Self mutilation - Matthew 5:29

The new testament is seen as being the less cruel one.

In it, Jesus is seen as the role model for Christians.

However, he is not shy about the natural attraction humans may experience between them (lust):

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Even after reading Jesus suggesting mutilation of your own body, people will hide this crazy talk with the metaphor excuse, and how it should not be taken literally. They forget the most important thing there is when reading the Bible: there is no fine print in the Bible stating anywhere what is and what isn't a metaphor.

It should be very obvious to any rational human of the 21st century that feeling attracted to another human is not a strong enough reason to self mutilate. Some would say that is not only cruel advice, but the plain evil kind.

I wonder if Jesus would think I would ever look at the Bible in search of good morality or life lessons after this one.

I would surely prefer to look at any beautiful woman with both eyes and enjoy eyesight together.

Faith and Doubt events - Part V - week 2

Week 2:

This session had the effects of Christianity in world history as the center of topics.

The whole idea behind all topics covered, was to convince the audience that Christianity was the source of a lot of good, and that the deaths caused by religion were a lot less in numbers when compared to modern atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, etc...), and that a lot of the morals and altruism of civilized societies found their roots in Christianity.

Although I do not disagree completely, there were problems:

Critical thinking is hard to accomplish. It is as hard as it is important.

One of the obviously put numerical arguments, in favor of religion, was the fact that in the past, the number of people killed divided by all those centuries of religious oppression, would end up with a very low daily casualty rate when compared to modern wars, specifically, those involving atheistic regimes.

This is an incorrect conclusion.

The reason for this faulty conclusion is simple: it was never taken into account that the technology involved in killing people today is far more lethal and efficient than it was back then.

If the Christian Crusaders of back then were suddenly to pick up the pace they once had, how would the casualties be like if they had access to, for example, a nuclear weapon when invading Arab lands when attempting to convert them?

Exactly. Hiroshima would have happened back then.

As with the first event, there was a surprise factor in this event as well.

After acknowledging the responsibilities of religion in past crimes, an apology was encouraged of all Christians when faced with such historical facts. This was a very rational attitude on their part.

However, one thing needs to be put into focus in this case: history is not the tool to determine who killed the most or the least, neither is that body count the ethical ground on which religion or atheism based their intentions on. The reasoning behind the killings is what was missing here.

The first commandment was certainly put in a very deep drawer that day, month, year, century... centuries...

That is not Christian at all. But in a religion with its share of contradictions, I guess one more won't hurt.

Faith and Doubt events - Part IV

At the end of the event, this is how complex things got:

Consider Exodus 31:14 and Genesis 3:16.

How hard is it to make God look bad with these texts alone?

One makes him cruel and intolerant, the other makes him sexist.

It is hard to hear, yes, but I would say it is as easy for religious people to be shocked at the texts showed in the presentation, as it is for me to look at these 2 that I picked, and accept that sometimes God wakes up to the wrong side of the bed. Without any context, that would always be the conclusion I would arrive to.

In the interest of fairness, there are militant atheists that are more extreme than others, some that are unfair even, but there are others with good reasons for agreeing with: abortion, the removal of religion and creationism from public schools (not from religious related courses, nor history courses), from public government buildings and procedures, from the money we all carry, and the abolition of tax breaks for religious institutions.

Are these claims and its reasons simple to follow or the same for all militant atheists? Of course not. I wish.

Do they make religious people want to understand them before disagreeing with them?

That is why the reasons aren't here now, they are too long, and too many.
But until we know them, we will never know if our conclusions about any atheist or class of atheism carry any truth or value.

Genesis 3:16 - Men rule Women. Period.

Discrimination:
Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category.

Genesis 3:16

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

In other words, women are supposed to bend to men's will. No ifs, no buts, plain and simple. If you are a woman and you have a husband, he owns you. You are no longer free.

If you like to worship a God that discriminates based on gender, Christianity is for you. And if your are a man, you're in the good side of the deal.

Exodus 31:14 - Desecrate the Sabbath, die!

In Christianity, New Testament, all variants of such religion claim to worship an infinitely merciful and just God. Except on one day of the week:

Exodus 31:14

"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you.

Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death;

whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people."

In other words, do anything unholy on the sabbath and you must be put to death. That is how far God's kindness and tolerance goes in this day of the week. And in case your decide to work, that will cut you off from your people. Very fair, considering that all obstacles of Nature towards Mankind also happen during the Sabbath.

In my humble opinion, I believe the Bible needs to reassess the meaning on the word "infinitely". Because if for some reason another God shows up that is kind and tolerant every day of the week, such new God would be even kinder and more tolerant than the Christian God.

The newer God would then be kinder than the already infinitely kind one we "have" today. Can you really surpass infinity? According to Christianity, yes. They allow infinity to have exceptions.

Faith and Doubt events - Part III

The 1st day at the Faith and Doubt event.

After the surprising effect of that first quote, mentioned in our last post, the real interesting part of the speech began. One could almost say it matched the very definition posts about atheism that this blog contains, specifically, the ones that are labeled under definitions, and that covered, theism, atheism, agnosticism, and so on...

It was with satisfaction and some excitement that I witnessed a totally accurate description of that all these terms mean.

Unfortunately, it all changed when the the quotes of atheists were brought into the spotlight.

As the speaker would bring each carefully chosen quote of the most popular atheists, the highlight was on the words that would describe Christianity in the worst possible way. All the reasoning leading up to such adjectives and claims were totally left aside.
Was that inevitable or intentional? Perhaps. After all, showing some good reasons in support of religion's failures would probably defeat the whole purpose of preaching for it in the first place.

Still, the chosen quotes did stir a negative sentiment towards atheists, and specifically, the militant ones.

At this point, I expected nothing else other that seeing all militant atheists being painted as a real threat to religion. Some of them are such. Some aren't. And that is exactly what it should have been said.

Atheism is an individual achievement.

Even though Faith can be too, Religion can't.

A Religion and its followers are bound by a set of beliefs, therefore we can expect accuracy in describing some behaviors and/or beliefs when grouping people by faith.

Atheism does not have a belief set, nor a set of reasons that all atheists share (or are supposed to share) to support their disbelief.

Therefore, one cannot expect a good enough precision in grouping atheists as one can expect when grouping religious people.

In this event, portraying all atheists fairly was not only very hard with the amount of time available, but it was impossible. I was in a church after all.

Too bad Peter never asked his followers to also ask Atheists about the reasons for their lack of faith. :)

He just asked Christians to be kind and respectful to those who inquire about the reasons for faith.

I took that quote seriously, and I did point out a few things to the speaker afterwards.

Let's just say that the next post will show how hard and complicated things can really get.

Faith and Doubt events - Part II

How was my first trip to the event about faith and doubt?
I was caught by surprise from the start. In my experiences with religious people and the fiery debates that come from the usual conflict between religion and atheism, I am used to resistance, and in some unfortunate cases, disrespect and aggressive stances towards atheists.
This time it was going to be different. It started with a quote from the Bible:

"…Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts,
always be prepared to give an answer
to everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that you have.
But do this with gentleness and respect."
1 Peter 3:15

Be gentle and respectful when anyone questions your faith. Seriously? I was impressed. I immediately got those images in my head of the most extreme of Christians. Those who preach by yelling, those who preach with a closed fist and loud voices, and would call me Satan, or devil, just by asking the wrong question. This didn't happen here. But it was right after listening to Peter's quote that I glanced at the concentrated look of my friends and decided: "I am going to see this through".

Faith and Doubt events - Part I

A couple of weeks ago, religious friends of mine asked me to go to some event that their church organized.
The reason for the invitation is pretty obvious:
I am an Atheist, and the event was about faith and doubt.

We went, we listened, and we came home to talk about it.
Unfortunately, Atheists were not very well portrayed, and I left under the impression that every religious person in that room now likes atheists a bit less after having heard what we did.

Let us just say that the explanations about what we represent were accurate, the quotes of popular atheists were too, but the conclusions were pretty offset by the emotions of faith.

As such, and after stating my opinions to my friends, I was invited back due to the event being a 4 week presentation on Faith and Doubt, to see it all through, and now the presenter knows they had and will have an Atheist in their midst. I told him on their website.

More details soon, here, on the Religious Faith Challenger.

Divine sloppyness.

A god is, according to many, the all powerful, all knowing creator of everything.
When he was about to create Man, he knew how we would turn out to be, and made us the way we are anyway.

Man is by far, the most cruel of all species. We are the only ones capable of torturing, killing for sport, genocides, mass pollution, the atom bomb, to name a few...

When I was a roman catholic, I was once told that God had made us in His own image. Now that I see that a being that can do everything (including having created a perfectly happy humanity) was able to be so sloppy in creating Man, I wonder:

Since God is also responsible for the creation of evil to begin with, and responsible for creating beings that become evil, is God really that human?

[Definition] Omnibenevolent

Omnibenevolence: unlimited or infinite benevolence.
(Benevolence: the quality of being kind and altruistic.)

If one is the universe's creator, and one is the God of any major religion, they are omniscient in that creation. God would know exactly what such creation is going to turn out to be, whatever the circumstances, whenever the circumstances. Given that perfect knowledge, the universe will still be created, and everything that will ever exist is going to be exactly the way the creator knew it would be. Such creator is omniscient.

Once God created the universe, everything in it is included in God's plan. I do not know if there was a plan to begin with, but knowing that God knows all, then everything will go according to that infinite knowledge, on in other words, according to the plan. Everything will be the way God knows and wants it to be, always.

Gods in major religions are seen as forgiving, merciful, compassionate, and kind in a infinite way. However, they chose to create evil, knew all, so they knew the consequences of that evil, and created beings that are evil, which is still included in God's initial plan., because all is included. If God knew all before creation and still created all this way, then that was the plan.
So why forgive what or who is happening according to plan (evil or not, that was the plan)?
Why punish whoever is happening according to plan? Is there anything or any one thing that has not or will not go according to God's plan messing up God's omniscience?

God's cannot be just, or merciful, or kind, or evil. All in the universe is just the way it is supposed to be from the start, because all omniscient beings knew it would be this way, and that is how they created everything.
Therefore, omnibenevolence is not a quality any omniscient god can have. At least not the ones that created hell and eternal punishments along with the universe (If they claim that quality, they're faking it!). Eternal punishments after death seems like a sentence given to someone that had messed up the plan of the universe's supreme being. Can that be possible?

[Definition] Omnipresent

Omnipresence: is the property of being present everywhere.

There seems to be no present major religion with god(s) that are omnipresent but not omniscient. Given this assumption, what would the purpose of omnipresence be, after already being omniscient?

We go to places to interact with its contents. No one ever goes somewhere to do exactly what one can do where they already were to begin with. At least no one ever does that rationally.
We can read a book at home, but if we choose to read it outside, it is because the outside has something else to offer us, and so on...

If you are omniscient and know all, you are in the position of not needing interaction. Whatever that interaction was supposed to give you, you already have perfect knowledge of its outcome. Unless you plan on affecting the environment actively, why go there in the first place?
Knowing all (omniscience) is a concept that includes what being everywhere provides you with, because if you know all, you know the same (or more) as if you were everywhere.
The same way that being under water includes having your hands wet.
So why the trouble of being everywhere when you know everything at all times?

Unless you need to do something actively instead of passively watching, being everywhere at every time, forever and ever, and being omniscient at the same time seems pretty useless.

[Definition] Omniscient

Omniscience: the capacity to know everything infinitely.

This concept is very interesting. It means that all things that anyone can know, past, present, and future, are already known by an omniscient being.

Gods of all major religions share this trait.
And if for some reason the concept seems simple, or if you think that being omniscient would be something cool, consider this:

• Would you like to know the lotto numbers? Even knowing before playing, what, when and how you would spend every penny, and knowing perfectly how you would enjoy each experience, with no surprises, knowing as well as if you were living it the second time around or the 1000th time around, even before experiencing it the first time?
• Would you enjoy the company of a person, if you knew all things the person thinks, everything that person would say to you or talk to you about, ever, as well as all events, all experiences shared, all harm and good coming to that person, darkest secrets, flaws, everything?! But, better, all that even before meeting the person for the first time? Just like watching a movie for that second time... ;)
• What about mankind? Would you like to know how we started but also how we ended and why? Even before mankind started? No mysteries, no surprises, ever?
• Would you like to never experience learning because you already know it all? Or never experiencing decisions, because you already know all of them?
• What about the meaning of life? Would you like to know the meaning of life? Even before life or the universe started?
• Would you like to never experience surprise, because everything is exactly the way you know it is?
  
• What would you do, if everything about to be done, every pleasure or pain coming from it, any success or failure, was already known to you? Just like you know what the next breath of air is going to feel like as you read this, and the next one, and the next one, always known, forever and ever...
  

I wouldn't like to be omniscient. It seems, very, very, boring.

Let us question then...

After having my revealing moment at a young age, I decided to start asking questions.
Asking does not always come natural to us. Sometimes the explanations given to us seemed reasonable when they were not, sometimes we like the explanation enough not to ruin it with questions, and sometimes we just don't even feel like over thinking it.

Having grown heavily into a Roman Catholic environment (which is not the same as saying that I was heavily put into religious environments, just that everyone around me was the same as I was) it all settled naturally in my young mind. God was looking out for us, I had a guardian angel like my grandmother once told me, and I was happy.
Just like any other "truth" given by my older role models, I believed.

At this point, I had noticed that adults were ok with the idea of telling children something false, and later admitting it was all a lie: Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, etc...

So that is when I started questioning my religion as well. I wanted to be sure I understood perfectly well why I believed what I had been taught.
The day I started getting some "I don't know" for an answer, was the day I knew I could not stop asking, and the questions kept on coming. The day that I heard an "I don't know" for an answer, followed by "God's ways are higher than ours", I felt someone was telling me to stop asking, and just believe. I had then convinced myself that grown ups were trying to convince me not to demand answers, or explanations; worse: they did not know some of the answers as well!
I felt an excitement about having found an unknown to it all, and curiosity settled in. I was really on to something!

Congressman Forbes, Religion and Government.

Not all leaders believe that we should be free to be religious, as well as to be free from religion. Some are bold and selfish enough to take their religious beliefs to the government, a place that should rule us all fairly and religiously unbiased. Congressman Forbes goes even further, by bringing his religious convictions to the place that also represents non religious citizens.

Congressman Forbes:

I feel that in light of so many false statements by a member of government, one should make things clear about some of the people from back in the day, just to leave things in a fair and unbiased state:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-Abraham Lincoln

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

-Thomas Jefferson

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!!!"

- John Adams,

letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson,

letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

-Thomas Jefferson,

letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

And my favorite from one of the brightest minds the world has ever seen:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-Albert Einstein

Turns out, Mr. Einstein, that most of us still are in that poor place, and most of us still neglect the opinions of the intelligent.
Maybe the 16% of non religious Americans(1) should be more respected in their own government by seeing a private matter, such as religion, kept private.
Reading, learning, and thinking clearly about the sides and opinions that stand against ours can be difficult. But it is rewarding nonetheless. Maybe Congressman Forbes should read about both sides of the story as well, and keep his or any religion outside of government. We are already free to worship whatever we want.
Government should be free from religion exactly because some of those who the government represents also are.

(1) C.I.A.
Jefferson Quotes
John Adams Quotes
Abraham Lincoln Quotes