Tag Archives: Atheism

So the Rabbi Said to the Atheist…

English: A complete set of the Babylonian

The Babylonian Talmud relates these delightful little tales about a Rabbi and an atheist (in tractate Sanhedrin, 22).

There was an atheist who said to Rabban Gamaliel: Your God is a thief, as it reads [Gen. ii. 21]: “Lord God caused a deep sleep . . . and he slept; and he took one of his ribs.” Said R. Gamaliel’s daughter to him: Let me answer him. And she said to him: Would you assist me to take revenge on a thief who robbed me this night, by stealing a silver pitcher, however he left a golden one instead? And he said to her: I would like that such thief would come to me every day. Then she said: Was it not better for Adam that one bone was taken from him, and in its stead was given a woman to him, who shall serve him? Rejoined the atheist: I mean why stealing; could He not take it from Adam when he was awake? She then took a piece of meat, put it in glowing ashes, and when roasted took it out and gave it to him to eat. To which he said: It is repulsive to me. Rejoined she: Eve would also have been repulsive to Adam if he could have seen how she was formed.

The same atheist said to Rabban Gamaliel: I am aware of what your God is doing now. R. Gamaliel sighed deeply. And to the question: Why are you sighing? he said: I lost every information of my son who is now in the sea countries. Can you perhaps assist me by informing me where he is? And he rejoined: Where shall I know this from? Rejoined Rabban Gamaliel: You don’t know what is in this world, and you claim to know what is in heaven?

At another time the same said to Rabban Gamaliel: It reads [Ps. cxlvii. 4]: “Who counted the number of the stars,” etc. What prerogative is this? I also can do this. R. Gamaliel took some grain, put it in a sieve, and while straining told him to count the grain. And he rejoined: Let the sieve stand and I will count it. Rejoined R. Gamaliel: The stars are also always moving. According to others R. Gamaliel answered him: Can you tell me how many teeth are in your mouth? And he put his hand in his mouth and began to count them. Rejoined R. Gamaliel: You are not aware of the number of teeth in your mouth, and you claim to know how many stars there are in heaven?

‘Bad Jesus’? There’s No Way To Tell

DrHouseFacepalmA friend, or should I say former friend, sent along a copy of Hector Avalos’ latest anti-Christian screed and asked me what I thought of it.  So, I plunged right in and after a few pages knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I wished to proceed further I would have to abandon sense and sensibility and assume a posture of ahistorical agenda driven silliness.

Avalos is, nonetheless, here at his very best.  His very best.  Because what readers find (at least in the first 10 pages or so- that was all I could stomach) is the same sort of ‘I hate Christianity so much that I’m willing to say and write anything I can to make it look ridiculous and all of its practitioners stupid fundamentalists who – unlike myself and my sycophant toadies – are enlightened and learned’ that he spewed in his extraordinarily hypocritical ‘The End of Biblical Studies’.  If he had been honest at the conclusion of that particular foray into hate-speech disguised as academic discourse he would have resigned his post and taken up basket weaving or returned to faith healing or something besides academic pursuits in the field of biblical studies.  But instead, he deemed it proper that he would continue to earn his living from a field he both despises and wishes to see destroyed.  How’s that for intellectual honesty.

Which brings us to the point of his present book.  ‘The Bad Jesus’ is – at least as far as I could stomach it – nothing more than bad method wrapped in badly enacted atheistic propaganda.  Fair enough.  Avalos is an atheist.  Who cares.  He’s got an agenda. Who cares.  He’s not very competent as an exegete.  Who cares.  Avalos can write whatever he wants and say whatever he wants and his sycophantic fans will lap it up and spew it out like a dog regurgitates its own lunch.  Who cares.

My purpose here isn’t to dissuade him from writing (as if he would simply because I wished it) or you from reading him (because, honestly, if you have such little regard for the facts and are willing to part with a good bit of money to do it, that’s your business).  My purpose is simply to point out

  • That Avalos doesn’t prove Jesus was bad- he only proves himself a bad expositor.
  • That Avalos operates not as a scholar, but as an agenda driven activist whose aim is the end of biblical scholarship and the denunciation of Christianity.
  • That Avalos’ book is not, in my view, worth reading (unless you’re already an angry atheist- in which case you will find him a happy ally).
  • That there are much better, much wiser, much more circumspect, much more academically informed, much more insightful volumes on the subject of New Testament ethics than Avalos can provide given his blinkered and angry hate filled clouded vision.  Even Richard Hays’ book on the subject is superior.

When I finished off Avalos’ book, that is, again, what I could stomach of it, I threw it in the garbage.  I’ve only done that with one other book before (the rest I’ve sold or given away).  That, in sum, in my view, is where it belongs.  At least in that locale it can serve a useful purpose.

‘Bad Jesus’?  There’s no way to tell from Avalos’ book.  One learns nothing from it except where one left the antacid.

The Truth About Atheism

Atheists don’t disbelieve in God; they disbelieve in a distorted image of God either concocted in their own minds or foisted upon them by the theologically illiterate and incompetent.

No one who meets another can disbelieve in the existence of the other and no one who encounters, or rather is encountered by the Living God can deny his existence any more than they can deny their own.

That’s the truth about atheism. It may be an inconvenient truth or an ignored truth or even a denied truth, but it is in fact THE truth.

Facebook: Where Ads are Aimed at the Schizophrenics

Please do tell me how their algorithm could come up with these three ads together at one time…

Just exactly how many pro family atheist preachers are there?  I mean besides the sad loser angry atheists who still occupy pulpits and pretend to be both pro family and preachers at the same time because they’re too cowardly to find an honest job so they can make an honest living.

The Miracle of Monday: Or, Proof of the Existence of God

Sometimes our angry atheists insist on the non-existence of God (evidently having failed miserably logic 101 where we all learned that a negative cannot be proven) but I have proof beyond any reasonable or sensible doubt that God does exist.  It’s the Miracle of Monday.

You see, beloved reader (and the several of you only loved by your mother, if even by them), every single Sunday there are reams and loads and bucketfull’s of Christian people who are laid up on the bed of infirmity.  They aren’t able to utter any more than these three words, and them only through strained and strangled terminally ill voices: “I’m not going.”  Of course where they aren’t going is off to worship.

But here’s where the miracle happens:  those same virtually terminally ill are miraculously and amazingly healed on Monday morning!  Hallelujah!  Freed from their terrible infirmity of a mere 24 hours previously (and usually quite sooner, usually in fact around 12:30 p.m. on Sunday itself) they are able to go to work, go to the park, go to their favorite theater, and pursue all manner of interests which they adore!

It’s a miracle!!!!!!

So what could possibly explain this amazing miraculous turn-around but an all powerful God?  Ergo- God is proven to exist (and to be as generally despised by many who call themselves his people as he is despised by the angry atheists).

Q.E.D. – God Exists.

More Absurd Angry Atheist Tricks

A lawsuit on behalf of two Hamilton County residents seeks to stop the county commission from praying at its meetings.  The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported the lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.  The suit follows a letter to the Commission from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., in which the atheist and agnostic group asked the government body to discontinue opening meetings with prayer.  The commissioners have taken no official action to change their practice or consider the request.

Two residents, out of how many?  Two?  Do we live in a dictatorship where two people have the right to tell the overwhelming majority how to behave.  This is madness.  This is just more of the ‘evangelism’ of the angry atheists whose lives are so completely empty that they have both desire and resources to be frivolous and stupid.

I’m glad the Commission has ignored the whining.  Would that more people acted like America was actually a democratic country and not North Korea or Iran.  If you don’t want to pray, DON’T.  But don’t imagine that you have the right to tell others not to any more than they have the right to tell you that you must.  Grow up, in other words, and stop being spoiled whiny brats.

UPDATE:  Tragic angry atheists, please learn how to read before you submit comments.  Look to the right, now scroll down the page till you arrive at the ‘comment policy’.  I know it will be tough for you to manage it, but do try.

Ministers Who Become Atheists Are As Interesting to Me…

As vegans who become vegetarians.  I just find it completely impossible to care.  Quite frankly the only reason I’m even bothering to mention it is because my daughter said I should.  And I’m a good dad, so I have.

Finis.  Now, on to something I really do care about… which is anything other than whiny clergy.

Anonymous Atheists

Just a note- to you anonymous atheists who wish to leave comments:  I don’t allow anonymous or pseudonymous remarks.  If you can’t own your words, they’re not worth the space it would take to allow them.

If you don’t like my ‘no anonymous comments’ policy I don’t care.  Take your remarks elsewhere.

And even if you leave a comment with your name, address, city, and phone number I may or may not approve them because, to be perfectly blunt, discussions with angry atheists are as meaningful as discussions with rabid fundamentalists.  In fact, the two are one.

So, get over yourselves.  What you have to say isn’t that important.  No, check that, what you have to say isn’t important in the least.  The toes of a gnat are more important.

[Oh, and since you insist on attempting to comment- just for your own info- some folk who use weird names are known- and since I know them I don’t care what name they use: they aren’t anonymous to me]

Atheism: The New Gay, the Newer Chic Fad

For a while (back in the 90’s) it was considered chic by the ‘in crowd’ to ‘be gay’.  Consequently, there was a raft of Hollywood types who ‘became’ gay for fame and notoriety.  A prime example is, of course, Ann Heche, the erstwhile ‘partner’ of Ellen Degeneris.

Now, though, being an atheist is the path to fame, the new chic.  Be atheist enough (and young enough of course) and you’ll be feted and rewarded, like the atheist girl of Rhode Island who is going to cash in on her ‘belief’.

Soon, a whole lot of celebrities will become atheists or come out as atheists, because it’s chic.  Then, there will be atheist rallies all across the land, hosted by the likes of Hector Avalos and Bart Ehrman, pleading for the right to marry and to be considered ‘normal’ and ‘real people with real rights’.

But alas, like all fads, the atheist fad will run its course.  And then all the folk wanting to be chic will have to turn in another direction, their feigned ‘atheism’ melted away, and their quest to be ‘different’ will take on a new mask and cause- probably vegetarianism…

How Much Are You Willing To Pay to Read Secularists Vaunt Secularism?

Me?  Nothing.  But you may be different.  You may be happy to fork over $36 to read one article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion titled Interdisciplinary Studies of Non-religion and Secularity: The State of the Union.

If you do, do share your thoughts… Or maybe Organised Atheism in India: An Overview by Johannes Quack is more up your alley. Have at.

Or maybe you’re just one of those unfortunate, persecuted irreligious folk who just wonders ‘why’ (but lacking any God you’ve no one to ask the question anyway so why do you bother?). You may like On the Receiving End: Discrimination toward the Non-Religious in the United States. Here’s a tissue and a piece of advice: toughen up, Princess.

Thinking Like an Atheist

In three easy steps:

1-  Lump all Christians together into one massive Borg-ish collective.
2- When one or a tiny minority of the collective does something stupid- attribute that stupidity to all.
3- Mock the entirety of Christianity.

Like this chap has done-

So, if Christians were actually lame and unintelligent enough to adopt atheistic reasoning we could

1- Hear of some atheist or atheists who were child molesters.
2- Denounce all atheists as child molesters, since they all clearly share the same exact mentality.
3- And mock all of atheism.

Except Christians are too smart to act that way. It’s a shame that the ‘reason exalting’ atheists exemplified by the clearly angry atheist lad above in his feckless ‘tweet’ aren’t as smart.

Idiot Angry Atheists In Wisconsin

How pathetic are the lives of the angry atheists in Wisconsin who feel disenfranchised because there’s a nativity scene on a public space in Texas!  Good grief- what pettiness and absurdity rules the lives of such tiny minded whiners.

The [Wisconsin based] atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had sent a letter to authorities in Henderson County, Texas, saying that a local resident had complained and that the Nativity should be removed from the courthouse lawn in Athens. … The FFRF said that for non-Christians, the Nativity sent a message of intimidation and exclusion.  But their outcry in turn lead to anger through Texas.

Oh please!  Nativity scenes make non-Christians feel intimidated and excluded?  Those angry atheists are morons, pure and simple.  The Wisconsin Whiners have portrayed angry atheists as exclusionary and are attempting intimidation.  And even more, as imbeciles (which is, naturally, exactly what angry atheists are).

[Please note, as always, I distinguish between atheists and angry atheists.  I know several atheists who are wonderful people whom I admire and care for.  Angry atheists, on the other hand, have not in their entire lot a single member worth vomiting.  Among their number I count the activists who think society should be rid of every vestige of Christianity (and notice how they only target Christianity and not Islam or Judaism- which proves they aren’t really atheists at all but mindless drone-crusaders against just one faith)].

Atheist? Agnostic? You Just Might be Autistic

Frankly, that would explain rather a lot.

Historically the study of religious belief was as far from the purview of cognitive science as any topic in human behavior could be. This has changed over the last decade as cognitive science has come to be the field where it is legitimate to combine in a single research program disparate disciplines, even when they are outside the traditional cognitive science area of computer modeling of information processing tasks. Recently, the “cognitive science of religion” has emerged as a research program in which religion is understood as a product of cognitive aspects of the mind, such as an exaggeration of the normal human ability to infer agency, impose patterns on noise, and infer others mental states (Guthrie, 1993; Barrett, 2004). We suggest that individual differences in cognitive styles is an important predictor of human belief systems, including religious belief. An extreme type of cognitive style is high functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals of endorsing atheism and agnosticism. HFA individuals thus resemble another group of high-systemizers (scientists), who also reject religious belief at a relatively high rate.

So Stuart opines

Let me clarify: this research does not indicate that most atheists are high functioning autistics; but that a large proportion of high functioning autistics are atheists.

Atheists are Sexist? Who’s Surprised, Raise Your Hand

Rebecca Watson meant it as a funny story, almost an aside.  In a video blog, the popular skeptic blogger recalled a man following her into an empty elevator and inviting her up to his room
after she spoke about feminism at a European atheist conference last June.

“Guys,” she said with a bit of a laugh, “don’t do that.”

Hers and other atheist/skeptic blogs were soon flooded with comments. Many women told of receiving unwanted sexual advances at freethinker gatherings. Some men, meanwhile, ridiculed Watson as overly sensitive or worse — or threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder.  Before she knew it, Watson, 30, was subsumed by what everyone now calls “Elevatorgate.” And when best-selling atheist author Richard Dawkins chimed in, the incident went nuclear.

“Stop whining, will you,” Dawkins wrote in one of three comments on Pharyngula, a popular freethinker blog, comparing her experience to that of a fictional Muslim woman who had been beaten by her husband and genitally mutilated. “For goodness’ sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.”

Dawkins telling people to stop whining is like Al Gore telling people to buy Hummers.  But the fact that atheists are sexist isn’t surprising.  Given the fact that they think they are descended from apes, they owe it to themselves to behave like animals.  But that they act like dogs – well that’s just unfortunate.

Is The Whole Atheist v. Theist Discussion Just Boring or What?

There’s a fine essay which probes the issue of belief and unbelief among Pastors (much in the news these days thanks to some atheist ‘pastors’ in Holland) right here.

Die Zeitschrift «reformiert.» hat mit dem protestantischen Pfarrer gesprochen, der weiterhin in seinen Kirchgemeinden predigen darf – und das meist vor vollen Rängen. Im September kommt er in die Schweiz.

I hope you’ll take a look.  There are atheists who are cordial and sensible and agreeable even in their disagreement.  And then there are the angry atheists who are nothing more than fundamentalists.  I much prefer the former.  Converse with the latter is nothing more than an utter waste of time.

Atheists, it Seems Jon Stewart isn’t a Fan

The HuffPo alerts us to the slamming the silly angry atheists take from Jon Stewart over the World Trade Center cross.

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:393956

Those angry atheists really are feckless whiny jerks.

Breaking News: Atheist Blog Discovered to be A Hoax!

Portrait of Martin Luther as an Augustinian Monk

A well known atheist blog was discovered to be a hoax today when it was revealed that there’s no such thing as an atheist.  Everyone worships something, even if that something is a mere idol.  Everyone adores something beyond themselves, even if it’s a stone or an idea.

Martin Luther broke the news when he wrote (in the 16th century), ‘Every man has either God or an idol’.  There’s no such thing as atheism.  It itself is a hoax.

Many a one thinks that he has God and everything in abundance when he has money and, possessions; he trusts in them and boasts of them with such firmness and assurance as to care for no one. Lo, such a man also has a god, Mammon by name, i.e., money and possessions, on which he sets all his heart, and which is also the most common idol on earth. He who has money and possessions feels secure, and is joyful and undismayed as though he were sitting in the midst of Paradise. On the other hand, he who has none doubts and is despondent, as though he knew of no God…

So, too, whoever trusts and boasts that he possesses great skill, prudence, power, favor, friendship, and honor has also a god, but not this true and only God. This appears again when you notice how presumptuous, secure, and proud people are because of such possessions, and how despondent when they no longer exist or are withdrawn. Therefore I repeat that the chief explanation of this point is that to have a god is to have something in which the heart entirely trusts…

Thus it is with all idolatry; for it consists not merely in erecting an image and worshiping it, but rather in the heart, which stands gaping at something else, and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils, and neither cares for God, nor looks to Him for so much good as to believe that He is willing to help, neither believes that whatever good it experiences comes from God.

Ask and examine your heart diligently, and you will find whether it cleaves to God alone or not. If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God. If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god.

So, that ‘atheist’ blog you read?  It’s a farce.  Someone has played a joke on you and you’ve believed it.

It’s Neither ‘Elite’ nor a True ‘University’ If it’s Conclusions are Already Decided

An ‘Atheist’ university which styles itself as elite but which, a priori, has already drawn its conclusions on the existence or non-existence of God can’t seriously call itself a university at all.  It’s simply the equivalent of an Islamic School where radicals are radicalized further in a particular viewpoint.

News broke over the weekend of a new private elite university, that will compete with the Oxbridge universities, set up by A. C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, and other leading lights from the world of atheism and humanism.

Students attending such a ‘school’ won’t be learning to think, they’ll be learning to blindly obey the atheist line.  If it were truly an educational enterprise worthy of the name it would allow students to discuss issues openly and without hindrance and come to their own, well informed decisions.  Anything that Dawkins is involved in is biased in the extreme from the very start.