Monday, February 13, 2012
Religion Bible Study Letter of the Day: Pill the Christians!
Posted by Goldy on Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM
I'm not going to make any pretenses about it: I am a man who thinks Christianity is wrong and I don't like Christians. Your continued assertion that God is real is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence. However, how do you defend yourself in light of the following? There are Christians who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me atheist, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose Christianity! Since this seems to be the prevailing view of all Christians, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?
Curious To Know
3
@2, Except all Goldy is doing here is regurgitating the bigots post from the SL Letter. Nothing Goldy does is EVER good.
4
@3 The same could be said of Dan Savage. Don't mind these hateful bitches, Goldy. You're doing great.
5
Are we speaking about what should be in the hearts of Chtistians/homos, or what should be in the law?
In terms of the law, the answer is simple. Christians/homos should be perfectly free to hate and dispise homos/Christians. Christians/homos should be perfectly free to choose not to be friends with or do business with or homos/Christians. Christians/homos should be free to publicly denigtate homo/Christians. This answer is entirely independent whether Christians/homos are biologically determined or not.
In terms of the law, the answer is simple. Christians/homos should be perfectly free to hate and dispise homos/Christians. Christians/homos should be perfectly free to choose not to be friends with or do business with or homos/Christians. Christians/homos should be free to publicly denigtate homo/Christians. This answer is entirely independent whether Christians/homos are biologically determined or not.
6
@3, lets just fuck this shit up shall we?
I'm not going to make any pretenses about it: I am a man who thinks Goldy is wrong and I don't like Goldy. Your continued assertion that Dan Savage is real is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence. However, how do you defend yourself in light of the following? There are Goldy lovers who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me Dan Savage, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose Goldy! Since this seems to be the prevailing view of Goldy, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?
I'm not going to make any pretenses about it: I am a man who thinks Goldy is wrong and I don't like Goldy. Your continued assertion that Dan Savage is real is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence. However, how do you defend yourself in light of the following? There are Goldy lovers who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me Dan Savage, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose Goldy! Since this seems to be the prevailing view of Goldy, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?
7
Is Goldy Christian? Could have fooled me. Anyway, people who will believe religion don't depend on reason. That's too much trouble. It requires thinking abilities they just don't use. As much as it pains me to say it, hate is useless in this case. It would be like hating an ant because it can't think. Pointless. Just keep pressing education and science. Those two things can defeat ignorance. And hating ignorance is much more productive.
8
I think the correct solution to anti-theist-ists like CTW is to introduce them to Jesuits, or failing that, to some subset of the many recipients of a Jesuit education. I would think that such exposure may soften CTW's anti-theism to a more accepting atheism.
9
Oh but I don't hate Christians. Really, I love them! I just don't think they should get to push their agenda to children, so it would be best if they didn't work at our schools. We especially don't want male Christians around kids because...well...you know. Also, obviously since Christianity is so unhealthy, we shouldn't go promoting it by allowing Christians to get married.
/snark
/snark
10
Well, Christianity is a choice. No one is born Christian, and in fact, the vast majority of the world's population are not Christians, meaning Christians are extremist deviants.
11
I expect that a within a few more editions of the DSM, religiosity is going to be described as a mental illness.
12
I'm agnostic. I don't understand anyone who can be completely, totally sure of much of anything. That being said:
I believe religion is about tradition and narrative. The world is, as both science and art show us, incredibly and beautifully organized, yet somehow, strange, chaotic, unthinkable things happen all the time. How do we make sense of the randomness of existence? How do we make the triviality of living these weird lives and then dying mean anything?
We all have different ways of coping with this and finding comfort. Humans are biologically wired to invent continuity and create stories. This is just one way people do it.
And again.
I'm baffled by anyone who thinks they have THE answer to the God/no-God thing. I really think it takes the same amount of faith to believe in either.
I believe religion is about tradition and narrative. The world is, as both science and art show us, incredibly and beautifully organized, yet somehow, strange, chaotic, unthinkable things happen all the time. How do we make sense of the randomness of existence? How do we make the triviality of living these weird lives and then dying mean anything?
We all have different ways of coping with this and finding comfort. Humans are biologically wired to invent continuity and create stories. This is just one way people do it.
And again.
I'm baffled by anyone who thinks they have THE answer to the God/no-God thing. I really think it takes the same amount of faith to believe in either.
14
There is a magic pill; it's called the Bible. Most people who read it cover to cover can't swallow it.
15
@12
I use the same criteria to decide whether I believe in a god as I do for whether I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Dracula - absent tangible repeatable evidence, I say I do not believe in those things. In fact, of all of them including any god, Santa Claus is the one I had the most real evidence for at one time, but it turned out it was fake. As an adult, I don't believe in Dracula, but I find this the most likely of these stories to be something that could be created at some time in the future... God? no evidence other than a lot of wishful thinking - therefore atheist.
I see no reason to apply some special standard to the idea of god - absent ANY evidence at all, I simply say I do not believe in such a thing. That is to say, I don't not give it any credence as a basis for making decisions about anything, any more than I would decisions based on values derived from something like the works of Charles Dickens, Jim Morrison, Jane Austen, or Yogi Berra.
I use the same criteria to decide whether I believe in a god as I do for whether I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Dracula - absent tangible repeatable evidence, I say I do not believe in those things. In fact, of all of them including any god, Santa Claus is the one I had the most real evidence for at one time, but it turned out it was fake. As an adult, I don't believe in Dracula, but I find this the most likely of these stories to be something that could be created at some time in the future... God? no evidence other than a lot of wishful thinking - therefore atheist.
I see no reason to apply some special standard to the idea of god - absent ANY evidence at all, I simply say I do not believe in such a thing. That is to say, I don't not give it any credence as a basis for making decisions about anything, any more than I would decisions based on values derived from something like the works of Charles Dickens, Jim Morrison, Jane Austen, or Yogi Berra.
16
Like I said to the guy who wrote the other letter, you're entitled to your opinions, and your beliefs. You're just not entitled to act like a dickhead and expect people to treat you like anything but a dickhead. If you want to hate certain classes of people for whatever reason you think is a good reason to hate someone, or if you want to believe shit that contradicts material evidence, you can. That's your prerogative, according to our social precepts. You just have to keep that medieval shit to yourself unless you want to be treated accordingly, because everyone else is also entitled to their opinions and beliefs, including the opinion that you are an asshole for holding ass-backwards beliefs.
17
I choose to be a Christian. I choose to believe in a power and a presence beyond what I can see. I choose to ask questions and to live out the questions of faith through Christianity. I don't believe in a God that would create humans with the "flaw" of Homosexuality. I don't believe that God would create 1 in 10 humans as homosexuals with the requirement from birth that they be celbate or go to hell. I choose to believe that all of humanity is created collectively in the image of God. Sometimes, we fall short of God's perfection, way short. When we fail to treat all God's children, especially those who are "different" from us any different then we would treat Jesus Christ were he to show up at our door, then we fall short. The treatment of Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals and Transgender Folks as anything less than full partners in all that we do, is a sin. God created those Gay and lesbian and bi and transgender folks just as perfectly as God created boring, uptight straight folks.
The question asked about taking a pill to change my choice is a false one. The question asked about any person, gay or straight, taking a pill to change their God given identity is mean sprited and, if I may say so - UnChristlike. I choose to welcome the participants in tonight rally to my church. I agree with Dan Savage when he says we NALT (not all like that) Christians need to do a better job BEING not all like that, rather than just whining about it. I trust that the offering of our place of worship this evening for your celebration is at least a small step in that direction.
Congratulations to all who celebrate today!
The question asked about taking a pill to change my choice is a false one. The question asked about any person, gay or straight, taking a pill to change their God given identity is mean sprited and, if I may say so - UnChristlike. I choose to welcome the participants in tonight rally to my church. I agree with Dan Savage when he says we NALT (not all like that) Christians need to do a better job BEING not all like that, rather than just whining about it. I trust that the offering of our place of worship this evening for your celebration is at least a small step in that direction.
Congratulations to all who celebrate today!
20
I'm curious to know what this letter writer thinks of Jews. And Muslims. And Wiccans. And Hindus. And Sikhs. And... well, you get the idea.
It is one thing to make a reasoned argument against religion in general. It is quite another to bitch slap members of a group you don't like.
It is one thing to make a reasoned argument against religion in general. It is quite another to bitch slap members of a group you don't like.
22
Dear Curious,
If you are THIS worked up over Christian faith, I'd suggest that a little counseling, and perhaps some pills, may be in order. Seriously, if you have this much trouble with how other people choose to organize their lives and their world view, well, you might have a problem.
Let's be clear that no one owes you an explanation for his or her belief any more than you owe anyone an explanation for your non-belief.
Your desire for evidence of the existence of God is, forgive me, irrational. You are applying an unsuitable standard. You do not ask a person who has visited a fabulous restaurant what the food sounded like. You do not ask a person who has just enjoyed a musical performance what the music smelled like. You do not ask a person who is depressed or in love to justify or quantify his or her feelings on a metric that you might use to measure distance or speed.
My life and my faith are not a series of hypothesis tests. I am happy and comfortable with my life, including the role faith plays in it, so I don't understand why I would want to take a pill to change that. Clearly, you are happy with your non-theism. Would you want to take a pill to change that? I suspect not.
If you are THIS worked up over Christian faith, I'd suggest that a little counseling, and perhaps some pills, may be in order. Seriously, if you have this much trouble with how other people choose to organize their lives and their world view, well, you might have a problem.
Let's be clear that no one owes you an explanation for his or her belief any more than you owe anyone an explanation for your non-belief.
Your desire for evidence of the existence of God is, forgive me, irrational. You are applying an unsuitable standard. You do not ask a person who has visited a fabulous restaurant what the food sounded like. You do not ask a person who has just enjoyed a musical performance what the music smelled like. You do not ask a person who is depressed or in love to justify or quantify his or her feelings on a metric that you might use to measure distance or speed.
My life and my faith are not a series of hypothesis tests. I am happy and comfortable with my life, including the role faith plays in it, so I don't understand why I would want to take a pill to change that. Clearly, you are happy with your non-theism. Would you want to take a pill to change that? I suspect not.
23
Wha?
The crusades, the gay-bashing, the constant attacks on science in schools, the flouting of the constitution, the special pleading, the demonisation of women, the attempts to drag medical care into a boiling angry moral debate, the ex-nazi head of the church, the sick pleasure in condemning people to *eternal* torture, the smug superiority complex, the accommodation of the most prejudiced club-members in under-developed (and developed) countries, the doctrinaire insistence that everything you need to know is written down in one book, the institutionalised child-abuse, the centuries-long aggression toward scientists and the advance of knowledge, and Ted Haggard...
And you'd hate Christians because they won't eat your fictional pill?
The crusades, the gay-bashing, the constant attacks on science in schools, the flouting of the constitution, the special pleading, the demonisation of women, the attempts to drag medical care into a boiling angry moral debate, the ex-nazi head of the church, the sick pleasure in condemning people to *eternal* torture, the smug superiority complex, the accommodation of the most prejudiced club-members in under-developed (and developed) countries, the doctrinaire insistence that everything you need to know is written down in one book, the institutionalised child-abuse, the centuries-long aggression toward scientists and the advance of knowledge, and Ted Haggard...
And you'd hate Christians because they won't eat your fictional pill?
24
I'm pretty amazed by the lack of comprehension/understanding of satire/sheer laziness to not click a link through to the blog post that provides context for this displayed by the last few comments. are you guys new or did you refuse to take the pill that would stop you from being morons?
25
tabathalphabet @12: Like cracked @15 said. The typical agnostic tendency to frame the existence/behavior of the universe in a dichotomous either/or light is highly flawed.
The problem is that every agnostic I have ever listened to (or read) posits the existence of a god, and then proceeds to give that consideration more weight than any single one of an infinite number of other explanations for the universe's creation/behavior.
Why would they do that? Is it because they have been brought up in a religious society and have not quite shrugged off the brainwashing?
If the god hypothesis has no more weight than any one of the infinite number of other explanations (a very rational belief, in my opinion), then the chance that a god is the answer is infinitely small...and atheism makes much more sense than agnosticism.
The problem is that every agnostic I have ever listened to (or read) posits the existence of a god, and then proceeds to give that consideration more weight than any single one of an infinite number of other explanations for the universe's creation/behavior.
Why would they do that? Is it because they have been brought up in a religious society and have not quite shrugged off the brainwashing?
If the god hypothesis has no more weight than any one of the infinite number of other explanations (a very rational belief, in my opinion), then the chance that a god is the answer is infinitely small...and atheism makes much more sense than agnosticism.
26
@24: Doses it matter if the post has been hijacked away from Dan's original (or from Goldy's twist)? They provide a space for people to comment.
27
@26
I was gonna write out a long, thoughtful response here, but instead: fuck you. if you think this kind of hysterical bullshit that doesn't pay any attention to nuance deserves acknowledgement, who am I to contradict that?
I was gonna write out a long, thoughtful response here, but instead: fuck you. if you think this kind of hysterical bullshit that doesn't pay any attention to nuance deserves acknowledgement, who am I to contradict that?
28
Am I the only person that thinks that hate of any kind is just ugly? I was equally upset by this invective as I was by the original letter. What ever happened to live and let live?
29
@7: I am a religious man and a man of science. Science is understanding based on evidence and reason. Religion is belief and wonder in the absence of evidence. I don't let one interfere with the other, and damned if you're going to tell me I don't care for logic or reason. There can be reasoning within a scientific framework and there can be reasoning within a religious framework; the real danger in either is when people choose to stop thinking.
@17: Well spoken! Shalom aleichem.
@28: Word.
@17: Well spoken! Shalom aleichem.
@28: Word.
30
@29 Scientific knowledge and religious faith sometimes lead to contradictory conclusions. Scientists and public health experts generally agree that giving women access to birth control is a good thing. The Pope disagrees. Have you ever encountered a contradiction between your religious and your scientific beliefs?
31
Scientific knowledge and religious faith sometimes lead to contradictory conclusions.As a religious man myself, I'd say that religion is stepping outside its proper sphere when it attempts to reach conclusions on matters best left to science; that is, religion is a poor basis at best for making assertions regarding the existence or material consequence of natural phenomena, and can only really speculate, and speak poetically, about the causes, origins, or metaphysical consequences of those phenomena. So far as the question is phenomenological, and so far as the desired answer is the same, religion is ill-equipped to make any assertions at all. Conversely, I don't hold science as being well-equipped for making philosophical assertions.
Scientists and public health experts generally agree that giving women access to birth control is a good thing.Perhaps, but science itself does not say that anything is "good," since "good" is only a concept that exists by way of, first, individual preference, and later, by premises agreed upon by various tribes, communities, faith constructs, or nation-states.
That said, the material results of giving women access to contraception can be measured, and determined to be either a benefit or a consequence according to the values of any given group. Now, unlike Catholics, we Nichiren Buddhists do not have a moral objection to contraception. If we did, however, I'd like to think that I'd treat it like any of the many, many things that I find immoral, but think should be legal; that is, I ask for law to look after my interests as a citizen, and my brethren in faith to look after my interests as a Buddhist.
32
I'm starting to understand people's issues with Goldy. Even I find the whole pretense of this post is ridiculous ("There are Christians who will state something to the following effect," followed by unreferenced hyperbole), and I'm always the first guy to jump on the religion-bashing bandwagon when it drives by.
33
@30: That's an issue of interpretation. The first of 613 commandments in the Old Testament is to "be fruitful and multiply", and there's a story of a dude named Onan who practiced withdrawal with his wives to the point of never having any children and was struck dead for it. Some people interpret this as a condemnation of any sexual activity that is incapable of or unlikely to lead to conception. However, if we were supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" as soon as it was feasible rather than being prudent and waiting until it is possible to properly raise and support children, we should all be married off as soon as we hit puberty, which even in the time of Moses was not how things were done. Men usually needed to establish themselves before taking a wife, and women, while they married young by today's standards, would not necessarily give themselves to the first suitor to come a-calling. Incidentally, traditional Judaic interpretation (Talmud) endorses sex between spouses not only as a means of reproduction but also as a source of pleasure that both parties are entitled to from each other.
Anyway, the Pope interprets the law as forbidding any non-reproductive sex. I interpret the law as a requirement to be a parent some day. I don't have much faith in the Pope's reading of Mosaic law.
Anyway, the Pope interprets the law as forbidding any non-reproductive sex. I interpret the law as a requirement to be a parent some day. I don't have much faith in the Pope's reading of Mosaic law.
Comments (33) RSS