Vorkosigan

A Christbot submitted this to Layman, who posted it to Blog on Jan 05. I recommend Layman's Blog as a diversion when you have a moment; it contains numerous moments of high humor, and some comical misunderstandings: "All I can say is, it is about time. I am all for a healthy discussion about design theory versus *apparent design* theory (i.e. evolution)" -- as if science hadn't been doing that for the last 300 years! What planet do these people live on? Even more comically, Layman adds after that last boner: "What I find troubling is that most who attack design are attacking cartoonish caricatures fed to them by the legacy media." Like, for example, the idea that there hasn't been debate between evolution and Godidit......

Anyway, an poster aptly named "Hilarious" offers this for the general consumption

Letter to an Atheist

In a contest of plausibilities one wonders why atheists though professing often to accept that humans are capable of self improvement ... on a vastly different scale of achievement to even the most intelligent animal ... remain so lacking in curiosity about an original cause for this improvement capacity

Just as they appear indifferent to a supernatural basis for an "uncaused" material phenomenon, the universe, they seem equally indifferent to the origin of abstract values that find outward expressions that are not matched in the animal world.

Or do you see pigs painting the Mona Lisa in their pig sty mud, and hear Handel's Messiah in their chorus of grunts and so equate animals to man?

Does an atheist never wonder why humans are as unique as they seemingly are in an otherwise loveless universe?

It seems to me that the argument for plausibilities has been won thousands of times in outward expressions of beauty dedicated to a God of influence and power

It seems to me that far more lives have been changed for better than for worse

If it is a fantasy it is a powerful one, renewed daily and in generations far apart in time, ethnicity, customs and culture

It seems to me to be implausible that this "fantasy" gains in times of suffering, if the God discerned was also held to have caused the suffering

It seems to me implausible that the teachings of Christ remain so relevant without being divine and pure ... through every changing historical shift of perception about what God requires

I am interested to discover an example of a mainstream Christian theist who does not perceive God as the uncaused origin of all things

The unanimity of Christians outside the American proliferating non-Nicene sects on 1st order doctrinal issues is another plausible support for their truth, as is the witness of the Early and continuing Church

Unlike many modern literalist fundamentalists I do not rely on scripture alone, but I do find scripture a powerful and plausible record of God's love, concern and intervention for humanity.

I am curious that you can believe in eternity and have no curiosity about the intangible ... then again perhaps I assume wrongly that the intangible fails to excite your interest merely because it can not be measured.

If we can't measure it ... then it isn't real, right?

Those of you with a moment might enjoy dismantling the many stupidities and assumptions of this sadly misinformed poster. QoS, where are you?

Vorkosigan

trendkill

Minor quibble, it appears to have been posted by "BK", and to be signed "Hilarius", who apparently is another maintainer of the same blog.


Why must it be an "original" cause? Do you mean "why aren't atheists looking for Aristotle's First Cause"? But then we wonder why the specificity of the question? Anyway, the First Cause argument takes reason beyond its purview. It's pure speculation, and not compelling speculation to most atheists.

I fail to see why indifference regarding an uncaused universe is more remarkable than indifference regarding an uncaused deity. Oh, is the word "supernatural" supposed to make a difference? Is it a way to pretend to explain something by dubbing it "that which needs no explanation"? :/

Animal mindreading?

Of course other animals are not nearly as different from humans as religionists who think we were created seperately like to imply. Do "animals" paint? Indeed they do. And well enough for humans to take notice. They also think and feel, and, in their lowly circumstances, exercise more compassion than many humans do. Do their poor surroundings diminish their worthiness in the eyes of those who champion the meek? Where is the curiosity as to why this is not enough for them to be considered God's children?


One wonders why such benevolent, universal, and all-wise teachings would even need a balance sheet. At least this person seems to acknowledge that religion and theism can be horrifically destructive.

Indeed. Let us remark continually on the powerful effects of a belief, both positive and negative, and never consider for a moment that those effects might be self-perpetuating rather than indicative of truth.

It seems to me utterly plausible that a God created to solve all problems and have infinite attributes would run into internal contradictions. And just as plausible that people would rather put aside such contradictions than discard their panacea (especially in times of suffering, which would have been the very impetus for its creation).

Christianity remains unchanged throughout history? What an odd belief. Maybe a meta-faith of some sort.

Yes, the unanimity of all those except those you would like to exclude, on a bare minimum of issues, at a superficial level, is most remarkable. Especially considering the perfection and uniformity of the entities and truths they are supposed to be a testament to.

I too am annoyed by the prevalence of scientism among atheists. However, the fact that something cannot be tested scientifically does not mean it is real. :P There are plenty of reasons to disbelieve in deities beyond the fact that they can't be swished around in test tubes.

Vorkosigan

You're RIGHT! I thought it was posted by BK and written by Hilarious. My abject apologies to Hilarious, then.

Vinnie

I'd start dismantling but I'm still speechless. Don't know where to start....

maybe the beginning...

Huh? Its called natural selection.

Not yet anyways. There plenty of examples of moral or "premoral" behaviors in social animals. Ask a zoologist.

No but nature utilized bat sonar long before us

And just because most or all animals are not as "advanced" as us in the cranium department is irrelevant. Its evilution, dude.

Its called natural selection. We've evolved. Tubeeworms look pretty unique in their own way on the bototm of the sea floor. Bats and their sonar systems seem pretty cool and unique.

Humans can paint pictures, therefore God exists??? WHat are you talking about?

You mean in ignorant people who don't realize the stupidity of praying to a God to find their loved one in the wreckage of a Psunami? Uh, God just let 160,000 people die but you waste time praying for him to find your lost loved one.....

But I don't wish to sound mean here. People are turning to God as a way to express//alleviate their grief here. People always have and always will do stupid things.

LOL. This is stupid. Evolution has coded reciprocal altruism into us. You think Jesus was unique on the golden rule stuff? Hardly. Its found independently in many societies. Its always relevant, not because some soon to be nailed up Jew said it 2,000 years ago, but because our primitive hunter-gather ancestors long ago found out about the usefulness of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" (direct and indirectly altruism). Once the human animal got past 150 members in its group we needed formal systems of morality rather than the informal methods to keep social stability....

On another level, we have virtually nothing as a "teaching of Christ. All we have is contradictory teachings of anonymous Christian authors. I have a debate proposal up on this if anyone is game.

The only and most clearest teaching of Jesus that survives has him (outside of the teaching on divorce which has school variations in it itself) predicting the end of the world occuring long long ago. His teachings only survive because people don't want to give up their crusty myths. They just change and adapt them. Thats what religion does: unending ad hoc manuevering. Itsm ythmaking and myths don't just die. They evolve. Sometimes they stick.

I am interested in pointing out the absurdity of this conceptual notion.

No its not. It simply shows a historical continuation from the same roots as your own. Do you have blinders on?

[quote]Unlike many modern literalist fundamentalists I do not rely on scripture alone, but I do find scripture a powerful and plausible record of God's love, concern and intervention for humanity.[/uote]

I think the Bible is filled with contradictions, stupidity, immorality and a whole bunch of other garbage. Some of these works would be great if they could be appreciated for their individual literary merits but the whole game changes when a bunch of unintelligent saps claim their old copies of copies of copies of anonymous manuscripts are actually the will of God.

You know what your seeing "love" in the Bible is equivalent to? To this:

I find the current psunami resemblant of the love and concern God has for humanity. It reminds me of how much God cares. He loves us so much he decided to muder everyone with water once and this disaster is a reminder of that and other mass disasters of God who loves us so much he will murder ots of people to show this.

Vinnie

MonCapitan2002

"My husband beats me because he loves. He beats me because it is his way of showing how much he cares for me. He only beats me when I deserve it and have done something wrong."

Seriously, those sound like comments a battered housewife would say. God shows His love by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If that is how He shows His love, I don't want to find out how He shows His hate.

Vinnie

Better repent and accept Jebus then

Yeah, the mindset is nuts. How anyone can read the Bible and see "a divine love story to humanity" is fucking ridiculous.

Vinnie

MonCapitan2002

It's more like a story of divine domestic abuse, I'd say.

Queen of Swords

Ask and you shall receive.

Make ten copies and send them to other atheists, or young men clutching bibles in their perspiring palms will ring your doorbell each Saturday morning.

Oh wait. That happens anyway.

And right away we have a reading on the misunderstanding meter. That humans are capable of self-improvement is not something we “profess to accept�?. It’s something that I know, because I’ve done it myself. When one first deconverts, there is no god to lead one each step of the way. Atheists often have to pull themselves up their bootstraps and to figure out the answers for themselves. So yes, they probably know first-hand that humans are capable of self-improvement.

However, if one begins with the default position that humans are wretched, depraved and capable of nothing good, I can see why one would have problems with the idea that humans can improve by themselves.

While it’s true that humans have made immense scientific and technological progress compared to animals, there are other standards of success in the world where the animals beat us hands (or paws, or flagella) down.

This original cause being god. This god being specifically the christian god. A self-contradictory entity for whose existence there is no evidence. But hey, atheists should be curious about him anyway. And by “him�?, we mean the christian god, not someone else’s god.

If they did, I’ll bet someone would claim it was the Virgin Mary, and try to scoop out the mud for later sale on ebay.

Letter to a Theist : Dear theist, Stop the anthopomorphology immediately. The Universe.

Seriously, though, does it really bother the author so much that the universe is incapable of caring what happens to any of us?

If it’s been won thousands of times, as you say, why write this letter? Surely you should try to show magnanimity in your supposed victory. And if expressions of beauty have been dedicated to Krishna, say, or Athene, does that mean that those gods win arguments for plausibility too?

By what? Religion, your religion in particular, art, the universe, pigs or the Mona Lisa?

Much like The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, except that those have better characterization and plot.

That’s the astonishing thing about bringing up children. You tend to impart your own views, values and habits to them. Therefore, surprise surprise, they often belong to the same religion as you.

Does it seem to you implausible that children abused by their parents often love their abusers and try to do anything possible to please them?

And I am curious as to what made you think I believe in “eternity�?. What is eternity, anyway, and when does it start? (I’ve listened to some sermons that seemed to go on for such a duration, though)

And by the intangible, we mean the christian god. Not unicorns or pagan fertility goddesses or other weird things like that.

You’ve said it for me; that’s a wrong assumption. It’s not the fact that the intangible, whatever that is, cannot be measured. It’s that I have no evidence that the intangible exists in the first place.

I’ll give you an example of the difference. Let’s say that one person gives a book a fairly lukewarm review, and another person says the same book is poor. Now there’s no objective scale whereby we can measure the reviewers’ reactions. However, the book does exist, and I can read it myself if I want to form my own opinion of it. Liking or disliking a book is an intangible thing, but I can see clearly that it exists. The same cannot be said for the christian god.

Would you buy a plot of land which hadn’t been measured? Would you put a down payment on a house if you weren’t sure how many rooms it had? Heck, would you even buy a pair of pants if you weren’t sure what the measurements were?

And one’s choice of religion is a bit more important than a pair of pants, wouldn’t you say?

enrious

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

- Stephen Crane