I'm
taking a quick break from my series to relate something that happened
to me personally.
I've
been super busy with work lately. I had a person quit so I'm having
to cover his shift until I can get someone trained. I'm scheduled
55-60hours each week for the next month or so. It sucks. Anyway, I
got off about 8:30PM this evening and stopped by Red Box. It was my
plan to do nothing else but relax, sit on the couch, and watch a
cheap movie. I rented “Heaven is Real.” I hadn't watched it in
the theaters because, frankly, it didn't look that interesting. It's
sad that so many Christian based movies have cheesy dialogues poorly
read by mediocre actors. I hate spending $10 only to be mildly
entertained. However, I'm not adverse to spending $1 to be mildly
entertained to I thought watching this particular movie would be an
okay way to spend a couple of hours.
So,
I change my clothes, heat up a cup of noodles, and pop in the DVD.
Immediately I noticed a distinct whirring sound which I knew wasn't
good then received a “disc cannot be played” error. I popped out
the DVD and looked at it. The poor thing had been scratched to
pieces. It's not unusual for discs to have scratches but this one
was far worse than your typical
left-it-on-the-top-of-the-entertainment-center type of scratches.
They were deep and went in every direction. In other words, it was
intentionally scratched.
Now,
I can't help but thinking that the movie was vandalized because of
its subject matter. Some militant atheist out there hates the idea
of a movie actually talking about heaven like it's a real place so he
rents the movie, defaces it, and returns it knowing that it can no
longer be watched. How petty.
I
guess it doesn't surprise me that an atheist would do this. I will
grant that there are some atheists who would have a problem with
destroying someone else's property but I know that there are plenty
of them out there who wouldn't see a problem with it at all. Let's
face it, if a person doesn't believe there is an absolute moral
authority, then why should he care if he breaks something that's not
his?
Oh
well. I guess he's made a statement though maybe not the one he
intended. He's shown me what I already know to be true. Some
atheists are hypocrites. Some atheists are amoral. Some atheists
are whiners. Some atheists are petty.
5 comments:
In your last post you were objecting to assuming the existence of entities for which one had no direct observational evidence, but merely because they fitted one's worldview. In this post, you did not even directly observe that the scratches on the disk were intentional (though I'm inclined to grant your conclusion -- but then, I'm also inclined to grant the Oort cloud, so how much is my opinion worth?), much less the theological opinions of the inferred disc defacer. Yet you "cannot help but think" that it was vandalized by an atheist.
Perhaps it was. I've seen my share of petty atheists. Perhaps it was vandalized by a Christian who thought that the video was heretical, who didn't think sparing people from false doctrine was petty at all. Perhaps it was someone's kid with no idea or interest in what was on the disc. For someone who urges such caution with regard to the Oort Cloud, you're drawing remarkably firm conclusions from some scratches on a disc.
Steven J,
I think it's more than a stretch to draw a parallel between my conclusions about the disc and your conclusions about the Oort cloud. You've made a valiant effort but it's just not there. Well, at least I don't see it; maybe some others will.
If we're trying to make a comparison, let me point out a couple of things. First, I believe that from what we can observe of the scratches we can see that they were made intentionally. Several of the scratches are continuous, single scratches that change direction back and forth several times. It resembles what we see when a person scribbles with a pencil on paper. Also, the fact that the entire disc – including the non-read part near the hub – further demonstrates a purposeful intent.
What I can't observe from looking at the disc is “motive.” It was only concerning the motive that I speculated since the question of intent was not in doubt. As you have pointed out, I prefaced my speculation with the comment, “I can't help but thinking...” In other words, “I THINK maybe an atheist has done this because of the subject matter of the movie.” Certainly I could be wrong but I'm not sure who else might have a motive. Your suggestion that it could be a Christian who considers the movie heretical is rather weak. No matter what other doctrine Christians might disagree on, the understanding that there will be an eternal afterlife with God is near universal. Why then would a Christian object to the concept that heaven is real. An atheist who objects to the concept of heaven seems a more likely culprit.
BTW, if a child did this (the only other cause that seems plausible) it would still be considered an intentional act – just without a motive.
But if we're going to use this event as an analogy for the creation/evolution debate, let me point out one other thing. We can see from the scratches that they appear to be intentional. Even though we didn't see them made, they are the product of design. The only question that remains is who made them and why. However, I see evolutionists as people who will not consider the possibility that the scratches are by design and seek a cause for the scratches without a “scratcher.”
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Note that "design" does not cause scratches. Keys, coins, knives in human hands make scratches; you do not infer "design;" you infer a sort of manufacture using known techniques for known purposes. Evolution is inferred in much the same way: known sorts of design do not result in suites of entities whose traits fall in a consistent nested hierarchy, but the results of branching descent with modification do. Known sorts of mechanisms -- reproduction, inheritance, mutation, selection, speciation, etc. -- are invoked to explain the sort of phenomena that we would expect to result from them, given enough time.
Steven J,
And I thought your first comment on this post was a stretch. Of course the “scratcher” used a tool but certainly that doesn't mean the scratches weren't by design. We can identify design and purpose in the way things are organized. A jumble of rocks laying on the ground could be an accidental arrangement. Rocks lined up in a row is obviously by design.
When we look at nature, we constantly see evidence of design and purpose. Through the very things you say we can infer evolution, I infer creation.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Rocks can also form a line because they all fell from the same cliff, or pushed by the ocean. Humans are accustomed to finding patterns in anything.
Let's remember that Christians have killed other Christians over the nature of Holy Baptism. Scratching up a disc of a badly received movie about Heaven that contradicts most Biblical interpretations of it is hardly surprising. But, that made me think- why not make a list of people with motive to purposefully scratch this DVD.
1) Atheists who 'hate Heaven'.
2) Agnostics who maybe 'hate Heaven', but aren't sure.
3) Jewish people who don't believe in an after life. And are crazy petty.
4) Anyone who agreed with 54% of critics that it was an awful movie and wished to save others from seeing it.
5) Christians who see this as heretical.
6) Christians who expect the next person to rent the movie to be a Christian and they will get angry at atheists for ruining the DVD (A little unlikely, but if that was their plan it worked).
7) Satanist because glory to the dark one. Or something.
8) A really small time Guerrilla artist.
9) An anarchist because anarchy!
10) Some sort of Nihilist attempting to destroy the record of cinema.
11) Angry Red Box employee.
Also, late entry
12) Christian who believed that scratching the disc would require it be replaced, thus increasing the disc sales.
And of course, this does not consider the unintentional scratches. Someone not taking proper care, placing it on a surface with a bur and letting that move around. A child scraping it on purpose for fun. Maybe someone was really drunk (or high) trying to put it back in the case. Sounds like something I could imagine someone watching while high...
Now, I can't help but think that this post comes from a prejudice view of atheists. This is the way of militant Christian Fundamentalists who hates the idea of people having their own independent views. They make rash judgments, post them on the internet without concern for revealing their own hypocrisy. How judgmental.
I guess it doesn't surprise me that a Christian Fundamentalist would do this. Granted, I know there are some Christian Fundamentalist that wouldn't judge a group of people guilty in the absence of facts but I there are plenty of them out there that wouldn't see a problem with it at all. Let's face it, if a person substitutes facts and reason with dogma and group think, then why should they be concerned with their unchecked bias?
Oh well. I guess he's made his statement, though maybe not the one he intended. He's shown me that people can perfectly fulfill your expectations.
Post a Comment