God is angry again, and he’s a vengeful God. Via Pharyngula and Effect Measure I learn of God’s apparent displeasure at graven images:
The nuns at Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden were thanking God on Sunday that no one was hurt when a bolt of lightning shot out of the sky and struck their 33-foot statue of Jesus.
The lightning bolt broke off one of Jesus' arms and a hand and damaged one of his feet, sending marble plummeting to the ground during a Saturday afternoon storm.
The message couldn’t be clearer. God is taking time off from sending hurricanes to punish America for tolerating gays, so he can punish these nuns for breaking the second commandment. The faithful though, still don’t get it:
Thousands of people visit the shrine each year to pray and pay homage to Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini […]
Visitors climb the 373 stairs to the sacred heart statue, "praying as they go,"
Not hard enough, apparently.
Seems armless enough.
"seems armless enough"
If there were a hell, you'd go there for that pun alone.
(actually I'm just jealous I didn't think of it.)
Posted by: Michael Barrett | June 10, 2007 at 10:49 AM
"...taking time off from sending hurricanes to punish America for tolerating gays..." I love it! The absurdity of anyone actually believing this and then continuing to worship such a god is just so insane.
Posted by: vjack | June 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Clearly God has some self-hatred issues.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | June 11, 2007 at 09:19 AM
Er... what's more likely to be struck by lightning in a storm: a crowd of huddled worshippers on their hands and knees or a 30-foot statue?
I know what I'd put my money on...
Oh, no! Gambling's a sin, isn't it? GOD HATES ME...!
Nope. No thunderbolt there. I guess he isn't watching this blog after all.
Posted by: Big Al | June 12, 2007 at 01:24 AM
vjack -
You say:
This seems rather harsh to me. First, I would rather grant people the grace to disagree with me, my views, values or principles than label them as "insane." Second, even without being so generous, I have trouble with your logic.
To wit, I would be more apt to question someone's sanity who held belief in "such a god" and yet did not also worship such a being. I know for myself that were I to come to belief in an all powerful and omniscient, yet petty, god that demanded my obeisance I would step smartly and give it (unless the Devil had gotten to me first <smirk>).
Further, I don’t think it “absurd” for anyone to have any particular set of beliefs, no matter how much I might disagree or oppose them. (This is not quite what you said, but I feel it is part of the subtext of your comment, thus justifying this tangential rebuttal.) Specifically, it is not absurd or insane at all to come to believe the stories you’ve been steeped in during one’s developmental years. In fact, I believe that such a process has been very useful for humans, despite it’s obvious and dramatic pitfalls.
Rather than the pejoratives “absurd” or “insane” I imagine people with a paucity of mental training largely resultant from deficiencies in their environment (e.g. home, community, media, schooling, etc.) Perhaps I am merely being pejorative at another (deeper?) level when I think of people “actually believing in this and then continuing to worship such a god” as tragically weak and ineffectual at managing the real challenges of life.
Poor, sad little people…
Posted by: just me | June 12, 2007 at 09:38 AM
I think "insanity" is a good word to describe the continuance of such beliefs. One need only to refer skeptico's link to: http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/10commandments-texts.htm#2
for an example of insane megalomania.
That, in spite of all the evidence around them, people still believe in any of this mediaeval drivel is truly bordering on the insane.
Posted by: pv | June 14, 2007 at 05:08 AM
pw –
Continuance in the face of what? I presume you mean in the face of “evidence.” If I understand your response correctly, this brings the conversation back to my point:
In particular, people often don’t have the mental skills to meaningfully differentiate types of evidence or to identify and avoid fallacies. While this view might still be seen as condescending (i.e. “Poor, sad little people”), it’s quite different than your broad categorization of “Believers” as (mentally) sub-human.
Other than some apparent posturing on your part, I’m at a loss to see any constructive intent in your comment and its pejorative use of “insane” and “mediaeval drivel.” (BTW, the Ten Commandments you link to are far older than the mediaeval period. It is, in fact, prehistoric drivel with foundation before the mythical Moses and his alleged tablet-fetching mountain trek.)
I’m likely oversimplifying - and certainly being hasty and judgmental, but it seems to me that your statements are nothing more than “Yeah, those guys sure are stoopid peepuls.” Further, I impute a subtext of “And I, for one, am not such a drivel drinking/spouting fewl.” Unfortunately, people who make such comments are, in my experience, exactly the type who accept and perpetuate such “insanity” and “mediaeval drivel” in the first place. Verily, such people continue to be born and you smell like one of them…
PS – No ad hominem intended. Just a straight attack on your personality in exhibeo and no conflation with your stated views, which are separately addressed in the first paragraph, above.
PPS – To be read with a light heart. (Shudda put this first, I suppose… <smirk>).
Posted by: just me | June 15, 2007 at 08:57 AM
@just me:
If someone believes in such a god despite the evidence contrary to the only "evidence" of his existance (the Bible), then, yes, they are insane. More specifically, delusional, but that is a type of insanity.
In order for me to come to such a belief, I would first have to find proof of the deity's existance. The best would be if the deity actually spoke to me, so I could find out which deity he was. If he did happen to be the Christian God, I'd want to find out if the Bible is actually true, and if Falwell, Robertson, Graham, and those yahoos were correct. If he says yes to either, I'd tell him to go ahead and smite me, because I'd rather spend eternity in Hell (with my friends), than in Heaven with his blindly obedient followers.
There's a reason why I'm proud of the name "Berlzebub"!
Posted by: Berlzebub | June 15, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Berlzebub -
Oh, please! "Rather be in hell with my friends." What unmitigated sophistry. If you really stand by that assertion then you are the totally wacked-out insane one. While the myths of hell are varied, there is no question that hell is never a place a sane person would choose. Even the “I’ll send you to hell in front of me” type of expression popular in some types of violent melodrama always manages to cast the speaker as being mad (as in “insane,” not as in “angry,” although often that, too).
This is exactly my point, again – but in a different guise. From the comments of vjack, pw, and you, I see an unwillingness to consider the issue from the point of view of the other (here, a “believer”), let alone do so with honesty and integrity.
And just to be clear: My own, personal opinion is that believers in God’s existence and earthly manifestations of its will (e.g. answering prayer, sending disease, or sculpture smashing) are merely wrong. They are not insane but rather are sane within a different context of understanding and of how to understand things. If I believe in anything, it’s that my way of understanding the world is more right than those who’s understanding is mediated by a trans-physical entity (or, more rightly, mediated by the dogma of autocratic institutions which base their authority upon supposed cooperation with such a mythical entity).
But that’s just me…
Posted by: just me | June 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
A masochist might choose hell. I'm not sure if that counts as insane or not though...
Posted by: Corey | June 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Surely, for a masochist, hell would be comfy cushions and plush carpets. No sharp objects or chains allowed.
Posted by: Big Al | June 19, 2007 at 02:09 AM
Remember a joke, but not how it goes. Anyway, here's the important bit:
In Hell, there was this one cell with the sound of whipping and the screams of the poor soul on the wrong end of it. Next to it was a cell where a masochist was kept. "Oh, god! Torture me! Torture me, please!"
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 19, 2007 at 06:45 AM
@just me:
Berlzebub -
Oh, please! "Rather be in hell with my friends." What unmitigated sophistry. If you really stand by that assertion then you are the totally wacked-out insane one. While the myths of hell are varied, there is no question that hell is never a place a sane person would choose. Even the “I’ll send you to hell in front of me” type of expression popular in some types of violent melodrama always manages to cast the speaker as being mad (as in “insane,” not as in “angry,” although often that, too).
You apparently forgot the most important of my reasoning, JM. Here's a reminder:
If he did happen to be the Christian God, I'd want to find out if the Bible is actually true, and if Falwell, Robertson, Graham, and those yahoos were correct. If he says yes to either, I'd tell him to go ahead and smite me...
Any being(?) who could perform or condone the attrocities in the Bible, and the things done in his name since, is not someone I could willingly follow, no matter what the punishment for my heresy. I will not participate in the ostracization or murder of people, simply because of the way they were born. Just because he has the ability to punish me, does not make him right. I'm sorry if you consider my sense of right and wrong sophistry, but I consider your bending a knee to such a person cowardace. So, I guess we're even.
This is exactly my point, again – but in a different guise. From the comments of vjack, pw, and you, I see an unwillingness to consider the issue from the point of view of the other (here, a “believer”), let alone do so with honesty and integrity.
Wait a minute, you claim sophistry on me, but then you start talking like this? What have I said that wasn't honest? Just because I'm not willing to, or rather I'm tired of, giving the Xians the benefit of the doubt, I'm being dishonest? Give me a break. I grew up a Xian, or maybe an agnostic, but I do know their arguments. Just because I'm not treating them with kidd gloves, does not mean I'm not showing integrity.
And just to be clear: My own, personal opinion is that believers in God’s existence and earthly manifestations of its will (e.g. answering prayer, sending disease, or sculpture smashing) are merely wrong. They are not insane but rather are sane within a different context of understanding and of how to understand things.
One more time, because you apparently weren't paying attention the first time. Being "merely wrong" in the face of contrary evidence is a mental disorder (insanity). There are different levels of it, from functional to outright lunacy, but it is definitely a delusion.
If I believe in anything, it’s that my way of understanding the world is more right than those who’s understanding is mediated by a trans-physical entity (or, more rightly, mediated by the dogma of autocratic institutions which base their authority upon supposed cooperation with such a mythical entity).
But that’s just me…
Ahhh... I think I finally see the difference between us. Since you are willing to blindly follow the ultimate authority figure if he were to prove his existance, you are more willing to give those who currently do some slack because of their upbringing. Well, I'm not.
When they think that science text books are the work of Satan, because they teach kids that don't appear in the Bible, I'm not going to just sit back and say, "You're merely wrong."
When they put in a "museum" that supposedly uses science to prove Creationism, I'm not going to just sit back and say, "You're merely wrong."
When they say that abstinence-only education is the way to go, and don't bother teaching children how to prevent STDs (or even, in some cases, deny that HIV causes AIDS), I'm not going to just sit back and say, "You're merely wrong."
I'm going to point them to the evidence that blows apart their position, and wait to see their response. If they change their views, fine. If not, I'm going to consider them delusional.
Posted by: Berlzebub | June 19, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Definition of masochism: "1. The condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering, physical pain, and humiliation." According to this definition (which may or may not be totally accurate) they should be able to get non-sexual gratification normally. I got the definition off dictionary.com btw.
Posted by: Corey | June 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Berlzebub –
Ahhh, now we’re getting to (something like) real discourse <noray!>
Berlzebub:
I find this admirable, yet specious – or at least muddy. What I’m trying (again) to say is that If such a being were to be accepted as real then I don’t hold that they (e.g. the pilgrims at the Mother Cabrini Shrine) are (necessarily) insane, just that they are merely (very) wrong.
Of course, since neither you nor I accept the above conditional’s antecedent (i.e. we both hold that the Judaic / Christian / Islamic / X’ic God is completely unreal and mythical) we are free to make any assertion we like as consequent. Rather that your claim based on a counterfactual, I say: If I were to accept the existence of God then I have no idea how I would react other than to seriously reconsider everything I had come to understand. Such a radical shift in the context by which I relate to the world would necessitate an equally radical shift in my thoughts and beliefs about the world. So much so that I am unwilling to posit what choices I would definitely make in that new world.
More specifically, I suggest that you at least allow that God might know better. You know – “God’s Plan” and “God’s Mysterious Ways.” Certainly, were a God like this to exist it would be well beyond any human to understand, let alone judge. Yet, I did admit that your sentiment, quoted above, is admirable. In fact, despite my assessment of your logical and argumentative skills <snort>, I am impressed by your willingness to stand for your values and principles even were it against the will of (a supposed) omnipotent, omniscient, vengeful, petty & emotionally insecure God. That would take some major cajones and I truly hope you’ve got ‘em if ever you need ‘em.
Berlzebub:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be so hard on you... I did (and do) mean that I didn’t see evidence of an honest attempt to understand a believer’s world view before applying the pejorative “insane.” Apparently you have made such an attempt (and still choose to be pejorative <thhpt!>).
Berlzebub:
Okay, tough guy (gal?) – don’t cut them any slack. I don’t think you should. And where did I say I would “blindly” follow anything? I was just saying that if God put his God-Gun to my head and told me to pray I suppose I probably would. Being coerced is not the same as blindly anything.
BUT, LO! THERE IS SOMETHING MEATY AT THE END OF YOUR POST…
Berlzebub:
Now it’s my turn to “finally see the difference between us.” Perhaps you understand my treating X’ians as “merely wrong” to be a softer and more accommodating assessment than your consideration of them as “delusional.” I intended the use of “merely” to highlight that I am only judging how well their thoughts / ideas / beliefs model reality. I thought I was using a well constructed litotes (rhetorical understatement). Obviously I didn’t do a job as good I thought as I did <smirk>.
Anyhoo, you can catch more flies with generous attention than with vituperativeness.
But that’s just me…
Posted by: just me | June 19, 2007 at 02:57 PM
I guess we're just good atheist and bad atheist, JM. And with flies, feces and rotting meat seem to work even better.
I will say that IRL, I'm a little more forgiving, when dealing with believers. Of course, that's mainly because they are more friendly when you talk to them face to face. There were a few that got red in the face, but those were fundamentalists.
Even online, I'm willing to go easy on them, for the first comment, or so. However, if, like some trolls I've seen, they continue tossing out fallacies and avoiding answering questions, I get tired of trying to be diplomatic.
But that's just me... ;-)
Posted by: Berlzebub | June 20, 2007 at 06:15 AM
@Berlzebub:
(Ala Stephen Colbert) I accept your apology.
Actually, I had more to say on the last post, but it was getting rather longish. To wit: My unease with labeling X’ian believers as “insane” is that it essentially blocks further discourse. All that’s available after making that assessment is argumentative exchange with scant hope of authentic communication.
Besides, what would be the point of my discussing something with an insane person? Wouldn’t that also show me as insane – attempting to rationally discuss a topic which the X’ian is irrational about (by stipulation of their insanity)? Wouldn’t I be the one to who was holding a (false) belief, that the X’ian can be reached via rational discourse, despite evidence to the contrary?
Or, perhaps, I am not really interested in having a rational exchange? Maybe I started with that vague intent, but after a few rounds of butt & rebuttal my own statements had degenerated into positional posturing & pontification. (This, BTW, was the line of thinking that led to my earlier comment, “see[ing] an unwillingness to consider [another’s worldview] with honesty and integrity.[emphasis added]”)
What I hope to convey here is that when I assess a person as “insane” then I have virtually no hope of meaningful discourse in the domains they are insane about (e.g. that the Bible is divinely written, that Jesus’ death (a priori) redeems my sins, that God has a particular interest in my prayerfulness, that thimerosal causes autism, etc.) If, however, I can relate to such an X’ian as someone with a different context of understanding then I can shift the focus of my discourse to address that. Admittedly, it’s a harder road to hoe, but it’s the only way that I can think of which has any hope of making a difference.
I can only “argue the evidence” once I am tangoing with someone who relates to evidence the same way as I do (at least in the topic domain). If they don’t dance the way I do, then I might attempt to teach them – or learn from them, and then continue together. Otherwise, I will disengage as politely as I can and find someone who can dance (think) properly (or find a good book, but not The Good Book).
But that’s just me…
Posted by: just me | June 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM