My exchange with a fundamentalist

While we're on the topic of religion, I got into an exchange with a self-proclaimed "fundamental evangelical" who calls himself Righteous Randy on a message board on imdb.com. I was just fucking around with him, but he seemed to take me seriously up to a point, then ultimately gave up on me. I liked his initial description of hell, pretty unique. And since I do write some satire on this blog, let me make clear that this is a real conversation I had, transcribed word for word. Here is the transcript:

Righteous Randy: I'm a Fundamental Evangelical and proud of it.

Me: OK, simmer down, you're getting a little randy.

RR: I like your sense of humor. Do you believe that Jesus was violently murdered for your sins?

Me: My sins? Not really, considering I wouldn't exist for another 2,000 years.

RR: Oh, I would hate to see a man of your humor spend eternity in hell. If you have any questions about the love of God, feel free to ask me.

Me: But a man of my humor could really lighten up the mood in hell.

RR: You're forced to push coal for all eternity, you aren't paid and you aren't allowed to sleep. I want to save you.

Me: I actually thought it was worse than that, not that pushing coal is a hobby of mine. What happens if I refuse to push the coal? I'm already in Hell, I don't think any further punishment will be a big deal to me. I don't really mind not getting paid either because what am I going to spend the money on down there? I don't have to pay rent do I? Anyway, I purposely wouldn't so I would get evicted. And they can't keep stopping you from sleeping. At some point you're just going to pass out and be unresponsive from extreme fatigue. And does Hell seriously still have a coal-based economy? That's so bad for the environment, Satan should propose switching to cleaner alternatives.

RR: IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!

Me: It doesn't? Sorry, I'm just trying to understand. Also, if I'm not getting paid then I don't have to pay taxes to Satan, do I? If so, do I have to fill out a new W-2 form down there or does the one I use on Earth just transfer over? I'm confused!

RR: Living in hell is living without God, that is the tax that has been put upon you. Your soul literally cries out every waking second for salvation, but you have denied God and you are now being denied by God.

Me: Wait so do I have to fill out a separate form for the "living without God" tax? Is that like the WD-40 or something like that? I feel like I've heard it before but I can't quite remember. Damn bureaucracy! Even in the afterlife LOLZ!

RR: I take it back. You aren't worth the attempt to save, I have no interest of saving you. Heaven will be better off without you. This is goodbye.

Me: That's fucked up Randy! Just for that, I'm accepting Jesus' offer of salvation. See you in heaven bitch! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

RR: I hope you are being honest. PRAISE THE LORD! Amen.

Me: Eh, now that I think about it, you might be right-- heaven would be a better place without me. I don't want to spoil it for everybody. OK so fuck it, back to hell. Later. PS - Get back to me about those tax forms when you get the chance.

RR: I will pray for you.

Me: OK, when you talk to God, can you relay some of those questions I asked you? He must have some knowledge of the tax laws in Hell. Also ask him if he recommends any restaurants down there, preferably one with good cold hors d'oeuvres and air conditioning!

[This is where Randy stopped responding to me]

More blasphemy

This is my response to Joe's comment on my previous post:

Again, I don't fully discount the possibility of some unobservable force/entity, something outside the realm of science. But the thing is, if it outside the realm of science, then that means we cannot observe or measure it, so how can we ever know it exists? Our only way to know anything about our universe is by using our senses. And if we CAN use our senses to evaluate evidence supporting the existence or nonexistence of this thing, then it IS in the realm of science. So maybe something outside the realm of science exists, maybe it doesn't, but by definition we can never know one way or the other.

And it goes without saying that it is ridiculous to make the leap from, "I just can't believe that there isn't more to this life than what is in front of us" to "Therefore, Jesus Christ is the son of God who was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago and walked on water and healed lepers before dying for our sins and being resurrected and he has a list of things he does not want you to do but it's OK to do them if you say you're sorry afterwards but the one thing he won't forgive is rejecting or disbelieving his offer of eternal salvation which leaves him no choice but to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity."

I don't think those particular details, or the details of other faiths like Judaism and Islam, are well substantiated by the sight of a beautiful waterfall. And I'm sure you'd agree with that much.

Also, all the beauty you find in the world is completely subjective, and I actually think it is totally explainable through science. I mean it makes sense intuitively that we would find beauty and comfort in a world that we evolved to survive in. That's why I think many people who live in urban areas get that itch to get out of the city and into somewhere more natural and undisturbed-- because that is the type of environment our predecessors lived in for millions of years. It's a relic of an instinct that evolved long ago. I don't see it as evidence of anything else.

That said, there are still mysteries that science has not (yet?) provided much of an explanation for. And I think the two biggest ones are human consciousness and self-awareness, and the simple question of why anything exists at all. The latter question will probably remain a mystery forever. Did the universe just always exist? No beginning, no end? It's impossible for us to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has always existed without having a beginning (and some religious people use this as justification for believing in God-- apparently unaware that they are contradicting themselves by claiming God has always existed... if God can always exist, why can't the universe? They're just adding another unknown to the equation, explaining nothing).

Attacks on Atheism

I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. No, I do not and cannot completely discount the existence of anything beyond the physical realm. But as of now I see no particular evidence for anything of the sort. At the very least, I am completely unconvinced of the truthfulness of any of the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) and cannot see how, even if one believes in a "higher power," that they could subscribe with any certainty to one of these particular religions. Religions that all have an equal amount of supporting evidence: none. Hence, the concept of "faith," or, "believing in something in spite there being no evidence of its truthfulness." Let's be honest, there is no more evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected than that Poseidon caused hurricanes... yet interestingly not too many people today blame Katrina on the wrath of Poseidon.

Though I've never personally been confronted by an evangelical asserting my wickedness, I have read many arguments against atheism. It's interesting that these arguments never seem to distinguish between veracity and worldly or social consequences. They disregard the fact that, even if, for example, adherence to Christianity was necessary for people to behave in morally proper ways (it's not), this would still say nothing about whether it makes truthful claims about the reality of our universe.

Anyway, one common argument against atheism (but really only its social consequences, not its veracity) invokes the terror perpetrated by the likes of rulers like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that it's pretty well documented that Hitler was not actually an atheist. We'll just pretend he was, because I'm going to show you it didn't matter anyway.

Cockbags like Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of innocent people and many proponents of religion like to blame it on the fact that they were atheists (because no atrocities have ever occurred in the name of religion). For many religious people, the Holocaust is a perfect example of what happens when religion is thrown out the door and atheism prevails.

But was it really a lack of belief in god that caused these atrocities? No. It was a positive belief in something else entirely. Hitler and his cohorts propagated the irrational dogma that Jews and other different "races" of people were inferior and a threat to the purity and survival of the German race.

Can you see the amazing irony in religious people using these ruthless dictators in arguments against atheism? Hitler and Stalin were successful because they appealed to people using irrational dogmas... unfounded worldviews that fashion themselves immune to all inquiry and criticism. This sounds familiar.

It's glaringly obvious that atheism was not the issue. Atheism is merely a consequence of a rational worldview that relies on reason and evidence. Reason and evidence. Two things completely shunned by religion... and two things completely shunned by the dogmas of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Clearly the real problems arise when reason, not religion, is thrown out the door. Religion is but one type of irrational dogma among many others... albeit one that has historically been afforded far too much immunity from criticism.

Along these lines, I highly recommend the book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris, an atheist, great writer, and highly intelligent person. He also writes about the issue I addressed in this post, among many other things.