Thursday, June 30, 2011

More Facebook Funnies

One of my FB friends posted this:

May the Lord guide you today, your steps, your words, and your actions. Ask Him and He will give you the answers. And remember, sometimes silence IS an answer!

*sigh*

Even if I were still a believer, I wouldn't subscribe to the version of Christianity where any person can whip up prayers and homemade theology and then spread it around.  When I see some of the atheist arguments against the arguments for faith, I have to wonder if they've ever encountered Christians like this.  There's no philosophical debating with this kind of "theology."

17 comments:

krissthesexyatheist said...

Not to insult your FB friend, or any adult that would say and believe that, but...OM(nonexistent)Gawd, that is sooooo childish. Awesome, have a nice day homie.

Kriss

LadyAtheist said...

That kind of stuff is ubiquitous in Fundyland. *puke* Yes, childish.

cl said...

IMO, insulting others who believe differently is more childish.

Robert the Skeptic said...

What I respond to people who say that prayers not answered is an answer in it's self, or they sometimes say god's answer is "no" - it means that we can expect outcomes to be statistically precisely what one could expect if we accept there is no god.

Nameless Cynic said...

cl:
IMO, insulting others who believe differently is more childish.

Um... really? You mean, like taking a quote from "The God Delusion" and saying:

Puh-leeze! This is the sort of pseudo-intellectual crap that’s influencing people to become atheists!

I mean, I suppose you can use the argument "Well, I wasn't insulting the person, just an idea they expounded."

Which is exactly what LA did. So your point is what, exactly?

That's a fascinatingly fungible set of values you've got there, big guy.

cl said...

Which is exactly what LA did.

Uh, yeah, if you just wish to limit your scope to this single post, I suppose...

Infidel753 said...

I wouldn't subscribe to the version of Christianity where any person can whip up prayers and homemade theology and then spread it around.

It's the last stage before religion evaporates entirely: a vapid, meaningless, nebulous cloud of vague feelings and words. It says nothing, gives nothing, demands nothing.

There's no philosophical debating with this kind of "theology."

Of course not, for the same reason there's no philosophical debating with wind chimes or the mooing of cows. It's just noise.

As for the inevitable bleating that religion deserves respect, how flamingly ridiculous does an idea have to be before we stop respecting it? An adult who still believed in Santa Claus, or in fairies or unicorns, would also be "others who believe differently".

cl said...

...how flamingly ridiculous does an idea have to be before we stop respecting it?

Great question. To me, the idea that all this stuff is just here for no reason at all is pretty flamingly ridiculous. Even still, I try to maintain respect for the *actual people* who hold that flamingly ridiculous belief.

I mean, that's the risk in labeling others as "delusional" or "childish" I suppose. It really is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Infidel753 said...

To me, the idea that all this stuff is just here for no reason at all is pretty flamingly ridiculous.

On the contrary -- "teleology, the notion that everything in the universe had a purpose, coupled to another belief, that that purpose had to be us" is one of the oldest forms and sources of crackpottery.

LadyAtheist said...

Just because you want there to be a supernatural reason doesn't mean that there is one.

cl said...

Infidel753,

Okay, great. You can link to PZ Myers. Big whoop. This still boils down to a subjective judgment of who thinks which idea is more ridiculous. Is that really what you wish to ground your position on? I mean, I think X is funny and beautiful, you think X is dry and ugly. Yeah!

This is why I tend to respect *people* even though I think their beliefs are ridiculous: because I've got at least enough humility to realize we're dealing with something that's in the eye of the beholder here.

LadyAtheist,

Just because you want there to be a supernatural reason doesn't mean that there is one.

A bit presumptuous for somebody who touts themselves as a self-described rationalist, don't'cha think? Next time, maybe maybe you can ask me what I want, before assuming you know and spreading that like gospel. Truth be told, the idea of a supernatural cause is a bit unsettling. Atheism is easy. You die and that's it. Nothing to be accountable for, nothing to fear. Just permanent nothingness. So, in a nutshell, part of me really wants atheism to be true -- it's just that I can't convince myself of something that doesn't make any sense logically.

And hey, I've been lurking for about a month now. Just because you want the word "contradiction" to mean something besides what it actually means, doesn't make it true -- so right back at'cha sweetheart.

cl said...

Although, kudos to you for ditching the moderation. It feels a little less authoritarian around here...

Anon E. said...

really, this is your reaction to someone blessing your day?

I agree with CL. Put into context, this is what the person believes. Even if you don't, the fact that they do and felt the desire to spread what they think is helpful to you doesn't seem to warrant a public insult.

It would be a different story, if this person was attempting to engage in an argument of some sort, but they're not. They're just trying to be nice :)

Infidel753 said...

CL: This still boils down to a subjective judgment of who thinks which idea is more ridiculous.

No, it doesn't. You said "To me, the idea that all this stuff is just here for no reason at all is pretty flamingly ridiculous." The link exemplifies how people in the 18th century thought the universe had to exist for a reason, and they were clearly wrong. In fact, there is no evidence suggesting that anything in the universe, including us, exists for a reason.

cl said...

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

The link exemplifies how people in the 18th century thought the universe had to exist for a reason, and they were clearly wrong.

Not even close. The link exemplifies the falsity of cosmic pluralism [construed as the claim that every heavenly body is inhabited]. Teleology does not require cosmic pluralism, so the falsity of cosmic pluralism has no bearing on teleology. To assert otherwise is to make a logical misstep.

So really, this all boils down to exactly what I said: you think teleology is ridiculous. Good for you! I think the notion that the universe is just the result of grossly improbably luck is ridiculous, and as I'm sure you're aware of, I've at least got some math to back it up.

In fact, there is no evidence suggesting that anything in the universe, including us, exists for a reason.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I'm just as entitled to say I find it ridiculous.

Nameless Cynic said...

Now, let's compare and contrast.

We have CL here, trying for a logical (if condescending) argument that "God is great and all this atheist nonsense is just childish." Although lacking any logical basis for his arguments.

Then we have "Gideon" (no, really, are you responsible for all those bibles in hotel rooms?) who just sticks his fingers in his ears and says "Go kill yourself, Infidel! I'm not listening! LA LA LA LA LA!"

Two sides of the same coin, when you get down to it.

cl said...

Nameless Cynic,

I haven't tried to make a logical argument here. In fact, if you spent a little more time reading as opposed to puffing your chest, you might have realized I said no logical argument can be made when the claim in question reduces to, "It's my opinion that teleology is ridiculous."

So, where do you fall into this? Apparently you're just another one of those many, many people with nothing substantial to add to the conversation, aside from sneering asides.

So, let's see something. What've you got?