Pope cuddle on atheists 

The Pope cuddles while addressing a church gathering said 

But to be a Catholic like that, it’s better to be an atheist.’ It is that: scandal

But this is an insult to atheists. To compare dishonest and hypocritical Catholics to atheists is to claim we are dishonest, which we are not and it is a poor reading of his sentiments that would make anyone think he has respect for atheists. 


What is the difference 

Between this and ancestor worship? 

I keep saying I find religious people a strange lot, especially when they are of African descent. They look down upon their traditional beliefs and then in the name of Christianity do and believe in absurdities for example that a man swallowed a fish whole and vomited the fish after 3 days 400 miles away, how ridiculous! 

The fool has said in his heart there is no god.

Disclaimer: This post may be long.

The Psalmist in Psalm 14:1 writes

The evil one has said in his heart, “There is no God”. They are corrupted and they are defiled in their schemes and there is none who does good.

There is a brief commentary on this verse. The commentator writes in part

“The fool.” The Atheist is the fool pre-eminently, and a fool universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice. Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very existence of the Most High, so is it also the greatest imaginable folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible vengeance on the fool who indulges it.

Read that again and read it well. To call an atheist a fool pre-eminently and universally is to make a joke of mans intelligence. To praise belief in a mythical being because a story is told about him in an antiquated text is to display the greatest folly and ignorance. I can confidently say that most if not all believers in gods do so because they have been told. They couldn’t have arrived at such a god as described in scripture through induction or a priori. And further, most men live through their lives without reflection. To call atheists names such as the ones in the above passage is to elevate folly to a high pedestal and to give faith a distinction it doesn’t deserve. That said, this passage is not our concern. There is a theist, a scholar and a Katlik who we feel deserves a response.

She writes about atheists

Their state of mind arises either from pride, or from corruption of heart, or from a misguided education, or from all three.

which ignores the demand the atheist has made of the theist to provide evidence for their god, whatever, god is. It is arrogant to say the atheist has arrived to atheism because of corruption of the heart! How stupid would a person be to say something like this?

Theists claim that we call them stupid. She writes

I have lost count of the number of times that I have been told in a condescending and somewhat pitying manner that people who believe in God are psychologically and intellectually weak and that faith is nothing but a crutch that gives mental defectives something to cling to. 

This is a statement I don’t want to apologize for. I only want to make a qualification. I know there are brilliant theists. I have met them. But tell me how many theists have considered disparately and thoughtfully why they believe in the god they do? All those who seem to have thought about their beliefs like the apologist WLC present a god that my grandmother wouldn’t recognize in a thousand years. There is obviously a disconnect between the god of the street believer and the apologist.

I have written elsewhere on this blog that the existence of anything we see around us isn’t evidence for any god. To write

It is true that in this life, God is hidden from our direct knowledge but we can learn a lot about Him from carefully observing the things that He has made. 

is to make an extravagant claim. It is not possible to come from the existence of a stone to god. It requires a leap of several magnitude where at some point you drop your ability to reason. It is not possible any other way.

This is

So in other words, we know God both by the natural light of reason

a plain lie but not surprising since from the very beginning of Paulinity, its teachers have always found lying useful.

Our reason does not tell us

there is one true God, our Creator and Lord, Who is the beginning and the end of all things.

Maybe yours does. Mine doesn’t.

Faith tells us

that we must worship Him and do His will as it is written by Him in our hearts.

for he will damn you if you don’t believe and supplicate before him. Reason on the other hand tells us that this are the demands of megalomaniac, a dictator and an egotist. A being that is vain and unworthy of worship! That is if we must worship anything.

On the contrary

The whole visible world with its wise arrangement and intricate systems of life, as well as the voice of conscience, provides clear evidence to every thinking person of the existence of an almighty God

cannot be attested to by reason. There is nothing about a tree that provides evidence for a god nor an earthquake.

To ask

How can anyone reasonably think that the world made itself or that life is just an accidental happenstance resulting from a big bang? 

Assumes too much. It betrays the thought, acquired after several years of Katlik indoctrination that the world is in need of a creator. There is a difference between an always existing world and a world that made itself. And please, read about the big bang.

To claim

the simplest logic tells me that order does not come from disorder

is again to betray once ignorance. Order and disorder are not inherent in things. It is our idea of the world. Even in a very chaotic set, if one observed quite closely, some order would emerge.

No one I know of has made the claim we get life by adding some chemicals to a coffee table. There is no reason to assert that some magician, only of immense power originated life. Nature acts in its own ways and unguided and has the building blocks from which life originated. It is natural to assume that nature acting on its own ways resulted in life and that in nature, the occurrence of life is not a wonder as we make it to be just because we don’t know how it comes to be. Why does the believer ignore the complexity of a stone. Are they able to tell us how stones came to be? Or is goddit going to be the standard reply?

The Hindu believes his sacred writings are the words of a god, the Muslim believes Mo[ please be unto him] received his from god and the Pauline claims hers is from god. Which god, if I may and which of these represents the message of the one true god? And while at it, please share with us the criteria for making this judgement.

It is suspect and highly so, that none of the people claimed to have been approached by god are men of any learning or standing in the community unless you consider a murder- Moses[ allowing for the sake of argument that he was a real fellow], Abraham- a pimp, Isaac- shepherd and the anonymous fishermen who claimed to have been with Jesus among others. No skeptic, no man of books, no Socrates, no Seneca, no Cicero, no Marcus, no Zeno! How sad! How ridiculous. Please don’t misunderstand me, but all religious stories seem to me to have been told at fireplaces to entertain children and only later believed by adults. I don’t see how sane people can believe that a god who could create the universe and all that is in it would have need to come down from gods’ residence to have his feet washed and partake of bbq!

It is only the credulous who would shamelessly write

Since God does not speak directly to each one of us, we have to take the word of those to whom He did speak of what He told them

and believe they have said something worthy of merit. It is disappointing to say the least. What reason have to take another man’s word as coming from a deity. Joseph Smith has made the same claim and pastors make the same claim daily on pulpits, are they to be believed? If yes, how is it that their pronouncements haven’t found their way into scripture? Think, just once! It will not kill you.

The only honest statement in this diatribe is

In other words, we take God’s revelations on faith.

and whether it is clothed in big words such as

If we hold firmly and without doubting what someone tells us on God’s authority, we have divine faith, for in that case we really believe God Himself.

It is still faith and it can’t count as evidence. Buddha told his monks

Believe nothing, O monks, just because you have been told it, or it is commonly believed, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to and take as your guide

and elsewhere he says

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense

Before you start saying am appealing to authority of Buddha, tell me where does it agree with your common sense that a snake can walk and talk or a fish that can carry a man for three days or zombies rising out of graves or a god that kills a man for refusing to ejaculate in his sister in-law then we can have a word about argument from authority.

She tells us to know whether they are messengers of god, we must

We need to ask him to present his credentials.

and which are these

Miracles and prophesies are the only infallible credentials which God gives his spokesmen.

and on these standard, the magicians of Pharaoh must be messengers of god. But while still on it, why would a god need miracles? We have also seen that whatever is claimed to be prophesy is written after the fact. In essence we have no way of telling the messenger of an imaginary being.

If one of the miracles is to raise a person from the dead, the question that we must ask, is what is the point? Is the person raised from the dead made immortal or do they have to die a second time? If they must die a second time, then it must be a cruel person who would disturb maggots during their dinner time to bring such a person to life. And definitely not a god worthy of belief and worship.

We don’t want to waste time here talking about zombie Jesus. There is already a post we did yesterday and several links one could make use of to see the impossibility of Jesus story.

Anyone to who does not find the trinity a travesty to our reason has lost the right to be called reasonable. There is no discussion to be had. The case has been closed and only admittance to an asylum is pending. I will process the papers myself! for free.

In conclusion, I think this lady hasn’t spent time with atheists. Had she done so, she would acknowledge that on the question of religious belief, the average atheist is far more knowledgeable than the most pious believer.

And I think this Psalm should be edited to read

The fool has said in his heart and loudly there is a god. 

That my friends is the end.

Blog break 15: Free will, god, faith & suffering

I hope you all had a fine Sunday. Lurking has lately became a pastime of mine and I keep finding gems that the best I can do is to share with you. It is with this in mind that I share three posts; two good ones and one not so great. First, the great posts

In absolving god from hell, the author presents three scenarios why god cannot be absolved from the responsibility of hell and why the christians who believe anything different from this are not aware of the contents of their bible or do not know about the god as portrayed in their good book. Go read it!

Do atheists have faith is a question that most of us have addressed in one way or another but seems to raise its ugly head whenever you are engaged in a debate with a theist. I wonder most times whether the people saying this have just come out of an ant hole and can’t help themselves or whether it is the best line of attack they can think of? Go read it and the comments are as interesting as the post 😛

And for the not great post, a question is asked why does god allow suffering? which apart from making the wrong assumption that there is a god, tells us there is some grand reason, a reason we don’t know why god allows us to suffer.  The good catholic tells us

There was only love and harmony between man and his Creator. When man sinned, he destroyed the harmony that existed between all things and gave up his protection from suffering and death. Man’s world was no longer pure since it experienced the frustration of original justice.

Before we delve into this matter deeply, isn’t possible that a god who is claimed to have created the universe by saying let there be couldn’t use the same invocation to end sin in the world? The christian apologist wants us to buy the line that sin of A & E, two personages who didn’t grace our planet, was so great that the best their god would do was to banish them from the garden of Eden, have guards at the gate and then curse the land from whence they were to get food and on top of that curse childbirth! Is it that christians consider just small portions of the picture or they look into the picture and then decide to ignore the parts they don’t like? And what justice is it when for the first crime, if the bible is to be believed, is punished in a way that no parent I know of would do to their children? What is the christian understanding of justice?

Is it remotely possible that the theists who write some of these posts don’t read anything else? How would they keep repeating the same free will defense to absolve their supposed god from all responsibility? Let us for a brief moment posit that god was offended and decided to punish man, why for the life of me, should a cow deliver its calf in pain? What sin did a cow commit if ever there were any cows when Adam was naming animals in Genesis 2?

I don’t know about you, but I find no beauty in a toothache or in having a migraine, so this statement

 We believe that there is an element of beauty in human suffering because it came from God

really doesn’t address why we suffer. It devalues human suffering and pretends that a god, whatever it means for the believer, who is so separated from us would know what it means to suffer. To even say there is a beauty in human suffering because it comes from a god either fails to recognize there is suffering that as far as we can possibly tell serves no purpose. Besides, it paints a god who, for lack of a better word, is a sadist and capricious. For tell me, what loving parent would allow children to die of starvation while he watches? What kind of parent would stand and do nothing when a small baby is abused or sacrificed as they did among the Aztecs? What god if ever there was any such thing stand and watch men and women burnt at the stake in his name? Please don’t tell me about god! If there are any gods, they are not lovers of men. And I don’t need to suffer as a reminder of my impending death, no, the death of others is enough knowledge enough, adding suffering to the picture makes no sense at all.

I don’t know how when I have a toothache my friend also feels the pain. Unless am missing something, how does one interpret

[…], when one of us suffers, the rest of us also feel that suffering

and is this really what we want? I guess not.

I think these people who purport to speak for god really have a great job to do. They have to show us why their god, who we are told intervened in men’s affairs, have in the last thousand of years decided to STFU and let men run roughshod over each other, killing, rapin’, maiming each other without even a hint of a cough from this said god? Am interested in knowing why the religious apologist doesn’t find their god to be ultimately responsible for evil in the world either by commission or through negligence. In fact I dare say that if a god as described in the bible were to exist, I would volunteer to try it for cruelty, murder, genocide, negligence and encourage the jury to bring a verdict of guilty with the highest possible punishment! Thank goodness, there are no gods!