"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers." - Grossman's Law
Today's episode of Scapegoat Theater (yet another holdover anachronism from that most loathsome of tomes, the wholly bibble) features that most casuistic of mental processes - the easy answer to complex social problems.
Our first contestant is Denyse O'Leary - who claims that Social Darwinism motivated the Jokela school shootings.
The best counterpunch is this post from the Panda's Thumb.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Our next contestant is our old, dear friend, Ken Ham, who blames the Virginia Tech shootings (along with the Columbine killings) on the stripping of God from the science classes.
Since any of these romantic, 'metaphysical' quibblings are untestable, unfalsifiable, and lacking in solid evidence, they have no place in a lab, let alone in a classroom. Stick to philosophy courses.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
The third contestant is Dinesh D'Souza, who claims that evolution is responsible for the aforementioned shootings:
“For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way–molecules acting upon molecules.”
Not even going to go into length (or link) on how retarded that statement is.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Fourth up, we actually have the notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (actually, his father) claiming that 'atheistic beliefs' cut Jeffrey free from any restraints.
What, pray tell, kept Gilles de Rais from going apeshit crazy? Richard Ramirez was of another variety, but still, religious. "I'll see you in Disneyland," was his retort to getting a death sentence.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Next up, Lee Strobel tells of the debunking of the Miller-Urey experiment that 'led him into atheism'.
Clearly, Strobel hasn't a clue as to the differences between evolution and abiogenesis. Also, Talkorigins addresses the Miller-Urey experiment adequately. One might note, that unless Herr Strobel was using a bit of hyperbole, one scientific venture does not an epistemology make.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
The list goes on, but I'll top it off with a real charmer - contestant number six is good old Chuck Colson, who in a tirade of tolerance, made this statement:
"This is a virulent strain of atheism which seeks to destroy our belief system," Colson said.
Atheism as a disease? How on earth would he eradicate it (if hypothetically this were so)? What happens next, if Chuckles gets his way? Contextually speaking, a disease infers a cure, does it not? Would he enforce some sort of atheist vaccine? Repeal the First Amendment? Of course, Chuckles isn't a big fan of the SOCAS (it's uni-directional, dontcha know?).
It's getting ridiculous. No, wait, it already IS ridiculous. Blaming all of societies ills and woes on one particular source without taking in the complex equations that factor into that laundry list falls under Grossman's law (cited above). This sounds suspiciously along these lines:
"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern Country." - Woodrow Wilson
But I digress...Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
I'd hand out consolation prizes (booby prizes in this case), but rewarding stupidity is enabling it.
If I were a coward, I'd shut up about it, and become one of those 'casual secularists' the religious are always prattling about.
But I'm not, so I won't. I'll say it loud and proud: I don't believe. And I have good reasons not to. Multiple good reasons, in fact.
If that makes me a militant atheist, so be it. (And folks wonder why we're so loud and pissed off. Yeesh, get a clue, willya?)
This is the Apostate, signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment