Watermelon God Stops Stray Bullet
The Friendly Atheist reports on the story of a girl saved by a watermelon. A gunfight broke out in Indianapolis and stray bullets were fired through a car containing an elderly lady and her two great-granddaughters.
One bullet went through the door and hit a 10 year old girl in the stomach before going clean through a Bible and finally coming to rest in a watermelon, held in the lap of the 13 year old sister. The great-grandmother reckons
The word of God and the Lord’s power saved. He sent the bullet into the watermelon.
Yup, that’s totally what happened. Obviously if you fire a bullet through a Bible it gets soaked in the word of God and can be divinely diverted. With this kind of logic it makes you wonder how a “God” wasn’t able to control the bullet in the first place. Do we really need to start shoving things through Bibles to get them blessed? Perhaps if I bore a hole through Genesis and kept a lottery ticket there it might win, perhaps not.
Even if this “God” she so adamantly believes in were able to control the bullet, you would think that such a powerful being would be able to either (a) stop the bullet in mid-air, or (b) “guide” the bullet around the entire car. No, it seems to me that something other than the Judeo Christian God was at work here, and here’s how I think things went:
*BANG*
Judeo Christian God: Oh no! A stray bullet from that gunfight is headed towards those poor innocent children! I’d better move quickly! (Starts slow run)
*THUMP* *SPLAT*
Judeo Christian God: Fuck! It hit that 10 year old…damn me and my old age! Shit…it’s still moving…headed for that other girl. (Quickens the pace ever so slightly)
*THUMP* *SHRED*
Judeo Christian God: Hey! That fucking bullet ruined MY book! All hope is lost! I can’t watch!
*THUMP* *SQUELCH*
Judeo Christian God: Wow…the bullet stopped in that watermelon! But I didn’t do…
Watermelon God: No, that was me you fucking useless moron.
Behold the powerful mercy of Watermelon God, for he who follows the path of Melonism will always be fruitful (pun most definitely intended).
“What about the poor girl shot in the stomach?” I hear you cry. Well isn’t it obvious? She wasn’t a devout believer in Melonism, for she decided not to have the sacred Watermelon on her lap. No, instead she decided to sit next to a Bible, and she is the victim of the powerless non-existent nature of her God.
On the brighter side of things, both girls are fine (other than their obvious shock). The 10 year old will be perfectly fine physically though, which is very good news. It’s a triumph of science over religion for her. My thoughts are obviously with the family at this time. No tale, however terrible and sad, should be exempt from ridicule though, especially when religion and illogical beliefs come into play. The family should be thanking the doctors, not God for the saved life of the girl.
Did I say doctors? Sorry, I meant Watermelon God.
Peach be with you. (Pun intended yet again…)
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
Such sarcasm Adrian. I wonder how the “story” would have went if the bible wasn’t in the car to begin with?
As you aptly point out, the very good news is that both girls will be fine.
I guess I’m just a bit puzzled as to why you would mock the beliefs of an elderly woman whose great grandaughters were spared? The fact that they were spared is what is important. Do you have a point you’re trying to make or are you simply ridiculing the beliefs of others because you can?
DaveS
18 Jul 08 at 3:12 pm (GMT)
“The fact that they were spared is what is important”
That’s the whole point. One of the girls wasn’t “spared”. She was shot straight through her stomach and would have died very quickly if it had not been for modern science. I probably don’t have to tell you how dangerous a bullet through the stomach is, since the stomach is full of acid. It seems a bit ignorant of the grandmother to claim that God was in control when he let one of the girls get shot.
Like you say though, how would the story have gone if the Bible wasn’t there? Probably a lot differently. This alone points to the ridiculous nature of belief.
Adrian Hayter
18 Jul 08 at 3:22 pm (GMT)
Spared in the sense that they’re both alive.
Sure, modern science, in the sense of the doctors care, is responsible for the one girl being alive today. Science is also responsible for the bullet in the first place.
But again Adrian, I am curious as to why it is you chose to ridicule the beliefs of the great grandmother. Is their a point you are trying to make? What is so horrible about what she believes that it “deserves” ridicule?
DaveS
18 Jul 08 at 3:49 pm (GMT)
Besides the obvious irrational and illogical nature of them?
Well, I think any belief should be subject to ridicule, and I am sure there are many people out there who will find my sarcastic view of the Holy Watermelon God quite amusing.
Adrian Hayter
18 Jul 08 at 4:35 pm (GMT)
You’re getting your irony weapon increasingly sharp.
Great post, Adrian.
Luis Dias
18 Jul 08 at 5:16 pm (GMT)
Cheers Luis :D
Adrian Hayter
18 Jul 08 at 5:17 pm (GMT)
Irrational and illogical to whom? Certainly not the great grandmother.
Are you serious? You believe that ridiculing someone for what they believe is somehow “acceptable”? Well at least you answered my question/curiosity albeit in a round about way… Just because you can.
DaveS
18 Jul 08 at 9:29 pm (GMT)
Irrational and illogical to people who have an actual understanding of logic and rationality.
100 years ago people believed that black people were inferior and should be used as slaves. Was it not acceptable to ridicule their beliefs?
Freedom of speech, expression, and thought guarantee us the right to believe whatever we wish, and to criticize those whose beliefs we find ridiculous.
Adrian Hayter
18 Jul 08 at 9:50 pm (GMT)
Really? What’s logical and rational about ridiculing anyone just because you can?
You are going to compare ridiculing the belief in God by an elderly woman to slavery? No thanks Adrian. I’ll pass on that thank you.
Big difference between criticism, especially when constructive, and ridicule in my book. And yes, you confirmed my curiosity again. You are certainly free to ridicule anyone or anything you care to just because you can.
DaveS
18 Jul 08 at 10:25 pm (GMT)
It’s logical to point out flaws in someone’s logic. It’s rational to point out flaws in someone’s rationality.
You pass on it because you can’t admit I’m correct in the comparison, or because it was belief in God that fueled slavery…
Ridicule is a type of destructive criticism. I never said it was constructive. Ridicule is simply making fun of someone’s beliefs, which of course leads to criticism.
So I take it you are now happy with my reasons. Good Good.
Adrian Hayter
18 Jul 08 at 10:32 pm (GMT)
Except that what you did was not point out flaws logically and rationally. You simply ridiculed an elderly womans beliefs. Nothing at all logical or rational about doing that.
Hardly. If I believed your comparison was even remotely correct I’d have no issue saying so. You ought to do a bit of research into it. You’ll find many things that “fueled” slavery. You try and justify ridiculing the belief in God of an elderly woman.
Not even remotely Adrian. “Because you can” is simply not a reason to ridicule anyone. It’s even less than a poor excuse.
DaveS
19 Jul 08 at 1:10 am (GMT)
You evidently did not read the article very well. Even before I started ridiculing her beliefs, I challenged the logic and rationality of them:
As I said before, I’m not ridiculing her just “because I can” but because I think everyone should use good logic and rationality.
Adrian Hayter
19 Jul 08 at 1:14 am (GMT)
Quite the contrary. I read it completely. The passage you quoted starts with this…
Ridicule and sarcasm. Doesn’t logically and rationally point out anything.
More ridicule and sarcasm. You cite nothing logical or rational. You only ridicule the “beliefs”.
I see, so because something didn’t happen it can’t happen. Is that the logic and rationality you’re pointing to?
And what specifically was the good logic and rationality you used? Please don’t suggest it was because something didn’t happen therefore it cannot.
DaveS
19 Jul 08 at 2:19 am (GMT)
No, I am commenting on the fact that she believes in an all powerful God, yet such a being decided to send the bullet through a girl, a Bible, and finally into a watermelon instead of just sending the bullet in a different path that avoided everything.
Such an all powerful being would have to have a very good reason for sending the bullet through a vital organ of a young girl when it had the power to stop the injury.
Since no such being has come forward to explain itself, the argument falls flat on its face. It is based on nothing but pure faith, and this was the basis for my argument about “Watermelon God”.
Like most believers, the woman only saw the good things (the bullet stopping in the watermelon) and ignored the bad things (the daughter almost getting killed). Such thinking is arrogant, ignorant, and dangerous.
Adrian Hayter
19 Jul 08 at 3:13 am (GMT)
Now it was God who sent the bullet?
Adrian, is your impression of this womans belief, or any of those who may hold it, that God is some sort of puppet master that controls every single action and reaction that ever happens anywhere at anytime?
A fallacy. An argumentum ad ignorantiam…
Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as “evidence” in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice.
Here if you’d like to read more…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You use this fallacy to call the woman, based on her beliefs, and any others who may believe the same, ignorant Adrian.
DaveS
19 Jul 08 at 2:27 pm (GMT)
I never said it was God who originally sent the bullet. The woman believes that God *sent* the bullet (already moving) into the Watermelon. I am merely commenting on the fact that if she believes that, she must believe that God chose to send the bullet through the girl as well.
I am not “arguing from ignorance” because I am not asserting anything is true, or even false. I am not ruling out the possibility that a “God” intervened and send the bullet into a watermelon, rather I am commenting on the fact that if such an event occurred, it seems unbelievable that such a powerful being would have sent the bullet through a girl in the first place.
I call the woman ignorant because she is looking at the good and not balancing it with the bad. If I told you I’d give you $1,000,000 for both your eyes, you wouldn’t take it because although the gain would be great, the loss would leave you disabled. We live in a world where the advantages and disadvantages are weighed equally. If you want to live in a world that only looks at the advantages, I’d gladly give you $1,000,000 for both your eyes.
Could a god have intervened and sent the bullet into the watermelon. Possibly, it’s not impossible since the very nature of God is untestable and unobservable. However, my argument is not that this entire thing is false or indeed true, but that it is very unlikely given the positives and negatives of the outcome. If God did have a hand in this, he screwed up big time.
The woman is a Christian and by the definition of the Christian God, he is an all-powerful controlling being who is ruler of this universe. Those are the only assumptions I made about her beliefs before writing this piece since they are the standard Christian beliefs. It is clear that this woman believes in some sort of controlling God because she credits him to the bullet going into the watermelon and not dumb luck.
Adrian Hayter
19 Jul 08 at 2:49 pm (GMT)
Additionally…
My bolding…
From the definition…
Additionally…
DaveS
19 Jul 08 at 4:21 pm (GMT)
You seem to be missing the entire point of the “argument from ignorance” which is it is an argument for a certain thing to be true or false.
I have never claimed that her version of events was false, nor that my version of events is true. My whole article was about how her logic did not make sense to me (and a lot of people) when she has no evidence to back it up.
Logic is very evidence and circumstance based. She claimed that a unseen undetectable “God” was responsible for the bullet going into the pineapple, whereas logic would claim it simply ricocheted off the car, the girl, and the bible to settle on it’s target.
Occam’s razor states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. What would Occam’s razor choose in this scenario? An all-powerful all-knowing God, or simple collision physics?
Adrian Hayter
20 Jul 08 at 12:58 am (GMT)
Which is precisely what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is Adrian. She cannot “prove” her assertion therefore you chose to ridicule that assertion. You certainly did not do it because you thought it was true.
That seems to me to be pretty clearly saying her assertions are false Adrian.
DaveS
21 Jul 08 at 2:50 pm (GMT)
I suggest you go back and look over the definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam again, because it says nothing about ridicule. I didn’t argue that her belief was false, I ridiculed her for not presenting valid evidence to support her belief. It was a very scientific way of debunking her statement, mixed in with some nice sarcasm for theatrical effect.
You need to learn how to read. Saying “here’s what happened” would be implying that what she said was untrue. I said, “here’s how I think things went” which is an opinionated statement, not a factual one. Just in case you didn’t pass English, “opinions” are never true nor false.
Which of course wraps up nicely with the entire premise that I didn’t claim her beliefs were false since they are opinionated beliefs with no factual basis. They cannot be right or wrong unless they are implied as a fact, which she may have done but I have no proof to suggest she did.
Now can we please talk about something else, or have you found another obscure wikipedia article where I supposedly committed another heinous crime against logic…
Adrian Hayter
21 Jul 08 at 6:07 pm (GMT)