Hard-Headed Atheists Strike Again!
November 23, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
Mark Shea describes the cool rationalism of one of our atheist friends, Matthew Parris, in refusing to accept the story of a nun who was cured of Parkinson’s:
The great disadvantage under which the atheist materialist invariably places himself is that, in despising the supernatural, he refuses to look and see if it does, in fact, occur. Instead, he fools himself with self-deluding sleight-of-hand. He points to the false miracle and pretends that it stands for all miracles. Or he adopts a mocking tone of voice and pretends that it substitutes for a rational argument. Or he links an honest nun with a crazy fundamentalist political theory. Or, in this case, he simply clamps his eyes shut, plugs his ears and screams “Noooooo!†at the top of his voice while declaring that he is the cool rationalist who follows the evidence wherever it leads.
And then distinguishes the joyous believer from the grim, joyless atheist:
Meanwhile, the nun who no longer has Parkinson’s continues to exist and praise God for her healing, in defiance of the loudest shouts of some ignorant dogmatic scribbler that “He didn’t!â€
Which reminds me: One of the more comedic blogspheric developments of late has been these little stylized “A” emblems, a merchandising innovation of “academic” Richard Dawkins that allows atheists to “out themselves” on their blogs (you can also buy the pin - not kidding).
As if to provide a living, breathing example of the archetypal hard-headed rational atheist, one of our more subtle atheist bloggers has posted his little “A” along with a relentlessly empirical reference to the “crap bible” and a dispassionate call for “religion to be destroyed.” Not to mention some other bits. Oh to be so guided by reason over emotion!
What bugs me about most atheists is that they seem so mean-spirited. I mean, what does it say about the public attraction to your point of view when your only means of promoting it is to vilify the other side?
What exactly would YOUR reaction be if someone was to tell you that an invisible being (for example, a magical pink unicorn) with absolutely no evidence for existing was “responsible” for curing that person of AIDS, or some other terminal disease? Either natural remission of the disease, or that person “convincing themselves” that they are “cured” are both infinitely more believable explanations than an invisible magical pink unicorn, and thus it is with ALL religions.
I like the idea of a little pink teapot set orbiting the sun inwards of Venus. It has the same evidence as God and is as difficult to prove or disprove.
Perhaps the religious would produce some evidence of their God instead of criticizing those who ask them for evidence.
The problem is the complete break down of public discourse. It is OK to completely disagree with someone’s opinion but still respect his or her right to believe it. The troubles are caused when people try to force their opinions on everyone else. This applies to both religion and politics.
A scarlet letter?!
[...] “A” on the sidebar of his blog. Sigh. When will these anti-creative clueless drones ever learn? This entry was written by Aaron Unruh and posted on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 7:45 pm and filed under [...]