Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 1353
  • Darwins +454/-1

Well, this "SHIN" fellow has been properly banned, and the deceased equine of his "questions" has been more than sufficiently flagellated by by the others here.[1]  Nevertheless, in the event that any other theist might happen upon this thread having been taught that the approach SHIN uses is clever, I would like to bypass the questions and point out how the approach itself is utterly, contemptibly, fractally wrong.

First iteration:

3º Why women?

Wow, talk about rampant sexism on parade!  Translation: Men are clearly natural and make sense and can be taken as a given.  But...gurls?!  Obviously they're so freakish and inexplicable that only magic can explain their existence.  I mean...like, they have cooties and stuff, and I totally don't wanna let 'em in my treehouse.  My older brother actually has a girlfriend and he, like, hangs out with her and kisses her and stuff, and says...it...feels good...to have sex with her!  There ain't no way that shit can be natural, amirite dOOdz?!  An' he says that in a few years I'll probably like 'em too,[2] and since it'd be a miracle if I ever wanted to do anything with gurls but make 'em cry, therefore, God.  Awww yeah, victory dance!

As the Na'vi would put it: Christians, we see you.

OK, on to the next iteration.  The underlying premise of "questions" like this is that any unexplained mystery is proof of divine miracle, and therefore of the existence of [the particular theist's favorite] "God."  "Tides?  you can't explain that!  Evolution doesn't explain why the planets don't fall down!  Why do fools fall in love?  Gotcha!  Therefore, God exists!"  Well, by that logic, this:

...is proof that David Copperfield is God. 

Next iteration.  We're now moving beyond the ridiculous to the contemptible and disgusting, so hang on to your barf bags.  Notice that the purpose of these questions is not to identify mysteries and unknowns in order to prompt a process of inquiry.  People who use questions this way aren't interested in answers, exploration, or even in a sense of wonder in the presence of the unknown.  The "questions" are asked in the hope that the atheist won't be able to answer them, giving the theist the opportunity to say "Ha!  Therefore, Goddidit!"  That is not any kind of explanation; rather it is a rejection of the very concepts of explanation, inquiry, and understanding.  These questions aren't examples of curiosity, but anti-curiosity.  Their whole purpose is to try to justify not learning anything or trying to figure anything out.  This is ignorance as a willful, deliberately-chosen approach to life, with emphasis on the "ignore."

Next iteration:

5º Why is there right from wrong/good from evil?


7º Why ability to reproduce?

The implicit claim here is that these sorts of things could only exist if a magical king in the sky made them up.  First of all, this is an extreme example of looking at Universe through human-colored glasses.  We can see that humans can make things up (like stories, songs, designs) and make things.  So, if there's something out there that's the least bit interesting or mysterious, something very like a human must have done it.  SHIN's Grand Unified Theory is: Big Sky Man.  Going back to the first iteration, we can now see how deep his sexism goes.  Little Earth Men are just smaller versions of Big Sky Man; their existence follows naturally and logically from the starting premise.  Only the existence of females is a question requiring an explanation.  Sexism for SHIN and believers like him is not merely a barbaric attitude inherited from the past, or even a Hallowed Tradition--it's a fundamental cosmological principle.

Big Sky Man is treated as an irreducibly simple, metaphysically necessary axiomatic starting point.  Never mind that even an ordinary Little Earth Man is far more complicated (and thus, in greater need of explanation) than something like the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle (pi) or the Fibonacci sequence.  SHIN looks at Universe through man-colored glasses and just assumes that his own man-ness is the metaphysical Ground of Being and solution to all mysteries.  As Peter Carroll puts it so well, monotheism is megalomania by proxy.

Next iteration:

Ask a theist like SHIN how they know what they claim to know, and you'll get some variant of "'Cause the Bible [that is, Big Sky Man] says so."  In other words, metaphysics is defined as Big Sky Man, and epistemology (and ethics) are defined as emanations of Big Sky Man's authority.  Pi, the Fibonacci sequence, "e," the "laws" of physics etc. are what they are because Big Sky Man commanded that they be so, and the way to know anything is to believe without question whatever Big Sky Man tells you.  And so, the politics of Authoritarianism joins sexism as a fundamental cosmic axiom.

But of course Big Sky Man doesn't actually say any of this himself.  Instead, what we have are writings scribed by ordinary men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied--by men--redacted, interpolated, re-redacted and re-interpolated--by men--translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated--by men--and finally, interpreted for you--by men--like your local priest, pastor, or somebody like SHIN.  Each of these men claims (without being quite so honest as to admit it openly) the divine right to canonize, de-canonize, and define the meaning of "the Word of God," and speak infallibly ex cathedra concerning its application to your life.[3]  It is not the Bible that is infallible, but their interpretation thereof.  Don't believe me?  Just look at how these guys blatantly veto everything Jesus ever had to say about money.  Or the way they dismiss hundreds of the laws of Moses while assuring their followers that the two or three laws about homosexuality are eternal and adamantine in their applicability forever and ever, amen.  Clearly, it is not Jesus or Moses who is the Supreme Authority and Grand Unified Theory Incarnate, but the believer himself.  It's his political views that ought to be the law of the land, his tribal markers that ought to overshadow the social order, his level of ignorance that ought to define scientific truth (see: Creationism; Climate Denialism).

Nutshell: People like SHIN go beyond the ordinary level of SPAG, where the believer peers into a well in search of God and sees something that looks remarkably like themselves.  They go on to arrogate to themselves the Divine prerogatives of omniscience,[4] infallibility, and supreme cosmic authority.  Megalomania by proxy.
 1. Their answers providing a demonstration that on the internet, alchemy works.
 2. Unless it turns out I'm gay, and that's even worse than gurls, and since anything being worse than gurls takes a miracle, if there are gays God has to exist!  Checkmate, atheists!
 3. How can the Bible be infallible if any given interpretation of it is fallible?  The notion of Biblical "infallibility" is only useful or meaningful if the belief system ostensibly derived from it is also infallible.
 4. In a peculiarly twisted sense: "If I don't know somethin' it ain't worth knowin'.  But all the stuff I do [think I] know, that's all there is to know."
Changed Change Reason Date