World Nut Daily.
First, if you’re a masochist, here’s the article which made me decide to make this post:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58446
You don’t have to read it, honestly. I’ll be quoting the important bits.
Tristan Emmanuel, the author of the article, begins it with quite a logical sting on we godless: “If belief in the existence of God is a ‘delusion’ then atheists must be fools.”
I had to reread that a couple times, trying to understand the reasoning. Unless this is a joke, I’m thinking that the end of that sentence should read “…then atheists must be correct.” How could you conclude otherwise?
Oh, I see what this is. He’s redefining atheism.
Check out this quote: “…that kind of worldview takes more than hard raw’faith’ to embrace; it takes a commitment to intellectual insanity and willful delusion.”
More than faith, he says? He is horribly wrong. But this caricature is the only thing he probably knows how to attack. If he were talking about the atheist position, as it is actually held in commonplace, these comments are nowhere near the mark.
Perhaps, you say, he’s addressing the few atheists who are atheists by faith.
I quote: “…atheists such as Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do…”
How fine of him to name a few people who have written books — rather large books, I might add — filled to the brim with rational reasons not to believe in god. How many books written by Christians have actual arguments? (Okay, fair enough, there are some. Let me rephrase the question. How many books without many logical fallacies have been written for god’s existence? That will give you the correct number. There you go.) Zero!
What’s even more odd about all this is how he refuses to show one example of the supposedly rational reasons for belief. Why is this? How come you have to bug a theist so much whenever you want them to actually back up a claim? They march around all high and mighty, declaring that the proof is so obvious and easy to understand. And then they declare that they have to be somewhere.
Isn’t it just surprising that there’s not even an argument in the entire article?
But it goes on: “But when you break down their ’scientific’ jargon, you are ultimately left with only one explanation: That this world was created by a freak accident, and the world will continue to evolve by chance. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just chaos.
This is what they call being ‘honest’ with the evidence.
I call it sheer idiocy.”
That’s right. Honesty is equal to idiocy. Well… maybe if you’re a republican politician, and you’ve been having gay sex in bathrooms or getting off by wearing scuba gear. For the rest of us, though, honesty is still considered a virtue.
Also, I’d just like to say that you can’t choose your reality. If the world is a freak accident, that’s not “sheer idiocy” to believe. That’s what it is.
You might as well say 1 + 1 = 2 is “sheer idiocy,” even though all evidence indicates that it is. I have no idea how you can possibly torture and bend the word “honest” or “truth” into “sheer idiocy,” but I’m happy to let World Nut Daily struggle with that one. I have no use for it, yet it seems like something they’ll be using over and over again.
I’ve supplied more rational argument about religion, in not five hundred words, than World Net Daily probably has in all of its articles combined. I could write more, but it’s unnecessary at this point.
Filed by kamikaze189 at November 1st, 2007 under Religion