My Conversation with Mary G.

NOTE: I’ve decided to discontinue dating these. I’ll probably also go back and delete the dates on previous dated conversations.

This is a brief one I had with a kind lady who maintained things like the Torah being sacred (but not for any very good reason). To me, her position seemed to be, “I like the Torah (and related texts) because I do and it’s old and revered so that justifies my liking it and I don’t care about its torrid history because I like it because I do.” While this isn’t surprising coming from a religious person, I still find it frustrating that she not only justified her position through cherry-picking, but seemed to revel in the cherry-picking itself.

And of course, she wasn’t at all interested in any kind of discussion beyond the thin layer of wax that most of us rub on during polite discourse. I can’t say I blame her. She was under no obligation to address any of my points or questions. Why did I feel so irritated, then? I guess because I still stupidly expect that when one chooses to enter a discussion armed only with old books of mythology, that one at least be able to defend them before saying, “We won’t convince each other.”

My text is in Italics. Hers is in bold. Comments are in plain text.

For context, a mutual acquaintance had mentioned mitzvot, the (more or less) Jewish act of doing something kind or respectful. My first question was to this mutual acquaintance.

Anton Hill Oh, no. You’re [mutual acquaintance] not converting to Judaism, are you? :/

Mary G. Surely you mean to add, Anton: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”?

See what I mean? She chose to address me directly; I didn’t ask her to. I didn’t say anything like, “Gee, Mary G., why are you an adherent of the Jewish faith?” Admittedly, my question could easily be interpreted as provocative, but her response was still her choice. No matter, I wasn’t gonna let that opportunity lie dormant.

#Mithras, it’s your birthday! Happy birthday, #Mithras!

Mithras and Sol Invictus

Yes, it’s time for my sometimes-annual mockery of Christmas. The funny thing, though, is that I actually really like Christmas. No, I don’t do any of the Christ-based crap, but I do almost all of the Pagan-based crap. And in our family, it’s been tradition since I was 10 to read Chanukah-ish stories from an Isaac Bashevis Singer book, including the traditional reading of Chelm stories (pronounced with a hard “H”, not with a “cherry” “ch”). And no, we’re not Jewish. Why we read these stories is itself a long story.

The shitty part about the reading this year was that, unlike most previous years, we picked a previously unread story and it turned out to be a retelling of Lot. Holy shit, that’s some fucked up shit! I mean, seriously, I get that the people of Sodom aren’t the best, but for God to burn it to the ground?? And why today? Why not yesterday?? It’s not like an omniscient God didn’t know Sodom existed. Man, some of those Old Testament stories are such horseshit!

To you and yours, however you celebrate the winter season, deity-based or not, have a cheery one!

Mithras nekid

My Conversation with Linda on 9-23-12

The following conversation happened at Support Atheism in the comments section of my article Keeping Religious Friends. Two highlights were Linda’s insistence on Christian persecution and her appeal to her dislike of the fact of death as her reason for believing. Her text is in bold. Mine is in Italics. Comments are [in brackets].

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your comments. Following are my responses.

“I’m a Christian, don’t shoot me,”

I’m pretty much a pacifist, so wouldn’t dream of it.

“but this article is about the same struggles we have. We have been hated by people if we talk too much about God in our lives, but if we don’t we then deny a big part of us that we absolutely love.”

Except there’s a difference. There is far greater social acceptance in this country to religion in general and Christianity in specific. I’m sure you’ve been in awkward social situations, but politicians live and die by your vote. Not so with mine.

And this whole “God in our lives” thing is your choice. You don’t have to live that way. You choose to. Thus, as with any choice, the consequences of your choice are yours to bear.

My conversation with #RobynHill (part II) on 3/16/12

Robyn returned for more! I get a little condescending at times. Oops. My text is in italics. Hers is in bold. Theirs is in italic bold.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Here is a link to just a piece of why I consider a higher being more reasonable than flying random monster.

As I’ve said, the evidence is 100% indifferent in regards to what you find reasonable. Plus, you can no more disprove the influence of His Noodly Appendage than I can disprove the influence of Yahweh. But either of our inability to disprove is not evidence that either influencer were present.

I’ve taken a look at the page you linked and, right off the bat, the title irritates me: “Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe.” Evidence. Not “Reasons Why I Assume There Must Be a Creator” or “It Seems Too Complex to Have Arisen without Sentient Influence, therefore it Must Have.” No, the article claims evidence. And what is this evidence?

“Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.”

How does the “evidence” show that? Things are the way they are, therefore someone put them in place like that? I agree that it may seem that way, but seeming is not evidence of the conclusion. And that’s it for the article. No evidence at all. Just “it seems fine-tuned, therefore is.” If you feel I’ve misrepresented the page and that there is evidence, please feel free to point it out. To make it easier, I’ve reproduced the article in its entirety.

My conversation with #RobynHill on 3/9/12

Before you ask, no, Robyn and I are not related. Robyn happened onto a post about Mike Lee.

She made the following comment:

“ha ha, Mike Lee makes athesists look ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who knows a thing about logic. Move away from Ad Hominem arguing Lee.”

I responded with this:

“Hey Robyn,

“Thanks for dropping by. Funny you say that as I’d say the exact same thing about any religious person and logic. What, specifically, makes you say that? I don’t actually remember seeing Mike argue anything. Are you saying he’s used ad hominems? if so, when?”

Then I went to her Facebook page, by the link to which she’d provided, and started a conversation. Here is that conversation. My text in italics. Hers in bold. And a few links, pics, and vids to keep your attention ’cause FUCK is this epic!

(Unrelated side note: from now on, the “on X” dates of those conversations won’t necessarily reflect the literal date on which they occurred or ended, but rather more likely the date on which I get around to posting them. Carry on.)

Anton Hill
Hi Robyn,

Thanks for your comment. I just left my reply on AtheistAsshole.com.

Best,

Anton.

Robyn Hill
Sorry, but Mike Lee just uses bad tactics to argue his cause. He needs to take a few logic and debate classes.