Is Jeffrey Tayler Correct in His "Atheist Manifesto"?

Jeffrey Tayler, an editor at The Atlantic, has proposed a provocative set of ways atheists can "stand up for themselves". He calls it a "credo for atheists", posed as a list of "concrete responses to faith-based affronts, to religious presumption, or what Hitchens called clerical bullying.'"   I tend to see it more as a kind of atheist manifesto.  As Mr. Tayler puts it:

"The First Amendment, we should recall, forbids Congress both from establishing laws designating a state religion and from abridging freedom of speech. There is no reason why we should shy away from speaking freely about religion, no reason why it should be thought impolite to debate it, especially when, as so often happens, religious folk bring it up on their own and try to impose it on others."

Which is a point  to which I'd have no objection. In general, I'm quite willing to leave people to their own devices and beliefs - whether it's a claim that God is all around them and helping them, or a claim that vitamins are useless garbage- but then, if it is brought up in a public arena I feel quite free to add in my two cents, and provide a rigorous debate. Of course, some nitwits can't be debated because they lack the neurons to do so intelligently, such as those who insist the agnostic atheist "is an oxymoron like an honest thief". Uh no, Einstein, it is a legitimate variation of atheist, first defined by George Smith in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God, viz. p. 9:

The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well

So we leave out semi-educated dunderheads because their IQ and their knowledge base are too low to justify extended interaction.


Anyway, let's examine Tayler's list and see if it is possible for the rational person to find concordance:
----

Herewith, some common religious pronouncements and how atheists can respond to them.

1.  “Let’s say grace!”

No, let’s not. When you’re seated at the family dinner table and a relative suggests clasping hands, lowering heads and thanking the Lord, say “No thanks. I’m an atheist. So I’ll opt out.” Nonbelievers have every right to object when being asked to take part in superstitious rituals; in fact, if children are present, they are morally obliged to do so. Courteously refusing to pray will set an example of rational behavior for the young, and contribute to furthering the atheist zeitgeist.
--------------

I completely agree with this take, and I also concur it's the atheist's bounden duty to spoil the expectation of uniform compliance at a meal if a Xtian unthinkingly -or deliberately - demands all those present say grace. The atheist who complies because he doesn't wish to ruffle feathers is basically a wimp and not fit to use call himself an atheist. Maybe he is a pretend atheist, or poseur.  Of course, the refusal needs to be done courteously, no one in his right mind is going to say "F*ck off, bozo!" But to refuse to do it is to become an accomplice to the expectation that Christianity dominates the nation and all minorities must kowtow to its themes and preferences.


2.  “Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up.”

No, religion is fundamentally collective, and since time immemorial has served societies in fostering union, but also in inciting xenophobia and violence (especially against “unchaste” women and “impure” minorities), often on a mass scale. Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is.
-------------------

Again, I agree. Religion  (and faith) receives too much passive gravitas by no one challenging its presumptions. One of these is the social script that we are all to behave as good little do -be's and never bring it up for debate or discussion. On the contrary, all religions need to be held open to critical review and examination, no matter what the setting....dinner parties, family gatherings, picnics, whatever.....if the opportunity for robust engagement presents itself.


3.  “You’re an atheist? I feel sorry for you.”

No, please rejoice for me. I fear no hell, just as I expect no heaven.

Again, this is a Xtianoid fancy that needs to be fought vigorously. Most high and mighty Xtianoids believe they're superior to atheists because they've already been granted "a seat at the Lord's table" before they even croak.  But as is my wont, all I tell them is they have purchased an afterlife insurance policy that is probably useless. They've suppressed their will and subjugated their reason, as well as sacrificed felicity, all to gain a 'pass' when the lights go out - not realizing that when death arrives the lights really do go out. (Think of the last time you had general anesthesia in surgery).

If the Christian foolishly plays the Pascal wager game, I have an answer for that too. He may claim that I ought to play the wager because if I lose (i.e. cast aside my disbelief and assume afterlife reality exists) I win by gaining heaven, whereas if I maintain unbelief I lose my eternal "soul".  But Philosopher Michael Martin actually turns the originally proffered Pascalian choice on its head in arriving at an alternative view of the Wager, based on a negative deity he calls the “Perverse Master” which (he imagines) acts in consistent contradiction to the “just God” of orthodox Christians.

For example, rather than rewarding belief or faith in itself, especially if such belief is predicated on fear of torment, this entity punishes it for any supernatural being (including itself) while rewarding disbelief with eternal bliss. (Clearly this “PM” prefers not to have millions of “yes men” surrounding it, who’ve only espoused belief to save their sorry hides!)

Apart from this, what does that say about the presumed Christian deity? That it would accept a craven human’s false belief (to save his or her eternal ass) over a courageous atheist’s integrity? If indeed it does so (as the Christian debaters imply) it is nothing but a mere cosmic joke, a petty tyrant too insecure in its being to tolerate unbelief. Yet it would accept a “yes man” in a nano-second!

Pascal's wager is bunk because Pascal rigged the medieval dice and weighted them -or loaded them- in his favor to make the 'wager' come out the way he wanted, while foreclosing all other alternatives.

4.  “If you’re an atheist, life has no purpose.”


This is another load of  religious bull pockey  and really discloses the religionist for being an existential sissy. He is so bereft of balls and vision that he has to formulate an invisible Being to direct his every waking hour  toward some "higher purpose", as opposed to forging his own purpose. I always laugh at this sort of baloney, because it definitely shows how religion has eviscerated people's brains. The problem for those who believe this BS is that can't fathom in a million years how a person could independently craft and direct his life apart from some superimpose hypothetical plan. In many ways, they remind me of the mammoth Powerball winners who, though they win $200 million, state they plan to stay at their boring ass jobs to "have a purpose". They are too pathetic to use their imaginations (and money) to travel, see other cultures, or expand their learning and vision.



5.  “If you abolish religion, nothing will stop people from killing, raping and looting.”

No, killing, raping and looting have been common practices in religious societies, and often carried out with clerical sanction. The catalogue of notorious barbarities – wars and massacres, acts of terrorism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.
---------------

Again, it's amazing how many believers still bring this idiocy up when they ought to know - if they're the least bit educated - that human morality evolved with human culture, it didn't start from religion.
This sort of communitarian moral order became endemic as agriculture subsumed hunter-gatherer culture and human communities  became more organized and interdependent. It was this interdependence that formed the basis of settled societal laws, legal systems . No supernatural law or commandment ordained specific moral or legal behavior. Instead it was the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others was directly linked to the one's own welfare. Compromise others' security, and you compromise your own.  This was embodied in Hammurabi's code in the words,

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Which "Golden Rule" or ethic of reciprocity became the basis for nearly all ancient, post-Bronze Age ethics. Incredibly, many Christians actually think Christ spoke these words!  The point is, a coherent morality pre-existed the Bible and Christianity and hence the claim made by the Christian is patented malarkey. I'd be more worried about a Christian going ape shit and slaughtering dozens of people, because "my God told me to do it".

 

6.  “Nothing can equal the majesty of God and His creation.”

Humbug! The universe is majestic enough with its many wondrous sights and objects, i.e.:


Neither of which can be said to have been "created" other than by natural, physical means, i.e. electro-magnetic and gravitational forces acting in concert with basic thermodynamics to shape the final result.


The point? I can immediately access natural majesty just by taking my telescope out on a clear night and observing an object like the Orion Nebula or M13, the globular cluster in Hercules.  I don't need to invoke the phony construct of an invisible Being  to relate to the objects seen.

7.  “It is irrational to believe that the world came about without a creator.”

No, it is irrational to infer an invisible omnipotent being from what we see around us. The burden of proof lies on the one making supernatural claims,
----------
Again, Tayler is correct. Besides which a number of papers, research have been done (all the total embodiments of RATIONALITY) to show the cosmos incepted from a quantum vacuum.

Those interested can reference my detailed debunking of this argument here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/debunking-anders-primary-cause-fantasy.html

One of the more hilarious analogies used by fundie dunderheads and dopes  to justify their faith in an unseen creator is: "if a plane is flying in the sky you can't see the pilot but you know someone is flying it". Uh, yeppers, Jethroe, but planes are PHYSICAL objects and pilots are physical (and biological) too in order to operate the aviation controls! BUT you're using a PHYSICAL analogy to justify faith in a supernatural entity, you dope!

8.  “I will pray for you to see the light.”

ROTFL!  

Typical palaver from supercilious, smug know nothings who mostly: 1) don't accept evolution, 2) think the Sun is "young" and 3) believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and 4) believe the fundie dope (Jason Lisle) who professes such BS is an "astrophysicist" .   If this constitutes the "light' they see I will happily remain beyond their "light"!


9.  “If you’re wrong about God, you go to hell. It’s safer to believe.”

Pascal’s wager survives even among people who have never heard the name of the 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician.

And I already dealt with the wager earlier under No. 3. Again, expressing "faith" merely to save one's ass is the coward's way out. If belief isn't held sincerely but merely as an afterlife insurance policy one really doesn't deserve to call himself a man, certainly not an honorable man. He's a sniveling little skunk coward trying to use his "faith" as a ticket to a safe afterlife destination not realizing there's nothing that comes after you croak.  He's even more of sniveling skunk if he himself cowardly uses his faith shtick to try to browbeat others when he himself doesn't demonstrate the first principles of being a decent human being.



10.  “Religion is of great comfort to me, especially in times of loss. Too bad it isn’t for you.”

George Bernard Shaw noted that, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
-----------------------

Which I can't do much to exceed in terms of analogy. Besides, the existentialist isn't in need of "comfort". He doesn't regard the world as a giant 'comforter' to wrap himself in, but rather as an entity to be examined, scrutinized to explain by scientific principles. Loss, well it's to be expected. Life is a pattern of loss, and to believe one can surmount it or avoid it is magical thinking. Better to deal with it on the realistic plane than a magical, supernatural one which only allows false comfort.


11.  “As you age and face death, you will come to need religion.”

The truth, hard as it is for many to accept, is that with age comes a clearer, no nonsense grasp of reality and more likely becoming more atheistic, not less. By the time one is 70 he certainly ought to have put behind the things of a child, and that includes false beliefs in fairies, Santa Claus and everlasting lives - post death.

As Taylor aptly puts it:

Aging and the prospect of dying by no means enhance the attractiveness of fictitious comforts to come in paradise, or the veracity of malicious myths about hellfire and damnation.



12.  “You have no right to criticize my religious beliefs.”

Wrong. Such a declaration aims to suppress free speech and dialogue about a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies.  No one has a right to make unsubstantiated assertions, or vouch for the truthfulness of unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of “sacred” texts, without expecting objections from thinking folk.

--------------
Again, Tayler is totally correct. If the believer keeps the religious beliefs to him-herself, that's a different matter. But once they are publicly advanced then all bets are off, and it's game on. I will give as good I get, and I hope you are up to it. And that means a lot of rational criticism, unless you profess to be like ol' "Pastor Mike" who used to think he was above criticism  - and his KJV carried the solemn word of God (as opposed to the ravings of ancient madmen, lunatics and unethical copyists) Of course, one with the ethics and morality of a groveling pig (but who uses the fig leaf of faith and religion to disguise it) would do the things that would only make such a pig proud: i.e. like proposing a "National Atheist Registry" based on a sex offender registry!


13.  “Jesus was merciful.”

If he existed – and there is still, after centuries of searching, no proof that he did – he was at times a heartless prophet of doom for the sinners he supposedly loved, commanding those who failed to give comfort to the poor to “depart . . . ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
------------
Here, I have to correct Taylor as one must be totally aware of how words were often put into Yeshua's mouth by the unethical copyists I noted above. Ehrman in his book ‘Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why’, documents numerous copyist errors and multitudes involving deliberate mistranslation. As he observes (p. 209):

“The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’ edition, which was based on a single twelfth century manuscript that is one of the worst that we now have available to us!”

Oxford scholar Geza Vermes (The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus) adds even more examples of how numerous passages represent words never uttered  by Yeshua, but put into his mouth. So  - I take most of the quotes that Tayler claims  are "vile" in the NT, to issue from the vile minds (and hands) of copyists and deliberate mistranslators, not from Yeshua himself. Having said that, the issue of Yeshua being "merciful" is still irrelevant - because the same passages that expose mistranslation, errors, also disclose he was no God-man. He was an ordinary flesh and blood human Rabbi, but with charisma and genuine heartfelt sympathy for fellow humans. So, yes, in this sense he was "merciful" but not in the sense of acting as a sacrificial deity (via crucifixion)  for the expiation of "sins" to secure "heaven" for one and all.


14.  ”You can’t prove there’s no God.”

Correct, at least epistemologically speaking. Reasonable atheists, “New” and old, would not argue with this. Richard Dawkins, for example, has told audiences that he is nominally an agnostic, since proving that something does not exist is impossible.
-----------------

But the crux of the matter, not brought out by Tayler  (at least under this header), is that it is always the positive claimant who is obliged to provide proof for his existence claim. Since the God-ist or theist is making the positive claim, i.e. adding to reality by postulating a supernatural mega-Being, it is HIS duty to prove its existence, not the atheist's to disprove it.

In the same way, if I postulate that invisible aliens from Tau Ceti inhabit the city of Manitou Springs, I have to prove it!  I would not be daft enough to think the good citizens of Manitou are obliged to disprove my claim!

It is unfathomable that Theists and religionists can't seem to get this into their thick noggins, but there it is. The problem always comes because before the debate is initialized the one making the actual claim isn't usually identified. This is extremely important to do, thus - as in a scholastic debate - you have to first identify which person speaks for the "affirmative" (the claimant) and who is speaking for the negative. Invariably it is always the atheist who take the negative, which means the proof must issue from the affirmative (existent claimant) side.


15.  “My religion is true for me.”

A soppy, solipsistic and juvenile declaration and cop-out bordering on the delusional and contradicting Christianity and Islam, neither of which recognize the other, and both of which espouse universalist pretensions. You will not find a scientist who will say, “quantum physics is true for me.”
------

Again, Tayler is spot -on and I would only add here that we need to note the post-modern overtones of this type of statement, "true for me", which really says nothing of import.  The reason is that truth is only significant if universal. Thus, asserting the "Sun is extremely hot ionized plasma" is a universal truth in the context of its temperatures and substance relative to human experience. Same with asserting "the stars are distant objects".

While this sort of solipsistic statement is indeed vacuous, it's at least preferable to the fundie bigot or bully who loudly and brashly proclaims HIS truth must apply to all, and by god if you don't accept 'You is going to Hell, boy'!   Sadly, this 52-cards short of a full deck goober doesn't grasp that he's conflating a truth with his own twisted, personal belief.

16.  “Don’t take everything in the Bible literally.”

Not taking the Bible (or other texts based on “revealed truths”) literally leaves it up to the reader to cherry-pick elements for belief. There exists no guide for such cherry-picking, and zero religious sanction for it.Pastor
----------------------

I will also add to this by saying it allows those who profess to take the good book literally, i.e. fundies, to weasel their way out of any debates by invoking "interpretation" and "hermeneutics" when convenient - e.g. trying to repel claims of biblical contradictions. But as I have repeatedly noted, they can't have their cake and eat it. If they therefore profess the bible is inerrant and that it must be taken literally, they can't also invoke "interpretation" because literalness is mutually exclusive with  textual analysis or hermeneutics.

That said, we can't expect extreme pseudo-religionists, especially argumentative fundies, to "play by the rules". Like robbers, brigands and other n'er do wells they will feel it their "right" to use their book any way they want to try to get the better of Materialists, atheists.

The problem for them is that we know what they're up to, and most intelligent observers do as well.

So, bottom line, with a few tweaks Tayler's points make a nice Atheist Manifesto, or at least a first approximation to one.
            

Biblical Bollocks Galore - But Who's Counting? Not Dumbass Fundies!

Fundies, otherwise referred to in normal parlance as "Christian fundamentalists" are truly so stupid they can't even recognize their own lies and delusions when they blow smoke out of their asses- which is about every two minutes.

They insist we skeptics only find fault with their good Book to be ugly and unkind. They always have a shit load of excuses anytime we point out clear errors, or omissions as well as inconsistencies. Some of their choicest rationalizations (as to why WE are the ones who get it wrong) include the following:

1)Assuming the unexplained is unexplainable: Just because we have not explained everything in the Bible.


Okay, then how long must we wait? Til Hell freezes over? (Btw, we atheist skeptics would rather spend an eternity in "Hell" than two nanoseconds with the likes of  either Pastor Fred Phelps, my hateful asshole sibling formerly known as "Pastor Mike" or Rev. Albert Mohler who now plans to 'double down on evangelicalism").  Anyway, the point is, if these cheeseballs haven't  yet "explained" everything in their book by now it's doubtful they ever will. I mean, sheesh, it's a book (KJV) written with only 8,000 basic words, no equations - not even one differential or tensor eqn. So we aren't talking quantum mechanics or quantum field theory here! They haven't "explained everything" because there' no more to explain!

Another choice excuse:

2) Failing to understand the context of a passage: The Bible says, "There is no God." Of course, the context is, "The fool hath said in his heart. . , 'There is no God' " (Psalm 14:1). Therefore, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want if passages are pulled out of context.


Hmmmmm.....me thinks that resonates an awful lot with question begging. (And, btw, NO skeptic or atheist even if he had it in for your book would eviscerate that much of the original text to make a point - i.e. 'there is no God'! We aren't trying to emulate Mitt Romney after all, in how he relentlessly took Obama's quotes out of proper context!) But aside from your absurd example, the point is if a passage is intended to be taken literally, then HOW LARGE an extended context do we require? A whole page? The whole book? Consider one simple passage from  Deut. 21: 18-21 .   Taking just the words in that lines reference, it is clear to even a non-bible reader that a parent is justified to take any insolent  (or drunkard, or carousing etc.) son  to the outskirts of a city to let the elders stone him to death.

If fundies come back and say we can't take the context so, and we left something out, then, if that is truly so, it means no separate passages can ever be quoted! They might be 'out of context'! Oh, wait, the fundies will respond: THAT context has already been 'approved'.

Another one:

Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clearer ones:

Yes, well, see Mr. Bumpkin, the point is that your dullard brain is confusing the process of interpretation with literalness. IF the Bible can be taken literally, as you all claim, then it doesn't need interpretation!  Indeed, interpretation then means the Bible CAN'T be taken literally! You only have begun to append the issue of "interpretation" as a fudge factor because we (atheists) have pinned your balls to your brains and exposed all your contradictions and other lies, nonsense.

Yet one more of this crank's list:

Failing to discern figures of speech (i.e., the use of hyperbole) in various verses: For example, when Jesus said: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off" (Matt. 5:29-30). Now, anyone in their right mind knows that He obviously didn't mean that literally!

Well fine! Then, that means the Bible can't be taken literally!! If any one part or minor passage must be subject to interpretation, then the whole house of cards falls down. If one must parse EVEN one statement from JC as "hyperbole" then it follows that if reference is made (in the OT) say to Jonah being swallowed by a whale or "big fish" and living in it for THREE days, that is ALSO "hyperbole".  Once you go through the door of hyperbole, even to try and protect your antiquated  bollocks or bunkum, all bets are off.  And NO, you don't get to cherry pick which passages are real and which are hyperbole, if all related passages are equally implausible to the rational mind.

Now, how about we look at clear, unimpeachable outright mistakes which can have no other interpretations. (And let us bear in mind here, neither "context" or anything else ought to matter if the passage can be taken literally - which is what fundies claim. So, they can't have their cake and eat it. If they claim literal interpretation then they are disallowed from appealing to "context", "exegesis", "eigesis" or any other BS that doesn't fit in with their claim.

First some factual errors:

We read (Gen.:1: 1-5)

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”


The “light” referred to in the last three sentences is none other than the SUN. However, it's clear from reading each line through that the Earth was supposedly made BEFORE the Sun. (E.g. Earth without form, darkness upon face of the deep).


But this is physically impossible. We know from modern astrophysics that the solar proto-nebula had to collapse first to yield the SUN. (No planets, since they had yet to spin off the collapsing nebular cloud – it hadn’t cooled enough to allow it). As the proto-solar nebula collapsed it also began spinning and gained angular momentum. This angular momentum was then transferred to regions of the nebula that cooled and separated from the whole, and these regions became separate clouds of dust and gas that aggregated into the planets.


As more angular momentum was transferred – the planetesimal’s (each one) acquired their own spin (in a period of revolution) and specific shapes. Thus, the Earth spun off about 1.1 billion years after the solar nebula fully collapsed, and it could not have come BEFORE the Sun. Indeed, the absence of the central mass of the Sun, or ~ 10 ^33 kilograms, the Earth would've instantly been hurled toward the constellation Hercules at 12 miles per second with no central mass to keep it in check. We can compute this exactly using the basic principles of celestial mechanics.

It is clear from this that Gen.1:1-5 has stated a patent impossibility which violates all known laws of physics and dynamics and is therefore WRONG!

Other examples:

1 Kings 7:23 :

"He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."


BUT: Circumference = π x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."


Lev 11:20-21:


"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."


Fowl do not "go upon all four".  Those are mammals, or some reptiles. Hence, this dolt doesn't know the difference between a fowl and a ferret!

Lev 11:6:


"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."


Hare do not "chew the cud", cows do.


Deut 14:7:

"...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof."


This is wrong on two counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof." Hell, maybe Pastor Mikey wrote it!


Jonah 1:17

"...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights"

Matt 12:40 says


"...Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..."


Two errors: first a contradiction between "fish" and "whale"(between biblical verses) and second, whales and fish are not related. (Whales are the largest MAMMALS).

Next thing, since no human can survive for three days in an organic  vat of hydrochloric acid without his bones dissolving, it is clear this MUST be hyperbole!  I mean, look - this has to be at  LEAST as implausible as taking literally JC's command that "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out". But we must conclude if anyone insists the latter must be taken as hyperbole, but not Jonah being swallowed by a whale and living three days inside it, he must be certifiably insane, or at least as irrational and possibly psychotic as Adam Lanza or James Eagen Holmes! In any case, if he has any guns they ought to be seized for his own good!


Matt 13:31-32: :

"the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."


There are two major errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.


Matt 4:8:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."


Unless the world is flat, the increase in altitude described simply wouldn't be adequate to see all the kingdoms of the Earth. You'd need to be at least twice the height of Everest to see the "kingdoms" then in existence, and if that was done J.C. would have suffocated from lack of O2.


Conclusion: the Bible (KJV or other) cannot be a “divinely inspired” book. Rather it is a HUMAN-inspired work with all the errors one expects humans to make.



Like the reckless use of language in general (to signify things that can't exist - "fairies", "God", "abominable snowmen") one must regard the Bible only in a metaphoric as opposed to literal sense. By the way, it's unfortunate that we still must explain to stupid people, like Mike, why we take this interest despite the bible being essentially an extended 66-book mythology. DUH, Mr. Bible Puncher! Because you use it to justify all your pseudo-religious crap - from how you treat women and homosexuals, to how you treat unbelievers - and trot it out into the political arena where it impacts millions of lives!  If we didn't keep one eye on you and your stupid book, there's no telling how many bastardized laws you little fuckers would get our congress critters to pass! Even now, as you seek to take away abortion rights!

Obviously, what indiscriminate bible thumpers - who worship their book like an idol - need, is those quantum dots implanted to regulate their insanity!

Insights Into Biblical Contradictions, Hell and the Resurrection

Spiritual Master John Phillips is rightly regarded as a Renaissance Man in Barbados. Author, inventor (of pre-packaged cuccoo- a Barbadian delicacy), expert nutritionist and spiritual scholar, he has perhaps done as much or more theological research as any priest or minister.

For reference, John and I founded The Barbados Philosophical Society in 1974, and have been good friends since, despite my veering to atheism and John retaining an eclectic and open view on all spiritual systems.

In this particular exchange, we discussed the meaning of the Easter story and especially the degree of contradictions in the various accounts, from what the women who arrived at the tomb actually observed, to where the angelic messengers were situated, to whether Christ could be touched after the resurrection, to whether Christ stayed on Earth for a while to whether there was a resurrection at all. Oh, and whether Hell actually has a theological basis.

On the conflicting accounts in the King James Bible :

Most of these controversies arise because of citing the King James Bible. One must understand that this is the simplest of all the bibles, because it was designed to be written with no more than 8,000 different words in total. Obviously, it has more than a million words, but only 8,000 words are used repetitively to make up the one million- no more. So it was dsigned to appeal to the simplest minds possible and to serve the largest population possible.

 But as we know, being popular doesn't make it correct, nor does it confer absolute truth. As a matter of fact, with such low verbal density or use it would be comical to even suggest the King James Bible (or any other) comes remotely close to truth. What it does, for the masses, is present a cartoon version of reality. Because of this cartoon reality, there are bound to be contradictions and clashes because the writers themselves sought to portray complex real accounts in fictional or exaggerated forms.

It also needs to be emphasized that the King's printers had a monopoly on printing bibles. So,by around 1650, the KJV had driven the rival Geneva Bible totally out of the market. It wasn't because of being more accurate! It was because powerful interests leveraged that the KJV would reign supreme! Another startling historical fact is that what eventually became the "King James Bible" by 1526-30 was not in fact the original, but rather up to 90 percent adopted from William Tyndale's English New Testament, published in 1526. This version was actually published in defiance of then English law - so it is amazing so much of it was then incorporated into the original KJV.

Tyndale's tack was to render Scripture in the common language of his time to make it accessible even to a humble plow boy. By basing his manuscript on Hebrew and Greek texts he'd defied an English law from 1401 that forbade the publication of any English book without Church of England permission. Wise to the dangers, Tyndale conveniently went abroad while he was burned in effigy outside St. Paul's Cathedral in London.  They also consigned hundreds of copies of his New Testament translation to the flames. But, he got the last laugh, when a year after he was strangled for heresy in the Netherlands, King Henry VIII granted a license to a complete "King James Bible" that was more than three-fourths Tyndale's translation from his English New Testament!

Sadly, most of those who obsess over this Bible don't even know this!


But to return to the point again, it is clear most of the contradictions occur because of the haphazard way the KJV especially was assembled. For example, the translators assembled by 1650 were granted wide latitude in how they specifically formed different translations of the text. My point is that it may not have been necessarily that Luke or John disgreed with Matthew at all, but that the later translators so mucked up the original (already bastardized) manuscript of Erasmus that these things were in abundance.

But that's why no one can read it literally. And all those who say you can are fooling themselves!


On the resurrection - whether it really occurred:

From my studies the resurrection was a metaphor. It was how we'd like to have seen Christ rise up after being cruelly crucified but it didn't really happen. In the end, it doesn't matter, the resurrection has become the sine qua non goal of all Christians and that is fine. We or they can emulate Christ and aspire to a similar event though it didn't really take place. My take again, is either the original scribes embellished what actually occurred (likely the body spirited away by disciples) or the later translators did, or at least added more to the story. Say turning the young men originally in the tomb into 'angels'.

Given this, whether Christ as the man spirited away from his tomb was touched or not, is irrelevant. To me it is just one more red herring dredged up on the overall narrative, much like arguing over how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin!


On Hell as any kind of real place of torment:

Hell was never an original teaching of the Church, and the only reason it's so frequently cited now is because the crazy fundamentalists have latched onto it. The most common afterlife teaching - by Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Adamantius-  in the early centuries after Christ’s death was metempsychosis. Unlike reincarnation, which metempsychosis is often confused with, the same soul exists and is resurrected in a succession of different human bodies in an evolutionary process. Ordinary reincarnation, meanwhile, allows for reincarnation into animal bodies, even after a human incarnation, which metempsychosis does not.

The Christian metempsychosis teaching probably endured for at least 500 years before later Church fathers decided at the 2nd Council of Constantinople, that it gave men too much time to seek God. So, a device had to be used to spur on and speed the desire for redemption. The device decided on was “Hell”. Now, recall this was around 400 A.D. and there were no evangelicals skulking around with their KJVs in hand. There was only one Church, one religion: the Catholic one. So anything that later accrued or occurred had to have been copied from these early times, Church teachings, doctrines, dogmas and canons.

So any claims evanglicals make to being "original" in anything - say especially their acceptance of Hell- is purely fantasy and self-delusion. They are merely lying to themselves and their people if they believe they are the first Christians. No! They spun off from the RC Church like all the other Protestants! Including King Henry the Eighth's Anglicans!

The modus operandi for inventing Hell was to simply take certain passages in the then Latin Vulgate that referred to “Gehenna”, which was really a dump for burning offal outside Jerusalem, and convert that earthly burning pit into an everlasting abode for punishment. What better way to punish than by fire, which is about the most painful, as anyone who’s ever touched a red hot frying pan or stove knows! Thus, Gehenna became the putative basis for eternal torment at the Council. All teachings to do with metempsychosis were ordered expunged, and any transgressors were to be listed as heretics. In a firm outline of the properties of Hell, the Council further mandated:

- It become the final abode of eternal punishment for all who rejected the Church's teachings or the Pope's authority


- It include the agency of fire and this fire never be quenched - and further it have the capacity to burn the soul without destroying it permanently (else there'd be no "eternal" aspect)


- Hell was under the governance of "Satan" or Lucifer, with a hierarchy of sub-Devils (Asmodeus, Belial, Pazuzu et al) to administer other punishments


- All non-Catholics, because of they're being outside the state of sanctifying grace, to be destined for Hell


The other job mandated by the Council was to insert the words and references to “Hell” into the scriptures and this duty was charged to various transcribers, translators. At key points also Jesus had to make the odd reference to it, including the threat of punishment for those who refused to believe, specifically “accepting” him as Savior (e.g. the bogus John 3: 16) .

  So, in the end must we accept a personal Savior?

Not at all. Christ as Savior for Gentiles never had been intended in the original scriptures. He was instead designated as a Messiah for the Jews!  It was Paul of Tarsus that sought to make Jesus'  (intended) localized religion worldwide. In fact, Jesus would have been appalled at that!

Besides that, Jesus was among a host of God-men fabricated through time, including Horus and Mithra. The evidence shows Jesus to be a much later creation by copyists who used the earlier Mithra legends. Almost everything in the original Mithra template, from the birth date (December 25th, identified with the winter solstice), to being born of a virgin, working miracles and dying on a cross then ascending. Christians copied the Mithra mythology because it fit in perfectly with their own narrative. However, in order to make this work they had to destroy all the Mithra texts - as they did when they burned down the library at Alexandria - to make it appear their narrative was the original.

Once the great ancient pagan library was reduced to ashes, the later Christian copyists could set to work!

By then,  over a century had passed since the days of Jesus and the Church- which had NO role to play during his life- had become institutionalized. It thereby became an entity to serve no other purpose than to perpetuate the teaching of Jesus in an indefinitely postponed “Parousia”.  This in turn, led to the impetus to add to, as well as further embellish and reinforce the Savior –Redeemer myth. The easiest way to do so was to copy legendary tales from earlier pagan sources and insert them into later translations. This mightily helped church leaders in their constant exhortations to the faithful to not lose sight of the goal.

The idea of "saving" or "salvation" itself is off because it inflates humans' self-importance. It is the same way with sin. That also inflates human self-importance. I mean, if a puny human can offend the Almighty God, imagine! The human must have vast powers indeed to affect an infinite Being.

Beyond that, humans are already 'saved' if that is the term. If we are all one energy of one Being then that Being can't be divided against itself. Also, if there is indeed a God and It is infinite there is simply no place for Hell to fit in, so in many respects, we all are one and no one can be abandoned. Even atheists!

Despite My Fundie Psychopath Bro, Why 'Hell' and 'Satan' Can Be Dismissed

I admit to having a laugh attack that had me ROTFL to the googolplex power, after seeing my image inserted several times in the former Pastor Mike's recent blogs. He has me there with flames shooting all around, as well as his usual 'tick, tick. tick' bullshit, as if that is supposed to scare me or anyone with a grain of sense or gray matter. (Especially as his display of HATE, including racial, cannot possibly be reconciled with a spiritual person of any kind! So we must conclude he's a hypocrite).

Well, I return the favor, of showing the squallering brat that he is, in demanding so many take his codswallop seriously. But why should they? In the end 'Satan' is a mythical confection, actually one invented originally by the Mithraists, but stolen by Christians in order to account for apparent sin in the world....oh, and also to run 'Hell'.

"Hell" is likewise a fantasy creation of deformed minds. Sadly, its assorted promoters and Elmer Gantrys aren't even able to see the very possession of such a vile doctrine puts them in league with blasphemers, assuming a God actually exists as they describe It ('infinite, all loving, omniscient, omnipotent etc.)

Philosopher Alan Watts ('Behold The Spirit') has aptly noted that any true belief in 'Hell' would amount to the grossest blasphemy against any divinity alleged to be infinite or omnipotent. As Watts puts it (op. cit., p. 244):


Taken literally as a doctrine of everlasting torture, 'Hell' amounts to blasphemy itself- for if it were in the power of human freedom-choice to produce a consequence of this kind there must be something radically diabolical in the order created by God, and in God himself. Such an interpretation may vindicate human freedom but at the cost of demonizing God.

Watts’ words are important to understanding the mind of the fundagelical Hell monger. He's telling us that this person is so unsure of his own beliefs that he requires a place of eternal torment to vindicate them, i.e. in order to burn up those that don’t share them. But he doesn’t grasp that he ends up demonizing his own deity as a beast, mass torturing maniac no better than an omnipotent Jeffrey Dahmer!  In the process he blasphemes his own deity in other words, but is too blinded by his hate, fear and paranoia to see it.

IF "God as infinite"  is taken literally, this can only mean there is no place where he isn't. Either he is infinite or not infinite. If he is infinite, and HELL also exists, then Hell must be part of the same infinity. It cannot be isolated from it or else we have a condition where Hell is apart from God's being. In other words, the Xtian Hell mongers are identifying God with HELL! Hence, they are identifying all "Evil doers" in the cosmos with God and putatively "Satan". In a word, this is insanity!   So, we have these ineffable logical conclusions:

1) EITHER - Hell exists but GOD is not infinite.

OR

2) GOD is infinite, and Hell must exist WITHIN God, so literally GOD IS HELL

Up to now, no fundie or evangelical has been clever enough to resolve the Hell-God=infinite paradox. There could be two reasons: 1) none of them is smart enough to do it, or 2) they know deep down in their little atavistic pea -brains that the paradox is logically insoluble because their assumptions are in error. (Or, just as bad, they allow the blatherings in an ancient book to trump the importance of examining the assumptions.)

Thus, if they want to preserve their "Hell" they will have to admit their God isn't infinite. If they demand God to be infinite, they will have to jettison their "Hell'. If one grants that "infinite" means extended to or pervading all of Being then there is literally no place left where - whatever it is- doesn't exist.

Hence, if applied to "God" it means all inclusive of reality. However, IF Hell is inserted, it contradicts the proposition by adding a separate entity which limits that which is already claimed "infinite". Thus, if Hell is asserted to exist and is claimed to be "eternal" then God cannot be infinite. If God is maintained to be infinite - meaning all inclusive of Being- the only conclusion is that Hell must be a part of God's Being!

Now, let me grant that the odds are none of these idiots, despite their hellfire screeching, have the necessary IQs to deal with the preceding ...so let's go more into their "territory": i.e. their bible-punching and quoting.

In truth and fact only Matthew 25:46 makes any mention of eternal punishment: (“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".(KJV)) This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words (everlasting and punishment) together AND only in some Bibles.

For example, the Weymouth New Testament has:

"And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

But my point is that the entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on the single verse of Matthew 25:46. Now let's look at it more closely! Again, this is where an acquaintance with Greek comes in handy!


The Greek for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion."  Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bear more fruit." Meanwhile, "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)

Many people unfamiliar with Greek, as they are with Latin (i.e. Sippy cup hell monger Mike) don't realize (as with the preceding case of "Aionion" vs."aion," that the endings of the same word change, i.e. inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."

Ditto, in the case of Latin, one might see: fructus (nominative case), fructui (dative), fructum (accusative) and fructu (ablative) and for which meanings can range including for 'fruit', 'profit', 'enjoyment' and 'benefit'. Once again, when one has no acquaintance with the underlying language, one will tread dangerously close to self-deception and this is the case here for Matthew's hellfire verse!


Now, further background: The noun "aion" in Greek literature (e.g. Iliad, Odyssey) has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. " It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a whale (three days or nights), or the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age - say the "age of Socrates".Critical examination discloses the Bible speaks of at least five "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past, it must logically mean that each one of them have ended! When one uses terms such as "past", "present" or "future" he's no longer referring to anything that's everlasting because the latter concept admits of no temporal distinctions! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously then it was followed by another "aion"-e.g. the "aion" in which we presently live, which will be followed by a future aion.

The point? If there are "aions"past, present and to come, it must mean that aions don't last and the one we live in will also end. Thus, these "aions" are in no way never-ending or everlasting.
There are also verses describing "the consummation of the aions" (from which eons is derived) showing that each "aion" (nee, eon) ends, hence again can't be eternal! Why is it the hardheaded, blustering fundies don't get this? That they can't or won't distinguish a finite from non-finite amount of time? Well, maybe because they never took Greek or Latin!


Other notable examples:

"the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30)
"the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
"the oncoming eons" (future) (Eph.2:7)
"the conclusion of the eon " (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
"the secret concealed from the eons" (past) (Eph.3:9)


Obviously, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out. Thus, Matthew 25:46 which embodies the Greek, "kolasin aionion", cannot mean "eternal punishment" but rather a "temporary punishment" or "temporary chastening". (Which would be more akin to a punitive 'timeout' like the old Catholic purgatory concept).

More to the point, and this is critical since I pointed it out to do with Bart Ehrman's studies of later additions by assorted scribes (link on the blog above), if we find that the translations show "eternal punishment" when the authors or copyists likely had to be familiar with these Greek forms (disclosing that "aion" is NOT eternal) then we have prima facie evidence for a deliberate copyist insertion to alter the meaning. In other words, a FRAUD!

Since "Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion", then this argument applies to ALL forms, passages, words that contain these words, no exception. Are the fundies bright enough to grasp this? Doubt it, if they can't even solve the Hell-God-Infinite paradox.  But then, these morons were never the sharpest knives in the drawer anyway, if they really believe everyone that doesn't believe a specific piece of mistranslated hokum is forever doomed to the "lake of fire" (term stolen by early Xtian scribes, copyists from the Mithraists in Ized 4, of their Zendavesta).

And finally, since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possibly mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.  Hence, we must conclude that either: a) Matthew 25:46 is a bogus later addition, or b) Matthew 25:46 represents the deliberate, fraudulent alteration of an original text in which the Greek forms were changed to reflect an "eternal" as opposed to non-eternal duress or punishment.

Underlying all such salvation-coveting greediness (as exemplified in Mike's blogs) is an embedded religious fanaticism, and a cultish tendency to embrace an unquestioning submission to a god that's caricatured in their own minds, which is largely a magnified version of their own mean-spirited, covetous selves. To question their cartoon god is "arrogant" and so they regard anyone who dares to do so as a "spoiled baby" trying to get his own way as opposed to an adult striving to rise beyond anthropomorphic creations of stupid humans. Thus, even the most innocuous intellectual challenges are seen as "human arrogance" and the elevation of our finite intellects in opposition to the infinite wisdom of the divine. But shrouded in the cloak of their own humility these fanatics fail to notice the arrogance that undergirds their conviction.

Ultimately, as we see time and again with these infantile people, they refuse to recognize that their beliefs about "God’s word" could be wrong, as well as their very deity conceptions. The fanatic treats any questioning of his own beliefs as if it were a challenge to the word of God. But in fact, this is a god created by him in his own image, conceived from his own mental delimitations and prejudices, though he quotes chapter and verse of a bible he doesn't really understand (since he never parses for the underlying Greek meanings, for instance.)

Fanatics in this sense needn’t be violent, nor do they necessarily express the kind of extremes hateful (“God hate fags”) vitriol spewing from such idiots as Fred Phelps. But there is, in this insular faith fanaticism, a dangerous combination of humility and arrogance that hermetically seals blind believer fanatics from reason and evidence. Point of fact then, it's impossible to reason with them because they don't trust reason (though they claim to have a boner for logic). They are instead hostage to their own preconceptions and assumptions, including an arrogance to fit the putative deity into the mental thimble they believe is all they need to conceptualize it.

This is why as many times as I've patiently explained how and why they are wrong (including the basis for their false beliefs), they will never, ever get it. I could present a one hour web video complete with entertaining Geisha girls and assorted props and these bozos would never grasp it, so wedded are they to their singular reality, or rather unreality! Probably no one has put the central issue better than Alan Watts, in his 'The Wisdom Of Uncertainty' (p. 143):

"The misunderstanding of religious ideas is vividly illustrated in what men have made of the doctrine of immortality, heaven and hell. But now it should be clear that eternal life is the realization that the present is the only reality, and that past and future can be distinguished from it in a conventional sense alone. THIS moment is the "door of heaven" the "straight and narrow" because there is no room for a separate "I" or ego"

Doubtless, the crazies,  including infantile, fundie psychos like my brother (and I use that term very loosely)  will never grasp that, just as they'll never ever figure out the infinite-Hell-God paradox, or see why Matthew 25:46's "eternal punishment" is totally bogus!

Has Marco Rubio Seen the Scientific Light? Maybe or....Maybe Not!

As spiritual scholar John Phillips accurately pointed out in a prior blog (May, 2010):

“The KING James was intended to be the simplest of all the bibles, because it was designed to be written with no more than 8,000 different words in total. (Obviously, it has more than a million words, but only 8,000 words are used repetitively to make up the one million- no more). Thereby, it became the simplest medium available to serve the largest population possible.”


John went on to add:

“But being popular doesn't make it correct, or endow it with absolute truth. As a matter of fact, with such low verbal density or use it would be comical to even suggest the King James bible (or any other) comes remotely close to truth. What it does, for the masses, is present a cartoon version of reality.”

Of course, it is this elemental simplicity which fuels its sales! Most Americans are not readers at heart, certainly of anything that taxes their gray matter or vocabulary. If they were to read anything and especially make purchases of it: it would be a book with a reduced vocabulary and one also advertised as conferring some “spiritual benefit”. Enter the Bible!

Coupled with this is that book publishers have known for over one hundred years it has been a consistent top seller, so have always churned out more copies than any other work of fiction – including the illustrious Harry Potter series.


So, the fact the Bible is a #1 “best seller” isn’t anything to crow about, it is rather an indictment of American insularity and parochialism of thought. It is the embodiment of all that Europeans, for example, criticize in terms of Americans’ lack of genuine intellectual insight and curiosity.

I bring this up because adherence to bible bunkum is what keeps the Republican party's hard core zealots and knuckle draggers (e.g. Todd Akin)  bound to a world view long since expired. Having said all that, there appears to be at least a ray of light on the Dumbo Party (i.e. Repukes) as one of their most hard core Tea Party mavens now admits to having some intelligence after all. I am referring  (to Florida Tea Bagger Extraordinaire, Marco Rubio.

Last month, when GQ magazine asked Rubio “How old do you think the Earth is?” he sputtered through an initially copout answer.


“I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says. I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

Hmmmm……so he never studied basic general science, even in college, where one is introduced to the concept of radiocarbon isotope dating? Maybe he has, because this week, in an interview with Politico, he attempted to mop up his Teapot response in GQ.

He said, “There is no scientific debate on the age of the Earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively. It’s at least 4.5 billion years old.”

BRAVO! Now, please inform Young Sun-Young Earth pseudo-astrophysicist Jason Lisle! It would work wonders!

Alas, maybe he could see Lisle leering at him in his mind’s eye as he hedged:

“I just think in America we should have the freedom to teach our children whatever it is we believe. And that means teaching them science. They have to know the science, but also parents have the right to teach them the theology and to reconcile those two things.”


Errrrr…..no, maestro! Parents have NO such ”right”! Science isn’t up for election, "reconciliaton" with ancient dreck or popularity contests! Nor up for “rights” contention by bible-banging parents. Even if 5 million imbecilic parents don’t believe in Newton’s three laws of motion, that doesn’t invalidate them! Even if ten million Reichist zombies believe the Earth was created in 6 days and is 6 thousand years old, that is irreconcilable with the scientific FACT of Earth’s 4-5 billion years age – as you noted to Politico. You’re entitled to your own beliefs and opinions but not your own scientific facts!


But this leaves open the question: Why did Marco hedge?  Well, because he's tethered his fortunes to a party of creationists, global warming deniers and generally ill-informed, poorly educated yokels. According to a June Gallup report, most Republicans (58 percent) believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Most Democrats and independents do not agree, mainly because most Democrats and independents are college educated and possess IQs over room temperature.


Make no mistake that his Republican anti-intellectualism is antediluvian. No wonder a 2009 Pew Research Center report found that only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republican and 9 percent identified as conservative. (Fewer still as fundamentalist Christians). It’s because the generic mindset in all those domains is antithetical to science!

Furthermore, a 2005 study found that only 11 percent of college professors identified as Republican and 15 percent identified as conservative. Some argue that this simply represents a liberal bias in academia. However, an equally strong a case could be made that people who absorb facts easily don’t suffer fools gladly. Since the Repugs are replete with fools, the thinking quarters of society will not suffer them gladly or their humbug – no matter how many bibles they quote, or how much they stomp their feet.

That, of course, leaves it to the rest of us – the critically thinking and educated citizens-  to be the adults here. It is up to us to tell these brats where to get off and what they can and can’t do. In that sense, we can’t permit them to turn our educational system into the laughing stock of the planet. Think of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs with lassos, such as depicted in my blog on Charles Pierce's book Idiot America!