but no one in the crowd seemed to be familiar enough with them to heartedly participate. The lyrics were convoluted and ludicrous. One of the seemingly never-ending praise songs had the chorus “There is a fountain who is a King.” What the hell? Having grown up in church, I unfortunately know what this means, but to an average person off the street, it would seem utterly ridiculous.

After a parade of various ministers speaking about goings-on in the church, on-stage walks Dr. Steve Livengood, the senior pastor. His sermon “Perfect Nonsense” was mindless drivel. I sat through the entire sermon asking myself if this preacher is seminary-educated. Turns out he has a doctorate—from where I don’t know. I would assume from one of six, fine Southern Baptist seminaries. Despite the “Dr” in front of his name, Pastor Steve offered a homily that lacked substance and bordered on rambling.

From the title, you may have the gist of its content. As you would expect from an evangelical, Pastor Steve criticized secular education, science, and abortion. Citing I Corinthians 1:18-25, he praises the absurdity of the message of Christ. Verses 22-23 say “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” There is nothing profound or meaningful in this verse. It’s merely stating the obvious. The pastor reiterated this concept of foolishness many times as if that somehow adds truth and meaning to the message of Christ. I waited with baited breath for some profound argument with a twist of paradoxical truth only to be left wanting. Somehow in the twisted world of Christianity, foolishness and absurdity trumps intellect and rational thought.

In my opinion, the church has simply created a problem of sin and disobedience to their god, assembled what they consider to be a solution, and is now trying to reconcile all of this with more mumbo-jumbo. Pastor Steve says that those seeking an answer simply don’t understand the remedy god has put forth. In other words, the foolish ones are not those accepting the absurd message of Christ’s redemption, but those seeking truth and knowledge.

He goes on to attack philosophy and science. In a portion of the sermon directed at college students (of which I’m sure there aren’t many in this particular church), he tells them that if they are taught something in college and it doesn’t coincide with Scripture to reject it. He goes as far as to say that they may contact him via email or phone if they are confused. No doubt he will set them straight as to what to believe and how to filter contemporary scientific facts through the lens of an ancient, unauthenticated book of myths. This is the epitome of indoctrination, propaganda, and deceit. Not only has this church ruined the minds of children, they continue spreading ignorance and misinformation when the children are young adults.

In keeping with the standard evangelical Christian message, Pastor Steve reiterates the claim that humans are born corrupt and in need of salvation. The performance ends with the usual Christian mantra, “How do I know all of this? The Bible tells me so.”

This experience was beyond disappointing. The musical performance was mediocre, the sermon was elementary and lacking any true substance and the people were less than inviting. I give the full experience a D-.

The church's website is www.thefirstfamily.org.

God exists

2011-02-25T13:20:00.000-06:00

The statement has been used flippantly throughout history. The concept of god is undefined, paradoxical, and unverifiable/falsifiable. It should be discarded as a philosophical proposition until there is ample scientific evidence and at least a clear definition of what god is. Let’s examine this problematic assertion.

Defining God
To assert a god exists, we must develop a definition of “god” upon which everyone can agree. A daunting task, I know. To some, god is everything. To others, god is outside everything. What does it look like? How big is it? Is it good, bad, or both? Did it create everything or only some of everything? Did it create nothing and only exists to manipulate what is already there? Did the universe exist before it and was created by some larger being? If so, what created it? Is it the god of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Native Africans, aboriginal Australians, or some other tribe? Is it many gods or one? Is it infinite or finite? Can it mate with humans as described by the Greeks and the Christians? Has there been, is there now, or will there ever be a human who can speak definitively about this god and its true nature? How do we determine his/her credibility on this topic of god? We cannot use a holy book to answer these questions, because we must first establish which holy book is accurate and which author is credible. There are many more questions, but these will suffice to demonstrate the breadth of what we don’t know about deities. Once the answers to these questions have been established, we can then wrestle with the basics regarding its possible existence. As we can see, obtaining clear, concise, and factual answers to these questions is an audacious task.

The God Definition Paradox
To most religious folk I’ve encountered, their god is a paradox. It created everything yet was not itself created. It created the laws of the universe, yet is not subject to these laws. As per Christian tradition, their god is loving and kind in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, he is jealous and blood-thirsty. They claim to maintain a relationship with it and communicate with it, yet have never physically seen or heard it. It cannot be examined in the known world yet supposedly operates in it freely and openly. As these paradoxes demonstrate, there is no clear agreement on the nature of god.

Can we verify/falsify the proposition?
If we were to be lucky enough to settle on a definition of god, we could then determine if the aforementioned proposition is true or false. It must be verified to maintain any relevance in reality. This proposition is metaphysical, but is stated as fact within the realm of reality, therefore it should be subject to testing within the natural world. Our only tool for determining the validity of a proposition is the science method, which requires the subject to be present in natural form. This is impossible, because deities are conveniently invisible.

Faith as a means of verification
I’ve posed these questions and objections to religious people before and their ultimate response is always, “one must have faith” or “I know my version of god is correct (I know that I know)”. Faith cannot answer these questions. In which version of god do I place my faith? Faith in this instance is not faith in the concept alone, but faith in the messenger and faith that he is credible to deliver an accurate and truthful message. Faith only raises more questions and does nothing to validate god claims.

Even if we could establish a coherent definition for god and could verify its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the work of determining which god is correct and determining its will and purpose for us will have only begun. Discussing the concept of god is an entertaining exercise, but outside of that, it offers nothing positive and meaningful to our lives. Being convinced there is a god and that one can mystically hear its voice or know its will is a dangerous endeavor that transforms seemingly good people into propagators of lies and willing accomplices in the systematic corruption of children.

Try Harder

2011-02-06T09:10:00.000-06:00

Religion is a virus.

I run into a lot of Christians who would agree with that statement. “My faith is not a religion,” they say. In the 90s, Christians decided to play semantics to draw new converts who were traditionally critical of religion and church. This happened along with pastors trading in their suits and ties for Hawaiian shirts and the introduction of guitars and drums into mainstream church services. At this point, the church also dropped the tiny bit of intellectualism it had for a new, non-judgmental, post-modern emotionalism. Yes, this helped to draw in new members, but there remains a greater dearth of critical thinking in the church than ever before.

This movement toward the contemporary church model has left believers intellectually empty and defenseless against the renewed attacks on their faith. When I was a Christian, I rejected this contemporary movement and felt church was lacking something. I moved my membership to a traditional church in hopes that I could find more “meat” in Christian training. It helped even less. When I turned 30, the transition began for me. Until that time, I had been a devout Southern Baptist—having worked for the denomination for 10 years. The decision was made to truly examine my faith—to dig deep and understand as much as I could about the origins of Scripture. It wasn’t long before I realized how little could be substantiated. “Faith” was no longer enough to fill the gaps of evidence.

As time progressed, I ultimately rejected Christianity. Since that time, I have immersed myself in further study of the origins of Scripture, studying Islam and other religions, and catching up on philosophy and science—biology, DNA, mapping of genomes, the theory of evolution via natural selection, astronomy, physics, neuroscience, and so on. By playing the devil’s advocate, I was able to weed out my wrong beliefs.

Now, I find myself arguing with puny Christians—not only weak in their faith, but mind-numb and ignorant. Their arguments are sophomoric and reveal lack of introspection. By posting a simple anti-religion quote on Facebook, I can draw in the weakest of them. Their arguments—whether theological or pseudo-scientific—are unfounded, and quite frankly, embarrassing to read.

I have a word of advice for Christians—try harder. Play the devil’s advocate with yourself. Read material you wouldn’t otherwise read. Think critically. Question your faith. Stop living in a fog of ignorance. This is the only way you will grow as a person and live a full and fruitful life.

Brian David Mitchell...you're doing it wrong!

2010-11-09T06:57:00.001-06:00

Elizabeth Smart took the stand yesterday in the trial of Brian David Mitchell, the crazed Mormon who kidnapped and raped her. She described the way he stealthily removed her from her bed while her sister lay just inches away. Mitchell claims God told him to do it. Therefore, it must be ok. Right? The only problem with that is normally the Hebrew god tells his people to brutally murder the entire family and village before taking the young virgin as your wife.

I’m in a quandary. I thought kidnap and rape were wrong. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be our source of morality? Yet, the Bible condones it over and over. I need to find a verse that specifically says, “Kidnapping and raping a young girl is ALWAYS wrong.” I’ve found plenty of verses encouraging it and not one condemning it. Can someone help me out here?

Questions for Christians

2010-11-05T08:21:00.000-05:00

From time-to-time, I receive emails from Christians full of questions regarding my deconversion--my rejection of the Christian argument. I always respond to their questions thoroughly and then send my set of questions for them. I generated the list off-the-cuff about 2 years ago. As of late, no Christian has even attempted to answer these questions. They usually claim to be too busy despite the fact I just answered their questions. I'm hoping someone will respond now that I'm posting it as a blog.

Please try not to speculate or provide standard Christian arguments. I'm looking for well-thought out responses.

God
1) Define god.
2) Did your god create sin? Why or why not?
3) Why does your god allow suffering?
4) How and why does vicarious redemption atone for sin? Why is it necessary?
5) What is heaven?
6) What is hell?
7) Why did god not mention hell in the OT?
8) What scientific evidence do you have for the afterlife?
9) What makes your belief any different from a person who claims to have been abducted by a UFO?
10) If the Hebrew god is your moral arbiter and is your source for direction, how do you personally determine his will since he is unseen and mute?
11) If your god “fine-tuned” the universe for life, why is life irregular and chaotic?
12) Have you ever seen a person raised from the dead?
13) Have you seen your god regrow a limb or does he just “heal” things we can’t see?
14) How do you reconcile the inconsistencies among the thousands upon thousands of Biblical manuscripts?
15) If god came to you and told you to kill your child, would you? Please do not respond with "he won't". He did with Abraham. This is a serious question. Would you?
16) If he told you to blow up a public building, would you? He has demonstrated in the Bible that he would ask such a thing.

Biology
1) Show fossils that unmistakably support the creationist view.
2) Show me the alternative system of dating used by creationists.
3) Show me the creationist explanation for vestigial organs.
4) Show me the creationist explanation for fused genes in Chromosome 2 in humans.
5) Show me scientific evidence for the creation story.
6) Show me 10 reputable scientists who have published alternative views to evolution by natural selection.
7) Show me a gene that shows markings of having been created and not evolved.
8) Give me a valid scientific explanation why there are no human bones found in the same layer of earth and/or mingled with dinosaur bones.

Morality
1) If the Hebrew god is good, why did he have the Hebrews commit genocide and rape?
2) Are the Ten Commandments a good moral code?
3) Name them off the top of your head without cheating.
4) If the Hebrews did not have the Ten Commandments until they were wandering in the desert from whence came their morality beforehand?

How do you know what you claim to know in your answers above?

Liberty Lesson—Understanding the Indoctrination of Positive Liberty

2010-04-24T13:02:00.000-05:00

The concept of liberty is dear to my heart. It’s a fundamental right, because it is the state in which we naturally seek to exist. Humans and animals desire freedom. Lock up a human or an animal and he tries to escape. In fact, some humans would rather die than be imprisoned.

Many other so-called “rights” are cultural or secondary and are derived from a governing body. In contemporary Western society, many Americans mistake cultural or social rights for fundamental or natural rights. Healthcare, housing, or even clean water are NOT fundamental rights because to have them, there must be an institution in place to provide them—which is not always possible or the case. They are important and sometimes necessities, but not rights.

The basic role of government is to ensure that our fundamental rights are not infringed upon. That’s it and nothing more. Often times, when these secondary, cultural rights are enforced for some, it is at the expense of fundamental rights of others. This is morally, ethically, and constitutionally WRONG. When we sacrifice our fundamental rights for necessities—food, housing—and perks—health insurance, security—we lose our freedom. When government becomes the force infringing upon those basic rights, it becomes the enemy. This is central to libertarian, classic liberal, and individualist anarchist thought. According to philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin, this is known as negative liberty (for further explanation, click here).

American Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists, Communists, anarcho-communists, and syndicalists view liberty in an entirely different way—as positive liberty. They see rights and freedom managed and distributed by government or a centralized body—accompanied by power to enforce. They view the individual as part of a whole and should be told how to live and coddled by the nanny state. The laws they establish must be followed on pain of punishment. This inevitably leads to dictatorship and tyranny.

Yes, freedom is a philosophical concept, but science has demonstrated that it is part of our reality. In the wild, you see no forced compliance among animals. You only see survival. If one doesn’t hunt and strive, he doesn’t eat and therefore succumbs to natural death or is eaten himself. Likewise, if an individual, small company, large bank, auto manufacturer, or government can’t survive within the natural framework, they should be allowed to fail and discarded.

When I see fellow atheists turning toward socialism, I am appalled. It is NOT the way of a free thinker or rational person. They shake the shackles of religion only to replace them with the shackles of government. Unfortunately, many people seek to be controlled—whether through government, religion, or some other institution. It is unnatural and weak. These weak-minded people should be defeated and left to rot in their own solipsism.

Most who know me, know I have rejected the concept of god and am not subject to an imagined being or its mouthpiece, the church. Likewise, I will not be subject to any government.

Easter--A "Uniquely" Christian Holiday

2010-04-04T08:49:00.000-05:00

Ahhhhh…Easter. Fun time of the year. It’s a blast watching the kiddies running around hunting eggs, looking for that special pantyhose egg with the $50 in it. I remember those days. Oh, what fun.

Making a religion relevant to the audience is a very common practice. It happened in ancient times and still happens today—look at contemporary Christian television, books, music, and movies, not to mention the contemporary worship services. All are attempts to mask the absurdity of the religion and make it more acceptable to a larger audience.

Friday night, I saw Clash of Titans. I’m quite familiar with Greek myths and classical Greek literature. While watching the movie, I was reminded of the parallels between Jesus and other religious heroes throughout history. In the Greek myth, Perseus, was the son of the sun god of Zeus and Danaë, a human. Sound familiar? This story was well-known in the ancient Near East and would have been very well-known among the Greek writers of the New Testament.

Easter was a pagan holiday usurped by the Christians as a sneaky way to rope pagans into believing in Jebus. It’s easy to convince mind-numb people who already believe in a resurrected Greek god—like Attis, for instance—to believe in a resurrected Christian god. A god is a god and it’s all ridiculous.

It's Trendy to have a Non-White Child

2010-02-01T13:25:00.000-06:00

The American Baptists who journeyed to Haiti in recent days to round up black kids and take them to the Dominican Republic no doubt had plans to make them available for adoption in the US. The ultimate plan was not part of “doing the right thing for Jesus”, but rather a need to feed the trendy movement in suburban, white, Christian circles to have a dark-skinned child. Once adopted, these children are held up as trophies symbolizing the parents’ religiosity. “Steven Curtis Chapman does it, so we should do it.”

Some of the children begged, “Don’t take me. I have parents!” These objections were overlooked in the name of Jesus and American chauvinism. It’s pathetic and wrong. It makes you wonder how many other non-white children adopted into Christian families were stolen.

Have You Ever Questioned Your Faith?

2010-01-03T17:05:00.000-06:00

You should.

Being truly introspective can be difficult when you are a Christian. Our minds are often clouded by religious dogma. We are taught from an early age not to question the authority of God or his mouthpiece, the pastor. During weekly prayer meetings and worship services, we sit quietly and absorb the message. We’re encouraged to fill our minds with the word of God. Our homes and cars are filled with popular Christian music and books. Every aspect of our lives is consumed with Christian doctrine. Our spiritual leaders teach us not to expose ourselves to anything the church considers immoral or sinful (Romans 8:12-17; Romans 12:2).

There’s a problem. With all of these spiritual reinforcements, have you ever truly questioned your faith? If not, now is the time.

Ask yourself a simple question: “How do I truly know there is a God?” How do you know your particular god is the correct one to follow? Most common answers are: “He has revealed himself to me” or “I feel he is there.” I was a Christian for many years and this was not a sufficient answer for me. Basing a decision on feelings or dreams is not how one should live their life. It is fine to say you think there may be a god, but to think we can somehow know the mind, desires, and requirements of a supernatural deity is absurd. The only source of tangible information about this deity is from an unauthenticated, ancient book full of wild claims, mysticism, and contradictions. We do ourselves a disservice by relying on such scant evidence.

The foundation of Christianity is the Bible. Without it, there is no religion. Below, I will address revealed truth and oral tradition—the foundation of the Bible. The goal is to appeal to your rational side. Armed with nothing more than common sense and reason, you can determine for yourself the accuracy of my argument. Let these invaluable tools guide you as you read.

There is nothing truthful about revealed truth

All religions are based on revealed truth from a higher source. These truths are either documented by an individual who experienced the event or by others who learned of the revelation through an oral tradition. Most of the Bible is not written by the individual who actually experienced the revelation or the events described in the stories.

We must consider several points when reading the Bible and other documents that claim to possess revealed truth:

1) Is the author of this book the person who experienced the event?

2) Is the author being truthful, embellishing, or lying?

3) Does the event square with common sense and my understanding of reality? Are the descriptions too fantastical to be real?

4) What is the history of this individual who received the revelation? Is he delusional, schizophrenic, or emotionally unstable?

With regard to all books of the Bible, the authors’ experiences cannot be substantiated and the source of the stories cannot be confirmed. Many of the claims made in the Bible don’t square with common sense or our understanding of reality. Stating that a person walked on water does not make it true. Documenting that a man’s donkey spoke to him does not make it true. Even if there was corroborating evidence for each of these passages, it would still be too incredible to believe. People don’t walk on water. Donkeys can’t talk. We must rely on our rational faculties when processing such wild claims that run counter to reality.

The Problem with Oral Tradition

Did you play “Whisper Down the Line” when you were a child? I did. Here’s a sample statement: “Susie went to the store.” Ten children sit in a circle and a selected child whispers the one-line statement to the person sitting next to them. That person whispers the statement to the next person and so on. The last person repeats the statement outloud—“Sally works for a grocery”. A simple statement becomes twisted and convoluted in just as few as ten generations.

Much of the Bible was created in the same way. Tradition tells us that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible—the Hebrew Torah. The Creation Story in Genesis (Chapters 1-2) is believed to have occurred nearly six thousand years ago. Moses lived around 1200 BC. That would mean his story of Creation would have had to survive nearly three thousand years of oral tradition.

Josh McDowell, a prominent Christian apologist, has attempted to brush off the oral inaccuracy claim by arguing that oral tradition can be trusted. However, this is pointless because the stories themselves are too absurd and unrealistic to even be considered true. Despite any accuracy of oral tradition, these stories remain unbelievable because they contradict common sense and are unsubstantiated by other contemporary documents and evidence. We cannot verify the story or authenticate the author. This creates a dilemma for the thinking person.

Being skeptical is vital in a world cluttered with religions. You are skeptical of all religions except your own. Direct your skepticism at your religion and see what the result is. You might be surprised. It is important to question why you believe what you say you believe. If you come to the realization that religion and the supernatural are false, know you’re not alone there are more nonbelievers in the world than you think.

Your Insecure God

2009-11-26T09:06:00.000-06:00

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Exodus 20:5, KJV

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"
Exodus 34:14, KJV

"For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 4:24, KJV

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Deuteronomy 5:9, KJV

"(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
Deuteronomy 6:15, KJV

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war”, “His eyes were as a flame of fire”, clothed in a vesture dipped in blood“, and “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Revelation 19:11-15

REAL Emotion

2009-08-31T06:24:00.000-05:00

One common selling point for Christianity is the notion that it holds some sort of magical hope, love, and/or joy that the average person cannot grasp without it. I’ve heard Christians say, “yes, you may have love, but do you have Christian love?” or “you don’t know REAL hope until you know Jesus”. These statements may work on the average Joe, but they don’t work on me (anymore).

Love is love. Hope is hope. Joy is joy. Truth is truth. You do not need a special sanction from a celestial being to unlock these "mysteries". They are innate in all human beings. A nonbeliever loves his family just as much a Christian. A nonbeliever finds joy in living just as Christians do (if not more so). And, nonbelievers are hopeful for the future just as Christians. The difference is Christians spend their lives hoping for a second life that will never come and end up wasting the other emotions.

On a side note, these sorts of statements by Christians are typical of those who have been indoctrinated and not unlike something you would hear from a member of the Manson family or someone from Jim Jones’ Peoples’ Temple.

Christians and Morality

2009-08-11T11:46:00.000-05:00

I've had ongoing conversations with Christians on Facebook and this blog in recent weeks about the origin of morality. On one hand they criticize society’s perceived moral relativism and the dangers of post-modern thought yet they question truth, facts, reality, rationality, and secular morality in attempts to convince me of their perspective. Either this is a profound paradox or Christians are simple ignorant of the world around them. I am quite certain it is the latter.

They claim the Hebrew god gave law to humanity yet he himself is not subject to it. Throughout the Bible, their god breaks many of the rules he sets forth. For instance, he tells the Israelites not to kill. I’ve heard plenty of preachers interpret this to mean, “Do not kill innocent people.” Yet he tells his people to slaughter innocent people—entire villages including children—throughout the Old Testament. This is the epitome of moral relativism.

Christians believe that the Americanized/Western interpretation of the gospels, Pauline doctrine, and Hebrew texts are the only place to find morality. In other words, to them, one cannot possess innate morality, but must read it in a book written by ancient Near East sheepherders or whoever. If I were to find my morality in the Bible, I would have to believe that I must kill homosexuals and disobedient children and that women must be submissive to men. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew god was jealous and ruthless. In the New Testament, Paul presented a form of morality based mainly on etiquette—what to wear and how to act. Meanwhile, Jesus presented a meek and mild doctrine that shunned violence and embraced the innocent. These three perspectives are clearly inconsistent and offer no practical morality whatsoever.

It is time for Christians to realize that morality is innate. There are numerous moral codes which predate theirs and indicate morality has been around a lot longer than 3,400 years—long before the mythical Moses. Science demonstrates that through natural selection we have developed morality. There is evidence in the animal kingdom that species are altruistic and possess an natural desire to preserve their kind. Over the millennia, natural selection has favored those species that protect and defend related beings in their pack, school, or hive. The Hebrews simply documented a natural phenomenon and cited a divine source.

Rebranding the Hebrew god

2009-07-13T11:04:00.001-05:00

Apparently the Old Testament god was too vengeful, ruthless, and egotistical and came across as a bully and insecure school boy. Perhaps his marketing team felt his image needed a facelift. Enter Jesus. He’s the hip and cool new version. He’s good-looking, charismatic, and really knows how to put on a show. I suppose he could be called the “Michael Jackson” of the Bronze Age Near East.

Gone are the days of fireballs from the sky, genocide by Hebrews, rape of virgins, talking donkeys, and schizophrenic prophets/spokesmen. Meet the new and improved Hebrew god and his quick and easy salvation. No more waiting in line to buy a Temple-approved Passover lamb. No more arduous pilgrimages to foreign cities for atonement. You no longer have to suffer under the iron-fist of a terrible god, just believe that Jesus is a magic man from Heaven and BAM, you're in.

Christian Suicide

2009-07-08T10:33:00.000-05:00

I posted a note on Facebook asking Christians if they would kill themselves if the Hebrew god requested it of them. All said yes. Now for the real question, if he asked you to strap a bomb to yourself to commit suicide and kill a bunch of “wrong-doers”, would you?

Example of Christian Anti-Intellectualism

2009-06-27T13:20:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was discussing with a Christian the lineage of Christ as outlined in Scripture. The lineages appear in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–28. If one were to compare Jesus’ bloodline side-by-side, one would see it is completely and utterly inconsistent. However, Christians do not read the Bible in this manner.

Christians normally read the Bible in a devotional manner rather than comparatively and intellectually. They select a passage, read it, and use a dogmatic view instilled by their pastor or other Christian leaders to interpret—essentially justifying anything that might stand out as a contradiction or error.

When I pointed out to this individual that the lineages were inconsistent, he said, “I will go and find a book written by a Christian that discusses this.” I implored him, “No, go to the Bible and look for yourself.” He refused. He plans to read a Christian justification of this contradiction before viewing it for himself.

This is pure anti-intellectualism of the highest degree and demonstrates the depth of indoctrination.

There is No Faith in Atheism

2009-06-24T13:52:00.000-05:00

As I argue with Christians, I grow ever more frustrated with them. In my discussions, a Christian will use the word “belief” to describe my atheist position and they say it requires a level of faith to not believe in the Hebrew god. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism claims nothing. Therefore, it does not require faith. It is simply a position based on lack of evidence for the opposing position. You and I both do not believe in the Easter bunny. Would one assert that we require a level of “faith” to disbelieve? No.

Science is the ruler by which we gauge reality. Scientists do not claim to know everything about the universe. They do not claim to have an answer as to what lies beyond the universe. They do not make claims as to whether there may or may not be an afterlife. There is no way to know these things.

I’ve compiled some basic questions and answers to demonstrate the difference between atheists and Christians. The questions will show that atheism does not require faith and is not a system of belief.

Christians:

1) Was the universe and everything in it created? Yes, by the Hebrew god because the Bible tells me so.

2) Is there life after death? Yes, because the Bible tells me so.

3) Are we born evil? Yes, because the Bible tells me a man and woman ate an apple from a tree 6,000 years ago.

4) Why are we here? To serve the Hebrew god.

Atheists:

1) Was the universe and everything in it created? We do not know. All scientific (verifiable) evidence points to the contrary, but we cannot say definitively yes or no.

2) Is there life after death? See previous answer.

3) Are we born evil? There is nothing to indicate that we are. Science demonstrates that humans are born with the desire to survive and are altruistic.

4) Why are we here? It’s a silly question and does not deserve an answer. We are the product of natural selection and essentially serve no purpose other than to survive.

Atheists base their lack of belief on facts—verifiable, scientific evidence. We make no assertions as to the existence of supernatural beings or events. Christians base their beliefs on a book of myths written over a course of two thousand years by undetermined authors. I prefer to build my life on fact and not fiction.

Nazi VBS

2009-06-21T14:01:00.000-05:00

Summer is time for fun—swimming, fireworks, family reunions, and trips to Disney World. It’s also primetime for unfettered Christian indoctrination of our youth. Yes, I’m referring to Vacation Bible School (VBS).

One of the most effective ways to convert a person to Christianity is to capture their mind as a child. All religions and totalitarian regimes understand this. Take for instance the Hitler Youth. A ruthless and harsh organization whose goal was to indoctrinate German youths so that, once adults, they would fight faithfully for the Third Reich.

Likewise, Christians have established Vacation Bible School. By contrast, VBS is filled with fun, games, cookies, and harmless child’s play. However, at the beginning of each day, the children are called to congregate to recite Scripture, pledge allegiance to the Bible and Christian flag, and listen to a dogmatic lesson about a nonexistent afterlife and a zombie magician. As a child in VBS, I remember singing “Onward Christian Soldiers”—a blatant homage to the Crusades and song that is still sung today in VBSs across the Western world. VBS is full of war-related overtones.

Christians claim they are loving people who only care about children’s souls, but it is more than that. It is a blind allegiance to a myth that is reinforced daily in their own lives and they feel driven to force it upon their children and the children of others. The following anonymous quote from a Christian parenting website demonstrates the Christian adult’s attitude toward discipline and indoctrination:

“If you don't chasten your children, if you don't use the rod in obedience to God's laws and drive that child's foolishness far from him, if you spoil that child by sparing the rod, you don't love that child or care anything about that child! You hate that child! God cannot stand any kind of unfaithfulness in His army anymore than any other Commander of any other military force can take a chance on security risks and disobedience and failure to follow orders and obey commands.”

Vacation Bible School is nothing more than an annual indoctrination program disguised as a harmless fun time for kids run by the most devoted, dogmatic church members. It is detrimental to the development of a child’s reasoning ability and corrupts his worldview. Christian indoctrination of children is utterly immoral and evil.

The Purpose of Purpose

2009-06-18T17:53:00.001-05:00

Burden of Proof

2009-06-12T12:51:00.000-05:00

If I had a dollar every time a Christians says, “Well you can’t disprove God,” I’d be a millionaire. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It is a logical fallacy for a person making a claim to demand they be proven wrong. One cannot disprove a universal negative. One cannot disprove the existence of unicorns or the Easter bunny. Likewise, one cannot disprove the existence of a god. However, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim that a particular god exists to provide evidence to support that claim.

When pressed for evidence, a Christian usually resorts to one or more of the following:

1) Well, C.S. Lewis says…
C.S. Lewis was a fine author. I read several of his books in high school and college. Yes, I’ve read Mere Christianity. Twice, actually. However, he says nothing profoundly convincing about the existence of God. If you are a Christian, his words are golden. If you are not, it just sounds like he is advancing a myth. He says what the average Christian says except eloquently. Is that supposed to convince me of the existence of God?!

2) “They” found Noah’s Ark.
First of all, “They” who? I’ve been told this numerous times by Christians, but when pressed they cannot tell me who, where, or when. I’ve been to several museums in Europe and America and have never seen it or even a piece of it on display. Many amateur explorers have claimed that think they have seen what might be the Ark, but nothing has been definitely obtained. Even if the boat is found, what does that prove? It certainly doesn’t prove the existence of a supernatural being.

3) “They” found a chariot wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea.
This is one of my favorites. It was first brought to my attention by a preacher with no formal theological training from a po-dunk, rural, southern town. Apparently, a fork-lift driver from London who masquerades as an amateur archeologist was swimming around the floor of the Red Sea and found what APPEARS to be a chariot wheel from when Moses parted the sea and the water closed in over Pharaoh's army. Did he bring it to the surface for analysis? No. I say we get the pink-haired lady from TBN to raise money for another expedition and let's raise it from the depth of the sea and test it.

4) What about the eye ball? It’s too complex to have evolved.
Ahhhh, the argument of irreducible complexity (reductio ad absurdum). If the claimant does not understand the evolution of the eye, he automatically assumes a supernatural source regardless of the fact that the evolution of the eye has been mapped by scientists. This person essentially says, “My brain can’t comprehend the complexity or origin of this particular object, therefore God made it” or “I have no desire or am too lazy to research and learn about this object, therefore God made it.”

5) The tomb is empty. Duh…
This is one of Lee Stroble's 5 Es which are supposed to convinced brain dead people to convert to Christianity. I ask, which tomb? Where? Tradition tells us where Jesus’ tomb might be, but we do not know for certain if it is his tomb or not. Until we know, we cannot assume it was his and that simply because it’s empty, he rose. This begs the question.

6) What about Josephus?
I say “what about Josephus,” too. He was born seven years after Jesus died. He began writing his book which mentioned Jesus twice when he was about 60. Yes, Jesus lived…and???

This obviously is not a complete list, but you get the point. What is interesting is I have seen Christian "intellectuals", such as William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Dinesh D’Souza, Josh McDowell, and more, using these same ridiculous arguments or similar arguments in debates. These are not valid arguments and do not get at the ACTUAL claim—that the God of the Bible exists. Try harder you guys!

A Good Christian Wife

2009-06-10T10:36:00.000-05:00

Christian men are very insecure. Once they snag a woman, the goal is to convince them to submit. Women must be kept under their thumb at all times. Physical abuse isn’t necessary as emotional, psychological, and religious abuse are usually much more effective.

Below are some methods whereby Christian men accomplish this:

Make lots of babies. After all, this is her ONLY purpose in life. Right?
Make the woman homeschool them.
Keep her nice and plump so no other men look at her.
Buy her books about being a “Christian” mother.
Make her wear frumpy clothes.
Encourage her to have a benign hobby like scrapbooking, Pampered Chef, etc.
Send her to Beth Moore conferences.
Demean her. After all, she IS beneath you.
Buy her new kitchen appliances so she gets the hint.
Break her spirit.

I’m sure there are other methods I’m unaware of, but you get the picture.

Hooray for Church-Sponsored Vacations!

2009-06-09T10:11:00.000-05:00

It’s that time of year again! Pack your bags, round up your dusty ole passport, dig up that Hawaiian shirt you love so much (you know, the one that makes you look like Rick Warren), and get your flippy-floppies out—it’s vacation time...er...I mean, mission trip time! Time to go tell some third-world peasants about Jesus, hammer a few nails in a decrepit schoolhouse, and catch some rays!

Good times. I often reminisce about the days when I would travel to some god-forsaken place and tell uneducated, illiterate dark-skinned people about the zombie magic man. They latched on to the story immediately. Is there any wonder 500 people “come to know Christ” during these trips? A tall, well-dressed white man has come to their village to tell them of an invisible man in the sky who can give them anything they want if they just ask. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, as long as it makes you feel good. You're a god.

After being in that dusty place for a couple of days, it’s time for the real treat—the beach, shopping, or hitting the bars. My favorite mission trip was to France. I spoke to a group of youth for an hour and attended some dinner parties. Three days in Paris, three in Dijon for "mission work", then back to Paris for three more days. Ahhh…telling people about Jesus has never been so luxurious.

Upon return, it’s great to strut through the church—people patting you on the back for being a good Christian. You told those darkies about your white god. Show some photos of cute, foreign children, pass around a primitive looking headdress you picked from a street vendor, and cry when you describe the old woman you lead to Christ. You’re the man. You’re special. You “feel” like God has “blessed” you. You come home to 21^st century amenities and all the peasants are left with is piles of LifeWay propaganda littering the streets.

Be proud! You're doing the Lord's work!

The Purpose of this Blog

2009-06-04T12:57:00.001-05:00

The purpose of this blog is to demonstrate and analyze religious/political indoctrination techniques of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as well as address religious dogma. What qualifies me to attack these head-on and why am I passionate?
I know the INs-and-OUTs of the Christian publishing industry because I was actively involved in producing Christian propaganda for the world’s largest Protestant denomination for nearly thirteen years. Additionally, I have a graduate degree in Political Communication where my primary focus was political advertising and communication. Religious communication is in many ways nothing more than a form of political communication. Church leaders utilize indoctrination techniques that are common in the political realm.
To demonstrate this, I will provide an example. In 2002 or so, the Southern Baptist organization where I worked was hosting an event for state convention leaders. We invited the communication directors from various other Southern Baptist entities to participate. During a break in between sessions, I was mingling with these individuals. Their work intrigued me. One of the men, a director from the International Mission Board (IMB), divulged some interesting information. He said that they had been examining the communication techniques of the Ayatollah Khomeini during and after the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which the Ayatollah successfully overthrew the secular government and installed a theocratic dictatorship.
I certainly do not judge the IMB for this. It is a perfectly legitimate endeavor. If you are running a large religious organization and your mission is to indoctrinate as many people as possible throughout the world, you learn from the best.
This is but one example of the correlation between religion and politics and indoctrination and propaganda. I will provide more in future posts. I hope this blog is instrumental in causing people to think about what they are taught and how to recognize subtle religious dogma in all formats.

A Letter to All Pastors, Youth Ministers, and SS Teachers

2009-06-04T10:10:00.000-05:00

Dear Christian Leader:

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Daniel Brown. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and "saved" when I was five. Both of my grandfathers were preachers. My parents were active in the church, as well. I attended a private Baptist school in Memphis until fifth grade. I was active in my youth group and went on many mission trips at home and abroad. I enrolled at Union University to become a preacher and was a member of the Ministerial Association. Additionally, I worked as a youth minister for four years. Into my third year at Union, I decided to change my major to design communication and moved to middle TN to work for the Tennessee Baptist Convention. I was their graphic designer for almost four years. During this time, I finished up my degree at Belmont.

While working for the TBC, I met a couple of guys from the Cooperative Program Development division of the SBC Executive Committee in 1999 and went to work for them soon after. I was production manager for CP for almost four years. I traveled the country helping to promote CP and interacted with all state conventions and worked at all the annual meetings. All along I was attending church and teaching Sunday school.

From age fifteen, I felt this nagging feeling inside that persisted until I was 30. The Bible seemed ridiculous, but I MUST believe for fear of being disconnected from God and the afterlife. My pursuit of knowledge and desire to understand the origins of Scripture led me to the place where I am today. It is fact that the Bible is simply a hodge-podge of ramblings from a number of unverifiable sources. Because of this fact, the foundation of Judaism and Christianity is critically damaged. Additionally, the wild claims in the Bible, such as raising the dead, a talking donkey, a talking, burning bush, and walking on water are all ridiculous and simply are not true.

I’ve been on a two-year long quest to find preachers, evangelists, and church leaders to engage me in an on-going dialogue about their faith. As of late, I have found no one who can debate on an intellectual level and present solid evidence to support their position. Most of what is presented is cliché and trite. My desire is to appeal to the intellect and beg Christians to reconsider their delusional beliefs and join me in building lives based in reason and pursuit of knowledge rather than obsessing about pleasing a celestial dictator.

I would appreciate a dialogue with you to see the depth of your knowledge of Scripture and Christianity and to present a perspective from someone who has come from a place similar to where you are.

Sincerely,
Daniel Brown

Original Sin—A Lesson in Biblical Contradiction

2009-06-04T09:46:00.000-05:00

Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Rom. 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

1 Cor. 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Rom. 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." (Also see 1 John 1:8 and 10, Rom. 3:12)

Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Although most evangelical protestant denominations preach about original sin, the phrase does not exist in the Bible or Jewish writings. According the evangelical interpretation, the Hebrew god sets up the scenario, watches a talking snake (which is never described as “Satan”) coerce his creation into sinning, punishes Adam and Eve, then tells the world (through humans) that he is loving, caring, and will redeem us.

Paul introduces the concept of original sin and the “inheritance” of sin and teaches it as the heart of his Christian theology. He establishes Jesus as a human/deity sacrifice to atone for the alleged “sin” of Adam. It is interesting to note that while Paul invents a theology of atonement based on the offering of Jesus as a human sacrifice for sin, Jesus does not preach death as atonement. The gospel according to Matthew, Jesus says: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” (Matt 9:13 and Matt 12:7 NIV). This is an explicit rejection of Paul's teaching.

Further, the concept of Original Sin is unsupported in the Jewish scriptures:

Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

2 Kings 14:6, But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ezek.33:20, "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."

Jer. 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (RSV)

Why are we responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve? How can a person be “guilty” of ancient sin he did not commit? How can one be morally flawed when he is in the womb? A god who allows people to be punished for something they did not do is not just. A god who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent should simply erase such flaws. Can he? Is he unable or unwilling?

This concept of atonement and redemption are entirely Pauline and are not part of Jesus’ or Jewish doctrine.

Ravi Zacharias--An Apologist with Nothing to Say

2009-06-02T16:43:00.000-05:00

Christians love to sing the praises of Ravi Zacharias. I think they like him because he has a "funny" name. Unfortunately, he is not an intellectual. His positions are faulty. In fact, I would say he has no argument whatsoever.

I just finished watching the following clips. There are six. If this is the best apologist Christians have to offer, I’m disappointed. He says absolutely nothing! He simply pokes fun at atheists and never presents solid evidence to support his position. He essentially says that if SOME atheists cannot explain the origin of morality, therefore God is the source. This is an absurd assumption and is typical of Christians. Just because something cannot be fathomed in your small brain, it does not mean there is a supernatural origin. In fact, the evolution of morality has been explained by scientists and is completely rational. He is telling the audience what they want to hear as a form of entertainment.

Poking fun at the opposition is not an argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjdjEBmVxGE

My Christian Upbringing--Part I

2009-06-02T12:08:00.000-05:00

It’s late on a Saturday night in a tiny church on the outskirts of Covington, Tennessee, in early 1974. My mother, pregnant with me at the time, was sitting in a revival service led by her father, Enlo J. Rickard, a fiery, charismatic preacher with passion for saving the lost. He is a short man with a thunderous voice that transmits “the Lord’s message” from the depth of the pulpit to the expansive church parking lot. He is preaching from the Book of Daniel. His heart is sincere as he pounds the lectern, begging and pleading the lost to open their hearts and ask the Lord to enter in and save them from the pits of hellfire. In his passionate rave, he felt compelled to say that “this world needs more Daniels.”

Daniel was an Old Testament prophet, whose name in Hebrew translated means “judged by God”. We all know the story of Daniel in the Lions’ Den. According to Scripture, Daniel was a Hebrew who was captured by King Nebuchadnezzar’s army and carried off to Babylon. Although the details of the story are disputed by archeologists and historians, the story is very familiar to Jews and Christians alike. Daniel was said to have divine authority and powers to interpret dreams for the King, just as Joseph did in Egypt for the Pharaoh.

Christian preachers often use Daniel as an example of a faithful servant of God and one who epitomizes someone who is zealous and unwavering in his love and commitment to Yahweh. He is a person every Christian should emulate.

That night, my mother and father decided to call me Daniel. It was their goal to train me up to be a faithful servant of the Lord. Their hope was that I would follow in the footsteps of my family and serve as a beacon of the gospel leading people to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Throughout my childhood, I struggled with many aspects of the faith. I don’t know exactly when I began to question my faith, but apparently any doubts I had were either extinguished on Sunday morning by the tirade of a well-being pastor or immediately by my own guilt or fear of separation from God. Either way, I didn’t entertain the rebellious thoughts for long.

I suppose my greatest fear was that I would end up separated from God. In this, I believe came my most significant question of the faith—the concept of Hell, which I will address later. Before I questioned hell, I questioned the existence of supernatural beings such as ghosts, UFOs, angels, and demons.

By the age of 15 or so, I was thoroughly indoctrinated in the faith. I knew the fundamentals of Christianity and in particular, Southern Baptist theology. I fully understood the concept of the virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, and the Trinity. I blindly followed the word and believed the pastor was under the influence of the Holy Spirit and what he spoke was truth. Pastoral authority is central to the Christian faith.

I must say that my father was probably instrumental in my questioning the faith. He always railed against the pastor as arrogant and undeserving of authority. My father was a deacon and questioned every move our pastor made. He confronted him on many occasions during deacons meetings and would come home fuming and describing the earlier events. As I look back, he undermined the authority of the pastor and instilled a distrust of church leaders.

Additionally, my father was highly critical of some family members and their denominational choice. He was highly critical of charismatic beliefs, such as faith-healing, speaking in tongues, shouting and raising hands during worship. My paternal grandfather and grandmother taught a quiet form of Christianity in which a believe is reverent during service and does not disrupt. I remember vividly when I would say, “God is a God of order and not chaos.”

Part II is forthcoming...

Kill Everone Except the Virgins

2009-06-02T11:59:00.001-05:00

(Judges 21:10-24 NIV)

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children.

11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin."

12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon.

14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel.

16 And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left?

17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out.

18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.'

19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah."

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards

21 and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin.

22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.'"

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance.

------------------------------------------

Is it just me, or is this twisted?! These sick bastards killed an entire town and raped virgins. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

My Rejection of Christianity

2009-06-02T11:56:00.000-05:00

My ancestors were forced out of Europe for being Protestants. Since then, many have been preachers, deacons, missionaries, teachers, and professors teaching and preaching Christianity. I, myself, attended several Christian schools throughout my life and at one time was a religion major with the intention of being a preacher. Throughout college, I served as a youth minister and taking several mission trips in the US and abroad. I graduated from a Christian university and worked for a prominent evangelical denomination for almost eight years.

Over the past five years, I have thoughtfully examined what I believe. This is the first time I have ever truly taken the time to dig deep and determine what my position on religion is. This is an important step considering my background.

I have come to the conclusion that all religions, particularly the three Abrahamic religions, are fabricated, and are nothing more than folklore and superstition.

My primary issue with Christianity and for that matter Judaism and Islam is these religions are based on the dreams, visions, interpretations of folklore, and/or outright fabrications and manipulation of historical events. The authors of these "holy" books transcribed their thoughts in all cases over 1,400 years ago and in some cases over 3,000 years ago. Am I to base my entire life on the written account of an "angel" appearing to an individual 2,000 years ago? I do not know this individual. I do not know if he or she has a history of schizophrenia, paranoia, or is simply delusional.

Consider this simple argument: It is believed that Moses was born in the 13th century BCE and he wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. He recounted stories passed down from generation to generation through centuries before him. Judaism, Christianity, and much of Islam are based on Mosaic writings--one man recounting oral tradition and recording his personal story while in the wilderness. There is no witness or corroborating evidence to support everything he said. Genesis and Exodus can only be viewed as fiction and Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy can be viewed as Moses' manifesto. While Mosaic law is certainly helpful and has assisted in the advancement of Western civilization, I cannot fully believe every word he or anyone else in the Bible have written.

The only argument contemporary evangelical Christians can provide against my position is that one must have faith that what was written is accurate and true. What sort of argument is that? It is Moses' word against reason and rationalism. I choose the latter.

All three of these religions preach and require faith as the means by which people can interact with God and find salvation. This is understandable as there is no rational basis for any claims in any of these three major religions.

All of these, particularly Christianity, with which I am most familiar, do not make their potential converts aware of the first step of faith required to accept and believe in their God. The first step of faith is to believe what the prophets claim to have seen and been told by God as they are recorded in scripture. There are many books in the Bible where in the author is unknown. In others, a third party writes the stories. You must have faith in the author to have faith in what they tell you. Additionally, one must believe that the translations of these books are sound. This is unverifiable to the average person.

Blind faith and complete abandonment of rationalism and critical thinking are required to follow any of these religions. My rational side has not and will not allow me to accept blind faith any longer. Therefore, I completely reject Christianity and all religions and dismiss them as folklore and superstition.

Jesus Freaks

2009-05-12T16:46:00.000-05:00

Friday night in Riverside, California, I was helping a friend promote his new clothing line at a local bar & grill. There was a band playing inside and the crowd was enjoying themselves. No babies being sacrificed and no séances were being performed.

It’s 1:30 AM and I’m standing outside at the booth talking to people as they stand around, when I noticed a crowd gathering a block away. I ask, “So what’s happening down there?” No one knows. Then, the crowd begins to move our direction. They’re chanting, “Jesus, Jesus,” and "Ain't no party like a holy ghost party, 'cause a holy ghost party don't stop. What, what." The cult leader is chanting common Christian clichés through a megaphone, “God loves you. Receive the Holy Spirit.” Nothing new here.

The crowd of about 100 Jesus freaks stops directly in front of the bar & grill. They continue to chant loudly. Several people begin convulsing and fall to the ground. A portion of the crowd gathers around them. A truck pulls up with a hot tub in back for baptizing. I suppose they planned on some people getting saved or something. All along the crowd at the restaurant is chanting back, “Get the fuck out of here! Fuck your god!” There were all sorts of hand/mouth gestures coming from our side of the fence. Two of the bikini models open up their tops to reveal pasties. They jiggled their breasts toward the crowd. Several of the male Christians enjoyed this as I saw their eyes light up. Obviously, the people at the restaurant were provoked by these mind-numb, indoctrinated zombies. Otherwise, none of the restaurant patrons would have acted in such a manner.

As the crowd finally began to disperse, I confronted a group of young girls (18-20) at the back. “What did you accomplish here tonight,” I asked. They didn’t have anything to say. They just continued to chant, “Jesus, Jesus.” One older cult leader butts in and I ask him, “What did you accomplish here tonight?” He said, “We did the Lord’s work.” I said, “Looks to me like all you did is reinforce non-belief.” He responds, “Didn’t you see two people receive the Holy Spirit?” I answered, “I saw two people convulsing on the ground. It was an act. It accomplished nothing.” “God revealed himself tonight,” he said. All “he” did was reveal how ignorant and easily manipulated his people are. I asked him if he had ever seen God. He said no. I asked if had ever heard God. He said yes. I said, “You’re delusional and you easily manipulated by flowery words about hell and a non-existent after life.” He turns and continues chanting along with the crowd, “Jesus, Jesus.”

Now, I know you Christians reading this will conveniently say, “Well…that’s not representative of what I believe.” I say it is. All it is a slightly more confrontational version of what many of you believe. Every Christian believes in a zombie magic man, a celestial dictator, and a book written by Bronze Age tribesmen. There is no irrefutable evidence for anything you believe. Your religion is propagated through classic indoctrination methods—dumbing-down the followers, employing fear and moral superiority, weekly indoctrination sessions, claims of miracles, and mantras and clichés. All of this was on display last night in Riverside, California.

To me, most Christians suffer from psychosis stemming from a prolonged, intense indoctrination. Religion alters behavior through delusions of moral superiority and illusions of interaction with a supernatural being. The person is unable to function properly in society. Others are simply pathological and have convinced themselves to believe something they know contradicts reality, yet they adhere because it gives them a sense of authority within a group of less intelligent people.