Terrible essay on religion or lack of it

There are terrible essays, then there is this by J Maren. He says in an interview with a Ferguson, he (Ferguson) said atheism is a religious faith that he was brought up in. He went on to say it is as much a faith as Christianity or Islam. And finished by making the observation that

atheism, particularly in its militant forms, is really a very dangerous metaphysical framework for a society

And at this point, I have questions. Creeds such as Christianity or Islam have books, or tenets of beliefs, they often have founders and a lot of other requirements. Now what could be the similarities between atheism and Islam or Judaism? How, in its militant form, whatever that means, is it a danger to society? Do they kill believers?

What else had Ferguson to say?

I know I can’t achieve religious faith,” he went on, “but I do think we should go to church. We don’t have, I don’t think, an evolved ethical system. I don’t buy the idea that evolution alone gets us to be moral. It can modify behavior, but there’s just too much evidence that in the raw, when the constraints of civilization fall away, we behave in the most savage way to one another. I’m a big believer that with the inherited wisdom of a two-millennia old religion, we’ve got a pretty good framework to work with.

This is interesting. For thousands of years, our loving and merciful father forgot about his creation. Left men without a religion. Without morals and remembered to send this information much later and topped it up with a suicide or is it a deicide.

If Maren is right, we must believe that before Christianity there was no forgiveness. Maren tells us, in part

What we do know is that he thought Christianity was in many ways the soul of Western civilization, and that the uniquely Christian concept of forgiveness was utterly indispensable to its survival.

I don’t know about you, but I know I am have not

My fear is that the Church is not doing what so many of us on the outside want it to do, which is preaching its gospel, asserting its truths and its claims

wanted the church to do anything except that believers keep their faith private.

Maren then tells of an interview with D MUrray who

believes that Christianity is essential because secularists have been thus far totally incapable of creating an ethic of equality that matches the concept that all human beings are created in the image of God

Which is interesting from where I stand. It appears there has been a difference between belief and practice. But the less said about this the better. Reminds me of when Haitians revolted following the French declaration of Freedom, Liberty and Fraternity, there were locked in a revolt with the French for 12 years until the defeat of Napoleon’s army.

In his conclusion, Maren writes that the west and Christianity are tied at the hip. The west will not long survive without Christianity. The sooner you all start joining the church nearest to you, the longer the western civilization will last. It is all up to you.

Or maybe I am wrong.

California repent

This is so hilarious.

Judgement is coming upon the Uneducated States of America. And why is this? The evangelicals- the chosen ones of god-, are under attack, evolution is being taught as fact, god has been taken out of schools and the masses have forgotten god.

You want to know what else America has done to anger god? Everything has become political (strange if you ask me. I thought they are generally always are), racial (when were they not?) and taboo (this is the most interesting), there is a love for money, nice cars and houses, child sacrifice (Jeff stop eating people’s babies), and there is sexual immorality (people stop having sex while standing. Sex should only be missionary and for procreation only).

What to do? Repent for the time is nigh. And god is a just judge so he must pass sentence. I though she was also merciful so she must act mercifully by forgiving as many times as we are asked to forgive but then that’s rational thinking.

Brian, California has been singled out to be the worst of all the states. You fellows have singly and severally angered god that the brimstone that is coming to rain on you is still doing weight lifting.

On sports

Or on sports and transgender.

For some reason, after solving the world hunger problem, there has been desire by some quarters to have transgender females or is it males participate in women sports and the response has definitely been divided. I have read and maybe some of you too, that these days all it takes to be a woman is to feel it inside your heart and that’s all. There are transgender people who are having hormonal treatment to reduce their testosterone but whether this is sufficient to allow them to participate in an all women activity is a matter of debate.

Now, I have no problem with any one participating in any athletic endeavour. Why not have categories that cover every group. All male; All female; Trans male/ female though I have not heard of a trans male who wants to participate in a male sporting event. Maybe I haven’t read widely, which can be forgiven.

What do you think sporting bodies or organizers should do?

sometimes you find a post so bad

you actually sympathise with the author. And that applies to this one I have come across today titled atheism: the most dangerous religion.

The first claim of atheism we are told is that first there was nothing then there was something and I think this author has his religion confused. In the beginning, so the bybull tells us, god created the heavens and the earth but from what? Enquiring minds want to know. I know I have read Lawrence Krauss a Universe from Nothing. You can listen to the short video linked.

I didn’t know Darwin was the god of atheists. I was today years old when I learnt this new fact. And how is he our god? By convincing us life simply evolved from non-life. I will leave this here for now.

What are the main teachings of atheism? 1. evolution; 2. nothing to everything; 3. because science says, and 4. “the lack of evidence is evidence enough”. I thought it would be sufficient to respond that these are not the teachings of atheism, that is, if it has any teaching. Atheism simply, and this is a matter of debate some places, is a lack of belief in theism. It is possible after this for an atheist to make certain commitments in fields of knowledge say such as biology (evolution), cosmology. Point 3 is a straw man and number 4 is just common sense.

Now we come to why it is dangerous.

  1. Morality because you have no justification to be moral. The argument being without a god and its attendant threats and promises you can’t be moral.
  2. Atheists don’t believe in an afterlife.
  3. You are unnecessarily hateful- you tear down theists, make them look stupid which leads to Christians being bullied and harassed. And you know what, this is why 1st Century persecution happened and why Nero danced while Rome burned. I am not making this up. He wrote it. And the best response i can think of is laughter.

But there is a solution. Accept Jesus and you will be cured from this hatred.

Go and find Jesus. If you meet him, say Mak sent you.

how did you meet da lawd

it was in a philosophical argument. And no, I am not kidding. So if you have been looking for a reason to believe in god, maybe the place to begin is to read the Ontological argument by Anselm. Or maybe Pascal’s wager for those easily scared into submission. I will be here waiting for your confessions as to which argument brought you closer to god. I will be waiting to hear how you moved from the teleological argument to a believing that Krishna is the true god and no other truer god can be found.

Have a great week everyone.

Do fronkeys exist?

The fact that asking “Does fronkey exist?” assumes fronkey exists is quite important. It reminds us that fronkey’s existence is intuitive and known by everyone. Fronkey is not hiding, but maybe we are.

If you think the above premise is sound, you have a problem. It implies if we can think something, the object of our thoughts must really exist beyond our thoughts. This is the species of argument some theists make as an apology for their belief in god. They however, argue that god occupies a special category of objects unlike unicorns or fronkeys so that my restatement of the argument above would not apply to Santa Claus but only to god. I think that is a case of special pleading.

An apologist, Andrew Sveda, in his post, thoughts on god’s existence, argues that to ask the question does god exist implies or assumes god exists in three distinct ways. One, that had we evolved by natural selection, we would not have developed truth seeking abilities; we would have no desire for truth and finally because our lives have meaning and purpose.

Since adaptation improves chances of survival- that is the organism that is best adapted (fittest) to its environment survives, and if truth seeking helps with this adaptation, then it will be developed. And while we have this cognitive ability, how many people use theirs? We have people believing asses talked and Jonah ate a fish and it remained alive for three days in his stomach!

He writes To say someone should believe something because it’s true can only hold if man has some objective purpose, which the atheist must deny. Which is quite interesting. Many people believe as true things that are patently false without any help from atheists. And believing something is true has nothing to do with objective purpose whatever that is. 1+1 is 2 whether your life has purpose or not.

I don’t know, but it seems to me some religious apologists don’t take time even to read on what has been written by other apologists and the responses to those arguments.

And finally, it should always be remembered that however great an argument is, it would take a leap of faith to come from argument for something to the something being actual.

in defense of Judas

When a guy is a snitch in an organization, he is called a Judas. Many times you hear the admonition don’t be a Judas but I think for the sake of literature, Judas needs rehabilitation. Read that passage again. For believers, it is found in Mathew 26. Who even told Judas the high priests were meeting and how did he manage this feat. Who sent him information the priests needed an informant, a Judas, pun intended.

At the table, Jesus already knows one of his disciples will betray him that evening and even says the scriptures already declared the son of man must die. He decides not to be a Judas and make this information public to his disciples nor does he take measures against his being betrayed. It is more like he wanted it to go down that way. At the end he paraphrases Ecclesiastes better not to be born when he tells his disciples that for him that shall betray him, it was better for him not to have been born.

If anything, this is one of the verses in the bible that portray Jesus as a nondescript preacher-man in some remote village. Why, if he had been driving out demons, healing the sick would identifying him be so hard? Is it the case there was nothing outstanding about him?

What was the need for the chief priest to pay 30 pieces of silver when all the soldiers needed to do was come and ask who is the Jesus fellow, that is if there was none among them who could tell him out to the rest.

I think Judas saw an opportunity to make easy money and took it. Jesus had it coming. What else had he come for, anyway? And how did he see it going down?

it does appear

to me that some religious faithful don’t read their bibles. Paul says if Christ is not risen then their faith is in vain. Elsewhere he says as death came to the world through one man, so life through Jesus. And we are told Jesus came to die for our sins. Why they chose deicide as the preferred model instead of dying in his sleep I don’t know. You are wondering why I am telling you all this, wonder no more. First it was a Kenyan lawyer who sued Israel at the ICJ for the death of Jesus but now I see there is an American pastor who is demanding an apology from Israel for the death of Jesus. I thought it was the Romans who did the crucifying? Curious minds want to know.

it is that time of the year

or is it the moon that some of you have been encouraged by your imam or is it the profit that you should fast. That the lord likes it when you fast. Chapman Cohen wrote

ar more suggestive, however, than the association of religion with what we may call the normal social forces, is its connection with conditions that are now clearly recognised as abnormal. From the earliest times we find the use of drugs and stimulants, the practice of fasting and self-torture, with other methods of depressing or stimulating the action of the nervous system, accepted as well-recognised methods of inducing a sense of religious illumination, or the feeling that one is in direct communion with a supernatural order of existence.

Religion and Sex by Chapman Cohen

but i think it is Zera Yacob who said it best

God does not order absurdities such as ‘‘Eat this, do not eat this; today eat, tomorrow do not eat, do not eat meat today, eat it tomorrow. . . neither did God say to the Mohammedians: ‘eat during the night, but do not eat during the day.’ ’’

Go yea and enjoy food, whatever you tastes are.