Many New Christians Do Not Do Nuance

I don't do nuance. - President George W. Bush 2/15/2004

Since becoming an atheist years ago, I have noticed when talking to New Christians that many simply do not do nuance. They are intelligent people that are educated in Christian theology but when you read some of their blogs, check out their social media, watch their YouTube pages, or have a discussion about Christianity you find they simply want to keep things extremely simple. In fact one of my New Christian friends wrote a book a few years back titled "Jesus or Nothing". In discussing his premise with me via email he addressed what I pointed out was an obvious false dilemma fallacy.

My friend truly believes it's really a simple choice between "the gospel" or nihilism. I let an atheist friend of mine borrow his book to thumb through looking forward to hearing his expertise critique since he is getting his masters in philosophy currently. He asked me if this author realizes that there are many different types of nihilism in philosophy. I am pretty certain my friend understands this, but this is my point... There is nuance within the "nothing" part of the "Jesus or Nothing". Shit, there is nuance in the "Jesus" part of the "Jesus or nothing". There are people that truly believe that Jesus was an extraterrestrial. So it's a false dichotomy right from the title page.

My issue with my New Christian friend's entire concept of "Jesus or Nothing" (the current theme throughout the entire book) is it just isn't the only two choices we have. He'll delicately admit he's aware that there are other choices out there that people can pick buuuut will follow by doubling down on his premise by saying that following all things to their logical conclusions there is only two real choices - 1. Jesus (the gospel) or 2. Nothing (nihilism). But that's only true when you are working within a narrow framework. It's only true when you are working within one context - a Christian worldview. There is SO MUCH outside of this context. There is so much outside of this narrow frame work that it's dishonest in all reality to say that the truth is that there is only two choices. It's not true.

It certainly isn't true to the millions of extremely devout Muslim believers in the world today who could easily say "All(ah) or Nothing". I call copyright on that book title! So the author of that book would also be working in a narrow framework (Islam). To be completely "objective" (a term loved by the New Christians who kid themselves that they have an actual "objective" morality when we all know it's working within a subjective framework - the framework of a Christian worldview) we must say it's really an infinite amount of choices out there.. it could be "Polytheism or Amish apple butter", "tweezers or God's God", "Jews or Jesus" .... whatever you want it to be. The possibilities on each side of the "or" here are endless.

But New Christians don't do nuance. It's THIS or THAT! They are tricking you like any good salesman would. You need this NOT that! In reality there are infinitely more choices besides...

"A supernatural being sent his son - put him into a flesh-suit of his favorite species of ape, had that son killed by that species, had that son raise from the dead and come back to a magical, supernatural home beyond the cosmos all to appease blood sacrifice rules he set up in the first place OR .... One particular definition of nihilism."

Just look at the #Defund Planned Parenthood movement to see my point. Here is another example of New Christians trying to pigeon hole an issue into one clear binary "right" or "wrong" stance. To New Christians it's a baby at the moment of conception. The soul is inserted (by Yahweh) into that "baby" vessel as soon as that sperm meets that egg. God often allows miscarriages and horrific birth defects like something you would see out of a horror movie, but we'll ignore that and pretend it's not true - (That must be "the fall", Satan, sin, evil fallen angel-demons or hobgoblins or whatever).

If you have an abortion about a month after that sperm met that egg inside of you and began forming a baby you are a murderer! There is no nuance here. Ignore that God himself killed actual real Egyptian children (the firstborn of all families and what the fuck, why not... all the firstborn cows too), that doesn't matter though, please stay focused... I have heard it a million times on social media from New Christians. It's a baby INSTANTLY!.. thus any abortion at any time period is killing. I suppose if we were to follow this to it's logical conclusion and have our government be ran by a sort of Christian-style-Sharia law (what I think most Christians are striving for since they vote for these type of politicians) then these women who get abortions would be tried in court for murder.... which if you keep following this logic (most New Christians I've known are FOR the death penalty too- "eye of an eye", right?) so we should kill the mother for killing her zygote. Makes sense.

There has not been one New Christian explain to me why on Earth you cannot be pro-life and also NOT support the Defund Planned Parenthood movement. One merely need to be mildly informed with just one, maybe two simple facts -- that 97% of Planned Parenthood's services deal with women's health that everyone is OK with (not concerning abortion) and only 3% are abortion services .. and of those abortion services ZERO are funded by tax payer money. Why is this still a discussion again?? This apparently escapes them... even those that know these 2 simple facts. However, out of principle we must stand with Team Anti-Abortion because well um.. yeah just because it's relevant now.... many New Christians do not do nuance! Murderer or Pro-creation no matter what.

It also works this way with many New Christians' attitudes on gay marriage. There is a song and dance they do that often amuses those like us that simply want all citizens to have equal rights under the law. wow. what a controversial concept! They are in a bind, torn because their "holy book" explains being gay is an abomination (along with shrimp and wearing mixed fabrics in the same book of the Bible but ignore that) and, we should probably be strongly Biblical and kill all gay people (Leviticus 20:13) while we're at it.

These poor New Christians are the young, cool fundamental-hipster Christians so they often have gay friends that they haven't murdered (some of which are even Christians themselves who happen to attend a more liberal church!); so if they are to be true to their religious dogma (via whatever Timothy Keller, C.S. Lewis, Max Lucado book they are reading at the time because no one's gonna actually kill their gay friends as the Bible commands) and remain "cool" quasi-liberal hipster-Jesus-servants they simply shut down. They don't know how to act. They mostly, and simply avoid the subject like the plague altogether in the real world... only inside the protected tribe gatherings of New Christian peers do they discuss it in a rainbowless room.

This is the crux at what is wrong with religious dogma at it's core. Nevermind all the immoral passages within the Scriptures commanded or often acted out by God himself, the Bible forces ancient ways of thinking on it's followers. Many New Christians simply don't do nuance - it's right or it's wrong. Evil or Good. God or Satan. Theistic evolution or creationism. God-given libertarian Free Will or Hard Determinism. Life or Anti-Life. "Objective" morality or lawless chaos. The gospel or Hard Reductionism.

Please. Spare us.

In the real world, the more you learn about philosophy, cultural studies, sociology, economics, and science as a whole the more you realize things are definitely NOT black and white. There are 50 shades of grey at the very least! (*You're welcome for that.) Clearly we can see the simplistic "this or that" mentality played out on full display in young Earth Creationists. Most of the New Christians steer clear from the Ken Hams and Kent and Eric Hovinds of the world and consider themselves at the very least Old Earth creationists. They no longer say all species (I'm sorry "kinds") magically popped into existence 6000 years ago and then just sort of micro-evolved until now.

No. Thankfully the vast majority of New Christians have finally accepted what every field of science shows to be a proven fact: the theory of evolution by natural selection and the common ancestry of all species. However, there are some New Christians that treat this topic like they would gay marriage.. it's easiest not to discuss why they don't accept evolution (per se) when all of science shows it to be true (with mounds of evidence). When pressed they usually just change the subject. Because let's be honest, it's hard to say you accept science and scoff and laugh at those simplistic, silly atheists that think there is a conflict between academic Christianity and the sciences when you deny the foundation of all of biology and genetics. You can't do both. Sorry, even our species MACRO-evolved from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Deal with it. Stop dancing.

In reality, the journey of our species is an awkward, painful, luck of the draw, evolutionary story with so much death and suffering encasing most of our species existence. As anthropologist Robert Ardrey once said, "We are born of risen apes, not fallen angels." Morality came sprouting forth sloppily as we emerged millions of years ago. Science /does/ nuance. Evolutionary biology /does/ nuance! When studied we find our ancestors pieced together morality through subjective concepts, ethics, philosophy, and religion... all of which did not come from somewhere "out there" in the cosmos in some supernatural realm... it came from within our brains, intertwined with our emotions, over many years of gregarious, social existence among our fellow apes. We built our morality, it wasn't bestowed upon us by our imaginary celestial daddy as those ancient books say.

This is how everything came to be- evolved - bottom up and it's /all/ nuanced! It's all in the details. Just watch the video I posted below from Richard Dawkins to see the beauty of nuance in evolutionary biology. It's fucking amazing! He presents visualized interpretations (snapshots) of our own species back through time and you'll see animals that don't look anything like us the further back in time we go!

Nuance: It's something that thrills us, feeds the insatiable curiosity, stimulating our intellect to discover our species past and the birth of morality in our species - an ongoing social experiment that we have clearly not perfected yet. It's not so simple that all things horrible and immoral on this particular planet  = two words for an explanation: "1. The 2. Fall". NO! It's more nuanced... Everything is more nuanced. All of everything that ever is and was or will be is not in one fucking book. It's not black and white. It's much more complicated and life is much more interesting and complex because of this. Beware of those that want to sell you simplicity or "the answer" to life. There is no such thing and as grown ups we should all know this by now.

Sites:

My friend's "Jesus or Nothing" book for sale:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jesus-or-nothing-dan-dewitt/1116874863?ean=9781433540462

Here's some full-blown "Not Doing Nuance" in all it's glory (Prager University's "The Truth bout C02"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

Information on abortion:
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/early-abortion-options/

Beautiful Nuance by Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ClZROoyNM
 

Multiple Eye Witness Testimonies of Jesus and Other Things.

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish. - David Hume

Dear atheists,

Do you have any New Christian friends? Do you know people that are in the business of religion, whether it be at a seminary, Christian college whether a pastor, a Christian teacher, or a youth leader? These are people that literally make a career off of their particular brand of religion (it's how they make money)... Many of you have friends and family that are still religious and see their social media light up with posts like "abortion is murder!" or "Marriage is between one man and one woman" or "#defundplannedparenthood" or whatever narrative the conservative Republican talking heads decide to push on their followers for the week.

I have noticed in reading many of my friends writings on social media, blogs, or speeches on YouTube that they often call those that do not accept their choice of a religion (Christianity) "skeptics". It's strange because it seems to be used with negative connotation behind it. They, in the same breath, would say that there is absolutely no conflict between science and religion yet seem to not understand how a term like skeptic is a positive thing if one is to think scientifically. There is no situation that being skeptical is bad. It may be unwarranted continuing skepticism like say in the new movement that said we faked the Pluto flyby or that 9/11 was an inside job or the birther movement or global warming is all a liberal hoax or whatever, but it's never bad to be a skeptic going into any claim.

We as atheists know this. Obviously, we have been presented in life with the positive claim that there is a god and this god is the god of the Bible and then throughout our lives are sloppily shown all sorts of lines of reasoning for this from a strange pieced-together ancient book mixed with a whole heaping helping of random overweight sweaty yelling pastors with bad haircuts telling us this means this and this means that and this is the right way to live and don't do that. It's a lot to take in and it's mostly began as brainwashing in children, but I digress. And I've got a little personal there! Let's just say we atheists have found the "evidence" presented for a god to be lacking on all fronts.

I would assume that not all New Christians would talk negatively on being a "skeptic". I think some would acknowledge its inherently good to be skeptical of all claims - even their religion.. then would just suggest they have evidence for this religion's validity. Evidence for the validity of Christianity hinges almost wholly on Jesus being a real human in history first and foremost. There is a small minority of Bible scholars in what's called the Jesus Seminar that are mythicists. They do not think Jesus was a real historical figure but merely concocted over time borrowing from many other myths before and during this time period when the New Testament was written.

We will just write them off as being wrong for now simply due to the fact that the majority of Bible scholars (the experts) think that the stories of Jesus in the New Testament were based on a real person living at that time. This doesn't automatically grant that the stories surrounding this real figure in history were not tacked on or embellished in any way to make this figure look more miraculous, but we'll set that aside for the time being.

Now, if you were to ask one of your New Christian friends what they think "proves" Christianity or at least gives the greatest line of evidence for it - they would say - the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It proves the gospel. You see, first we must grant them the core "blood sacrifice" cosmic rule that demands an all-powerful God /or at least the "son" part of him/ must die to atone for the sins of all human beings throughout history and into the future is an actual thing. So whatever... let's do it... we let them have that, something there is no evidence for - it's just in an old book. So OK. We're giving them a lot already, I know, but let's keep going...

The next step is to examine if these things are true. Did Jesus exist?... we will just say yes here. He was a human being that existed in history. Did he die? We'll grant this as well. He did die on a cross. History shows it, right? Did he raise from the dead? (see, this is the apologists' slam dunk! if you can show Jesus rose from the dead this means to them that the whole message of gospel is true- thus Christianity is true) Do Christians actually believe there is evidence for this to satisfy us skeptics that Jesus rose from the dead?

Yes. Yes, they do. We merely need to look at the evidence to see!

A friend I was introduced to by another friend (both of which are New Christians) has a video I posted in the link below. Check out his stuff, he's a really nice guy. He has a video explaining how we can know the New Testament is reliable and it's not all just made up, or copied wrong, or altered like a bad game of "telephone". YouTube any lecture or debate on Jesus' resurrection from William Lane Craig. This is also where the New Christians find comfort... they can show by delving into ancient accounts that the resurrection of Jesus was true. How do they know this? - three key words - EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY. This is the defining proof for the validity of the gospel. You see, MULTIPLE witnesses saw Jesus after his resurrection. The New Testament itself was taken directly from eye witness testimony. Not just one person.. MULTIPLE eye witnesses! Also, the direct eye witness (a disciple of Jesus - Peter) who was with Jesus the whole time told the Apostle Paul and many others his stories of direct accounts with Jesus (keep in mind there is no proof for this just granting it for now - it's inferred this happened this way, no solid evidence.) So does this confirm the validity of the stories in the New Testament?

Borrowing from Carl Sagan's creed, when I've asked proponents of Jesus' resurrection for extraordinary evidence (extra evidence, more than the usual amount of evidence for a given historical figure), they say we actually have more evidence for Jesus' existence than many very well established historical figures. In other words by ways historians get information on the validity of fact-person over fictional-person, Jesus wins this compared to many other historical figures we today assume are real. Of course, this is just Jesus' existence... I don't think I've ever heard any New Christian say that we have more or even as much evidence for Jesus resurrection than another historical figure doing a specific act or deed. Maybe they will address this contention sometime for me.

Also, it seems they miss my point about the "extra evidence" I require. Even if Jesus has more historical proof than Alexander the Great or whatever historical figure we take for granted it doesn't matter - I don't have to GIVE MY LIFE to any other historical figure except Jesus ... if the gospel is true. So give me something more than shitty spotty evidence if you expect me to give more than a moment's notice of learning who you are like I would with Alexander the Great. You need to earn my following with more and better evidence!

Say it is true ... let's give the proponents of Jesus resurrection the benefit of the doubt and say ALL the eye witness testimonies are really people that are all reporting the same thing. They are real testimonies, not fabricated or falsified. It seems what we are left with is what the Christian apologist wants - accurate, multiple eye witness testimonies of Jesus after he was raised from the dead! Is this proof of the truth of the gospel?!

Well, I would suggest that if we are to use this "multiple eye witness testimony" as valid proof of an event taking place then we must take into account many other events in human history. The Christian apologist would likely be a skeptic in many of these other "multiple eye witness testimonies" such as UFO sightings or other religious experiences. In fact there have been several UFO sightings that have not only been witnessed by multiple people and reported to the local news, but have also been filmed by multiple people! So why would anyone be skeptical when we have film of this account? Why would people that accept multiple eye witness testimony as evidence of an event that happened thousands of years ago and was written down decades after the event not accept an event that multiple people experienced and even filmed?

This is inconsistent. And shows your confirmation bias, New Christians. Address this. Now let me address you:

What we do know is that eye witness is one of the WORST lines of evidence to rely on. Multiple court cases in this country alone have shown this to be the case. We are wired for bias. Listen to this for an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/06/418585084/the-new-science-behind-our-unfair-criminal-justice-system

We are pattern seeking mammals and we are inclined to make major mistakes in connecting patterns and forming theories in our heads; creating false stories, attaching blame, biased for those reflecting our race, gender, and socioeconomic status. We are not reliable. It's a fact. And these biases and unreliable, unfair connections have real consequences convicting the wrong person in trials. We are horrible at identifying things from memory and our memory is faulty. And this is all in 2015, we are talking about thousands of years ago when we talk about Jesus' resurrection. Why on Earth should we be inclined to assume our memory was better then? Why on Earth would we assume that biases weren't at play in the eye witness testimonies of Jesus? Why do we mostly all understand that eye witness testimony (even from multiple sources on a single event) in 2015 is unreliable yet somehow think multiple eye witness testimony is somehow reliable in the past? Magic? We can say magic I guess... God's magic? Faith? That illogical gap there was all fuzzy wuzzy woo to connect it all together? We should just have faith in this? There is a certain level of faith here? Is this it? Honestly, New Christian?

Then you've lost me in an intellectual discussion... You're whole "proof of Jesus' resurrection" comes tumbling down in front of us. Multiple eye witness testimony proves fucking nothing! And you know it. Stop saying it does. You have a deep confirmation bias for your tribe to be the right one, for your religion to be the right one, for your god to be the right one. It's dishonest, it's clearly special pleading when you do not treat other claims the same as you do yours.

There is a something that seems crystal clear to me the more I look into it. Religion is like a colossal worldwide role playing game. It's followers are like those who obsess over the details of Lord of Rings or Game of Thrones. Only with a role playing game or these movies and shows, people know it's not real. In religion you embody cognitive dissonance at it's purest form. You start with a completely faulty premise, with no evidence to support it- the concept of God. A premise that has been hashed out and debated for thousands of years, but a concept that when specifics of a theistic god are examined have been debunked philosophically and scientifically years ago. The logical arguments are over.

The game is over but these people are still playing it as if it is real! Christian Universities flooded with budding New Christians eager to learn about the details of real-life-"Dungeons and Dragons/Religion", youth groups, church camps, mega-churches, apologetics seminars all hashing over the minute details of something that is all made up. Something that has no actual concrete foundation in science, logic, or anything in the real world at it's core. It's all smoke and mirrors reflecting emotion, community, fear, tribalism, superstition- each bouncing off each other in different combinations....

All built on .... Nothing.

I understand the pull. I used to be religious. I wrote a blog about what I think is happening regarding "human deep time" and the draw to the ancient woo... by default many things look magical and mystical from this vantage point so far from it's origin.. Religion began a long, long time ago, many different ones existed, those that survived human history still contain that "magical" and "mystical" pull that gets us because we realize it's old so it must be revered and it must be wise.

It's not, it's vestigial. It's not real. You are not talking to someone other than yourself when you pray. You are not pulling the laws of nature to adjust this or that because your imaginary father in heaven is at your call. This is absurd and it's well past time to put these things to rest. You are playing a game that is all it is, dear New Christian,... please let it go with the rest of us that realize we do not need these mental crutches anymore. If it means a purposeless universe.. at least we're not lying to ourselves and hashing out details of a fantasy to make consciousness easier for our species! Your lines of evidence are faulty and you are very deeply clouded in your own confirmation bias - steeped in culture and family history. It's weighing you down and you know it. You know the intellectual debate has been lost years ago and at best we are left with a sort of deistic god. A god that is indistinguishable from an atheistic worldview. Just let it go. We're not alone in the universe. We have each other ... There is a lot of us here on the other side waiting for you! I hope you come over soon. We'd love to have you.

Sources:

William Lane Craig: Did Jesus Raise from the Dead?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s

Timothy Paul Jones on "How We Got the New Testament":
https://vimeo.com/131499553

News report of UFO sightings by multiple eye witnesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeaBZyBTRiM

UFO Cases with Multiple Witnesses:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=multiplewitnesses

Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice by Adam Benforando:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/unfair-adam-benforado/1120377337?ean=9780770437763

Victory! God's Will Was Done! - Planned Parenthood Survives: More Thoughts on Christians and Abortion (A Blog Short)

But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 

- Numbers 5:20-21

Today God's will was done on the floor of the U.S. Senate! Just hours ago the Senate democrats voted to NOT cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood... proving either God has no power on American democracy or that God's will is for Planned Parenthood to continue to have federal funding .. OR one could always just go with the standby - it's because of "the fall" or that this world is cursed by the worst evil angel or something. It works this way with prayer too! Those that prayed for Planned Parenthood to be defunded did not have their prayers answered. Why? God's will? Mysterious ways maybe? Whatever answer you get in reality to your prayer there is always a "Christian reason" for that answer. It couldn't just be random life events playing themselves out at all in a universe devoid of cosmic purpose or anything. No. That's just unthinkable!

This whole debacle stemmed from a heavily edited undercover video by a conservative news group that has been proven misleading due to the parts being edited out. Also, all news is edited, yes - but what you find scrapped on the editing floor, so to speak -if it in fact changes the context when put back in and disproves the very thing you are suggesting this edited video proves -- then THAT'S dishonest. That's like quote-mining or cherry picking scientific data to prove your stupid points (something creationist morons like Kent Hovind Ray Comfort do constantly.)

Republican congressmen and Christians old and new alike took to the blog-o-sphere and social media calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. #DefundPlannedParenthood While this was happening basic facts on the ground lay ignored, brushed aside, or possibly just undiscovered by the supporters of this legislation. This would easily be corrected with a mild skepticism and a quick fact check that would lead readers to what Planned Parenthood actually does! Only about 3% of what Planned Parenthood does daily are abortions (of which 90% or so are before the first 20 weeks, and no federal funding is allowed for this - which seems like the point of this whole fucking thing!!!) So by cutting Planned Parenthood essentially those that follow Jesus are denying help to poor women. Something Jesus would say you were doing unto him ... Matthew 25:31-46. Nicely done there.

Dear Christian, here is another idea to consider - In 2013 and 2014, over 3.5 million patients were provided birth control services by Planned Parenthood. This was something many Evangelical Republicans were against. But that’s about 3.5 million potential abortions prevented! You cannot logically have it both ways. Have some foresight! what would happen if you would have gotten your way today and Planned Parenthood was defunded? Suddenly these millions of people are without birth control which of course will lead to more abortions! Just think about what you are doing before calling something to be defunded completely by the federal government. Plus, as I've stated many times before 97% of what Planned Parenthood provides is healthcare for women, and even men. This includes breast screenings to check for breast cancer, contraception, free STD tests all for women who cannot afford them in our crazy mostly-FOR-profit health system in this country!

Are there issues with Planned Parenthood? Of course, my libertarian friend rightly pointed a few of them out to me in an email today, but we have to look at the priorities of the Christian Republicans. See where loyalty ultimately lies. My friend is not like a typical Republican. He's consistent, but most of the Republicans calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood are not! Unlike my libertarian friend, they don't have a problem with corporatism in Wall Street (where no one of the lower class benefits) but point out the evil corporatism in Planned Parenthood (which women of lower incomes DO benefit). All I'm saying is the priorities are backwards... we can talk about reinventing Planned Parenthood (as "sometimes libertarian" Rand Paul wants to do) to non-profit groups and so on but let's first focus in on corporatism and crony capitalism on Wall Street, or the banks, and large corporations... then we'll get to a this program that gives healthcare to poor women.

***Late Addition -

Dear Christian, 
... as you sulk about the Planned Parenthood legislative decision today, reminding me of the still continued sulking of the Supreme Court Decision (you know those evil black robed elites that legislate from the bench! - which of course you were FOR in deciding our President in "Bush Vs. Gore") -- can you answer why you're weeping over terminating human fetuses without a central nervous system is not on par with actual death of innocent children in say Iraq in our last war? Most of the Christians I knew then were in full support of that war of choice and we didn't hear a single peep on the crushing of a baby's skull by an American bomb or a sharp shooter blowing the head off of a child as we saw at the beginning of Clint Eastwood's movie. These are actual babies, fully developed children not the size of a kidney bean. 

There is disproportion in your lament of early death. And of course, this is just human beings. The overwhelming majority of Christians I've met in my lifetime consider the Earth something we are commanded to "subdue" - which of course means supporting the mass consumption of animals - the genocide of other species of animals by our hands is just God's intention for his favorite species. These ideas, this dogma that puts humans above the animals in all things, and pulls us out of the natural order is at the core of the problem with the global environment we are facing today. We are like giant toddlers, using toddler logic (just look at the 2016 GOP Presidential candidates for a clear example of this.) This country is getting more progressive though... as we've seen lately and I think we are experiencing the death throws of an antiquated, outdated way of viewing our place in the cosmos - religion.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. American may be joining the rest of modern industrialized countries at the grown up table soon. We will see. 

"Tea Party Republicans"... Love big government that hurts people and are against big government that helps people. Fuck them. - A text from "Gog" 1 min. ago.

Why Christians Should Be Pro-Abortion (a Blog short)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open.”

Hosea 13:16

Dear Christian,

Have you ever considered that being pro-life, or against abortion, is an irrational position to take from your perspective? If the precious human soul with intrinsic value is worth just as much as any other human being with a beautiful intrinsic soul than we can safely say that all lives matter to Christians. I think most of you would agree. Most of the Christians I know would say that these precious little souls with intrinsic worth even if aborted would go straight to their creator/Father God when they are murdered at Planned Parenthood. Also, most of the Christians I know believe in a hell (whether it be an actual lake of fire or separation from god in some tormented way) and that all human souls have that chance to hear the gospel and if rejecting it they will face judgment in the afterlife. All except babies that haven't reached this "age of accountability" yet. So, there is a loophole. Die or be murdered before you reach this age (usually around 4 or 5 years old or something, I've heard) and you escape God's judgment. Thus of course showing original sin doesn't actually begin in our species until about age 4 or 5.

But more importantly, Christians, by doing the simple math it's much more probable a human being would go to hell if he/she survives past that "age of accountability" than if they were simply aborted by their mother before they were born. The success rate for an aborted fetus going to heaven is at 100%. If minimizing suffering is hinged on morality and getting to heaven to be with our Savior is the end goal Christians must stop being pro-life and join us liberals who are for a women's right to choose. Anything else would be logically inconsistent.

*Original idea from my friend, Steve.

Pluto: A Scientist Explains / A Christian Apologist Explains (A Blog Short)

 

NASA's New Horizons space probe has finally reached its destination - Pluto! We are now seeing stunning images from the dwarf planet's surface. I was reading a new report from NASA.gov today and one portion of the report gave me chills. Science is always changing with new evidence and reworking it's theories and completely scrapping some. In this report it talks about how due to the active geologic surface and lack of craters on Pluto (showing a very young surface compared to most icy moons in our solar system) scientists are forced to rethink ideas of geology on icy worlds. There must be a form of energy to be making this happen on Pluto, but all the standard ideas of how this happens are not sufficient in explaining how Pluto's geology is active enough to create mountain ranges. 

Many religious people do not understand science and how it works. They take science's best attribute: it changes with new evidence! - and speak out against it as if this is a bad thing. They of course are assuming all things work as religion does - dogmatic over evidence based. I pictured how differently a Christian apologist would tackle this situation on Pluto. Christian apologists know the answer of course is in the Bible or through a Christian worldview - we just must retro-fit reality and history to this answer. We can bend things to fit what we need because we know the answer FIRST then we attach reality to this answer. Not in science. Science is bottom up and evolves with new evidence to form the overarching theories. This is why science when compared to religion is far superior. I know I know. They are two different things and some scientists are Christians but I am talking about religion and science as a whole not specifically those practicing each.

Side note - I have heard often from some New Christians that something "to consider" (never quite using the phrase "evidence for") is that the overwhelming majority of humans throughout all of human history have believed in a god. These New Christians are aware of argumentum ad populum fallacy so they try not to say this proves theism outright, but of course it's something "to consider" for the atheist. I often respond with breaking this down... If we are to flirt with logical fallacies here- could we not then delve deeper into the human population and gain statistics (especially since the rise of modern science and philosophy when we mostly stopped using magic as science)? What percentage of those in academia are atheists compared to theists? Why is it most scientists and most philosophers are atheists? Could we then not make the argument (if it's sorta-kinda OK to flirt with the logical fallacy) that at the cream of the crop of human population (those with the highest IQs) the majority are nonbelievers. Does this say anything? The majority of the people in America think all climate scientists are evil liberal hoaxsters working for communist take over or at the least think they or their favorite news pundit knows more than all of climate science as a whole. The majority of people in this country believe in supernatural beings like angels and that praying works since God reaches down into the natural world to affect things by asking him too (sometimes). The average population of this country at least and many others are embarrassingly stupid, naive, and uneducated.

I'm being facetious, of course in this blog. I don't envision William Lane Craig trying to give a Biblical/God-centered answer for Pluto's geology any time soon, but why not have a fun go at it? A Christian apologist would look at these unanswered questions about the geology on Pluto and say, "see! Evidence of a higher power! God of the Gaps indeed! They could say science can't explain these mountains or where this energy is coming from to affect this dwarf planet's geography! - therefore - God himself MUST have molded them into existence only to have Neil deGrasse Tyson demote his newly formed planet! Further evidence that Neil deGrasse Tyson is working for Satan! Keep in mind too that God apparently invented black holes. Um, why?? If we take the religious teleological view that everything in this cosmos has a purpose, a plan, a design - please explain to me the destructive power of a black hole ripping apart his own creation. Jesus, this way of thinking is so primitive!

In all seriousness, shed all beliefs that are based on zero evidence... keep your eye on the ball and live skeptical of claims made - even those made by scientists and atheists. Research and fact check. Remember, we all fall subject to confirmation bias and presuppositions in arguments. The most accurate way we can live is to live scientifically and to do good philosophy - question things and seek out evidence that could debunk your truth claim and see how it holds up. If a position is unfalsifiable (god), or ill-defined (god) and you are accepting this "theory" of reality maybe rethink your reasons for doing so in the face of the lack of evidence. It's akin to having a zero in the denominator. It's undefined. You're view of the universe, if you are a theist, is "undefined". It's a burden of proof issue, theists are positing something - God and the claim that he exists and so on... As atheists we are taking the humble position of looking at each of these claims and finding no valid reason to accept them - thus adding up to our position as a non-theist or an atheist. So stay focused, get back to school maybe, get in the books, do the hard science and read good philosophers and embrace reason and skepticism to believe as many true things as possible before you die and try to leave the world a better place than how you found it. These are things we should all strive for!

Sites:

From Mountains to Moons: Multiple Discoveries from NASA's New Horizon's Pluto Mission:

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/from-mountains-to-moons-multiple-discoveries-from-nasa-s-new-horizons-pluto-mission

The Rise of the New Victimhood

 

There has been a top news channel in the U.S. that in the past decade or so has created an alternative reality for many of its viewers. This constant straw-man mentality at Fox News headquarters began in the George W. Bush era. Fox News was first in line among the cable news channels to promote Bush's war in Iraq. The liberal talking points dissenting against this war made it onto Fox News but strictly for the purpose to prop up their bias. These weak-wristed liberals were always circled by the entire cast of strong patriotic pundits then pummeled like a boxing bag in front of their cheering angry viewers. How could any traitor in America possibly say there are no WMD in Iraq or that there was no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden?!

The equation back then was simple... Fox News = supporting the troops. Fox News = supporting our Commander and Chief. Fox News = patriotism. Fox News was the place to go for 100% propaganda for U.S. exceptionalism with no exception. There was not a critical bone in their body when it came to war decisions or of the President that just so happened to be a Republican at that time. Fair, Balanced programming at all times.

With the advent of the Kenyan, Marxist, Muslim, otherwise known as President Obama, Fox News viewers began to become reclusive and more clickish... as they huddle in family outings to Golden Coral to bitch about President Anti-Christ in many smalls towns across the Midwestern United States. Their loyalty is strong to Fox News and has moved beyond brand loyalty and reached a somewhat cult-like following. They greet their day with "Fox & Friends" and sip their warm milk before bed watching "Red Eye" for some late night hate-giggles. Their position was proudly exclaimed to not be an intellectual position, it was a "gut" position. Raw emotion fueled by nationalism. They missed their "gut-reactive President" when it came to bombing other countries. They missed his cowboyesc, anti-educated ways!

Meanwhile in the real world President Obama's foreign policy was about as hawkish as President Bush's foreign policy. He wasn't starting any major war with any countries that never attacked us but he was still bombing countries without approval. The technology advanced, so now the President could use robots to bomb other countries. This of course angered many on the left, some that even voted for him, but living right next door, the Fox News viewer was injesting the narrative on their favorite television channel right off the cliff of anything resembling reality.

The narrative that has always been true and strident with Fox News is that they and their viewers are under attack from the overarching, overpowering, radical left agenda - led by the current President of this country. Fox News and their viewers are always the victims. This can be seen on any of their programs on any given day. Turn it on right now and look at the banner at the bottom of the screen and chances are that Fox News or their viewers are being victimized by the left.

It's a total scam. It's a bait and switch with such obviously fake bait. Fox News has convinced it's worshippers that mere labels are powerful enough in discussion. No evidence or facts are needed in arguments. Simply calling someone a liberal, socialist, leftist will win the debate automatically for you. We see this everyday with many of our friends and family on social media. Also, the louder you yell your point the more true your point becomes (*see earlier O'Reilly Factor).

Fox News never addresses actual "wars on..." that really need to be debated and addressed in this country; they create "wars on..." out of thin air - "the war on Christmas", "the War on Christians", "the War on the Rich". There are actual "wars on..." like "the war on drugs", "the war on terrorism", etc that could be debated but are largely ignored as most things are of any substance on these bastions of hyper-sensationalism.

The biggest victims painted on Fox News is Christians (some of their most devout viewers). These Christians are being persecuted by liberals and by atheists. We have seen this in many cases such as the Hobby Lobby case and clashes between church and state in regards to displaying the ten commandments or other religious monuments on public grounds. Also, if you want a group to really loathe Fox News will provide that for you - the ACLU!

However, the newest victim card being played on Fox News is homosexuals stepping on the rights of the religious (let's be honest though - only Christians, they're not talking about Muslim rights). This is furthest from reality we've seen the Fox News victim strategy bend. It is becoming a sound rule that if you take what Fox News identifies as the victim and bully in a situation then flip it - you'll most likely find in reality that the bully is actually the victim and the victim the bully. This has a pretty strong success rate. Try it!

Fox News would have you believe that it isn't that homosexuals are being denied service due to their sexual orientation from a business like a bakery (not unlike black people during segregation in the 60') but that it's the homosexuals and those in support of their cause that are trampling on the rights of the religious business owner to refuse service due to their religious belief.

See, flip it - there's the truth! You merely need to watch Fox News in reverse to get the truth!

Fox News would have you believe that it isn't that homosexuals are being denied their equal and constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals can (not unlike interracial marriage a few decades back), but that it's the homosexuals and those that support their cause that are trampling on the rights of the religious to make it unconstitutional for two people of the same sex to get married.

The other arguments against gay marriage from Fox News are what I like to call "ARGUMENTS FROM THE FUTURE!" where we see the pundits and conservative guests who apparently dabble in prophecy and fortune telling argue an issue that is not happening at present time - the ultimate alternative reality straw man argument! They suggest (with zero evidence) that soon the government will force all churches to marry homosexuals just as they marry heterosexuals.

This has caused many churches, like my father's home church to vote on changing the constitution of their church to reflect their strong stance against gay marriage. This has turned Glen Beck even redder and more down the rabbit hole of conspiracy on his channel. He has created what he calls the Black Robe Regiment consisting of thousands of pastors and ministers that would be willing to die before marrying two gay people.

The reaction from the Supreme Court's decision on legalizing gay marriage is one of the funniest most pathetic things I've ever seen from conservatives happen before my eyes. On many of the podcasts I listen to, the hosts simply turn on the endless audio clips of these reactions from religious Republicans and laugh to tears. In some ways I feel sorry for them because they look like fools to the rest of the entire world for caring so much about something that doesn't actually affect their lives at all in any single way.

Lastly, if you are a Republican and/or Christian I want you to do something that many of you have not been trained to do.. it's something that is the exact opposite of what Master Fox News tells you day in and day out for decades - I want you to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I know, I know, this could be dangerous. You may very well find that the worst problem facing this country is not government assistance to poor people. However, in this thought experiment you may just find some clarity.

Focusing hard, put yourself into the shoes of an atheist living in America today. I want you to picture waking up and turning on the news and watching segment after segment of how Christians and the Christian worldview is far superior than not being a Christian. Oh, and it's also under attack by you and your ilk. I want you to imagine opening up facebook to see multiple friends and family members of yours quoting Bible verses and talking about who's praying for what and/or who. I want you to imagine a hit movie degrading your position as merely a self-loathing, misguided philosophical position and making millions of dollars painting all atheists this way. The straw men are all around you. You are one too as an atheist - everywhere you go.

If you are like me and work around books, you are surrounded by top selling titles that have something to do with boys going to heaven and coming back, Jesus this and Jesus that. There is no escaping "god bless you's" and "purpose-driven EVERYTHING!" We have a section in the bookstore I work in called "Christian Health/Wellness" .. what does that even mean? Should we carve out a section for "Christian Neurology" or "Christian Biology" too?

You can image there are times when you feel like pulling your hair out because you cannot escape it! Religion and God are everywhere!

Who is the actual victims in America? Obviously, I have perspective and realize that there are more oppressed people in this country, but keep in mind that being an atheist is the most distrusted stance one can have in this country and money follows the demographic. Fox News on almost a daily basis paints atheists in a negative light. Almost as bad as they paint Muslims. I am not sure which is more hated on Fox News. It's a toss up.

Christianity isn't under attack - a vast majority in this country are Christian and even larger number believe in a celestial father! It's everywhere! It's in all sporting events, on billboards, on social media, on television, on news programs, on monuments on public property, on our money and not to mention there is a church on about every block! If this is what it's like to be a victim can I be a victim for a while?! Can we atheists be a part of the Fox New's New Victimhood?! It looks like a pretty nice standing to have in this country!

Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (A Book Review, sort of)

Well, Fuck.

Just when I thought I was wrapping up my anti-theist (or as they often say "militant atheist") blogging days I had to go and read Jerry Coyne's new book. He's officially part of the "New Atheist" clan now, joining the "four horseman" (Dennett, Harris, (the late) Hitchens, and Dawkins). I read Coyne's other book "Why Evolution Is True" years ago and had always respected him as a renown geneticist and evolutionary biologist. This book was such a fun read and really fans the flames of this historically long debate between religion and science. All the years I've discussed and debated with theists friends via email and social media are reflected in the pages of this book. If I was a Christian curious about atheism and read this book I would become an atheist more than any other "pro-atheist" book out there. I went through an extremely long back and forth discussion with a New Christian friend of mine via email for about a year discussing many of these topics. Almost everything we brought up and argued about is addressed in here and Jerry knocks each point out of the park. 

In the end he summarizes the real dangers of religion besides the obvious issues in the Middle East. He mentions child abuse (denying children medical treatment due to religious affiliations), the suppression of research and vaccination due to religious affiliations, opposition to assisted dying (which I still don't understand - let's see, my religious relative is in pain and I want them to suffer here on Earth as long as possible and also withhold the speed at which they will be at peace with their creator. Makes sense. Not cruel at all.), global warming denialism and so on. 

I read Kenneth Miller's book called Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. Initially started this book as another book discussion with my New Christian friend who didn't think common descent was true and dismissed human evolution. My goal was to get this friend to see accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean you need to become an atheist. This of course is true but Coyne addresses the folly of theistic evolution. It's simple really. Teleology is not science - period. What is theistic evolution? evolution with a purpose. This is a useless hypothesis to a scientist. There's no getting around this fact. It's just political. It's simply just good PR to not step on anyone's toes for fear of offending the sensitive religious community.

It's also a special pleading fallacy - for the theistic evolutionist- they take credit for the beauty of design and "irreducible complexity" (which has been debunked by the way) of organisms and the amazing wonders of the human eye - attribute it all to the glory of God. However, when it comes to evolutionary suffering and mass extinctions (99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct) that is NOT attributed to the glory of God but to "the fall of man". The fall of one single species of animal. - us.

Of course explaining the past evolutionary suffering of most species (99%) going extinct due to "the fall" of man before Homo sapiens even existed is a tad problematic. Truly if you ask a New Christian why so much suffering and waste and extinction or really anything in the world that causes pain and seems to fly in the face of a moral, just, loving god they will 99.9% of the time attribute this to "the fall of man". You see, sin is like a virus infecting not just "Adam and Eve" (the first two humans that according to genetics didn't actually exist. This is also explained in great detail in this book) but all of their descendents and of course all other poor animals that had no say in the matter.

Or to quote Jerry Coyne on this point,

The flavor of special pleading is strong here, for surely God, were he really omnipotent, could have designed a world whose physical fabric lacked floods, drought, and evolutionary suffering. And, of course, if God gets the credit for the adaptive mutations that led to humans, why is he exculpated for the maladaptive ones, like mutations that cause cancers, genetic diseases, and deformed children? If mutation were a process designed by God, there's no reason why the vast majority of mutations should be harmful - though that's exactly what you'd expect if the process were purely a naturalistic one involving random errors.

Coyne tackles all aspects of religion - it's self-proclaimed superiority in all things "moral". Of course this is a mere walk in the park to debunk by simply quoting immoral passages in the Bible. Putting that aside, what I've heard from the New Christians is at worst atheists are simply "borrowing" from the religious ancient moral foundations (well some of them not others obviously or we'd be stoning people and bashing babies into rocks) to create their moral landscape (to borrow a phrase from Sam Harris). I disagree of course because our morals actually were derived over time by naturalistic means through our evolutionary past and evolve with differing cultures. Even if this claim by the New Christians were true - I would simply answer to that. OK. So what? Thanks. we'll take those and we all have the same moral values now.. asking them to then explain how/why the religious win the morality debate. I don't get it. Why again does religion take credit for morality again?

There was another passage in this book I found interesting...

The fine-tuning argument for God gets even weaker because it includes the proviso "life as we know it" - that is, carbon-based life. But creatures sentient enough to perceive and worship God need not be the kind we know and love: our imaginations are limited by the life with which we're familiar. There could, for instance, be life based on silicon instead of carbon, life that could live at higher or lower gravity, or life that could have come into being instantly, rather than having evolved. After all, the Abrahamic God is omnipotent and so could fine-tune for whatever universe he created, rather than fine-tune the universe for life.

Indeed, why should life be based on matter at all? To many people, God is a humanlike spirit, one with feelings and some sort of consciousness. Couldn't he create a race of similar immaterial but whorshipful beings: bodiless minds that lack his powers? After all, any being with the power to determine physical constants could create any conceivable form of life, and God already is said to create souls, which are in effect bodiless minds. Why not just have a conclave of souls instead of material beings on Earth? The problem is that we simply don't know what forms of humanoid life - and here I mean "sentient, rational beings made in God's image" - are possible. Nor can theists explain WHY souls MUST have bodies."

Something to chew on for the religious.

It makes me wonder why God put souls of humanoids through the grinder of the physical world in the first place, having physical bodies then having to send his son / himself to the physical realm to be an ape to die for this species of apes for rules he logically shouldn't even have to follow in the first place. Stop to soak that in.

The idea that an all powerful being has "rules" he must follow is nonsensical. An all-powerful, Uncaused Cause, Mind that created this universe is mandated to accept blood sacrifice rules should set off mild skepticism in most people's brains. The spell of religion is strong in many people but just stop to think about this... Who is enforcing these rules?! You know how when a New or Old Christian argues for irreducible complexity all you simply have to do is say if complexity is a requirement of design then by definition God must be designed by a more complex entity? "Who created God?" you have probably often asked a New Christian and they of course say - no one! God is where it ends.. Though it seems we're seeing some "data" piling up here against this response. It seems maybe God does have a God who's rules he must follow - like the rule of atonement.

If God set up the "blood rules" (who else did unless my God's God hypothesis has merit) that due to the "fall of mankind" (his most beloved species, created in his image - remember God is a man with a penis) a perfect "sinless" being (his son/himself) must be killed then resurrected to make amends it raises the question "to who?" To who is God making amends to? Who set up these rules that even God must follow? I think quantum mechanics is less complicated than theology. It certainly makes more sense and I don't understand anything about quantum mechanics.

Often from a few of my New Christian friends I've heard that science has no philosophical basis or that "you can't use science itself to show that science is the best way - or even the only way - to discover truths about the universe."

Jerry responds,

Let's start with the last view, one often raised by philosophers (the argument is called "justificationism")... It sounds quite sophisticated, and in fact it's technically correct: science cannot justify by "reason alone" that it's the surest route to truth. How can you prove from philosophy and logic alone that scientific investigation, rather than, say, revelation, is the best way to determine the sequence of a newly discovered gene? There's no a priori philosophical justification for using science to understand the universe. 

But we don't need one. My response to the "no justification" claim is that the superiority of science at finding objective truth comes not form philosophy but form "experience". Science gives predictions that work. Everything we know about biology, the cosmos, physics, and chemistry has come through science - not revelation, the arts, or any other "way of knowing". And the practical applications of science, channeled into engineering and medicine, are legion.

In the end, it may smack of circularity to use empirical results to justify the use of the empirical toolkit we call "science", but I'll pay attention to the circularity argument when someone comes up with a better way to understand nature. Science's results alone justify its usefulness, for it is, hands down, the single best way we've devised to understand the universe.

Many of you reading this have moved beyond such childish things as religion. Many of you, if religious at all are probably more deistic or Unitarian-like. If nothing else you may be someone who doesn't even think or care to think much about these ideas, often called "apatheists". However, I urge you to read Coyne's book, it should dispel any delusion that religion (and Coyne specifically defines this term right off the bat in the book) and science (again defined in book) are compatible. They are not. Never were or will be. 

Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. Is any merry? Let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  - James 5:13-15

In the last part of the book Jerry talks about faith as a substitute for medicine.

It's not just the parents who are at fault. Religious exemptions are written into law by the federal and state governments - that is, those who represent all Americans. In fact, thirty-eight of the fifty states have religious exemptions for child abuse and neglect in their civil codes, fifteen states have such exemptions for misdemeanors, seventeen for felony crimes against children, and five (Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas) have exemptions for manslaughter, murder, or capital murder. Altogether, forty-three of the fifty states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds.

This got me thinking... find yourself a die-hard fundamentalist Christian American - You could find a Ray Comfort/Ken Hovind type of believer and ask them first where they stand on this new debacle of the religious rights of Christan (obviously not other religions) business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. You'll more than likely see they side with the Christian business owner to support their notion of religious freedom in this country. Now see how far they take this "religious freedom". Do they accept religious freedom or exemption on religious basis for vaccinations or withholding care by Christian parents from their sick or dying children? Does the state not have the right to step in seeing as to most of us this is child abuse?  
 
You may see there could be a few caveats to their thoughts on religious freedoms. 1. of course, "religious freedom" often only applies to Christians - not Satanists or especially Muslims (eww). and 2. It doesn't apply when letting a child die. Or does it? Maybe they do go as far a the Jehovah Witness or Christian Science devotees. You guild these religious people trapping them right into a corner created by their nonsensical religious moral dogmas. Hopefully they can see what's happening here - you are a moral person - DESPITE your belief in your chosen religious dogma.

I think this book is very important. Of course Richard Dawkins' atheist manifesto book "The God Delusion" was a huge de-converting tool for many of the young religious. I was already an atheist when I read that book but it certainly informed me on a few aspects to the "god argument" I hadn't been exposed to. Since then the book has had a hefty handful of counter-books by religious authors. Most criticisms of Dawkins and the "new atheists" as a whole, as Coyne points out at the beginning of this book, are that they simply beat up on the literalists and the extreme fundamentalists of each religion. Reza Aslan says the same thing about Islam as a Muslim apologists. Bill Maher and all the "new atheists" simply have a child-like, simplistic view of what religion is.

I couldn't disagree more. The world in which Reza Aslan paints is a world I would love to live in but sadly we're not quite there yet. The general whole of the religious are not like liberal theologians in each religion. Sorry. The fact is most people in this country think some really unfounded, debunked drivel often derived from their religion. Creationism (just google the percentage of American citizens that don't accept evolution), global warming denial, alternative medicine, astrology, new age woo and so on. There is a serious need for books like these from the "new atheists" because there is still such a large audience of brain-washed people still under the spell of religion - often since childhood. If any book could dissipate the spell of an entire lifetime of religious indoctrination I think this is one of them.