Re: There Is No God by Penn Jillette

Whenever I have the free time, I read a chapter from The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens. Today I read a very short piece written by magician Penn Jillette. It is chapter 40 in this volume, spans about a page and a half, and can also be read on the NPR site here. Jillette's perspective can be summarized as:

"So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power... So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."

I have to say that I am glad I read this perspective. It's actually refreshing. If I may summarize the perspective for my understanding and I am open to correction if I am mistaken... I gather that Mr. Jillette is saying, let's all just start off with no belief, and then ask what evidence exists to believe there is a being that many call "God". I am actually compelled to sympathize with this approach. But then I started to think about it. The idea that we only believe in things which can be proven through the empirical sciences is a presupposition of empiricism. One of the ideas in natural philosophy is that we have first principles which are not proven, and cannot be proven. I presuppose that there are beings or realities which may exist beyond what can be empirically demonstrated or proven. Then I turn to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then I look to history and sacred theology to fill in the rest of the picture.

Thank you Mr. Jillette, for presenting such a practical perspective pro-atheism. Unfortunately, it's not a good enough case for someone who already believes. 

Laurence Gonzaga

10.18.15

Re: Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I didnt watch the first part of the debate because I know where each is coming from already. I was most interested in the cross examination and the Q & A portion. The two didn't disappoint. I found some inconsistencies in both positions. For Bart he made a lot of effort to show that we don't know what happens after we die, and yet he claims nothing happens when we die and nothing is not something. But he is saying he knows nothing happens after we die. At this point I think it was a clash of philosophical terms. D'Souza on the other hand made a few references to adultery as his choice of bad things people do and we know now, it was a bad thing which he did do. I suppose that is not a flaw in his argument though, although perhaps the credibility of the debater is now in question.

An Agnostic Takes an Atheist to School

 
LINK

I just randomly happened upon this video. I found it to be amusing and sad for the atheist.

Why talk about atheism? (July 7, 2015)

Re: Why I Hate the Phrase: “True Christians Don’t Do That!”

Link to the Article

I actually liked this article. The author raises a good point. Every brand of Christian thinks they are right and others are wrong in some way or another. That's fine. That doesn't mean there is no correct way. The authenticity of one's adherence to the teachings of Christ will be determined at the right time. It won't be me, nor will it be this author. The author writes, "There is no way to determine which denomination is following the bible the correct way. There is no one correct way to follow Christ. If there was 40,000+ different denominations wouldn’t exist." That is a presumption. There was one group once upon a time, then there were two and then more. That was because groups started to degrade the original teaching of one church. The Church, made up of fallible and broken individuals can make mistakes and they have at times. That fact does not negate that God exists and that he established a church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Laurence Gonzaga
6.16.15

Re: Cursed are the Meek, for They Dream of Being Enslaved

Link to Article

1. You can't just take one passage to make your point. Obviously, not all Christians have been, are, and will be, meek. But it would be convenient to make the author's point that Christians are only made up of gullible ignoramuses. 
2. The idea that a bunch of men with power came together and cooked up the Jesus story and then managing to impose that on an entire group of people to systematically enslave their minds is rather unlikely. I'm not sure how you could even begin to prove such a theory other than simply asserting it as fact.
3. The author writes, "They believe those obviously made-up fairy tales because when they were very young they were taught not how to think but what to think, and were warned on pain of unimaginable eternal torment never to doubt what they were taught." If it were that obvious then how does one explain how Christians become atheists. IQ doesn't magically change because a person get's butt hurt and now has a philosophical axe to grind against religion. Atheists also become Christians or religionists, so how does the author explain that? Maybe they lose IQ points, as a result of PTSD perhaps. 
4. This article was nice poetry. Perfect for all atheist conspiracy theorists. 

Laurence Gonzaga

6.16.15

Re: God Isn’t Real but the Devil Is: Childhood’s End and Five Years of Hell

Article

This was a good piece to read. Abuse is nothing to ignore. Anyone who suspects abuse should address it to the proper people and/or authorities. Of course, use your best judgement. The only thing I can criticize about an article such as this is that it is used as a way of arguing against the existence of God. What happened to this young girl and now woman was terrible and the one responsible needs to answer for his crimes. However this:

I now know that God did not “let” this happen to me because God does not exist. No God would allow something like that to happen to a child.

... is a leap in logic. Tragedies do not disprove the existence of God. It may disprove certain ideas of God, but could not in itself disprove his existence.

Laurence Gonzaga
6.16.15

Christopher Hitchens and Mother Teresa

I found this video interesting.  A few years ago I read Christopher Hitchens' formal criticism of Mother Teresa, The Missionary Position. Though it has been criticized for it's lack of documentation by Bill Donahue, I still think it is worth a read. I think there is room to question the methods of Mother Teresa. That is not un-Catholic to do.

Re: Mercy Killing: Humane for animals; Immoral for humans

Link to Article

Why is it right for me to have killed the duck – without him being able to tell me that’s what he wanted – but not okay to end the misery of someone begging for it? Exactly what is it that makes the second immoral?

Just read this over at Atheist Analysis. The simple answer is that if you don't believe in God then all creatures are equal. They would have to be, otherwise the parallel the author is trying to make is lost. But I wonder if the author is a vegetarian. Is eating meat an act of murder? Somehow it just seems obvious that killing a human has to have a graver punishment than killing your neighbor's cat. If the author is asking the person who is against "mercy killing" why is it moral to do that for an animal and is immoral to do that to a human is that the person against it is likely a Christian and on that basis opposes murder and assisted self murder, suicide. According to Catholic theology, humans and animals have souls, but humans distinctly have incorruptible souls and only humans were created in God's image.

Laurence Gonzaga
1.17.15

Albert Einstein Was Neither An Atheist Nor A Pantheist

I saw this meme posted in an atheism group on Google+. I responded and said Einstein wasn't an atheist. and the response was, "He would have defined "God' as all that is. Even atheists would agree with that definition." God being all that is is pantheism. He wasn't a pantheist either. 

I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. 

- Albert Einstein, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 48.

The Da Vinci Code Debate

Intro: Eight years ago I was a young, and zealous apologist for the faith. Much has changed over the years. In any case, I enjoyed debates, more so than I do these days. I was turned on to an article in the local paper. I read it and I was invited by the editor to respond and it was published. After my response I received a call inviting me to debate Dr. Harvey. The moderator, his buddy Dr. G.W. Abersold asked me when did I retire. I laughed a bit, and said, "Sir, I am 23 years old." The debate went well and I am trying to locate the audio of the debate. Once I find it, I will post it. 

Why all of the furor over the Da Vinci Code?
By Robert A. Harvey
Highland Community News: Religion Section, June 8, 2006

What would, under normal circumstances be an amusing contradiction, if it were not so serious, is the predictable uproar by religious conservatives over the audacity of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

Offering, even in the context of an admitted novel, a ‘humanized' Jesus as an alternative to the transparent magic, miracles, and mysticism of traditional Christianity, constitutes a significant threat to that entrenched and ‘inerrant' point of view. The mere suggestion that there are other ways of looking at religious history and theology is a major threat to faith, and is, for many self-styled ‘true believers,' just too problematic to contemplate.

Questioning someone's sacred myths -- their cherished, comfortable, and private fictions, is guaranteed to annoy, distract, and provoke the righteous indignation of the faithful. It threatens their tenuous grasp on just what is to be believed, against an avalanche of possibilities. That is to be taken as a serious challenge to beliefs based upon faith alone and unsupported by an impressive body of existing evidence to the contrary. After all, it must be recognized that all religions had their source at some time, some place, by someone, who simply made it all up, in spite of our ‘other worldly' insistence to the contrary. In that light, just WHO is passing off fiction and calling it fact?

In the ardor of devotion, it is easy to forget that religiosity is by nature, largely defined as the exercise of pious propaganda [The quality of being religious.Excessive or affected piety.]. Religious dictates, based entirely upon faith, are regarded as being ‘true' only because someone is willing to accept them as being true.

Validity is determined by the simple act of acceptance and requires no additional proof. Once you ‘know' the ‘truth' all other evidence becomes irrelevant to a ‘true believer.'

Any effort to inject reason into any serious discussion past this point, is like talking to a wall.

What we choose to embrace as ‘absolutes' are in fact most often mere presumptions of truth within narrow limits of some provincial doctrinal confinement. Religious debate centers upon just WHO has the most believable and therefore acceptable presumptions. This leaves little room for honest debate and a modicum of tolerance for the beliefs of dissenters with presumptions of their own.

For two thousand years, the Christian clergy has had its way, with their manufactured story about a mystical Jesus. They told it their way, as though it was the only way, to a captive audience that never questioned what was handed to them as “The Word of God.”

That ‘in-house creation' has been from its inception, a self validating, and clearly fabricated creation of ecclesiastical design and intent. It WAS and IS no more than a clerical OPINION -- an interpretation based upon certain evidence and supposition, presented as the unassailable TRUTH.

This is, of course, precisely what Dan Brown has done, in the Da Vinci Code, except that he clearly identified it as FICTION. What he proposes in suggesting the humanity of Jesus, is certainly no less believable than the officially acceptable myths of a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead and walking on water. Believing those things requires not only faith, but BLIND faith, because, aside from religion, they are fundamentally contradicted by natural law and common sense.

Right or wrong at least Brown's presentation makes more common sense than the orthodox point of view. Could it be that this is why, what he said is such a threat to those who are not comfortable with facts?

Many of the creeds, doctrines, and the seemingly endless anachronistic recitations of Christianity do in fact constitute obvious fiction.

Departures from historical evidence and the clearly stated intent of the person and ministry of Jesus is abundantly clear. Without question, Christianity in its ancient and modern dress is simply a religion ABOUT Jesus. It certainly is not the religion OF Jesus, because that was Judaism.

Even the faith OF Jesus was corrupted by perverting it into a body of faith ‘concerning' Jesus that bore no relationship to his message and intent. This was done AFTER he was no longer around to offer any objection to what was done in his name.

It is well to remember that Jesus himself was NEVER A CHRISTIAN. He was born a Jew and he died a Jew. Christianity was the achievement of other ‘interested' individuals, who fashioned it in their own image.

Fundamentally negating the message and the religion of Jesus, the actual founders of Christianity contrived a religion of opposite warp and weave based upon salesmanship and literary skill that puts Dan Brown to shame. At least the Da Vinci Code is honestly labeled as FICTION, as a guide and a warning to the gullible. To those who are offended, by the novel, the movie, and by this defense, I say, “Me thinks thou protesteth too much.”

It is not Dan Brown's credibility that is in question. He is merely a self admitted story teller who makes no pretense of divine revelation. Our problem is with individuals and institutions that have no hesitation in speaking FOR GOD, WITHOUT BEING GOD, that demand our obedience to their exclusive proprietary vision of what they have chosen to regard as ‘THE ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD.' Now, that constitutes a credible and significant threat to people in quest of an honest faith and higher spirituality.

The warning disclaimer that some people would put on the cover of the Da Vinci Code, would be more appropriate over the door of some Christian Churches.



The Da Vince Code: Why the furor over the furor?
By Laurence A. Gonzaga
Highland Community News: Religion Section, June 29, 2006

Psychology, B.A., Graduate student in Psychology (CSUSB), Christian Apologist, taught Church history, morality, and Sacramental preparation @ Sts. Adelaide and Anne Roman Catholic Church, former Atheist
“Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake.” –Matthew5:11

In response to Robert Harvey’s “Why all of the furor over the Da Vinci Code?” we must be clear on what is being discussed here, “right” and “wrong”, as it applies to protesting against The Da Vinci Code.

Harvey discusses truth and opinion, and the two need to be distinguished. Truth is a statement which corresponds with reality, regardless of the individual’s perspective. Saying “my shoes are blue” is only truthful if I am really wearing blue shoes. Opinion is different. If my favorite color is red and my friend’s favorite is green, which one of us is right? Can we argue over this? No, these are opinions, which are statements relating to taste, rather than truth. The old saying goes, De gustibus non disputandum est (There is no disputing about taste). However, in matters of truth, people ought to debate reasonably. Therefore, Christians are justified in protesting the movie because it is contrary to what we accept as historical truth.

Harvey claims that we are not open to a “humanized” Jesus because we’d rather believe in “transparent magic” and are threatened by “other ways of looking at religious history and theology”. Of course we are against it; this issue is related to history (truth). Why not stand up for what we believe in? Where’s his debunking evidence, the onus of proof is on Harvey! If it has been accepted as true for 2000 years then why would one doubt it? Do scientists need to re-prove gravity every 100 years?

Harvey uses the phrase “avalanche of possibilities”. He fails to list the possibilities, and the reasonable grounds for proposing such possibilities. Possibilities don’t equal realities. He says we believe in “private fictions”. One-third of this planet’s population is Christian, which is hardly “private”. He then says “beliefs…unsupported by an impressive body of existing evidence to the contrary.” What “impressive” evidence? Or are these his “private fictions”?

Harvey writes: “…it must be recognized that all religions had their source at some time, some place, by someone, who simply made it all up.” Unless Harvey proves that all Scriptures from every religion are “made up”, he can’t make such claims.

Harvey says Dan Brown “clearly identified it as FICTION”, yet on page 1, under a heading that says “FACT”, we read about the Priory of Sion and the Les Dossiers Secretes, both have been proven to be forgeries by Pierre Plantard and his collegues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard. Harvey here contradicts his own words because he then says later on “Could it be that this is why, what he [Dan Brown] said is such a threat to those who are not comfortable with facts?” I thought you said it was “clearly fiction”? Then Dan Brown writes on the same “facts” page: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

Then Harvey says that the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and walking on water are “contradicted by natural law and common sense”. If he knew anything about theology, he would know that these are Miracles, and as such are not bound by the physical laws of nature.

Harvey then says that Christianity cannot be a religion OF Jesus, because Jesus was Jewish. How that contradicts Christianity’s claim, he doesn’t tell us. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew5:17). The first followers of Jesus were not called “Christians”, they were called “The Way”. “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord… so that if he found any belonging to the Way… he might bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts9:1-2). “And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians (Acts11:26).

Harvey claims that the early Christians “corrupted” and “perverted” the faith, and bore “no relationship to his message and intent”. How has Harvey come across an infallible knowledge of what Jesus’ real message and intent was? He sounds rather dogmatic about his beliefs. Irony? I would also ask for his evidence that the early Christians changed the real teachings of Jesus “after he was no longer around to offer any objection…”?

Mr. Harvey had too many contradictions and assumptions in his piece to discuss in my space allotted. But, he is more than welcome to discuss further. God Bless.

The Da Vinci Code Debate: Are the Traditionally Accepted Scriptures (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) Historical and Reliable? Informal Debate

Dr. Robert Harvey, Ph.D. Biology: Negative
Laurence A. Gonzaga, B.A. Psychology: Affirmative

Friday, July 28, 2006
10:00AM-11:30AM
Highland Senior Center
Address: 3102 Highland Ave, Highland, CA 92346
Phone: (909) 862-8104

Re: Religious Indoctrination Is Child Abuse [VIDEO]

Link to Post at Atheist Analysis

There's really not much to respond to here. It's basically an anti-religion quote from someone famous and a short video with no arguments or explanation. This is why I have no problem linking to both the post and the video here. If it had any persuasive power I might have been tempted to not reference it. I would be interested in a presentation on what psychological abuse is and clinically accepted examples of it, then examples of how religious indoctrination qualifies for psychological abuse, and some peer reviewed journal studies on religious indoctrination and negative effects that are correlated with it. I can't imagine ever having a true experiment that proves this link, if any, since you would have to say you are randomly assigning a subset of the population to the experimental group with "psychological abuse" treatment. That would be unethical methinks. Try again atheists.

Update: 1/21/15

They uploaded a new version. I had to watch the first version above to see what the difference is. It's basically the same video with less sinister music. The power of AV media, huh? My criticism above still stands. A video without any real substance.

The Newsboys are now Atheists

That title probably got your attention didn't it? Well probably only if you're Protestant and love Christian contemporary pop music. I tried to tune in on time to the program on the atheist analysis channel on YouTube where yesterday's program was interviewing a former band member of the Newsboys. I didn't really know the background of this band. I probably listened to a song or two in my time doing youth ministry. However, I never really got into Protestant contemporary Christian music because the theology was always found wanting. Nevertheless, I was interested to see what this program had to offer. I still need to listen to the whole thing to give it a fair assessment. But I did do a little research on the history of the Newsboys and found that the person being interviewed hasn't been a member of the band for 25 years. He left in 1990 a few years before the band even made  any waves in the US music scene. And so I'm just wondering without examining any of the content, what's all the hype about referring to this interviewee as a member of the Newsboys. Sure he helped found it but it's kind of a misleading ploy to get people to watch the program when he wasn't even a contributor to the popularity that the band has enjoyed since his departure.

Bottom line is, Christians lose their faith all day long, everyday. Sometimes they are pastors or priests, and sometimes they are musicians. On the other hand many ordinary folks, community leaders, and even musicians become believers all day long, every day. Neither case proves anything other than we make small and big choices every day. 

A Response to Atheist Analysis’ Christopher Tanner - Part II

Link to Comments at Atheist Analysis

“The parents locked Leelah away!. They took every form of communication away from her except CHURCH! They took her even out of school (which was confirmed by WPCO News). They gave her back her stuff after months of isolation then they restricted where she could go. She said over the last year she had seen her friends 3 times! You tell me how the hell that is right?”

Are you saying non-religious parents wouldn’t do this? I don’t believe I’ve seen any Biblical or church directive that has ever prescribed this. Maybe their brand of Christianity or their pastor advised this; I really don’t know (and neither do you). I think a commentary on the choices these parents made can be assessed on their own. Any causal relationship their behavior has with their religion from what we can draw from what we know of the case would only be speculative. My opinion is that imposed isolation is not helpful for anyone that has symptoms of depression.

“And we are not talking about Leelah being a bad person and getting caught stealing or harming others, BUT BECAUSE SHE IS TRANSGENDER!”

So it would be justified punishment for those things?

“Come on Laurence how the can you sit there and type this with a serious face? It is not because Leelah killed herself just because she was depressed. She was isolated, taken to counselors that do not care to deal with transgender issues (probably because they they do not believe in it) and give a high dose of anti depressants which in teens has been known to cause suicide.”

Christopher, individuals commit suicide for all sorts of reasons. Everyone has varied thresholds of what their personalities can bare to take. It would only be opinion to suggest that it is because of the imposed isolation and inadequate counseling that led to the suicide. I was not aware the child was prescribed antidepressants. By whom was this prescribed? Primary physician or psychiatrist? As in any case even in adults psych meds can precede suicide, but you can’t really say they cause suicide.

“So if an atheist or apitheist house hold respected a child for any reason to that extreme of a basis, sent them to counselors that only practiced pseudo-science, and then allowed their child to take high dose of medication that has been shown to increase the risk for suicide then I would be just as angry. And if this same house hold did this because of something they did not understand that did not harm the family, I would be fucking irate.”

I didn’t ask if you would be mad. I asked what would you blame? If parents make bad choices then let’s talk about the choices. It is illogical to just blame their choices on their religion as the irreligious can and do make the same choices. You added “counselors that only practiced pseudo-science”. I was talking about atheists going to atheist therapists. Suicides happen for various reasons, Christopher. If a client commits suicide, you can’t just blame the methods of the professional. If the professional violates the code of thics for their license then that’s a different story.

“So I am not being unjust in my analysis of their parenting. I am taking the known information and making a judgment based on it which is what all normal people do. I even gave them the benefit of the doubt and said that their religion had poisoned their thinking. You eluded to that they were bad parents and their religion had nothing to do with it.”

If the religion influenced their choices then we would have to get that from their admission. Otherwise we are speculating on it. Maybe they learned it from their family culture? Who knows?

“Now I have reasons to believe and there has been books written by others that suggest we would be better off without religion. You do not get to make the claim that I am using mystic power to see what would happen without religion and then turn around and say if we diid not have religion that we would be narcissistic personalities rising up. You are guilty accusing me of what you did your self in the next sentence.”

Good point. So, let me retract my precognitions. That still leaves you with my objection. We can only imagine a world without religion. However, we do have atheistic societies that have nevertheless replaced religion for nationalism or some other personality cult. They have new documentaries on happiness ideologies by self-help gurus.

“Now the problem is that this blog nor my second one was not the time or the place to discuss life without religion. I can write a future blog if you want but these blogs were not about the total overview that life would be better without religion.”

OK. I look forward to it.

“Last I bestow anger and vitriol when ignorance is displayed. Her parents with either bad parents or ignorant because of their religion.”

Not sure who you will win over if vitriol is your approach. The parents may or may not have been ignorant because of their religion. I can’t say as I don’t know what their religion taught.

“But my latest batch of vitriol comes because while I will continue to have the conversation about religion and will keep my vitriol in check for that, THE LIVES of Transgender individuals and the ignorance displayed in society for the UNEQUAL treatment of those individuals I will not keep my tongue. I will speak out, and pointedly because those that do not care nor understand the issue at some point are not worth discussing and I will fight to change the laws so people can not suppress Transgender Individuals.”

More power to you. I can appreciate when people are passionate about causes they believe in. I was just curious if you feel your style wins people over to your cause. Otherwise you are preaching to your choir. 

A Response to Atheist Analysis’ Christopher Tanner

Link to Comments at Atheist Analysis

Christopher Tanner writes (to “Speck Of The Cosmos”):

I appreciate the comments. I have been a trans and lgbtq Ally for probably 8 years now openly speaking out. I understand you want the article to be written by a trans person and I have nothing against that either. I also know many trans individuals in the movement and am personal friends with them well.

But that doesn’t mean I should be quiet. It doesn’t mean I should wait and let someone else write something. As allies we have to speak up. We have to voice that we are disgusted with this treatment. We have to tell people that they need to also stand up. Without the support of everyone a minority group will get bullied. Would it be more powerful coming from a transgender individual yes I think it would. But that doesn’t mean I should keep quiet.

As for not harassing the parents I am split. I think they are horrible people but I think their religion is worse. That is why I posed it as either their religion has made them bad people or they are bad people. But ultimately if we didn’t have religion we would not have this as big of an issue. I still think it could be but not to the extent it is because of religion. I am sorry but I think religion has done so few good things for society that I would rather not have it at all.

But I am not reducing the trans struggle to just religion because people are bigoted no matter what. But I can point out that the struggle would be easier without religion especially if we accepted science for what it was and instead of going to church on Sunday they spent 3 hours reading about science. Knowledge is power.

Lastly if you don’t feel the need to give the girl a proper burial that is fine. You don’t have to. I feel that it would send a message to society no matter what that even if someone doesn’t accept their child as trans that society will and society will start to instill this in people since the parents have failed to do so.

Laurence responds:

“As for not harassing the parents I am split. I think they are horrible people but I think their religion is worse. That is why I posed it as either their religion has made them bad people or they are bad people.”

They are bad people? I’m sorry, do you know what actually happened or did you just go blog surfing? On what basis or standard do you call them “bad”? If you are a father, and I think I heard on one of your programs you are, aren’t you lucky the public doesn’t know your misdeeds and bad choices as a parent. If I find a story of a teenager who commits suicide in an atheist, agnostic, or this latest BS I’ve been reading about “apatheist” household, who will you blame? The facts are what they are for this case, and they don’t need your spin on the matter to suit your agenda. If you want to raise awareness for your cause, so be it. But you’re sounding as “judgmental” as religionists are portrayed as. If you were once one of those kinds of Christians, you may have left the religion, but you kept the same vitriol.

“But ultimately if we didn’t have religion we would not have this as big of an issue. I still think it could be but not to the extent it is because of religion. I am sorry but I think religion has done so few good things for society that I would rather not have it at all.”

Oh I see, you have the mystical power to peer into parallel universes that don’t have religion. Religion may not be here in a hundred or a thousand years, but it is here now. Get over it, dude. If there was no religion, narcissistic personalities would still rise up and call the people so some ideological action. I never had a problem with the “question authority” kind of slogan. I think that’s good, but you can actually do that without being an asshole as well. Believe it or not, I like what you and Atheist Analysis is doing. Some things are thought provoking, but then there are some moments of vitriol like my encounter with those Prophetcast idiots, and the messenger(s) lose their credibility, and ultimately hurts the message.

Re: To Those Who Didn’t Make It, Leelah’s Continuing Story to Fix Society

Link to the Article: "To Those Who Didn’t Make It, Leelah’s Continuing Story to Fix Society"

Hi Christopher,

I decided to respond to your response to my blog in the following way. I want to use your words exactly and respond to it so I can’t be seen as misquoting you. Your statements are quoted and next I respond.

“I also posited that if religion was not prominent that the world would be better off and have one less barrier to allowing individuals who identify as transgender to be accepted.”

Since getting rid of religion in your lifetime is unrealistic, why not focus on the more realistic barriers?

“It is still evident that Leelah’s mother and father both still hold their religion over their love for their child.”

This is a logical fallacy. Holding to one’s religion does not exclude love for your child. Religion is a perspective or lens as you put it, through which experience is filtered through. These parents may have seen their response in the context of THEIR kind of Christianity as the way by which they are showing their child love. Unfortunately, their child chose to commit suicide but correlation does not equal causation. That is actually a scientific principle.

“I will accept and promote that her parents failed to truly understand their daughter and learn what it meant to identify as a transgender.”

You can’t be sure because you are a spectator.

“Neither parent used the proper pronouns and refused to acknowledge that their “son” was really their daughter.”

They don’t have to, as they don’t believe it to be the “proper pronouns”.

“this is an issue that we can work towards: helping future generations understand gender issues.“

In my undergraduate studies I had to take a course called “perspectives on gender” which featured a professor that is biologically male, and identifies as female psychologically. I patiently listened through the lectures and took the exams and wrote the papers. Education was readily available and I can respect the perspectives, but ultimately I didn’t buy it. I didn’t buy it, not for religious reasons, I just didn’t buy it because bottom line is; it is a perspective not a science. I don’t have to agree with other perspectives; nobody does.

“While I could spend hours on how religion has enabled these parents to continue to hold their biases…”

You can speculate; but you don’t KNOW what was true for them.

“a proper burial as the woman she was.”

What is a proper burial for the atheist? Would you be offended if anyone suggested to just leaving his body exposed to the elements to decompose? Is that disrespectful? Why? I am fascinated by how an atheist can cling to such ritualistic sentiments. Why do you care?

“As for her funeral, I am at a loss because there is no legal recourse I know of to insist she be buried as a woman.”

And if you did? What right do you have? Did he state in his note that he wanted to be buried as a female?

“My hope was that if enough pressure were put on the parents they would concede or acknowledge their daughter as transgender. “

Pressure? Wow. How are you any better than religion? Good Lord/Science.

“Recently someone showed me the Reddit posts from Leelah.”

Link doesn’t work for me.

“ban transgender conversion therapy”

Why? On what basis? What if someone WANTS that treatment?

“it was a negative attack on transgender individuals from someone who I do not consider an ally for anything but Christianity.”

You may not consider me an “ally” probably because I don’t buy your propaganda, but I actually have a good friend who is transgender and is in process of “re-assignment” procedures. She knows my views, but I still love her, and she says she appreciates that I stay true to my beliefs and don’t dispense with them just because we are friends.

“If you do not wish to read hate speech and ignorance,”

What of my response to you was “hate” and “ignorance”? Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am ignorant of the issues. What is your education background sir? I probably am less ignorant than you are on the psychological issues. You are probably less ignorant than I on the case study side.

“For those of you that are still with me, let me explain the blog in short. “

They should read my blog themselves. It is a fraction of the length of your post.

“To address the first point, as I stated above, this was not a launching board for anti-theism in any sense.”

The point was not your intention, I was commenting on what it came off as. My words: “I believe that your piece comes off as just another anti-religion hit piece”. After I posted my response I noticed I was not alone in this assessment. In fact, supporters of your general cause noticed the same thing. So, I don’t appreciate being singled out here.

“Religion is a factor in this case and it does play a part in the parents’ choices and (lack of) understanding of transgender issues.”

Sure. To what extent you sir do not know because you are not psychic. Some people use religion only to support their pre-conceived biases.

“Laurence claims to be a Christian and he seems to have the same issues accepting transgender rights as these Christians.”

Don’t lump me in to a group when you don’t know all my views. You don’t know if it is my Christianity that causes me to believe as I do, or my studies in psychology. Do you know? Doubt it. Also, it’s not a civil right until it is. I am always baffled about propagandists speaking of “rights” as if they are intrinsic absolute rights, my question is where do these “rights” come from?

“If Laurence still feels like it is an anti-theism blog, then I am sorry, but he obviously only want to put words in my mouth, and given that he does not understand transgender individuals, he probably will not be able to accept the role religion plays in the decisions that these parents made.”

One of your comments from a supporter of your cause, not mine or Christianity said this of your post: “But I highly doubt that change will come from the types of angry atheist rhetoric that I saw in the article as justified as it is… To reduce the trans struggle to just religion fails to acknowledge the full truth of this injustice and lived reality.” Why do you treat this commenter with more respect than I? Is it your bias perhaps? He gets a nice apology and I get the half assed sarcastic apology.

Also, how do you know I don’t understand transgendered individuals? You’ve heard what happens when you assume. You don’t have to keep presuming what I will accept or not. You can talk to me about it sir. I find that I see the same patterns here when I chat with Evangelicals. It states on my blog: “Bottom line is, don't think you know me or my views before you ask me about them or read about them.”

“But what can be deduced is that the counselors did not do an adequate job helping Leelah, because they refused to acknowledge her desire to transition, and did not talk about transgender issues she had concerns about.”

You have no guarantee that a non-Christian therapist would do the same or not. My point was an atheist can go to an atheist therapist and still commit suicide. Who do you blame then? You have no business determining what was or was not adequate as you are not a mental health professional yourself. If you know what was adequate then perhaps we can have all the referrals sent to your cell phone number so you can initiate a therapeutic relationship with them.

“Her parents also did not address her concerns and instead of seeking out the appropriate help, they dismissed and punished Leelah for her feelings. So they did not force her to kill herself, but they were major contributing factors that lead her to feel that she no longer had any love or any options left. “

I didn’t say they were not contributing factors, just as credit card policies and job stress can be huge contributors to adult suicides, but I was talking about placing a practical blame on them. Are you suggesting perhaps that therapists and parents can be put on trial for something like this? You have no guarantee that in the absence of the parental punishment or therapeutic interventions to your infallible specifications that the child would still be alive today.

“They simply locked her up, restricted her access to everything, and only allowed minimal social interaction.”

Not wise, but you can’t say Christians alone would do this. Secular parents are just as likely to punish as religious ones.

“Lastly, Laurence is wrong on many levels about transgender individuals. Laurence says, “If I want to be a eunuch then am I a eunuch?” Holy shit, Laurence! That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. First off a eunuch is someone who has been castrated- typically before puberty hits. This is NOT what Leelah was asking for.”

Okay, perhaps it was a bad parallel. But you miss the point. On what BASIS should we respect his wishes? If I want to be considered “asexual” or “agendered” which some do, does that alone make it so? You say in your writings “birth gender of male to her correct gender of female.” Correct gender? Says who? Science? You? You are selling philosophy, or a perspective on bio-psycho-social phenomena, not something you can prove exists in reality. You will perhaps demand this of me for my belief in God. However, my theological views are not on trial here, your blog post is. I am using a scientific standard which you demand of us for God. What does science have to say about gender, or does it say anything at all? Does the animal kingdom have animals needing of gender re-assignment?

“Laurence also tries to explain what Leelah went through as a mental illness. Leelah did not have a mental illness.”

I quoted from Psychology Today. The same description can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. For your information that was not a Christian holy book.

“Leelah suffered from being born into the wrong gender, nothing else.”

Oh really? Who got that wrong? If not God, who? Ipse dixit, my friend. You are calling me un-educated? You don’t need to resort to insults towards my views Christopher. You can respond to them civilly and respectfully. You don’t have to of course. Depends on what you want the tone of your cause to sound like.

“She was depressed and may have suffered from depression but being transgendered is NOT A DISEASE OR A MENTAL ILLNESS!  People like Laurence need to be helped to understand the science behind transgender individuals.”

The DSM is a scientific book.

“To Laurence, thanks for your interest and response, but please go educate yourself and get rid of your biases that are holding you back.”

I spent enough years in psychology classes and probably read more textbooks, papers. And took more courses with professors in your ideological camp than you have. So, Christopher, it may bother you that in spite of all that I still don’t believe as you do, but that’s how it is. My Christianity has nothing to do with why I didn’t buy these PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER. Notice they didn’t call the class SCIENCES ON GENDER.

…

Thanks for the response Christopher. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Laurence Gonzaga

Evangelical Atheism

Re: Leelah, The Child god Forgot to Save

Link to Article: "Leelah, The Child god Forgot to Save"




Dear Mr. Tanner,

Thank you for sharing this news story as I would not have heard of it otherwise. It is indeed a tragedy and I will not make any excuses for any choices which could be argued to be immoral that this teen's parents or counselor made. Though I can appreciate your sympathy and empathy for all those involved in this tragedy, I believe that your piece comes off as just another anti-religion hit piece using this as part of your pathetic argument. I use the word pathetic in the rhetorical sense, that you are appealing mostly to the audience's emotions rather than making any sound cases against, well, anything. I will let you in on a little secret, atheists commit suicide too, and not too few of them also have a history of seeking psycho therapeutic and psychiatric help. It is a very unfortunate occurrence that nobody can really be blamed for. It's not as if these counselors moved the person to commit suicide. Furthermore, this agenda to address this young man as a woman is puzzling to me. On what basis should there be a movement to recognize transgenderism as something natural? On what basis ought we to consider this young male a female? Because "she" wanted to be referred to as such? What if I wanted to be referred to as a eunuch, neither male nor female, does my desire for that reality make it so? He was a he, and if you are truly advocating for adequate treatment for that, then let's get that part straight. Please look into Gender Identity Disorder. I know there is a movement among professionals to have that diagnosis removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (and perhaps it may have already been removed), but even if it be removed from the DSM, all that proves is that it no longer has a clinical label. The observable pathology will still be quite apparent.

To dispel any doubts as to my perspective. I believe God exists, and He created all His creatures and loved all His creation. This young man ought to have been loved by his parents, friends, classmates, etc. just as much as if he did not face the challenge of GID in his life. The encouragement here would be more productive towards greater awareness of GID issues and greater development of sensitivity in therapeutic interventions for persons suffering from GID, rather than using this tragedy as a vehicle for attacking religion.

Thank you,
Laurence Gonzaga, M.A.