Obama is amazing. We worship him.

Blame Republicans

'Bama

Fun

The Postmodern Christian Claim: All Truth is Subjective Except for My Objective Truth

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. --Karl Popper

Although I’ve been busier than usual with my new job, I have taken time to engage a few Christians in dialogue. What’s different about the latest batch of religious apologists is their willingness to reject all we know about reality in attempts to justify their absurd beliefs.

When backed into a corner rhetorically, many moderately-educated or well-read Christians resort to postmodern responses to basic questioning of their position. I’ve encountered this on more than one occasion. When confronted with a demand for evidence, they question whether our most basic methods of verifying or falsifying evidence are legitimate. This particular approach is formally known as postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a criticism of the notion that there can be objective knowledge of the real world. Over time it has seeped into almost all areas of academia including social science and theology.

Verification and falsification are basic animal instincts. We observe an object or event and question, “Is it true or false?” There are many ways to verify or falsify. Many come naturally—while others are learned. One way we can validate our personal observations is with corroboration. “Did you just see what I saw?” “Did you hear that, too?” We ask these questions to make sure we’re not just seeing or hearing something that isn’t actually there. Often times, when there's a foreign noise, my dog will look in the direction of the noise, then look at me to see my reaction. This is a most basic and common activity for animals and humans. Verification is how courts, law enforcement, academia, and all areas dealing with truth claims get at the truth. We use verification methods in everyday life whether searching for someone, price-shopping products or services, flipping news stations when big events happen, or listening to presidential candidates speak of their accomplishments. To deny this is how the world works is to live as an imbecile.

When confronted with a past event or something not readily observable, we depend on multiple sources of evidence. For instance, we can know with relative certainty that the Holocaust occurred, because of historical evidence, German and Allied state documents, both Nazi and Allied witnesses, and other information support the survivors’ claims. These multiple, independent sources corroborate the story. The validity of the story will vary based on the amount of evidence we have. The more independent witnesses and the more evidence we have supporting the claim, the more true we can say it is. The less corroborating evidence we have we can safely say it probably didn’t happen.

When a Christian is confronted with demands for evidence equal to that of the Holocaust, they realize their so-called evidence falls short. They cannot present corroborating contemporary, extra-Biblical sources for supernatural claims or even basic historical data to validate foundational events such as the supposed census during the time of Jesus' birth. There are no documents to support these claims outside the Gospels. For events that large during that era, we would assume there would be plenty of corroborating evidence. Since there is nothing to be found as of yet, we can assume the census and supernatural claims were made-up. When evidence is found, we can examine it, determine the validity of that particular claim, and maybe alter our assumptions. Verification is critical, because it helps us weed out baseless claims and get at the truth as best we can.

Pseudo-intellectual Christians understand that lack of evidence is a problem for their position, but rather than address it honestly, they resort to the red herring of focusing on method rather than substance. They question whether verification/falsification is valid for determining the validity of a statement and are incapable of providing an alternative method for determining truth. This does not bolster their claims and only serves to make them appear silly.

That’s not to say that because something cannot be verified it didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. We just need to rigorously examine whether it is or isn't true before we can make a determination. If it cannot be solidly decided in either direction, we should reserve judgment until there is ample evidence. Because the foundational Christian claims regarding their god, supernatural events, and their religion cannot be determined due to very poor evidence or no evidence at all, I reject their claims as baseless and without merit. If a Christian (or any religious person) makes a claim that is outside our basic understanding of the world and reality, they MUST provide multiple sources of verifiable evidence. There is no alternative. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The State is my Shepherd

“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society.”--Hugo Chávez, Socialist dictator of Venezuela

Indoctrination comes in many forms, but religious indoctrination is certainly the most effective. In recent history, Socialism, the economic system and political philosophy, sought to replace Christianity with its government-based worldview. Vladimir Lenin, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution deliberately set out to recruit Christians into his political party in order to educate them in the spirit of the Socialist programs. He knew they were susceptible to indoctrination. Ludwig Feuerbach, a predecessor to Marxism/Socialism, advocated combating religion in order to renovate it and to invent a new, ‘exalted’ religion. I call this new religion the cult of government.

In the West, Socialist dogma is presented as an alternative to Christianity. The similarities between Christianity and Socialism make this possible. Socialist thought is rooted in Christianity. Karl Marx, the father of Marxism/Socialism, was deeply impacted by religion. Although Marx’s father was Jewish, the family became Christian when Marx was young. Judeo-Christian concepts were instilled at an early age. In one school essay, a young Marx reveals his early Christian indoctrination and his solidarity with the oppressed by writing, “Who should not gladly endure sorrows, when he knows that through his continuing in Christ, through his works God is honored?”

As a young man, Marx was introduced to the work of Friedrich Hegel, who he cited consistently
throughout his life. Marx was part of the Young Hegelians, a group of influential leftists who promoted their particular interpretation of Hegel’s work. Because of his religious upbringing, there is no doubt Marx was drawn to the Hegel’s use of Christian vocabulary.

Hegel concentrates on the sinful aspects of man’s condition. He cites the Christian apostle Paul who spoke of humankind being alienated in their thinking because of sin and ultimate redemption through Jesus. Marx saw the oppressed as needing salvation from the evil capitalists just as Jesus and Paul voiced the need for salvation from this world of sin. Both offered a plan of redemption—one though the State and the other through vicarious redemption.

While Marx ultimately distinguished himself from Hegel in many ways, the foundation of his dialectical materialism and other concepts are rooted in Hegel’s concepts, which were laden with rich Christian concepts of oppression, alienation, submission, and redemption. Hegel’s Master-Serf dialectic mixed with Marx’s inherited Christian empathy for the oppressed assembled a foundation from which the Marxist concept of class struggle was built.

Socialists see humankind as corrupt and in need of guidance through laws and regulations while Christianity sees humans as alienated from the supernatural realm and in need of “spiritual” guidance. Both attempt to legislate morality according to their precepts and standards. Just as religion uses threat of a torturous afterlife as a deterrent from its moral standards, many Marxist or left-leaning governments dictate morality through threats of imprisonment, bans and Pigovian or “sin” taxes. The idea of a sin tax is to place an excessive tax on a product or service as a means to deter their use. In many communist countries, pornography is entirely outlawed. In the United States, a progressively democratic-socialist state, there are numerous sin taxes, such as the excessive tax on cigarettes and environmental laws. In recent years, the US has instituted countless new sin taxes and proposes countless others—such as “fat” taxes on fattening food and carbon taxes on companies to reduce pollution. This cult of government, as religion, seeks to shape the morals of its citizens to conform to State-sanctioned morality through taxes and bans.

Christianity and Marxism/Socialism are nearly identical. The only glaring difference is one
postulates a supernatural utopia and the other an earthly one. Both must manipulate and control their adherents to achieve their utopias. Human freedom must be suppressed—whether it’s through new laws and regulations, through an unfeasible religious moral code or through fear and intimidation. Each has setup elite groups to facilitate the methodical overthrow of individual freedom and replace it with a collective morality, which leads to tyrannical behavior by the
leadership in the end.

In his essay “Two Concepts of Liberty”, the great 20^th philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin describes how governments seek to control its citizens as children and how they ultimately fall into tyranny and dictatorship, thus destroying freedom and brutalizing its individuals. This has been demonstrated throughout history with the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, the Crusades, the Taliban, and other Islamic governments. He states facetiously about the British Empire in an interview, “Human beings are children. We must first herd them together, create certain institutions, make them obey orders, and we hope later they will see how well we’ve done for them.... It always leads to bad consequences in the end.”

Marx, Hegel, and Feuerbach understood the value of Christian indoctrination. Christianity emphasizes empathy toward the poor and downtrodden. It teaches people to be dependent. They play on fears and demonize individualism. Marxists/Socialists have seized these doctrines and incorporated them into their dogma. They view us as children and the goal is a massive nanny state, whose ultimate end is totalitarianism and tyranny.

A freethinker opposes both religion AND socialism.

Occupiers complaining about tuition costs

According to my calculations, the top 1% of universities in the US are sitting on over $230 billion in endowments. The total amount of all endowments is astronomical. Why are idiot students complaining about Wall St. when they should be complaining directly to the schools? This shows the idiocy of the movement.

The Usual Suspects

Several people have asked my opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests and I feel it’s time to articulate my thoughts in a meaningful way. My initial reaction was based on past observations of similar movements and, honestly, stereotypes. Sure, I have a tendency—as all people do—to make rash judgments where hackneyed folk are involved (i.e. dirty hippies, smelly anarchists, etc.).

At first, I was unimpressed with what I saw. It was just another gathering of 20-somethings and hippie-rejects looking for an opportunity to lash-out at their wealthy parents for not “being there” when they were children, for not buying the car they wanted at 16, or for not sending them their first college of choice. It’s easy to assume these people are just looking for the next trendy social movement so they can feel part of something bigger than their tiny, enclosed world of iPads and Gears of War. It’s understandable. I was a rebellious 20-something myself once. It’s too easy to make these assumptions when the usual suspects are involved.

It’s tempting to think this entire movement is manufactured and orchestrated from plush conference rooms of organized labor and other special interest groups. It’s tempting to think the left-leaning groups supporting the protests are hoping for violence so they can swoop in to save the day and protect us from evil corporations. It’s easy to classify these protests as left-leaning events when Cornel West, Van Jones, Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, unions, socialist groups, and others are praising it.

It is too easy to point out that these same people were silent when the bail-outs were distributed in 2008 and 2009. It’s easy to point out that these same people were silent when Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were making fraudulent loans to families who couldn’t afford the mortgage notes. It’s easy to point out that in interview after interview the protesters are having difficulty articulating a clear and concise purpose and solution. It’s easy to think the protesters are provoking the police in hopes of capturing brutality on their iPhones to broadcast instantly across the world and cry foul. I won’t spend any more time stating the obvious.

Many average folks are unwittingly taking to the web to show solidarity. The sense of entitlement coming from these average Joes and Janes is what irks me most. Many of the “99%” are posting pictures of themselves stating their education level or qualifications followed by “I am the 99%.” For example, one I saw this morning stated, “I served in the US Army. Served 16 months in Iraq. Now I deliver pizza. I am the 99%.” Did he expect to come back from Iraq and have a cushy office job?

The only message I’ve been able to glean from the entire event is “Hate Wall Street.” That’s all fine and good. Now, what do you intend to DO about Wall Street between tokes of marijuana? Is this an “awareness” campaign, photo-op, or a precursor to revolution? Revolutions have agendas and goals—not vaguely worded “demands”.

The protesters are demanding free education for all and a $20 per hour minimum wage among other things. Education and jobs are privileges and not rights. Rights are inherent and do not require the infringement on others (Read: excess taxes) to institute. Rights are inherent and not granted by an all-powerful State. Privileges are perks.

Needless to say, I’m still unimpressed with the protests. Do these protesters think “change” will magically occur like everything else in their cushy lives? Do they think sitting around in one spot for an extended period of time accomplishes anything other making them look like lazy, trust-fund babies? I don’t exactly understand what the protesters are hoping to accomplish other than bitching and moaning and I don’t think they do either.

Hey, protesters, if I'm wrong, show me.

My prediction regarding the Rapture

Mark my words: It will never happen. You, Christians, will be waiting and waiting for nothing. It will not happen May 21, 2011, and it will never happen. When you are on your death bed, remember my words: it won't happen.

What it would take for me to believe in your god

I want to see him heal a retarded person right before my eyes.

Jesus was Evil

Jesus was one of the most evil characters in religious fiction. Today, his followers take pride in presenting him as a loving, caring, mild-mannered desert magician/redeemer, but in reality he was cruel and vengeful. He is the first to mention “hell” in the Bible (Matthew 5:22, Mark 9:43, Mar 9:43-44, Mark 9:45). The context is always the same—it’s a consequence for not abiding by his/God’s commands. The threat is used to influence behavior and this makes him cruel and evil in my opinion. He does not love unconditionally as he is portrayed. His daddy/he establishes an unrealistic set of rules and then threatens to cast us to hellfire for eternal torture if we do not abide them. This is the epitome of love with condition.

Latest video from BioLogos