ABC 1, Jim Nugent 0

Jim Nugent is a coach in Childress, Texas. Jim Nugent recently watched some ABC Network programming. Jim Nugent then fired off a letter to ABC, letting them know what he thought of their programming:

ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK.

'THE PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a "gay basher." Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
--Jim Nugent

Jim cannot conceive of the possibility that it is the actual religious ideology of the 'dufus' of the office that makes him look like a whiner. Jim cannot conceive of the possibility that these anti-human and anti-freedom values found in that worthless Bible are what the problem is.

That is because Jim cannot see the forest for the trees. He prefers to think within the box rather than outside it. Whether that's due to oblivion, or thought-numbing happiness, or both, I can't tell. But obviously, Jim is incapable of actually evaluating the pseudo-values expressed in his doubleplusgood brainwashing Bible.

But wait, it gets better! Amazingly enough, the Webmaster for ABC replied to Jim! ABC had this to say:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us or our freedom of statement.

ABC! ABC! ABC! Wow, I think that ABC just became my new favorite station after The Science Channel. Actually, I never ever watch ABC (or much of any T.V. for that matter), but I just might have to take a look at The Practice sometime. This was just too fucking cool.

But Jim Nugent obviously cannot engage in any self-reflection, nor can he re-evaluate any of his premises. That would take too much independent thought, and require some of that dreaded "outside the box" thinking. Oh the horror! Instead, Jim decides to forward this email exchange between him and ABC to everyone he knows (that is how I eventually got a hold of it), as if he's making someone else look bad! And just to protect himself from the possibility of discovering the proverbial man behind the curtain, Jim decides to do a little bit of projecting, and fires a reply back to ABC:

Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you. --Jim Nugent

Jim Nugent is now officially the village idiot of Childress, Texas. He fails to see that it was he who had a nerve hit by a fictional show that challenged his fairy-tale-based bigotry. It was Jim Nugent who had the harsh words to write, not ABC. For Jim is the one advocating bigotry, not ABC. And it is Jim who fails to see that those bigoted beliefs are what make both him and the fictional T.V. show characters look bad, not the writers of ABC.

A stupid bigot is still a stupid bigot, and that bigot will still look bad whether he coaches some dumb sport in some backwater hicktown, or has the most powerful job in the world. It is the message itself that determines the 'dufus' factor, not the messenger.

And perhaps the most deliciously ironic part about this whole thing is that Jim Nugent thinks that he is putting egg on ABC's face by spreading this email around! He sees not the beam in his own eye.

The meaning of this entire situation obviously went right over poor Jim's head. He is the one with egg on his face, and he is totally oblivious to it. Clearly, Jim could use a bit of that old out-of-the-box (aka out-of-the-Bible) thinking, and maybe he would finally realize what an oblivious, brainwashed, and bigoted moron he is.

New Hellbound Alleee Show: Atheism--What''s The Point?

The Hellbound Alleee Network


Listen and Burn!


Show 128: Atheism: What''s the Point?






Enjoy! -- Hellbound Alleee

3rd Mondo Diablo Halloween Episode

The Hellbound Alleee Network


Listen and Burn!


Mondo Diablo 22: I''m Suh-Suh-Suh SCARED






Enjoy! -- Hellbound Alleee

The Bridge movie censored!

The High Weirdness Project reports that the movie The Bridge, which I posted a while ago, a critical fictional story of a woman's ascension up the Scientology levels, is being silenced by the author himself, probably due to legal threats. However, they also report that the movie is still available on BitTorrent.

BlackSun: Theist Arguments Getting Weaker

Sean Prophet of BlackSun Journal has been doing some research, and has concluded that theist arguments are getting weaker.

And I agree with him:

What was striking about both these articles, is not that they rehashed some of the same old arguments, they did. But that they actually seemed to concede on the facts! Both articles tacitly admitted the evidence was not good for the existence of a deity. But their argument turned away from the factual, toward which result people like better.

...

So let me get this straight: The truth of one of the most fundamental questions we humans ever face comes down to whether or not we want to offend people?

The last sentence in Sean's blog post is excellent, and I didn't quote it here because I don't want to spoil it. So make sure to click on the link and read the whole thing.

Considering Sean's history and experience with religion, his intellect, and especially his continued immersion in the debate taking place in the world today, I think that his analysis is spot on. While atheism is still a minority position, the tides have certainly been turning (thanks in large part to free, unfettered information access that the internet provides). Accordingly, more and more theists and theistic sympathizers have implicitly conceded the atheist argument. The grasping at straws will only increase as their numbers dwindle.

There is only one course of action for the atheist to take: continued and even increased promoting of atheism. The snowball is rolling downhill and increasing in size and speed. This is exactly what we want. Atheism will make this world a better place, and the more we can do to make atheism the majority ideology in our lifetimes, the happier and more prosperous we will be.

What's in a Name?

HowManyOfMe.com

There are: 47 people with my name in the U.S.A. How many have your name?

There are 47 people in the United States with the name "Aaron Kinney." And if you Google the name "Aaron Kinney," I am the first result!

So it is official. I am the most popular Aaron Kinney in the United States. Hallelujah!

Olbermann 2006-10-18

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before—and we have been here before led here—by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Truth changes

Truth changes. And our refusal to deal with that leads to a lot of epistemic dysfunctions.

"Franc, that's facking stupid", you're thinking. "How can truth change? If something is true, then it's true! Truth can't change!"

Actually, I suspect that this is a semantic issue more than anything else. I do not disagree that facts don't change. Facts are, after all, nothing more than a parcel of what we are studying. The fact that the Earth is round does not depend on any epistemic agent- it just is. But the understanding, the knowledge that the Earth is round does depend on the existence of epistemic agents. To likewise judge this constructed proposition as true requires other epistemic agents.

There is plenty of evidence available to support the idea that the Earth is round, even for pre-scientific civilizations. The movement of the constellations that differs depending on location, the horizon on the sea, the horizon when you stand on a high point, the shadow of the Earth during an eclipse, are four obvious ones. Eratosthenes was able to infer a rough number for the circumference of the Earth by using sticks and ingenious measurements at two very distant points. So this is not really rocket science.

And yet there must have been a first person to discover the fact, to go against the widely held religious belief (at least, before Antiquity) that the Earth was flat, which is most intuitive. There must have been an observation or series of observations, followed by an "aha!" moment. Then that person must have tried to convince other people, who may or may not have agreed with him.

This is perhaps not the best example, since the evidence is widely available. Take the discovery of Neptune. In the early 19th century, astronomical tables of Uranus were published, and it became obvious that the orbit of Uranus was perturbed in a way not explainable by the current model. Astronomers and mathematicians began to calculate where a planet would have to be in order to cause this perturbation. Examination of star charts revealed where Neptune was located.

Is the existence of Neptune a fact? Of course. Is it true? From our perspective, definitely. But for someone living in earlier times, where the only stargazing was done with the naked eye, any positive assertions about planets and stars would rightly be seen as spurious. Even though you know very well the facts of the matter, you would be hard-pressed to convince them of the existence of the nine planets, their orbits, their composition, their moons, and so on and so forth. I think we can go so far as to say that it would be irrational for them to take you at your word.

This of course brings up the issue- how do we determine truth? The only means we have, fundamentally, is that of rationality. We observe things around us, we integrate them with what we already know, and we come to new conclusions. Truth is therefore inextricably tied with our context of knowledge- what we already know and have integrated. The search for knowledge is not an ex nihilo creation but rather a networked expansion.

It must therefore be stressed that truth is relative. We must not, however, confuse "relative" with "truth relativism", which is the position that historical or cultural context determines truth. This is a collectivist concept, and only individuals discover facts. When we say that truth is relative, we simply mean that it is only reasonable for an individual to accept claims which are closest to his own context of knowledge.

Take the proposition "there are twenty planets around Alpha Centauri". It seems unlikely, but while we can't discount it out of hand, it would be foolish for me to believe it simply because I can state it. I can equally state that there are nineteen, fifteen, ten, five or zero planets. While obviously one of them MUST be true, I have no reason to accept ANY of these as true unless I have some evidence. Therefore I must refuse to accept a proposition which will eventually be considered true. This is not a problem, as long as one realizes that truth is relative.

This relativeness is very inconvenient for true belief. When you are trying to entrap people, you don't want them to judge things for themselves obased on their own context of knowledge, because most belief systems are unnatural and bear little relation to what we know. Instead, you want them to believe in a different kind of knowledge, a form of "revelation" for instance, which is wholly different from any knowledge you may have. There's your regular old facts and science (an altogether inferior form of knowing), and then there's something else you can't relate to or possibly argue with.

To posit such a dichotomy, the believers need to first eliminate the individual human element in this new epistemology. Christians just forget about either and set up their god as the source of knowledge- through "divine revelation", an inerrant Bible, or "divine intervention". Eastern mystics and New Age fans omit even consciousness, preferring to set up some abstract process as source of knowledge. Statists can't escape the human element but use collectivist concepts like "the people" and "the common good" to dissociate themselves from the context of knowledge. In either case, the source is said to transcend the evidence of the senses and make it irrelevant, which is self-contradictory since we still need the senses to interpret them.

Republican Campaign Strategy: Don't Vote Atheist!

Texas politics looks to be pushing the religious-secular culture war to new lows:

The Austin-based Republican Party of Texas played the religion card in a Sept. 21 online newsletter. As alleged in the newsletter, Texarkana solo E. Ben Franks, Democratic nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals, "is reported to be a professed atheist" and apparently believes the Bible is a "collection of myths.'"

I think the worst part about all of this is that when a political group declares their opponent to be an atheist, it is assumed, and accepted by the public, that this (revelation or allegation) is a bad thing!

Someone should tell the people of the nation... err... I mean, state of Texas that its time to put down the pitchforks and torches, and that the witch-hunting days are over.

Jeff Fisher, the state Republican Party's executive director, says there are other sources of the allegation. Fisher says "some people who know Franks" -- people whom Fisher did not identify -- have told him that Franks professes to be an atheist.

Fisher says the GOP sent the newsletter to people who subscribe to the party's e-mail publications to inform them about Franks. "We have a candidate running for the 6th Court who clearly shows he's out of touch with the people," he says.

Maybe so, but "the people" are demonstrably out of touch with reality! I, for one, would rather be out of touch with popular beliefs than be out of touch with reality.

I can't tell which is hurting humanity more: religion, or government! Anyone got an opinion about this?

Practical Laws of Islam / History of Religion

Islam is so practical, the Practical Laws of Islam are a proof of this!

Question 354: If the mouth or the nose keep bleeding from when the time of an obligatory prayers begins until it is about to end, what will be the prayers' rule?

A: If one is unable to clean one's body and fears the expiration of the time of the obligatory prayers, he can perform that prayers in that state.

Retro Question of the Day: The Plantingan Slip

Now, I don't mean to step on Brucker's toes, as he's doing a wonderful job with QotD. One of the reasons I stepped down was because I felt my questions were becoming...errr... a little repetative. But recently I had a classic Christian zinger thrown in my face, one which we've all heard before, and I knew that I had to break my silence here at the Goose and post another one-time-only Question of the Day!


The Christian says, "Thanks for strengthening my faith."


QUESTION: Now how the hell is this even possible?

I thought Christians KNEW Jesus. It's a personal relationship, after all! And yet I hear this saying from Christians all the time, implying that they're somehow more convinced of their faith than they were a moment ago. Since being a TrueChristian® means that you only get saved once, I thought that you're pretty much fully convinced the first time! How many times have we heard Christians accuse former Christians of being liars based on this very premise?

And how the hell, as an atheist, am I even able to affect a Christian's faith in any way, shape, or form? Allegedly, I'm corrupt, do wicked things, and can do no good, but I can strengthen your faith?! I'm utterly astonished to find that I've been bestowed with such powers!

Perhaps it was a just a Freudian slip. NAH! Christians don't like Freud. We'll call it a Plantingan slip!

Gods and Square Circles

Dawson Bethrick has, as per usual, given a cogent and comprehensive explanation of the comparison of god-belief to square circle-belief.

You can find it here.

The Christian Marriage Problem

You may recall last year that I mentioned Craig Sowder's (formerly of the "Through the Eyes of Faith" blog, now renamed as "Autonomy is Madness") observation that Christian women are crazy. I have a lot of sympathy for Craig's perspective, and in a lot of ways I see his path in life as one that I could easily have taken, were it not for some hard questions I asked myself. Craig is, in all practical senses, a great guy, working hard at the insurance industry, trying to make a life for himself in the big city of Chicago, away from his friends and family in Southern Kentucky. That kind of life can be lonely- my brother-in-law lived in Chicago for a year before moving back to be closer to his family. And it's especially hard when you're a single guy, trying to follow your religious convictions. Almost as hard, I would guess, as being a single atheist.

Which is why reading this article posted to Blog and Mablog really rubbed Craig the wrong way. It's a reference to a book that criticizes Christian singles, especially men, for not getting married by the age of 28. Getting close to that age himself, and without a matrimonial prospect, Craig spouted off at length about his criticism of such an idea.

Now, Craig makes it clear that he's shooting from the hip here, which I appreciate. Common sense is usually aligned with the correct moral interpretation, and it's only in overthinking things that we run the risk of allowing ourselves to be rationalized into a conclusion that doesn't work.

The criticism aimed at single Christians is thus: marriage is part of God's plan, so if you're not getting married, you're trying to thwart God. Craig's rebuttal is: Hey! Relationships are hard, especially in this day and age, and even more especially with Christian women, so get off my back!

I can really sympathize with Craig- relationships are hard (and by the way, they don't get any easier once you're married), and it's especially hard to make a meaningful relationship with a Christian woman. In fact, just this past weekend I had a visit from an old friend, and we sat around drinking beer and reminiscing about the people we grew up with. The town I went to high school in was pleasantly rural, and circumstances had caused it to be populated by an inordinately high percentage of Christians. There was, literally, only one atheist in the school that I knew of, but the domination by Christians and Christian mindsets was just so overwhelming that it was barely noticed. Suffice it to say, all the girls that were in my class were Christian, and dating was quite a chore. As we ran through the list in our recollection, my friend and I had a lot of trouble picking out a single girl from our class who didn't end up having severe psychological problems, become pathologically promiscuous, or suddenly married a much older man (or all three). We were inclined to think that perhaps there was just something odd in the water in our hometown, but reading Craig's characterization strongly suggests that there might be a theological reason for this instead.

Marriage is a special relationship between two people who find in each other the fulfillment of their core values. But for Christians, marriage IS the value- and fulfilling it is the end of the story. It doesn't really matter so much who the person is- just that it's a good Christian who wants kids. As Craig quotes from Doug Wilson, "Find out who she is, and marry her." It's precisely this casual attitude levied toward men who have reached their late twenties without getting hitched that is the problem. Is it really such a big suprise that divorce is most prevalent among Christian couples, if the only concern is finding "someone" instead of the "right one?" Craig rightly points out that finding a wife is not like picking out a jar of jelly in the grocery store. In the best case scenario, you might be able to pick out a woman who values marriage so much that she's willing to put up with an unfulfilling relationship if it means following God's will for her life.

But then you end up with another problem- in the Christian marriage paradigm, both people are supposed to value their relationship with God more than their relationship with the other person. This serves an obvious memetic purpose- if both spouses are committed Christians, they will tend to pass on their religious understanding to any children they may have. But this is also a dangerous loophole- since her husband is outranked by God, then any Christian woman could conceivably justify any imaginable action on her part, up to and including infidelity and divorce, simply by rationalizing it as "God's will for her life." The progressive liberalization of Western culture has, in fact, served to erode the tight grip that husbands once held over their wives- men are supposed to be the "spiritual leaders" of the marriage, after all- and Christian women are feeling more and more empowered to think for themselves, and more importantly, to come to their own decisions about what "God wants" in their lives.

Now, don't get me wrong- what I think is bad for Christian marriage is good for secular marriage. I mean, according to the Bible, Christian marriage isn't worth all that much anyway. What I find so unfortunate is that so many women are treating men badly, good men like Craig Sowder who, Christian or not, are also looking for someone to love and be loved by in return. The only solution, as I see it, is to promote a secular approach to marriage, as I mentioned before- leave God out of it.

(And, as it happens, I am ordained as a minister and am able to officiate any secular ceremony if needed, free of charge.)

Inquisition: Damning Evidence of Abrahamic Atrocities Towards Women

Austin Cline from atheism.about.com has an excellent picture and accompanying article about the sexual torture used by inquisitors during the witch hunts of the past.

Among other atrocities, the inquisitors used to look for supernatural tits:

Inquisitors were also quick to search for the purported "witches' tits," blemishes which were supposed to be extra nipples used by witches to suckle demons. If the men interrogating the witches were to become aroused, it was assumed that the desire originated not in them, but instead was a projection from the women.

What fun is it for a male authority figure to go through the trouble of torturing and killing a bunch of women if you don't get to fondle some tits and put hot pokers on vaginas in the process?

At least these inquisitors were more preoccupied with adult female sex organs than prepubescent male sex organs. But on the other hand, modern day anally raped altar boys didn’t get burned at the stake after the assault. I can't decide which is worse... I guess they are both equally bad.

The Bible reinforces and legitimizes violence, cruelty, and inhumanity towards women. I've had a number of Christians tell me that only an incorrect interpretation of the Bible allows for this horrible treatment of women.

Bullshit! Next thing you know, we will be hearing Neo-Nazis insisting that Hitler "hijacked" true Naziism through incorrect interpretation.

Scientology: "The Bridge" A full length feature film about Scientology

Second Coolest Thing Ever

I previously said Meat Cake was the coolest thing ever. This is the second coolest thing ever:

Orgasms for Ramadan!

Iranian Supreme Kommandant, Chancellor, and a bunch of other official-sounding titles, Sayyid Ali Khameini, said that "intentional masturbation" will violate and invalidate one's Ramadan fast:

Khameini, who is Iran's most powerful political and religious figure, was asked on his website : "If somebody masturbates during the month of Ramadan but without any discharge, is his fasting invalidated?"

"If he do not intend masturbation and discharging semen and nothing is discharged, his fasting is correct even though he has done a haram (forbidden) act. But, if he intends masturbation or he knows that he usually discharges semen by this process and semen really comes out, it is a haram intentional breaking fasting," the Iranian leader said, posting the reply on his website.

Although this is rather barbaric, it could admittedly be worse. Imagine if this Islamic tyrant said that menstruation during Ramadan invalidated the whole thing!

I wonder which book uses the words "issue" and "seed" more, the Bible or the Quran? Maybe some government-financed university should conduct a big expensive study to find the answer to that important question. Just kidding!

According to Islam.About.com, fasting during Ramadan includes not just eating or ejaculating, but also Orwellian thoughtcrime:

The tongue must be restrained from backbiting and gossip. The eyes must restrain themselves from looking at unlawful things. The hand must not touch or take anything that does not belong to it. The ears must refrain from listening to idle talk or obscene words. The feet must refrain from going to sinful places. In such a way, every part of the body observes the fast.

Therefore, fasting is not merely physical, but is rather the total commitment of the person's body and soul to the spirit of the fast. Ramadan is a time to practice self-restraint; a time to cleanse the body and soul from impurities and re-focus one's self on the worship of God.

Emphasis mine, just to show the silliness of these self-denial ideals.

I like how it says, "The hand must not touch or take anything that does not belong to it." I mean, sure, that's a good rule. But am I crazy or does it seem to imply that only during Ramadan must this be observed? Seriously, what is the difference between Ramadan and the rest of the Islamic year? Isn't all this shit already illegal in Muslim law 24/7? Aren't 95% of these things to be observed by devout Muslims all year long anyway? Oh, but during Ramadan it's different, because they include orgasms and food in the pile of "haram" actions! Give me a break.

I propose a new campaign of anti-Ramadan awareness. I think it's something that all atheists, and maybe even some liberal Christians, can get behind. I call it "Orgasms for Ramadan!" and the rules are simple. During the month of Ramadan, have lots of orgasms as is conveniently possible. Have lots of sex with your spouse, or with your toys, or with yourself. Just be sure to climax, and if you get a chance, think of Allah and/or Mohammed when you do so. I would have suggested thinking of Iranian Supreme Kommandant and Chancellor Sayyid Ali Khameini, but that dude is ugly and will probably interfere with your ability to climax. I know it would interfere with mine!

And that's it! You don't need to do anything else, although if you have the guts you could brag on your blog or something about how Ramadan is the most sexually active month for you. That's what I love most about this new Orgasms for Ramadan campaign, because everybody is a winner! Except, of course, for Allah.

Paul Manata: Babies are Born Guilty and We are all Slaves

It takes an evil sort to believe that newborn babies are sinful and deserving of death, but that's exactly what Paul Manata believes!

I believe babies sin immediately...

I've actually encountered many Christians who have expressed this kind of view. I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic who has expressed anything so condemning of something so clearly innocent.

Later in the thread, Paul Manata confuses the concept of self-ownership with the concept of God owning everyone and everything in his poor attempt to justify original sin:

Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences. I vote in, say, Bush. He invokes laws. My son may suffer for some. But he's not old enough to vote, you say! Doesn't matter. He was chosen for him. God chose for us. He made the best choice. His choice was infallible. His choice was perfect. Adam was the best representative we could have. He stood in for you. He was chosen to be your representative, just like, say, Duncan Hunter was chosen to be my son's representative, even though my son didn't vote.

...

I bet you'd gladly accept a million dollar inheritance from your grandfather, even though you did nothing to deserve the money, and you didn't choose him to be your grandfather. Same with Adam. We could have inherited the blessings and no one would have complained. But we inherit the sin, and we whine and moan. Thus it's us who are irrational (irrationality is a consequence of sin) and not my argument.

Emphasis Paul's. Now, can you spot the error?

In first scenario, God chooses Adam to represent everybody. Which means that before Adam represented everyone, it was God that represented them. Everyone belonged to God, and then by decree they belonged to Adam (even though they weren't born yet!). Adam fucked up, and then God makes every person suffer because they were owned or represented by Adam.

In the second scenario, a person accepts a million dollars that he didn't earn. But notice that it was him who chose to accept it, which implies self-representation. A person is free to choose whether he wants to accept the million dollars because he represents himself, but in the first scenario, a person was not free to choose because he was represented by God or Adam, and never himself.

Paul Manata wholly denies self-ownership as a foundation, and then tries to assign consequences to all of humanity for something that someone else did. All the while, every human on Earth is a permanent slave; enslaved to God, then to Adam, and suffering the consequences of their master's actions.

Paul then tries to make an analogy, but by using a comparative example where self-ownership is in play! It is easy to see how they don't equate. In the Adam scenario, we have no choice but to inherit the fruits of Adam's actions, whether they be sinful consequences or holy blessings; it's not our choice to make! Yet in the second analogy, the person is free to accept or reject the offerings of the older relative (in this case one million dollars). In the second analogy, it is his choice to make!

In the first situation there no choice for the individual; no self-directed action or responsibility is possible. But in the second situation, there is nothing but complete self-directed choice. In the second situation, the consequences can clearly be assigned to the person in question, for he was able to use his consent and choice through self-representation or self-ownership.

These two scenarios are simply not analogous, because the fundamental component, representation/ownership of action, is different between the two scenarios to a mutually exclusive degree.

I wonder if Paul Manata could ever provide a real-world analogy that would properly fit the original sin problem? I doubt that any Christian could.

Either you start with self-ownership or you don't. In the real world, you do, but in the Bible, you don't. Since self-ownership and other-ownership are mutually exclusive, no proper analogy is possible.

The concept of original sin is in an illogic and immoral category all it's own.

My Cloudy Saturday Afternoon

Answers in Fear Mongering

Today I stopped by Answers in Genesis, a Christian creationist website. Their main banner/graphic immediately caught my attention. It is a disturbing black and white image of a man in a wife beater shirt, holding a revolver at the camera. The camera's focus is deliberately set to focus on the gun and blur the man holding it. This of course makes the revolver display quite prominently in the foreground.

The caption to the AiG image says, "If you don't matter to God, you don't matter to anyone."

Emphasis theirs.

AiG is clearly using fear mongering tactics to try to scare people into believing the Bible and having faith in Jesus Christ. So much for the Christian claims that Hell and/or punishment is not a prime motivator in accepting the Lord.

This is immoral, anti-human, and anti-life fear mongering. These Christians are projecting their fears and insecurities onto others. But one must wonder, are they really that stupid? Did some Christian marketing or art director seriously think to himself that making a revolver advertisement that belongs on the cover of a gang-banger movie will somehow do great things for the Christian image?

These people don't seem to know how they come off. Worshipping a torture device is good to them. Christians actually consider the wanton destruction of the allegedly most innocent being ever to exist to be the greatest event to ever occur in the history of man! Holy shit, are these people backwards.

Looks like we all have to convert to Christianity now, or else some gang-banger is going to cap our asses because we don't matter to his God. Yeah right.

Fuck you, Answers in Genesis. Fuck your veiled threats. And most importantly, fuck your sadistic, incestuous, and death-obsessed Bible.

So without further ado, here is a screen shot of AiG's efforts to spread the love of Christ:

Sewing A Sow's Ear: Bethrick Critiques Frame on Van Til

Dawson Bethrick brings a devastating criticism against John Frame's apology of Van Til's "One-Many Argument." From his concluding remarks:

Van Til's "solution" brings us no closer to an understanding of how the human mind forms concepts than if presuppositionalists simply took a vow of silence. Indeed, a genuine understanding of how the mind works is not something they want men to have. On the contrary, so long as their minds remain mysterious to themselves, men will be in a better position to be seduced and controlled by those who seek to catch them in their nets. Van Til's "solution" calls for "trusting" in an invisible magic being, precisely because it offers no enlightenment to begin with. Those who are enlightened do not need to put their trust blindly in the hands of an invisible magic being which refuses to show itself, hold a rational dialogue with those who are supposed to be willing to sacrifice their very lives for it, or simply allow human beings to live for their own sake. Van Til's "solution" requires us to accept religious sloganeering in place of critical thought. It is not intended to be understood, it is intended to be accepted unquestioningly.

The original article can be found here.

Question of the Day #66: The Gospel of Richard

Richard Dawkins has famously said that evolution "'made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist." What do you think of this statement? Do you agree? Does it logically imply that it is not possible to be "an intellectually satisfied atheist" without evolution? If not, what does it imply?