Reeling from Christian friend's bigotry

[DrBobParticipant]

Says who, @drbob ? This is an atheist website and all our atheist members are free to be as unfair and irrational as they like.

LOL. Well, that’s true. And as I have said in this thread and on multiple occasions on the old TA site, I am completely understanding of folks who just want or need to vent. If I lived in the Bible Belt of the former Confederate States, I expect I would need to vent, too. I go bananas just with the anti-science Tea Party folks in my own state (so it’s good to know where to find the best bananas, thanks! 😉 ).

My comments as a visitor are just my comments. They’re an old professor’s friendly attempt to offer perspective from the “other side”, if you will. Folks can consider them humorous, or they can consider them thoughtfully, or they can ignore what I write, or print them out and use them for toilet paper. Or, as I suggested to @ Mr. Tag, they can ask me to butt out so that the thread doesn’t wander off track.

Nobody has to be fair or rational or well-informed. At the same time, I think those things are worth encouraging, don’t you? It’s something that we all need friends and colleagues for, because we all struggle with our own biases. I certainly do.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Dr Bob is a nice guy. Strega is a good moderator.

[DavisModerator]

@everyone

To put all of this fundamentalist talk to rest and nit picking about biblical lines, the horrors of the Church and it’s past, child raping priests, woman hating, fag hating, slavery approving, light thought control, brutal thought policing religion with a God with impossible qualities who never shows up and says hi…

…these are not really good reasons to reject the claim God exists. The Bible is a long rant with alternating interesting stories with scarry and bizzare cruelty. That doesn’t mean there is no God. The Church could have taken part in a never ever ending stream of unthinkable abuse…that doesn’t mean there is no God. The Church could systematically oppress anyone who isn’t a priest and God might still exist. Even if God had a gazillion conflicting logically impossible qualities this still isn’t close to enough to dismiss it. This can go on and on and on.

As Raymond Tallis put it…the reason why we should reject the argument that God exists…is because the very idea as presented to us is so preposterous, so ridiculous, so incredibly stupid and moronic that it should not be taken seriously for even a moment. Should we pay any attention to moronic preposterous claims? No…not when the evidence is absent. The evidence wouldn’t stand up to even the most relaxed standards of scholarly study (outside of a theology department or literary theory den). Forget the murder and oppression and torture and thought crimes and slavery and blood and more blood (as arguments again)…and especially moronic terms like “fundamentalists”. The propostericity of sky-god-claims and the pitiful evidence given is sufficient.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by  Davis.

[StregaModerator]

@davis. What a ray of sunshine you are! Delightful post, if I had a clue how to flag it in any way, I would 🙂

[DrBobParticipant]

the horrors of the Church and it’s past, child raping priests, woman hating, fag hating, slavery approving, light thought control, brutal thought policing religion … the very idea as presented to us is so preposterous, so ridiculous, so incredibly stupid and moronic that it should not be taken seriously for even a moment. Should we pay any attention to moronic preposterous claims?

What a marvelous example this argument is. It is an archetype, which can be applied to almost any topic.

“The reason why we should reject anthropogenic climate change is because the very idea as presented to us is so preposterous, so ridiculous, so incredibly stupid and moronic that it should not be taken seriously for even a moment. The earth is just too BIG. The evidence wouldn’t stand up for a moment (outside of those disciplines or groups who actually study the topic). And it’s put forward by those people – the Christian-hating, fraud-perpetrating, grant-money-grubbing, human-experimenting, autism-causing, blah, blah, blah”

Arguments of this form are very emotive. They are successful at rallying the base, generating contributions and support, or getting people to tell you how delightful you are.

Mocking and belittling others-not-like-us touches a deep, primitive part of our psychology if we allow it to. Presented by a strong orator or a good writer, it can even inspire hordes of weak-minded or unreflective followers to do things they would never choose to do on their own, much to the shame of their descendants.

The question is whether that’s really a style of argumentation that we should be proud to embrace? Are we truly comfortable with the outcomes that sort of “reasoning” has led to throughout history?

Oh, I know, I know. This time, belittling and mocking others-not-like-us and attributing horrible crimes specially to their entire group is justified. It always is.

[Mike LongParticipant]

@bob – I don’t believe in magic sky zombies. That would be silly.

Of course. You just “believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Nothing silly there.

[DavisModerator]

@DuckAndDodgeBob

…and he ducks…and he dodges and he puts on his bullet proof vest. It seems absolutely nothing can penetrate his armour. What’s that? He has a cloak of invisibility? It seems like we are getting Harry Potter here now. Is it time to bring out the magic wands? But will that be enough? To be continued…

[DavisModerator]

Mike Long wrote:

Nothing silly there.

+1

[erock68laParticipant]

@bob
Yes, god is exactly like climate change, except for all the evidence for climate change.
“Mocking and belittling others not like us”? Got yourself a little pot and kettle thing going there, don’t ya?

[SteveInCOParticipant]

However Davis’s larger point remains.

The fact that god is portrayed as mean and nasty, and/or the observation that there’s a lot of suffering in the world that a (hypothetical) god doesn’t put an end to, is not an argument for the nonexistence of god. Such would be a fallacious argument. In fact, that’s the argument many theists accuse us of making; refusing to believe in god because we are mad at him. And indeed IF that were our motivation, we’d have no leg to stand on.

All that is shown by these arguments is that god cannot possibly be benevolent. He could exist and be the world’s most titanic asshole.

[erock68laParticipant]

I think the purpose of these arguments is not to definitively disprove god, but rather to attempt to meet theists where they are in their thinking and to get them to recognize just one inconsistency in what they think. Many theists wear their delusional belief systems like a suit of armor, and arguments like the problem of evil or inconsistencies in the bible, etc. try to find the chink in that armor.
For myself, once I allowed myself to accept the obvious conclusion of one such argument all the rest of it quickly fell apart like a house of cards.
Having already gone through all that on my own journey those arguments don’t do much for me now, but I did need to go through that phase to get where I am now. Now, arguing over the behaviors of god is like arguing over whether vampires are afraid of garlic or sparkle in sunlight – nonsense.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

erock68la wrote:

I think the purpose of these arguments is not to definitively disprove god, but rather to attempt to meet theists where they are in their thinking and to get them to recognize just one inconsistency in what they think. Many theists wear their delusional belief systems like a suit of armor, and arguments like the problem of evil or inconsistencies in the bible, etc. try to find the chink in that armor.

That’s the proper purpose of such arguments, but one must be sure that’s what’s coming across rather than “I don’t believe in god because he’s a meanie.” Because if they think you’re saying that, they’ll laugh at you. and they’d be right to do so given that premise.

It’s one of those cases where I have to say to them “Yeah if Joe WERE saying X, I’d agree with you, he’d be an idiot, but he’s not actually trying to say X.”

[DavisModerator]

erock68la wrote:

I think the purpose of these arguments is not to definitively disprove god, but rather to attempt to meet theists where they are in their thinking and to get them to recognize just one inconsistency in what they think. Many theists wear their delusional belief systems like a suit of armor, and arguments like the problem of evil or inconsistencies in the bible, etc. try to find the chink in that armor.
For myself, once I allowed myself to accept the obvious conclusion of one such argument all the rest of it quickly fell apart like a house of cards.
Having already gone through all that on my own journey those arguments don’t do much for me now, but I did need to go through that phase to get where I am now. Now, arguing over the behaviors of god is like arguing over whether vampires are afraid of garlic or sparkle in sunlight – nonsense.

I certainly agree…that from the perspective of an atheists discussing with a theists about their delusions…that taking on all of their flawed arguements and imploding them one after another is a good idea. However, from our perspective…when explaining why we reject the argument as presented that God exists to theists who won’t shut up…nothing more need be said than: LOL. F**k off. Come back when your theory is less ludicrous and when you have anything close to evidence.

I like to think of it this way. If a friend is trying to help another friend who is spending way too much money on…and making important personal decisions based on a sham psychic, I would personally (assuming they were really listening) deal with one arguement after another hoping the whole delusion would collapse.

However…if I was a professor of cosmology or physics or sociology and a representative of a wildly popular new age cult asked me why I stubbornly refuse to take their “everything is love…love moves objects and love explains even the quantum entanglement of [blah blah blah] and we know so because it was written in a Hindu book thousands of years ago when love was all that existed and why would they lie”? I would tell them their theory is preposterous, stupid, moronic and to go away and come back with better evidence.

This is what I meant.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by  Davis.

[jasonParticipant]

Well, hardcore Christians tend to take things on a totally unrelated context.

[Author]

Posts