MICROHOMILIES, god, the afterlife, and GUILT.

Great Debates
1

Hello, Freethinking Friends: Wonder if anybody can help us
(me and friends) who have been rather stymied in our attempts to fabricate a RATIONAL RESPONSE to what appears to be a rather well-thought-out (though of course, guilt-based) “maxim” promulgated by the current RRR “Radical Religious Right”–?

When the RRRs hear that some of us, their long-time friends, do not share almost all of their religious and dogmatic views, they serve up a quaint little homily, the substance of which goes something like this (very roughly):

“We believe in god, the afterlife [et cetera]. You do not believe in all that. But we feel that we are not wasting our time [with all this religiosity], because ALL of us will find out ‘the truth’ after we all die…and you (‘heathens’) will really ‘get yours’, then --” ] – or something like that.

This sepulchral sermonette of theirs is a truly clever construction, and certainly does appeal to the superstitiously-inclined. All along the same old tired lines of hellsfire and retribution.

(Hey, could someone give us a MORE NEATLY-WORDED VERSION of what these people are have fabricated? This “mini-lecture” reproduces itself all over the environment, and we have even seen it done in a crafty little CROSS-STITCH-thingy, fer cripes-sake!! – Can’t find a copy here, now…but would like to read it, stated clearly…as offered by the Misters Falwell, Robertson, et. al.)

ALSO: GOT ANY RATIONAL-BASED RETORTS? –
Please…Would you try to share with us rational thinkers a FEW-WORD- (let’s NOT be NASTY, ok?) or COUPLA-SENTENCE-RETORT which would serve nicely to give the “believers” something to reflect upon.?

Thanks, one and all. – pukalani.

2

Ah, but they worship a false God, when the True Believers know that it is from the Invisible Pink Unicorn that all blessings flow! Surely they will be consigned to the Pastures of Low Grass and High Manure, while Her followers frolic in the Blessed Pastures of Her Ultimate Pinkness!

(Are they convinced by an appeal to a reward/punishment after death by a God they do not think exists? No? Then why should you be?)

see also: Arguments Against Pascal’s Wager (“Pascal’s Wager” is apparently the basis of their argument, although a bit disguised) and (my favorite) The Parable of Hank’s Ass

3

“Look out… look out… Pink Unicorns on Parade, here they come, Hippity-Hoppity!”

Sorry, Gaudere, but ever since I first saw your sig, I’ve been thinking that…

My favorite things to say to religious people:

Question: “Did God exist before he created the universe?”

Typical Answer: “Of course, he existed for eternity.”

Q: “So he just sat there for eternity in this nonexisting void before he created everything?”

TA: “Yup.”

Q: “Don’t you think that’s pretty stupid, just sitting there doing nothing for eternity, and then spontaneously creating the universe?”

TA: “No, he’s all-knowing and wise and–”

Q: “Why did he create man?”

TA: “Why, to worship God.”

Q: “Isn’t God pretty insecure, then, having to create billions of people just to tell him how great he is?”

TA: “Uh… uh… uh…”

4

Hey, thanks GAUDERE and SPOOFE Bo Diddly, for your input!!

However, please, pleeeeze, could you try to connect with (any)body you know, and GET us the little wording/quotation “homily-micro-sermonette” that we were asking for, above, in our original posting?

We reeely need to get a nice, accurate statement of this little GEM from the christ-ers and others…It goes on and on, in about one or two sentences, something like:
“…we are believers, you are not. And we do our ‘belief-dance’ all of our lives. But it can’t hurt if we do our belief-dance, and then learn, at death, that we have been wrong. But…if we are correct, you (‘heathens’) who don’t dance the dance, are going to be the ones in trouble…etcetera, and blah…”

OH SHEESE!..SOMEbody help us…please…We really need this little compilation of words…

Would LOVE to philosophize wit youse…but, for now…couldja please just GRAB ONTO OUR GENUINE and MOST SINCERE REQUEST, HERE, FOR THIS VERY-CURRENT AND PREVALENT QUOTATION FROM THE Falwell/Robertson Clans?

Thanks much…Will await your/anyone’s replies, here…
pukalani.

5

Well, it’s a version of Pascal’s Wager, as I noted, which goes something like “if you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.” But I can’t turn up any references to a “belief-dance” or anything like that.

6

Puka…why do you have to have a snappy come back at all? If you think believers are a bunch of idiots then why address the issue? Do you actually care what they think? Or do you need a snappy come back because you aren’t really sure yourself? If you are indeed comfortable in what you don’t believe then why bother? What interests me so often about this “is there a God debate?” is the vehemence of both sides. I can understand why the poor brainwashed, spoon-fed, scientifically retarded, believers are so darned eager to prove their point. I just can’t seem to see why the mentally superior, well educated, logical, scientific elite love to argue with them so much. You’d think they would stop bothering. Seems to me like they are every bit as interested in bringing over converts as bunch of door banging Jehovah’s Witness.

Needs2know

7

Every time someone throws Pascal’s Wager at me, I counter by asking them if they think God would approve of them hedging bets on their faith like that.

What Pukalani wants is a such a comeback that will shut them up and cause them to rethink what they believe in. I gotta say, Puka, I don’t think there’s is such a thing.

8

Before I give a reply, I’d just like to address needs to Needs2know assumptions that just because one believes in God they are all “brainwashed, spoon-fed, scientifically retarded, believers” (regardless of which religion) and that all non-believers are “mentally superior, well educated, logical, scientific elite”. I’ve know very religious people who were well educated and far from scientifically retarded. One comes to mind had a phd in Chemistry and worked as a chemistry professor as well as on the board at the college. That is just one example. And not all non-believers are mentally superior or well educated or logical. I’ve known some pretty unintelligent, down right stupid, athiests. One who comes to mind is a man who wouldn’t drink water because of what water does to metal. To make such a steroetypical statement, why don’t you go all out and say all blacks are thieves, all asians love to take pictures, all gays are child molestors and all women are bad drivers.

That being said, my response (I used to be one of those over-zealous christian type people) to them would be “If your God is as just and merciful as you believe he is, then I’m sure he’ll judge me on how I live my life and treat his people in my life rather than believe in the words of men or what is written in a book. If you don’t trust him enough to believe in his nature rather than a man’s word and you believe, then I’m certainly not going to trust you and whay you are telling me. Heck, even the bible says all man is a liar.” Or something along those lines.

But I’d have to agree with Needs2know on one thing, why bother. Switch the station, walk away, hang up, close the door, whatever. You wouldn’t watch a tv show you don’t like, would you? It always cracks me up with the people who call in radio stations and say things like “this is the worst show I’ve ever hear, I’ve been listening for the past three weeks . . .” If it was so bad, why do they keep listening?

And keep in mind that while you don’t believe, they do and are just doing their job and following orders. Some more than others. I don’t agree with the cop who gives me a ticket for speeding, but I do understand he is just doing his job. Argueing never helps.

9

Dearest El Guapo…must I explain to you the use of sarcasim. And before anyone else lodges a complaint…look at the OP and many of the other threads started in this vein and tell me that sarcasim is not in fact the very essence of many of these threads. So don’t get your panties in a bunch, Guapo. This thread was started in an attempt to make people who have some kind of belief system into a bunch of idiots, just like so many others that I’ve seen posted here. What I can’t understand is why it is such a favorite past time with so many of the Straight Dope posters, bashing people that want to believe in something. But then I have noticed that it is very much politically correct here at the Straight Dope to do so, just like it’s fine to start threads like…“You might be a redneck if…” and everyone thinks it’s funny. Looks to me like you could substitue redneck with poor person or perhaps uneducated person. But who cares right? We’re all so intelligent and enlightened here. And they are just, after all, bunch of inbred, tobacco chewing, bigoted, rotten toothed rednecks. Just like people who choose to believe in something are a pack of deluded, brainwashed, idiots. Now do you get my point or must I hit you with a brick?

Needs2know…thinks these damned religon/God doesn’t exsist threads are too plentiful and simply non-productive. Most of them belong in the Pit since they are essentually nothing more than a reason for people to insult each other.

10

I am quite familiar with sarcasm, use it on a daily basis in fact, even know how to spell it (now THAT was clear sarcasm), but it doesn’t always come across well in written form. Especially in this type of forum with such strong stands on each side. My panties weren’t ruffled in the slightest nor do I required any type of masonary work to my personage, thank you anyway.

This is the only message board I participate in because evveryone seems quite civilized and name calling isn’t plentiful. Hence my reaction to something I didn’t read as sarcasm. Bashing and disagreeing are two seprate things, and I see lots of disagreements but not a lot of bashing. The little I have seen, the mods are pretty good at nipping it in the bud, at least in GD. I don’t frequent the Pit, so I wouldn’t know there.

Wasn’t there a posting about none of this really changing anyone’s mind and being non-productive? It was agreed on as true, but then what is? I think the idea of God/Afterlife is one of the greatest debates of all time. Who said debating=production? I think it expands the mind to other’s views, which ain’t so bad.

Speaking of non-productive, I should get back to work. Excuse me for the hijack/defense. Please carry on.

11

Really? I believe most responses were pointing out flaws in the argument (which is a lousy one, and I’ve heard it so many times–it should be mocked), or other similar ones, not saying all believers were stupid–although the relative intelligence of those very few theists who aggressively witness using cutesy but flawed arguments can perhaps be speculated upon. You’re the one who pulled out the over-broad insults, sarcastically or no, and got immediately called on it. If I am reasonably respectful of religion (and I think I am) does that mean I can never make fun of shoddy logic, just because some religion happens to be using it? Nobody enjoys being witnessed to, whether it is from fundamentalists, mormons, Scientologists, crystal-wavers, etc. It doesn’t mean you dislike a religion itself, or the practicers of it, if you strongly object to being badly preached at by the overzealous sorts. If some theist came on board and was being aggressively witnessed to by an atheist using the “rock so big He can’t lift it” argument, I (and others) would happily point out the flaws in that too.

Some people do think all believers are stupid. Some people do think all atheists are stupid. Is talking about a faulty argument used by one theist for witnessing purposes any more insulting to all the other intelligent theists than the indeterminable “How the f*ck can an atheist have any morals?” threads are to moral atheists? Heck, at least this OP was only referring to one small group of believers; the “atheists can’t have morals” threads always are directed towards all atheists, not just a select few. However, I don’t complain about it, since we’re here to debate, and if we never brought up anything that could be potentially offensive to believers in God, psychic powers, aliens, or those who disbelieve all of those, this forum would be pretty bare. You’ve probably not been around long enough to remember, but we have had a couple threads that were basically theist-bashing–and using absolutely horrible arguments, too. The OPs were jumped on with both feet by theist and atheist alike, because they were lousy arguments.

12

How about:
“If I’m wrong, I will eventually be enlightened. If you are wrong you will have wasted your lives in smug self-deception and die never knowing your entire life has been wasted.”

13

BTW, Gaudere,
That Hank site is hilarious.

14

I didn’t attempt to answer this post with the same tired old line about pink unicorns either did I? I think that speaks for itself. Oh that’s right, I was supposed to laugh again right? Perhaps this isn’t exactly bashing (vocabulary limited, what exactly would you call it?) and no I haven’t been around really long enough to have read a good thread on this subject. Most of the recent threads usually result in just this kind of mean-spirited banter. Many of them appear to be started with just this in mind.

Yeah El Guapo, I did spell it wrong, and no I didn’t intend to be rude to you either. Accept my apology on this one. But this thread and the “religons are right about one thing…” thread are usually started in such a nasty manner that I just had to say so. They are not genuine attempts to understand the nature of anyone’s belief system or even get the non-believers view point across with any real effectiveness. They are simply brought up so funny guys can make jokes about pink unicorns and snicker behind their hands at the Bible thumpers.

Needs2know

15

Hey/Hi, (GAUDERE!-There)…and, Whew! YOUR thoughts are JUST WHAT we were looking for (although we have to admit that you did “lose” us a bit in the “Pink Unicorn” parable/thingy)…and, did we say, “THANKS!”? Well,
We MEAN it! Mahalo nui loa (thanks, in the highest).

Say, there: The Pascal’s-Pile-of-Pontificaton was most enlightening, and NOT being philosphy majors, we really needed that quote…THAT’s the one!..[[And has it EVER been splattered all over the “church-y” geography, hereabouts, through which we daily slog!]]

[[We DO have to admit, tho, that we remain here, rather afeared to “click” on your “…Hank’s Ass…”(!) reference. Wethinks we shall just leave THAT ONE alone!! Ahem!]]

Just one more thing, Gaudere[-there]…[waitaminit! – “gaudere” is a Latin word - “to something or other”…is it “praise”…? hmm…yep: amo, amas, amat. I GOT it!] WE offer “praise unto youse, O Gaudere”, you dollink!

Do you suppose you, in your REALLY sharp eloquence (we ARE sincere, here) might “crank your intellect” around for a moment? Perhaps you would just pretend for a few seconds that you are WE, here…And, someone (over hors d’oeuvres and tea) shoots their mouthful of Pascal’s-Purty-Polemic right at your face – and it is just the “WRONG moment” for you…and you wish, with every CELL in your psyche, that you HAD a TANGY (and, again, NOT NASTY) verbal RETORT for the Blessed-Blather-er – after which retort you could contentedly canter off into the sunset on “Old Paint”, secure in the knowledge that, in the words of Dorothy Parker, “Hell is other people”.

D’you suppose you might SHARE that concisely-worded REPLY (might we ask, a sentence or two?) WITH US…now…or as soon as the mood grabs ya…?
Oh, just THINK how happy YOU could rest, knowing you have contributed so greatly to the joy of so MANY of us here, just teetering on the brink of whatever-“hell”-is!

Again and again, Thank you. We mean it.

Also: We really do not think we wish to continue much further in THIS thread…for there appear to be molecules of “my/god/thingy-is-better-than-your-non/god/thingy” oozing their way into the testtube. “Heck wit dat!!”, as our tiny nephew says so often. – [Hey! Perhaps THAT is the only “retort” to Pascal’s-Poop that is required!]

G’bye fer now… Pukalani.

16

Um, thank you, pukalani. But seriously, if you want a witty retort, use Spiritus’, or read up on Pascal’s Wager and formulate one on your own. I am not adverse to helping, but I think that working your own way through the argument and counter-argument will be far more rewarding than simply repeating my words. So I must respectfully decline. Next time you are confronted with Pascal’s Wager, politely outline the errors in reasoning and perhaps you can convince the person witnessing to you that it is a poor argument, and s/he will abandon it. It’s far more satisfying to actually win an argument than to simply fling witty jabs, IMHO–and if all you have is a witty retort and don’t understand the logical defense against PW, are you any wiser than the person preaching it to you?

PS to Needs2Know–you pick as your examples of the overall tenor of this forum a thread posted as a newbie’s (no offense intended, just description) very first post and a thread posted by a well-known and reviled troll (in which everyone but trolls disagreed with his sweeping statements, and it is currently a discussion of UUism)? Right now we don’t really have many theological debates going on; we’re going through a gun-rights and libertarianism phase. The two scripture verses threads are OK, if not really in-depth, and I’m afraid nobody likes witnessing so a few people got testy in the first one. The “Fire the Canon!” thread is shaping up to be interesting, if you like discussion of ancient v. modern-day relevation. As I said before, you can be perfectly respectful of a religion while not liking shoddy arguments used to support it, or the way a few practicioners of it behave, and I don’t think you should have to keep silent about that. If our archives were up, I’d point you towards some of our more substantial religious debates.

And watch what you say about Her Pinkness, if you are wishing to appear above gratuitous bashing. :slight_smile:

17

Needs2know: No problem, I understand how fired up one can get. I detest stereotypes and sweeping generalizations, so I too had to say something, sarcasm or not.

Gaudere: I agree, witnessing can be like nails on a chalkboard to some people. I didn’t like doing it when I considered myself a Christian, and certainly don’t like it now. I’m with you that you can disagree and still be respectful, and that goes from everything from religion to politics.

Pukalani: Good luck, you’ll need it. Sometimes I think even logic is illogical. But from one who’s been there, witty ans smug remarks only make the other side want to argue more. Not necessarily to prove you wrong, but to prove themselves right, thus justifing their belief even more. To paraphrase “A kind word turneth away wrath”. Works for witnessing as well.

18

Ok…And, so there! Mission accomplished.

To You, O Fine SPIRITUS MUNDI (beeeg keeeses! to you, for sharing PRECISELY the “retort” we needed – Our intellects are in NO class with YOURS!)…To You, O Also-Fine GAUDERE, we say many, many ThankYouse. You have helped us to steer the train onto a more productive trestle.

As the virgin (or was it the Old Whore?) said, afterward, “Was it good for you, too?”

I think I’ll have a cigarette.

Good Night. And Good Luck.

Pukalani, with Aloha.