Click here to view the embedded video.

Not many people–including Christians–would disagree that this preacher, Jack Schapp, is a sexist, woman-hating, ignorant schmuck. As expected (to me, anyway), he is a pastor in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement of which I am fairly familiar, having family members who attend such churches and having visited a few myself.

But beyond his personal viewpoints, I have a question for you, reader:

Does the religion make the person or does the person make the religion?

It’s a question of which came first: the chicken or the egg.

Do you think people choose their religions, denominations, and churches based on who they already are? It seems to me that those with misogynistic beliefs will favor a theology that undercuts the value of women. Likewise, a person who is kind and loving and sees the worth in other people will likely choose a theology that favors ultimate reconciliation and no hell or punishment for differences in belief, sexuality, and so forth.

I’m unconvinced that it is solely a religion or denomination’s fault that people kill each other, persecute other faiths, and teach abhorrent beliefs about the value of humanity. We can blame much of that on religion simply because it’s an organized, financed, public outlet for such opinions, but in the end, the fault lies with each one of us who is bigoted, hateful, or unloving, doesn’t it?

What do you think?

Related: The “Good News” is a protection racket.

graphic by James Ellis

I follow the hashtag #atheism on twitter in order to keep abreast on what people are saying about religion and other controversial subjects. Often the content contains thoughtful discussion or bits of news that interests me, but much of it resembles typical “zinger” one-liner material: pithy 140-character messages that resemble confrontational bumper stickers instead of well-balanced arguments against religion. Yeah, I’ve done it too. I admit it! Twitter is the safe-haven of the verbal jab.

I spotted one such “zinger” today:

FlyingFree333

(Flying Free)

Without faith there could be no genocide, no racism, no bigotry; faith breeds evil. #christian #jesus #bible #god #atheism #islam #muslim

On 29-4-2011 13:30:22 from Twaitter

I’ve certainly heard this hyperbolic argument before, and as an atheist I do not agree. I realize you cannot easily present a reasoned argument for an enormous claim like this on twitter, but even if there were paragraphs of explanation behind it I’m not sure I would ever be convinced that the sole reason for racism, bigotry, and genocide is faith. To avoid an argument about vocabulary; “faith,” could easily be replaced by “religion.”

I am far from being an expert, but I think there are sociological, psychological, and economic causes unrelated to religion that cause these problems in the world. Religion is certainly used to justify many horrible actions such as genocide (e.g. Deuteronomy 20:16-18) and slavery (e.g. the Curse of Ham). However, I do not think all religions or faiths bring about these results, nor do I think ruling out other causes for the evil in the world is wise.

I’d really like to have a discussion about this claim. Is faith the cause of genocide, racism, and bigotry?

And as a side question: What do you think about these kinds of pithy statements on twitter? Do you think they help anything or perhaps give atheists a bad name?

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

– Douglas Adams from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” – 1979

An article on ChristianityToday.com asks the question: Why are there still atheists? “Still” is in reference to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19:1 (as well as Creationists—young- and old-earth alike) that declare God has made it plain that he exists through the things he has made. The author, Shawn Graves, argues that the lives Christians lead and their own words must also be the illustration of proof that God is real.

I am relieved that Graves (more so than Jim Spiegel in a previous piece for the same website) acknowledges respectfully that atheists have rational, evidence-based objections against the Hebrew god Yahweh.

Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism.

… Surely some people accept atheism due in part to such powerful motivational factors. For some atheists, it’s not merely a matter of evidence. Yet, as Spiegel grants, these motivational explanations don’t hold for all atheists. Consider some of the personal essays found in Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, edited by Louise Antony. Some testify that their move from theism to atheism came at tremendous personal cost and required significant, and painful, existential reorientation. A few even express a deep longing for Christian spirituality. Apparently, these philosophers had plenty of strong psychological motivation to retain or embrace theism. Yet they didn’t. Their atheism really did seem to be a matter of evidence and argument.

Yes! Someone gets it. I, for example, was extremely happy and content with Christianity. It had never done me wrong, and I benefited from it. As I’ve said before, I left theism kicking and screaming. I was horrified by the idea that I had been mistaken all my life, and that there really wasn’t a great and magic solution to suffering or evil.

I’m intrigued by the humility in this conclusion:

We should acknowledge that we have our own powerful non-rational motivations for belief. We ought to confess that our religious proclamations haven’t been as clear and compelling as the heavens and the skies in proclaiming “the glory of God and the work of his hands,” that our lives haven’t “made it plain” that God exists. We need to grant that our God is a God who sometimes hides and is silent. Finally, we need to concede that all of this does make a genuine evidential difference for plenty of atheists. Maybe that helps to explain why there are atheists.

Do you think Graves ever answers the question about why there are still atheists? Do you think it’s up to theists to fix this, or are they still incorrectly assuming that what keeps us atheists from belief is a lacking in humanity (namely pride, sin, etc.) and not because there truly is a lack of evidence?

Backstory

Hebrew patriarch Jacob gets tricked into marrying his cousin, Leah, when he actually wanted to marry her sister Rachel. The girls become the original “sister wives.” Jacob also marries two of their servants so he can spawn more babies. Out of this, he gains 12 sons (the tribes of Israel) and a daughter named Dinah.

WTF? Genesis 34

TL;DR Dinah gets raped. Dicks are trimmed, men murdered, and families are enslaved.

This is fucked up, and the cat knows it.

Dinah is taking a tip to visit her girlfriends. The local ruler’s son Shechem thinks she’s smokin’ hot so he—of course—rapes her. I guess he had a good time, because he falls in love with her. The writer doesn’t give a damn about Dinah from here on out.

Shechem’s father Hamor asks Dinah’s  father Jacob to let Shechem marry the girl he assaulted (remember, rape is okay in the Bible as long as you marry the girl after! See Deuteronomy 22:28-29). During the meeting, Dinah’s brothers come back from the fields and go apeshit about their little sister’s  rape. Shechem says “Oops, my bad” and tells them he’ll do absolutely anything to marry this chick.

Hamor and Shechem offer to trade their own women to Jacob’s family for intermarriage as bargaining chips. They just have to purchase Dinah. Women are property. This girl must have some skills.

Dinah’s brothers are—understandably—really fucking angry about their sister’s rape. For revenge, they screw around with Hamor, demanding that every man in his town gets the tip of his penis cut off. You heard right—foreskins for a chick. For some demented reason, Hamor and Shechem agree to the deal and go order everyone to get circumcised. Poor blokes.

Three days later while all those penises are still sore (I love that this fact is included in the text, by the way), Jacob’s sons attack the town and murder every single male! KABLAMMO! They loot the place, snatching the herds and capturing all the women and children (who I’m sure were so thrilled that their family members were just murdered right in front of them!).

Jacob gets pissed because his sons make his social life more difficult.

THE END

Who is more fucked up in this story? Everyone except Dinah seems like a complete brutish arse. Read this to your kids at night and see what kinds of dreams they have.

And did God prove himself to be true by giving the family a book publishing deal?

Judge for yourself.

Over time his visions became more believable.  He described Jesus, and he even talked about Armageddon and how God told him his father would fight in the final battle.  Although Todd was a pastor, he says he never talked detail like this with his preschool aged son.

How interesting that the visions this boy saw are exactly like the phrases used in the Bible. I don’t think that means the Bible is true; I think it means that a pastor’s son who was raised in Biblical teaching and who heard his father preach may have known about “streets of gold” and “Armageddon” before magically seeing them during a hospital stay. I’m not even sure a child would use phrases like “streets of gold” without hearing it before. Who says “streets of asphalt?”

What do you think?

Here is an example of the way anything—no matter how innocent or commonplace—can be manipulated to fit a conspiracy theory:

Oh shit! Sesame Street is hinting at the end of the world! They’re preparing for disaster! JESUS!

In case you’re curious, here’s what was actually broadcast:

The public service announcement was sponsored by FEMA‘s site ready.gov.

Ready Kids is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Ready campaign, a national public service advertising campaign designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to natural disasters, potential terrorist attacks and other emergencies. The Ready Kids web site features age-appropriate, step-by-step instructions on what families can do to be better prepared and the role kids can play in this effort. Ready Kids was developed in consultation with:

• American Psychological Association
• American Red Cross
• National Association of Elementary School Principals
• National Association of School Psychologists
• National Center for Child Traumatic Stress
• National PTA
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Obviously, the effort to educate families means a natural disaster is coming that all of these government agencies know about in advance. Clearly Satan is at work in the world and Jesus will return soon to rule and judge us all.

rAmen!

(hat tip Trace)

I can take that vacation now!

What you’ll hear: an interview on Way of The Master Radio with Todd Friel interviewing an ex faith pentecostal faith-healer, Mark Haville. They discuss how “being slain in the spirit,” faith healing, and revival services are a sham. The irony is that the same arguments about emotional manipulation, pastor preaching styles, and it all being in the person’s brain still work for fundamentalist anti-pentecostal Christianity. Maybe they’ll realize this one day.

Your thoughts?

Good ol’ Bible literalist John Shimkus (R-IL) is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He’s an evangelical Republican who also sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This committee has jurisdiction over a large portion of legislation, such as public health, biomedical research, travel and tourism, national environmental policy, alternative energy, and conservation. That sure is a lot of power, wouldn’t you say?

So whats the problem with Shimkus being on the committee? Let’s see what he thinks about preserving the environment:

During a hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of the scientific community by quoting the Bible. He uses God’s promise to Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) [as proof.]

“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.

Oh goody, someone who thinks the flood was literal and pretty rainbows mean climate change is a lie.

He then uses Matthew 24:31 (which has nothing at all to do with the environment) to defend a position that:

“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” Shimkus asserted. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

(source)

Shouldn’t there be a requirement for learned people who actually know an industry—or at least (dare I say it) science—to lead the major committees in the House? Pretty please with intelligence on top?

Oh gee, it reminds me of this: