some genius named nathan named his blog after a guy stupid enough to fall asleep on a window ledge and fall out to the street below. this makes nathan's blog worth reading for a reason that must occur only to christians. and nathan has decided he knows just how to make atheists seem nicer. because if there's one group of people whose opinions matter to me, it's the christians. oh wait, i meant the hell's angels.
nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?
i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.
oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.
then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?
nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?
i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?
nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.
oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.
get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.
however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.
which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?
and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?
as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.
1 comment:
Nice refutation.
Even if it was smug. :)
Post a Comment