One of the more absurd arguments for religion (in this case Christianity) I've seen today is:
"If God doesn't exist then there would be no Atheists so the existence of Atheists proves God exists".
No. Honestly!
By the same 'logic' if football didn't exist there would be no such thing as not playing football. Therefore it follows everyone would be playing football... if there was no such thing as football!
Yes, folks. People who think that makes any sense can readily fall for religions.
Let's see if we can get away with telling them that if there were no such thing as Atheism, everyone would be Atheist. We may even be able to get them to campaign for more Atheism so there would be fewer Atheists.
Hi Rosa Rubicondior,
ReplyDeleteIt's @DJRedstarr from twitter, I'm sure you remember me (you blocked me :( ).
I'd like to answer your blog. I understand your posts give off an impression that you are truly not looking for answers, but rather a chance to poke fun of, which is fine, this is your blog. I just want to share a different side.
I agree, its a poor quote. But I think the reference is based on etymology.
Atheist is derived from greek Atheos, "without God". The word "without" in today's times is interpreted as "not having", but originally meant "outside of". So the argument is based upon how can someone be outside of something, or without something that supposedly does not exist. The word was created with the acknowledgment of the existence of God.
Plus, man's limitation of the 5 senses makes a lot of things difficult to believe: explaining color to someone with no vision, or explaining the aroma of your favorite dish to someone without the ability to smell. These things technically do not exist to them, but to be "against" gives credit to the "existence of" and is different than the "non-existence" of something. I personally do not fight against things I do not think exist, and have always been troubled by Atheist taking this stance since it seems to be completely opposed to what the belief is.
@JDRedStarr
ReplyDeleteHi. I found your attempt to redefine Atheism amusing. Would I be right in thinking you needed to set up a straw man because you knew it would be impossible to attack real Atheism?
Hi Rosa Rubicondior,
ReplyDeleteIt's your friend @DJRedstarr.
I'm happy to amuse you :). But seriously, the straw man comment is true in the sense that the same can easily be said about what is written on this site. This is because the comment is opinion based. I think we as humans tend to over personalize issues in our mind which gives us a pass to takes things out of context. I am a seeker of Truth just like yourself. I just call myself a Christian and it's this label that makes some people scream. The truth is a Christian follows Christ, not man's interpretation, which is religiousness.
I don't think anything I said was an attack, only the pesky Ego makes it think it was. Many are free to believe what they want. But I think in order to have an understanding of each other, there has to be communication. To agree/disagree will always be based on opinion and faith because of the limitations of what we all know.
Look at Einstein, his theory of relativity is disproved. Neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light which meant time went backwards, and created negative weight and width. It completely goes against cause & effect and reverses it. Does that make Einstein a liar? I truly don't think so. Will physics need to be re-written? Possibly. We will have to wait and see.
@DJRedstarr: You should have waited until the experiments were done. Einstein's theory was not disproved. Neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light.
Delete@DJRedStarr
ReplyDeleteThank you for that amusing example of avoiding answering a direct question. This is the trick employed by many superstition promoters often because they are too embarrassed to give the answer. Sometimes, truly theophobic sufferers are too afraid that their god may see their thoughts written down.
Which was your reason?
Hi again, its @DJRedstarr,
ReplyDeleteI thought you understood. Your question has no answer, but the answer you are looking for.
"Would I be right in thinking you needed to set up a straw man because you knew it would be impossible to attack real Atheism?
My answer to you is No, but in the end it doesn't matter what my answer is. Your version of "Right" has to pass your pre-defined rules for "right" to make it so. What I gave you was a reference to go by, to answer your blog.
I didn't think I created a straw man at all. No. But it is equivalent to the thought you have about your own blog and your reason for it. The focus on this deters from what is trying to be accomplished. The search for Truth.
I'm surprised by the way you expect an "Attack" or "trick" each time but don't realize the expectation of it gives you an imagined self-fulfilling prophesy, to which you claim an imagined victory in proving it was coming. You are very intelligent, I'm just surprised you continuously do this.
So to answer your questions: I didn't think I avoided anything, but I hope you accept my direct answer above :). It was not a trick. I am not embarrassed (if i was i wouldn't be posting). I have written down what I think, and yes my God can see (and more). Was that all of it? I'm sure you will point out anything I missed.
"The truth is a Christian follows Christ, not man's interpretation, which is religiousness."
ReplyDeleteWhat these people miss is that the story of the christ they are following is exactly that. You are following the STORY about the character (real or not) called the Christ...not the actual person Christ and the actual things this person did. And followers of christ...if you only followed what christ would have you do...holy shit there is a whole lot of other stuff you do living on a daily basis in the year 2012 that isnt quite covered by the handful of stories about christ...so what do you do then...you proceed as you see fit, or you appeal to someone else to explain what THEY think you should do. Unless they think their conscious or someone else's conscious is jesus telling them what to do, i dont know how these followers of christ decide on what to do next. What do i do next then Lord?
And as far as "atheism", I dont like when people say, you dont believe in god, youre an atheist. Well...i dont believe god exists. I dismiss the notion that there is such a thing as god. So, IF atheism is disbelief in god...and I reject the notion of god...I dont only not believe in god...i dont believe god exists, what does that make me? is there another word for us? Or does atheism suffice?
The thing about a lot of christians is that they have fossilised not only their thinking but also their language.
ReplyDeleteUntil roughly the time of the enlightenment "atheist" meant "someone who does not believe in the same god as we do in the same way as we do". Anglicans called baptists atheists and they both called quakers atheists yet they all believed in the god of the Hebrews.
About the turn of the 18th century a new kind of thinker began to emerge - one who did not accept the existence of any god other than as a myth or symbol and slowly the word "atheist" became the descriptor for these people.
Fundamentalist religionists hung on to the old usage seeing atheists as people who believe there is a god but reject it.
They also dislike the idea of "religion" harping on about how they have a "relationship" with their god. But as mynonbelief points out what they call a relationship is just the affirmation of the stories they have heard and heard interpreted for them by the priests of their particular religion.