Skip to main content

Ricky Gervais Is A Dunce, Leading Dunces

 Atheism has never unjustly killed anyone, apparently. Oh, wait. What’s the body count for Marxism-Leninism? 50 million? Can’t wait to hear how those avowed atheists are actually Christians or something. Meanwhile, even if I arrogated to myself the duty to apologize for every awful thing any theist has ever done, those numbers aren’t even close. If you want to say that you don’t want to attend religious services, or even that most of the believers you’ve met are maladjusted weirdos, just say that. But you can’t just make up stuff that’s easily disproven.

Meanwhile, have you ever met an atheist-agnostic who said, “Those Christians don’t really love like Jesus”? If Jesus has no divine authority, there’s no profit in being like Jesus. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, or that a god exists, how do you know anything about Jesus? What we know about Jesus purports to be divinely revealed. See where this is going? I don’t know anyone with more chutzpah than the citizens of historically Christian countries, from Christian families. If you don’t want to do any of it, don’t. But lecturing people about the content of their “fairy tales” you don’t believe in, is peak hubris.

We might say, “Let’s be good to each other,” but “good” has to have a non-arbitrary reference point. Let me save you the time: you’re unavoidably kicked back to theism at least philosophically, even if you want to deny something supernatural and binding. Contingent beings who depend on something else to exist cannot create themselves. If every human and every animal—setting aside plants for the moment—lives and dies, they cannot be the source of life for themselves. There has to be a non-contingent (non-dependent) Something holding the non-permanent things in being. No arrogant agnostics or atheists were forced to read alleged divine scriptures or attend religious ceremonies in the construction of this argument.

What about random dumb luck? It’s possible, I suppose. But in that scenario, a consistent adherent would look pretty silly, trying to impose values from literally nowhere upon anyone else. At least it makes rational sense to say, “You should live this way because the Creator of everything said so.” Why does it make more sense to take ethical advice from a random bloke who has no idea where he came from?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...