Atheistic Disunderstanding
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
— Sir Francis Bacon
I have to admit that I'm stumped about something. And I do not like writing an article of this nature, where I am responding to something said about me in the comments section of another Weblog. But I feel that I should.
There was a comment about me at "Atheist Central", but I am reluctant to name the source. I'm thinking that he (?) may not want to be named outright, here. Well, if he (?) wants to leave a comment and claim it, then fine, I'll acknowledge it. But he will not, since he said (among other hateful things), "Thankfully, my atheistic morality prevents me from visiting the blogs of hate-filled, angry, bigoted, and racist people such as yourself." (Racist? Where did that come from? Everyone annoys me equally.) It is indeed unfortunate the this craven little coward cannot back up his (?) accusations, preferring to live in a neurotic, self-created world. Atheistic morality? Uh, yeah, seen it in action, it's situational convenience, nothing more.
The quote goes as follows, and I quote, "Stormbringer, for example, would rather see atheists burn in hell than show or tell them of God's love for them." Not only did this do nothing to advance an argument, but the paragraph to which it was attached was in reference to Hitler. Horrible use of logic, or even of writing itself; such an accusation deserved to be in a separate paragraph, with supporting sentences.
In the comments section of Atheist Central, there are one or two Christians that I consider embarrassing. They remind me of a guy in a video clip who was waving a "Jesus (heart) You!" sign and dancing around on Hollywood Boulevard. I'm not into being a cheerleader, or inviting everyone over to sing "Kumbaya" and serve ice cream sandwiches. That's not God's love, that's sappiness. One guy in particular blows so much smoke, I'd be afraid of getting TB if he was nearby.
This is the problem that I have with the aforementioned antagonist and to many other "new" atheists who claim to love "reason" and "science" is that they have their preconceptions and cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In fact, contrary evidence is disallowed by default: If it is not offered by an atheist scientist, then it is not science and it is bad reasoning. Rubbish. As I have pointed out before, atheists are demanding proof for the existence of God, but refuse to look at apologetics links or other arguments that are offered because "I know what it's going to say, and it's dumb". Really scientific and logical, Poindexter.
I try to get these people to think. When I catch them in errors of logic, naturally, I get excuses and the equivalent of a rude gesture to prove that they are my intellectual superiors simply because they said so and xtians are big dumb stupidheads. So they get offended because I show them flaws in their logic — that thing they claim to admire so much. The problem is, and perhaps they know this intuitively, that if they see cracks in their armor, then they may have to admit that there is more to reality than they originally thought.
As for the charges that I do not show or tell of God's love — waitaminnit! Why should he (?) care? God, Hell and everything else do not exist in this worldview. Is it self pity, or just lashing out in hate? This guy (?) has problems.Before I interrupted myself, I wanted to prove my point, that there are articles in this Weblog that belie the notion that I want them in Hell. (And remember, I had not recommitted my life to Christ until April, 2010.) Here are some of the more blatant examples:
- May 7 article
- May 17 article, with a rock song about Hell. It doesn't have to end that way!
- May 24 article, part 2 of "Why I Cannot Trust Atheists" has a strong appeal near the end
- June 30 article, another good rock tune and a message afterward
- July 1 article was a flat-out appeal, plus a five minute audio message attached
- October 2 article was an appeal to use reason and not biases
- October 11 article was a springboard from a quote by Aldous Huxley
- October 19 article, published the morning before his (?) attack had a strong message
Note that this is a multi-purpose Weblog, not just for the entertainment and education of atheists. Also, it is not a "ministry", but I do have spiritual values that I insert in some of my articles. If you don't like them, read around them. If you care to browse, you'll see all sorts of fun things. And since it's multi-purpose, plus the fact that I'm very, very, very tired of banging my head against the brick wall of anti-theism, I'm going do deal with other things for a while.
Comments
The hurdle I can't get over (and its pretty much the first hurdle) is the belief, or even acknowledgment, of supernatural phenomena. I just don't believe in magic, sir. 'In the beginning God created...' poof! magic! I wouldn't believe it any more or any less if it was 'In the beginning Allah created...' or 'In the beginning a leprechaun created...'. Its still magic, and I see no reason to accept supernatural explanations. I may not know the answer, but 'not knowing' does not mean 'it must have been magic'. Maybe you can point me to one of those apologetics links that will provide a nice explanation for such magic, and why I should accept that your deity should be the one responsible any more than the aforementioned magical leprechaun.
Mr. Leprechaun, being an omnipotent being, could have quite easily created your God, by the way, or at least brainwashed you and every other believer into believing in whatever deity you want. For that matter, he could have done the equivalent thing with me. Such lines of reasoning are why I tend to shy away from any form of supernatural explanations.
Thank you for reading the apologetics links. I am certain that you gave them the attention that they required, since many of them have volumes of challenging information written by highly educated individuals. Someone like you is intelligent, objective, scientific and willing to follow where the evidence leads. All without bias, of course.
Thank you for your comment. I benefit in many ways, not the least of which, the fact that you, Sir, deigned to leave an objective and scientific comment on my site will dramatically increase the traffic, and more people will become indoctrinated in the propaganda of magic. Woo hoo!
Stormbringer said:
Debbikins, "This is the strength of science. Scientist don't claim to have absolute knowledge. They constantly reevaluate and question what they think is true."
Except that disproved and discredited human "missing links" are still in textbooks and on Websites, that other false evolutionary information is still touted as true, that "evolution is an established fact", even though its abandoned by people like Stephen Jay Gould because there was no evidence and he offered his own version of the "hopeful monster" theory... Yeah, I just love "science". Well, I love true science, not silly theories of origins that will be thankfully forgotten in a few hundred years.
Whoa whoa whoa. Stephen Jay Gould abandoned evolutionary theory?!? Dude, you are way out to lunch. Are you just going by the out-of-context carl quote-mines? You must be (wait, I thought you "think for yourself"?!?). Go to your library and check out his behemoth "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (you do have a library card, yes?). Read it, and then tell us how Gould rejects evolutionary theory. Can't read that much? Okay, take any book of his off the shelf and read it; you will find absolutely nothing that resembles what you post above. This ranks up there with some of your most uninformed, disingenuous posts to date. Do you think you are convincing anyone here? Are you even convincing yourself?
And which discredited human "missing links" do you see in text books ('you' be the royal 'you', as I cannot believe from the content of this post that you have ever looked at a single text book on the subject in your entire life; that's fine, by the way, just don't attempt to pretend you know anything about it at all). So, what is it? Piltdown man? Nope, not in any book. How about Haeckel's embellished embryonic sketches? Again, nope. So, let's go, make with the examples. No totally uninformed blanket statements from you, right? So bring it.
Oh, and so classy with the "Debbikins". Is that an example of your superior debate tactics? [I tried above to mirror it, unconvincingly, with a classic Stormbringer "cupcake". I just cannot get the nastiest down. Practice, right?]. Huh, I thought only atheists used demeaning name-calling as an argument strategy. Pathetic.
Yes, I know you are already smashing your angry angry little fists at your keyboard about how much of an arrogant, lying, liberal (and possibly muslim-communist) atheist I am. Save it. Just, for once, answer some direct questions. How can you possibly construe that Gould abandoned evolutionary theory (quite possibly the greatest popularizer of the subject of all time)? Where are the lies in evolutionary textbooks? Failing being able to answer these questions, how can you possibly post such drivel?
I look forward to your no doubt "fascinating" responses.
Why do you call me "Cupcake"? That is one of my lines. Also, as far as I can recall, you and I have never dated.
I understand that you are busy giving orders to your troops, and it takes valuable time away from your day of issuing said orders in the state of Washington to visit my humble Weblog and issue orders to me as well. I am flattered.
Lest you judge me too harshly, please try to keep a few things in mind. First, I have a job. Second, I have a home. Third, reading the insane ravings of you and your ilk at Ray's Weblog gets boring to me, and I do have a life. Fourth, I was having a very interesting conversation with Bullhorn Twotails in the comments section of the article that immediate follows this one.
Before resorting to your normal trick of making up facts to suit your preconceived worldview, you should check the facts that exist in the real world. S.J. Gould did indeed abandon Darwinism due to lack of evidence. But since he was too much of an intellectual coward to follow where the evidence leads (typical of atheists and agnostics today, too) he offered an alternative.
Sorry, I do not have a textbook handy. I noticed that you did not demand proof of the lies online, however, because those can be more easily proven. You will need to do like I did (well, you'll have to order a subordinate, but you will get the idea) and do your own search for those things.
If you would like to return and issue more orders, I would treasure them almost as much as I treasure our friendship. Due to other demands on my time, interests and the fact that I am not under your command, I must respectfully decline in following those orders.
Please do not be angry.
Of course I have a bias - I admitted this to you up front. I don't believe in supernatural events. I don't think that Christians believe in pink unicorns (exploding or not) or little people (leprechauns or not), either. And of course I didn't peruse all the apologetics links in great detail, as there are quite a few.
Again I will ask - and I do not mean to be condescending or rude - how do you (personally) get over the hurdle of believing in supernatural explanations? How do you go from 'I don't know' to 'A miracle must have occurred'? I really am interested in your answer.
I never claimed that I am objective or scientific, although I would certainly like to be more so. Along those lines, doesn't objective, scientific reasoning by definition rule out supernatural explanations? It is my understanding that one of the basic tenents of the modern scientific method is methodological naturalism (not metaphysical naturalism, mind you, they are quite different).
Regarding the textbook/web question: you stated that falsehoods are portrayed in textbooks. How did you come by that assertion if you do not have one to look at? And as to the web, well anyone can post anything, so it is hardly a definitive reference. Take your blog, for instance. It is 'on the web', but is certainly chock full of drivel. Can someone use your blog to support their argument? No, that is silly.
Do you have an example of me with my "normal trick of making up facts to suit [my] preconceived worldview"? No, I didn't think so. Just another uninformed blanket statement. Dude, you proclaim yourself a 'fascinating' debater, but you have brought zero facts/arguments.
Care to clear up your lackluster performance on the Gould/textbook questions?
I hope you are having fun with the army references, but my screen name actually refers to generality, not a military rank.
Hi Zach,
It's been a long time. So nice of you to drop by and write again.
There are some things I hope that I can get you to think about. First, if you start with a caustic comment, do not be surprised what you receive in response. You were indeed condescending and rude, and in attack mode as well. If you have a question, ask it without the sneering and loaded terms, capice?
Second, nobody here is discussing magic. My views on that subject have not been discussed here; as close to I have come to that are some comments I made about "Ghost Hunters" a while back. Do you disbelieve in ghosts and any other kind of supernatural things? It is an absolute for you? Anyway, if you give a serious, honest reading to accounts in the Bible, you will see that they differ significantly from folk tales and fairy tales. And read more than just the first couple of chapters of Genesis, too.
Third, and I hope you will think very hard about this, you are making what I perceive as a dual assumption, if I can make up a term. The first part is that Christians are, by default, stupid and should be ridiculed. (By that logic, retarded children should be pushed into the mud when you walk past them.) The second part of that is the armed bomb, that there are no supernatural explanations possible, only natural and materialistic explanations. That is illogical, because it assumes that you have absolute knowledge. Also, if you rule out any explanations that are not materialistic, you risk having some questions unanswered, or answered in an unsatisfying way.
Note that these all of those points tie into having a bias. I have stated many times that we all have them.
That is all the further that I am going to take this answer at this time. If you believe that I am stupid, then obviously, you really do not care how I came to believe in God. But if you do want to pursue this further and pretend that you will grant me a modicum of respect, then I will fall for that trick again and give you an answer.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late on my next reply.
Hey, I've been tagged with some additional nicknames. Should I go with Stormy or Stormer, or just plain Storm? The first one sounds like a horse, though.
My claim of being a "fascinating debator" is obviously a lie that you caught me in — except for the fact that YOU are the liar, I never made any such claim.
My proof about Gould is that he made rude statements that there is no evidence. You've read all of his academic writings? Really? That is so cool, I hope we can meet someday and I can get your autograph.
As for the textbooks, I have a stack of them right here, and I have read all of them cover to cover. Sometimes I am a staff writer for several publishers, and have written graduate school level textbooks with a team of other qualified authors. I can autograph one and send it to you if you give me your full name, mailing address in Washington. (For a few years, I did not have time to write any because I was too busy starring in porn movies.) I pointed out the errors in textbooks, including the discredited and reassigned "ancestors", but they did not want to make the changes for some reason.
Your assessment of my blog is correct, it is indeed "chock full of drivel". I am glad that you had the time to read all 550+ articles to reach that conclusion. All of those comments and evaluations about software? I made everything up, including the URLs. Since you have read everything I have posted and reached your obviously expert and valid conclusion, I suppose that there is no reason for you to come back.
I'll miss you. But I'll stay in contact with your sister, it was fun making those movies with her. And please, I know you like to be in the minority: atheist, Mac user, Verizon user — but you should consider moving up to Firefox. It's still in the minority, but better than that crap you're using.
Thanks for the response. I realize that being snippy is not a good way of engendering conversation, so I apologize - truly - for my first comment. I really do find this stuff interesting, and my goal is not to (needlessly) offend people.
My lack of belief in the supernatural is pretty much complete - I have never seen any reason to attribute a supernatural cause to phenomena. I suppose I rule out supernatural explanations because once you let one in, where do you stop? I look at an event I do not understand and go immediately to natural causes. Even if I can't figure it out, I still would assume it had a natural explanation. I'm worried that if someone started attributing causes to supernatural events, they would skip over the whole 'natural cause' thing and go straight for the supernatural, because technically everything is potentially explainable by an omnipotent being, no?
However, this bias certainly does not extend to thinking religious people - Christian or otherwise - are in any way less intelligent than others or are any more deserving of ridicule. If I indicated that I apologize again.
I don't think "all Xtians is stoopid". Never said it, never thought it. Can we chalk this one up to egregious misquoting? That's a sin, right?
I "came along giving orders"? Where? The questions (you didn't respond to a single one)? The challenges to back up even a single point (you failed to do so)? Or are you referring to me asking you to go away? Which one was the order?
Still no backup of your Gould argument? Let us summarize our back and forth, shall we?
You: Gould rejected evolution.
Me: Um, I've read everything he's written and that is demonstrably false.
You; You've read all his work? Well, aren't you cool?
Final status: No support for your assertion. Assertion rejected.
Just admit you have no idea, and are regurgitating some else's (carl?) misguided beliefs.
You've never claimed to be "fascinating"? Look at your profile. Right below the homoerotic John Wayne adulation. [Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don't let your repressed feelings make you angry.]
Your text book explanation was very unspecific and unconvincing. Do you have examples of discredited and reassigned "ancestors"? Which "graduate level" text books are they in? I've taught introductory biology, population genetics, and evolutionary biology, and none of the text books we used (at the undergraduate level) contained such information. And none of the books we used were written by "staff writers", but instead expert scientists in the respective fields. You must be producing some high quality stuff there.
I've already told you I do not live in Washington. I cannot understand why you believe that to be the case. Think about it: it you are dead wrong about that, how many other things could you be dead wrong about? Profound, yes?
I admit that I have not read all 550+ posts (not "articles", even in the loosest sense of the word; don't fool yourself). But not one single one that I have read has contained a reasoned, coherent argument. Could one of the 550 be reasonable? I guess so, but I'd bet against it from the sample I have observed.
Um, don't have a sister. But classy, as always. How can I possibly compete with such an eleven year old intellect?
Finally, insulting technological preferences? Weak. No; irrelevant. I actually work mostly in unix, if that helps fan your flame technological hatred. What exactly is your point here? You don't use the clunky, buggy operating system that the majority of people use? That must be why you don't buy into the clunky, buggy system of religious beliefs. Is that your point? But that is giving you too much credit; the things are completely unrelated, except in your angry mixed-up mind.
Your comment originally appeared at about 13.30 Eastern Time. I deleted it, then put it back so people could see your insane ravings.
For reasons I explained elsewhere, I do not believe you. This last rant demonstrates to me that I am right in thinking that you're a liar. That is common among atheists who have nothing to stand on.
By the way, anyone with the knowledge of Gould that you claim to have would know exactly the quotes to which I was referring, and would have a excuses ready.
Your lack of knowledge about who writes textbooks is another indicator.
Plus your obvious lack of higher education. All those degrees that you claim to have, and yet you write so poorly and make elementary mistakes.
I guess you'll never send me that gift card for my birthday, huh? Maybe if I stop letting you make a fool of yourself, you'll forgive me?