why are theists so foolish


I don’t like pastors. I really don’t like them. I think I agree with Diderot’s sentiments that men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

In this post, the author has chosen to show that atheists are foolish. He writes

In other words, if one cannot accommodate certain propositions to be scrutinized by means of the scientific method, then said propositions must not be de facto, true.

which isn’t true. That would only make something unscientific not necessarily untrue. And there is no demand that the observations be under a microscope.

It is a misrepresentation of facts to write

Since the scientific method is allegedly the only venue through which one can prove things to be true, then the feelings of a cow for her calf must not exist. In fact, one could say that based on the scientific method, one’s feelings and intellectual musings do not exist either.

He also contradicts himself. The only we have come to know that a cow has feelings, whatever their representation, for its calf is by observation. Without observation over time, we wouldn’t come to that conclusion. In fact, it is only with observation that we can arrive at the conclusion the author of such trope is foolish.

It is an oxymoron, for deficiency in vocabulary, to say

Religion is also a scientific method. In fact…one could say that religion is the most ancient scientific method of human history…and as such, it should at least be respected

If anything, religion, properly defined, is the antithesis of method, scientific or otherwise.

This claim here

Like the scientific theories that inspire atheists to believe that there is no Creator, religions also evolve (and at times even supplanted by other religions) when new data (or new experiences) are observed. Like in the case of scientists, religionists hold on to their theories until other theories seem more plausible… A true religionist (as a true scientist) will keep an open mind and adjust his or her theories in accordance to experimentation and verifiable data.

is not only ridiculous but untrue. People didn’t change their religions because there was more data. A Katlick becoming a Muslim isn’t doing so because suddenly there is more data, they are changing from one delusion to the next. Data is the least of their concerns.

I contend there are no experiences that are religious. All our experiences are similar, profound joy, deep regret/ sorrow and whatever in between are human emotions. It is interpretation that makes some religious.

I don’t see how thinks this response

Thank you for sharing. Certainly there must be no God for you. You are an insignificant point of demarcation between eons of dark unconsciousness. In fact, from that perspective one could say you do not exist either. And yet, lo and behold, I am communicating with you even though you are nothing in comparison to the eons of space and time. In fact, since you are nothing, it is a total waste of time for you to argue against something that in your opinion does not exist…since in the grand scheme of things- you are absolutely nothing. You never mattered…you never will matter… So enjoy the little consciousness that you have accidentally been given- an illusory pseudo-consciousness since in the grand scheme of the universe, you still remain to be….NOTHING

to one who said they have no reason for devotion is profound. There is no relationship between my existence and that of a god. And logically there is no law of logic that is violated in saying there is no god. And why does someone have to matter in the grand scheme of things to be important?  As a pastor, one would expect he would attempt to show the interlocutor why they should pray instead of demeaning them. Maybe I am wrong and pastors are not taught to be ambassadors of their cults.

This statement

Atheists are fools because they discount as rubbish the existential experiences and scientific data that led millions (perhaps billions) of people before them to believe in the necessity of a Creator.

is not only blatantly false but a misrepresentation of a demographic that have rejected the received notions of god. Majority, if not all, who have believed in a god have done so because they were indoctrinated into believing there is one and have then interpreted events in their life as religious.

Finally, it is a case of irredeemable stupidity to claim that atheists are foolish because the bible says there is a god and they reject it. As others before me have opined, it would be unforgivable to deny superman since he appears in comic books.

 

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

29 thoughts on “why are theists so foolish

  1. john zande says:

    And Clark Kent is a very American name… Therefore: TRUE!

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      I understand a person believing the things he believes, but to write them down one has to be stupid

      Liked by 1 person

      • john zande says:

        You know I agree.

        I contacted a doctor (of something, history, i think) a few weeks ago after Phadde dropped his name, telling me this Doctor had personally told him Moses was real. Naturally, i sent this guy an email asking if he’d in fact told Phadde this, and if so, based on what? He did reply, after I sent a second email. He confirmed he did tell Phadde that, although confessed he doesn’t teach that, nor says it publicly. He then went on to list the reasons why he believes Moses was real. The strongest argument he said was this: Moses is an Egyptian name. That was it. That was his “proof.”

        Liked by 1 person

  2. foolsmusings says:

    They really live in a different reality don’t they. One devoid of reason.

    Like

  3. ladysighs says:

    I was reading on another blog sorta about ….. the freedom of not knowing is such a wonderful feeling. 🙂

    I wonder if theists ever have this feeling. They don’t ask about anything. God was is and evermore shall be.
    I may never know the answer about our existence, but I have the freedom to think about it and question about it and hang on to something about it until a better answer comes along. And then start all over again. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  4. “The strongest argument he said was this: Moses is an Egyptian name. That was it. That was his “proof.” Thor is a Norse name. Therefor he exists. I tell ya this, idjits exist. This guy is proof of that. Why, too, do theists like this argue that a solitary “creator” exists? Why couldn’t there be, say, 24 creators who share a timeless, spaceless, limitless apartment outside reality? It’s always just one with guys like this, the one they believe in, and they always know this for certain. Utter foolishness. Theists like this are not only fools, they’re very, very dim witted, too.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. fojap says:

    “Like in the case of scientists, religionists hold on to their theories until other theories seem more plausible… ”

    I was watching a funny little video the other day about all of the competing gospels that didn’t make it into the major Christian book. A funny thing he points out is that on factor about which texts survived and which didn’t was whether or not people were willing to die for it. He mentioned that the Gnostics were far less willing than the people who adhered to the major branch of Christianity to die. I thought that was an interesting point.

    Plausibility might be a factor, but there are certainly other factors. In fact, it would seem that atheists, agnostics and plain old doubters had always existed in the shadows of every society and I think that “plausibility” factor is the reason why.

    But, I think to ignore power relationships, the influence of rulers, invading conquerors and so on, shows a strange lack of awareness of history. If I had to take a guess, I’d say the guy is an American because he seems to be imagining the history of religion taking place somewhere where the influence of government is not strongly felt, the sort of “market place of ideas” people in the U.S. talk about. Indeed, his about page says he’s in Syracuse, NY.

    By the way, I came across a review of this book, The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. I really should read more about that time period, I think.

    There was no science before 1572, the year that Tycho Brahe saw a new star in the night sky above him. To be sure, the Greeks had made efforts to present their knowledge of nature in a systematic fashion, but they lacked the tools — more specifically they lacked the ways of thinking — that have allowed investigators over the past 300 years to question the traditions that have preceded them, to probe the inner workings of nature, and in so doing to build increasingly informative accounts of the world that surrounds us. These ways of thinking were invented over the course of the 17th century: a period whose momentous significance for all that would come after amply justify naming it ‘the scientific revolution’.

    You’re quite right to point out that the Pastor seems to be quite confused about what the scientific method is. From the pastor:

    Religion is also a scientific method. In fact…one could say that religion is the most ancient scientific method of human history…and as such, it should at least be respected.

    As the previous quote, citing the Greeks, shows there were efforts to expand human knowledge prior to the scientific revolution. That doesn’t mean that they are the same as the scientific method, and no one has suggested entirely throwing out all other methods. We still have history, literature, philosophy and so on. It’s like saying a horse is a steam engine because both have been used to power things. If we continued in that way, we’d have to stop talking altogether because words would cease to have any meaning.

    From the pastor, again:

    Like the scientific theories that inspire atheists to believe that there is no Creator….

    Admittedly, some atheists do mention scientific theories as reasons why they don’t believe, but not all of us. Some people want to dance and can’t understand why their particular cult prevents it. For me, it’s always been the sex. Most mainstream belief systems would prevent me from having sex when I want to. They need to give me a really good reason to not have sex. I find most of their reasons inadequate. No science necessary. It is the believers who seem so obsessed with science.

    That would explain why I never converted to Christianity or Islam, but it doesn’t really explain why I fell away form more New Age type of beliefs that didn’t forbid sex. I guess in the end they just didn’t seem necessary.

    Which leads to another thing that always bothers me about the anti-atheist rants by pastors. Would he feel like he succeeded in his point if, after reading his post, I decided he was quite right that I was wrong to ignore to “discount the experiences and knowledge that support the theories” and to become an animist, pagan or Wiccan?

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      First, that’s an interesting question there at the end. It would be interesting to know what he would say, if after reading his post you became an Orthodox Jew or Scientologist.
      That book does sound like a good read. I should look for it.
      It wasn’t science for me. That has been part of the process. It lost in the battle with common sense.

      Like

  6. >>> “Religion is also a scientific method.”

    From someone who is a self-described empiricist who embraces true scientific disciplines, let me respond to the rubbish quoted above:

    Hey Gomer, you wouldn’t know science if it crawled up your lower orifice to see how much grey matter was leaking out your ass.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. These idiots always remind me of Ms. Bitters

    The way they think that saying that someone will be nothing shows just how desperately they need to be “something”. They have to have a magical omninpotent friend who says that they and they alone are right. What sad little people who need their external validation.

    He’s also quite the liar too. Always good to see one more Christian who blows off his god and savior.

    Like

  8. Definitely not a fan of the way the pastor responds to some of his commenters. Seems like he could respond with a little more respect – keep a little more open dialogue.

    Just curious, where does falsifiability play into this for you?

    He makes a good point when he puts it in the framework of empirical evidence. For some atheists belief in the existence of a god demands empirical evidence, which in turn requires falsifiability. But there are simply some things that exist that could never meet the demands of falsifiability. Existence itself, for example, which clearly exists, could never be falsifiable. Thus, if you place the demands of empirical evidence on existence you’d have to believe that existence doesn’t exist.

    Don’t know if maybe that’s a round about way of making the same point he was at least trying to make with the cows.

    But perhaps not all atheists make the same demand of falsifiability?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Indeed. You are right. Not all things are falsifiable. But I think the demand that theists produce empirical evidence is based on the claims they make. If a godcultist says their god answers prayers, this, I think requires demonstration.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Charity says:

    It’s not always about science. Personally, it came down to common sense for me. Scriptures that are to be a how to manual for believers, yet, every believer has a different explanation of most chapters and verses. God is all loving. However, countless innocent men, women and children will die from the cold, starvation and assault tonight. God has the love and know how to free us all, but he chooses to allow criminals to have supposed free will and the elements to destroy his favorite creation.

    BTW, Noel, I hope you’re enjoying your new year. I wish you the best!

    Like

  10. archaeopteryx1 says:

    …it is a total waste of time for you to argue against something that in your opinion does not exist…since in the grand scheme of things- you are absolutely nothing.

    Absolutely! And considering that in the grand scheme of things, I am absolutely nothing, yet beings such as myself invented all of the gods from the imaginations of those beings – that would make such delusions somehow less than absolutely nothing, and certainly unworthy of consideration by even the lowliest of us.

    Like

  11. ejwinner says:

    “I don’t like pastors. I really don’t like them. I think I agree with Diderot’s sentiments that men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    H.G. Wells is said to have remarked that he wouldn’t drive a car in France for fear that the temptation to run over a passing priest would prove too great.

    Fortunately, unlike the religious, atheists generally understand that such urges pass, and need not feel impelled to action.

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s