Friday, May 01, 2009

Some pretty thin skin over there in the Idiot-sphere.

Blogging Tory Richard Ball takes a break from enumerating pin-sitting angels to crank out another piece of rancid theological sewage:

Most arguments for the existence of God provide evidence based in probability (a la Pascal) rather than proofs to a mathematical certainty. You can always wiggle-out of them by denying this-or-that.

By way of illustration, a painting may exist, but how does a painting "prove" the existence of a painter in general, or a specific painter in particular -- couldn't the painting have been formed by some as-yet undiscovered natural cause(s)? In the absence of actually presenting the painter who painted it, isn't it best to be skeptical when someone points to a painting, and goes around proclaiming, "painter"?! And, in the case of a 200-year-old painting, the painter, if there ever was one, is now dead, so no proof that there was a painter is now possible.

Yes, it really is that painful and incoherent, but then things get interesting:

For example, in my previous post, one commenter said, "why couldn't something come into existence uncaused?". When the subject in question is the entire universe, the uncaused existence of a mere painting should be a walk in the park. A second commentator threatened me with physical violence.

Whoa, what? Physical violence? Seriously? OK, we need to look into that more carefully, so we visit the appropriately-named Dick Ball's previous post to find, uh:

"However, the minute you try to stick that belief system down my throat... that is the day I and many others push you... to the ground and walk on by..."

Kursk: We discourage threats of violence on this site.

I'm sorry ... that was a threat of violence? Let's make sure we represent kursk fairly and accurately:

People can choose to believe whatever they wish.If you think there is a God or Gods, please by all means knock yourself out..

However, the minute you try to stick that belief system down my throat, be it by state or church decree, that is the day I and many others push you and your doctrine, dogma and idols to the ground and walk on by...

I will not bow to any man or 'God', and those that try to force their own belief system on me will rue the day they tried.

Jesus Christ, Dick, that's your idea of "physical violence?" A metaphor? Seriously, Dick, you need to get more resilient panties. That kind of whiny misrepresentation is positively Twatsian in its dishonesty.

It's no wonder Canada's Right is whining about dangerous, life-threatening incivility -- they see it pretty much everywhere. Free speech warriors, indeed.


Dharma Satya said...

The problem is that they see these "evil" intentions everywhere except in themselves, where they are most prevalent.

When they do it, they mean it literally and they feel it's justified, it's right, it's *holy*. When someone else merely uses violence as a metaphor, they jump all over it, as they can't get past their own egos and are therefore unable to stop attributing their disgusting, hateful motivations to others, motivations they find abhorrent, but are not self-aware enough to see as projections of their own sick desires.

They see violence everywhere because they are violent people.

Alison said...

Creationism gets a legal leg up :
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta lawFreedom to Create Morons!