Proofs of Evidence, Hypocrisy and Lies
(Editorial Comment from the American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 01/29/10)
Hypocrisy runs rampant in the faithful. Not only do they preach a superior moral dictum, but they declare that any political or religious world view, other than their own, is invalid without proofs of evidence. When presented with mounds of evidence supporting the opposing position, they reject it all and at the same time, and with a straight face, demand so-called “real” proof. Not surprising then that the words “proof” and “evidence” do not possess any “real” meaning in their reality. They are quick dispose of any rebuttal to their dogma as biased, tainted, skewed, left, bogus, lies. They easily discard facts in favor of pre-selected, pre-screened, pre-determined, pre-ordained, carefully crafted “truths”, tailor-made and finely woven by like-minded minions whose sole purpose is to win at all costs and proofs of evidence be damned.
It really is about winning. To the zealots, lies in the name of a skydaddy are merely a means to an end and are absolutely justifiable in their use against an “evil” world. It’s the faithful against the godless. It is the pure against the tainted. It is fighting fire with fire in hopes of driving the unrepentant to hell. There is no real logic to any of it. But, then again it isn’t supposed to make sense. It’s the greatest “baffle them with bullshit” crusade purposely designed to give the believer the advantage. They make the rules as they go along. And, that is how the religious, and religions, survive.
For thousands of years, as long as religion has existed, men have sought to rule other men. In their quest to dominate and subjugate the masses to their whims, these men have mastered the art of myth and human ignorance to their advantage. Whether these self-appointed leaders of men have suffered from delusions of gods and goddesses, and as a result somehow felt compelled to conquer out of these psychotic visions, is reasonably debatable. Chances are that many have, and continue to, travel such a path. But, the primitive idea of a supernatural being, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, has to be the most self-serving psychosis of all time. What better way for a small group of men, or even a single man, to hold absolute power, to declare total dominance, than through a flood of fear, magic, and trickery that is religion.
Lies, lies, and more lies… layer upon layer of lies, repeated for centuries. The gods and goddesses of the past most likely met their fate in the tangled web of lies the faithful spawned that eventually couldn’t stand up to the forceful winds of knowledge and progress. Lies were exposed, treachery was lost to proofs of evidence, and yet somehow, another human ego would step forward in defiance and weave yet another tangled web of religious lies that would, again, be broken from it moorings on the winds of knowledge and progress. But, as time has gone by, the moorings of each successive religious web have grown stronger, but only by shoring them up with more lies. Layers of lies… layers and layers of bold, defiant, utterly ignorant, sometimes ridiculous, lies. Lies that bind religion to the frame of life and create an alternate reality for the faithful. It’s the only way religion can stand up to the winds of knowledge and progress, proofs of evidence. Religion must create more and more threads of lies.
We all know that when caught in a lie, the worst thing we can do is to cover a lie with another lie. Religion ignores this fact. It just keeps pumping them out, and then forgets what its last lie was. Eventually religion lies itself into a corner, and then concocts another tall tale, another lie worse than the one earlier but nonetheless effective enough to distract attention from the one previous. It’s a game of misdirection, smoke and mirrors, magic and deception. The answers are simple, without proofs or evidence. Yet, the lies always catch up with religion. The lies are revealed in religion’s hypocrisy. And it is hypocrisy that lays final judgment upon religion.
When I demand evidence for a skydaddy, religious hypocrisy always reveals the lies. The religious backtrack, dodge and weave, jump and duck, do the rope-a-dope. They make every effort to distract and divert. And when all else fails, they throw in the towel, head for their corner, wipe their wounds, ice their knots, and call a press conference afterwards to claim they were robbed, cheated… that the ref was bias, bought off, part of a conspiracy. Yep, persecuted. The truth is they have been caught in another lie. The religious do not do what they say, nor do they say what they do. And, their hypocrisy reveals the lies of their dogma.
That’s what religion’s hypocrisy shows us. It exposes the lies. The layers and layers and layers of lies used to weave the web of religion. Even the most devout believer will strangle themselves in the web of deceit that their religion weaves. Any interpretation of any holy book is hypocritical. It requires the believer to interpret, ascribe to, and live by a constantly changing view. One that is re-defined with each moment of worldly interaction. Why must one interpret the words of a being that is supposedly intelligent, created us, and wants us to worship it? Why isn’t this entities’ existence painfully obvious to the entire population of the planet? Why has this entity turned life into a game show? You see, there is no sense, logic or reason here. And, with each interpretation and declaration made by the faithful, the playing card deck of lies grows thicker, deeper, and more complex without any adequate explanation. After 2000 plus years of the big three dogmas, and who knows how many hundreds of re-writes, how many guesses does it take to get to the center of a skydaddy anyway? With each interpretation comes fragmentation, more bias, discourse, and lots and lots more lies. Ultimately leading to the logical, reasoned question, ‘Who is telling the truth?’ Religion isn’t. But, science, reason and logic DO tell the truth. And, it is evidence and proofs that uncover the secrets of life’s questions.
Evidence, proofs… this is for the honorable, the dignified, and the noble. Proofs of evidence speak loudly, with credibility and force. Qualities of honor, dignity, and nobility will never come from the religious. And they know it. It is therefore imperative that all of us who trust in the proven ideals of science, reason and logic, continue to expose the hypocrisies of the religious and of religion, wherever and when they show themselves. Demand proof, demand evidence, demand logic and reason. And when the lies of the religious become too much to bear for them, they will retreat to faith, and faith is yet another hypocrisy, and hypocrisy always exposes the lie.
January 31, 2010 at 2:23 am
A ‘debate’ with the religious zealots is totally pointless. They acknowledge only the ‘facts’ that buttress their views. It’s not that they lie – they’re simply only accepting that which they believe is supportive of their position. It’s a kind of delusion that is beyond logical refutation. I also believe we have a responsibility to point out the fallacies of those delusions, but it’s hopeless to ‘convince’ the faithful. By their act of faith, they deny the very logic of evidence.
February 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Very well done yet again, RJ. Chuck’s right. You can’t truly debate because they will always accept the delusion “on faith” and refuse to hear anything that refutes it.
February 4, 2010 at 8:03 am
Email to Americans United:
“In a stunning “salute” to Free Speech advocates, Americans United removes the comment feature from their blog.”
Way to go, AU.
[name removed]
February 4, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Gee, I can’t imagine why they had to take that measure.
February 4, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I’ll be addressing this in my editorial on AH tomorrow night.
February 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Funny thing about the First Amendment is that it encompasses freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. AU demonstrates respect for only one part of the whole principle.
It’s funny how some people can waltz around the internet believing that their particular style of expression is always tactful and proper, or that their opinion is somehow more worthy of respect than any other. Eh, Donna?
February 7, 2010 at 1:41 am
Muggle/Donna you and I have much in common, but I think we are both outmatched by the talent/intellect of the bloggers at AU. To me it seemed as though the stalwart personalities of Yahweh and Albatross (along with many other AU regulars, ie. RJ) are truly educated in constitutional law and the sciences – and I just appreciated that there were greater minds than mine at work on behalf of religious freedom. AU was my daily stop for rational thought and discussion of relevant s/c separation issues (I will never give church top billing again!) and I miss the lively and competent defeat of the weak arguments supplied by the likes of Andrew, Barney and J. We need strong voices on our side!!
I admit I never left a comment on AU, but that was because I thought that I had nothing of relavance to add to the discussion at hand. Donna, to me, it seems that you just need to be heard- no mattter that what you have to say, doesn’t sway anyone. But I still appreciate your right to have your say!
Way to go AU, you’re the only blog I know of that allows no commentary, woo-hoo!! The facebook page sucks, it’s too difficult to follow the discussion. And forces you to sign up for their service; which I refuse to be a slave to! So, I quit AU!
February 7, 2010 at 11:02 am
Igcognito, I’ll agree with you on yahweh — none of us come anywhere near as close as him in education, ability or class — but I’ll beg to differ when it comes to albi. She demonstrates no more education or class than I do and she played a large hand in this. And, frankly, displayed such bigotry against Christians that she really had no right to complain about their bigotry against non-Christians (she has said she has some sort of belief but doesn’t name it because she doesn’t want to be labelled yet has no hesitation painting all Christians with the same brush). She was every bit as intolerant as J, Andrew and Barney.
As for having my say, isn’t that what everyone is doing? Why would anyone bother speaking if they didn’t want to be heard? No matter that I sway anyone. Look, I express my opinions and I don’t much care whether anyone is swayed by them or not. They listen and see the point or not; likewise, I’m sure. I have no problem with anyone not accepting my ideas as long as they respect my right to them. Not being swayed does not mean they are not listening and considering. It merely means they disagree. This is, perhaps, the biggest difference between me and albi.
Yes, I called her out on her bigotry just as I would call a fundy out on stereotyping the nonbeliever. Or are you suggesting you can only call out bigotry if you only belong to the group being prejudged? She showed such hatred towards kids for just attending an university that I was disgusted and had to say so. No, I don’t think much of the university in question but, geeze, I’m not automatically going to hate anyone just for going there. Let alone young kids just trying their wings away from home for the first time in their life whose parents probably influenced their choice and are often even paying for it. To prejudge them just for attending is absurd, ridiculous and far too overgeneralizing.
February 7, 2010 at 11:12 am
I’ll add this: frankly, I’ve had more constructive give and take with J — and, yes, even Andrew at times — than I have with Albatross. Despite their narrow view, there were times — albeit few and far in between — they would at least open up to discuss the heart of an issue somewhat respecfully.
It was very rare with Andrew in particular, but worth the effort, especially with J who it seemed to me often shut down because he did not expect to be dealt with respectfully. He responded to respect when he was given some. He was still narrow in his views but he’d grow more respectful in voicing them when he was treated with respect in return. I know I’m going to be vehemently disagreed with on this but I found it to be the case when I’d talk to him instead of trying to shut him down. Too bad more didn’t try it.
Barney’s in a category all by himself. I still think he’s about 10 or 12. And, frankly, the Christian counterpart to albi. The biggest difference in the way they expressed themselves was at least she doesn’t come off sounding like she hasn’t even finished junior high yet. But she is every bit as close-minded.
February 7, 2010 at 11:14 am
Oh, and Igcognito, you haven’t surfed the web much because there are a ton of blogs that don’t offer a comment section. Tends not to make them very popular but there are loads. I don’t agree with it but I can understand why.
February 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Incognito, I am flattered by your comment. Thank you. I would not place myself in the same “knowledge” league as Yahweh, ever. I will take the opportunity to thank him “publicly” – he has taught me a lot, and has always taken the time to patiently answer any questions that I’ve presented to him. It is nice to be interested in something, like history, like law, and to have a reliable source that can lead you to resources that will “feed” that passion, so to speak.
Thank you, Yahweh.
I also understand your resistance to the slave-trap of Facebook (I just signed up myself), but many from the AU “community” are talking there, and maybe brainstorming ways to keep folks together, and maybe find a new “watering hole.”
February 8, 2010 at 12:00 am
“And, frankly, displayed such bigotry against Christians that she really had no right to complain about their bigotry against non-Christians (she has said she has some sort of belief but doesn’t name it because she doesn’t want to be labelled yet has no hesitation painting all Christians with the same brush). She was every bit as intolerant as J, Andrew and Barney. ”
Donna, don’t you grow tired? You spouted all this nonsense before at AU. You never provided a shred of evidence to support your claims. I’ll complain about whatever I want, and if I’m in a forum that discusses the separation of church and state, or the first amendment, or any amendment, and I am battling rabid religious rightists, YOU won’t tell me what to say, when to say it, or how to say it. And I’ll continue to defend your right to spout your opinion.
“As for having my say, isn’t that what everyone is doing? ”
Why, yes it is. Hypocrite.
“Yes, I called her out on her bigotry…”
No, you didn’t. Wouldn’t you need to prove that were a true statement? But you were asked then, and I’ll even give you a second chance – produce a single statement that I have ever made, anywhere, showing that I am a bigot. This challenge was put out to you before, Donna, and you failed to prove your claim then, and I suspect that you’ll fail again. I’ll tell you why – I’m not a bigot. On the other hand, have I ever told you I have been a long-time lurker over at Friendly Atheist? Would you like me to present evidence here at RJ’s showing that it is you that is a bigot? Your ass is still burnt over the FACT that you jumped up to play some sort of heroine character, and neither one of the LU students that you were so valiantly “saving” needed, or wanted your help. In fact, Dan, one of the students, publicly stated that I had never offended him, and that he enjoyed the conversation that he and I had. Sorry, Donna. I know that must have hurt. And you’ve hated me ever since. Oh, well.
February 12, 2010 at 2:56 am
It was asked and answered and directly quoted you. It has since been referenced a dozen times at least. People who could read and comprehend saw it. ‘nough said. Yep, I grow tired of you. I am so done with your ignorant ass. How about you ignore me and I ignore you?
Don’t you ever grow tired of not comprehending the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of religion and not getting why an organization that focuses on one doesn’t respond to your pathetic whining about the other?
February 12, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Ironic that the name of this thread is “Proofs of Evidence, Hypocrisy and Lies.” Also ironic is how extremists of all stripes resort to ad hominem attacks and red herrings when they cannot make their case.
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Yes, that is interesting. It’s also interesting when those who are presented with such just claim to say they never were and their word is supposed to be taken as gossip. Go away, flea. This is the last answer you’re getting from me. You are that worthless.
February 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Well, that was Freudian. I meant to say gospel instead of what it actually is.
February 13, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Sorry, Donna, I’m not going anywhere, but you go ahead and keep demonstrating all that “class” that you believe you possess.
You are no different than the religionists, thinking a lie told often enough becomes the truth, and you also have a bit of a problem with projectionism.
February 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I was going to stay out of this – Alba is more than capable of defending herself – but I cannot stand by while a friend is being slandered and insulted. I feel honor-bound to speak up.
Muggle, your portrayal of Albatross and of what transpired at the AU blog is ridiculous. I knew Alba long before you came to AU, and I know that she is no bigot. She never showed any hatred toward those LU students, and you never provided anything close to proof of either. The only thing you ever provided, in my opinion, was evidence of some bias you have toward Alba, which you continue to provide via name-calling, needless insults, and your obnoxious use of “Albi”.
You said to Incognito:
“Look, I express my opinions and I don’t much care whether anyone is swayed by them or not. They listen and see the point or not; likewise, I’m sure. I have no problem with anyone not accepting my ideas as long as they respect my right to them. Not being swayed does not mean they are not listening and considering. It merely means they disagree. This is, perhaps, the biggest difference between me and albi.”
In my opinion, you’ve got it the wrong way around. Alba listens and considers. You react, often with what seems to be an unnecessary amount of vitriol and/or condescension. (If you’re wondering what I mean, your subsequent post to Incognito is a good example.)
I would never deny your right to express your opinion. However, it may serve you better to consider the way you present that opinion. It is possible, after all, that your opinion is wrong.
February 13, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Muggle – you are without a doubt the most negative, bitter person I have encountered in quite some time. From what you write here and on the old Au blog it appears that you allow your bitterness and negativity to control your life. What a sad, pathetic existence you have created for yourself. I would feel sorry for you, but the vile hatred you display on a continual basis makes that impossible. You thrive on your negativity, your bitterness is your source of energy. Too bad. The world really isn’t such a bad place, no one is out to get you because of your beliefs. Try to let go of your nasty combative attitude. You might find that others are more receptive to your ideals if they are presented in a more pleasant manner. Just a thought. In light of your past performance I expect you will respond by lashing out in your usual hateful manner. Which, of course, makes whatever else you might say go unheard because your hatred is screaming so loudly.
February 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Jax, thank you.
Elizabeth, spot on.
Donna, I didn’t say “interesting.” I said, “ironic.”