Mailbag: Humble Christians
I do get a kick out of those non believers in God perspectives.. As if these finite peanut brains even have the slightest clue. I look at this impossible fantastic exsistance of the human mind and then listen to the atheists spout about how there is no God. Its all to entertaining.
I'm glad that Bob finds it all very entertaining, but I think I would prefer it if he had found it to be a bit educational as well. There is a great deal of information here about philosophy (specifically religious philosophy) and critical thinking, both of which are important tools when it comes to learning about religion and religious beliefs. Very little space here is devoted to "spouting about how there is no God" while quite a bit is devoted to teaching people how to think more critically and skeptically about various religious claims, especially the theistic claim about the existence of God. At not point, though, does Bob dispute any of that material - or indeed, any material on this site at all.
Then you have to ask your self what kind of a fanatic would spend hours in atheism and go to great lengths to produce a huge web site? Umm .. Can ya say off balance?
Bob doesn't seem to understand why anyone would create a site like this - but I can only assume that Bob isn't very interested in philosophy, religion, skepticism, or critical thinking because those are the primary topics of this site. Yes, the title does say "Agnosticism / Atheism," but write about agnosticism and atheism outside of the context of philosophy and skepticism would be a rather pointless exercise - and not one that would occupy very much time.
And the Atheist did look upwards past the universe to infinity, and with a powerful roar like a mouse proclaimed. "there is no God!"
It's a pity, isn't it, that Bob had to waste time complaining about things he doesn't like instead of investing just a little bit of effort into actually providing reasons to believe that some god does actually exist? It can't be that hard, can it? If the existence of a god is so obvious and so unambiguous that those who disbelief deserve to be treated with ridicule and contempt, then it should be a relatively minor matter to explain to us what these reasons for belief are and why they are so good.
But for some reason, Bob chose not to do this - he found the expression of ridicule and contempt to be much more worthy of his time than any attempt to educate others. Curiously, Bob is not alone in this. The attitudes he expresses here, both in what he says and in what he doesn't say, are pretty common in the emails I get.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
What a shame Bob dot realise that his brain is as it is because of his geniality and his evolution as a humanbeing. It amazes me that evangelicals undermine our dignity as a species by wrongly saying that our abilties as a species are all down to some non-existent supernatural being. I also reject the idea that children are born evil, this belief is held by the catholic church and the evangelical fascists.
I think Bob finds this all more threatening than he admits. Otherwise, why bother to compose an email?
Dare I aim the “off balance” comment he made about Austin right back?
I find it entertaining when the barely literate attempt ridicule.
I find it just as entertaining all those religious websites who claim that god exists. Most of those I found from links to them posted by a few who have posted in these comments blocks and have taken strong issue with what Austin writes here. Some of those people have threatened violence (to Austin) or say we will go to hell. I credit Bob for not going down *that* road.
Why are theists so threatened by those of us who are just like everyone else except that we don’t believe in god?
I’m surprised that people can look at the universe - I mean, really look at it, and say that bronze-age superstitions are real. The more I discover about this amazing and wonderful (and frightening and ugly as well) universe, the more petty and restrictive (and illusory) the various god concepts are. It’s childish.
Seth351 says:
“I find it entertaining when the barely literate attempt ridicule.”
Quite. Bob’s spelling clears up any ambiguity which might have existed in connection with the ad hominem about “peanut brains”. For a moment there I thought Bob might be excluding himself from our ilk.(On purpose that is.)
Given that he tacitly admits to being just as much a peanut brain as the rest of us the question does remain how he can nevertheless know so much better than we do. Something doesn’t add up…
All,
The thing that makes me profoundly sad about this is that there are some people who come here to actually try to understand and engage in dialogue with people who disagree with them.
Bob doesn’t get it. And he’s out of bounds for resorting to insults and condescension in his response.
Here’s the thing: I believe that Bob is wrong - and I can point to specific reasons why he is wrong that almost any rational person would agree with.
But Austin is using this post to generalize EVERYONE who is a believer… and this is followed by a rash of comments that make the same mistake Bob is making, namely: generalizations followed by condescending ridicule.
If it is wrong for Bob, then it is just as wrong for other posters who are basically doing the same thing. Is it even possible for people to have a real conversation about important things without the pointing and name calling?
If it isn’t, there might be a better use for our time.
That’s a a pretty serious accusation. Can you support it?
Humble says: “. . . and this is followed by a rash of comments that make the same mistake Bob is making, namely: generalizations followed by condescending ridicule.”
I hope you’re not referring to my comment. It was a statement of fact; I do IN FACT find it entertaining when people with poor writing skills call others “peanut brains”. Is that wrong?
>As if these finite peanut brains…
But isn’t it “finite peanut brains” who espouse religion as well? I’m assuming that he’s defining this as the “human” (vs the divine) brain, which means that religion is a product of finite, peanut brains.
I guess I would be careful defining a human brain as “finite, peanut” as a criticism of holding a belief, if my own belief was also held by me (as a human) and other humans. I mean, if the idea that a human brain holds to a concept is a reason to think it’s a foolish concept, then I’m in a pot/kettle situation from the get-go, right?
>I look at this impossible fantastic exsistance of the human mind…
Wait a minute! Didn’t he JUST call the human mind a “finite, peanut brain”? Which is it? Do we have finite, peanut brains? Or is it a testament to fantastic “exsistance”?
WORD: If you’re writing to tell _other_ people how stupid they are, best to run spell check before you post.
>…generalizations followed by condescending ridicule…
While I don’t advocate for condescention and ridicule, Austin’s problem with the mailbag writer wasn’t that he was condescending and ridiculing. It was that he utterly failed to support his claim that atheists are incorrect regarding the existence of gods. I’ve seen Austin cope with some pretty abusive dialoguers, and not blink while he responds. He wants the claims to be supported, he doesn’t _seem to_ (from what I’ve seen) care too much how they’re expressed.
Austin writes,
“But Austin is using this post to generalize EVERYONE who is a believer…
That’s a a pretty serious accusation. Can you support it?”
I’m not sure how serious an accusation that is… but yes, I can support it.
The title of post is, “Mailbag: Humble Christians.”
The quote is from an individual. The word “Christians” describes the belief system of more than 2 billion people related to Jesus Christ specifically.
Bob never mentions Jesus. For all we know, he is a Deist, or a Theist, or he calls his toaster God.
The title of the post was not “Humble God Believer” or “Quote from Someone Most Theists would Consider Part of the Lunatic Fringe.” The quote from Bob is connected via the plurality of the title to Christians in general. That seems to me to be the very heart of generalization.
If the title was “Humble Homosexuals” or “Humble Americans” or “Humble Terrorists” it would be a clear reference to the larger group - or something indicative of the larger group and I would have the same problem.
Even if Bob claimed to be a Christian, his statements and mocking words are not indicative of all Christians.
I’m not interested in defending him - but I am interested in saying that not all Christians (or people who believe in God) are given to the kind of rhetoric (or lack of rhetoric) that Bob is.
If you are correct, then I have only generalized about all Christians — but you accused me of generalizing about all believers. So right off the bat, your attempt to support your accusation makes it clear that the accusation was incorrect.
Why?
If you see an column entitled “Annoying Shoppers,” do you automatically assume that it’s a column about all shoppers? Why or why not?
If you see a column entitled “Outrageous Movie Actors,” do you automatically assume that it’s a column about all movie actors? Why or why not?
Did I say they were?
Austin wrote: [If you are correct, then I have only generalized about all Christians — but you accused me of generalizing about all believers. So right off the bat, your attempt to support your accusation makes it clear that the accusation was incorrect.]
That’s a fair point. You’re generalizing about Christians, not all believers… understood.
I think my issue was that in absence of context, this is easily misunderstood. This wasn’t a column, or an article… it was a title, that was referring to a larger group.
We all come from our particular point of view. It seemed to me that the title said more about you than about Bob or anyone calling themselves a Christian.
I’m certainly open to clarification on your part.
Do you believe that Bob’s stance and thinking is indicative of Christians in general?
Except I’m not…
Non sequitur. I provided examples of column titles which no one in their right mind would treat as stereotypes of the people in question. You didn’t state that you would read them in the same way that you read my column title.
So, it’s not so much that the column title says something about me, but rather than your interpretation says something about you — namely, how you react to atheists saying something critical of Christians.
As I stated explicitly, it’s common with the Christians who write to me. I assume it’s not true of all Christians around the world, but then again there is nothing that’s true of everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Austin wrote: [So, it’s not so much that the column title says something about me, but rather than your interpretation says something about you — namely, how you react to atheists saying something critical of Christians.]
No, you can be critical of Christians all you want. Certainly Bob deserves everything you said in your article.
And more probably.
Have you ever met a Christian or corresponded with one in something like this context that you could take seriously?
Yes, but not when they were defending their Christianity.
Have you ever seriously considered retracting your original accusation in light of the fact that you treated my column title in a manner that you wouldn’t normally treat other column titles… or is it your position that you would indeed treat them in the same manner?
Austin wrote: [Yes, but not when they were defending their Christianity.
Have you ever seriously considered retracting your original accusation in light of the fact that you treated my column title in a manner that you wouldn’t normally treat other column titles… or is it your position that you would indeed treat them in the same manner?]
Yes, retracted.
And actually I owe you an apology for that one.
The link to the column was either temporarily broken or did not load correctly in my browser.
All I saw was the title, quote and comments - no link to your column where you wrote more about it. When I came back to it today, there is a “Read more…” and your comments on Bob’s ridiculous e-mail to you.
In that context it seems to me that you were very clear, certainly not generalizing Bob’s comments and attitudes to all believers and most of what you said I would agree with completely.
Ahhhh…. that explains a lot. If all you saw was the title and the first quote, it’s quite understandable that you would arrive at an incorrect impression of what you were seeing.
When a post first appears on the front page, all that appears is a the first paragraph (or two) plus a link to the rest. This short excerpt scrolls down the page as new posts are added. Occasionally the link doesn’t work correctly right away - I don’t know why and can’t do anything about it, since the link is created automatically by the software - but even then it usually works pretty soon.
This post appeared Sunday morning, so you should have been able to see a working link to the whole post fairly soon thereafter. I’m not sure what the pages you saw looked like or why you didn’t see it all.
A sense of easy moral superiority is one of the cheapest thrills and cons on earth.