The narcissism of thanking God

Grabbed this picture off of Common Sense Atheism:

Relatedly, there’s a cartoon out there somewhere of God watching a famine on TV. Can anyone find it for me?

  • http://kruel.co Alexander Kruel

    Not sure, but check out this video.

  • Daniel Engblom

    Over here is the picture (I think) you mean:

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/the-theological-sausage-grinder/

    At the end of the post.

  • Bob Jase

    A few years ago I was involved in an arguement with a believer over the death of a child whose parents were devout believers. To him the child’s death showed they weren’t devout enough, his proof of his own devoutness – someone at the gym he attended turned in the bathing suit he had left behind in the locker room the day before, truly god’s miracle reward for him.

  • mnb0

    Once I read a book of a Hungarian (jewish) Auschwitz survivor, including death marches. He converted at the beginning of his suffering to christianity because god and his son helped him survive, no matter how many died around him.
    It was one of the sickest reads I ever experienced.
    Alas I haven’t the faintest idea who the author was; the book wasn’t mine.

  • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggs[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

    Advanced theologians in reality aren’t much better!Keith Ward thanks his Lord for changing him for the better now that He’s born again So he accepts evolution and gives credit to God for evolution and his doing better when as the gnu atheist Percy Bysshe Shelley gets it right: ” To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions-laws - of Nature,L.G.I.M.]is to invent a secondary and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.”
    Yes, here the Ockham applies severely as He requires convoluted, ad hoc assumptions whilst naturalism only relies on Nature. So, trying implicitly to overcome the presumption of naturalism, Aquinas makes his failed five ways-suggestions as Antony Garrard Newton Flew notes, and as he notes this presumption is akin to the presumption of innocence.
    Aquinas in his problem II of the Summa Theologica rightly states,with his superfluity argument, yet tries by obscurantism to overcome the presumption :” It is moreover superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything in the world can be accounted by other principles without supposing God exists. For all natural things can be accounted for by one principle, which is nature….There is no reason to suppose that God exists.”
    Then comes the obscurantism. The second way-the Primary Cause refers to a series of hierarchical, efficient causes – explanations, not chronological ones[ Craig's the Kalam is the chronological one.]. He begs the question of the primary one when he states that should one take it away, one removes all the intermediate ones as Howard Jordan Sobel notes in ” Logic and Theism.”
    Thus Aquinas affirmed the presumption as the starting point,yet prefers his obscurantism!
    This quote stems from on-line papers of Peter Inwagen, who graciously maintains that we naturalists, with supplementary premises can use the superfluity argument. He denies that God is a hypothesis, so as to reify the superfluity!
    Yes, advanced theologians provide us with much mirth!
    Lo, all those murdered in the name of Christ for a superfluity, a square circle. Thosemany theistic supercilious ways for Him make me a gnu atheist!
    Please hammer home this vital point- the superfluity argument, with the Flew -Lamberth the presumption of naturalism and Lamberth’s the argument from inherency.This latter maintains that chaos, order and regularity inhere in Nature.
    And instead of praying to that superfluity, pray to me, but I readily assure people that Ican do no more than it can but admit it! So much for all defenses and theodices!
    Yes,I rock!

  • Jonas

    Funny exercise: Interpret pictures like this in the opposite way of what is intended. The poor child on the right does not thank jesus, and therefore he probably is a muslim getting what he deserves.

  • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggs[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

    Yes, the credulous can sure raise questions about their sanity!

  • Pingback: looking for a job


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X