- Image by ~C4Chaos via Flickr
In a recent email, a reader had this to say:
You’re simply proving that you are just as insulting as any of the Christian writers you have read.  Is this really necessary?
… about the “very extreme language” I used:
zombie Messiah, contrived, forced, and desperate, emotionally involved and vehemently opposed to anyone who dares question, query or critique their dogma, doctrine, and beliefs, eager to insult, disparage, and deride, Ultimately their arguments have to appeal to ignorance and the supernatural, pure, unadulterated hatred and bigotry, etc.
While I admit I can see how “zombie messiah” might be insulting, it is how those who don’t subscribe to Christian superstition see it. I think its important to point this out. There simply is no a priori reason to accept that a dead body can return to life. And, if it did, it would, by definition, be a zombie: a body that came back to life. If you find that insulting, then that says more about your “faith” than it does my opinion of it.
My description of the anti-atheist responses to the New Atheists stands. I see them as very contrived[1], forced, desperate, emotionally involved, and vehemently opposed to anyone who dares question, query, or critique their dogma, doctrine, and beliefs. We can see it in the very response of the reader who objected. We see it in the very books I listed by theistic authors who bring no real critique to the table, seek to ride the coattails of popular works by atheist authors (Atheist Delusion vis a vis God Delusion), and respond with utter hatred and bigotry. Frankly this should be insulting to Christians for whom these authors would like to represent. I could go into a point-by-point discussion of these, and I may in the future, but this would turn into a book review rather quickly.
And, ultimately, their arguments do have to appeal to ignorance and the supernatural. They cannot and do not appeal to logic and reason. In addition to ignorance and the supernatural, these authors appeal to hatred and bigotry. This should come as no surprise. Yet I’m accused of being “just as insulting” as these Christian writers? If the layperson, the average Christian is insulted by my critique of the sort of Christian author I cited in my previous post, this, again, says more about your own faith than it does me.
I’m interested in dialog with believers. But if you find honest, brutal critique and query insulting, then perhaps there’s no hope. I rather think, however, that this isn’t the case with believing Christians in general. If they’re willing to read the comments and articles posted on an atheist blog, then they’ve got to expect the atheist blogger may be skeptical of their faith. They might even expect that I’d see it as a superstition.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Ask Richard: Atheist’s Family Finds Out, Shuts Out, Loses Out (friendlyatheist.com)
- Disambiguating Faith: Why Faith Is Unethical (Or “In Defense Of The Ethical Obligation To Always Proportion Belief To Evidence” (camelswithhammers.com)
- Christian/Atheist Dialogue in Chicago (friendlyatheist.com)
- More on McGrath (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)
- (updates) More “Christian Delusion” Prophecies Come True (war-on-error.xanga.com)
- Why do atheists worry theists so much? (breakingspells.net)
- as in unnatural and forced [↩]
RSS Content Feed
RSS Comments Feed
Follow me on Twitter
Email: Yenald Looshi
Core xian beliefs cannot refuted
With whom do you intend to “dialog”? The core of xian anti-thought Saul/Paul of Tarsus created in about 50 CE:
…God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are…1Cor1:27-28 NIV.
God chose “the things that are not — to nullify the things that are…†Xianity is nihilism.
Core xian beliefs cannot refuted because they cannot be defended rationally. “Logic and reason” are anti-God.
why are true believers your intended audience?
The basic tactic of anti-rational thinking, exemplified by fundie know-nothings, is the tactic of fending-off: what xianity calls “apologetics.â€
Apologetics fails, not just empirically, not just logically, but as a verbose form of refusal to communicate.
Fending-off amounts to deflecting away every request for reasoning outside the charmed circle of language which only a believer could use.
But, one pays dearly when immunizing belief from criticism. That act cuts off rational communication. The immunizer gives up the right to be classed as a “reasonable person†— in the common sense meaning used by courts of law.
You cannot respond rationally to critics by saying that only those who are with me can understand what I have to say.
There must be some starting point in discourse common to believer and to critic. Otherwise, there is nothing that can be talked about.
leave hierarchy and violence to xians
If you’re going on a new tack, leave behind metaphors belonging to military and sports. All of them.
They are androcentric atavisms. They are dead models for human behavior. Start with your own metaphors to build a novel model of what? — to do what?
the anti_supernaturalist