In the Bible, Jesus loved to teach with parables. He would teach his disciples using stories to illustrate divine principles in a way their simple minds could understand. Although the concepts were never that hard to grasp, Jesus apparently had to dumb it down for his audience.
I thought I’d share a small parable of my own:
Richard would meet with five of his friends every morning to have discussions about life. One day the group decided to meet at a new coffee shop down the road.
Richard arrived a few minutes late, and quickly went to the counter to order a cup of coffee. When he walked up to the table with his four friends they began to question him.
One of Richard’s friends named Tom exclaimed, “Why did you buy their coffee? I brought my own and I’ve shared it with the group. I have the best coffee in the world and it will change your life.”
Richard looked down to see the four men holding empty cups. ”The cups are empty,” said Richard.
“We thought so too,” said Steve, another group member, “but after Tom explained everything to us, we accepted his gift and are now enjoying his delicious coffee. My coffee palate has been reborn.”
Richard knew his friends weren’t crazy, so he asked to try a sip. He held the cup to his mouth and tipped it until it was upside down. Nothing. His eyes weren’t fooling him … the cups were empty.
“Now that you’ve had a foretaste of our coffee, the best is to come,” proclaimed Tom. “Your cup will always be overflowing. You will never thirst.”
“Very funny,” laughed Richard, “the jokes on me.”
Richard takes a sip of his own coffee and sees his four friends staring very concerned back at him.
“Do you think your coffee is better than ours?” asked Steve.
“Yes, considering my coffee actually exists,” joked Richard.
His friends now look even more concerned and Richard realized they were being serious. They actually believed their coffee was real and that all people should be drinking it.
“Richard, what will you do when your coffee cup is empty?” asked Tom. “Don’t you desire a drink that is eternal and will have no end?”
Richard sat down and explained, “All cups of coffee come to an end. You drink yours and I’ll drink mine. Then we can all sit here together and enjoy our discussion as we always do.”
“It doesn’t work that way … either you’re with us or you’re against us,” announced Tom as the four men stood up and walked out of the coffee shop.
So what is the moral of the story? Just because the majority believes something is truth doesn’t make it so. And religion should not be so arrogantly proclaimed. You can believe in whatever invisible deity (or coffee) you want to. Just keep it to yourself. But most of all, don’t use your religion to justify hate for other people who don’t share your superstition. Not believing in invisible things does not make a person evil.
(Inspiration)
Tags: Christianity, God, Religion, Atheist, Bible, Jesus, Christian, Evangelism, Agnostic, Invisible, Cup, Parable, Overflow, Athesim
February 2, 2010 at 11:01 am |
This is a great analogy. You can even go further with it. Some believe that they have to have cream and sugar in their coffee for it to be good for you, other’s take it black, and yet others take only non-dairy creamer. Even the people who like the coffee can’t agree on exactly how to drink it.
February 2, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
I suppose that these are invisible cream, sugar, etc. and that there are containers sitting around apparently not-full of them. And the invisible non-dairy creamer is for people who do not want to add the invisible weight that would come from the invisible fat of invisible real cream or are unable to digest invisible lactose. Are these things ever-flowing, too? Yes, of course, because managing a herd of invisible cattle or harvesting and refining invisible sugar would be very difficult.
Complications like this are important so that there can be heated arguments. They could argue, for example, about whether invisible honey is an acceptable substitute for invisible sugar. The early drinkers can be horrified by the innovations of foreign sects as the movement spreads; e.g., cafe-au-lait invisible and inespresso. And spin-off beverages in Arabia and Turkey. Some groups would disapprove of the invisible liquor in invisible Irish coffee. All this would distract them from the lack of substance.
Clearly the ordinary drinkers could not be expected to know all the lore. There would have to be professionals…
February 2, 2010 at 1:57 pm |
And the perfect job? Getting rich by selling invisible coffee on your tv show on the invisible coffee network (ICN).
February 2, 2010 at 11:16 am |
What needs to be known is how do you get them to see that their cups are actually empty. You can always point out to them that they are being deceived but they will either call you a hater or a bigot. They tend to like turning their own qualities back against you.
February 2, 2010 at 2:36 pm |
The moral is that Starbucks is a false god.
February 2, 2010 at 11:33 pm |
Actually, some of their kind do far worse.
They give you an empty cup of coffee and tell you to believe there’s coffee inside. <_<
February 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm |
“It doesn’t work that way … either you’re with us or you’re against us”
Laughed at that line, because of the surprise at the harsh ending, as well as the biblical non-sequitur it exposes. Nice job on the moral provided at the end.
February 4, 2010 at 12:20 pm |
It’s a silly analogy. The supernatural isn’t defined as that which is visible.
It’s like saying ‘I can’t smell the color 9.’ Well, that’s because ’9′ is not a color, and even if it was you normally dont smell color, do you?
February 4, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
That’s also a silly analogy. The supernatural is defined by the person who invents the superstition.
It’s like saying, ‘I can feel God’s presence in my life.’ Well that’s because you believe an imaginary being is real, and even it he is real you normally don’t believe in other ancient superstitions … why this one?
February 4, 2010 at 7:13 pm |
I’d love to hear a real explanation of why asking ‘tangible’ proof of the ‘intangible’ is not absurd.
February 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Since probably the first moment humans could speak, logical reasonable people have been asking why they should believe in something for which there is no proof. I’d guess that within about 20 seconds of the first utterance of such questions, they were told ‘because I know it’s real’ and sadly some fell prey to this reasoning. Some also fell prey to thinking that the world is flat, that meteors are omens from the gods, that meteorites are from the gods, that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun was a perfect sphere of light, that dragons existed, that many god’s existed, that … oh well, you’re getting the point.
Absurdity is expecting people to believe you when you have no proof, logical or otherwise, as to the existence of a deity, never mind an omniscient, omnipotent deity that for some reason does not make itself known to logical and reasoning humans, only it seems, to those with a delusional idea that there is life after death. Or something along those lines.
February 5, 2010 at 11:03 am |
Unfortunately, silly as it may seem to you, it’s an analogy of which its real equivalent happens far too often in this world. Enough, in fact, for me to make the claim that the world will have *FAR LESS WARS AND CONFLICT* without religion.
February 5, 2010 at 4:11 am |
Really great analogy…
Hit the nail on the head with the: “It doesn’t work that way … either you’re with us or you’re against us!”
Got loads of those sort of believer-type-sheep in our sad office… like even using the same coffee cup as us “Heathen-non-believers” will send them start to hell with a one way ticket!
I am all for believing in what one wants to… just let the rest of us believe or choose not to believe in what we want… end of story!
February 5, 2010 at 6:59 am |
“just let the rest of us believe or choose not to believe in what we want…”
That is your stated creed. But why don’t you live by it?
Get off the internet and quit trying to persuade people to live by your stated creed (see above).
February 5, 2010 at 8:58 am |
The same goes for your silly creed. We are all growing very tired of reading your attempts to derail every discussion with your superstitious circular logic.
February 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm
theBEattitude wrote:
“The same goes for your silly creed”
My creed does not include the idea that one cant or shouldnt persuade others that their beliefs, ideas or manner of living should be changed.
Billy advocates a ‘live and let live’ approach, but promptly violates it by telling others that they should do the same, (i.e. his statement “just let………” is his admonition of how others should conduct themselves)
theBEattitude wrote:
“We are all growing very tired of reading your ……”
Then why do you have a blog that is open to public comment if you can only bear to read opinions that agree with your own?
February 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Joe,
This post is about you then. You seem to think it’s ok to try to convince people that the empty cups have coffee in them.
If you want to contribute here, perhaps you might keep on topic? this last post is nothing but denigration of other posters and adds nothing to the discussion… at all.
Perhaps you might explain _why_ you believe it is okay to try convincing people they have coffee in the cup when there is none? I’m fairly certain that all here would like to hear your understanding of what gives you the right to do so.
February 6, 2010 at 1:24 am
never mind him, he’s lost it so much he’s starting to resort to ad hominem. I think it’s time we cast his stones back at him. <_<
February 6, 2010 at 2:15 am
If you give up on substantive discussion with him, zero response might be more effective than returning insults. Some others exchanged insults with him in some previous discussions and he seemed to thrive on it.
February 5, 2010 at 11:05 am |
Just as it’s BE’s choice to start this blog, It’s your choice to not read this blog, but you chose to, and you chose to respond. <_<
And, it's your choice to formulate your arguments and begin, just as it was the choice of believers to choose this spot as a potential chance to "earn some brownie points". <_<
February 5, 2010 at 6:40 am |
I think you know that Jesus didn’t ‘dumb things down’ for his audience – he did what you do, which is using pictures and images and many-layered stories, because what he was doing wasn’t teaching from a text-book so people could pass a religious knowledge exam, but causing people to think, to not casually believe everything they’ve been told or everything they’ve read.
Your parable of the ridiculousness of faith is certainly worthy of further thought. It raises lots of questions about the authoritarian nature of some Christian communities – a sort of don’t-question-this brainwashing. Which isn’t very Jesus-like. But it also falls down on many levels, because the same argument could be used the other way, of atheists/agnostics or whoever. You can get a group together, and if the leader is persuasive, they can sell snow to Innuits.
You can even persuade many people these days that God doesn’t exist, just by pointing at their coffee cup and saying Look, there’s nothing there. It looks like coffee, smells like coffee, but its a mirage, a figment of your imagination. Come, let’s pour it away, then when we look at it again it will back up our feeling that it was never there to start with.
And so, the debate goes on… But at least there’s coffee. Or is there…?
February 5, 2010 at 9:06 am |
Kevin, your statement “You can even persuade many people these days that God doesn’t exist, just by pointing at their coffee cup and saying Look, there’s nothing there.” is wrong.
Sure, it’s just a technical thing, but wrong just the same. Convincing people that god does not exist is not a subjective argument position. God does not exist because there is no evidence to prove a god does exist other than the people who ‘know he’s real’ saying so. It’s not proving that god doesn’t exist, it’s showing that the evidence that a god does exist is false and flawed, and therefore such evidence does not show that god does exist.
People who do not believe in mythical gods do not have to prove they don’t exist; it’s the people who _DO_ believe in them that have to prove something.
There is no such thing as a god. If you think there is and want me to believe it too, or simply want me to not think you are delusional, prove that your god exists.
Think about it for a minute. You don’t have to show me evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist, and because it doesn’t exist, there is no evidence that it doesn’t exist. We seem to agree that there is no tooth fairy. Same for Zeuss, Thor, and Vishnu. Now we both need to somehow agree on the evidence for Yahweh.
February 5, 2010 at 7:05 am |
Mr Z wrote:
“Absurdity is expecting people to believe you when you have no proof”
Absurdity is attempting to confound ‘provable’ with ‘real’. They aren’t the same.
Prove what your great great grandfather ate every day of the 10th month of his sixth year of life.
What? no proof?
He must not have eaten anything for a month, right?
February 5, 2010 at 8:48 am |
“Prove what your great great grandfather ate every day of the 10th month of his sixth year of life.” Why make a statement like this when talking about belief in some god? This shows me that you have no ability to defend your position other then trying to change the topic by using statements that have no real bearing on the subject. This isn’t the only time you have tried to deflect the conversation with useless statements.
February 5, 2010 at 9:17 am |
Joe,
With science, we would not say he didn’t eat anything for a month, we simply say we don’t know what he ate for that month. It is unknown data and nothing much can be inferred about it other than the lack of information might lead us to ponder if he found nourishment in a way that left no evidence consistent with other evidence that we have.
Now, if you were to say that your great grandfather, for the 10th month of his 6th year, ate nothing but pink unicorns… well, we’d ask you for proof of that statement.
Claiming that we don’t know because there is a lack of evidence is consistent with logic, the laws of nature, and the universe in general. Claiming that you know the answers with no evidence (proof) is not consistent with anything. It’s irrational.
February 5, 2010 at 11:51 pm |
Mr Z wrote:
“his last post is nothing but denigration of other posters”
No, I simply pointed out the inconsistency.
February 7, 2010 at 7:51 am |
ACPB wrote:
“he’s starting to resort to ad hominem”
I question whether you even know what this means.
Billy’s position was ‘I believe in live and let live AND YOU SHOULD TOO’ , which is a self contradictory and therefore absurd statement.
I asked why he did not refrain from telling others how they ought to conduct themselves, since his stated creed indicates that that is what he considers proper.
February 7, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Yeah, we got it the first time: Nobody whose personal values prohibit them from being a bully is in a position to ask that others not bully them because, according to your argument, such a request itself constitutes an act of bullying. Do you have a Bible quote for that?
February 8, 2010 at 9:45 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“according to your argument, such a request itself constitutes an act of bullying”
I made no such charge. I am not fearful of others’ views, as apparently you are if you perceive any challenge to your own views as ‘bullying’.
Let me repeat, using small words:
If you claim to ‘live and let live’ , then dont tell others how to live or try to persuade them what to believe or not believe.
When you get on the internet and start with ‘let’s all…..’ , then you are clearly advocating for others to change their behavior. Comprende?
February 8, 2010 at 10:36 am
No he didn’t say live and let live. He said ” I am all for believing in what one wants to… just let the rest of us believe or choose not to believe in what we want… end of story!” This could be a part of live and let live but it isn’t that completely unless you believe life is all about religious beliefs.
How do you get that by saying “let’s all” is in anyway advocating change. Yes those two words could lead to a statement about changing but they could lead to many things. I could say let’s all type 1000 a’s, where is that advocating change?
February 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm |
Billyb##zer did advocate that others limit their behavior by refraining from aggressive, manipulative, and abusive attempts to change the minds of those who disagree with them. He referred, in particular, to the attitude characterized by “It doesn’t work that way … either you’re with us or you’re against us!”. But in doing so, he did not himself engage in aggressive, manipulative, or abusive behavior. There is no contradiction between his statement of value and his action.
You have again reaffirmed your objection to Billyb##zer’s comment:
“If you claim to ‘live and let live’ , then dont tell others how to live or try to persuade them what to believe or not believe.”
This sounds like you think Billyb##zer was attacking some moral or religious tenet. But in the context of this discussion, filling in the behavior that Billyb##zer was actually talking about, it means: Don’t tell others to refrain from aggressive, manipulative, and abusive behavior or try to persuade them that such behavior is inappropriate.
I doubt that aggressive, manipulative, and abusive behavior is a fundamental tenet of your religion. So, I am mystified by why you object to his desire not to be subjected to such behavior.
February 9, 2010 at 5:11 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“Billyb##zer did advocate that others limit their behavior by refraining from aggressive, manipulative, and abusive attempts to change the minds of those who disagree with them.”
Other than completely rewriting his statement, whatcha been up to Verbifex?
February 7, 2010 at 8:12 am |
It means, you’re directly attacking the person who gave that argument, and not the argument.
You believe that you aren’t: I suggest you re-read what you’ve posted… with a bible at your side. Seriously.
Not because you need a reference, but you surely need to be aware of what you’re doing.
The response you get is predictable, given your tone of writing.
Do Unto Others is present in every religion, philosophy and common sense.
February 7, 2010 at 11:14 am |
The empty coffee cup analogy is not the only ever used. Perhaps you remember the story about the little boy who noticed that the emperor was wearing no clothes?
The movie ‘the Invention of Lying’ has an interesting twist on the analogy as well. Without lies and people gullible enough to believe them, religion gets no traction is a fair summary. For people like Joe here, it’s simple enough, all people must have a creed. It’s black and white to them, not gray like it is for the rest of us. Life is not black and white and creeds come and go. There is no damnation for changing your creed, or tweaking it a bit. So ‘live and let live’ is ok to be tweaked for most of us into ‘live and let live… except for people that do this crime or that crime; they need to die’.
And for people like Joe, I’ll have a good laugh with my last breath. Knowing that they too will eventually understand: no matter what they believe here in this life, there is no god, no next life and they have wasted this one trying to get ‘hooked up’ for the next one instead of living life well and learning to love even those that don’t agree with you. You know, in a brotherly compassionate kind of way.
February 9, 2010 at 5:19 am |
Mr Z attempts to deny he has a creed, and then states his creed:
“For people like Joe here, it’s simple enough, all people must have a creed. It’s black and white to them, not gray like it is for the rest of us. Life is not black and white and creeds come and go. There is no damnation for changing your creed, or tweaking it a bit. So ‘live and let live’ is ok to be tweaked for most of us into ‘live and let live… except for people that do this crime or that crime; they need to die’.”
It’s black and white to you also my friend. Your ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ is greatly illustrative of that.
Care to deny that you’re telling me I’m wrong and that you are right?
Have a nice black and white day, Mr Z.
February 9, 2010 at 8:56 am |
Well, Joe,
I was careful to note that I’m talking about groupings of people which you seem to be part of, or fall within the classification of.
If you would like a statement about you in particular, you’ll have to wait for another day and another messaging medium. Here, comments need to be kept on topic, more or less. I think you are the person in the coffee shop that just wants to disagree with someone, and probably argues that the cup has coffee so that you can get your neurotic thrills of having opposing discourse. I am beginning to think that you have no interest in whether there is coffee in the cup or not, whether there is a deity or not. Your interest seems only to be in arguing.
This however is a discussion about the evidence put forward for deities, and why or how it is flawed. If you just want a place to argue, I would suggest you try 4chan. They like that sort of thing there.
February 9, 2010 at 5:14 am |
Baconsbud wrote:
“it isn’t that completely unless you believe life is all about religious beliefs. ”
Every action in our lives is indeed guided, shaped and influenced by what we believe to be right and wrong.
February 9, 2010 at 8:46 am |
Joe says “Every action in our lives is indeed guided, shaped and influenced by what we believe to be right and wrong.” but I doubt this is why a person chooses the white blocks over the blue ones when building an object with Lego bricks. There are other choices we make which need no right and wrong guidance. I doubt that even Joe consults a deity for help in choosing between a Big Mac and a Fillet o’ Fish sandwich. I think Joe just likes to use words like every, always, never, right, wrong, and other absolutes too much.