Among dimwits, you’ll find a lot of terrible beliefs.
Like the belief that “rejecting” an idea is the same as “rebutting” an idea.
It looks something like this:
Me: This is a good neighborhood.
Dimwit: No it’s not! This is a horrible neighborhood!
Me: This neighborhood has low crime rates, high property values, excellent schools, and well-maintained streets.
Dimwit: Nope. It’s horrible!
Me: Okay…Why do you say that?
Dimwit: Your standard for judging good neighborhoods are silly.
Me: Okay. What makes a neighborhood good?
Dimwit: Well, certainly not what you said!
Me: Right. What makes for a good neighborhood?
Dimwit: You’re just mad because I poked holes in your beliefs.
And so it goes.
A true dimwit never advances a counter-argument.
The dimmest of wits compose nonsensical questions:
God IS the moral standard that He “sets for us”.
It would be similar to asking:
“Is this neighborhood also subject to the same standard of goodness as itself?”
The question has no answer.
Like asking, “Would you rather believe the unbelievable or the impossible?”
Unanswerable questions are not good questions.
It is impossible to say a line is “straight” unless you have another line with which to compare it.
You need to offer your idea of “straight” before you can call my line “crooked”.
Likewise…
…You need to offer your idea of “moral” before you can call “my God” immoral.
Got it.
God is “unnecessarily severe” in punishing offenses.
God is “crooked”.
Now you need to tell us what you’re calling “straight”.
You’ve told us that God is a “horrible neighborhood”.
Now tell us where to find a “good neighborhood”.
And if you’re going to talk about morality as a subjective, fluid, ever-changing, product of culture…
…save your breath.
Because I don’t want to hear about crookedness from someone who doesn’t believe in straight.
5 Responses
This is a very intriguing question to me. The closest thing I can come up with in talking with some deconverts in this neck of the blogosphere is that they are trying to get at an internal inconsistency within Christian thought. That’s as generous as I can be.
I think there are a fair share that actually do hold that if a God’s “apparent immorality” is evidence against his existence in total… which is weird to me.
Not question… I meant topic… d’oh.
Immorality as evidence against God’s existence is not just weird to you. It’s weird (by which I mean incoherent) to anyone with a basic grasp of logic.
If you’re going to have a serious discussion about beliefs, you’ll need to concede that reality itself is unbelievable. C.S. Lewis said, “An egg which came from no bird is no more ‘natural’ than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside the sequence altogether?”
Looking outside nature is intolerable to some folks.
You’re right that reality is unbelievable… As odd as it may sound, I’ve found comfort in the “I think, therefore I am” to confirm that I do indeed exist, haha.
Also, I think I can comment on my phone now, but notifications for replies to my comments are no longer working… It might be in my end too… Just curious if any one else is having that issue with JBs site.
Dimwits tend to have a lot of issues around generational curses and unfair punishments. Bit of irony there, as in I inherited two really dysfunctional, atheist parents. Generational curses are a real enough thing, unjust, unfair, but God doesn’t give them to us, He helps us break them,heal, and eventually laugh about them. Life is often unjust, unfair, full of harsh punishments, but the only way we know this is because God offers us something so much better.