When heathen learn that I believe in God, after multiple assurances of my mental instability, they eventually ask this question:
“Which God?”
Then they send one another virtual high-fives because they have ‘destroyed’ religion.
I’ve been upfront about my skepticism of certain religious traditions.
I’ve written some criticisms of church culture.
And I don’t believe anyone has a perfect understanding of ‘God’.
Including, and I say this with fear and trembling, Neil de Grasse Tyson
Neil is a ‘Science Guy’ who talks a lot about religious stuff.
One of my favorite heathen wrote an article featuring this quote:
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on” – Neil de Grass Tyson
My question for Neil (if I can dispense with formality and call him by his first name) is:
“Which Science?”
Which specific scientific discoveries have reduced God’s pocket size?
Currently, I’m operating under the presupposition that God made the Universe.
Science is the tool God gave us to explore how the Universe works.
Science is not likely to provide evidence that disproves the One who invented it.
But Neil is famous!
He wrote books!
He’s been on TV and everything!
What about his quote?!!
How do you respond, John?!!
I respond with two words:
“Billy Graham”
Billy Graham is also famous.
Billy Graham wrote books.
Billy Graham has been on TV and everything.
Suppose Billy Graham had uttered the following phrase:
“Science is an ever-receding pocket of religious ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.”
Certainly, because Billy Graham said it, many people would just believe it.
Fundamentalists love quotes that align with what they already believe.
Other people…
…people using the brains God gave them…
…would recognize this as nonsense.
So.
If you haven’t had your daily dose of erratic, religious indoctrination…
…This article is chock-full of it.
It’s a smorgasbord of unsubstantiated conjecture.
The comment section is brimming with virtual high-fives.
But if you’ve got other things to do with your time…
…I’ll give you a quick nugget of truth and you can be on your way.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” – John 1
101 Responses
The only reason to create a counterfeit god, is that a real God exists.
The theory that Jesus didn’t exist is rejected by virtually all scholars in the field. When we look at the Gospels we find specific and unique patterns in Jesus style of preaching that are virtually absence from the Early Church. Examples include Jesus’ use of parables, his self reference as son of man, his introductory phrase “amen I say.” These styles of preaching cut across Gospel sources. So if Jesus was an invention, we’d have to believe that the early Christians invented a Jesus that preached differently than the first Christians, and yet these unique features found there way into the different strains of Gospel sources.
Where blind faith triumphs and evidence is consigned to the dustbin.
Where basic intelligence and critical thinking is jettisoned and emotional security blankets are taken on board.
The character, Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible, was a narrative construct. There is absolutely no evidence for his existence.
Enjoy your show John and stumbled upon your blog while searching for your show schedule. I admitted was tempted to jump in, but have long since retired myself from online debates regarding God. There’s typically one long winded soul who:
1) Thinks himself to be all knowing and
2) Can’t fathom why anyone would even try to rival his obvious superior genius,
3) When repeating his arguments ad nauseum doesn’t have the intended effect, he then resorts to questioning the mental health of anyone who dare disagree,
4) When that doesn’t bring readers to agreement, he then brings up the other poster’s children
Check
Check
Check
And check.
Welcome aboard! It’s good to come out of retirement and we have a lot of fun here.
Ark,
1. I didn’t use “God” as a pronoun. Pronouns are words like him, her, he, she, it.
2. I’ve noticed that atheists like to make the charge that we are merely making assumptions. While it’s true that I didn’t give the proofs that God exists and is immaterial, that doesn’t mean that those proofs don’t exist. But for the point I was making a proof isn’t needed. All you needed to accept is that those of us who believe in God think He is non-physical. That is sufficient to know you won’t find God among physical things.
3. When I use the term “God” I mean the first and last end of all things. God is not a type of thing that can have more than one instantiation. So to ask the question “which God?” fails to understand what is being asserted by theists. It’s like demanding an answer to the question “what color is the number 3?”
Hey, Brian. Are you a Christian?
Brian, you say, “All you needed to accept is that those of us who believe in God think He is non-physical. That is sufficient to know you won’t find God among physical things.”
Okay. then let’s parse this sophisticated theology in action: My question is HOW do come to know anything at all about this whatever you call God (a proper noun indicating a person, place or thing)?
@Brian
Presupposition and false assumption,
1. Assuming there is a creator god.
2. You have used the term ”God” as a pronoun. There is no god called ”God” so which god are you talking about? The Christian god?
Don’t mind Ark. He really doesn’t understand that HE’S making the presupposition that it’s wrong to presuppose things.
Someone needs to explain to him that we have only two possible hypotheses:
#1. There is no God.
and #2. There is a God.
We then need to come up with our predictions for what life would look like, in both of those cases. What would we expect to see if God exists? What would we expect to see, if there is NO God? What tools would we use to answer these questions?
Don’t you want to come over to the next post and make excuses for not watching the video, Ark?
Good grief! There are 14983 followers and the only way you can get your jollies off is by trying to humiliate the non-believers?
Shouldn’t you at least be demonstrating how good a Little Sunbeam for Jesus you are instead of continually behaving somewhat like a psychotic fundamentalist who has double dosed on Ritalin?
Why not go back to your own blog and write an intelligent post?
Not “trying to” humiliate the non-believers, Ark.
Successfully doing so.
All of you have several things in common, but the most problematic is your egos the size of the Moon. Let go of your self-importance. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
How does he feel about the psychotic?
An egotist and a psycho have basically the same problem, don’t they?
Extreme selfishness.
They’re both trapped in their own heads, unable to see past themselves.
Both have the opportunity to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. I believe David Wood had something to say about that, in another video you wouldn’t watch.
I was only focusing on your psychosis. But now you mention it, I suppose you would probably qualify as both.
Well, as you probably have watched it you didn’t pay much attention, now did you?
Maybe you should give it another twirl?
Sorry, come again?
You want me to post the David Wood testimony again, or am I misunderstanding?
No, I recommend you watch it again as it obviously had limited effect on you the first time around.
Okaaaaaaay, I don’t even know what that means. Why don’t you help me out by explaining what effect it should have had on me. I was talking about people whose minds have been renewed, if you need reminded of the context…
Well obviously your mind has suffered, and the video might help show you where you went off the rails.
PSA: when you run out of things to say, other than feeble personal jabs, it’s okay to say so.
Or, you know, just don’t say anything.
Here’s that video, if anyone else wants to see just one, small example of mind-renewal. Consider it my answer to, “How does God feel about Psychopaths?”
So were you a psychopath before you watched it, then?
Woods is simply a delusional arsehole.
If only I had your talent for sticking the “delusional” label on everything that made me uncomfortable.
…maybe I’d have the faith it takes to be an Atheist!
Uncomfortable?
Why on earth would I consider a disgusting violent religion based on lies and nonsense uncomfortable, other than to despise it?
Listen, sweet cheeks, you are the one who has confessed on an open forum that you believe the character Jesus of Nazareth is not only the god you genuflect to but also the Creator of the entire Universe. And you have n’t a hope in hell of explaining this.
You have also stated you don’t care if the entire bible is make believe( or words to that effect)
I’m not the one who is indoctrinated to believe hell is teal.
I have never had the need to consider topping myself, and every single deconvert across every religion I have every encountered or read has stated emphatically that what you are currently trapped in is harmful, to yourself and others, especially your kids.
Just read all your comments.
Just think of the way you behave and try to endlessly justify the reality of supernatural garbage.
Consider how you systematically dismiss scientific evidence,expert scholarly consensus, archaeological evidence.
Consider how you are completely unable to explain a single foundational tenet that support the ridiculous claims you make on almost every post.
Consider how woefully ignorant you are of the history of your religion, its major players, the development of its canon.
You need to take a step back and do some serious … and excuse me for saying this … soul searching … before you do yourself some real harm.
Not only for your own sake but for the sake of your kids.
You need help, and maybe even to get away from the influence of your dad and his beliefs, which seem to be having an obvious hold on you.
I mean that with every ounce of sincerity I can muster.
In answer to John’s question, I have heard atheists give examples of how science erodes religious belief. Two common examples are lightening and the theory of evolution. We’re told that people used to believe that Thor caused lightening and now science has replaced that religious explanation with a scientific one. The theory of evolution, we’re told, had replaced God in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.
My response is this. While people can produce a small handful of examples where the empirical sciences have replaced a religious explanation, I think it’s very distorted picture to imagine the entire scientific enterprise this way. Most of the day to day work of science has little to no theological implications.
Moving on, lets reflect on the two questions you mentioned in your post: “which God?” and “which science?” I’d like to suggest that atheists are typically wrong in how they answer both of these questions.
First, atheists seem to have in view an idea of God who is finite being that is somehow part of the universe. They imagine that the difference between monotheism and polytheism is merely the number of deities. God as traditionally understood by great thinkers like Aquinas, is not this sort of being at all. God isn’t the sort of being that can be multiplied. Furthermore, He isn’t part of the universe. He is the sustainer of the universe.
Second, I think there is also an error in answering the question “which science?” Here, I’m interpreting the question differently than John. He meant which scientific evidence whereas I mean which type of science. When skeptics talk about science eroding religion, they are using science in a particularly narrower sense than the traditional understanding. Traditionally, the word “science” was use to denote the broad range of learning and included subjects like: physics, chemistry, and biology, but also metaphysics, theology, natural theology, and ethics. Nowadays and particularly in these discussions of science and religion the word “science” is used to mean only the sciences that study the physical world — like chemistry, physics, biology. Since God isn’t a physical being your not going to find God by merely a study of the physical world. So the claim that “science” erodes religion or belief in God is very misleading. It’s using a definition of science that excludes God from the outset. It’s like saying that plastic doesn’t exist since we never find it with a metal detector.
Brian, you’re a saint for taking the time to actually answer the questions posed to the Atheists before refuting them! This is a very well-reasoned comment–especially not being able to find plastic with a metal detector.
So, unless the Atheists want to offer a better example of what De Grasse Tyson meant by his “shrinking God” quote, then I don’t think there’s anything left to say on that subject. 🙂
Thanks, Brian.
I was using ‘which science’ in the broader sense of the word meaning ‘which branch of science’ but reduced the scope because the heathen commentary are incapable of a dialogue of such magnitude. (Notice that they haven’t even answered the simplified question…)
The plastic/metal detector analogy is good!
I see you haven’t answered my simple ‘how do you know that’ question. I though that was pretty straightforward.
Hi guys- Couldn’t resist posting borrowed words from myself, since it is oh so related to the humor in these lame gripes. Enjoy!
To set the table: This is the first of twin posts to draw attention to the clever but nearly insane requests that appear daily. They are demanded of believers, and they are incessant, but the appeal is singular: to try to cast aspersion on God and His word, (yea, good luck with that) and the obvious ancillary result is the mocking of believers. While presenting itself as harmless, there is the dark side of the moon ya know, and there is always the angel of light…
Certain folks demand answers from scripture, Sola scriptura! they shout, while at the same time deny the authority from scripture which gives the answers their only merit. Look at the supreme lack of logic being engaged, where the precursor to the question, guarantees ANY answer as completely unacceptable.
There is no correct answer to the atheist under his own terms.
Would it be wrong of me to laugh at such a statement? Hoop jumping, fact twisting, and logic avoiding are all used to justify further unbelief, while at the same time charging the believer with malfeasance. Indeed, it is the believers fault the truth is vague! Yea, there’s a chuckle in there somewhere.
CS – More liberal use of the F-word would add veracity to your comments.
Now that is funny.
Your mockery of Neil de Grasse Tyson, coupled with juvenile attempt to bazinga the point by uttering Billy Graham in the same breath epitomizes religious hubris.As such, explaining why posts like this aren’t worth my time would only detract from meaningful debate with intelligent persons capable of forming original, constructive perspectives. I’ll leave once and for all with this –
Neil Degrasse Tyson – a brilliant mind (Bachelor degree in physics from Harvard, Masters in astronomy from University of Texas, Doctorite in astrophysics from Columbia) A strong, no nonsense African American role model and visionary. A man of science, tempered with joy, enthusiasm and purpose to make the world a better place. Tyson exudes practical solutions, champions education and frowns upon matters of faith clouding law, policy or big business advantages detrimental to all but corporate coffers. Grounded in science, analytical, engaging and sensible – Neil deGrasse Tyson for president.
Yes, JB epitomizes many deplorable traits and practices and exercises bigotry towards non believers. He thinks that’s funny.
I think it’s funny that you want to tell other people how to behave morally. You want to assign meaning to “traits” like courtesy, because it pleases your little brain. But when Theists tell you moral behavior (in ALL animals) is evidence for God, you call it bullshit.
Everything a Theist does is dishonest, and stupid, and mean-spirited, and irrational.
But what YOU did is straightforward and beautiful and (in the case of hospice care) ARTISTRY!
So, I’ve got news for you. It IS funny! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
This is true as long as we don’t ask Tildeb for examples of these deplorable, bigoted exercises…then the argument must be abandoned for lack of evidence.
…or not if you’re Dear Leader.
PTP,
Probably just as well that you leave. We’ve already got a selection of arrogant, self-important heathens making comments so you’re redundant anyway.
Hopefully Neil will read your amazing defense of his personal history (which of course has nothing to do with his ludicrous quote) and bring you into the White House with him!
By definition “redundant” is unnecessary, “arrogant” refers to claims or pretensions of superior importance or rights, “self important” means an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance – well done! You just wrote the absolute description for people like yourself. This heathen wants nothing to do with you because your parroted blithering bores me to death. You aren’t funny, haven’t an empathetic bone in your body, reek of judgemental assumptions, lack the slightest inclination to respect opinions contrary to your own and dare to believe heathens are the assholes. Does the bible instruct you to behave this way? Would God pat you on the back for being a loud mouthed dick? You think heathens are arrogant? Now that’s funny. Have a nice day.
You’re doing a bad job “having nothing to do” with people like us, NTP.
Go away.
God doesn’t pat anyone on the back for being a loud mouthed dick.
He died on the cross because of it.
I appreciate your defining words for me though. I totally misunderstood your phrase, “I’ll leave once and for all.”
(See… I am funny!)
Which threads would this be Señor Dipshit?
LMAOARKENATEN!
The one where you had your mental breakdown and showed your true colors. What a maroon.
Which one was that exactly, Senor Dipshit?
Maroon is a colour.
What I find quite bemusing is with fourteen thousand supposed followers ,
(a figure that the average would blogger would metaphorically die for) many of whom I presume will be following the dialogue and especially that of the Christians (sic) such as you, relishing the chance to read how you will demolish the non believers with your superior understanding of your faith. And yet, it seems the only way you are able to get a hard-on for your god is by trying to tear-up the atheists?
And not even with anything intelligent either.
Surely if you were intent on making a serious stand for Jesus, to show how you were in a genuine relationship with your god, you would show a lot less hubris, at least a modicum of humility, and come out and show those 14983 other followers just how much you truly understand your religion, its scripture (including the correct translations) and be able to refute every atheist claim by showing the competency of your quite brilliant theological scholarship.
Odd then that all you have done since joining in is behave like a fucking immature, ignorant arsehole.
Just an observation.
LMAOARKENATEN! Never mind – we’ll just say this is the latest thread for you to display a mental breakdown. So quick to anger. So full of hatred and contempt. Not very evolved at all. Devolved if anything.
Anyway – maroon is a COLOR.
Maroon is also part of Bugs Bunny’s favorite expression after outwitting Elmer Fudd, Yosimite Sam, etc. Bugs is mispronouncing “moron.”
And what I find quite amusing is that whether JB has 14 or 14,000 followers – they all know the original question I posed to you that you can’t (won’t) answer honestly. And you do too. But that’s your problem.
Still praying for you Ark. You have a presupposition that God does not exist.
Señor
… and Ark –
Thanks for reminding me again about those that are “mentally unstable”.
Why did you drop out of “the thread”?
Was it your “genuine empathy” for those you long to save from indoctrination?
Was it your “confidence in your belief/argument”?
Were you unable to honestly answer the question posed to you in “the thread” while simultaneously maintaining confidence in your belief/argument?
How does one “frame a question in acceptable terms” anyway?
Who decides whether or not a question is framed in acceptable terms?
Señor
Wow, you’re really bad at analogies. ‘Which God’? indicates there are more than one… say, the Christian tripartite god or the single Koranic Allah that calls the elevation of the prophet Jesus to be idolatry. So the question IS legitimate.
‘Which science’? indicates there’s more than one science. Well, your god is used as if it were an object, an agency, wwhereas ‘science’ is a method, a single method. You fail to appreciate this by suggesting science is a product and ask, “Which specific scientific discoveries have reduced God’s pocket size (note the capital used for proper nouns that indicate things).
Once again, JB, your analogy fails. It fails because the analogy is not equivalent. What you are trying to argue here is what is called a FALSE analogy.
You compound your failure by presupposing that which which science has not supported, namely that some object, some agency, made the universe. Now, I understand you are using the wrong ontology here, namely Aristotelian physics – metaphysics – to support this belief. You are using the idea of ‘natures’ – what I call the old 2D model that includes the idea of cause and effect to logically deduce a Prime or First Cause. That’s understandable. That’s what we see and encounter every day. But that’s not good science.
We as a species armed with understanding and explanations that work have moved well past that archaic ontology to a 3D interactive model (specifically of interacting fields rather than isolated articulated objects). Effect is now understood to be an inevitable product of the present. Inevitable. It makes no sense to call the present a ’cause’ when the chain is so intertwined with different fields… from the micro to the macro. That’s physics today and it indicates the universe can be understood without any need for anything other than a purely ‘natural’, unguided, purposeless, mindless physical processes that produce all kinds of marvelous emergent properties. And that order is important to grasp: not mind then processes but processes that produce mind.
Yes, science is an excellent and productive method to figure out how the universe works. And, so far, no divine agencies of any kind can be found interfering at any stage of anything discernible in the present universe. The present – and understanding the information it contains – is all the ‘god’ we need (although why anyone should include this archaic notion is nothing but problematic). So, in this sense, science is not likely to provide evidence that disproves the One who invented it because there’s no indication of any inventor there. What we find everywhere are ongoing understandable natural processes.
Thanks for restating your religious convictions, Tildeb. It will be helpful for new people who haven’t heard this before.
So, specifically which scientific discovery reduces the likelihood that God exists?
What’s the sound of one hand clapping?
This:
http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/John_Branyan/media/Mobile%20Uploads/giphy_zps45iluidt.gif.html
Tildeb said: “Yes, science is an excellent and productive method to figure out how the Universe works. And, so far, no divine agencies of any kind can be found interfering at any stage…”
LOL! Something tells me he skipped the “Finding Shakespeare” video from the post a couple days ago, the same way Ark skipped it. Tildeb sounds very much like the Russians C.S. Lewis mentioned in the very first two minutes of the video, when they bragged about not finding God in outer space.
Unfortunately, for the Russians (AND for Tildeb), scientists have found God over and over and over…even though some of those scientists haven’t been able to recognize it.
Just for you, mrsmcmommy, I’ll clarify that evidence that should be widely available if your religious beliefs were true is not there. The ‘author’ you believe exists has given us no evidence in any way that he does. But you’re so darned clever figuring out he does without any evidence whatsoever, without any access to any knowledge that should inform your religious beliefs independent of those beliefs, that I marvel at your ability to intuit that which is unavailable for intuiting. You are truly remarkable.
Remind me what evidence should be available?
What evidence would you expect to see of God?
(And for the love of all things Holy, make it less than 1000 words.)
You tell me. You’re the one who supposedly has ‘found’ it.
LOL!
That’s what I thought.
To declare you haven’t found any evidence, when you don’t even know what evidence you’re looking for.
How very scientific.
There you go presuming again. Incorrectly, no surprise.
Now tell me how you found that your god is logic.
Nah, I’m done answering questions.
Your last “answer” was all anyone needs to see, if they are tempted to think your more long-winded posts are anything important.
When you’re asked a question–as when all Atheists are asked questions–the foolishness abounds.
But, any time you want to explain what evidence you’d expect, when testing the hypothesis “There is a God,” I’m all ears.
Scientists have found Jesus of Nazareth? You are shitting me! Does he look the same as the image on my toast?
Once again, Ark. We’re talking about God. YOU’RE the one who keeps skipping ahead down the path to obsess about Jesus.
We’re still at a point in our journey where Muslims and Jews and many New Age Spiritualist and I would all agree… YOU’RE the one unable to see what billions of us can.
Hilarious. And the delusion… and the disingenuity continue.
I know we are talking about your god. You have already admitted that your god is Jesus of
NazarethNowhere.You can say the ”J” word now that it is out in the open.
Remember it’s okay as you are saved by the blood of Yeshua…
All your sins are forgiven.
Dear
JesusGod please smite Ark, he is being mean to me.Do you feel your nose getting longer, or maybe a little extra warmth in the trouser region.
liar liar pants on fire….
Wonder what’s that smell?
Liar Liar Pants on fire,
Amanda’s going to hell,
You really want to go down the road of calling me a liar again, Ark?
For real? That’s pretty bold, considering the only reason I even mentioned Jesus’ name was because you wouldn’t focus on C.S. Lewis’ philosophy until I answered that “one question.”
Remember?
You said, “I promise I’ll watch your damned video if you just tell me whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator. Yes or no? Yes or NO?! YES OR NO?!?!?!?!?!”
And then I answered with “Yes, I believe Logic is eternal and was with God at Creation, and I believe that another name for Logic is Jesus…”
But that wasn’t good enough.
So I said, “Yes, I believe Jesus was/is God, but I can’t answer yes/no to the Creator question because the Trinity is a complicated doctrine that I won’t discuss with someone who doesn’t believe in God at all….”
But that wasn’t good enough either.
So then I said, “Yes, I believe Jesus was the Creator, but I would be open to having my mind changed by another Theist or Pantheist…”
But–what do you know?–that wasn’t good enough, either!
I’ve explained that you’re not ready to talk about the name of the Sandcastle Builder until you’ve agreed that a Builder MUST exist… And I’ve said that I don’t trust your reasoning power because the last two questions you’ve “answered” were perfect examples of circular reasoning.
Aaaaaand, long story shorter, you still haven’t watched the video.
Lol.
This is why you’re my favorite commenter here, Ark. By far!
Seriously, ask my dad how many times I’ve told him, “Ark is my favorite.” You just can’t make this stuff up.
Truly, I think you are suffering from a mental disorder.
Maybe it is inherited or as a result of previous mishaps?
Every thread you have participated on has had the same pattern.
You are desperate, Amanda, absolutely desperate to find justification for your beliefs.
You interactions with John Z Tildeb Arch, Carmen are all the same.
You get caught out – as does your father – by the utter ridiculousness of your arguments which are incoherent and on many occasions simply reduced to babble.
And, yes, I watched the video. Both of them in fact and even offered to give my view. You declined. Remember?
Yes, you are a disingenuous, but this appears more and more likely because of some sort of mental instability.
Your sole aim appears to be to try to justify your belief system and you do this by continually trying to discredit any worldview that contradicts your own, rather than demonstrate the veracity of your own belief.
And worse, you try to be clever.
You have little understanding of the bible, and to hide this weakness claim it means little or nothing to your faith.
You exhibit all the signs of blind indoctrination.
And all jokes aside, you really do not sound well.
Is that all you want to say, Ark?
Not “sorry for lying?” 😉
I do not lie. I am not a Christian.
And which thread was this line you apparently said from.
I could not find these words:
”Yes, I believe Jesus was the Creator, but I would be open to having my mind changed by another Theist or Pantheist…”
You really are mentally not well Amanda.
It’s a paraphrase, Einstein. And anyone can go back and read the conversation.
But, since you won’t watch the video, I’ll just post it–quote by quote.
“The Russians, I am told, report they have not found God in outer space. On the other hand, a good many people in many different times and places claimed to have found God (or been found by God) right here on earth. The conclusion some want us to draw from these data is that God does not exist and those who think they have met him on Earth are suffering from a delusion…” -C.S. Lewis (in one of the many videos you haven’t watched)
I watched the videos, I already told you.
You then said ”Forget it,… ” when I offered to tell you my views.
You didn’t paraphrase the last bit about theist and pantheist, you inserted those words as an after thought to bolster your comment and give yourself a back door.
An interpolation.
A lie in other words.
This type of behaviour of yours is verging on the psychotic,
Good lord, Ark, I said I would have that conversation about Jesus with Muslims or Jews or just about anyone except for the God-deniers.
I said you’re not ready to talk about Jesus.
Unless you’re ready to admit that there’s a God (like a Theist or Pantheist would)–then we’re still 212 steps away from talking about Jesus and/or the Trinity and/or ANY Biblical doctrine.
Again, any one can read the original conversation.
Feel free to share your least favorite C.S. Lewis quote from ANY video, and why you thought he was wrong.
And I said, for argument’s sake I would accept a god and asked you to demonstrate how Jesus of Nazareth is that god and the creator of the universe.
And you know jack shit about the Trinity so please for the gods sake do not embarrass yourself and introduce that.
Lewis?
How about his claim that morality is objective?
Here’s my answer:
The uniformity of a belief does not prove it true or indicate that it has an external source.
Now go and see a shrink.
I’d like the actual Lewis quote, please. I have no idea where you got that. And THEN summarize the quote in your own words.
And will you promise to see a shrink?
”I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say.”
Lewis.
Can you guess where this one is from, Amanda?
Without Googling of course?
Now we all know Lewis is wrong not least because the character Jesus of Nazareth never once said ”I am Yahweh”.
Furthermore, no matter what we written in the bible there is no possible way on knowing if in fact he said anything at all.
However, your hero is agreeing with you that the character Jesus of
NazarethNowhere is your god.Seems he was as indoctrinated as you are.
But does he ever explain how this character is the creator of the universe?
Hmmm, not that I recall.
So go on … explain the Trinity.
I dare you!
Here’s one from the first video for you. Just so’s you know, I wanted to get the quote down pat so I found an actual transcript of your silly video as trying to copy the dialogue was irritating the Gehenna out of me.
Here we have Lewis trying, and failing miserably, to defend the supernatural.
And I take it back, he is using presuppositional thinking here.
And not only that, but also subtly trying to stick that smelly little shit Yeshua ben Yusuf into the picture.
What he also fails to recognise that if we were genuinely dealing with an omniscient deity there is nothing to prevent this deity from manifesting in a way to assure all of ”his creation of ”his” bona fides.
But he continually tries to justify why he cannot be ”part of the play”
So in the end, Lewis was simply a sad, delusional and possibly emotionally traumatized individual.
Sound familiar?
The quote you chose was “Space-travel really has nothing to do with the matter. To some, God is discoverable everywhere; to others, nowhere.”
What do you think he meant by that quote?
You then made THIS presupposition (which I will allow, because we must make presuppositions to test any hypotheses): “If we were genuinely dealing with an omniscient deity, there is nothing to prevent this deity from manifesting in a way to assure all of his creation of his bona fides.” So, I’ll ask you the question I’ve already asked before, and that Tildeb failed to answer yesterday: what are you expecting to find? If the deity revealed himself, what would that look like? How do you know you aren’t just closing your eyes and plugging your ears because God doesn’t look and act like YOU want?
I did answer it: compelling abductive evidence. So I asked you where it was. You’re the one who didn’t answer.
You’ve got to be kidding. I ask “What specific evidence would you expect to see?” and your answer is sticking a couple of adjectives before repeating the first answer: “Evidence.”
(Slipping in that word “compelling” is subjective, I’m sure you know.)
So, you said “There’s no evidence.”
And I said, “What evidence do you want?”
And you said, “Evidence that compels me.”
This is why I love your short answers, Tildeb. It’s easier to see the problems you usually bury in a word salad.
Oh, I am not expecting anything. Far be it for a mere mortal to preempt a god, for
Christ’sheaven’s… stuff it, for Senor Dipshit’s sake.Remember, I do not believe in gods, not yours or anyone else’s thus manifestation is not even on the table.
I am only asserting that anything that was omniscient should be able to ensure its existence was made plain without any ambiguity whatsoever.
The real question, is how do you perceive this god?
Remember, you ( and the late Mr. Lewis) are the one(s) making all the positive claims for its existence, are you not?
Also, are we talking about Yahweh, or Jesus of
NazarethNowhere?“I do not believe in gods, thus manifestation is not even on the table.”
There you go.
Nothing will convince you. Using your free will, you can keep your “skepticism” dial turned up to 100000 forever. You can refuse to even think about what type of evidence it would take. (Make sure to avoid silence. Avoid asking yourself questions. And–above all–stay really, really busy setting yourself up as a judge of other people’s beliefs.)
There’s a new post up! It’s C.S. Lewis, so you will presume you don’t need to listen/watch. But, if you use your free will to comment over there anyway, would you use the strike-out feature a few more times? I think your personal record would be 5. Let’s see if you can beat it! Thanks.
These are the relevant words fro the last post I believe?
Ark –
We’re not praying for God to smite you. We’re praying Him to do the opposite to you.
Señor
Kevin, I assume you saw where Ark wrote, “[You] try to justify your belief system…by continually trying to discredit any worldview that contradicts your own, rather than demonstrate the veracity of your own belief.”
I’m actually proud of him for understanding that much.
I pray that God would help him step away from his completely discredited worldview, so that his heart will be open to a God-centered one. 🙂 And then we can journey together…
Related, I saw this meme yesterday:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e7/73/04/e773048991b47cd27045fb11c08b3d42.jpg
Did anybody get around to discussing the topic of this post or… No?…
Nooooooope.
🙂
If you want to get the conversation going, you’ll have to say the magic word:
Jesus.
Yeah. That will spawn all kinds of productive, insightful commentary…
He “doesn’t do” philosophy and Lewis is an Old Fart. Also, he disagrees with Dawkins’ view of rape and Clarence Darrow’s view of murder. But don’t ask him to explain how/why those two are wrong…
So, the only thing left is to congratulate ourselves for witty plays-on-words like “Jesus of Nowhere.”
Come on, give the people what they want.
Dear Leader is whining at me about ignoring his reasoned response too. The problem is, I can’t stay awake while reading it….
Whenever possible, look for common ground. I noticed he wrote, “I used many words…”
Let him know we all agree about that.
I’ve been rolling in ocean waves today. I’m too cranky to look for common ground. Just told him he needs to write things that people who aren’t him can understand.
I do assume a level of reading comprehension above dolt. My mistake.
You make many mistakes and are never so quick to admit it.
You really have gone crying to mommy.
Now, JB, give credit where it’s due!
See? This was only six words from the Dear Leader this time!
Still nothing worth reading…but progress is progress! Maybe you’ll wake up in a good enough mood to say, “Good boy, Tildeb”
Good boy, Tildeb!
Yeah, I did JB. And I explained why the analogy – again – is flat out wrong. It’s a false analogy.
I then went on to criticize the ontology you used and why it hasn’t worked in the past, does not work in the present, and shall not work in the future to yield anything with any knowledge merit. This involved whole paragraphs and many words. Scary. But you don’;t give a shit about any critical commentary and use the same tired deceitful tactics… by distortion (claiming my explanation is my ‘religion’ – an asinine comment really doesn’t get any stupider than that)… by diversion, (my motive is apparently to sell my ‘religious beliefs’ in place of your own)… and by repetition (reiterating the same inane question already criticized as being based on an inaccurate understanding of the topic).
Your comment to me was irrelevant in every way regarding the post but accomplished want you wanted it to do: it demonstrated you are not willing to engage oppositional views honestly and sincerely. You just wanted the criticism to go away as you usually do by deceitful tactics. You’re okay with that.
So that’s why I gave you back an equally inane question that, like your own, has nothing to do with anything. Not surprisingly, that’s where you’ve left it. You’re not skeptical. You are an equivocating theist who uses dishonesty as your shield and vilification as your weapon. Your daughter does the same thing. What neither of you do is think critically and so the product of your thoughts is deceitful and disrespectful apologetics pathetic in quality.
Dear Leader,
Creating an undecipherable post is not the same as creating a compelling rebuttal. You seem to think that because nobody understands what you’re talking about, you’re smarter than the rest of us.
Be concise.
Be on point.
Be brief.
Be like me.
Again, I understand your complete disdain for me so you can save a couple hundred words by omitting the outline of my awfulness. Just get right to your answer.
Let’s set a limit of 30 words. Can you answer the question in 30 words? What specific scientific discovery makes the existence of God less likely?
Wrong question.
Two words! Congratulations!
And with those two words, you communicated EXACTLY the same amount of information as when you write a booklet!
Amanda- Is that Baby Bird being fed by Tildeb? That’s sweet.
JB- The kitten laser patrol has no interest in discussions. They only want to sniff your sandwiches.
~
(the tilde may appear from time to time as my Zorro type mark)
Yeah, Kevin, just ignore my first comment upthread. JB and mrsmcmommy seem to thrive on dishonesty and distortion and false accusations so, hey, they’ll welcome you and this kind comment if you just go along. And what does that say about you and your character?
… That awkward moment when Carmen is the only one able to appreciate how brainy you are. Lol.
S.D. – Did Ark really refer to C.S. Lewis as an ‘Old Fart’? I’m shocked! I kinda figured he’d go with ‘C.S. Lewis is a religious construct who didn’t actually exist’. That’s how he dismisses Jesus and C.S. Lewis is no Jesus…
Yeah, Tildeb, I make a practice of ignoring your ever repetitive regurgitated novellas (not unlike regurgitating mother birds). They’re just too long and too boring. RUN DMC says it best, “You talk too much! Homeboy, you never shut up!” Instead, I’m waiting for the movie.
~
Your loss.