We are on the way to heaven, yes we are

The pope Bergoglio, otherwise known as Pope Francis says atheists are going to heaven as long as they do good. Don’t you just like the catholic church. First they abolish limbo, then apologise for mistreating Galileo, [am not sure they apologised for burning Giordino Bruno] some priest said hell is just a story am just hoping next they will say the whole thing has always been a fraud. Now my children go home and sin no more but I want your money first! we are all going to heaven, that is if you want to go. Am not going, I prefer to just die.

Sorry protestants, muslims, Judaists, Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, scientologists, those mad fundamentalists, evangelicals and the rest I haven’t mentioned, you seem not to have passed the bar 😛 or the good pope just forgot about you.

Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

Blog break 6: A question

Fellow sufferers, am being very generous today. Am not going to argue for existence of gods, Mohammed or Jesus but I have a very simple question.

The apologists have told us that religion is a way of knowing.

Now tell me, is there a time in our lifetime that a scientific answer has been replaced with a religious one?

Just that and please support your answer and preferably if you have a link to the source material include it in your response.

Blog break 5: Bad apologetics

Folks, a christian apologist claims in one of his posts that we atheists are not any different when it comes to cherry picking bible verses. I think I need help here, when is using a bible verse cherry picking? The accuser claims further that we [atheists] never venture out of the OT for fear of finding some teachings of Jesus we may not like for their moral value like when he curses a fig tree out of season or calls others brood of vipers or even worse in the sermon on the mount when he preaches it is blessed to be poor? Well, I got news for you. We don’t cherry pick.

Your accuser is here

In this post he claims talking about evidence with us is a waste of time. Last time we had the discussion on evidence with theists, it came down to see around you that is evidence of god and look at the bible it says it is the word of god and the bible is true because god says so in the bible. Beyond that all other evidence involved is quoting William L. Craig and Platinga, two apologists that it is my opinion their beliefs are far removed from the beliefs held by most other christians.

You know you are reading bad philosophy when you see an argument presented thus

. Matter cannot create itself
. Matter cannot preexist itself
. Matter cannot be eternal nor infinite
the author fails to mention the premise that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In his argument he has created a strawman and so he is on a roll through and through, there is no beating him. He knows mentioning this important premise puts into question his other premises.
To make his case, he presents the Cosmological argument presenting it as evidence. He writes
. Everything material that begins to exist has come into existence because of an external cause.
. Matter is not eternal
. An infinite regress of cause does not exist
. Matter requires an eternal immaterial Creator
In his first premise, this can’t be said of the universe. He nor me simply do not know and will never know. The premise is also not true because radio-active decay occurs without a discernible cause and the same is true to quantum fluctuations.
I don’t know what evidence he has to support premise two. As far as we can tell if matter can’t be destroyed the only option is it is eternal.
Premise 3 is wrong on two counts. Infinity is a place holder, a term we use to represents large numbers to say it doesn’t exist then you must have performed poorly is mathematics or you attended a creationism school. The second thing that is wrong with this assertion is it can’t be applied to the universe, we can apply to human constructions but when we want to apply it to the universe, we are way out of our depth.
The conclusion in 4 above does not follow from the premises. A case hasn’t been made to warrant a creator and while we are it at it, how does an immaterial creator create what is material? At what point do they interact?
I have seen ridiculous statements, but this will get the trophy as the most ridiculous of the week!
As things stand right now, atheists have no basis for the world-view that they hold.
Atheists are simply believing what they believe on blind faith. And in this case, faith would mean, believing something in the teeth of the evidence to the contrary.
I don’t think this statement requires further comment from me.
For those of you who have time, you can visit his site for entertainment, the link is provided in the body of the post.

On meaning

Folks, many times theists berate atheists because we[ most of us I believe] realize the universe in without purpose. No design and no goal, things in nature are indifferent to our whims or feelings, they just happen. Our lives are inherently absurd and meaningless or as the writer of Ecclesiastes writes in Chapter 3

18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Faced with this meaninglessness what does man do? You have to choices to choose life through christianity which is a denial of reality. It is a pessimistic view of life based on the mistaken belief that human beings are created by their god to worship him and revere him so that in future they may spend endless time singing hallelujah hosana! or you can choose to live knowing that life ends when the final curtain is drawn, that we have this one life to live to the fullest so that should there be another life elsewhere, the gods shall be proud that we lived a full life here and wouldn’t punish us for that.

One of the greatest teachers to have walked the surface of the earth, Siddhartha Gotama, said of the people who claim to have a passionate relationship with god to be like a young man who has declared he is in love with the most beautiful lady in the village but on being asked how she looks like admits he has never seen her! it is groundless, based on human consciousness alone and nothing more. It is not suggested to us by nature and therefore to claim god gives our lives meaning is to claim unicorns give lives meaning since the existence of the two are just conjecture.

For an apologist to write

The Christian, by contrast, admits right up front that there is more to the universe than physics and chemistry, that minds and meaning do indeed exist, and that we have ultimate purpose in life because there is an ultimate that exists, God. Without God, Dawkins is quite correct that there is no meaning in the question “why do we exist?” But with an infinite God, we have infinite meaning in the universe.

is to pretend to possess some knowledge that isn’t available to the rest of us. It is a mark of arrogance that can only be explained by assuming the author is so brainwashed into believing his religion as true that any other opinion that challenges his world view false short. And what does it mean to talk about an infinite god? Rather what does infinity mean? Isn’t infinity a human concept to describe large numbers the human mind can’t simply conceive and what infinite meaning do we have in the universe?

I contend that our lives are inherently without meaning, but that each of us has to create meaning in their lives. The believer through believing in transcendence hopes that his life has a greater purpose than just spreading his/her genes and the non believer believes that he/she has a duty to live a meaningful life here without attaching any meaning to superstition.

The problem with us

Many commentators in our politics and generally on the third world always try to be politically correct when talking about government excesses. You know you are dealing with nutcases when a beggar earns more than his benefactors and this is the situation we find ourselves in with our MPigs demanding more salaries while the government hops from one capital to the next begging for financial aid which ends up financing the Mpigs side kicks, the leaders companies and so on while those to whom this money was intended never hear of it.

Worse still is to know that each child born today in this country already owes the government staggering amounts of money, sums that were borrowed from our development partners and ended up developing potbellies! The west must demand more from these governments or if they can’t invest directly into the development programmes to keep their money. Their efforts are leaving us poorer and poorer by day.

It is morally and intellectually agonising that a penurious country like Kenya fritters away all its hard-earned and extremely meagre income into the maws of human grubs, maggots, chrysalises and piranhas – an exceedingly voracious species which, however, has never produced even a single commodity or idea.[DN 19/5]

blog break 4: bestiality, morality and an observation

Folks, I don’t know how much of what happens here in the neck of the woods gets beamed on your news screens. Last week we were treated to a news story of bestiality in Mombasa involving teenage girls, some tourists and dogs or so I hear. I don’t at the moment know what is it that transpired in Mombasa though I do hope this will be known in due course.

One of the commentators writes

…..this is a manifestation of moral depravity our society suffers when such acts as bestiality, abortions, homosexuality and casual murders become ingrained in our systems and values.

Why anyone would think homosexuality and abortions are an example of moral depravity is still beyond me.

He goes on to argue for moral divine command. He tells

Mankind too subscribes to a deity whose divine command sets standards of engagement. In our cases, the holy books provide such guidance

I don’t know if the author is aware of the dilemma in the Platonic dialogues where it is asked if something is right because gods command it or gods command it because it is right. To tell us the holy books are a guide it would be nice to know if he would stone his neighbor to death for working on Sabbath.

He then lists chapters in the OT where there are various curses and punishment for different acts. He lists exodus 29:19, Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16 and Deuteronomy 27:21. My observation has been that injunctions are only issued on things that are going on already and rarely in anticipation of the said acts. In short for the authors these passages to give such warnings, this was already a problem. What we need to ask as students of history is what would drive man to have sex with brutes? Anyone with information on what contributes to such drives would do great justice if they could share their knowledge or direct me to studies on the same.

Questions on free will

I think we are all agreed that we live in a deterministic universe. The choir members, supported by findings in science, hold that the god hypothesis is unnecessary. And we also accept that the world, writ, the universe operates according to physical laws. If we are all part of this nature, why would man’s brain states be subject to different laws?

Why is it so important to have free will?

Kenyans and their parliamentarians

There are different kinds of societies. There is man eat man, dog eat man and man eat dog society. The third society is the worst kind, and it so describes our political landscape. In several posts, when I talk about our members of parliament, I have described them as MPigs. That is how we see them. Don’t ask me how we elect them. I think world over, only idiots are elected to parliament. How they manage to win is beyond me, but that is a topic of another day, unless it could be that society is full of idiots and are happy with one of their own in power!

Our Mpigs are united on one thing and one thing alone, how they can get higher salaries. It is the only thing that drives them and unites them. It is this matter alone that can keep them in parliament working extra hours or earning seating allowance for being present at parliamentary commission sittings where they make little or  no meaningful contributions.

On other news for those not in the know, the supposed president and his veep are frequent visitors at the Hague based court for crimes against humanity. You know you are living among the very stupid if they elect suspects of such crime to be their head of state. Only a mad man would expect me, in my right mind to acknowledge such people as duly elected! I will not and I can’t! Call it denial if you want but am not about to!

Pigs used in the demonstration against the MPigs who sit in the august house

Blog break 3: Reflections and more

Friends, grab some pop corns before you get to reading this post, it is going to be long!

As I was lurking in the internet I came across a few posts that stirred my interest and instead of doing several posts, as a response to each of them, I will do one post and hope that I do justice to all of them. That being the case, I hope you are well settled in your reading corner with enough pop corns and coffee or whatever it is you like snacking on :-D.

The first poster asks if we have surrendered everything? I don’t know about you, my friends, but I find this

When we surrender our lives to God and decide to follow Jesus we give up our rights to live our lives the way we want to. We give up the right to be in control. For most the idea of giving up control of your life is a real sticking point. But think about it for a minute. If God has made everything, then he owns everything and all that we have is because of his providence in our lives. Oh, sure we’d like to think that what we have is based on our efforts but when you boil it down to its essence, you have what you have because God has given it to you.

to be not different from the life of the slave. The slave surrenders his/her life to his master, and lives their lives thinking they owe the master their right to life. It is interesting what type of being theists make their god to be. They make their god an all-controlling freak, a position one of my friends disagrees with completely! The last statement is wrong in all ways, it is wrong

[….] in the sense that belief in God expresses a rejection, or denial, or perhaps subjugation of one’s humanity. It involves turning one’s back on the human will to overcome challenges, to create, and instead makes servility to authority the ultimate aim of human life. It projects onto an unapproachable and incomprehensible Other all that is good and magnificent in human experience and achievement. Why is it wrong? It’s a sin against ourselves, that’s why. [ Daniel Garber, Philosophers without gods, Antony Louis M, pg 29]

It appears to me that god, especially the god of the Abrahamic religions, need us to achieve his ends or why would this fellow write something like

If you believe you have to be in control instead of God then you will definitely miss out on all the blessings God has for you. In order to have a full, happy and blessed life it is imperative you surrender your life to God.

For the life of me, why has a god who can make everything care about what I believe in, especially in distributing divine goodies. This fellow has to convince me that his conception of god is a god who is like us except with a bigger ass!

Moving to a promise that what god did for me he can do for you! The author starts by telling us

I grew up atheist.

Now, don’t get me wrong, atheists, Buddhists, voodoists or whatever superstition one believes in can convert to Christianity or to any other religion one pleases, but please  unless it is a marketing ploy, it is not necessary, especially if there is nothing in the rest of the post that supports such a claim, to tell us I used to believe in voodoo! It adds no more value to your claim.

Reason holds, that if God IS, we should live according to God’s way, else He is not God. If God is not God, than we are our own god or make up a religious god, who also is not God.

Maybe some of you can make sense of this statement, I simply can’t!

The awesome thing about God: He is not religious and gives us CHOICE in all things, He leads us into all truth, if we let Him, but He would NEVER overrule our choices.
Since God is not going to change, we will have to, so we can experience life according to our creator’s design. Makes sense, right: Any creator knows about his creation in detail: how it is made, what it is designed to do, how it functions best, what it takes to keep it in tact, the materials it is made of,……………

In the first instance, she tells us if we allow god to lead us to truth, he will and in the next she says god knows everything about its creations and how they will act. Is it then that god, who already knows the outcome, is testing minions and to what end? Unless I get it all wrong, themodernidiot should help me here!

For a person who sees life on earth as

My life was never the same since: truthfully I didn’t lose anything good at all from my earthly old life, since it was empty, meaningless and miserable enough to gladly give it up.
It is great to walk in the presence of God, going with Him through life. No religion in the world can do this for you, but Jesus has done it all, not because He had to, but because He loves YOU!

you wonder why they haven’t left for heaven yet! If one wants to think it is the god belief that led them to improve their lives, then so be it, but as I said above, it is irresponsible and wrong!

Next we have a person making the promise of  what we will get when superstition rules supreme. This is what we are told

But once you do surrender, you will no longer think about what God is going to do. Abandonment means to refuse yourself the luxury of asking any questions. If you totally abandon yourself to God, He immediately says to you, “I will give your life to you as a prize . . . .”

I think most Christians don’t read their bibles or they choose what parts to assimilate. Abe, who we are told is the father of faith, did not rely on god to provide the descendants he [god]  had promised and for good measure made Hagar pregnant just in case god didn’t come through! I also hope that a person who gives the following advice, doesn’t worry about bills because god will settle the rent account or does this abandonment just deal with the hereafter? Someone help!

This post on war & peace and the problem of pain is one that exemplifies the extent the religious apologist is willing to go to grant his god a free pass from responsibility. The author deals with the problem of evil and tells us with a straight face that C.S Lewis has answered the problem and advises those of us not so convinced to read him [Lewis]. Yours truly has not read Lewis and he is not even on the waiting list, but here is a post I wrote on the same question that you may all want to look at.

Our friend tells us this about his god

It may sound irreverent, if not blasphemous and paradoxical, to say that the omnipotent God has limits. But when we say omnipotent, we are saying God is all powerful, not everlastingly powerful. That is, God is as powerful as he or anything in this universe can possibly be. He has a “ceiling” in a sense. Of course, to our perspective, this appears to be an unlimited amount of power, but it is not.

For any theist who sees reducing the powers of god as necessary for explaining away evil, by all means go ahead. I am just interested in knowing what other powers you take away from your god and then I will ask why do you still worship him? He continues to tell us that if god is bound within his character

 he cannot sin

a statement that I have no objection to except to add that this being the case, god can’t be said to be moral or immoral.

and such questions as to whether he can create a ball too heavy for him to lift are discovered to be a nonsensical question.

How this question is related to the statement god not sinning I don’t know and two this question is not nonsensical. Dismissing the dilemma as nonsensical only goes to show you don’t understand it!

And if this is the case that god is

 is the ceiling of the universe, and thus that power does have a type of limit; nothing can exceed it.

am hard pressed to see where there is a difference between this and nature!

I may be missing something, friends, but I think you need to show me how this statement justifies suffering

 this is not love. In any relationship we’ve ever had, we love the beloved not in some disinterested way that only wants their happiness, but we long for their holiness if we truly love them. Thus, good parents find it necessary to discipline and lovers create boundaries for each other.

Does the person writing this understand the problem of evil and human suffering? By a show of hands, please, and John can you count them, how many of you would allow suffering and pain that was in your power to prevent to show that you love your spouse, boyfriend, partner or child?

One of the posts linked here tells us god creates everything and knows all, and this fellow here tells us man is responsible for the mess we find ourselves faced with daily. He goes on to limit the possibilities of the worlds his god could create wanting us to believe as is commonly said with the apologists that we live in the best possible world.

But why then do we have sin in the first place? Why did he not just create man upright, so we could all be perfect from the start? In short, he did. But we must not forget a couple of things. First, God can’t do what God can’t do. He cannot create a world that displays his love, mercy, and grace all the while redefining love, mercy, and grace. And secondly, in order for this to work, he had to give us a sort of free will to rebel against him.

We are told here, with a straight face, that god gave us free will so we can rebel against him! Who says such things?

At what time did god create hell? If he created hell before he created Adam & Eve, then he is a fiend. He had intentions to punish a significant percentage of his creation even before he created them. If he created it some time in between, the question is what was his end? Is it to deter or to rehabilitate? Since we are told hell is a place of eternal damnation, the question of rehabilitation is out and I don’t know if it works as a deterrent. All I can think of is that a god who makes a place of damnation as he creates is malicious and deserves no worship and if anything, this god demands to be feared I dare say, deserves to be killed!

For Lewis to tell us this about god and his plan for hell

every person who initially chose to rebel during their time on earth would have continued to do so had they been given an eternal number of chances to recant. In the end, they choose hell over God

is simply beyond me!

I find it very annoying when people write such statements

The cry was as painful and split the sides of the earth as his final realization that his Father had for a time rejected him. God rejected God for no reason but that every painful act of man could be heaped on One Man’s shoulders. Every death, all loneliness, anxieties, slavery, shame, abandonment, rejection and fear were given to an innocent man.

Who cares about a suffering god? How is such a god helpful to us? And can this person claim with a straight face that the few minutes Jesus[if he lived] spent on the cross can match the pain and suffering that is our lot? That the suffering he chose for himself can match that which man goes through in their existence on this godless universe? And to tell me that one man died for the sins of another is plain ridiculous! Besides if these things listed were hanged on the cross, please tell why anxiety, rejection among others accompanies or lot?

And lastly a post that I already responded to, in which the author tells us life is only meaningful in a godly world. To him, I call this bollocks and again quote Daniel Garber I mentioned earlier who talks about what he felt when he lost god.

[……] I do think one loses something significant when one loses belief in God. I admit that the idea that my life was somehow a matter of concern to the ultimate power of the universe provided me with a sense of my own significance that I lost when I lost that belief. I also miss the comforting thought that however dark the world seems, the bright light of redemption may be just around the corner. (Of course, we may have to do our share to attain it, but the point is we have a powerful ally on our side.) Finally, with God gone, so is eternal life. I’ve had to confront the reality of death in a new way. 

To that sense of loss just described I have two responses. First, I say, ‘‘Welcome to life as it is rather than how it only seemed to be in your fantasy.’’ For human beings, growing up is often a matter of facing painful truths, and the loss of this sort of transcendence and moral guarantee must be swallowed and dealt with along with many other aspects of reality; in particular, as mentioned, the ultimate nature of death. This is one way to read the story of Adam and Eve, of course. Human innocence can no longer be sustained, now that we’ve eaten from the ‘‘tree of knowledge.’’ So be it. The Nietzschean in me says, ‘‘Deal with it.’’

My apologies for the length of the post!