God Hates Us All

One of the most contraversial and widely hated groups in America is the Westboro Baptist Church. Following wide-spread media attention, and features by journalists such as Louis Theroux, their methods of picketing the funerals of victims of anti-gay hate crime, as well as service men, with slogans such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for 9/11″ have become well known and widely despised.

Their behaviour has earned them myriad lawsuits and numerous arrests. For example, in 1995, Benjamin Phelps, the grandson of the church’s founder, was convicted of assault for spitting in the face of a passer-by during one of their regular pickets. In 2007, the father of a marine whose funeral was picketed successfully sued them for damages amounting to $5m.

Most people’s reaction to hearing or reading about this group’s actions tends to be disbelief and disgust. How could anyone be this callous? How could anyone show so little respect for their fellow humans? The answer, of course, is that they believe they are doing God’s work.

Homosexuality, they assert, “pose[s] a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God as in 1898 B.C. at Sodom and Gomorrah”. They interpret the Bible in such a way that they believe it is the job of anyone who truly believes in God’s greatness to war against “workers of iniquity”, and this includes gay people, and those who accept them and enable them to lead their lives. They picket the funerals of soldiers and service men because “they voluntarily joined a fag-infested army to fight for a fag-run country now utterly and finally forsaken by God who Himself is fighting against that country.”

Quite rightly, the WBC has drawn criticism from Christian religious groups just as it has from non-religious and other-religious groups. Perhaps Christians find their rhetoric more offensive because they claim to be speaking for God and on behalf of those who truly follow him. Perhaps they are also worried that actions like this from one Christian group will bring disrepute upon the whole church and be a shot in the foot for the whole mission of the glorification of God. Perhaps they particularly dislike the way they twist the words of the Bible to justify their hateful position.

To despise this group on humanistic grounds, for their hideous disrespect of humanity is reasonable and, in my opinion, absolutely correct. However to criticise them on religious scriptural grounds is not. The reason is that the WBC does not twist the words of the Bible to justify their position - they don’t need to - those hateful words are there already.

The WBC point to Psalms 5:5, “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity”; Proverbs 6:16-19, “These six things doth the Lord hate:… he that soweth discord among brethren”; Psalms 11:5, “The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth”; and Malachi 1:3, “And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

The argument that the they are misrepresenting the Bible’s meaning, because really God loves everyone starts to look a little thin when you start to read a bit more of the Bible and come across these examples of God being unashamedly hateful towards, not just people’s actions, but people themselves. Indeed, as Skeptics’ Annotated Bible points out, one can hardly fault the group’s logic: God hates “workers of iniquity” (Psalms 5:5); homosexuality is “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22); therefore God hates fags.

I will reiterate quickly that I do not think this group deserves anything but the deepest contempt and condemnation, but for the religious to dispute them on scriptural grounds is hypocritical. What are they doing but validly, albeit selectively, quoting parts of the Bible? And this is exactly what every moderate sermon does aswell. For every John 3:16 quoted, there is a Psalms 5:5 being ignored, because to give equal weight to both would lead to so much contradiction and cognitive dissonance that no believer would know what to do with themselves.

In order for Christianity to function as a religion, the Bible needs to be read selectively, or at least certain passages need to be interpreted liberally. So it should be no surprise that there is one group that pays attention to those bits that everyone else leaves out, and who saves their liberal interpretations for those sections that others might prefer to take literally. This is the problem with the claim that the Bible offers any sort of revealed moral teaching – without engaging the evolved humanist moral sense to overlook the contradictions and to only pay attention to the positive messages, the Bible can be used to justify violence and hate just as well as it can love and compassion.

The Westboro Baptist Church are a disgusting group, but theirs are the same tools that are used in every pulpit every Sunday. A long, ambiguous book of myths can be used to justify any moral position, for real goodness, we must look to the evolved sense to protect ourselves, our families and our species that we all have without having to take any book’s word for it.

Five Things Atheists Don't Want You to Know

I always enjoy reading descriptions of atheists written by the sort of deeply religious people who seem to have never met one. Generalisations and bizarre false beliefs tend to abound. It always brings to my mind the image of a stooping elderly grandmother cautioning a young child of beasts that lurk on the moors at night. "Beware the Godless, my child," they seem to caution, "they have not hearts like we have. And they feed on good children like you."

An excellent example has appeared in the letters to the editor of the Red Deer Express, a community newspaper in Alberta. I must admit, I found this through Pharyngula - I don't just routinely scan through all Canadian newspapers in the hope of gloriously eccentric characterisations of atheists.

Anyway, in response to an on-going discussion about atheism, this writer explains:

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include
these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

And then goes on to list five points that atheists would rather people not know about them.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

"They claim they have superior knowledge then (sic) the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking." Uh... They claim to have "superior knowledge" because they have "better knowledge"? Buh?

I'm not sure what she means when she says "they will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them". Biologically, I don't acknowledge anyone above me. I see all organisms around today on an equal level, since by our survival each of us has proven our fitness to be here (perhaps excepting the panda, which seems to be doing it's best to become extinct, thwarted only by the tenacious efforts of a handful of Chinese zoologists). I also do not see myself, or humanity in general, above any other species. Each species that survives must be equally well evolved for their surroundings.

But on a human level, I happily accept the hierachical organisation of society that puts some (or most, in fact) people in positions of more power than me.

And I certainly do not think I am god. But, an important part of rationalism is always admitting that you might be wrong.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wow, that's quite a generalisation. Some atheists have been hurt in their lives, just as some Christians have, and so have some Buddhists and some Muslims. Everyone has been hurt to a greater or lesser extent in their lives, so this point is irrelevant. And I don't understand why atheists shouldn't be able to understand suffering.

It's also a contradiction in terms: we are mad at God so we deny there is one? We're not mad at god precisely because we deny there is one. How can being angry at something lead you to decide that it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

No, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for the toothfairy. We're not. Because we don't believe it exists.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

This is a common way of phrasing the argument from design. You can see a painting and you know it was made by a painter, therefore the Earth/a tree/humans/a sponge/HIV or whatever must have been made by some kind of designer too. The problem is, the logic doesn't follow. Just because one or two or any number of things have been created in one way, doesn't mean that everything else was made the same way. In fact, a wall may be green because a painter has worked on it, but a leaf is not green for the same reason.

She uses some interesting examples to make her point:

"Can the atheist make a tree?"

Well, no. But surely this is as much an argument against the tree being created as anything else.

"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly"

This was believed for some time since a couple of French entomologists suggested that bees' flight defied aerodynamics in 1934. However, unfortunately for this writer, the flight of bees has been thoroughly explained since the '30s and is no longer a mystery. Plus, on a note of pedantry, saying something is scientifically impossible doesn't really make any sense. The best she could have said is that it was unexplained by science.

"It is impossible for our eyes to see"

This claim is a little more myserious. I'm not sure on what basis she has decided that vision should be impossible, but it clearly isn't, and in fact eyes are very well understood by biologists.

"Their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat"

It's fairly obvious after even the briefest moment of consideration that we don't need to consciously attend to everything our body does. I don't need to purposefully tell my lungs to take in air every few seconds. I don't even really need to think too hard about what I want my limbs to do. What is the writer suggesting? That God is constantly monitoring the heart and breathing rates of every human, and every other animal, all the time? If that's the alternative, the idea that our brain stem can automate our bodily functions sounds considerably more plausible. And if you factor in the biological and physiological evidence we have that this is, indeed, the case, the writer's argument starts to look rather misguided.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

I wonder what reason the writer would give if asked why she does not pray to Allah five times a day, or why she does not hold the cow as sacred, or why she does not sacrifice livestock to Neptune before embarking on travel. Is she denying these other faiths because she does not want them to be true? Isn't the evidence of these faiths just as close in front of her eyes as the evidence of hers is in front of ours? She cheerfully lives her life as an atheist to all other gods yet criticises those who do not believe in hers.

She would rather believe in God and make sure her life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being, but she is not taking into account the other superior beings whose existence is equally likely and equally self-evident. She is almost certainly not doing what is acceptable to them.

She ends with the argument ad populum. Apart from the fact that the popularity of an idea has no baring on its veracity, she also ignores the fact that, even if 84% of people believe in God (the statistics I found indicate that 86% are religious although only 54% are monotheistic), they certainly don't all believe in the same god. Even those that do believe in the same god often disagree wildly in what sorts of behaviour will please him/her/it. Personally I do not agree that the majority rules in this, or any, case.

Michael Jackson Late Interview

The naive belief I hold that humanity as generally decent has tripped me up again. I should have known Michael Jackson wouldn't even be in the ground before "psychic" scavengers would be all over him like some sort of disgusting, odious tumour.

James Van Praagh, one of the least competent or convincing "psychics" currently on the TV circuit, will go on Oprah soon to give the results of an interview he has conducted with Jackson posthumously.

Doctors and police needn't worry themselves about the details of Jackson's death, Van Praagh has already found the answers. When asked if foul play was involved, Jackson apparently told him, "I felt sick that day, very sick. My doctor Conrad told me to rest, but I had to practice moves for my upcoming concert. I was tired, very tired, then I collapsed".

Asked where he is now, Van Praagh was told, "I am surrounded by happiness. I never felt more happier."

Not to be left out, consistent barrel-scraper, Sylvia Brown is going on Montell Williams to talk about her recent conversations with Jackson's spirit. "He is doing well. Very well. He does not miss this physical world."

I hope I'm not the only person who finds this abhorrent and disgusting.

Why is it OK for these "psychics" to piss all over someone's memory by putting words into his dead mouth?

It shouldn't have surprised me that these people are speaking for Michael Jackson, because this is what they do all the time. This is how "psychics" make their living. People pay for them to rape the precious memories they have of their dearest loved-ones by tackily sticking on their own hastily conceived addenda.

When someone we love has gone, all we have left are our memories. The images that come to us when we think about them and the joy or wisdom or happiness they gave us is what lives on. These are what exist of them now. Memories of a loved one are their most important legacy. To the godless, it is the only way that they carry on past their mortal end.

Yet many people seem to think nothing of allowing certain self-appointed strangers the liberty to add to or subtract from those memories at will. Indeed they are glad for them to make up meretricious pleasantries to appease the applauding masses while holding no remorse for the genuinely special legacy they are shitting on.

James Van Praagh, Sylvia Brown, John Edwards, Derek Acorah, Colin Fry and the many others are, in my opinion, making their money in one of the most cynically dishonest and outright disgusting ways imaginable.

Homeopathic A&E

Mitchell and Webb (of BBC's Peep Show) show us what would happen if alternative medicine really were embraced by the mainstream.