I’m an attacker! In other news, we’re getting AT&T U-verse

Over at this thread, we’ve been talking about PZ Myers’ Why I am an atheist series. Well, it’s a bit off topic right now.

A guy named Nelson Rose jumped into the conversation, said he was a friend of Julie Ferwerda’s, and posted two links to his blog, citing that he wanted to get my contemplative juices flowing.

I like Julie. So I went and gave the guy a read. The first one I read was, “What is the True Nature of God.” Nelson writes:

The human body is essentially a microcosm of the universe and the brain a mini version of the Divine. I realize this borders on heresy to some of you, but bear with me here. The Divine is in complete control of all creation, much like the mind is in complete control of the body right? Then why did you let yourself stub your toe the other day? Why did you say such a harsh thing that you later claim you really didn’t mean? Why did you cheat? Why do you allow yourself to get a paper cut? Why is your hair not cooperating with your comb? Why do you have to brush your teeth to prevent decay? These things happened and you didn’t want them to. I thought the brain controlled everything.

You can read the whole thing at the link above.

I read his writing to insinuate that the divine has a mind. And just like bad things happen to you despite having a brain, bad things happen in the universe despite having a divine creator who is in charge of it all.

I responded and wrote:

The universe doesn’t have a mind. And while I may stub my toe, my brain is really good at helping me avoid it when possible. I can learn to avoid certain evils, if you will. And the universe god can’t?

I have a hard time agreeing that the universe, should it have a brain, and its brain is named “God”, that it would allow itself to stub its two [sic] on child slavery if it didn’t need to.

The sense I was trying to convey was that if the divine is so stupid that it stubs its toes over and over, than it’s not using its noggin. If the divine is incapable of stopping child slavery or hunger as it happens over and over, surely that divine ain’t divine … if you know what I mean.

Did I attack Nelson? Did I throw insults at him? I don’t see any. But apparently my view of the universe is an illusion (see below). So I don’t know what’s what.

Then I read Nelson’s other link titled, “The Illusion of Atheism.” Nelson’s premise is that atheism is a mere illusion because three Hebrew words found in the Pentateuch translate to “I shall be what I shall be” or “I am what I am.” Nelson blabbers on and on about how the earth used to be flat, and now — thanks to science — we have the truth. He blames mankind’s limited understanding for failing to truly understand the miracle that is the divine. He draws the conclusion that understanding through science have not rendered that genocidal monstrosity found in the “Old” Testament obsolete.

He identifies that there is a source to the universe, and makes the grand conclusion that “Atheism advocates the absence of an orginal source or intelligent design.  If there is no source – then universe is an illusion.”

Ta-dah! Atheism Smatheism! Done and done. Clap hands like cleaning erasers and pass me a cocktail.

He ended his blog with copyright information.

You’re so illuded!

Just to make sure I wasn’t crazy, I looked up illusion. Apparently I have been deceived. This universe isn’t around me. My deity is science, and for me to say I’m an atheist means I’ve been deceived.

To which I wrote:

Call me illusioned or deluded. I don’t need the title “atheist.” I agree with those who don’t think there’s good enough reason for god. Call me what you want. Deluded. Wrong.

Just because the bible says: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, doesn’t make god exist.

Or maybe he does.

Say you could introduce me to god, let me shake his hand and talk to him, I still wouldn’t worship him. You could let me finger the wounds of Christ, but I wouldn’t suddenly change mind and start thinking he was the greatest man to ever live.

I’m not impressed, Nelson. That’s the short and thick of it.

I’m guessing Nelson thought I was referring to his writing when I said, “I’m not impressed.” I was referring to god.

But if I were pressed, I would say that Nelson’s copyrighted material is hardly impressive.

You can read the exchange. He says “Whoa, nelly! You misunderstood what I wrote!” And I was like, “If I misunderstood it, I’m sorry. But I was responding to what I read.”

And then he comes back and writes:

Don’t really care what you think or believe. The irony is you attack people for attacking your views and then attack people for having different views then you do. You attack people for misunderstanding you and then attack people when you don’t understand them.

I responded to what he wrote and that’s an attack?

What kind of thin skin does Nelson have? If he showed me his brand new car, and said he loved it. And I said, “I had a car like that, but the radio broke on it, and the transmission needed replacing within a year of purchase,” Nelson would see that as an attack?

If I interpret your bad ideas with criticism, don’t take it personally. Gosh, I wish I would have attacked him. It would have felt like he criticized me for what I did, instead of what I didn’t do.

Nelson trolled his way onto this blog thinking I was going to give him a congratulatory handjob for coloring inside the lines writing and publishing his thoughts on a blog.

By the way, I’m getting AT&T Uverse this weekend. The upgrade “saved” me about $15 a month in internet, and supposedly I’m going to get a jump in download speed. That way I can read Nelson’s copyrighted material faster.

Don’t forget, you’re just an illusion of my imagination … so you don’t exist.

Or something like that.

Love and kisses, Nelson Rose. And good luck with blogging. You’re going to need it.

5 thoughts on “I’m an attacker! In other news, we’re getting AT&T U-verse

    1. Religious zealot isn’t how I’d describe it.

      Passionate about the search, maybe.

      I don’t see you as anyone other than who you are. I meant no ill will toward your search or toward the expression of it.

  1. Nelson, as I said in my response to you in the other thread, welcome!
    I hope you read my comment. I hope you understand that I’m not attacking you. I think you made an error, and I think you are too proud to say “Geez, sorry about that, it was uncalled for.”

    I have always been fascinated by your posts, even if I rarely agree with them. They are a window into the kind of theist I would have been if I did not “
    refuse however, to resign myself to the notion that everything came from some unexplained cosmic disturbance or bang or whatever else science wants to guess.

    I don’t refuse to believe anything. I guess that is the difference. I try to understand what the facts are, what we know and don’t know, and make informed decisions regardless of how comfortable the conclusions are.

    The truth isn’t always comfortable. No one should refuse to something because it is unsettling. For example, I often make mistakes. I make bold statements that I realize, in retrospect, are not true. When I realize my mistake, I’m uncomfortable with that realization. I choose to embrace my discomfort and learn from it. I own that discomfort and apologize for my error.

    Food for thought……

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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