The absurdity of Passover: Drunken celebrations of racism

There are only around 14,000,000 Jewish people in the world, which makes up about 0.2% of the global human population. It’s not a very significant population. On the other hand, Jews have an extraordinary tendency to excel in many academic and artistic fields to a degree that few (or no) other groups can accomplish. That is something to write home about!

Outside of Israel the Jewish populations are so diluted among the local communities that one might be forgiven for not counting many Jews as their close friends. But then Passover happens and you get the impression that there are way more than 14 million jews in the world. Go to any grocery store in the US the day before Passover, and you’ll find the kosher sections and the Passover displays gutted by a mob of practicing and non-practicing Jews. Where’d they come from?! And what the hell is Passover?

For five years after graduating high school, I dated an Israeli Jew. This precisely meets the definition of irony considering my time living in Beirut and my position that Zionism is one of the true evils left in the world. During my time with this woman I “observed” many Jewish holidays. That is, I took part in them, but merely to experience them, not because they held any meaning in my life or heart. Naturally, Passover was one of the more important holidays in which I reluctantly took part.

Passover is the celebration of (essentially) the Book of Exodus in the Torah, as proscribed by the Book of Leviticus. The holiday lasts about a week, during which time Jews are commanded by god to slaughter a lamb and eat it without removing its guts. Whatever parts of the lamb remain after the sun rises on the first day of Passover must be burned as an offering to god.* The entire holiday is a strange feast of various sweet and bitter foods.

*Only if you live in Jerusalem or one other place I forget right now. So non-Israeli and non-Palestinian Jews don’t have to sacrifice the lamb. Actually, they can’t or god will get mad.

Other strange Passover practices include:

  • All leavened bread in the house must be burned before Passover begins.
  • The firstborn sons are required to fast during the first day of Passover.
  • There is kosher, and then there’s Passover kosher, which are two completely different things. Don’t mix them up or god might smite you!
  • Children are required to take part in the seder ceremonies. You’re damned if you don’t have any kids to indoctrinate.
  • You must eat certain bitter foods to symbolize the bitterness of slavery in Egypt.
  • You must drink four cups of wine during the seder. The Torah doesn’t say anything about whether or not it must be alcoholic wine, but I’m sure most Jews are getting drunk at the family dinner table.
  • Once everyone’s had their last glass of wine, everyone drunkenly sings songs to mark the conclusion of the seder.
  • On the second night of Passover, Jews begin nightly prayers, during which they begin a countdown to the next major Jewish holiday, Shavuot.

That’s a lot of bizarre behavior, but no stranger than Christians sending children out to collect plastic eggs on the anniversary of the day their god was killed. But that’s not the point of this post.

The point is that even today Jews, even many non-religious Jews, celebrate a holiday with zero historical accuracy. The exodus of Jews out of Egypt never happened. There were no Jewish slaves in Egypt. Ever. Even many Jews in Israel agree. Some say the story is a metaphor. But what for? The premise of the “metaphor” is that Jews are better than Egyptians. That’s called racism. The holiday is literally about hating another people while holding yourself to divine esteem. Despite whether or not you believe that Moses actually led Jewish slaves out of Egypt, why continue to celebrate a holiday with a sole purpose of reminding you how much you hate Egyptians?

And if you do believe the Exodus story without a single shred of evidence, I still find it rather absurd to celebrate god’s racism by going through a list of equally absurd rituals. You can get drunk without being a racist.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Atheist Papers admin is a cat lover (we both thought you should know)

Frankie1

This is Frankie, AKA Frank Sinatra, AKA Frankie Fitzgerald, AKA Pope Francis (the better one). He’s probably my favorite person in the world. Cats are good people 🙂

I call on other non-believers to post pictures of their beloved companion animals. And believers too. I just like seeing pictures of animals in my daily feeds.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“Atheism is a religion”: The fundamental flaw with this statement and how it undermines religious belief

Is atheism a religion? Despite the fact that, no, it is definitely not a religion, the very question itself is self-defeating when asked by a religious person. I imagine that this post might be troll bait. There probably lurks someone (particularly a certain silenced mind kind of person) waiting to pounce on this post with well-rehearsed apologetic sound bytes. But still, it needs to be said.

First, the idea that atheism is a religion is absurd. Atheism is merely a philosophical stance (or lack thereof) on a single topic, the existence of supernatural, divine entities. Theism takes a different stance on the question. Theism itself is not religion; it’s merely an idea. Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity (to name a few) are religions. To say that you are theistic does not make any claims about what religion you follow. So why would anyone think that atheism is a religion?

Atheism has no dogma, no doctrine, no hierarchical support structures. It has no leaders. It does not offer predictions for everyday life. It has no interpretations since it takes no position on anything outside of its narrow, single-idea scope. It doesn’t even have silly hats!

If this is a religion then you have a very low threshold for defining religions. In this interpretation, it is the same as saying apple lovers practice the religion of apple love. Nascar enthusiasts, which take many more positions than atheism takes (upwards of infinity more, depending on the individual atheist and Nascar enthusiast), stand somewhere between the amount of religiosity that is atheism and the amount that is Roman Catholicism. If atheism classifies as a religion, then Nascar is definitely a religion. The same goes for dog lovers, musicians, and craft beer brewers. They all are apart of those respective religions. That’s not saying very much.

If you are a religious person, and you believe that atheism is a religion, then you have an incredibly low threshold for defining religions. Hence, if you say you are a Christian or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim, then that’s not saying very much. It puts your religious beliefs on the same level as Nascar enthusiasm.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Bible Contradictions #26: Who does god respect?

Bible contradictions 26

Respect. Sometimes you gotta give it in order to receive it, unless you’re in the military. Then you just give it. But when it comes to whether or not god can respect you, the bible is quite dubious.

First let’s take Psalm 138:6. Here we see that god can indeed respect you, that is, if you meet the criterion of being a lowly person. In order, the bible shows god respecting Abel, god respecting the children of Israel, god again respecting the Israelites, and god respecting the Israelites a third time. Therefore, god respects two sets of people. One is the Abels, and the other is the Israelis. But maybe there is still hope for the rest of us?

Nope. The bible is at it again with its contradictions. We can start with Romans 2:11. Here we see that god does not respect people. Period. Going in order through the rest of the bible, we can see that god has no respect for anyone. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here.

Geez, god!

Anyway, I’ve heard many Christian apologists try to skirt around the contradiction by scrutinizing the verses that show god to be disrespectful. In the end they believe these offending verses mean something else entirely. This leaves them with the assumption that god does indeed respect people.

It’s funny. They never try to scrutinize the verses that they like (i.e. those that suggest that god does respect them.) Why do they accept one literal translation over the other?

Posted in Atheism, Bible Contradictions | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Bible Contradictions #25: Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Bible contradictions 25

A foundational tenet in Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected following his crucifixion. But how is he risen? Whose magic hand was responsible for the resurrection?

According to John, Jesus H. Christ’s holy and holey dead hands raised himself! I’ve seen dead bodies before. They aren’t pretty. I have no reason to believe that a bloated corpse is capable of doing anything as miraculous as coming back to life. Dead people can’t even tie their own shoes. What makes anyone believe they are capable of black magic?

But alas! Acts comes to the rescue and contradicts John! Here we see it was god who raised Jesus from the dead. Whew! But wait… isn’t Jesus also god? I suppose this is where evangelical types would say “Even a dead god is capable of things we can’t even begin to imagine. You just need to have faith.”

No thanks. Faith is not possible for this one.

Posted in Atheism, Bible Contradictions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Where are the Christian suicide bombers? Actually, closer than you think

Robert Pape’s book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) (I cannot recommend this book enough!!) is, arguably, to date the most extensive survey of suicide terrorism. In it, Pape argues that the general agreement that suicide terrorism is the product of radical Islam is dangerously misleading. Because US foreign policy has largely rested on this assumption, we are actually at risk of suffering more suicide attacks instead of fewer. Understanding the true causes of suicide terrorism is the only way to adequately address the conditions that can lead to fewer suicide bombers.

Pape takes a few jabs at non-believers, so I hope he will forgive me for using some of his findings and arguments to form my hypothesis in this blog post. My hypothesis: If the conditions that Pape presents that lead to suicide terrorism in Muslim countries are met in the US, we should expect to see Christians strapping bombs to themselves. Ugh. That’s a horribly worded hypothesis.

Pape finds that suicide terrorism is the product of foreign occupation by democratic states who practice a different religion than the occupied society. Let’s break this down:

Occupation: The society and the state must be sufficiently weak that a foreign military force sets up shop in the weak state. If the people and the state were strong enough, they could defeat the foreign enemy, and therefore suicide terrorism would be unnecessary.

Democratic occupiers: Authoritarian regimes are largely immune from suicide terrorism. Pape believes this is because democracies are more malleable. They are more likely to concede to the terrorists demands. To illustrate this point, Pape shows how Israel often gives into terrorists’ demands.

Different religions: If the occupied society’s religion differs from the occupier’s religion, then the occupied society will fear that the occupier might try to compel members of the society to switch religions. On a long enough timeline, this might lead to permanent conversion and a loss of national identity. Religion plays a major role in national identity. The fear of losing it is very compelling, even more compelling than the fear of death.

Bin Laden attacked the US because the US had its military stationed in the Persian Gulf. The occupiers were largely Christian, and the state was a democratic regime.

Pape finds that these conditions are sufficient (although, admittedly, not necessary) to cause people to conduct suicide terrorist campaigns. Islam, itself, is an unnecessary variable. Indeed, many suicide campaigns are by secular (albeit also Muslim) groups, such as the PKK.

Currently, there are very few, if any, suicide terrorism campaigns conducted by Christian groups. Is this because Christians are less likely to resort to violence? Is it because Christians are less likely to commit suicide, even altruistic suicide? No. History is quite clear. Christians have every propensity to commit violence as any other group. Furthermore, even in the US, it was largely Christians who committed suicide protest by self-immolating themselves during the Vietnam War. Christians are not beyond altruistic suicide. So what would it take to make otherwise non-violent, non-suicidal Christians turn to strapping bombs to themselves and killing scores of innocent civilians?

Let’s take Pape’s argument and see.

In my hypothetical situation, let’s assume that the US becomes sufficiently weak that a foreign occupier can assert a monopoly of violence over the US society. Let this foreign occupier be Saudi Arabia (which is about 90% Sunni Muslim). For whatever reason, in my hypothetical situation, Saudi Arabia is a democracy instead of an absolute Islamic theocracy. Under these conditions, it would be reasonable to believe that American Christians would resort to suicide terrorism against Saudi Arabian civilians and military posts.

Of course this hypothetical situation is extreme, given that Saudi Arabia is definitely not a democracy. We can swap out Saudi Arabia for Bangladesh, which is a democracy with about a 90% Muslim population. Or maybe India, a democracy with an 80% Hindu population. Or scores of other democracies that have a majority population of a religion other than Christianity.

Some, if not most, Christians in the US believe that their religion is superior to other religions because of its relative passivity. But we have every reason to believe that even American Christians would commit mass atrocities against innocent civilian populations if the following criteria were met: The US is occupied by a democratic regime, and the regime is of a religion different than Christianity. The threat of assimilation of America’s national identity into another religion is a very compelling reason to commit such atrocities.

Indeed, it must also be assumed (as Pape did) that atheists would be blowing themselves up alongside the Christians because they would fear the encroachment of Islam into their society. In other words, this is human nature under intolerable conditions. Christianity will not prevent you from becoming a suicide terrorist.*

*Indeed, three of Hezbollah’s suicide bombers during it’s suicide campaign against Israel in the 1980s were Christian. So technically, there already have been Christian suicide bombers.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Bible: Peer review, or it didn’t happen

Peer review can be a bitch. The purpose of the peer review process is to determine the credibility of a researcher’s work prior to publication. The process is integral because it weeds out potential publications with results or methodologies that seem dubious or unfalsifiable. Without this process, the literature would be too vast–too bogged down by junk science–to be comprehensible. A researcher must have thick skin if they are to survive the peer review process, because often their work doesn’t survive it.

One of the major things the review committee looks for is that you understand the literature of your field as it exists today. This can take either of two forms: 1) you have included a comprehensive literature review at the beginning of your book or journal article, or 2) you have strategically woven a literature review throughout the body of your work. I personally prefer the latter since my field is in the social sciences.

The common rule of thumb regarding a review of the literature is that you have two scholarly sources for every page of text. I use Chicago style with footnotes, so this number is actually higher. Let’s say it’s 2.1 references per page. This doesn’t include the conclusion because it’s generally frowned upon to include new information in the conclusion. But as you can see, even a short double-spaced 100 page document might have a 20 page bibliography.

The purpose of the literature review is to determine gaps in the field. This gap is the focus of your work. If the goal is to provide insight into a phenomenon, one must research something that has not yet been researched. Even if your hypothesis fails, you have contributed a greater understanding: Eg. “Whereas our initial assumptions suggested a correlation between A and B, our findings suggest that other independent variables might instead correlate with B.” In other words, you have slightly closed the gap, and future researchers might not try to correlate A with B.

This is a long introduction for a blog. I apologize for that.

Christianity (actually the Christian who argues from their religion) is not concerned with gaps because its book is “inerrant.” Because of this the bible is used as a sole document for making an argument. Christians do not compare what the bible says with other Christian texts because no such texts exist (to be fair, other interpretations of the bible have been published, and those might be referenced). The Jews have the Torah and the Talmud. The Muslims have the Qur’an and the Hadiths. At least these two religions have two places from which to cite information (although this is still a far cry away from acceptable academic standards).

Furthermore, no argument from Christianity is subjected to the peer review process. Sure, there are some scholars who hold a doctor of theology, but I’m quite certain that their dissertations have bibliographies longer than one source. The bible might not even be included in their work.

To be sure, we should consider what would happen if we submitted a document of original “research” that relied solely on one piece of literature. Let’s assume that I submitted for peer review an article that only cited Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State, and War. It’s one of the most important contemporary books in political science, and my research might take valuable insight from Waltz’s work. But despite how “original” my contribution is to the field, without pulling literature from the entire field, my work is merely a book review from my own point of view. And the committee will laugh me out of the room. A review of Waltz’s book is not new knowledge.

This is precisely the problem with arguments from the bible. They are merely reviews of the bible. And these have absolutely nothing to say with authority any more than a Muslim has authority when he quotes Muhammad. These arguments don’t tell us anything.

Christians might argue that they don’t need to consider other books because the bible is perfect. I’ll be clear: The bible can only be perfect to those who believe the bible is perfect. It’s far from a perfect book, and it doesn’t offer insight into anything more than how ancient Christians thought we should behave.

Keep this in mind when Christians attempt to make an argument from the bible. Their arguments deserve every bit of scrutiny that you can muster because it is anything but a reliable argument. It lacks any insight from other areas, and it cannot survive a peer review, even if the argument is coming from the Pope himself.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Is god supernatural?: The conundrum of belief

In a previous update, I made a claim in passing that “If god can interact with the natural world, then god ceases to be supernatural.” That is, any interaction between any god and the natural world can be observed. Such observations would be integral to forming hypotheses, theories, and ultimately proof that god does exist. Of course, this would do little to prove what exactly god wants of us, but that’s neither here nor there.

This sets up a conundrum for people who claim that supernatural agencies such as gods exist. That is, A) either god interacts with the natural world and can, therefore, be observed and tested, or B) god is supernatural and (to take the Deist route) remains supernatural by not interacting with the natural world. Until such a time that evidence can be gathered to support group A, the question of whether or not god exists is irrelevant. If evidence is impossible because the position is on B, then the question of whether or not god exists is also irrelevant.

Perhaps I’m being a little too narrow on the Deist model. There are some who claim that god created the universe, thus interacting with the natural world, but has since ceased its interaction with the universe. This necessarily implies that the evidence to support such a claim does indeed exist; we just haven’t discovered it yet. Unfortunately for them, this is not generally how science works. Usually (with very few, yet remarkable exceptions) we make observations and collect evidence prior to making a claim. Religion works the other way around, which is why it constantly must adapt to survive. Here the question is still irrelevant until we discover evidence.

I would imagine some might counter this argument by saying, “god is powerful enough to interact with us without leaving behind evidence.” There are two problems with this statement (actually three, if we include the first part of the claim, which is god does indeed exist). First, they are essentially saying that god is a natural being that can’t be observed. This creates a brand new conundrum. Why would any of us assume that natural phenomena lie permanently beyond the scope of inquiry? Wishful thinking, I suppose. Second, it is also saying that god cares enough about us to interact with us, but not enough about us to prove it. This is precisely the moment when religious people turn to faith. It’s again more wishful thinking than anything else. They hope that god will reveal himself and therefore blindly accept that he will.

Let’s turn this back around on me, to be honest and fair. In the beginning of this post I made two claims that rest on the assumption that god does exist (I do not claim that god exists, however; I merely set the scope of my argument). The first is that if god interacts with the natural world, then god is not supernatural. The second is that if god is supernatural, then god does not interact with the natural world. Both of these are merely ideas. They don’t even qualify as hypotheses because I don’t claim an ability to test these ideas. Indeed, I have no reason to test them, and I don’t plan to do so. Instead these “claims” exist merely as fun things for believers to consider. The limit of my argument is that it cannot be proven and therefore is irrelevant. Unfortunately for me, religion doesn’t work that way.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

The New Testament’s one real opportunity to condemn slavery; Paul does the Christian thing (and returns a runaway slave to his master)

Everyone knows that the bible, especially the Old Testament, condones slavery at every twist and turn. Indeed, it makes zero mentions or suggestions that slavery might be a bad thing. At every opportunity to condemn slavery, god instead condemns gathering firewood on the sabbath. But along comes the New Testament–a new enlightenment–and greatly revered men, such as Jesus and Paul, suddenly have the opportunity to correct this manifest injustice. Take Paul for example. When given the opportunity to help a runaway slave, he does the only Christian thing he could.

He returned the runaway slave to his slave master.

Paul was in prison, writing a short letter and a book of the bible to his dear Christian friend Philemon. (On a side note, has anyone ever noticed that many books in the NT are letters, most of which are incredibly short? Here we can see how literally the bible is man made. Many NT books are not literary manifestations of god’s word. They are not lyrical praises of worship. They are merely personal correspondence that, for some reason, many people worship as divine scripture.)

Anyway, so Paul is writing his letter. He’s writing because Philemon is angry that his slave, Onesimus, ran away. It’s not certain exactly what happened after Onesimus ran away. Either he found Christianity on his own, or Paul indoctrinated him. Either way, Onesimus became a Christian. So Paul wrote this letter to Philemon asking him to forgive Onesimus and to take him back without hard feelings. He gave the letter to Onesimus and convinced him to go back into bondage. Onesimus does, and that’s where the story ends.

This was the perfect opportunity for “Saint” Paul to be saintly. This is the exact moment when Paul should have condemned slavery. Instead Paul convinced a former slave to return to the conditions of slavery. It’s almost as if he was saying that running away from slavery is a moral crime!

Many people argue that we need to read the bible as a document of its time. That is, although we feel that slavery is unconscionable, back then it was normal. So we should not condemn the bible for reflecting the social conditions of the time in which it was written. I say that’s exactly why it should be condemned.

We all know that in the 1950s cigarettes were sometimes prescribed by medical doctors. Today we condemn this practice, and we condemn the medical literature that made this possible. Executing petty thieves was widely practiced in centuries past, and we had legal documents to justify this. Today we condemn those documents because our standards of decency have evolved. Just as we can condemn those as being morally ignorant, so too can we condemn the bible as being morally ignorant.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Jesus and 17,000 screaming fans cure Merle Haggard in time for Wichita gig

I’m somewhat of a Merle Haggard fan. I think his music and vocal abilities are fantastic. His form of country music is what country music is supposed to be: gritty, raw, and anti-authoritarian. Somehow country music lost its edge around the same time that rock ‘n’ roll records got mixed in with the pop section. But Haggard refused to give in (although he did quit the drugs and cigarettes, which is, to be honest, probably why he’s still around to be gritty, raw, and anti-authoritarian to this day).

Last night I came across the following post from Merle Haggard, who had been experiencing some health issues and had to cancel Thursday night’s gig:

merle

I’m not sure why Mr. Haggard would thank his audience of 17,000 fans for helping him to get over his illness. But that’s not the point. Why would anyone, given everything we now know about germs, thank a supernatural agent?

Don’t get me wrong. Pneumonia can be a very serious disease, especially for a man in his mid-70s. Anytime someone that age gets over Pneumonia is a “blessing,” but we have no reason to suspect that it has anything to do with a miracle.

To claim that he “kicked laryngitis and pneumonias ass” [sic] because Jesus stepped in leaves open the question: who caused him to get sick in the first place? All evidence we have points to the germ theory. And germs are often defeated by immune systems, even in old farts like Haggard. He got sick because sometimes people get sick, and he got well because sometimes people get well. I don’t know much about his medical treatment, but, as most people will tell you, if he was given any kind of help from medical professionals, he should be thanking those folks (and the doctors who got us to where we are today).

Mr. Haggard, you make great music, and I hope you’re around for many more years to continue making great music, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus had nothing to do with your recovery. I mean, the guy’s been dead for 2,000+ years. It’s actually more believable that your fans cured you than a dead man.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment