Benny Hinn Offices Raided

Standard

Feds raid offices of televangelist Benny Hinn in Grapevine This is great news, here is a short list of scumbags televangelists that also need to get raided and with any luck put out of business.

Ten Richest Televangelists:

10. Joseph Prince Net Worth 2017 – $5 Million
9. T.B. Joshua Net Worth 2017 – $10 Million
8. Billy Graham Net Worth 2017 – $25 Million
7. Kenneth Copeland Net Worth 2017 – $25 Million
6. Creflo Dollar Net Worth 2017 – $27 Million
5. E. A .Adeboye Net Worth 2017 – $39 Million
4. Benny Hinn Net Worth 2017 – $42 Million
3. Chris Oyakhilome Net Worth 2017 – $50 Million
2. Bishop T.D. Jakes Net Worth 2017 – $147 Million
1. Bishop David Oyedepo Net Worth 2017 – $150 Million

Source

 

 

Advertisements

Jordan Scraps Bible Based Loophole for rapists

Standard

The disgusting, antiquated law in question was called article 308 and it protected men from being punished for rape if they married their victims (source: Deuteronomy 22:28-29) Good riddance, no more avoiding punishment because the Bible says it’s ok.

A big step forward for women in Jordan. More details:

Article 308: Jordan scraps marriage loophole for rapists

Mormon Church Allowed to Keep Police Force

Standard

Disheartening​ news that a religious police force is being tolerated in Hildale, Utah. The police in question serve a polygamous Mormon sect that marries underage girls and carries with it all the problem associated with fundamentalism Christianity​. The Force itself is a legitimate, government sanctioned force that serves Hildale and Colorado City called  Colorado City Marshal’s Office.

The U.S. Department of Justice called for the disbanding of the CCMO as part of a lengthy anti-discrimination lawsuit against the twin towns that comprise Short Creek that began in 2012. According to the complaint, the community’s powerful FLDS leaders denied non-members access to housing, police protection, and public services including water and electricity.

In March 2016, a jury determined the community’s leadership had discriminated against non-FLDS members and awarded $2.2 million in damages to six Short Creek residents. The Justice Department then demanded the federal government disband Short Creek’s police force, which it claimed was enforcing the church’s discrimination against non-members.  –The Daily Beast

A judge allowed them to continue serving as a force citing costs but they would be require to go through training and hire an outside consultant to help them change their policies and reduce discrimination.

Even though the police were found guilty of discrimination and ignoring the child abuse and other human rights violations (which in this case hidden under freedom of religion) within a fundamentalist group they were allowed to remain working. A sickening example of religion’s grip on the law and society in that district. This story exemplifies the problem with letting religious fundamentalism take route in a culture.

 

 

What Would Jesus Not Do?

Standard

Ran across this great comic today:

This comes from a great comic called Life of Bria Comics. There is also this one I found a few a few years back:

They both make the same great point: Some modern Christians act in a way that is not consistent with what a loving prophet would do or want his/her followers to do. While there is a lot of reason to doubt that Jesus even existed but assuming he did would Jesus want people to hate one another? Of course not. There are passages in the bible in which Jesus explicitly forbids hate:

‘Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.’ Jon 2:9-17

The Golden Rule: ‘Do onto other as you would have done to to you’ Mark 6:31

‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’ Matthew 5:43-44

‘A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.’ John 13:34

There are dozens of examples even within the bibles of how acting with contempt, hate, greed and so on is not consistent with what Jesus would want from his followers. Believers who willfully hurt and discriminate and purposely make the life of other human beings more difficult are, in the blog’s opinion, hypocrites. People like this have no place in civil society and if you read the bible closely no place in heaven either.

God Just Doesn’t Add Up

Standard

Einstein said “Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas” Math is rightfully viewed as the key to understanding the physical world. The sciences themselves rely on different types of math (i.e statistics). So it makes sense that some have tried to use math to prove the existence of God.  Mathematics, when done correctly, is absolute and if someone could use it to prove the existence of God then that would easily be one of, if not thee, greatest discoveries in human history.

There has been a few very solid attempts at proving God mathematically and warrant exploration.

Godel

Kurt Godel was an influential mathematician who was best known for his incompleteness theorems. He also made a strong case for the ontological argument for the existence of God. First, the Ontological Argument:

  1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
  2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
  3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
  4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
  6. Therefore, God exists. (1)

Premise three is the primary failing of this argument. Premise three makes the assumption that a being necessarily exists both in the mind and in reality. While the idea of God certainly exists in the mind there is no evidence that such a being exists in reality as well.

 ‘there are many theologically threatening sets of properties which also conform to that specification? In other words: Godel’s own argument can used to prove God’s Non-existence too'(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Ontological Argument can be used to prove anything simply by changing the words to suit whatever it is you are trying to prove, for example:

  1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that Santa Claus is a gift-giving being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible gift-giving being that can be imagined).
  2. Santa Claus exists as an idea in the mind.
  3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
  4. Thus, if Santa Claus exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is a greater gift-giving being than Santa Claus (that is, a greatest possible gift-giving being that does exist).
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is a greater gift-giving being than Santa Claus (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible gift-giving being that can be imagined.)
  6. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

The Ontological Argument also fails for the following reasons:

  1. Existence is not a predicate. Immanuel Kant correctly pointed out that to say something exists  is not to attribute existence to that thing.
  2. The concept of God is meaningless (theological non-cognitivism).
  3. Ontological arguments are ruled out by “the missing explanation argument
  4. Ontological arguments presuppose a Meinongian approach to ontology. There are different modes of being for a variety of objects of thought.

Godel’s Theorem

Godel goes one step further and uses pure, mathematical modal logic to support the existence of God.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

This version again is begging the question. There are  at least two things within that argument that are undefined such as as ‘positive property’ and ‘God-Like’.

Baye’s Theorem

Bayes’ theorem is a formula that describes how to update the probabilities of hypotheses when given evidence. ‘It follows simply from the axioms of conditional probability, but can be used to powerfully reason about a wide range of problems involving belief updates.(brilliant.org)’. Baye’s Theorem fails as it uses statistical probability to try and prove the existence things that are spiritual or religious in nature and for which there is no other evidence to support their existence. Accepting evidence based on assumptions is dangerous and gullible and so this method can also be dismissed

“The theorem is good for dealing with concrete things like tests for cancer, developing spam filters, and military applications but not for determining the answer to questions about reality that are philosophical by nature and that would require an understanding of realms beyond, realms of which we know nothing.” -Patheos

Mathematical attempts to prove God fail because they make assumptions about existence and the nature of theological/mythical concepts, thus they are eliminated by the rules of logic and Occam’s Razor.