Recently a Catholic Priest responded, after being confronted with the argument that, because god demanded so many brutal punishments be carried out against innocent individuals, the Bible is difficult to believe, "That's the oldest argument in the book!"
Really?
Well founded arguments have a statute of limitations?
Is this phenomenon limited to arguments, or does it apply to warnings as well?
"Don't stick your hand in the fire."
"Seriously! That's got to be the oldest warning in the book! The so-called 'experts' have been telling people to keep a safe distance since fire was first discovered! Now if you'll excuse me, my marshmallow fell off its stick and retrieval is required before it melts completely and I’m left with an incomplete S'more."
I don't understand why people of all religions continue to argue. Just stick your hands in the air and admit, "My beliefs are strictly based on faith. I can line my bookshelf with writings that attempt to prove the truthiness of my specific religion, but the simple fact is that, without merit, I believe in its accuracy as Jerry Jones believes he's an exceptional football General Manager. (A guy friend convinced me the preceding joke would go over well with NFL fans.)
But many religious people continue making the same ridiculous arguments in an attempt to convince the world that their beliefs are accurate. Or, as the above example points out, continue responding to rational arguments with nonsense.
Argument: If there is no god, how can anyone discern right from wrong?
Response: On our own, we all understand it's wrong to harm living creatures. If everyone abided by the previous sentence, the world would be free of war. Due to inconsistencies in your holy books, as well as differing beliefs held by Biblical scholars, no two religious people have the same list of sins. Like snowflakes, you each have your own view of right and wrong which you truly believe matches up with the will of your god. Give weapons to the folks who insist their deity says a failure to follow the teachings of Muhammad should be punished with a cruel death and the world is all of a sudden at war. Follow my simple, "Don't harm living creatures," rule and no violent skirmishes exist.
Yet, during every argument between atheist and believer, the believer claims god is the only way we know assaulting senior citizens is evil. That also means god is the reason we are certain the discrimination of homosexuals is morally sound. While non-believers are totally and completely onboard with the "no harming the elderly," rule, we tend to promote equality for all.
If he's the reason we instinctively know it's a sin to assault our elders, why doesn't everyone instinctively feel an overwhelming desire to discriminate against gays?
I have a strong feeling many individuals, whose past includes the selfish mistreatment of elder citizens; have expressed great remorse, because, in their gut, they knew they were committing horrific atrocities. I also have a feeling no individual has ever expressed regret for failing to discriminate against homosexuals.
A variation of the following sentence has likely been uttered: "I feel horrible for knocking down that retiree and then snatching his wallet, but I was so strung out I couldn't stop myself! In my nightmares, I vividly see his face hitting the pavement. The awful sound of him screaming in pain still thunders in my ears! The guilt is too much to bear!"
However I doubt anyone has said anything remotely close to: "I don't know how I could have been so cruel. I was standing over my ballot and all of a sudden I filled in the circle that calls for the legalization of homosexual marriage. In my nightmares, I still see pain in the faces of individuals that make up the anti-gay-marriage lobby as their noble dream of an everlasting heterosexual-marriage only society comes crumbling to the ground! The guilt consumes me!"
No comments:
Post a Comment