“Love the sinner, hate the sin” is bullcrap. To even get this to work you have to either stretch the meaning of “love” way past its breaking point, or the kind of love you apply has to be a mindless impersonal affection that you spray randomly in all directions. It’s meaningless to me to “love a stranger” and it’s insane to love someone you think is doing something evil. It’s the kind of doublethink and cognitive dissonance that religion demands of people. “You do evil things and I don’t even know you, but I love you anyways because my imaginary mind-reading dictator demands that I do so!” I have my doubts how close anyone really comes to actually feeling love for everyone just because they will themselves to.

That said, I think religion is a very bad thing, but I’ve met many religious people that I thought were very good people. How can I reconcile this in my mind? How is “like the religious person, dislike the religion” different from “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

The way I justify this to myself is to say that most religious people aren’t that religious. Most religious people are hypocrites; they don’t really live by the precepts of their religions; they don’t really even try. And hypocrisy in general isn’t the worst trait in the world, and in fact in this sense is probably a good thing; if they claim to believe something bad but don’t actually believe it, good.

The people who really ARE religious, e.g. the ones pushing creationism in schools and killing their children for god, those are the people I do really think are horrible people. No matter how friendly or otherwise good you are, I don’t know if I could tolerate you if you think gay people deserve eternal hellfire and women are property of men because Jesus said so, and go about trying to make the rest of the world behave according to those kinds of horrible rules.

But this seems flimsy and borderline No True Scotsman fallacy. (Is it still a fallacy if I tell it to myself?) Discuss.

This rant was originally written by Lazy Hobo Brian. It is faithfully reproduced here by his underappreciated slave monkey.

God decided to blog about stuff he hates. The list is getting quite extensive. The latest one: God hates Sex and the City.

I tell you mortals, it’s dreadful shows like this that make being omnipresent truly unbearable. I, The Lord GOD Almighty, have had no choice but to watch every last fucking episode and repeat of Sex and the City shown on TV for the last ten fucking years. Not only that, I’ve also had to watch every stupid fucking cunt alive watch this stupid fucking show and love every stupid fucking minute of it. Just one more reason I utterly despise women.

Another good recent one is God hates questions.

Don’t get Me wrong, I don’t hate all questions, per se. There are good questions and bad questions. Good questions are ones like: “What have I done for God lately?” or “How can I be a better slave for God?”

People ask Me infuriating questions like: “Hey God, how can free will be real if you’re all-knowing?” BECAUSE! Just because, ok?! They both exist at the same time. Just accept it and have some faith fuck-face!

It is a good read. It’s an interesting look at what an omniscient being would REALLY be thinking if he had to follow the Bible and put up with humans.

Because I’m a masochist, I occasionally check sites like FSTDT and Ray Comfort’s blog, sometimes just to look for stuff to write about. Well today I came across this blog entry where Ray questions scientists’ ability to know the age of the earth. It hurt my brain.

Just over one hundred years ago, [scientists] thought that it was about 100 million years old. Soon after, they changed their minds and came to the confident belief that the correct number was 500 million years. [etc.] Of course, now they think that it may be 4.55 billion, give or take a billion years.

I’m sure that contemporary scientists think they have the right number this time, until they change their minds again when more data comes along … and, of course, none of the “faithful” will question it.

So because scientific understanding has changed in the past century, scientists can’t be trusted? This represents an extremely flawed few of science. Of course scientific understanding changes; someones individual understanding changes many many times about pretty much everything, just in the course of his lifetime; it stands to reason that scientific understanding in its many fields, with its thousands of scientists working and researching daily, should develop much faster. That religion (supposedly) doesn’t change is not something that should be praised, but condemned. Our understanding and knowledge should change from people 2000 years ago. But of course religion actually does change, a lot, even from person-to-person, as was discussed in this entry. There’s also the distasteful misconception of people who actually accept conclusions based on good science as the “faithful,” implying that we have no reason to believe what we do. That statement is too blatantly false to even warrant refuting.

Another common misunderstanding which makes me grate my teeth in agony is the horrible misuse of the word “theory” when it comes to science. This just in: a scientific theory is NOT a theory in the laymen sense, and has a completely different standard. A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation of an observable phenomenon which is supported by piles and piles of evidence and research. That definition includes four standards (falsifiable, explanatory power, observable, supporting evidence) that crap like Intelligent Design doesn’t come close to meeting, but actual scientific theories like, say, the theory of evolution, meets conclusively.

Now, a misunderstanding of biology and scientific terms is forgiveable, and is even expected for many people. That’s fine; not everyone goes to college science classes and public high schools are often not the best place to learn about evolution (or anything else), at least not in the United States. However, I have explained this and witnessed it explained thoroughly many times to many different creationists, and I have yet to see one accept any of it. I’m sure some have, but I have yet to see it, even when presented with all simple explanations. That is not forgiveable.

My only explanation for the consistency of this is that scientific research promotes basing conclusions only on evidence, which requires constant analyzation of facts and even change. Contrary to that, religion often promotes stagnation of knowledge: don’t learn, accept; don’t question, believe. At least where scientific/human understanding is concerned. Science questions the Bible’s (and therefore God’s) view of the world, and that can’t be allowed. If what we see is all there is, then what they have based their entire worldview on is a lie. I can understand how that is difficult to accept, but what I can’t understand is the complete refusal by many creationists to even consider the possibility, despite all of the evidence pointing in one direction.

I think the most disturbing aspect of religious nutjobs is the willful ignorance they espouse and even promote.

Exodus 20:24-26:

24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Translation: When you build an altar upon which to slaughter your sheep and burn their guts, don’t put steps on it, because someone might look up your skirt.

A “one of a kind relic” french fry cross is for sale on ebay.

From the item description:

I ate lunch at Burger King (10th & Mulvane St, Topeka, KS) today. I almost ate this, but then recognized it as the most important symbol of history. I have seven different witnesses , plus cell phone video of me turning down an in-store interview request from Phillip Anderson, Topeka Capitol-Journal journalist and photographer. I turned it down because I want to remain anonymous.

ALL proceeds from this auction will be given given to one organization that will help the following five global problems, as spelled out by Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church and author of Purpose Driven Life, during his Davos Question session.

Five Global Problems on the Planet
1. extreme poverty
2. pandemic diseases
3. illiteracy
4. corruption
5. spiritual emptiness

Current bid is $1.40, with four bids. I’m sure that will do a lot to cure my spiritual emptiness.

Auction still has a few days to go. I’ll update with the results.

Update: The cross sold for $3 US with 7 bids.

Jesus on the cross now appears on french fries. (video)

This woman claims the body of Jesus appears on two french fries stuck together in the shape of a cross. She obviously couldn’t be making stuff up… but if the part the video zoomed in on is Jesus, then God is a mermaid, because I see a tail. Maybe a seahorse!

Female circumcision is a topic I can hardly bring myself to read. So let’s talk male circumcision. This is going to be somewhat disgusting, you’ve been warned.

Circumcision is part of the covenant between Hebrews and Yahweh. Circumcising your boys is a way to show that a Hebrew promised to worship God, and he in turn promised the Hebrew to make his people a large nation and give them land etc.

Circumcision was also used in ancient history as a practical and convenient way to identify yourself or a stranger as a Jew. People wore loose tunics and robes back then. You could simply hike up your skirts and prove once and for all whether you were friend or foe.

My favorite professor in college had an interesting theory for some of the other purposes of circumcision. Some tribal cultures in Africa are very similar in many ways to the kind of society depicted in the Hebrew scriptures. These modern primitive people are a sort of window into what life was probably like in ancient Hebrew society. They are similar in terms of dietary and sexual taboos, inter-tribal warfare, magic rituals and methods of communicating with their gods, pre-war incantations and sympathetic magic, and interestingly in the area of circumcision.

In some cultures in Africa, circumcision is a rite of passage for a man. It’s part of a boy being officially recognized as a man and a warrior. For this reason circumcision often takes place among adults rather than young boys. It’s done without painkillers, the pain being an important part of the process. And apparently it’s one of the most painful things a man can endure. Especially the way some people do it. In some cultures, first they chop off the foreskin with a dull instrument, then sprinkle the wound with the powdered foreskins of previous warriors, and then wrap the mess up real tight with a leaf or a rag. It very quickly becomes infected and festers, often resulting in much more of the tissue sloughing off. It sometimes takes weeks or months to heal. Other justifications include the ever-popular “purity” and “cleanliness” concern, or magic good luck powers it grants the victim, or increased manliness.

Today I read about a fascinating practice called peri’ah metsitsah. Google it if you like. This practice is part of the traditional method of Jewish circumcision. After hacking off the foreskin, the mohel (guy who circumcises people) is supposed to suck the blood and foreskin off the baby’s penis into his mouth, and spit the mess out. Mmmmm. This is an ancient practice and most Jews don’t do this any more. (Oops, except this guy who did it in New York in 2005 and happened to give the babies herpes and killed them. Praise Yahweh.)

Here’s some vocabulary to impress your friends with: epispasm. Epispasm is reverse circumcision, restoring the foreskin of someone who’s already been circumcised. In somewhat-less-ancient Judea, some Jews went about restoring their foreskins because they wanted to participate in Greek culture, where nudity was often required and where exposure of the glans was considered obscene. I’m unsure how this was done, I believe there were surgeries, but I don’t imagine it was pleasant.

Have you ever watched a baby be circumcised in a modern-day medical procedure? I have. It was horrific. They tie the baby’s arms and legs down in a special chair, clamp off the foreskin with a horrid metal torture device, and hack-scrape the foreskin right off in a circle with a scalpel. I’ve read studies indicating that circumcision causes extreme pain to infants. You may say “duh” but there was debate until very recently (as in, the 1980’s) whether babies even feel pain the same way adults do and whether painkillers should be used. Some studies at least indicate that they do indeed feel intense pain, and circumcising a baby without anesthetic can sometimes cause a baby to stop breathing almost to the point of death, not to mention the trauma of living with the wound afterwards. Apparently a good many doctors today still don’t use any painkillers.

Among the “civilized” world, surprise surprise, the US is one of the biggest circumcising nations. Many / most other nations seem to have given up the practice, if they ever embraced it to begin with.

If I needed just one reason to oppose religion or religion-like superstitious ignorance, circumcision would do. I don’t care whether insane adults want to do it to themselves, but the fact that it’s done to children against their will or their consent is barbaric.

Here’s a story that became an instant-classic when it happened a few months ago - because it is a classic example of the disturbing and rather depressing consequences of the nature of religious superstition. In India back in February, a rumor was somehow started that an image of Mary would appear if you looked into the sun. Well, you can guess what happens next: at least fifty people lost their sight.

At least 50 people in Kottayam district have reportedly lost their vision after gazing at the sun looking for an image of Virgin Mary.

Though alarmed health authorities have installed a signboard to counter the rumour that a solar image of Virgin Mary appeared to the believers, curious onlookers, including foreign travellers, have been thronging the venue of the ‘miracle’.

There are quite a few people still seeking the miracle, despite the experiences of their unfortunate predecessors and strict health warnings against gazing at the sun with the naked eye.

The hospital reported having patients as young as 12 coming in with loss-of-vision problems. The good news is that according to the doctors, most of them will regain at least some of their vision. The bad news is that so many people actually believed this nonsense and were willing to risk their eyesight and health for it.

Image of Jesus crying appears in hospital window.

Jesus apparently caused quite a stir in the hospital. Doesn’t he know all the old people need their sleep?

Cruzada, who was one of several viewers to send an e-mail about the image to Local6.com, said his ex-wife was recently diagnosed with stage-3 cancer.

“This was just a sign for me to not worry about what is going on in my life and that everything else is under control,” Cruzada said. “It was an enlightening experience.”

Witnesses said after a few hours, the image vanished.

So his wife is possibly dying of cancer, which is a very unfortunate and sad thing, but it’s ok because a Jesus face appeared to you? Instead of curing her, which these people apparently believe Jesus is capable of doing, he just sends his face in a window? I don’t understand what comforts some people.

PZ Myers linked to a study done in Britain that shows that 62% of people over there consider God to be male, which itself is not surprising at all (perhaps unexpectedly low). He goes on to discuss the absurdity of such a belief:

Some day, they’ve got to ask people some other details of god’s physical attributes. What shade is his skin color? What color eyes does he have? At his age, does he get regular prostate exams?

However, he does not delve into the implications that such a belief is so common: it is just further proof that every individual person makes up their own god and own religion.

What is god? What does he do? How does he interact with the universe? How does he treat us? What god is and what he/she/it does is something that every theist has a different answer for. Many of them claim to belong to a certain religion with certain holy books that say what god is, but they all have their own conception of god and they pick-and-choose from the dogma for things that support their own ideas. Many people have a preconceived view of a strong authority figure as male, and so god is male.

I hear all the time that America was founded on “Christian values.” What does that mean? Are the values of the Inquisition values of Christianity? Freedom and individual liberties, values which this country actually was founded on, are all but absent in the Bible and the history of Christianity (and in fact antithetical to them). The values of early Christians were completely different from the values of most modern Christians, and so were their moral beliefs on what is right and wrong. Even if you take “Christian values” to be what the majority beliefs at the time, it is a standard which has changed dramatically, over and over again, for thousands of years.

It was not because any particular change in dogma; the Bible is still the Bible. It is because people at different times had different cultural upbringings, and their beliefs are based on that. People thousands of years ago had their own values and preconceptions, and they formed their religion in that image.

People who are raised Christian tend to be Christian; people who are raised Muslim tend to be Muslim. People’s on cultural upbringing gives them preconceptions which are hard to shake off, and most people never do. But not only will they have similar cultural beliefs, more than likely. Their own individual view of those values and beliefs will shape that cultural perspective into an individual belief. A person is not just Christian, but has their own individual concept of what Christianity is and means.

The fundie Kirk Cameron once said in a debate I watched a long time ago (which is unfortunately not available on youtube anymore) that religion is not a part of culture, and that a belief in god formed from your own values is a “delusion.” I actually laughed at the computer screen.