25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 14 and counting)

stupid christian arguments

Hey—don’t blame me. I’d stop listing stupid arguments if Christians would stop making them.

The discussion of these arguments begins here (go to the appendix at that post for a list of all these arguments to date).

Stupid argument #44: Time’s up! Now answer all the fundamental questions of science.

To illustrate this stupid argument, here are comments by popular apologist J. Warner Wallace (audio interview @ 20:30). When an atheist, he says, he wondered if he was justified in believing “that everything in the universe could be accounted for with nothing more than just space, time, matter, and the laws of physics and chemistry—because that’s all I would have to work with if atheism was true.” I guess he was an inquisitive guy, because he had a lot on his mind:

Does that explain the universe the way we see it? Can it explain the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, can it explain the origin of life or the appearance of design in biology, can it explain consciousness or free agency or objective transcendent moral truths? Everyone has to explain evil, whether you’re a theist or a nontheist. These are the things that everyone has a burden to explain.

Let’s first clear away the smoke to see what is actually being argued here. The universe began with the Big Bang, though I imagine his question is what caused that. Fine tuning of constants in the universe is curious, though not much of an argument for God (discussed here and here). The origin of life (abiogenesis) is indeed a puzzle, though too much is made of the appearance of design, which is neatly explained by evolution. Science does have questions about consciousness, though there’s no evidence of objective morality (see here and here). And the Problem of Evil asks why a good god allows bad things to happen. Atheists don’t propose a god, so this is precisely a problem for Christians.

So what’s left? The cause of the Big Bang and abiogenesis are important research areas, with consciousness and perhaps free will as additional challenges. After dismissing the tangential issues, we’re left with the observation that science has questions to answer. That’s true. And obvious. Why then the long list of questions? Because it sounds stupid to come right out and say, “There will always be questions within science, but ‘God did it’ can explain them all; therefore, God.”

Wallace demands, “These are the things that everyone has a burden to explain,” but his sense of urgency is groundless. Yes, there are unanswered questions, but so what?

[Then I examined] the universe from the perspective of my philosophical naturalism to see if my atheism had any explanatory power.

Sure it does, just not in the field of science. While the Christian claim “God did it” has no evidence backing it and is unfalsifiable (and therefore useless as an explanation), the hypothesis “there is no god” does follow the evidence and neatly untangles the tough problems that tie Christians in knots (more here).

[I already accepted] several extra-natural explanations as an atheist, because if nature is just space, time, matter, and physics, well there’s lots of things that those things won’t account for, and so I’ve got to step out of my naturalism just to explain those things and so what am I doing here?

Time’s up—I need the answers now! No, I’m sorry, “Science is working on it” will not be accepted as an answer. You must completely explain all remaining scientific questions right now.

Or at least that’s how apologists like Wallace imagine things. For some reason, we shouldn’t look for further progress from the discipline that has given us our modern technology-intensive world. No, we should rely on the discipline that weaves contradictory stories about the supernatural, that has no use for evidence, and that has never taught us anything accurate about reality.


See also: Christianity’s Bogus Claims to Answer Life’s Big Questions


Stupid argument #45: Well, aren’t you arrogant! Who are you to judge God?

Here’s a comment from this blog that illustrates the popular Christian idea that we mortals are in no position to judge God’s actions.

I am completely clueless as to what you think could possibly give you the right to Judge God. Unlike you, God knows all things and He brought the universe into existence for a reason. You don’t have to like it that God created people knowing they would end up in hell, or suffer on earth, or be blessed for a while, or whatever it might be. But what right do they have to look into the infinite heavens, raise their fist, and bring a righteous charge against the infinite God of the universe?

The first problem, of course, is the Hypothetical God Fallacy (Stupid Argument #33). You don’t just assume the incredible Christian claims and proceed from there, but that is the assumption behind the claim, “Who are you to judge God?”

If we don’t assume God, which is the only reasonable option for an outsider to Christianity, then we’re not judging God but judging claims about God. No believer can ask anything more from us than that we evaluate their supernatural claims. What’s the alternative? To simply accept Christians’ claims about God? No, the buck stops here, and we’re the ones to judge.

The problem is that the Christian claims suck. The Christian is usually eager to judge God but only when the conclusion would be “God is good.” When a negative conclusion is possible, they tell us that no one can judge God.

And with the biblical God, a negative conclusion is inevitable. A god who is all-loving but commands genocide and sanctions slavery? A god who is eager for a relationship but won’t provide evidence of his existence? A god who is just and fair but demands belief in the unbelievable to get into paradise? Nope—that’s not a good God (more).

Christians seem to want to treat God like a celestial baby. With a human baby, people excuse its messes since it doesn’t know better, but then that’s how they treat God as well. When someone wants to judge God’s actions by adult standards—nothing difficult, just basic morality—these Christians step in and say that that’s not fair. God can’t do wrong, by definition. If he does something that would be wrong if you did it, we’re just supposed to call that “right” since it’s God who did it.

Like the baby who needs a diaper, God can’t even defend himself. What does it say that Christians treat God like a baby? And that they demand that we avoid judging his actions?

Of the two great, evil, criminal gangs to emerge out of Italy,
why is the Mafia the one that gets most of the bad press?
RichardSRussell

Image credit: Mark, flickr, CC

"cosmologists must have a virtually unanimous consensus on1 model, instead of 17 models with no ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."
"To be taken seriously you have to present the God hypothesis and the accompanying evidence, ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."
"That's OK. I'm sure China can pick that up.The Right will have no problem with ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"With over 100 billion stars in our galaxy, which is one of over 250 billion ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    I am completely clueless as to what you think could possibly give you the right to Judge God. Unlike you, God knows all things and He brought the universe into existence for a reason.

    In complaining about “judging God” the questioner starts by judging God….”God knows all things” – nope, sorry, that’s a judgement

    So basically it is, “Who are you to judge God _negatively_? It’s ok to judge him positively, though”

    • Bob Jase

      “But what right do they have to look into the infinite heavens, raise their fist, and bring a righteous charge against the infinite God of the universe?”

      Because the strongest bully is always the best person.

  • Bob Jase

    “[I already accepted] several extra-natural explanations as an atheist”

    Then you aren’t a skeptic which would really help. Somehow the two should go together and I’m always skeptical of supposed atheists who otherwise follow magical thinking.

    • Herald Newman

      I’m always skeptical of supposed atheists who otherwise follow magical thinking.

      Part of the problem is that there’s no “correct” path to get to atheism. One can come to the correct belief, but have piss poor justification for it. Such people also seem likely to become theists later, since they’re susceptible to bad reasoning.

      • Zeropoint

        This is relevant to my deconversion process–I believed that I had the correct beliefs, because that’s what I was taught, but I learned enough about science and philosophy to realize that while my religious beliefs were correct, I did indeed have “piss poor justification” for those beliefs. Well, I thought, that should be easy to fix, given that my religious beliefs are not only all true, but all OBVIOUSLY true, as I’ve been repeatedly assured. Thus, I set out to put a solid foundation of reason and evidence under by religious beliefs, and discovered that there AREN’T any good justifications for them and now I’m an atheist.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Sounds similar to Matt Dillahunty’s account of his process. IIRC the turning point was that he decided that a close and non-believing friend deserved to go to heaven, and therefore needed to be convinced by the best rational arguments available …

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Neil Carter of Godless in Dixie went through the same experiences, apparently.

    • Kodie

      I’m not. Anyone who thinks they are an atheist can call themselves one. I grew up this way. There’s no test. There didn’t used to be internet communities, and even today, not every atheist comes seeking community to talk about this stuff. It’s not about perfection of critical thinking skills. I really dislike the idea that people who aren’t learned on all the arguments, they must not really be atheists. If you ask yourself, does god seem to exist, and you come back with the answer, “no”, even if you didn’t use a logical reasoning path, that’s an atheist.

      You and Herald Newman below are correct – this leaves one susceptible to bad reasoning later on. I know an atheist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t think he would be easily converted to Christianity, but atheism doesn’t mean perfectly reasonable. I am not at all skeptical that people who grew up in a religion leave the religion in their teens (perhaps), for some of the reasons the church predicts – too many authoritarian rules. In a world where you can pray to god and nothing good comes of it, by teen years, you might actually notice. Doesn’t mean you’re out of the woods yet. Without seeking or finding an outside community to discuss doubts and thoughts, you’re just going to be winging it. Why isn’t this person an atheist? Someday, probably, they are going to articulate their issues as an ex-atheist because, having been raised to think about things with a magical context, and being a person, evolutionarily programmed to leap to magical conclusions when they detect some kind of pattern, it’s not a far walk to them feeling that “god-shaped hole” they’ve been warned about their whole lives, and returning to church once they start to panic and feel like they don’t know all the answers after all.

      Although they never got really far away from religion, I would call that atheism, if they think it was.

  • Jim Jones

    The very first time that science explained something that ‘god’ couldn’t or wouldn’t or didn’t, ‘godidit’ became an unacceptable response.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Yep. ‘godidit’ is now relegated to ever-narrowing gaps :-)

  • Anthrotheist

    Christians seem to want to treat God like a celestial baby.

    Except it is actually worse than that. Treating God like a celestial baby would be infantilizing to God, but instead Christians want to treat human adults as babies compared to God. It isn’t that we shouldn’t judge God because He doesn’t know any better, they claim that we shouldn’t judge God because we don’t know any better. They don’t treat God as something that cannot defend itself, they treat humans as children who need to stop talking back to Celestial Dad. I feel like this is far more insidious.

    • Jack Baynes

      And who are children to complain when their parents beat and abuse them?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I’ve written elsewhere about the argument that atheists are atheists because they had bad father figures, which ignores the obvious connection that maybe Christians are Christians because they can’t imagine not having a daddy to help them through life’s difficulties.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        The irony in that theory is that it reverses one from Freud, who said Yahweh is a psychological construct, based on his concepts. Freud was an atheist. They would not accept his claims, so why should we theirs? It has no good evidence in any case.

      • Kodie

        The people who seem to go that route seem to understand that the god/believer relationship is authoritarian/abusive. To them, maybe that’s normal? They think dads who aren’t there at all to straighten out their kids and their mom… well, that’s a deadbeat, right, but a dad who lets the mom do the authoritarian rule is also not a “good dad”. I am not really sure what they are trying to say. If your dad was authoritarian/abusive, then that may have turned you into a rebel against authority, so that’s not a good dad, but that’s a good god? What’s a bad father? Most people who have bad relationships with their father were abused, or he was absent or negligent mostly. Seems to me that people with a bad relationship with their father are looking for a substitute in the church, or people familiar with authority and abuse think that’s what makes god so good. I don’t know really. I have a good relationship with my dad.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Religion has all the answers. It’s just that most of the answers religion has are wrong.

    • LeekSoup

      Hahaha excellent. Although I might quibble on “most”

      • ThaneOfDrones

        “Blind squirrel”

      • Lark62

        Broken analog clock.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And any that they get right were accidental.

  • LeekSoup

    Thank you, Bob, for dismissing the ‘well, how do atheists explain evil then?’ argument as irrelevant.

    One of the great, liberating things of being an ex-Christian is not having to solve the problem of evil. It exists because sometimes shitty things happen or because people act on horrible ways. There’s no over-riding purpose to it and no need to justify it’s existence.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Wallace is just one of several prominent apologists to make this mistake. The Problem of Evil is built squarely on the Christian claims of a good God. How they can, with a straight face, say that the Problem of Evil applies to atheist and theist alike is beyond me. Perhaps they’re unaware that atheists make no god claims?

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        It seems they usually mean “Well who can you explain that anything is really evil?” Of course, when you just say “It’s subjective” that throws them. They will then come back with stuff like “Well then how do you condemn the Nazis etc.” You have written on that I know, and most ethical subjectivists have no trouble doing so.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, they do play that game, but that’s a separate issue. The “Ah, but the problem of evil applies to everyone!” gambit completely fails. They’re (temporarily) forgetting what “the problem of evil” is.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yes, they are changing the term so it applies to all worldviews. It’s another of the “No you” arguments they make, which are very tiresome.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Harm’ & ‘willfulness’ are good metrics to use in defining what’s evil, and why.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          I agree. They will not though (while often using those at the same time).

      • LeekSoup

        It’s almost like they don’t understand why the problem is a problem.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Your Patheos colleague / co-blogger ‘Captain Cassidy’ refers to it as the Law of Conservation of Worship:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2016/06/03/christians-and-the-law-of-conservation-of-worship/

        :-)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nice.

  • Joe

    I am completely clueless as to what you think could possibly give you the right to Judge God. Unlike you, God knows all things and He brought the universe into existence for a reason.

    I’m sorry, but why does that mean I am not allowed to judge god? Seems like a massive non-sequitur as I can’t see how you get from: creating the universe –> can’t be judged? It’s like saying “I baked this cake so you have to agree it’s delicious and not burnt at all. Not overcooked in the slightest.”

    Is he simple saying I’m not powerful enough to judge god? That’s extremely authoritarian.

    • Jack Baynes

      Even if the king will torture and kill you for speaking against him, that does not mean the subject is wrong to judge him.

      • Joe

        I’d say the judgement was highly justified, but what do I know, I’m just an atheist?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Yeah, I think it’s a might-makes-right thing, like in Job. Question all you want, but expect to get your ass handed to you as a result.

      (And Christians wonder why atheists don’t flock to this religion.)

    • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

      No, they’re claiming God is all good and all knowing, but we’re not, so we can’t possibly judge him. Of course, that begs the question like Bob said.

      • Jack Baynes

        Trust me, I’m murdering children and sending them to eternal punishment for their own good!!!!

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yes, basically, if you think such a being exists.

  • Michael Neville

    [Then I examined] the universe from the perspective of my philosophical naturalism to see if my atheism had any explanatory power.

    At its most basic, atheism is a statement of one particular belief on the existence of one type of supernatural beings. That statement can be expanded to explain some things about the universe, i.e., if there’s no gods then there’s no creator gods, so the universe was caused by something else which cannot be further defined by atheism. But atheism does not even attempt to explain why a proton is about 1835 times more massive than an electron. So I suspect that Wallace was expecting too much from his atheism and, when it didn’t deliver answers to questions it cannot answer, Wallace dropped atheism in favor of GODDIDIT.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Yeah, Wallace seemed to mix up science, methodological naturalism, and atheism.

      It’s like he’s pissed that chemistry doesn’t explain the origin of the Big Bang.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        I still think “naturalism” (methodological or otherwise) is really a meaningless term that conceeds too much to theism. The distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is linguistic, not material.

  • Monty

    Your premise is now proven wrong. Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely. We cannot exist. I prefer the alternate explanation – “In the beginning, God……’ God does not argue for His existence. His creation declares that. Evolution does not answer the most fundamental question of all. Where does the life of a creature come from? You can theorise as to how creatures evolved but there is something in even the smallest amoeba that makes it alive. Science has no answer to that and no scientist has created life in the lab. If life cannot be created in the best possible conditions, then maybe it cannot be created at all.

    I am guilty of attempting to strive with people who refuse point blank to accept that they could be wrong. The atheist (I grew up with one, my dad) claims to know all there is to know about all there is to know. He was one of the most intelligent and well read people I’ve ever met. When I became a Christian, he was horrified. My question is simply why do atheists get so upset? If you simply disappear into atoms and molecules after 70-80 years, just live as you please and to hell with everything else. It matters nothing if you are a drug dealer or a doctor, you make no difference to anything. Who says that the drug dealer is wrong? He/she provides a product that people want in order to be happy.

    If I’m wrong I’ve had a wonderful life as a Christian and I look forward to more years of peace, joy and love. (I’m 66). If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

    • Doubting Thomas

      It’s amazing how many shitty arguments you fit into one post.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Despite what they say, there are stupid questions. And, in Monty’s case, stupid arguments.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’d categorize the truly ‘stupid questions’ as those asked in the toxic blend of ignorance and bad faith by those who [even slightly charitably interpreted] aren’t sufficiently aware of either the former (e.g. Lockett) or the latter (e.g. Candy).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Also, such questions tend to be asked by the insufferably *smug*

        • TheNuszAbides

          i put those in the Lockett wing: so cocksure that they either have all the information they need – that whatever ignorance might be attributed to them is utterly irrelevant – that their questions can’t help but be asked in ‘bad faith’.

    • Michael Neville

      Your premise is now proven wrong. Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely.

      Sorry* but you’re wrong. Since the 1960s it’s been known that matter-antimatter asymmetry was part of the early universe. Why this happened is still an unanswered question but physicists at places like CERN are working on it. GODDIDIT is not a good explanation because it’s unfalsifiable.

      Likewise evolution doesn’t answer questions about the origin of life. However work continues on abiogenesis to discover how life could have come from non-life. Again GODDIDIT doesn’t answer that question satisfactorily.

      Your ignorance and incredulity aren’t evidence for gods (remember there’s more than your favorite deity), they’re just evidence of your ignorance and incredulity.

      Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you. –Dara Ó Briain

      *I’m not sorry at all but I’m trying to be polite to theists when they first appear on this blog.

      • Joe

        Sorry* but you’re wrong. Since the 1960s it’s been known that matter-antimatter asymmetry was part of the early universe. Why this happened is still an unanswered question but physicists at places like CERN are working on it. GODDIDIT is not a good explanation because it’s unfalsifiable.

        Of course, it’s almost certain that there will be Christian Apologists out there that would point to the distribution of matter to antimatter as proof of “fine tuning”. It really is difficult when we are presented with a different argument for God every time we log on to our computers.

        • adam

          ” It really is difficult when we are presented with a different argument for God every time we log on to our computers.”

          Since each ‘believer’ creates a unique “God”, every ‘believer’ you interact with will have a different apologetics (IF they have actually been introspective to generate one)
          If they are working ‘on the fly’, their view morphs with the conversation and they are forced either to accept other apologetics or create their own at the moment.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          if by “different” you mean “with a fresh coat of dull paint” …

        • Joe

          No, some are wildly contradictory. Then you have the deists and the “the universe is like, god, man” to deal with.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i just meant they’re all wishful thinking, but with slightly different shades of rhetoric. not that there is only one argument, nor that any of them agree with each other or have any inclination to do so.

      • Monty

        You do not have to be polite to me. I’ve been a Christian for 45 years. My first run in with an atheist was pretty personal – my dad. I’ve had plenty of discussions since that time.

        • Joe

          My first run in with an atheist was pretty personal – my dad.

          This is basically the plot of “God’s not Dead”, but in reverse.

        • Doubting Thomas

          God’s Not Dead: Homeschooled Edition

        • TheNuszAbides

          with only your shoddy talking points thus far to go by, it’s a shame none of those discussions seems to have
          (a) been with people better-informed than your dad;
          (b) [if they were better-informed] involved you paying close attention to what they were saying.

        • bamboodread

          Monty, you should have listened to your dad

        • Lark62

          It doesn’t sound like his dad was into critical analysis of data.

          It would be more beneficial to learn about science with books like Why Evolution is True (Coyne) and The Story of Earth (Hazen). Or just read Wikipedia science posts.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          You don’t anything about Monty’s dad, except what you hear from Monty. And Monty seems to get everything wrong.

        • Kevin K
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re making your relationship with your father all about his atheism, rather than the anti-social tendencies that made him act like an asshole to you.

          Until you can demonstrate that atheism, in and of itself, leads to antisocial behavior (hint: Stats don’t support you), that tack won’t work.

          Also…get over it. From what you’ve said, your biological father is *dead*, so why are you carrying him around like an albatross?

    • Sonyaj

      I am guilty of attempting to strive with people who refuse point blank to accept that they could be wrong

      I’m curious: have you ever reflected this exact statement to your own beliefs that YOU could be wrong? If not, you suffer from the exact same condition you accuse your atheist father of. I came about my atheism over time, although I was raised by atheists. After pestering my mother to let me go to Sunday school (Methodist) in Jr. Hi, she did. I went a few times, and not only was tediously boring, but it made no sense…and it wasn’t long before I pestered her to stop taking me. A BS in nutritional science/exercise physiology and a life-long love of all things science – with not a single bit of evidence that any supernatural, omnipotent being exists – and yeah, that’s me: an atheist.

      Provide any actual evidence that god exists, and I’ll happily change my lack of belief into one of belief. And therein lies the rub: the bible is not “proof” of anything. There is nothing that has not been explained by science that the bible explains. The bronze-age authors of the stories, parables and mythologies that were cobbled together to form the christian bible didn’t understand science. Once science was developed, nonsensical claims about things like a global flood (physically impossible) and an earth-centric solar system, fell by the wayside. The genie of scientific progress is never going back in the bottle, I’m sorry to say.

      If your god is so petty as to condemn one of its creations to a life in hell because of a lack of belief because it failed to show a single sign its own existence, well, your god is malevolent, narcissistic bastard.

      • Monty

        *sigh*. I am retired so I have a bit of spare time. I will waste a little more of it. God has revealed Himself. You refuse to believe. I went to the Church of England as a teenager. I thought that “eternity” was sitting through the service. I had no choice because of my circumstances. As soon as I was able I stopped going. I don’t know why but evolution made no sense to me. My dad spent a long time trying to convince me that there was no God. I did not argue with him. He was extremely strong and forceful. He was into time travel too. “I’ll knock you into the middle of next week” was a favourite saying of his. I was actually hopeful that God was not real. I had no desire to know God. My understanding was that God was like my dad, all powerful and looking for any excuse to beat up on you. I am glad to say that I was wrong. God is Love, God is good, God cares enough to send his Son to die in your place. You can accept it or not. God does not condemn anyone to hell. It’s your choice. You won’t want to be in heaven. What we call hell is simply separation from God – as you are now. The difference is that all your self-deception, wishful thinking and rejection of the evidence before your eyes will be removed. I get no joy out of saying these things, unlike those who mock me. I assure you that it does not trouble me one iota. I expect nothing else. I hope that someone might at least get an inkling that maybe they are wrong. Some atheists do become Christians. Look up Jeff Allen, one of the funniest guys on the planet. He was an alcoholic, drug taking atheist. He met Christ and his life was transformed.

        • Jack Baynes

          If hell is simply separation from God, then we have no need for his salvation.
          And the Bible’s depiction of hell is a lie. If God’s inspired word is a lie, why should we believe its promises?

        • Michael Neville

          You refuse to believe.

          We “refuse to believe” for a simple reason, we have no cause to believe. There is not a shred of evidence that your god or any other god exists. If you or anyone else gives us evidence that gods aren’t figments of the imagination then we’ll reconsider our beliefs. However I should warn you that we’re familiar with all the dodges and wheezes that Christians think is “evidence”. So don’t waste your or our time with nonsense like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the ontological proof, the fine tuning argument, the complexity of life, the transcendental argument, the argument from morality, or suchlike arguments. We’ve heard them before and we know the holes in them.

          I don’t know why but evolution made no sense to me.

          Because you don’t understand it. As I told you before, your ignorance and incredulity are just evidence of your ignorance and incredulity. They are not good or even mediocre arguments against evolution. Evidence for evolution is readily available to you but I suspect you’re too arrogant to educate yourself on the subject.

          God is Love, God is good, God cares enough to send his Son to die in your place.

          According to your own propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He orders rape and genocide. He condones slavery. And yes, I can give you Biblical quotes to back up each and every one of those accusations. If Hell is absence of a monstrous thug then I’ll take Hell.

          You have this weird belief that belief in gods is a choice. It isn’t. Either you believe or you don’t, but you can’t decide to believe or disbelieve. There’s one other point that I hope you’ll consider. We don’t need your god. We don’t have god-shaped holes in our psyches crying to be filled. We have meaning in our lives without gods.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I don’t know why but evolution made no sense to me.-Monty

          I know why.
          It’s your inability to think clearly and honestly.
          It’s written all over your comments.

        • Lark62

          Your father was abusive. No child deserves to be beaten.

          But your father’s behavior and character are totally irrelevant to the question of the existence on one or more magical deities.

          If “God has revealed Himself” he is the most massive screw up of all time. Humans have worshipped thousands of deities. There are over 40,000 flavors of christianity, each claiming to be the “one true version.” And most think most of the other flavors of christians are going to hell. This is how your deity reveals himself?

        • Jack Baynes

          Satan’s just much more crafty at revealing lies to people. But not Monty, he knows HE got the REAL revelation

        • bamboodread

          If Jesus revealed himself to me I would call the police and have him locked up with the other perverts

        • Lark62

          Decades ago the Smithsonian Modern Art museum had a poster advertising the museum. A man in trenchcoat was flashing a statue. The caption: Expose Yourself to Art.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Lark62

          That was it. Apparently the photographer actually had a contest to come up a caption for the photo, but then realized there was only one possible caption.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, fair’s fair…the sculpture is nude, too, right?

          😉

        • bamboodread

          Ha ha haa!!

        • Kevin K

          When I was between college years, I worked in a factory with a guy who had just been released from the loony bin. He was locked away because he saw Jesus in the company elevator and tried to get the CEO to pray with him. They have drugs that help that now.

        • bamboodread

          Ha ha haaa!!

        • Sonyaj

          You have: a) completely failed to answer the question I asked you (well, you did sort of answer it by dodging it completely); b) completely failed to show any evidence that “god has revealed himself”. Exactly what evidence have any atheists rejected? Jesus on a piece of toast? Stigmata on a statue? A sudden end of the starvation, suffering and illness that millions of children in Africa suffer and die from each year…oh, wait…never mind. If your god is all-knowing and all-powerful, it has a mighty curious way of showing it. No “rejection of evidence” – there is no evidence of yours or any other god. Period.

          If god is love and god is good as you claim, it shouldn’t be offended that I don’t worship it. That would be like me deciding to smash some baby kittens because they don’t worship me or properly acknowledge my existence; we put people in prison for that sort of anti-social, psychotic behavior. If god existed, the least it could do is not allow the creation and spread of the Zika virus. Or the Ebola virus. Or malaria. Or the bubonic plague, which wiped out 50 million people in Europe in the 14th century. Those people were all god-fearing Christians, and they died in spite of that; why would a loving god punish his true believers in such a gruesome way? It was science, and advent of microbiology and human ingenuity, that has stopped the deaths from all of these diseases – not some made-up god figure.

          Your words fall empty and unthreatening on me and every other atheist here. I’m afraid you are the one engaging in wishful thinking, and honestly, I couldn’t care less what you believe. What I (and the rest of us) have a problem with is you trying to use the power of the government to force everyone to accept your same beliefs. I believe that England is more secular than the US, so I’m sure it is a tougher sell for you people to force policy on atheists there than it is here in the US. The bible-thumping zealots are getting dangerously close to forcing actual policy change here based on that barbaric book, and it’s alarming a lot of us.

          You can call a complete dismissal of your beliefs and opinions as “mockery”, but those two terms (dismissal and mockery) are not the same thing. It is patently absurd that any supposedly intelligent adult alive in the 21st century believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that the deluge myth of the great flood (which was a theme long before the bible’s writings came into existence) is responsible for forming the Grand Canyon, as an example. And yes, I will have an unfavorable opinion of anyone over the age of 5 holding such ridiculous beliefs, and I might not hesitate to tell them this. Grand Canyon geology is a hobby of mine, so I can provide numerous books written by various geologists that explain how and when it formed, with decades of scientific evidence and research to back up their claims. A bronze-age book of stories, myths and parables isn’t ever going to trump science.

        • Joe

          God has revealed Himself.

          Somebody get him a bathrobe, quick!

          Look up Jeff Allen, one of the funniest guys on the planet. He was an alcoholic, drug taking atheist. He met Christ and his life was transformed.

          I’ve never been addicted to alcohol or drugs. So Jesus transformed him to the level I was already at?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Somebody get him a bathrobe, quick!

          I wonder if Monty wants to press charges.

        • Joe

          “Show me on the doll where he touched you”

          Everywhere all at once!

        • grasshopper

          I press charges with an ion.

        • Greg G.

          Are you positive the perp will be held on bond?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God has revealed Himself. You refuse to believe.

          You know the believer in some other religion who says this to you? Imagine what you’d say to him.

          Now say that to yourself in response to your own position. That’ll save us the trouble of doing so.

          I don’t know why but evolution made no sense to me.

          Yeah, and … ?

          Look, Monty: your arguments are of the simplest sort. You seem earnest, but we’ve heard your arguments dozens of times.

          I’m glad that you’re here if you’re interested in learning. I’ve written lots of posts (click on All Posts at the top or search for more) on the points you’re making. Check them out if you want to understand the atheist position (you don’t).

          If instead you’re here only to proselytize, you’ll get a lot of pushback fairly quickly.

        • MNb

          “You refuse to believe. ”
          Yes, because believers like you always fail to provide any justification.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and the ones that even try, insist on unnecessary (if not outright absurd) priors.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44

          God is Love, God is good, God cares enough to send his Son to die in your place

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37ff8d565e37f90f1692534abc7bde4f84ad626409dbae57a062be3d469bfcbb.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          For God so loved the world that SOMEBODY had to die!

        • TheNuszAbides

          blood will have blood.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God cares enough to send his Son to die in your place.

          I’m sure you’ve had important people in your life die. You know what “die” means. What happened to Jesus (out of action for 36 hours and then popping back into existence, good as new) isn’t “die.”

        • MNb

          “God cares enough to send his Son to die in your place.”
          Anyone who sends his/her son to die in my place is a creep, especially given the fact that I didn’t ask for it.
          Creeps are not good.
          Your god is a creep.

        • adam
        • Kevin K
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope on any ‘gods’, yours included, ‘revealing’ itself.

          Aron Ra said it best, “If you can’t SHOW it, you don’t KNOW it.”

          SHOW ME!

        • Kodie

          Pardon me for prying, but did you go through a period of addiction?

        • Otto

          >>>”God has revealed Himself. You refuse to believe.”
          >>>”God does not condemn anyone to hell. It’s your choice.”

          Complete and utter horseshit.
          Some Christians become atheist…like me

    • Joe

      Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely. We cannot exist. I prefer the alternate explanation – “In the beginning, God……’

      How did God get around the matter/antimatter problem?

      I am guilty of attempting to strive with people who refuse point blank to accept that they could be wrong.

      I could be wrong.

      My question is simply why do atheists get so upset?

      About what?

      If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      And if we’re both wrong, what then?

      • Monty

        Joe, I know how much people hate to hear this, but I know what I’m talking about. I know God. I know Jesus. I know that the Bible is God’s word. How do you describe a sunset to someone born blind? Impossible. The answer is not for the blind person to ridicule the person who can see, but for the blind person to receive their sight. How is this possible? You need to go to God, even if you are not sure that He exists. Ask Him! If you really want to know, and you will be humble, God will answer you. As He did me. And millions of others.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Monty, you are pretending again.
          Pretending can prove anything to the gullible and deceitful.
          Christianity believes its own lies for sentimental reasons.

        • Joe

          Joe, I know how much people hate to hear this, but I know what I’m talking about.

          Yes, you’re correct. I hate to hear people self-proclaiming their own correctness in the face of evidence to the contrary.

          I know God. I know Jesus. I know that the Bible is God’s word.

          What are their real names? Which Bible?

          How do you describe a sunset to someone born blind? Impossible

          How would God do it? Ask him.

          Ask Him! If you really want to know, and you will be humble, God will answer you. As He did me. And millions of others.

          Could you ask him a question on my behalf? Who is going to win the world series this year?

        • Michael Neville

          Right now it’s Houston 5, LA 0, top of the 3rd inning.

        • Joe

          I have a feeling God might be able to get this one right.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I wonder how God weighs all those prayers on each side. Someone won’t get his prayer answered. Maybe they get a rain check or voucher or something.

        • Joe

          I wonder how God weighs all those prayers on each side.

          Completely randomly?

        • MR

          The loser doesn’t have to go to the White House.

        • bamboodread

          How did God cope during the slavery era I often wonder. On one side there is the slave master praying for strong, healthy slaves; on the other the slaves praying for freedom from plantation work.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Apparently not by “majority rules.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Prayers are like coupons that state “void once supply is exhausted. May not be substituted for another item.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Cash value 1/20 of one cent. Proprietor retains the right to substitute like item or withdraw this offer at their sole discretion.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Monty tells us, “I know God. I know Jesus.”

          I wonder if he can tell us what Jesus’s favorite ice cream is. What his voice sounds like. Favorite pet. Eye color.

          Or maybe his relationship with Jesus isn’t like that–more of an imaginary thing, perhaps.

        • Joe

          That’s my point. Everyone who claims intimate contact with Jesus either:

          Can’t tell us anything we couldn’t just learn from the Bible or existing Christian theology, or:

          Says something totally at odds with others who he communicates with, i.e. “Jesus told me I should marry all the women in my cult.”

        • bamboodread

          Did Jesus possess testicles and a penis when he was quasi human?

        • TheNuszAbides

          i bet that was an even hotter topic than the angels/head/pin stuff way back when they were still hashing out Adoptionism and Arianism and Manichaeism and whatever …

        • Jack Baynes

          Did he have multiple peni or did his foreskins just keep growing back?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who-o-o-oa … and how did Superman shave if it was a super beard?

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          He bounces his eye lasers off the bathroom mirror.

        • bamboodread

          Ha ha haaaa!!

        • Doubting Thomas

          Demonstrating that you are in communication with an omniscient being would be simple. Just have it tell you something you couldn’t have possibly known otherwise. Hell, just shuffle some cards and have God tell you what the top three cards are. I’m guessing God is exactly as accurate as pure chance.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          God’s real name is “Jealous”. (Exodus 34:14)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I know God.

          Sure you do. So does the Mormon. So does the Muslim.

          Somehow, though, I’m not sure that these contradictory statements–with each person saying he knows these different interpretations of God–are reliable.

          You need to go to God, even if you are not sure that He exists.

          And do you take your own medicine? Do you seek Allah to see if He exists?

          If you really want to know, and you will be humble, God will answer you.

          Nope. Ask an ex-Christian who spent the last few months of his life tearfully begging God to reveal himself. Don’t tell me that they weren’t sincere or humble enough.

          Atheists simply don’t have the evidence to support the unbelievable Christian claims.

        • MR

          It’s rather embarrassing to look back upon now, but, yes, sincere and humble. It’s very strange to be praying to something that you’re not sure anymore even exists. “God, if you exist, please don’t let me lose my faith in you….”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          A bit embarrassing, yes, but your example undercuts Monty’s claims. He thinks that he and his denomination have it all figured out?

          That wasn’t my path out of Christianity (it was more of an atrophying) so it’s good to hear other people’s stories.

        • Chuck Johnson

          But that’s what they wanted you to do.
          You were hoodwinked.

        • MR

          Well, to be fair, I think we were all hoodwinked. Except in the case of a certain breed of apologists, I don’t think your average Christian is intentionally trying to deceive. The WLCs, the Ravi’s and pretty much all of the apologists who show up here, yes. The Senters, the Locketts, the Smiths, [edit to add]: the Montys…, they all, however sincerely intentioned, inevitably cross the line of deceit at some point. To me, they are the living proof of the BS that is Christianity. But the people who directly indoctrinated me…, my family, my friends, the average Christian on the street…, were/are just as indoctrinated as I was.

        • Chuck Johnson

          In addition, atheists have the evidence to counter the unbelievable Christian claims.

        • Zeropoint

          A blind person can build a light detector and *verify* that the sighted person is describing something real.

        • MNb

          “I know God. I know Jesus. I know that the Bible is God’s word.”
          That’s a void claim. You don’t have a method to justify that knowledge.

        • BlackMamba44
        • LeekSoup

          Ah good for you. How does knowing God feel? What is that like.

          I spent most of my Christian life wondering why other people had such profound experiences of God where I didn’t feel like I did. But of course they were internal, unverifiable experiences that happened in their own heads.

          I’m glad you know Jesus so intimately. I hope he doesn’t tell you to go on a murder spree.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          That last sentence! LOL!

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          :-(

        • adam
        • adam
        • ThaneOfDrones

          I know Jesus. I know that the Bible is God’s word.

          Who was the father of Joseph, Jesus’ step-father? Was it Jacob (Matt 1:16) or was it Heli (Luke 3:23)?

        • ThaneOfDrones

          How do you describe a sunset to someone born blind? Impossible.

          NLS at the Library of Congress

          National Library Service (NLS) is a free braille and talking book library service for people with temporary or permanent low vision, blindness, or a physical disability that prevents them from reading or holding the printed page. Through a national network of cooperating libraries, NLS circulates books and magazines in braille or audio formats, delivered by postage-free mail or instantly downloadable.

        • Greg G.

          I know God. I know Jesus.

          How do you know that you know God and Jesus? How do you know it isn’t Satan or one of his minions cat-fishing you? How do you know you are not unintentionally cat-fishing yourself?

        • TheNuszAbides

          at least give the poor chap the benefit of the doubt, that he isn’t likely to be logging in from a DMT-soaked fantasy-roleplay session.

        • Greg G.

          I have known other Monty-like people way back before there was log-ins but DMT is still a possible explanation for many religious beliefs.

        • TheNuszAbides
        • Bob Jase

          Ever notice that in fantasy roleplaying games the admittedly fictional gods answer prayers much better than the so-called real gods?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          😀

        • TheNuszAbides

          *gasp* it’s almost as though those worlds are designed! checkmate, naturalism!!111!11

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          If a priest could reliably cast “Raise Dead”, I’d be a believer.

        • Bob Jase

          So hard to roll a natural 1 on 3d6.

        • Otto

          “I know God.”

          Pretty much impossible to make a more arrogant statement short of saying you are God.

        • adam
        • Jack Baynes

          ‘Cause Jesus he knows me, and he knows I’m right!
          -Phil Collins

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. You’ve made a bunch of baseless assertions, then insulted and condemned us for daring to demand you put your money where your mouth is and produce evidence.

          Fly away, little mosquito…you’re annoying.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          That’s funny! You are pretending to know something and mocking the disabled to support your beliefs!

    • adam
      • Monty

        Science starts out with a false premise and attempts to make its observations fit its false premise. Have you heard of the “half-life of knowledge” principle? 50% of everything you learn in the education system proves to be false or irrelevant eventually. The trouble is that no one can tell at the time which bit of knowledge is false. You base your whole life on something so pathetically shallow and meaningless? Funny cartoon, but irrelevant. I am not into magic either.

        • Michael Neville

          What “false premise” is that? Be specific.

          Have you applied your “half-life of knowledge” to your own beliefs? Of course you haven’t. You’re so sure of your Christian knowledge that you accept obvious bullshit like creationism without asking yourself why thousands of biologists (those are the people who actually study life forms) accept evolution and reject GODDIDIT.

          Your arrogance and ignorance shine through every statement you make. I could never be a Christian like you, I’m not smug and self-righteous enough.

        • Joe

          You base your whole life on something so pathetically shallow

          Have you heard of the “pot calling the kettle” principal?

        • Jack Baynes

          And we have far less than a 50% shot at picking the right religion.

        • Sonyaj

          Science starts out with a false premise and attempts to make its observations fit its false premise.

          No, you have it all wrong: that’s exactly what RELIGION does! It does not ask questions, like science does, but does try to shut down questions.

          The fact you even make such a blatantly incorrect statement shows that you have exactly zero understanding of how the discipline of science even works, and demonstrates a rather frightening degree of ignorance on your part.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7be795c82b77522f803d496c67b9532f914de4230c19fdbbda348c055799480.png

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Science starts out with a false premise and attempts to make its observations fit its false premise,” Monty said as he typed on his computer. “Tell me one thing science has done for me,” he continued, as he used the internet and electricity, unaware that he had avoided death by those antibiotics he got 10 years prior.

        • Herald Newman

          unaware that he had avoided death by those antibiotics he got 10 years prior.

          I was just listening to a doctor describe the advances we’ve made in life expectancy. Vaccines, clean water, and sewage treatment, made huge improvements and gave us an extra 20 years of life expectancy. Antibiotics also helped, but only contributed about 5 years. We tend to miss the invisible things that we take for granted.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Apparently there’s a tradition in Harvard Law School to tell the first-year students in their introductory lecture, “Look to your left, then to your right. One of you won’t be here in a year.”

          That has sparked a modern medical version: look to your left, then to your right. One of you wouldn’t be here but for modern medicine.

        • Kevin K

          …and the vaccinations he got as a kid…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep. What was once miraculous is now vanishingly mundane.

        • bamboodread

          Monty, what has science to do with not believing in ridiculous mythological stories? Once you people start “sciencing” it is clear notice that you have no story and are preparing to lie to yourselves and us

        • MNb

          “Science starts out with a false premise and attempts to make its observations fit its false premise.”
          Thanks for confirming what I wrote above immediately.
          Still you totally accept that false premise every single time you turn on your computer and post something on internet.

          “50% of everything you learn in the education system proves to be false or irrelevant eventually.”
          Yeah, science is imperfect.
          Belief explains nothing. That’s far, far less than the 50% of science that apparently is correct and relevant.

        • adam

          “Science starts out with a false premise and attempts to make its observations fit its false premise.”

          Please use the following space to write all you know about science dont worry about trying to fill the whole space.
          [ ]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

          “You base your whole life on something so pathetically shallow and meaningless? ”
          You mean as shallow and meaningless as feeding a planet using the Haber process?
          Or extending life as medicine?

          ” I am not into magic either.”
          You are if you believe in the supernatural like Jesus magic.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          I am not into magic either.

          Glad to hear it.

          So you don’t believe that a man turned water into wine; that would be magic.
          Or that a man walked on water; that would be magic.
          Or that a man healed people just by letting them touch his cloak; that would be magic.
          Or that a man rose from the dead; that would also be magic.

        • Greg G.

          Or that a man healed people just by letting them touch his cloak; that would be magic.

          Peter healed people by letting his shadow pass over them. People were healed by Paul’s snot rag.

          It is amazing how many Christians think magic is real, but not they are not miracles, because miracles are from God and magic is from Satan’s power.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          I prefer to spell it magick to make it more ridiculous, but in this instance I went with Monty’s spelling for consistency.

        • TheNuszAbides

          no way, magick’s just more authentick.

        • Bob Jase

          Then again, since all power supposedly ultimately derives from god then Satan is just using god’s power that was given to him.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Science has provided you with MOST of what you subsist on today:
          – Food
          – Clothing
          – Shelter
          – Medicine
          – Energy
          – Computers and the Internet

          Religion has done NONE of these…and YOU, YOU UNGRATEFUL WRETCH, DARE TO ATTACK THAT WHICH HAS *OBVIOUSLY* PROVIDED YOU WITH SO MUCH!!!

          /rant off

          😉

        • Kodie

          What the fuck are you talking about, on a computer?

        • Otto

          I was educated in a Christian school…I have a pretty good idea of what 50% was the problem.

    • Greg G.

      If I’m wrong I’ve had a wonderful life as a Christian and I look forward to more years of peace, joy and love. (I’m 66). If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      The Bible says you are to be most pitied if you are wrong. Paul pre-refuted Pascal’s Wager.

      1 Corinthians 15:19 (NRSV)19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

      • Monty

        You missed out the rest of Paul’s statement. If Christ is not risen we are still dead in our trespass and sin. Paul did not say that there is no afterlife, the opposite. It’s easy to pull a verse out of context, but not intellectually honest. Anyone interested should read 12-28, not just 19.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah–crazy, right? If Christ is not risen then all of Christianity is superstitious nonsense. There are no trespasses or sins to worry about.

          What a shame that Paul got so close to the truth but missed it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You missed out the rest of Paul’s statement.

          ha ha ha … good luck going toe-to-toe with Greg G. on what about Paul he ‘missed’.

        • Greg G.

          It is fair to take that verse out of context because the meaning is not misrepresented when set apart. The previous verses are making the same point looking at the case of Jesus not being resurrected. This verse is the conclusion.

          Then Paul goes on to preach that Jesus really did raise from the dead. He knows this because it is “according to the scriptures” that he mentions in verses 3 and 4 of this chapter. The scriptures he refers to are Isaiah 53:5, 9, 11-12 for the “died”, “buried”, and “died for sins”. The “risen on the third day” come from Hosea 6:2. If you disagree, please tell me what scriptures Paul is referring to. Perhaps there is some passage I have missed.

          The verses following that verse are Paul trying to make the case that Jesus did rise from the dead. Then he turns to rhetorical questions:

          1 Corinthians 15:29-34 (NRSV)29 Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?30 And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? 31 I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised,

          “Let us eat and drink,    for tomorrow we die.”

          33 Do not be deceived:

          “Bad company ruins good morals.”

          34 Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

          Indeed. Why are people receiving baptism on behalf of the dead?

          Paul’s argument seems to be:
          1. If Jesus is not resurrected, then we are wasting our time.
          2. We are not wasting our time.
          3. Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When you have evidence for your ‘christ’ that’s anywhere near as reliable as that for either, say, Julius Caesar, or *gravity*, let me know.

          Until then, the verse you cite works AGAINST you, not *for* you.

    • Jack Baynes

      If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      And you worship a god who would punish me for eternity for simply not believing in him?
      What a miserable toady you are, bowing down to a monster in the hopes that he won’t hurt you the way he hurts everyone around you.

    • Chuck Johnson

      Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal
      amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely.Monty

      You are lying about this.
      Lying is one of the apologist’s favorite tools of persuasion.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Your premise is now proven wrong. Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely. We cannot exist. I prefer the alternate explanation – “In the beginning, God……’

      Your position is unclear. Are you saying that your belief rests on this scientific conclusion? That if this matter/anti-matter puzzle were later resolved with a natural explanation, would you reject your Christian faith?

      I’m guessing not. In that case, your argument is pointless. You have no skin in the game, so this argument becomes just mental masturbation.

      God does not argue for His existence. His creation declares that.

      Oh? Why does existence argue for Yahweh any more than Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

      Evolution does not answer the most fundamental question of all. Where does the life of a creature come from?

      Huh? You’re criticizing evolution because it doesn’t explain things it was never intended to explain?

      For your next trick, perhaps you can criticize physics because it doesn’t explain tax policy.

      no scientist has created life in the lab.

      Yet another point that I’m sure your faith doesn’t rest on. Why should I engage on this point if you’ve got no skin in the game?

      I am guilty of attempting to strive with people who refuse point blank to accept that they could be wrong.

      It’s your lucky day! I could be wrong.

      The atheist (I grew up with one, my dad) claims to know all there is to know about all there is to know.

      Not this atheist.

      My question is simply why do atheists get so upset?

      Get so upset about your becoming a Christian? I dunno—would you get upset if one of your closest Christian friends became a Muslim or Mormon or Hari Krishna?

      If you simply disappear into atoms and molecules after 70-80 years, just live as you please and to hell with everything else.

      Why would you think I think that?

      It matters nothing if you are a drug dealer or a doctor, you make no difference to anything.

      Tell me the truth: you didn’t think that sentence through before you wrote it, did you?

      If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      Pascal’s Wager? Seriously?

      Did you ever think how this applies to you?

    • eric

      Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely. We cannot exist.

      You’re wrong twice over. First in implying that science has reached some paradoxical end on this point. The Baryon asymmetry problem, as it’s called, is indeed a problem in physics…one which is being actively explored. Because scientists have no problem working on things which are currently not explicable by science. We welcome it.

      The second wrong in your argument is in claiming that if physics determines all masses and forces in the universe would cancel out, this would make a universe impossible. This is not so. Quite the reverse – under QM, the type of universe which is allowed to emerge without any proximate cause is one with exactly this sort of balanced set of stuff. QM allows the spontaneous (albeit temporary) appearance of equal and opposite things. This was in fact the entire point of Stephen Hawking’s last book. Not every physicist agrees with Hawking in his claim that science has shown this balance adequately, but I think most would agree with conditional statement that if this balance were to be shown to exist the way Hawking claims it is, then rather than making the universe less explicable using natural laws, it makes it more explicable. IOW if all the things and forces in the universe cancel out, that makes it easier for physics to explain our existence, not harder.

      If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      Pascal’s wager? Really? Since you obviously don’t find that a convincing argument for converting to Islam, or Hinduism, or Judaism, why would you think we’d find it a convincing argument for converting to Christianity?

      • BlackMamba44

        Oops. Wrong one.

    • Chuck Johnson

      If you simply disappear into atoms and molecules after 70-80 years,
      just live as you please and to hell with everything else. It matters
      nothing if you are a drug dealer or a doctor, you make no difference to
      anything.-Monty

      So you simply disappear into atoms after 70-80 years of making strawman accusations against atheists and worshiping a fictional God.
      And you really seem to believe this malarkey.

      Dust in the wind.
      All your words are dust in the wind.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Monty ignores the downside of having a completely wrong and yet completely avoidable worldview.

      • vinny152

        What is “wrong” with being dust in the wind???–at least it isn’t “man-made” as are religions….J.L.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        “Kansas: Leftoverture” FTW!

        • Jack Baynes

          “All we are is Dust in the Wind, Dude”
          –Ted “Theodore” Logan

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          …WHOA!….

        • Chuck Johnson

          “The Point Of Know Return”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Did I get the wrong album? O Noes, senility! 😉

    • Otto

      >>>”If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.”

      Wrong…because if that type of God does exist I will be fine with the fact that I am morally superior to any such being because I would not treat even my worst enemy in the way that you think your God is justified to treat me, for merely holding a wrong belief.

    • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

      Assuming you’re correct on what “science decided” that theory is clearly wrong. This does not equal to God, though, which would be a false dilemma. Evolution is not intended to answer that question, nor was it ever. The fact that abiogenesis is not yet fully explained does not mean God did it. That would be an argument from ignorance. We shall have to see.

      Who are the people refusing to accept this? It certainly isn’t me, an atheist, so you attack a strawman. Perhaps your dad was like that, but all atheists don’t have the same attitude. Nor do we all “get so upset”. Those that do may be concerned that religion harms people, or simply want what we believe is true to be believed in, etc. It seems to me the fact our life is short makes that more precious, not less, just as we value rare, fragile things over abundant, sturdy ones. As to the drug dealer, we say they are wrong because their product, while giving temporary pleasure, cause far more harm down the line.

      If you’re wrong, we could also say you missed out on living a life that could not only be peaceful, joyful, and loving, but with a true worldview. As for the old Pascal’s Wager, it’s just again the false dilemma. Show us atheism vs. your theism are the only options. Even then however, do you expect people can simply change their minds like a light switch? If there is a God that sends people to hell, I cannot accept him. The fact that you do says nothing good, I’m afraid.

    • Damien Priestly

      Stay tuned for life forms chemically synthesized in a laboratory…it is being worked on, progress is being made. And you are wrong about the big-bang…matter and anti-matter almost cancelled each other out — there was an asymmetry allowing a small amount of one form (what we call matter) not be be turned into energy like most of the rest. Read Steven Weinberg’s “The First Three Minutes”.

      Also there is no reason to believe that the matter and energy in the big-bang did not always exist in some form…The state of “nothingness” may not be possible. Again refer to Weinberg — a Nobel Prize winner and Atheist. BTW, who or what created God?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Then there’s the zero-energy universe hypothesis, which states that gravitational energy is negative, and it cancels out the positive energy in the universe. Maybe with the universe you can have a free lunch.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

        • Kevin K

          Hasn’t that been confirmed? Pretty sure it’s been confirmed. Which would elevate it from the status of hypothesis.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s “hypothesis” in Wikipedia, so that’s one data point. I know it’s been around for a long time, though I don’t know if it’s the consensus view among physicists.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          The energy in chocolate is cancelled out by its weight.
          Therefore, calorie neutral.

        • Greg G.

          I am susceptible to being kidnapped by a sign that says, “Free chocolate inside trap.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
      • MNb

        “And you are wrong …..”

        No, he isn’t. There was an article about this problem recently; I read it too.
        He’s wrong with “physics can’t explain, hence God”.
        From a Flemish qualtiy paper:

        https://www.demorgen.be/wetenschap/het-heelal-zou-niet-mogen-bestaan-zeggen-wetenschappers-na-bizarre-vondst-b8a75ee5/

        They refer to CERN, Geneva.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        11/03/2017 NPR this morning had a bit on how they’ve developed 2 new synthetic DNA bases to go with the existing natural 4. The synthetics have been grafted into bacteria that managed to reproduce them.

        Hold on to your seats!! :-)

    • MNb

      “Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.”
      Nope. Science has not decided that atll. Science has exposed a problem in theories regarding the Big Bang.
      “Solving” this problem by “Goddiddid” is a well known fallacy pointed out by ….. theologians.”

      “My question is simply why do atheists get so upset?”
      I am not. I am amused by falsehoods like yours. It demonstrates the failure of christian belief.

    • BlackMamba44
    • BlackMamba44
    • Jack Baynes

      If you simply disappear into atoms and molecules after 70-80 years, just live as you please and to hell with everything else. It matters nothing if you are a drug dealer or a doctor, you make no difference to anything.

      And in the Christian worldview, it ALSO doesn’t matter. God will send you to hell either way. Unless you accept Jesus Christ, and then he WON’T send you to hell. Morality is totally irrelevant.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        OR a deathbed conversion…if you’re ‘saved’, you’re going to ‘heaven’ if only you sincerely repent.

    • adam

      “I am guilty of attempting to strive with people who refuse point blank to accept that they could be wrong.”

      I could be wrong.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Agreed. I’d follow up with “show me your evidence, then.”

        • adam

          You know I would……
          Except it is obvious that Monty has no evidence, either.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      Science has now decided that…

      I just love how theists whine that science is always changing – up until it tells them something they want to hear.
      So science currently cannot explain the imbalance of matter & anti-matter. Research harder.

    • katiehippie

      If god exists, there is no reason at all for us to be here. Doesn’t he want us with him in heaven? It doesn’t matter if a christian is a drug dealer or a doctor, just say the magic words and you go to heaven, along with all the murderers and pedophiles who repented. Nothing you do here matters if you repent.If your dad claimed to know all there is to know, he was just a know it all, it had nothing to do with atheists. This so called ‘decision’ you made to believe in god? What kind of real decision has a threat of hell in it. Only an abuser makes people make those sorts of decisions. Even if your god was real, he wouldn’t be worthy of worship.

    • katiehippie

      So what’s your idea of heaven? Will you remember being on earth? If you do, will you remember that you have loved ones that are being tortured eternally in hell? Does that seem like a good punishment for something that doesn’t matter anymore (earth being gone for uncounted years)? Or, will you not remember being on earth and so the whole concept of earth was useless to begin with and there was no reason for anyone to be there because no one remembers?
      And by the way, evolution doesn’t try to explain the origin of life, just the process since then.
      I think perhaps your years of peace joy and love might have more to do with getting away from toxic people in your life. I have done the same and my life is much better and I’ve realized I did it myself and a god had nothing to do with it.

      • Bob Jase

        Funny how all believers think they will end up in Heaven (whatever that is).

        What if a good god-fearing for his/her whole life tells a friend that their clothes don’t make them look fat (because they don’t want to cause hurt feelings) and is then hit by a bus and killed? Straight to Hell for eternity for lying and not saying,”Oops, sorry”. And that kind of thinking makes sense to believers.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Believers *say* they think they’re going to heaven.

          Their behavior puts the lie to the assertion, though.

        • Bob Jase

          Offhand, have you caught the series on NBC, The Good Place? its pretty decent.

    • Lerk!

      If you’re wrong, Zeus is going to strike you with a lightning bolt. You’ve seen lightning, haven’t you? Then you have proof of Zeus’ existence! Does that make you afraid? No? You’re not afraid of the Greek god Zeus? Oh, because that’s just mythology? What a coincidence! The Canaanite god Yahweh is a myth, too! As was his father El Elyon. And his son Yeshua.

      It could be that if the atheist is wrong they’ll come back in another life as a cockroach, assuming the atheist is a nasty person. And the Christian might have the same fate, assuming that the Christian is a nasty person. Because there’s a religion that implies such a thing could happen.

    • Kevin K

      Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so cancelling matter out completely.

      BZZT!! Oh so sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Vanna will see you out. Can we have the next contestant?

      • TheNuszAbides

        Vanna will see you out.

        you’re feeling generous today …

    • epeeist

      Science has now decided that the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter

      “Science” has has it? I am presuming that you are referring to something like this article. If you actually read the article then it says that there is a problem with our theories which “Science” (or rather scientists) are investigating.

      Evolution does not answer the most fundamental question of all. Where does the life of a creature come from?

      To be blunt, why should we take any notice of someone who has simply no clue whatsoever when it comes to actual science. Here you are trying to conflate two different sets of phenomena, each of which will have their own, separate explanatory theories.

      If the atheist is wrong, he/she looks forward to spending eternity regretting their foolish decision to reject God.

      And as ever it comes down to an ad baculum.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      Evolution does not answer the most fundamental question of all. Where does the life of a creature come from?

      That is not ‘the most fundamental question of all‘. The most fundamental question is probably “why is there something instead of nothing?’ Besides, evolution is not even an attempt to answer that question, it answers the question about life changing and diversifying. And it answers that question very successfully.

      You can theorise as to how creatures evolved but there is something in even the smallest amoeba that makes it alive.

      1) Define life.

      2) Do you think that dead amoebas don’t exist?

      3) Are bacterial spores “alive” when they are in their dormant state?

      4) Chemical can be added to living things, chemicals can be removed from living things. The breakdown in the dividing line between biochemistry and chemistry dates back to 1828 when Friedrich Wöhler was the first to synthesize urea. That got deep-thinking people thinking deeply that perhaps biochemistry really is just chemistry.

      Science has no answer to that and no scientist has created life in the lab.

      Take a step back and define “life”.

      Scientists have chemically synthesized entire chromosomes and installed them in cells, replacing the original chromosome. The ensuing nature of the cell demonstrated that the replacement chromosome was up and running.

      If life cannot be created in the best possible conditions, then maybe it cannot be created at all.

      NEWS FLASH: Creationist fuckwit proclaims that creation is impossible.
      Make up your mind! First you were arguing against evolution, now you are arguing against creation.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Monty apparently has no grounding in either chemistry or the statistics of ENORMOUS sets of chemical reactions.

        It’s been shown that, statistically, life could almost certainly not FAIL to form, given what we know about chemistry and the conditions of the Early Earth, and could have formed MANY times….but most of them got wiped out by changing conditions.

        • epeeist

          Monty apparently has no grounding in either chemistry or the statistics of ENORMOUS sets of chemical reactions.

          Or science generally, hence the attempt to conflate cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution as though one theory should cover them all.

        • Michael Neville

          But for Monty one theory does cover them all: GODDIDIT! Why are lions and tigers able to interbreed? GODDIDIT. Why does St. Elmo’s Fire appear on ship masts and steeples? GODDIDIT. Why is the Moon made of green cheese? GODDIDIT.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve read some speculation that early life could be different enough from DNA-based life that we don’t see it even though it’s in nature somewhere.

          And then you look at all the extremophiles. Life certainly is tenacious and innovative once it gets going.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      I’m seeing more assertions, and not a SINGLE citation of a relevant authority in the field(s) cited.

      Why don’t you go off and whine to your brethren & sistern about us meanypie atheists and leave us in peace?

      After all, it’s not like you’re going to convince any of us without the testable EVIDENCE that you’re either unable or unwilling to provide.

    • Paul Brandon Rimmer

      Science never ‘decide’ anything for certain. Theories and explanations are always tentative and open for revision and improvement. Also, any theory that predicts that there’s no matter is automatically falsified. I’m not aware of that being a necessary prediction of all big bang models, though, and would need to see a demonstration that this is the case.

      • http://www.webook.com/member/PennyPritchard loreenlee

        Dear Paul: You gave me a thumbs up for an article comment on relativity vs. categories, etc. etc. This video made me understand? that Jordan Peterson does indeed appreciate the brilliance of such a post-modern as Derrida. Thought you’d be interested in this. Just exploring, yes, rather incoherently, the idea! reality! of paradox! Blessings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5F4oOlAK8w

    • Kodie

      It’s the people. Christians seem to never shut the fuck up about why the laws have to follow their myths.

    • http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu Alec Bobmail Dumas Anon Fetty

      FAIL. That has been known for decades and the latest research simply shows we must look elsewhere. Your alternate explanation does not even mention stuff discovered in the 1600s when the telescope was invented as the rings of Saturn or the craters of the Moon. Much less galaxies.

      As for the last part, what hypocrite is Him. Much talking about love and omnibenevolence, but at the end one goes to Hell just because he/she prefered not to believe it.

      Are you sure, by the way, Heaven will not be like Hell, being eternally (eternity is a whole lotta time) forced to worship him?. Or are you sure it will not instead be Satan or any of the thousands of deities that have been venerated across the globe ?

  • Monty

    Atheists in general have the same mentality as most illiberal lefties. Deny and decry anything that does not fit their misconceptions. I am reminded of the intellectual suicide committed every time a Muslim commits a terror attack. There is a desperate rush by non Muslims to deny that Islam is responsible. Yet the Koran is packed with references to violent attacks and murder on anyone who is not a Muslim. The evidence is clear, even a number of Muslims shake their heads at the liberal left stupidity. The result is already in. Islam is taking over Europe. Canada is not far behind. Denial does not make something true. The evidence is before your eyes. You don’t just not believe, you point blank refuse to believe, just as the New York Police deny that Islam was responsible for the latest terror attack. There are voices of reason trying to defend the west from themselves, just as some Christians hope that at least some atheists will wake up to reality. I will leave you to your folly.

    • Lark62

      Have you read your book? Christian terrorists justify their murders with the bible just as easily as muslim terrorists with the koran. Yet most christians, even though they profess to believe every word, do not dash the infants of their enemies against rocks.

      Neo Nazis, and KKK and their ilk are responsible for far more American deaths than Muslims.

      Atheists don’t care for any form of religious extremism – christian, muslim or other.

      A strong secular government is the best defense against religious dominionism and all that entails.

    • LeekSoup

      “I will leave you to your folly.”

      Promises, promises.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Odds on Monty sticking the flounce?

        • Kodie

          50:1

    • Jack Baynes

      Meanwhile, conservative Christians in America, while claiming to fear Sharia law, do everything they can to tear down the separations between church and state that would protect us from Sharia law.

      • Herald Newman

        There’s a much better chance that we’ll see the American Taliban trying to enforce a Christian version of Sharia than a Muslim version. At least for the next few decades.

        • Bob Jase

          Chance? They’ve been trying since Reagan was nominated.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Fear of competition, that’s all.

    • BlackMamba44
    • Philmonomer

      I am reminded of the intellectual dishonesty every time a Christian says their religion is a religion of peace. Mathew 10:34 specifically states: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

    • Herald Newman

      Ah good. One more Christian who spouts without facts. I’m certainly not going to miss your words. Onto my blocked list with ye!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Atheists in general have the same mentality as most illiberal lefties.

      I think lefties are liberal, not illiberal. Just a typo, I’m guessing.

      There is a desperate rush by non Muslims to deny that Islam is responsible. Yet the Koran is packed with references to violent attacks and murder on anyone who is not a Muslim.

      I love placing blame where it belongs. Sure, the Koran has lots of hateful stuff in it. And (wouldn’t you know it?) the Bible does, too.

      Can we draw a lesson from this?

      The result is already in. Islam is taking over Europe.

      I have an idea! Let’s have a strong wall of separation between church and state. Keep religion in its place, whether it’s Christianity or something else.

      Sound good?

      Deny and decry anything that does not fit their misconceptions . . . I will leave you to your folly.

      Translation: Wow—I didn’t expect such an onslaught in response to my ill-thought-out, dogmatically driven blather! I’d better leave, tail between my legs, before I must admit that I have no responses to these attacks on Christianity.

      • MNb

        “I think lefties are liberal, not illiberal”
        There are lefties who aren’t. Like the ones who celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevist Revolution a few weeks ago.

      • epeeist

        Translation: Wow—I didn’t expect such an onslaught in response to my ill-thought-out, dogmatically driven blather! I’d better leave, tail between my legs, before I must admit that I have no responses to these attacks on Christianity.

        Oh come on, you should know by now that the SOP for these people is to declare victory then leg it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Pigeon Chess’, once again.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And that’s where my God-given ability to translate tongues comes in handy. Monty speaks blather, and I tell you what he really means.

      • Annerdr

        Re liberal/illiberal. I had this explained to me once. It’s all about how lefties are against free speech because (1) protesting hate speech, (2) not providing platforms for hate speech, and (3) debunking hate speech claims. It be a true liberal, you should not protest speech you disagree with, you should support speech you disagree with, and it’s rude to question the veracity of the claims of speech you disagree with.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The Paradox of Tolerance…the one thing tolerance can NOT afford to tolerate is INtolerance, lest the latter sweep the former from existence.

    • adam

      “Atheists in general have the same mentality as most illiberal lefties.”

      You mean they are intelligent, thanks Capt Obvious.

      “Deny and decry anything that does not fit their misconceptions.”

      You mean scientifically sceptical, not to believe in MAGIC.

      “I am reminded of the intellectual suicide committed every time a Muslim commits a terror attack.”

      You mean Faith?

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d134665ed0517a1f26d646a9aca0769ab8888ea98b22ac830fc9c881177381a.jpg

      “Yet the Koran is packed with references to violent attacks and murder on anyone who is not a Muslim.”

      You mean like this one from the God of Abraham in the bible:

      6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love,
      or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and
      worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have
      known, 7gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),
      8do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them.
      9You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.
      10Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
      Deuteronomy 7

      • Bob Jase

        Let us not leave out the Jeez who supposedly said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” per Luke 14:26.

        • adam

          Yes, let’s not leave that out.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Interesting wrinkle I noticed there…it says “*secretly* entice”

        What if somebody just boldly says in public, “Nahhh, no need to worship ‘god’…”

        (mostly because back then doing so would probably get a body stoned to death)

    • MNb

      “I am reminded of ….”
      That tells us a lot about you and zilch about atheists.

    • Michael Neville

      I wonder what brought on this Islamophobic rant. Was it something someone here said? Or did Monty decide to go into Islamophobic rant mode?

      • adam

        You need to understand how CLOSE christianity and islam really is.
        Christianity doesnt WANT the competition for who has the most monsterous God.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        I think it was unprovoked. The logic may be: You should totally be afraid of the Muslims, and the Christians are the ones who are going to be standing in their way, so don’t be mean to Christians.

        • Max Doubt

          “I think it was unprovoked. The logic may be: You should totally be afraid of the Muslims, and the Christians are the ones who are going to be standing in their way, so don’t be mean to Christians.”

          It looks like it could be a prank, a Poe. The title of this article is…

          “25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid”

          Monty’s screed is a near perfect example of a stupid argument Christians should avoid, is it not? It could be he’s yanking our chain by offering an answer to the title.

          And of course it could simply be the rantings of a mad man.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve just looked at Monty’s posting history. He’s made similar noises at a Christian blog [LINK] as he’s made here. “Science knows nothing. The latest scientific debacle is that the “Big Bang” is now demonstrably impossible.” So no Poe or prank.

        • Max Doubt

          “So no Poe or prank.”

          You’re right. I’ve scrolled down and looked at a few more of his comments. It could have been a high quality put-on, but turns out to be low quality apologetics. The rantings of a mad man indeed.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Is he the one who has confused the odd balance between matter and anti-matter with an admission that the Big Bang was falsified?

          Edit: NM, just needed to scroll down to see him posting the same nonsense here. ☺

        • Monty
        • Michael Neville

          Did you even bother to read the article you linked to? I doubt you did or else you’d have seen where your “objection” is answered.

          The gist of it is that, in general, you do start with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but, from that, you need to make slightly more matter (or slightly less antimatter). It turns out that if you have the following three things in place, making different amounts of matter and antimatter is unavoidable:

          1. You need to be able to create or destroy baryons (protons, neutrons, etc.),

          2. You need particles and antiparticles to have slightly different properties from one another (called C-violation and CP-violation), and

          3. You need to be out of thermal equilibrium.

          Guess what? The Big Bang is like a factory for these three things. The description of the particles we have in nature — the Standard Model — not only allows for the first one, it happens much more easily at higher energies. (And we’ve never had higher energies in the Universe than the Hot Big Bang gave us!)

          The second one was first observed experimentally in 1964, and we now know of many instances that cause it.

          And the third one — being out of thermal equilibrium — is exactly what happens when you have a hot, dense Universe that expands and cools! So while we don’t know everything about how to make more matter than antimatter, we have no doubts that this happened, and that it happened perfectly consistently with the Big Bang.

        • Joe

          Looks like our “friend” Robert Lockett hangs out there too.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Or it could be that Monty just doesn’t notice s/he fits right in the bulls-eye of the stereotype…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘LookAtThem-ism’ ?

        • Monty

          I was trying to make a point, comparing the lack of logic and reason applied to Islam with the similar lack of logic and reason that atheists apply to their belief system. I have to say that I despise Islam with every fibre of my being. I don’t hate Muslims. They are utterly deceived and under pressure themselves to conform to their religion. One wrong step could easily be their last. That does not stop me doing anything I can to prevent my own country from going under Islam’s spell.

        • MNb

          You failed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I was trying to make a point, comparing the lack of logic and reason applied to Islam with the similar lack of logic and reason that atheists apply to their belief system.

          I see the parallel between Muslim belief and Christian belief. But not, I don’t see atheists failing to use logic and reason. You’ve been bombarded by responses to your original comments by lots of atheists. I don’t see any lack of logic or reason in their responses.

          You’ve got a bad attitude toward atheists, but you’ve given us no reason to understand why.

          I have to say that I despise Islam with every fibre of my being.

          Why? And why is this your problem? Why doesn’t God straighten things out?

          For that matter, why does God never straighten things out?

          That does not stop me doing anything I can to prevent my own country from going under Islam’s spell.

          Your country is Australia?

        • MR

          Don’t you love the smell of fear and tribalism in the morning?

        • Kodie

          You sound like you are talking about Ed Senter, a Christian who has been posting here a lot lately. All y’all are deceived. It’s not exclusive to Islam. The best way is to make sure the government doesn’t endorse any religions. If you try to use your Christianity to force some theocratic type of rule over your bogeyman Islam, you’re going to be all fucked about when Muslims use that rule to their advantage. I don’t want my country under Christianity’s spell or Islam’s spell. They are both superstitions. The wise thing to do would be to not be thought police about it, but not allow any religious dogma worm their way into the government. It’s probably too late. Christians think they have to. I mean, do you think about global warming ever? Or do you think eh.

    • Joe

      Islam is taking over Europe.

      No it isn’t.

      I just saw on the news that somebody shot and killed three people in a Wal Mart yesterday. Why is that not a major headline in your country?

      • adam

        ” Why is that not a major headline in your country?”

        Because he was a white christian?

        • Monty

          Possibly because Americans killing Americans is so commonplace that it barely raises an eyebrow. It was reported, as is the killing of 27 people at a church on Sunday.

        • adam

          Dead is dead.

          God can’t protect it’s own people in it’s own church.

        • Ed Senter

          He was an atheist, numbchuck.

        • adam

          Yep, the best YOUR “God” could do to protect its church and members.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          By all accounts, he had five copies of the Bible in his apartment, and no other books.

      • Monty

        What makes you think it isn’t?

        • Joe

          Because it was buried somewhere down the order.

          27 people killed in a church today. Was it a Muslim? Where was your god?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      I see a whiner throwing around assertions without bothering to provide evidence.

      Which makes you *typical*, but disappointing.

      I want E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E…if you can’t provide it, STFU & GTFO, because you’re not moving the conversation, knowledge, or morality forward and just annoying those of us who are trying to progress.

    • Kodie

      When a Christian is responsible, would you feel responsible? Or would you say “we’re not all like that”, “not a true Christian”. Etc. Heard it, recognize it for bullshit.

      I’m not going to say all Muslims are terrorists like you, you racist fuck, and I do recognize not all Christians are fundie lunatics.

      • Monty

        Islamaphobe, yes. Racist, no. I really do not get this moronic attitude that somehow Islam is a race. Read the Koran. Then tell me that Islam is not at war with the west.

        • MNb

          That little semantic game of yours doesn’t make your favourite brand of irrational (like “war with the west”) any better.
          Also good job not addressing anything Kodie wrote.

        • Kodie

          Don’t you think lots of Muslims interpret the Koran by ignoring those parts, just like Christians read and interpret the bible?

        • Monty

          Sure. There are active and inactive Muslims. The danger is that the west is being flooded by Muslims. You do not need a whole lot of active Muslims to become a serious risk. And then they breed like rabbits. They will take over at the ballot box simply by outnumbering the locals. Sharia law will be imposed. Best people convert now and save themselves the bother later on., Me I’m old enough that I doubt I’ll be around to see it.

        • MNb

          “And then they breed like rabbits.”
          Like people like you said about catholics about 60 years ago, you mean?

        • Kodie

          Isn’t that describing exactly what Christians do?

        • Rudy R

          Chicken Little much?

        • epeeist

          There are active and inactive Muslims.

          Same as Christians then.

          The danger is that the west is being flooded by Muslims.

          Citation required.

          You do not need a whole lot of active Muslims to become a serious risk.

          Unsubstantiated assertion. I live in a small town in the UK with a substantive population, what danger am I in?

          And then they breed like rabbits.

          Citation required

          They will take over at the ballot box simply by outnumbering the locals.

          So Muslims will be elected to parliament or Congress. How is this different to these institutions being overwhelmed by, say, conservative Christians?

          Sharia law will be imposed.

          Are there any non-Muslim nations where the is has actually happened.

          Best people convert now and save themselves the bother later on.

          Again, are there any non-Muslim countries in the world where this has become necessary.

          As Rudy R notes, your post is very much like the Chicken Little story.

        • BlackMamba44

          My Dad grew up in Michigan. His entire family lived in or around Detroit, the city with the largest population of Muslims in the US. They have never had a problem with them. They live with them peacefully.

          The second largest population lives in D.C. – I live not far outside D.C. Once again. No issues.

          Muslims make up about 1% of the population of the US.

          Evangelical Protestants make up about 25% of the US population (Catholic is about 21%) AND the extreme evangelicals have infiltrated our government.

          As an American, I DO NOT worry about the Muslim population here in the US. The Evangelicals are FAR more dangerous. And they are the ones that breed like rabbits. (i.e. Duggars and their cult – Quiverful)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And then they breed like rabbits.

          Sounds like Monty needs to slap some sense into the Quiverfull Christians in the US.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          What are those 14 words again?
          Something, something, something, White Race?

        • Jack Baynes

          If you fear Sharia Law, you should be screaming at the Conservative Christians trying to prepare the way for Sharia by tearing down the walls between church and state.

        • epeeist

          Indeed, America is far more likely to become a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah. Don’t remind me.

        • epeeist

          Then tell me that Islam is not at war with the west.

          Islam is a system of ideas, in exactly the same way as Christianity. How can a system of ideas be “at war”?

          Are there terrorist attacks on some Western countries? Yes. Are there terrorist attacks in other countries, such as Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Bangladesh? Yes, and the fact that such countries have been subject of terrorist attacks rather undermines your claim that it is just “the west” that is “at war”. As it is the majority of terror victims are Muslim:

          https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/80365000/gif/_80365550_terror_fatalities_countries_624.gif

          Are the majority of terrorist incidents carried out by Muslims? Yes, though there have been some attacks by white supremacists.

          If the majority of terrorist attacks are by Muslims does this mean that the majority of Muslims are terrorist? I’ll leave you to give an answer to this.

        • MNb

          It’s the same nazi shit that was popular in Europe about 80, 90 years ago: “tell me that judaism is not at war with western culture.”

        • Monty

          The difference is that Islam commands war (Jihad) against infidels. There is nothing in Jewish writings that commands war between Jews and others. Gee it would be nice if someone here dealt in reality and facts. Do you know nothing about Islam? The majority of Germans initially were not Nazi sympathisers. Many were party members because it was safer. It did not stop Hitler from taking over the country and going to war. He too relied on propaganda to motivate the Germans to support the war. He too wrote his intentions in a book. Europe wrung its hands and hoped it would all die down. Guess what. It was people dying, not the Nazi regime. Europe mostly is committing cultural and political suicide again. Hey, but Islam is the religion of peace, right?

        • MNb

          Except that Jihad far from always means war. You could have known if you had asked a muslim, like I did more than 25 years ago.

          “Gee it would be nice if someone here dealt in reality and facts.
          Yeah, someone like you.

          “Do you know nothing about Islam?”
          I think I have known more muslims in my life than you, visited mosques more often than you and have been in love with more muslimas than you.

        • Monty

          Read Islam’s “Holy Book”. Look at some history of Mohamed. He is the “perfect man” according to Islam. A mass murdering paedophile. Check out the history of Jesus and read His sayings. Just for once try to look at facts instead of prejudice. Terrorism is not the problem. It’s a distraction while Islam takes over the west by lies, deceptions, playing the victim and every propaganda trick in the book. Christianity may oppose homosexuality but it is not a death sentence. Christians oppose adultery but it is not illegal. Christians oppose child sex, even though some fakers are guilty. The Church and state are separate. Not so with Islam. Islam is the religion and the government.

          By the way, Islam killed around 90,000 Christians in 2016. Just another, normal year for Christians in Muslim countries. ISIL murdered around 30,000. The rest just the normal Muslim way of dealing with “infidels.” It is not against the law. It is mandated in the Koran. Oh, they don’t think much of atheists either.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s not Christianity vs. Islam, it’s truth vs. superstition. You’re afraid of Islam? Then let’s have a very, very strong wall of separation between church and state. Christians can do their thing, and those danged Muslims will be constrained.

          And you’re really living in a glass house when you demand that we read the Koran to see all the bad stuff there.

        • MNb

          “Read Islam’s “Holy Book”.”
          Done so. Worse than the New Testament, better than the Old Testament.

          “The Church and state are separate.”
          Yeah, sure, but not thanks to christians. Ask the Irish, the Italians, the Spanish. Also ask Dutch orthodox protestants. Ask the Russian band Pussy Riot.

        • epeeist

          Way to go avoiding all the points that I made.

          As it is all you do is simply repeat the same conflation of “Islam” and “Muslims” as you did in your previous post.

          Let’s try it a different way. Is Islam a vile, homophobic, misogynist, reactionary and supremacist ideology? Yes it is. Does that mean that all Muslims are vile, homophobic, misogynist, reactionary and supremacist?

          Christianity may oppose homosexuality but it is not a death sentence.

          So what you are saying is that Christianity is merely less vile, homophobic, misogynist, reactionary and supremacist than Islam. Is there a common position in this, are there varieties of Christianity that are, say, more homophobic and misogynist than others? Are there Christians who are more (or less) reactionary than others?

          By the way, Islam killed around 90,000 Christians in 2016.

          Ah, so only Christians matter in your reckoning. Personally I lament the loss of any human life, Christian or otherwise.

          And just to reiterate the fact that developing countries are much more likely to suffer from terrorism here is another graph for you:

          https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/373f7054986770a99f464575457f51fee1becccf/0_0_3060_2792/master/3060.jpg?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=7a04a879b2657212ef76a857167fe552

          This comes from this article.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Read the Koran. Then tell me that Islam is not at war with the west.

          Read the Old Testament. Then tell me that Yahweh isn’t a genocidal, pro-slavery monster.

        • Michael Neville

          The Christians’ loophole is that Yahweh has the right to be a genocidal monster because he created us or something. Plus he’ll torture you forever if you say he’s a genocidal monster.

        • Greg G.

          But God is so powerful, he can prove a logical argument using fallacies. He can even do it with Ed Senter and Robert Lockett.

        • Michael Neville

          But not with Monty. Even God draws the line somewhere.

        • TheNuszAbides

          with instruments like those, who needs detractors?

          *rummages in backpack* psst … can i borrow your detractor for the psychometry assignment?

  • MR

    25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 14 and counting)

    Stupid argument #45….

    Okay, but when you get to 50, can you please change the title to 50 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Good idea.

  • Rudy R

    If science had natural explanations, to the satisfaction of Christians, to what caused the Big Bang or how life started on Earth, would Christians stop believing in god? I think we all know the answer.

    And if atheists have no right to judge the god character as bad, then the same should hold true that theists have not right to judge god as good. Works both ways. And in fact, if it was proven to my satisfaction that the Christian god is real and is perfectly represented in the Bible, I’d still judge him as an immoral thug.

  • guadalupelavaca

    Why do you lump all Christians together. I have more questions for you. Who came up with the big bang theory? ….I’m waiting….give up? A Belgian Catholic priest. Who developed the science of genetics? A Catholic monk. Who owns and operates a state of the art observatory in Arizona? The Jesuits. Your beef is with evangelicals…not all Christians.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Yeah, I see the distinctions.

      You’re saying that some Christians don’t use these stupid arguments? Great. Have them come here, and I’m sure they’d cheer on the noble work I’m doing.

      • guadalupelavaca

        I’m here. And the work I see you doing is lumping all Christians together.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And I just said that I understand that I understand that not all Christians think alike. You’re just determined that we can’t agree?

        • guadalupelavaca

          I’m glad that you don’t lump us all together. But from your writings it appears that way. Catholics are significantly different from evangelicals. They may be both called Christian but they have very different beliefs.

        • Kodie

          What specifically is your issue with what you think Bob is accusing you of doing? I mean, you’re complaining a lot, but I don’t see which specific examples offended you. And do you agree you’re as superstitious as a fundamentalist? We’ve heard of Catholics before, they come here to comment and they also make terrible arguments. What are your good arguments? Are you saying it’s because they were religious a certain way that figures in history made discoveries or whatever you’re trying to take credit for?

        • guadalupelavaca

          But we are not fundamentalist in our actions. Catholics believe in science. And The Catholic church condemned slavery when our protestant Americans practised it.

        • Susan

          But we are not fundamentalist in our actions.

          Respectfully, maybe you’re not. But that doesn’t speak for your church.

          Catholics believe in science.

          Catholics do not have to “believe in” science. They are allowed to believe in science if they’d like. Catholics are only called to believe in the church’s teachings.

          The Catholic church condemned slavery when our protestant Americans practised it.

          I would be interested in links that support this. There’s so much about history I don’t know.

          However, to pick a single point in time and space where your church stood up against slavery is to ignore most of its history.

          The enslavement of women through political maneuvers to deprive them of reproductive rights continues to this day.

          And the last Magalene laundry closed in 1996.

          Much of what you stand for, which I respect, is contrary to your church’s teaching according to the catechism I used to read and according to many catholics I deal with on-line and in real life.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oh? When did the Church make clear that slavery was wrong? Be sure that every subsequent declaration about slavery was also to reject it.

          And Susan’s point is quite important. Say that the Church declared slavery forbidden by good Catholics in 1500 (it didn’t, but forget that). Why didn’t the early church figure this out on day 1? Why didn’t Jesus make that clear? Heck, why didn’t God do so rather than lay out the rules for conducting slavery properly in the Old Testament?

        • guadalupelavaca

          In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a bull, with the incipit In supremo apostolatus in which he condemned slavery, with particular reference to New World colonial slavery and the slave trade, calling it “inhumanum illud commercium.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You didn’t reply to most of my comment.

          As for slavery, I found this:

          As late as 1866, the Catholic Holy Office issued an endorsement of slavery signed by Pope Pius IX stating that: “…slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. For the sort of ownership which a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one’s own benefit – services which it is right for one human being to provide for another. From this it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated.”

        • guadalupelavaca

          Ok. So you had one pope who opposed it and one who didnt. One was right and one was wrong. I bet most of the subsequent popes opposed it. What is your point. That every catholic in the world now is evil because a pope 100 plus years ago got it wrong? You atheists really have an anger problem. No wonder you go into churches and shoot up people.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I thought my point was obvious, but I’ll clarify: that popes got it wrong is the most trivial aspect of the problem. That the god(s) you worship got it wrong is particularly damning. It’s almost like your god(s) don’t exist.

          Was the Texas church shooter an atheist? I hadn’t heard that. So is that how the game is played? When a person of group X does something bad, you paint others in group X with the same brush? Be careful with that rule, because I think you live in a glass house.

        • BlackMamba44

          He was an atheist who taught vacation bible school at one point – so that one is a bit iffy. He shot up the church not because of his atheism but because he was violent (attacked his wife and fractured his child’s skull hence his discharge from the Air Force) and had a domestic dispute with his MIL. He sent her threatening texts and then went to the church she attends and shot it up.

          Nothing to do with his atheism. Everything to do with his violence and anger.

          He didn’t shoot up the church in the name of no god belief. You’ll need to try again.

        • BlackMamba44

          Was Dylan Roof an atheist? No.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Funny. I never said that he shot up the church cuz he was atheist. Never said that was the cause. He was a troubled and violent person who hated people. He just happened to be atheist.

        • BlackMamba44

          You atheists really have an anger problem. No wonder you go into churches and shoot up people.

        • guadalupelavaca

          That was rhetorical pumpkin.

        • BlackMamba44

          rhe·tor·i·cal
          rəˈtôrək(ə)l/Submit
          adjective
          adjective: rhetorical
          relating to or concerned with the art of rhetoric.
          “repetition is a common rhetorical device”
          synonyms: stylistic, oratorical, linguistic, verbal
          “rhetorical devices”
          expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress.
          “the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education”
          synonyms: extravagant, grandiloquent, magniloquent, high-flown, orotund, bombastic, grandiose, pompous, pretentious, overblown, oratorical, turgid, flowery, florid; More
          informalhighfalutin;
          rarefustian
          “rhetorical hyperbole”
          (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.

          Not seeing it.

          Pumpkin? Fuck you.

        • Michael Neville

          So what was your point in bringing him up? For that matter, why did you say: “You atheists really have an anger problem. No wonder you go into churches and shoot up people.”?

        • BlackMamba44

          It didn’t even have to give his name. Anyone who reads this comment would know who was in its mind when it posted the comment

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Huh?? You said, “You atheists really have an anger problem. No wonder you go into churches and shoot up people.” And now you’re saying “He just happened to be an atheist”?

          If you want to be understood correctly, you need to compose your words more carefully, especially when they might come out as pretty savage accusations.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Um…It was rhetorical.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          OK. Now I have no idea what your position is.

        • Kodie

          Instead of getting defensive because you believe we insulted you, why not try to understand exactly what the issue is? So far, you are like all the other Christians who are led to believe we hate god and just want to be our own gods and do whatever shooting and murdering we want. You want some kind of credit for scientific progress because some people in the past managed to compartmentalize their beliefs from their research and didn’t let faith get in the way of reality. So what you think you’re not like other Christians. So what you think they are the problem not you. If you are making bullshit up about atheists or repeating bullshit as it was taught to you at church or speculated into fact by people who cannot tolerate that some people reject their sincere beliefs as nonsense and do not wish to live in a country which allows its laws to be made by the superstitious science-deniers, then you are part of some kind of problem we have with the religious in general. God doesn’t exist, but his fan club sure does. If you think you are progressive and pro-science, then you ought to get on our side and confront those fundamentalists who are taught that science is some kind of conspiracy to make them get rid of their SUVs and teach their children at school that there’s no god, so they make up their own official-looking fake science. We don’t want that kind of wrongness in policy. Do you? When you show up here and act like a little asshole about how insulted you are, and then get reactions, you are baiting for the insults and then fitting that in with your own preconceived notion of what atheists are like, and what atheism is about. You’re wrong about that, but you don’t give a shit, do you.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Never said you hate God. You hate Christians. And if it makes you feel like a real man why don’t you just call me a big asshole rather than a little one…big boy.

        • Kodie

          I hate pompous douchebags.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          How can a pope be wrong?
          Isn’t he a god’s earthly representative?

        • Bob Jase

          Nowadays isn’t almost everyone?

          They claim to be.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          Pope, wrong, or a god’s earthly representative?

          I’m only 1/3, most of the time. 2/3 on bad days.

        • guadalupelavaca

          No but there are many atheists on this site who do that about Christians. There is a whack job named atticusotoole who blames the catholic church for educating some Indians after the Canadian government took some of them and placed them in various Christian schools.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Simply offering education to Indians sounds like a noble pursuit, though that doesn’t describe the situation in the late 1800s in the US as I understand it. I’m sure you’ve read about the forbidding of Indian language and customs with the children at schools.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Yes, and it was the government who did it. It was the government who took them off the reservation. Otoole makes it sound like the Vatican was behind it.

        • MNb

          I would have been more impressed if that had happened in say 839 instead of after the French Revolution.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Not only that but the anti slave movement was supported by Christians of the day. John Brown at Harper’s ferry is an example. He and his sons lost their loves trying to free the slaves.

        • Pofarmer

          Christians were on both sides of slavery. The KKK was a Christian organization. Burning crosses were to show “The light of Christ.”

        • guadalupelavaca

          The KKK also hated Catholics and Jews. So I would argue just a tad bit that at best they were Christian in name only. I merely wanted to point out lest it is lost in history that a driving force in anti slavery was white Christians, such as John Brown at Harpers Ferry, and Abe Lincoln who was known to read the king james bible daily.

        • Pofarmer

          Sorry, you don’t get to pull out the “No true Scotsman” Schtick. Catholics persecuted other sects for over a thousand years.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Are they still alive? Have you listened to the current Pope and what he is preaching today?

        • Pofarmer

          Maybe you missed it. We werern’t talking current day, we were talking historically. And, yes, the Catholic Church effectively had slaves till 1996(Magdalene Laundries). There was a war at the beginning of the 20th century in Mexico over the Catholic Church’s right to control education in Mexico. And, even today, “freedom of religion” to Catholics too often means freedom to impose their beliefs on others.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Well…you could probably find a Catholic or two who claim the popes come from another galaxy. But that is not the official teaching of the Church. The official teaching of the Church, which is taught in their numerous
          and world wide universities, is evolution. Why are you having such a problem with that? Is English your second language? I could reply in Spanish if it would be helpful.

        • Pofarmer

          Actually, the church teaches “special creation” for humans.

        • Michael Neville

          Considering that it wasn’t until 1992 that Pope John Paul the Two Eyes got around to apologizing for Galileo’s trial by the Inquisition in 1633, perhaps the Catholic Church isn’t quite as pro-science as you might think.

        • guadalupelavaca

          What trial was that?

        • Michael Neville

          Google galileo inquisition and do some reading.

        • Susan

          As far as I can tell, Pofarmer was talking about slavery. Not evolution.

        • Pofarmer

          She’s not just moving the goalposts she’s Changing fields.

        • Susan

          I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt on this for now.

          She’s responding to a lot of people on more than one subject.

        • Susan

          The official teaching of the Church, which is taught in their numerous
          and world wide universities, is evolution.

          From the article you quoted earlier:

          The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

          Where does the catechism officially teach evolution?

        • guadalupelavaca

          Well to begin it’s what I learned and it’s what my brother learned and it’s what every catholic I know learned…in catholic school. I got this off of wikipedia…
          Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains how evolution proceeds. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values, wrote in a letter sent to all U.S. bishops in December 2004: “Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence.

        • epeeist

          The official teaching of the Church, which is taught in their numerous and world wide universities, is evolution.

          No, the teaching of the Church is theistic evolution. This is not the same as the theory of evolution which posits no guidance or teleology.

          Of course theistic evolution does not have any better explanatory power or increased empirical fit over the consensus version, this being so we ought to apply the principle associated with the good friar of Okham and discard the unnecessary entities.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Well, then I guess I went to the only Catholic HS in the world that didn’t teach theistic evolution. We got straight pure Darwinism. In fact, I never even heard “theistic evolution” before. Sounds like an oxymoron.

        • epeeist

          We got straight pure Darwinism.

          You obviously went to a very old fashioned school, these days what gets taught (at least here in the UK) is the modern synthesis, i.e. Darwin’s original theory with the two inter-theoretic reductions, genetics and microbiology.

          In fact, I never even heard “theistic evolution” before. Sounds like an oxymoron.

          You mean a mere atheist actually taught you something? As it is you might want to try this page.

        • guadalupelavaca

          I went to college and law school and had many atheist teachers.

        • Michael Neville

          So you’re living evidence of the old cliche “you can buy them books, you can send them to school, but you can’t teach them if they don’t want to learn.”

        • Kodie

          Here’s what’s silly about popes: Are they just some guy who got promoted, or are they a direct conduit of god? If they are a conduit of god, then why are they all different? If they are a conduit of god, were they always, or just since they were declared pope? Is it the hat or the ring? Anyway, you got some new pope, the old one isn’t even dead yet. If the pope is a human conduit of god, does Benedict still get any feed, or does he get cut off because he’s no longer the pope? Why do you venerate a fellow person? Because they studied the theology and try to stay current with the times (or not, depending on whatever the cardinals favor at the time they are voting)?

          I have really no idea what’s supposed to be so good about Catholics anyway. On one hand, pretty far behind the times, and on the other hand, trying to win a popularity contest by ditching old standards and trying to appeal to young people by changing their interpretation of the bible. Pretty flaky if you ask me.

        • guadalupelavaca

          I didn’t ask you.

        • BlackMamba44

          This is a public forum. Kodie doesn’t have to to ask you.

          You don’t like it? You know where the door is.

        • Kodie

          I guess you don’t know why you follow the whims of a guy in a funny hat, then.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Truth be said and all animosity and insults aside I follow the mystic side of the church. Going all the way back to Origen and Augustine and st. Francis and teresa of avila and most recently Thomas Merton. The Church mostly just provides a community which is helpful to mysticism, although technically not necessary. The is a great video on mysticism called “with one voice” narrated by Peter coyote of PBS. It explains it better than I can. It involves silent prayer and meditation. There has always been a mystical side of the church that surprisingly few people know about, including Catholics.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          It’s the ring.

          The pope is a member of the intergalactic Gold Lantern Corps, and the Ark of the Covenant (relocated to Rome in the early 300’s C.E.) is the Gold Power Battery.

        • Bob Jase

          Ah yes, the only weakness the rings have is young boys penises.

        • Mike, Agent of S.O.R.O.S.

          Funny, I thought that the Gold Power Ring’s constructs were not effective against Jews. That would be as reasonable as any explanation I’ve heard for the church’s historical antisemitism.

        • Kodie

          So not everything applies to your specific beliefs, but plenty of things do. You know what sucks most about people like you? Atheists are not allowed to criticize anything without people like you popping up to complain about us because you think we’re painting you instead of the toxic superstitions we’re pointing out. It’s so commonly known as the “we’re not all like that” kind of Christian. You’re all like something bullshit.

          Catholics have their own way of sucking, by the way. You’re not exempt from being toxic to society due to your superstitions.

        • MNb

          “Catholics believe in science.”
          Except when they don’t.

          http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php

          “We teach monogenism, that Adam and Eve were indeed our first parents. Catholic scientists and theologians are free to grapple with these difficult questions in their individual research. However, it would be considered wrong to teach it, because it has a moral impact on the faith and the nature of sin.”
          The smallest group of human beings I have seen proposed by scientists is 2000.

        • guadalupelavaca

          The site that you posted is not by the Catholic church. It is by 2 people who were once protestant and evangelical. They apparently have their own distorted views on Catholic history, which is very wrong. Catholics teach evolution. I learned about evolution when I was in Catholic school.

          In the early 5th century St. Augustine said that if science contradicts the bible, then we are to follow science. Catholics do not believe the bible is inerrant, which is why we are not a bible centered church. Evangelicals preach that the bible is inerrant.

          This is their bio:
          My wife Diane and I come from very different backgrounds. For her, the Catholic Church was the fulfillment of her search which began in childhood as a young faithful Evangelical. For me, it was the antidote to a worldly ambitious life that began in a non-practising Presbyterian family. Jesus has touched each of us in a powerful way and has drawn us into this life together.

        • MNb

          “The site that you posted is not by the Catholic church.”
          Then it’s a good thing I didn’t address “the Catholic Church believes in science” but “Catholics believe in science.”. That’s no coincidence. You wrote the latter, not the first.
          Worse for you, they are not the only ones.

          https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

          “Adam and Eve: Real People” etc.

          http://www.fullycatholic.com/catholic-church-on-adam-and-eve-2/

          “And listen to what the Catechism states, Paragraph # 375, “The Church … instructs that our first parents, Adam and Eve …” No mention of a myth here.”
          All this flat out contradicts what science says: at least 2000 (and probably more) parents.
          After this howler of yours I deemed it unnecessary to read the rest. In my experience it can only get worse.
          When they don’t like the conclusion catholics reject science just fine. So does apparently the Catholic Church, but I don’t feel like looking up an authorative source from the RCC itself now.

        • guadalupelavaca

          Again, you choose a site by an individual who posts his own personal views, not the ones of the Church. This is from wikipedia:

          Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin’s theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

        • MNb

          “Again, you choose a site by an individual”
          Again then it’s a good thing I addressed your “Catholics believe in science.” and nothing else. Even catholics are individuals.
          Otherwise I have nothing to add to my previous reply but pointing out that repeating your howler only makes it worse.

        • BlackMamba44

          So. Do you like your porridge with or without sugar?

        • guadalupelavaca

          I like my chorizo with sugar.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Michael Neville

          I eat my peas with honey,
          I’ve done so all my life.
          It makes them taste quite funny
          But it keeps them on my knife.
          –Ogden Nash

        • eric

          MNb’s source might not meet your approval but he’s spot on in terms of Catholic doctrine. See my quote from Pius above (before I read MNb’s post…)

        • eric

          Catholics believe in science.

          In some science, but not all.

          Human genetics has pretty confidently concluded that the human population has never dropped below about 10,000 individuals. Population bottlenecks leave evidence in the descendant population’s genetic diversity and distribution, and so we can sample humans and see just what size bottleneck we’ve been through. 10,000-30,000 individuals is the size.

          In contrast, this is what Pope Pius XII stated about the origin of the human population: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

          So the RCC’s acceptance of science seems to be limited. They’re “cafeteria scientists,” as it were. What’s more, it seems that the one claim they’ve decided to draw their ‘line in the sand’ about is something science has already shown with fairly high confidence to be wrongity wrong wrong. Perhaps the Pope’s next proclamation on human origins should be taken from Rick Perry: “Oops.”

        • eric

          But from your writings it appears that way.

          The big bold title says “stupid argument.” The big bolded point in the first paragraph says “stupid argument.” He quotes Wallace and points out why Wallace’s argument is stupid. Then you have the big bolded point about halfway down, about #45, which again says “stupid argument“.

          And from this you somehow infer the point of the article is ‘all Christians are stupid.’

          Well I don’t think all Christians are stupid. But (a) I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the point Bob was making, and (b) I’m also pretty sure at least one Christian is projecting his own biases and preconceptions about atheist opinion onto Bob’s writing.

        • BlackMamba44

          Pot meet kettle:

          You atheists really have an anger problem. No wonder you go into churches and shoot up people.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, that one came from left field. I didn’t expect that from guada. But whatever, especially since he’s the one in the glass house.

    • epeeist

      Who came up with the big bang theory? ….I’m waiting….give up? A Belgian Catholic priest.

      My copy-paste response since this gets repeated so often:

      The original equations came from a Jew, Albert Einstein, who didn’t believe in a personal god. The first exact solution of these was by a Soviet physicist and engineer, Alexander Friedman. This solution was independently rediscovered by Lemaître. The idea of a dynamic universe was supported by the observations of Edwin Hubble, someone who was probably a deist.

      Lemaître also put forward the idea of a “primeval atom” which underwent some kind of radioactive decay to produce the universe. This is a big bang theory, but it is not the big bang theory. This was produced by another Soviet physicist, George Gamow, who migrated to the US, his theory was disparagingly referred to as the “Big Bang” theory by the British physicist Fred Hoyle who had no time for religion.

      Incidentally when Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism Lemaître and the the papal scientific advisor persuaded the pope from making proclamations about cosmology.

      • Kevin K

        Hoyle became religious later on, I do believe, while firmly holding on to his steady state model of the universe.

    • Michael Neville

      I have a question for you. There are two large criminal organizations in Italy, the Mafia and the Catholic Church. Which one of these organizations is notorious for supporting and protecting child rapists?

      • guadalupelavaca

        mmmm…Oh, I get it! It’s a trick question. Mafia is Sicilian. Boy, I almost fell for it too.
        The term “Mafia” was originally applied to the Sicilian Mafia and originates in Sicily.

        Now, I got one for you. How many animals did moses have on the ark?

        • Michael Neville

          Sorry, you have to answer my question first. I’ll rephrase it for you so you won’t play semantic games. Why does the Catholic Church support and protect child rapists and simultaneously claim to be THE moral authority on Earth?

          Incidentally, since your geographic education seems to have been spotty, Sicily is part of Italy.

        • Kodie

          Vatican City isn’t though.

        • Michael Neville

          Vatican City is on the Italian Peninsula and is completely surrounded by Italy. It may not be Italy de jure but it is Italy de facto. Or not, whatever the argument needs at any particular point.

        • epeeist

          How many animals did moses have on the ark?

          None, no evidence for the existence of a “Moses” or “Noah”, an “ark”, a “global flood”.

        • MNb

          Don’t you think an organization that facilitates the kidnapping of newborns deserves to be categorized as mafia?

        • adam
    • adam
  • Matt Cavanaugh

    #45 is answer begging the question.