Thursday, February 25, 2016
Atheistnexus.org discussion reposted in bold and italicized print
The True Cross Of Jesus
Posted by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 8:31am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Over the holidays I watched the TV program "Expedition Unknown" with Josh Gates. It explores lots of subjects that many of us have wondered about over the years. When it comes to Jesus and his cross every Christian would be interested. Even a skeptic like me.
It seems that nobody cared about this wooden relic for about 300 years, and then Constantine sent his mother, Helena, to investigate and find the "true cross." Digging where they believed Golgotha hill to be she found a wooden cross. To test it she found a sick woman and had her touch it. Instantly the woman was healed. Wait a minute. They are giving supernatural powers to a piece of wood at the same time that the wood is personalized as exclusive to Jesus. You would have thought that somebody else would have touched it in 300 years. Maybe they would of had their homorrhoids healed or something. Then they could have brought over that soldier with a broken arm. This cross isn't personal like a car. How many other men do you think might have been crucified with that same cross? Didn't the Romans use them over and over again. It's an item of torture just like the electric chair. Somebody isn't thinking straight here.
Now we get into the shape of the cross and an historian says we have no examples today except those the artists have made for us in pictures. Most likely the real cross of exucution was an X. This would work much better than the artist's rendition of the item and also make 2000 years of religion all wrong at the same time. Imagine an X on top of the churches. Using and X as a sign of blessing or watching a movie like "The Sign of the X." In fact, the swastika used by Hitler is just another sign of an ancient cross. Most modern Christians miss this fact or they would have had Adolf become the Antichrist. Having been said in the original Greek to be a "torture stake" we now have that confirmed by Dan Barker as well as the JW Organization. Dan Barker, a former Assemblies Of God minister later became a non-believer and is co-founder of the FFRF. Maybe saying Merry Xmas isn't so bad after all. The JW's of course, just use one big pole for the cross and not an X. They conserve the wood.
Since the time of Helena's find of the true cross she had it cut into 3 pieces and sent to 3 different parts of the world. Why? Is it because 2 others were crucified with Jesus and the writings always favor the number 3? Over the years pieces of the true cross multiplied. In fact, so many pieces that they would fill a large ship. This has been very profitable to the Catholic Church and a few others. It must be a miracle like feeding the multitude or taking communion.
My writings here are not a review of the program, but just some thoughts I had while watching it. Over zealous people want a miracle and they always make something into more than it really is. I'm not surprised that Christianity really took off after Constantine got involved. I see this personally as manipulation to achieve a goal and not as something guided along by some invisible sky daddy.
Any thoughts?
Like
3 members like this
.
Share
Views: 273
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 10:38am
Maybe I should have posted this in comedy, but I found it strange that the program took the subject seriously. I'm sure that the believers would have, but it's sensationalism at best. They ended up in Istanbul in an old church ( now a mosque) and they speculated about pieces of the cross being there. Next they are underneath the long gone structure of the Hyperdome and looking for pieces of the cross there. Why would the cross of Jesus be underneath a place where they had horse racing? Maybe they could bless or heal the horse so that he might win.Or, is it just another place to hide a long missing cross?
That brings me to the main point. The religious world wants you to personalize the cross of Jesus, attach them both together as one, and have you believe that it has been missing for almost 2000 years. Whatever happened to that cross is about the same thing that happened to a hangman's scaffold in the Old West. Then you have to ask yourself what would happen to unprotected wood in 300 years if it no longer had any purpose. I can only assume that the wood that was buried and then found no longer had shape enough to determine what it was. It was said to be the croos of Jesus simply because of the Golgotha location.
What if it was the cross of Barrabas? Maybe Cletus the tax cheat. Were only 3 people crucified on Golgotha? Why don't people use some sense? What would my ideas here do to religion as we know it in the world today?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on January 3, 2016 at 11:46am
I thought the Romans executed / crucified thousands.
Wikipedia "Notorious mass crucifixions followed the Third Servile War in 73–71 BCE (the slave rebellion under Spartacus), other Roman civil wars in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' followers hunted down and captured after his defeat in battle.[78] Josephus tells a story of the Romans crucifying people along the walls of Jerusalem. He also says that the Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions. In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die."
As for the story of Helena, it's just ridiculous. There have been fraud faith healings for millenia.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 3, 2016 at 2:28pm
Excellent historical review of crucifixions, Daniel, and evidence of con jobs in this modern age.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 3, 2016 at 11:47am
Mike, I like this piece. Are you a member of Facebook? If so, would you consider posting this article there? The general public needs to read this. More atheists are posting there, now, with fewer violent linguistic assaults.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 12:00pm
Joan, I'm not a member but it's OK with me if it gets posted there. I won't mind and it might cause someone to think. You could copy and paste it.
Daniel, Helena's story is about as ridiculous as religion itself. When I became atheist I did so by looking again at how religions come about, and Christianty in particular. Religions are based on the writings and stories of men and Christianity would not have become what it is today without Constantine. I had to look into just what he had to do with it all, and next came the writings of Saul of Tarsus who wrote a third of the New Testament. Both of these men were Roman citizens and so was Josephus.
I saw it all clearly at that time. Unfortunately while Helena was looking for "the one true cross" others that want to believe are still looking for "the one true religion." Sorry. There is none. Why is it that people cannot see crucifiction as a common form of execution at that time?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 3, 2016 at 2:22pm
Thanks, Mike. May I attribute it to you or do you want Anonymous as the author?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 3:54pm
You can use my Nexus name and even my picture if you like. (I hope Sean Penn's brother does try to sue me. Well, I been lucky so far.) :)
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on January 3, 2016 at 11:56am
The real hang-up is this: the cross may have existed, but the specific guy alleged to have been executed on it? Not so much. Especially with the advent of Richard Carrier's peer-reviewed piece: On the Historicity of Jesus, I am more and more coming around to the POV that this supposed carpenter-turned-rabbi is perhaps the biggest con in history.
By comparison, grifters trying to hawk pieces of said cross are small potatoes.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 12:19pm
I agree, Loren, but it's all part of the biggest con in history. The Romans went out of their way to create "mashiah" and calm Jewish rebellions while using this new cult to gain soldiers for war. Some books had been written and there was a following so they used this to advantage. As for Jesus being a made up character, look at the 4 gospels and the contradicitions in them. The things this man said are not consistent. Therefore, either too much time had went by at the various times of writing, or Richard Carrier is correct.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 3, 2016 at 2:18pm
Loren, I agree, and especially reading the works of Carrier and other scholars. Now that we can be as sure as science can tell us, it is time to take action.
A friend used the word atheist to describe herself on Facebook and expected the familiar "a lightning bolt will strike me dead" feeling. I assured her to use the word again and again until it becomes comfortable for her. Others will begin to get familiar with the term and the bigotry will begin to die out. She may get a few slings and arrows shot at her and she has to use her judgment whether she lives in too dangerous a place in the U.S. to live openly as a atheist.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 3, 2016 at 3:19pm
There is of course doubt that there ever was a true cross.
Some say the translation of the Biblical texts point to a stick instead of a cross, which was another execution method, where they tied the criminal to a stick and stoned them and let them rot and for animals to eat.
Though there is also the possibility that Jesus was an invention of the Romans to seduce Jews into paying taxes, because they refused to pay taxes and take part in Roman pagan sacrifices.
The persecution of Jews and Christians was not for their belief in Jesus, but for their refusal to pay their taxes and join in with Roman celebrations respectively.
At least the Christians paid their taxes, thanks to Jesus. So the concept that Jesus was invented for that purpose is highly probable.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 4:06pm
Now I'm having some outraged guy on the Quora site attack me for my obvious Christian cross ideas as well as Constantine being behind our religion. He says my ideas are loosely put together and I tell him it's not like all these people knew each other. He then points to writings from 180 AD and also 130 AD. Had I ever heard of those?
OK, you got me. That would be like someone today taking a person they never knew at all from 1916 and writing about them without use of much else but hearsay. I guess that puts your religion and supernatural events in order doesn't it? Things from 20 years ago are hard enough to remember. Oh, you so much make me wanna be a Christian.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-true-cross-of-jesus
The True Cross Of Jesus
Posted by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 8:31am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Over the holidays I watched the TV program "Expedition Unknown" with Josh Gates. It explores lots of subjects that many of us have wondered about over the years. When it comes to Jesus and his cross every Christian would be interested. Even a skeptic like me.
It seems that nobody cared about this wooden relic for about 300 years, and then Constantine sent his mother, Helena, to investigate and find the "true cross." Digging where they believed Golgotha hill to be she found a wooden cross. To test it she found a sick woman and had her touch it. Instantly the woman was healed. Wait a minute. They are giving supernatural powers to a piece of wood at the same time that the wood is personalized as exclusive to Jesus. You would have thought that somebody else would have touched it in 300 years. Maybe they would of had their homorrhoids healed or something. Then they could have brought over that soldier with a broken arm. This cross isn't personal like a car. How many other men do you think might have been crucified with that same cross? Didn't the Romans use them over and over again. It's an item of torture just like the electric chair. Somebody isn't thinking straight here.
Now we get into the shape of the cross and an historian says we have no examples today except those the artists have made for us in pictures. Most likely the real cross of exucution was an X. This would work much better than the artist's rendition of the item and also make 2000 years of religion all wrong at the same time. Imagine an X on top of the churches. Using and X as a sign of blessing or watching a movie like "The Sign of the X." In fact, the swastika used by Hitler is just another sign of an ancient cross. Most modern Christians miss this fact or they would have had Adolf become the Antichrist. Having been said in the original Greek to be a "torture stake" we now have that confirmed by Dan Barker as well as the JW Organization. Dan Barker, a former Assemblies Of God minister later became a non-believer and is co-founder of the FFRF. Maybe saying Merry Xmas isn't so bad after all. The JW's of course, just use one big pole for the cross and not an X. They conserve the wood.
Since the time of Helena's find of the true cross she had it cut into 3 pieces and sent to 3 different parts of the world. Why? Is it because 2 others were crucified with Jesus and the writings always favor the number 3? Over the years pieces of the true cross multiplied. In fact, so many pieces that they would fill a large ship. This has been very profitable to the Catholic Church and a few others. It must be a miracle like feeding the multitude or taking communion.
My writings here are not a review of the program, but just some thoughts I had while watching it. Over zealous people want a miracle and they always make something into more than it really is. I'm not surprised that Christianity really took off after Constantine got involved. I see this personally as manipulation to achieve a goal and not as something guided along by some invisible sky daddy.
Any thoughts?
Like
3 members like this
.
Share
Views: 274
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Gerald Payne on January 3, 2016 at 5:07pm
I seem to remember reading that Constantine gathered ~50 of the nails used to pin him to the cross. He was obviously a former bail jumper.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 3, 2016 at 7:18pm
As I recall it, Helena gave some of the nails to her son to wear in his crown and some to put on his horse to protect him in battle. As you have said, it was way too many nails. Why would anyone believe this story? Why would you think the nails would protect Constantine but they helped to do in poor Jesus? Modern believers might tell you there is no truth in this story. It's too old and the legend comes from the Catholics. Hello! Where do you think your religion came from? It's all legend close to 2000 years old and the ancient parts of your Bible (much older) came from Jewish goat and sheep herders. By the time Constantine got done with it the RCC had started up. Anything we know today that isn't Catholic came out of that.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 4, 2016 at 4:12am
Actually, there is the concept that Constantine never really did become a Christian, it was a hat he wore to get some of his enemy's army on his side after the bridge victory as he and his adversary had many Christians in their ranks. He later made claims that it was a vision of the Christian cross that led him to victory on the bridge, yet, there are no signs of this cross, nor any Christian symbols on the arch, they are all pagan symbols of his pagan religion Mithraism. So it appears he invented the story of the vision to get political leverage. So the conversion of Constantine prior to his victory was entirely a myth. Contrary to popular propaganda, Constantine did not declare Rome a Christian nation, he only granted them freedom and a position in their society, it was around 30 years after Constantine's death that Rome was declared a Christian nation.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm
Also, prior to Constantine, the cross was not the most accepted symbol of Christianity it was only used by certain groups of Christians, such as were associated with Constantine's army, it was Constantine and his vision of a cross that made the cross the standard symbol of Christianity. So, prior to Constantine is was the fish symbol that symbolized Christianity, they were originally not worshippers of sacrifice, as were the Romans. The followed the deeds and teachings of Jesus, but did not celebrate his execution. Constantine in his own sacrificial, blood lust ways, changed all that.
Here is a rather corny, extremely commercial styled documentary, but it does have some glimmer of truth.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 4, 2016 at 4:36am
Another reference:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/constantine/f/033111-Constantine...
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 4, 2016 at 6:36am
D DOG, now they are saying in some of your postings that it's unlikely that Helena found the true cross. That is shocking! Let's take a bunch of electric chairs and put them all in one room for 300 years, then bring in a person to identify which chair was used to electrocute a certain man. It seems like childs play to me. All we have to do is find the electric chair that would heal somebody and we are all set.
As religion would have it, Helena's finding of the true cross is what got her elevated to sainthood. If this part isn't true then it's just more evidence that religion was based on a lie from very early on. The believers will have to pre-date themselves before the founding of the RCC and keep a straight face while proclaiming their never ending line of truth.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 5, 2016 at 6:40am
LOL Mike, who is this St. Helena bitch anyway?
She was a pagan woman who gave birth to a pagan liar (Constantine).
The cross story was invented much later, possibly after her death anyway.
None of it is true, as neither has Catholicism any truth attached to it's own history.
All Catholic history is made up, they keep reinventing their own history, until it makes no rational sense. That is the job of their professional liars (apologists) to reinvent their history.
Theologians are just liars who pretend to know something about the Bible.
Here is an except from something you have probably already read.
"
Invention of the Cross.—It is in connexion with this famous story that the name of Helena is especially interesting to the student of church history. Its truth has been much discussed, and we will briefly summarize the evidence of the ancient authorities.
(1) In the very interesting itinerary of the anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, generally referred to a.d. 333, seven years after the date assigned to the finding of the cross (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 771), we have a description of the city, and many traditional sites of events both in O. and N. T. are mentioned. Among these are the house of Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the little hill (monticulus) of Golgotha, and, a stone's throw from it, the cave of the resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Yet there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the name of Helena mentioned."
From the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, on "Helena, Saint, Mo...
Constantine made up a lot of BS to get in good with the Christians.
So it was the lies of a devious megalomaniac that changed the world and established Christianity onto the map of massive human stupidity.
:-D~
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 5, 2016 at 7:12am
Having just recently replied to similar religious nonsense in "Quora" I have a man all over me saying that my remarks are jumping around too much from century to century, back and forth, and so on. He wants to take the "truth of the matter" right down into 1st century writings. I was quick to inform him that we were not in a debate and he could believe whatever he wanted to. Personally, I believe that people would have trouble writing from memory of something just 20 years ago. I also have trouble believing that the tomb had the stone rolled away when this man Jesus could just pop in and out of places as he wanted. It became extra problematic when Jesus appeared to others in "another form." How did they know it was Jesus? Well, that's just me, but you can believe anything you want to.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 5, 2016 at 10:19am
Trouble with that debate is:
There are no 1st Century writings, they don't exist.
The earliest writings are in the 2nd Century and there is no complete book, only fragments.
The earliest complete book only appears in the 3rd Century and nobody is certain that it is accurate. It is of Mark and has no resurrection story.
It ends at an empty tomb and the women meet an angel and tell nobody what he told them, which begs the question, how did what he told them get written down, if they told nobody? :-D~
The resurrection myth was possibly invented in the 3rd or 4th Centuries.
There were many historians and writers living in the same region as Jesus in the 1st Century, yet, none of them except Josephus wrote anything about Jesus, nor the Christians. And the only genuine Josephus comment meant absolutely nothing. It could have been any Jesus, being a common name.
The line mentioning Jesus the so-called Christ, brother of James, was a later addition, by a stupid Christian.
Funny how nobody living near him, while Jesus was alive, ever heard of him, or considered him newsworthy.
All accounts are from decades after his death.
Which states pretty poorly about his real life deeds.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 4, 2016 at 4:43am
Here is another point of what happened to Christianity in the 400 years between his death and the start of the idolatrous worship of the cross and even Mary to up to the 15th Century. Such as Catholicism started with Constantine triggering much of it.
Though this is also full of conspiracy theory delusion and it appears that much of this documentary was written by devout believers.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 5, 2016 at 4:43pm
I had to give up on the man in ""Quora" because I knew he was a believer and wanted to debate me. That isn't what the site is about. He's naming all these books and book fragments he thinks I should read, and of course I'm lacking if I haven't read them. Certainly neither one of us is going to convert the other, and spreading around books, names, chapter and verse, can get rather lengthy. He obviously wanted to build and unbroken chain of events from the time of crucifiction onward so he could prove his faith and the writings behind it. I'm sorry. It just isn't there. Believers will always want to think the awe of the written text was witnessed physically and those events were shared by the ones alive at that time. There is no evidence for that at all.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-true-cross-of-jesus?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2663568&page=2#comments
How to protect your kids from religious bullies at school
Posted by eric stone on January 4, 2016 at 5:33am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Teach them how to fight back:
If some kid threatens your kid with hell tell him/her to answer back:
-Oh yeah, prove to me it's real! Prove it!-
-Hell is just as make believe as Santa Claus and firebreathing dragons (stupid)
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 178
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 4, 2016 at 8:25am
I use this tactic on other sights like You Tube and Google, etc. any time I find a relgious nut. Having once been one myself, I'm good with scripture but often do not quote it. I simply mention the words of the scripture and weave it all together to prove that what I'm being hit with makes no sense. This is very similar to what you are saying our kids should do, and it works! Prove it is what they are left with. Many times they do not talk to me any longer because there is nothing left to say. I use this tactic on any religious pedler or believer that comes at me with their nonsense.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on January 4, 2016 at 9:19am
In this day and age, bullying should be intolerable, regardless of the how the kid is being bullied. If the teachers or administrators cannot be bothered to take appropriate corrective action, they are sucking for a lawsuit with their name on it, and I don't care if the location is Burlington, Vermont or Birmingham, Alabama. I would also imagine that the Legal Department of the FFRF would have some thoughts on the subject as well, depending on how extreme things have become.
As for teaching the kids to defend themselves, that would depend on their age and precocity, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 6, 2016 at 12:21am
The bullies in the Catholic schools I went to were the teachers, most of them nuns and priests.
The priests bullied with knowledge; the nuns bullied with public shaming.
In two years in a boys-only Jesuit high school, the only lay teacher I had was the head coach. He bullied with his prestige and loud voice.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 6, 2016 at 1:38am
On pieces of plain white paper folded as letters I have printed ether of the following:
"Hell is as real as Santa Claus and fire breathing dragons"
"God is the imaginary guy who has never shown up once in a all of human history despite the pleas of millions during the worst disasters and atrocities"
"When some kid tells you that your are going to Hell because you don't believe in Jesus Christ" tell him to prove that hell is real and not just his way of making you into his slave.
As I go on my various errands, doctor appointmens etc, I just insert these in magazines or with merchandise I find that is of interest to the young.. I place some in the magazine "Seventeen" or some sports magazines.
I want to teach the young how to fight back against the religious who try to bully and frighten them.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 6, 2016 at 6:31am
Those are good ideas, Eric. I make similar random comments on Yahoo News articles and on You Tube. I've started making them in Quroa as well.
What gets me is that certain people think something that happened would have been worse except for god. They still can't show you anything that god did. Then you run onto that die hard who says "what do you mean you don't believe in god? You woke up this morning didn't you?" They forget that if you didn't wake up you wouldn't be thanking anybody.
On another note, why do they all believe in god but don't want to go and live with him? He promised how wonderful it would be and still they don't want to go. The best of these liars tell you of how unhappy their family would be if they were gone, but yet they want to believe that everyone will be happy in heaven even knowing that some of the family is in hell.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 7, 2016 at 8:56pm
Actually, around the age of 10, I had an imaginary girlfriend, my mind had composed from the traits of all the women I admired at the time, plus the abilities of Supergirl. So I was well acquainted with the concept of having imaginary friends.
A high school RI instructor confronted me one day in front of the class, possibly to shame me with the comment: "Graeme, I hear you are stupid enough not to believe in God!"
I cannot remember my exact reply, but it kinda went like this:
Well Zorro, (our pet name for him with his long black dress that he wore to class) I used to believe I had an imaginary girlfriend, who made me feel special, just as your God makes you feel special and superior, but, the only difference between us, is that I realized she was entirely imaginary!
The rest of the class laughed and Zorro didn't respond, as I suppose he had some thinking to do as my comment left him looking stunned.
Needless to say, many of the class became atheists that year, and we ganged up on Zorro, and by half way through the year, he had a nervous breakdown and retired from teaching.
Oh the pranks we pulled on him, possibly led to that.
On one day, we steamed off the labels on his religious vinyl records and replaced them with rock-n-roll records, to the amusement to the rest of the class.
He was a sick man.
Thankfully, there was no RI class for the rest of the year, nobody was game enough to try! :-D~
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 7, 2016 at 9:18pm
A couple of other amusing moments with Zorro.
One day, in Summer of course, Zorro turned up in a white gown.
To which one of the gang at the back of the class yelled out: Zorro's seen a ghost!!
To which the rest of the class, including Zorro, burst out in raucous laughter.
Though some of the pranks were a little cruel, such as putting cotton on a drawing pin and placing it on his chair, while putting a toilet roll on the table to distract him.
He glared at the class, holding up the toilet roll, asking who put this here, while he blindly sat down, only to give a scream of pain and turn around to look at his chair, to which the class burst into laughter, saying, "Ha Ha, Zorro is a rabbit! "
It looked cool, a white cottontail on a black robe though they should have used glue or stickytape instead of a drawing pin.
The headmaster told the class so, after Zorro complained.
:-D~
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 8, 2016 at 10:43am
wow - that is beautiful - poetic justice i would say.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 8, 2016 at 11:34am
Ridicule is the perfect nonviolent way to deal with these characters! Go You!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Jerry Wesner on January 8, 2016 at 9:38am
I have two grandkids in Albuquerque public schools. They have been openly non-theistic since early elementary school. They say the nearest they've had to bullying is threat of hell, which they point out doesn't exist for them. The older says in high school religion seems sort of a niche interest. Things are changing.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 8, 2016 at 10:45am
very good to hear - as a 75 year old I am somewhat "removed" from these events.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 9, 2016 at 6:14pm
I have written Scalia, Santorum, O'Reilly etc the following note:
Any scumbag who ever threatens my kids or grandkids with their phony Hell is gonna have to talk to me.
Eric Stone
▶ Reply
.
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/how-to-protect-your-kids-from-religious-bullies-at-school
any insitution that can conduct an inquisition and then hire people to "prove" it didn't has to be the most evil
Posted by eric stone on January 7, 2016 at 7:53am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
This sums up why I see no redeeming quality at all in the catholic church. It has to be the most evil institution that ever existed.
Like
2 members like this
.
Share
Views: 436
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on January 7, 2016 at 9:06am
Have you seen the 2009 Intelligence Squared debate on the topic: "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world"? The opponents to that motion were formidable, to put it mildly: Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Between the two of them, the RCC had no chance and rightly so.
Have a look at your leisure:
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 10, 2016 at 5:17am
thank you!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 11, 2016 at 4:30am
I also think we need to update with its involvement in death squads and with the bishops conference writiing the anti-woman legislation now going thru the state legislatures.
We really need an encyclopedia of catholic crimes.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 15, 2016 at 2:37am
Where have I been since 2009? Thanks, Loren.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 11, 2016 at 2:59am
I agree totally.
The art of telling lies and obfuscating the past to make it appear grand and non-criminal is called Apologetics.
Both Catholicism and Islam practice apologetics, the Catholics to repaint and cover up their extremely horrid past and Islam to make it appear to be a religion of peace.
Any Institution that has Apologists, must indeed be Fraudulent, because the only use of Apologetics is to cover up and deceive the public.
So the fact that the Catholic church has an Apologetics branch, proves that it is a fraudulent organization.
Catholicism has many features that deny it even being remotely Christian, namely the Pagan practices, not condoned by their martyr, Jeebus Christos. Such as rosary beads, prayers in public, idolatry, including the veneration of crosses, saints and Mary (ISIS). Going to a Catholic church or even the home of a devout Catholic, finds idolatrous (anti-Biblical) displays abound. Something any Jeebus would have condemned them for instantly.
Really, Catholicism was a political institution (money making business) instituted with the help of Constantine, who, never was a genuine Christian, but more a worshipper of Mithra, or so his Arch of Victory depicts, even though he claimed the victory was due to a vision of the Cross, so it was Constantine who invented the use of a Cross as the main symbol of Christianity. Something genuine Christians in his day, regarded as blasphemous, and like the Albigensian Christians, they would curse the cross and spit on it, as they knew it was not Christian, which is why the Catholic church was determined to exterminate them.
Though I like Steven Colbert's (a Catholic) humorous satire of his own church's view of the new Star Wars movie.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 11, 2016 at 4:27am
thanks for the excellent point about apologetics!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 11, 2016 at 2:16pm
I agree, Eric. Sadly, the member of the RC church have either forgotten, were never told, or don't care about the barbaric behavior of their church fathers. All they have to do is look and members will find the story in all its blood and gore. It is unconscionable that the church has a branch of apologetics to rationalize their history and their current stand on things religious.
The Massacre at Béziers.
Kill them all, God will know His own"
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Persecution of Jews in Babalonia
In 1236 many of the Jews of Anjou, *Poitou , and *Brittany were massacred during a wave of persecutions"
Foxe's Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touc...
the book describes "persecutions and horrible troubles" that had been "wrought and practiced by the Roman Prelates, speciallye in this realm of England and Scotland"
For heaven's sake, I have only started. just Google Roman Catholic Church attrocities
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 11, 2016 at 4:09pm
thanks!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 16, 2016 at 2:26pm
We really should never let them forget. That is the way all persecuted groups eventually get justice. Unfortunately it falls to us atheists who seem to be the only freethinking group that is truly outraged by this coverup and revisionism sufficiently to take some action against it. But I'm ready to pursue it for my duration to try to leave this world in a better condition than I found it for everyone, even for the bastards!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 21, 2016 at 11:19pm
brings to mind rick santorum's comment that JFK's support for total church/state separation made him sick to his stomach:
do you suppose JFK's assassination cured his indigestion?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 14, 2016 at 4:23am
How did you like Paul Ryan during Obama's state of the union? Just more evidence that he’s a religious fanatic who wants to impose his severe Catholic dogma on the rest of us. His hateful looks during the Obama speech reminded us about the stonily cold Inquisitors who tortured millions in the worst crime in all history. Ryan is the sort of guy who would be pleased to see a rerun of that abomination with the liberals and progressives as today ‘s victims. He is one bad guy.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Bertold Brautigan on January 14, 2016 at 7:07am
He had the nerve to say Obama's speech "degraded the presidency." Ryan degrades the human race.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/any-insitution-that-can-conduct-an-inquisition-and-then-hire
any insitution that can conduct an inquisition and then hire people to "prove" it didn't has to be the most evil
Posted by eric stone on January 7, 2016 at 7:53am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
This sums up why I see no redeeming quality at all in the catholic church. It has to be the most evil institution that ever existed.
Like
2 members like this
.
Share
Views: 437
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by k.h. ky on January 16, 2016 at 7:33pm
Ryan sat there with that stupid look on his face that I couldn't place. Disgust? Contempt? Whatever it was was totally out of place and it showed. What a prick.
You nailed it Bertold!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 15, 2016 at 1:44am
Catholicism a force for evil?
You betcha! Here are a few excerpts from Sex and God - Is Religion Twisted? by James A. Haught, in Free Inquiry, fall 1997.
* Western religions have spent millenia inflicting shame, guilt, repression and punishment upon human sexuality -- especially upon women's sexuality.
* Western faiths are a long chronicle of hostility to lovers -- for no rational reason. The Old Testament decreed brutal penalties for unapproved sex, commanding that non-virgin brides be stoned to death (Deut. 22:21).
* In the first century CE, Paul urged celibacy for Christians. In 386 CE, a decree by Pope Siricius forbad church elders from making love with their wives.
* Scholar Reay Tannahill says early Christian leaders made sex and sin synonymous. "It was Augustine who initiated a general feeling among the church fathers that the act of intercourse was fundamentally disgusting. Arnobius called it filthy and degrading, Methodius unseemly, Jerome unclean, Tertullian shameful, Ambrose a defilement." (Sex in History, by Reay Tannahill, Stein & Day, 1980, p. 141)
* When priests oversaw the witch hunts -- in which thousands of women were tortured and burned -- church writings reeked of revulsion to female sexuality. A medieval cardinal, Hughes de St. Cher, wrote: "Woman pollutes the body, drains the resources, kills the soul, uproots the strength, blinds the eye, and embitters the voice." (Eros Denied: Sex in Western Society, by Wayland Young, Grove Press, 1964, p. 201)
* In 1993, Pope John Paul II declared unmarried sex and birth-control "intrinsically evil." Two nuns in West Virginia battled Catholicism's sexual taboos until they were expelled from their order. In a book about their struggle they say the church loathes the body and hates that people are having sex for fun.
* It would probably take an army of psychiatrists and historians to pinpoint all the reasons why Western religion developed such antagonism toward human sexuality. More important is the question: Is this attitude justified? Are there ethical, rational reasons to support the religious condemnations of normal human desires?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 15, 2016 at 1:50am
Thanks Tom for your research and insight!
Superb
:-D~
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 15, 2016 at 4:51am
Here is a definitive site on the Inquisition and Witch burnings by the Catholic Church. It will make you sick, I guarantee it. Also, when you watch it, think about Paul Ryan's expression during Obama's speech. These are the people it comes from.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 16, 2016 at 6:56pm
Eric, I read of these beastly events, all part of the legacy of religious insanity. Cruelty continues to exist in modern society and in christian homes. My heart wrenches when I remember the historical records of those long ago days. My rage grows as I remember the imperatives of my generation. Will it ever end?
One thing for sure, it will not stop by remaining silent, or being timid about what happened. A strong, firm, decisive voice grounded in reality, empowered by a competent retelling of old injustices and accurate naming of present events as cruelty orchestrated by religion.
The insanity isn't history, it is current events. Any thought of covering up the old denies the present.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 17, 2016 at 8:02am
After I finish my book (atheism's defense of the enlightenment) I'd like to start working on a memorial to the fallen atheists. I will announce on atheist nexus etc when i get that moving. To protect the monuments I have in mind for it, I think we should create a religion called "bringing religion to justice" and use crowd source funding to establish and rent some space for it.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 21, 2016 at 4:39pm
Eric, I think we will have to be content with bringing religionists to justice.
Happily, many are cooperating and being sent to prison.
Unhappily, human intelligence will continue to be distributed normally and many of the deprived will become victims of those who pull religion from history's trash pile.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 21, 2016 at 5:14pm
Tom, may I post this on Facebook with attribution to you?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 21, 2016 at 10:40pm
Joan, only if you identify its source -- the Free Inquiry, fall 1997, article Sex and God - Is Religion Twisted? by James A. Haught.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by k.h. ky on January 16, 2016 at 7:23pm
And they can add to their book of shame stealing infants while working the mothers like slaves. I've forgotten the title of the book and movie based on the same. Shameful.
We should compile the atheists list of catholic shame.
Not that they are any worse than other religions. They just have more money.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 21, 2016 at 2:50pm
Catholics not only have more money, but they have a longer history of intolerance and crime towards humanity. They also started much of the insanity of Christianity such as the Holy Trinity, which Erasmus was forced to include in his translation, even though Erasmus knew it was fake, and the worship (idolatry) of the cross. In other words, it was Catholicism that turned Christianity into a death cult. Before Catholicism, Christians saw the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as an embarrassment, and they were only awaiting his return, and not worshipping his execution nor his birth. The worship of his birth and death, were started by the Catholic church.
The Albigensians (Cathars) knew of and celebrated what was closer to the original Christianity, this is why they hated the cross, they would curse and spit at it, because it had nothing to do with Jesus Christ's teachings, and this hatred of Catholic nonsense is why the Catholic church was so determined to eradicate the Cathars. The Catholic church spent a lot of it's history eradicating any trace of the original Christianity,
This is why they need to lie (apologize) so much!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 21, 2016 at 11:16pm
they eradicated a long list of groups/peoples who refused to submit to their rule - is the way I see it:
pagans, cathars, Jews, protestants, atheists, Serbs, socialists, unionists, scientists - adds up to over 800 million men, women and children.
the worst criminal organization in history
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/any-insitution-that-can-conduct-an-inquisition-and-then-hire?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2664322&page=2#comments
any insitution that can conduct an inquisition and then hire people to "prove" it didn't has to be the most evil
Posted by eric stone on January 7, 2016 at 7:53am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
This sums up why I see no redeeming quality at all in the catholic church. It has to be the most evil institution that ever existed.
Like
2 members like this
.
Share
Views: 438
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 21, 2016 at 11:12pm
I'm doing it in a book I'm writing. but what we really need here is an encyclopedia of religion's abuses, deceptions, lies ...
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Donald L. Engel on January 22, 2016 at 12:52am
Eric, I don't know what your book is about, but if it is Christianity, let me know. I have a few things you might be interested in.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by eric stone on January 22, 2016 at 8:59pm
it's about how all religions are threatening the enlightenment- the emphasis on on Xianity.
I have to warn you that after 5 years I'm tired of adding to it so if you that's OK with you then please send.
Eric
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Donald L. Engel on January 22, 2016 at 9:46pm
The only thing I can think of in that regard is the Texas School Board and Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and they are rewriting the history of the U.S..
They are knowingly, and intentionally dumbing down Texas students. If I can come up with anything else, I'll let you know.
I told my wife, and I think I stated somewhere on A/N that I thought we are headed for the next dark age.
Good luck with your book.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on January 23, 2016 at 12:59am
Concerned about attempts by xians to dumb down Texas school students?
Google "texas freedom network".
TFN is headed by Cecile Richards, daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards and head of Planned Parenthood. They are resisting the xians' attempts.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/any-insitution-that-can-conduct-an-inquisition-and-then-hire?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2664322&page=3#comments
Has Anyone Ever Asked Xians If Their Heaven's Residents Have Sex?
Posted by tom sarbeck on January 22, 2016 at 7:10am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Last week I missed an opportunity to ask two extreme xians that question.
One of them was nearing his hundredth birthday and was physically frail. I would ignore him but he told me I was certain to take up residence in his lake of fire.
The other was younger than I and strong enough to be running for election to a minor office. He agreed about my future residence and will get no mercy from me.
If you've asked, what kind of response did you get?
Mark Twain's satirical Letters From The Earth started me to thinking of asking.
In the letters Satan tells Michael and Gabriel that despite the enormous amounts of energy God's favorite creatures devote to sex while on earth, there's none in Heaven.
Like
.
Share
Views: 199
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on January 22, 2016 at 7:49am
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
-- Matthew 22:30
This strikes me as meaning one of two things: either there's all sorts of fornication going on without benefit of legal (Legal?!? Just what constitutes "legal" in heaven???) sanction or that we all LOSE our sexuality in the afterlife. I seem to recall reading somewhere that angels are asexual, and if we are to be "as the angels of God," then goodbye, nooky!
One more reason to disregard any form of biblical crap.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on January 22, 2016 at 10:38am
Apparently people who win entrance to the Christian heaven lose their sexuality, lose their curiosity, lose their desire to exercise skills and intelligence, lose everything to become eternal sycophants -- singers and harpists and yes-men forever and ever.
When I saw the title of your discussion in Latest Activity, I immediately thought of Letters From the Earth as well! Satan, temporarily banished from the angelic realm, observes with great interest the experiments of "Earth" and of human beings and writes privately to his archangel friends. In particular, there's this in Letter II about the unimaginably bizarre concept of heaven that humans invented for themselves:
... he has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race -- and of ours -- sexual intercourse!
It is as if a lost and perishing person in a roasting desert should be told by a rescuer he might choose and have all longed-for things but one, and he should elect to leave out water!
... the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place.
And more: (heavily snipped; ellipses mine)
His heaven is like himself: strange, interesting, astonishing, grotesque. I give you my word, it has not a single feature in it that he actually values. It consists -- utterly and entirely -- of diversions which he cares next to nothing about, here in the earth, yet is quite sure he will like them in heaven. Isn't it curious? Isn't it interesting? You must not think I am exaggerating, for it is not so. I will give you details.
Most men do not sing, most men cannot sing, most men will not stay when others are singing if it be continued more than two hours. Note that.
Only about two men in a hundred can play upon a musical instrument, and not four in a hundred have any wish to learn how. Set that down.
Many men pray, not many of them like to do it. A few pray long, the others make a short cut.
More men go to church than want to....
All nations look down upon all other nations.
All nations dislike all other nations....
Further. All sane people detest noise.
All people, sane or insane, like to have variety in their life. Monotony quickly wearies them.
Every man, according to the mental equipment that has fallen to his share, exercises his intellect constantly, ceaselessly, and this exercise makes up a vast and valued and essential part of his life. The lowest intellect, like the highest, possesses a skill of some kind and takes a keen pleasure in testing it, proving it, perfecting it. The urchin who is his comrade's superior in games is as diligent and as enthusiastic in his practice as are the sculptor, the painter, the pianist, the mathematician and the rest. Not one of them could be happy if his talent were put under an interdict.
... In man's heaven everybody sings! The man who did not sing on earth sings there... Meantime, every person is playing on a harp... Consider the deafening hurricane of sound... is it hideous, is it odious, is it horrible?
Consider further: it is a praise service... Do you ask who it is that is willing to endure... this insane compliment; and who... likes it, enjoys it, requires it, commands it? Hold your breath!
It is God! This race's god, I mean... It is easy to see that the inventor of the heavens did not originate the idea, but copied it from the show-ceremonies of some sorry little sovereign State up in the back settlements of the Orient somewhere.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on January 22, 2016 at 10:58am
There's this classic from The Far Side:
Welcome to heaven... Here's your harp. / Welcome to hell... Here's your accordion.
Though some of us look forward to gatherings like the Northeast Squeeze-In as a bit of heaven for a weekend!
(Photo by Stewart Dean, (C) 2015, imagovitae.org)
And Nancy Lebovitz has a riff on Gary Larson's cartoon in her catalog of calligraphic buttons:
Welcome to heaven.
Here's your harp
and your tuning key.
Welcome to hell.
Here's your harp.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on January 28, 2016 at 8:58am
Gary Larson was wrong.
This doesn't look like hell, nope, not one bit:
(Click through to get full-size images at Flickr. Photos (C) 2015 Stewart Dean, imagovitae.org .)
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by jay H on January 23, 2016 at 8:47am
Actually this is an old debate going back to St Augustine. Some say yes, some say no, some say yes but it will be different without physical bodies.
Funny, you can't get a straight answer from religion.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on January 23, 2016 at 12:53pm
If the two afterlife destinations were real, hell would probably be more comfortable and a LOT more fun. And with much better company!
The stories of eternal torment could well be lies by the same character who lied about the consequences of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (And didn't bother to redact the evidence from the very scripture that he supposedly wrote or inspired.) Living over 900 years, and begetting sons and daughters, isn't anything like "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 23, 2016 at 1:53pm
In my lifetime of talk and sermons on this subject, they make it very plain that there is no sex in heaven. To ease you as they say that, there is no desire and not even any sex organs. (Yes, God wanted your foreskin at one time and now he takes the whole thing.) You will be "as the angels in heaven." Matt. 22:30 If this is supposedly true as I'm stating here then angels have no sex organs and maybe no belly buttons, for they were not born.
If there is a resurrection then all of you is not resurrected. Men have no pole and a woman has no hole. Yet, the Bible states that angels can eat food or not eat food. No sex organs but they can still deficate? If not, then we know why heavenly creatures are so angry.
Now we move into the idea that you will have no body in heaven. Many have believed this for a long time because you are "spiritual" then. WTF is this? Churches today are treaching this same thing about your "soul" going to heaven, etc. but the Bible plainly teaches about "graves being opened and the resurrection of the body." It was this bodily resurrection that caused everyone to want burial in the last 2000 years and the funeral parlors all got rich.
As you can see by my comedic writing here, religion is all screwed up and needs to clarify many things. The Bible itself is impossible and it doesn't phase the true believer. They just make more stuff up.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 23, 2016 at 2:04pm
Even though what I have written here has been taught over and over again, we have it in Genesis that angels came down from heaven and fathered children with the daughters of men.
It's just a little more proof that these 66 books we call the Bible were never meant to be all bound together. That's where all the mistakes come in and it makes it all nonsense.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on January 26, 2016 at 10:53am
I guess the angels came down from heaven to party. No sex in heaven, but on Earth, anything goes.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on January 26, 2016 at 3:39pm
Yes, but how did they have sex without any sex organs? Somewhere in the BS teaching of churches we have to be told that male angels have a penis just to pee out of. Some says they have none at all because in heaven there is no marriage and no male or female. This contradicts the Genesis account. Other fundies still insist that the original sin involved sex in some way , and that's how "you are concieved in sin."
It's no wonder that a lot of the fundy teens get pregnant. Parents will not teach about sex and it's so confusing in the bible. Then you have the concept that everybody has sex and that's how we get here, plus the fact that Jesus will forgive you anyway.
Why doesn't somebody wake up and teach aout condoms?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 26, 2016 at 4:31pm
Well, for starters: How come gawd is male?
I know the answer to this, but it pre-dates Judaism, as prior to Judaism, YHVH had a wife named Asherah, and was one of several gods of the nomadic herders of Canaan (now called the Bedouin) before in the 7th Century BCE where Josiah made the people in the Jordan hills drop all their gods, except YHVH and that included his wife. That was the origin of Judaism and thus the Israelites.
Thus, gawd was left with genitals and nobody to use them with.
Poor sod. :-D~
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on January 26, 2016 at 4:20am
Sex after passing through the pearly gates is supposed to be Heavenly. :-D~
▶ Reply
.
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/has-anyone-ever-asked-xians-if-their-heaven-s-resident-have-sex
The desire for immortality
Posted by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 8, 2016 at 2:04pm in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Atheists often wonder at the refusal of theists to face the truth and to their ability to content themselves with a delusion unsupported by credible evidence. One reason is the desire for life after death promised by religion. This passage below is from an 1873 paper by Fredrick Barnard, quoted in the recent book The Origins of Creation. The authors there have omitted certain portions so I went back to the original to find the full quotation. Nothing else I can recall expresses so clearly the ardent craving for immortality. Despite its length, I believe it is worth giving in full.
Fredrick Barnard was President of Columbia College before it became Columbia University. Barnard College is named for him because he was instrumental in establishing a college for women on the Columbia campus. Despite his almost total deafness, he was a mathematician, chemist, physicist, and a scholar of English and classical literature.
That an intelligent and educated man of considerable stature could take this attitude speaks to the strong appeal of its sentiment and shows how difficult it is to counter with reason. For that reason I think it is of interest for the psychology of theism. We know the logical arguments against theistic beliefs quite well, but sometimes we fail to appreciate its emotional appeal even to men of science.
Like
.
Share
Views: 179
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Bertold Brautigan on February 8, 2016 at 2:46pm
This strikes a chord with me, Allen. I have a good friend who's very bright, sarcastic, and downright sardonic in his take on the absurdities of Christianity, but he nevertheless can't accept that we're only here for the brief span between birth and shuffling off this mortal coil. The appeal of this belief, even to people who know it's "deceitful", is fascinating.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 8, 2016 at 3:20pm
Barnard is interesting because of his intelligence. He was committed to science and in addition to serving 24 years as President of Columbia, he was also President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and promoted higher education for women. He studied theology and was ordained as a deacon and his inaugural address as President of Columbia was titled "The relation of physical science and revealed religion." At that time he felt that evolution would be disproved shortly along with spontaneous generation and the physical basis of mind.
It is impossible to dismiss him as uninformed or unintelligent and that only points up the enormous appeal of life after death. He seems to have suspected the truth belied his wishes, but as it required laying down all the theological baggage he had accumulated in his lifetime, as well as his hope of immortality, he could not face it. His inaugural address at Columbia has one great line uttered in defense of scientific truth:
Truth cannot be frowned out of existence, nor is there any weight of human authority heavy enough to keep it down.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 10, 2016 at 10:53am
It is impossible to dismiss [Barnard] as uninformed or unintelligent....
Allan, it is also impossible to dismiss his intelligence as a tool of his emotions.
Consider the conclusions in his long fourth sentence: But if. in my study....
The belief forced on him?
His life is but a mere vapor?
A truth he cannot receive with gladness?
What are those but the conclusions of a man who'd been taught to see himself as a victim?
There's more; I will continue below.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 10, 2016 at 11:42am
Unable to copy and paste from the pic above, I'm now using my dictation software.
Barnard's prose, more eloquent and sometimes shorter than mine, dismisses his own accomplishments.
...if the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow's wing upon the lake, ....
That beats the butterfly flapping its wings in China but it ignores the career-long efforts of politicians to put buildings, roads, bridges, parks, dams and more in their home districts and achieve a kind of immortality by attaching their names.
... In my simple ignorance, ....
Barnard's ignorance might be simple; constructing my ignorance required years of study of science, mathematics and various other subjects.
If he too was a victim of religion, he wrote the above before he found a remedy.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 8, 2016 at 4:54pm
He knows he is in denial and I don't read comfort in his statement. Hope? Yes! "Folding the drapery of my couch about me? Is that all he wants is the pleasure of that? He speaks not of being with family, friends or colleagues. Is he only being brief or did he not find pleasure in their company? He obviously cared deeply for the education of women. Did he not find pleasure in that endeavor?
Clearly he knows god is a myth and the promises of life after death are false. Yet he willingly compartmentalizes his science away from his commitment to serve and change society under the banner of religion.
I wonder if his deafness influenced his desire to pull the drape over himself on his couch for eternity?
As president of Columbia College, Barnard successfully oversaw further steps in the transformation of the College into a university; including the founding of the Faculty of Political Science (1880), later a part of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences; the School of Architecture (1881); the Industrial Education Association (1886), later Teachers College; and the School of Library Service (1887). Tireless in his efforts to promote coeducation Barnard fought unsuccessfully against trustee, faculty and student opposition to the inclusion of women students at Columbia College. Despite Barnard's strong opposition to a separate women’s college (in his opinion, men and women should be educated side by side), following his death, the newly affiliated women's college was named in his honor.
~ Read more about F.A.P. Barnard in Columbians Ahead of Their Time.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 8, 2016 at 5:25pm
Perhaps he hoped that in the afterlife he would no longer be handicapped with deafness.
By the way his brother was Superintendant of West Point and a general on the northern side in the Civil War. Good genes.
He was generally kind and polite, but when his plans for the University of Alabama were criticized by a former Governor and member of the Board there in very personal terms, he responded that it was "not within the power of a broken-down politician to browbeat men of sense." He was not granted the privilege to speak in person to the board when the governor asked for his removal, but only allowed to respond in writing on short notice. He pointed out that he had not criticized anyone in a position superior to him and that therefore the board had no jurisdiction in the matter, which could be handled by the courts. The board dropped the matter entirely.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 10, 2016 at 9:26pm
it was "not within the power of a broken-down politician to browbeat men of sense."
~ F.A.P. Barnard in Columbians Ahead of Their Time.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 10, 2016 at 7:01am
Yes, the hope of immortality. The religious have that hope because of their "faith." Even though legends show many worldwide to have risen from the grave and conquered death, there is only ONE who has done this according to believers of the Bible. They say that man is Jesus Christ.
Everyone wants to be like him. Even today people argue on Internet forums about others who were in a coma, maybe brain dead, and eventually they came back. Yes, they were dead and came back to life, we are told.
I always point out that this is not true. It's just modern medicine. The proof of my statements is in rigor mortis. So far nobody has returned to life after rigor mortis sets in, and that includes your legendary Jesus Christ.
But Barnard had his hope too.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 10, 2016 at 10:17pm
What I found interesting when I read the whole paper was that he did not express any regret for the potential loss of belief in God through the advances of science—only the loss of his own personal hope for immortality. Egocentrism.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 10, 2016 at 10:06am
I think fear and denial of death, makes people live less fully.
If I don't realize I am mortal, I can put up with oppression and abuse, knowing that death is a release into a better life.
If I don't realize I am mortal, I don't have to learn from my mistakes and make life better. It will be better after I die.
If I don't realize I am mortal, I can cruise through life without appreciating the good things, because there is time for that later.
I don't like to think about dying. I went through a lot of grieving as my cancer treatment dragged on for months, now years, without any promise of hint of promise that it won't be back, and untreatable, tomorrow. But. Coming to terms with death means each day is more appreciated. It means I am less willing to put up with narcissistic behavior of others. Knowing mortality, and embracing it, makes my life better.
If smart, privileged, accomplished people want to live and die in denial, that's their choice. I think far more of science Barnard, who seems to think science and progress are useless without immortality. It is science that gives me more life to appreciate, and helps be appreciate it infinitely better. Science is flawed, and our application of science even more flawed - but life is so much better for those fortunate ones who can receive its benefits.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 10, 2016 at 1:04pm
Daniel, I hope your retirement allows you to write! You put words together that touch the intellect and the imagination. You write powerfully! Such a great gift and printed words live beyond your death.
In the meantime, I am grateful for you and the journey we shared.
My hope is to see the end of privilege and all have access to affordable health care.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Gerald Payne on February 10, 2016 at 4:28pm
We're programmed to have an abhorrence of death, from which it follows naturally that life is cherished to the point of not wanting it to end, but I think the line between the love of life and the fear of death is so thin as to be almost non-existent. People are notoriously fickle when it comes to they're likes and dislikes; todays enthusiasms are tomorrows boredoms. Eternity is a bit of a stretch of the imagination when it comes to keeping oneself occupied no matter how concerning it may be to face the lights going out. A lifetime without end just doesn't make any sense.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-desire-for-immortality
The desire for immortality
Posted by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 8, 2016 at 2:04pm in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Atheists often wonder at the refusal of theists to face the truth and to their ability to content themselves with a delusion unsupported by credible evidence. One reason is the desire for life after death promised by religion. This passage below is from an 1873 paper by Fredrick Barnard, quoted in the recent book The Origins of Creation. The authors there have omitted certain portions so I went back to the original to find the full quotation. Nothing else I can recall expresses so clearly the ardent craving for immortality. Despite its length, I believe it is worth giving in full.
Fredrick Barnard was President of Columbia College before it became Columbia University. Barnard College is named for him because he was instrumental in establishing a college for women on the Columbia campus. Despite his almost total deafness, he was a mathematician, chemist, physicist, and a scholar of English and classical literature.
That an intelligent and educated man of considerable stature could take this attitude speaks to the strong appeal of its sentiment and shows how difficult it is to counter with reason. For that reason I think it is of interest for the psychology of theism. We know the logical arguments against theistic beliefs quite well, but sometimes we fail to appreciate its emotional appeal even to men of science.
Like
.
Share
Views: 180
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 10, 2016 at 10:38pm
That seems more or less the right attitude. It is quite reasonable to fear violent death or early death, but at 80 I really do not think I could legitimately complain if suddenly I were faced with a death that was not too painful. I've had my life, my career, three sons, some interesting travel—not without bumps along the way, but not especially awful. The writer Paul Bowles said:
If I knew I were going to die tomorrow, I'd think, so soon? Still, if a man has spent his life doing what he wanted to do, he ought to be able to say goodbye without regrets.
And Carl Van Doren wrote:
One desire by which the human mind is often teased is the desire to live after death. It is not difficult to explain. Men live so briefly that their plans far outrun their ability to execute them. They see themselves cut off before their will to live is exhausted. Naturally enough, they •wish to survive, and, being men, believe in their chances for survival. But their wishes afford no possible proof. Life covers the earth with wishes, as it covers the earth with plants and animals. No wish, however, is evidence of anything beyond itself. Let millions hold it, and it is still only a wish. Let each separate race exhibit it, and it is still only a wish. Let the wisest hold it as strongly as the foolishest, and it is still only a wish. Whoever says he knows that immortality is a fact is merely hoping that it is.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 11, 2016 at 6:36am
A lifetime without end just doesn't make any sense.
Ah, an opportunity to excise a syllable. Thank you, Gerald.
Does the inevitable inevitably make more sense than the evitable?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 11, 2016 at 6:49am
There was a time in my life when I was scared to death of dying. Some of the reason for that was the underlying teachings of religion. Pentecostalism to be exact. I was taught to study a book and learn of god, then become upset with myself if I was not "living right" or doing what god wanted me to do. You're just a dirty Shriner! (Ops! I spelled that one wrong.) This is how religion gets to you with its "guilt." You feel guilty and shamed so you deserve the punishments that your religion promises you. Now you are scared of dying.
But wait! Death is natural and it comes to everyone. Not that you want to die, but you lose the fear of death once you lose the fear that was bestowed by religion. Certainly you do not want your death to involve any pain. I lost my fear of death when I fully realized that if a god exists it's very unlikely that the god's words and commandments are written in some ancient book somewhere. The falsity of all this even becomes laughable.
Might there still be some form of something that we call "god?" Something that was our creator or first mover, something intelligent that is behind it all? I cannot deny something of this nature as being possible, but there is no proof of it, and certainly no proof that any such intelligence (if it existed) cared for you in any way. There are no magic men in the sky trying to get in touch with you, straighten you out, give you a plan, or do anything at all.
Live your life. Do so in a way that you treat others fairly. Someday you will die and it will become much like it was in the millions of years before you were born. You will live on in the minds and memories of those you have left behind.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 11, 2016 at 7:42am
Michael, in a cultural anthropology course I took decades ago, I learned of tribes in which people are considered dead when no one still living remembers them.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Plinius on February 11, 2016 at 7:54am
Many people adopt some of that way of thinking. I've heard people say that they feel the deceased ones stay with them - not religious but emotionally. The eleven cats that shared part of their lives with me are still with me too - call me crazy if you want to.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 11, 2016 at 8:01am
@Tom and Chris.
I think this would be correct.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 11, 2016 at 8:38am
Nietzsche thought that recollection of the dead in dreams was the root of religion:
"n ages of crude, primordial cultures, man thought he could come to know a second real world in dreams: this is the origin of all metaphysics. Without dreams man would have found no occasion to divide the world. The separation into body and soul is also connected to the oldest views about dreams, as is the assumption of a spiritual apparition that is, the origin of all belief in ghosts, and probably also in gods. "The dead man lives on, because he appears to the living man in dreams." So man concluded formerly, throughout many thousands of years."
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-desire-for-immortality?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2668950&page=2#comments
Mysteries Of The Bible Banned From The Bible
Posted by Joan Denoo on February 12, 2016 at 12:43am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
OH! My God, the longer I am away from believing in supernatural elements the farther out into lala land religion appears. What is that old saying?
"Oh what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
~ William Shakespeare
Mysteries Of The Bible Banned From The Bible
"Oh what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." William Shakespeare
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 81
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Christopher Cosgrove on February 12, 2016 at 3:10am
Just started watching. Fascinating. Thanks
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 12, 2016 at 8:06am
Joan, thank you for posting this video! These tales are much richer and more compelling than the sterilized ones that were kept in the christian bible. They remind me of of the Popul Vuh, or the Chinese gods and Greek gods.
I took the liberty of cross-posting the video in the "Getting Religion" group. Very interesting!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 13, 2016 at 11:50am
Joan, it is the study of things like this and how our sacred writings came to be that worked in getting me totally away from religion. So much is guessed at, assumed, wanted or not wanted, proclaimed and declared, and all of it without any real evidence thruoghout the entire religious world.
This is why I believe gods and the Easter Bunny are both fiction. Regardless of your religious faith it remains that religion can be whatever you want it to be.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 13, 2016 at 12:25pm
I have compassion for those who need a crutch to get through the day. I don't intend that to be an insult, but a description.
We can learn stress management techniques that help deal with day to day problems. Yesterday I had to do the "STOP, BREATHE, THINK, ACT, CELEBRATE" one and it worked. As you can imagine, moving is stressful. My back just does not like my activities. So, I stop and rest a lot more than I like to. I grab a cup of coffee or glass of water and my computer. Just an hour or so and I can return to my packing tasks.
There are other techniques and they have to be learned.
▶ Reply
.
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/mysteries-of-the-bible-banned-from-the-bible
Respecting Religion And Those Offended - Stephen Fry
Posted by Joan Denoo on February 2, 2016 at 12:55am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Showing respect for someone or something that has no virtue, honesty, or credibility seems to me to be a waste of a decent emotion. Love is a gift we give each other; respect has to be earned.
Likewise, attempting to anticipate sensitivity of others acts in the same way as mindbinding. It causes one to self-monitor thinking and ignore one's instincts.
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 178
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 3, 2016 at 7:46am
I do not have to respect your religion. I no more have to respect your religion than I have to respect your life insurance policy. We assume that you believe your religion to be like an "after life" policy, so your god, whomever that may be, is the one that you hope totally respects your religion. That is, if your god exists.
On a realistic level the ones to respect said life insurance policy would be the company that you have the policy with, along with whomever it is that you have chosen to carry out your final wishes on what to do with your body. There are lots of insurance companies and lots of funeral homes.
As you should see, I no more have to respect your religion that I have to respect what car you drive. I don't give a damn about your religion or your car.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 3, 2016 at 11:58am
Mike, a great metaphor, religion and after-life insurance. I will use that!
Also, I don't have to respect the drunk or drug addict even as I love him or her. I can say the same for the smoker or the obese person.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 3, 2016 at 7:53am
"Well so fucking what?"
EXACTLY. If you want your beliefs to be respected, have respectable beliefs! Subscribing to unproven gods who blatantly indulge in mass slaughter, misogyny and homophobia and who suborn slavery and scapegoating as a means of resolving sin deserve no respect whatsoever and should damned well get NONE.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 3, 2016 at 12:00pm
Oh! God! what an evil concept!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Jerry Wesner on February 3, 2016 at 11:15pm
I do respect your right to choose your own religion, but you really should shut up about it. If you choose to put your beliefs out into the marketplace, others have the right to tell you what value they see in it -- if any. And any effort to impose it upon others is a form of attack, saying you're right and the rest of the universe is wrong. That's trampling on the rights of others.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Bertold Brautigan on February 3, 2016 at 11:34pm
Dear World,
Religion is like a penis.It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.
Sincerely, tired of hearing your religious guff
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 4, 2016 at 1:46am
Bartold, I have spent the last hour trying to find the author of, "Religion is like a penis." to no avail. Somewhere, there is a tape of a comedien saying these words and I can't find it. The image is so graphic, and so accurate, I can't help but gag as I laugh. It is perfect to use with one who proselytizes, even in polite society.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 4, 2016 at 12:26am
Jerry, thank you for you comment. I assume you express concern and care for others and me.
I agree each person has the right to choose his or her religion. That is not an issue for me. I have no obligation to respect the choice made, nor do I have a duty to respect a person who makes such a choice. By the same token, I have a right to choose no belief in supernatural energy. Others have a right not to respect my non-belief and not respect me for making that choice. I do have a responsibility to speak precisely, without blame or accusation. I expect the same from others.
If I shut up about my belief in no gods, I do not present an accurate account of me and how I think. Silence implies agreement with another’s thinking and actions. I have a right to express myself, honestly, and with dignity.
If I shut up about my lack of respect for those who choose belief in gods, it implies agreement. Am I to remain silent in the face of someone with whom I disagree? What is my point in being if I acquiesce to the “remain silent” imperative?
If I choose to put my thinking out into the marketplace, others have the right to tell me what value they see in my thoughts, if any.
Any effort to express myself to others is a form of honesty that I expect from them.
It is not a matter of saying I am right, and the other is wrong. It is saying, “This is how I think about this topic.” The issue is that I will not silence them, and they will not silence me. We just disagree.
If I witnessed a man beating a woman, I would intervene. If I saw an adult abusing a child, I would be clear in my response. If a person proselytized me, I would end the conversation by making a statement of not being interested in hearing that same old story and change the subject or end the contact. That is not trampling on the rights of others. It is preventing others from trampling on my time and attention and rights.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Kelly on February 4, 2016 at 11:45pm
"what is my point in being if I acquiesce to the 'remain silent' imperative"
This statement is timely.
Joan, tonight I did not remain silent on the pervasiveness of religion and prayer in my al-anon meeting. I stated my position as a non-believer or atheist and explained why I do not read aloud the religious words and sections when it is my turn to read from our literature. I indulged in complaining about how that one 'our father...' prayer is recited at the end of some meetings.
I was immediately rewarded with the shy admission of another member who agreed with some aspects of what I said!!! That only took 9 meetings at various locations to finally come across someone similar to me!
Tonight, I did not acquiesce and I feel brilliant and energized.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 5, 2016 at 1:30am
Kelly! that is wonderful! To trust your ability to think and reason, to be able to stand on a firm foundation of facts and evidence, you can stand tall, strong, competent and confident in the face of any who impose their religion and rituals on you. You have a right to speak and because you have the intellect to be strong, you have the responsibility to do so.
There is no stopping the spread of atheism, even as we do not impose upon others unless we are imposed upon. I visualize us a strong, intelligent, compassionate, participant in discussions with others on an equal basis.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Kelly on February 5, 2016 at 5:29pm
I visualize the same Joan and I'm confident in your unwavering encouragement, thank you wholeheartedly. I do "have a right to speak and because (I) have the intellect to be strong, (I) have the responsibility to do so."
Joan, you could have been sitting right beside me when I attended Noam Chomsky's lecture at Mac U. in Hamilton, On in the early nineties. He said the exact thing.
Uncanny. No, not uncanny but exceptional.
You both encourage service to our fellow citizens by making one feel brave.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 6, 2016 at 2:45am
Kelly, I read a lot of Chomsky's work and I surely must incorporate his ideas into my own experience. I'm glad you gain strength and encouragement through these ideas. Your voice needs to be heard.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/respecting-religion-and-those-offended-stephen-fry
Respecting Religion And Those Offended - Stephen Fry
Posted by Joan Denoo on February 2, 2016 at 12:55am in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Showing respect for someone or something that has no virtue, honesty, or credibility seems to me to be a waste of a decent emotion. Love is a gift we give each other; respect has to be earned.
Likewise, attempting to anticipate sensitivity of others acts in the same way as mindbinding. It causes one to self-monitor thinking and ignore one's instincts.
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 179
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 5, 2016 at 6:11am
BRAVA, Kelly!!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Kelly on February 5, 2016 at 5:22pm
Thank you, I appreciate this support. What a comfortable feeling I have as a member of A|N. Thanks for that.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 6, 2016 at 2:46am
I agree, BRAVA, Kelly!!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 4, 2016 at 2:13am
Jerry, I like your style. I read your string of comments and recognize an intelligent man with compassion for others. I hope our disagreement does not impede our friendship.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 4, 2016 at 6:17am
Well, Jerry, does that mean I have to stop following David Silverman and look at him as an evil man? Personally, I like David and think that his ideas of atheism hit it all right on the head. It's time to stop coddling religion.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 4, 2016 at 6:29am
The fact of the matter is, I don't typically wear my atheism on my sleeve in public. I HAVE thought about getting a couple lapel pins for my suit jackets, but they'll be seen at most six times a year when I go out to the orchestra. Otherwise, the average person would no more know that I'm an atheist than anyone else is, or Jewish, Christian or whatever.
Should the subject come up, though, they will discover that I am fully capable of representing my side of the argument, which many of them can't.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 4, 2016 at 12:38pm
When people demand respect for their religion, they usually want—and intend to claim—quite a bit more. What they really desire is carte blanche for privileges based on their belief and they expect to be relieved of obligations they think conflict with their faith. A good example is the plea from businesses to avoid serving gay customers because it goes against their belief or the Kentucky clerk's refusal to issue marriage licenses.
In other words, behind the ostensibly innocent demand for simple respect for a particular brand of faith lie other less innocent expectations of being excused from general obligations. Business owners benefit from services such as fire and police that are paid for by all taxpayers and as a result they should serve all customers.
Respecting someone's faith is not the same as respecting their right to believe and worship as they please. I think that Christian Science and Mormonism are egregiously stupid forms of faith. That I do not say that to adherents who are friends is a matter of manners, not of respect.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 6, 2016 at 2:29am
I like your statement,
"I think that Christian Science and Mormonism are egregiously stupid forms of faith. That I do not say that to adherents who are friends is a matter of manners, not of respect.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Raven Style on February 15, 2016 at 11:09pm
Yes, this demand is nearly always coupled with such expectations and greater demands. And as Joan said, your statement is excellent.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/respecting-religion-and-those-offended-stephen-fry?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2667582&page=2#comments
Religion can reduce stress
Posted by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 8, 2016 at 6:03pm in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Religion linked to reduced levels of stress hormones in young Ameri...
In 2015 Philly's HumanLight celebration fizzled out. There was never enough singing and emotional support, always too much lecturing. I'm not surprised.
Atheists' fear of music, and joy, of touch and ritual hold us back. Attending Christian (I assume) churches seems to reduce cortisol over the long term for African-Americans. We can't compete.
Compared with Whites, Black Americans have high levels of an important stress hormone called cortisol circulating in their bloodstream.
Blacks in the USA are also more likely to be religious than Whites. Shervin Assari, at the University of Michigan, and colleagues, wondered if this might affect their cortisol levels.
They examined 200 black participants in the Flint Adolescent study. This was a 18-year study following Black, White, or bi-racial youth who were at high risk for substance use and school dropout.
In 1994, when they were about 15 years old, they were asked about their religious activities (how often they went to Church, etc). Then, six years later, the amount of cortisol in their saliva was measured.
On average, being involved in religious activities when young was associated with a major reduction in stress levels in later life. Religion was far more important than the other factors they looked at, such parental employment and whether the parents were divorced.
I suspect African-American churches provide a refuge from harassment and source of validation that our too-white too-narrow Atheism lacks. If Atheist cohesion rested upon diversity and true affirmation of everyone's worth, instead of being mainly anti-theistic, we'd meet our needs better. In our current form, we aren't even a refuge from sexism and racism, though Atheist Nexus comes closer to that than some other Atheist institutions.
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 278
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 8, 2016 at 6:55pm
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.
-- George Bernard Shaw
I don't think it matters whether you're talking about ethanol or cortisol, the basic premise remains the same.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 9, 2016 at 4:53pm
This was an 18 year study that measured cortisol, not a poll of "How stressed do you feel?" or "How happy are you?". Facts are facts, even when they don't suit us. If you had a study showing that 18 years of "happiness of credulity" had positive physiological impact, then long term "happiness of credulity" counts as a treatment rather than a placebo.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 9, 2016 at 5:05pm
Ruth, I don't give a ripe dump if it was a 100-year study. It still amounts to a de-facto endorsement of subscription to fantasy as a means of being happy. It justifies lying and being lied to, and the worst part of the whole thing is that such lying en masse can actually be successful.
But here's the real question: is it the belief that does the work or the community? Further question: how about one person on his own, without a religious community. How much cortisol does he generate?
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on February 9, 2016 at 10:11pm
It's worth trying to find just what helped those young people have lower stress hormone levels years later, and how to do similar good without the lies/fantasy/superstition. (I see a parallel to folk remedies being studied and helping to advance evidence-based medicine.)
There are various nontheistic "unchurch" communities such as Ethical Culture groups and Sunday Assemblies. There are also solitary practitioners of theistic religions such as Wicca.
And I'll echo Ruth, below: "Why can't Atheists validate one another without fantasy? Belonging isn't necessarily about following crowds or being a sheep."
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Bertold Brautigan on February 8, 2016 at 7:14pm
So . . . we need to start having bake sales? It would seem that the type of person who tends not to follow the crowd in his/her thinking would also tend not to follow crowds to brick and mortar events. Receiving validation via a fantasy held in common might well be comforting, but given the choice I think I'll take stress.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 9, 2016 at 4:55pm
Why can't Atheists validate one another without fantasy? Belonging isn't necessarily about following crowds or being a sheep.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 10, 2016 at 12:47am
If bake sales, participating with others turns one on, go for it. If one finds comfort with others, get the phone book out and call a few. If one likes to debate, find a worthy foe for combat. If one finds validation in doing for others, there are lots of things one can do. One male friend goes to the hospital baby ward and holds babies who are long-term babies and he just sits, rocks, hums and then goes home feeling better.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 10, 2016 at 12:55am
Oh, I forgot to mention the English thespian who went to Juvenile Detention and told them stories that shivered their livers. The kids loved him and he was their best advocate when it came time for release.
And then, there is the woman who wears a big heavy belt and walks several dogs at a time because she doesn't have anything else to do. She connects their leashes to her belt and I am not sure i she walks them or they walk her.
I have another interesting friend who makes clay houses. He has been battling cancer and the only way he can get his mind off his misery is when designing and creating these treasures. It turns out he is able to sell them and suppliment his pension.
I'll send a few photos and they will make you laugh.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 12, 2016 at 8:19am
Joan, I would love to see those photos.
My dad carved animals from wood, leaving them with a beautiful wood grain finish. I have some, treasures for me.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 12, 2016 at 8:18am
BB, I'll make some pumpkin bread - organic home grown pumpkin, and free range chicken eggs in the recipe!
I can also make a yummy apple pie, with vanilla-cinnamon in the filling.
That'll get your cortisol down!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 9, 2016 at 3:53pm
Regardless of ethnicity I believe the lower stress level is because people feel they are watched over by a sky daddy, their sins are forgiven, and they have a future life in heaven. It's also possible that blacks are more into religion than whites regardless of their cortisol levels. Keep in mind that the religious might even openly sin, asking forgiveness for it later. King David did this in the Bible.
There is also many non-believers who run around daily scared to death. They are never going to be religious but are like Chicken Little. To them there is always some part of the sky falling.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 9, 2016 at 5:01pm
When I'm really anxious and stressed, I focus on activities to reduce it. If I had high cortisol all of the time, and there was a history of church-going reducing stress in my family or among my peers, I'd find church more attractive too.
Your point about implicit permission to break a moral code because there's ready forgiveness is interesting. That probably does reduce stress by building in some "give" to rigid demands.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/religion-can-reduce-stress
Religion can reduce stress
Posted by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 8, 2016 at 6:03pm in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Religion linked to reduced levels of stress hormones in young Ameri...
In 2015 Philly's HumanLight celebration fizzled out. There was never enough singing and emotional support, always too much lecturing. I'm not surprised.
Atheists' fear of music, and joy, of touch and ritual hold us back. Attending Christian (I assume) churches seems to reduce cortisol over the long term for African-Americans. We can't compete.
Compared with Whites, Black Americans have high levels of an important stress hormone called cortisol circulating in their bloodstream.
Blacks in the USA are also more likely to be religious than Whites. Shervin Assari, at the University of Michigan, and colleagues, wondered if this might affect their cortisol levels.
They examined 200 black participants in the Flint Adolescent study. This was a 18-year study following Black, White, or bi-racial youth who were at high risk for substance use and school dropout.
In 1994, when they were about 15 years old, they were asked about their religious activities (how often they went to Church, etc). Then, six years later, the amount of cortisol in their saliva was measured.
On average, being involved in religious activities when young was associated with a major reduction in stress levels in later life. Religion was far more important than the other factors they looked at, such parental employment and whether the parents were divorced.
I suspect African-American churches provide a refuge from harassment and source of validation that our too-white too-narrow Atheism lacks. If Atheist cohesion rested upon diversity and true affirmation of everyone's worth, instead of being mainly anti-theistic, we'd meet our needs better. In our current form, we aren't even a refuge from sexism and racism, though Atheist Nexus comes closer to that than some other Atheist institutions.
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 279
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Gary S on February 9, 2016 at 6:16pm
"I care to live only to entice people to look at Nature's loveliness." - John Muir
"I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order." - John Burroughs
"Nature teaches more than she preaches." - John Burroughs
We all have different things that cause our cortisol to do its things. I have had some work things do it for me and as Muir and Burroughs said going out into nature also does many things, that darn geography minor I did in college.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 12, 2016 at 8:20am
Gary, nature's temple is far more soothing than that of religious despots. I'll take admiring a great tree any day, over admiring a corpse nailed to wooden beams.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Bertold Brautigan on February 12, 2016 at 8:31am
A nice distinction!
Corpse worship:
Everything dies baby that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies someday comes back
--Bruce Springsteen
Tree worship:
Can't you see that the human name
Doesn't mean shit to a tree
--Jefferson Airplane
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 12, 2016 at 10:01am
Ma and Pa Nature didn't care if I admired a tree, but those SOBs in Rome who wanted me to admire that corpse wanted everything I had and everything I would ever get.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 9, 2016 at 11:50pm
Well, I don't know as much as I think I know, and that is for sure. However, my training is in Applied Behavioral Science, and the people who research in this field discovered the prison studies of prisoners and guards, and family and group behaviors. They sorted out the aggressive environments vs democratic ones. The big story made little.
What are the factors that religious people have in their lifestyles that others may not?
They take time to participate in congregational activity, group assembly for lectures, prayers, music, and meditation;
They sit quietly with incense and music that quiets them;
They say prayers, which are real conversations that come from a person's experiences, whether they be mad, glad, sad, afraid, and talk to god, which is talking to themselves;
They express appreciation and gratitude for what others do for them while their prayers are really self-talk;
They meet informally and regularly with others who share their values and form friendships, some that last a lifetime.
What are the factors that non-religious people can do to reduce stress?
They can take time for family and friends activities, group discussions, music, dancing, meditation;
They can sit quietly by themselves or with others with a sensory environment of pleasant sights, refreshing aromas, delicious tastes, and beautiful music;
They can learn techniques of stress management, including deep breathing, meditation, and contemplation while walking or sitting, they can empty their minds of stressful thoughts as taught by Buddhists, or they can think calmly what it is that they want to happen and explore various options;
They can acknowledge appreciation and gratitude for what others do for them, they may even express these to the people that contribute to their lives;
They can meet informally and regularly with family, friends, and they can participate in sports, attend concerts or performances, picnics, seasonal change celebrations, weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, memorial services together.
In our family, they are great enthusiasts for machines so there is a regular get together of the motorbike group, and the bicycle rides. We also have the winter festival with snowmobiles, burning of the yule log, and storytelling. In the summer, all the kids gather around the burning pit and tell ghost stories. We use flashlights to shine up over our faces ... that's scary for kids.
You can probably think of other things that made church fun or interesting and find a way to translate that into a non-religious event.
One thing I know for sure, it takes time, effort, money, patience and teamwork to put together a group celebration. That is part of the fun!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 10, 2016 at 12:16pm
During my two years in a Catholic school taught by nuns, I didn't count how many times:
1) nuns asked if we entertain bad (aka "sexual") thoughts, and
2) we boys whispered to each other our reply, "No, Sister, they entertain me."
During my two years in a Catholic school taught by Jesuits (all males), none ever asked.
Who will check the cortisol level in boys who are entertaining themselves thusly?
Who will fund such studies?
The government won't; xian Republicans will go crazy.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on February 11, 2016 at 6:29am
I think Alain de Botton, who is one of my favourite atheist philosophers does a pretty good job at explaining what religion does right and why atheism should borrow and include these lessons on happiness that religion has discovered over the millenniums.
Religion is the oldest human establishment aimed at social cohesiveness and harbouring individual happiness for its own devious purposes.
It has much that is valuable to learn from, and likely why religions still hold keys to human happiness, atheism lacks, for now.
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0?language=en#t...
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 11, 2016 at 7:30am
Dawg, I read some of de Botton's stuff and decided that he's a wanna-be theist.
A nickel says he will have a deathbed conversion back to the theism he longs for.
Religion is the oldest human establishment aimed at social cohesiveness and harbouring individual happiness for its own devious purposes.
Not true.
What did pre-homo species have that resulted in social cohesiveness and harboured individual happiness?
They had "pecking orders", in which the strongest individuals imposed order on weaker individuals.
With the pecking order we know as religion, individuals who were physically non-dominant created a competing pecking order.
A government has to maintain a monopoly on violence.
A religion has to maintain several monopolies. They include a hope for a post-life reward, a fear of a post-life punishment, the in-life security of a community of believers, and emotions such as guilt and shame.
In America's constitution, these two pecking orders have a wall of separation between them.
There are also other pecking orders; two of them are business and organized crime.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 11, 2016 at 8:07am
Yes, but a deathbed conversion, something that theists cherish and claim for many as true when it was not, actually shows both doubt and fear. In my church days I heard of a bogus deathbed conversion for Edison. I doubt very seriously that anything even close to it ever happened.
Even as an atheist I have some doubt, but I have no fear. Only theism can instill fear.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Daniel W on February 11, 2016 at 8:56am
Ruth, thank you for posting this.
It's important to note the study is observational. We can take from it our own inferences, but correlation is not causation. It COULD be that people with lower cortisol levels feel more comfortable in churches, and therefore one cause of being religious is one's cortisol level, a biologic cause for religiosity. Or, it could be that religiosity does indeed reduce cortisol level.
I really agree with you that we need to work on a welcoming environment for a widening demographic in atheism / humanism. Even online, we are fractured into narrow demographics. It has been pointed out that on Nexus, we tend to be older and whiter. I try to welcome people as they sign on - although others do a better job than I do - especially Terry and Randy. That welcome doesnot bring a lot of new members into the active conversation, but maybe is helpful anyway. I hope so.
Churches do provide a sense of community. Some church activities, such as singing hymns, seem to be so moving as to be hypnotic. When someone in our workplace morning huddles found an excuse to sing "Amazing Grace", there was almost rapturous response. While at the same time, I was silently seething.
I like to read Sincere Kirabo on Patheos. I think he's one of the promising young voices in the movement, and discusses both racial justice and atheism.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 11, 2016 at 9:24am
At one point I wanted "Amazing Grace" played on bagpipes at my funeral. The song always made me cry. Today if I hear it I am silently seething.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on February 13, 2016 at 10:02am
For me, knowing alternate lyrics helps defuse religious songs (especially during the winter holiday season!).
A couple of sources I've found:http://george.speckert.com/songbook/pages/contents.html
http://webspace.webring.com/people/lu/um_6974/x_hymnal.html
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/HumanistSongs.htm
And here are some good lyrics for the tune "New Britain" (what "Amazing Grace" is sung to):
A Humanist Credo (tune: Amazing Grace)
John Hoad (1927-2011), 1980-1994 Leader of the St. Louis Ethical Society
[source: "Ethical Society Heritage Songs"]
1.Where shall the human spirit turn when ancient creeds are dead?
What shall our faith as fuel burn when all our Faiths have fled?
2.We trust the human spirit still, the tide that brought us here;
the sense of good, the human will to learn the way of care.
3.The way is hard, and wrong is strong, but we shall triumph yet
as more will join the human song to give, as much as get.
4.To seek the best in you and me, to share and care for earth,
to serve a new humanity, and bring world-peace to birth.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/religion-can-reduce-stress?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2668818&page=2#comments
Religion can reduce stress
Posted by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 8, 2016 at 6:03pm in Theism, Deism, & All Things Religious
View Discussions
.
Religion linked to reduced levels of stress hormones in young Ameri...
In 2015 Philly's HumanLight celebration fizzled out. There was never enough singing and emotional support, always too much lecturing. I'm not surprised.
Atheists' fear of music, and joy, of touch and ritual hold us back. Attending Christian (I assume) churches seems to reduce cortisol over the long term for African-Americans. We can't compete.
Compared with Whites, Black Americans have high levels of an important stress hormone called cortisol circulating in their bloodstream.
Blacks in the USA are also more likely to be religious than Whites. Shervin Assari, at the University of Michigan, and colleagues, wondered if this might affect their cortisol levels.
They examined 200 black participants in the Flint Adolescent study. This was a 18-year study following Black, White, or bi-racial youth who were at high risk for substance use and school dropout.
In 1994, when they were about 15 years old, they were asked about their religious activities (how often they went to Church, etc). Then, six years later, the amount of cortisol in their saliva was measured.
On average, being involved in religious activities when young was associated with a major reduction in stress levels in later life. Religion was far more important than the other factors they looked at, such parental employment and whether the parents were divorced.
I suspect African-American churches provide a refuge from harassment and source of validation that our too-white too-narrow Atheism lacks. If Atheist cohesion rested upon diversity and true affirmation of everyone's worth, instead of being mainly anti-theistic, we'd meet our needs better. In our current form, we aren't even a refuge from sexism and racism, though Atheist Nexus comes closer to that than some other Atheist institutions.
Like
1 member likes this
.
Share
Views: 280
▶ Reply to This
..
Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on February 16, 2016 at 11:03pm
The Pastafarians' winter holiday display on the Michigan capitol grounds included Chris Beckstrom's accordion playing, including a sprightly wordless rendition of the "Amazing Grace" tune.
Hit the link for a video: "Flying Spaghetti Monster Comes to Capitol", Lansing State Journal, Dec. 18, 2015. (I can't figure out how to embed the video directly without it autoplaying.)
(See also "The Lansing capitol display looks great", Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dec. 26, 2015)
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Dyslexic's DOG on February 13, 2016 at 7:26am
Though the other side of the coin is that religion can itself create unnecessary and irrational stresses, which in some cases have led to suicides, such as the well known puberty suicides of young girls who thought the blood meant that they had sinned against god. I had tried to help a Children Of God member lose his fear that his family was damned because they were non-believers and he wanted them with him in Heaven, but could not convince them god exists. He was desperate and his family were desperate to get him away from the religion, so it created stresses for the entire family, and he was certainly never happy.
I couldn't help him, his wife and children left him, he had to face his fear on his own, last I heard, he was in a psychiatric hospital after his second nervous breakdown, still clutching his Bible.
So, nobody can tell me that religion produces happiness for everyone.
There are too many suffering because of religion.
I've seen the same stress caused when people get sucked into the Jehovah Witnesses who convert them at alcohol and drug rehabilitation clinics/meetings. They are told to leave their families of doubters and no longer associate with them.
Imagine the stresses, for the victim who wants his family to suddenly convert and the family who is just about to lose a parent/spouse.
It happens all the time and it is sickening.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Michael Penn on February 13, 2016 at 8:58am
Just yesterday I'm leaving Dollar Tree and an old man starts talking about the weather. I replied and soon we are at the point of "the world can't stand much longer." This old guy is a former Baptist and now JW who cannot see that a rapid spread of knowledge, instantly and worldwide, brings many to that opinion. In 1950 nobody gave a damn what went on in Syria, Iran, Russia, or other parts of the world so much. News of anywhere today is all lumped together just like your local weather report. If you want to talk about "fulfilled prophesy" and believe that anything was said of old that will come to happen, then I'm sure you will find much that has come to be.
This guy even gets into "there shall be wars and rumors of wars" to which I told him this is a normal reaction anytime you have communication in society. It's a no brainer prediction.
He goes on into God's name being removed from the holy scriptures and told me of a giant piece of wood in St. Louis, bent in such a fashion that it could not have happened naturally, and it has "Tetragrammaton" carved on it. I said, "OK, the unpronounceable name, " and I smiled. He then says it's JHVH in scripture to which I added that the JW's have put in the vowels to get the name "Jehovah." (My grandparents were JW''s.)
At this point I also wonder why it was the English vowels? What would the name of God be if we added vowels from other languages? Since English was not the original, why is it the language now? Many people do not wonder of these things, but this old gentleman seemed like they type that would pray and moan, covered in ashes and sack cloth. He just could not understand why I no longer believe and tell him there is no evidence.
The mode of his sincerity seemed enough to drive some to suicide. He was overly concerned and disturbed that you are not concerned as well.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on February 13, 2016 at 7:42pm
Michael, some of the products of natural selection will fail.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›
Page
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/religion-can-reduce-stress?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A2668818&page=3#comments
My Interview With Kirk Cameron
Posted by JustinTetro on January 27, 2016 at 3:58am
View Blog
.
http://www.thespiritualbeacon.net/blog
Not long ago I was lucky enough to bump into part time actor and full time Jesus freak, Kirk Cameron, at the Denver International Airport. Mr. Cameron was on his way home to southern California after a brief speaking engagement at a local 7-11. Knowing I would probably never meet Mr. Cameron again I asked if he would grant me a short interview as he waited to board his plane, which he graciously agreed to. The following is a transcript of our conversation as it was recorded on my iPhone.
ME: Tell me a little about your conversion to Christianity. How did it happen? When did it happen? Were you drinking at the time? And if so, was it a manly drink like Bourbon? Or are you more of a two umbrella, one curly straw, kind of guy?
Kirk: Well, I was only about 15 at the time, so alcohol wasn't a part of my life. Nor is it now, for that matter.
ME: Sorry to hear that. Please, continue.
KIRK: Anyway, I had it all. I was rich and famous. My image was on billboards and busses. Girls cut my picture out of "Teen Beat" magazine to hang on their walls. I had the life every kid at that age dreamed of.
ME: And this fame and fortune was because you played Jonathan Bower on the hit show "Who's the boss?"
KIRK: No. I played Mike Seaver on the award winning series "Growing Pains."
ME: Are you sure about that? Because I seem to remember you being on Who's the Boss.
KIRK: Yes, I'm fairly sure I know what show I was on.
ME: You said "fairly sure." Does that mean your not completely sure.
KIRK: No. I'm sure.
ME: Oh, now your sure?
KIRK: No, I was always sure. Anyway, the father of a girl that I liked was a minister, one day he took me aside and told me that even though I believed I had everything, I was missing the most important thing of all.
ME: A Segway?
KIRK: Jesus Christ.
ME: Oh, that was going to be my next guess.
KIRK: He asked that I accompany his daughter to church the following Sunday so that I could hear the gospel and experience its power first hand. He spoke about sin and how it takes hold of people when they are at their most vulnerable. And then he began to speak about Hell.
ME: Hell? Is that near Detroit?
KIRK: No. Hell is a horrendous place where the wicked are cast because they disobeyed the word of God.
ME: Which God?
KIRK: The one true God.
ME: Odin?
KIRK: No.
ME: Mbombo of Bakuba?
KIRK: No.
ME: Nanabozho?
KIRK: No.
ME: How about Viracocha?
KIRK: No. Where are you getting these names from? I'm talking about the God of the bible and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ.
ME: Oh. Is he the one they stapled to a post?
KIRK: Yes.
ME: Okay, I've heard of him. Now, what were we talking about?
KIRK: I was recounting my conversion experience.
ME: You were? Well, that sounds boring, how about we move on to something else. Can you tell me a little about the Kung Fu show you do called "Way Of The Master?"
KIRK: Way Of The Master is not a Kung Fu show, its a new look at reality TV. Each program is a half-hour of myself and Ray Comfort teaching Christians how to share their faith effectively and inoffensively. We teach people how to speak with unsaved family and friends, and then go onto the streets and demonstrate how to do it. We share the gospel with teenagers, intellectuals, atheists, Muslims, Jews, cults, backsliders, and the self-righteous.
ME: So there's no Kung Fu?
KIRK: No, sorry.
ME: Have you thought about changing the name? Personally, when I hear the title, "Way of the master" I think of an old Asian man with a long white beard teaching Jackie Chan how to fight so he can rid the streets of crime and win the heart of his one true love.
KIRK: Well, I'm sorry but that is not what we do. And to be honest, that sounded a little racist to me.
ME: Which part?
KIRK: All of it.
ME: Okay, lets pretend I never said it.
KIRK: (inaudible grunt)
ME: So, tell me Mr. Cameron, who exactly is "Crocoduck" and why are people photoshopping you in bed with him?
KIRK: In bed?
ME: Yeah, there are numerous pictures of you engaging in odd sexual activities with this Crocoduck person.
KIRK: I'm a little taken aback here. I've never seen those pictures.
ME: Well, that's probably because I haven't uploaded them yet, but they should be up early next week. Now, who is Crocoduck and why has no one made a movie about him?
KIRK: Crocoduck is a hybrid animal proposed by Ray Comfort and myself that is used to demonstrate the ridiculousness of evolution. If evolution were true we should see a transitional form in the fossil record that is half duck, half crocodile, but no such species exists.
ME: I see.
KIRK: Ray and I have been asking evolutionary biologists around the world to show us a Crocoduck for several years now and we have yet to be taken seriously. To me, this smacks of a global conspiracy to remove the word of God from our classrooms and replace it with weak hypothesis and shaky evidence.
ME: So, because you haven't been shown the fossils of a hypothetical animal you conceived with your buddy, you are going to throw out all the findings of biology, genetics, chemistry, palaeontology, anthropology, and a dozen other branches of science?
KIRK: Yes.
ME: I have another idea. If evolution were true it would mean Adam and Eve were never actual living people. If Adam and Eve never existed, the whole concept of original sin would be nothing more than an elaborate invention by the authors of the bible. If there was no original sin, there would be no reason for God to put on a skin suit, change his name to Jesus, and come down from heaven to save us. So, if you accept the fact of evolution, it puts doubt in the very existence of Jesus Christ.
KIRK: That's interesting, but what your forgetting is that God himself inspired the writings of the bible, and the bible clearly states that God can not lie. So because of this we can be certain that everything in the bible is true and Adam and Eve were real people who existed exactly as described in Genesis.
ME: If I was high right now, that might have been a good point, but I'm not, so lets move on. I was recently on your website and I noticed that you offer 'Way Of The Master, Training Courses' for sale. Can you please tell me a little about what I could expect were I to order one of your courses. And try not to be so boring this time.
KIRK: Sure. Our course is specially formatted to train believers to simply and confidently share the gospel with family, friends, and strangers. We teach you to overcome your fears by using proven and effective ways to make the gospel make sense. You learn the forgotten biblical principal of bypassing the intellect and speaking directly to the conscience, as Jesus did, this way you can....
ME: Whoa, hold on there partner. Did you just say you teach people how to"bypass the intellect?"
KIRK: Yes. The intellect is the place of argument and the conscience is the place where the knowledge of right and wrong reside. We teach how to speak directly to your sense of right and wrong, which is where the knowledge of God resides.
ME: Your a silly man.
KIRK: Pardon me?
ME: I, uh, I said, your a super man. So, what would it cost me to purchase this twisted logic?
KIRK: Well, the kit is around 90 dollars, which includes DVD's, CD's, a 120 page study book, some quick reference guides, and a rubber mask of Ray Comfort for you to use when witnessing to people.
ME: And by "witnessing to people" you mean approaching strangers on the street and pestering them about Jesus?
KIRK: I'm not sure I'd use the word "pester."
ME: You should, it fits perfectly. Lets play a game. I'll be a stranger on the street and you 'witness' to me, so I can get an idea of how it is you annoy people. Ready? Go.
KIRK: Um, I'm not sure I want to do that. I should really be getting back to my terminal.
ME: Oh, pretty please. Hey, you might convert me and then we can hang out in Heaven together.
KIRK: Um, well, I guess I'd first ask you if you consider yourself a good person.
ME: Who me? No, I'm a dick. Next question.
KIRK: You don't really mean that.
ME: Sure I do, ask anyone. I'm a dick.
KIRK: Okay, um, I didn't really expect that response. Usually people consider themselves to be fairly good.
ME: Okay, I'll play along. I'm a good person.
KIRK: Super. Now let me ask you if you have ever told a lie.
ME: Sure, all the time. I told you I was a fan when we met.
KIRK: And what do you call someone that tells lies?
ME: Human.
KIRK: No, what word would you use to describe someone that tells lies?
ME: Douchebag.
KIRK: No. The word I was thinking of was "liar."
ME: Oh, shoot. I wasn't even close.
KIRK: Next question. Have you ever stolen anything in your life?
ME: Let me think.....I've not purchased a roll of toilet paper in nearly two years because I take them from work. Does that count?
KIRK: Yes, that counts. And what word would you use to describe someone that steals?
ME: Thief?
KIRK: Yes.
ME: Yahoo! What did I win?
KIRK: No, no, no, you didn't win anything. This is just a series of questions I use to show people that no matter how good they think they are, they are actually sinful and need the guidance of Jesus in their life.
ME: So you approach total strangers on the street and try to get them to call themselves a thief and a liar?
KIRK: Yes.
ME: Your a bigger dick than me.
At this point, Mr. Cameron's plane began to board and he was forced to leave. All in all I think our talk went very well and I was thrilled to have met him. We had a great conversation that nobody will care about and I truly feel like I learned a lot about how not to act toward strangers on the street. He was generous with his time and very honest, except for that bullshit about not being on Who's The Boss.
Views: 133
Like
2 members like this
.
Share
< Previous Post
Next Post >
..
Comment
You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!
Join Atheist Nexus
.
Comment by roland707 on February 8, 2016 at 11:52pm
You think old Kirk is behind that whole "PuppyMonkeyBaby" Superbowl commercial?
.
Comment by roland707 on February 8, 2016 at 11:49pm
Hahaha. That was great!
.
Comment by Glen Rosenberg on January 31, 2016 at 12:14am
Whether real or contrived your interview is entertaining. Well done Justin.
.
Comment by k.h. ky on January 27, 2016 at 8:37pm
You are expert at giving christians hell.
I love it.
.
Comment by Michael Penn on January 27, 2016 at 4:23pm
Kirk Cameron and his friend Ray give me very little Comfort. I'm trying to figure out all the ignorance about the Crockaduck. If evolution is measured on their standard, then we would have gerbils that were turning into elephants and dogs would be having kittens. Unfortunately this is what ignorance and stupidity would have you think about the evolutionary process. In my small area of the world lots of people believe this nonsense. We even have adult people here that do not believe that Egypt is in Africa.
.
Comment by Bertold Brautigan on January 27, 2016 at 11:27am
Justin, I love your interviewing style. You should interview each of the presidential candidates.
.
Comment by Loren Miller on January 27, 2016 at 6:35am
The sad fact is that Kirk Cameron doesn't have the native intelligence that his putative god gave to a hermit crab. Personally, I never watched Growing Pains OR Who's the Boss and suspect I'd lose IQ points if I indulged in watching anything which featured that sad excuse for an actor.
He can take a long walk off a short pier, for all of me.
..
RSS
..
http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/my-interview-with-kirk-cameron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment