Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Theologian says what?

I received an anonymous comment on my post, Why is YOUR religion NOT ridiculous?, that I just had to respond to. Here is the comment in blue. My response is below.

"For me, being a Christian, it comes down to whether or not Jesus truly was what he claimed to be. Did he really have a bodily resurrection? Was he the Son of God.

I would recommend looking into a couple of books to get proper answers. First, The Resurrection of the Son of God. This book was written by N.T. Wright a top historian of this age. It deals with, obviously, the Resurrection.

Second, Richard Baukham's book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Baukham is another leading historian. In the book, he argues that the Gospels were eyewitness testimonies. In fact, the book is so ground braking, I've heard that scholars are ignoring it right now because everybody knows that it is spot on.

Anyway, you probably won't look into these books. I just thought that you should know that there are numerous books that write on this topic. Do not be insult religion until you have properly studied what the theologians have actually written. Otherwise you get nothing more than strawman arguments."

I have some problems with your argument:

1. You assume that there are not, and have never been, any 'scholars' who have argued in favour of the reliability of any other religion. Or that nobody from any other religion has ever believed they witnessed the supernatural firsthand. No prehistoric tribesman has ever seen the tree god? Ironically enough, this was the entire point of the post, which has gone right over your head. You need to find something which makes your religion DIFFERENT from all of the others that have ever existed, exist now, or will ever exist! We call this kind of thing, evidence.

2. You assume that it matters whether or not they're correct in determining that the stories were written by supposed 'eyewitnesses'. Oh, these people wrote this thousands of years ago... so of course a spirit knocked up a virgin, she gave birth to a miracle-boy who was killed and resurrected from the dead, so that we can all drink his blood and worship him, so that we can go live with him when we die!

It's a weak argument, and if you could do better, you would. But you can't.

You know what I have eyewitness testimony of? A girl I knew who said that she got attacked by demons in her room at night, physically thrown against the walls, and that Jesus came down to rescue her. She also claimed to be regularly visited by aliens who just came to sit at her bedside and watch her sleep. Do you believe it? I assure you, I was told that from the source. Shall I write it into a text for you? Perhaps then it will be more believable to you.

I don't even necessarily believe that the Bible has a shred of truth in it, so the findings of a bunch of people with agendas not to truth, but to faith, who stare at old texts and try to make sense of them or who wrote them is not going to convince me of anything. Show me the proof of the supernatural!

I have another question for you. Have you ever seen, Weekend at Bernie's?

3. Telling me what "theologians" write is not credible. These are people who can't even prove that the subject of their study exists! Show me any case in which a theologian has successfully proven that anything supernatural is real. I'll wait........ You could just as easily have told me that an astrologer wrote something, or that a numerologist thinks something. Better yet, a professional masturbator said... No, that's not fair. I can at least show that masturbation exists, so the comparison isn't valid. (You might counter that some theologians only study the social aspects of religions, with religions being things that I agree do exist. But such theologians should have not much to say on this particular issue.)

4. Your argument about a book being so "ground braking" (sic) and so correct that people would ignore it is unbelievably laughable! Do you realise that's exactly what would happen if it was completely wrong?! So books get ignored if they are either too wrong or too correct? Can you differentiate between the two situations? Can you imagine any science book being so accurate, so experimentally verifiable, that scientists just ignore it?! HA! What a fucking joke! "Oh, people are ignoring my book because it's so correct." Wait, I want to laugh one more time.... HAHAHAHA!


Pinkydead said...

The horrific case of Jaycee Lee Dugard seems strangely relevant to this discussion.

The two daughters cried when their "father" was arrested - one would have to question value of eye-witness testimony in this case. They will probably testify for a long time as to his virtue.

Equally, anyone involved in a cult, such as Christianity, would make for a very poor witness. (Un)fortunately there are no unbiased contemporary accounts that suggest that Jesus even existed.

tina FCD said...

It's all bullshit. :)

Jim said...

I am willing to go so far as to agree that Jesus was a real person. I'm not going to agree that he was the son of God, or that he was in any way different from the normal person of the day, but I will agree that he existed. There are many historians who agree that he was a real person, although many disbelieve his supernatural origins and abilities.

The reason I will agree is because it doesn't hurt the case for atheism any. Just because he said a lot of things about heaven and hell, and being born of immaculate conception, and being the son of God, doesn't make it true. Nor does the fact that people wrote it down. Neither does the fact that people may have witnessed supposed 'miracles'.

I have seen people today who claim to talk to God all the time, people who claim to be the rebirth of Jesus, people who claim to be born of a virgin, and people who can produce miracles.

Aside from the people who produce miracles such as water into wine (Who are very skilled magicians, not the children of God), the rest are what the scientific and medical community call (in layman's terms) batshit fucking crazy. Just because you look up when talking to nobody doesn't mean you are talking to someone. Just because you fold your hands and kneel when you mutter prayers doesn't mean you are talking to a God. People who are batshit fucking crazy employ these same techniques, only they do it because they are, as I said, batshit fucking crazy.

But there is a proven, scientific way to know you are talking to someone. And it will amaze religious people to no end to find how simple the proof is.

They answer back.

Feki said...

Jim’s Axiom of Bilateral Communication is so ground braking (sic), I've heard that BFC Theists are ignoring it right now because everybody knows that it is spot on.


Anonymous said...

It is incredibly frustrating to hear all of these comments. I wrote a response to the admin of this blog, but it didn't fit in the comment box. So, I sent it to him on his contact page. I am slightly confused as to the reason for why he hasn't mentioned it on this page at all.

Admin said...

"I am slightly confused as to the reason for why he hasn't mentioned it on this page at all."

Because I'm busy. You think I do this full-time? That was only yesterday that you sent it to me. I haven't even read it yet.

But to be honest, I'm not sure I want to read it. There's a point where I have to stop reading the messages from Christians, because they can't back up anything they say. It gets me (not sure what the best word is here) upset, and when I want to have a calm and relaxing day, I don't read that kind of thing.

You came to a website of reason and rationality, and opened with "I'm a Christian". I read that as, "I believe I have an imaginary friend, and I'm going to go live with him when I die." What did you expect? Respect for that view? It's completely irrational. Then you lost more credibility when you mentioned theologians, and the whole ignoring a book because it's spot-on thing. I posted your comment in full context. Do you really think people have misunderstood, or is it just that your comment is silly?

I see from my Big Brother software (kinda creepy, isn't it?) that you've checked out a lot of this site (including a comment on another thread, which I thank you for). I wonder if you've found any new ways to think of your religion and the supernatural.

Admin said...

I think I will check-out your email, because you've got me intrigued now. And I like you, for some reason. Maybe it's because you gave a lot of my website a chance by searching around it so much.

But give me time.

Admin said...

The long-awaited comments from the anonymous poster's email, and my response:

"My objective in the comment was to point out that a Christian would argue that their religion is correct because of the resurrection....the idea of resurrection was, is and is to be a ridiculous idea for any human being. This does not mean that it can’t be true. You must look at the evidence."

And that's the problem, isn't it? You haven't provided any evidence that the supernatural claims of your religion are correct, and that the supernatural claims of other religions are wrong. That was what this post was supposed to get to. How can you reject another religion's supernatural claims, when they have the same evidence that yours do?

"This is why I recommended N.T. Wright’s book to is all in the book, written, not by an illogical man, but by a top rate historian."

Written by a man who is a Bishop of the Christian faith. No bias there? And again, reading a book by a guy who can't demonstrate that his field is even real? Sorry! You know, there have been, I estimate, BILLIONS of man-hours throughout history spent studying the supernatural, and not one of these people has ever demonstrated the the supernatural exists. Why don't you read a book by the astrologer lady on TV?

"You are resigning to the typical ‘new Atheist’ argument. You want ‘strong rationalism’. Sorry to say, but this view is rejected, largely, by the philosophical community."

Oh no, the philosophical community!

"Just to add, if you are looking for some scientific proof of God, you will not get one. One may come to find clues, but not proofs. Science is not omniscient."

If you god existed, it should be relatively easy to demonstrate. The fact that you can't is suspicious. That's exactly what would happen if it didn't exist at all. Proof of existence is easily proven by detection. It is not metaphysical or abstract. Better yet, your god could SHOW ITSELF, like you believe it did all throughout history, until we developed SCIENTIFIC MEANS of differentiating trash from truth.

Admin said...

"My point, perhaps not articulated well enough, was this: historical scholars are ignoring the book because they realize that it would make their thesis irrelevant. Perhaps you don’t realize how competitive the field of history is?....The book was written by a professor at University of St. Andrews in Scotland… the 3rd ranked school in the UK. So, please do not assume that I am that stupid! I have justification for what I said. I will return your question with a question. Why are fellow scholars of Bauckham n! ot reviewing the book? The answer is that it is correct. It would make people’s scholarship obsolete!"

You really don't get it, do you? These people are PROFESSIONAL MENTAL MASTURBATORS! You get one of these people to show that their subject of study is even real (ie. the supernatural exists), and they'll get my respect. Until then, they're just numerologists.

Science revolutionises often. Relativity was not disregarded because it made other people's studies obsolete. If the ideas in the book are correct, they could use that to advance their field! If that's how theologians work, then I have even less respect for them than before you first wrote on my site! Again, get one of these people to prove that they're not just studying a lie! Hey, that would make their study obsolete, wouldn't it? Why can almost all workers prove that the subject of their work exists, except for theologians?

Sorry, but you've brought ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the table to make me even CONSIDER changing my mind. Your arguments fit well with a situation of reality in which no gods exist at all.

Admin said...

(sorry for the all caps, I don't know what got into me)



You might not be stupid, but you hold an irrational belief, and that's sad. Free yourself!

Anonymous said...

"Relativity was not disregarded because it made other people's studies obsolete."

First, this is not true. Einstein himself had trouble knowing that he was going to be changing Newton's ideas around. In Physics class, we watched a video about Einsteins discovery of Relativity. In fact, there was much controversy surrounding the ideas and they were not accepted right away.

I am disappointed that you didn't mention the five things that science cannot prove. Let me repeat them.
1. Logic and math
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical
4. Aesthetic Judgements
5. Science itself

I recommend the entire debate, but this clip is really good.

Admin said...

Holy crap, how much of your essay did you want me to mention? The 5 things science can't prove? Too bad your god doesn't fit into any of those categories, as it is a supposed being that exists.

I'm reminded of a Dawkins quote form when a Christian told him, "(my) god exists outside of time". Dawkins replied, "Well if you find that kind of thing convincing, you're welcome."

So if you find the arguments of a bunch of people who stare at old texts as proof of the supernatural, even when you admit those people won't acknowledge ideas that are correct, then you're welcome. How fitting that you've decided to end the conversation. I decided on my walk 5 minutes ago that I have no more time for this line of reasoning. Don't peddle that argument here and expect it to be replied to with anything other than ridicule.

By the way, you didn't exactly paint a respect-worthy picture of the philosophical community, community in your argument. Your argument, in fact, caused me to LOSE respect for them!

Admin said...

Buddy, you're just an adult with an imaginary friend that he can't demonstrate exists. When you can, I'll eat humble pie. but until then, you're out of your fucking mind, as far as I'm concerned. It must just KILL you that you're unable to demonstrate your friend exists. Don't you wonder about that?

Anyways, don't let the door hit you ..... you know.

Anonymous said...

The five points that I provided are not meant to 'prove' God exists. I was simply refuting your idea that science is all knowing and can explain everything. It can't.

What does that Dawkins quote have anything to do with anything?

Just to let you know, if you're a fan of Dawkins, The God Delusion is a philosophical book! So don't go around insulting philosophy then go and read a book that is philosophy!.

Also, my initial comment wasn't even philosophical! It was historical.

Admin said...

I just want you to know that I haven't read your latest reply. You've had enough of a chance to make your case, and you've failed. You've wasted enough of my time. You also managed to make the 'philosophical community' look like a bunch of clowns in the process.

And in the end, you never did properly address the point of the original post you replied to, which was to provide reasons that your supernatural claims are real, in the face of contradictory supernatural claims; to differentiate your claims from those of other religions.

Why don't you discuss it with your imaginary friend, instead of with me? Please?

Jim said...

I find it amazing that you would even begin to argue that science has not proved logic and math. The audacity of this claim leaves me speechless. But let's give it a try.

What does one plus one equal?

If you are right that science has not proved math, there is no way that I could solve this problem. But the logical reasoning would follow the lines that if I added the number one to another number one, the answer would be double itself, represented in the number two. Let's check the math to prove our logic.


Hey, what do you know? It worked. I have proved my logic correct, and my math worked out. I know that my math worked because I can deconstruct the problem in several ways and get the answers that would logically be expected.

Some examples:


Look at that, my math really does work. Now, I can give an infinite number of examples of math working as it logically should, and I can deconstruct those examples to prove the math. This is how we know math works.

I know you might like to argue that this only shows simple addition and division works, but you clearly stated that science has not proved that math and logic work. I just did. Quite easily, I might add.

And if you took a physics class, I assume you had to have taken numerous math classes before you ascended to that level of math, so I ask you, how were you able to pass all the tests to get there if math and logic could not be proven?

This doesn't even begin to show that without math that works 100% every time, without fail (except through human error, which by no means does it mean that math or logic failed), and the logic to support it must pass the same trials. There is a way the scientific community likes to label these ideas that are infallible: Laws.

Mathematical Law is what we base our entire civilization on. Remember when your teacher said you would need to know math because you would need it no matter what job you did? And you tried to point out random jobs that wouldn't need it? But she always had the answers? It would seem odd that a world (and universe) that is so ingrained with math (and the need to know and understand it), to work would base it's entire being on something that is just hearsay and conjecture.

I like to point out to religious types a favorite quote of mine. It is especially useful when they say that math and science are needless entities.

"Math is the language, with which, God has written the universe."

Obviously this was written by a man who believed in God, and religious people would use that to support God. But Galileo was using it to support math. He is saying that if there was a God (which there is no proof anywhere), then he would have had to have used math to create the universe. That is how infused it is with our being. There is no other way for life to exist other than to have math be fool-proof.

Jim said...

As for your other four things that science cannot prove.

Metaphysical truths
Aesthetic Judgements
Science itself

Metaphysical. Do you know what that means? Because if you did, (and I am quite sure you don't), you would know that it means. Because if you did, you would know that, by definition, things that are metaphysical cannot be proven. Here is the definition:

met·a·phys·i·cal (mět'ə-fĭz'ĭ-kəl)

1. Of or relating to metaphysics.
2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
1. Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Supernatural.

Does that clarify it enough so that I do not have to argue farther? I should hope so. (Note that it describes immaterial and then supernatural. Hmm...)

Next up, Ethical.

I don't know what you want. Scientific proof that people are ethical, or that ethics exist. Well, we know ethics exists. It is used everyday and is even a subject in most colleges. Do you mean the origin of ethics? Not sure. I'll assume you mean we don't know where the origin came from, because that is the something we don't know. Religion can hardly prove it either. I don't remember the passage in the Bible that read, "And God created ethics". But it is known that to have a society with any kind of growth, ethics, or morals, is a necessary part. Otherwise people could freely do what they wished. This is best defined as laws.

Aesthetic Judgments. You want to prove that people can find things beautiful, or the origin. Again, you don't clarify. We know that people find things beautiful, but that doesn't mean anything. Scientists believe that this comes form an ancient sense of self preservation. That is, if something were good looking, it would not be harmful. This is why we associate fire and sharp objects with pain. Have you ever noticed how things that can possibly hurt you are generally not aesthetically pleasing? As for beauty in other people, this comes from a need for reproduction. We look for attractive mates because we see hidden qualities for carrying on our genes. If a woman has wide hips, we see it as a sign of being able to withstand childbirth easier. If a man is tall and strong, women see this as a sign of power, and strength, excellent qualities for survival. In our day and age, most of these qualities are trivial, seeing as we are able to survive quite easily thanks to modern technology. But they were essential traits when we were still uncivilized.

These traits can also bee seen in other animals. Most animals tend to mate based on which is the best suited mate. Animals will compete to show which is stronger, faster, etc. just to win the chance to carry on its genes to the next generation.

So I think aesthetics has been proven.

Jim said...

As for Science, well, I have to admit that I need to restrain myself from using obscenities in my reply.

We all know science exists, it is a class in school, and people are scientists. I fail to see how it doesn't exist. Science is a branch of knowledge. Nothing more. It is amazing that you think they can't prove that a branch of learning cannot exist.

Or do you mean they can't prove the things they learn in science? That would make sense as an argument. Although it is a wrong one. You see, the beautiful thing about science is that it is designed to be able to prove its hypotheses.

Here's how it works. You come up with an hypothesis. You find a way to prove your theory through repeatable experiment and measured results. You test your theory. If, and only if, you are able to reach the conclusion that is your hypothesis through repeatable experiment and are able to measure the results, is that hypothesis proven. Children do this every year in school. It's called a science fair.

Now, when you have a hypothesis about something, say, God. You have to be able to test your theory. Since there is no way to test for the supernatural, we have to call the 'God Theory' a false hypothesis. It has failed every level of the scientific method.

1. No experiment can test for supernatural beings.
2. Since there is no test, it cannot be repeated to try and produce the same results.
3. Since no test exists, we cannot record our results.
4. Due to the fact that we cannot test, reproduce the results, and record our findings, we have to consider the hypothesis failed.

Therefore, no God.


Or is that why science cannot be proven? Because it cannot prove God?

Admin said...

Jim, I very much disagree that there is no way to test for the existence of gods, especially this particular god. t is supposed to interact with this Universe in several ways, and it is those interactions which should be detectable.

Some examples of its supposed interactions would be miracles, power of prayer, protection of its followers, acts of creation, appearing in burning bushes, etc.

If for example we could show that Christian churches always survive natural disasters unharmed, or that people who walk into churches get instantly cured of their diseases, that would be enough to convince me. If Christians lived for 20 years longer than other people, that would be thought-provoking. If a god lifted a falling plane back into the sky without its engines having restarted, that would be interesting. If I prayed for a chocolate bar, and one suddenly appeared in my hand out of thin air, that would be evidence also. If we ask this god to appear on TV at 8:00 tonight to set us straight, and it does, that would definitely do it.

The problem is that not a single one of these things happens. The god which I'm told interacts with this Universe in so many ways, never seems to interact with it at all. THAT is why the god hypothesis fails, in my opinion.

Admin said...

It's funny that these people have created a god which supposedly does things like answers prayer, yet says that no test is possible, or that it's outside the realm of science. If there truly was a bring that answered prayers, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETECT IT SCIENTIFICALLY.

The fact that they can't do it is just another huge fail.

But at this point, I'd accept proof of ANYTHING supernatural as a start to their argument. You don't have to prove the existence of gods. Prove to me that ghosts exist, or that ESP works,or psychics are real, ANYTHING AT ALL, FOR THE LOVE OF THEIR FUCKING GOD!

Why have billions of man-hours been spent on these things over human history, yet nobody has ever come up with a proof of even a single one of them?

And why do all of the 'miracles' that their god produces in modern day be in ways that could have happened anyway, naturally? For example, a person survives a car crash, and some god gets the credit. But couldn't they have survived anyway? Their god has the power of magic, so where is the magic? A MIRACLE would be if the person who was about to get into the car crash was instantaneously tele-ported out of their car and to a safe location, while the car crashes and burns without a driver. Why does that kind of thing not happen? Where oh where is the magic?

Pinkydead said...

Let's not forget the Templeton studies.

They did scientifically test prayer - no statistically significant effect.

(BTW Great exchange - getting value for money this morning).

Jim said...

A note on the study of prayer.

For those who don't know, the study in question was of recovering heart surgery patients. One group was told they were being prayed for, another was told they might be prayed for. The first group had a slower recovery time with more complications than the non-prayer side. It was concluded that prayer didn't help anyone, and it was a pointless act.

I find it hilarious that the people in the study who knew that they were being prayed for tended to be worse off. It shows me that people tend to just give up hope when they are being prayed for because they think God is going to heal them.

Blake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Admin said...

"Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow his gospel and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration."

Blake, when I first read this part, I thought you were joking around and I had a good laugh. It seems like a joke. Then as I got further into your comment, it started to seem like you're not joking. This is why we have Poe's Law, I guess.

"All I'm saying is the debate will be endless because neither side can disprove the other."

I don't have to prove that theists have failed to make their case any more than I have to prove that the Loch Ness monster searchers have not made their case. That's why we have burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to prove anything. I am not making a claim of the existence of something here.

"But you shouldn't try to degrade religious people's argument because of your belief."

No, I have a lack of belief. Do you know what an atheist is? See below, because you are one.

"Neither side knows what the truth is. My stance will be on the fence until the day I die."

Well then, you're a coward. You refuse to admit that you believe or don't believe in gods, and are proud that will stay that way until you die. Die a coward, then. I've got news for you. If you don't have a belief in gods, you are an atheist. That's what an atheist is. I wonder, are you also on the fence about the existence of Santa Claus? Neither side can prove their case, so should I laugh at those adults who think he's real? That's why we have burden of proof.

Admin said...

Blake, there is no fence. This is binary, yes or no. You either believe that gods exist, or you don't believe that gods exist. There is no middle ground. So, do you currently have a belief that gods exist?

Blake said...

Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow righteous ways and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration.

If everyone knew one true God and whatever the finite definition is you are looking for, we wouldn't have the power of choice to believe what we want? If one true god created the universe, wouldn't it be smart of him to create a world where over time there developed a debate between many different religions that all pretty much followed the same theme? All religions help people believe that they have a sense of being. That mass sense of being, purpose and moral grounding is what keeps the world moving forward. Do you think we would've made it this far in science or technology if everyone always believed there was no God? It is essential to human evolution that a majority of people on earth believe in a sense of purpose and afterlife. If there were anything that either proved God or disproved God, What kind of world would that be? There would be chaos. And as for the argument, "if God is so good why does he allow so much suffering?" I say this...we wouldn't have evolved into humans if there weren't finite physical laws that can't be broken or if there were no consequences for actions. Car accidents happen, lethal illnesses exist. They are all forms of population control that are necessary to human existence. We would not be able to operate as a society if we had finite laws of the afterlife or why we are here.

All I'm saying is the debate will be endless because neither side can disprove the other. But you shouldn't try to degrade religious people's argument because of your belief. Neither side knows what the truth is. My stance will be on the fence until the day I die. I am an agnostic. And if there is a creator, I think more people need to at least respect why he made it the way it is.

Blake said...

Actually Admin there is a fence, and if you knew anything about the non belief of religion you would know that is the stance of Agnosticism.

Admin said...

No, there is no fence. Agnosticism doesn't mean what most people think it means. Agnosticism means that you don't believe we can have true knowledge of the existence of something, anything, not just gods

So if I ask you if you BELIEVE that gods exist, and you say you don't know, you are an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist.

You think I don't know anything about the non-belief of religion? What does that even mean? That I don't know how to not believe a crazy claim?

Admin said...

Blake, can either side prove that leprechauns (sp?) exist or don't exist? You can't prove the non-existence of something, so you'll have to define yourself as "agnostic" (incorrectly used) for any mythological claim. Have fun with that one. You're a leprechaun agnostic? You're a Flying Spaghetti Monster agnostic. You're a Russell's teapot agnostic. You're a magical pixie agnostic.

Admin said...

"...if you knew anything about the non belief of religion you would know that is the stance of Agnosticism."

Before you insult people and tell them they don't know what they're talking about, you should check your definitions. It can be embarrassing otherwise, but somehow I don't think I'll get an apology or other admission out of this.

Jim said...

Allow me to butt in for a second. I think Blake is trying to say he is a Deist. Or at least, that's the best definition for what he claims.

It's ironic that he would tell you (Admin) that you don't know anything about agnosticism, when he in fact doesn't know that he is not agnostic. And we all love a bit of irony, don't we?

Admin said...

Jim, he probably is agnostic, he just doesn't know what it is that makes him agnostic. If he believes that we can never know for sure, then he is agnostic. He is also an atheist, I think. Let's let him set us straight.

Admin said...

Jim, what do you think about the first part of his argument?

"Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow righteous ways and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration."

I couldn't believe it (pun?) when I figured out this wasn't a joke! He tells me to think about it...... OK, I thought about it and it's fucking hilarious and downright ridiculous!

Jim said...

Well, that is absurd. Here are a list of things we should believe in, using his thought process as a model.

The Loch Ness Monster
The Bunny Rabbit
Middle Earth
Wonder Woman
Kirk Cameron's 'Crocaduck'

I could go on, but I think we all get the point. There is no proof for any of these things (However, the Loch Ness Monster is winning the 'evidence' portion of our contest with alleged pictures), so perhaps that is why they exist. So we will continue to have faith in them.

Jim said...

I also have to say, this is the worst argument ever.

To claim that something is keeping itself from being proven proves it exists?

I bet he thought he had something special with that argument.

Admin said...

Blake is the star of my new post.