Blogging Tip #241: Concede, then Harass

Are theists unreasonable and unthinking?

No, theism is unreasonable and unthinking. Most theists have reasons for thinking that a god exists. By my book (that book being the dictionary), that’s the definition of reasonable. Having reasons.

But just having reasons isn’t good enough. That’s the rock in your shoe, theists. You have to have good reasons. And the following aren’t:

You simply feel it’s true.

“Simply” being the operative word.

You were taught that it’s true.

So was I. Your point?

Everyone else believes it’s true.

Well, you’re just a teenybopper for religion, then, aren’t you? You might as well go out and buy an N’Sync album (or whatever the hell kids listen to), put on some Abercrombie & Fitch, and drink Starbucks. It’s all the rage!

Believing it’s true makes you a better person.

Believing I command automobile traffic makes me feel powerful. Those red lights? They stay red at my leisure. Beep beep, bitch.

Believing it’s true gives your life meaning.

You mean the same meaning that 95% of the people on this planet think their lives have? I’m sure it’ll be you God picks to go into heaven, or to reach enlightenment, or to be touched by His Noodly Appendage (ramen). *Cough*

Your society nurtured and rewarded the belief that it’s true.

Your society also used to nurture and reward the belief that women were baby-making maids designed by god to please men.

Disavowing its truth after all this time would make you a hypocrite.

Too late. If you really only profess to believe it, you’re already a hypocrite. You’re also a liar. Which is better? Being a hypocrite and a liar, or being a reformed hypocrite?

If you’re a pastor or minister, and you really don’t believe the stuff, you should feel totally ashamed of yourself. Be a decent human being and tell the truth.

You don’t know what you would do if you didn’t believe it was true.

You’d instantly melt into a mound of gelatinous gunk and slide into the nearest sewer. There, you’d be accosted by horny bacteria waiting and willing to plunder your liquefied form. As they rape your life essence, you’ll slowly descend into the pits of the River Styx, where Britney Spears music is played 24/7. After 4,500 years of “Hit Me Baby One More Time”, Charon, the Styx oarsman, will suck you up out of the river and cook an omelet out of you. He will use sliced ham, chives, and a bit of salt. His cholesterol is high, though, so he might mix in some milk to thin it out. Milk is good. I like milk. Mammals make milk. Not reptiles, though. Are you still reading this?

Advertisements

11 responses to this post.

  1. I am…got more?? Right On!!! 🙂

    Reply

  2. Posted by Owen McLeod on November 13, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    It was a pleasure to read these great points. Written well, too.
    In my experiences, I’ve found this point to be the most outstanding. “Believing it’s true gives your life meaning.”
    I think it’s sad if a person cannot exist, content with themselves. Needing to rely on a God for validation would be a shame.

    Reply

  3. Wow… Congrat’s you just managed to take the most idiotic and ignorant xian arguments and disprove them.Now allow me to do one for evolutionists.

    “Evoluition corresponds with science! whereas theism is just ignorant story time”

    Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.-First law of thermodynamics

    David

    Reply

  4. Another cyst of stupidity pops, pelting stupid-puss all over my blog. And I have to clean it up.

    I think you’re citing the wrong creationist talking point, there, David. You’re supposed to cite the second law, not the first; come on, man, keep up to date with your creationist dogma! That’s okay with me, though, because your argument is even easier to refute.

    Here’s what you’re thinking: Evolution claims that lifeforms arise spontaneously from inorganic matter, or from out of thin air, or out of a jar of peanut butter. Well, you could read a mere two posts back and see that easily refuted. I suspect you won’t do even that much, so I’ll summarize it for you.

    Evolutionary theory does not claim that lifeforms arise spontaneously, whether from fairy dust, inorganic material, or any other substance, real or imagined

    Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of varying, hereditary replicators (i.e. replicating molecules or lifeforms) as a precondition.

    Evolutionary theory and abiogenesis (link), which is the hypothesis that the first “organisms” arose from inorganic material, are completely and utterly different things. Evolution explains how organisms change over time, not how the very first organisms (or proto-lifeforms) arose.

    This rebuttal brought to you by the Most Easily Researched Topics That Exist Ever (You Lazy Asshole) Foundation (c).

    Reply

  5. Hmm thank you for that. And while I do know the 2nd law argument I dont like to use it because I have refuted it myself. Anywhoo, The evolutionary theory, as stated by Charles Darwin, IS “natural selection” however the popular evolution of todays world also encorporates Abiogenesis. NOW if you would actually read the comment I left you will see that you’re “arguments” dont refute it at all, considering the fact that I wasn’t making any statement about LIFEFORMS, I was making a statement about the earth/universe. And by the way FOR an organism to change over time you must have something to say about how the first organism’s came to being. (In steps Abiogenesis).
    David

    Reply

  6. …the popular evolution of todays world also encorporates Abiogenesis

    Even if that were true, which it isn’t, it would be irrelevant. The popular view of something isn’t always the correct view.

    I was making a statement about the earth/universe.

    Well then what you said was completely irrelevant, because the biological theory of evolution has nothing to do with the evolution of the universe or our planet. That’s cosmology–completely different field of study. Stellar evolution (how stars form) and planetary evolution (how planets form) bear no resemblance whatsoever to biological evolution, except that they both use the word “evolution”. And none of these theories violate the first law of thermodynamics.

    And by the way FOR an organism to change over time you must have something to say about how the first organism’s came to being.

    That’s totally and obviously false. For instance, we know how gravity works, but we don’t have a clue as to how it came into being.

    Reply

  7. Well while you might not have a clue as to how gravity came into being, but I do. Anyways, please just humor me for a moment and tell me what type of organism did biological evolution begin with?David

    Reply

  8. I disagree with very little that you have said.

    THAT having been said, I chose to believe in my own notion of God, or if you are more comfortable, a Divine principle.

    The key words are “my own notion” and “believe”.

    Would I suggest that I “know” God exists, even by my own definition? Never.

    Would I expect you to adopt my notions, definitions or beliefs? Perish the thought.

    Would I suggest that my beliefs by a basis for social policy, legislature, education or any form of indoctrination? Not even at gunpoint.

    Do I expect myself to find my notions and beliefs to stand up to my own standards of rationale and reasonability? Absolutely.

    Have I been touched by his noodly appendage? Maybe once, but I was drunk and we used a condom.

    My larger point is that systems of belief (i.e. spirituality/religion), while not approached with the same type of rigor and the same standards of consideration as knowledge (i.e. science), it is a wise person who does not discard one out of reverence for the other.

    I would challenge us that we benefit from a consideration of both systems of logic/experimentation AND intuition/experience. It is an easy thing to do to hide behind intellectual elitism. In my personal experience, it was a very unhappy limitation to place upon myself.

    Reply

  9. THAT having been said, I chose to believe in my own notion of God, or if you are more comfortable, a Divine principle.

    If a god exists, why should your notion differ from other peoples’ notions? He or she or it should be the same for everyone.

    My larger point is that systems of belief (i.e. spirituality/religion), while not approached with the same type of rigor and the same standards of consideration as knowledge (i.e. science)

    I suppose if you consider no rigor a type of rigor..

    ..it is a wise person who does not discard one out of reverence for the other.

    Then it’s good that I discard all of them simply based upon their merits.

    It is an easy thing to do to hide behind intellectual elitism.

    I think you’ll find that theology and pseudoscience, not science, hide behind intellectual elitism. You don’t have to be a great prelate of science steeped in its mystical ways to be able to understand science or know how accurate it is. Unfortunately, you DO have to be a great prelate of some religious tradition or some pseudoscientific tradition to be able to “understand” the nonsense those traditions tend to put forth.

    …both systems of logic/experimentation AND intuition/experience

    LOL. Please, explain to me the system of logic that religions employs.

    Reply

  10. If a god exists, why should your notion differ from other peoples’ notions? He or she or it should be the same for everyone.

    I had never considered this. It seems incomprehensible to me that we could ever agree universally on such a notion. Rather, we tend to kill each other for adopting disparaging definitions.

    Fundamentally, I don’t care much how you or anyone chooses to define it, and I don’t care much if you or anyone chooses to believe in its existence by my, your or anyone else’s definition. I just want to know what they mean when they use the word. Otherwise discourse on the subject is pointless. Intuitively it seems to me that the notion of God is personal. The existence or non-existence of God can never be truly be ascertained beyond a personal level. Just my opinion.

    I suppose if you consider no rigor a type of rigor..

    Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I can tell you that I have subjected my spiritual beliefs to extensive rigor and study. It is a different discipline than empirical studies, because the metrics are soft and quantification does not exist. However, unlike empirical studies, in my experience there is very little “moving on”. I find I must always go back and re-evaluate my beliefs in the light of new experiences and awarenesses. You may choose to consider this a lack of rigor if you wish. It is not my interest to dissuade you or anybody – i am interested only in sharing my experiences with others, in the interest of (rigorous?) ongoing evaluation.

    I think you’ll find that theology and pseudoscience, not science, hide behind intellectual elitism. You don’t have to be a great prelate of science steeped in its mystical ways to be able to understand science or know how accurate it is. Unfortunately, you DO have to be a great prelate of some religious tradition or some pseudoscientific tradition to be able to “understand” the nonsense those traditions tend to put forth.

    I understand your sentiments. Theology, and moreso religion have been a playground for all forms of crack-pot, control-freak, con-artist and calculating opportunist throughout recorded history. It is a weakness of our shared history, who’s negative ramifications are difficult to over-estimate. But for me, that is not valid reason to discard wholesale the realm of theology and the conceptual. I have met no self-proclaimed prelate who’s tradition I felt compelled to adopt. And I certainly make no claims of any such merit myself. But I am not afraid to ask questions, I am not afraid to consider my intuition, I am not afraid to come to conceptual conclusions, and I am not afraid to be wrong and start over again. This has served me very, very well.

    LOL. Please, explain to me the system of logic that religions employs

    Well, sadly I can point you to very few examples (and more than a hundred bad ones). But snce you asked, a book that i found fascinating was called “The Kyballion”. It was written by three initiates of a hermetic order and published in 1908. If you believe the book at all, the conclusions to which they came at the dawn of science were truly amazing. They were rarely right on the mark, but at some time well before the 1900s (arguably back as far as ancient greece) they had formed a tradition that intuitively understood and described the vibratory nature of matter, the composition of matter as almost entirely empty space and many other phenomenon that science refined and qualified only hundreds of years later. I always wonder about the suppositions that they made that have not yet been adopted or discarded by science. Anyway, it is just one book, and i do not hold as sacred scripture in the traditional religious sense. (I do love that book, mind you.)

    Reply

  11. Kybalion should have one “l” btw. My mistake.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: