The banana is not an atheist.

Posted by majc in Science on Mar 7th 2013 Add comment

Atheism is silly.

This is a bit base, but imagine a man wandering about saying “I’m not gay.” “I’m not gay.” “I’m not gay.” at every available opportunity. Imagine that given even the slightest, most tenuous, tangential conversational link to questions of sex, The banana is not an atheist that same verbal response is provoked out of him.

Listening to such a man, we would quickly recognise that he has an odd, supernormal preoccupation with that particular piece of self-analysis.

So too with the self-styled atheist.

The must-constantly-remark-on-not-being-gay man’s thoughts and actions are not free with respect to the subject of sexual orientation. When any connectable suggestion towards the subject arises, his thoughts and actions become ensnared, limited, governed by it.

The must-constantly-remark-on-not-being-theist man’s thoughts and actions are not free with respect to the subject of theistic orientation. When any connectable suggestion towards the subject arises*, his thoughts and actions become ensnared, limited, governed by it.

*E.g. evolution, origins, the universe(s), earth, power, politics, education and ten thousand more points of departure…

In exploring arenas of thinking like the examples above, the Atheist is all too ready to return to particular avenues of thought concerning God(s). He is readily distractible, and his capacity for intelligent exploration is hampered.

Meanwhile, the banana is a bent yellow fruit.

It grows on and lives out its life never once declaring itself an Atheist. You may or may not be a bent yellow fruit, but you are an extraordinarily neocortex’d monkey. And, really, you grow on and live out your life with no more need of declaring yourself an Atheist than the banana.

The banana is not an atheist

Disclaimer: The above banana is not affiliated with any religious organization. It has thusfar lived out the entirety of its life – rich with potassium and vitamin B6 – completely noncognizant of all questions related to the (non)existence of your god(s) and will most probably continue on in this way for the foreseeable future.

Any religious or political opinions you twist into the picture as you look at it are your own responsibility and are not necessarily endorsed or cared about all that much by this blog, its author, or its fictional banana. Any religious/anti-religious threats herein should be directed only towards said fictional banana and its flagrantly lackadaisical philosophical attitude.

No bananas were upset in the making of this post.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Average: 5.0 (4 ratings)
The banana is not an atheist., 5.0 out of 5 based on 4 ratings

3 Comments (thank you to all). thank you!

  1. majc  March 9, 2013 - 8:16 pm  

    Also, not a big fan of Professor Dorkins.

    It’s easy to dislike him because he’s a posh inflated nobend. But it’s not just that. Richard is also annoying because, while his thoughts are almightily detailed, they’re also (as described in this post) compulsively counter-theismic. He injects his god- and believer-tangents into dialogue and into his sermons from the pulpit lectures from the podium when they’re not at all necessary. Evolution is not interesting because it disproves a scientific hypothesis of God; evolution is interesting because evolution is interesting. Yes, it does just so happen to disprove a scientific hypothesis of God, but that really, really isn’t the focus.

    When you make it the focus, like ‘Dick’ apparently can’t help himself doing, things start to get really, really inefficient. Just boring. We’ve all witnessed Dick using an extraordinary amount of wordage to slowly communicate a disappointingly simple message or seven. But it’s not just that. Dick stretches his incompetence further, taking a yet-more-masterfully-unessential step, by almost always attaching his long winded messages to the ever-available, DNA-charged Us vs. Them mentality.

    Wherever he can and in whoever he can, Dorkins installs this mentality of entrenchment, presuming and proclaiming – unscientifically – a war of “Science” vs. “Religion”. I have yet to see any peer-reviewed evidence supporting his proposals for Militant Atheism and why it’s the Right Path.

    So his message is embarrassingly unscientific and confused. No evidence presented, yet the good word is delivered.

    This combination of entrenchment and confusion only serves to make it ultra-likely that someone who has followed his chain of thought will return to the stale and philosophically tame routines of look-at-me-I’m-a-Militant-Atheist-ism more frequently than needed, and more intensively than appropriate.

    That’s shit technique, professor.

    *Great for fame and book sales; not so great for enabling any freedom of thought in those who follow (and especially in those who don’t).

    This is not rocket science. Make up your own damned mind.

    Food for thought: If I am Richard, maximum continued (+ compulsive) re-routing of this planet’s evolutionary activity through (a)theistic channels is … *

    • majc  March 9, 2013 - 8:19 pm  

      No banana ever felt it needed to pay $19.95 for a man’s angry words about delusion.

    • majc  March 12, 2013 - 12:14 pm  

      And one last thing about the best-seller: it would be bad science to take the book’s popularity as evidence of its effectiveness in bringing some sort of freedom or powerful new thinking to its readers.

      It would also be unbelievably ironic.

Leave a Reply

DoFollow is on!

preload preload preload