The Antichristian Phenomenon

Recently there has been a bit of a stir over the latest Mr. Deity: “Mr. Deity and the Woman”, in which Mr. Deity meets his latest creation, the rib-woman Eve.  After being posted to RichardDawkins.net and Pharyngula, its been stirring up debate over whether or not it is derogatory by negatively stereotyping women.  The short answer: No.  The long answer is below the jump.  I expect it will be largely unpopular, so don’t waste your time if you aren’t going to actually engage potentially uncomfortable ideas.

(more…)

It seems that I missed a week in my goal!  I have been really busy recently, I didn’t even realize the week went by.

Anyway, we left off with typo drama and a bit of bragging.  Now it’s my turn to confront the nonsense.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. (more…)

When I opened my inbox this morning I saw an e-mail that was sent to this website’s contact address. Like usual, whenever we receive e-mail or answer questions directed at us in a collaboration post. This post may be updated with the added comments of a different ACP member.

Greetings,

My name is [...]. I’m a 23 year old Christian from Arkansas, and I would like to go ahead and get it out on the table that this letter holds no hostility to whoever reads it or your movement. It’s simply a question that I would like to have your opinion on…

I understand that many horrible things are carried out supposedly in God’s name. I agree with you that it’s wrong. However, every religious group has its “bad apples”. In my opinion, there is no room for extremists in any religion, Christian or other. My question to you is why direct your entire organization towards Christians or any other Abraham based religions?

Waldheri: Allow me to dive right into it. The people who actively participate in this group all come from countries in which Christianity is the predominant religion. It is part of our daily lives, whether we want to or not. Even though a lot of a things we write about are applicable to other religions, is it that surprising that it is mostly centered on Christianity when you realize it is the religion that we come most into contact with? I do not think Christianity is worse than the other Abrahamic religions, if that is what you’re actually trying to ask.

Anath: I generally do not direct my efforts towards extremists but rather towards the good ol’ average Joe churchgoer.  The extremists are entrenched too deeply in their own delusions to be swayed either way, but when someone is a reasonable person, they are more open to seeing from another person’s point of view.  Also, the moderates quietly support the extremists by their sheer presence, and the fact that they do NOT decry the behavior publicly or otherwise.  There are more moderates attending  and funding the megachurches than extremists!  There are more moderates quietly going along with extremist organiztions such as NOM, putting their votes in to legislate their beliefs by attempting to ban gay marriage,  abortion, teach intelligent design and abstinence-only education in schools, and so on.  THIS is deplorable.  It is the moderates, who nod their heads and baa contentedly that we need to shake awake.  Extremists will always be extremists, but the moderates have the ability to either support or condemn their actions.

In this nation, we all have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Waldheri: Your right to freedom of religion is certainly extant, and I would never try to take away that freedom. However, being a secularist, I will do my best to pry religion apart from governance. In itself, I do not think religion is a valid reason for passing or obstructing legislation.

Anath: And WE have that right as well.  As I stated above, the attempt to legislate BELIEF is one thing I stand firmly against.  I am an American as well, and I do not want the Church dictating what me or my (potential, future) children do with their bodies, mind, or how our tax money gets spent.  Don’t think this is happening?  Watch more closely, it is.  There’s a saying out there: “Freedom of religion means ALL religion”… including secularism.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t extremist Christian groups that would lash out, sometimes even violently, against your group or any other like it. That’s a cold hard fact, and it’s gravely unfortunate. But my concern is that you’re attacking the foundation of life as we know it against mostly everyday good people. There are going to be conflicts between groups like ours, and that’s inevitable. However instead of going for the throat, we should be trying to calmly discuss our differences. Most Christians (and all true Christians) don’t believe in hating anyone for any reason. We hate the sin, not the sinner. You also hold a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but with that does it also mean that there is no such thing as common decency between our fellow people anymore? If both of our missions are to promote peace and harmony between all people, than why are we being so ruthless towards one another?

Waldheri: I’m not sure what you mean by the “foundation of life as we know it”, but it is important to remember that people simply might not agree with you on those foundations. To me, the freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have. My ideas may sound controversial or even offensive to Christians, but frankly that’s not my problem. I don’t think I’ve ever directly attacked Christians as persons in my posts (and if I have, I apologize) – I have always attacked Christianity. I think its metaphysical ideas (souls, heaven, hell) are ridiculous, its moral character (Old Testament divinely sanctioned bloodshed) deeply dubious, some of its virtues (faith, piety) naive and worthless and its god a spiteful, arrogant tyrant that I would not want to serve even if I did believe he existed. I am honest in my posts and I realize it may offend Christians, but they can’t expect me to simply shut up. Must I keep my deeply held beliefs locked up so that others’ deeply held beliefs can roam free without dissidence? Furthermore, you must understand that some of Christian beliefs are deeply offensive to me. Examples are the idea that when we are born, we already bear the guilt of some crime committed by our forebears; the idea that we are worthless and inherently bad (“sinful”) and need saving; the idea that our actions in a finite time frame are enough to judge us to a fate of infinite timespan.

Anath: I’m going to assume that by “the foundation of life as we know it”, you mean the basic tenents of Christianity; the existence God, the divinity of Jesus, a “plan” for us all, an after life, etc.  Let me turn this around–Christianity is attacking the foundation of life as WE know it.   By that  “attacking that foundation”, I mean inserting causation where none can be proved, denying the reality of evolution  and what it entails, attempting to undermine science on the basis of a 6000 year old book written by patriarchal desert nomads, claiming we have “freedom of choice”–then defining that “freedom” as “choose God or GO TO HELL!”, claiming that we are condemned before we were born for the sins of our greatest ancestors… that there is a strict, black and white dichotomy of “good” and “evil”, and every single action, motivation, person, and so on in this world can be judged by that dichotomy… and so on.  Your belief system attacks the foundation of my reality.  By insisting that your belief system is the only correct one, and asserting the “God or Hell / Good and Evil” dichotomies, you assert that I am Evil and Hellbound.  If that is not an attack, I don’t know what is.  Think about it from the other side of the fence for a while.  You may “hate the sin, not the sinner”, but that doesn’t change where we stand in your worldview.  You dont’ have to “hate” us to condemn us.

Based on your “freedom of speech” bit, I question whether you actually engaged the CONTENT of this site, or became squeamish based on our name alone.  Read some of the articles, we are not overtly hostile and “going for the throat”.  My recent debate with Aelnathan demonstrates that we are willing to be patient and engage Christians and Christian thought.  Our recent “10 Answers from an Antichristian” posts demonstrate what we DO believe, and why we do not follow Christianity, in a very approachable way.  Cleric’s recent “Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Christians” demonstrates that we ARE willing to engage Christians as long as they are reasonable, Lea and Waldheri’s recent posts engage Christian thought and bring up important questions and observations about Christianity in the modern world.  I fail to see how we are “going for the throat”, but if you can bring up a specific example to back up this statement, we will explain the intent, and how you may have potentially misunderstood the content.

Like I said before, I don’t mean any of this offensively, it just had been on my heart. I don’t expect you to censor any of your authors or anything like that. This is just a simple conversation between anyone in your group interested and myself. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[...]

Waldheri: Nor is my opinion meant to be offensive, but it can be. You need not apologize.

I got a bit carried away with something yesterday and totally forgot to make my post.
Anyway, now that it is Wednesday, new posts are overdue!

If you remember in our last episode, Aelnathan asked us to go to HIS review if we wanted to continue commenting, as he just can’t keep up with posts on someone else’s review. Whatever. I did it. Previously, Cleric had gone to his review and continued a discussion that was already in the comments section, but we will start with my post, as there is a gap in time and the old debate (The bible promotes genocide! No it doesn’t, there are wars but wars aren’t genocide! Yes it does, God asks them to kill all living beings in a city…! BUT BUT BUT TEH WERE TEH EVULS…) Kind of died. If you would like to read it for yourself you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 2. There’s also another person who steps in and gives similar arguments to the ones I presented, but all of the previous debates were months old by the time I got there.

Anyway, on with the debate. I will keep it short, 2 posts, because from here on out, the posts become… EPIC.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude and Part 1. (more…)

It’s Tuesday again, time for the next little installment in the Great Amazon Smackdown debate!

This will be much shorter than the Prelude since we no longer have to catch up.

For those who want to read ahead or look at it in its “native environment”, this section starts on page 30 of Cleric’s review.
(more…)

It turns out, All-Access Customer really did run away, only to be replaced by another. This turns out to be Aelnathan, who had been in and out sporadically during the All-Access affair. I mentioned him in my last article by the name he posts under, but he requested I use Aelnathan as a pseudonym so I have edited that, and will continue to refer to him under the pseudonym. A LOT has transpired in the debate since then and it may potentially continue, though Aelnathan claims to be getting too busy to continue to reply (right…), so instead of posting a single entry with all the comments, I’ll make small weekly installments until we catch up to the end, and then I’ll only post as 2-5 replies accumulate.

This article records everything from Aelnathan’s first comment up to the time All-Access left for good and Aelnathan got serious and stopped waiting a month between posts.
(more…)

As a continuation of my other article, I decided to make a follow-up post since while people might be aware or not, Cartesian dualism is one of the primary reasons why we have modern science and consider Atheism to be an equally valid philosophy alongside religion.

To understand why, we must first look into how Descartes defined the universe, namely that of the physical and the nonphysical. Everything we can touch, see, smell, feel and taste are of the physical world, everything else not such as thoughts and ideas. Basically a dichotomy made of the abstract vs the concrete. To consider the universe physical, we must also consider it as an object made for study as we can study the physical world but we cannot study the nonphysical (according to old belief, we now know we can study the mind as proven in Psychology and similar sciences).

In science, we are to reject the nonphysical since it cannot be properly reviewed. We look at the physical world as an object, something which can be rationally understood. Not surprisingly we started to reject Christianity and the Church by the time we also started to believe in Liberalism, in personal responsibility and freedom and that every individual matters in comparison to rather seeing a group of people than a group of individuals. To understand why the development of Liberalism is important we must understand that without a Divine Creator who has laid all the rules for us to follow, the only one being able to take responsibility is oneself. Personal resonsiblity, free will and freedom are the underlying foundations of  Liberalism and Atheism too embraces this idea, since if we don’t believe in a Divine Creator and a Holy Scripture then we only have ourselves to blame for our earthly faults and we must learn how to deal with it. Our morals come from ourselves, not from a Creator Mystique. In summary, one can basically say that by the time we really started to believe in the world as an object and rejected the nonphysical during the Enlightenment Era, Liberalism and then Atheism were later to be born. It is also interesting to see that it was at this point when the church was split between Protestantism and Catholicism, the former believing more on individual responsibility than the latter, thus also rejecting ideas such as Original Sin, which claims that we are to be blamed for the faults of our ancestors, thus rather grouping people up in a huge collective than seeing them as free individuals. This strongly opposes the idea of individual freedom and personal responsibility and was easily solved with the idea of baptism. Drop your head in some holy water and voila, the Original Sin is gone.

With the help of the Enlightenment Era we would soon give birth to Industrialism and it is now science is finally is starting to seriously take a spin. Many huge scientific improvements were made around the 19th century or after that time and in fact we all got monsieur Descartes to thank, making us believe that we can actually view the world as an object. In such a sense isn’t it all also very ironical that we now are rejecting his idea of Dualism given that it was his idea of the physical world that planted the first seeds into developing modern science? Regardless, Atheism rejects anything made of the nonphysical and at least claims that if such a nonphysical world would exist, it too is a part of the physical world but not yet properly understood.

In a sense, we can actually say that the Abrahamic religions were doomed when they first introduced the concept of a soul and a nonphysical world. They in fact, planted the ideas which would later spawn Atheism since Atheism is more or less the rejection of the nonphysical, but such a concept cannot exist unless we are to believe in a physical and a nonphysical world, as later laid out and defined by Descartes.  When Christians argue that Atheism then is a necessary evil, maybe we should try to explain to them that they themselves laid the foundation for such a concept and as they continue to believe in a soul and a nonphysical world, and that they will just help Atheism to spread further as it also of course allows the belief of the opposite, which also is equally amusing when you think about it. Therefore I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Atheism will only cease to exist (as Atheism) when we have completely given up the concept of the nonphysical. I just want to clarify that this doesn’t mean that future Atheists will refuse to reject the nonphysical, but as we move more into a belief of a monistic world, then the concept of Atheism isn’t needed anymore as there is no longer a reason to reject of what we today know as a nonphysical world.

This evening on the phone, my younger brother confided in me that he was becoming an atheist, and that it was my fault.

His previous silence on the topic was certainly enough that I could not draw a definitive conclusion as to what he was really thinking.   Now that my mom is pretty sure that I’ve “fallen”, even though I’ve never outright admitted my beliefs (or lack of), and the only one currently at arm’s length is my poor sibling, she’s taking on the task of ensuring that he stays the faith, and her efforts are having the opposite effect.  At first I did worry that he was simply being influenced by my cousin and myself, but after a bit of discussion, I’ve determined that he’s reached his own conclusions, and isn’t just copy-catting the cool “big kids”.

Now I’m sending over a huge list of beginner-atheist materials.  Any suggestions for him I may have overlooked?
(Yes, I recommended the God Delusion and God is not Great, so I don’t want to see 20 posts of those)

Congrats, little Jedi.

Just a stupid thought I had right now, I blame the time of the day, or rather morning and my refusal to go to sleep. Anyway, I don’t want to sound deep, smart, or anything, just this very short article about a thought I had just now. Just that isn’t it highly ironical that Christians always go and threaten every other non-Christian as being damned in hell for eternity if we don’t believe in their god and follow their scripture? Not for the sake that we don’t believe in their hell to begin with, I know, the argument is tired and worn out already.

I have a better one, merely that if we have never known god, how can hell be anything but bad for us if hell means the “absence of god”? I mean, how can you miss something of which you never had and never been exposed to in your life? (Well, some have, but rejected it anyway so I guess it would be a relief for them too.) Nevermind the hellfire thing, it has never been proven anyway and just says “fire and brimstone” in the original, but I guess I wouldn’t mind some warmth. Rather that than freezing aye? Oh yes, I hate winter…

I r redi 2 dai!

In this article a few topics converge to the core of what I would call my quarrel with Christianity, its teachings and more importantly: its followers or rather lack thereof. You might think “a lack of following?” and following that remark present me with an estimate of the vast amount of people who identify themselves as Christians, being a big chunk of the global population pie. And that is exactly my point: these people identify themselves as Christians whereas I am speaking of strict followers of Biblical dogma.

I must start with the Old Testament. Anyone who has ever read even part of it will undoubtedly recognize that this collection of books is mostly concerned with he history of the people of Israel. The god found in the Old Testament presents itself as one only concerned with the Israelites. This god completely lacks any sympathy for any other tribe or people and will not hesitate to wipe out any people, city or tribe that are either a threat to his precious, chosen people or who simply piss him off for various petty reasons. It is an angry, tribal god, a boastful bully who enjoys the reek of burnt animals and requires his followers to cut off a part of their penises. Regarding the Israelites themselves, the Old Testament describes how this people was freed from Egyptian slavery and how they consequently, after many a bloody conquest, they established kingdoms (of Judah and Israel). However, these kingdoms were lost after the Israelites were conquered by other peoples, leading the Israelites into Babylonian exile. Of course, this was all the result of disobedience of that wonderful god. However, because the OT god is such a good guy, all hope was not lost, since through Isaiah it was prophesized a king would come who would would restore the kingdom of Israel, rebuild The Temple and other neat things such as reviving the dead and making the OT god the god of all nations and peoples.

This is a very important clash with Christian belief, which is rooted mainly in the New Testament. Jesus did not revive all the dead, nor does the entire world now serve God (look at me!), nor was death abolished since Jesus’ arrival – nay, Jesus even died himself. As the Moshiach (“the Anointed One” who will bring the Messianic age), Jesus utterly fails. Still, Christians swear by him as the Messiah prophesied in the Israelites’ scriptures, even though the Israelites’ themselves disagree (and for good reason). Leaning on the crutch that is the Old Testament, a new dogma developed with Jesus as the center-point. The gospels from the newly formed scriptures claim this Jesus figure spoke of a god of love for everyone; or rather: some new god as it does not match the pattern of our Old Testament friend. Other important theological additions include the concepts of Satan, heaven and hell. All these modifications and additions strike cacophonous chords with the older scriptures, but such seems the nature of Christianity: Reinventing dogma as it goes along. It is this exactly central characteristic that I often find myself entangled in.

To part from the basic level of scriptural discrepancy and move into the realm of Christian theology, we see the aforementioned central characteristic return. There are numerous Christian denominations with varying interpretations of the scriptures and I will concentrate on the prime example: Catholicism. Catholicism stands out among the denominations not just because of its size, but because of its sheer brutality. Over the centuries the Catholic Church made the Judeo-Christian religion into a political machine. This machine has had a firm grip on many powerful nations in the history of the world, with the pope at its head. This political influence brought about extra dogmatic additions and inventions which lead to “holy” wars (and consequential plunderings, one of the factors in the the amassment of the excessive wealth of the Vatican), the Spanish Inquisition, the selling letters of forgiveness “from god”, and so on. One of their more recent dogmatic inventions is papal inerrancy, which as an effect relieves the pope of any responsibility.

The Catholic Church is of course an extreme example of the reinvention of dogma and I am certainly not arguing that this practice will lead to the monstrosities we find in the history of the Catholic Church. To be fair, I will provide you with another example, and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Mormonism. In addition to the original scriptures this church has the book of Mormon, magically revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith, Jr. The book was supposedly translated from golden plates having “unknown characters”, given to Joseph Smith by an angel named Moroni. The plates are, of course, now buried somewhere in the hills near Smith’s house. Mormonism hasn’t lead to anything too disturbing, barring occasional polygamy and the wearing of magical underwear.

You average non-catholic, non-Mormon Christian thinks he has not strayed as far from the Biblical path as those silly Mormons, but nothing less is true. Although they have indeed not built an empire or added any extra books to their precious Bible, they are in fact very unbiblical in just about every aspect of their lives. Most of them simply don’t realise it, because they haven’t actually read the Bible. I have no statistics on this, but time and time again I find myself debating a professed Christian who hasn’t even read “the Holy Book”. I am sure anyone who is active in these kinds of debates have had similar experience. These particular Christians tend to forget that there is a reason why we oppose their religion. It is because we have studied it, through experience and inquiry and have found it not to belong in the world we inhabit this day. Hiding gods whose baseless laws and morality they unverifiably passed to men have no place in modern government. Without actually having read the horrific, inhuman laws found in the New Testament or having realised God’s disgust for us as worthless, sinful mortals you as a self-proclaimed Christian have no right to call “their” God just and loving. These “Christians” have a one-sided conception of the Biblical god. In my experience, especially Christians from largely secular countries have this skewed perspective, and in these countries Christianity has once again reivented its dogma, and a new Christian god is born yet again.

There is but a relative handful of Christians who have actually understood the Bible and its god. A lot of them spend their lifetime trying to piece the biblical puzzle together in such a way that their god can be called loving in the face of his vile deeds – spending their lives studying theology. Some of these Christians write Apologetics, doing just that: thinking of excuses why an all-loving god would do such horrible things – and not to mention finding ways how scripture can be interpreted so that it doesn’t collide with scientific discoveries, but this is largely beside the point. There are also those Christians who do not try to understand the actions of God, but take them for face value. These Christians are abhorred by almost all Christians for giving them a bad image. It is the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church I am speaking of. These Christians show a much better understanding of the Bible and God: God does indeed hate homosexuals, God does hate sinners, and God will punish us for eternity in hell after we have died if we escape the apocalypse. It is ironic that their scriptural knowledge is not applauded by fellow Christians, but rather ignored. Ignored, like Christians have ignored so much else: the maturing of human society, our sobering from our superstitious beliefs and our advancement in the knowledge of the world in which the Bliblical God and Biblical doctrine have no place.