Tuesday, May 10, 2011

TBM Email Part 5- Finale

Okay. Here is the final segment of the TBM email to my Atheist Friend. Let the finale amaze you.

In reply to our atheist friend saying that God is the ultimate genocidal maniac – “It is incorrect to judge a society 3500 years past through the lens of modernity.” – What? It’s God right? And God can’t tell people how to act right? We do have examples of small and large societies in history that were ethically far more advanced than other societies in their times, why couldn’t God just teach people correct principles instead of halfly correct principles? I guess this is the same reasoning of why we can't dislike apostles from 50 years ago who said racist remarks monthly about the blacks.

“Evil men and women live in all societies and generations of time, and use whatever power structures are present to do their wicked deeds. Atheism doesn't provide a philosophy to deter Mao; he was working for the 'greater good,' what did it matter if a few people died? Religion condemns Mao, because its morals are Absolute it condemns those that do evil in its name. Atheism provides intellectual cover for any deed imaginable.” – Yes, evil men and women have lived in all societies and generations but the difference here is that he won’t blame religion or religious beliefs, only atheism. Which is similar to some militant anti-theists who don’t acknowledge any good coming from religion. But then, ‘so what if a few people died,’ seriously? Like God doesn’t do this allllll the time in Mormonism theology? For the greater good? Flood, Nephite history, church history when people didn’t listen or maybe it was just a sacrifice for a family to lose their children. Atheism doesn’t intellectually cover Mao! Atheism says, “Mao, I’m Atheism and I don’t believe in any gods.” That’s it.

“Atheism can only be approached via pride. A humble and intellectually honest atheist can only 'at most be an agnostic,' admitting, "I don't know what the truth of God is.' To choose atheism is a choice of pride, it can only be believed by relying on one's intellect and reason being supreme.” – Can ONLY be … can ONLY at MOST be … can ONLY be believed … on one’s INTELLECT and REASON being SUPREME. Give me a break. This is so loaded and capricious. What kind of fallacy is this, to tell someone their unbelief in God means they have to think in these ways and nothing else? What is that? False dichotomy again? This is all beside the fact that he uses the Negative Proof Fallacy to support his beliefs and to go against atheism. True genius at hypocrisy and double standards. Also beside the fact that most people don't believe in God for emotional reasons with their reason, intellect, etc....

“Consider your statement "If this all turns out to be true, I'm not so sure I want to live with Him anyway." I don't want to step on feelings, but consider the how completely illogical this statement is. Are you truly saying, that you, a frail, puny, weak human, would tell God -by definition omnipotent and omniscient - that He is wrong and you are right? By definition you would be telling a perfect being that He is wrong!” – All I can say is that if I either can live by myself and have no more sex, or that I have to live in a mansion with all my relatives and have to have endless sex with a near infinite amount of women and then have to raise children for eternity … then maybe I’m not cut out for any of the Mormon kingdoms either.

“Many times I have wanted nothing more than to go use drugs and have as much illicit sex as I can. I try to stay true because I believe this is the truth.” – How come, in a debate, the theist always HAS to say this? 'Oh, I've been tempted by drugs,' or 'oh I've been tempted to kill people many times,' or 'oh, I've been tempted to molest little girls.' To appear more human? Or tempted by the devil so ‘he knows what you’re going through?’ How about if everyone feels this way, that they want to experience life and that maybe their life is boring or not as exciting and fulfilling as they want it to be, that they just say that these things are okay? That, sure, go try some drugs, or go have sex, everybody wants to and I’ve always wanted to. I’m sure this isn’t for everyone, but what is the harm in having a drink of coffee or having sex with a person you love? Culture certainly is to blame for a lot of the thoughts on sexuality in the world, but these things can change.

“Might I suggest one or two books that addresses your concerns far more eloquently than I am able to? I would suggest The Abolition of Man, by CS Lewis, The Everlasting Man by GK Chesteron, and Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. Dawkin's God by Alister McGrath is very good. A wonderful book is also The Language of God, by Francis Collins.” – I actually enjoyed C.S. Lewis, though I think now I agree with him most in A Grief Observed where he says his whole faith was a house of cards and if he wants to believe he better just keep believing for goodness sake. How come TBM doesn’t offer this book to our atheist friend? Seems like a reasonable book for someone doubting. I haven’t read Chesteron, and I’ve heard Collins book upsets creationists so good for him. But Alister McGrath? Again, why doesn’t TBM offer books on the new atheism by atheists? Why go to some guy who attacks Dawkins and offers this as proof that there is a Christian God? Many people realize that the new atheists are not philosophical giants, though Dennett does impress me often in the realm of philosophy. I am offering here that the books are decent choices, but it certainly rounds off the character of TBM.

“Atheism per se does not ask you to do good for goodness sake. Some atheists might. But the doctrine of atheism does not. In any event, atheism EXCUSES evil's excesses as merely the ends justifying the means” – What is this babble? (to quote Hitchens). Back to that whole religion of atheism thing, doctrine an all. Why can’t atheism excuse good’s excesses as merely the ends to justify the means? Completely backwards. Why does it have to be inherently evil now instead of good if both are of the same value, as he said earlier. Complete and utter bull. That’s what his much longer set of emails are, much more than I even quoted here. I am now dumber for having read them, and I am sad that I at any time used any of these arguments against religion.

… F***. That’s all I have to say.


  1. “It is incorrect to judge a society 3500 years past through the lens of modernity.”

    It's not okay to judge ancient people by modern standards.

    Everybody knows you're supposed to judge modern people by ancient standards. Jeesh.