Mona Lisa..? You Gotta Be Kidding, Right..? by Merwin

Late rebuttal is better than none...

Recently (around 12/10/10) an atheist friend of mine wrote a Hub (blog) and in it he mentioned a few things that are fairly telling if true, and only moderately telling if its some kind of Freudian slip, and total rubbish if he simply wrote it as fluff fodder for his atheistic followers... as sort of "manna" from on high. If it was the last, then it failed, as it was not well received by them judging by their comments.

Here is the link to the Hub he wrote, that I am queuing off of...

http://hubpages.com/hub/Awe-for-an-Atheist

My friend constructed, if you will, a sort of primrose path for his adherents beginning with a picture of an almost micro-miniature sculpture (artist unnamed) of the Golden Gate Bridge made "from a single toothpick" (I think maybe three toothpicks) with the next step on the path of "enlightenment" is the (sculpture's ?) explanation of the inspiration for the art, the movie Rainman and the toothpick scene.

This, my friend uses as a segue into his mention of the chaos theory and then he touches the epic origins of the possible (he "isn't placing any bets"), big bang theory saying, "The Big Bang - Ultimate Toothpick Toss", to the next step on his path to "Awe" and the reason I am writing this... the segment titled, "Should We Be Surprised?"

Here it is...

"Should We Be Surprised?

No, we shouldn't.

If we tossed a box of 250 toothpicks in the air and they landed once out of thousands of tosses into a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa, we should be surprised.

Truthfully, if this happened to me, I would stop being an atheist.

But no one was there for the creation of the primordial universe, so to be surprised that we live in this particular one is illogical.

This particular pattern -- if were were able to witness multiple Big Bangs -- might be ordinary."

Really..?

"If we tossed a box of 250 toothpicks in the air and they landed once out of thousands of tosses into a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa, we should be surprised.

Truthfully, if this happened to me, I would stop being an atheist."

Again... if this is really his position and he believes it, it is very telling. If it is merely a Freudian slip, he will probably recant after after reading this (if he reads it) stating some eel like, clever wriggling which he is very good at. And if it is simply fodder for his anti-spaghetti monster, groupy-sheeples, then he will probably attempt some tongue in cheek defensive back peddling to keep his minions on the hook. He may have already done that though, it has been about 2 weeks since he posted that and they did not seem happy with his... "Truthfully, if this happened to me, I would stop being an atheist." comment.

Let's take the position that he was serious and that his "path" through the "Chaos Theory", "The Big Bang Theory (that he wasn't placing bets on)" and any other non-creation theories of random origins that he may entertain, are applicable to his self imposed exile from the realm of us believing, know nothing idiots,

Let us take it a step further into fantasy...

We find ourselves in a world where it is much like our present world. Though, here there is little controversy among the masses about our origins... most folks don't care, and they that believe in the supernatural are few, and the brunt of nearly every bigoted, mean spirited joke known to man, and my friend happens to be a popular comedian on stage jibbing at the believers... "If we tossed a box of 250 toothpicks in the air and they landed once out of thousands of tosses into a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa, we should be surprised. Truthfully, if this happened to me, I would stop being an atheist. I would likely become a superstitious dolt worshiping the world being created on the backs of four elephants..." Bawdy laughter breaks out...

After the laughter dies down, a prominent, atheistic scientist, who just happened to come to the club stands and declares loudly, "Actually out of chaos came the Mona Lisa."

The club falls silent and all eyes turn to the usurper, who is then recognized by everyone including my friend who worships this scientist, it is his hero of heroes. My friend, never at a loss for words says "huh..?"

His hero continues, "Well we all, except for a few superstitious idiots, have accepted the non-relevance of our geological origins. What is relevant is our march throught evidence and history, to our present level of evolutionary development."

Everyone in the room including my science worshiping buddy, give the obligatory and mute nods, and the Science God continues turning the comedy bar into a classroom with, "Some who were qualified have postulated that Big Bang thing, while others have put forward the eternally existent position, ultimately none of that matters.

What does matter is the relative chaos that we all came from." Again, the adherents nod, "Here is where your assertion, and I assume your joke..." he gestures to my friend who of course nods his worship in return... "falls into something worthy of my remarks and not my smiles. You see the Mona Lisa does exist. It did indeed spring from chaos. You... comedian..." pointing to my friend, "are a result of a non specific perhaps even unintentional creation of you.

Your parents had no knowledge of the Masterpiece of you, that their random music together would create. Your children sir, if you have them..." again the gesture, again the nod, "are Masterpieces way above the level, that of the Mona Lisa, and likely done with less intention, than the toss of toothpicks by you, to see if they would fall into the likeness, of a likeness. Or the intentional hours spent by Da Vinci on the two dimensional likeness of his model.

Instead..." he continued, "We have a much greater, unlikely sequence of events that have as its Genesis the rudimentary crux of your humor... that all these," the Science God gestured to everyone in the room, "Mona Lisas, that are in turn capable to reproduce more masterpieces... come from ancient random chaos, having advanced throuhg the further chaos of evolution right down to instant immediate chaos of chromosome selection, matching and knitting, to make exactly the snowflake fingerprint, Masterpiece that they are.

It is indeed a random chaos, more than a mere trillion tosses of the toothpicks, producing in each case fellow artisans and not merely their subsequent art."

The Science God re-cast his wandering gaze upon my friend and let it settle there saying,"If you joke Mr. Comic... do not attempt to include Science, stick to your superstitions... its funnier."


Comments 21 comments

Chasuk 5 years ago

My hub, "Awe, for an Atheist," described awe as I experience it.

You decided to rebut it here, and I have absolutely no idea what any of your rebuttal means.

I am apparently good at eel-like, clever wriggling (and tongue-in-cheek defensive backpedaling), so you might think that's what I'm attempting here, but that's not what is happening.

Would you kindly provide some clarification?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 5 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Short answer...

Out of all the (supposed) chaos of the universe, you have many things that are much greater than toothpicks falling into place forming the likeness of the Mona Lisa, that stare you in the face every day.


Chasuk 5 years ago

A spontaneous facsimile Mona Lisa would dissuade me of my atheism because the Mona Lisa is a known artifact.

The spontaneous assemblage of a known artifact (even if only in convincing facsimile) isn't indisputably miraculous -- Pcunix would dispute it -- but I wouldn't dispute it. I would accept is as evidence of the miraculous.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 5 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Oh... I get it, the eel wants a tailor-made, upon demand, customized, just for him, irrefutable type miracle complete with horns and whistles... well, ain't you somebody.

I am impressed... may I have your autograph... and by the way who are you again..?

Chas, it would not matter one iota... you would explain it away just like you do everything else.

I don't think that even if God honored your fleece, and gave you a burning bush... parting of the Red Sea, Pillar of Fire at night, Pillar of Smoke by day experience, it would make any difference to you... you would probably find some reason... some rationale to blow it off, minimize or generally make small of it.

Why..?

I have no idea what so ever... perhaps it is the knuckleheads that populate the pulpit and the pews, perhaps its because what you think are the requirements to be a Christian are too inconvenient for you.

Either one of those reasons I can hardly blame you for. The first I wholly understand... who would want to join the self-righteous ranks. The second is mostly between you and some person you do not believe exists.

I would just like to say that He should not be measured by the stupidity of his followers anymore than you should be measured by the stupidity of your adherents.

Oh... and by the way Mr. Smart Alec Eel, have you ever thrown a box of 250 "toothpicks into the air a thousand times"..?

Didn't think so.


Chasuk 5 years ago

I want irrefutable evidence of the miraculous, yes. If miracles exist, is that unreasonable?

I require simple evidence. All I require is that it is unequivocal.

Turning water into wine would do. That should be simple enough. Jesus has allegedly done it before, after all.

I buy a bottle of water and a man of God (of your choice) turns it into wine. I would instantly be dissuaded of my atheism.

If I was happy with lesser miracles, then how would it constitute proof? If I was prepared to accept miracles on faith, then I would already believe in them.

I am ready to believe -- I am eager to believe -- and I am willing to accept any trivial incontestable miracle as evidence.


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

"He should not be measured by the stupidity of his followers anymore than you should be measured by the stupidity of your adherents."

There you go again. What adherents..? Do you have *adherents* Chasuk..? Great and Glorious Leader.


Chasuk 5 years ago

@Jane: I have no adherents, no disciplines, and no minions.

Happily, I do have friends and lovers.

When I think about being a Great and Glorious Leader, it gives me hives.


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

I didn't think so...:)


Chasuk 5 years ago

@Jane: Well, Jane, while I don't put you on a pedestal, I want you to know that I enjoy your hubs greatly. Merry Christmas!


Chasuk 5 years ago

And you, too, Merwin!


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

Thanks Chasuk. It's mutual, Great and Glo...oops, no wait. Merry Xmas to you and Merwin too...!


Roger Crigger 5 years ago

Great dialog boys... (and girl). While "adherents" may be a word that could have been substituted with a more gooder word for the attempted point being made. I can almost guarantee that Chas has people who religiously read what he writes, or at least are interested in what he has to say on any given topic and also am convinced that, at times,(if not usually), people are influenced by what Chasuk believes, especially given the fact that he is very good at putting correct words in correct form and structure. So also, I'm sure that Merwin equally has "minions" that read what he has written just because it's Merwin... (That I CAN guarantee). Suffice to say that those who undertake to post their views and beliefs WILL develop "followers" for lack of any other word, (or at least any other word that I can think of) and those who do so frequently, have, do and will continue to influence those who read their postings. Especially those who read their writing just because it's THEM whose writing them.

Merwin, very good hub, you didn't lose me even once and that's not that easy of a task.

Chas, a few of your comments REALLY surprised me... I've learned a bit more about you and must say that I'm glad that I did. Although, I pretty much knew that you're not set in stone on most issues, it's still encouraging for me to "hear" you say it.

Merry Day after Christmas everyone


Chasuk 5 years ago

@Roger: Truthfully, I write to help myself understand. It takes work to make something comprehensible to others, but the process of performing that work clarifies my own understanding, so the work profits me. If I have any followers, they are almost certainly kindred spirits who use my words to help with their own internal articulation. In other words, we help each other arrive at a better understanding.That makes us co-authors, in a sense.

Which of my comments surprised you?


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

At the risk of sounding like an acolyte...I love the way you put that Chasuk.


Chasuk 5 years ago

@Jane: Thank you. :-)

Do you know whether Minchin has any non-comedy -- musical -- albums?

He has a great voice.


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

Chas, now that I don't know...but many of his songs work on both levels. Here's his youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/timminchin


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 5 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Chas...

She sounds like one of your adherents to me... is she one of your "followers"..?

2 Roger...

Regardless of the reaction that "adherent" begets here is the dictionary definition...

ad·her·ent [ ?d h?r?nt, ad h?r?nt, ?d hérr?nt ]

noun (plural ad·her·ents)

Definition:

supporter: a supporter of a cause or of a leader

If Chas has "followers" and he is an advocate of anything and this is the reason he has "followers", then, by definition those that "follow" are adherents... no matter how pissy they (him or them), get about the word usage.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 5 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Bovary...

Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.


Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 5 years ago from The Fatal Shore

How silly. Chas is also a follower of mine. Does that mean he is my adherent? Just 'following' someone (which in this context is just a term applied by hupages) doesn't make them an adherent. And you didn't just use the term adherent either...you said 'groupy sheeple" which is insulting as well as untrue. I assure you I can think for myself . Moreover, I doubt anyone else who follows Chasuk is a 'groupie sheeple' either. So there!


Chasuk 5 years ago

@Merwin: By your definition, you also have adherents. Do you refer to them as "groupy sheeples?"


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 5 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Bovary...

Chas is a groupie sheeple, you are a groupie sheeple, in a lot of really derogatory comments that I've read from atheists, that I am a &%$)@# idiot groupy sheeple, lol.

Yes we are all sheeples to causes and to those we "follow" (*exception), for they (the ones we follow) are advocates and promoters of causes we are either for or against.

If we are following someone whose cause we share and they are following us then we are each, each others adherent. If we follow them and their cause is not one we share... perhaps we are merely friends, like me and Chas.

* If I follow someone that I personally do not care for, but I am merely following to apprise myself of their body of information, then I would not be an adherent or sheeple, but simply one "follower" in the most simplistic use of the word.

2 Chas...

I do not refer to anyone for the most part, as a groupy sheeple. When I refer to a person or a group as anything shocking, it is done for the sake of the shock.

Paul said in answer to King Aggripa something shocking...

Act 26:29 And Paul said, "I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains."

Merry 2 days after Christmas everyone.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working