3:35am: One good rant deserves another.
A friend of mine posted a LJ rant on atheism. I wanted to reply, but rambled on quite a bit and it didn't fit in the post a comment spot. So here it is, mostly spell checked and everything!
So, being among the lucky few Christians that are likely to read this I feel I must respond. But first I should respond in the traditional Christian way.
Theorem: a truth established by means of excepted truths
Bivalence: the existence of only two states of truth values (e.g. true and false)
Your stance on the bivalence of the existence of God is atheism. (still kinda awkward though)
Caveat: provision of specific stipulation, conditions, or limitations
This was used more in regard to legal matters. But it is an old enough word, and close enough to what you want that you could claim it and its meaning as your own.
Conflate: combine two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, ext into one
This is a verb however, and so its conjugation into a noun might cause difficulties. Not to mention it is probably not as strong as you would like.
However with the help of Sean, a fellow owner of a one of the kind sculpy black mage Lisa original, I have come up with axiom.
Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self evidently true.
Lisa proscribes to the Axiom of atheism. Or Lisa’s axiom is atheism. You get the added effect of snubbing any Christians you are dealing by declaring your idea as “self evidently true” with out them even knowing it. ;)
Now that I have responded in the traditional Christian way, that is the attitude of helpfulness and love the Christ himself instituted, I shall continue a little more crassly.
So Thor’s stories are more fun to read? Bah! There may be many many boring stories in the bible. But there are plenty of killer cool ones too. Probably more then about most other gods. They are just hidden in between the boring ones, I shall try and dedicate a couple postings in my live journal about cool stories from the bible.
“Im not an athiets because i had some bad experiences with God's fanclub (tho, i did. woo prior lake!).”
. Well, much of this grip does seam to be about experiences with God’s fanclub. Not saying you can’t gripe about us crazed Christian nuts. And any honest Christian has to admit that we are at least a little bit nuts. The foundation of our world perspective is that it can not be proven. You gotta be crazy to except something like that.
“Im an atheists because i think religious thinking is silly.”
I would have to say religious thinking is closer to crazy then to silly. But silly is also funner, so we can stick with that. Silly: having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment, absurd or foolish, ridiculously trivial, or frivolous. Its origins are in seely, meaning happy or the west german base meaning luck or happiness. Aye, I like islly better then crazy.
“Because basing moral desicions on things people living on shrooms in the desert 2000 years ago wrote on hides is repulsive to me.”
You should except or reject an idea based solely upon the merits of the idea itself. Not upon what the originator of the idea was forced to eat or to write upon. If a scientist discovered a new unified theory of physics that correctly units quantum theory and general relativity, would you discard it simply because he wrote it down on some hides? No you are in turn being silly dear.
“I hate it when people talk about the Theory of Evolution as if its "just a theory", and not a fucking Theory!”
I understand your distress at people lack of respect towards scientific evidence. But as a clarification, the Theory of Speciation and the Theory of Evolution are different things. Just because most Christians who enter into the debate upon it are unfamiliar with the distinction does not give the supposedly more educated half of the debate a right to get all self righteous. The theory of Speciation, that species eventually change enough so that they can no longer breed with former members of their species but can successfully breed with members of their new species, is far closer to hypothesis then actually full fledged scientific theory. When Christians usually speak of evolution that is what they refer to. Now the Theory of Evolution, the fact that over time through breeding a species can change within itself, well as I said earlier in this sentence that is a fact. Just open up your most recent scientific American, and you shall see the proof. In particular I am referring to Volume number 297, of the Dec. 2007 edition. Page 36, Evolution in a Petri dish. They experimented with Caenorhabditis to make significantly different genetic creatures. But they can still breed with the original. Not a new species. Just remember, most Christians mean the Theory of Speciation when they talk about the theory of evolution.
“and i said no. no i wasn't going to respect an opinion that was wrong.”
Well, as long as your willing to listen to what I am saying (even if does cause you to unleash a further turrent of ranting more directly at me) I can not claim you are beign closed minded here. But if you don’t listen to what I have to say I can. So :p
”I also hate it when atheists are told to prove god doesn't exist--as if that was possible.”
Hmm.. I guess I can except the responsibility of proof residing upon the Christians, at least in the context of us approaching scientists. Though I suppose for anyone who wanted to change anyone else’s mind on any matter, the responsibility of proof should rest upon the shoulders of the one who is trying to change the mind. So if you are talking with a Christian, and they are just trying to convince you, then yes the responsibility does rest upon their shoulders alone. But if you are also trying to enlighten them to you axiom, then you as well shoulder some of the responsibility of proof. If you wish to hoard your knowledge and wisdom for yourself, then you have no share in the responsibility of proof.
As for actually changing your mind, would you except proof of the existence of the judeo Christian satan as proof of the judeo Christian God? Other then that all I have is the written testament of others that have physically felt him. Written testament co-oberated by many others written testament. But they wrote upon animal hides, so it doesn’t count right?
I do also happen to have circumstantial evidence from my personable life. The fact that I should be dead, unless my idea of God with his guardian angels out looking after me is true. Now the statistical improbability of my survival is not direct proof. For what if I am just that one in 6 billion chance? Yet even a large scale statistical sample of Christian kept alive because of the hand of God against statistical improbability would not prove or disprove anything. (even if one could be done accurately) For a Christian could just say that God wanted some Christians to die, and some to live, so that Christian in general would not have a statistically better chance of survival in extreme circumstances, only specifically chosen Christians. So how then can we find a statistically large sampling of God chosen Christians to test against a control? So you have to take my word for it.
.
”i still won't worship the guy, though. i've read his book, and i think his ideas on morality are a bit dodgy.”
What else besides human sacrifice do you find dodgy? God never actually approves of human sacrifice. The instance of Abraham and Issac, God doesn’t actually require a human sacrifice. He merely tests Abrahams commitment to Himself. As someone taking the scientific view, you should have no problem with God repeatedly testing Abraham over an extended period of time using many different methods. The only other instance of human sacrifice was of Jesus, God’s Son. That is actually (if you are taking a Christian view) is an example of Deity Sacrifice. Totally different from human sacrifice.
But yes, what other moral issues are a bit dodgy in your mind?
“I think your opinion is wrong, and the facts support me. I don't have the faith ability. i can't just "feel" the way the world works in my heart. I read stuff, and watch stuff, and touch stuff.”
Just as a theological aside: WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the particular flava of judeo Christianity that I am) prescribes to the belief that no one has the faith ability inherently within them. None of us can “feel the way the world works in our heart”. We can not by our own thinking or choosing, come to Him, or the knowledge of truth. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit, the creates faith in our hearts. Now don’t go all deterministic on me, or think that I am going deterministic on you. We do have the strength to refuse him, and harden our hearts rejecting the message of salvation. Something you are doing quite well. You could perhaps say it is an offhand compliment. For only those who are strong enough to resist the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, can manage to be atheists. As for me, I am happy in the weakness that has brought God’s love into my life.
”and as long as i'm ranting on belief and atheism, i'ma gonna rant a bit on how the english language fucks the debate and biases it toward the theists.”
We are a nation “founded under God”. *shrug* It’s kind of a natural progression that our language would evolve into one that is biased towards the theocratic side of a debate. In many other ways the the English language is very restrictive and inaccurate. Such as love, ( prefer the greek, eros, pathos, and agape myself) or friends ( prefer the Spanish, though I forget the Spanish words now its been so long, they have friends that means acquaintance, and they have friends that mean friends, and they have friends that means friend for life) I did try to lend a hand with that at the beginning. I hope axiom works out for you, or one of the others I mentioned. But I feel you shall enjoy axiom the most.
”so, please. for the sake of our brains and our sanity--do not equate your belief in a concept like God to our belief that things work. we can see things work.”
Many Christians would claim that we can see God in nature in the world around us, and in how things work. Heck, just about every religion under the sun has claimed that. ;) Just playing devils advocate though with this statement.
And that brings me to the end of your rant. I passed the link to your web comic on to Sean, but he says the images will not show up. I have no idea why. He tried firefox and IE. It seams to work for me, even though I have an interminably slow internet. Oh, I am also glad to here you are feeling healthy again. I doubt you would have had the energy for this rant if you where still at all sickly.
Oh, one and one finale thing on the Christian vs. atheism thing. I have a friend whom I told about my attempt at a friendly response to an atheist rant from a friend. She told me that would make her angry. She is an overweight teen, largely reject and ostracized from American society because of how she looks. She has been rejected, told she is ugly and unlovable. A constant in her Christian life is the God loves her and excepts her despite her physical appearance. Then along comes a pseudo intellectual skinny scientist, and tells her that the one thing in life that helps to establish her self worth is silly, well I can understand why some would react rather vehemently to atheism, even if they do not make the logical connection in their own minds.
I am not blaming you Lisa, it is merely an idea I had never pondered before myself, that was brought up by the unique circumstances for writing this response and talking to this particular friend at the same time. I bring the idea up to you, on the off chance that you have never considered it. That some Christians react aggressively to atheist talks because not only is it an attack on their faith, but an attack upon their self worth as well. Not that such a reaction is very Christ like, just very human. Witch reminds me, I think your grief is more with the un-Christ like actions of most Christians.
Your fan,
Adam
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
thoughtful
drained
optimistic