Wednesday, January 13, 2010

What If Christianity WereTrue?

If Christianity was true, what would we expect? No real historical record of the life of Jesus (outside of the contradictory and apparently legendary accounts in the gospels); a savior who comes to save humankind from the fate of hell, but who tells his disciples that "blessed are they who have not seen me, and yet believe") and who, after his resurrection from the dead, leaves the planet with only a few witnesses watching him disappear into the clouds. Smells awfully like a cult to me, where delusion rather than facts rule the mind.

"Where is Jesus?"

"Uh, he disappeared into the clouds, went up to heaven."

"What! Can't I see him? I really want to believe in this Jesus of yours if he's real."

"Nope, he won't come back until the end of the world."

"Well, when is that?"

"Soon, very soon."

"Well, I'll wait till he's back then."

"He's coming VERY soon, yes, but remember that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, so you might be dead before He comes back. Besides, if you wait until He returns, it will be too late. He'll cast you into the eternal flames with all the other unbelievers".

"What? Why? I thought he loved me."

"Oh, He does, VERY much, that's why He died on the cross for you. But you have to believe he rose from the dead to be saved."

"I'm not believing any nonsense like people rising from the dead unless I can see the proof for myself!"

"It's there in the Holy Gospels."

"That's no proof! There are lots of fanciful stories I can read. Do you believe everything you read? I sure don't! Now, how am I supposed to get saved without seeing this Jesus myself?"

"Faith. You must have faith."

"Faith? Only a lie needs faith in order to 'believe' that it's true. I'm outta here!"

"Okay. Go to hell!"


Wouldn't we instead expect something like the following if Christianity was true?:


Let's start with a basic, "mere" theism. If there is a God, even an all-powerful, all-knowing one, and quite capable of performing any miracle, it wouldn't automatically follow that God would make miracles part of its plan for the world. All of this God's purposes might be accomplished through "natural" means, without any obvious interventions going on. At the same time, this God could even be answering prayers, but without revealing itself directly (and prayer experiments would therefore be worthless in detecting the efficacy of prayer, as such a God would refuse to make its existence known by such tests).

So it's possible a God exists who accomplishes its ends without overt supernatural means.

But let's now consider the Christian God. Unlike a generic God (the God of a philosophical theist) the specific God imagined by Christianity is out to save the world (John 3:16) by means of a plan that does involve miracles, including the major miracle of the resurrection of Jesus. That being the case, this God would want to make the evidence of his plan indisputable (you would think) since everyone's eternal destiny depends on it. Of course, you could make the assertion that the evidence is adequate (it isn't) or at least that it is enough, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to get people saved. But how many people? God, the Bible tells us, "is not willing that any should perish". So why not make the historical evidence for Jesus' death for our sins something that a reasonable person could at least consider more reliable than it appears to be? Couldn't Jesus have come down from the cross?

Okay, so he HAD to die (why?) but even so, he wouldn't have had to interrupt his suffering on the cross in response to the taunts of "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!" and "He saved others, but he can't save himself", in order to stun the crowd that was watching him die.



After dying he could have come back to life right then and there, instead of being taken down from the cross and buried for LESS than three days and rising without anyone but his followers seeing him afterward. He could have died and then rose right on the cross, with light enveloping him and his limbs freeing themselves from the torture stake. He could have "come down" and partly fulfilled his failed prophecy of "this generation" seeing "the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory" by then rising into the clouds and coming back down again before meeting with his disciples and leaving again until the second coming.

Would there not then have been contemporary historical reports of the resurrection, reports outside the religious documents of the gospels?

If Christianity were true, we might also expect other things, like the passage in Mark 16 (not in the oldest manuscripts, but that's not the point) that says:


And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”


actually being witnessed among believers (and no, Appalachian snake handling churches don't count) to this day.

Everyday occurrences of ordinary believers laying hands on the sick and having the sick instantly healed (having the power would be a sign that you were really saved) would be a constant, continuing proof that Christianity is the true religion and that all the others are phony baloney.

Further, how about when you ask Jesus into your heart, you actually see him in the flesh, just like old Doubting Thomas? How many ex-Christians would there be then? You could fall on your knees like in a Chick tract, only instead of just a feeling, you'd see Jesus and talk to him right there! Unbelieving mockers around you would see nothing, and think you'd gone crazy, but you could have them say the sinner's prayer and see Jesus too. Many people continually testifying to the same thing over and over would get even the most hardened skeptic to consider doing the same just to prove whether it was real or not.


Of course, the above could only happen in a world where Christianity was not a delusion.

28 comments:

  1. Aha !
    You've made good points here.

    I like the "Jesus could have came down from the cross" idea.
    Why didn't he just do that? I have heard theists claim god doesn't manifest himself better because he WANTS us to have faith, to believe without proof.

    My theory is, if god gave us a mind (and if your christian, surely he did), why would he punish us for using that gift?
    Why make us doubt his existence at all, really?

    Yes, that's right - because it's not at all real. Religion exists as a control device. No one can possibly see god, or see Jesus raise from the dead, because they are just imaginary.

    And that, as I see it, is Historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing that interests me about Christianity is the paralells it shares with occult sun worship (ironic since xtians look down on those heathen pagans).

    It seems to be an occult religion in itself, with conventional Christianity on the outside and the sun deity version being the 'hidden knowledge' for insiders only.

    Then again, maybe I'm falling for one of Satan's devious tricks, who knows... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey guys,

    I actually believe the accounts, just so you know who is speaking here. I wanted to put that up front.

    I agree with the layout of your question/answer conversation, though. It seems Christians answer questions exactly like that. I am a Bible teacher and spend a lot of time talking with believers and non-believers alike and I am constantly running into people who don't use their minds on both sides of the fence. It kinda makes me feel like a dummy or at least that that is what everyone thinks when they hear the word Christian attached to me. I believe that I am playing for the winning team but it seems we have more cheerleaders than players.

    Anyway, there is more logical and reasonable explanations to every point you guys have made that is far from being a stretch. I answer skeptical questions all the time and am knowledgeable in the bible and the history behind it and would be willing to explain some of them if you would like. I don't expect you to jump on that but I thought I would ask instead of just jumping on someone else's blog and posting a bunch of garb that no one is interested in.

    I will not push faith as an answer, either.

    Just thought I'd ask, seeing that I find that most people I talk to generally have these kinds of questions/comments until you start answering them with reasonable answers. Then it seems that they become indignant BECAUSE the answers are reasonable.

    I guess that would be a question I would have for people in your position; "Is it because you thought the answers would be so ridiculous that when there is a reasonable answer, you become indignant?" and "Do you really even want the answer, or were you hoping to be entertained by a ridiculous explanation not realizing there is a reasonable answer?"

    Kinda like the "Christianity being compared to sun worship" comment. I see it made it to this board but it is very common in formal and informal debates that I participate in. That has been debunked now for almost 60 years. There are no parallels between any one pagan god and any story of the Bible. I'm surprised at the assertions without quotes from sources (not here because I understand that that is not what this board was trying to do). But anyway....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you really even want the answer, or were you hoping to be entertained by a ridiculous explanation not realizing there is a reasonable answer

    Personally, I've never been anything but entertained by the absolute drivel theists offer as answers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are no parallels between any one pagan god and any story of the Bible.

    ROFL. Look up Mithraism and get back to us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Look up Mithraism and get back to us.

    The response from Christians is usually that the Mithra cult was stealing ideas from the Christ cult.

    Sam, go ahead, fire away!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @SE
    Found your blog after reading your funny comment concerning people wearing suit at Makarios'. I don't reply there anymore though, he pissed me off too much... lol.

    @Sam
    "Is it because you thought the answers would be so ridiculous that when there is a reasonable answer, you become indignant?"

    Personnaly what I find laughable is that theists actually believe that their so-called "rational" explanations are less ridiculous than any other explanation of the form "Magic being X did magical action Z".

    "Do you really even want the answer, or were you hoping to be entertained by a ridiculous explanation not realizing there is a reasonable answer?"

    A reasonable answer does not contain a supernatural unproven deity, can you provide such answers? No, because that's this particular supernatural deity that you're actually trying to explain. Or 'would' try I should say, since we have yet to read these reasonable answers of yours.

    I would love to be proven wrong Sam, please procede with your answers, if SE does not mind...

    ReplyDelete
  8. if SE does not mind.

    Hugo, thanks for the comments! And no, I don't mind. Comment if you'd like to, Sam.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sam?... Sam?... Sam?... Yo Sam!... Sammy!... Sam? Sam?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Funny.

    Sorry. I became suddenly busy. Certainly my day job is excusable?

    To the Original post:
    No where in the Bible does it say that God was trying to show 21st century Americans (or anyone else for that matter) that he was real by signs and wonders, nor does it say that that was God's goal. After all was said and done, the self-righteous Jews would see that God was seemingly on Jesus' side given the fact that God worked through him and not them. Even when they Killed him, God raised him from the dead. They killed him. God raised him. The implication was, “You are not on the same page with God if he is working opposite you”. So it was not a sign to the Jews that God was real, but that he was on Jesus' side and not theirs. That also would explain why we don't need signs today. Jesus is not concerned whether or not you feel the historical accounts are enough to convince you that he existed and neither is God. He only cares about whether you agree. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus was interested in convincing people that God is real. It was he who said “don't cast your pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs”.

    When Jesus said that his generation would see him coming on Clouds, he was using language found in the Old Testament and always meant he would bring another nation (in the Old Testament it was the Assyrians and later the Babylonians) against them to destroy them. In 70ad the Romans DID destroy the Jews. It was in fact in Jesus' generation and Caiaphas the High priest who heard Jesus say that is recorded by Josephus as dying in that siege. Coming on clouds is a metaphor that spoke of the invincibility of Jesus. How can you fight against something if it is riding on clouds? That is typical of the entire Bible and eastern poetry for that matter.

    I guess what I mean by that is that you can't bring the Bible under question based on your misconceptions. It seems that your original post is full of them; yours and the imaginary second person. Not without excuse, I understand. The level of study and knowledge of the Bible by those who would swear by every word of it today is scant.

    If there was a part of your original post you wanted me to address that you feel needs to be, just say so. I really am trying to keep this short and the biggest part of your arguments that I found needing to be addressed dealt with Jesus' claims seemingly failing or why we don't get to see miracles today.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To the next few posts:

    I knew Mithraism would come up. It is the one everyone points to as legitimate. However, the earliest texts or art that refer to Mithras, which is where we get all of the info on Mithras, all post-date Christianity (4th or 5th century). Franz Cumont, an early authority (1800) on Mithraism, claimed that the Persian Mitra was the same as the Roman Mithras thus seemingly predating Christ with some reliefs. However, that has been disproved as early as 1911 when the Encyclopedia Britannica compared Cumont's findings with contemporary findings of historians and archaeologists. Though the Roman Mithraism did predate Christianity, no known texts or reliefs have survived to confirm that the religion was unchanged by the 4th century, when the most ancient texts and reliefs in extant, appear.

    Anyway, I have taught on the Christ-myth theory a few times now and it is true that Mithras is the closest to Jesus, but after seeing the effect that Christianity had on the Germanic god Odin in a relatively short amount of time, by meshing Odin with St Nicholas, I think I will have to take the approach that nonbelievers do; that is, if the one predates the other, it must necessarily borrow from the other. :)

    You have to admit though, when non-believers point out the similarities of Mithras and Jesus, they simply conclude Christianity stole it from Mithras, but when non-believers find that it is the other way around, then they act like Christians are ridiculous to suggest that the Mithras myth copied Christianity. It seems the Christian reasoning is not that unreasonable given they are only suggesting what the Christ-myth believers are.

    I would like to see some ACTUAL evidence that Mithras closely resembles Christ. I find nothing but assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hugo you said,

    “Personnaly what I find laughable is that theists actually believe that their so-called "rational" explanations are less ridiculous than any other explanation of the form "Magic being X did magical action Z".”

    I would have to say you're right. It is ridiculous, but I find that that is true with any explanation of our origins, be it natural or metaphysical; it is all ridiculous. I can't explore abiogenesis, or even the theory of evolution no better than Scientists can explore “magical being x” . However, scientists would have us believe that abiogenesis is possible without even proving that spontaneous generation could even occur, or that evolution has made it beyond a working hypothesis without ever having seen a new specie transition or transform from a previous one. We have billions of fossils of almost 200,000 species of animals and not even twenty transitional forms in which to build a case for evolution. So when I say that I believe that the world was created by “Magical being x”, I at least have something by which to build my case on, like paleontology, anthropology, archeology, and not to mention eyewitness testimony to almost all of it. That is a very reasonable approach to the Bible.

    If I wanted to explore whether the God of the Bible is true or not, it is not a reasonable, scientific approach to rule out the bible as any source of evidence. You may not trust the New Testament manuscripts, but I don't know why. We have more information about Christ's life than any other historical figure. For instance, the earliest record of Alexander the Great conquering the known world are recorded 400 years after it happened, yet we don't throw it out for that reason. Sure it doesn't contain people rising from the dead, but read the Bible. It does not treat resurrection as a normal occurrence. It actually treats it as SE does in the original post: that it fairytale-esque.

    So when I weigh the evidence of the manuscripts of the Bible and compare that to the evidence provided for evolution, I find greater conviction to believe the historical accounts of the New Testament, given that I can at least OBSERVE the evidences. The Bible was written by man, but so was any contemporary rejection of it. So which one should you believe? The one making assertions 2000 years later or someone who claims to be an eyewitness and a contemporary of the events of Jesus' life? The scientific method is observation, leaving only one choice.

    My explanation may sound ridiculous but mine is not the only one and if they are both ridiculous then they are both equally reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow Sam, thanks for showing how far from understanding evolution you are, but what does this have to do with the current post? or since you addressed your last comment to me directly, what does it have to do with my comment?

    Anyway. I guess it's pointless to go back to the subject as you showed how irrational and illogical you are when it comes to analyzing scientific evidence, even though that was not the point here, lol. Pathetic...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Look up bananas, Sam.

    Look up Gilgamesh, while you're researching. While it does not resemble Jesus, it predates the bible - it predates jews.
    Now, if the OT is a copy of the Gilgamesh myth, does it stand to reason that everything after is built on a faulty foundation ?

    Jesus is a fraud, because Yahweh never existed to be his father.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hugo:

    Wow Sam, thanks for showing how far from understanding evolution you are, but what does this have to do with the current post? or since you addressed your last comment to me directly, what does it have to do with my comment?

    Are you side stepping? Come on, Hugo. This is your game; your court if I'm the one who is “irrational and illogical...when it comes to analyzing scientific evidence”, remember? Don't bail now. You've got me in your sights. lol

    My post responded to your post perfectly. Nice try.

    You said, “theists actually believe that their so-called "rational" explanations are less ridiculous than any other explanation of the form "Magic being X did magical action Z”. I stepped it up to include the ridiculous suggestions that evolutionists make.

    What I did was include the nominal “scientist's” so called “rational” explanations in the “ridiculous” category that you created. Then I broke down my “ridiculous” explanations and compared them to your scientists' “explanations”.

    I'm sorry that my other post was a little too long for you to read without getting lost. That is, I guess, why evolutionists draw pictures of transitional forms; because otherwise we wouldn't see them, and to keep people like you on track. But hey, if you want to do the whole, “I guess you're dumb afterall... and I'm really not dumb” routine, I will back you all the way, broseph. Good luck with all that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey mac,.....

    Yeah... "bananas".....I guess you had to be there.

    Gilgamesh is a good story, but I don't see how the foundation of the bible rests on anything from his story. If there were parallels, I would say, "Sure. That would make it shaky." I'm not denying that the Bible could be a repeat of former myths. I'm only saying that that remains to be seen.

    In the book, "A Devil's Chaplain" by Richard Dawkins, there is a letter he wrote to his 10 year old daughter where he said, "...Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: "Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority, or revelation?" And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

    Now mac, when you say, "Jesus is a fraud, because Yahweh never existed to be his father." is that something you know because of evidence? Or is it something you only believe because of tradition, authority, or revelation?

    Huh? Huh? Huh?

    Let's give it the ol Dawkins test. "What kind of evidence is there for that?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. SE,

    hugo may have turned me on to something that I may be missing. My comments were aimed at eliminating the argument that "if God were real he could have proved it by such and such". The approach I took was to point out that the Bible does not indicate that God ever worked miracles for the purpose of proving he was real. So if the God of the Bible were real, it seems like it would be out of character to respond in anyway that you suggested given the trend set by the Bible.

    Then I wanted to address the minor misconception that a prophecy of Jesus failed to come true when he fulfilled exactly the same way God did a similar prophecy in the Old Testament.

    Was that understood by inference or did I in fact lose everyone with psycho-babble? I am prone to assume people know what I am talking about but I thought that it was fairly clear.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @SAM 1/3
    First, let me address these comments:
    - Are you side stepping? Come on, Hugo
    - Don't bail now. You've got me in your sights. Lol
    - My post responded to your post perfectly. Nice try.
    - I'm sorry that my other post was a little too long for you to read without getting lost


    It's not that I don't want to answer you, it's not that I don't understand you, it's not that you wrote too many complicated things for my mind to handle, it's the complete opposite of them all. You're the one who is not able to stick to the subject and who brought ideas that were not related to this blog post, and not related to my comment when you made a personal response. You're the one who lost his way, who does not know how to convey a discussion on one idea. Finally, you're the one who assumes that he knows what the other person believes in.

    So, to summarize what happened here, all I said in my comment, that was addressed to you, is that I find ridiculous to believe arguments of the type "Magic being X did magical action Z", because it involves believing in unproven supernatural claims, which I won't ever come close to believe. That's it.

    Now, just to prove you wrong, let's address your points sir.

    First, let's get something out of the way: evolution. YOU brought it in the conversation, for no reason, even though you claimed that it was for this reason:

    "I stepped it up to include the ridiculous suggestions that evolutionists make. [...] Then I broke down my “ridiculous” explanations and compared them to your scientists' “explanations”. [...]
    "

    My scientists explanations? What the fuck are you talking about? When did I mention any scientists supporting any of my claims? And did I make any claims by the way? You are so bad at sticking to a subject that you don't even realize what I talked about or not.

    You have an idea in your mind of what someone from "the other side" is and you just think you know the person already. What an idiot you are. You're assuming knowledge of the other person's beliefs when you know nothing, sweet nothing.

    The only things I told you about evolution, after YOU brought it to the conversation, is that you obviously do not know what you are talking about. I am not making any claims, I am not supporting the idea here, all I know is that you are misrepresenting it. I am no biologist and obiouvlsy you are not, so thank you for sharing your ideas, but I don't give a shit. I believe what biologists say, and it's nothing that you presented here. An example just to conclude?
    "We have billions of fossils of almost 200,000 species of animals and not even twenty transitional forms in which to build a case for evolution."
    Every single fossil is a transitional fossil in the sense that living organism always change. You're using random numbers to give credibility to a claim that is ridiculous no matter what. We don't even need to look at your numbers to see that you don't understand how evolution is explained by modern biology. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @SAM 2/3

    Back to the Christianity is just another myth issue. To my claim that
    "Personally what I find laughable is that theists actually believe that their so-called "rational" explanations are less ridiculous than any other explanation of the form "Magic being X did magical action Z"."
    you replied that I was right and that you agree. From there you decided to talk about the origin of life and bash evolution, as if it had anything to do with my comment.
    So obviously, no, you do not agree with me, because I was only referring to the beliefs in magical events that some people believe in. To me, there is no difference between these two claims:
    - A witch cast a spell on a person and made him disappear
    - Jesus' body disappeared from his grave
    These are events considered, by both believers and non-believers, as being supernatural, i.e. magic. There is no difference, it's the same. And I don't believe such claims, no matter how many people tell me it's true, no matter how many books were written on it, no matter what personal experiences people had while thinking about one of the characters. I don't care. It's magic, and I don't believe it,

    Let's move on to this next quote:
    So when I say that I believe that the world was created by “Magical being x”, I at least have something by which to build my case on, like paleontology, anthropology, archeology, and not to mention eyewitness testimony to almost all of it. That is a very reasonable approach to the Bible.

    Here I jumped at the words "at least I have..." as if, again, you knew what my view on the origin of the world was, and that yours was somehow better. Your explanation is "better" because you claim to support your case with "paleontology, anthropology, archeology". This makes sense, but the problem is that you obviously don't analyze the data provided by such fields of study properlly, because all you can learn is that there were people who believed the same things as you. That's what you can prove, nothing more. You, and all the believers before, believed in magic. You think that these scientific fields confirm your beliefs in magic because these people believed in magic too. But you are wrong, you have no proof that magical actions X1, X2, X3 are true, only that people believed it. In your case it's the magical actions included in Christianity, but it could be any other sets of beliefs in supernatural claims and the idea would be the same, you'd have proofs that some people, somewhere, sometime, believed them. Christianity has the good reputation of having the best examples and best evidence, but isn't obvious that it's because historically they had more power? So history is actually talking against you, you are just too faithful in your particular religion to realize it.

    The proof is that you included in the same category "eyewitness testimony" as another example. Weird as you started this sentence by saying that "the world was created by Magical being x"". So you have eyewitness account of the world being created? Wow. Please share that with the world sir!!

    Ok, obviously, that's not what you meant, you just did a mistake. Because you concluded by saying that "That is a very reasonable approach to the Bible". So you were not talking about how the world was created but talking about your approach to the Bible. So it only showed that you have messed up your logical argument and that you are confusing 'rejecting the Bible as being true' and giving explanations for 'the origin of the world'. But what else can we expect from someone who does not understand between the difference real and imaginary things?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @SAM 3/3

    Let's move on:
    If I wanted to explore whether the God of the Bible is true or not, it is not a reasonable, scientific approach to rule out the bible as any source of evidence.
    Who cares, you can use the Bible or not, it's not going to change the fact that you have this idea of a god in your head, and you think that this conceptual being somehow has impacts on the reality we live in. You have no way to demonstrate how, you just believe it because other people did, and point to all bunch of texts to prove your point. You can point to the Bible and say that this or this part is true, but you know that most of it is metaphorical or poetic and that you should not take it literally. Yet at the same time, you want to use that same Bible as a source of evidence to prove supernatural claims. You are being inconsistent, you are cherry picking and you try to support your beliefs in magic with a book.

    You may not trust the New Testament manuscripts, but I don't know why.

    Because it is obviously filled with magic references, supernatural claims and distorted facts? Asterix&Obelix are characters of fiction living in a real setting in history. Same thing with Jesus. He might well represent a real person, but that does not make his magical actions true.

    Having that said, the Alexander the Great example you give is obviously irrelevant, as nobody cares if he existed or not, the point is that there was a political figure, at that time, that did some actions and conquered some land, etc... if they also mentioned that he drank some blood from a fancy fountain and became super strong, I would not believe it, come on!

    By the way, I also noticed your last comment where you mentioned that "comments were aimed at eliminating the argument that "if God were real he could have proved it by such and such"." But since God is imaginary there is no point in discussing that, you can define your imaginary friends with any character traits you wish to attribute to it, it's pointless. You believe it and I don't, so your arguments and the points that you raise either confirm the existence of such deity or not.

    Finally, I won't quote the rest of the answer I am currently addressing as it goes back to comparing evidence for evolution with evidence for the Bible. The only thing that this shows is that for you, there are two kind of people: the ones who believe your religion, who believe that kind of magic, and the others, who do not accept your religion, and believe in another kind of magic. Well you are wrong. I personally reject your religion just like I reject any other myths, or any other supernatural claims, or any other magical beings, magical actions, and so on... If you consider other things, such as evolution, to be magic, well I do not believe them either. Obviously, the problem is that you're the one who claims that evolution sounds ridiculous and magic-like; biologists do not.

    Side note:
    Sam, you'll get the last word here, as I decided this week to stop completely this habit of commenting online, for personal reasons. You had addressed one of your comments directly to me so I decided to reply today anyway.
    That's it, I am done.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good! because you're wasting your time.

    It's not that I don't want to answer you, it's not that I don't understand you, it's not that you wrote too many complicated things for my mind to handle, it's the complete opposite of them all. You're the one who is not able to stick to the subject and who brought ideas that were not related to this blog post, and not related to my comment when you made a personal response. You're the one who lost his way, who does not know how to convey a discussion on one idea. Finally, you're the one who assumes that he knows what the other person believes in.

    No sir! You are exactly wrong. It is that you do not understand. You said, “Personnaly what I find laughable is that theists actually believe that their so-called "rational" explanations are less ridiculous than any other explanation of the form "Magic being X did magical action Z".
    If you did understand logic and the English language, you would see that you speak of theists in the third person, calling their explanations laughable and ridiculous. Third person reference + zero affinities to there position = not a theist. There are exactly two positions in our world with reference to theism; you know what they are and you now know that it is perfect logic to “assume” you believe in natural selection, ESPECIALLY with your “magical being x” comment. Figure it out!

    Now, just to prove you wrong, let's address your points sir.

    First, let's get something out of the way: evolution. YOU brought it in the conversation, for no reason, even though you claimed that it was for this reason:


    "I stepped it up to include the ridiculous suggestions that evolutionists make. [...] Then I broke down my “ridiculous” explanations and compared them to your scientists' “explanations”. [...]
    "


    Of course I brought it into the conversation, Sherlock, but it is because there are only two beliefs complete with two different sets of explanations. You think the “magical being x” explanation is ridiculous: I agreed. From a natural stand point, it is ridiculous. BUT, homestar runner, YOU came from a different belief system and position that makes EXTREMELY ridiculous explanations complete with hand drawn illustrations. So guess what? I was saying I think that explanations like “unproven theory x brought about totally fabricated z” is equally ridiculous. Don't start cussing like I am lost just because you don't understand English, Paco.

    My scientists explanations? What the fuck are you talking about? When did I mention any scientists supporting any of my claims? And did I make any claims by the way?

    Yeah, genius. You said, “I guess it's pointless to go back to the subject as you showed how irrational and illogical you are when it comes to analyzing scientific evidence...”. Really? Based on who's standard? YOURS. That is what we English speaking folk call a claim, Huey. However, it is your scientists who are the ones saying that stuff. You attributed it me, but it is the ones that you think are the authority that are perpetuating the claims and they are also the ones saying it is completely unproven. I didn't interpret anything. I just posted what they say. So it's not me being illogical or irrational, it is the ones who you think have the authority to interpret such evidences, hence “YOUR” scientists. I am just an English speaking man who can read their so called “scientific” statements and use their own interpretations to decide that they have no clue what in the world is going on but as long as they have lemmings like Hugo hanging “icons of evolution” drawings up in his home office, well then, they can lead them over a cliff for all I care.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You have an idea in your mind of what someone from "the other side" is and you just think you know the person already. What an idiot you are. You're assuming knowledge of the other person's beliefs when you know nothing, sweet nothing.

    Yet your following arguments didn't surprise me when I read them. I'm not clairvoyant yet I could have written the rest of your post for you and said essentially the same thing. I would assume after a statement like this you would have blind-sided me with a clever catch from here on out. But no, Mr. Originality said everything everyone of your sheep buddies say. All yall sound the same. I have been doing this for years and there has not been any new evidences or attitudes.

    The only things I told you about evolution, after YOU brought it to the conversation, is that you obviously do not know what you are talking about. I am not making any claims, I am not supporting the idea here, all I know is that you are misrepresenting it.

    No I am misrepresenting what you would like it to say. Get your facts straight, Leroy.
    I am no biologist and obiouvlsy you are not, so thank you for sharing your ideas, but I don't give a shit. I believe what biologists say,
    Shocker. Wow. Outta left field with that one. You hid it so well....
    and it's nothing that you presented here. An example just to conclude?
    "We have billions of fossils of almost 200,000 species of animals and not even twenty transitional forms in which to build a case for evolution."
    Every single fossil is a transitional fossil in the sense that living organism always change.
    But they don't change into other species, Darwin. If you think they do, well then I have a question from Dawkins for you: “What kind of evidence is there for that?”
    You're using random numbers to give credibility to a claim that is ridiculous no matter what. We don't even need to look at your numbers to see that you don't understand how evolution is explained by modern biology. Case closed.

    Biology might explain HOW we evolved through gradual mutations, but the thing that would prove whether we did or not, in English is pronounced: (his tor ee). That's right! History! So now we come back to the subject of “proof”. Because, I hate to burst your bubble but if we don't find proof that evolution took place, then we don't need biology to explain how it took place. Unless biology explains why geology and paleontology cannot find any proof of evolution? I mean help me out... I'm too irrational to consider this stuff. Can biology be used to tell us why there are no transitional forms?
    Oh Yeah! You said, “ Every single fossil is a transitional fossil”
    To you, Dorthy! But you a opt for no evidence rather than “magical” explanations. If you think the Fossil record is complete, then more power to you, but your scientists don't think so and I am inclined to agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. YOU came from a different belief system and position that makes EXTREMELY ridiculous explanations complete with hand drawn illustrations

    GREAT conclusion to the discussion.
    Thanks, you made my day! :D

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sam,
    Bananas are merely a very easy to see example of evolution. Had you not been so keen on "proving your stubborness, you might have checked it for yourself.

    As to no archaeological or anthpological evidence of evolution and no transitional evidence, you really need to update your argument a bit.
    Darwins theories are 150 years old.... a lot of advances have been made in the meantime.

    In fact there is evidence of Man's transition. We have archaeological evidence of Homo Hablis, in Africa, Homo Erectus, in China and Homo Neanderthalensis,in Europe and more!
    This is real science, mind you, not the pseudo-science stuff that is passed around at your local church.

    As to proving God doesn't exist; He's done that for us. All the claims of magical mysticism and supernatyral powers are not now, nor were they ever, manifest. A great many claims have been made that are physically impossible, things that can, in no way be, accomplished. If one makes fanciful claims and cannot produce any results at all, it is considered that one is, in effect, a liar.

    And yes, the story of Gilgamesh, and a few other ancient Babylonian myths, bears a striking resemblance to the stories of Genesis. The only thing bad for Abrahamic faiths, is these Pagan stories predate the Bible. therefore, it is a logical assumption that the latter stories may have borrowed a bit from the former...which does not bode well for the Bibles originality.

    If you wish to quote Dawkins on his story to a child, perhaps, you should actually learn from the story. He was stressing that the child should question ideas that have NO evidence - like your Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sam,
    Bananas are merely a very easy to see example of evolution. Had you not been so keen on "proving your stubborness, you might have checked it for yourself.


    Oh, touche. I wouldn't call it stubbornness though. I was just expecting some condescending remark and you didn't really clarify what it was I was supposed to look up regarding bananas. BTW I did not look them up because even if Bananas evolved through mutations or just mere change, it would not explain the missing paleontological evidences for 250,000 other species of plants and animals.

    As to no archaeological or anthpological evidence of evolution and no transitional evidence, you really need to update your argument a bit.
    Darwins theories are 150 years old.... a lot of advances have been made in the meantime.


    Sure. But I am not getting all my information from Darwin. Certainly you can see that if the profession that is the only profession in the world that can claim to have observed the process of evolution has less than 20 bad examples out of millions that should exist, then that is on the edge of being criminal. I have reduced it in my mind to highly suspect simply because in all fairness, one cannot prove a universal negative, especially by a lack of evidence.

    In fact there is evidence of Man's transition. We have archaeological evidence of Homo Hablis, in Africa, Homo Erectus, in China and Homo Neanderthalensis,in Europe and more!
    This is real science, mind you, not the pseudo-science stuff that is passed around at your local church.


    To be honest, I don't “attend church”, so I wouldn't know what is being passed around local churches. Modern “Church-ianity” is a farce and I do not doubt that they say some really embarrassing things.

    However, you 250,000 species and if you have actually presented true arguments for hominid evolution, and you haven't, not because I say so but because your scientists have, (I have read a great number of them) then you now have 249,999 to go. Good luck.

    I think that once you stop narrowing it down to a few random examples and ignoring the huge gaps (in other words, stop going through the emotional rush that Dawkins does over the statement “there is grandeur in this view” taken from Origin Of Species' last paragraph), and start looking at the objective evidence and only pronouncing something to be true based on observation and not hand drawings, sculptures, and authoritative pronouncements, then you will see what I mean.

    “They must find it difficult, those who have taken the authority as the truth, rather than the truth as the authority”

    It is funny that this is usually quoted to poke at Christians yet, I attribute authority to truth and what can be tested with the 5 senses. But you have attributed truth to scientists without any evidence except their authority i.e. their phd's and popularity.

    As to proving God doesn't exist; He's done that for us.

    How did he do that? He doesn't exist. This should be interesting.

    All the claims of magical mysticism and supernatyral powers are not now,

    Oh yeah? And um... what claims would those be? I would like to see them. I am not just going to take it upon your authority. Provide me with some truth, oh objective one.

    nor were they ever, manifest. A great many claims have been made that are physically impossible, things that can, in no way be, accomplished.

    You mean, a great many claims have been made that are physically impossible for you, things that can, in no way be, accomplished by you.

    Now yours is not such a fanciful statement is it, now that I replaced the all-knowing drivel?

    ReplyDelete
  26. If one makes fanciful claims and cannot produce any results at all, it is considered that one is, in effect, a liar.

    Okay. Lets test that. “... nor were they ever, manifest.” How do you know? Were you there? Did you see this and did you record such events not occurring? Is there anyone who recorded such events not occurring? That is a pretty fanciful claim that you cannot produce any results at all for, so what does that make you?

    And yes, the story of Gilgamesh, and a few other ancient Babylonian myths, bears a striking resemblance to the stories of Genesis. The only thing bad for Abrahamic faiths, is these Pagan stories predate the Bible. therefore, it is a logical assumption that the latter stories may have borrowed a bit from the former...which does not bode well for the Bibles originality.

    Oh. Okay. Dawkins test! "What kind of evidence is there for that?" I mean, you know this. I don't. It seems I need to kowtow to this knowledge you possess. I am all ears.

    If you wish to quote Dawkins on his story to a child, perhaps, you should actually learn from the story. He was stressing that the child should question ideas that have NO evidence - like your Bible.

    Well genius, way to look dumb. That is what I am saying to you. Ha ha ha...”I know you are but what am I”. You have zero evidence for anything you have said so far. Hugo couldn't understand perfect English, and you just keep rattling off poor logic as if it is more rational than mine. Isn't that what hugo said to me in his first comment. You guys are like twins.

    I gave reasonable descriptions of what knowledgeable Christians truly believe about the Bible in response to the imaginary conversation of Skeptical Eye's post in order to show that the so called answers given, though probably actual answers he has heard, are not based on the bible. I did this to curtail the question/answer series down to invalid questions and answers. If the only responses I get are assertions and silly attempts at insults, I have to assume that those were the best jabs at Christianity; the ones found in SE's post, because if there were better jabs, it seems they would have been mentioned by you by now. Instead, Hugo tries to convince me that I don't know how to stay on topic because he doesn't know how to read and compare points, and you can't hardly hurl an argument without indicting yourself under the same charges. I thought by the less virulent questioning process encountered in the original post that there might be a reasonable conversation here. But I have been proven wrong so I am now going to let you have the last word because I'm not sure anyone here is trying to arrive at some sort of truth but rather say the next dumbest thing stated by a believer in evolution.

    Maybe I could start a thread containing those statements! It seems that the conversation here has wound up looking as ridiculous as the question/answer portion of the original post, only it is, as I would have expected, the evolutionist without reasonable explanations, screaming cuss words when his faith is questioned. It seems the truth is the reverse of the original post.

    If there is some valid explanation given beyond this point, I may respond, but if I don't respond, assume your explanation is something I have ran into before and am looking for something more, that can be seen with the eyes or held in my hand. You know, observed? Objective? Evidence?

    There is no grandeur in that view of Darwins. (tears)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ok, you have outsmarted me, Sam.
    I capitulate.

    Because you refuse to accept my premise (and, I am not an evolunionist. I am merely an atheist, which means no gods), I shall try to accept your premise.

    God did all that stuff, 'cause it says so in the Bible. It's written for all to see.
    The only problem with that is, Yahweh is an asshole. He suffers from the worst of human weaknesses - jealousy, rage, vengence, spite, he's a subjugater of women. Bad guy this God is.

    Thanks, but no. I shall continue in my disbelief :-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Then again,
    Remind me where was it I shouted cuss words at you ?

    Evolution may, or may not, be as thought by modern science. I do not know.
    None of us know, really.

    If one claims to know, they are lying to you.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails