Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Dialogues With Hopeless Delusional Idiots ep. 1 epilogue

Before I continue with the primary content of this little series, I wanted to include some particularly hilarious responses I got from the first one.  Since the Google+ feed of comments/responses is directly visible at the original posting, I'm more or less not including anything from there.  Instead, I'm including some of the direct messages I get here and there (such as on Facebook, where anybody can message anybody).  Some of them are truly amazing, and I feel it is only right to include them so that everybody gets a good laugh.  Note that I'm only including the responses from delusional idiots in order to keep up with the theme of the series. I will say that I got a lot more positive responses than ones from crazed religious morons, but there is clearly a great deal more entertainment value in reveling in the inane stupidity borne of faith the world over.

So without further ado, I submit to you some truly magnificent morons.

This first one is probably one of the more well-thought out ones --
shut up commie ass
I kid you not.  That's the entire message.  I'm lost where the "commie" part comes in, but it's obvious that he didn't bother to read anywhere beyond the first line of anti-religion sentiments.  That's all he had to say.  I have to say I'm utterly floored.  I have to thank this person for his incredibly thorough and well-thought out essay on my flawed understanding of the social dynamics exercised through a theistic lens.  I had not really thought of this.  What more can one possibly say?

I suppose one could say things that actually are based on reality.  But I can see how that would be a tremendously arduous undertaking for a person of faith.

Moving on --
I get the whole stuff about the islamists doing all kinds of evil shit and all, but your way off base about Christians. No one has ever killed in the name of Christ, but blenty have died for him and his sacrifice which saved us we are all rescued and need to own up to that act. The phone Christians you talk of are all people who converted to atheist or muslim and then killed and did sodomy the definition of Christian is a follower of Christ so they can do no evil because that is the opposite. You are atheist so you have to spread nothing but lies about real Christianity.
Wow.  That's an entirely new form of the No True Scotsman fallacy.  I'm used to the whole "well, a *true* Christian yadda yadda yadda..."  But here, he goes as far as saying that they actually converted to something else and then they did things which are evil.  So do people convert, do evil, and then convert back and accept Jesus as their savior?  That's pretty convenient.  What about the people who try to legislate their beliefs into law?  Is that people pretending to be Christians, or is that not at all evil in your mind?  Oh, and since when is following Christ necessarily not evil?  If you bothered to actually read the Bible, you'll see that Jesus unambiguously orders the death of unbelievers, and in fact anyone of any non-Judeo-Christian sect.  He is the one who defines Hell and its eternal torments (something which simply didn't exist before).  He also purports the necessity and extolls the "virtues" of slavery.  He's also pretty clearly against women's rights and freedoms to any level.  Quite a large fraction of the things that secular people are actually in favor of in this day and age, Jesus was against.  He might have been progressive for his time, provided he existed, but that doesn't make him not evil at all...  wait...  does that mean that Jesus actually converted to atheism during those times?

This one is kind of interesting because the guy feigns politeness, but does it to hide the fact that he fits squarely in the crazy category --
I can totally understand where you're coming from with those things that people do, but I think you have to see that people do it because they're very earnest in their belief.  From a certain point of view, don't you think it's better that people are earnest in their belief than in their nonbelief?  That's why we suspend our nonbelief when we watch movies, isn't it?  I don't think Sandra Bullik is really an astronaut, but Gravity was an awesome movie.  And God is even more awesome.

It only seems a little mean to you and it's okay to be frustrated by it because people talk like they will retaliate by sending you to the God you wish you knew.  But that point at least I totally agree with them. You keep talking about evidence, but what greater evidence is there than seeing God in person and if you have to repent only at the moment of death when you face his judgment, then that's okay, too.  The Lord will accept you.  It is probably better to do that sooner than to wait for armageddon and not be part of the rapture.  And believe me.  I know that its coming.

The stuff you atheists or anti-theists like to call the "Christian Sharia" is probably only weird because of the approach.  In reality, there's nothing wrong with it because they're just trying to force the truth on everybody.  There's nothing wrong with getting people to obey laws that are true.  I understand that the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, but you'll get over it when you step into the light.
Ummm...  well, that's about the most amicable death threat I've ever seen.  I don't know how smart it is to cite fiction for suspension of disbelief and then draw that analogy to your god.  I think it only serves to cement the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction.  I especially love how this guy pretends to be all nice, and then tells you that it's "probably" a good thing that people would prefer me dead.  Very Christian of you, and that's not being facetious.  It actually IS very Christian of him.  People like to talk about Muslims being violent these days, but if Christianity or Judaism was dominant in the Middle East today, it's a pretty good bet that it would be Christians or Jews who are the most violent.  Let's not forget that all of these originate from the same basic texts, and they all profess that genocide of non-believers is a virtuous act.

I suppose one point worth considering, though, is that point about demanding Judeo-Christian Sharia is in line with requiring people to believe in the truth (at least from his perspective).  Wishing for a world without religion or archaic nonsensical beliefs is no different in its meaning from my perspective as a theocracy would be from his.  The key difference is that any and all religions can be demonstrated as false.  While it may be difficult to disprove a tremendously vague and nebulous definition of "god", it is very easy to disprove a highly specific and well-defined definition of "god" as it is outlined in the scripture of any extant religion, without having to rely in the least bit on opinion or bias of any sort.  Furthermore, we don't have to rely on one source or a single line of inquiry, but on a concordance of multiple lines of evidence.

Moving on...
you think you're so smart, stupid atheist? You think you know our religion so good and our believes so good and can see in to averything we think and feel and know ?  can your silly atheism allow you to read my mind? no so then shut the fuck up  did atheism invent 2+2 = 4?  did it evolve over millions of years and it used to be 2+2 = 2 before? Where did that come from  ?it came from GOD  THAT IS A FACT
Hmmm...  well, that was bizarre.  He goes from mind-reading to the "evolution" of 2+2 = 4.  I found it hard to stop laughing when I read the arithmetic evolving over millions of years part.

So, can being an atheist mean I can read your mind?  No, but scientific literacy and an understanding of logic, which in turn strongly informs my disbelief in any and all god, does bestow unto me a certain magical power -- the power to see bullshit!  And you, my friend, have plenty to go around.

I don't know who taught him that "evolution" applies to everything that atheists say, but it's a common mode of argument.  The reason why I think it happens is because living things are one of those fields that for a long time, "God" didn't have any competition.  Physics, chemistry, etc., "God" was pushed out a long time ago, but it didn't really weigh that heavily on anyone personally.  Life was always special, and evolution was the last straw.  The other thing is that it defeats the notion that humankind is somehow magically special or exalted in some way, which is one of the primary comforts espoused by religion.  And so, people see evolution specifically as the key affront to the idea of a personal god.  Because the religious see "God" as the explanation for everything, the "adversary" that is evolution is viewed in mirror image as the explanation for everything that the non-believer accepts.  Of course, there has never been even an isolated incidence of any evolutionary biologist who claims that it explains arithmetic.  Likewise, no creationist has ever actually correctly identified what evolutionary biology actually entails.  If you can't even correctly describe the thing you're arguing against, don't pretend you are eligible to have a say on the matter.

Also, I've frequently run across this idea of "absolute laws" such as mathematical or logical laws and proclaiming that this necessitates an "absolute law-giver"...  and this is nothing more than a horrible case of equivocation on the meaning of the word "law."  Science and mathematics are *descriptive* systems, not prescriptive/proscriptive.  They are not directives; they are not restrictions; they are not moral statements.  They describe things that we observe to be true.  These laws are not given, but found.  What we call a "law" in mathematics is something that we can show to be true about relations between quantities and forms under highly specific conditions.  What we call a "law" in science is a broad-sweeping generalization about a certain class of observations...  the fact that those things exist to be observed means that the law is an emergent result of that fact.  We don't know that 2+2 = 4 because somebody made it so...  but because the notion of quantity is intrinsic in the fact that there exists something.  Now you can get into why things exist, but that is irrelevant to what math and science are.  The nature of the questions they address is why there can never be a "giver" for those laws...  it isn't even logically tenable for there to be a "giver" of laws of logic and math and science.

And then there's this last one.  (note : I know there's some offensive language in this one, but I'm leaving it as is because that just goes to show more clearly how people think).
Yeah...  because nothing says truth like ALL CAPS, lack of punctuation, horrible grammar, poor spelling, and racial slurs.  I don't think I need to say anything about this one.  It pretty much proves itself wrong by its sheer existence.  I don't know where he connects 9/11 to science or the existence of god to the moon landings, but I guess fundies do indeed say the darndest things.  This is a sad sad world.

No comments:

Post a Comment