The Odd Blog

And when our cubs grow / We'll show you what war is good for

Fools, damned fools and Christians

Posted by That Other Mike on 27/07/2008

My wife is trying to kill me. She must be, because she keeps telling me to look at stuff which is so profoundly stupid that it makes my brain crinkle and go phutphut.

Like just the other day, when she was comment surfing and ended up at a blog called What I Really Think, which spectacularly fails to live up to the verb in its name, although the URL seems entirely appropriate. I swear, I keep expecting to look at the screen and see that it’s written in crayon.

Funnies, though – the writer doesn’t seem to realise that she has a pride flag in her header.

Anyway, the post which Lottie directed me to is called Atheists Are Fools. And see, it’s this kind of thing that makes me suspect that there’s some kind of conspiracy of Atheists going around whispering ideas in Christians’ ears in order to make them look terribly dumb.

The Bible says that “The Fool says in his heart ‘there is no God.’” (Psalm 53:1)

The Bible also says a talking snake told a woman not to eat a fruit which would give her knowledge of good and evil. A talking snake. A. Talking. Snake.

I am trying to decide what to do about debating with Atheists.

Stop trying because you suck at it? If this is the best you’ve got, you need to start thinking about getting a new hobby.

I want to reach out, but I have found that Atheists are pretty dogmatically committed to their positions.

Yeah, see… You can’t be dogmatic without dogma. Most Atheists are pretty committed – mainly because we have the tendency to actually think about this stuff before we start telling all and sundry that it’s a good idea. Another reason is being surrounded on all sides by people telling you that something which you’ve examined very carefully and come to reasonably is wrong, despite all evidence; that tends to put people’s backs up a little.

That’s ignoring the fact that you immediately lost the argument right there.

Ironically, if they had humility, they would be Agnostic and admit that they do not know.

Score one for the stupid. Agnosticism is an epistemological position; to save your having to look it up, that means it’s a position related to knowledge. You know what else it is? It’s a cop out. It’s special pleading, which, again to save your looking it up, means giving a get out of jail free card to something. In other words, you say, “Ah, but this is different!” Agnosticism does that with gods; it says that god-belief should be treated with some kind of special reverence. Screw that. If you can’t show any evidence for it and if in fact the evidence goes entirely against it, I’m calling it wrong.

I am capable of an intelligent conversation with just about anyone,

I was going to be really unpleasant about this one, but frankly, with a feed line that easy, the actual joke just becomes redundant.

But the Atheists that I have met are some of the most dogmatic people out there. They have come up with the ridiculous notion that not only does God not exist, but they know this. Know? How is it that they know?

They know because the “burden of proof is on the Theist.”

Tell you what, you find me someone dumb enough to have said exactly this, and I will personally kick him or her out of the non-existent Atheists’ Club while eating the sap’s membership card.

Interesting. They know that God does not exist because they do not feel that Theists have proven God’s existence.

That’s part of it, for sure, but the real kicker is that your god is incoherent. It’s like being told a shape is a square circle, or that something is green and at the same time pure white. If its attributes are completely incoherent and contradictory, we can call it a day on its existence.

Bizarre. Theists having not proven something doesn’t make it false. God either is or He isn’t, regardless of what any of us think.

So… Then what was the point of your little screed?

The Universe is huge. The knowledge out there is far beyond the capacity of any one human being. To say that one knows God doesn’t exist implies that one has all knowledge.

No, it doesn’t, you idiot. Let’s go over this again: if your god is said to have incompatible properties or be otherwise incoherent, its existence can be dismissed. For example, your god is claimed to have infinite power, knowledge of all time and space and definite prophecies while still allowing free will; this is incoherent, because free will cannot exist in that system. You claim objective morality for your god but Euthyphro took care of this problem centuries ago; you claim perfect goodness and power for it, yet the problem of evil still exists. This is just off the top of my head.

Your god is incoherent, illogical and makes no sense.

Atheists do not know God does not exist.

Sure we do! See the above paragraph.

God is not illogical.

Megadittoes!!!One!11

Teaching God to children is not child abuse (Sorry Mr. Dawkins).

Because consistently lying to children doesn’t count as abuse? Consistently telling children that the smallest moral infractions will cause them to be punished in agonising pain for all eternity? That not believing in something which cannot be seen, touched, smelled or in fact at all factually attested to will get them the same punishment? Yeah, right. Nothing abusive there.

Atheism is foolish. Stay away from it.

Ahahaha. It is to laugh. Seriously, if we’re fools, then I’m happy with foolishness. If being intelligent and reasonable is foolish, I am a big fool.

I assert that God’s existence is obvious.

I assert the opposite, and what’s more, I have reality on my side.

We all actually know He is there. I don’t have to prove it because everyone already knows it to be true. All 6 billion of us. We may not understand God, we may struggle with feelings of doubt, but by design we crave Him and know that He is there.

Actually, you’re feeling the FSM. He was just too shy and retiring to show his noodley goodness. Ahem. Your argument is simply a pile of toss. You’re begging the question: you assume your god already exists, and so duck out of making a real argument. Weaker than airport coffee, your argument fails. You asserted something; you have to back it up, same as the rest of us.

Creation testifies about God.

Teleological bollocks. Bollocks with which, I might add, I have dealt before.

The yearning in our beings to Know God testifies about God.

The Holy Spirit testifies about God.

And once again…

Don’t cut yourself off from your destiny of Knowing God by Foolish Human Reasoning. My theory is that people choose Atheism either because they are bitter with and hate God for some reason or another, or they want to live in a way that contradicts God’s ways, and thus have to deny His existence.

Yeah. That might work if we were all slimy douchebags like you. As it is, Atheists are far and away statistically more educated and law-abiding than Christians.

God is real.

You can know Him.

Don’t be a fool

We should follow your example and be morons instead? You have nothing to offer. Your ideas are bankrupt, inelegant, ridiculous, incoherent, useless and more to the point, spectacularly unnecessary. Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là!

That, laydeez and gennelmun, was the blog What I Really Think – not endorsed by Mensa.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Fools, damned fools and Christians”

  1. Lottie said

    Did you do that just to entertain me? 😆

    Great fisking, my love. 😀

  2. Mike said

    Everything I do is for your entertainment 🙂

  3. Lottie said

    Honey! We promised never to talk about that on the blogs. 😛

  4. Twelve said

    Hey, I noticed that your blog has no more than one side of any argument with creationists, so I thought to help fix that. I am a Christian, or so I consider myself, so I’m probably no more than just an ignorant, inexperienced loudmouth, but I’ll try to keep my incoherent babbling to a minimum.

    Anyway, to the point. I’ll follow your example and dissect your words and address each quoted phrase.

    The Bible also says a talking snake told a woman not to eat a fruit which would give her knowledge of good and evil. A talking snake. A. Talking. Snake.

    In the defense of creationists, the “snake” was Satan in the form of a serpent, and therefore not a talking snake. Personally, that could have been either (1) a metaphor, or (2) an embellished portion of the Bible that never really occurred in this way — after all, most of the Bible, if not all, was kept unforgotten through oral tradition, and not written down until much later. In other words: Not. A. Talking. Snake.

    And while I’m on the subject: The whole magic-fruit idea may also not be entirely accurate. If there was any fruit involved, then it was because “God” (or so we’ll call Him for now) wanted to give the two humans a choice: to obey or not. To accomplish this, He simply pointed to some tree and said “Don’t eat that, because I said so.” (Although that may sound unfair, they did have plenty of other food, so the tree wasn’t a necessity in that respect.) And by giving them this one rule, He allowed them a choice, that choice being ‘God,’ or ‘not God.’ Through this, humans had free will. If the humans, at any point in time, chose ‘not God,’ then they would be willingly separating themselves from Him, and it was for this reason that they were thereafter forbidden to return to the garden, which was God’s garden. So, basically, God made humans, gave them on rule, which they disobeyed, thereby separating themselves from God, and suddenly they’re less perfect — fruits and snakes are irrelevant.
    Does that make any sense to you?

    Most Atheists are pretty committed – mainly because we have the tendency to actually think about this stuff before we start telling all and sundry that it’s a good idea. Another reason is being surrounded on all sides by people telling you that something which you’ve examined very carefully and come to reasonably is wrong, despite all evidence; that tends to put people’s backs up a little.

    That’s a rather sweeping generalization you seem to be making there. I may be wrong about this, but you seem to be implying that atheists are the only ones who think things through. If so, I’d like you to reexamine your opinions.

    If you can’t show any evidence for it and if in fact the evidence goes entirely against it, I’m calling it wrong.

    That last sentence is a bit redundant, isn’t it? (That is to say, your lack of tolerance for any beliefs but your own seems quite obvious.)

    Tell you what, you find me someone dumb enough to have said exactly this, and I will personally kick him or her out of the non-existent Atheists’ Club while eating the sap’s membership card.

    They aren’t difficult to find — just google the word “Christians” to find loads of atheists, and you’re bound to find at least forty on the first link whom you can kick out of the club. Not all atheists know what they’re talking about, no, actually, I’ve met plenty who don’t have the slightest idea.

    If its attributes are completely incoherent and contradictory, we can call it a day on its existence.

    I’d appreciate it if you told me these attributes, because honestly, I’ve not yet come across these attributes.

    You claim objective morality for your god but Euthyphro took care of this problem centuries ago; you claim perfect goodness and power for it, yet the problem of evil still exists.

    Referring back to my fruit and snakes explanation: because there is good, there is bad/’not good.’ Because there is ‘God,’ there is also ‘not God.’ Hence, free will. ‘Not God’ is typically defined as “evil,” and so the problem of evil is a non-existent one.

    Your god is incoherent, illogical and makes no sense.

    Grammar Nazi Paragraph: I understand that you wish to, in no way, give any respect to the concept of the Christian God, it is still improper English to refer to God as god, because God is a name. Or should I start writing things about richard dawkins in this way?

    But aside from that, yes, the typical portrayal of God used in this world is something of a load of nonsense. We’ve been adding attributes to God that need not be attributed. But this is no reason to eliminate all possibilities of a timeless creator. After all, the universe didn’t just jump into existence.

    Because consistently lying to children doesn’t count as abuse? Consistently telling children that the smallest moral infractions will cause them to be punished in agonising pain for all eternity? That not believing in something which cannot be seen, touched, smelled or in fact at all factually attested to will get them the same punishment? Yeah, right. Nothing abusive there.

    Exactly my point from before: Unnecessary attributes. The God of the Bible is One that allows for mistakes, and compensates for those mistakes by imposing His judgment upon Himself. So, no, the “smallest infraction” will not cause a person to suffer eternally.
    “And if you kept a book of sin, O Father, who’d be standing?”

    And as for your comment about God not being able to be seen, touched, smelled, etc.: “‘God’ is not necessarily a physical being that can be perceived by the five humans senses. As humans, we know only what we can see, hear, smell, feel, and taste. This limits our understanding to only the physical world that can be perceived by these senses. However, we have an understanding of other existing ‘things,’ such as the concept of ‘goodness,’ or emotions such as ‘happiness.’ Although these things are not perceivable through the five senses, it is agreed that they do, in fact, exist. God is defined as ‘Love,’ ‘Goodness,’ ‘Life,’ and other such benevolent things –- all as a sentient being. Considering this, one can assume that God is not limited to space, or time, and that He may not necessarily be capable of being perceived by humans through the five senses.”

    Ahahaha. It is to laugh. Seriously, if we’re fools, then I’m happy with foolishness. If being intelligent and reasonable is foolish, I am a big fool.

    Ignorance is bliss…

  5. Lottie said

    Just one thing because I can’t be arsed with the rest of it:

    Grammar Nazi Paragraph: I understand that you wish to, in no way, give any respect to the concept of the Christian God, it is still improper English to refer to God as god, because God is a name. Or should I start writing things about richard dawkins in this way?

    1.) Why do Christians always assume atheists worship or even pay attention to Richard Dawkins? I was atheist for a quite a while before I even knew who he was and still haven’t read a single book by the man. So you might want to keep that in mind the next time you decide to talk about sweeping generalizations. Just sayin’…

    2.) The way Mike used the word “god” is perfectly correct because he wasn’t using it as a name. He said, “Your god […]”. Check out these two sentences:

    I went to the store with Mom.

    I went to the store with your mom.

    Both are correct. Same thing with Mike’s use of “god” in the sentence you quoted. And the comparison to writing Richard Dawkins in all lowercase doesn’t fly. Even if I gave a shit.

    Again, just sayin’…

  6. Twelve said

    1) Why do atheists always assume that Christians make false assumptions? I assumed no such thing. Dawkins was just the first example to come to mind, and I made my point well enough. The fact that you picked that out of an ultimately redundant paragraph (which, by the by, makes no such offending claim about atheists) shows that you seem to be looking for something to be offended by.

    2) The word ‘god’ is used, at least for a majority of the time, as a term for pagan gods — not just any religious deity. I don’t know the dictionary definition of the word, but it is, for some reason or another, typically not the proper way to refer to the Judeo-Christian God, or so I’ve been told. But of course, I could be wrong — Nazis can be wrong too. The paragraph was nothing more than a random thought I happened to type. I wouldn’t even be replying were it not for your first assumption.

  7. Lottie said

    1.) Bullshit. You made the assumption that not capitalizing Richard Dawkins’s name would have some kind of special significance. If you didn’t, then why compare it to not capitalizing “God”?

    And I wasn’t offended. I’d have to give a shit to be offended. I was just sayin’… just like I said.

    2.) You’re right: You’re wrong.

  8. […] Comments Lottie on Fools, damned fools and C…Twelve on Fools, damned fools and C…hkyson on Atheism for BeginnersLottie on Fools, damned fools and C…Twelve on Fools, […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: