Posts Tagged ‘religion’

This dude makes me lol. Check out this bumper sticker:

sign of the atheist cross

Look at me! I’m Richard Dawkins and now I have my own faith logo! WORSHIP ME.


On my ignorant nemesis’ blog-for-cash, there is an excellent comment from user ex_king_john who brilliantly undermines the profound stupidity of the nonsensical theism versus atheist debate (note to readers: even career atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is not an atheist, but an agnostic, in an embarrassing climbdown when debating former CoE Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams).

ex_king_john 25 February 2013 22:26
We are like the TV host interviewing Richard Feynman and asking for a brief explanation in a couple of minutes of QED for the audience to which Feynman replied “If I could do that I wouldn’t have won a Nobel Prize” It’s apocryphal but it sure sounds like Feynman could have said it. And he could give you an understandable explanation but it would take longer than a TV spot has available.

At some point we all have to say “I don’t know”. I can live with that. Some people can’t and either make something up to fill in the gap or being smarter than me they go looking. Personally I’ll always listen to the second guy who says “I don’t know either but look at what I found” than the first guy who says “I know, you can stop looking now and I’ll tell you what to believe”.

Bravo, ex_king_john!

My response (anonymous coward Rosa Rubicondior is likely too afraid and/or ashamed to post it so thought worthy of inclusion here):

ex_king_john is spot on, and amply demonstrates why any so-called rational debate about faith based on empiricism and reason is inherently flawed – we’re using the wrong language here… to paraphrase again, trying describe music is like “dancing about architecture” unless you’re especially “gifted” or “disadvantaged” enough to display the arrogance of an autistic sprectrum disorder such as Asperger’s.

All Rosa Rubicondior (why not use a real name?) does is give self-absorbed atheists a chance to pat themselves on the back for being so clever, whilst simultaneously baiting self-absorbed religiosi (not a typo) to be subjected to her (or his?) unnecessarily bullying.

Oh the other thing [the mysterious Rosa Rubicondior’s] blog does is generate money… just like any good religion lol.

Some questions:

1. Why IS it that Rosa is anonymous?
2. Why IS it that Rosa fails to have a sense of humour (Asperger’s?)
3. Why DOES Rosa love bullying those with a fervent religious faith?
4. Why IS Rosa so intolerant of those with a different innate perspective of the human condition?
5. Why DOESN’T Rosa come out and turn all those great essays (some of them ARE good) into a book? She could MEGA cash in on her atheistic congregation/flock audience.

Evening Standard, January 24th 2011

By Sarah Sands

This is not an easy time to defend religion. Whenever I have done so, the atheist Pac attacks are fast and furious. It seems brave, therefore, of Alain de Botton to come forward from the atheist side to look for the saving graces of faiths.

De Botton is an evangelist for living life in a charming, harmonious, slightly European fashion. The author of Religion for Atheists suggests we remove God from religion but hang on to the centuries of art, culture and common humanity which surround Him. We can roam the many mansions of our Father’s house without having to meet Him.

Rupert Murdoch tweeted at the weekend that he found de Botton’s book “thoughtful and disturbing”. Where there is a vacuum …

It is a flaw for atheists that music, art and architecture inspired by religious awe are traditionally powerful. If you set St Paul’s Cathedral against, say, The Shard, the symbol of wealth and modernity appears bleak. But not everyone can worship in Rome’s Church of San Lorenzo, or even Brompton Oratory. How do you explain faith even without aesthetic enhancement?

Actually, de Botton’s long professional interest in the good life chimes with the debates on the meaning and limits of capitalism. Murdoch’s “troubled” response to the book is a recognition that money and success isn’t enough for peace of mind.

De Botton describes the community of the church. Anyone can enter, everyone is welcome. He compares this with entering a fashionable restaurant.

Seating is competitively hierarchical and there is no need to acknowledge other diners, except famous ones. What seems like a communal experience is exclusive or exhibitionist.

The author also acknowledges that faith equips you better for existence. The facts of life turn out to be religious. How else can you deal with sorrow and injustice? Indeed, our blueprint for happiness, the American model of secular optimism, is disastrous. If you are entitled to success and happiness, what happens if it doesn’t work out?

Consolation matters as much as self-help. Giovanni Battista Salvi’s The Madonna in Sorrow speaks to more people than Donald Trump.

The beauty of religion is that it soothes life’s contradictions. If I were a policy maker I would come down hard on the abuse of our borders or those who play the benefits system, yet I also love the Church’s suspension of judgment in favour of universal love and pity. The apparent muddle over protesters at St Paul’s is simply Christianity.

De Botton ends his book with a rational proposal for remaking the Church without a divine Being. It immediately becomes trite and commonplace. It is the mystery which makes religion so appealing.