I think I just read the most offensive pro-religion argument ever · 3:27am Aug 4th, 2015
Okay guys, before reading any of this, I would like to point out that I'm of Catholic raising, which kinda sorta makes me Catholic myself (no practicing, but I agree with the doctrine), but also a follower of objectivism (yes, the Ayn Rand one) and raised in a country known for producing deadpan snarkers like it's nobody's business (mi Chile lindo). With that in mind, my response over the next "article" is way more emotional than rational and in some ways not taking itself too seriously, but I'll try to stay objective and clear.
Here, the thing in question:
For those who found it too long to read it all or just didn't care, I'll outright point out the two points that I found the most annoying; First of all, there's the cartoonishly hypocrisy of the author at complaining over the use of the ad hominem fallacy against him (x is false because of the author), but not even a page later he casually uses the ad populum (x is true because a majority says so), immediately followed by the ad ignorantiam (the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence) in one single argument.
Wow.
I mean, WOW!
That's the kind of hypocrisy you would expect from a Family Guy's sketch, or a South Park's straight-man. Hell, this is the kind of bullsh*t I would expect from a Chick Tracks' villain or in a Doug Walker's parody of an argumentless religious person. There's no way in heaven, earth or hell I would have expected something like that from someone trying to sound serious, at all.
With that said, this is not what set me in rambling mode, no señor. This part actually made me rethink of the value of replying to such lack of basic argumentative skills, because the following counter-response would probably be even less coherent, making the whole exercise pointless for any party involved and overall a waste of time I should be spending in studying for university (last round of exams) or finishing the next chapter of Actually, I'm Dead (almost done, by the way).
However, there's another element that actually did tick me off (or however it's said) because it's against what I stand for and I find highly offensive for it's nature; The author tries to validate religion with proves, contradicting the point of believing in something and negating the value of faith.
I call major bullsh*t on that.
You know, maybe it's how I was taught religion or maybe the cultural bridge or even the language bridge. However it is and in the way I see things, when you have faith in something it is because you don't need proves to do so, otherwise you would know instead of believe.
To say that religion is in the right because it has proves, it's like saying that religious people only behaves out of fear to hell. This means that we Christians are not good people for the sake of doing good. I fell personally offended by the implications of this.
I myself don't believe in Christianity because of the miracles, or out of fear to judgment. I started as a Catholic out of heritage (my whole family before me) and decided to stick to it because the concept of being a good person to others fits with my personal worldview. If it turns out that the flood happened or not, or how accurate is the story of the creation shouldn't affect me beyond historical curiosity, because my faith is not over the physical plane, but over the spiritual one.
Tell me, you who believe, is the Arc's existence really more important than the Ten Commandments? Is Jesus' death more important than his teachings about loving our neighbor, not judging others and try to be overall better persons? Would the Creation's accuracy really validate our rejection against the Seven Sins and our aspiration to the Seven Virtues?
Personally, I don't think so, because if you need to be proven over something, then you never had faith on it.
P.S.: Yes, I'm charging against the legendary Reality Check. I don't care if there's a backlash for it, because standing for what I believe in has more weight than avoiding a rain of insults.
P.P.S.: RC, I know you're reading this. If you want to reply, I only ask you to be rational and coherent. I have no desire to reply to another use of multiple fallacies or conceptual contradictions.
It's fucking Reality Check. He fails on principle.
Reality Check is wrong on the evidence -- there's very little for the New Testament (just enough that I think Jesus was an actual person, but nowhere near enough for me to accept every other thing the Bible says just because Jesus said to believe in it) and rather a lot for biological evolution and an absurdly vast amount for the age of the Earth being more than "several millennia." But I'm not sure that his argument is offensive. If YEC was true, there would be lots of evidence for it, and ditto on the New Testament (or for that matter the Elder Eddas or any other holy book). That doesn't negate belief -- obviously, one is more likely to believe in something which seems true than false, unless one is insane.
Well, he's an idiot.
3293207 I do have to say, historical fact is that Jesus of Nazareth, surnamed Christ, did live in Israel during that era, preached for 3 years, and was crucified. There is more evidence than critics claim, though nowhere near enough to prove that Christ was anything more than a man.
3293170
And his religious followers (sinners for having an idol btw) already voted down your comment.
But even if I'm accusing the viper of being poisonous, I think this one is one of those anvils that need to be dropped, and when I find one of those, I'm literally unable to do anything else till dropping the anvil, Churchill style.
3293207
HEY! Long time no see, how have you been?
What I do find offensive (sorry if I was unable to keep clarity) is the implication of needing the Bible to be historically accurate in order to validate Jesus' principles. It goes along saying that , without said miracle, the principle itself has less value. In conclusion, Christianity's principles and values are meaningless without the might of the Bible.
P.S.: Question, because google is not working with me here; what is YEC?
P.P.S.: A downvote in less than a minute? Smooth, really smooth.
3293236 But his ideas and philosophy is what should really matter, because that's his legacy and the base of my (and other's) faith. I have no conflicts over Jesus being only a man.
Can we just keep the pony site about ponies, please?
3293262
Some days its hard. Sorry for this, but i really needed to write down this one. I promise the next blogpost will be pony related.
3293266 Fair enough. I just glanced over the post and crowscrowcrow called him out so I'll just thumb up his comment and walk away.
Took me years of practice before I could do that.
3293270
Yeah, in that sense I'm less of a traditional Catholic and more of a knight Templar.
3293243 I totally agree. I was just pointing out the facts. A lot of people try to use evidence to disprove religion, and that annoys me about as much as people who try to prove it. Historical evidence stands against very little of what the Bible says. It's not a basis for faith, but it should be enough to get people to shut up when it comes to disproving it from that angle.
3293236
Yes. Notably, the New Testament gets a lot of the details of the Roman administration as it was in the Early Empire right, down to some specific names. This shows that the stories were first composed within living memory of when it happened, as complex textual analysis and even the awareness of historical change was in its infancy in Classical Antiquity. Also, some of the details are confirmed in Josephus and other sources.
3293237
Reality Check has fallen into the trap of believing in Biblical inerrancy, which is an intellectual trap because parts of the Bible contradict one another. It makes much more sense, even if you want to believe in the Biblical God, to assume that the message degraded over time.
Wave what fury have you unleashed upon this blog ?
3293300
*Slow clap followed by rapid fire standing clap*
3293308
Hmm, good point. Things don't get better when you realize that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic, then translated to Greek during the persecutions, then to Hebrew, then to Latin and then edited by Constantine.
3293327
25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m66h7b0wOm1rw41szo1_500.png
It was pretty cartoonish, but it's not really his fault.
I take some comfort in the notion that people like Reality Check enjoy the show too. It's so easy to think of 'those people' as the 'others' but then I come on here and I see the same kind of people who unironically watch Fox News also watch MLP, and a small glimmer of hope for humanity shines from that. They aren't total jerks after all.
3293270
I wish I could do that more often, but I see we both suffer from relapses on occasion.
3293335
Well, I suppose there's a point where we're all together in this fandom, for better or worse.
P.S.: Is really Fox News that blatantly evil? I mean, so far on this side of the globe, I've only seen the parodies on The Simpsons.
3293349
The parody is basically exactly like real life. It's Poe's Law in full swing.
3293335 Relapses are fun.
3293351
i.imgur.com/ZfGDv7P.gif
3293349
3293351
I wouldn't say they're evil as much as just very misguided. Quite a few of the hosts, even the ones I consider idiots politically, seem like they'd be good friends of mine IRL. However, then there's assholes like O'Rilley, Bob "Stuff My Fucking Face With Doughnuts" Beckle, the admittedly very funny Greg Gutfeld, and others who like to degrade anyone who don't match up with their ideologies.
I've been watching from the sidelines for a few years, and here's what's going on with Reality Check. He's got a group following his online forums who have spared no effort in repeatedly insulting him and everything he believes. Beyond that, his beliefs have brought even more scoffers out of the woodwork recently, poking at him and calling it an anger management problem when he responds. He's been putting up with this sort of stuff for, as I said, several years. He's also got the same sort of real-life problems we all have. He's been producing very witty and entertaining online comics for the whole time, and he's giving them away to people who call him names. He's kinda bitter right now.
That's all I have to say.
Oh hey, that guy. Yeah, he's an idiot. He regularly offends even the people who would otherwise agree with him on principle by being just that bigoted, hypocritical and dishonest about pretty much everything.
That being said, it's been over a month since you updated your story. Don't you think you could get back to that, if you have the time to write long opinion pieces like this?
Personally not a Christian, but the best argument I've heard for why the young Earth stuff is wrong is the following.
If it is true, it would mean that God is a trickster and a liar on a level that Coyote, Loki, and Anansi combined could barely comprehend.
We know the speed of light, and can tell roughly how old stars are due to changed in those frquensies and knowing roughly how the physics work. If those measurements are wrong, the star-light reaching us is constantly being altered or created in transit to uphold the illusion that the universe that is billion of years old.
The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs, or even dragons. (Excepts as a form/symbol of The Devil. Not natural creatures.) if so, the fossils we keep finding are literally bait in a trap for the unfaithful, as a way to fool people into believing the world is many hundred of millions of years old.
If evolution does not happen within a species, that means that God is either allowing evil to do so or He himself altering every disease on the planet day-to-day. Otherwise once we'd figured out one vaccine that problem would be permanently solved, and antibiotic resistance wouldn't even be a thing outside the horror genera.
I could go on, but I think those are the big ones.
And well, we don't generally call people that lie and trick their kids constantly loving fathers.
3293870
Yeah, theodicy isn't called one of the hard problems of Deism for nothing.
3293478
I can see what you're saying, and even get the point. However, my problem is not with RC or his posture. To the thing I do have a problem with is to how he delivers his arguments and the argument itself. Like in any debate, I have my position, he has his and we both are free to expose them in the way we consider the most fitting, but we're also responsible for what happens after that. He insulted, knowingly or not, what are my basic principles, while also using ideals I consider sacred as they were a tool. If he does that, is only the logical expectation that people like me would reply accordingly.
3293711
On the works. Fifth part is a pretty big one (it covers the entirety of Pinkie's Party) which alongside university's closing the semester (lots and lots of exams) had extended development time. Sorry for it, It should be up by the end of the week.
3293870
God is a troll...
<insane troll logic>Oh my, it means that Trollestia is even more canon than we thought.</insane troll logic>
But in all seriousness, that basically resumes why religion should stick to the spiritual side of things and not take everything literal (with that said, it would have been BADASS! if Saint Peter really were to fight an actual dragon).
3293975
Glad to hear it. It has been a weirdly quiet month. Hardly anyone seems to update anything, which is kind of unusual, now that it should be semester break pretty much everywhere.
And yeah, this:
is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. He does that to everything, even the stuff he supposedly believes in himself. So if nothing else, at least you don't need to feel like he's intentionally being extra offensive about religion in specific. He's simply that kind of person.
3293978 Only in the north half of the world. In the south, we're in the middle of winter.
Oh my f*king god, what kind of person goes around life insulting everything? Not even in their worst did Rand or Nietzsche meet such an extreme, and they fought literally everyone on their respective times.
3293995
The sort that thinks winning an argument is more important than actually being right.
3293308 I agree. Consider especially the conditions under which the Bible was first translated out of Latin. Hidden, in secret, without fantastic resources. There have been better translations since, but even they have some rather obvious mistranslations. Add in the corruption found in the early church and the fact that several things were slightly changed or outright removed to better suit their needs, and it's no wonder the Bible needs to be read prayerfully, rather than purely analytically!
Add in the fact that they used different symbolism and figures of speech, and anyone who looks at the Bible as purely literal and without error becomes somewhat of a fool.
3294021
Amusingly, according to the Catholic church's stance for the last 1800 years, Biblical Literalism is actually a form of heresy - you're supposed to read it figuratively. Literalism is pretty much something that is only even remotely popular in the USA these days. Nobody else really goes for it.
3293925
3293975
Again, I'm a non-theist myself, but I honestly prefer the solution many older religions had to the problem of evil. Norse especially, but Greek and Egyptian mythologies too.
The gods are not perfect.
In their own way they try their best, just like we do, but even for all their powers they can't do or know everything. But just because we live in a deeply flawed world doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for.
Just seems like a far more elegant admittance that everything has limits and flaws, than the knots Christian teleology needs to twist itself into over theodicy. Hell, Norse mythology even has their gods get maimed, die and even frequently outright be murdering racist arse-hats.
Hell, one of Odin's many, many alternative names was Oathbreaker. And he was the big guy of the entire faith.
Than again, as I said this is from a man that doesn't even have a horse in that race. Its all just (admittedly rather metal) stories to me.
3293870 Yeah, all of this and more is why I roll my eyes when people take the account of the creation purely literally. "Days" was used symbolically to designate distinct periods of time, as well as the literal definition. 6 literal days to create the Earth? No. I'm sorry, but no. 6 periods of time of indeterminate length during which certain specific things were organized using natural laws such as evolution? Much more likely.
3294036
That's a hard sell to anyone whose religion involves a god that is specifically perfect by definition, though. Then again, that sort of thing is so foreign to me that I literally don't understand what the difference between a god and a non-god is really even supposed to be, so I might not be the best person to comment on that.
3294032 Wow. Well, once again, way to go, America! Land of freedom and blind popular opinion!
3293975
You really need to read your G. K. Chesterton. Proving faith through logic is the ONLY way to go. Abandoning reason is bad theology.
3293870
Never heard of Behemoth, or Leviathan?
3294122
I have, but I'd argue that three great beasts (the third being the giant bird Ziz) isn't the same as dinosaurs.
And well, since even Leviathan is just as often presented as a giant, monstrous fish as a sea-serpent I honestly don't think he fits the bill, either.
Now, unicorns on the other hand. Those the Bible mentions plenty of times.
dustoffthebible.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Psalm-29.6-KJV-1611.jpg
3294198
On a level with Gog and Magog, anyway. You don't even seriously debate that kind of thing, it's that obviously lifted from other popular religions of the day. Liwjatan ("the one who coils") is so blatantly a parallel to various imageries surrounding sea-serpents and contemporary sea gods of the time that it's not even funny. This kind of thing is why you don't read the Bible literally.
Some people are like this. You shouldn't get angry. I just feel pity for them. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, even if they persecute us. And to rejoice in it. They're persecuting God, not us. And judgement is left to God to carry out, not us.
3293478
Geez, reading this I felt kinda sorry for RC.
So I post a comment saying I'll do as he asked and leave a particular topic alone after he yelled at me to shut up. Mind, I made a genuine effort to be polite and stick to facts the entire time. Then I wake up the next day to find he's deleted that last comment and blocked me.
Now I find my sympathy back down at an all time low.
In the interest of being open: That last post also included proof he was misquoting the show in his argument, which he had repeatedly ignored in favor of using the same argument.
3294507
Yeah. I'm not trying to give him any excuses. I'm just letting you know why he's ranting at the world over what a few people keep posting at him. He's a decent guy, who writes well and researches his stories better than most, but while at the end of my temper where I'd vent all of my anger and frustration in a long letter and then delete it... He posts his. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just how he is. It's best to just let rants like that sit there, and not reply. In pony lingo, I guess he's more like Twilight or Rainbow Dash, than Applejack... 'cause he sure as heck doesn't hide his feelings.
In a word? Yes.
I'll give a few more words in a moment, but first I want to say this: Being a "Christian" in the sense that one view Jesus as a moral teacher and nothing more, is much like being a "vegetarian" in the sense that one abstains from beef (but eats pork, chicken, venison, and any other meat). I don't anticipate that I can convince you of this in the comments of a blog post on a pony site, and thus I won't attempt to. But I feel compelled to say so, at the least.
Please understand that I mean this with respect.
More words:
3294853
3295146
Indeed. And I would reference that right back to John 3:16, which I quoted earlier. What greater love, than the sacrificial love of God?
Edit: In fact:
Jesus's command that we love one another is in fact put in the perspective of His love for us.
3295169
I think you kind of missed the point of that. There are just as many passages in the bible insisting on the superiority of loving action over any amount of dogmatic faith as there are sections thumping on the all-importance of faith in Jesus as a saviour. I could play the scripture game too and quote something going completely counter to anything you could come up with to support the latter. Cherry-picking out of context for all the authoritarian-sounding ones does not disprove anything. It's a perfectly valid, popular and well-supported reading of those sections.
Before starting with the replies, I need to ask (this is rhetorical); Objective reality and Subjective perception are complimentary or contradicting over each other? Just a thought, no need to reply it right now.
3294008
Well, I wasn't comparing Nietzsche with Rand in that way. I just wanted to name two controversial figures of philosophy and considering how both of them managed to get everyone mad at them at their respective times, they seemed fitting (I was this close to include Marx on that list). Although you have to admit that both, the German dude and the Russian lady converge on the principle of not giving up personal freedom over a perceived higher goal, and even reached the same conclusion of how an individual has the right and the responsibility of taking control over the life he/she's given.
On the other note, of course Nietzsche was deep. How couldn't if he's one of the most influential thinkers in history? And yeah, too bad that people misquote poor Friedrich to justify nihilism, even when the mensch itself wanted nothing to do with such line of though.
3294036
Hmm, YMMV on this one, but there has been a confusion on God's role on modern day's religion, specially in Christianity, which is probably the reason of why it's one of the most fragmented religions since ever.
Over personal observation and experience, I've come to two dominant schools over the matter. The first one states God as an almighty ruler that created and directs everything and everyone. Not different from the pagan concept (pagan in the non-Christian sense, no offense intended) but applying also the moral superiority of might making right, hence interpreting the "perfect" interpretation to "limitless". As Nietzsche pointed out, this is a heavy contradiction, which is actually the point of it since the holiness of the concept comes from how irresolvable is the mystery for the mortal man.
The second most common interpretation (second by default, since in quantity terms both are kinda sorta tied) says that God is a concept, not supposed to be taken literal. The idea of perfection as something beyond any mortal an could reach easily, but can aspire to emulate. In other words, God is not supposed to stay over us as a roof to stop us, but as a goal to reach some day. Like in the old alchemical/Rosicrusian concept of evolving a mind from lead (the obscurity) to gold (the illumination) through the enrichment of knowledge and wisdom.
But again, this is a way too personal choice to be debated as some kind of objective subject, so it all depends on our personal POV over life.
3294122
I never said that faith should abandon reason, or at least I didn't mean it. My point is that, in order to believe in a current of though there's no need to back it up with facts since it's all about personal choice (see a couple of paragraphs above). Since we're not talking about the objective reality but instead about the subjective perception of each individual, there are possibly a million of different takes on how faith and reason works in function of each other.
I have yet to read the complete works of mister Chesterton, but I do know about him due to my career choice. What I do understand so far is that he stated how faith should not interfere with reason and vice versa, kinda like Marx stated that religion shouldn't interact with politics because it would lead to the social segregation that did end up happening not so long after. (If I'm wrong here, I would like to aks you to point out a source so I can have a better grasp on the concept).
3294216
And just like that I got friggin' told. If I had a hat, I would take it out for the person who actually brought my premises down with the bases to which they're addressed.
You're right, mate, I should live and let live. I suppose I just got Templar Knight over how my base of beliefs and general principles were being outright used to mock the ideals they represent. You've seen how emotional I get when in hotblooded state. I'll try to keep myself in control over future events.
3294853
I'm not sure on how seriously take your comment here, since you started it by answering (in a quite surprisingly simple way) what was supposed to be a rhetorical question with no absolute solution and which sense was to invite to self reflection.
There's also the part were you outright call me an heretic for professing the principles of my religion over it history and then say you meant no offense. Seriously, dude, make up your mind.
finally, I will not enter to a quote's war, mostly because it would be pointless since it has been done to all the nine circles of hell and back in pretty much elsewhere. There's also the part where my pal 3295146 here gives you a counterargument tht I'm going to suport.
3295193
You're absolutely right that no single verse can bear meaning apart from its proper context and the totality of the Bible. But that means that all of the verses about love cannot bear meaning apart from the verses about Jesus deity, death, and resurrection. Love is one of the things commanded of us. It is the greatest of things commanded of us. But our love is but a pale reflection of His love for us, which he showed by sacrificing His life for us.
3295237
In a way that's not wrong, but it's really very oversimplified. Rand did like a tantruming child - "I wanna, I wanna, I wanna," loudly repeated over and over as the basis of a whole philosophy, if you can call it that. Nietzsche, on the other hand, was simply deeply morally disgusted by followers. You know, hangers-on, bandwagoners. People who go along with something without ever having really thought about it. All his philosophy was about making a choice, thinking about it, and using all your rational faculties to do so.
In a way, he was a Kantian by way of Existentialism - forming moral rules out of a vacuum, in the full cognizance that you are only following them because you decided they deserve to be followed. He would have completely supported giving up part of your own freedom, so long as you did it out of a well-reasoned conviction.
Everyone knows that one quote about god and the other about the abyss, but another one that many people don't know would be this one:
It wasn't actually important to him what you believe in - just how you arrived there. Intellectual emancipation in the best tradition of the Enlightenment, that's what he was all about. Sapere aude.
3295240
Maybe. I don't have that much of an opinion on it, myself, but it still makes it very clear that your opinion on this isn't nearly as absolutely and steadfastly supported by the scripture as you're trying to make it look. There are schisms about this for a reason.
3295237
I meant it seriously, if that's what you're questioning. I believe that question does have an absolute solution, found in scripture.
I didn't say I meant no offense, and neither did I say that I meant offense. I meant what I believe to be the truth, and whether you take offense is up to you.
What I did say was that I meant what I said with respect. I see that your post here was made in good faith, and it is not my intention to antagonize you. The reason that I stated formally that my post was meant with respect is because tone is often impossible to convey in this medium.
3295258
I couldn't have resume Nietzsche better than that. However, I can't help but feel that you're oversimplifying miss Rand's philosophy. Although the memetic mutation of reducing Objectivism to just personalism is not that far from reality, I think there's a lot more in there than just that.
If you can translate spanish to english, I wrote a quick article on the matter not so long ago, here. If you can't, tell me and I'll send you the translation later.
3295264
Ah, but not only the tone sets the message's intent, since there's also form and substance to take in account.
I do believe you when you insist on not meaning offense now you clarified it, since I don't know enough of you to think otherwise. In regards to the rhetoric, I do believe we can agree to disagree, since even the good book is not conclusive on the problematic (in my opinion).
Finally, and just as a practical advice that you can take or not, I'll leave you this; If you compare my relationship with faith to a vegetarian who eats meat, yes, you're calling me an heretic, since such comparison directly implies the contradiction between thought, word and action. The advice is to never use a metaphor if you're not aware of all the implications it can carry. Since any figure of speech is subjected to interpretation, it's meaning can and usually varies between transmitter receiver.
3295298
My Spanish is awful, but I think I can manage, thanks. Honestly, though, I don't think it'll make a difference. I've read enough about Ayn Rand, her philosophy and her personal life that I came to the conclusion that there genuinely isn't any more to it than that years ago. Objectivism is a cult of personality, not honest discourse. It really is that intellectually shallow and sterile.