Religion
Related: About this forumSt. Augustine Asks the Hard Questions Atheists Don’t Ask
August 15, 2012 By Thomas L. McDonald 9 Comments
It’s fun to read or listen to super-duper-smart professional atheists (well, they think they’re smart) banging on about the book of Genesis. It’s a useful issue for them, because the primeval history in scripture is mysterious, complex, and rich in symbolism. So, naturally, Reason Warriors approach it with the childish literalism of a young-earth creationist. Perhaps this works for them because fundamentalism is ill-equipped to properly understand Genesis, which is why friends don’t let friends be fundamentalists.
One of their techniques is to throw out an endless litany of questions about the creation of the world and then demand instant answers, usually from some poor sap unequipped to respond knowledgeably. “Oh yeah, so God made light before he made the sun? He made plants before he made the sun needed for them to grow? Why are there two creation stories? Huh? HUH?!” And then they stand back in triumph, fold their arms across their chest, marvel at their own genius, and wait for the poor sap to fumble his way through a few pathetic replies.
This kind of low-hanging fruit is the bread-and-butter of the atheist combox troll and meme-maker, but the really hilarious thing is that their questions are all so pathetic. Because atheists believe they have the corner on reason and logic, they develop an inflated sense of their own intelligence. They gather for “Reason Rallies” as though reason was a wholly owned subsidiary of Atheism Inc., rather than something inherited from the centrality of Aristotelianism to Catholic theology, and thus to Western civilization. Their questions barely even skim the surface of the incredibly deep, profound, vexing, and glorious texts of Genesis 1 & 2.
Although I have not yet chosen the topic for my master’s thesis, one area I’m considering is the understanding of creation in Genesis, Augustine, and Ratzinger/Benedict. In my research, I’ve been reading Augustine’s massive body of work on the subject. He returned to it in three major works (On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis, and The Literal Meaning of Genesis), as well as at the end of Confessions and The City of God.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/08/st-augustine-asking-the-hard-questions-atheists-dont-ask/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,433 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)"And that’s why we’ll never have a concrete answer to the mystery of creation as expressed in Genesis: it was a pure act of unselfish love."
If there is no concrete answer to why we exist, then:
How do you know that the world was made in a "pure act of unselfish love"?
rug
(82,333 posts)That's refreshing. It used to be Papist, bead mumbler or fish eater. Very progressive.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Considering their history, the RCC is in NO position to be discussing morality, and what is right and wrong.
rug
(82,333 posts)Besides, look around. Might you stumble upon a direct attack on believers and their views?
Your opinion, even if it was was supported by the facts, is not a license to trot out a dusty term of bigotry.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)..."the atheist combox troll and meme-maker" from the rest of all non-believers. Tho he does make mention of "professional atheists" earlier in his post, among other things...
rug
(82,333 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If someone called certain religious believers "dumbasses," categorized particular beliefs as "hilarious," and proclaimed that some believers "deserve derision," which side of that chasm would that person be on?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did someone call you a dumbass because of your faith, or lack thereof? If so, that would be insulting. Beliefs themselves may well seem ridiculous or even "hilarious", but that does not excuse insulting someone for holding those beliefs. People deserve derision for their actions, not their beliefs.
For example, I would call Fred Phelps and his followers dumbasses. Not for their religious beliefs, but for their actions, even though those actions may emanate from their beliefs. It's about respect for an individual's right to personal religious belief, not about apologizing for or condoning assholery.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)would be OK to call a creationist a "dumbass?"
You might need to have a talk with your wife about tolerance and respect.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
Out of compassion, let me try to help you here. First and foremost, I speak for myself, not for others, including my wife. She and I agree on some things and not on others. On the subject of tolerance, though, we are on the same page. I think I am somewhat more tolerant, as I haven't put you or any of your fellow faith intolerants on ignore.
If I recall correctly, she referred to a bunch of legislators who wanted to make creationism part of the public school curriculum. She called them "dumbasses" for their actions, not for their beliefs. If people want to hold beliefs like creationism, that's fine until they try to impose those beliefs on children in public schools.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)She simply called them "a bunch of dumbasses". She didn't say they'd done a dumbassed thing or anything of the sort. She simply made a broadbrush attack on people because of their beliefs, the very same thing she constantly upbraids others in this group for. In addition to the other things that trotsky mentioned. There's a word for that...hypocrisy. We're just trying t see if the principles you espouse so haughtily apply to everyone.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Which they are. Maybe you disagree with that description. Or maybe you don't understand the difference between religious beliefs and the legislative process.
There was no hypocrisy, no broad brush attack. 
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)
You know them all well enough to simply say in general, with no qualification, that they are "a bunch of dumbasses"? If not, then that's broad-brushing....from you and the person who originated that sentiment. Do you leave open the possibility that some of them are quite intelligent and accomplished people, or do you simply label them as a "bunch of dumbasses" because of ONE thing that they did, out the entirety of their lives?
And whether I think or say they're dumbasses or not is irrelevant, since I haven't been strutting pompously around the threads in this group, scolding and upbraiding people for insulting and denigrating others for their religious beliefs, as if I'd never done it. The search for hypocrisy begins at home.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Read the fucking article. I haven't discussed this with my wife and I'm no mind reader, but I can read. Obviously, those who voted to put creationism on the school agenda are the dumbasses, not the couple who voted against it.
What I do know about her is she is no hypocrite and has never insulted anyone (unlike you and your ilk) for their religious beliefs, just their actions.
You are taking your offensiveness to a new level. It's time to back off.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Answer the questions: Do you actually KNOW any of the people involved well enough to label them as complete human beings, or are you simply applying the general term "dumbasses" to them based on reading a newspaper account about ONE thing they've done in their lives?
Don't you think it would be more accurate, and less of a broad-brush smearing generalization (of the kind your wife decries) to say that they did A dumb thing, and leave it at that?
And if you'd read any of your wife's posts, you'd know perfectly well that actions and the religious beliefs that motivate them are inexorably linked (unless she's dead wrong about that). What's done by religious people, according to innumerable posts by her and others, HAS to be credited to their "faith" and "beliefs" (well, as long as it's warm and fuzzy stuff...the opposite is off limits and subject to charges of bigotry and persecution). So separating the two in an attempt to wriggle off the hook for insulting people's religion is more than a little disingenuous. I have no such hypocrisy. When people's religious beliefs clearly and directly motivate them to do foolish and destructive things, I have no hesitation in calling those beliefs foolish and destructive in those cases.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Just really confused by the blatant hypocrisy - if an atheist said the kind of things she's said about certain believers or beliefs, it would be held up as an example of how "faith intolerant" (that's so cute!) we are.
At least you've made it clear you're OK with that double standard. Now I know I can disregard any insults or judgments that come from you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Oh right, you can't. 
Naughty, naughty boy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because if I made one, the post should be deleted.
cbayer's posts where she's said these things are public record - and I have them bookmarked. It is not a "personal attack" to quote someone. Sorry, you'll have to paddle yourself for now.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Trotsky bookmarks my wife's posts! 
I think your old buddy laconicsax used to do the same.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I've found them very handy to point out hypocritical behavior.
If all you have left now is snark and smileys, I think we're done. Unless you need to get in a last word or swipe?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your bogus attempts to discredit my wife by distorting and editorializing her posts are vile.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Augustine may have really wondered who god was addressing when he said, "Let there be light." But I suspect a question is being begged.
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)
You must be thinking of Aquinas.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)That's a talent.
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)How about Aristotle?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Unless you want to argue that a smart person can't ask dumb questions. I would supply Thomas L. McDonald as an example of that being incorrect. The man is clearly intelligent, yet the article you posted is ample proof that even an intelligent person is capable of amazing levels of stupidity. He also managed to do it in an amazingly insulting manner, which I'm sure earned him bonus points with some of his readers. 
rug
(82,333 posts)Here?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But that doesn't matter if he's got some nice putdowns of atheists! Those stupid atheists think they're so smart!
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Creationism is an explanation of the inexplicable, the tale of the Garden of Eden is the tale of what happens when you aren't obedient.
The entire bible is, in my view, a work of fiction: From the Old and New Testaments right through to the Koran, it is a retelling of various stories that have been around since humans wondered how the earth began, and a way to gain power over and art and money from the believers.
I've read it all, and it gives more questions than answers...to which the response seems to be 'you must believe, my child.'
I can't, and genesis is the very least of my disbelief.
rug
(82,333 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)We evolved and now understand that we have the ability to reason and make out own civil laws.
Religion was law made by primitive man as a means to explain their existence and control society.
Then there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
immoderate
(20,885 posts)It's an introduction to the idea that there's something different about our species. We can destroy all life.
--imm
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)All life is unlikely. But indeed nukes are pretty awesome. So prior to 1945 or so genesis had no meaning?
The universe is a big place. We are only "special" in a bronze age/iron age cosmology.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the invisible part), you might find it easier to believe.
Without accepting that God exists as a settled matter, none of those "Hard Questions" are questions at all.
Why would any atheist ask what the Bible meant by "light" unless they were doing a literary analysis.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Seeign as he depends on the reality of Adam and Eve for Original Sin:
inherited guilt for a crime
spiritual sickness or weakness
Augustine thought that humanity was originally perfect ("man's nature was created at first faultless and without any sin"
, immortal and blessed with many talents, but that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and introduced sin and death to the world.
Augustine didn't see any need to provide a good reason why Adam, who had originally been created perfect, chose to sin, or why God hadn't created a perfect being that was incapable of sin.
As far as Augustine was concerned the point was that Adam had sinned and humanity had to deal with the consequences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml#h7
No Adam and Eve, therefore no 'original sin'. QED.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)childish young-earth creationists trying to impose their mythology on everyone else by claiming it as literal truth, atheists and other sensible people would never have to deal with Genesis on those terms. It may come as a surprise to Mr. McDonald, but pretty much all atheists have a good grasp of what those stories are really about, and we'd be delighted to treat them in no other way, if the fundies weren't so eager to play whack-a-mole with their silliness in public school science classrooms. Does he think serious scientists have nothing better to do with their time than refute idiocy like "The Second Law of Thermodynamics means evolution is impossible!! Hahahaha!!" for the ten thousandth time? When they come up with serious notions about how life got to be the way it is, other than "Gawddidit...says so in the Buybul!", then we'll take them seriously.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's a shame, because it's the best one in it.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...but we now have some pretty good answers.
Despite the blogger's rant against atheism, I thought his paraphrases of St. Augustine's questions were interesting - they made Augustine seem like a pretty clever guy for his time. Admittedly, I don't carry a lot of Catholic or biblical baggage. I was raised by a devout Episcopalian Mother and the most significant point of Episcopalian theology that I remember from her is "Wherever 3 or 4 are gathered together, you will probably find a fifth". More seriously though, my Mother was religious in a way I deeply respect, was the first woman on the vestry of her church, and cared deeply about people.
Anyway, back to St Augustine's (paraphrased) questions and current answers...I think St Augie would be pleased to know:
The origin of the Universe and the space it occupies is the Big Bang, which happened 13.7 +/- .2 billion years ago (based on current understanding). As well as we understand ‘time’, it is reasonable to say the Big Bang happened in time although quantum mechanics tells us we can’t know, or at least measure, anything less than Planck time 10?43 seconds. Currently our best actual measurements are on the order of 3.7 × 10+26 Planck times, so Planck time is really, really brief.
By ‘light’ I expect Augustine meant ‘visible light’ which represents a small fraction of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is energy quantized in particles we call photons, which are mass-less and have both wave and particle behaviors. Photons are part of model of the Big Bang that describes the universe after about 10?35 seconds. Clearly light was present before the Earth, Sun, or any other heavenly bodies were created. Do we know how photons appeared out of the quantum froth between Planck time 10?43 seconds and 10?35 seconds? No, but there are some speculations and hypotheses.
• Was it a light that can be perceived with the eyes, or was it a different kind of light? Was the light spiritual, corporal, or both? How can there be light without sun?
Early in the Big Bang the photons were at very high energy. I don’t know (and could not quickly find) at what point the universe would have cooled to the point where photons at the energy of ‘visible light’ were significant. The first stars were formed about 200 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.
To me this question could have a couple of answers:
> The creation of the universe took zero time. All the energy was present at the beginning in an infinitesimally small space, which grew.
> Planck time (again 10?43 seconds) since quantum mechanics suggests smaller times are fundamentally undefined.
> The creation is still going on, 13.7 billion years later, as space expands, as stars die, as stars are formed, as galaxies merge, as black holes evaporate, and as the universe expands forever or contracts to an infinitesimally small space.
For the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang the universe was opaque. The atoms produced by primordial nucleosynthesis still formed hot plasma. The unbounded electrons and to a lesser extent unbound protons scattered photons. This condition could be romantically characterized as “darkness over the abyss”. No comment on the spiritual abyss.
A little flight of fancy here, but the cosmic background radiation is isotropic as measured throughout the universe and will be as the universe cools. Is this a whisper of “Let there be light” ?
Some geologist can undoubtedly discuss models of the early formation of seas and landforms on the nascent earth.
Hey, everybody deserves a beer and a lawn chair after work. That’s where I’m going. Maybe I’ll take Bob Dylan and John Wesley Harding with me:
I dreamed I saw St. Augustine
Alive with fiery breath
And I dreamed I was amongst the ones
That put him out to death
Oh, I awoke in anger
So alone and terrified
I put my fingers against the glass
And bowed my head and cried
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks for that, a real joy to read.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...just in case St. Augie wants that latest data.
• When did this creation happen in time? Did it happen in time? What is the origin point of creation?
Current WMAP data pegs the age of the universe at 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years, a refinement of the previous estimate of 13.7± 0.2 BY. Isn't science cool?
No change to the 'in time?' and 'origin point' parts of the question.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)At that time it could/would have been taken literally, but as science got on its feet it degraded into symbolism. Didn't have much choice.
You see the identical process going on right now with the Book of Mormon. As people of good judgment see it as impossible history, it changes into supposedly valuable allegory and symbolism.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)'hard questions'?
I'll stick with struggling to understand the stupid stuff Larry Krause is trying to explain in "A Universe From Nothing", I'm just not intellectually up to serious questions like:
When the water was collected, where was it collected if it already covered the entire earth? Where did it go so that dry land could emerge?
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)You don't even have to acknowledge that the bible exists.
Atheism is an internally consistent philosophical frame. It does not require the bible as a basis, a metric, a reference, or an alternative explanation of the universe.
Poking holes in Genesis is an amusing pastime for some. But discrediting the story of genesis is not a validation requirement for atheism.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)He was originally a party animal, then "found Jesus" and became the exact opposite. He invented the notion of original Sin that still taints Western Christianity to this day because of his neurotic self-loathing, the Eastern Churches do not believe in Original Sin the same way Western Christians do.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)I want to know about those other gods that are mentioned in the Bible and when they talk about the sons of gods.......
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Catholic channel? Oh right, you are Catholic yourself, so I assume you agree with him on this?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/08/monday-morning-chicken-chicken-eating-protest-edition/
And that's just the beginning.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that when hard questions are asked on this board, the religionists and apologists either go running for cover, or start wailing about "personal attacks", "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" or "stalking".
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you have something you want to ask me?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Is that the atheists, rather than addressing the questions, attack religion itself and believers in general and in specific. You give "personal attacks", "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" or "stalking" -- and that is what the atheists here seem to specialize in -- and people will complain of "personal attacks", "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" or "stalking". You want the complaints of "personal attacks", "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" or "stalking" to stop? Then stop the "personal attacks", "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" and "stalking".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Perhaps the questions in the article in the OP? If so, those HAVE been addressed here already.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)They are asked to try to justify reading Genesis when we know it is fiction. The only things the answers could shed light on are the beliefs of the writers of Genesis. You can ask why they wrote what they did - did they believe it to be true, and, if so, how did that belief arise; or did they know it wasn't - in which case, did they intend others to believe it, or did they mean it to be symbolic? Investigating the psychology of the scribes in one small nation over 2,500 years ago is really a pretty specialised area, and not of general interest.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)it is a very difficult question.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)(he answered, boldly going where no atheist has dared to go before ...)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)exactly where on this board those things have actually occurred.
Let's make it easy..just point us to 2 or 3 examples of persecution of religious believers by atheists in this group. If you can't even do that, then your entire post is pretty much a house of cards.
Have at it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I see you have a talent for making claims and never backing them up with facts when asked to do so. You're going to fit in very well here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Nice work. LMAO!
Ask rug what his position is on gay marriage in his church.
rug
(82,333 posts)And isn't the correct term marriage equality?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You've never done so. Perhaps you could clear it up right now:
Do you believe homosexuals should be able to get a sacramental marriage in your church?
Yes or no. Simple question, simple answer. I know you will refuse, and instead attack me, but hey, maybe you'll surprise me.
rug
(82,333 posts)You finally acknowledge the distinction between sacramental marriage and civil marriage.
To answer your question, I don't know. Equality is about civil rights not religious tenets.
To find a more competent answer, try here:
http://couragerc.net/
versus here:
http://www.dignityusa.org/
You'll find starkly differing views.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's just marriage, and they want it.
I am disappointed you don't know whether you support them.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you read the links you'd know there is not unanimity. The difference is, to them it's a core life issue, not a cheap internet baiting tactic.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)For the record: I was right about your position.
You may now post the last word - please make sure it's good and snappy.
rug
(82,333 posts)For the record: You're wrong.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I understand your reaction to this post. If the shoe fits . . .
Do you see any homophobia in the OP? I'm all ears.
I'm not surprised that you "assume", considering an assumption is easier than thought.
Now, why don't you just check your assumption and ask me if I'm homophobic?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)about some subject not directly related to their objects of hate that have salient points, but I sure as hell wouldn't link to them as if I were supporting them.
rug
(82,333 posts)Shall I assume you are also equating Catholics to Nazis?
Come on, let it all hang out.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Even the recent convert, the most liberal of them, is gradually changing into a homophobe, or at least making excuses for them, considering she's a bisexual, I find this very sad and disturbing.
Hell, most Catholics don't even GO to their Church anymore, what does that tell you? As far as the Catholics on Patheos, they are, at best, like people who say "I'm not racist, but....the races shouldn't intermarry.(or some other racist bullshit)"
On that website they say the equivalent about homosexuality.
rug
(82,333 posts)We could discuss the misogyny of Hitchens and the racism of Harris but that's off topic as well.
Why don't you start a Patheos bashing thread. You'll feel better.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)but does that matter? The Bad Catholic(a catholic blogger on there), compares equal rights activists to brown shirts and fascists all the fucking time.
And don't call what I did bigoted, that's fucking stupid.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you prefer I call what you did fucking stupid, granted.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and were Nazis themselves, Homosexuals were a class of people the Nazis killed in their camps for being "deviants" a word Catholics on blogs such as Patheos throw around a lot. My question to you is, what's the difference in the hatred?
rug
(82,333 posts)The question before you is how is "Catholic hatred" like Nazi hatred. Your analogy.
It's not were Catholics Nazis. Stay there and I won't ask you how many atheists support Ayn Rand.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the only difference is that the Nazis were more honest in their hatred and had the institutional power to eliminate the ones they thought were subhuman.
rug
(82,333 posts)But it's still not enough to cover the bigotry of comparing Catholics to Nazis.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or Westboro Baptist Church instead?
Also, I'm comparing the CHURCH not Catholic individuals who mostly oppose the church, so stop with that bullshit, oh, and stop calling it bigotry, you devalue that word to meaningless when you do that.
rug
(82,333 posts) Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I guess the correlation between Catholics and Nazis is too obvious.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Amazing how you can't seem to talk about religion without talking about atheists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)can you blame him?
rug
(82,333 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why would they want to talk about something they don't believe in? As an atheist myself, I only talk about religion out of curiosity with those I respect. Many of the atheists here seem to have little respect for the beliefs of others and seem to be here solely to mock believers and deride their beliefs. Why is that?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)want to talk about cuts to Medicare if they don't believe in them? Why would Republicans want to talk about gay marriage if they don't believe in it? Why would ANYONE want to talk about things they don't believe in? Is that even a question, for pity's sake??
And beliefs have to EARN respect, especially when religionists want to ram them down everyone's throat and use public money to support and promote them. Oh, but I suppose THAT'S not worth talking about either? And does "mocking" and "deriding" include calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"? Why would somebody say such a derisive thing?? I suspect you're in a position to find out the answer to your own question, if you were actually interested (which I doubt). I suspect you're more interested in mocking and deriding the atheists here who aren't special like you.
Cue the sound of crickets.....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I must not be a very good atheist to keep asking them. But the crickets prediction turned out well..
Knowing your proclivities, I'll try to be warmer and fuzzier next time.
Stupid atheists! Yeah, that'll learn 'em!
rug
(82,333 posts)The people he's calling stupid are not atheists but atheist combox trolls and meme-makers.
They are not synonymous.
Read it again. He specifically mentions that group (whatever gets one membership in it, I don't know) as going for the "low-hanging fruit" but then goes on to whine about atheists in general.
"Because atheists believe they have the corner on reason and logic, they develop an inflated sense of their own intelligence."
No subset used there. Broad brush ahoy! Stupid atheists! No wonder you like him!
What do you think of his homophobic bigotry?
rug
(82,333 posts)He addressed the "super-duper-smart professional atheists" and continued from there.
There are many smart atheists. Less super-duper-smart professional atheists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)only "super-duper-smart professional atheists" are being referred to?
Or "atheist combox troll and meme-maker(s)"?
Or are those the same thing?
rug
(82,333 posts)The more squirming one feels, the more accurate his taget audience.
And I see a lot of squirming in this thread.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Rush Limbaugh thinks liberals criticize him because he speaks the truth and it makes them uncomfortable. Same logic - so I guess he's right, huh?
In your mind, it appears atheists should just shut up and take it if they're being maligned and insulted and unfairly broad-brushed.
So which group of atheists is he referring to, or are they the same? Could you please answer that?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Thank you for four attempt to help, though. I can handle my own words, however.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Unless you've figured that out and edited it by now. Just thought that since you like to point out typos, you would appreciate being told when you make a mistake too.
I note you had no answers for my questions.
Now if you have nothing more of substance to add, and are just in your "last word" phase, we're done.
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Some are just laughing at the idiotic bigot you linked to; some are pissed off that you linked to an idiotic bigot.
But I have to say, it is one of the worst-written blogs I've ever seen you link to. I'm particularly surprised to see you link to someone who is opposed to your own Christianity:
He is against "the liberal Christian project", and "a progressive concept of God". Was the chance to post some atheist-bashing from the beginning just too tempting for you, so you ignored his attack on your own position?
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you miss your quota of theist-bashing today?
frylock
(34,825 posts)this dickhole lost me at "super-duper-smart professional atheists."
DavidL
(384 posts)And if so, were they god's work or the work of Satan?
I little off-topic, perhaps, but:
I honestly don't know. Are magnets mentioned in the Bible?
And I know gravity existed in Biblical times, was that the work of God, too?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's offensive and unnecessary. He has essentially brought himself down to the level of those he is complaining about.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that doesn't involve atheist bashing.
DavidL
(384 posts)I hadn't realized that until I read the whole article a second time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)will never read a post like that with a critical eye and mind. They will simply try, in a hollow fashion, to make it seem like everyone is right, and that they are totally fair and balanced.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)(That was satire, right?)
DavidL
(384 posts)I laughed when I read the title. Thought maybe it was about an Atheist convention in Florida or something.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)
onager
(9,356 posts)Explain to me, then, who this person is who sends the innocent to punishment. You answer, God...
God, you say, the very one who commends his love to us...he persecutes new born children; he hands over babies to eternal flames because of their bad wills, when he knows that they have not so much as formed a will, good or bad...
It would show a just and reasonable sense of propriety to treat you as beneath argument; you have come so far from religious feeling, from civilized standards, so far indeed from common sense, that you think your Lord capable of committing kinds of crime which are hardly found among barbarians.(1)
For writing that, Bishop Julian was forced into exile. Along with 17 other Italian bishops who dissented from Augustine's idea of original sin.
Which didn't mean a thing, of course. The Church already saw that Original Sin would be a great marketing tool. I can almost see the Cardinals chuckling around a Vatican fireplace: "Hey, they bought that nonsense about a talking snake and a virgin birth, didn't they? Selling this will be a piece of cake!"
(1) Quoted in "The Closing of the Western Mind - The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman.
rug
(82,333 posts)Come on, surely you can get a more worthy opponent of Augustine.
onager
(9,356 posts)Just another illustration that the One True Church, when given a choice, will almost always accept the most irrational, incomprehensible and anti-human. Ergo, Original Sin.
Got any snappy one-liners about the Albigensian Heresy?
rug
(82,333 posts)But, if it gives you Catharsis, go for it.
Silent3
(15,254 posts)...the deep and subtle understanding of religious matters it takes to come up with stuff like Original Sin and transubstantiation, not to mention policies like making rape victims give birth to their rapists' children and opposing condoms to prevent the spread of HIV.
Awfully shallow of us. Same problem, I 'd suppose, that makes the Emperor look so naked.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)That's the hand we've been dealt, and they're the ones atheists often oppose.
Apparently the writer of this post is not aware of this fact. I'm glad to educate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)About 30% of Americans take the bible literally, according to a 2011 Gallup poll.
About 49% say it is the "inspired word of God", but don't take it literally.
About 17% say it is a book of ancient stories written by men.
Even if you sort by church attendance, your statement is not backed up by this data.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx
Did you have some other data to support your claim?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)as is 46% - the proportion that thinks God created humans within the last 10,000 years - which is, basically, a literal interpretation of Genesis from chapter 2 onwards, in a largely Christian country.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
cbayer
(146,218 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)If I heard that 30% of all cars made by a specific company burst into flames without any warning, I'd think of that as a pretty large percentage of those cars, thus causing me to avoid them at all costs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)large percentage, lol.
It's perspective, which forms opinion.
So we are both right!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)NO ONE is EVER wrong. That's just sooooooooo unnerving.
But would you say that 30% wasn't that much if it were people who thought the earth was flat? How is believing in the literal truth of the bible any less stupid or damaging that you would say 30% isn't a very large percentage?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"large" and "significant"?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)To be honest, I do not understand the author's issue with atheists taking on this literal interpretation head on. If somebody has some non-literal interpretation, then that's good for them. I'll gladly listen to it, but I won't have much else to say as I don't have faith in it to begin with.
But the literal interpretation is a different story all together. THAT one is something that can be directly countered with science. It seems to me the author should me more irritated with those that espouse the literal interpretation, not those countering it. Maybe the author just had an ax to grind against atheists...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Plus the percentage of bible believers that take the bible literally is larger than that since the 17% that say it is a book of ancient stories written by men are not among the bible believers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and it's this group that is most likely to take up causes that we (Democrats, progressives, liberals) strongly disagree with.
The good news, at least according to this poll, is that the number is the lowest it has been.
So maybe there is hope.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)'Because atheists believe they have the corner on reason and logic, they develop an inflated sense of their own intelligence. They gather for “Reason Rallies” as though reason was a wholly owned subsidiary of Atheism Inc., rather than something inherited from the centrality of Aristotelianism to Catholic theology, and thus to Western civilization'
ALL atheists? Some atheists, like some religious people, and some musicians, and some football fans, and some parents, and some offspring, and some etc. etc., have an inflated sense of their own intelligence. But it's not the definition of atheism. People do not choose to not believe in God becaise they think it makes them clever. Mostly, they don't 'choose' to not believe in God at all; they just aren't convinced to believe in a God.
'And that’s why we’ll never have a concrete answer to the mystery of creation as expressed in Genesis: it was a pure act of unselfish love. It was a pure gift, given in generosity as an expression of a love so vast and endless that it willed all things into being. It’s the puzzle at the heart of existence, and we do well to question it, to ask what it means, to try to make sense of it all. But in order to do that, we need to ask the right questions in a spirit of humility and genuine inquiry. Atheists need to stop asking silly questions about how plants grew before the sun was created, and start asking questions that are truly challenging for both believer and non believer.
You see, creation itself is a giant, complex, ever-renewing answer the most important question of all. It’s a question so profound and so basic to our existence that the answer has to be written across eternity. The question is “How do I express love?” When we ask that question, our answers may vary. You can say “I love you,” you can give a gift, you can perform some act of love, you can make something, you can sacrifice, even unto death. All human life is bound up in the way we answer that question.
And how does God answer that question? The answer is all around us. We’re looking at it, walking on it, breathing it. Creation. Life. The Universe. Time. Space. Matter. God’s answer to that question was simple and profound: Let there be light. And that light was the life of the world.'
Well, this is his faith. That's fine. However, the idea that the world was created by God out of pure unselfish love is by no means the only possible conclusion that one can draw from the fact that the world exists. Even those who believe that the world was created by a God or gods do not necessarily believe that it occurred out of 'pure unselfish love'.
'Atheists have nothing to say about religion and creation that is of the tiniest possible interest to me.'
Then why bother to discuss things with atheists at all?
'Denial of God is about intellectually credible as denial of the holocaust'
That is actually a very offensive comment to anyone who knows Holocaust survivors.
'Although I have not yet chosen the topic for my master’s thesis, one area I’m considering is the understanding of creation in Genesis, Augustine, and Ratzinger/Benedict'
I think this last sentence sums it up. In other words, 'I have just graduated with a good degree, am starting my Masters, have read a lot of interesting stuff, and now I understand logic and the world better than anyone else, certainly better than you atheists.' No, I don't think ALL clever young graduate students have an inflated sense of their own intelligence either; but some do, and most of them if they really are clever will become more nuanced with time.
rug
(82,333 posts)So is what he is critiquing.
Obviously one cannot sweep all atheists into one group. Nor can anyone sweep all Christians or all believers into one group.
Yet, they do.
Hence this essay.
As to his last paragraph, you should browse reddit sometime. It's amazing the empowerment a high school diploma conveys.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)He is critiquing ALL atheists.
I would not be surprised if some of the atheist students who go head to head with him in debating-society-type back-and-forths may fit this description. He does not thereby have a right to lump all atheists together.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nor do those atheists, or more preciely, antitheists, who routinely lump believers together.
Regardless of whatever goal they think they're achieving, it just makes them look stupid.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)and who despises liberal Christians. He loves the Catholic bishops, though.
