Tuesday, March 17, 2009

"Atheism is the View of the Feeble and Gullible."



"Atheism is the View of the Feeble and Gullible." That remarkable statement was actually made by a fundamentalist Christian. It’s difficult for most people to fathom that kind of convoluted logic knowing what we know about what makes one an atheist. But there it was, in black and white.

Free Thinkers value evidence. We are slow to accept concepts proffered as fact without it. I don’t know any atheists who blindly accept as genuine fortune tellers, ghosts, poltergeist, mind readers, or any of the vast assortments of fictional beasts that are alleged to haunt the woods and oceans and lakes. That’s not to say we wouldn’t if presented with enough proof to make the reality of their existence evident, it’s just that there has never been any satisfactory proof, and lots of evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, while we are interested in radical new scientific theories, most of us are skeptical and don’t jump on board until we gather more information, see the data peer reviewed and vetted, and are provided with corroborating evidence that gives the theory credence. Even then, we do not apply “absolute” acceptance. Thus, by definition, atheists are the exact antithesis of gullible (I won’t even broach the feeble charge).

Every few years a self appointed Christian shaman predicts the End times, the Rapture, and thousands of devout sheep baa their praise, give away their belongings, quit their jobs, and await the Second Coming, only to have it pass uneventfully. They pray for rain, gas prices to fall, peace to come to the earth, Aunt Jane to be cured from her brain dead condition, and yet when it doesn’t happen they still believe in prayer. They wave their hands and praise the Lord watching fake healers cure their fake co-conspirators. They believe Satan planted fossils to confuse us; that demons exist and can possess people; that angels fly around; that dead things come to life, etc. etc., all with as much evidence as exists for the Loch Ness Monster. This they consider discriminating.

Of course, if you tell a Christian you have a talking mouse in your pocket … THEN they’d demand evidence, proof. Ya can’t put anything over on them, after all there were no talking mice in the Bible, only talking snakes and talking donkeys.

So how can a theist make the patently absurd claim that “atheism is the view of the feeble and the gullible”? To fundamentalists the Bible is the actual or inspired word of God. It’s not a debatable matter; it’s a matter of faith. To them the Bible is both historically and scientifically accurate, for how could God deceive or make errors, or permit errors to be made in his name? Ignore the pesky overwhelming scientific proofs that contradict the Bible, faith is faith and that’s that; man’s knowledge is subservient to “God’s Word”. If this is the mindset of the unschooled, unthinking religiously fanatical then it is apparent to them that atheists, who accept theories in opposition to God’s Word, have been fooled. Never mind that our acceptance of scientific facts are based on detailed analysis and familiarity with a preponderance of physical evidence founded on natural principles; corroborated, tested and repeatable data that disproves ancient fable; we have been deceived, bamboozled.

Now some of them will say we are lead astray by science and the secular world. The most impaired adherents will credit Satan with our “deception”. But in either case we atheists have clearly shown our gullibly by accepting viable reality, evidence and proofs resulting from many years of scientific examination, discoveries, and technological advancements; while simultaneously rejecting the “obvious Truth” of unsubstantiated myth.

This reverse / perverse logic is what passes for critical thinking among the wackiest fundamentalist apologists. This is why his statement about atheists being feeble and gullible makes sense only to him and his similarly impaired brethren.

But then the fundie surprised me and offered this unexpected admission: “Christianity isn’t the thinking man’s religion.” For once I could agree with a fundie.

12 comments:

Rob R said...

"Atheism is the View of the Feeble and Gullible." That remarkable statement was actually made by a fundamentalist Christian. It’s difficult for most people to fathom that kind of convoluted logic knowing what we know about what makes one an atheist. But there it was, in black and white.

And here it is, out of context, gving weight to what I suspected, that you didn't understand my point.

And I retracted the comment (understanding my actual point and why it actually didn't work).

I'm not so insecure that I can't admit my mistakes. That's necessary if one wants to do what thinking people do.

Every few years a self appointed Christian shaman predicts the End times, the Rapture, and thousands of devout sheep baa their praise, give away their belongings, quit their jobs, and await the Second Coming, only to have it pass uneventfully.

Every few minutes, an atheist posts a blog commiting guilt by association.

DromedaryHump said...

Rob...
out of context? heheh..ok. Tell us, In what context should we take "atheists are feeble and gullible" that it makes sense, and where you wouldnt retract it?

Let me know the context in which that statement makes is more acceptable, more reasonable, and I will gladly withdraw this blog.

Nah, you withdraw the statement not because of some contextual problem, or because you consider it a "mistake", but because you realized how utterly inane the comment is to non-believers, indeed, to anyone with a modicum of acceptance of reality and truth. My blog reflects that clearly.

Fronting that statement then calling it a"mistake" is like Mel Gibson's "mistake" with his anti-semetic ranting. It wasn't a "mistake", it was an expression of how he feels. His "mistake" was letting it out in the open.

I note you didnt refute the facts I presented that explains what prompts a fundie like you to make such a statement. That's because the accuracy of my explanation is dead on, irrefutable.

Finally, your last sentence is a nonsequiter. It doesn't make sense; niot in the context of the paragraph you siuted, or in ANY context. NO, don't try and explain it, ... we'll just let it stand there as a testament to your desperation and/or stupidity.

Regards,
Hump

Rob R said...

Tell us, In what context should we take "atheists are feeble and gullible" that it makes sense, and where you wouldnt retract it?

I don't know drom. There is more than the issue of context here since I never said "atheists are feeble and gullible".

What I did have to say dealt with the liability of the third world undeducated and supersticious embracing any world view to that world view, even atheism. Because then THAT becomes the view of the uneducated (which is not to say it is ONLY the view of the uneducated). I'm not confident in the rhetorical strength of the point any more as I mentioned.

What I said wasn't even necessarily specific to atheism. The first part of that paragraph starts:

"But what I observe is that NO VIEW can win with your approach to be promoted amongst these people."

No view meaning not Christianity, not Mormonism, not Agnosticism, and so on. I explicitely applied my point to atheism because there was an atheist in the room trying to make a point about his view vs. mine.

Furthermore, your entire post (with regarde to me) is built around the idea that I was making a statement about what I perceived to be a present fact about the world (that atheism is currently the view of the gullible and feebleminded) when I was actually entertaining an idea about what would be the case if some state of affairs that doesn't obtain actually did.

Everything you attribute to me on this matter has different truth conditions from what I actually said.

Nah, you withdraw the statement not because of some contextual problem,

You're right, it wasn't that. Never implied otherwise. That'd be silly since I set the context up myself...within the greater context of our discussion.

but because you realized how utterly inane the comment is to non-believers,

No, that doesn't make much difference. For example, I'll make rational argument for ole mudrake and he thinks they are inane no matter what (and he'll never say why), such is the quality of thought there. I just don't feel the point was strong enough for my standards.

to anyone with a modicum of acceptance of reality and truth.

like someone who agrees with you without question?

Let me know the context in which that statement makes is more acceptable, more reasonable, and I will gladly withdraw this blog.

You do what you want. I know atheists can act ethically, but for atheists to act ethically with consistency is only an occasional delight.

I'm really not embarrassed by the fact I said it at all. I'm comfortable with the fact that I will make some mistakes, that I will think along lines that will lead to dead ends and so on. It's all part of the process that thinking people take. If there was something immoral about it, then I'd be embarrassed, but a dead end in rational thought, especially one that is recognized is not necessarily immoral and reason for embarrasment. It also wasn't central to anything that I hold with great importance... that could be a reason for embarrasment.

Now, the only thing I said embarrasing to me is that I said that people in the third world were feebleminded and gullible. That was a insensitive thing to say. I'll own my mistakes and correct them.

Finally, your last sentence is a nonsequiter. It doesn't make sense; niot in the context of the paragraph you siuted, or in ANY context. NO, don't try and explain it, ... we'll just let it stand there as a testament to your desperation and/or stupidity.

Suits me just fine if you draw attention to it. I accept that not everyone will comprehend a reasonable reply. I also take comfort in the fact that I'm "niot" the only horrendous mispeller here.

DromedaryHump said...

Rob said: "I never said "atheists are feeble and gullible"."


Wait a second!! In your first post to this thread you said you withdrew the comment. You said you weren't "so insecure that [you] can't admit [your] mistakes"; you said the statement wasn't in context; you never said you didn't make the comment, never even infered I misquoted you!!


NOW you're saying you never said it?? I cut and paste the exact comment you made in science vs fundie group and pasted it into my blog title. Now you're denyng it? Holy fucking jesus, you're a brazen liar.

Lying is one of the few things i don't tolerate here, along with Xtian poetry. Come back when you can drop that Christian need to lie, and can demonstrate some ethical behavior.

You just wore out youre welcome here.

DromedaryHump said...

correction: I referenced Rob's idiotic statement as coming from science vs fundie blog; I meant Mud's blog.

mud_rake said...

So how can a theist make the patently absurd claim that “atheism is the view of the feeble and the gullible”?

I suppose, Hump, that this was a rhetorical question which begs no answer.

It's like those Republicans who voted fore every bloated Bush budget, but now that the nation nearly imploded, are anti-spending.

Logic be damned, pardon the pun.

So, what was I doing on October 28, 1992? Apparently I missed BLAST OFF! I wonder who were aboard the golden basket in the sky. None of my friends, family or acquaintances either.

When's the next launch date?

Didn't Jesus's disciples think that 'it' would be while they were still alive? Major disappointment!

DromedaryHump said...

Mud,
Well, the answer to how they justify that statement is in the body of the blog. To them it isn't rhetorical at all. Problem is it only makes sense to people living in bizarro world.

The next big Rapture date is probably December 2012. That's the date the Aztec calendar runs out (well, its the date that the calendar recycles, since aztec concept of time is cyclical...but hey, nevermind the facts). Its all over the net.

Now, I havn't checked to see if the xtian sheep have bought onto it yet, but I suspect its just a matter of time. As the date gets closer they will likely work themselves into a frenzie over it.

I can hardley wait.

Hump

DromedaryHump said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DromedaryHump said...

well, yourpost prompted my curiosity. The Xtian nuts are already all over it. Among others is this site:

"... on December 21, 2012, a day that begins at 11:11 universal time, events will occur leading to the resurrection of the dead in Christ."

"SO WHEN DOES ANTICHRIST COME TO POWER? Count back 1260 days from December 21, 2012 and check the news for information about a charismatic diplomat who negotiates a peace treaty allowing Israel to re-start their system of sacrifice on the Temple Mount without threat from radical Muslims. The temple need not be built for the Jewish sacrifice to commence, but watch information about the rebuilding of the Temple on the site of Solomon 's Temple"

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/date_set.html

Here we go. The nuts are out of the nest. One can only wonder if Rob and his Mom are looking forward to 12/21/12 with anticipation.

mud_rake said...

12/21/12, eh? Sorry, but i have a dentist appointment in the morning and a vet appointment for my dog in the afternoon [annual anal sac squeezing].

By the way, while strolling thoough the park today, i found many pieces of 'Are You SAVED?' literature stuck in park benches along the pathways. LDS, again!

DromedaryHump said...

Mud,
Heheh...yeah..a good anal gland squeezing takes priority over the end of the world threat any day.

I hope your vet isn't a fundie, if he is you may have to move your appointment to another day.

123 123 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.