That NEW Adage

A pressure-relief valve about God, and just about everything else.

Can You SEE Electricity, or Its Handiwork?


 To: Evolutionists/Atheists

 Why do YOU get to be the only intelligent designer? What makes it logical for YOU to create stuff as a human being, yet illogical for someone greater than you to do so?

Things not seen can still be the cause for a particular result. Just “look” at the wind…

Just as your thoughts are not material, and are the impetus of creation, the mind of God is unsearchable and is the catalyst for everything that is. The evidence for both is obvious to all with the senses– and the SENSE– to observe.

Note: Please read the comments, if you have the time. There is a debate going on…

Advertisements

December 2, 2007 - Posted by | Atheism, evolution, Intelligent Design, Logic, Uncategorized

21 Comments »

  1. I think you should state it as intelligent designer(s). You’re agrument would easily fit multiple designers and even multiple levels of designers. The universe is a huge place with lots of room for lots of beings smarter than us. If in fact as some suggest, there is a multi-verse, easily each universe could have a creator. In a multi-verse, it’s easy to conceive that they have different natural laws. Now there could also be something behind that where all the mega creators reside.

    Lot’s of unanswered questions that our logic isn’t prepared to figure out yet.

    Comment by Steve Rosenbaum | December 2, 2007 | Reply

  2. Why does YOUR GOD get to be the greatest intelligent designer? What makes it logical for HIM to be the unmoved mover, and no one else?

    Comment by Jon | December 3, 2007 | Reply

  3. Well, not to be flip, but as of yet, no one else has shown themselves to be capable of doing greater stuff.

    He lets us all know how “bad” He is, and I’m sure He welcomes all challengers…

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 3, 2007 | Reply

  4. I was making fun of your post.

    In case you missed that.

    Comment by Jon | December 3, 2007 | Reply

  5. Of COURSE I knew you were making fun of my post!

    I know that we Christians are too dim to sense obtuse ridicule, but yes, I knew you were making light.

    Why would I think you were looking for a REAL answer? Of course you weren’t. Of course a logical question would receive a sarcastic response rather than a reasoned one.

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 3, 2007 | Reply

  6. Your entire argument is fallacious.

    You assert that thoughts are non-material, which is obviously false. Hit someone in the brain with a bat, and see how quickly their thoughts cease.

    You assert that God’s mind is unsearchable, and then in the next breath claim to know God’s mind intimately.

    You assert that God’s existence is obvious, and yet hundreds of thousands of different and competing religious sects exist, not to mention an extremely sizable portion of the world’s population (I believe the statistic is 16%) who are either agnostic or atheistic.

    You imply that people disavow religious ideas because they want to be gods themselves, which is a straw man. Unlike theists, atheists admit that they’re mortal. Theists insist they’re the immortal, chosen people of some divine lawgiver. The arrogance is yours, not ours.

    Now that I’ve responded “reasonably”, what will you say? Probably something profoundly unreasonable. Why was it that I wasted time replying reasonably again?

    Comment by Jon | December 3, 2007 | Reply

  7. Let me respond to the last thing first: Why would you assume that I would be unreasonable? That is — “hard to reason with?” If you know what I will say and how I will say it, why DID you waste your time? The fact is that I AM reasonable. I CAN be reasoned with.

    You opened your first comment, not by responding seriously, but by making fun of what I wrote. By your own admission. I found it interesting that you would mock rather than address what I said.

    You have every right to feel what you feel, but I contend that my argument is NOT fallacious. (Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t make it so.)

    THOUGHTS are immaterial. This is not “obviously false,” as you put it. Thoughts are not made of any physical stuff. The brain may process and produce thoughts, but it is not the stuff of thoughts, any more than an extension cord is “electricity”.

    By the way, your point about hitting someone in the brain with a bat can be refuted by contending that if you hit a TV with a bat, you destroy the TV, but not the image in the tube!

    If we cannot agree on that, we have no basis for continuing.

    It is commonly said by atheists that because God cannot be seen by us, He doesn’t exist. “I’ll believe he exists when I SEE him,” they mockingly jest.

    My argument is that just because something cannot be SEEN does not mean that it cannot DO. I am obviously not as smart as you, but I thought that was a pretty good assertion! (Not condescending, just trying to lighten the tone)

    Where in the WORLD — or in any of my posts — did I claim to know God’s mind intimately?!? No Christian can claim to know the whole mind of God. Only that part which He has made known.

    You can’t put the ocean in a fishbowl, but you can fill the bowl up!

    Maybe you don’t do it, but that is one of the many “straw men” that atheists set up and knock down when trying to make Christians look like fools. I think it clouds a rational discussion.

    The fact that, as you assert, “hundreds of thousands of different and competing religious sects exist” in NO way discredits Christianity. Just as you have heard all of MY arguments, I have heard all of this before. I know you have read books like “The Case For Christ”, The Case For A Creator”, and “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”. I won’t bore you with all the evidence. I know you probably dismissed it.
    Actually, Christians believe that all those similar-sounding Christ-type stories only serve to bolster the REAL one. (Christ was spoken of WAY before the New Testament was written!)

    My contention is that since MY worldview says that God was here first and made the FIRST human, who knew, spoke with, and believed in Him, ANY similar-seeming system is only a derivative AT BEST.

    Yes, I do think that ultimately, again according to MY belief, we all willfully do things our own way in an effort to be god to ouselves. That is — accountable to no one but us. I think atheists do this to the nth degree by trying to kill or wish away any evidence of God. That is a strong statement, I know, but not made in an arrogant way.

    You can think you are mortal all you want. But allow me to object.
    It is not only WE who are immortal, but YOU as well. Christians, as you know, say that the soul is immortal, but that some go to be with God, and others get what THEY ultimately want. (And SPARE me the talk of eternal “TORTURE” if that is what you are thinking. There is a HUGE difference between “torture” and “torMENT” of which the Bible speaks) It is not arrogance to stand firmly on one’s belief.
    What does ANYone do who believes what he believes? I simply believe my eyes and my study.

    The summing up of the matter is this: According to NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS, the God in whom I believe came to earth in the form of Jesus – an historical figure, did wonders, was put to horrible death, left the tomb empty, and was seen again by hundreds. All of this was written of by those who had NO Christian axe to grind.

    I believe Jesus because He SHOWED Himself to be who He SAID He was, and did what He SAID He would do. This is evidence, not mere emotion. I could not talk to you for this length of time if all I had was a feeling (which I DO have). HE said we are immortal, so I believe Him based on His deeds. HE said He made the world and me. And YOU. So I believe Him. Not out of a weak need to serve something higher, but in a swallowing of the pride that says I want do it myself my own way. Submission takes STRENGTH!

    You don’t believe me, and I cannot argue you into believing me. I just respectfully believe that, while your intellect may tower over mine, the evidence I have OBJECTIVELY gathered trumps yours. I don’t disrespect you, and any Christian who does so is wrong. But don’t think that a Christian who is being true to, and exercising, his beliefs is being arrogant because he demonstrates the courage of his conviction. We are told to spread the word. That is hard. But that is LOVE.

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 4, 2007 | Reply

  8. MaxDaddy,

    Interesting….

    One thing I’ve never understood is the reason why Atheists always desire to debate the non-existence of something they don’t claim exists? What’s the point of that?

    I’m here if you need me my brother…………but it looks like you’ve got it pretty well covered!!

    Phil

    Comment by Phil Naessens | December 4, 2007 | Reply

  9. […] I have a new addition to my blogroll. This post begins in such an obvious, light-hearted way that you might be tempted to believe that this man is […]

    Pingback by MaxDaddy « Breaking Ground | December 4, 2007 | Reply

  10. If you know what I will say and how I will say it, why DID you waste your time?

    Because you chastised me for not engaging your post seriously.

    The fact is that I AM reasonable. I CAN be reasoned with.

    Being reasonable and having the ability to be reasoned with doesn’t prevent you from making unreasonable claims.

    THOUGHTS are immaterial. This is not “obviously false,” as you put it. Thoughts are not made of any physical stuff. The brain may process and produce thoughts, but it is not the stuff of thoughts, any more than an extension cord is “electricity”.

    But the electricity that powers the extension cord IS physical. And so are the neuronal firings that make up thoughts. Damage your neurons, and you make no more thoughts. Unplug the extension cord, and it doesn’t power anything anymore.

    By the way, your point about hitting someone in the brain with a bat can be refuted by contending that if you hit a TV with a bat, you destroy the TV, but not the image in the tube!

    You’re abusing the analogy. If you hit someone with a bat, their brain stops working. If you hit a TV, the TV stops working. In both cases, hitting the object causes it not to function properly.

    My argument is that just because something cannot be SEEN does not mean that it cannot DO.

    That’s not an argument at all for the existence of a god. That’s an argument for the existence of any kind of invisible object, place, or thing, no matter what it is. In essence, you’re saying, “You can’t disprove my claim, therefore it’s true.” Well I claim that there are 700 invisible purple chipmunks sitting on your head. You can’t disprove my claim, therefore they must exist.

    No Christian can claim to know the whole mind of God. Only that part which He has made known.

    Here’s what I said. Read it again.

    You assert that God’s mind is unsearchable, and then in the next breath claim to know God’s mind intimately.

    Nope, nowhere did I claim that you knew “the whole mind of God”. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying “the mind of God is unsearchable”, while at the same time believing dogma espoused by people who did claim to know God’s intentions.

    Actually, Christians believe that all those similar-sounding Christ-type stories only serve to bolster the REAL one.

    Completely illogical. You did say it was just your belief, so I guess there’s not much more for me to say. It’s not an argument.

    My contention is that since MY worldview says that God was here first and made the FIRST human, who knew, spoke with, and believed in Him, ANY similar-seeming system is only a derivative AT BEST.

    That’s not an argument. Muslims would say exactly the same thing. Jews would say exactly the same thing. All you’re doing is asserting that you’re right and they’re wrong. You’re not providing any evidence.

    That is — accountable to no one but us.

    So the reason you’re a Christian is because you’re afraid of hell.

    Yes, I do think that ultimately, again according to MY belief, we all willfully do things our own way in an effort to be god to ouselves.

    How does that work? A person is an atheist because they want to be god themselves? But atheists don’t believe in god. So they’re trying to imitate something they don’t think exists?

    There is a HUGE difference between “torture” and “torMENT” of which the Bible speaks.

    Oh, you’re one of those. So hell is just eternal separation from God, not eternal, painful torture, like most Christians think? Well, it won’t be much different then now, since I’m already separated from God.

    The summing up of the matter is this: According to NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS, the God in whom I believe came to earth in the form of Jesus – an historical figure, did wonders, was put to horrible death, left the tomb empty, and was seen again by hundreds. All of this was written of by those who had NO Christian axe to grind.

    Sorry, but that’s false Christian rhetoric, and you fell for it. There exist no sound secular sources for any of the things you claim. It’s just not true. For instance, there’s Josephus, who’s usually trotted out. Josephus only mentions Jesus in two passages, and in one he claims that James is the brother of Jesus, which contradicts the Biblical account. Unfortunately, most historians agree that these two passages were forged by Christian monks. You would think that if Josephus really believed Jesus to be “the Christ” that he would’ve written more than two passages about him.

    Submission takes STRENGTH!

    Strength, huh? I guess 85% of the world’s population is really strong, then, since that’s how many “submit” to a religion of some kind.

    …the evidence I have OBJECTIVELY gathered trumps yours

    You’ve provided no evidence. You provided false evidence, sanctimonious hand waving, and a whole lot of special pleading. Like I predicted, a whole slew of unreasonable responses. The history stuff is understandable. I was indoctrinated into believing that rhetoric too, when I was a Christian.

    One thing I’ve never understood is the reason why Atheists always desire to debate the non-existence of something they don’t claim exists? What’s the point of that?

    So atheists should debate the non-existence of things they claim do exist, instead? You make zero sense. Newsflash: people debate things they think are erroneous. More at 11.

    Comment by Jon | December 4, 2007 | Reply

  11. Well! You certainly engaged me THIS time.

    Why are you being so nasty? Why do I get the sense that you are snatching me by the arm as though I were a two-year-old, shoving my nose into the mess I’ve made? (“Here’s what I said. Read it again.”) We can have an adult discussion without that. If I reverted to that condescending tone, you wouldn’t appreciate it.

    At whom are you angry? At me? For posting my opinion on something with which you disagree? Is that all it takes?

    Or am I misreading your tone? Are you simply relating information in a cold, robotic manner?

    I would appreciate civility, though. It is easy to be nasty. Are we going to converse or are we going to snipe? I can do both, but my God-given sense of morality won’t let me. (I know you didn’t miss that…)

    You are the smart one. I GET it.

    I will address the points I choose to address. I will not go down rabbit trails and wind up in Wonderland somewhere having accomplished nothing.

    I cede your point in part on the use of the word “intimately”. Only in part, because that word can at times, in my opinion, be used to mean “completely”. If you weren’t contradicting yourself there, so be it.

    When I use the word “unsearchable” here I mean that no one can know the ENTIRE mind of God. (I know we’re not going to quibble over such insignificant matters as this.)

    That is a biblical term, of which I am sure you are familiar, and in THAT sense, I was correct and not contradictory.

    The larger point is this: It is not hypocrisy to claim to know what God has shown us just because YOU don’t think He exists because He won’t yield to YOUR wishes.

    I am saying that while I am not so arrogant as to assume to know every single detail about God, I CAN know what He has seen fit to SHOW me. The finite cannot contain the infinite. (INDULGE ME, PLEASE, THE USE OF CERTAIN CLICHES. I KNOW YOU’VE HEARD THEM ALL, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE WHO IS READING HASN’T. SINCE I WON’T WIN YOU, MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE INCLINED TO BE MORE OBJECTIVE.)

    And because YOU don’t agree with the Bible as evidence does not mean that it is not. The fact is, though, that Christians, as well as theists in general, see CREATION itself as evidence for God’s existence.
    It would be hypocritical to say that God cannot be known at all, and then to claim to know Him. I have not done that.

    Next: As for thoughts being material — I’m through with that! That is obvious to me and a lot of other folk.

    Next: YOU said;
    That’s not an argument at all for the existence of a god. That’s an argument for the existence of any kind of invisible object, place, or thing, no matter what it is. In essence, you’re saying, “You can’t disprove my claim, therefore it’s true.” Well I claim that there are 700 invisible purple chipmunks sitting on your head. You can’t disprove my claim, therefore they must exist.

    I say that what you have said is EXACTLY my point! I am arguing for the possibility of an “invisible object…” to be able to exist and act. If I start with that point, namely, that something can be unseeable and yet exist, I can move on to the next issue. I was not trying to dismantle atheism with three sentences! It was one valid argument among several.

    The difference between my analogy and yours about the 700 chipmunks is that MY object – God – has affected creation. He has made Himself known, and has stepped into time, evidenced by (once again, what you casually dismissed) the life and work of the HISTORICAL figure, Jesus. I assert that HE made all this stuff. I presented what you dismissed as evidence, namely CREATION, seen and UNseen.
    Your chipmunks have done nothing.

    I can show YOU the things God has done (which I am attempting to do) and you can simply say, “God did not do that, because there IS no God.”

    By that reasoning, I can show my son Mt. Rushmore and say, “A man carved that.” I can show him documents, pictures, and an array of other items of what I consider evidence, and he can say, “No he din’t! That ain’t evidence!”

    Where is the proof that Shakespeare wrote “Macbeth”? I can dismiss it. I don’t SEE anybody named Shakespeare! Who’s to say who wrote the Constitution? I don’t see them! Those drawings of the Founding Fathers are fakes!

    Silly, yes, but I submit that that is how your, and other “arguments” sound in the face of a universe of EVIDENCE. On that basis, who can know ANYthing historical?

    Next: YOU said;

    You assert that God’s existence is obvious, and yet hundreds of thousands of different and competing religious sects exist, not to mention an extremely sizable portion of the world’s population (I believe the statistic is 16%) who are either agnostic or atheistic.

    How does your assertion that there are many other religions negate God’s existence? I know I’m not as smart as you are, but that makes no sense to me.
    I say once again that they point to a REAL object. A God of SOME kind. WHAT kind is subject to the nose on your face — I mean — the EVIDENCE.
    And I did NOT say that it was JUST my belief. YOU said that. I KNOW it just as I know who my parents are. And you cannot tell me what I cannot know.

    Next: (Looks like I’m gonna address all these points. And I can’t type!)

    When I said that MY God was here first, etc. YOU said;
    That’s not an argument. Muslims would say exactly the same thing. Jews would say exactly the same thing. All you’re doing is asserting that you’re right and they’re wrong. You’re not providing any evidence.

    What does it matter what Muslims, Jews, or I say? What does the BIBLE say? (I mention the Bible here because the two groups you mention use it in some form. I know you dismiss it.) Christians have the only resurrected Deity. Muhammad is dead, and the Jews are still waiting for a Messiah that came two centuries ago. Christians have the only God who lay down and got up again. THAT’S what I would say. What the Bible already said.

    Next:
    No, I wouldn’t want to go to Hell, but I am a Christian because God came and did this great thing for ME. When I didn’t want Him, or care to know Him. I am a Christian because He is so cool that He hears the way you dog Him and mock Him (while claiming He doesn’t exist) and He still would accept you if you accepted HIM. And He loves you anyway. He made this great sacrifice, and you and so many others smash His face in it, like some clown with a cream pie, and He still waits… No human being I know is that thick-skinned and yet so forgiving and enduring. He is like the cool guy in school to the nth degree; He’s the best at everything, He says the right things, never gets nervous, He’s the smartest, and yet He wants to know ME!! THAT is why I am a Christian. To be around the smoothest Guy in the universe. I feel about Him like my one-year-old feels about ME.
    Take that how you want to.

    Next:
    You said;
    How does that work? A person is an atheist because they want to be god themselves? But atheists don’t believe in god. So they’re trying to imitate something they don’t think exists?

    I say, YOU know you are pleased with yourself and your prodigious intellect! You have ALL the answers! You are in charge of your own destiny, and no one will tell you how to believe! Sounds like a god to me! You just don’t want ANOTHER God.

    No matter what I show you, you will not believe unless you give in. And you don’t want to give in. So, yes, you’re imitating the God you won’t acknowledge.

    Next:
    Yes. I’m “one of those.” How condescending! I submit that the Bible does not use the word “torture” in reference to Hell. Anyone can look that up. By not admitting it, you show yourself to be someone who seeks to distort the facts rather than someone who just can’t find them.

    Yes, if you go to the Hell you don’t believe exists, you’ll be separated from God, but you are not separated now. You still breathe His air, eat His food, and use up His other resources!

    Next:

    You claim that my mention of historical figures is false rhetoric. Just because you say it strongly doesn’t make it so! There are more sources than Josephus, and anyone reading this who cares to look it up for themselves can find it, for example, in the aforementioned “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” beginning on page 221. There are many other sources that provide proof, but if you, Jon, dismiss it, so be it.

    And how does James being Jesus’ brother contradict the Bible? James WAS His brother. Were you Catholic or something?

    You said; You would think that if Josephus really believed Jesus to be “the Christ” that he would’ve written more than two passages about him.

    I say, Josephus was a Jew! Why would he want to admit something that the very Jewish rulers of the time knew and denied?!? Your argument doesn’t hold water.
    That would be like an atheist knowing that God existed but not wanting to admit it because he would have to make some difficult changes in his life!

    You know what takes strength? Not treating YOU the same way you’ve treated ME, while being fully capable of doing so.

    You dismiss evidence like some corrupt judge with an agenda… Open your eyes. Look in the sky. Touch the ground. Evidence is all around! SOMEthing did all that. It didn’t just make itSELF! Now THAT’s some fabrication!

    While I agree with the last statement you attacked, I did not make it.

    Why do you want me not to believe in God? What harm does it do you? Do we make your life uncomfortable with all our proselytizing and evangelizing? Do we get on your nerves with all the morality and the good deeds? I’ll tell you what: Atheists have caused a LOT more suffering than you claim Christians have. Ask a Communist. Ask Marx.

    You think I am a fool for believing in a God? Why do you go on about it? Let a fool be a fool. We cannot all be as bright as you.

    Take care. Thanks for the discourse. I enjoyed it. If you respond again, please make it short! I can’t type, and this is taking up all my eating time!

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 5, 2007 | Reply

  12. Amen!
    Why does someone care that I’m foolish enough to believe that the world and all that’s in it didn’t come about, because of some “cosmic explosion”?

    I’m amazed that folks actually believe that. Oh well, I’m with you Derrick — if I’m a fool for believing God made this all, what’s the label for those who think that we’re here because of a “Big Bang”? What’s lower on the scale, than a fool? I’m just askin’, cuz it’s possible to think we’re brighter than we really are. All of us can be guilty of that. Some, moreso than others. Highly intelligent people often struggle with humility, but it’s a good character quality to develop. Cuz as smart as you may be, you’re smartest when you know you don’t have all the answers.

    I don’t go back and forth with atheists, cuz it’s not about “winning” the debate. The debate is “won”, everytime I look at a newborn, or I watch the seasons change, or I learn something fascinating about how the human body works.

    No one will ever be able to prove to me that there is no God. I’ve heard all the naysayers make some interesting(though not very compelling) points. So, I guess we all have to just wait and see. I wait with confidence and hope. If I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing — and have gained MUCH.

    Peace!

    Comment by A Nappy Girl | December 5, 2007 | Reply

  13. Derrick,

    I have monitored this discussion till now, just to see where it will head. As usual, it doesn’t seem that its heading somewhere.

    Here’s the real deal: the belief that there is no super-intelligent being who put all the complex micro and macro-processes we see in nature together is far more absurd than the position that someone did. That all these came from one “Big bang”? What caused the bang? Where did the causative agents come from?

    Na! I’ll hold on to God.

    Cheers!

    Comment by Yomi Adegboye | December 5, 2007 | Reply

  14. not to in any way be pejorative but the argument about evolution and atheists is a misunderstood and popular misunderstanding of the whole historical debate; The argument should be understood: What people are saying is Nobody wants social Darwinism, because on one thing there is consensus…everybody, except young true believers…knows that society doesn’t progress as one homogenized whole of a mass of lives lived and realized…to say such a thing would deny the very fact of the factual experience of individuals, that reserves the right for individuals to have true experiences to them…that’s what makes them factual…the effect is to produce an ignominious feeling of a homogenized whole that falsely confines itself to a…for instance…pseudo technocratic ecstatic experience, or more practically a homogenized mass application of popular consensus in media application for example and even the distortion by the false impression of homogenized consensus…nothing could be further from the truth…true if we go…in many respective instances (with in context) we could go together…

    Comment by frodo441 | December 7, 2007 | Reply

  15. Frodo, As I read your argument I have to say Huh?

    The sentence structure and wording are so odd that I don’t think anyone could understand what you’re trying to say.

    Your sentence,

    “the effect is to produce an ignominious feeling of a homogenized whole that falsely confines itself to a…for instance…pseudo technocratic ecstatic experience..”

    is a good example. I know people write this way to try to sound smart. However, the outcome is that people simply ignore it.

    I would also bet that you could write the phrase “pseudo technocratic ecstatic experience” in one or two smaller words that are much more descriptive.

    Comment by Steve Rosenbaum | December 8, 2007 | Reply

  16. Derrick,

    What seems more aburd is to select an explanation without much evidence at all. It’s also possible that neither explanation is right. Our knowledge of everything is extremely primative. It just seems smarter than the very primative knowledge of 2000 years ago. I suggest keeping an open mind and having a little patients. The answer may be just around the corner or a million years from now.

    Comment by Steve Rosenbaum | December 8, 2007 | Reply

  17. Could you clarify that for me? Which view is without much evidence? I do think our knowledge is primitive, but in relation to God’s knowledge.

    There are some settled matters, however, and the idea of the existence of God is one of those in my mind. I think people can try to figure out HOW God did what He did open-mindedly (even though we probably won’t until He shows us…), but at some point along the way, conclusions can be reached.

    What I am saying is that I am open-minded in terms of the mechanics of an issue, but as far as those things such as the Truth of God and the Bible, etc., my mind is made up (based on examination and investigation), and I don’t see anything wrong with coming to conclusions about certain things in life. We all do this.

    The funny thing is, those who were around those 2000 years ago were MUCH more informed on this issue than we are being that they were there! Which is why historical accounts, when verified, can be so helpful. As to history, more and more, archaeology and such serves to verify the Christian account of things.

    Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I hope I understood you right…

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 8, 2007 | Reply

  18. Whew. It’s intense in here!

    It’s sad to read that Jon used to believe. I wonder what happened. I wish he knew that whatever happened doesn’t make God not exist–it just means this life has pain.

    Those who believe and can intelligently respond to arguments against God must be the most vexing to athiests and agnostics. It’s because for us, the foundation–that God is real and made Himself known to us through the Bible and Jesus Christ–is already established and settled. If our foundation were built on anything else, our so-called faith would be easily shattered! Instead, our every action, belief and experience is based on that unshakable foundation: Yes, there is a God who is a creator, a friend, a helper and a judge–and He wants to have a relationship with us.

    Comment by Tracie | December 8, 2007 | Reply

  19. If I reverted to that condescending tone, you wouldn’t appreciate it.

    At whom are you angry? At me? For posting my opinion on something with which you disagree? Is that all it takes?

    Or am I misreading your tone? Are you simply relating information in a cold, robotic manner?

    I would appreciate civility, though. It is easy to be nasty.

    Every time I argue with a religious person on the internet, I’m accused of being angry and nasty and all that jazz. I think your beliefs are silly. It doesn’t take anger to think that, or even condescension.

    The difference between my analogy and yours about the 700 chipmunks is that MY object – God – has affected creation.

    Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re simply asserting that your god affected creation. Well guess what, my chipmunks also affected creation. Prove me wrong.

    He has made Himself known, and has stepped into time, evidenced by (once again, what you casually dismissed) the life and work of the HISTORICAL figure, Jesus. I assert that HE made all this stuff. I presented what you dismissed as evidence, namely CREATION, seen and UNseen.
    Your chipmunks have done nothing.

    My chipmunks have made themselves known, too. They become visible at times, and I see them gathering nuts on the ground. They’re historical figures. Therefore chipmunks must’ve created the universe.

    Do you see the leap you’re making?

    What does it matter what Muslims, Jews, or I say? What does the BIBLE say?

    Jews would say, “What does it matter what Christians, Muslims, or I say? What does the TORAH say?”. Muslims would say, “What does it matter what Jews, Muslims, or I say? What does the QURAN say?”

    You’re asserting that your book is true, and that these other books are not. But you still haven’t addressed the fact that they assert that YOUR book is wrong. You’re all asserting that the other guy is wrong. I’m just asserting that you’re all wrong.

    How condescending! I submit that the Bible does not use the word “torture” in reference to Hell.

    Okay, but the popular conception of hell is that it’s torture. That’s all I’m saying. You don’t believe in that? Great.

    …in the aforementioned “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” beginning on page 221.

    I don’t read religious apology, especially when it makes historical or scientific claims. You’ll have to tell me which sources the book talks about so that I can look them up in a professional discussion.

    Why do you want me not to believe in God? What harm does it do you? Do we make your life uncomfortable with all our proselytizing and evangelizing?

    I’m just bored, trolling the Internet. It’s as simple as that.

    Do we get on your nerves with all the morality and the good deeds? I’ll tell you what: Atheists have caused a LOT more suffering than you claim Christians have. Ask a Communist. Ask Marx.

    LOL. All the morality and good deeds. Good one. As for the atheists you’re talking about, they weren’t secular atheists. They were fascists, first and foremost. As some author or another says, find me a society that follows the precepts of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Einstein, and Spinoza that descended into moral chaos and anarchy, and your claim here that atheism is immoral will make sense.

    I wish he knew that whatever happened doesn’t make God not exist–it just means this life has pain.

    Sorry, that’s not going to work on me. I didn’t have some horrific experience that made me hate religion. I liked being Christian. But I figured out that liking something doesn’t make it true.

    Comment by Jon | December 8, 2007 | Reply

  20. You said: Every time I argue with a religious person on the internet, I’m accused of being angry and nasty and all that jazz. I think your beliefs are silly. It doesn’t take anger to think that, or even condescension.
    Jon, I submit that if you say you are dry while a hundred people tell you that you are wet, you might want to get a towel. (You were much more civil in THIS comment, though. Thanks)

    Next:
    Am I REALLY going to debate God’s existence versus 700 invisible purple CHIPMUNKS?!?

    I say:
    NOPE.

    YOU say:
    Jews would say, “What does it matter what Christians, Muslims, or I say? What does the TORAH say?”. Muslims would say, “What does it matter what Jews, Muslims, or I say? What does the QURAN say?”
    You’re asserting that your book is true, and that these other books are not. But you still haven’t addressed the fact that they assert that YOUR book is wrong. You’re all asserting that the other guy is wrong. I’m just asserting that you’re all wrong.

    I say:
    I don’t have a problem talking with THEM about why the Bible is divine and COMPLETE versus theirs.

    I agree with you here: YOU ASSERT (declare, by words or force) your opinions about God and the Bible. YOU know that the onus is on you to PROVE your negative assertion.

    I don’t merely assert. I have shown you trees, clouds, life, and thought. There is self-awareness, metaphysical reality, irreducible complexity, archaeology, and other rules of evidence, ALL which you dismiss.

    I have shown — whoever will listen here — in at least one resource, where some of this evidence can be found, and
    you dismiss it, saying:
    I don’t read religious apology, especially when it makes historical or scientific claims. You’ll have to tell me which sources the book talks about so that I can look them up in a professional discussion.

    I told you what the book was, you can find it for yourself. You have most assuredly seen it all anyway. Why would I engage in an insane endeavour by doing what I have repeatedly done and expecting a different result? I suspect that you dismiss Christian science as junk science anyway…

    BUT I’LL BET YOU’VE TAKEN THE TIME TO READ ATHEIST APOLOGY!
    The possession of a point of view does NOT automatically disqualify a particular argument. YOU know that. YOU are an atheist apologist. If you wrote a book, would you not want it read? (Rhetorical. Please don’t feel compelled to respond. I have to go to church and worship God in FIVE hours. I can’t do this much longer!)

    You, in essence, say, “There is NO relief for a headache!” while I try to show you what and where the aspirin is! You refuse to take it. I can do no more.

    YOU say:
    Okay, but the popular conception of hell is that it’s torture. That’s all I’m saying. You don’t believe in that? Great.

    I have seen YOU make the argument that “the popular conception” of an idea is not validation! You shoot down the Christian’s statement that Christianity is true in part because of the millions of followers… So why are you appealing to popular opinion to make a case now?

    I said;
    Why do you want me not to believe in God? What harm does it do you? Do we make your life uncomfortable with all our proselytizing and evangelizing?

    You responded:
    I’m just bored, trolling the Internet. It’s as simple as that.

    If you are just bored, get an X-Box. This, to me, is serious business. It is fun, and mind-sharpening, but serious nevertheless. The clocks of our lives are winding down. The Ultimate Test is coming. As a friend of mine has said, ” If you are wrong, DON’T DIE!” (And no, my belief is MUCH more than a stopgap measure)

    As for your comments on Marx and company, you can split hairs all you want. Those guys are on YOUR team. (Darwin was a racist, too, as is his theory.)

    We have boxed. Jabbed, hooked, and upper-cutted. You have not broken an intellectual sweat. You think you have won, but I DEFINITELY have not lost. Take it easy! Derrick.

    Comment by maxdaddy | December 9, 2007 | Reply

  21. well said Maxdaddy. Gracias Brother.

    Comment by Dee B. | December 11, 2007 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: