Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
OK, one more for John Shore, the folksy, friendly Christian apologist. He doesn't seem to be getting it.
John wrote a post on his blog called "Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?. Atheists responded in the comment section. One in particular, "Instrumann", responded quite forcefully, with the correct argument; that is, that atheists are NOT "angry at God". Rather, we do not believe that God exists. So, how can we be angry at an imaginary magical being? What we are angry at is the fact that believers in this magical man in the sky influence the laws that are passed in our society, and sometimes insist that everyone kowtow to their own particular flavor of religious fairy tale.
[Instrumann] I don’t hate god. That’s a ridiculous statement. I don’t believe in any god so how could I hate one? I hate the fact that so many people invest so much of their time and energy believing fairytales and living their lives according to the rules of the fairytales.
I have to share my world with lunatics, simpletons, delusional people and people who are just too lazy to bother questioning what’s been force fed to them since they were kids. I do hate that fact.
John Shore, responding to Instrumann's comment, had this to say:
[John Shore] The harshness of your proclamation does compromise you being taken seriously. It’s too mean. Once you show people such bilious disrespect, you kind of forfeit your own right to be respected. Which is kind of a shame, because (as you know) there is much reasonableness to all you’ve said.
John, he was not showing anyone "bilious disrespect". He wasn't respecting your wacky religious beliefs, and he explained exactly why he does not respect them.
Listen very carefully, John. He is certainly disrespecting your magical thinking, but he is not disrespecting you.
I am the same way. I am kind to people, and I respect them as human beings. But my respect for them as people does not automatically spill over into respect for any strange, weirdo idea that happens to pop into their heads. For example, one of my dearest friends in the world is a believer is astrology. She is one of the few folks outside my own family that I would quite literally do anything for, up to and including giving my own life for hers if it came down to that. However, I will also tell her that I think she's being an idiot when she starts yacking-on about star signs and "readings".
Do I respect her? Absolutely. Do I respect her belief in astrology? Emphatically NO.
The problem is that religious beliefs in our society have traditionally been given a free pass - essentially having an unspoken immunity from criticism. So, when one of us dirty, nasty atheists says something critical about your beliefs, you seem to consistently misinterpret it as a personal attack.
It's just the way you were raised, John. Just the same way that you were raised to believe in magical sky men.
But we won't sit down and shut up any longer. Your fairy tale has too much influence on my life and on the lives of my family for me to keep quiet about it any more.
THAT is what all the comments are about. We are trying to stem what we see as a massively irrational and dangerous tide coming in that threatens us and our families personally. We are doing it by disagreeing with your ideas.
And you know what? Except for a few isolated lobbying groups, we are mostly doing it with words. Blogs, comments, books, and articles. There are no "militant" atheist groups - unless you stretch the meaning of the word "militant" completely out of shape until it ceases to have any real meaning at all.
Respect, in some situations, is given freely - like the respect that I give to every human being by the simple virtue of them being human.
Ideas have to earn my respect. Yours have not.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I just lost all respect for Shore
I'm glad I didn't spend too much time on Shore's blog after Brent first mentioned it, because I was over there just now and all I can say is, what a crock. His latest post is about how the retrograde rotation of Venus "is God's way of bringing all of humanity together under the one great and universal truth that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you believe in, love remains an insane thing you can’t predict, control, or feel comfortable with at all." The post before that is a ten-step "positive, irrefutable prove [sic]" that the whole Christian mythology is true. He starts from the assumption that "there’s a 50% chance that God is real" and it's all downhill from there, in a terminal meltdown of self-serving woo and blissful ignorance of how to make a logical argument. Once again we see that dime-store Christian apologetics is beyond satire, it's so incoherently self-parodying.
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
In Shor's defense
I believe both of the posts you mention are purely tongue-in-cheek on Shore's part. After reading some of his other posts, I can't believe he takes the premise in either of them seriously.
That doesn't excuse the simpletons who have posted defenses of the posts as if they were serious, though.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
To Downey
What is the deal with you being so sure of what everybody thinks? You don't know me. You clearly haven't read squat on my blog, or you'd realize how absurdly wrong you are about how I view Christians and Christianity. I make my living encouraging Christians to take seriously the sane, rational objections non-Christians have with Christianity, you dink. I wrote a whole book called "I'm OK--You're Not: The Message We're Sending Non-Christians, and Why We Should Stop"--a book that's brought me all kinds of attacks from the very Christians with whom, in your ignorance, you insist I'm affiliated.
As the very slightest example about how mind-bogglingly wrong you are about me, I don't have a thing in the world against astrology. I have a dear friend, in fact, who is a Jungian scholar famous for her work on the implications of astrology as it relates to the practical application of psychoanalytic therapies. People pay her a lot of money to do their charts. I love and deeply respect this person, and have no trouble whatsoever with her work.
Man. If you're going to dare to lecture people you don't even know about what they think, at least put some effort into being anywhere near right in your proclamations about them. Being astoundingly arrogant is one thing. Being astounding arrogant and butt-wrong is not, I imagine, a combination for which you'd prefer to be known.
(And I know people say this all the time, but please believe I won't be back here to see your response to this. I have enough experience with this sort of dynamic to know when I've stepped into a pocket of quicksand I'm all too pleased to leave behind. Good luck with the shrill, shallow, intensely narrow-minded Disdain-A-Thon to which you are so apparently dedicated.)
And respectfully, to Mr. Shore . . .
. . . while I realize you won't be back here, I nonetheless will respond.
Actually, I have read the threads Brent has linked to, and some others on your site, because I do respect someone willing to tackle the very real problems of Christian apologia head on. And you do, from what I have seen.
But you're right, I do not know you nor pretend to do so. I was simply responding to your comments posted here. I think that is fair.
By the way, what is a "dink"? If it is a Christian term of endearment, I must have missed it in my Sunday school classes.
Ah. Sorry about that. I chose it simply because it was referenced by Brent, and thought it a suitable thought-experiment. Does that mean that you do indeed accept the precepts of astrology as commonly practiced?
Nonetheless, another substitute will work just as well.
Let's try the basic Norse mythology, with which I have some familiarity. Again, the Wikipedia entry will serve. Consider someone who believes - or, perhaps, believed - in the pantheon of Norse gods, and that the destiny of the entire world/creation is already determined. And further, that this person believes - truly believes/believed - that it was both right and appropriate to sacrifice other humans to appease their gods and insure continued health and prosperity for their people, or even just to determine the will of the gods at some times and places.
This belief system, you may or may not be aware, was widely believed for centuries, by millions. Many different human cultures across northern Europe had one form or another of it. There are even people today who still adhere to it.
Now for our thought experiment: what is your opinion of Norse mythology (or Vuduan animism, Santeria, Egyptian mythology, or even Hinduism, for that matter)? Please explain how that opinion does not denigrate those who believe in these other religious traditions.
No lecture. Just pointing out that your belief system is no more privileged than any other, and at some point even you will draw the line and pass judgment on what is considered too silly for serious respect. And each of my examples is/was a *real* religion, without having to go to the point of citing the FSM or Pink Unicorns, or Christians who claim that God told them to drown their kids in the bathtub.
*sigh*
Let's be clear - nowhere in my comment was I shrill, though I suppose a subjective description such as "shallow" or "intensely narrow-minded" could be used. Asking whether you were intellectually consistent enough to defend all forms of "belief" as being equal doesn't strike me as being shallow or narrow-minded, but to each their own.
And for someone who claims to have been wronged by another who claims knowledge inappropriately, you seem to have made an awful lot of assumptions about me.
So, you are the sort to come in, drop an insulting comment, and then flee? Not terribly sporting, old chap. Nor intellectually honest. Do please note that I haven't come over to your place and pulled a similar stunt, symbolically brushing my hands afterwards and disdaining to actually engage in something resembling a conversation. Sure, we all have limited time and energy, and I have not sought to enter into a dialog on your blog - my choice. But to do a drive-by like this is nothing but cowardly, and my opinion of you is appropriately changed.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
What is a dink?
The answer is B-5 because it's got all the dinks.
Hilarious.
I'm *sure* that is exactly what Mr. Shore meant, Dirk. Thanks!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Respect
In my life I have always given a certin respect to people for simply being human.
However I also know that for me, respect above and beyond that has to be earned.
I will grant you there are many ways people can earn my respect, but belief in (god)the supernatural or paranormal when there is not one spec of supporting evidence or factual observation let alone a valid hypothesis for it's existence.
Thanks
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
I think I've been harsher
I think I've been harsher than Instrumann, but I can't get John to recognize me [sob!] Maybe because I keep asking direct questions and stuff. Or maybe I'm not nearly as interesting as I think I am.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Um. No.
You're wrong. Mr. Instrumann was clearly not addressing anyone's beliefs at all; I don't know how much clearer it could be that he was railing, very specifically, against people. "I hate the fact that so many people invest so much of their time and energy believing fairytales and living their lives according to the rules of the fairytales. I have to share my world with lunatics, simpletons, delusional people and people who are just too lazy to bother questioning what’s been force fed to them since they were kids. I do hate that fact." There's not a mention there of anyone's beliefs. He's calling people who DO believe something he doesn't lunatics, simpletons, delusional, and lazy. That's so hatefully rude that after that you can't take him seriously, because clearly he's putting emotion ahead of thought.
You're Still Not Getting It
OK. Back up. Rewind a bit.
John, I really, really (truly) like the way you write. You have an engaging style that draws me in and makes me want to read more that you write. I appreciate that you are willing to extend that friendly hand to us unbelievers, and to attempt to answer those difficult questions that we ask.
Trust me. I've seen a lot of apologists come and go. You are one of the best. Keeping it light, keeping it real, not ducking - these are all very admirable qualities that we enjoy.
But you're not getting it.
I don't care if you are offended. I don't care if you're funny. I don't care if you're friendly, and can grab-ass with the rest of us. The fact is that you are making a claim about the nature of the universe. You are stating, and defending, the idea that a god exists, and that this god happens to be your own particular flavor of god, named "God", the Christian God.
I think that's a crock of shit, frankly. So, if you expect me to respect that idea, you have another thing coming. "Instrumann" said it more harshly than I would have, but we agree on the basics.
He is NOT calling people who "DO believe something he doesn't" lunatics, simpletons, delusional, or lazy.
Instead, he is calling people who believe what YOU do, delusional, lunatics, simpletons, and lazy.
Yes, yes, I know. It is a subtle, but important distinction - one that you need to really need to try and grasp.
I still dont
Hi, Brett. Maybe he gets it now but I confess I dont. It's still calling people delusional, lunatics, simpletons, and lazy. I can see how a belief could be delusional, or lunatic, but I dont see how a belief can be a simpleton or lazy. So I assume he was using those terms to describe people and not beliefs.
For the record, I dont care if atheists call ME delusional, or lunatic, or a simpleton, or lazy. That's the nature of the medium we're using. So you guys shouldnt worry about that. (As if you needed to be reminded that. :-) )
Sense of entitlement.
Hmm. You're right, Mr. Shore. He is calling people who do believe those things names. He is making a value judgment about how much critical thinking is employed by those you characterize as 'believers'.
Let's try a little thought experiment: Consider someone who believes that human destiny is guided by the relationship of the celestial bodies to one another at the moment of that person's birth. And further, that this person believes - truly believes - that with sufficient understanding, education, and knowledge that it is possible to predict, based on the relationship of the planets, moon, and stars one to another at any point in time, what the future holds for any given human being. Correct, I am talking about astrology, selected as an example because Brent mentions his friend who believes in it.
Astrology, you may or may not be aware, is centuries old. Many different human cultures have practiced one form or another of it. Today it is still considered completely reputable as a 'science' by millions around the globe. According to the Wikipedia page cited above, some 31% of Americans consider it to be valid (that may or may not be accurate, given the nature of Wikipedia, but it will serve for my purposes.) Governments in several countries use it to guide affairs of state - even President Ronald Regan allowed it to influence the timing of meetings and the signing of legislation.
Now for our thought experiment: what is your opinion of Astrology? Please explain how that opinion does not denigrate those who believe in Astrology.
See, this is the thing: you consider any questioning of the validity of your beliefs to be beyond the pale, to be rude and outside acceptable behaviour. Why? Because of your sense of entitlement as regards Christianity. Because Christian 'revealed truth' is somehow more sacrosant, more privileged, than anyone else's 'truth'.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
If it makes you feel any better
If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe Instrumann was saying believers are all four of those things at once, but that they fall into at least one of those four categories.
And I think you're being rather uncharitable to say he wasn't addressing anyone's beliefs at all. You response to that one post ignored his other posts where he did address beliefs. You chided him for being harsh but failed to see that your cheerleaders were insulting him and other atheists by claiming that we just hate god, or want to be our own gods, or some such nonsense.
I think most people would recognize he was simply responding in kind, unless they had a particular axe to grind.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
A Noble Effort
But in my experience Christians are incapable of making that distinction. "Respect me, respect my beliefs" seems to be the operative cognitive schema.
Post new comment