Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

God is clearly losing it

with 14 comments

Natural disasters have quadrupled over the last two decades, from an average of 120 a year in the early 1980s to as many as 500 today, says international agency Oxfam in a new report, “Climate Alarm“. The increase in these extreme climatic events is in line with climate models developed by the international scientific community.

The number of people affected by all disasters has risen from an average of 174 million a year between 1985 and 1994 to 254 million a year between 1995 and 2004. Earlier this year the Asian floods alone affected 248 million people… the report goes on.

“God” is clearly losing control.

Yeah. Right. As if “God” is real.

Earlier today someone asked me what proof I had that “God” does not exist. I have often been asked this question and have always replied that I have no need to supply evidence for the non-existence of “God”, as I have no need to supply evidence for the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Yet today it dawned on me, as I reflected momentarily on the question: What proof is there for the non-existence of “God”?

Proof?

Why, every time a child cries out in hunger…

Say what?

It’s because of “sin”?

Yeah. Right.

Perhaps “God” should catch a wake-up and do something for a change. Like in not hiding his sick ass* behind this “Free Will” shit (language, language!) his reps are trying to sell.

* “Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He’s a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste. Taste, don’t swallow. Ahaha. And while you’re jumpin’ from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He’s laughin’ His sick, fuckin’ ass off! He’s a tight-ass! He’s a SADIST! He’s an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!” (John Milton, played by Al Pacino, in The Devil’s Advocate.)

Home

Written by Nathan Bond

November 27, 2007 at 22:19

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Actually, I’m closer to four-dimensional. Still Hans Matthysen, you have no proof of anything beyond those four, so your pronouncements thereon are indistinguishable from a comforting fantasy.

    Con-Tester

    July 3, 2009 at 16:55

  2. Con-Tester, and I have pointed out to you, that you are confined to one set of rules, that are not applicable in this regard and therefore you appear to be one dimensional.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 2, 2009 at 23:24

  3. Bullshit, Hans Matthysen. If, in spite of there being exactly nil evidence for such a thing and much reason and evidence in support of the contrary, you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supremely benevolent, uncaused first-cause creator god then you are, quite apart from being a credulous dupe, by your very nature against science. I’ve made this point before but it obviously hasn’t yet penetrated. That’s because you either don’t understand how science works or because you don’t respect its rules, possibly both.

    I’ve posted the above again because you clearly didn’t read it the first time.

    Con-Tester

    June 28, 2009 at 15:24

  4. Con-Tester, I have previously made it known to you, that the Bible has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe. The stories are allegories bearing messages that few understand.
    Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one, from the mount Sinai, which engendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
    I have an understanding for science and for the Bible. I don’t confuse the two with each other, as many so called Christians do.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 27, 2009 at 22:28

  5. Bullshit, Hans Matthysen. If, in spite of there being exactly nil evidence for such a thing and much reason and evidence in support of the contrary, you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supremely benevolent, uncaused first-cause creator god then you are, quite apart from being a credulous dupe, by your very nature against science. I’ve made this point before but it obviously hasn’t yet penetrated. That’s because you either don’t understand how science works or because you don’t respect its rules, possibly both.

    Con-Tester

    June 24, 2009 at 08:54

  6. Con-Tester, I have nothing against science and am for science as I have an understanding of science. It appears that many Scientists don’t seem to understand God.
    You may know all the mysteries ect. and not have love. You will be nothing, as God is love and all your rules will mean nothing.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 23, 2009 at 21:59

  7. Some heavy guns weigh in on the reconcilability of science and religion.

    John Brockman:

    “[A]gainst the backdrop of scientific knowledge available to us today, [superstition, supernaturalism, and ignorance] are applicable not only to the texts that inform literal fundamentalists but also to the rarefied theological mumbo-jumbo of the most refined, liberal theologians.”

    Daniel Dennett:

    “[T]here’s the systematic hypocrisy that poisons discourse, and even more important, our vulnerability to those who abuse the ‘reverence’ with which we are supposed to respond to their indulgences. We can continue to respect the good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we’ll be doing them a favour if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use to sustain these fantasies.”

    Lee Smolin:

    “The basic ethics of an open and free society are to be prepared to defend what you believe with reasoned argument from public evidence, be prepared to change your mind, and be tolerant of diverse views on questions the evidence does not suffice to decide. Religious faith that promises great gifts in a mythical hereafter as the reward for adherence to unverifiable claims contradicts these ethics.”

    Steven Pinker:

    “Knowledge is a continuous fabric, in which ideas are connected to other ideas. Reason-free zones, in which people can assert arbitrary beliefs safe from ordinary standards of evaluation, can only corrupt this fabric, just as a contradiction can corrupt a system of logic, allowing falsehoods to proliferate through it.

    “Science cannot be walled off from other forms of belief. That includes meaning and morality – reason connects them all. The same standards of evidence that rule out unparisimonious, unfalsifiable, or empirically refuted hypotheses in science also rule out crackpot conspiracy theories, totalising ideologies, and toxic policy nostrums. Moral systems depend on factual beliefs, informed by psychology and biology, about what makes human beings suffer or prosper. They depend on standards of logical consistency that make it possible to apply the principle of fairness. And they depend on meta-ethical propositions about what morality is, and on how we can decide what is moral in particular cases. Just as coherent biological reasoning cannot proceed under the assumption that God can step in at any moment and push the molecules around, coherent moral reasoning cannot proceed under the assumption that the universe unfolds according [to] a divine merciful plan, that humans have a free will that is independent of their neurobiology, or that people can behave morally only if they fear divine retribution in an afterlife.

    “Reason is non-negotiable. Try to argue against it, or to exclude it from some realm of knowledge, and you’ve already lost the argument, because you’re using reason to make your case. And no, this isn’t having ‘faith’ in reason (in the same way that some people have faith in miracles), because we don’t ‘believe’ in reason; we use reason.”

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2009 at 13:59

  8. And you should take stock of how ridiculous this special pleading for religious precepts really is: the ordinary rules of reasoning apply to everything else except where they show up nonsense for what it is. In case it escapes your attention, that approach is fundamentally dishonest, intellectually.

    Con-Tester

    June 16, 2009 at 12:10

  9. Con-Tester, you are the one that is confined to one set of rules. You should learn to apply applicable rules so that your horizons can broaden. Come out of your cocoon so that you can transform to a spiritual being.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 15, 2009 at 21:59

  10. But Hans Matthysen, you quite obviously don’t accept the notion that there should be certain universal principles of reasoning. That is why you keep expecting that your ridiculous ideas deserve a special dispensation in the form of an entirely alien set of evidential rules. Then again, the religious punter has always relied on everyone’s acquiescence in that regard.

    Con-Tester

    June 11, 2009 at 22:21

  11. Con-tester, read Math. 13, the story of the sower and please take not; it is the earth upon witch the seed (word) is sown, that God rules over. You really do misunderstand, what is written in the Bible and then you make such ridicules statements, as though your have some authority, in regard to the Bible. I respect your authority in the fields you studied, but please stay confined to them and they will serve you well.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 10, 2009 at 22:19

  12. That “rule over the earth” bit is no doubt very comforting to believers, but who’s really sleeping here? I mean, look how often these religious believers screw things up royally.

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2009 at 14:32

  13. God gave it to man, to rule over the earth ect. It would appear to me, that man is losing it and not God, so wake up.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 4, 2009 at 22:50

  14. A quick thought experiment, playing with another idea of “God”.

    If humanity as a whole is “God”, and the natural disasters are caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming, i.e. humanity-out-of-control, then “God is losing control” can be factually correct. Then again, have we ever really had control? Hehe…

    Every time a child cries out in hunger, could it not be because humanity as a whole, “God”, is sinful because it has been unable to care for the children.

    If you are God, I’d adjust your last two paragraphs to “perhaps *you* should catch a wake-up, and do something for a change”. Maybe stop watching, stop being a prankster, and do something useful…? (Um, no, I wouldn’t know if you’re doing something or not. I suppose you are trying? You are an activist, after all. This is just a thought experiment, nothing personal.)

    Hugo

    December 27, 2007 at 21:06


Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: