The Omnibeast


Eye catching image intended to make me seem more authoritative.

This tweet piqued my interest in how Dawkins might have described the omnibeast worshipped by so many.

@sandrider69: @RichardDawkins I have just read the opening salvo of Chapter 2 The God Delusion.  There cannot be a more entertaining paragraph anywhere!

Excerpted from “The God Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can be desensitized to their horror.

Those two sentences from that paragraph ring true. Dawkins accurately describes characteristics of the omnibeast as it and its acts are described in its own holy anthology.

It still gives me pause to experience the high degree of denial, dismissal, and irrational reasoning necessary to describe the beast as king, gentle, and loving. Amazing.


Elegance In Truth

Saw this on Twitter. Chuckled and reflected on the elegance of a fundamental truth.

@sherlockmichael: Science is not inherently anti-religion, reality is; science is merely the means by which reality is brought to light.

I Love A Good Magic Trick

Sometimes you just gotta say something.

In A Deeper Look at If Evolution Is True, llamapacker puts the intellectually mere mortals among us on notice of the upcoming complexity of creation.

This is part of a very complicated discussion about creation.

I confess (well…) to deep anticipatory angst in advance at what I expected would be a severe intellectual thrashing.

I saw a link to something. I didn’t bother. I was still enthralled at the upcoming intellectually complex creation argument.

The evolutionary debate is complex on its own, but it is often further complicated by the use of a logical fallacy known as equivocation.

I am once again disappointed at yet another vacuous “argument” for creation. Thankfully, it was mercifully brief.

Science cannot be debated, countered, displaced, disproved, mitigated, obfuscated, or negated by magic.

The “argument”, wether purportedly complex or genuinely so, is nothing but a diversion. For honest believers, it permits compliance and provides cover from reality. For the self-serving, it provides a power base and income steam (it’s great for comedians, too). For others it’s a compulsion to which they must respond.

Well, I always thought magic was fun.


Recently in her Ministry in Words blog, meinwords penned what I thought was an interesting, thoughtful, and honest piece on her belief in god. She opened AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ATHEIST with a thought I often cannot resist.

Dear Atheist,

If you say there is no God, that we are just physical beings meant to return to oblivion and dust, what’s inside us that makes us desire love, appreciate beauty, or laugh out loud?

I was again taken with what I perceive as an honest desire to engage when I read her response to my initial comment.

meinwords on August 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Dear Roger,

There are many things we cannot explain about God, but that doesn’t mean that He doesn’t exist. Aside from my own conviction, science points to His existence. I guess what I’d really like to ask to all those who have commented is: Isn’t there a mysticism involved in your belief, considering you cannot prove His non-existence? What if there is a Creator?

What follows is my response. Rather than post a comment reply, I offer it all, the thoughts of meinwords and my own, for anyone interested. While we share no common ground in significant aspects of our worldviews, I find meinwords’ openness and honesty refreshing.

My reply:

I believe we all spend far too much time on proof. It is quite impossible to prove the existence, or non-existence, of any deity. More importantly for me is that I don’t care about either case.

I suspect that position is likely difficult to understand. You might question my ability to truly appreciate the universe if I do not believe it was created by a god. Some believe that morality is impossible absent a creator. What those positions ignore, and their holders fail to appreciate, is a god is not a requisite for the existence of anything beautiful, good, moral, or desirable. What I find sad in that is such persons require the interjection of a deity to appreciate that which is truly magnificent, or merely mundane. For them, neither experience is valid absent their external third party.

What such persons fail to understand of me is that I marvel at our universe, it’s beauty and wonder, at babies, insects, leaves, trees and mountains, to no lesser degree than they. I simply require no third party, no creator, to appreciate beauty and wonder. I appreciate those things on their own merit. In that regard, I would judge such appreciation and wonder as pure, in that it exists due only to the participation the observer and the observed. To address morality, I require no controller to create and manipulate my character. I meet a rather high moral standard absent such influence.

Perhaps most importantly, I do not require an answer to every question. I am in no way diminished by not grasping the mathematics that underlies the physics that has yet to explain in full our universe. I am excited by those unknowns; invigorated by the mysteries.

What I find disturbing is the idea that there are no mysteries of our existence. How terrible it would be to know everything. How sad for there to be nothing left to discover or understand.