Friday, 22 August 2008
-
SwordAndSacrifice & "Revelife, Sharks, and Submarines"
The following post is taken from my comment from >>>here<<<. The above ^^^ comments were taken from the same post and the main quote being responded to (amongst other questionable opinions and metaphors from the author of his own post) is immediately below.
SaS: "For the Christian, discussing religious matters with an atheist is like a submarine commander discussing underwater nuclear propulsion with a shark. Neither are speaking the same language and the shark's main concern regarding the commander is 'lunching', not 'launching'."
WOE: woo who! I survived 89 plus comments not addressed to me! How's it going, SaS? It's been a while (my screen name was "agnostics_r_us"). I love the music. Really helps getting through all the reading. Anyway...if this post were addressed to me (and I know it's not), this is what I might say:
If you’ve been a non-evangelical atheist who still felt accountable to yourself and others, then it should not be much of a surprise to know that not everyone like that turns into a Christian such as yourself. The first half of your post actually made perfect sense, but then you dovetailed in the same bigotry and cult think that underpins Christian thought and lets those sharks know the periscope doesn’t actually go all the way up, if you know what I mean. I couldn’t help but notice all the apatheists in the world who didn’t respond here. On the other hand I’m sure there are enough atheists out there that fit the stereotype well enough to justify valid complaints. But does it makes sense in the same post to justify their complaints, too? Your choice, I guess. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Christian who is secure enough with their beliefs to allow for atheism to be a perfectly valid moral option and content lifestyle (till death do they part) even though they still disagree about the greater truths of reality.
I subscribed to revelife for a month or so but got quickly tired of seeing the same “Christians really aren’t crazy and can be normal people, too” parade that filled up my inbox. I think I defended the sanctity of lolcats on one occasion and offered up a link to my own review of Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” on another in that time. The shear absurdity of Christians who can never hope to truly adapt to the positive aspects of the modern world was more than enough for me to sate my anti-theist passions from a distance. After I unsubscribed, they even invited me back! Lol, I didn’t take them up on it.
I will freely admit I desire to change minds. It wouldn’t make any sense to attempt to make persuasive arguments without the intent to persuade. If you care about the world, our culture, our country, and what bad ideas do to it, I don’t see why this would be a crime. Naturally, moderation and having a life on the side is in order.
I'll even attempt one of those persuasive arguments right here:
@alampi -
Dolphins are animals. Dolphins can’t fly. Birds are animals, therefore birds can’t fly. Is it not possible that humans differ from other animals in their ability to contemplate the dynamics of social and empathetic situations and the long term consequences? Is direct observation and being one not enough evidence for you? Mkay…I'll get right on believing in all that other-worldly submarine stuff.
Ben
SaS: @torkenheimer - ". . . Christian style of argument . . . "
Frankly, the perception that there even exists a "Christian style of argument" is part of what has created the communication problem between Christians and atheists. We need to stop arguing, period.
The whole idea that we should even be discussing matters of faith - or the lack thereof - is ludicrous.
SaS: @WAR_ON_ERROR -"I will freely admit I desire to change minds."
That's all I was looking for - thank you for your scarce honesty among those of your belief system, misguided as it may be. And thanks also for voluntarily avoiding revelife.
I'll have to stop by someday and ask you which "positive aspects of the modern world" you think Christians struggle with. Someday. Not today.
@SwordAndSacrifice -Well, case in point: You yourself are struggling to get along in the modern world where freely discussing controversial ideas should be a staple of a healthy society. You may have heard of the Apostle Paul Peter (right?) who said something like, “Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that you have…” And here you are 2,000 years later doing a 180. Why is that? Because faith is not justifiable on rational grounds and yet that is where it needs to be justifiable in the modern world in many matters of solidarity as the new atheists continually call attention to. The Bible has set you up for a catch 22 somewhere between “spread the good news,” “be all things to all people,” and “people who ask for evidence are evil.” I contend that Christianity cannot adjust to the real world given its cultic architecture. It will irrationally struggle one way despite itself or irrationally struggle the other way despite the obvious and no quantum of solace is possible given the terms that cannot change. For further unending examples of this, review the last 20 or so posts at revelife and merely ask yourself what scandalous mundane thing the Christians in the posts are trying to adjust to, that the unbeliever next door will likely never have a problem with. I can almost guarantee the reason is that there’s a Bible verse out there that says the exact opposite of what they are attempting to get along with, much like I’ve pointed out here.
Ben
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to WAR_ON_ERROR's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in WAR_ON_ERROR's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (21)
Bravo! Brava! w00T!
Yeah, I read that post. I like the way he makes wild assumptions about atheists. Of course he would hear almost entirely from the most vocal of atheists since they are, well, the most vocal.
@Jimbo1023 - Well not even the most vocal. Since when have the four horsemen advocated communism? How many atheists online do? And this coming from a religion that in Acts started out with its own brand of communism. And at the threat of death from the Holy Spirit no less.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - I like the way that the Cold War made communism a bad thing. I'm not for communism (I'm greedy like that), but it's not a bad idea, per se.
@Jimbo1023 - Well when you get murdered for not contributing, we've definitely found the fascist side of the equation.
When I was merely a child, I was a theist. When I got older, I learned it was more parsimonious to simply combine the two: atheist.
Here is my post. Hope you enjoy, old sports:
God was the first machine. He was built to work for us, to perform psychological and emotional labor for us when we were too weak.
God was the first fairy tale. He gave us hope of a "happily ever after," a net of security for when we may cross the event horizon into that infinity.
And God was the first watchdog, the first "Big Brother" of 1984. As a parental guardian, he knew all we knew and, therefore, when we had done wrong in his all-seeing eyes.
And still God was the first great novel, a story told to the ends of time. Written by mortals for mortals, his legacy still lingers on.
And God was the first system of power, the hierarchy of might and influence. With each more enlightened person came, came also the chance for corruption.
Still God is a being claimed smarter than all of existence combined
for no one dare challenges
the word of Almighty, All-knowing God.
And God was the first chain-letter, an inspirational poster ad infinitum. So long as weak-willed souls exist, so will this God.
But God was a replacement for the heathen Gods of Greece and Rome (and Norsemen and Egyptians and American Natives).
So then God
was never original
but his origin
was of us.
@jmsnooks -
"I do not intend to abandon God because the scientists write a book and say it is a message from Vega." ~Palmer Joss in a television interview, page 131 of Carl Sagan's "Contact"
∞
@The_Fallen_Eight - Haha, the Bible is the first chain letter gone waaaaay wrong.
You may have heard of the Apostle Paul (right?) who said something like, “Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that you have…”
That's actually from 1 Peter 3:15, and thus outside the Pauline corpus. Back to your reading! *cracks whip*
@JB_Fidei_Defensor - I knew I should have looked that up. Thanks.
Any time, dude.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - And God the Machine has outlived his warranty, but steals our natural need for progression away from us. His echoing chorus pollutes the minds of our children—innocent children.
Shatter the mirrors; bring in the light of truth.
∞
I must confess most of that zoomed over my head. Where do the "sharks" and "submarines" come in? I try to avoid discussing religion with religious people, by and large. It only tends to make them get defensive, which isn't a good thing because then they get sanctimonious. Some religious people can talk sense as long as you keep away from religion.
@tonysidaway - Oops. Sorry. It was kind of meant to be read in context of having read SwordAndSacrifice's post. I went ahead and quoted the most relevant quote (SaS's sharks and submarines analogy) for the sake of context and dropped it into the beginning of the post here.
I agree, there are plenty of religious people who on any other topic are more mature, respectable, and brilliant than many people I know. And then the record skips when things turn to their religion, all the standards invert, and we find ourselves painfully trudging through their intellectual soft spot.
Ben
"Cult think"? The graphic appears a tad, or a lot, hypocritical.
Pleased with the Fight Club soundtrack, but then I had to hear that awful hip hop song from that Budweiser commercial that's played during every single sporting event for the past two seasons. You lose an eprop for that one. *hehe*
@gabrielpeter - I'm not sure what you think compares on my part to the quotes listed. Is complaining that asserting passages from the Bible "should" prove anything intelligent? Should someone whole-heartedly agree with that as though there's not a thing wrong with it or is that equally shallow? Should merely going, "Stupid atheist, the Bible says God is the good guy and Satan is the bad guy," without anything resembling a reason why that should be accepted be considered anything but ignorant? Do you honestly think that constitutes anything like an intelligent position? Is the stereotype really that true that when an atheist lays out a logical case for the contrary that Christians in the audience are merely going, "Nope, cuz there's one three word passage in there that says 'God is love,' therefore all of this must be wrong." I can only imagine there would be many Christians appalled as well. I guess you aren't one of them. *shrug* There's a slight chance that maybe since they were on a Christian blog, and talking to each other they didn't feel the need to expound cogent reasons for their apparently shallow assertions, but I doubt it. Anyway, the graphic happens to be a link to a post of mine expounding on what I would say the Christian version of "cult think" is with all the routine Bible verses quoted (or merely thought to death really hard) that allow Christians typically to get away from the constraints of a reasonable debate way too easily. Feel free to point out the atheist cult think manual on your own site someday.
I'd forgotten that song gets overplayed at sporting events (since I don't attend them). That's a reasonable complaint. I'm assuming you meant "Get Ready for This" or "Pump up the Volume." I can part with both.
Ben
People like that make me want to KILL myself, WoE! I'm surprised you haven't driven yourself to insanity by people on Revelife yet. What are you even doing on there anyway? Looking to kick puppies in the teeth?
@Extremegoatmaster - I thought I made it clear I unsubscribed a while a go. If it so happens that one cannot find in the last twenty posts that Christians are struggling in vain to adjust to the modern world (at the expense of their religion), then perhaps my impression of the site was mistaken. It was just an impression from when it did show up in my inbox every day. It didn't mean I'd read the last twenty posts.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - If I reject the tenets of macro-evolution, despite that you see evidence for it, you see that as being unreasonable just as you rejecting the facts of scripture despite the evidence that supports it is unreasonable to me.
Atheists will use the same style of arguments that they complain about Christians using. "Life comes from non life" is to atheism as "God made it" is to Christianity. "The universe has always existed" is to atheism as "God has always existed" is to Christianity. "You can't prove the multi-verse doesn't exist" is to atheists what "You can't prove God doesn't exist" is to Christians. It's the same mouthwash swishing to the other cheek. It's hypocritical.
Uh, I don't know the name of the song. I just know it's in a Budweiser commercial. Whoa, there was a theme to Robocop? *listens* ...Oh yeah, it's just the "...DUN.... DUN................. DUN.............. DUN........" music *haha*. I remember that.
@gabrielpeter - The only hypocrisy between dueling unknowns is not siding with agnosticism on those issues. And when we do that, Christianity loses its punch to its presentation and science has new frontiers to explore (regardless of whatever they might find). I'm pretty sure that's the point I was getting at way back when, so I won't belabor it here.
The Robocop music makes me jump sometimes given how it starts. It's funny.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - Truth doesn't lose punch. The similarity between atheism and Christianity is that they both make absolute claims. Either atheism or theism has to be right, and it will always be right regardless of acceptance. Agnosticism just kind of rides the fence. There's a reason why hard-core atheists are frustrated with agnostics -- they want them to pick a side. One of my closest friends is agnostic, but by his own admission, he's agnostic because he just doesn't care. I most often find that the majority of agnosticism shares that sentiment. Between atheism, Christianity, and agnosticism, I see agnosticism as having the least amount of punch.
@gabrielpeter - Well it sounds like your friend might make better use of the term "apatheist." That just combines apathy with "the god question." Is God really surprised, do you think, that He doesn't show up in people's lives and they might not care? Is that their fault? I must not be that hardcore, because I realize it is perfectly legitimate for your average joe non-believer to not give the god question any serious thought. Should they give the polytheistic question or the gnome question equal air time? Or can they just live their lives in peace not worrying about the infinity of things they don't happen to know about? Not everyone has to have a "war on error" site and I respect that.
As for the other things, I'd only be repeating myself on our last go round.
take care,
Ben