The fool says in his heart , “There is no God.”
I had an online conversation with a fool recently.
This fool’s position is…”there is no evidence at all for Jesus Christ!”
This is a claim worthy of a world-class fool since it’s absurd to the point of comical.
It started innocently enough.
The December issue of Smithsonian Magazine contains an article entitled, “Unearthing the World of Jesus”. Essentially the article claims that archeologists have found some stuff that’s mentioned in the Bible. Not really a big deal unless your faith hinges on there being no evidence that anything written in scripture is true. That’s the problem that this particular atheist (let’s call him Afool) expressed.
The article is written as if the story about Jesus Christ is unquestioned historical fact. The use of may and might are so sown throughout the article that it reads like something from any gossip rag or like a show like Ancient Aliens. For a magazine that has excellent journalism and excellent research, I find this extremely unusual and largely inexcusable.
I pondered this. Why would someone who trusts the Smithsonian as a reliable source of excellent research be so undone by an article about the historical Jesus? Why not assume that the same excellent research applied to evolutionary science would be applied to archeological discoveries? Well, because Afool is a fool.
So I made a suggestion in the comment section under Afool’s blog:
“It would seem that your reason for subscribing to Smithsonian is similar to the reason religious people go to church; to have your faith affirmed. You’re convinced that Jesus is mythical and shame on the Smithsonian for publishing anything that opposes that view.”
And that turned out to be the perfect thing to say.
It seems you did not read my post, and made assumptions based on what you want to blindly accuse me of. No, John, I do not read the Smithsonian mag to have my “faith” affirmed. I have no faith, belief in things unseen just because I want to believe, but I do have trust, which is supported by evidence…
When you want to tweak an atheist, call atheism a faith. Afool doesn’t have faith. Afool has ‘trust’. It’s different from faith. Totally different. Trust requires evidence. And evidence is very important to Afool.
Despite the title, the article had no evidence for the character of Jesus Christ, son of God. One can see this because anything referring to this character had to invoke “may” or “might” with no evidence at all.
Afool believes (sorry, trusts) that an article entitled, “Unearthing the World of Jesus” should contain definitive proof that Jesus Christ was everything the New Testament claimed. Afool is outraged because not only is no proof revealed but the entire article offers no evidence at all.
Afool continues:
This article claimed that the palace of Herod was mentioned in the gospel of John, and the layout of the building claimed as the palace matched the description; the gospel of John doesn’t mention Herod’s palace at all, only Pilates’ and doesn’t describe the palace at all. That is amazingly bad research to make such an erroneous claim.
I’m a sensitive guy. I hate to see someone anguish unnecessarily. I tried to ease Afool’s troubled mind and wrote:
“In the Gospel of John (18:28) it describes Jesus being taken to the Roman Governor’s house (some translations call it the Praetorium) which is also called Herod’s Palace. In chapter 19, verse 9 of the same book, there is a reference to Pilot going ‘…back inside the palace…’ after a conversation with the Jews…”
That’s a reasonable explanation for the Smithsonian’s ‘erroneous claim’.
Afool responded:
We still have no evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, only a description of a building. Now, if that is evidence, then Spider-man must be real since the stories about him have him living in New York City and Jack Ryan exists because he works in Washington DC, and Athena and Poseidon exist since they contested over getting the city now called Athens after them.
Evidence is only helpful when when you recognize it. Giving evidence to Afool is like giving an ice cube to a man in the desert and having him say, “No! I need water!”
At no point in the Smithsonian article does the author claim, suggest, intimate, advise, state or subtly imply; that the discovery of Herod’s Palace is proof that Jesus existed. There’s a reason for that. Such a deduction is stupid.
For the remainder of our discussion Afool demonstrates the power of atheistic argument by setting up ludicrous faith claims then demanding that I give evidence to support them.
The evidence Afool seeks is, quite literally, everywhere.
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 people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
I didn’t want Afool to think I was only capable of disagreement so I did offer this final response:
“If the Smithsonian article had referred to ‘The Big Apple’ you could correctly say the article never mentioned New York City.
When I say, ‘The Big Apple is another name for New York City’, you would be correct in saying, ‘That doesn’t prove Spider-Man exists.’
And I agree with you that Herod’s Palace in no way proves Jesus was the Son of God.”
The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.
18 Responses
I enjoyed this blog – especially looking at the teeth of the fool.
After skimming that article and the comments section, John, I greatly admire the fact that you managed to entertain that discussion so long. I think I could’ve learnt the art of ice sculpting in the time you sadly wasted on other people’s stubbornness.
This is pretty funny bro 😀 I myself recently had an experience with this atheist. I shared a video by J. Warner Wallace on how the origin of life pointed to God’s existence on my own blog. She came on to my site, didn’t debunk a thing the video argued, and rambled on about things completely irrelevant to the video. She seems to be just another atheist seeking Christian sites to impose her views (I’ve seen her on other apologetic sites and she basically copies and pastes her comments). I told her if she didn’t have a legitimate argument against the video I posted, she should stop posting comments. I wrote that nearly two days ago, and still no reply…..
Wow. You’re correct – she really showed us. Showed us some comedy that is. Good for her.
Well – after reading this and Club’s blog post – I feel as if I’ve wasted one million minutes watching (reading) bad remakes of best-of Dr. Evil scenes. I can’t prove I feel that way though – so she’ll just have to trust me. And just what is that she’s doing over there – a Dungeons and Dragons discussion group disguised as a blog? Wowza! Dusting my feet off again.
Oh come on, Kevin! Don’t dust!
Sometimes it’s good to see bankruptcy in other world views. I used to be intimidated by the ‘intellectual rationalists’ and ‘free thinkers’. After a few encounters it dawned on me that they’re not thinkers at all. Ask them a question and they immediately start calling you names!
And sometimes it’s hilarious! You should go check out the latest blog post where she posts panels from a comic book as defense of moral relativity. She rejects hundreds of years of biblical scholarship in favor of superhero theology! Come on, man, that’s comedy!
John, thank you for posting this. You have done more than any atheist could have done to show your religion to be ridiculous since you don’t obey it either.
I know you’ll want others to see just what you posted on my blog. It’s just that you forgot in your haste to actually link to my blog, right?
My blog is Club Schadenfreude here on WordPress and the title of the post is “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – myth, fact and what should be presented in a magazine about science and history” posted on December 25, 2015. I’ll post the link in another post.
Here is the first post and everyone can see what a Christian comedian has to say about his own religion by reading all of the rest, especially when John says”I yield to your superior intellect” (December 31, 2015 at 5:29 PM). Were you lying there, John? Or is this showing you agree with my points?
Now, I wonder, was Jesus right when he said this “Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matthew 5?
And the links: http://clubschadenfreude.com/2015/12/25/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-myth-fact-and-what-should-be-presented-in-a-magazine-about-science-and-history/#comment-8085
This is all I’ll post. As I said, I don’t have to do the work John Branyan is doing so well for my points.
Club! Welcome to my blog!
I didn’t forget to link to your blog. The omission was an act of mercy. I was trying to keep your comments from being scrutinized by other thinking people. I made my point and it didn’t seem kind to send other people to your blog just so they could ‘pile on’. No reason to kick a person when they’re down. I was worried that some of my readers would research the meaning of your blog name and dismiss your writings as the ranting of a lunatic.
There’s not much chance that you’ll be further challenged. Historically, my blog posts on the subject of atheism don’t generate much discussion. Apparently, atheism isn’t interesting to my regular readers.
But you’re going to need to be more careful if you’re planning on engaging on this blog space. It’s not inhabited by the same ‘yes men’ that comment on your space. You’ll have to substantiate your statements with facts, logic or both. Condescension is not an argument. Inconsistency will be pointed out.
For instance…
If you expect to be taken seriously for your view that Jesus is a fictional character, it is unwise to quote His words. Apparently, you seem to think that Matthew 5 has some philosophical importance. Curious. Is the Bible an ancient book of myths or not?
The futility of arguing with convinced atheists often reminds me of the philosophy teacher that gave his students the assignment of proving that his chair did not exist. The only child who got an A turned in a paper of two words: “What chair?”
The point being that once the human mind decides something, no amount of “proof” will shake that belief. They don’t want proof. They’ve made their choice, and all the proof in the world will not change it.
I am not sure I completely agree with you there. I was raised Catholic, then was a Mormon, then a practicing pagan shaman, then searched for a unification theory of all the world’s religions, and finally a semi-atheistic agnostic (There is no God…probably). It wasn’t until I was in my thirties that I became convinced that out of all the world’s faith systems, Christianity was the true one. Up until that point, I was either following someone else, or didn’t want it to be true and had convinced myself that it wasn’t, because I liked my sin more. So minds and hearts can change. Is that not the very description of repentance?
Everyone believes in something, and I’m not saying that hearts and minds can’t change. Not at all. That would mean witnessing is pointless. What I am saying is that someone who vehemently denies God’s existence and fails to be open to even the possibility of God has made up his mind, and you won’t shake that by mere conversation. It would take God’s own intervention. The best debaters go into a discussion knowing there is a possibility that they could be wrong. People who don’t have that understanding don’t want to be challenged. They want to be right.
Thank you for yet another great read and a few laughs along the way
I never tire of reading what you write. I also agree with your daughter. We often have more influence than it seems.
Gos? Oy! Obviously that should have been God…where’s my coffee?
This is why I largely avoid such online discussions. Most of the people involved are in no way interested in truth. They are interested in winning the argument by any means necessary, often at the expense of the truth.
I’m hear you, Michael. I have a tendency toward disengaging for exactly that reason.
My daughter scolded me a couple of years ago for bowing out of online discussions. She pointed out that there are ‘lurkers’ on the discussion boards who don’t actively participate but they follow the dialogue. These people are (sometimes) open to considering another point of view and they can be persuaded…but you’ll never know it.
The Internet equivalent of the guy in the booth behind you in the coffee shop having his life changed via eavesdropping? Well, Gos has worked through stranger methods than that, I suppose. Talking donkeys, false prophets, stand up philosophers…