Poop Shute

Dogma: I am God

or

Palindromes Are Fun

Due to all the recent God talk (again) lately, my Google ads link took me to a site claiming to have six reasons to believe in God. If you're interested, CLICK HERE. We have actually discussed most of them on here at one time or another over the years, so I won't bother with most of the article. But the intro caught my eye.

After a bit of preamble about these purported reasons to believe, they begin with this:

"But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon."

...um. WHAT!?!?

I do recognize there are those rigid atheists out there that actively "oppose the possibility of there being a God." You're right, there is nothing to compel them away from their stance. But as I have said, I am not so rigid, and have no real "belief" in either direction, and there has been no argument in favor of God that has convinced me either.

BUT, more importantly the logic behind the silly metaphor about the conspiracy theorist moron who believes NASA faked the moon landing applies to the above author as well.

I keep my eyes open to evidence, but I don't accept any old thing that any old person or any old book tells me as evidence. I question everything, especially things that I'm told not to question. I also leave my mind open to the possibility of an idea coming along that will revolutionize the way I think and/or see the world. If any idea does not stand up to scrutiny, then it's not evidence. That is how I choose to live and assimilate information into the fabric of who I am.

This section I quoted above implies that because I don't accept that their "evidence" is actually any kind of compelling or even relevant information, that I must be as closed-minded and immovable as a conspiracy theorist. They seem to be suggesting that simply because I didn't begin with their belief, then their evidence won't be compelling to me. If that's really true, then how solid could their "evidence" really be?

Imagine a finely-honed, well-supported argument is like a sword. It strikes home to the heart of its listener, and changes them forever. They are suggesting that because their argument fails to convince me, that I must have put on some hardened mental armor to resist stubbornly. That's really not accurate. It's not so much that I'm wearing armor, but it's that their arguments are more like fun-noodles than swords.

To borrow from my good friend, Anthony, if it's a solid, substantial argument that I can't find a hole in, then I will helplessly agree with you. Helplessly. As someone who moves through life with a analytical mind, I would have no choice.

...I know I'm repeating myself, but so are they. Besides, I don't have much else to write about lately. And this stuff obviously fascinates me.