I actually managed to sit through this entire thing, but I would not recommend it unless you are a glutton for torture. Just watch as much as you can handle if you want a to witness what may be the worst evangelical approach to atheism I have ever seen from a "professional" proselytizer.
@ 3:13 — I love how she openly admits she has no interest in having a conversation. She is only interested in talking at us, not with us.
@ 4:44 — "If you ever hear my opinion coming out of my mouth, you can just throw it out the window. . ." Following her advice, I guess we could just stop the video there and do something more productive. Evidently, she does not realize what she thinks her god's opinion is is, in fact, her opinion.
@ 5:11 — She is not interested in debating us because we do not know what we are talking about. This is typical cult mentality. She believes (it is her opinion) that because we are outsiders of the Christian faith, we are incapable of making valid commentary on it or the philosophy of god. I suppose we should all avoid commenting on other countries and other political parties, too. Actually, since she is not an atheist and I am, I suppose I can simply disregard her commentary out of hand with no justification.
@ 6:05 — "A person with an experience is never at the mercy with a person with an argument, and you need to understand, that is the position that you and I are in right now." Following this premise to its logical conclusion, the experiences of all schizophrenics must be legitimate. I suppose we can also deem all religions, even the mutually exclusive ones, valid and true since they all boast their own experiences (minus the deists).
@ 6:33 — She asserts we freethinkers do not argue against god in an effort to promote or discover truth. She then says she knows this because, if we were seeking truth, we would find it, and wouldn't you know it, she just so happens to know what that truth is. Allow me to appeal to one of Emmi's favorite quotes, spoken by André Gide: "Believe those who are seeking truth, doubt those who find it."
@ 8:21 — She claims we only seek to justify a lifestyle wherein we serve ourselves. I am curious how she possesses such insights on people she does engage in dialogue, but this is typical religious projection, identical to the Scientologists' tactic of claiming that all who oppose their church are criminals.
@ 10:05 — "What are you fighting so hard against if he's not real?" How about a dangerous ideology which informs the largest special interest group in the United States? Contrary to what she thinks, many atheists, agnostics, and Satanists care about truth and will often promote criticism of even the most holy beliefs and ideas in search of it.
@ 10:33 — "You'll forgive me if I don't believe you." Considering, Ms. Dennington, that you have spent the last ten minutes setting yourself up on a moral high-ground from which to look down on the rest of us, I don't think I will.
@ 11:06 — "And have you ever asked yourself why it is that you specifically hate Jesus Christ so much?" No, I haven't. This is classic persecution complex from Dennington. Were we in countries that were not hard up on Jesus but were rapped up in some other superstition which heavily influenced domestic and foreign policy, we would attack that belief, not yours. Your belief is not special to us outside of its cultural and political significance.
@ 11:35 — "You atheists. . .you're not mad about people servin' Satan." Theistic Satanism is no more valid to me than your beliefs, but the Satanists are a misunderstood fringe group of people who are doing little to no harm to society, though those who engage in abominable acts I will openly denounce. Additionally, many Satanists are atheists who merely prescribe to the more hedonistic philosophies of Satanism, so should it be any surprise that we find common ground in our criticism of your theology?
@ 11:39 — "What about Allah? If I were preaching Allah would that bother you?" If the most dangerous radicals cannot be found in Christianity, I dare say they can be found in Islam. Christianity, Islam, and Scientology are the three religions I am most likely to criticize, so stop spouting this self-assured nonsense.
@ 13:20 — Atheists worship Satan and have the same philosophy as Satanists. There is really no way to respond to this other than, "No, we don't."
@ 13:36 — "Agnostics. . .you think that God has something to prove to you. . .You've got breath in your lungs right now. He's proven it to you." I actually facepalmed the first time I heard this.
So let's sum up her method so far:
- Open with scripture you know your audience does not accept.
- Condescend your audience.
- Explain why you do not want to address your audience.
- Explain why you should not even be talking at your audience.
- Pretend you are being persecuted by your audience.
- Spout false equivocations and logical fallacies.
First, let me offer a blanket "thank you" to all those who offered words of encouragement when I first posted this story. I appreciate your concern.
To elaborate on the event, my mother was throwing a "jewelry party" wherein she and a group of friends and relatives browse through a sponsoring business's brochures and purchase items from them (I do not recommend it). I attended to keep my father company. We spoke at length throughout the course of the night, starting with politics and society, moving on to cosmology and science, and ending on philosophy in general. My father always brings his god into any conversation we have, so I made the effort to open the door to his theology as much as I could during the course of our conversation, attempting to explain that Big Bang cosmology and his theology did not have to be at odds and leaving the question of god open-ended in our broader philosophical discussion. I think he actually enjoyed the conversation, as I do not believe he typically has philosophical conversations which fall outside the realm of theology. He was particularly intrigued when I explained how we cannot affirm the reliability of sense datum because all our knowledge is dependent upon it.
As far as I can tell, the conversation my father and I were having bled over into the kitchen (after the party when everyone else had left) where my wife and mother somehow began discussing gay marriage. My wife asked my mother some questions she could not answer regarding the authority of the Bible, so my mother brought the conversation to my father. In an attempt to avoid directly denouncing my parent's belief, I instead asked them questions concerning Biblical morality and whether or not all of it should be illegal or some should be left to personal choice. During this line of questioning, I was surprised to learn my father remembered that Jesus said he would fulfill the law, but denied Jesus ever said he would not abolish or change the law. I also tried to pull in the issue of religious freedom to no avail.
The conversation, though passionate, was not heated or angry, but it did lead to a line of questioning which gave me reason for pause. My parents began to ask leading theological questions which neither my wife nor I could answer honestly without explicitly revealing our irreligiosity. I hesitated, churning over the silliness of considering lying to two grown people nearly in their fifties while wishing not to cause them emotional distress, when my father indicated he already "knew" what I believed. I am unsure how much he truly knew, as it was fairly obvious I was not practicing Christianity, and he evidently noticed how I attempted to steer conversations away from religion and deduced my passion for science in my rants against pseudoscientific bunk, but I was truthful with them after I was called out though hearing me speak the word "atheist" had a visible impact on both my parents.
As I said earlier, my mother had an anxiety attack and my father remained as strong as he could. Mom evidently spent the whole weekend at home moping while Dad did what he could to comfort her. My older sister remains the eternal pessimist while my younger sister is confident they will find a way to cope. My father has already convinced himself I am going through a phase, and I will one day return to the faith with "a great story to tell." Opting not to cause him any more hurt, when he said that I simply responded, "I have changed a lot these past 25 years, and I have no idea how much I will change the next 25."
Good news has come from this entire endeavour, though. It appears as if my mother is considering getting the psychiatric help she has needed for quite some time, and oddly enough, my father actually researched the philosopher René Descartes after hearing about him in church this past Sunday, so I question whether or not he will actually begin studying philosophy as a way of relating to me.
As for me, I feel bad that my parents are going through this difficult time, but I am unapologetic for who I am, as I have ever been. I regret that I can simply continue living my life largely unchanged while my parents whom I love are being haunted by this experience, but I hope they will somehow find a way to grow and learn from the experience.
In closing, I will share the quote my father shared with me yesterday.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. -René Descartes
This is what I woke up to in my inbox this morning. I felt I should share it.
Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry took on Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe in a BBC debate on whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Watch the debate here.
The cooperative gallery I am a part of moved to larger quarters in a desperate attempt to survive. Sales were dropping at our old location to the point where we were going to run through our buffer capital and then we would never have a chance to move.
After an extensive search, we found a property closer to the city market and across from a popular restaurant. Sales have been promising so far, especially for me.
Last night was the grand opening event and we had quite a crowd. I had some new clothes to wear and hubby and I planned to go out to dinner afterward. I had to work the register for an hour and during this time sales were brisk. Everybody in the cooperative had some part in the event and it was good to see everybody dressed up and working together.
After my hour was over, hubby and I went out for dinner and we had a nice time despite the fact that I was hurting pretty badly by that point. It was a very nice evening and hopefully a profitable one for the gallery.
It's been a long night, so this will be brief, but I will probably expand later.
After being backed into a corner during a conversation with my parents tonight, my wife and I vocalized our atheism. It was inevitable it seems, but I do not feel the timing was right. It happened regardless, and at first things seemed to going well until my mother promptly had a massive anxiety attack. I was afraid we were going to have to take her to the hospital.
Dad did about as well as I could reasonably expect, but he is clearly hurt.
Long distance calls, counting change to pick up the phone.
several beers and the change I get back, stored for the walk to the payphone.
Talking
on the phone is all I want to do but you do not answer. I wonder what
you are doing, imagine that you are sleeping or working or picking up
the phone, looking at the number, knowing that number is the payphone
for a bar that I have called from before. Cell phones give me away so I
call from obscure locations, hoping to catch you off guard.
You answer, what do I say to you? I want to tell you that all I do is think of you and wish we were closer, that's not what comes out. I ask how your doin'? I get one worded answers, "fine". I feel stifled, my thought process ceases to exist.
dialtone
Why can't I talk?
Originally published in 1988, the book has aged extremely well which is, in a way, a bit disheartening, because it tackles the problem of mathematical illiteracy (or innumeracy, if you will) in our society; a problem which seems to gotten no better these last 21 years. Paulos walks through a few basic mathematical principles in the work, explaining how to properly calculate probabilities and percentages and how to interpret statistics at an elementary level all while warning of common pitfalls. Statistics and probabilities are probably the main focus of the book. Paulos argues, as have I, that a misunderstanding of statistics and probabilities ill serves us as a society because it limits our ability to make rational, informed decisions in this very data driven age in which we live.
Do not fear, however, that Innumeracy is dry, as Paulos weaves in colorful illustrations and fills this work with interesting facts. The book is remarkably quotable, and I often found myself considering sharing an excerpt, but there are simply too many parts worth sharing to pick one.
Read this book. At 180 pages, you can knock it out in a night, but I suspect you will get something from it. It has actually gotten me excited about next semester's Statistics & Probabilities course. I rest reasonably certain I will read another Paulos book in the future.
My Groups
-
Atheists Updated: 41 minutes ago
-
Skeptics Updated: Yesterday
-
Urban Wordsmiths Updated: 3 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
