Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Why Pretty Lady is not a Secular Humanist

It's just so exhausting, darlings.

Truly, this statement pretty much sums up Pretty Lady's reason for not embracing the kind, gentle, nebulous philosophy of Secular Humanism. It is simply too stressful. Pretty Lady is neurotic enough, without having the entire burden of the Categorical Imperative thrust upon her every move. As she has discussed elsewhere, it is impossible, in this physical realm, to truly understand and assess the ultimate consequences of one's own actions, let alone the consequences of other people's actions when performed according to the principle which you yourself have Universally Willed by espousing it....pardon the pause, here...Pretty Lady got too tangled up in her own sentence to finish it. She could not remember where she was going.

Indeed, darlings, where are we going? Do we know? Do we have any control whatsoever over where we are going, or when, or how, or is Control merely an illusion? For although we may have control over our intentions, our intentions may be forever the best, still we have no way of knowing what circumstances, foreseeable or otherwise, may arise to thwart them. None of us, simply, is omniscient.

This may seem a tautology; many Secular Humanists of her acquaintance may tell Pretty Lady to relax and chill out, already. But she has been told, privately, by one or two recovering Secular Humanists, that, deep down, relaxation is impossible for a truly good-hearted, conscientious individual who believes that the Fate of the World, or at least of her alcoholic family, is in her hands. Thus are co-dependent persons born and made.

Moreover, empirical evidence tends to suggest that persons who are relaxed, trusting and non-neurotic tend to live longer, healthier lives. (Pretty Lady knows these things because she once worked in a library, where she read or skimmed every book on Spirituality and Healing that entered the building; thus her sources have tended to blur, over time, into one vague but relatively consistent Source.) This may be neither here nor there, but Pretty Lady has an inchoate theory brewing that Things Which Lead to Health and Thriving are closer to ultimate Truth than Things Which Lead to Misery and Suffering. She's still in the experimental stages of this, so her theory is subject to modification at any time, and should in no way be construed as a Categorical Imperative of any kind.

Indeed, holding a certain Trust in one's mind, that 'whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should' allows a person to speculate widely, and test theories such as this one, without any overwhelming onus attached to the possibility of Getting It Wrong. Moreover, since Pretty Lady might well be wrong about anything she thinks, she has no pressing reason to impose her views upon others--unlike those people who have decided that People are in Charge, Here, and must make things turn out okay.

It is possible that Pretty Lady's career choice may have something to do with her deep need not to be the One In Charge. Pretty Lady's life is, frankly, a dicey one. She perambulates around the planet on little more than Faith, Intuition, and a quite astonishingly wonderful Family. Persons with a steady income, a spouse, or other reliable means of support may have the luxury of declining to believe in God; Pretty Lady lacks these reserves. If she truly believed that she was in control of her own fate, she would still be a submissive and miserable Government Employee.

At the same time, Pretty Lady is not particularly worried about Hell. One look at conditions in this physical reality is enough to convince her that we are there already, and she has nothing to lose by following time-tested instructions that promise an end to all this. She grants that things could possibly be worse, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that she has very little to lose by attempting the experiment.

So. Pretty Lady leaves it up to her dear readers to decide whether her attitude is Blasphemous, Utilitarian, Idiotic, or Completely Insane; she has no attachment to your opinions, one way or another, so she is very much looking forward to hearing them.

31 comments:

Desert Cat said...

All I can say is I like your approach. Perhaps because it is not entirely unlike my own.

k said...

For any individual to believe that the Fate of the World is in their hands is an ultimate form of narcissism, isn't it? Intentions are notwithstanding - they're not material to that belief.

I know next to nothing of child development. I seem to recall being told, though, that it's the emotional achievement of approximately two years of age to believe that everything in one's life - including what happens to others - is in the control of, or the result of, the actions of that little self.

Desert Cat said...

But that is essentially the view of the materialist secular humanist. At least in the aggregate, if not necessarily at the individual level.

If there is nothing outside the material, then nothing is outside the realm of Science (or 'SCIENCE!!' as one may prefer), which imples nothing is ultimately outside the realm of man to understand and control.

And if all is (potentially) within our grasp to control, then it becomes more than our obligation, but our imperative duty as humanity (or at least that segment of humanity that is sufficiently enlightened by the vision of what Ought To Be As Determined By Our Intellectual Betters) to do so, lest things 'Not Turn Out Right'.

So yea, I agree. I had never made the connection to narcissism, but it fits.

Judge Well Ye Wolves said...

Wrestling (at age 52) with that exact issue- only for the last 50 years or so. So far, the main contenders are:
-"There's nothing else out there, you are seriously screwed." Leading me to think I should return to selling nose-candy. No reason not to.
-"There's Something Else out there, and It is really pissed at you." Leading me to do same as above- since the game is rigged.
-"There's Something Else out there, and It is saying the equivalent of 'Be excellent to yourself, and others; above all- chill, dude'."
Tendimg toward #3- only because I seem to have an inborn, lifelong need, or capability, to accept #3 and work with it, or It.
Since I might be able to work with It, I might as well try- in any way my tiny, defective brain can.

prettylady said...

Gracious! Pretty Lady expected a great deal of resistance to her lazy little attitude; she is not quite certain what to do with this chorus of agreement, except to be impressed with how cogent and articulate you all sound, in comparison to her. Perhaps the fighters all have early bedtimes, being so tired, what with Saving the World and all.

Pretty Lady's greatest flaw has always been laziness; however, it is also her greatest virtue, as it leads her to discover new and ingenious methods of efficiency.

Chris Rywalt said...

Desert Cat sez:
If there is nothing outside the material, then nothing is outside the realm of Science (or 'SCIENCE!!' as one may prefer), which imples nothing is ultimately outside the realm of man to understand and control.

Not so. First, answering questions doesn't lead to the end of all questioning; it always leads to more questions. Second, having a model which helps understanding does not imply control. I can read in great detail how arsenic will cause my death if I ingest it, but it's not like I can control this process if I go ahead and eat it anyway.

I also think -- discussing Pretty Lady's main post here -- that arguing specifically against the Categorical Imperative doesn't shoot down humanism; plenty of humanists don't agree with Kant. Also, Kant's Imperative doesn't involve omniscience. It specifically entails attempting to conceive of a world in which everyone does what one is contemplating, and if one cannot conceive of such a thing, then you shouldn't do it. The Categorical Imperative says nothing about accurately predicting all outcomes of a given action, it asks only for your own conception.

Kant was more of a religious humanist anyway. Secular humanism is more in line with Hume. Hume, you will recall, actually questioned even causality. I'm more of a skeptic in his mold than a Kantian.

Crom said...

The difference between myself and many Christians is that I really only combat against falsehoods told against the faith, or attack spurious logic.

Personally, I really don't care what choices people make provided they aren't trying to affect me. This is not to say I have no compassion for them, because I do - but the best thing I can do for them is to offer information, and if they are interested they can explore the data I present. I am not in the habit of hitting people with Bibles (especially when my hardback copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species is such a superior tool for that) since no one ever truly converted to God through force.

Many religions don't understand that, and try and force conversion through manipulation, brainwashing and fear. To me this is an incredible waste of time, since you alienate the real seekers.

Arguing with the humanists and the atheists also has the odd effect of reaffirming my faith, since some of them are sharp people and helpfully attack any soft arguments and leave no room for slack in my intellectual understanding of the nature of my faith in God.

Desert Cat made an excellent point earlier, where he asked "if you don't believe in God, and the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell, then why should it matter to you in the slightest what I believe?" Let me reframe that question slightly. If I told you (Mr/Mrs/Ms Non-Believer) that I believed with all my heart you were going to die in a car wreck, would you resent me so much as you do for my believing in Heaven and Hell?

----

"Pretty Lady leaves it up to her dear readers to decide whether her attitude is Blasphemous, Utilitarian, Idiotic, or Completely Insane" While I wholeheartedly disagree with the "many paths, one destination" philosophy that you appear to have embraced, it is certainly further along the path to enlightenment than those who plug their ears, close their eyes and yell "There is no God, you can't make me believe, neener neener neener!"

MikeT said...

What you say about not knowing the full consequences of your actions is completely true. Many people have a problem groking the idea that not only is that the cause, but that there is no inherent 1:1 relationship in causality. One action may have a hundred thousand little consequences that are unknown and unknowable to us. An action that may save one life now may cost two lives tomorrow. Perfect knowledge like that, which is what socialists reach for in politics and the economy, is simply impossible for us to have.

starbuck said...

Arguing with the humanists and the atheists also has the odd effect of reaffirming my faith, since some of them are sharp people and helpfully attack any soft arguments and leave no room for slack in my intellectual understanding of the nature of my faith in God. -Crom

I second that one.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the "many paths, one destination" philosophy that you appear to have embraced, it is certainly further along the path to enlightenment than those who plug their ears, close their eyes and yell "There is no God, you can't make me believe, neener neener neener!"-Crom

I agree in a sense, but I disagree in the sense that it can destroy just as completely.

I am of the belief that God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. Infact I believe he mourns people who do go.
I have heard people time and again that a loving God wouldn't send people to hell. And I say God sends no one to hell. They send themselves. Do you blame a judge for sending a man to prison for life guilty of murder? No, you blame the murderer. God has laws. To show you how loving God is, he came to us and gave up his life in a cruel and punishing way to provide us with a mere choice. To accept his scarifice or to reject it. THAT simple. Because he knew we couldn't earn it or be good enough on our own. And look at the benefits of saying yes to him! Your life does change, some immediate, some a little slower, but it does change! Your mind changes, your heart softens. Theology makes sense where it didn't before. And he always talks to you. All you have to do is listen.

I just love it when I profess my beliefs and people get mad or look at me like I have just lost my mind. And yet the minute before, they thought I was alright. I am still the same person, just you know a little bit more.

And a persons beliefs play a HUGE role in their politics. Because politics is a set of beliefs also, are they not?

And I am also of the firm belief that if the world is SO against something, that something is probably right.

Go ahead and tell me I am wrong, it doesn't matter. You won't change my mind. I am a stubborn man when you find out my convictions. Or perhaps I am just a big dumb swede. But when it comes to Yeshua, I am as stubborn as a brick wall. You can destroy me, but you can't bend me.


PL... I like you, but my opinion is that you are playing with fire. God is jealous and he wants our faith and worship all to himself, but won't force us.

starbuck said...

True miket... We are extremely limited in our knowledge. And this "critical thinking skills" is just horse hockey!

What a load of manure. People sitting around trying to out I.Q. each other. I find it humorus.

I do like to chat though.

starbuck said...

Has anybody noticed, that for a while now, when something on the TV, or from the computer, or from a scientist, it is taken as the extreme truth... no matter what?!

If the news guy on at 6:00 pm said it, it must be true. If it is on the internet.. there is no doubt. If a scientist said that turds on a stick would help you live 20 years longer. Then the price for shit would skyrocket because so many people can hardly wait to get their hands on one of those baby's and suck it down. Feeling good they will live longer.

Perhaps to avoid hell for another 20 years or so.

(ugh that post made me want to gag, and not because of manure)

prettylady said...

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the "many paths, one destination" philosophy that you appear to have embraced, it is certainly further along the path to enlightenment

Let us merrily look down upon one another from our mutual seats of superior wisdom, Crom, my dear. Wait, the physics of that is dicey...

Terrymum said...

As someone who believes as you do on almost every topic - and has since before you were born - I have long ago decided that I lose nothing by believing and may in fact gain some valuable traits etc. by so believing.

What has lately astounded me to some degree is the strong desire of others to convert me to their ways of thinking - and no I'm not talking about the Fundamentalists (of any ilk). I'm talking about the atheists and securlarists.

For folks who proclaim their freedom and open-minded stance as restful and joyful, they sure can be hateful and get very upset when I (or anyone like me) doesn't see things their way.

I'm quite content to wait until whenever to find out (or not) who is/was right. Meanwhile, a life led believing that some great Truth actually exists and cares, leads to a life lived with more direction, purpose, and love. At least in my life.

But it does seem oddly discordant and down right illogical to me that the very people who proclaim that not believing is so restful etc. are the same persons who seem the most upset when their choices are challenged by my very peaceful lack of interest in joining them.

My Uncle Jack Smith passed away when he was 86. He was my uncle through marriage, had a bright inquiring mind, was good to all, and was over 1/2 Native American (I don't know which tribe(s)). He believed he would turn to worm food upon his death. I told him to let me know if he was wrong. He passed away last summer. I'm still waiting for him to get in contact.
I'll let you know when he does.

Crom said...

PL -

It certainly would be less fun if we constantly agreed on everything, wouldn't it?

Desert Cat said...

Not so. First, answering questions doesn't lead to the end of all questioning; it always leads to more questions. Second, having a model which helps understanding does not imply control.

1) "Ultimately" I said. Perhaps I should have said "in theory". But what I meant was that *all things* are within the realm of the "knowable" to the materialist perspective.

2) And yet, has there ever been anything within the grasp of humanity to understand and potentially to control to its advantage that there is no effort to control?

It is one of the fundamental driving forces of humanity, and science is its tool to that end.

I can read in great detail how arsenic will cause my death if I ingest it, but it's not like I can control this process if I go ahead and eat it anyway.

Chris my dear obfuscationist, this is why I referred to the aggregate and not the individual. Because really, it's individuals that need controlling for us to reach utopia, don't you agree? We can't have people eating arsenic when We Know Better.

Chris Rywalt said...

Dessert Cat sez:
Because really, it's individuals that need controlling for us to reach utopia, don't you agree?

You've got me confused with a Christian, I think.

Anyway, being a humanist doesn't imply being a materialist. What it means is thinking we just don't know, and thus can't base anything on it.

Christians, by definition, have faith. Faith, as the good Douglas Adams taught us, is denied by proof. Therefore by definition there can be no proof of the Christian religion.

Humanists don't say faith is wrong. All they say is, if we can't be sure -- if there is not only no proof, but there can never be any proof -- how can we use it as an absolute guideline? I mean, should we follow Christianity? If so, which sect? If so, which subsect? What about Islam? What about any of the hundreds of other religions?

Some humanists are atheists. Not all. What we all share is an unwillingness to require that everyone follow some religion or other in order to be moral beings. We say you can define a moral framework without resorting to mysticism.

Kant's Categorical Imperative was at attempt at building such a framework. There are others.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Chris here. When I gave myself permission to not believe in God, it was such a relief. For me, the process of un-learning and increasing not-knowing has been fascinating, rewarding, and has taught me a lot about being kind to myself and to others.

I don't think I have pushed my views on anyone else.

I think that there are pushy people, and there are those who demonstrate the worth of their beliefs by example. Those characteristics do not adhere to any particular religious, non-religious, or political group. It's just a case of immature/insecure people vs. wise people.

There are plenty of liberals and humanists who feel abused by believers who used their "faith" in anger, as a bludgeon. As are there people of faith who feel bludgeoned by some atheist, scientist, or "society." Whatever that is. I don't think it surprises anybody here that there are obnoxious people everywhere. The world is just as capable of beating us up no matter what groups we identify with.

And as far as people believing anything that a "scientist" tells them - well, those people can't possibly understand science themselves. "Science" is not a thing; it's a process, an approach, a method. People who approach the world scientifically, if they're honest, learn much about awe and humility.

I think the fact that many people in the U.S. either worship or revile "white coats" says more about the miserable state of science education in this country than it does about truth, spirit, or anything else.

While I am a secularist, and a pro-science unbeliever, I also know that 99.99% of the universe, and indeed ourselves, is and will most probably remain an immense, beautiful mystery. Frankly, this mystery is what gets me out of bed in the morning and lulls me to sleep at night.

There is no such group as "the atheists" or "the humanists" any more than there is a coherent group of "the Christians" or "the Muslims." Speaking as though there is such a group compounds an error. Instead of creating a shorthand that furthers dialogues, it perpetuates ignorance and gives the upper hand to those pushy people I referred to earlier. I doubt any of us here want that.

Beck

Desert Cat said...

Anyway, being a humanist doesn't imply being a materialist.

Did I say that somewhere?

While our hostess may have been speaking of secular humanism more generally, I was riffing off k's comment to pick on materialists in particular.

You've got me confused with a Christian, I think.

Irony. The hardest tone to translate to the written word. At least I haven't mastered it. (Or are you being deliberately tone-deaf?)

Those are people using the dominant (?) cultural paradigm to control other people. You can call them 'Christian' if you want. But my obviously flawed reading of the scriptures never revealed a command to go forth and sieze the power structures of this world for the sake of the kingdom that Jesus made perfectly clear was *not* of this world (at least not in this age).

If Kant's Categorical Imperative or any other moral system were the core of the dominant cultural paradigm, these same people would be using it in the same manner. Witness PC, or the "meat is murder" moralists, Gaia worshippers, etc.

Anyway I'm still all tingly about the new superpowers you told me I have. I'm just itching for a chance to try them out. So, y'know...by all means, carry on!


(...rummmble....r-rummmble...)

Chris Rywalt said...

Just when I promise myself I'm going to absent myself from the conversation....

Desert Cat sez:
Did I say that somewhere?

You excerpted my comment and then mentioned materialism. Since I was talking about humanism....

Irony. The hardest tone to translate to the written word. At least I haven't mastered it. (Or are you being deliberately tone-deaf?)

I was adding irony to irony. You don't think I really think all Christians want to control everyone else, do you? Christians are just like anyone else.

Anyway I'm still all tingly about the new superpowers you told me I have.

I assume you mean the power to send me to Hell. I was going to save this discourse on faith for another time, but here goes.

We agree that Christianity, as I wrote earlier, is based on faith. "Without faith I am nothing." Where does this faith come from? It's not based on reason or logic, because if it were, that'd be proof, and proof denies faith.

So faith must come from some other place. Something you have or don't have, something that happens to you or doesn't. Or it's something you choose to have.

Now, I happen to think if it's something out of your control, God would be pretty churlish to condemn you to eternal torment for it. This is, greatly simplified, what Calvinists believe. At least they're consistent.

So let's say it's something within your control. You can choose to have faith or not. You choose to have faith. But faith in what? How do you know you've chosen the correct faith? Guess wrong and it's Hell for you.

On top of that, you particularly have chosen a faith which says I'm going to Hell. You could've chosen a faith which doesn't give a crap about unbelievers, like Judaism, or a faith which doesn't have a Hell, like Buddhism. Instead you chose a faith which condemns me to Hell.

I think that's impolite. I'm not saying I'm really going to go to Hell, because I really don't think -- I cannot even imagine -- that the universe is run along Christian lines. In fact I don't even understand how otherwise intelligent rational people can believe in an invisible superhero with a beard who lives in the sky, who, if they live by the right rules, they get to go be with for eternity after they die. But I'm willing to assume this is my problem -- too many people believe in this for me to think they're all somehow deranged -- so set that aside right now.

The point is, I don't really think I'm going to Hell. But I do think it's quite rude of you to choose to believe that I am, when there are so many other things you could believe in which leave me alone.

Crom said...

"it's quite rude of you to choose to believe that I am, when there are so many other things you could believe in which leave me alone.

Chris,

How rude it is of you to ask me to give my cherished beliefs and philosophy on life simply because it makes you uncomfortable? Why should I give a damn whether you think it's polite or not when you are asking me to give up my entire belief system so you won't have hurt feelings?

I asked earlier if you would be as offended if I believed with all my heart that you were going to die in a car crash. Would you resent me as much then?

I would guess no, but I could be wrong. But back to your point, why am *I* rude to believe this? I am not forcing anything on you, I am not influencing your path in any shape or manner. My "bearded invisible superhero in the sky" is nonsensical to you so what possible difference can it make? Do you equally resent your Islamic brethren for consigning you to Hell since you do not believe in Allah?

The thing that truly bothers you is that merest microscopic fraction of a chance that we are right, and that you are wrong. And if you play those odds and lose, you are fucked forever. If I play those odds and lose, then I get a dirt nap or I am reincarnated as a praying mantis. Look up "Pascal's Wager" for an interesting take on gambling with eternity.

Just for those of you who are conspiracy-prone, ask yourself a question: Which religion is catching the most flak and resistance recently?

If you guessed Christianity you are correct. If you doubt me, please send me your email address and I will happily bomb your account with hundreds of stories of schools removing only Christian symbols at Christmas while openly celebrating Chanukah and Ramadan and Kwanzaa, and other Christians being persecuted the world over.

Why is reading aloud from a Bible considered hate speech in Canada, and yet the Q'uran blasts five times a day from the muzzein in the mosques and no one dares say it's "hate speech".

Is it just pure cowardice on the part of the atheists that they attack Christianity (which cannot hit back, mostly) and yet give a pass to everyone else?

It certainly seems that way to me.

Desert Cat said...

Chris,
I'm not going to address your assertions about the nature of faith, because I have substantial disagreements with them, but that's a discussion for another time.

You chose a faith which condemns me to Hell. I think that's impolite...It's quite rude of you to choose to believe that I am, when there are so many other things you could believe in which leave me alone.

You've got to be putting me on. Either that or you're quite the narcissist. But since I'm generally slow to judge, I'll be giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're employing a rhetorical device you learned somewhere meant to drive those nasty 'chrischuns' away when they show up pretending to care about your eternal destiny.

Which of course *I* would find offensive if I were easily given to offense.

And perhaps I should. Because you would be so rude as to *presume* to tell me that my faith should be of so little consequence to me that it is like choosing Teriyaki Stir Fry instead of Moo Goo Gai Pan at the 'All-You-Can-Eat' Chinese buffet, with the remainders, together with the plastic plate and fork to be tossed in the trash when I'm through using it.

I find that attitude *incredibly* rude and presumptuous, and for you to make the foundation of my worldview, the core of my paradigm a matter for fussing and petty false posturing about *manners*...?

I mean Jimminy Christmas Chris! Go back and read PL's post entitled The Courteous Evangelist. You might, *might* have the faint beginnings of a case if I was crawling up your ass, doing my damnedest to convert you. But like the Jewish believers you admire, I've already stated that I won't give a damn about you if you don't want. (I suppose I should. But then that just makes me a lousy Christian.)

But you telling me that the very fact--not my shoving it on you, but the very *fact* that my paradigm includes the Christian concept of heaven and hell is somehow a rude offense to you, well that earns you a look of incredulity and an unbelieving shake of my head.

And if you're actually serious: Do you always give people this kind of power over you? Is it always so very much about you?

You might need to grow a thicker coat then, because there is a huge number of people in this world who not only believe you are going to hell, but are eagerly, actively seeking to speed your arrival there, sans head.

And they are very very easily offended. Speak ill of their prophet or their religion and they're in the streets demanding your death, sharpening their swords and eagerly looking forward to the day that they get their hands around your neck. They are no friend of free speech or freedom of religion, and you play to their hand with this little ploy to silence my worldview. Because you are the worst to them. They may grudgingly allow me to live in dhimmitude, but you, infidel? Death or conversion at swordpoint!

"How rude, Ahmed. Put your pointy little sword away. Why don't you just choose to believe in the Easter Bunny and leave me alone."

Good luck...

Oh, and for the record? I could tell you what the Bible says about heaven and hell and how to gain the former and avoid the latter, but I have no idea if you, Chris Rywalt, are going to hell or not. That's not for me to judge, (and *that's* scriptural).

Although I'll be happy to send you there if you really want. ;)

(rrrumble....r-rummmmble...)

Crom said...

Well damn.

My original post looked much like yours DC, full of righteous anger and references to how insulted Chris might be if he were to be beheaded to chants of "Allahu akhbar" but I deliberately chose to take the softer path.

Reading your post, I wish I had posted my first reaction. Heh.

Desert Cat said...

Ach, I'm not so easily offended. Incredulous, yes. Righteously indignant? Is why I said "*if* I were easily given to offense..."

Chris Rywalt said...

Both Desert Cat and Crom -- both of you -- have done a brilliant job of exposing your prejudices here by completely mischaracterizing -- in fact, nearly slandering -- an entire religion. Muslims are just as crazy as Christians, and if you want, I'll put you in touch with my friend who was held at tank point (not even gunpoint) in Northern Ireland to prove it.

And I think they're all rude, although it's a bit of an understatement to call "murderously ignorant" rude.

As for how important the choice of your faith is to you, it's immaterial. You made a choice. You said, "I like this here religion which says that a vast majority of the humans who have ever lived on Earth will spend eternity being tortured." I don't honestly care how sincere you are about all the peace and love crap Joshua may or may not have spouted at some point; bottom line, you're willing to believe in a supremely powerful being who, happily or otherwise, expects a large number of his creations to spend eternity suffering.

The Christian god is omniscient, yes? Therefore before he created the world, he knew his creations were going to Hell. But he created them anyway. As a good friend of mine pointed out, that's like dropping an anvil on a kitten and then claiming gravity killed it.

Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to give up their cherished beliefs. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter to me, really. But don't expect me to think you're a good person.

Chris Rywalt said...

Oh, and regarding Pascal's Wager: Don't you give your god enough credit to know the difference between someone who genuinely believes in him and someone who's faking it just in case?

If there is a single god, and he's Christian, I really hope there's a stop on the way to Hell so I can tell him to his face what I think about his cockamamie universe.

Chris Rywalt said...

Incidentally, I'd like to apologize to everyone for continuing this religious discussion. I swore off them ages ago, but here I am getting into it anyway. All it ever does is make people mad. We should all just drop it, and I'm going to try really, really hard to be the guy to drop it if Desert Cat, Crom, and/or Starbuck try to keep it going.

Man. I haven't performed a really big Christian bashing in ages. I feel like I fell off the wagon.

Desert Cat said...

yMuslims are just as crazy as Christians... And I think they're all rude, although it's a bit of an understatement to call "murderously ignorant" rude

Brilliant! I "exposed my prejudice" and you promptly confirmed and amplified the sentiment.

It doesn't matter to me, really. But don't expect me to think you're a good person.

Well then that's settled. I'm not a good person. And Chris is probably going to hell, who knows. But not before he flips God the bird on the way down.

prettylady said...

Boys! Stop it this instant. I am Most Seriously Displeased.

Desert Cat said...

Yes ma'am.

Chris Rywalt said...

Pretty Lady, you're talking to a guy who wants to flip God the bird. You think you can stop me?

Anyway, you can't be Most Seriously Displeased. You Love Everybody (With Initial Caps).

monte merrick said...

well, that was fun.