My readers are a cruel people. They send me links to the strangest things, including this wacky fundagelical rant, exposing me to the bubbling looniness simmering beneath the thin shell of rationality in this country, and making my brain hurt.
So much for the logic of religious atheism. Their problem is really that they don’t accept the doctrine of original sin or free will; they want to blame God for our sorrows. It really comes down to that. If there is a God, they think God should force us all to behave correctly, and if God won’t, then God must be evil, therefore they won’t believe in God under the rubric of plausible deniability.
Religious atheism? What’s that? This person seems to be incapable of understanding that atheists simply don’t believe in any gods, so it’s awfully silly to then claim that they’re upset because they want to place blame on a god. It isn’t just one infelicitous phrasing in a single paragraph, either—she goes on and on about how atheists are “denying human responsibility” and want to “blame God”.
Worse still, that’s the least crazy point in the article. It starts off with a tirade against the “morally insane” Jimmy Carter, that he’s not a good Christian and would fit in well with the Islamic extremists…and the Third Reich. I’m thinking the Zombie Hitler needs to join forces with some Zombie A-rab terrorists and a phantasmal “religious atheist” to cope with this level of lunacy.
Now, please, I’ve got grading to do…so much grading. So many papers. You people deal with the crazy talk, I shouldn’t be distracted.
That fact that these people feel so threatened by open, unapologetic expressions of atheism is precisely what makes open, unapologetic expressions of atheism so important. Which of course is one of the major themes of this blog.
Coming soon! A new series of short stories! The Adventures of the Religious Atheist!
Story One: Blaming God
———————-
THE END
———————-
STAY TUNED for more Adventures of the Religious Atheist!
My response to this always is: “Do you believe in Zeus?”
“Uhhh….no?”
“Why the hell do you hate Zeus so much? Did he kill your father?”
It is theists that believe in an omniscient diety that don’t accept free will.
Whenever the local news covers a car accident or fire, they always manage to interview someone that will say, “It is part of God’s plan” or “it was meant to be”.
Zeus: I am your father!
“Whenever the local news covers a car accident or fire, they always manage to interview someone that will say, “It is part of God’s plan” or “it was meant to be”.
Yep. And when they DON’T die horribly, it’s God that saved them. Had co-workers like that, I had to listen to them talk about the car accidents they were almost in but escaped at the last second and how that made them know that God exists.
So if you are almost killed but live, it’s proof of God, and if you ARE killed, its proof of God. Damn, that’s convenient.
Free will itself is a nonsensical concept. I am not sure what people who say we have free will in the Christian sense are even saying. We do what we do because of who we are and we don’t consciously make ourselves who we are. What they don’t understand is that we don’t need to believe in free will to have a fairly fleshed out notion of what it means to be responsible for ones actions.
If Christians really believed in free will, they wouldn’t go to any effort to raise their kids any particular way – everyone is apparently eually free to make the same choices afterall. Nor would they prefer a child with their own genes to any other child since genes have nothing to do with behavior since we all have free will. Making choices is not hte same as free will – free will is a comment about where those choices come from. And a particularly strange comment since free will claims our choices come from…exactly nowhere.
I notice that despite that article talking about something Jimmy Carter said it only links to another rant about Carter which in turn also links to another rant. None of them point to any third party source for whatever it is they are talking about.
Dr. Dawkins, and I’m assuming Dr. Myers, were never especially religious.
The above calls to mind Dawkins’ apparent surprise at the anger which often accompanies de-conversion. In light of Dr. Dennett’s discussion (in Breaking the Spell) of the attachments we form to groups which are ‘expensive’ to belong to, there seems to be a straightforward reason why this is so. (The emotional reaction to throwing away all those twenties in the donation plate, wasting countless Sunday mornings when you could have been watching Cosmos… or just sleeping… working on bake sales, attending special religious classes, etc.)
As a confirmed ex-Catholic, I am very clearly an unappologetic God-hating atheist (I hate the -idea- of God, the fictional character of God. Hating something doesn’t make it exist any more than loving it would.)
The anthropomorphic conception of God displayed in the Bible is an ugly thing which cheapens the human experience and retards needed change. To suggest that such a petty thing as the God of the Old (or New) Testament had created the entire universe now evokes the same visceral reaction that suggestions slavery should be the norm would.
Brian, as far as I can see freewill is the hypothesis that people are to blame for their own actions (instead of God).
What they don’t understand is that we don’t need to believe in free will to have a fairly fleshed out notion of what it means to be responsible for ones actions.
Right, but that’s because you don’t have an omniscient, omnipotent being who created you and everything else to fit into a strict schedule of pre-planned events. If you did beleive that then you’d find it really hard to blame anyone but God for any behaviour, and therefore you’d find the doctrine of “free will” very useful. It’s theological buck-passing. It makes God like George W. In charge of everything yet to blame for nothing.
This post has been linked in the comments section over there.
The logically impaired should be coming around soon.
This is for them.
American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā’thē-ĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I notice that despite that article talking about something Jimmy Carter said it only links to another rant about Carter which in turn also links to another rant. None of them point to any third party source for whatever it is they are talking about.
I suspect it has something to do with his latest book, which has cast him as part of the Vast Anti-Semitic Conspiracy among antisemitic conspiracy theorists to kill all semitic people (even those semitic people who are themselves part of the vast antisemitic conspiracy to wipe them out).
Yes, Carter has revealed himself to be insufficiently anti-Palestinian for them.
Personally, I don’t understand how the concept of “Original Sin,” where all humans, if not the entire Universe, are all broken and cursed due to the crimes of their legendary ancestors implies a “loving” God.
I’ve never quite understood how you create beings with no “knowledge of good and evil” and then punish them and their descendents for ever for believing what some other being said to them. How on Earth were they supposed to understand lies or disobedience or wrongdoing? DavidByron is absolutely correct: it’s buck-passing.
Religous atheists are the worst kind of all — I don’t even feel comfortable with one of them in the room with me. Call me old fashioned, but I like my drinks cold, my music loud, and my apostates godless.
I really, really hate being told what I think by assholes like this one.
Speaking of kookiness – have you heard this one? People who believe in evolution are racists. It’s from a youth bible with comics.
Ah, thanks for the amusing link. Or should I say frightening link? The problem is that this person actually believes this drivel.
Religious atheists, you know like all the meat eating vegetarians, Jews for Jesus, and Christian conservatives.
Well, my wife and I are Theravada Buddhists. Which means that we are technically religious atheists. Somehow I don’t think that’s what the dimwit in the article was referring to, though.
Ric, you think it’s frightening? I have to share a state with that woman. And given the population distribution of the state, there’s at least a 1 in 10 chance we’re in the same county.
The bits about Jimmy Carter are interesting, in that they only contradict roughly 100% of what Carter has ever said or done in his life. As DavidByron said above, Carter is only guilty of failing to sufficiently condemn a particular set of The Enemy as defined by the right-wing loons.
“Personally, I don’t understand how the concept of “Original Sin,” where all humans, if not the entire Universe, are all broken and cursed due to the crimes of their legendary ancestors implies a “loving” God.”
Trust me, “loving” is simply a cover, useful in proselytizing. Nothing more. As for “original sin” even their holy writ is schizo on the subject….
You’re guilty!
“Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
You’re not guilty!
“Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
You’re guilty!
“Jeremiah 32:18
Thou … recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them.”
You’re not guilty!
“Jeremiah 31:29-30
In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity.”
The problem with the quoted excerpt isn’t that it assumes that atheists believe in a god which they hate; it’s that it takes atheological arguments at face value, instead of as reductio ad absurdum.
…they think God should force us all to behave correctly, and if God won’t, then God must be evil…
Yes, some atheists say that’s what God should be like — based on theists descriptions of God.
Grumpy said, “Yes, some atheists say that’s what God should be like — based on theists descriptions of God.”
In that God is Love, even though He condemns every single one of us to death for our own sins, and for the fact that Adam didn’t stop Eve from eating the Forbidden Fruit?
Actually I don’t think that “sins of the fathers” is the same thing as “original sin”. Not that it matters. The quotes you provide are still pointed.
the blog’s title is:
MaxedOutMama
I knew this had to have something to do with drugs.
Amen to that. I wonder if Carter isn’t, at this point, morally insane.
morally insane?
Is that some new fundy fakewordery?
I’m sure Stephen Colbert would analyze it for truthiness value.
Talk about a grumpy god…
That’s it! I told you not to eat the apple! You and every human ever born is screwed!
Unless you do some serious sucking up every generation from here on out is not getting into heaven… oh, I didn’t mention heaven, sorry… doesn’t matter! You’re not getting in!
Oh and cover up your reproductive organs are showing. I’m tired of looking at them.
And here I thought it was all the fault of that damned talking snake…
I think a major contributing factor in this argument is that people of faith don’t know what an atheist is, and usually conflate it with “anarchist” and/or “nihilist”, both of which are, imho, considerably more retarded philosophies than atheism. It took my wife ten minutes to explain to her mother that her son-in-law didn’t have devil horns, three penises, or a penchant for Christian infant juice. (After that they talked about getting me Jesus H Christmas presents off my Amazon wishlist, which is considerably better than last year’s gift of the compleat set of Left Behind books…)
I’d call this “playing Devil’s advocate”, but somehow, it just doesn’t seem appropriate…
You’re guilty!
“Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
You’re not guilty!
“Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Well, sure. In the first quote he’s talking about himself, in the second quote he’s talking about laws among and enforced by men. A charitable interpretation is that he’s infallible, so it’s fine to do that, but human judges aren’t. A less charitable interpretation is that he’s a gleeful old bastard, one of those parents or high school principals who wants a reputation for being tough but fair but always errs on the side of the former. “I don’t care who started the fight, you’re both expelled!”
But the point is, the two quotes may be amoral and easily distorted, but they are not necessarily logical contradictions.
morally insane?
Is that some new fundy fakewordery?
Yeah, that was pretty annoying too, and it seems really common these days. I try to avoid stuff like that myself. Once in a while you have to say “intellectually lazy” or “moral cowardice” because leaving out the adjective changes the meaning, for example, but I’ll never utter “intellectually dishonest” in the usual context. If I really want to say that there’s no way my opponent is misled or mistaken, they must be lying through their teeth and there’s no point in further discussion, then I hope I’ll be willing to come right out and say it rather than use something like “intellectually dishonest.”
Christian infant juice,/i>
I hear they carry that at Trader Joes now. I’ll have to pick me up a case.
It used to be better when it was just “fresh squeezed” and not also flash-pasteurized.
oh well.
On original sin:
Presumably, The God of Abraham didn’t want mankind to have knowledge of good and evil so that they wouldn’t appreciate God’s own moral failings.
I mean… if you were Job, wouldn’t you be trying to get into heaven just so you could flip God off to His face? There must be thousands of crowd control angels to keep back the childhood smallpox victims alone.
If there is a God, they think God should force us all to behave correctly, and if God won’t, then God must be evil, therefore they won’t believe in God under the rubric of plausible deniability.
The last time I began to ponder something by starting with “If there is a God . . .”, I realized that I know absolutely nothing about how God would go about its business. Nothing at all. The reason was startlingly obvious; I have none of the qualities attributed to it by the only known sources which are scripture and the priesthood. Its qualities, it turns out, are based on the same circular argument as the reliability of scripture.
It goes like this: the nature of God is known with certainty by a study of the scriptures. These deepest studies, contributing materially to official church dogma, are carried out by the elect, the priests. In order to become first priests and then priests trusted to carry out studies to clarify or illuminate certain arcana of belief, they must first demonstrate a dedication to the faith that can insure that their studies and conclusions will most probably support the current thinking.
The priesthood is already deeply hooked by the comfort of dedication. Before they ever lay hands on sacred texts or become familiar with the “deeper issues,” they have passed subtle tests of reliability by the existing priesthood that are the very ones who examine and promote hopeful aspirants to numinous mystery.
This sounds typical of the larger cults. Roman Catholic, Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, and such. But even in small, obscure and isolated religions are burdened by basic human politics. We all like to be with our own kind. We make observations and judge the people in our spheres. We decide who we like and who we don’t. An survival adaptation? At any rate it is a low-level science that we all perform continuously.
Come to think of it, this type of behavior is typical of most people who assemble in groups without regard for the reason for the group.
Well, if I did believe in God, I’d also have to believe that he was possessed of a certain degree of mental acuity and emotional stability. After all, he created a highly complex universe that’s stable enough to be largely amenable to coherent and quantitative description and he couldn’t possibly have any psychological hangups thrust upon him by nurture or biology (being some eternal origin-less transcendent being and all).
So that rules out Yahweh. See? I’m not hating, and I haven’t undermined anyone’s free-will, or blamed God for my problems. Although, if he were real, I’d need to have some unkind words with him about his grand design for the human spine. I’m off to pop some anti-inflammatory medication.
Said Kseniya:
And here I thought it was all the fault of that damned talking snake…
That talking snake was the first sock puppet.
A gambling sock puppet.
On free will:
How about the free will to not be born in the first place? Do I get that choice? Or just a limited subset of choices once I’ve been tossed onto this planet?
It’s like tossing an innocent man into the Colliseum with Gladiators and lions and then pronouncing that you have given him “free will” to fight or not fight–the choice is his.
Give me a break . . .
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hello everyone.
This reminds of something in Catch 22. Yossarian is having an affair with a superior officer’s wife, and they are arguing about what kind of God they don’t believe in. Yossarian doesn’t believe in a murderous meglomaniac God, which she finds deeply upsetting because the God she doesn’t believe in is a kind and loving God. All my books are in storage, so I can’t look up the page number. Sigh.
Poor Adam and Eve. Never having seen clothing before, they mistook a sock for a snake. God didn’t even give them a chance.
“Right, but that’s because you don’t have an omniscient, omnipotent being who created you and everything else to fit into a strict schedule of pre-planned events. If you did beleive that then you’d find it really hard to blame anyone but God for any behaviour, and therefore you’d find the doctrine of “free will” very useful.”
But we are products of, in a sense, pre-planned events. IF you believe everything has a cause, then the fabric of the universe was, at the beginning, such that it would lead to what we have today in its totality. Nothing could have been different than it is. The entire world is a causal chain of admittedly countless events and the seeds of what MUST happen tomorrow already exist today. It is just too comples to predict.
Determinism is as true as evolution – nothing else makes logical sense and I think the objections to it are similar to the objections to evolution – that acecpting it might harm moral or ethical concepts we hold dear.
Talking about the doctrine of free will is like talking about the doctrine of a perpetual motion machine or the doctrine of the human wing. Both are logical and factual impossibilities.
To me the dilemma of free will might be the most interesting of the countless objections to God. We simply don’t have free will in the way Christians contend and we certainly couldn’t have it if there were a God either.
Luck Swallows Everything:
http://www.naturalism.org/strawson.htm