Let us posit three kinds of people as they relate to their attitudes about Jesus....

Group One: Committed to him.
Group Two: Against him.
Group Three: Apathetic about him.

Now, let us consider these two statements attributed in the Bible to Jesus...

Statement One: Luke 12:30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Statement Two: Mark 9:40 "For he who is not against us is for us."

As the excellent blog Debunking Christianity points out, statement one puts the apathetic group in with the "against him" group. Statement two, however, puts the apathetic group in with the "committed" group.

If you are a Christian, I ask you not to attempt to find a way around this logical contradiction, but to do something a lot harder: Look at it objectively and ask yourself it it is not, in fact, a clear demonstration of the human rather than divine origin of the Bible.

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

Epicurus had some thoughts about gods that are worth considering:

A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.

Although he seems to accept the possibility of the existence of gods, he expresses a cogent insight: Gods, by definition, are "blessed and indestructible," being sufficient and complete in themselves. Indeed, the Christian God is described in the Bible in this way.

Being thus self-sufficient and complete, gods have no need to be involved in the lives of human beings. Otherwise, they would be demonstrating neediness. Please consider the Christian God, who, it is claimed, needs no one and no thing, yet brought us into existence and cares very much what we do, and pines away for our love and worship.

What, I ask you, is more likely? That such an illogical thing exists, or that he is a construct of our own fevered wishes and needs?

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

It should be self evident that conscious, sentient beings like ourselves can derive meaning and fulfillment most effectively by the adoption or construction of a valid worldview. Having concluded that Christianity is lacking in validity simply because it is not, as far as I have been able to tell, based upon a foundation of what is real, I can now attempt to find a worldview that is. Based on reality, I mean.

 A bit more on the "real." A worldview does not have to be based on reality. Clearly, many are not. But it is important to me that the way I see the world is as closely wed to reality as I can make it.

I am aware that there is nothing new under the sun, in the sense that humans have been at it for thousands of years and have pretty much thought of everything in terms of viable philosophies already. So let me comment on some philosophies that resonate with me.

Epicureanism

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.

In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived.

-- Wikipedia

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

My experience has been like that of countless others who have thrown off their religious faith before me: As soon as I stopped trying to defend my faith and instead began to examine it critically, it commenced to crumbling like a desiccated clod of dirt does when you try to hold it in your hands.

Defenses that I once used with blithe confidence to buttress my beliefs are now exposed for their intellectual, if not dishonesty, then incuriosity. Fo example...

A radio preacher mentions the Bible's reference to "the circle of the earth" as proof that it has a divine origin. For how could ancient man, intones the preacher, have known that the earth is a sphere if not for divine inspiration?

Do you know that I used to say this very nonsense? How easy it is to lay waste to such nonsense once ones intellectual faculties are engaged.

First, the earth is a sphere, not a circle. Describing the earth as being spherical would really have been something, but the Bible uses the term "circle." Second, anyone who stands in a place where the horizon can be seen in all directions would think that the earth might be circular. Third, why not point to the Bible's reference to the "four corners of the earth" as proof that the men who wrote it knew absolutely nothing of its true shape. (Perhaps if photos taken from space showed a rectangular planet, which shape does have four corners, one could crow, but they do not, alas.)

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

I'm 49. I became a Christian at 17, left Christianity at around 47, so that makes 30 years, or more than 60% of my lifetime thus far, spent in a relationship with a supposedly transcendent being. And so what were the moments in my lifetime that transcended typical, humdrum existence? Not what you might think.

But first, let me define what I mean by transcendent. Here's a definition that works for me: "beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding" (WordNet).

I cannot recall a single experience in my life, associated with my beliefs, that meets that definition. (To many Christians this will be all the proof they need that I was never a true believer to begin with, but I think it is true for most religious people.)

What events do stand out? I can think of only two.

1. The first time I made love.

2. The first night I went out stargazing with my astronomy class in college.

More on what this implies later.

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...