Ray on Occasional Days: 8:7 and we're DONE!
This is it. It's official. This is the last bit of Ray's book, so this will be the last "Ray a day"/"Ray on Occasional Days". I must say, Ray really goes out with a bang. Read on. This was originally printed on Ray's blog, so I'll quote the whole thing:
Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.
Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.
So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.
This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics. Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.
It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!
The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.
It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.
Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms ofAbraham Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines while being praised by the Christian god repeatedly. As an outsider, I ask myself why we might want to teach our children these stories, along with other stories in the Bible which promote sexism, racism, genocide, etc.
‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.
This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.
Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.
Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).
What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now. Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!
It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.
So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger. Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.
The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?
If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.
Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It's irresponsible and disgusting.
Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.
If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.
Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.
I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.
There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.
I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.
Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.
I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.
Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.
Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.
Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.
Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.
If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.
So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.
This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics. Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.
Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!
The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.
It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.
How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.
Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms of
‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.
This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.
I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.
Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.
There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.
Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).
I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.
What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now. Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!
It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.
Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.
So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger. Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.
I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.
The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?
Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.
If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.
Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It's irresponsible and disgusting.
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
11 Comments:
Man, I think Ray missed his true calling writing 1950s horror comics. There's a House of Mystery story just aching to get out of that screed.
I think I will miss Ray's book! Maybe his publisher will send me another one now.
Ray really needs to get laid
*Former Christian Fundie Copy-Editing Note*
It was Solomon, not Abraham, that had 700 wives and 300 concubines - Abraham was the one who married his sister and then lied about it repeatedly, before his incestuous marriage was blessed by God with a son (that would be Issac, the boy who God later commanded Abraham to offer as a human sacrifice, and praised him for obeying without question).
Life was nice as a biblical king. Or being rich in general in ancient times, traditional times, when people worshipped God, children were respectful, moral standards were high, and marriage was between a man and as many wives as he could afford.
The argument about Solomon actually raises an interesting point, one that I've been struggling with for some time. I understand the secular arguments for letting gays marry (they're people two, homosexuality is innate and unchanging, why deny them their happiness over something they didn't choose), against screwing kids (kids aren't old enough to give real consent, and sexually abusing them warps them and robs them of their childhood, making it a quite monstrous offense) and I against banging animals (animals aren't capable of making the moral decisions to give consent, and almost never initiate the sexual encounters involved in this act), but I've never quite gotten the argument against polygamy. I know that a man marrying multiple women (or probably men, for that matter, although that's never really been dealt with). But it still seems to me that, if two or more consenting women want to marry the same man, understand that, statistically speaking, it's very probable he'll treat them horribly, and still want to marry him, they should probably be allowed to.
The only argument I can see against polygamy, really, is that any kids resulting from the marriage are likely to turn out pretty screwed up. However, even this is a weak argument, as we actually have very little data on the children of polygamists, and none on the children of non-abusive polygamists. Further muddying the water is the fact that polygamy (at least in America) is usually the result of various religions that almost certainly have other tenents likely to lead to spousal abuse. It is accordingly almost impossible to isolate the effects on children of polygamy alone.
As you might be able to tell from my odd ramblings, from a secular standpoint at least, a man/woman taking multiple wives/husbands raises any number of thorny questions. Is it acceptable to ban a practice that, in it's current form, leads to loads of spousal abuse? Playing devil's advocate: in that case, we could very well also be obliged to ban the children of abusive couples, alcoholics, and drug abusers from marrying. Or should we allow the practice and possibly (maybe even probably) contribute to loads of abuse and produce lots of fucked-up kids? It's a tricky question.
I know plenty of polyamorous people who are quite happy with the lifestyle. I have not observed that people are more prone to treating each other horribly, or abusing each other, than in a monogamous lifestyle. The chief difference is a much greater tendency for relationships to fall apart if people fail to communicate openly, frankly, honestly, and pro-actively.
Personally, I feel that the lifestyle/relationship style has helped me form stronger, healthier relationships by forcing a focus on quality communication.
Some of the people I know have children, and feel that a polyamorous lifestyle is very amenable indeed to raising children, as there’s a larger support network (and more parents to get presents from…).
As for what should or should not be allowed, I think that one rule suffices: Are the participants all consenting adults making informed decisions? If so, you have no business forbidding them.
Ziztur since Ray's Origin of Species is freely available online you could have a wade through his 'Intro'.
The existence of Ray’s edition of Origin sickens me. The fact that it is an abridged edition makes my bullshit detector jump into overdrive: Who wants to bet against me if I posit that the “abridging” deliberately guts the credibility of the work?
Well the whole thing is online so you can read it for yourself, he's taken the 1st edition of the book removed the introduction by Darwin, and like the 5 chapters of the book. and then inserted his own 50 page intro. He does give a link in the text to a site he's made called http://www.originextra.com/ where you can get the missing sections. There is one table of figures missing though. most likely by accident since it isn't particularly memorable.
'the last 5 chapters'
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home