Did you know that I am ”one big evidence” of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? I didn’t either until boywidacoin told me:
You were never a Christian, no, not even once. You were just passionate. Somewhere in my old bible it talks about prophecy that there would be scoffers like you. Just like in the days of Noah. So you see, you’re one big evidence that there is such thing as the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
‘Til then…some day you’re going to get it and your mouth will be stopped.
The logic seems to be this:
- Somewhere, the Bible foretells there will be scoffers like Daniel Florien.
- Daniel Florien is a scoffer.
- Therefore, Daniel Florien is evidence of the virgin birth of Jesus.
Call me skeptical, but that isn’t very convincing to me.
In my article on the virgin birth, I gave numorous reasons why I don’t believe in the miracle of the virgin birth — the main one being there is absolutely no evidence for it. So this believer’s response is that I am evidence for it? To me, that signals extreme desperation.
I love it when Christians end their rebukes with, “Na-na-na-na-boo-boo! Someday you’re going to get it and have your mouth shut!” It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It reminds me of old days, when I might do something like that myself in a fit of religious fervor.
Thank Thor I got out!
I have invented a perpetual motion machine.
Don’t believe me?
Well, they doubted Einstein too!
QED.
I think we can rest our case concerning the whole irrationality thing. :P
Its always wonderful to see someone who is so obviously studied and well read in an area that means so much to them. Since this person believes that this has eternal consequences, you can obviously tell that they take it seriously, study scripture, and try to help others see how important it is through well thought out and reasonable arguments.
Oh wait…that almost never seems to happen. My mistake.
It reminds me of old days, when I might do something like that myself in a fit of religious fervor. Thank Thor I got out!
I too think this thought on a regular basis.
The “if you’ve lost your faith, it was never real in the first place” argument, though, saddens me. I did believe, utterly and with all my heart. I feel as angry when people of faith try to deny this, as I do when they insist my atheism isn’t real either.
You should do what PZ Myers does and occasionally post the weirdest, godbottiest email under the heading “I Get E-Mail.” By the by, isn’t that argument an example of one particular logical fallacy? I can’t remember which one. At any rate, it’s incredibly, amazingly stupid.
Well theres the:
Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):
the arguer hasn’t bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.
Don’t cult leaders also say there will be scoffers?
Or was that a movie I saw once?
I always come here for comedy, and I never get let down. These Christians are good sports, thinking of making our day with their witty comments and brave truths.
Actually, this particular pattern of logic:
1. Somewhere in the Bible there’s a passage that, with some twisting, can be read as a prophecy concerning X
2. Later in the Bible there’s a story about Jesus doing X
3. ZOMG – PROOF THAT JESUS EXISTED AND WAS THE SAVIOR!
Is pretty much the same pattern that you have above and that line of reasoning has been a staple of Christianity for thousands of years.
But I have to say, pointing out that the Bible “predicts” that there will be people who scoff at your beliefs is one of the lamest forms of prophecy imaginable. It’s like me predicting that I’m going to need to buy new jeans eventually – obviously true and utterly useless.
(And yeah, I get annoyed at the people who say I must have “never really been a believer” in the first place. Not only is it a “no True Scotsman” fallacy, it’s also insulting as all get out – they don’t know what I went through as my beliefs were pretty much crushed over time and they should kindly shut up about it.)
I’m an atheist, it certainly sounds like a silly argument – if you could even grace it with the name ‘argument’.
But there’s a logic trap there for us, as with all ‘revealed faith’ stuff. If you need divine revelation – in some form, even just a leap of faith – to ‘get it’, then we’re not going to get it.
Logically, I can see this being a valid argument – humans are limited, a god wouldn’t have the same limits, so *God* would be able to prove he existed to us. It would also be a perfectly sensible way for God to behave.
I’ll stress again – I don’t believe there are gods.
I’m just wondering … instead of a hundred posts in which we point out how silly the argument is, is there a way of working through the logic of it?
Is there some sort of workaround that gives us something testable? On this specific point, rather than religion or the Christian God generally. Or a compelling way out of the logic trap that isn’t just a fancy way of saying ‘they’re wrong to believe’?
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the PROMISE of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the CREATION.
Who were the scoffers Peter mentioned?
They were christians who doubted the coming of Jesus/God arguing that since God’s creation nothing really change and even those who led them were dead.
2Peter was written to deal with this false teachers or deriders within the christian faith.
boywidacoin can also be called a false teacher who scoffs at humaninty and he falsely uses the bible to preach a lie by saying Daniel is the evidence of the virgin birth of Jesus.
“I love it when Christians end their rebukes with, “Na-na-na-na-boo-boo! Someday you’re going to get it and have your mouth shut!” It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.”
This always drive me crazy, and it’s one of the few moments that I really regret the fact that there probably isn’t an after life. I would just love to find these people and say: “See – we were right!”
I’m always amused when Christians say that other Christians aren’t “real’ Christians… or that you never WERE a real Christian if you don’t believe now.
They don’t seem to grasp the irony that all those Christians that they say aren’t “real” are saying the same thing about them. Heh.
I’ve heard the “well, you were obviously never a real Christian” argument many, many times. It’s a win-win argument for Christians: if you used to be Christian but are now an Atheist, then you simply never were a real Christian, and as such you cannot “comprehend” the love of Jesus or know what it’s like to have faith or whatever.
As usual, it’s an insulting point of view that strips people of the ability to make their own, logical choices in life.
@Daniel
So Thor, the thunder god, was known for seducing women to his bed. The next morning, he would tell them who he was, and they would go mad, and die.
One such morning, he rolled over, and said “Honey, I’m Thor.” The woman responded “Tho am I, but it wath worth it.”
A Christian used the same argument on my blog a few weeks ago.
Peter fortold of evil scoffers like us:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+peter+3:3-4
There is no denying it now. One scoffer I can question, but two certainly proves the virgin birth and the end times. So Jesus should be coming down on his chariot and white horses any day now.
Gah! All that circular logic makes me dizzy!
The most amusing (and telling) part of this is that the Christian says, “I kinda remember that somewhere in the Bible it says {insert vague notion here}.” And the atheists are immediately able to respond with exactly where in the Bible they are getting that idea from and can point out in what context it was written.
Frequent Christian argument (though seldom explicitly stated) is more general: Bible says Christians will be persecuted. Atheists are daring to call it as they see it, which to Christians is persecution. Therefore, the Bible is proven true. I like this one because illuminating it is generally embarrassing to the person making the claim, because they usually don’t realize that’s what they were saying.
Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods always has a good quote in it about religion for almost any occasion. Here’s a favorite.
“The Captain frowned.”Its a funny thing,” he said, “but why is it that the heathens and the barbarians seem to have the best places to go when they die?”
“A bit of a poser that,” agreed the mate. “I s’pose it makes up for ‘em….enjoying themselves all the time when they were alive, too?” He looked puzzled. Now that he was dead the whole thing sounded suspicious.”
I’ve always felt when Christians do the whole you’ll be sorry after we’re all dead as a bit of uncertainty and sour grapes.
Isn’t a “real believer” an oxymoron? Seems to me that the people who spout that line are actually “unreal believers.”
Don’t you think?
These fucktards were clearly absent the day in school when it was explained that something has to be verified and true before it can be considered fact. I learned that in *second* grade, on a Wednesday. I remember that because on Wednesday nights, across the street from my good public school was the Catholic church/school where I had catechism, and almost everything the poor old bat teaching catechism would say I would ask for verification of to establish if it should be touted as fact (she of course failed miserably to convince me of anything).
I also understand what that’s like to have faith (or lack of) doubted… Not so long ago, one of my aunts found out I’m an Atheist, and called me and said to my voicemail (because I answer the phone at 7:30?) “Kevin, you can’t be an Atheist, you’re a confirmed Catholic. Your parents spent a lot of money on that, stop lying about it!”
I wrote her a nice letter that basically explains that coercion of a child into a particular cult does not mean that I can’t be a non-believer at 24. I did also tell her that I have been playing nice ever since, not protesting when people say grace, or whatever else. I told her that it really wasn’t any of her business, just like it was none of my business when she was skinny dipping with the superintendent of schools, which is why I never said anything then. I did point out that it was inappropriate for her to skinny dip with a married man, but I’m well within my rights to be an Atheist. I closed with the well worn line “If you understand why you’ve rejected every religion in the world except one, you’ll understand why I’ve rejected every religion in the world.
1) It was written down in a book!
2) Other things in the same book have been proven to be accurate.
3) Therefore everything in the book is proven to be accurate!
***
1) The Illiad talks about Troy.
2) They found Troy was a real place.
3) Therefore Zeus and Poseidon are real!
The interesting thing here is the lack of evidence that the virgin birth story was even originally part of Christianity. Did it really exist in the first century? We don’t know. Was it invented in the second century? If it didn’t exist in the first, then yes. Ok, but when in the second century? Before or after Marcion (ad 140)? We don’t know for sure. We do know that about 140 Marcion published a New Testament canon that had no birth story for Jesus and merely began “In the 15th year of the reign Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum…” We know also that neither John nor Mark describe the birth of Jesus in their gospels. Only Matthew and Luke tell us about the virgin birth. And Luke’s story suffers from its contradicting John’s gospel when Luke makes John the Baptist a cousin of Jesus (and making John the Baptist leap in the womb as a fetus when Mary entered the room where his mother was, thus recognizing Jesus from womb to womb), whereas John’s gospel says that John the Baptist did not know Jesus until he baptized him (when Jesus was 30). So, were Jesus and John cousins or not? Logically it is stoopid to make your hero’s verifier his family, so making John B into Jesus’ cousin was a dumb move on Luke’s part if it wasn’t true, because it creates a credibility gap. Nevertheless, it seems likely that “Luke” invented the story of JB being Jesus’ cousin to establish some sort of familial tradition which was lacking due to hardly anything being know about Jesus’ birth. Maybe Jesus really did just sort of appear as a full grown man in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar waltzing into Capernaum.
Once you believe in the resurrection of Christ, it won’t be hard to believe that the other miracles took place too.
Supposing, I discovered the cure for AIDS. Would it be so hard to believe me when I suddenly come shouting with excitement: “Hey! I just discovered the cure for the common cold a minute ago too!”
Just my 2 cents.
It is rather the silliest, most elementary argument I have ever encountered. Even an idiot could predict, prior to entering an argument, that his opponent would disagree with him. I could say “You won’t believe me, but there’s a ten-feet-long, purple cat on your roof,” and anyone with even a hint of sense would ask for proof. It wouldn’t make me right, and they sure as heck wouldn’t change their mind just because I had accurately predicted that they wouldn’t believe me.
Giant purple cats aren’t too convincing to Christians, though, so let me use a bit more realistic example: suppose I showed up at a horse race and said that one of the horses was rigged to win. Then when somebody argued with me, I responded “Yeah, he said that nobody would believe me.” Is it so implausible that my audience wouldn’t be asking who told me?
(Admittedly, given that this is a horse race, they would have to make snap decisions without mucking about looking for proof – but you can bet they’d use the time they had to make as informed a decision as possible.)
That reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
And yes, while it’s old and from the Onion, it still mirrors how I feel about at least a third of the people I meet.
About the Argument by Laziness (Uninformed Opinion)…
I have argued several times against this by calling people what they are… uninformed (ok- I admit I called them ignorant and that word has negative connotations to it). At that point, rather than concede that they ARE in fact uninformed, I’m told I’m committing and ad hominem attack.
I certainly would like for people to listen when I provide evidence for my beliefs, but when they won’t, I have to fall back on asking them whether or not they have bothered to read the evidence for themselves. I can’t teach them graduate level biology on a blog. At some point, they have to do some reading.
It’s frustrating! :(
I love the onion…so hilarious and often true. ;)
That is one of the best Onion articles ever. A definite keeper. :)
Great Onion story! Best sentence:
“While people have long asserted that it takes all kinds, our research shows that American society currently has a drastic oversupply of the kinds who don’t have any good or worthwhile thoughts whatsoever. We could actually do just fine without them.”
(Sorry, best TWO sentences)
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to predict that there will be people laughing at you for an idea there is no evidence for.
The Bible must be inspired with vague, obvious predictions like that!
Sue…the reason people may be making this argument probably has nothing to do with you. It scares THEM to think that a believer could leave the faith. If it could happen to a true believer then maybe it just might happen to them to. Its much safer to rather assert that you were never a real believer because that keeps them protected from the thought that they might also lose their faith.
The real problem is that it means no-one can know that they’re a True Believer.
Yeah, I agree. This guy’s comment offended me on behalf of Daniel.
Granted, I’m sure he gets a LOT of comments just like that, because that’s the strongest defense that Christians have when faced with an ex-believer. “She/he wasn’t a true Christian! That’s why she/he was confused by facts and logical thought!”
Still. The arrogance of it is just… offensive in every level.
I think that’s an interesting question. However, the problem is in the starting positions of the theist and the non theist. If we take an unusual event (such as the plane landing in the Hudson with no one dying), the non-theist is likely to say, “The plane landed safely because the pilot was well-trained and calm during the event. Further, other conditions known in the natural world made it possible for this event to happen.” The theist, on the other hand, is likely to say “Because all survived, a supernatural power was behind this.” Two VERY different starting points. Here, I borrow from George Smith’s book “Atheism: The Case Against God”:
“To posit the supernatural as an explanation is to posit the unknowable as an explanation, an this is nothing more than an exercise in futility.”(212)
Also, the theist, by positing the universe (and everything that happens within it) as the result of an unknowable deity (or deities), falls into circular reasoning (i.e. creationists). “Revelation” or revealed knowledge has to occur in the confines of this known universe–to posit that an entity that doesn’t exist in the confines of this universe nor is bound to the physical laws yet interacts in a universe governed by physical laws is a contradiction in terms.
In short, the theist says, “God did it.” The non theist says, “The world operates according to certain scientific principles–if you have proof of a deity interacting with humanity, present it.” Supernatural explanations are, by their very nature, inexplicable, unknowable, and cannot be judged to be good explanations of the world around us.
But there’s a logic trap there for us, as with all ‘revealed faith’ stuff. If you need divine revelation – in some form, even just a leap of faith – to ‘get it’, then we’re not going to get it.
This is probably the only way anyone can claim to know God – through direct revelation. Yet one can not provide this revelation for anyone else. By definition of revelation, God can only reveal himself to you personally. And how you interpret that revelation is unique to you. You bring to it your own experiences, culture and bias. So while I see your point and agree with it regarding “taking the leap”…we, as outsiders, can only infer so much from another’s revelation experience. IOW, It has its limits in providing general knowedge for the world at large.
The irony being that these people are the ones most convinced that they are True Believers (TM), since they haven’t fallen away… yet.
But I guess thinking through the implications of their defense mechanism argument is too much to ask of them.
Aw crap. “Defense mechanism” was supposed to have a line through it. Let me try…
defense mechanismargumentThe Christian nyaah-nyaahhh reworded:
“You are in for such a big surprise/nasty shock when you die. We have to give up the good stuff in this life, but we’ll get ours (the good stuff) when we die. You bad atheists get the good stuff now, but you will get YOURS (the really really bad stuff) when you die. And it will be FOREVER! And you will finally see I’m right when you get yours, and I will finally have my revenge and you will finally have your comeuppance, bwaaaaahhaaahaahahaha….”
And these self-righteous, revenge-seeking, malignant, hate-filled whoresons think that their hatred is “Christian love”!
Bill-
I believe it’s “na-ni-na-ni-boo-boo”. “Na na na na boo boo” is just plain unorthodox!
;)
It’s interesting. Scoffers have always been around…we just don’t get killed for it anymore.
I get as angry as Sue does, and your reply, Matt, is so eloquent I may have to quote it or refer back to it.
Underneath all that defensiveness of God’s self-appointed defense attorneys is fear.
Fear that they will go to hell, fear that their beliefs just won’t cut God’s mustard and their souls won’t cut his muster, fear that they might be wrong and others might have some fact, fear that their belief system isn’t strong enough and could crumble like you said. So they must grind their teeth to powder, convince themselves they “know” rather than believe, and defend, defend, defend. And, of course, attack.
The Bible teaches to kill scoffers. Why don’t Christians do it anymore? Maybe it will be politically correct again one day.
Thank you for your kind words. I think you are right, in the midst of all the defense has to be a strong offense! It keeps the mind focused on others which again deflects introspection and careful analysis of one’s own beliefs.
Fear is a terrible motivator, love is much better.
If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but just the beginning, then the love of the Lord is the end product of wisdom.
Very apropos of your comparison of theists’ and atheists’ interpretations of who was responsible for preventing an aircraft accident from being much worse:
Yeah, Here’s How Well Praying Instead of Piloting Works! Xians, spread your wings and fly instead of driving or buying an airline ticket!
Another good author with another good insight on Christian sour grapes:
‘The legitimate inference the disciple would draw was, “We are to have such a good time as the sinners have now”; – or, to push it to its extreme import, – “You sin now, we shall sin by-and-by; we would sin now, if we could; not being successful we expect our revenge tomorrow.”‘
Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Compensation”
Or, as my wise friend once told a class of his:
“The degree to which you are concerned with the next life, is the degree to which you are fucked up in, and trying to escape from, this life.”
This applies to Christian heaven or the new-age ascending to another spiritual plane or the great white brotherhood.
My beliefs share a bit with Buddhism or new-age woo, but I hold Christians and new-agers to the same standards of facing facts and avoiding circular reasoning or “escape” from responsibility for oneself.
I guess that the nastier and drearier your life here is, the better your imagined afterlife has to be to compensate you for all your righteousness and self-denial and misery!
Now there’s a book, and author, with a lot of interesting things to say about religion. Hogfather, Carpe Jugulum and Nation also explore belief and religion in very interesting ways. The conversation between Granny Weatherwax and Mightily Oats in Carpe Jugulum was one of the major things that caused me to examine my own beliefs.
Christians are the “reasonable” proof that the bible is not the infallible word of “God”.
The Illiad argument should be very persuasive to a Christian, since that is the exact argument they use.
That it isn’t persuasive to them at all shows they don’t even think that argument is any good, and they can think logically unless it comes to their own beliefs.
Honesty is overrated by the great unwashed.
A mechanics school classmate once said, “Yeah, well, you gotta admit I say what I think.”
Everything that came out of his mouth was insulting, or prejudiced, or vulgar, or just pretty much contributing nothing of value.
I replied, “No matter how worthless it is.”
That was my turning point into realizing that people saying what they think, and offering their thoughts, no matter how “honest”, showed up the huge disparity between “honesty” and anything remotely related to reality, value, or fact.
I’ve used the Iliad/Troy argument right here on this very blog with absolutely no affect on the Christian I was speaking to.
Which proves your point.
I actually want to thank the republican strategy of “‘rebranding”, which is coming up with a new name for something, without changing anything about it.
What was once called “scoffers” is now called “intellectuals”.
I think everyone’s tried it, at least once. I don’t think anyone’s ever gotten anyone to admit that there’s a parallel.
Because if they admit it is parallel, their argument falls apart. So they must insist there is no parallel — without explaining why.
The experience I’ve had with this and other arguments when talking to xians is a general denunciation which goes something like this: “God/Jesus/salvation/the bible is really true and outside of any argument you could possibly make because I know it’s true in my heart and if you don’t understand you’re lost anyway so I don’t need to take anything you say seriously, but I’ll pray for you.”
I find that here is a lot more honesty and accurate assesment in humor. That is why I love Jon Stewart so much.
Here is my favorite honest Onion …
vhttp://www.theonion.com/content/node/28129
It’s even worse when they do this with the Bible.
Agreed. It really p’s me off when someone who I’ve never met, and in most cases have not even had any online contact with previously, pronounces judgment on me, my beliefs, my value system etc in some supercilious fashion.
Besides being ignorant, it’s hardly likely to win souls for jeebus, is it? Not by example, anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FG3ExyeLs
Rowan Atkinson as The Devil – damnation without relief.
We are “intellectuals” to their face, then scoff behind their backs.
Is she still speaking to you? ;-)
All heathy foetuses leap in the womb after about 20 weeks’ gestation, and some of those leaps are bound to take place when another person is present.
Indeed. People aren’t usually trying to control others’ lives by force based on a graduate biology book.
You have personal experiences with #121!
121. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
I am unable to comprehend the degree of ignorance, stupidity, or lack of self-awareness for them not to realize it’s what they’re doing. I figure they HAVE to know, and they’re pretending not to!
I am flat-footed, nonplussed, astounded at how xians come on this blog and rant hatefully, or ask questions ad nauseum
[#73. ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)];
use circular reasoning; make incredibly insulting assumptions about atheists as a lumped-together, stereotyped group; make No-True-Scotsman excuses and avoid the facts over and over again (e.g. lousy miserable Christian marriages);use name-calling; delude themselves that they are “loving Christians”;
never ask why they’re here (unless it’s to express hate or spew indignation);
and figure they are trying to “save souls”.
Yeah, with all their hate, irrational arguments, deceit and insults, they’ve finally convinced me to become a Christian! Baby, I’m right there!
I think you got it all wrong John.
Here is what I propose:
Fear of the lord is the beginning of: ignorance, delusion, guilt, shame, and rationalization.
Then….studying, learning, and truly understanding religion creates an end product of non-belief through the wisdom of knowing better.
wtf? John C are you sprouting your spiritulistic waffle again?
Can you propose even a sliver of evidence that the human soul exists as as separate entity to the flesh.