Friday, February 24, 2006

The humanist manifesto


Bruce said...

I see now. Religion isn't about finding "truth" in our universe and explaining the mysteries of life. Rather, it is a security blanket to make you feel good when things aren't going your way. Just like when mommy used to kiss your scraped knee to make if feel better.

I think this guy was weaned way too early as a child.


For folks who flaunt the intellectual superiority of humanism, some of these guys seem a wee bit slow on the uptake.

To begin with, this was not about my (Christian) worldview, but about the (secular) worldview of Loftus & Co.

Loftus & Co. feel that we T-bloggers have failed treat them with the dignity due them.

The problem with this complaint is that, on their own worldview, human beings have no natural dignity.

I guess we need to catechize our junior novitiates in the solemn creed of humanism, issued by the First Council of Thanatos.

In the original, it reads as follows:


Ortus, concubitus, nex.

Ad extremum nos es totus mortuus.

Primoris vos intereo, tunc vos putesco.

Roughly translated, this means:


Birth, copulation, death.

In the long run we’re all dead.

First you die, then you rot.

With that in mind, take a little stroll with me through the cemetery of humanism. Just across the fence is the churchyard. There lie the mortal remains of Charles Wesley. This epitaph we find on his tombstone:

Charles Wesley

Where, O death, is now thy sting?
Where’s thy victory, boasting grave?
Made like him like im we rise,
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies.

One plot over, on the other side of the fence, is the grave of David Hume. This is what we find on his tombstone, with an arrow pointing back to Charles Wesley.

David Hume

<--He was wrong,
I was right

Continuing our guided tour, we find a similar epitaph pointing back to Hume:

Charles Darwin

<--He was right

Continuing our guided tour, we find a similar epitaph, pointing back to Darwin:

Friederich Nietzsche

Continuing our guided tour…

<--He was right

Sigmund Freud

<--He was right

Bertrand Russell

<--He was right

W. V. Quine

<--He was right

Richard Dawkins

<--He was right

From the standpoint of humanism, what earthly difference does it make, once you’re pushing up daisies, who had the last word? For in the long run, the grim reaper has the final word.

What will it matter to you, six feet under, that you got it right? How are you any better off than old Charles Wesley? Are your maggots better than his maggots?

Humanism is a creed for maggots.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that my faith is a security blanket to make me feel good when things aren't going my way. Just like when mommy used to kiss my scraped knee to make if feel better, how is Bruce’s maggoty creed any improvement over my Christian creed?

Who is he trying to impress? The mortician?

He uses language like this to shame and belittle the Christian, but at the end of the day, what does it matter, from his viewpoint, whether the corpse espoused a childish creed or a stiff-upper-lippity creed?

Actually, Bruce is the overgrown child, literally dying to please Daddy Dawkins, Momma Chomsky, and the undertaker.

As I’ve also said more than once, but apparently Bruce is a tad too dense for the point to sink in, consequences are not a reason to choose one belief-system over another, but they are a reason not to crow over a losing proposition, and they are a further reason to investigate a more promising creed.


  1. All you have to do is to demonize your opponents and then you can do anything you want to them with impunity. You guys are sickoes.

  2. Ask for a restart. I'm sure that Hays and company will comply. I can't speak for them, obviously, but now that you know what kind of Christian apologists you're dealing with perhaps you can craft something that will challenge them so profoundly it will force them to become atheists and then to direct their intellectual powers on the problems atheists face regarding the grave.