Critical Thinking, Religion

Why won’t you answer my Question?

As part of my digression from the mundane and boring (namely work, Mon-Fri), I like to frequent blogs that are written by devout religious believers.  For some reason, I simply can’t help but read the writings of people who truly believe that there is an omnipotent deity who loves them and looks out for them and so on and so forth.  To quote Christopher Hitchens when asked a question on whether he found a particular religious going-on interesting or crazy, he said “Both.  I find it both crazy and interesting.”  That pretty much sums up my position as well.

Anywho, now that I am done with the digressing, I’ll make my point.  I’ve noticed that there is a tendency, that when cornered and asked a direct question, religious people will do their utmost to duck and bob and weave and avoid actually answering the question at all costs.  I believe I know why they do it, but I still find it very strange nonetheless.  I also find it strange that they don’t notice and/or care that they do this.  On the one hand, they have the courage to assert that they know something they can’t possibly know and that they have answers to very profound and deeply meaningful questions:  Namely, how the universe came to be, why it came to be, and the purpose of your very existence.  Apparently those are very simple questions to answer.  But, on the other hand simple questions pose a very big problem.  For example, ask a religious person where they get their sense of right and wrong or where they get their morals from.  They have no problem telling you that it comes from God.  Instantly, they know the answer to that question.  However, when you ask them if God hadn’t done this, would they still know how to do good or act morally, they suddenly clam up or change the subject (or if you are on their site, erase the question and pretend it never existed).  Now what I have said here certainly applies to religious people, but it also applies to the “I am an atheist, but…” crowd as well.  It applies to anyone as a matter of fact.  If you make an assertion and someone asks you a direct question about that assertion, you should damn well answer it.  If you can’t or won’t and instead resort to any of the above tactics or start making more assertions “you’re speaking from a position of privilege!” or “you’re being offensive!” or any other whining like that, you are being dishonest and disingenuine.  You are conversing/arguing in bad faith.  If that’s the case, then you might want to consider excusing yourself because you have declared yourself incompetent to take part in a meaningful conversation.  In other words, apart from wasting yours and everyone else’s time, you’re embarrassing yourself.  You wouldn’t want to do that would you?


21 thoughts on “Why won’t you answer my Question?

  1. Questions that I don’t have answers for, I readily admit and this happens to be the majority of questions.. I have come to believe I actually know very little. At least I know the way to my office so I can’t get lost.


  2. LOL.
    “I know one thing: that I know nothing”. Socrates.
    Wouldn’t this be a wonderful world if more people adopted that approach? (except maybe on matters concerning how to get to their office – on that they should be very certain)

    And FYI to Arch if he’s reading this, CS has now started editing, moderating and deleting my comments. How surprising.


    • I am not surprised. He started by adding editor’s note to your comments awhile back. Moderation was going to follow immediately after.

      Many people think they know more than they actually know. And this statement alone is troublesome. What is to know? What is knowledge? Sometimes I want to ditch philosophy.


    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      I just posted this on Colorstorm’s post, “A few thoughts on free speech” – which is irony in itself, and he immediately deleted it, so I reposted it, then copied it quickly, so I could repost it here – someone needs to know was said:

      archaeopteryx1 says:
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      June 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm

      “I have no interest in promoting your doubts, insults of scripture, or antics to others.
      ~~ CS ~~

      “I have written elsewhere that drastic disagreements challenge our thinking. If something is sure and true, it can withstand the most intense scrutiny.”
      ~~ Colorstorm ~~

      Both of the above statements are yours, CS – one is true and the other is hypocrisy – would you please tell us which is which?


  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I’m only there to keep him on the defensive. I’ve noticed he doesn’t spend nearly so much time on the blogs of my friends, when he’s busy defending his own.

    Well, that, and I do so enjoy pissing him off.


  4. Nice post. Asking some people to think and then explain an assertion they have made is very often tantamount to launching an attack! How skewed must be your mind to see a legit question be an attack? And CS’ mind is very skewed. Welcome to the club.


    • This is a club I am proud to be part of! Even when I first starting talking to CS, I would never use anything other than an inquisitive tone and he never accused me of launching and attack on him…but the result was always the same. When I cornered him (which happened several times on several subjects), he never did answer my questions. All I ever got was that scripture was the true word of god in conversation after conversation. But now it seems I have reached the limit of his God-given patience! Oh well.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Ashley – run this by CS on his “Lion Mauls…” page – I tried, but he declined to release it. I mentioned that his god allowed the lion to kill the lady, but he maintained it was the lady’s fault. I responded with why it is that when a lion does something bad, such in having a tourist over for lunch, it’s not his god’s doing, but when a lion does something good, like not eat Daniel – that was all his god’s doing.


    • We have an update!

      Wally actually did answer my question. He stated that he believed that God was in control of everything. I wrote a response and CS published it very soon afterwards. In essence, I told Wally that since that was his view, his position must mandate that God is to be blamed for the bad as well as given credit for the good. I informed him that his argument is not with me, but with CS, who seems to take the view that God cannot be blamed for the bad. I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be no more posts on that subject.


  6. Sorry Arch, but I tried that too and no dice. I don’t know if you saw my first post about the Christian logic 101 – but it was the same point you were trying to make. I pointed out that it always seems that god comes out golden. Heads he wins (god gets all the credit when something good happens), tails he wins again (god gets none of the blame when something bad happens). I never did get any kind of answer or confirmation to that from either CS or Wally – who was obviously way too busy to answer that yes/no question. From there it devolved into CS admonishing me for not using a capital G when I talk about god. I asked him a direct question – if I don’t get in line with his dictates, will I be banned from posting. He never answered that and now I have 2 comments in moderation. 1 re-asking the question and the other on how he seems just as tyrannical and imposing and petty as his god and predicted that he’ll be too much of a coward to post my comment. So far, he’s proven me right…. I can’t be sure that read it but hopefully so. That site is enough to make my skin crawl. A holier-than-thou, one-track, slack jawed yokel and his adoring clapping-seal fans. Stupid is as stupid does I guess!


    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      “Stupid is as stupid does.”
      — Forrest Gump —

      How apt!

      Yes, I saw your comments, but reasoned that since this is apples to apples (lions to lions), it would be a slightly different angle on the same theme.


  7. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Left this on his new thread (you were right, he quickly left the old one), but since it’ll likely not see the light of day, I’ll paste it here as well”

    archaeopteryx1 says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 5, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    “Is there any question, is there any doubt as to which is the masculine lion?” – Well, see, that depends on how you define “masculine.” If you feel that the masculine one is the one that goes out and hunts, then as Ashley points out, just as I was about to do so, that would be the female. The male largely lies in the shade of a tree while she brings home the bacon, often literally – all of that power that you describe in the male, goes totally unused. So it would seem that lions have their gender roles reversed – but then you likely believe that’s how your creator made them, don’t you? I guess you could also say he made Bruce Jenner the way he is too, i.e., as one desirous of changing his appearance. And seeing that you have chosen a lion as your avatar, come to think of it, that explains quite a lot —

    Frankly, I think Jenner makes an ugly woman, but that’s his business, and none of mine.


  8. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Here’s my response to InsanityBytes’ reply to me:

    I like how you try to blame the fall and the flood on God and not man, a God you do not even believe in.” – Oh, I don’t – I blame those who believe the mythology, who believe that their god had no choice but to drown everyone – how omnipotent is that?

    Your use of the word, “bytes” is obviously a play on words, I get that, but it would also imply you know something about computers – there are many who wouldn’t have a clue as to what a “byte” was. If so, then you might be aware that much of computer code – the written instructions that tell a computer what to do – is written using an “if, then” algorythm. “If” the computer user does such and such, “then” the computer is instructed to execute one given scenario – if the user chooses a different option, a different scenario is followed, etc. So my criticism is similarly based – “if” your god made a certain rule, “then” he is responsible for deciding the punishment for violating it. That can range from a simple, “Tsk, tsk,” to an event involving horrible annhilation. Which option he CHOOSES to employ, tells us a great deal about him. So my condemnation is not of your god – which as you rightfully suggest, I don’t believe exists – it’s of those who can believe that such a wanton destruction of human life actually happened, and still call their deity “merciful.”

    It’s the believers, not the god, for whom I have no respect.

    PS – I was recently asked by one who shall remain anonymous, much like the majority of the Bible’s authors, what I thought of you. In an effort to be kind, I simply replied that I thought you were ‘aptly-named’. FYI.


  9. archaeopteryx1 says:

    BTW, Ashley – the work-around for the God/god issue is a simple one: proper names require capitalization, common nouns do not – by speaking of, “your god,” or, “their god,” or, “the Bible’s god,” you are using the word as a common noun, requiring no capitalization. Once you begin saying, “God does or says….”, then yes, capitalization is proper form, not out of respect as CS would suggest, but simply due to the rules of English grammar.

    Try constructing your sentence in such a way that you’re using the word as a common noun, and if he says anything, remind him of what I’ve just said (though it wouldn’t be to your advantage to mention that I had said it –).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s