“Wisdom rests in the heart of a man of understanding, but it makes itself known even in the midst of fools.” (Proverbs 14:33)
“…have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…” (1 Peter 3:15)
Scripture does not encourage Christians to embrace blind faith.
God doesn’t want you to be stupid.
I’m about to show you what stupid looks like.
Everybody has faith.
Atheists have faith that there is no God.
So they ‘explain’ everything with science.
Well… they’re SUPPOSED to explain everything with science.
When I claimed that ‘magic’ caused the mysteries of the universe, I invited the atheists to explain that magic.
I asked them to defend their faith.
Below is the edited transcript (because the full transcript will pop blood vessels in your eyes.)
(NOTE: The existence of a ‘magician’ is theism.)
To my Christian brothers and sisters:
Can you answer the question, “What do you believe?”
If you sound like this when you do…
…you should be ashamed.
Seriously.
This is what ‘blind faith’ looks like on Christianity too.
It’s not noble or pious to believe without reason.
It’s lazy.
…and stupid.
Be prepared to give a reason.
28 Responses
I’m so glad that got straightened out. Forgive me for agreeing with John’s use of the unreasonable term, magic, henceforth I’ll use the much more knowledgeful word “fortunate”.
Keep in mind, folks. It’s Branyan COMEDY. . . 😉
I think most of the comedy is found in the comments.
‘Because it’s magic’ isn’t a reason, John B: it’s a claim in supernatural causation. This belief claim is equivalent in all ways to ignorance because it’s knowledge-free.
“It’s not noble or pious to believe without reason.” Nice sentiment. Too bad you not only don’t live up to it, you refuse to live up to it. That’s what the unedited previous posts demonstrate.
‘Because it’s evolution’…is that more reasonable?
Yes it is. Evolution as a term comes with a full load of scientifically valid understanding of mechanism and process. It is indisputably a reason… one of the best explanation if not the most profound insights into how life has come to be. That you equate it with a faith-based belief shows a profound arrogance based on ignorance.
Preach it, Tildeb!
Evolution doesn’t actually talk about how life came to be. It talks about how life diversified. But I won’t quibble.
It’s faith. That’s all that matters.
If you say so John B.
After all, you’re much smarter than every biologist in the world, every single person who understands evolution. No, seriously. I stand in awe of your insight. I mean, who else could come up with ‘It’s magic!’ other than the great and powerful John Branyan?
You’ve gotten past all the hard bit – you know, how life changes over time, how the molecules form and replicate and create strands of DNA with altered bits that express differently form the parent bits, and all that faith stuff called ‘chemistry’ – and jumped straight to Oogity Boogity! through the mechanism of POOF!ism. Brilliant stuff, John B. Right up there with belief in spooks! Unassailable.
The door is still open for you to dispel my delusions. I’m a reasonable person.
I just don’t see the value in exchanging my POOFism for yours.
John’s use of the word “magic”, seems to me actually quite open-minded and reasonable. Rather than require a designer, why not simply observe there are phenomena that seem to need some help to occur, call that help non-prejudicially “magic”, and ask for it to be identified. If there is a reasonable explanation that requires no help at all, then magic wasnt even needed. If magic was needed, what was it?
Because that’s not reasonable, Brian.
It’s a case of assigning a knowledge-empty term ‘magic’ (that is accompanied by the sense of a ‘helper’ to use your term) that assumes the conclusion (“why not simply observe there are phenomena that seem to need some help to occur”) that there really, really, really, is an intentional, purposeful, guided and intelligent process in play that has no evidence to support it.
That’s why the term ‘magic’ is not just misleading but an abdication of even trying to find the mechanisms and processes at work. And that’s not reasonable but anti-reasonable. It stands contrary to reason and dives head long into woo as if this were an answer based on reason, an explanation based on reason, an accurate description based on reason. It is none of those.
Your explanation is self defeating.
If you say so, of course it must be.
Not because I say so, but because it is.
First, you assured Brian that there’s no evidence to support an intentional, purposeful, intelligent process in play.
Then, you claim the term magic stands ‘contrary to reason and dives headlong into woo’.
If your first claim is correct, then ‘woo’ is all there is.
There’s no intelligence in play in the universe but you’re claiming ‘reason’ is still a possibility. Where is this ‘reason’? In your own brain? How did it get there via unguided, purposeless processes?
It’s magic!
Oh, well, at least in your mind I stand corrected. Feel better now?
Well there you have it, Brian. Calling what we observe in nature “magic” is not reasonable. 🙂
“Local Units following natural rules” is much more precise and it explains everything… Nature only APPEARS to be following orders.
So, if you have any integrity, you’ll call the magic what it really is: a mindless accident.
Are we arguing the magician of the gaps? or god of the magic?
LOL. Not bad 🙂
Hello again!
If I read your post here correctly, the point is that Christians should have something better than trite phrases in defense of one’s beliefs. I must admit that I am curious as to how you would answer your question.
What do you believe?
The last couple of blog posts were referencing my belief in ‘magic’. I believe in a supernatural reality.
Thanks for your reply!
I’ve got one more question, if I may. How do you reconcile the process by which you treated Mr. Zande with the qualifications in 1 Peter 3:15? To put it differently, how do you consider the conversation with Mr. Zande you referenced here “gentleness and respect”?
Where did I disrespect Mr. Zande?
I apologize if I misstated my question. What I’m asking is whether or not you feel your part in your conversation with Mr. Zande was treating him with gentleness and respect. Would it be fair to say that you feel you were treating him respectfully?
I feel he was treated respectfully.
Of course he was, if you fell it it was so. Your editing for the intention of this post shows how fairly and honestly you treated him then and continue to do so now. Right John B? Honesty is your middle name. Nary an intentional misrepresentation in sight… because you say so and, hey, you’re the very definition of what honest is.
Question was posed to me.
If you disagree, you can say so.
If you’d rather just post angry, sarcastic screeds, you may do that also.
At some point, you need to make up your mind whether or not you believe ‘intentional’ even exists.
Clever editing. Wonderfully deceitful. I see you deliberately didn’t paste the time codes, so the “actual” flow of the conversation would be represented, in context… Just you’re carefully “edited” version.
Some, many actually, would call that lying, John.
Hey Buddy!
Notice the links to the original dialogue?
Anyone desiring to put themselves through the intellectual drubbing that I endured are invited to follow the links. Then, they can see your materialism in it’s full glory!
Try again.