I recieved another personal message from a Christian who says he wants to make an enquiry of me and what I think.
Experience has taught me that theists are not ever interested in, how thoughts are formed in, or what evidence is available to, the minds of people who don't share their own particular faith based belief, so I generally pass them up.
However, it's been a long time since I made a blog entry, and if our friend here, is willing to maintain any exchange of opinion, it might be an interesting insight into what it takes to believe in gods - Let's see where it takes us:
"Question
Hi Tommy,
I hope everything is going well for you. I have a question for you because I am honestly curious. I am a Christian, and have done quite a bit of research into why I believe in God. I have not found inconsistency so far in my search. In my experience so far, while I've met plenty of other people who claim to be Christians but do a poor job of representing it for whatever the reason may be, I have yet to meet someone who is opposed who has more backing his argument than flawed reasoning ultimately grounded in strong feelings. Whether indifferent or hostile, I see that common thread. I am curious if you have more to offer than that. With that said, if you know something that I don't then I ask you to share it with me
I saw some comments you posted on a video of Ravi Zacharias in which you talked about flaws in his reasoning. What I've heard so far from him makes sense, so I'm curious. What flaws you are talking about?
Sent to:tobytrim
Hi Falcon85,
First of all, thank you for your courteously worded mail asking for an explanation of things you have read from me elsewhere.
(Incidentally, I usually do explain my comments better than I did with poor old Ravi here -so I apologise for the unqualified ad homs on him, if you're a fan. However Ravi's fallacies are like YE creationism arguments - either obviously silly or requiring of a very long-winded debunking!).
That said, I generally make it a policy to NOT to enter into private mail correspondence with Christians (especially biblical literalists, whom I deem to have abandoned the use of reason, and CERTAINLY empirical evidence).This is simply because, discussing a premise with someone,who either can't understand why he is wrong, or thinks he can stay right by refusing to concede his mistaken reasoning, is a futile thing to do .
Frankly, I've been mulling over whether to respond to you at all, even to explain why I won't respond. My reasons for thinking discussion pointless, in your case, are as follows:
1) Even as Christian apologists go, Ravi is very definitely an intellectual lightweight (I’ll explain further if we do enter into discussion).
Compared to the people he very badly mirrors, such as C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga (on the problem of evil) or even W.L. Craig (who relies on pure sophistry) who, in turn, plagiarise and misrepresent much more clever men, (who themselves have become outdated), Ravi's reasoning is almost as laughable as the like of Ray Comfort et al.
You have said that you are convinced by his argument, which suggests, to me, that you are not a deep thinker
( Please don't confuse that with an assessment of your intellect - I simply mean you haven't probed deeply enough into why you think one of the many definitions of the Christian god might be a reality)
2) Let me quote what you said to me almost as an opening statement :
"I am a Christian, and have done quite a bit of research into why I believe in God."
Because you see nothing illogical in that statement, is reason enough not to bother making ANY response to you. Do you see what's wrong with it?
Most rationalists, philosophers and critical thinkers would dismiss your abilities to recognise truth from fiction the second you said it!
You haven't decided to believe something because of your research into what evidence or reason there is to believe it. You research into why you believe it ALREADY, BEFORE you had actually considered any evidence that it could possibly be true!
3) You say you haven't found any inconsistency in what you believe to be "God"?
Are you sure of what you think god is?
Have you a clear idea, in your head, as to what you believe actually exists as a real and sentient being?
Do you have a clear idea of what "existence" is for that matter?
Have you truly put your faith in a god that has been revealed to you somehow?
Did he phone you up? Write to you? Maybe speak to you?
I think, if you rationally, and particularly with honesty, review your earliest experience of your "relationship with God", you will have to admit that your "faith" is in the words emotional textual interpretations of other people.
They may be people you have loved and respected from your earliest memory, but nonetheless flawed human beings, whom you believe on the pure authority of THEIR words, which they themselves heard anecdotally and they believe on the same willing gullibility they call "faith".
In any case, If you ask an atheist why he doesn't believe in something specifically you believe in without evidence, and with absolutely NOTHING to observably distinguish it from pure fantasy, don't you think YOU should be the one to identify, define and describe EXACTLY what it is you want to say it is illogical NOT to believe in, and logical to say, with certainty DOES exist?
Leaving aside the different beliefs concerning the Hebrew god, there are many conflicting definitions of the Christian god alone. This is observable in that there are 1000's of denominations of Christianity. Which one do you say it is wrong not to believe in?
Which brings me back to Ravi!! I'll save the specifics till later, but again, in one of his "problem of evil" arguments (the one he drew from Plantinga) he relies on evil being the freely willed whimsical act of human beings).
In the other (borrowed from C.S. Lewis) it is an objective "noun", a "thing" or personification, either authored by god himself, or transcendent even of "god's" omnipotence.
If you want me to tell you what is wrong with Ravi's reasoning, you would have to let me know which of these obviously paradoxical sources and definitions of "evil" you opt for, and which of his arguments you've heard which convinced you?
4) On further investigations I find that you seem to be, indeed, a biblical literalist?
On one of your video comments, in support of the Genesis flood you actually argued that god, being omnipotent, could have made all those things happen which defied the laws of nature.
To hold this kind of boxed in ad hoc thinking, to me, demonstrates an observable detachment from both the laws of logic and the rules of empirical evidence! - So why bother, if my knowledge of the universe comes purely from what can be reasoned philosophically, inductively and deductively, and from what can be testably observed?
I promised myself I wouldn't make any logical, scientific, philosophical or theological arguments till I ascertained EXACTLY what it is you say you believe as truth, of what you define as "God" or "existence".
- However, I am compelled to ask: -
Do you believe that "God" also produced all the physical, biological, geological, and medical evidence (270,000 peer review observations in PubMed alone - millions of data points) that a global flood, nor the Genesis creation, never happened according to our current TESTABLE understanding of science?
As you can see, I have already given you a lot of time, on what promises to be a pointless debate, merely to explain why it is pointless!
I justified this, otherwise timewasting exercise, to myself, by deciding to use my response your enquiry as a new blog entry on my long neglected web-blog called "The Rush of Reason" -
If I do decide to post this, and you would like the link to this particular entry let me know.
In case all this long rant hasn't made my position clear let me use the last paragraph or two, to try to nutshell it all:
I don't believe in gods, or any other supernatural entities, because they are other peoples beliefs which are rarely clearly defined or even understood be the person claiming their existence. No definition ever made to me of one, has ever met the standards of evidence and logic used every day, in ever aspects of our lives, including those relied on by "believers", to ascertain what is true.
Moreover, and I think without exception, no definition has ever been offered to me which even COULD exist, as the are all logically paradoxical. (A square circle)
If you would care to explain what you are calling "God", I will be happy to try and show you why this is the case with yours too.
Regards,
Tommy.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Saturday, April 17, 2010
"As to your definitions of religions, they don't really concern me.
I am an A-theist. I hold no belief in any theistic god. I have no dogma, tenets or worship ritual that is informed by either a belief or a lack of belief in a god.
If you want to ascribe religiosity to the rational scepticism that informs my unwillingness to accept any of the thousands of gods, that ancient human beings invented, from their insecurities, fear, and ignorance, then you would have to accuse most theists of dualism.
Although religious people are more inclined to be gullible, or at least less sceptical than atheists, they nevertheless use the same kind of reason, to their ordinary life, as an atheist further extends to a scrutiny of any claim of a god.
The most obvious demonstration of this, of course, is that believers in one god don’t readily accept the claims of the others.
However, all theists tend to suspend the irrationality required to believe in their god, in order that they might function in the real world.
Your assertion that atheists “place an invalid prerequisite” on theists is absurd, because outside of their religion, theists observe the world with the same standards of evidence, reasoning, and with the same sensory apparatus.
Christians, for example, don’t live their everyday lives in the assumption that a man can walk on water, or that virgin birth is possible. Creationists accept what scientific observations don’t contradict their dogma – and some that do, if they are unaware that they do! - Even the most devout, “saved” fundamentalist has enough grasp on reality to fear his own biological death! – That’s not showing a lot of faith in eternal reward!
As to your really irrational idea that atheists are motivated by atheism itself (and therefore atheism is a religion): - I can only assume that, by this, you can only mean the sense of justice and morality held by someone who doesn’t take his moral worldview from a belief in a god?
Not that it matters, because the absence of dogma is absence of ANY motivation that theists attribute to their personal belief in a god.
But let’s take morality:
Some semblance of what we describe as morality exists in all higher life forms. They are the instinctive, uncommanded rules of the herd/pack/shoal that allow the survival of the group beyond the lesser needs of the individual. For example, ravenous fish don’t eat each other in a feeding frenzy, the maternal instinct in higher mammals, cats burying their dung, mutual gleaning, lifetime monogamy in some species etc.
It’s difficult to explain a logical point to someone who concludes that a LACK of belief con motivate or inform any opinion, let alone a faith based religion,
However, I will try: -
I am atheist. I have NO BELIEF WHATSOEVER with regard to a god.
I don’t believe one exists and I have no reason whatsoever to assert that one doesn’t.
To quote Hitchens again: “What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”
Pick any fictional or mythical figure that has thus far been posited and I’ll say the same thing I make no claim that any do not exist the unknown universe is too vast to state as knowledge that something that someone might call god, does not exist.
You might argue that god exists as a concept if not as substance. OK, but concepts are contingent on human minds and the mind that conceives it isn’t mine.
The only manifestation of god available, to my personal sensory appraisal or powers of reason, comes from claims from other human beings, made without evidence.
Humans, being more intellectually and culturally complex, have a more complex morality, that we have applied less practical rules, from a personally biased perspective, of stronger humans over lesser ones. In our early cultures, morality, as with everything else, was ascribed to the command of the particular deities that were worshipped and feared by the given tribe or civilisation.
In reality, regardless of religion and superstition, morality, in humans is a mixture of instinct, empathy, reason, experience, intuition and fear.
I would add that my personal morality came, in part at least, from my Roman Catholic upbringing. I’m sure most people even atheists were brought up in some kind of religious dogma.
What atheists have, in their NON-belief, is the freedom to abandon irrational religious moral dictates – This is because they no longer have any emotional or intellectual investment in the validity of that religion. They are then free to take their sense of moral justice from a more educated source.
For example, as an atheist I no longer have to be sexist, bigoted homophobic, scientifically ignorant etc as the Christian canon and dogma would command me.
This is not informed by my atheism, nor even allowed as such. It is simply the freedom from the abandonment of religious dogma.
My morality comes from other sources – probably from where the “believer” would ordinarily get his. The only difference is, I can ignore the more unfair or irrational moral dictates of a religion, that were decreed in a different culture and/or in a less enlightened time.
My non-belief tells me nothing as and by itself! How can it? There is nothing there!!"
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Go to Ireland - get yourself jailed for thinking rationally!
List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland:
1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.
2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.
3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.
4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.
5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”
6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”
7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”
10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”
11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”
14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”
15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”
16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”
17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.
18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”
19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”
20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”
21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”
22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”
24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.
25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.
1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.
2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.
3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.
4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.
5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”
6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”
7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”
10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”
11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”
14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”
15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”
16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”
17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.
18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”
19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”
20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”
21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”
22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”
24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.
25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Did a mouse invent rodent traps?
This is my reply to a commentator who made the very public claim that all secular education has the Catholic church to thank for it's existence:-
I’ve been trying to resist the urge to correct this utterly ridiculous idea, currently being proffered, that Catholicism is the founding influence of the scientific method of enquiry or modern education.
Given the history of the (Christian orthodox) suppression of any understandings, that didn’t uphold it’s very superstitious dogma, for more than 1,000 years, I don’t know whether to laugh at its stupidity, or to be offended by its hypocrisy.
The scientific empiricism, experimentation, Socratic methods of setting and questioning a premise, was known to the ancient world prior to 300 BCE, and yet suppressed by the Christian authorities as late as the 17th century.
This is easy enough to demonstrate in the fact that Galileo was being persecuted and threatened, by the Catholic hierarchy in the 17th century, for heliocentricity, which was known to the likes of Eratosthenes and Aristarchus in the 4th century BCE.
The ideas of this ancient “age of science and reason”, even works of Plato and Aristotle on which Christianity was founded, were not openly available to any education system in early Christendom. - Indeed, the Catholic inquisitions were very big on destroying books.
There can be no doubt that early Catholicism is responsible for the dark ages!
The fact that it was the only influence on education, during a period of incredible ignorance and counter progress, in the wake of an enlightened age, is strong testimony of that.
Had it not been for the contemporaneously more progressive and broad minded Islamic world, from 600 to 1000 CE, we might have lost all of the wisdom from the Hellenistic/ancient world.
Had it not been for the Reconquista victories over the Moors in Spain, or the captured cultural literature of the crusades, it might well have been lost in the Dark Age brought about by the rise of Muslim fundamentalism.
Between the imposed ignorance of both Christian and Muslim dogmas, humanity has lost millennia of intellectual and scientific progress.
I’m sure you’re going to point out all the philosophers (too few, to my mind) and scientists that came out of this early christian education system.
These people were individuals, that had to make do with the system that was there, as the prevailing, default, and ONLY available information.
They were exceptions to the rule – if they weren’t, history couldn’t mark them as unique.
They succeeded despite Christianity- certainly not because of it
Heliocentricity, the big bang, many minor sub theories of evolution and many other understanding, came to us from Catholics.
Other scientists were Jewish, Muslim or other supernatural beliefs.
- So what?
That’s like saying Christianity is criminal, or Prison produces Christians, because there is a disproportionate number of Christians in US prisons.
All continental congress and the founding fathers of your country were subjects of the British king - and products of the very imperialistic culture they overthrew.
Are you saying that the British Empire is the purposeful creator of the constitution that overthrew its influence on the colonies at that time?
Jesus Christ, according to your legend, was said to be a circumcised practicing Jew – yet worship of him isn’t Judaism.
Most scientists ( if not all) before Darwin were creationist because the default belief was such.
Indeed the facts, that uncovered evolution, were from enquiries with a creationist or Christian presupposition, that were swayed to evolution by the consequential overwhelming evidence.
The same can be said of biblical archeology, sanctioned by the Christian Church to support , with evidence, the validity of the biblical stories. It has been forced to change its name because the evidence discovered doesn’t support the bible as historically true, and of course umsurmountable geological evidence which has disproved the biblical estimate for the age of the earth.
Can anyone realistically claim that all this dogma damning evidence was authored by foundational Christian dogma????
Did the mouse, in fact, invent the rodent trap?
I’ve been trying to resist the urge to correct this utterly ridiculous idea, currently being proffered, that Catholicism is the founding influence of the scientific method of enquiry or modern education.
Given the history of the (Christian orthodox) suppression of any understandings, that didn’t uphold it’s very superstitious dogma, for more than 1,000 years, I don’t know whether to laugh at its stupidity, or to be offended by its hypocrisy.
The scientific empiricism, experimentation, Socratic methods of setting and questioning a premise, was known to the ancient world prior to 300 BCE, and yet suppressed by the Christian authorities as late as the 17th century.
This is easy enough to demonstrate in the fact that Galileo was being persecuted and threatened, by the Catholic hierarchy in the 17th century, for heliocentricity, which was known to the likes of Eratosthenes and Aristarchus in the 4th century BCE.
The ideas of this ancient “age of science and reason”, even works of Plato and Aristotle on which Christianity was founded, were not openly available to any education system in early Christendom. - Indeed, the Catholic inquisitions were very big on destroying books.
There can be no doubt that early Catholicism is responsible for the dark ages!
The fact that it was the only influence on education, during a period of incredible ignorance and counter progress, in the wake of an enlightened age, is strong testimony of that.
Had it not been for the contemporaneously more progressive and broad minded Islamic world, from 600 to 1000 CE, we might have lost all of the wisdom from the Hellenistic/ancient world.
Had it not been for the Reconquista victories over the Moors in Spain, or the captured cultural literature of the crusades, it might well have been lost in the Dark Age brought about by the rise of Muslim fundamentalism.
Between the imposed ignorance of both Christian and Muslim dogmas, humanity has lost millennia of intellectual and scientific progress.
I’m sure you’re going to point out all the philosophers (too few, to my mind) and scientists that came out of this early christian education system.
These people were individuals, that had to make do with the system that was there, as the prevailing, default, and ONLY available information.
They were exceptions to the rule – if they weren’t, history couldn’t mark them as unique.
They succeeded despite Christianity- certainly not because of it
Heliocentricity, the big bang, many minor sub theories of evolution and many other understanding, came to us from Catholics.
Other scientists were Jewish, Muslim or other supernatural beliefs.
- So what?
That’s like saying Christianity is criminal, or Prison produces Christians, because there is a disproportionate number of Christians in US prisons.
All continental congress and the founding fathers of your country were subjects of the British king - and products of the very imperialistic culture they overthrew.
Are you saying that the British Empire is the purposeful creator of the constitution that overthrew its influence on the colonies at that time?
Jesus Christ, according to your legend, was said to be a circumcised practicing Jew – yet worship of him isn’t Judaism.
Most scientists ( if not all) before Darwin were creationist because the default belief was such.
Indeed the facts, that uncovered evolution, were from enquiries with a creationist or Christian presupposition, that were swayed to evolution by the consequential overwhelming evidence.
The same can be said of biblical archeology, sanctioned by the Christian Church to support , with evidence, the validity of the biblical stories. It has been forced to change its name because the evidence discovered doesn’t support the bible as historically true, and of course umsurmountable geological evidence which has disproved the biblical estimate for the age of the earth.
Can anyone realistically claim that all this dogma damning evidence was authored by foundational Christian dogma????
Did the mouse, in fact, invent the rodent trap?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
That wonderful Pascal's Wager......
I really must thank the theists who send me stuff to discuss in my blog page. I've been scratching my head as to where to start , having so much I want to say, and I realise that I'm being given the opportunity to make my points on a daily basis, being prompted by some silly argument that comes in the email or on a comment box.
Thanks for the inspiration , and the excuse, to write this blog guys!
This one is from a chap in the USA called "Walter", posing a perfectly classic "Pascal's wager".
Yeah, I know, done to death.....But I love it. I always know I'm winning an argument when pascal comes out , especially with that threat of Hellfire and eternal damnation.......
Oh....I'm "Thomas" on this , by the way:-
THEIST:-
"I can understand why Thomas is angry. He has a life without hope. But, that's how atheists exist. Christians, on the other hand, live with hope of eternal life. The best that Thomas can hope for, as an atheist, when he dies is NOTHING. The best that I hope for is eternal life in heaven. Now, if Thomas is right, then I get the same "reward" that he does. If I'm right, however, then I get heaven and Thomas gets eternal damnation. Thomas, tell me again why I should be an atheist?"
ATHEIST:-
Ha ha! What makes you think I’m angry that I’m an atheist? - Or that you’re a theist, for that matter?
We get the same “reward”, after we die, either way, Walter, regardless of what we believe.
The chances are, some poor animal, which was being humanely put down, has every reason to believe he’s going to live forever, even after the needle goes in.
He still has got the instinct to fear however, as you do.
I’ll be willing to bet that your fear of death is at least as powerful as mine Walter.
What does that tell you about your absolute confidence of an eternal reward? …eh?? LOL!
Seriously consider, if there is the Omni benevolent, omniscient, ultra sentient “cause of all existence” that we might call “God”, do you really think he would be of the mindset and motivations of the incompetent, malevolent, prick that your religion defines, and that you feel the need to bow down to???
You people who get your ideas from the ignorance within ancient and primitive cultures make me laugh!
Consider the super reasoning that theists attribute to god:
He can work out what is going to happen in every contingency, even the ones he doesn’t sanction, because he allows free will - Yet he sulks and condemns people to eternal torture because, through increasingly better evidence and reasoning, they don’t believe “He” exists???
Ha ha!! Get real Walter!! – This is the 21st century, not the Dark ages!!
The other point I would deal with immediately, is your apparent suggestion that I could choose to be a theist or atheist.....
I believe what I believe, because of the overwhelming evidence, that the god you pray to is a bronze age fantasy figure
He's not real. ......He doesn't exist.......What the hell do you expect me to do about that??!!
How about if I believe in him anyway?...... Perhaps there's a rationality blocking drug?....... Maybe I could see a hypnotist??....
How do you suppose you can plant and grow a delusion in the mind of a man who has all the evidence and rationality to know that a fantasy is not real?
Pascal's wager is a truly stupid idea - I'm surprised at ol' Blaise!
However, to answer your ultimate question - I don’t necessarily think you should be an atheist!
By your own suggestion, you seem to need this delusion. Possibly you need it to feel more secure about your existence, and to be a more complete person generally?
It’s possible that your morality is so informed by the whims of this superstition that, without the confines of its commandment, you might feel free to be a rapist or mass murderer or any other kind of miscreant. - Is that the case?
If you need your “faith”, in order to remain as normal, moral and self secure, as any other secular, rationally motivated human being, please hold on to it!!
However, I do care when you try to impose your superstitions on other harmless members of society - but that’s a different debate!
That said, if you’re asking me how I can face up to the finiteness of my biological life, and my own inevitable mortality, without fantasizing up the emotional placebo that you religious and superstitious seem to need, I would say that my “reward” was TRUE SENTIENCE.
An eternity of oblivion is a tiny price to pay for the privilege of a single second of human experience and knowledge.
I’ve already had decades of it! It’s very important to me that what I’m experiencing is as real as I can possibly percieve it.
For example, the most basic Christian (of the many versions) accepts that Christ died to pay for the sins of man, at, and to redeem mankind from the consequences, of the ‘fall”
Leaving aside the ridiculous notion of this all powerful god becoming himself incarnate, so he can pray to himself, and sacrifice himself to himself, in order to pay for his own mistakes, that he blames mankind for, the whole idea of redemption is contingent on the “fall” being a fact of human history.
This would require the creation tale as laid down in Genesis to also be historical fact. - There is no way round that.
The writers of the gospels believed it.
According to them, Jesus believed it...
The founders of Christian canon and dogma at Nicaea believed it.
It’s the base decree of Christianity, yet, in the light of modern secular knowledge, the more established, institutionalised religions, are forced to relegate it to allegory.
The Catholic Church, for one, has been forced to do some embarrassing backpedalling, and make some humiliating apologies, to correct earlier decrees of divine knowledge, and persecutions of dissenters.
The “infallible Pope”, at this point in time, has been reduced to saying “believe what you want” with regard to origins, purely because there are so many of his flock in both camps that he daren’t risk alienating either side.
As someone, who relies on this kind of confused institution, to tell him what to think, you have to share this absolute confusion as to what is real.
An atheist, on the other hand, is free to believe the universe as it is presenting itself
in reality, without having to make it conform to priestly decrees that are based on ancient superstitions.
For example, science tells us that all matter, and currently observed laws of physics, can be traced to a singularity that occurred circa 13.7 billion years ago
.
( Many people are even suggesting it as being the absolute beginning of the universe. Though no intellectually honest empiricist would offer that as a conclusion.)
The evidence for big bang cosmology is very compelling so I accept it.
Neither my physical nor spiritual survival depends on my believing that however.
Therefore, when new evidence for matter that appear to be say, older (there are some glimmers of this) presents hitherto unknown possibilities, I am free to pursue that hypothesis, without a sense of disloyalty to the presenters of any previous hypothesis.
I don’t have to deny new knowledge, in order to believe, for example, that the universe is a few thousand years old - because the people who invented the god I pray to commanded that belief, as some Christians do
This one ability, that I possess - and you don’t - makes life infinitely more precious to me than to some one who feels he needs to wait around to die, in order to derive the true wonder of sentience, or indeed any reward, from his existence
I have the daily privilege of discovering something new about the universe, without asking permission of someone who was far more ignorant than I am in the first place.
That’s exactly what you have to, with the barbaric, ignorant authors of your world view.
Thanks for the inspiration , and the excuse, to write this blog guys!
This one is from a chap in the USA called "Walter", posing a perfectly classic "Pascal's wager".
Yeah, I know, done to death.....But I love it. I always know I'm winning an argument when pascal comes out , especially with that threat of Hellfire and eternal damnation.......
Oh....I'm "Thomas" on this , by the way:-
THEIST:-
"I can understand why Thomas is angry. He has a life without hope. But, that's how atheists exist. Christians, on the other hand, live with hope of eternal life. The best that Thomas can hope for, as an atheist, when he dies is NOTHING. The best that I hope for is eternal life in heaven. Now, if Thomas is right, then I get the same "reward" that he does. If I'm right, however, then I get heaven and Thomas gets eternal damnation. Thomas, tell me again why I should be an atheist?"
ATHEIST:-
Ha ha! What makes you think I’m angry that I’m an atheist? - Or that you’re a theist, for that matter?
We get the same “reward”, after we die, either way, Walter, regardless of what we believe.
The chances are, some poor animal, which was being humanely put down, has every reason to believe he’s going to live forever, even after the needle goes in.
He still has got the instinct to fear however, as you do.
I’ll be willing to bet that your fear of death is at least as powerful as mine Walter.
What does that tell you about your absolute confidence of an eternal reward? …eh?? LOL!
Seriously consider, if there is the Omni benevolent, omniscient, ultra sentient “cause of all existence” that we might call “God”, do you really think he would be of the mindset and motivations of the incompetent, malevolent, prick that your religion defines, and that you feel the need to bow down to???
You people who get your ideas from the ignorance within ancient and primitive cultures make me laugh!
Consider the super reasoning that theists attribute to god:
He can work out what is going to happen in every contingency, even the ones he doesn’t sanction, because he allows free will - Yet he sulks and condemns people to eternal torture because, through increasingly better evidence and reasoning, they don’t believe “He” exists???
Ha ha!! Get real Walter!! – This is the 21st century, not the Dark ages!!
The other point I would deal with immediately, is your apparent suggestion that I could choose to be a theist or atheist.....
I believe what I believe, because of the overwhelming evidence, that the god you pray to is a bronze age fantasy figure
He's not real. ......He doesn't exist.......What the hell do you expect me to do about that??!!
How about if I believe in him anyway?...... Perhaps there's a rationality blocking drug?....... Maybe I could see a hypnotist??....
How do you suppose you can plant and grow a delusion in the mind of a man who has all the evidence and rationality to know that a fantasy is not real?
Pascal's wager is a truly stupid idea - I'm surprised at ol' Blaise!
However, to answer your ultimate question - I don’t necessarily think you should be an atheist!
By your own suggestion, you seem to need this delusion. Possibly you need it to feel more secure about your existence, and to be a more complete person generally?
It’s possible that your morality is so informed by the whims of this superstition that, without the confines of its commandment, you might feel free to be a rapist or mass murderer or any other kind of miscreant. - Is that the case?
If you need your “faith”, in order to remain as normal, moral and self secure, as any other secular, rationally motivated human being, please hold on to it!!
However, I do care when you try to impose your superstitions on other harmless members of society - but that’s a different debate!
That said, if you’re asking me how I can face up to the finiteness of my biological life, and my own inevitable mortality, without fantasizing up the emotional placebo that you religious and superstitious seem to need, I would say that my “reward” was TRUE SENTIENCE.
An eternity of oblivion is a tiny price to pay for the privilege of a single second of human experience and knowledge.
I’ve already had decades of it! It’s very important to me that what I’m experiencing is as real as I can possibly percieve it.
For example, the most basic Christian (of the many versions) accepts that Christ died to pay for the sins of man, at, and to redeem mankind from the consequences, of the ‘fall”
Leaving aside the ridiculous notion of this all powerful god becoming himself incarnate, so he can pray to himself, and sacrifice himself to himself, in order to pay for his own mistakes, that he blames mankind for, the whole idea of redemption is contingent on the “fall” being a fact of human history.
This would require the creation tale as laid down in Genesis to also be historical fact. - There is no way round that.
The writers of the gospels believed it.
According to them, Jesus believed it...
The founders of Christian canon and dogma at Nicaea believed it.
It’s the base decree of Christianity, yet, in the light of modern secular knowledge, the more established, institutionalised religions, are forced to relegate it to allegory.
The Catholic Church, for one, has been forced to do some embarrassing backpedalling, and make some humiliating apologies, to correct earlier decrees of divine knowledge, and persecutions of dissenters.
The “infallible Pope”, at this point in time, has been reduced to saying “believe what you want” with regard to origins, purely because there are so many of his flock in both camps that he daren’t risk alienating either side.
As someone, who relies on this kind of confused institution, to tell him what to think, you have to share this absolute confusion as to what is real.
An atheist, on the other hand, is free to believe the universe as it is presenting itself
in reality, without having to make it conform to priestly decrees that are based on ancient superstitions.
For example, science tells us that all matter, and currently observed laws of physics, can be traced to a singularity that occurred circa 13.7 billion years ago
.
( Many people are even suggesting it as being the absolute beginning of the universe. Though no intellectually honest empiricist would offer that as a conclusion.)
The evidence for big bang cosmology is very compelling so I accept it.
Neither my physical nor spiritual survival depends on my believing that however.
Therefore, when new evidence for matter that appear to be say, older (there are some glimmers of this) presents hitherto unknown possibilities, I am free to pursue that hypothesis, without a sense of disloyalty to the presenters of any previous hypothesis.
I don’t have to deny new knowledge, in order to believe, for example, that the universe is a few thousand years old - because the people who invented the god I pray to commanded that belief, as some Christians do
This one ability, that I possess - and you don’t - makes life infinitely more precious to me than to some one who feels he needs to wait around to die, in order to derive the true wonder of sentience, or indeed any reward, from his existence
I have the daily privilege of discovering something new about the universe, without asking permission of someone who was far more ignorant than I am in the first place.
That’s exactly what you have to, with the barbaric, ignorant authors of your world view.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Why wait for a rational theist to debate?
Greetings,
I thought I would debut my blog page with an easy one.
Easy because, with a little editing, it is mainly just a cut and paste from one of many debates I have with the Christian right on FaceBook and YouTube etc.
It’s probably not the best example(a tad sparse), but I still think it epitomizes the reasoning and motivation of the Christian AND conservative view point applied to rational justification.
The content of the argument is not as important as how the argument was obviously expected to achieve for the guy who initiated it, and his conduct( or lack of it) when he didn't get the non-response he obviously wanted to make his point for him.
More simply put: He invited a debate. Why didn't he want it enough to reply ?
Hope you can follow this:
Christian apologist:-
"Hey Darwinians. Why would you care if the Polar Bear becomes extinct? (Not that it is.) Aren't you interfering with evolution? "
Our hero waits a full 8 hours before deciding he has totally stumped every “evolutionist" out there (Bearing in mind, he is on his own page dominated by his Christian fundamentalist/creationist friends)
Christian apologist:-
"Hmmm. No answers. Interesting. "
I came across it maybe a day later
ME:-
"I can’t speak for other “Darwinians”, but my “silence” was due to the fact that I didn’t see your post.
Personally, I would relish the opportunity to discuss the subject of biological evolution with you, if only to introduce you to some facts that you have obviously been systematically trying to dodge up to now.
So, to answer your question, I must first correct the fallacy in its premise.
By “Darwinian” I assume you mean everyone who accepts the fact of biological evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of taxonomy of life on this planet???
(I also include almost every expert in the relevant fields).
By the tone of your question, I feel you that you are assuming it is a belief, opinion, or a moral worldview, that needs to be defended emotionally, much the way your religion is, rather than just an understanding of current scientific knowledge?
I accept “Darwinian evolution” as a scientific fact in the light of the abundant evidence, full stop. (Or as you guys say: “period”)
That said, you asked a moral question, which I answer thus: -
As a compassionate man, I would be loath to see such a beautiful creature disappear off the face of the earth.
If you think humanity, with our unique intellect and sentience, has any responsibility to ensure that natural selection works, as it has always done without interference, I would say that this particular ship has already sailed!
It is long underway within the nature of our compassionate social order, formed millennia ago. Today, more than ever, we protect the weaker and less adaptable in human society. Humanity now ensures the survival of those who would possibly not survive without the protection of society as a whole.
Before you point it out, I will admit that the liberal/socialists among us have always promoted a welfare state, and other mechanisms, that enhance this human “interference” with nature.
Having said that, as we ourselves are a product of evolution, are we not also conforming to our own natural characteristics??
Feel free to ask, or try to catch me with, some more questions on this. I enjoy this subject! Especially with pseudo intellectuals who think the universe is as old as the book of Genesis tells them it is, and who think they can prove it!! LOL!! "
I posted this immediately after the previous reply:
ME:
"It wouldn't be surprising, if in 8 hours, I was also saying of you: -
“Hmm, no answers? ...interesting..."
Damn!!...should have waited - then I could have copied and pasted from yours!! "
And this one many days later…….
ME:-
"Hmm, no answers.....interesting.... lol!! "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My point is- this same apologist makes all kinds of ad homonym comments throughout his facebook account, to, and with, people of exactly the same persuasion as himself, - of others who are never there to defend themselves.
He and his friends speculate, about the motives of anyone who disagrees with him, without asking them what their actual beliefs, motives or point may be.
They attribute arguments to the opposition, rather than listening to what its spokesman actually has to say.
When they are confronted with a response, they run away and sulk.
I watch a great deal of Christian TV and read a lot of right wing blogs etc.
Anyone else who does, will notice the “sermon approach” employed by these guys, to “debunk” secular reasoning, or any acceptance that doesn’t include their own particular superstition.
It applies a decree, by fiat, that something is undeniably true, then with strategic mis-reasoning, they hang whatever garbage they need you to believe, on that one fallacious premise.
They then offer the other guys argument, in his absence of course, and of course totally misrepresenting it to a point where even a religious fundamentalist congregation would find it laughably illogical (remember – they believe in resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, virgins who get pregnant, and people who can walk on water!).
They then start to decimate their own version of the absentee opposition debater’s argument.
It must surely be the duty of every rational thinker to make these people either justify, or face up to, the unreasonableness of their thought patterns at every opportunity?
If for no other reason, isn't this important to keep bad ideas from informing electoral decisions that affect us all?
And bad ideas don’t seem to need a great deal of rational justification to take hold of a group of people, as we’ve all seen!
When you get this opportunity, don’t feel guilty that you're taking advantage of someone who’s rationally challenged, or that you’re being aggressively opinionated (as you will be accused of being, when you start to successfully refute their hitherto unchallenged arguments).
You are, in fact, giving them an opportunity and a forum for their ideas to be expressed openly, and tested critically.
The fact that they are bullshit ideas, that don’t withstand logical scrutiny, is their problem.
I thought I would debut my blog page with an easy one.
Easy because, with a little editing, it is mainly just a cut and paste from one of many debates I have with the Christian right on FaceBook and YouTube etc.
It’s probably not the best example(a tad sparse), but I still think it epitomizes the reasoning and motivation of the Christian AND conservative view point applied to rational justification.
The content of the argument is not as important as how the argument was obviously expected to achieve for the guy who initiated it, and his conduct( or lack of it) when he didn't get the non-response he obviously wanted to make his point for him.
More simply put: He invited a debate. Why didn't he want it enough to reply ?
Hope you can follow this:
Christian apologist:-
"Hey Darwinians. Why would you care if the Polar Bear becomes extinct? (Not that it is.) Aren't you interfering with evolution? "
Our hero waits a full 8 hours before deciding he has totally stumped every “evolutionist" out there (Bearing in mind, he is on his own page dominated by his Christian fundamentalist/creationist friends)
Christian apologist:-
"Hmmm. No answers. Interesting. "
I came across it maybe a day later
ME:-
"I can’t speak for other “Darwinians”, but my “silence” was due to the fact that I didn’t see your post.
Personally, I would relish the opportunity to discuss the subject of biological evolution with you, if only to introduce you to some facts that you have obviously been systematically trying to dodge up to now.
So, to answer your question, I must first correct the fallacy in its premise.
By “Darwinian” I assume you mean everyone who accepts the fact of biological evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of taxonomy of life on this planet???
(I also include almost every expert in the relevant fields).
By the tone of your question, I feel you that you are assuming it is a belief, opinion, or a moral worldview, that needs to be defended emotionally, much the way your religion is, rather than just an understanding of current scientific knowledge?
I accept “Darwinian evolution” as a scientific fact in the light of the abundant evidence, full stop. (Or as you guys say: “period”)
That said, you asked a moral question, which I answer thus: -
As a compassionate man, I would be loath to see such a beautiful creature disappear off the face of the earth.
If you think humanity, with our unique intellect and sentience, has any responsibility to ensure that natural selection works, as it has always done without interference, I would say that this particular ship has already sailed!
It is long underway within the nature of our compassionate social order, formed millennia ago. Today, more than ever, we protect the weaker and less adaptable in human society. Humanity now ensures the survival of those who would possibly not survive without the protection of society as a whole.
Before you point it out, I will admit that the liberal/socialists among us have always promoted a welfare state, and other mechanisms, that enhance this human “interference” with nature.
Having said that, as we ourselves are a product of evolution, are we not also conforming to our own natural characteristics??
Feel free to ask, or try to catch me with, some more questions on this. I enjoy this subject! Especially with pseudo intellectuals who think the universe is as old as the book of Genesis tells them it is, and who think they can prove it!! LOL!! "
I posted this immediately after the previous reply:
ME:
"It wouldn't be surprising, if in 8 hours, I was also saying of you: -
“Hmm, no answers? ...interesting..."
Damn!!...should have waited - then I could have copied and pasted from yours!! "
And this one many days later…….
ME:-
"Hmm, no answers.....interesting.... lol!! "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My point is- this same apologist makes all kinds of ad homonym comments throughout his facebook account, to, and with, people of exactly the same persuasion as himself, - of others who are never there to defend themselves.
He and his friends speculate, about the motives of anyone who disagrees with him, without asking them what their actual beliefs, motives or point may be.
They attribute arguments to the opposition, rather than listening to what its spokesman actually has to say.
When they are confronted with a response, they run away and sulk.
I watch a great deal of Christian TV and read a lot of right wing blogs etc.
Anyone else who does, will notice the “sermon approach” employed by these guys, to “debunk” secular reasoning, or any acceptance that doesn’t include their own particular superstition.
It applies a decree, by fiat, that something is undeniably true, then with strategic mis-reasoning, they hang whatever garbage they need you to believe, on that one fallacious premise.
They then offer the other guys argument, in his absence of course, and of course totally misrepresenting it to a point where even a religious fundamentalist congregation would find it laughably illogical (remember – they believe in resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, virgins who get pregnant, and people who can walk on water!).
They then start to decimate their own version of the absentee opposition debater’s argument.
It must surely be the duty of every rational thinker to make these people either justify, or face up to, the unreasonableness of their thought patterns at every opportunity?
If for no other reason, isn't this important to keep bad ideas from informing electoral decisions that affect us all?
And bad ideas don’t seem to need a great deal of rational justification to take hold of a group of people, as we’ve all seen!
When you get this opportunity, don’t feel guilty that you're taking advantage of someone who’s rationally challenged, or that you’re being aggressively opinionated (as you will be accused of being, when you start to successfully refute their hitherto unchallenged arguments).
You are, in fact, giving them an opportunity and a forum for their ideas to be expressed openly, and tested critically.
The fact that they are bullshit ideas, that don’t withstand logical scrutiny, is their problem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
