My youngest brother Joshua writes:
Now, before I continue, let me type this out: Stephen Baldwin is a born-again Christian. I … I want to say more but my brain literally cannot think of anything more funny than that.
Perhaps the resurrection of Christ will help to resurrect his career. And in more good news for God, Stephen is going to continue to pray for brother Alec because of his “open hostility to religious conservatives.”
See http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5C%5CPolitics%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200409%5C%5CPOL20040902c.html, which also contains such gems as:
On July 28 in Boston, Alec Baldwin slammed the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP.
“To me, the Republican Party is the real great tragedy of the last 25 years because there are lots of good and decent people and a lot of good political points [that have] come from the Republican Party in the post-war period, but it has been hijacked by these fundamentalist wackos,” Baldwin said at a DNC panel discussion featuring celebrities.
“I am going to love [Alec] till the end of time and continue praying for his understanding,” [Stephen] Baldwin responded.
Kirk’s argument for the fact that atheists were really agnostics is as follows: if I say that there is no gold in China, then the only way I can prove that is if I comb the country to make sure there is no gold; otherwise, I cannot prove that there is no gold in China. But if I say that there IS gold in China, it’s easy to prove — all I have to do is find a guy with a gold ring and say “Hey, look, gold!” Simple as that! I am now an agnostic! See folks — semantics IS important.
Have you taken a Logic class yet? When I was at BSU (Motto: We put the B.S. before you) the class was PY101. I loved the class and struggled to get a “C” in it. But anyway, one of the simplest rules of logic is that you cannot prove a negative.
By their logic, if they were to assert “There is only the Lord thy God”, I could say, “oh yeah, well prove that Thor and Ra and Zeus don’t exist!” Until they can comb the universe and prove that they don’t exist, they are agnostic with respect to Norse, Egyptian, and Greek mythology as well.
They also misunderstand the term “atheist”. “Theist”, of course, comes from the Latin root “theo” for “God”. But the “a-” part doesn’t mean “no” it means “without”. An atheist, therefore, is one who follows a philosophy devoid of God; he doesn’t make a claim as to God’s existence whatsoever.
It’s a nuanced form of agnosticism, if you think about it. Agnosticism says, “God may or may not exist, whether He does or doesn’t is of no matter to me.” I think it’s a defensible stance. Certainly the maker and shaper of all universes probably has something better to do than listen to a hairless ape pray for a winning lotto ticket.
But an atheist says, “I’ve been given no valid scientific evidence, philosophical rationale, or physical proof to believe in this ‘God’ you speak of.” The burden of proof is not to prove that God does not exist. That is the deist point-of-view Cameron and his buddy are making. They want to frame atheists as people who willingly deny the obvious existence of God. An atheist point-of-view is dangerous to their livelihood — what, you mean you actually question what we tell you?
Here’s another argument that follows that twisted logic. I have a magic keyring in my pocket that keeps tigers away. But there are no tigers in Oregon, you might think. Aha! My keyring works, doesn’t it!
So yeah, that just came to my mind while reading your blog. My argument has problems with it, too, I’m sure, but I think the core of it is solid.
I’m not sure I followed where they were going with the liar argument. Your rebuttal to it is perfect: I’ve thrown a football, but I ain’t a quarterback. This is another PY101 truism, first examined by Socrates, I believe. The example is: Socrates is a man, but not all men are Socrates.
It is so fun to have conversations with religious folk, especially if they have the urge to convert me. First of all, I have a pretty detailed knowledge of the Bible, and what I don’t know is easily looked up on Google. I love talking Bible, because it is the, well, Bible of inconsistency.
Just starting out with Genesis you already get a heaping helping of inconsistency. One story has God creating Adam and Eve. But another chapter further has God creating Adam, then Adam gets lonely, so God takes a rib out of Adam to make Eve. So which is it? Look, if you’re going to claim that the Bible is the Divine Word of God, then God needs to get Himself an editor with an eye for consistency.
But that’s too easy, and most people who consider themselves Christian, or at least profess a belief in God, don’t really buy into a lot of the Bible stuff. So I just tackle them at the initial premise: that there is a God at all. (Most bullshit is founded on one big initial premise, and if you can buy that, the rest of it all makes sense. Like if you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, then Mormonism makes sense. If you believe that Arab Muslims are all alike, then going after Saddam makes sense. If you believe “they hate us for our freedoms”, then invading their countries and killing tens of thousands of their civilians makes sense.)
Anyway, I just ask them this, “Where did the Universe come from?”
“God created it.”
“OK, where did God come from.”
“God has always been. God is infinite. He is the Alpha and the Omega.”
“OK, so you’re telling me that no one created God?”
“Right.”
“So God has always existed and no one had to create him.”
“Right.”
“So you believe that there is something that required no creation and exists infintely, right?”
“Right.”
“OK, so if we believe in infinity and we believe that existence doesn’t necessarily imply creation, why not just assert that the universe is infinite and required no Creator?”
Then watch as they furiously try to refute the irrefutable. Then for fun, ask them if they pray to this God.
“Well, of course I pray!”
“Do you believe God has a divine plan?”
“Yes.”
“Do you believe that God is omniscient?”
“Yes.”
“So, God knows everything, past, present, and future, and He has a divine plan for all the Universe.”
“Yes.”
“So, if what you are praying for is part of God’s plan, then it is going to happen whether you prayed for it or not, right? You want a winning lotto ticket, and that was part of God’s plan, so you get it, right?”
“I suppose if it is God’s will.”
“But if what you pray for isn’t part of God’s plan, isn’t it awfully presumptuous of you to ask God to change His divine plan for your personal needs? You want a winning lotto ticket, but it’s not in God’s plan, so He’ll either ignore it or grant your prayer. If He grants your prayer, He’s changing His plan, but if He does, then He is not omniscient.”
“Uh…”
“So you pray, God grants it if it’s in His plan and ignores it if it isn’t in His plan. So why bother praying? God’s already written out the play; you’re just an actor reading the lines. And no ad-libbing!”
The real fun comes when you start attacking this line of reasoning that mankind are sinners who can only be “saved” by proclaiming a love of Jesus. (Side note: I wonder what kind of carpenter Jesus was. Was he any good at it? Maybe his customers are looking at a shoddy bookshelf and saying, “gee, kid, I hope that whole ‘savior’ thing works out for you…”)
I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. How do you properly refute the idea that all men, regardless of charity or good works, are sinners. Men were created inherently flawed by a God who loves them and created them in His own image, but they are bound to sin, and are destined for an eternal afterlife of excruciating pain. But this God impregnated a virgin whose child was tortured to death by the Romans, and if you say — you don’t even have to DO anything! — if you say that he is your personal savior, you’re absolved of your sin-debt and get to live an afterlife of eternal bliss. (Geez, at least the Muslims offer 72 virgins!)
“Radical” Russ — why is it that I am supposed to respect the beliefs of people who tell me such crazy things, but I am supposed to belittle the crazies who spout UFO theories… when there are at least some shreds of evidence to support the latter?…
____________________________________________________________________
|
_ | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/
| Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this
| © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.