Every once in awhile a fellow Christian will tell me:
You can’t find God with reason.
If thats true, then how do I find God? Dumb luck?
You can only find God with faith!
I see. Faith in what?
In God!
So you find God by having faith in God?
Yes.
Hmmm….Where does faith come from?
It comes from God.
Ok. How do you know?
The Bible.
You read in the Bible that faith comes from God?
Yes.
So the Bible is the reason you know about faith?
I don’t NEED a reason for faith!
“…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…” 1 Peter 3:15
I am always prepared to make a defense.
Good! Why are you a Christian?
Faith!
I gotta admit, there’s nothing reasonable about that.
Thank you! I’m sure God is pleased.
132 Responses
Yeah, “faith isn’t for smart people” is a brilliant way to encourage people to have faith in God.
Yes- John is quite an encouraging hoot- but I am unable to independently respond to posts- and cannot illicit any response to assistance, and I have a LOT to say!🤪
John, Thank you for these little gems. I love getting these in the morning.
@ Branyan and the religious Co.
Ultimately, I believe no one can say with absolute certainty there is not a creator entity any more than anyone can say with absolute certainty there is.
And to be honest, I am perfectly happy with this arrangement. It requires no dogma, no doctrine and no apparent indoctrination.
The real question of course, is why are you Christian ?
Belief and acceptance in everything, is ultimately the belief in nothing. I appreciate your honesty, but other than that, what, If anything, of substance, have you to contribute to John’s post, other than being “happy” with your noncommittal stance? I truly wish to understand the interest in Christianity (your being here) without the desire to know Jesus and lead a Christian life? Is not seeking that which you have already rejected not a waste of valuable time in your life?
“To summarize, in order for human chromosome 2 to arise from the fusion of two chromosomes, a succession of several highly improbable events would have had to have taken place. Thus, the evolutionary account of the history of human beings seems untenable.” Dr. Fazale (Fuz) Rana he initially embraced the evolutionary paradigm, Fuz eventually drew the conclusion that only a Creator’s involvement could explain the elegance of biochemical systems. The article explains it further but didn’t to take up too much space. This is my kind of reality. Psalm 14:1
http://www.reasons.org/articles/chromosome-2-the-best-evidence-for-evolution
A creator entity …. okay…. by why is he a Christian ?
Indeed. Only Intelligent Design can accurately explain it. A “theory” from a kook in the 19th century has been adopted by many as “truth” because a universe without the one true God allows them to live low lives with no purpose or responsibility for their actions. It’s their ultimate excuse for YOLO, and “you do you.” At the end of each of our lives though, there shall be a literal, WTH moment. Either joining that squad, or rising above it! So… good luck with that Choices define lives- here- and eternally! 😜
John,
I hear where you are coming from. God is please when we engage our minds, rather than vacuously sputter glib answers to cover our ignorance.
But at the same time, I tend to default to Scripture in my answers to things. I do this because there is no higher revelation that God has given us to understand what pleases Him. We can guess, but then we can be wrong. Scripture shows that if we try to get too cute with our definition on “How I think God should be pleased”, it can have fatal results.
So I use my reasoning, as God has blessed me with a brain that functions, in my worship of God as well as my faith. Mindless worship, like some of the modern so-called praise songs that just repeat the name “Jesus” 32,498 times, seem little more than a New Age-y mind-emptying that I am rather sure does not please God.
After all, Scripture itself says in Matthew 22:36-38 (ESV) – “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.
We are commanded to love the the Lord with our minds. What is that, then? It is not an emotional thing. It is using our minds to reason, to question, to not be afraid to come before the Lord with our doubts.
I think some people who can be described as fundamentalists are actually anti-intellectualists. They oppose using their God-given ability to reason in defense of their faith.
Once again, I must use an illustration I recall from R.C. Sproul. Once time, after he had finished teaching, someone in the gathering yelled out “God don’t need your fancy education,” or something of that ilk. Sproul replied, “Sure. But He doesn’t need your ignorance either.”
Ligonier Ministries, where I go to love God with my mind, has a great hour-ish video on the matter. You gotta love when the first two words of the guy’s message are “Pink Floyd”.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/the-christian-mind-2012-national-conference/we-dont-need-no-education/
Dave
(I think I see a hidden subtext under the post… but I don’t want to spoil it yet)
Isaiah 1:18 (ESV)
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
“I tend to default to Scripture in my answers to things.”
This is the statement that ruffles so many feathers. We all claim that Scripture is on our side. But there are many questions that do not have a specific chapter/verse answer in the Bible. This is what causes our fundy atheist friends to have hissy fits. For example, there is no Bible verse that says, “Slavery is immoral.”
John,
I like it when atheists have hissy fits over the Bible. It shows that they consider it to be something authoritative that they have to attack. I have missed where they go line by line through the koran (which seems to have many, many more “blind followers” than Christianity ever did. To question the koran is death in some countries).
As to whether the question of the immorality of slavery… why is that even a question they are concerned with. What about slavery is incompatible with evolution and science? How do they claim to be able to make a moral judgement on someone owning someone else as property?
The only reason that is even a question is because God has place His image within us, and we have value for human life.
Scripture deals with slavery because sinful humans had slaves. These slaves were not based on race, but on conquered peoples. That is not to say it is right, but to differentiate it from the more modern slavery that had both black and white people enslaving blacks from Africa as commodities to be bought and sold. Such a things a was not happening in Scripture.
So when it comes to slavery in the ancient times, Scripture never commands people to get slaves. It manages sinful human behavior, and increasingly makes it more difficult for the people of God to keep slaves.
Slavery was also not permanent in Scripture,
Exodus 21:2-10 (ESV)
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
The question remains as to what makes slavery immoral. Who says it is immoral? What is a slave, exactly? These are difficult philosophical as well as theological questions that can’t be honestly discussed in an open forum without a person being labelled many slanderous things.
But I throw the question of slavery back at the unbelievers, wondering why are they concerned with such things. If the stronger subjugates the weaker in modern slavery, how is this incompatible with science and evolution? It is we, the believers, who are concerned with the sanctity, and dignity, of life, inside and outside the womb, and who would mobilize to day to free slaves.
I would love to have a discussion on the deeper nuances of slavery and the other issues it touches, but it would have to be in person or via private email. A full explanation would be a greater wall of text than what I have already filled this post with.
Dave
Matthew 20:26-27(ESV) – It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
My point is that a Biblical ‘answer’ to the question of slavery requires some reasoning. This is true for many of the recent topics on this blog.
The Bible doesn’t specifically say, “It’s okay to take your kids to the doctor.” Some fundamentalists interpret the directive to pray as meaning God intends for us to replace medicine with meditation. And we’re off to the races again.
That’s because there is no MEANS to differentiate batshit crazy beliefs that abuse, neglect, and harm real children in real life from the more innocuous religious beliefs that don’t.
But here’s the thing, JB and you believers: by ruling out reality’s right to arbitrate claims made about it, you’ve effectively removed any means to differentiate the two. This is the product of religious belief that in sum is so pernicious.
Atheists merely point this problem out but theists are the ones who keep reality at bay and insist doing so is virtuous rather than pernicious. The problem you’ve created and maintained is yours to solve.
“That’s because there is no MEANS to differentiate batshit crazy beliefs that abuse, neglect, and harm real children in real life from the more innocuous religious beliefs that don’t. ”
If there is no means to differentiate then how do YOU know you’re right?
Dear Leader, you have seemingly wandered into an area of discussion where ‘the void’ of atheism should have no comment. You have added content, oh wise one!
I can differentiate by using reality as my arbiter. Your faith-based belief has no such ally.
Dude. We live in the same universe.
Get over yourself.
We also need to be able to establish that scripture can be trusted. God gave us our reasoning ability so we can do this. Being able to quote scripture, while admirable and useful in conversations with other Christians, isn’t useful with someone who doesn’t believe scripture is inspired. If you can’t explain through reason and philosophy why it makes sense that there is a God, you might as well be quoting Harry Potter. And, coincidentally there is scripture that backs up reasoning God’s existence through philosophy, logic, and nature: Ecc. 3:11, I Pet. 3:15, Rom. 1:20, etc
John,
I see what you are saying.
I agree with you that sub-Christian type of fundamentalists can be pretty kooky by not using their minds as God intended.
It is not whether Scripture or reason, it is both, as Scripture, and Whitney, have stated.
Frankly, I think that the anti-mind crowd is actually secretly afraid that Scripture can’t stand up to scrutiny, so they refuse to use reason, abdicating thought to their cult-like leaders and fall back upon what they were taught. They are much like the unbelievers, and how you tease them with “because evolution”. Simplistic answers that are immune from challenge are a bad thing, no matter who you are.
Whitney is right, that the base must be established for unbelievers (and often for believers) for the truth of Scripture before one can use it as any kind of authority. And that is a fun journey all in itself.
I may have mentioned this before, but when I was a youth leader many years ago, I told a gathering of parents that my goal in ministering to the kids was to get them to stop believing in your (the parents’) faith. I gave a dramatic pause to let the shock set in before I added, “and make it their own.” I wanted them to believe because it was true, not because their parents or youth leader said so. Over the years, I strived to give them that foundation as to why they could trust God and the Bible. It involved Scripture, history, where the Bible came from, other religions out there, etc. I wanted them to think for themselves. Only then could they examine what was taught and not be shocked when they went off to college and some pipe-smoking, self-indulgent, theophobic (in the bad sense) professor told them that God was not real.
As to the point at hand, Scripture gives us views on enough things that we can put together stances on what is not explicitly laid out in a verse. If we are honest and do the hard work, there is nothing that “stumps” Scripture.
While Scripture may not explicitly detail how we ought to free people from the bondage of human slavery, it certainly deals with the more important issue of freeing people from the bondage of the slavery to sin. Without human slavery existing, we have no illustration of the spiritual kind.
Anti-intellectual dishonesty, whether it be atheistic or theistic, is not a good thing. Being lazy with Scripture and using parts of it to ignore other parts (like not using doctors) is not sound faith. We should use the whole counsel of God to inform our thinking and practice where things are not explicit. Otherwise, those anti-intellectual fundamentalists should stop driving cars and watching TV, since Scripture does not explicitly permit it.
Dave
Acts 20:26-27 (ESV) – Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
“That is to say, the faithful are encouraged to remain ignorant, for without ignorance belief would be impossible.”
No this is an ignorant statement. While you will no doubt disagree with the Bible saying “without faith it is impossible to please God” I believe it is how you look at the evidence I see nature and see a creator an atheist sees something different. I work in the medical field and see the complexity of the human body once again as evidence of a creator an atheist sees it differently. I have never been encouraged to remain ignorant and we will have to continue to agree to disagree.
So, Jeff, as a medical kind of guy trying to comport your creationism with evidence from the real world in your area of scientific expertise you imply, how do you explain chromosome 2 or our genetic ability to make egg yolk? Or do you just wave this kind of reality-based incompatible evidence away? In other words, how does such evidence FIT the creationist model you espouse?
It doesn’t.
Ignorance takes many forms and refusing to account for compelling contrary evidence is, as JZ points out, just another kind of ignorance upon which belief in failed explanatory models like your creationist beliefs must still continue… because it must believed, you see. You’re assured by the religious and only the religious that it’s virtuous to believe using faith and even more virtuous to believe using faith when that belief is incompatible with reality. That’s why this kind of religious faith is synonymous with ignorance; you won’t allow reality to have any say in the matter of your religious beliefs in spite of your medical expertise and certainly not because of it as you falsely advertise..
How is our genetic ability to make egg yolk incompatible with the creationist model?
It isn’t.
Ignorance takes many forms and refusing to admit that ‘compelling contrary evidence’ is not contrary at all is, as JZ points out, just another kind of ignorance upon which belief in failed explanatory models like your personal ‘reality’ must still continue…because it must be believed, you see.
Well, it is, JB whether you wish to believe it or not.
These genes are the same in critters that lay eggs that include a yolk sac. That’s how these things critters are able to successfully reproduce. Without the yolk sac, the newborns would starve to death. That’s not the case for humans.
For humans, the genes are the same but they are inactive. So why insert this useless genetic information in humans… made as we supposedly are in the image of god and POOF!ed into existence as is? That’s like including the parts for a piston engine engineered into a jet engine: absolutely useless and encumbering and a waste of resources. No engineer could justify the inclusion because it’s useless. That’s why this evidence from reality is contrary to and incompatible with the creationist explanation.
Ah… Tildeb uses the term “Creationist” to mean “Ken Hamm.”
Got it.
Yes.
I must believe that God started over from scratch with every species. That is the ‘creation narrative’ that the Dear Leader has assigned me.
To be fair–the fundamentalist Christians are partly to blame for this (again).
There are Old Earth Creationists, and “Common Decent” Creationists and Creationsts-who-believe-there-were-humanoid-creatures (before God gave us souls)… but you wouldn’t know it, to hear certain Young Earth scientists talk. They are the ones you were criticizing with this post about unreasonable faith.
I know! That’s why it’s so funny that the anti-theists are still here yammering away at me! You’d think they would applaud me for calling out the Christians.
I’m shocked that Tildeb and JZ are still upset.
SHOCKED!
(and by ‘shocked’ I mean; not surprised at all)
Maybe they are insecure that they have more in common with fundamentalist Christians than they like to admit?
After all, I’ve got a pretty great quote from a “Fundamentalist” Naturalist, which sounds very much like Tildeb!
“We have an a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism.” –Richard Lewontin
He wants to equate Ken Hamm with ALL Christians, because Richard Lewontin really is a good representative of Atheism.
They are fundamentalist evolutionists.
From the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse. “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
Webster defines “religion” as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. Christianity falls into this category. So do the hundreds of false religions that have plagued mankind for millennia. Matthew 7:13-14 indicates that the majority of people will be deceived. Despite the overwhelming evidence God has given, they will choose to create their own religion, or adhere to a false religion promoted by their society.
A famous event occurred nearly 3,000 years ago, when Elijah found himself confronting 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Ashera. Those false prophets ate at the queen’s table (1 Kings 18:19), indicating that they were among the most respected and trusted people in society. Although they obviously were wrong, their position and power had so influenced the people that when Elijah stated “If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him,” “the people answered him not” (1 Kings 18:21). Many (if not most) of the people undoubtedly knew that Baal had come from the imagination of men. However, the fact that so many “important” individuals in their society promoted Baal either caused them to doubt God, or intimidated them to the point that they were unwilling to stand firm for God.
A similar situation exists today. Concerted efforts to indoctrinate people into believing evolution have been ongoing for decades. However, polls continually show that the majority of Americans believe in God, and believe that He created the Universe and life.
While that is good news, the promotion of evolution by many “important” people in our society likely has caused many of those polled either to doubt God, or be intimidated to the point that they are unwilling to stand firm for God.
This is the main reason it is important to realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that the temptation people face when confronted with that religion is nothing new.
Don’t feel you have to respond to me tildeb, i find you comments mind-numbing.
The term evolution just means “change,” and–from what I understand, from trustworthy scientists–we can watch it happen on a micro level. That’s pretty well-established. The theoretical part, then, is the changes we see within species also apply ACROSS specie lines, and that’s where there’s disagreement.
For the record, I’m not completely opposed to the idea that God used evolution as a means of creation. Honestly, biology isn’t an area of interest for me, so I look for the bullet points whenever two people are bickering about specifics. 🙂 But that’s why it’s such a shame that blind dogmatism (like Tildeb’s) makes it hard to become informed on the topic. I have no choice but to be deeply suspicious of ALL the “experts” he worships, and to take everything all of them say with a grain of salt.
Here are three more examples of Faithful biologists, admitting their biases:
Late Biologist George Kline: “I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith… The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy…”
Biochemist Isaac Asmimov: “I am an atheist, out and out. I’ve been an atheist for years and years…I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I’m an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin: ” Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…”
I am glad you mentioned blind dogmatic here, that is exactly what tildeb is guilty if, although somewhat ironically that’s what he accuses us of.
If one rejects God, they must be dogmatic about evolution because anything but that means there is a cteator.
Debunking this stupid trope time after time after time to no effect with you demonstrates your inability to think, to read, to comprehend, to apply. The trope you repeat about evolution as a religion is so stupid, it is utterly ridiculous to address yet again. Your claim is a statement of profound and willing ignorance and you do it time and again only because of your religious belief that is incompatible with what reality demonstrates. You James are a waste of a mind, waste of time, waste of life.
What do you know? One of the Atheist Ad Hominem Hymns!
It’s too bad his willful ignorance and religious belief won’t let him admit it.
You going to address Moose’s questions directly to you, Tildeb? Or are you practicing the sacred Atheist sacrements of avoiding self-reflection and meditating on the stupidity of beliefs no one holds?
All his comments are ad hominems Amanda.
If you boil down the billions of words he uses to just a few, it’s always, “Christians are science and reality denying fundies who refuse to listen to reason.”
What have you debunked, tildeb?
All I’ve ever seen from you are trillions of words anger.
This quote says everything anyone needs to know about you tildeb.
“Yeah, Collins. What about him? He’s actually a good case in point: a good scientist who remains so if and only if he keeps his science unpolluted by his theology. Lot’s of good scientists are able to do this.”
You’ve declared with a self-proclaimed authority you imagine everyone should just yield to that good scientists cannot pollut their science with theology.
You cannot simply just wave off what disagrees with your dogma with a “meh, whatever” and think you are winning arguments.
They have to go pretty far out of their way to specify that evolution is “unguided” as well. 🙂 Just to watch cells behave, it certainly LOOKS like they have goals… Thank goodness for the Biologists who assure us that what they see is all there is. They’re mind readers. Or, in this case, able to tell us when a mind isn’t behind something at all.
It’s dogma Amanda. No matter how evident a creator may be, He MUST be denied.
The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.
“Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God.”
Evolution doesn’t really do that. It offers no explanation whatsoever for the origins of life. It is only an explanation for how life diversified after it first appeared. You are correct that atheists THINK evolution replaces Creator God. They are mistaken. It’s just another name for Creator God.
I don’t think evolution is another name for God at all but that’s not the debate at the moment.
What tildeb and people like him do, it’s really the beginning and end of their argument, is say that science and religion are and will forever be at odds. This assertion is simply not true.
Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries God meant for us to explore. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. His favorite argument for design related to the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
Christopher Hitchens discounts the religious convictions of these scientific pioneers, claiming that belief in God was the only option for a scientist of the time. But this puts Hitchens in a curious dilemma. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard. One cannot deny religious believers credit on the basis of “everyone was religious” and also assign blame on the same foundation. To make the case that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore evidence to the contrary. And he is more than willing to do so.
Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists are now a rarity: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century.” However, in the same year that Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006), three leading scientists released books favorable to theism. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich released God’s Universe, arguing that an individual can be both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design. Internationally renowned physicist Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued that intelligent life is the reason our universe exists. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, published The Language of God, in which he presents scientific and philosophical evidence for God. Incidentally, President Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes for Health, one of the world’s foremost medical research centers.
Dogma? What an idiot you are. And I’m being very kind to call you this.
To paraphrase your last paragraph with equivalent substitutions for clarity to show your idiocy in action, consider (I know you won’t but maybe others will):
“If there are magical faeries making cell phone technology work, then there is a Queen of Faeries to whom we are accountable. The physics of cell phones is an enabler for atheism. The physics of cell phones gives atheists a basis for explaining how cell phones work apart from a Queen of Faeries. The physics of cell phones denies the need for a Queen of Faeries to be involved in the universe. The physics of cell phones is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to Grimm’s, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient Queen of Faeries or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.
James, you’re an anti-scientific hypocritical idiot. You will always remain a hypocritical idiot as long as you refuse to think clearly..
For the umpteenth time, the scientific method that produced the explanatory model called evolution is the SAME scientific method that produce the explanatory model of physics we employ in cell phone technology. Inserting your unfounded, un-evidenced, superstitious, explanatory religious model in one case but not the other is hypocritical, you idiot. To think yourself rational and then wave your magic wand and pretend your creationist model that includes causal agencies of Oogity Boogity! (without any evidence to LINK your batshit crazy model to the real world) is at the very least as idiotic as it is hypocritical. You compound your idiocy by accusing those of us not afflicted by your religious need to pretend the world is defined by your batshit crazy beliefs about it as religious believers of a different kind. No. You’re the one who is inserting the batshit crazy religious stuff and you’re the one trying to impose your religious idiocy on all of us. Cell phones, like evolution, work. That’s what destroys your line of rationalizations. Reality.
Did you just use a thousand words just to call me an idiot, tildeb?
Every word you write, James, proves that.
Well I’m just a blogger, not a legit author like you John so I guess people have to manage their expectations when they interact with me.
🙂
“The paperback of The Owner of All Infernal Names: An Introductory Treatise on the Existence, Nature & Government of our Omnimalevolent Creator is currently ranked 1,545,520 on Amazon.com according to NovelRank’s collected data.”
Here’s your thinking on Evolution in graphic form, James
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Why%20are%20there%20still%20Britons_zps7etuww5j.png
Do you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously John?
Let me guess, the question stumped you.
No John, reducing arguments for creation to absurdity then posting dopey memes doesn’t stump anyone, it just amuses you.
The one thing you have said in the past that truly did stump me was that Jesus can’t be taken seriously because He never mentioned Tupperware.
I will be pondering that until I draw my last breath.
Again. Ever wonder why no one takes you seriously?
By all means, tell me one thing Jesus said or did that was original.
Just one thing.
And James, I like the way you omitted the fact that my book is today (worldwide) #960 in the category of Religion. For a book only ever intended for a tiny, tiny, tiny market I guess that’s pretty good.
But here’s a thought for you about how I’m sure Tildeb is thinking in talking to you…
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Bq3v771IQAAoY___zpshljoqzql.jpg
HAHAHAHA!!!
#960 in “religion.”
Congrats!
For a book nearly 2 years old, with no marketing at all, yes, thanks.
I think you’re lying about that number. I bet you can’t prove it.
Favorite comment ever.
I don’t know what I love more… the fact that JZ fudged the ranking just a little, or the fact that one of the subsets of “Religion” on Amazon is “Atheism.”
HAHAHAHA!
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/MrsMcMommy/3.9.17%20JZs%20Book%20Ranking_zpsvmzopvma.png
Fudged? It was 960 when i checked before writing the comment. Why, what is it now? I hadn’t looked at it for nearly a year, so was surprised to see it still doing OK.
More lying? I’ll bet you check it almost every day, Windbag.
You’re not #960 in Religion. It’s #960 in ATHEISM, which is a specific religion category.
LOL!!!!
Let me know when you write a book, Amanda. Being a housewife with no discernable profession or career path, I’m sure you have a lot of time to work on a true masterpiece.
LOL!
Struck a nerve, eh, Zande?
It’s that ego… the bigger it is, the easier to burst a hole in it.
Wow, top 1000 in one category John, I stand corrected, that is impressive. Sales must be well into the tens of copies by now.
Let me know when you write a book, James.
Any moron can write a book John, it doesn’t mean they have anything useful to say.
Go on then, James. Write one.
Nah, I’m good. I would like to note though that a current Amazon best seller doesn’t even have any words which makes your book waaaaaaay less popular than something that is literally nothing 🙂
Amazon best-seller ‘Reasons to Vote for Democrats’ book is just empty pages.
Zande’s book sold 33 copies and is full of words but completely devoid of thought.
The Situation wrote a book. Jill Zarin has a book. Both Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin have books. As do Tori Spelling, Justin Bieber, Tila Tequila and Linda Hogan.
Listen, stupid people write books. Anyone can write a book, it doesn’t mean we need to take them seriously John.
Even if your book were a serious academic work that was good and made a point, it could immediately be discredited because it’s author routinely be beclowns himself online.
What part of this don’t you understand John? No one is going to read your nonsensical trolling and say to themselves, “hey, I need to go buy this guy’s book.”
Now, now, James.
It probably took JZ a long time to fill out that Amazon application…
He couldn’t figure out how to get his picture to appear in the comment thread on Sunday without my help. So, let’s recognize his achievement when credit is due. 🙂
Credit where credit is due, I guess.
There is another atheist blogger who also wrote a book she seems to be proud of that, as it turns out, is little more than a collection of quotes from questionable and biased sources cobbled together with inane ramblings. More like a painfully long high school report than a book but, whetever.
Point here is the “I wrote a book” appeal to authority is completely lost on me.
Totally agree.
I was just telling my dad that I literally have the opposite tendency to JZ. I went to school for writing and know several big shots in the publishing industry. But I’d never call myself a “writer,” let alone an “author.”
I don’t want to sound like him! LOL.
Technically, I’ve been paid a few times, and I was quoted in another person’s self-published book…
I’m not sure how far that goes on the “Piss Scale?”
On any scale I think you rank well below bloviating narcissist which is not a bad thing.
Was that tupperware line on your blog?!
I would LOVE a screenshot! LO!
Was on his and mine, here’s the link to mine which has the link to his.
If you read, you will notice that I answered the question he just asked me. Nothing changes with JZ, same questions over and over and over.
I don’t see the link? 🙁
Opps, forgot it.
https://thei535project.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/jesus-didnt-talk-about-lightning-or-tupperware-lids-so-meh-he-wasnt-that-special/
LOL!
If you weren’t such a dedicated idiot, James, you would actually learn quite a lot from JZ, God forbid if you ever managed to use your brain to think before spewing religious nonsense, of course. That’s why the best you can do as a blogger is ban those who dare challenge what you proclaim and who dare to reveal your idiocy in action. Little do you know in your idiocy that those whom you ban are a rather august company of good critical thinkers.
You really think the fact that you’re allowed to post YOUR religious nonsense here, unbanned, is working in your favor?
I have encouraged Theists to quit banning trolls before, too. Because, it always makes YOU look ridiculous.
Problem tildeb is that you never challenge anyone with anything new, just the same tired old nonsense that has been refuted ad nauseum.
Then, when you are challenged, you resort to insults and name calling.
I banned you because you have nothing to offer.
Hm…
You’re a “dedicated idiot” I guess. 🙂
But we’re happy to allow you to reveal your idiocy in action. Little do you know (in your idiocy) that those whom you complain about having banned you are cut from the exact same cloth as yourself.
Those I’ve banned include you, Ark, KIA, Nan, Zande, and Allalt.
Hardly deep thinkers I would argue.
Yes, you would argue that… because you’re an idiot and not for any other legitimate reason.
Here’s an actual reenactment of what happened on the blog today:
And you play baseball like a girl 🙂
LOL!
YEEEEES!
No, James, I didn’t use “a thousand words to CALL you an idiot.” I used 349 – including 117 of yours – to explain why and show HOW you are an idiot.
Case in point.
My comment criticized for length follows your 476 words to explain why you think the claims and methods of science vs religion are so compatible. You do this trope over and over and over using the idiotic Catholicism-is-compatible-with-Pedophilia argument… you know, priests are Catholic, some priests are pedophiles, therefore pedophilia is compatible with Catholicism. You just use different terms, you know, people do science, some scientists are religious, therefore religious belief is compatible with science.
You’re such an idiot because you never learn from your mistakes. You just keep recycling them in the name of piety over and over and over…. .
There is no difference between the various kinds of creationism presented as if some are more reasonable than others. All godly creationism is identical in principle no matter how disguised one tries to make it. And all are without evidence adduced from reality and all are held in spite of evidence contrary to it.
You are wrong.
There are many creationism models.
You ever heard of Francis Collins? The HGP guy?
He might disagree with you about genetics. Is he living in an alternate ‘reality’ too?
HAIL TILDEB!
*Collins
Yeah. My mistake.
I fixed it.
Though Tildeb wouldn’t be a fan of Schaeffer either.
Well, he’s another dead theologian. I don’t care if he disagrees with genetics. The fact that we inherit inactive DNA used by other critters demonstrates the problem of believing we have been POOF!ed into existence at any point. Nothing you said he addresses this significant problem for the creationist model (why were whales POOF!ed into existence with olfactory neurology and a dedicated area of the brain for it unused in and a detraction from a marine environment?) to address this real world evidence with anything other than yet another ignorance-masquerading-as-a-reason amounting to nothing more than yet another imposed faith-based belief to ‘explain’ the previous knowledge-empty faith-based claim (ie God POOF!ed us into existence containing DNA essential to other critters but useless and inactive for us because… ummm…. because… well, it’s virtuous to believe that God designed it that way! And now let us all be respectful and satisfied with this non-answer.).
I meant Francis Collins. It was an error. No matter. I’m certain you know more about DNA than Francis Collins too.
You are the only one using ‘POOF!’ as an explanation for the existence of DNA. So you and I agree that ‘POOF!’ is a ridiculous suggestion for the reality of genetics.
No serious theologian (living or dead) would equate God with POOF!
You are erecting straw men and smashing them with great gusto! It’s very fun to watch!
It was clearly more of an ABRA KADABRA! 😉
Yeah, Collins. What about him? He’s actually a good case in point: a good scientists who remains so if and only if he keeps his science unpolluted by his theology. Lot’s of good scientists are able to do this.
But his theology in no way, shape, or fashion compliments or is compatible with his creationist beliefs. And he knows this! (As do all honest scientists, which may explain why some 97% of them in prestigious universities are self-proclaimed non believers.) That’s why he tried to get around the scientific problem he knows evolution raises by co-founding BioLogos and trying to place the POOF!ism moment so far back in time that to all extent and purposes is equivalent in all knowable ways to evolution.
“97% [of scientists] are self-proclaimed non-believers…”
Now you’re just pulling statistics out of your ass.
I will thank you to refer to that ass by its proper name: “Reality”
LOL!
And I bet our Dear Leader won’t be able to pull a chicken egg out of his ass.
Somewhat related: I saw a cool video in which a biology class somewhere in Asia grew and “hatched” chicks, without an egg. They fertilized the yoke between two thinly-stretched pieces of saran wrap, and were able to watch the chicks develop that way…
I noticed they still needed to get the parts from already-grown chickens, though. 🙂
They don’t know what Tildeb knows.
When he creates an egg, ask him to videotape it.
Sorry… my memory, donchaknow. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline. According to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.” Outside of the top biologists at elite universities, the rates for atheism and agnosticism are somewhat lower, but they still are dramatically higher than the rates found in the general population. According to a national survey of faculty at both four-year and two-year colleges and universities published in 2007, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics. I know that you don’t care about any of this because you don;t care what reality has to say about your religious beliefs. I also know you ask only in the hopes that you will score debating points.
“Biologists” is different from “Scientists,” Dear Leader.
Across ALL scientific disciplines, the belief in God is about 50/50.
He has his own reality. Quit forcing yours on him.
When he says “Creationism” he means “Six-day Creation, no-room-for-evolution, less than 10,000 year old earth.”
And, when he says “Science has shown ________” he means “many biologists think__________.”
But, whatever. Same thing. 🙂
We are mocking you, Dear Leader.
Do you still not understand that?
Claiming all of ‘reality’ as proof of your beliefs is amazingly stupid. It doesn’t fly here. We have called you out repeatedly and you persist.
Dismissing every theist comment as ‘not connected to reality’ is so astoundingly arrogant that I suspect you don’t actually believe what you’re saying.
But, John, as we all know, reality is determined by consensus! Facts hinge on what ideas are popular at the time! Science depends on majority opinion, not silly principles like observation or experimentation!
You haven’t spoken much with our Dear Leader. Reality is determined by Tildeb and Tildeb alone.
“[Collins’] theology in no way, shape, or fashion compliments or is compatible with his creationist beliefs. And he knows this! (As do all honest scientists, which may explain why some 97% of them in prestigious universities are self-proclaimed non believers.)”
I understand, though. Quoting 50% doesn’t sound quite so impressive. 🙂
I agree!
POOF!ism is ludicrous! Stupid and ridiculous! Point me toward a proponent of POOF!ism and we can attack them together!
That makes absolutely no sense, Tildeb whether you wish to believe it or not.
Your argument is literally, “I understand genetics better than God.”
LOL!
If you want to convince me, just build a chicken egg. When it hatches, that will convince me that God is pretty dumb.
Oh, and JB, I should mention that there are thousands and thousands of such examples not just in humans but throughout the animal and plant kingdoms.
Oh, and Tildeb, I should mention that thousands and thousands of examples do not in any way contradict the creation narrative.
I know, JB, and that’s the problem here. No matter what reality says about such claims as yours, you don’t care because you already believe something and that’s that. Reality plays no part.
JZ calls your condition of accepting faith-based belief over and above the modeling of reality based on evidence from it identical to ‘ignorance’… and he’s exactly right. Your religious mindset makes you ignorant because you have zero regard for knowledge adduced from reality… but only if such knowledge contradicts or is in conflict with or fails to comport to your religious beliefs. That’s when you pull a SoM or ColorStorm tactic of continuing to claim ‘God’ and pointing at something complex… as if by not understanding gives you license to claim ‘god’, to claim a false equivalency that anything less than perfect understanding and flawless duplication means your ignorance is just as well informed. It’s not. Your faith-beliefs are ignorance in action – without any knowledge to inform them or links to reality to support them that ARE available in other explanatory models. You just wave reality away and pretend the method we use to inform all the stuff you use and rely on throughout your day is somehow and suddenly insufficient when it comes to your religiously-inspired faith-based claims. You are remarkable example of religio-speak in action that rationalizes ignorance dressed up by religious beliefs to be suddenly be a virtue! Well, I’m calling bullshit. All this does is make you a hypocrite.
My original; comment was to Jess referring specifically to falsely advertising his medical knowledge to somehow and magically be compatible with his religious creationist beliefs. Well, they’re not. In fact, medical knowledge raises serious conflicts and incompatibilities with the creationist model and if I don;t call him out on his duplicity, you sure won’t… but only because it agrees with your religious beliefs!
Yes. Yes. I’m ignorant. I’m deluded. I’m denying reality. I know! You say this every time.
So demonstrate that you understand reality. Build a working chicken egg, Dear Leader.
If you can’t do that, then you can not demonstrate the ‘creationism model’ is at odds with ‘reality’.
@tildeb – I know I’m relatively new here, but it seems you’re operating on a very modern view of the world that is frankly disconcerting. I apologize if I’m misunderstanding you, but I gather from your posts that you believe you have no assumptions and that you are claiming pure knowledge of reality. Maybe you’re just overstating your case for hyperbole – which I suppose is fine in the context of this blog – but surely you recognize that you are operating on a set of assumptions.
Now whether or not the assumptions are better or worse than JB’s assumptions, I’m not interested in discussing at this time. I just want to know if you acknowledge that you have assumptions about reality, since it is not aparent from the above posts.
@tildeb- I understand that you have time constraints, but sources would be cool to have… the wiki article on Chromosome 2 doesn’t say that it’s only responsible for producing egg yolk. Now, I know wiki isn’t God (or objective reality as you understand it), but I think it’s somewhat helpful for basic fact checks. Either way, sources are nice things. If you include them (at the expense of your time, I understand), I’d at least be somewhat more apt to take seriously some of the things you say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
After looking at what you said more closely, I understand you were making two different points rather than reiterating one thing after the other. I now understand you were taking a vestigal approach to attack creationism. Regardless, I think sources would make things more clear. Thanks!
Galileo was always good at pissing off the pope.
They were very good friends.
And the bible (which you are now saying is true and inerrant) says your particular god, the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh, does not change
So, another day, another Branyan Contradiction.
But let’s be perfectly frank: If religion were true there’d be no need for faith. Faith is religions (necessitated) self-defence mechanism and without it belief would simply crumble under the fallacy of its unsubstantiated claims. Religion knows this and that is why faith is promoted as a virtue whereby the faithful are rewarded for enduring what is called, “tests of faith.” That is to say, the faithful are encouraged to remain ignorant, for without ignorance belief would be impossible. Faith and evidentialism cannot coexist. If something can be believed based on evidence it cannot also be believed on faith, and yet faith is the cornerstone of all religion belief. They are antithetical. The minute evidence appears faith is cast aside in favour of evidence. Belief based on evidence is rational; it follows from the evidence and is justified by it. Conversely, belief without evidence (faith) is irrational and cannot be legitimised by reasonable human beings.
“And the bible (which you are now saying is true and inerrant) says your particular god, the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh, does not change”
Another day, another Zande fundamentalist diatribe about stuff the Branyan never said.
Never.
Said.
You look like a fool EVERY time you post this and you post is again and again and again!
If Yhwh is a fictional construct, how does He ‘change his mind’
since He has no mind to change?
LOL!
“Yes or yes.”
He doesn’t understand satire.
This is the guy who proudly wrote ‘the longest example of Poe’s Law’ in the unintended universe.
The good news is…we get to use the dancing Zande gifs!
I doubt he even read past that chunk he copied…
But, yes, GIFs already!
And it’s not even 8:00am!
Going to be a good day…
The genius ATHEIST is arguing with me about my criticism of CHRISTIAN fundamentalism!
He should have just liked the post and been on his way.
Title of the Post: “The Saintliness of Stupidity” (subtitle, on Facebook: Mindless Compliance is NOT a Virtue.) It went over his head. Embarrassing! 🙂
He’s also back commenting on “Let’s Enslave the Heathen”…
You need to write a follow up!
If you want to spice it up, then maybe you can write “Let’s Keep the Heathen from Getting Insulin.”
LOL!
“Healthcare is Just for the Faithful.”
You need screenshots of their (truly pathetic) attempts to explain why their “human rights” hold any weight, if the natural rights that are described in the US Constitution don’t exist…
And then issue another challenge. “Beg for your insulin, without appealing to religion.” lol.
I don’t want to read through 400 idiotic comments.
I’ll email you.
(By the way, the reference to Human vs Natural rights came from this article… it’s pretty good! It takes a little extra reasoning ability and, to the dismay of some Theists like JZ, it does not come from the Bible.)
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4908
The old Zande Evasive Song and Dance
@Zande – As pointed below, Branyan is clearly satirical in the OP. Beyond that though, I think you have a different definition of faith than what healthy religious belief should have (similar to the satired Christian in Branyan’s OP). Biblical faith is likely not belief without evidence – but rather evidence based belief, surely similar to the worldview of your choice. We all have assumptions, and I can at least accept a position from you that recognizes that you have assumptions – which you may be apt to agree with, since I think your definition of faith is somewhat different than what I understand biblical faith to be.