Sunday, April 1, 2012

God to atheists: "You want evidence, idiots?"

(Dissociated Press) To the amazement of millions of atheists around the world, God has finally answered their objections.

He has appeared in a nebula:

The profile of the Almighty, in a nebula.


This reporter had a rare opportunity to interview His Omnipotence.

"Why", I asked Him, "haven't You shown Yourself to them before, in the sky?"
"Because it would be untrue to the way I created them" He replied. Animals I created with sensation and appetite to rule their souls. They see and smell and hear and feel. They don't understand. They don't have intellects. They have no free will."
The Prime Mover seemed tired and reflective.
"But man is different. I made him in My own Image. He can reason and choose. He is not driven merely by sensation, but by understanding and free choice. Throughout salvation history I've had to wean them from worship of material things-- golden calves, idols of all sorts. I need to show them that I am Pure Spirit, not a face in the clouds. I speak to them in the Scriptures and in their hearts and in their prayers, not in sky-writing. I must not woo man primarily by created things. Instead I woo his will-- by Grace I call him. I teach him about Me through his intellect."

"So why, Your Absolute Goodness, did You decide to show Yourself in a nebulae?

"I read The God Delusion. I mean, there's only so much stupid I can take. So I realized: atheists want evidence. I'll give them the kind of evidence they're looking for. The stupid kind. A Face in the sky." 
This reporter asked Necessary Existence "Why now?"

"I've been planting it in their hearts and in their minds for tens of thousands of years. Love and logic didn't work. I gave them prophets and theologians.  I even came in Person. "
The First Cause seemed sad.

"Finally, I've decided that I just have to show Myself, not using atheists' intellects and their wills, as I could with intelligent people, but using their senses. Attracting atheists to Truth is like calling your dog. Reason will only get you so far. Sometimes you have to pull out the dog biscuits." 
Final Cause rolled his eyes.
"Atheists wanted something tangible. They wanted data. But why these idiots would expect Necessary Existence to show up like a big HDTV in the sky is beyond Me." 
"I wrote the genetic code. I fashioned intricate molecular machines in their very cells. I wrote the moral law in their hearts. Even the simplest process in nature manifests My purpose. I've been sending them miracles for generations. I give them children-- I even let them participate in the creation of new life. Goodness gracious, what more do these atheists need?"
"Where did they think the moral code came from? Nature red in tooth and claw? Chance and necessity? What fools." 
"So here I Am. Right in their idiot telescopes."

So this reporter said to Omniscience: "Richard Dawkins, Sir, is writing a new book"

"I know, I know, I know" He groaned. 
As the fog on the lens of the telescope cleared in the dry cold air, I thought I saw the wisp of a nebula, like a huge Hand slapping a galactic Forehead.

25 comments:

  1. But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.
    -- Matthew 5:22 (NLV)

    So, when can we expect to see your god in court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will meet Him in court.

      Delete
    2. Anon,
      You are a total and complete hypocrite. All you do is mock, insult, deride, and sneer with arrogance at people you see as inferior. Then you dare to quote scripture about a joke that flew over your head?

      Further, your attempts at theology are not even worthy of a Sunday School drop out. Why not concentrate on something you understand deeply?
      Maybe April fool's day, for example.

      Delete
    3. ooh, widdle cwusader is all wiled up. Gonna shoot me?

      Delete
    4. Wound up?
      Is that the voice in your head telling you that?
      'Grown up' is the expression you're looking for.
      Shoot you?
      Why on earth would I want to hurt you, let alone want kill you? I don't even know you besides your rants on this blog. I have a family, a career, and a life. Why would I risk any of that to hurt or kill someone I don't even know? Do you want to shoot me, maybe?
      You're nuts, Anon.
      Paranoid delusions? Projection? In a cult, maybe?
      You need help.
      If I was one of your parent, I would be worried about you hurting yourself.

      Delete
  2. Michael,

    Pareidolia. Nothing more.

    I once came across a perfectly round calcium carbonate gallstone in a gallbladder, which had three pigmented flecks in a roughly equilateral triangle arrangement. I kept it aside and showed it to several of my colleagues, and all said, immediately, how cute, a face!

    Humans are very good at seeing patterns in random noise, particularly animate objects, such as faces in clouds etc, and speech in auditory noise.

    Personally, I can't see any face in the nebula.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trish,
      "I sometimes wonder what proof they want."
      They don't want proof. They are utterly convinced they have discovered the absolute truth. This conviction is based on their (lack of) experiences, feelings of futility, and an combination of angst and arrogance that can only be described as hubris.

      "By the way, I don't think God's face appeared in a nebula."
      No, but is a definitely a cloud hung 'for the poet's eye'.
      Such vast beauty and order is indicative of a grand design in my eyes. Light in the void.

      Delete
  3. I sometimes wonder what proof they want.

    By the way, I don't think God's face appeared in a nebula.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trish,
      "I sometimes wonder what proof they want."
      They don't want proof. They are utterly convinced they have discovered the absolute truth. This conviction is based on their (lack of) experiences, feelings of futility, and an combination of angst and arrogance that can only be described as hubris.

      "By the way, I don't think God's face appeared in a nebula."
      No, but is a definitely a cloud hung 'for the poet's eye'.
      Such vast beauty and order is indicative of a grand design in my eyes. Light in the void.

      Delete
  4. I’ve seen better images of God in toast.

    I would be convinced if the nebula wrote out in text, “I am the creator of the universe, and I am the Christian God”. Not that it would matter much, I’m already a more moral person than the vast majority of Christians I know, and it would be trivial to biblically justify all my political views.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I would be convinced if the nebula wrote out in text, “I am the creator of the universe, and I am the Christian God”."
      Maybe you would like Him to chew your food for you, too? LOL

      "Not that it would matter much"
      So even if God wrote your name in stars, it would not matter? Interesting admission of a fanatic devotion to your nihilism.

      "I’m already a more moral person than the vast majority of Christians I know'
      Such introspection. Such humility. Such wonderful sentiments of brotherhood. What a moral stance!

      "[...] and it would be trivial to biblically justify all my political views."
      It would be impossible to justify them Biblically. To explain them, sure. I am not so sure you would like the explanation, though.

      Delete
  5. Funny stuff, Mike. :P
    The Divine face palm made me chuckle.

    I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a peaceful and reflective Palm Sunday and Holy Week. May you all find some hope in these holiest of days.

    I have posted a lovely benediction from 2010 filmed at Notre Dame on my blog, as well as a clip from a film that will explain the origins of today's meaning to Christians the world over. If you have a moment, please check them out.

    May God bless you all and keep you on this Holy day.
    http://daily-faustian.blogspot.ca/2012/04/blessed-palm-sunday.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah yes, the Bible is such a good source of inspiration for comedy. And this post is every bit as funny as scripture.

    At this holy time of year, let us remember Christ's teachings about the family.

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
    (Matthew 10:34-37)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RickK,
      Not sure what point your trying to make?
      Maybe you don't understand the scripture you're posting?
      Today is a very good day to learn.
      Let me simplify it for you:
      Don't assume that Christ has come to bring peace for all mankind, that is not His purpose (salvation is). In fact His very presence and teachings will cause strife among men (the sword).
      His presence will create a discord between people (even family) who refuse or are unable to understand the message.
      People of other dogmas and no faith will mock, attack, make war on, and distance themselves from the followers of the Word - even members of one's own household my turn against and betray the faithful because of their faith.
      This is a warning to the faithful. It is a reality we face daily. Your post is a mild example of the response even wish for well being can generate from those hostile to the faith.

      Christ then goes on to explain that a person who loves another person more than He who created them BOTH, and would deny God and/or appease to secure that false love, is not really capable of loving at all (ie not worthy of the commandments of Love and Salvation of Christ). Hence they are not worthy of the reciprocal and ultimate love of God.
      The scripture, in this passage, clearly sends the message to hold fast to your faith despite the nasty detractions of others - even those who profess to love you. It is a call for unity and strength in the face of adversity.
      Out of context, as you have posted it, it seems bizarre and contrary to what Christians believe. Of course, most Christians understand the complexities and context of the NT scripture - at least to a degree of the Gospels. It is a mystery to you, but not us. Hopefully, and with God's grace, it is a little less mysterious to you now.

      I hope that helps you understand, and despite your (intentionally nasty?) response to my post in which I wished you ALL well, I hope your Holy Week is fruitful and reflective.

      Delete
  7. Dr Egnor:

    More on the Rock Bey6ond Belief show at Ft. Bragg:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/were-antagonistic-toward-religious-belief-military-atheists-hold-army-sponsored-rock-beyond-belief-festival/

    "We are antagonistic toward religious belief."

    Which is basically why I don't think they should be invited. They aren't simply a group of people who don't believe in God. They're a group of people who want to pick a fight with people who do believe in God.

    The last time we had this discussion, one poster (KW? Bachfiend?) said that Ft. Bragg is obligated to allow this event because they have allowed Christian events in the past. They can't "discriminate".

    Which is malarky. Absolutely, they can "discriminate" between theists and anti-theists. That would be like saying that the post commander has to permit a klan rally because they have Black History Month. The Constitution requires that we give equal time and opportunity to pro-black events and anti-black events alike! Yeah, and now that they're having gay pride events at Norwich Military Academy, they have to have to allow anti-gay events too. It's only fair. That's what is happening here: pro-Christian events are balanced by hate rallies.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trish,

      Nope. It wasn't me. I don't appreciate this sort of music. I prefer attending Christian music concerts, such as Handel's 'Messiah' or JS Bach's 'St Matthew Passion'.

      Delete
  8. "Which is malarky. Absolutely, they can "discriminate" between theists and anti-theists."

    No, they can't. That would be prohibited religious viewpoint discrimination and would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Saying Christianity is wrong and stupid isn't a "hate rally" any more than Egnor's constant whining about atheists is hate speech. But if the government permits one viewpoint on religion, it has to permit them all. No amount of pearl clutching hysteria on your part will change that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government "religious viewpoint discrimination".

      The Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion, which is an official government church, which would involve mandatory worship, financial support, etc, as with the Anglican Church in England.

      Civic religious expression in schools, military bases, public cemeteries, etc. is part and parcel of free exercise of religion in American civic life, and there is absolutely no Constitutional prohibition on religious viewpoint discrimination, anymore than the right to freedom of speech prohibits civic expression of political viewpoints in schools, military bases, etc.

      You really must get over your obsession with censorship.

      Delete
  9. "Civic religious expression in schools, military bases, public cemeteries, etc. is part and parcel of free exercise of religion in American civic life, and there is absolutely no Constitutional prohibition on religious viewpoint discrimination, anymore than the right to freedom of speech prohibits civic expression of political viewpoints in schools, military bases, etc."

    Political viewpoint discrimination by the government is also prohibited. But you probably didn't know that because your knowledge of Constitutional law is extraordinarily limited and in many cases downright wrong. If the government allows political signs or expression on government property, it cannot selectively choose which to allow. A publicly held forum must be open to all under the free speech clause. You really need to figure out how the law works before you opine upon it.

    And saying "if you permit some viewpoints to be expressed, then you must permit all viewpoints to be expressed" is not censorship. You really ought to look up the meaning of the word before you run your mouth and look even more like an idiot than you usually do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion, which is an official government church, which would involve mandatory worship, financial support, etc, as with the Anglican Church in England."

    Allowing one religion to practice on government property and not another would require citizens to support that church with their tax dollars. By your own argument "[c]ivic religious expression in schools, military bases, public cemeteries" should be prohibited as an establishment of religion, because to do so would require taxpayer dollars to be used to support those activities by providing them with a venue for them.

    You have just come out in favor of Everson. How does it feel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon:

      [If the government allows political signs or expression on government property, it cannot selectively choose which to allow.]

      Are you saying that if schools teach slavery was wrong that they also must accommodate those who would teach that slavery was right?

      The public school curriculum is packed with countless opinions of a sectarian nature. Must they allow all opinions ("Hitler was really a great guy...")?

      If government were required to facilitate expression of all viewpoints on government property, then no viewpoints could actually be expressed, because facilitation of expression of all viewpoints is morally unacceptable and practically impossible.

      Therefore, your silly idea that specific viewpoints may not be expressed on government property without the opportunity for all viewpoints, when applied to religion, mandates civic atheism (the absence of religious expression).

      How convenient.

      Delete
    2. @anon:

      You misunderstand the meaning of "establishment". An establishment in an institution-- a specific organized church. Allowing religious people (or irreligious people) to use public facilities to express themselves is not an establishment of religion, because such use is not characteristic of established churches.

      Permitting civic religious expression is free exercise, which is protected by the First Amendment.

      Delete
    3. Mike,
      I think the misunderstanding Anon (and many like him) suffers from originates in his lack of understanding/education of the sectarian strife (the roots of such) that engulfed Christendom for generations, and currently engulfs the Muslim world.
      The various solutions and attempts at synthesis are utterly obscure to him. From the (primarily Lutheran) Reformation in the Germanic and northern states, to the Re-assertion of the Roman Catholic Church, to the Establishment of the Church of England (which in itself has a Protestant and Catholic branch) etc. all seem to him completely abstract.
      So, he simply does not understand the ideas behind the 'establishment clause' in your constitution or what it's intended purpose was - to keep the newly formed Union in a single bloc.
      He sees the cause of the sectarian violence in some caricature-like comic book struggle 'caused by religion' and therefore thinks the elimination of religion in the public square is the solution.
      Folks like Anon see the struggle for political supremacy by renaissance powers via religious influence and doctrine as a real and present danger that may only be avoided by banning modern religious thought from all aspects of culture and public life. Worse than that he sees the solution in ATTACKING those ideas in the most foul and insulting manner possible.
      This is the 'meme' of the New Atheist rant.
      At it's core it is utterly childish that presumes to keep all the thinking religious minds of all denominations and faiths happy, you must BAN and MOCK religion (Christianity foremost, as it is most populous -and safest).
      Of course, this is an infantile approach that simply leads to these groups being totally alienated along with most of the population .
      People like anon have none of the patience and incrementalism that Fabians or neo-secularists have, they instead come out with guns blaring.
      REALLY bad PR and an crisp, clear echo of communist thinking.

      Delete
  11. fuck god fuck christianity and fuck religion...shut the fuck up and just live your goddamn life..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. take your own advice and piss off idiot

      Delete