Two Simple Requests to All My Readers
I value everyone’s input and I really do read and consider your comments, even if I don’t always respond to them (or respond quickly).
At the end of yesterday’s post on truths that I learned as irrefutable in elementary school that have all been overturned by science, I explained that I knew there was valid reply to my points. I purposely made them simplistic because I have a grander design that will play out today and tomorrow.
I know that when I touch a nerve, I will get very angry replies. I further know that suggesting science isn’t a 100% effective method for discerning truth to atheists is like yelling “Allah’s mother wears army boots!” in the middle of a crowded square in Afghanistan. In fact, the stoning I’d get for that is probably a quicker and less painful death than the slow torture of 1000 atheists calling me ignorant and stupid in creative, pseudo-intellectual prose. For this reason, I disabled the comments on yesterday’s post.
I already know exactly what I’ll read. And in a mere couple of hours, atheists will read exactly what they automatically thought as they read the post.
Despite requesting people to hold all comments, even e-mails, until the end of the series, I received this e-mail from Mark Preston:
I notice that the concept of comments seems to have slipped you by since people are not actually able to make them. Given your appalling nonsense about science in the post today I am not surprised.
Obviously, he didn’t read to the end. The first simple request, dear readers, is that you read to the end of my post before you leave a comment. I don’t always go the direction you think I’m going to go, and I hope that my atheist readers find a pleasant surprise in this series, and a greater challenge than answering my purposely ignorant and simplistic riposte toward their messiah — I mean, science.
Exactly as I predicted, Preston suggests I’m ignorant in so many words, and is quite condescending.
You know what I noticed, though?
I’m ignorant, but he’s not attempting to correct me or explain why my points are simplistic. Just arrogance and biting condescension.
I’m more open minded than the most open minded atheist. Trust me. If I’m wrong, show it to me. Educate me. Teach me. I might not agree right away, I might discuss it further or offer contrary opinions — mine or other scientists. But don’t give up. I want to know I’m wrong if I am, but I still fall into the typical human mind trap of not letting go right away.
It’s not close-mindedness. Its basic psychology.
So my second simple request: Please educate me, and don’t talk down to me about it. I want to learn.
I try to educate the atheist as to why I think he’s wrong, and why his theology is totally whack. Do me the same courtesy.
Posted on November 23, 2011, in Site News. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
does it really matter if the word is evil or calamity?I could just as easily ask,why does god create calamity,its just semantics
Wow. I was NOT expecting that. I was expecting a challenged to my open-mindedness.
Yes, it does matter.
“Evil” in this sense is moral evil. In the category of moral evil are things like child molestation, rape, torture, and reruns of Jersey Shore.
“Calamity” is a natural disaster; it is what it is. It’s not a discriminate and deliberate killer or torturer. Nor is it Snooki.
To say that God creates “evil” means that God deliberately and methodically sets out to punish humanity for no other purpose than his sadistic enjoyment. In other words, there is no higher purpose for wielding his power.
But a calamity is neutral, and in the hands of God it is call to repentance. See this article by Clay Jones.
I hope that helps and thank you for the question.