The sin of being imperfect

Something has been nagging at me lately and only last night did I finally figure it out.  It has to do with an abusive relationship with a god that holds us to an impossible standard and what finally shined the light on it was a post that someone made on Facebook that my wife read to me last night.  The quote is, “I can't brag about my love for God because I fail Him daily, but I can brag about His love for me because it never fails.”

It was that first part that made it click.  We fail him daily.  Obviously, this was posted by someone who is very religious.  If you are very religious you obviously want to please your god.  It very well may be your greatest desire in life.  And STILL you fail him daily?  This really brings up two terrible problems with religion.  First, as I mentioned above, is the abusive relationship.  We are imperfect, but not JUST imperfect, fundamentally flawed, bad people who have no right existing, but he loves us anyway.  We are so bad, in fact, that even when we want to be good we still do bad things every single day because we are just such bad, bad people.  Fortunately for us there is someone who accepts and understands just how terrible we are, loves us anyway and is willing to forgive us our faults if we just do everything we’re ever told without complaint.  While we, ourselves, can never actually become decent enough people to ever have any kind of value as individuals because we are so utterly useless we can gain value as individuals by being with him because he gives us value by his very existence.  In psychology this is generally referred to as “Battered spouse syndrome”.  The person in the relationship who “gives value” is the lowest piece of shit scumbag on the planet; a manipulative, self-serving, sadistic, arrogant and completely self-centered individual who sees the other more as a property than a cherished loved one.  In religion, however, the person in the relationship who has no value on their own is the lowest piece of shit scumbag on the planet, at least until they are given value by their god.

That is bad enough.  To ever have a thought that you are a worthless scumbag of an individual, no matter how good a person you try to be, that you are a lowlife, vile, putrid piece of shit until you are given value by another out of the kindness of his heart, though you don’t deserve it and never could, that is a pretty bad place to be.  I don’t care if the one “giving you value” is your husband or your deity, to make you feel that is true takes a real piece of shit (in the case of the latter, the piece of shit in question is your pastor, not your imaginary friend).

Of course religious people don’t see it like that.  They don’t look at it like that.  But just look up any religious nutbag pastor who ever gave a speech about secularism and the dangers of our society becoming more secular and you will see that they very much see it like that.  Not only do they not trust atheists, not only are they leery of all things secular, they are terrified that if they are not allowed to preach in our public schools their own children may become secular, thus evil.  In fact, they’re not even afraid that their children are going to be taught to be secular in the public schools, they’re terrified that their children won’t be taught anything; that their religious beliefs won’t be constantly reinforced throughout the day.  They are so insecure that the simple idea that their children may spend part of their day not having their religious beliefs actively reinforced is a source of major stress, prompting them to lie, cheat and attempt to subvert the law in a pretty much continuous effort to reintroduce religion into the public school system.  All of this because, without their religious beliefs, they’re afraid their children will become evil, vile people, the default position all people hold until given value by their god.

But that’s not even the worst of it, which brings me to the second point.  God holds us to such an impossible standard that we cannot help but to “fail him every day”.  That’s how utterly useless we are.  We are such worthless pieces of shit that no matter how hard we try it is simply impossible for us to ever be good enough.  Which begs the question, if it’s impossible for me to do something, why do I need to be forgiven for not doing the impossible?  If I, as God made me, am simply incapable of living up to the standard he set forth, no matter how hard I try or how badly I want to, then why do I require forgiveness for not doing the impossible?  This becomes particularly troubling when you think about this quote from a Wikipedia article about codependency:  “In a codependent relationship, the codependent's sense of purpose is based on making extreme sacrifices to satisfy their partner's needs. Codependent relationships signify a degree of unhealthy clinginess, where one person doesn't have self-sufficiency or autonomy. One or both parties depend on their loved one for fulfillment. There is almost always an unconscious reason for continuing to put another person’s life ahead of your own, and often it is because of the mistaken notion that self-worth comes from other people.”

That quote EXACTLY describes a relationship with God, especially among fundamentalists.  They are called “worshipers” for a reason.  The worshiper is expected to make extreme sacrifices to satisfy God’s needs.  The worshiper and God depend on each other, the worshiper for a sense of worth, God for the worship he so desperately desires.  And the worshiper’s entire life, even to the point of sacrificing that life, are spent at the whim of their god because it is the only way they have any self-worth.  All because we were apparently created to be such weak, vile creatures that we would have an absolute need for God to forgive and fix us on a continuous basis.

So why do I need forgiveness for being exactly the thing I was born to be?  Why do I need forgiveness today, tomorrow, the next day, next week, next month, next year because I have not yet attained the unattainable?  Many Christians believe it is impossible to live without sinning.  They say it is because we are “imperfect”.  So what kind of prick demands that we beg forgiveness for not doing the impossible?  All Christians agree that only one man in history lived his entire life without sinning once, which means that all Christians believe that, with the exception of the savior, it is impossible for a person to go through their entire lives without ever committing a single sin.  If you accept that as truth and you accept that we are created by God then you must admit that we were created to be sinners.

Of course that isn’t true.  There is a whole lot sideways thinking to wriggle your way out of admitting that this is what you believe.  The one that comes to mind is that we were not sinners until the original sin and it was our own choices that made us this way, blah, blah, blah.  Except that isn’t true, is it.  I didn’t eat any fruit from any forbidden tree.  I am as I was born.  It was God’s choice to visit original sin on all the generations to come.  If I were to accept creation myth then I am exactly as God intended me to be.  If I were to accept that it is impossible for me to live without sin then I would have to except that this is exactly as God intended as it has been impossible since my birth, not since I, personally, did something to change it.  And even if I accepted that it was the sins of Adam and Eve that brought this upon me, making in the fault of “man”, I would still have to admit that there is nothing in my entire life that I, personally, did to make this true, there is nothing in my entire life that I could have done to prevent it from being true and whether or not it is true is, always has been and always will be completely and utterly out of my control.  Further pressed I would have to admit, though I’m sure begrudgingly, that this is by design.  As mankind had no hand in design and is incapable of changing this “fact” in any way then only the creator himself could hold any kind of responsibility for it being impossible for me to live without sin.  The fact that it is “impossible” pretty much relieves me of any responsibility in the matter.

So, God created us, allowed the first of us to be tempted almost immediately and, when they failed the test, cursed all the generations which followed with constant temptation which is impossible to resist entirely for one’s entire life and, by some estimations, “daily”, but demands that every time we “fail him” we must beg forgiveness.  You’ll have to forgive me if I think that’s stupid; the kind of thing only a sadistic prick would do to someone.  So, really, you can't brag about God's love for you either, because he made you such a pathetic wimp that you couldn't not fail him daily, then demanded that you beg his forgiveness every time you did.

"Original sin" could not have happened

Everybody has heard about the concept of "original sin", the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil against God's explicit command which stained all mankind from that moment until the end of days when God wipes sin from the face of the universe with his incredible magic powers.  Now, it's important to note that the term "original sin" is not used in the Bible, but it is a very common term amongst the religious and the concept of original sin is very much laid out in the Bible.  Unfortunately for believers, original sin is impossible.  Let me explain.

The Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, but they didn't know it because they did not have the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It is well established in the Old Testament that looking at a naked person is sinful, and the first thing Adam and Eve did when they realized they were naked was to cover themselves and hide their nudity from God, who, for some reason, is really bad at hide and seek even though he knows where you're hiding...but the things the "omniscient" God doesn't know is the topic for another post.

So how could it be that Adam and Eve were looking at each other naked all this time, but it was not a sin?  Any Christian will readily explain to you that this is because they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil.  Since they weren't aware that they were looking at each other naked, nor that it was a sin, they were not sinning.  This was God's plan.  If we never knew about sin we wouldn't be able to sin.

Then comes the strange part.  God tells them not to eat from the Tree.  He says if they do then they'll die.  He then leaves his children with their creepy uncle, who God knew full well couldn't be left alone with children, but he had some shopping to do and didn't want to leave them in the hot car in the parking lot, maybe?  I really don't get that part.  "I love you so much!  I've got a few things I have to do.  I'll be back a little later.  (Should I mention the murderous asshole who wants to corrupt my children and undo all of my good works, whom I have inexplicably given free reign to roam wherever he chooses, including near my precious children?  Nah.  I really don't see that causing any problems.)  Have a nice time!"  Yeah, that makes sense.

So along comes the devil, saying, "Hey, look at THAT tree!  That looks pretty good!  You should try it!"

But Adam and Eve aren't having any of that.  They respond, "Yeah, it does look good, but God told us not to.  He said that one will kill us."

To that the devil replies, "Nu uh!  It's good for you!  Try it!  You'll see that I'm right!"

So, Eve tries the fruit, then gives it to Adam.  Seeing that she didn't die, he tries it and BOOM!  Original sin!

But hold the presses!  WHY was it a sin?  Because they did what God told them not to, of course!  Because they listened to the Devil instead of God, of course!  BUT, before eating the fruit they didn't know good from evil.  It was, after all, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".  That is the EXACT name of the tree.  So if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, did they even KNOW that God was good and the devil was bad?  They certainly wouldn't have understood that the devil was "evil" because they had no concept of evil.  Furthermore, without giving them this knowledge God had left them completely unequipped to deal with the concept of a "lie".  The devil lied to them, but they didn't know what a lie was.  And to take it even further, they didn't know that eating the fruit would be a "sin" since they had no concept of sin.  So, if seeing each other naked was not a sin because they had no concept of sin, how could eating the fruit have been a sin, since they had no concept of sin?  Since they didn't know the devil was evil, how could they have known that they should not listen to him?  Since they didn't have a concept of lying how could they have possibly known the devil might be lying?

Before eating this fruit they had no concept of good or evil.  The very name of the tree tells you that it gave them both of these concepts.  They could not have known God was good.  They could not have known the devil was evil.  They could not have known that eating the fruit would be a sin.  They could not have understood that it was possible to lie.  Since they had no knowledge of evil they would have had NO REASON to suspect the devil of being anything bu EXACTLY as trustworthy as God.  They wouldn't have known to be wary of him, they wouldn't have understood that he was "evil" and, most importantly, since they didn't know eating the fruit was a sin, IT WASN'T!  After all, they didn't know looking at each other naked was a sin, so IT wasn't.  By the very argument which explains away why seeing each other naked was not a sin before they had the knowledge of good and evil it was IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to sin until AFTER they ate the fruit.  Not to mention it was also impossible for them to conceive that the devil might be bad or that he might tell lies, which are both concepts they didn't have before eating the fruit.

So any "original sin" would have had to come AFTER eating the fruit, once they had the knowledge which even allowed them to be capable of sin in the first place.

Of course, this is just a single example of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many things which make the original creation story completely ridiculous to take seriously as in any way factual.  And, of course, that doesn't stop people from twisting their minds and way of thinking to such a degree that they can believe it anyway.  But just remember, religion is full of examples of one deity or another doing the impossible, but this particular example should make us all proud because it's an example of human beings doing the impossible, and all without the magical help of fairies and lawn gnomes to help us!  Yes, we human beings sinned the impossible sin all by ourselves, without any help from magic whatsoever, and we should all be very proud of our ancestry for that.  After all, when was the last time you did something which was literally impossible?

Reconciling religion and science

This is one of my pet peeves.  People keep arguing about reconciling religion and science.  Some say it's possible, others say it's not, some just say it needs to be done.  Let me just state to start off that it is completely possible for science and religion to be reconciled.  In fact, there is no need for discussion.  It would be easy to do.  So why are we talking about it instead of doing it?  Let's look into it.

Science, as intelligent, informed people know, is a method of explaining the natural universe around us.  Science cannot implore a supernatural explanation because if it did then we would really never have an explanation for how anything works.  Let's look at how science would look at a supernatural event.

Let us imagine, for argument's sage, that there are gnomes poofing into existence all over the planet.  It's just "POOF!", there's a gnome.  He goes about his business, keeps to himself and doesn't hurt anyone.  Eventually he buggers off to wherever he came from, never to be heard from again.  But it keeps happening.  Let us further imagine that these gnomes are, in fact, magical creatures and it is magic bringing them into existence and removing them from existence in our physical world.  How would science deal with this?  It would start with observation.  Then there would be experimentation.  We would certainly dissect a few of the little guys, if they didn't shoot magic all over our faces when we tried.  But try as we might, science can find no natural explanation for why this is happening because there isn't one.  So, what scientific theory would we use to explain it?  None.  There would be no theory because it is supernatural and science cannot give a supernatural explanation.  There would be no naturalistic explanation of this, so there would be no scientific explanation.  Scientists would proclaim that there was no scientific explanation for what was happening.

That is the important thing to note about science.  You CAN NOT give a supernatural explanation or invoke the supernatural in any way.  If you do, it's not scientific; it's not science.  With this in mind it's easy to see what science thinks about the concept of gods.  Nothing at all.  Science claims it neither possible nor impossible that one or more gods exist.  Science does not even brooch the question because science isn't meant to explain the supernatural.  Its purpose is to explain the natural.

Religion, on the other hand, is all about the supernatural and its influence on the natural universe.  Religion is great at explaining the supernatural.  In fact, religion is perfect for explaining the supernatural.  Why?  Because you don't have to test anything.  You don't have to prove anything.  You simply have to believe it's true and, if you're lucky, convince others to believe it as well.  You don't have to prove that God created the world in 6 literal days, though many have tried and, sadly, believed they succeeded simply by pointing out that the Bible says it's so.  These so called "Bible literalists" are, frankly, not very bright.  They claim that every word in the Bible is absolute truth and the Word of God.  Yet when you point out the passage which outlines how long your slave must survive a fatal beating for it not to be a crime they talk about "a different time".  When you point out the concept of a firmament with windows in it to let the rain through they talk about people who "didn't understand".  Apparently any part of the Bible which is inconveniently obviously not literally true, that part was written by fallible men, yet at the same time every word is the "Word of God".  I suppose it makes sense if you believe a god fathered himself to sacrifice to himself as a way to forgive us for breaking some convoluted and contradictory rules he wrote himself because the old method of forgiveness involving ongoing sacrifice, inexplicably, was no longer sufficient.  But I digress.

So now we have to determine why there is a need to reconcile science and religion.  Who wants this reconciliation?  Why do they want it?  Why is it a problem that they are not reconciled and how can it be fixed?  We have already determined that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, so it's not science that desires this reconciliation.  In fact, is is the religious of the world who want the two to be reconciled.  But why?  If science doesn't have anything to say about their religious beliefs, why do the two need to be reconciled?  Because science says the Earth wasn't created in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago.  Houston, we have a problem.  How are we going to fix that?  When we look at the science every single branch of science which can put a date on something further back than 10,000 years does.  There is not one single science which gives the slightest evidence that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Everywhere science looks there is evidence that the universe is billions of years old, whether we look into space, dig in the ground, land on another planet or go to the bottom of the see.  Scientifically speaking, a 10,000 year old Earth is simply not an option.  It just isn't true.  This certainly creates a problem for reconciliation.  Fortunately not every religious person believes this, so it's not necessarily a problem for all religious people.  So let's look at another example.

On to evolution (evilution?).  Evolution says that everything on Earth evolved from the most primitive lifeforms we can find evidence for.  This is at odds with those who believe that we were created in our current form by God.  Again we have a problem reconciling the two.  All the evidence shows evolution is a reality.  In fact, it is one of the most hated and, thus, most tested theories of all times.  If any theory has been put through the paces and come out as a reality it's evolution.  There is simply no evidence, no science to even suggest that evolution is not a reality.  It's about as solid as it gets, unless you count intelligent design as science, but since it starts with a supernatural being setting the design in motion, and since you would not sail into the middle of the ocean on a "design" for a ship, it requires that this "design" then be "created", it's supernatural hogwash with no basis in science or reality, so we can safely dismiss it as, and forgive the scientific terminology here, "crap".

So, no luck finding a way to reconcile science with particular religious beliefs so far.  What to do?  Let's move on to why it's a problem and come back to this sticky situation.  It'll be quick as the problem is obvious.  Science keeps telling religious people that their beliefs are wrong.  They see this as a personal attack, as an "evil" being done against them, as anti-religious.  Of course given that science uses "natural" explanations only it most certainly is not intended to be an attack on religion.  It's simply what the evidence is telling scientists.  But I can certainly see how this is a problem  I told you it would be quick.

Now back to how to reconcile science and religion.  What can we do?  Can we fix the science which people don't like?  Well, the evidence is what leads to the conclusion.  Can we change the evidence?  That would certainly not be scientific.  If we started doing that science would stop working.  Can we change the conclusion despite the evidence?  Again, not very scientific, nor very productive.  So what to do?  Let's do a quick recap.

Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural.  As a result, science doesn't care what your personal beliefs are.  So, science has no need to reconcile.  On the other hand when supernatural beliefs include influences in the natural universe then those with supernatural beliefs are concerned with what science says.  It is for this reason that the religious people of the world want reconciliation between the two.  So, one side doesn't care and holds beliefs based on evidence and methodical experimentation, the other side does care and holds beliefs based on what nameless, primitive, misogynistic men wrote thousands of years ago.  The answer is simple.  If you want to reconcile science and religion then YOU have to change.  Science has no need for reconciliation, science works quite well, science doesn't need to change.  Religion has a desire for reconciliation, religion is an individual thing, religion needs to change OR forget about reconciliation.  It's that simple.  If you want science and your religious beliefs to be reconciled, then just DO IT!  Change your religious beliefs so that they no longer conflict with reality.  There is plenty of room left for magical beliefs, even beliefs which affect the real world such as prayer healing (I know this guy who has this cousin whose boyfriend's sister heard about this guy who had cancer and he prayed about it and after months of chemotherapy it was gone!)  But when religious beliefs conflict with scientific reality either change your religious beliefs to match proven reality or stop whining about reconciling science with your religion.  We're not going to change the data until we get an outcome everyone likes.  We're not going to change to conclusions to something which doesn't offend your religious sensibilities.  The data is what it is and it says what it says and we're not going to pretend reality is any different than what reality is just to make you happy.  So if you want to reconcile science with your religion, go ahead and change your beliefs.  Problem solved.  If you don't want to do that then there will be no reconciliation between the two.  Science isn't demanding reconciliation, after all.  It's only religious people who are demanding reconciliation.  What they are really demanding is that science change to match their beliefs.  They are demanding that reality be altered to match their beliefs.  It's never going to happen.  Science works and it's not going to break itself so that you can hold your primitive beliefs unchallenged.

Secularism vs. Atheism

It has been a while since I have posted (I have been extremely busy, especially at work), but I was briefly inspired today so I thought I’d throw a random post in.  Hope you guys enjoy it.

Many Christians simply do not understand the difference between “secular” and “atheist”.  In their eyes the two are exactly the same thing.  This comes from the apparently commonly held belief (I’m not sure whether it’s so much a “belief” or just a “claim” they often make to bolster their arguments) that not talking about God somehow promotes atheism.  I can kind of see how, if you had twisted your way of thinking so that you could accept obvious bullshit as absolute truth, one might come to the conclusion that “removing God” from something was inherently atheistic.  However, to “promote” atheism one cannot simply remove any given god.  To “promote” atheism one has to speak out against the concept of gods.

This is the major difference between secularism and atheism.  To promote atheism is to teach that there are no gods.  To promote theism is to teach that there are one or more gods.  To promote secularism is to have nothing whatsoever to say on the matter.

Really, it’s all a matter of perception.  If, for instance, our schools were actively promoting atheism (I mean REALLY actively promoting atheism, not the “promoting atheism” claimed by ignorant doomsayers), then secularism would be the champion of the religious, assuming they could not simply kill all people who disagreed with them and force their beliefs on all children everywhere.  Secularism would be okay by them if it were removing “not their beliefs”.  They would have no problem with it at all.  Then Christians could easily see how secularism was different.  There would be no confusion at all.  Why?  Because the only reason there is confusion today is because they want there to be confusion.  They want to smudge the line, stretch the truth and obfuscate the facts because secularism means a change in the status quo, which favors them.  Contrary to all of their claims, Christians do not want an equal playing field.  They’ll accept an equal playing field if they have to, as they have tried to do with the “teach the controversy” bullshit.  (Unfortunately for them the only “controversy” about evolution is in their heads.)

Equality is what Christians want only when they can’t have superiority.  Even then it’s often only a pseudo-equality they are actually attempting to achieve.  To “teach the controversy” appears, on the surface (and in their claims), to give “equal” classroom time to two competing ideas, one a scientific theory, the other a fanciful fairy tale thinly disguised as a scientific theory.  If you listen to them then “teaching the controversy” would be “equal”.  After all, people who’ve done all the work of figuring things out have one idea, people who would rather let moldy old parchments which tell of unicorns and magic dictate their reality have another idea, presenting both would be “equal”.  Of course that is a false dichotomy.  There are those who believe life on this planet was seeded by aliens or meteorites.  They may or may not be concerned with the origins of that life, but it is possible that neither the theory of evolution nor the fairy tale of intelligent design fits in with their beliefs.

In the end all of their complaints are about answering the same question.  “How can we get (more of) our teaching in the classroom so that future generations of children don’t look at people with our beliefs like they were some kind of alien retards?”  That’s really what it’s all about; propagating their beliefs.  They have no interest in equality because, all things being equal, science is going to kill idiotic religious beliefs sooner or later.  And that’s the real problem they have with secularism.  It makes all things equal.

Many probably do actually believe that secularism in schools promotes atheism.  Though I don’t think all of them are too stupid to figure it out, they are all at least too stupid by choice to want to figure it out.  It will be a while before the world as a whole rejects fairy tales in favor of enlightenment and knowledge, but in America and, especially, many European countries the winds of change are blowing, sometimes in gale force.  That has to be pretty scary for many, especially those who already believe that they are so super special and that their message is so super dangerous to anyone who doesn’t agree with them that the world is out to get them.

Fortunately, courtroom judged clear up to the Supreme Court have access to dictionaries and are, generally speaking, pretty intelligent people who are fully capable of figuring out the vast difference between “secular” and “atheist”.

Been a few weeks

I haven't felt much like talking about atheism lately, but I did see a picture today which inspired me to try to be funny.  Given that a good share of atheists are liberals I thought some of you might find it amusing to.  To that end I've created a video and a YouTube channel to share my amusing vision.  It's nothing big, just a brief commentary on a picture of Romeny and Christie, but the thought amused me greatly, as I hope it does you.

On a side note, I am hoping to get back to blogging soon.  I do enjoy discussing atheism, but there has been a lot going on in my life lately.  Things are looking up and I'm finding new inspiration in the GOP just about every day, most notably with the observation that evolution denial leads to dumb ass beliefs, such as that the female body, rather than evolving to propagate life as efficiently as possible was "created" with the ability to reject pregnancy as the result of rape.  Unless, of course, she secretly wanted it.

Anyway, here's the video.
Second thoughts

Sorry I haven't been posting

I may not be posting again for a while.  I have too many things going on right now, not the least of which is the Magic the Gathering 2013 Core Set release.  I'll be back posting again sooner or later, angrier than ever, when I start getting my butt kicked in MTG.  Thanks for your patience.

Faith

Faith is a strange beast, when you think about it.  Theists often describe it as belief without evidence.  Atheists often describe it as belief despite evidence to the contrary.  But really, there’s a little bit more to it than that.  It’s really belief even though you know better.

The way it works is quite interesting, really.  There are mechanisms, built both into the human mind and the concept of faith, to help people keep irrational faiths.  You are promised incredible magic powers, something I think we’d all like to have.  Who wouldn’t want the power to magically produce food to feed the hungry, or a spell to help us out when we’re down on our luck?  That desire to want it to be true is the part built into us that helps us keep irrational faiths.

The mechanism within faith itself is really quite ingenious in its simplicity.  Faith, especially in Christianity, comes with a ton of built in excuses for why it doesn’t work.  A common one is “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord they God”.  In other words, “Yes, you have the magic power to live through drinking poison, but if you drink poison God is going to let you die because you’re being a show off about it.”  There are excuses for why you can’t prove it.

But the most insidious (and, it seems, natural) mechanisms to excuse faith when it doesn’t work is self blame.  If you have faith you can walk on water, move mountains, heal the sick…  Can’t do that?  It’s your own fault.  You don’t have enough faith.  ANY time faith fails to deliver on the promise of magic powers it’s a fault with YOU, not a fault with your BELIEF.  So there can never be a test of the belief itself, only a test of one’s own faith.

There are, of course, other built in excuses for your magic powers fizzling.  God wants something else from you.  It rains on the just and unjust alike (though God does seem willing to give the unjust AIDS or send earthquakes on their decedents).  It’s not in God’s plan.

And, of course, it works better if you’re more prone to believing in supernatural powers, which is why the religious want at your children.  They want to instill this propensity for supernatural nonsense in them at an early age so that they are more likely to keep it in the future.  The younger they are when exposed to supernatural beliefs the more difficult it is to remove these beliefs from them.  The Catholic church knows all too well that the youth are the key to the church’s future.  That’s why they baptize kids as infants.  It is a huge event in the family life, a way for the family to show off their new baby, which every parent wants to do, an experience to tell their children about when they get older with pictures to share and baubles to pass to the child to commemorate the occasion.  It seems important.

As atheists we often think of faith as something stupid people use to excuse themselves from reality, but really there’s a whole lot more to it than that.  There are so many mechanisms in place to force people to keep their faith that, once you get caught up in it, it is very difficult to get out of it.  Faith replaces reason for these people.  Many think that an honest questioning of their faith, never mind actually doubting it, is a mortal sin which will deny them their magic powers should Jesus come back right then, and he’s coming back any minute now…any minute…wait for it…  We often get frustrated at the annoying, circular things Christians say to us which just make no sense whatsoever, but when you get down to it, it’s not their fault.  They MUST believe, they MUST defend, they MUST attack as these are all parts of the faith defense mechanism which they firmly believe their very existence depends on.  Yes, it makes me angry when they do it to me, but when I think about it, it’s really kind of sad.  These people aren't really being the thick-headed idiots they seem to be.  They've just fallen into a mental trap, through no real fault of their own, which is very difficult to escape.  Everything they believe, everything they've been promised, everything they think they desire comes crashing down the moment they start to "see reason".  Often their friends go with it.  It's no wonder they often won't budge and believe whatever ridiculous things they have to in order to keep their faith.