Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments—Do They Fail? (2 of 4)

Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments—Do They Fail? (2 of 4) June 29, 2015

atheist Christian argumentsLet’s continue with our critique of Eric Hyde’s analysis of atheist arguments, “Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail.” (Begin with part 1 here.)

“3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.”

Just for completeness, I’ll share Hyde’s response even though it makes little sense. Hyde argues that God’s properties are subordinate to his free will. He doesn’t lie because he wills to not lie, and he could just as easily will to lie. While we’re at it, God could also will to not be good or to not exist … which raises more questions than it answers. As for the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” category of questions, he says that God can’t “overpower Himself.”

Much has been written about the contradictions that arise when pitting God’s perfect qualities against each other, and there are lots more examples than “God can’t lie, so he’s not all-powerful.” For example, if God is omniscient (knows everything), he knows the future. But how can he be omnipotent (can do anything) when he can’t change the future without violating his omniscience?

How can there be “necessary suffering” when God is omnipotent? Isn’t he powerful enough to achieve his ends without causing suffering? Or is he just not omni-benevolent?

Does God have a personality? How can this be when personality traits have a negative side? For example, there’s no pleasure in victory without the risk of defeat, and an overabundance of kindness makes you a doormat. But if a personality is an odd thing for God to have, what would a personality-less god be like?

Our universe isn’t eternal. Before God created it, reality was either perfect or not. God wouldn’t have allowed an imperfect reality to exist. But if it already were perfect, what motivated God to create the universe? How could the universe have satisfied a need of God when a perfect being wouldn’t have needs? And if creating the universe satisfied no needs, why would he do so?

How can God be all-just (that is, giving everyone precisely the punishment they deserve) and merciful (giving less punishment than people deserve)?

How can God have a purpose? A purpose implies goals and unfulfilled desires. But that’s impossible for a perfect being.

If God is all-powerful, he can just forgive our sins—after all, we’re imperfect and sinful because he makes us that way. That would eliminate the bizarre tale that God had to sacrifice himself to himself to make a loophole in a law that he made himself so we could get into heaven.

(If you have more examples of clashes between omni properties, add them to the comments.)

We typically give Christians a pass when they claim God’s properties—it’s their religion, so why not? But the Bible disagrees. Consider these very human limitations to God taken from the Bible.

  • God changes his mind: “The Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Exodus 32:10–14).
  • God doesn’t know everything: “I will go down [to Sodom] and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (Genesis 18:21).
  • God isn’t all-powerful and is defeated several times in the Old Testament.
  • God isn’t especially moral.
  • God regrets.
  • God lies.

“4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

Hyde says that God is different from the other three. Christianity has developed over thousands of years, it’s had martyrs, and it’s endured religious persecution. The Bible has “historical and geographical corroboration.” Compare that against fairies, Santa, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which no adult believes in. “It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.”

Yes, Christianity is old. Hinduism is older. That doesn’t mean that either one is correct. And look what longevity has done to Christianity: there are now 42,000 denominations of Christianity. Christians can’t even agree what their own holy book says, and the religion is becoming more fragmented, not more coherent, with time.

Yes, there have been Christian martyrs and Christian wars. Some evaluations of the Thirty Years’ War, in which Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe in the early 1600s, estimate that it killed up to two percent of the entire world’s population (I explore the deaths due to religion here). Religious violence is no evidence that Christianity is correct.

Yes, the Bible does refer to some places that history or archeology have corroborated. This Argument from Accurate Place Names isn’t much to brag about. Getting the basics of history and geography correct—countries, rivers, kings, cities, and the like—earns you no praise. It simply gets you to the starting line. Surely you wouldn’t say that The Wizard of Oz is likely true because Kansas really exists.

And speaking of Kansas, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may sauce be upon Him) was invented by Bobby Henderson in 2005 in response to a proposal by that state’s board of education to include intelligent design along with evolution in biology classes. He concluded his argument:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Yes, Pastafarianism is made up, and Christianity wasn’t. Doesn’t matter—if the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Yahweh are equally weak and we are certain that one of them is false, what does that say about the other?

Continue with Part 3.

I don’t know if God exists,
but it would be better for His reputation if He didn’t.
— Jules Renard

Image credit: AndreasS, flickr, CC

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • katiehippie

    “God doesn’t know everything: “I will go down [to Sodom] and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (Genesis 18:21).”
    I always wondered, outcry from who? If the whole place was corrupt and awful and evil, who was complaining?

    • My thought as well. Maybe from his god brothers.

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      I read that one of the mishnah or a talmud teaches that the cry was from one of Lot’s daughters being raped and hanged. So much for early Jews brlievin g that Sodom was an all-gay town.

  • Otto

    If God cannot make a rock that is too heavy to lift because to do so would contradict the laws of logic he is therefore constrained by logic and is not all powerful.

    • Right. Logic is then external to God, and the Transcendental Argument (“OK, smart guy–where did logic come from if not from God?”) fails.

      • Greg G.

        First, there was Chaos. Then Logic arose from the Chaos and created God as its servant.

    • KarlUdy

      Can you rephrase what you wrote … what exactly are you saying would contradict the laws of logic?

      • Otto

        God’s ability to both make a rock heavier the he can lift and god’s omnipotence…

        • KarlUdy

          So the question would be …

          Is it true that
          a) God can make a rock of weight x
          b) God cannot lift a rock of weight x

          Am I representing the argument correctly?

        • Otto

          I would change “Is it true that” to “could it be true that”…

          and then I would add

          c) and still be considered to be all powerful and capable of anything.

        • KarlUdy

          That’s fine.

          Then I would say that a) and c) are both true b) is not true and then the overall statement is then not true without God’s omnipotence being compromised.

        • Otto

          Exactly…thanks for proving my point.

        • crackerMF

          the logic you display in your moronic posts proves beyond a doubt that you have no grasp of logical thinking or the mathematics of set theory.

          quit trying to twist things around with word games, you totally suck at it. you proved that back with the “judge” exchange.

          you dishonest little weasel.

        • KarlUdy

          crackerMF, have you ever noticed that resorting to ad hominem attacks is almost always a sign that someone has run out of good logical arguments?

        • Kodie

          “Ad hominem” would be like saying, since you stink, your arguments must also stink. Saying you have no grasp of logical thinking, that you twist things around with word games, that you suck at said games, and that you are dishonest little weasel is not ad hominem – it’s a relevant criticism of your arguments. You might not like how harsh it sounds, but that’s not dismissing your arguments because of how ugly you are. It’s dismissing your arguments because of how bad they are. Learn what the fuck ad hominem is at least!

        • crackerMF

          there is a dullard who, in an argument, will just keep repeating the same thoroughly refuted points until his opponent starts yelling in frustration.

          then the dullard tries to claim that yelling is what losers do, and declares himself the winner of the debate.

          anyone reading your threads would easily identify which character you are in that little parable.

    • InDogITrust

      Can God create a rock big enough to hit himself in the head with to cause the personality change between the OT and the NT?

      • crackerMF

        can god create a baby so sexy, that he can’t resist raping it?

        • Greg G.

          Apparently not.

          Luke 1:34-35 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?” The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

          Sounds like a ménage à trois.

        • crackerMF

          where did this blog find that “karludy” clown?

          what an incompetently word twisting weasel that one is.

        • Greg G.

          Ha! Karl’s about the best theist regular we have.

        • Kodie

          Karl 2.0 is terrible. He used to put some thought and answer questions while they were still right there. Now he weasels out of answering things, tries to set up ‘gotchas’, answers questions with other questions, and pretends to forget what the topic was once it was dozens of posts ago.

        • crackerMF

          well, i’m glad it’s a recent thing, i was starting to worry about greg when he said that karl was one of the best.

          i glad i don’t have to worry after all.

        • Kodie

          Well, knowing Karl has the capacity while not using it has been painful. On the other, unfortunately, he is still at least one of the best, and I would count that not only are the other guests just shitty, he does know when to back out and stop hammering us with utter stupidity, and only shows up sporadically, which is apparently the new high standard for all Christian posting.

        • crackerMF

          i believe the technique you artfully display is called “damming with faint praise”.

          maybe “backhanded compliment”?

        • Kodie

          It’s just that every Christian thinks we’ve never seen what they urgently have to tell us. I try to keep that in mind when I see someone on the internet who is wrong. They most likely have been told and I don’t get involved.

        • Greg G.

          “Best” is a relative term.

        • crackerMF

          i rarely pull out the straight forward insults but that guy and his horribly bad attempts to lay semantic traps just rubbed me the wrong way on the wrong day.

        • Kodie

          I don’t disagree he’s a clown.

        • crackerMF

          i may have gone especially hard on him because i was in a concurrent discussion over on “friendly atheist” with starship maxima, an honest and decent online christian who admits when he is wrong, doesn’t gloat when he’s right, has a great sense of humor and is enjoyable to spar with.

          the contrast was too much for me on a stressful day and i lashed out. i feel kinda bad, like i kicked an unfriendly dog.

        • Kodie

          I think because Hemant posts so frequently on a wider variety of topics, his quality of theist might be higher on average. I think he might be quicker on the ban hammer too. I used to post at FA and other blogs and spread myself out, but there are too many articles for me. Bob posts more to my speed.

          EDIT: I can’t compare KarlUdy 1.0 to another particular Christian, but KarlUdy-lately is comparable to rwlawoffice, if he’s still hanging around.

        • Ah, the Christian of my dreams. We get few of them here, sadly.

        • crackerMF

          i’ll let him know you’re on the lookout for a good sparring partner.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i thought SM is a she, not that that’s necessarily relevant (nor that i trust my impressions/recall absolutely) … i agree with everything you said about SM’s attitude.

        • crackerMF

          could be. i should have used xe as the pronoun.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i see that more and more, but so far i still completely forget it’s a thing every time it’d be useful.

        • TheNuszAbides

          does xe have an official pronunciation?

        • If it were Chinese, it would be “she,” wouldn’t it?

        • TheNuszAbides

          or in some [spacing on the name…] central american tongue, “chee”.

        • crackerMF

          wow. if that’s one of the best, i hope i don’t come across one of the worst.

        • Greg G.

          He seems to have learned some tricks from CodyGirl and her socks.

  • jh

    For this point –

    “How can there be “necessary suffering” when God is omnipotent? Isn’t he powerful enough to achieve his ends without causing suffering? Or is he just not omni-benevolent?”

    A rather disturbing train of thought would be this: What if “God’s” self-definition of being good varies from the commonly accepted human definition of good? What if the writers of that middle eastern book of Grimm’s fairy tales were using some strange custom to please a despotic tyrant by calling him good in the hopes of that tyrant behaving “good”?

    Tower of Babel – What was God so worried about that he prevented that much cooperation from humanity to build a tower? Is he so “weak” that he could curse everyone with different languages but was worried that he might share air-space with a talking/thinking monkey? The story makes no sense.

    • Greg G.

      If God’s definition of good is different than the human definition of good, the human word for the human concept of good should not be used for God’s concept of good.

      • MR

        Excellent point. Ditto morality.

      • Otto

        I have a list of quotes, sayings, links and misc. stuff I keep in a word doc. I haven’t added to it in probably 6 months…this just got added.

        If you see it show up somewhere it is because I stole it.

      • jh

        I agree. But tell that to a christian. It’s not trivial to a christian who has been indoctrinated to believe this nonsense It’s only people who have stepped away from their religion (usually christianity which has a claim of a good god) that find this trivial.

        Meanwhile – I won’t be using your one-liner. I guarantee that it wouldn’t work if I were arguing with a theist about goodness and god. It’s only good for the atheist club.

      • Giauz Ragnarock

        But humans do not have one concept of “good”. However, we do usually expect more reasoning for why one thinks something is “good” than “because if you disagree I’ll hurt you.”

        • Greg G.

          Humans generally agree on the basics of what is good. When theists argue that God is good so we should follow what God says is good, they are using a concept of “good” that is opposed to the general human concept of good.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          We may all generally agree on what is good, but not on who those good things should be applied to and what is considered acceptable loss in order to achieve it. The authoritarian (as some Christians are) just cedes control to unsubstantiated opinion (because people can’t be allowed to have any say in their own thoughts/Jesus will hurt you). Discrediting authoritarianism should be a top priority in decreasing the conflicts people have over what is “good” not because everyone magically agrees but because when someone throws up their hands and says, “You’ll pay dearly!”, people will be less likely to say that person “magically” is correct in their views and reasons to harm people who disagree just because that person made a threat/is dangerous.

    • It’s trivial to imagine that the guy in charge of our world is actually the bad one, just giving us enough good things (sunsets and puppies) that we have farther to fall when the bad stuff happens.

  • Clancy

    42,000 denominations. That’s about one new denomination every three weeks for 2000 years. I don’t know what to think about that.

    • KarlUdy

      What is meant by denomination with that statistic?

      • Greg G.

        Churches that are grouped into an association plus all of those churches which reject every other denomination. .

    • RichardSRussell

      Here’s how it works, as explained by Emo Phillips:

      I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”

      “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

      I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

      He said, “Like what?”

      I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?”

      He said, “Religious.”

      I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

      He said, “Christian.”

      I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

      He said, “Protestant.”

      I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

      He said, “Baptist!”

      I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

      He said, “Baptist Church of God!”

      I said, “Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

      He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”

      I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”

      He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”

      I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

  • MNb

    “Christianity has developed over thousands of years, it’s had martyrs, and it’s endured religious persecution.”
    It’s nothing to rejoice about, but atheism wins. It has developed over a longer period than christianity, is has at least two independent origins, it has martyrs in Antiquity (Socrates), early Modern Times (Koerbagh) and today (Sanal Edamaruku – by christians nonetheless).

    I often wonder if these apologists think their own arguments through.

  • wtfwjtd

    Here’s one to add to that list of God’s properties: Isaiah 45:7–“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
    So, according to the Bible, we can safely strike that nonsense about God being all-good off the list.

    • I’ve long since stopped giving zingers like that to Christians and expecting that they’ll have something to think about.

      • wtfwjtd

        Oh, I know, I’m “reading out of context” or “not understanding properly” or…some other lame rationalization. And the thing is, if one can’t actually pin down a concept of their god, of what practical use is it?

    • crackerMF

      i don’t think you understand the christian bible.

      the god of isaiah 45:7 is the perfect, timeless, unchanging, eternal god of the OLD testament.

      jesus is the perfect, timeless, unchanging, eternal god of the NEW testament.

      because god is nothing if not consistent.

      • wtfwjtd

        So you are saying that Christianity worships two different gods?

        • crackerMF

          christianity is an idea and incapable of worship. corporeal christians worship about 2 billion different gods.

        • Greg G.

          No, he’s saying it’s the same god who never changes. Like the Trinity.

          Look for more of his/her posts. He or she makes great points in very funny ways.

        • wtfwjtd

          Ah, yes, I see, that was… clear as mud. Ok, think I get it.

        • Greg G.

          Then there is SJ’s demons. Sadly, I think SJ is serious.

        • crackerMF

          dear what the fuck would james taylor do,

          didn’t the pun “god is nothing if not consistent” after pointing out god’s inconsistency clue you in?

          if english is not your first language, i apologize for the snark.

          – it ruins a joke when you have to explain it

        • wtfwjtd

          Or, as I say around here, “what the fuck would jeez tell dad”?
          Actually, I did get it, after Greg clued me in. Sometimes, snark doesn’t translate well over the internet, and I was actually being snarky about your snark :).

        • crackerMF

          i keep forgetting how to turn the snark font on.

        • Kodie

          Bring in da snark bring in da font.

        • crackerMF

          dear greg g,

          a quick glance through your profile posts would indicate you are a either a member of “the clergy project”, or an extremely well leaned aficionado of religious history.

          awesome reading, i feel like i just took a class and know more than i did going in.

          thanks for noticing the humor but i’m a rank amateur. check out holytape over at “the friendly atheist” for the best comments on the internet.

          – a fan

        • Greg G.

          Thank you for the kind words. I am a rank amateur in religious history. My hobby the past few years has been tracing the sources of the New Testament authors. It comes together more easily when you look at it as literature rather than history.

          I visit The Friendly Atheist fairly often. HolyTape is one I focus on.

          I like your insights and the clever satire, irony and word play.

        • crackerMF

          i have to keep things subtle because it upsets the dogs when i scream at the computer.

        • Greg G.

          Dogs have a guilty conscience for things they didn’t get caught doing wrong.

        • crackerMF

          for sure. but i like to delude myself that they love me and are laying their heads in my lap and looking up at me with those big soulful eyes because they want me to calm down and be happy.

          edit: i raised these guys to desire my affection, not fear my wrath.

        • Greg G.

          They trained you to give them treats and they need you to be in the right frame of mind for the training to work.

        • crackerMF

          i tell this story when prompted by dog talk:

          the dog i lived with before these guys was a member of the super intelligent dog architect guild.

          they run everything and telepathically control the world’s city planners, making them build cities on top of earthquake zones and in flood plains.

          this way cities fall down on a regular basis and we have to build bigger and better dog parks to amuse and entertain our masters/mistresses.

          she explained all this to me in the kitchen one night while i was experiencing the effects of some acid i had ingested.

          but she never figured out how to open door handles like these boys, so maybe she was bragging a bit when she said she was super intelligent.

        • crackerMF

          my guys don’t try that manipulative shit because it doesn’t work on me.

          when it’s time for the evening treat they remind me by staring at me until i ask them “is it time for your treat”? then they run to the milk bone container and wait for me.

          they also pick up their outside toys and take them inside when i tell them to. they’re really good dogs and very smart.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, they have you well trained. Do they lay beside you so that you mindlessly start petting and caressing them?

        • crackerMF

          i was a dog trainer for a while in college so i fancy i know all their tricks.

          big dogs require dominance mind games more than little dogs do so i give them their own couch – these are 80 pound american staffordshires – and i sit on it when they are off it and call them to me for scratching and affection.

          it seems silly, but if you don’t play those games they don’t respect you and they don’t obey when needed.

          i admit i spend a lot of time on their couch (i work at home and want an excuse to leave my desk), especially when it’s cold.

          live with big dogs, think like big dogs.

        • Kodie

          My experience with small dogs is they treat everything like a threat. Everything and everyone is bigger than they are so they have to bark a lot more to dominate their environment. I don’t have a lot of experience with dogs. I grew up with a dog, but I don’t own a dog. Getting up at the crack of dawn to walk a dog in all sorts of weather and grab hot poop with a shopping bag is not my ideal lifestyle. The rest of it is probably cool. I rent and live upstairs, and what I don’t want to do either is come home all the way upstairs and go downstairs outside again. I also don’t like how having a dog means you have to dick around with any goddamned stranger you meet. I like dogs I do not like people. Having a dog in the city means you are confronted with more people than I want to. I have a lot of reasons I would love to have a dog, and the maturity to understand what I would hate about having a dog so I do not fall for it.

        • crackerMF

          i agree whole heartedly. just like with kids, people should not take on a responsibility they are not prepared for or desire.

          walking 2 big pits weeds out the goddamned strangers that want to dick around with you.

          i work at home and live on an acre of land and have a doggie door. what is this crack of dawn you speak of?

        • Kodie

          Well, it’s a quarter to five am as I write. Might almost be the crack of dawn, when the landscape and the sky are still dark and the horizon cracks dawn between them. I don’t have a horizon as such, but my windows in the bedroom face east so if I am up early, I get a decent urban sunrise. I have a very polite cat who doesn’t wake me up, but apparently, she does stare at me very early in the morning and if I wake up, she wants to tell me something, and if I don’t, she wanders off eventually (evidently). I’m not usually up this early, another hour or two, but I fell asleep an hour or two earlier last night. She wanted me to go to the kitchen and watch her eat food that was already in the dish. People think cats are independent and solitary, but seems her habit is social and likes to eat with company. When I eat, she wants to see what it is every single time, and will hang out with me even if it is not sour cream or sliced turkey.

          This early, I can barely decide if it’s worth it to get out of bed just to make coffee so I can go back to bed for ten minutes and wait 20-30 more minutes to finally drag myself back out of bed for it when it’s made. What I don’t want is a dog telling me (or a human) that it is my master. I enjoy waking up super early just to have this lazy time, as opposed to waking up later and having to jump out of bed and get rolling on the working part of my day. I see people dressed in their office clothes walking a dog before they have to go, I even heard a guy out my window last week, begging his dog to make a poop already. Even if I liked that part of a morning routine, time management-wise, it would always screw me over.

        • crackerMF

          i am NOT a morning person.
          i have a doggie door, an acre of land and a gardener who picks up the poop for an extra 5 bucks a week.
          i sometimes make the effort to get out of bed by noon, but not all that often.

        • Kodie
        • crackerMF

          if you haven’t seen the video of neil degrasse tyson and the smart dog:

        • Kodie

          I had seen most of that series. What I remembered (wrong, I guess) was that dogs don’t feel guilt that we see them look like they feel, but rather that they had learned to exploit their humans’ expectations. When I went looking for that information, I found that it is more like Greg G. suggests, that dogs develop guilt and other complexes, because humans shame them or comfort them or whatever when we assume they have human sensibilities. The alpha has so much control over them, this makes me sad for dogs.

        • TheNuszAbides

          careful, we wouldn’t want to stumble on yet another thing humans have in common with other mammals!!

      • MNb

        Then god is nothing. Thanks for confirming.

        • crackerMF

          that is what “god is nothing if not consistent” means since we all know how consistent god is.

        • MNb

          Let my comment be a testimony of my slow understanding.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    God aint even logically consistent. The whole damn bible is FULL of contradictions. One of my favorites is that god will call something a sin or a crime and then goes and commits the same crimes.. Jealousy is a good one.

    • KarlUdy

      Can a judge commit perjury in a case they are presiding over?

      • Otto

        A judge could lie.

        • InDogITrust

          But it’s not perjury, because it’s not testimony under oath.

        • Otto

          Yep…that is why I said “lie”.

          He framed his question using ‘perjury’ just so the answer would have to be ‘no’. Dishonest as the day is long.

          BTW, did you used to post on the CNN Belief blog often?

      • MNb

        So your god is not bound to the rules he formulates himself? So much for objective morality.

      • Kodie


      • InDogITrust

        Just in case you’re really asking: No, since the judge does not testify. He can do stuff that will get him in a boatload of trouble, but perjury is lying under oath.

        • KarlUdy

          You are correct. And the only reason they can get in trouble is because they are under authority.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Jesus is an abusive husband without police to arrest him? Strangest thing, I don’t like the concept character. It needs a rewrite.

        • crackerMF

          in america judges are under the “authority” of the united states constitution, not the “authority” of any deity or deities.

          but let’s carry out your analogy.

          what is the “authority” that your hypothetical judge (god) answers to when he does wrong while presiding over a case (all of existence)?

          looks like you’re into infinite regress all of a sudden.

          or something that tells your god what to do.

      • crackerMF

        if a judge was to allow him(her)self to testify in said case, yes.

        since the god (or biblical “judge”) of the bible DOES allow himself to speak (or “testify”) in his “book” (or “case he is presiding over”), his words can easily be lies.

  • The Eh’theist

    The follow-up to your #3 is immutability. If God doesn’t change, so many of the treasured ideas of Christianity go out the window. God doesn’t take on our concerns. He doesn’t change when the lost sheep is found, He’s been rejoicing all eternity, not even a flicker on the dial. Same thing with hatred, and love and any other emotion attributed to God, the dial has been on 11 from the start and nothing you’ve done has had any impact.

    Imagine someone saying the love you perfectly, but you can never sense any reaction from them when you interact with them. It would soon make the words meaningless. That leaves believers with (a) Open Theism, where God can change, but doesn’t have the “omni’s” of classical theism; (b) God feels everything all the time, so practically your “relationship” is like one with a Ken doll; or (c) God is above feelings, which also tosses all the comfort passages of the faith into the rubbish bin.

    So it’s heterodoxy, having a pet rock, or holding on to an abstract concept. As far as I can see, none of these is a practical improvement on atheism.

    • A nice addition to the conversation, thanks.

    • RichardSRussell

      The Mormon God (who, they claim, is the same as the God that other Christian denominations believe in) periodically sends fresh instructions down to his prophet on Earth. Does that mean he’s changed his mind as to whether, for example, polygamous marriages are OK, black people should be banned from the priesthood, or caffeinated Coca-Cola should be considered to be a (prohibited) “stimulating beverage”? (For those unfamiliar with the latter story, this revelation from on high occurred on the cusp of the Coca-Cola Company deciding whether to start using cane sugar from Hawaii instead of beet sugar from Utah as one of their ingredients.) Changing one’s mind is hardly a hallmark of omniscience, is it?

      • The Eh’theist

        True. Of course they also claim he started out as a man, so mutability is definitely on the table with them that’s one of the reasons (among many) that many other Christian denominations don’t recognize them as such.

        • crackerMF

          the book of mormon was written after science fiction had been invented as a literary format.

          mary shelley’s frankenstein was published in 1818 and joe smith found his golden plates in 1823.

          this fact explains many, many things about mormonism.

        • I’ve heard of some remarkable coincidences between Joseph Smith and Mohammed, but I had never heard of a connection between Smith and Frankenstein. Is there more?

        • Greg G.

          Smith and Mohammed? Reincarnation. It’s the only explanation.

        • crackerMF

          i read that joseph smith said that he didn’t want to be jesus, he wanted to be mohammed.

          then i went and looked it up. apparently it was a claim made about smith by an apostate.

          so… it may be true after all.

        • Greg G.

          Anything is more credible coming from somebody besides Smith. If he told me to my face that he was still alive, I’m not sure I’d believe him.

        • crackerMF

          dear bob,

          the folks who wrote/compiled the torah/bible/koran had no idea that the planets weren’t “wandering stars”. in their mythology there was only one “world”.

          by the time mr. smith found his golden plates, it was well known what planets really were and the idea of life on them was not unheard of.

          a smart con man like smith would have seen the opportunity to mix the literary form newly created by shelley with then modern astronomy and the superstition of the bible.

          hence the whole “god lives on the planet kolob” and “you get your own planet to rule after you die” stuff that joe tacked onto the more traditional scriptures.

          what i’m saying is scientology is not the first religion invented by a science fiction writer.

          – connecting the dots

    • InDogITrust

      Excellent comment.
      I’m willing to believe there could be an Unmoved Mover. The thing about the Unmoved Mover of course is that it’s utterly irrelevant to our experience of the universe, so there’s no point in caring about it, much less worshipping it.
      It would be *interesting* to know such a thing exists, but we couldn’t do more than know it exists, if even that much, because observation affects the observed.
      The Abrahamic religions are stuck in the primitive past, still bowing down to an anthropomorphic superhero personal god. Of all theologies, the Abrahamic are the most preposterous.

      • crackerMF

        “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
        – Archimedes

        the questions are and always have been: where is that “place to stand” and “where did that unmoved mover come from”?

        any claims about the impossibility of infinite regress were pulled directly from aristotle’s ass, swallowed whole by aquinas and pulled from the his ass for the consumption of the christian world.

    • crackerMF

      immutability also kills the christian claim that the old testament rules and regulations no longer apply because the obviously ironic poe of a carpenter nailed to a wooden cross formed a “new covenant” with god.

      apparently there was something wrong with the old immutable “covenant”.

      • The Eh’theist

        Yes, all those “a more perfect way” arguments bite the dust, since God can’t be more perfect or act differently.

  • Zeta

    At the beginning of his original article, Eric Hyde says:
    Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

    It is true that most (if not all) such arguments have been debated for a very long time. The question is why are they still being raised? The answer is obvious: The questions have never been convincingly answered by their apologists and believers. They use circular arguments such as using the bible to justify what they claim (How can this ever be convincing to non-believers?), special pleading, cherry-picking (avoiding or even denying contradictions even though they are found right in the bible), etc.

    Eric Hyde’s article is just another example of non-convincing arguments (except to believers).

  • Agnostic Atheist

    Meh, no point in refuting their lists of nonsense. Apologists for Theism are disingenuous breed. You can refute their tiresome, overused and ridiculous ‘arguments’ until you are blue in the face. Guess what they will just comeback, again and again, with those same arguments. Just look at William Lane Craig, he has been schooled by other theologians, biologists, physicists, Biblical Historians and Philosophers. Yet does he change his points or fix his refuted and non-evident talking points? Nope, he continues to spew the same nonsense, again and again. Truly dishonesty and irrationality at its finest.

    • Greg G.

      Guess what they will just comeback, again and again, with those same arguments.

      You don’t have to change the minds of the apologist. You are pointing out the flaws in the arguments for the people who are half convinced by them.

      • primenumbers

        “Always remember the audience” – and always remember the audience isn’t necessarily who you’re directly speaking to!

        • MR

          My audience is rarely the person I’m speaking to.

  • Len

    Surely you wouldn’t say that The Wizard of Oz is likely true because Kansas really exists.

    I’ve actually been to King’s Cross Station in London, so Harry Potter is totes true.

    • Maoh

      I ate at a restaurant that was shown in the background of an anime! If they included such a small detail as a real shop, then it MUST all be true. Magical fox spirits exist!

      • Giauz Ragnarock

        I watched an anime featuring the Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Mark my words, if we don’t organize now the Queen of Catastrophe will lead all the planet’s espers in revolt! Ask the Critic and AVGN!

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      I touched the portal to the Hogwarts express platform myself, so it must be true!

  • Zeta

    “Hyde argues that God’s properties are subordinate to his free will.”
    How does he know that?
    This same question kept on popping up in my mind when I was reading Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God” when numerous philosophers, theologians and religionists of various shades kept on dreaming up their own versions of god(s). Why should anyone accept any of these or Hyde’s version? I found that the god (e.g., with omni-* attributes) described by some Christians is very different from the one found in their own bible. I frequently wonder whether these people take their bible seriously.

    Hyde says that his god’s freewill trumps all the properties ascribed to him (the god). He is giving his god a Universal Get Out of Jail Free card. Whenever there is a contradiction or inconsistency, just produce this trump card. Problems solved! You lose.

  • Edward N Haas

    The notion of choice involves two radically different factors, namely: POWER to choose to do such-and-such vs. a REASON to do such-and-such. Like all of us, God has the POWER to lie, but no RESON to lie. Indeed, being INFINITELY informed, God has an infinitely informed reason NOT to lie plus an infinitely informed reason to tell the truth always plus an infinitely informed reason to dismiss as infinitely irrational every possible reason to lie. It is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie; it is UNFEASIBLE for God to lie, because, though it is POSSIBLE, it is not FEASIBLE for The Infinitely Informed to have a reason to lie or a reason to have a reason to have a reason, etc. to lie. By the same token, I have the POWER to put a bullet in my son’s head; but, as long as I am not grossly insane, it is not even remotely FEASIBLE for me to do so because I have no REASON to do so but every reason not to do so and every reason to reject every reason to kill him. It’s called love.

    That brings us to another important point. I dare suggest that for many, if not most, people (myself for sure) belief in God has nothing to do with “fill in the gap.” For many, if not most, a fearless conviction that God exists is the natural offshoot of a prior fearless conviction that love is forever and, ultimately, limitless. All who
    experience what alone is rightly called love, are face to face with an energy MANIFESTLY so powerful, it cannot be overcome whether by death or anything else. Even from ancient times, It’s one of the most popular of the themes found in poetry, prose, drama, music, movies, architecture, and more such. Thus, Euripides (484 – 406 BC) warbles: “No love is true save that which loves forever” (Troades 1051). In Book II, Chap. 21, of “Rhetoric”, Aristotle quotes it as an example of a maxim “already a known truth” and “clear at a glance”. Read Shakespeare’s sonnet #116. In the movie “Oblivion”, Tom Cruise as Jack Harper remarks: “If we have souls, they are made of the love we share undimmed by time; unbound by death.” St. Paul perhaps expresses it best and most succinctly when, in I Cor. 13:8, he states simply: “Love never ends.”

    In many, if not most, a fearless conviction regarding the power and immortality of love comes first and then a fearless conviction Love is God and, therefore, God as Love exists. The first thing many, if not most, children experience and know far more so than anything else is the love in their parents’ eyes, words, and embraces. God is the logical afterthought of such love.

    One of the latest and rather eloquent expressions of that theme occurs in the recent, very popular motion picture entitled “Interstellar”. At 1 hour & 24 minutes into the movie, there is a dialogue between Matthew McConaughey as Coop and Anne Hathaway as the female Dr. Brand. It runs:

    BRAND: Maybe we’ve spent too long trying to figure all of this out with theory. So listen to me when I say that love isn’t something we invented. It’s observable, powerful. It has to mean something.

    COOP: Love has meaning, yes. Social utility, social bonding, child rearing.

    BRAND: We love people who have died. Where’s the social utility in that?

    COOP: None.

    BRAND: Maybe it means something more, something we can’t yet understand. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen in a decade who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time & space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t understand it yet.
    In fine, show me an avowed Atheist, and I’ll show you one who has never experienced the only kind of love which is RIGHTLY called love.

    • Greg G.

      But the INFINITELY INFORMED God sent a lying spirit in 1 Kings 22:22-23. If God has lying spirits on retainer, then maybe he doesn’t have the POWER to lie but he does have a REASON to lie. Oh, were you thinking about a different supreme being?

    • Otto

      Show me an avowed Theist, and I’ll show you one who uses kind of reasoning which is RIGHTLY called circular..

    • MNb

      “In fine, show me an avowed Atheist, and I’ll show you one who has never experienced the only kind of love which is RIGHTLY called love.”
      Ah, the No True Love fallacy.

    • Dys

      So….presuppositionalism on the nature of love leads to an unsupported assumption that god exists.

      In fine, show me an avowed Atheist, and I’ll show you one who has never
      experienced the only kind of love which is RIGHTLY called love.

      What a joke. Sorry Ed, but your presumption here is ignorant arrogance, nothing more. You don’t have the ability to define other people’s emotions for them, nor have you established that you or any other god-botherers have any special access to “real” love.

    • RichardSRussell

      Perhaps the notion of choice involves 2 different factors, as you contend, but the notion of ability does not. For example, I am able to mow my lawn, even tho today I choose not to. It is immaterial to the question of my ability to mow the lawn whether or not I have a reason to do so. And ultimate qualities such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence likewise go only to the question of ability, not willingness to actually use it or a track record of ever having used it. Thus Bob’s analysis is perfectly coherent and, unlike yours, pertinent as well.

    • No reason to lie? Seems like “Of course that dress doesn’t make you look fat” and “I most certainly am not hiding Jews!” are two extremes of justifiable lies.

      But that’s a quibble. Your main point seems to be, “show me an avowed Atheist, and I’ll show you one who has never experienced the only kind of love which is RIGHTLY called love.” And why is that? Just because you want to redefine love to have some God characteristic?

      I’m unpersuaded.

      • Krystal

        Hey! I’m an avowed atheist, and a life-long very serious occultist, among other things. I didn’t see the original “avowed” part up there. So hey *waving* if you can find me down here .. I’m one, what is it you think you can show me? Who is this person who claims to know “RIGHTLY love?” ….hehehe

    • adam
    • Kodie

      Love is chemicals in the brain, and it feels real because it is real. No, it does not go on forever, because brains die. It feels powerful because it is how nature gets us to breed. Just because poets took this feeling for granted as lasting forever, just because some movie script writer wrote it into the mouths of characters in a play, it doesn’t mean shit. Show me an avowed Christian, and I will show you someone who is ignorant of how things are in reality, and romanticizes certain common emotions. Love is love, everyone feels loving feelings for and from people, only fools attribute it to coming from somewhere else in the universe.

    • primenumbers

      Yes, no reason to lie and a perfect being would never do anything without good reason. Yet perfection entails no lack, and needs, wants and desires to create require that something be lacking for the creation to fill a need. Perfection entails no lack, and creation necessitates a lack. A perfect being can have no reason to create and thus, as we see around us that which the theist claims is created, it is necessary that such a creation is not the product of a perfect being.

      • TheNuszAbides

        that, or ‘everything’ was ‘perfect’ before that silly Unmoved Mover got bored/lonely and started this shambolic experiment…

        • primenumbers

          Sure, but untenable as a description of god or as something you’re likely to get any theist to accept as characteristic of their god.

        • TheNuszAbides

          sorry; when Hyde’s the opening act i lose track of the “something you’re likely to get any _____ to accept” perspective.

  • Krystal

    EXCUSE ME, but Xtianity was so made up. A handful of people decided to write down what was previously oral stories (ONLY) and then decide, nay VOTE ON, how divine it’s origins may or may not have been. There’s no mysticism there. So there is disagreement on that last score. And because folks have chosen to believe this crap doesn’t mean that it’s still not crap, and by that, makes it no different than anything else unreal … like the Tooth-fairy. There are no gods and the sooner everyone realizes this, the better of we’ll all be. If you don’t like how I feel about it – tough toenails! I would sooner worship ” that man behind the curtain! “

    • RichardSRussell

      It’s true. Christianity is like the proverbial definition of a camel: a horse assembled by a committee.

      • Krystal

        Yes! In addition to that notion, the Virgin Mary was merely the latest incarnation of the (virginal) Great Goddess giving birth to her son, who impregnated her and then died only to be reborn. This has been present in nearly all previous pagan-nature religions for at least the last 25,000, where goddess statuettes and art work tell their story in those days. So that’s the other major thing for me, is that this was a very old story at the time of its “rebirth.” Oh and the fact that not a single contemporary historian totally neglected to broadcast any of this miraculous stuff.

        • RichardSRussell

          Yeah, you’d think that somebody other than Matthew would’ve made note of the fabled Zombie Apocalypse of Jerusalem:

          (52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

          (53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

          — Matthew 27:52-53

        • Krystal

          LOL! Yep! At the very least. Personally, I would’ve gone in for one of the physical cures.

        • Krystal

          And may His Noodly appendiges embrace you for all eternity. Ramen.

        • wtfwjtd


        • TheNuszAbides

          i’d rejoice if they embraced me for just some of eternity!

        • Greg G.

          Matthew was the only person who saw them and didn’t get his brains eaten.

          Actually, Matthew wasn’t the only person who wrote about it. He wasn’t even the first.

          Ezekiel 37:7-13
          7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. As I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, there was an earthquake. Then the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 I saw, and, behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them.

          9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the wind, prophesy, son of man, and tell the wind, ‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh: “Come from the four winds, breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” ’ ”

          10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

          11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost. We are completely cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy, and tell them, ‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh: “Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, my people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 You will know that I am Yahweh, when I have opened your graves, and caused you to come up out of your graves, my people.

        • RichardSRussell

          And thus, starting with the toe bone, began the world’s most memorable anatomy lesson.

          “Now hear the word of the Lord.”

        • Greg G.

          Coming out of the graves also began the world’s most memorable dance lesson.

          You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out…

        • wtfwjtd

          Though I’ve no unambiguous evidence to confirm it, I’ve long had a sneaking suspicion that the Hokey Pokey really IS what it’s all about.

        • MR

          No,no…, jiggery-pokery, jiggery-pokery!

        • Greg G.

          We don’t tolerate that kind of applesauce around here.

        • Otto

          Watch the LANGUAGE!

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          (54)And they fashioned dice and wooden figuirines from the surrounding brush and proceedeth to play a game of deep tunnels and nary a fire-breathing snake.

          (55)Then their characters decideth to take residence in a house of ale where they fashioned dice and wooden figurines so as to play game of deep tunnels and nary a fire-breathing snake.

          (56)They playeth all of two and one half days before they walketh on Jerusalem.

          — Matthew 27:54-56 (the missing hours)

        • TheNuszAbides

          this amusement is countered by the near-certainty that there has at some point actually occurred the equivalent of “LARPin’ with the Lord”…

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          They LARPed that they were holy heroes of old who danceth around the wine house with swords of the imagination in their hands while their true swords rusteth on the tables.

          — Matthew 27 (questionable variant fragment MSS)

    • That there are now 42,000 denominations of Christianity is another point. The Christians can’t even among themselves agree on what Christianity is all about.

      • TheNuszAbides

        that just underscores the need for [insert any and every tenet of either the RCC or EOC (coin toss!), including the ones that have fallen by the wayside]…

      • Krystal

        Yep. Taking a point from Mr. Maher, I’d like them to explain how this deity of theirs can hear everyone murmuring to him at the same time! Because “He’s God and and can do anything.” …is not a suitable answer for me. What amazes me most is that they don’t realize that all these extraordinary claims they make must be validated by THEM not those of us who do not believe.

        • But it’s much easier to shirk the burden of proof and demand that the atheist defeat their arguments (such as they are).

          It’s such a bitch defending one’s crazy position–who wants the hassle?

        • Krystal

          Yes. I feel though at times that I need keep going until exhaustion because it’s clear these folk read nothing outside their b-i-b-l-e, *sigh* … like real history.

    • johzek

      As a comparison to Pastafarianism in the here and now maybe Bob should have said that Christianity “isn’t made up” instead of “wasn’t made up” meaning that Christianity, encompassing its tenets and believers along with a two thousand year history obviously exists now although it was most certainly made up at its origin. He is responding to Hyde’s contention that this history distinguishes it from other imaginative fantasies.

  • johzek

    I’ve always thought of the comparisons of gods to the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as just a lighthearted way to illustrate their imaginary natures and to point out the fact that what can only be imagined does not exist. There’s no strawman argument here but just a simple analogy that serves its purpose.

    • I’ve read outraged Christian response to these comparisons. Seems to me that they resort to incensed anger when they don’t have anything better.

      • TheNuszAbides

        not at all unlike “hey, you just said a Bad Word, therefore I am conveniently off the hook for holding up my end!”

  • Greg G.

    Here’s a problem for the omnification of a deity. If a god was omnipotent and omniscient, it would be able to give a clam the perfect illusion of being omniscient and omnipotent with false memories of creating its own universe, yet hide itself from the clam for ineffable reasons so that the clam thought it was the supreme being. But the god could never know whether it was a supreme being or a greater god’s clam. It could never be sure it wasn’t a brain in a vat or a dream of Vishnu. That inability to know means omniscience would not be possible. Since the clam god lacks the power to find certainty, omnipotence is not possible.

    • primenumbers

      Yes, as soon as you posit this all powerful being, you’ve just not only destroyed our ability to actually know anything (because that being has the ability to fake up anything to perfectly deceive us), and as soon as that being realizes their power is vast enough to deceive any being, they realize they could be being perfectly deceived also…. Omnipotence is nuclear argument so unstable that even a single mention is enough critical mass to blow up any argument using it. Omnipotence is a property so powerful it cannot contain itself and remain consistent.

    • Susan

      Here’s a problem for the omnification of a deity.

      Another problem is this. How would a human be capable of evaluating omnipotence or omniscience?

      All we could determine was that something knew more than any human and was more powerful than any human.

      No one is in a position to assert or accept Omni claims.

      ‘My deity is omniscient.’

      How do you know?

      ‘My deity is omnipotent.’

      How do you know?

      It’s an outrageous assertion. It’s meaningless.

      • TheNuszAbides

        ‘Papa Don’t Take No Mess’. the worst leave it at that and most others paper it over with platitudes.

  • Rudy R

    If a perfect god lives in a perfect god-world, would it be logical for this god to feel it necessary to create a universe to be inhabited by an imperfect being? If a perfect god had a choice between creating a perfect being or an imperfect being, wouldn’t it be logical to choose the perfect being?

    • MNb

      Well, after a while he might realize that the god-world is not entirely perfect because he lacks company and gets bored. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      • TheNuszAbides

        imagine the profundity! All That Is/Was/EverShallBe conceptualizes ‘company’ despite already Being Everything alreadyforever. no wonder* it made a tiny speck of a tiny speck of a tiny speck [ad nauseam] of the universe Just For Us!

        * just a figure of speech, of course; the Underlying Truth is Infinitudinally Wondrous!

  • SJ

    All arguments fail. The only convincing proof is self evidence and you have to be brave enough to follow God’s methods to get that evidence.

    You have to risk walking up a ladder to see what’s at the top and you have to trust God and follow his methods to see what’s at the top of his ladder.

    Science can’t get there. The scientific method isn’t God’s spiritual method or formula for spiritual success.

    God has His own method and He likes to test people just read Peter in the New Testament….God likes to test people.

    • Otto

      If you knew how this comes off as painting yourself completely self-delusional on the subject you wouldn’t post this tripe.

      • SJ

        I posted this in another forum. I will share it with you :

        This is Mary the mother of Jesus’ pronouncement to Elizabeth upon receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. It’s Mary’s Song called The Magnificat recorded in the Book of Luke.

        The Magnificat

        Now if Mary could lay down any objection to God and be obedient in such a primitive day and in dangerous circumstances why can’t we….why can’t the Jews? Why can’t the gays?

        Everyone has the same choice….but everyone likes to think he can object and rebel because he’s ” special ” and that is the definition of pride.

        • Otto

          Zues really enjoyed the human women too…funny how many of the gods at the time liked to get it on with them.

          Oh and it is just a story…it didn’t really happen.

        • Dys

          everyone likes to think he can object and rebel because he’s ” special ” and that is the definition of pride.

          Uh…have you been reading your own comments? Because it would take an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance not to see the irony here.

        • InDogITrust

          It’s mind boggling, isn’t it?

      • SJ

        I’m not the one regularly engaging in verbal abuse.

        I’m the one under attack by it.

        If you realized what God sees about you you might stop and reflect more before shooting off your mouth trying to shoo people away.

        • Otto

          Your ideas of god being self-evident are under attack. If you don’t like it get a better logical position. This is an atheist site so coming on here and spreading non-sense that you are right based on nothing more than your say so will get your position attacked. Boo Hoo…sniffle.

          Grow up.

        • SJ

          Listen you’re going to have to switch methodologies if you’re going to crack the God problem.

          You are important to God but the scientific method and philosophy are not God’s time honored aprroaches to meet Him.

          I don’t care one bit about logic….I know that what you identify with is more powerful…so the human mind and psychology is more important in knowing God than other methods are.

          Stop identifying with people that received judgments for sin. All crimes are worthy of judgment and all flesh is demonic.

          You pick out the overcomers in the bible: Abraham, Ruth, Boaz, Moses, David, Samuel, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John etc. These are your spiritual family.

          A winner doesn’t identify with losers. A winner learns to be a winner from other winners and the biggest victor of all time is Jesus Christ. He’s the only one that ever got out of the grave under his own power.

          Hope this helps…don’t forget Jesus loves you…you were meant to be a child of God and you’re up for adoption.

        • Otto

          “You are important to God but the scientific method and philosophy are not God’s time honored aprroaches to meet Him.”

          You are right…self delusion is. It is the only approach that actually works. All others fail.

        • adam

          “I don’t care one bit about logic.”

          The very definition of Delusion…

        • SJ

          Lol…I’m not good at formal logic…It doesn’t mean I can’t think.

          You’re the one with the imaginary fears.

          I rely on eyewitness testimony so I’m a realist.

          Didn’t you know the smarter you are the more you imagine things. Including things that make you fearful.

          Well I have too much common sense to spend time in vain speculations that refute God.

          I have God’s testimony to refer to and you keep calling God a liar.

          The bible was given through multiple people over 1500 years and that’s just too long a period of time to sustain a hoax so it is real.

          You bought the lie now you will have to examine yourself and determine why.

        • JoBar

          “You’re the one with the imaginary fears.”

          “You bought the lie now you will have to examine yourself and determine why.”

          Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. — Sigmund Freud, “Case Histories II”, (PFL 9) p.132

          EDIT: made it more specific where SJ is projecting.

        • Dys

          You’re the one with the imaginary fears.

          And yet you’re the one with an imaginary enemy.

          I rely on eyewitness testimony so I’m a realist.

          The bible’s not eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. So no, you’re not a realist.

          The bible was given through multiple people over 1500 years and that’s just too long a period of time to sustain a hoax so it is real.

          Your standards of evidence are pathetic. By that standard, Hinduism is true as well.

          Well I have too much common sense to spend time in vain speculations that refute God.

          The truth seems to be that you don’t have the ability to actually address the concerns you’re being given with anything other than recitations of faith.

          I have God’s testimony to refer to and you keep calling God a liar.

          Correction: you have a book that claims to be God’s word. The truth value of that claim has not been established. And due to the contradictions and inaccuracies in it, it’s definitely not inerrant.

          You bought the lie now you will have to examine yourself and determine why.

          You really just don’t get it, do you? We don’t believe you, and you can’t adequately defend your position. Repeat it to yourself until it sinks in: Atheists don’t believe in god.

        • MNb

          “I rely on eyewitness testimony so I’m a realist.”
          Eh no – eyewtiness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. Hence you are a delusionalist.

        • SJ

          Eyewitness testimony is still evidence.

        • adam

          The poorest of evidence but all that remains for those trying to deceive other people to believe in demons and gods…

        • JoBar

          There are eyewitnesses that have seen Bigfoot, Hindu gods, Muhammad, and Dracula. By your standards, you have to give their beliefs equal footing. Maybe ask yourself why you don’t believe their claims…

        • SJ

          Where did I ever give a complete standard?

          I didn’t.

          You’re probably used to Arminians….I am not an Arminian…though at one time I almost was before studying under certain people.

          I know God picks people…It is just the degree of interplay between cooperation and election I haven’t thought a lot about.

          That’s why I think you can petition God for belief, repentance, discernment, etc. We can ask God for gifts to help us understand.

          You’re probably used to people trying to force a choice on you like your believing is your burden but believing is a gift. I was given my gift from God. I have never entertained a single conscious rebellious thought against Him at least I can’t recall one. That’s why I think the world plants false ideas in our minds encouraging some people to reject God. Your mind is a garden and thoughts can be planted in it both good and evil. So you have to tend to your mind. That’s why there are various roots discussed in the bible and that’s why the bible says to avoid evil people and evil thinking and profanity.

          Swedenborg might be a good one for you to read up on….His ideas may make more sense to you than the way other Christians present things.

          Never believed in Dracula, not sure about Bigfoot but never thought much about it beyond seeing pics in magazines, and I am sure Muhammad lived .

          I think God intended transmission through the family.

          Read the book of Galatians….Paul said not to heed angels. We got the Gospel from Jesus Christ.

          The Mormons and the Muslims got their ideas from angels. I don’t know much about the Mormons but their polygamy is an anti-biblical idea and Muhammad actually corrected God by switching the birthright and nobody corrects God. Jesus Christ never corrected God and no prophet of the Old Testament ever corrected God either.

          That’s how I usually rule out false religions. Simple observation or question and,take it to the bible and verify what God said. It can be hard to verify at times so I do multiple passage searches and consult commentaries and respectable scholars that know Hebrew.

        • JoBar

          So your standard is to only believe eyewitness testimony if it aligns with the bible?

          If someone uses a different holy book to set the standard of what a reliable eye witness testimony is, then they are using the same standard you are. i.e. If your favorite holy book is the bhagavad gita, then all other religions would be false.

          PS: Esau, Moses, Jacob, Elkanah, David, and Solomon all practiced polygamy and is not anti-biblical because it was not condemned. You should read your own book from time to time.

        • SJ

          There’s more to it but I’m not analyzing it.

          And no polygamy was never approved by God whether people practiced it or not. People practice lots of things God didn’t approve of.

          Read the OT law. It says a king should have only one wife. Solomon disobeyed the law.

        • JoBar

          “There’s more to it but I’m not analyzing it.” Why not? Isn’t eternal life important to you? You could be following the wrong religion. You have a circular standard of believing in the bible because the bible says it’s true. You could be going to muslim hell, mormon hell, or be reborn in a lower caste.

          Burping was not approved by god, but people still did it. Burping and polygamy, then, both fall into the same category. Your statement was that polygamy was anti-biblical, which is incorrect.

          OT law says that a king should only have one wife? Nope. Check your sources.
          If you’re referring to Deut. 17:17 about kings not taking too many wives, you need to re-read that verse as well as review its context Deut. 17:14-20. It is designed so that kings wont amass too many horses, gold, silver, wives, etc so that he won’t consider himself better than everyone else.

          Solomon took 1000 wives which is in violation of “too many”.

        • SJ

          Sorry, breaking and have things to do tomorrow….

          Can’t believe you can’t tell the truth from a lie.

          Google Andrew Strom’s Kundalini Warning videos on youtube.

          The Hindus engage in self immolation like sacrifices to Molech in the OT.

          I’m sure about the no polygamy thing….I studied a lot on the Old Testament with a very good teacher.

        • JoBar

          I can tell truth’s from lies: evidence.
          Claiming certainties without evidence is a sure fire way to believe a lie. (Case in point, your un-cited claim about polygamy.)
          If you’re sure about the polygamy thing, where’s your source? I showed you mine. Deut. 17 does not say you many only take one wife.
          Your “very good teacher” didn’t teach you where he got his information? He doesn’t sound very good.

        • SJ

          I have all kinds of ways to tell things apart. Christians call it discernment.

          You’ll have to ask God for it and do your own comparisons since you want evidence.

          I have an extraordinary gift.

        • JoBar

          “Hindus have all kinds of ways to tell things apart. They call it discernment.

          You’ll have to ask Vishnu for it and do your own comparisons since you want evidence.

          Hindus have an extraordinary gift.”

          This statement is just as valid.

        • SJ

          No….I’m a different person from others and I know it. From studying Jung I know I have better perception than average. It’s a people skill thing so I trust my perception more than others trust their’s.

          There are different brain types and different types of intelligence and that affects the way people assess things.

          So God would know that and would have a more relaxed standard.

          Some people may value objective evidence because of personality type or training.

          Others value subjective evidence from personality type or training.

        • JoBar

          So now you are on the side of secular psychology with Jung? Add that to the growing list of your self contradictions.

          I’m glad you think you know how god thinks and how he changes his standards for every person. Some would say that’s pretty arrogant.

        • SJ

          It’s pseudo science so it is half useful.

        • JoBar

          Don’t expect people to believe anything you say, after saying that…among other things.

        • SJ

          I try to be truthful….I cannot control other people’s reactions…some people like being contrary.

          I’m going to have to curb my internet time….I don’t need the computer to become an idol.

          Please don’t reply….I will have to ignore…..I have an important job to do.

        • Dys

          I try to be truthful

          Yet you routinely fail at it, because you’ve already decided you have the ability to tell people why they don’t believe in god, that they really believe that the devil exists, etc. You’re not being truthful – you’re actively lying about people.

          I have an important job to do.

          Hopefully it involves taking your ego down a notch and realizing neither you or your favorite book have any ability to dictate others beliefs to them.

        • SJ

          Maybe you’ll believe Van Til

          Why Atheism Cannot Be Logical
          Most Atheists believe that everything that exists is material, that everything that actually exists is part of the physical world. The laws of logic are not physical. The Atheistic worldview eliminates the possibility of logic being real or reliable. At the same time, Atheists try to use logic to reason. When they do so, they are demonstrating that their worldview is not internally consistent and that their worldview is not valid. The worldview of the Atheist cannot be a valid worldview because the worldview requires that the Atheist use the laws of logic, yet the Atheist’s worldview does not allow the laws of logic to exist since they are not material. Atheism is self-refuting because the Atheist must assume something (logic) that disproves Atheism in order to prove Atheism. “[A]theism presupposes theism.”~ Dr. Cornelius VanTil

          Atheists try to use the laws of logic to argue against the existence of God. As Dr. Lisle points out: “In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.” In fact, Atheists, Materialists, and Naturalists even have a problem with math itself.

          Atheists can be logical since they were created by God, but they cannot make a logical case (that is consistent with Atheism) for trusting logic. In the same way, Atheists can be moral since they were created by God, but they cannot make a logical case or a moral case (that is consistent with Atheism) for their morality. They can be moral, but it is not logical for them to do so.

          In addition to this, the Atheist does not believe in revelation. The Christian believes in the Real, Almighty God of the Bible, who is able to reveal knowledge and understanding about Himself and His universe to any person. This means that the only means of reason that an Atheist has is logic. The Christian reasons together with God. God reveals. The Christian receives God’s revelation. If God reveals through the Bible, then the Christian receives the revelation that God gives through the Bible. It is a two step process. Atheists, believing their worldview, say that this is circular reasoning. It would be if there were not God or if God did not reveal Himself and His universe. But God does reveal, so it is perfectly rational to say, “God says…” The Atheist, however does not have a self-consistent worldview, and from the Atheistic internally inconsistent worldview, the Atheist posits that the internally consistent relationship between God and His people is not rational.

          More here:

        • Dys

          Van Til was a presuppositionalist, which is what I basically suspected you of being for quite a while, because you engage in the same bad reasoning he advocates.

          The transcendental argument is not the “atheist worldview” killer you think it is. Basically, the laws of logic are conceptual statements created by humans that describe physical reality. In other words, they have physical underpinnings to support them. Van Til was wrong.

        • JoBar

          So I guess you’re conceding that polygamy is not anti-biblical, since you quickly changed the subject and copy-pasted some stuff from one of your christian websites. (and then claim to not want to discuss further)

        • SJ

          I’ve never heard of a Hindu claiming discernment. It is a particular spiritual gift listed in the scriptures.

        • JoBar

          You believe the bible’s claims about spiritual gifts, so you keep telling yourself that your superstition of knowing what religion is right (discernment) must be the only true way to know. Again this is your circular logic: the bible is the only true book because the bible says that about itself.

        • SJ

          I have all kinds of reasons that are none of your business.

        • Dys

          I have an extraordinary gift.

          At least you think you do. I’m sure it’s one of the reasons you continually descend to arrogance.

        • Dys

          That’s how I usually rule out false religions. Simple observation or question and,take it to the bible and verify what God said.

          So, circular logic. You start with the assumption that Christianity is true, so if a differing religion contradicts Christianity, it has to be false.

          Which isn’t an actual test at all. Because all you’ve really done is establish that they contradict Christianity, not determined their truth value.

        • adam

          “Lol…I’m not good at formal logic…It doesn’t mean I can’t think.”

          Yes, it actually does.

          “You’re the one with the imaginary fears.”

          No, I dont believe in demons, like YOU do

          “I have God’s testimony to refer to and you keep calling God a liar.”

          No, you have book written by men who thought disease was caused by demons, and who didnt know where the sun went at night

          Perfect for IGNORANT people like yourself.

          And for the IGNORANT that whore these ideas out to.

        • MNb

          “Listen you’re going to have to switch methodologies if you’re going to crack the God problem.”
          We’ve cracked it.
          There is no god.
          Especially since you don’t have a methodology as you admit yourself:

          “I don’t care one bit about logic”

          “You are important to God but the scientific method and philosophy are not God’s time honored aprroaches to meet Him.”
          Too bad for your god. The scientific method has enabled you to propagate your ideas on this blog. Your god has failed in this respect for thousands of years.

        • Kodie

          There is a god problem? For starters, you believe he sent you with a purpose, and that purpose is to sound crazy and lack credibility. There is no way around that problem. You caused it. You keep running at full speed into a brick wall, believing that it’s for a very good reason. That’s what makes you crazy. Everything else lacks credibility.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh, but it’s not just their say-so! they have Best Bible Scholar in World (you know, that oh-so-quantifiable status) to parrot!

        • Otto

          I would be just as impressed with the best Marvel Comic Scholar.

          And BTW which scholar is supposedly the best Bible scholar?

        • TheNuszAbides

          i was too busy wincing at the stupendous volume of Dunning-Kruger to retain the name. most likely on the thread with the joyful dancing flock videos. my loss!

        • JoBar

          All ideas should be scrutinized. That’s how one gets rid of the bad ideas.
          I think driving a tank to work is the safest possible way to get to the office. But after careful thought, it’s not very practical.

          You feel “under attack” probably because you don’t want to be wrong. Although if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you shouldn’t fret about this analysis, but rather welcome it.

        • SJ

          No all ideas don’t bear scrutiny….Some people scrutinize porn and lapse into unfaithfulness.

          Also some people have gut reactions that tell them when they are in danger. I heard a person explain once on Oprah how she dismissed her gut reaction…rationalized it away…and was attacked.

          We have our guts for a reason…it could be a type of primitive spiritual sense.

        • JoBar

          An idea is different from a reaction to stimulus. The former is abstract, and the latter a material response.
          Democracy is an idea.
          Fear is a reaction to an approaching bear.

        • Kodie

          People tend to ignore “gut” reactions because most of the time, it is actually nothing.

        • MNb

          Otto is not verbally abusing you. He draws a conclusion – a correct one – from the content of your comments.

          “If you realized what God sees about you”
          Ah. Now you’ve realized that atheists aren’t scared of the devil because they don’t believe in that one either you try to scare them with your all loving god.

        • Kodie

          You can’t be serious. You’re about as hostile a presence we’ve had. Don’t forget you also did threaten me physically.

    • MNb

      “The only convincing proof is self evidence ”
      Yes and you’re perfect self evidence for the stupidity of religious thinking.

      • SJ

        Keep identifying with the devil if you wish acting like the devil’s lawyer.

        Christ said you are with me or you’re against me.

        As for me…I’m not scared of alittle hazing. I’ve got God’s power residing inside me and I’ m like Moses and I slip into the devil Pharoah’s camp and come and go as I please.

        Who’s afraid of the devil? Not me….I’ve got the Holy Spirit and the Sword of the Spirit.

        I’ve been slipping in and out of the devil’s camp for years and I’m still kicking…Healthy as can be.

        • Otto

          Nuttier than squirrel droppings.

        • adam

          “Keep identifying with the devil”

        • Dys

          Who’s afraid of the devil?

          Me neither. Because he’s as imaginary as the god you’re trying to peddle.

        • MNb

          “Keep identifying with the devil if you wish acting like the devil’s lawyer.”
          I’m an atheist, remember? I don’t believe in your god and I don’t believe in your devil either.

          “Who’s afraid of the devil? Not me”
          Guess what? I’m as afraid of your devil as I am for your god and for the tooth fairy.

          “I’ve been slipping in and out of the devil’s camp for years and I’m still kicking…Healthy as can be.”
          I’m healthier, because I’ve never slipped in or out the devil’s camp ever for the simple reason that their is no such camp.

        • JoBar

          You’re presupposing atheists believe in theism, then trying to use theism as a scare tactic. Your comments must be well thought out…

        • Dys

          I suspect that SJ is one of those Christians who falsely insist that everybody really knows God exists, but some choose to suppress it.

          It explains why she constantly resorts to presuppositionalism and pretending we accept her assertions, despite failing miserably in defending them. It also explains the arrogance SJ exhibits and the constant repetition.

    • JoBar

      “The only convincing proof is self evidence…”
      Can you define what you mean by self evidence?

      Material evidence is clearly the best type of evidence because it can be scrutinized objectively. Testimonial and circumstantial evidence may sometimes hold up in court, when material evidence is not present. But the 1000s of different/conflicting religious testimonials from all religions along with their confirmation biases (i.e. circumstantial evidence) as well as the fact that there is no way to verify any of those claims only weaken this god hypothesis.

      • SJ

        Why don’t you start with a simple idea. Why would God set belief up on a modern standard? Like the scientific method.

        Belief is ancient. It is a part of everybody’s brain. Even biases serve as organizational shortcuts for human thinking. So bias isn’t necessarily bad….it serves a purpose.

        Jesus Christ was the only one that ever got out of a grave…..Doesn’t that make him unique?

        Don’t keep pushing him in with the crowd.

        People always do this….why how can you be a Christian? Mr. So and So is such a hypocrite….

        I can be a Christian because I don’t care about Mr. So and So. I am not focusing horizontally mentaly….I am focusing vertically….I know Jesus Christ is the standard to focus and seek to emulate until I manifest a closer version of him….

        I don’t focus on other people’s failures….I’m too busy allowing God to teach me to be a success.

        I’ve never focused on a failure in my life….I always seek out the experts and who is more expert than God?

        • adam

          “Jesus Christ was the only one that ever got out of a grave”

          NO, not according to YOUR bible:

          and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead.
          Matthew 27:52

          What is AMAZING is that NONE of this even made the local news, no national coverage…….


          No evidence of any of this.

        • adam

          “Why would God set belief up on a modern standard?”

          Where is the evidence that a ‘god’ set up belief?

          The evidence for the bible is all man.

        • JoBar

          You’re presupposing that the supernatural exists. You have to remove systematic and critical thinking to START with that proposition. So saying “Why would god set…” is already removing logic. Adults don’t start discussing ideas by presupposing that a fairy tale is true.

          It’s like saying, “The city of Oz HAS to exist! Otherwise, where would the yellow-brick-road lead?”

          Confirmation bias is distinct from our regular biases. Here’s the definition from oxforddictionaries(dot)com:
          The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories.
          (In other words, thinking that overcoming the flu was due to prayer is confirmation bias.)

          “Jesus…out of a grave…”
          …More of your presupositions! A talking lion knows how to get to Oz. Isn’t that unique?

          “…who is more expert than god?”
          Who is more wise than the Wizard of Oz?

        • SJ

          You continue to question and get no conclusion…..if you had a solid conclusion you wouldn’t question.

          I will submit to God’s will because I have my answer and my evidence and best of all my relationship and my connections.

        • Dys

          if you had a solid conclusion you wouldn’t question.

          Which is basically admitting you don’t question your own presuppositions, but you expect anyone who doesn’t buy into what you’re selling to question theirs. What you really mean is that you’ve found a conclusion that you like. I don’t see any real indication that you care much whether it’s true or not.

          I’m reminded of a quote that applies to this faux-criticism of yours:

          “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard Feynman.

          At the end of the day, your personal experiences don’t count as evidence to anyone but yourself. Which means you don’t have anything to offer up as evidence for your various assertions, and the reason you’ve been trying to avoid the issue.

        • JoBar

          Re-read the comment you’re responding to. My questions are mirroring the absurdities of yours to illuminate the supernatural presuppositions you continue to make. Your “solid conclusion” is your presupposition, which is delusional.
          What is your evidence?

        • MNb

          Oh, the conclusion is plain and simple.
          There is no god and Jesus was not his son.

        • adam

          “I will submit to God’s will because I have my answer and my evidence and best of all my relationship and my connections.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          You continue to question and get no conclusion

          even generously granting that this shows an accurate grasp of the reality on your part? “continuing to question and getting no conclusion” would be worlds better than continuing to conclude and getting no question [right], which is what you’re obviously more inclined towards.

        • SJ

          I’m sorry but I have 35 emails from people on this blog …most of them probably non sequiturs and insults and it’s hard to keep up with everyone.

          What you’re doing is the same old claptrap all atheists spew….you always want to control everything but can’t think like God.

          God has a perspective….

          And you keep kicking His perspective out and you’re not smarter than other people when you do that.

          I used to hear atheists say they debated all the time to hear other people’s perspective and that is exactly your problem.

          Confusion… care about everybody’s perspective except God’s.

          I hit boards trying to give God’s perspective so God can make something out of people and all you do is raise complaints.

          You know what Bob S. if you read this with your shallow little comments that I couldn’t be a disciple…that’s pure hubris on your part….you don’t even know God so you don’t know what His discipleship standards are..

          I’m the one speaking from His oerspective all the time and I’m not a disciple?

          You guys are crazy…you have dismissed God for science and made a false idol out of evidence.

          The reason God gave the bible was so people could know Him and yet all atheists persist in stubborn denial.

          You don’t even have the brains to be impressed with God’s brillance in giving the world a physical set of directions i.e. the bible.

          I can see I am going to be deleting a lot of disqus emails…I need to speak with some people that can follow God’s perspective.

          He’s the one with the really big mind…plus he’s peaceful…He doesn’t get pissed off every 5 seconds.

        • JoBar

          You say, “I will submit to God’s will because I have my answer and my evidence…” and “…you have dismissed God for science and made a false idol out of evidence.” Is evidence good or bad? You’re contradicting yourself.

          You say, “The only convincing proof is self evidence…” which contradicts the definition of self-evident (evident without proof or reasoning). You contradict yourself again.

          All we’re doing is pointing out your inconsistancies and intellectual dishonesty. You call us crazy for thinking critcally, and we call you crazy for putting faith in logical fallices.

          I used to be a believer, so I can relate to your/”god’s” perspective. It stings when you’re pelted with logic and reason. When you never question an idea, it’s shocking to learn that it’s not perfect. Questioning your beliefs frequently is healthy. People who don’t never learn anything new.

          You said it yourself you “don’t care one bit about logic.” If you believe god gave you a brain, why do you believe it’s better not to use it?

          PS: The more you learn about science, the more you can appreciate the brilliance of the universe. god’s brilliance cannot be observed because there isn’t any evidence for it.

        • SJ

          Well I am going to bow out of this thread. I had enough for the day. Unless you realize where you stand in relation to God you will never come close to understanding His perspective and I understand that people have underlying motives for not seeking to know God’s perspective and usually the word ” logical fallacy” on a message board signals an attempt to dominate the other party by inferring an inferior reasoning capability to them.

          I told a person once they needed to seek counseling but I don’t think their ego could handle it and they never sought counseling because of an underlying motive.

          I think the same thing goes for atheists. They don’t want to seek God’s counsel which He has been supplying in the bible for forever so they turn to a weak substitute: psychology.

          Google Christianity versus Modern Psychology for the evidence based on a comparison of God’s Infallible Counsel vs. Psychology.

          But in my case I am already humble….I am the one with the right standing before God which you can’t get without being humbled before Him. Besides I have watched the “you’re just a stupid little woman” routine implied towards women my whole life so I know it when I see it couched in polite terms on a message board.

          It doesn’t change the fact that ” Logic is the servant of Intuition”…IIRC Roger Sperry said that.

        • adam

          ” They don’t want to seek God’s counsel which He has been supplying in
          the bible for forever so they turn to a weak substitute: psychology.”

          No atheist dont BELIEVE in god, due to lack of credible evidence.

        • JoBar

          “…a comparison of God’s Infallible Counsel vs. Psychology”
          I googled it. Your source comes from: the-gospel(dot)org/stdy_psych/christ-centered.php

          Begging the question, much?

          At least you’re bragging about how humble you are, so I know that must be true…

          I had no idea you were a woman. Frankly, sex has nothing to do with how contradictory and illogical your statements are.

          As far as I can tell, Sperry never said that. Even so, his opinion is not a fact. (Facts and opinions are different.) Also, his “left brain-right brain” theory has been debunked long ago. Your christian websites need an update.

          Here’s a legit source to get you started:

          replace the (dot) with a period.

        • InDogITrust

          Why would I care about understanding the perspective of a fictional character? I

          But I do admire your humbleness, knowing that you personally know the perspective of an all-powerful entity that controls everything and that it approves of you. You are so humble that I bet your last name is Heep.

        • Dys

          Unless you realize where you stand in relation to God


        • Dys

          most of them probably non sequiturs and insults and it’s hard to keep up with everyone.

          I don’t think you’re capable of spotting a non sequitur, given your use of them.

          if you read this with your shallow little comments that I couldn’t be a disciple…that’s pure hubris on your part

          If one takes the common traits attributed to God, then it’s simply not possible for anyone at all to speak from his perspective, because you have no reference point at all. Claiming to do so would immense hubris, which is exactly what you’re doing.

          You’re an inept presuppositionalist – you can’t actually defend your assertions at all, so you just keep repeating them over and over again, with the same unwarranted arrogance I’ve noticed in every single presuppositional apologist I’ve ever met. You can’t have an honest conversation here, because you won’t defend anything. You’ll just keep using variations of “I’m right, you’re wrong”, we’ll reply “prove it”, and you’ll answer “no”. Rinse and repeat.

          You’re just trolling.

        • TheNuszAbides

          pretty sure SJ isn’t even bothering to rinse.

        • Kodie

          You don’t have god’s perspective, you have your own, and you make pretend that it is really important for you to tell everyone what god thinks. You don’t have a realistic perception of anything, so you make god sound really drugged up on something.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Genesis Prequel: before there was Light, God invented Cocaine…

        • Kodie

          That would also explain how he put it together so quickly.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and the platypus.

        • Dys

          Jesus Christ was the only one that ever got out of a grave…..Doesn’t that make him unique?

          Firstly, you don’t actually know that – the claimed resurrection is not a historical fact. And secondly, even the bible has other people popping out of the grave. So coming back to life isn’t unique even to the bible.

        • Kodie

          Why would God set belief up on a modern standard? Like the scientific method.

          Don’t blame us because god couldn’t even think of it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          SJ throws around half-assed phrases like ‘what all atheists spew’, characteristically failing to acknowledge (or be aware) that even Bete Noir Dawkins acknowledges religion in the chronology of human pattern-seeking as our first attempts at cosmology et al…

      • SJ

        Science isn’t even mentioned in the bible. It’d be a long time before it developed to be a standard for material things.

        Also Paul warns us to be careful of philosophy. I think that’s because the only philosophy that contains God’s thinking is theology. Theology is the study of God and God manifested as Jesus Christ.

        When you truly in your heart repent is the start of the whole of spiritual birth and transformation….After that you have to even more actively focus on God to get results.

        Kierkegaard is one of the great Christian philosophers that explains that truth is subjective. Evidence is of secondary importance to God….God is concerned with changing the heart of a person. If that happens they show the evidence of the change in their behavior ….some gradually and some suddenly depending on human variables coming into play….

        There is an interesting book that explains Jesus’ personal case . It is called the Apologetics of Jesus by Norman Geisler and Patrick Zukeran. It is an interesting read explaining things from a philosophical perspective.

        • JoBar

          You still haven’t defined “self evidence”. Is it the same as Confirmation Bias? It’s becomeing more evident that’s what you meant.

          “Science isn’t even mentioned in the bible.”
          That’s right. Logically approaching nature in a systematic way is how humanity really began to live better, longer, and healthier. I guess god wanted to continue human suffering as long as he could.

          The bible developed over centuries in a vastly illiterate culture that passed stories down orally for several generations before they were written down. Then they were edited by several authors to adapt to the current belief systems of the day. Material evidence from the ancient manuscripts and history show this.

          Of course your religion wants you to be “careful of philosophy.” They’re scared you might learn something! God would hate it, if you started using your “god-given” brain! If you learned how to think critically and honestly, then you would abandon silly ideas.

        • Dys

          Kierkegaard is one of the great Christian philosophers that explains that truth is subjective.

          But it’s not…and you don’t believe that anyway, otherwise you wouldn’t be wasting your time here trying to persuade us that we need to accept your subjective truth.

        • Pofarmer

          Paul warns about philosophy because it can kick religions ass. And science kicks philosophies ass.

        • SJ

          No he doesn’t. Paul had an exceedingly high intellect. Theology exceeds philosophy. Through the study of the scriptures God builds godly character into Christians.

          Intellect and character are related yet’different.

        • Dys

          Theology is, at best, a subset of philosophy. It doesn’t (and can’t) exceed philosophy.

    • JoBar

      If by “self evidence” you meant the classic definition of “self-evident”, then you contradict yourself.
      merriam-webster(dot)com — “evident without proof or reasoning”

      This is why I keep asking you to define what you mean, just to be clear.

    • primenumbers

      So what you’re suggesting is that instead of the best, most reliable methods we use to find out about the universe around us, we should instead be using the least reliable methods that when used have produced the vast chaos of religious belief on this planet?

      • SJ

        A lot of the chaos has been created by people themselves. The New Testament says the whole world already received the Gospel in New Testament times. That means that something prevented the transmission down in certain areas of the world. Was it the refusal of people affecting their descendants or was it demons?

        Could be both.

        The old way could be more reliable. Scientific evidence can be tampered with and misreported. There is a huge scandal in medicine studies right now where a famous science journal editor is claiming many medical studies were slanted, of course, it isn’t mainstream yet. The media is controlled.

        Politics isn’t clean of bribery and corruption. Why would science be….Big Pharma has billions of dollars at stake….and you don’t think studies can be stacked?

        Ford lied about the Pinto….they knew it was engineered dangerously to explode with the gas tank in the back but they sold the cars anyway and figured their profit margin could handle the death, pain and suffering costs from the lawsuits.

        • JoBar

          You’re conflating corporate R&D with peer-reviewed research. Corporate R&D is indeed slanted, much like your christian “psychology” website.

          Peer-reviewed research isn’t accepted by the scientific community until many, many repeated published results have been verified independently. Keep in mind these scientists would love find inconsistencies. The media often misunderstand that the first peer-reviewed publication on a topic is NOT the be all and end all of that subject. It’s simply the first study on the topic.

        • primenumbers

          So you think that methods that don’t even try to be objective and rather than seek to annoy cognitive biases actually engage them should be used?

          The very fact you know that “Scientific evidence can be tampered with and misreported” “studies were slanted” “bribery and corruption” “billions of dollars at stake” means you fully understand how methods of research about the world around us can be unreliable. Yet you still wish to use the very most unreliable methods of all….

    • jh

      You’d be surprised at how much human beings deceive themselves. I would never put self-evidence on the same level as objective evidence. If your god wants me to believe in its existence, it should provide objective evidence. No need for human beings and their responses. I want your god to respond.

      1. Tell your God to turn Mars into a lush verdant world with water and an Earth-like ecosystem by August 4th 2015.
      2. I want to fly without wings or airplanes or any other man-made device by August 4th 2015.
      3. I want the equivalent of 1 billion dollars (assessed at this day’s value) in my bank account by August 4th 2015.

      Please do not respond until one of these three things has occurred. Start praying.

    • Dys

      All arguments fail. The only convincing proof is self evidence and you
      have to be brave enough to follow God’s methods to get that evidence.

      Belief before evidence is a great way to pick up untrue beliefs. It’s essentially the definition of gullibility.

      You’ve literally got nothing more than “guys, you just gotta believe in God”, and when you’re told that no, actually, we don’t, you just repeat yourself.

    • adam

      “Science can’t get there. The scientific method isn’t God’s spiritual method or formula for spiritual success.”

      Actually ONLY science can prevent the self-delusion that you’ve fallen prey to.

      • SJ

        Science isn’t God’s method. Atheists should have figured this out by now.

        God is in charge. Not scientists.

        Hence theists play by God’s rules.

        You will always be an outsider making claims from the outside in an insider’s domain.

        Outsiders never know what insiders know and sometimes it is because they chose to be outsiders. Like a loner chooses to be a hermit.

        • adam

          “Science isn’t God’s method”

          That is because science doesnt DEPEND on deception the way gods do.

          “God is in charge.”


        • Dys

          In SJ’s imagination.

        • Dys

          SJ’s method of argument:

          1. Assume Christianity is true.
          2. Assert Christianity is true to people who don’t accept it
          3. If anyone disagrees, criticizes, or asks for evidence, start over from step 1.

          Bonus points for undeserved arrogance, unsupported claims of special knowledge, and pretending to know strangers better than they know themselves.

        • Greg G.

          But that is presuppositionalism and SJ insists he is not a presuppositionalist.

    • Kodie

      You have been fooled. Sorry but you are foolish and have been taken in by the emotional concept that there is anything at the top of this ladder, it’s a ladder to the top of a mountain of horseshit. You have been deluded that there is any test to pass, it feeds your ego that you have achieved the test of climbing the ladder to the top of the mountain of horseshit. You display pride in your stupidity, pride that it has taken you a lot of time and research to arrive at a place you perceive as worthwhile, but the rest of us can objectively see, you gullible crazy person, you’ve been taken in and fed from a plate of horseshit. What pride you display, not humility. You think if you make a badge out of aluminum foil and cardboard that you’re a real policeman. You have no faith in any god to sort things out, and just fulfilling a desire in your worthless self to feel needed and to have accomplished something. You have not.

    • Yet more presumption that your religion is correct. You do realize that most of us aren’t Christians, right?

      If your argument could have “God” replaced by “Xenu” or “Allah” and still make sense, then it’s a shit argument.

      • primenumbers

        Couple that fact with that a lot of us are ex-Christians and that we know what it’s like to feel right but be wrong. We know the rationalizations we come up with to hold onto cherished beliefs in the face of evidence against them. We know what that dissonance feels like.

        • Greg G.

          We can understand subjective feelings objectively.

        • TheNuszAbides

          more or less 😉

        • Greg G.

          I meant to have the word “those” after “understand”. I suppose “particular” should follow “those”.

        • It’d be nice if SJ would go through that. I doubt that’ll happen.

        • primenumbers

          It would be nice and therefore they’d have a much better context and perspective to discuss from.

    • crackerMF

      but, but…. running tests on subject matter and adjusting the tests based upon the results IS “the scientific method”.

      is you deity a cosmic scientist or is it just committing torture for fun?

  • DanD

    I like to call the “argument from accurate place names” the Dresden argument. Just because I read a book about a wizard who works in Chicago, and Chicago exists doesn’t mean that the wizard does. In fact, all it means is that the author knows the city.

    The bible is a large collection of stories (some reasonably based on history, some not) all set in the middle east. It was written by people roughly in the period they’re writing about, living in the middle east. If it didn’t have some place names and historical figures correct, that would be surprising.

    • JoBar

      Yeah. And why do they claim “historically accurate place/event names” but overlook all of the inaccurate history (and science) facts?

      For instance, there is no record of Herod slaughtering innocent children by the contemporary historian Josephus.

      The timing of the Roman census and Herod’s reign are wrong. First, Herod died before Quirinius’ census was taken. Even if he wasn’t dead, Herod would collect his own taxes and give a portion to the Romans, so a Roman census wouldn’t happen in Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth.

      Or in the instance of the possessed swine of Gadera running into the sea of Galilee, Galillee is several kilometers from Gadera and observing this event would be impossible.

      Or in Mark 5:1 there is huge geographical mistake because Gerasa is more than thirty miles southeast of the lake, too far away for the setting of the story which demands a city in its vicinity, with a precipitous slope down to the water. (taken from answering-christianity(dot)com)

      There are more of these, and are fun to bring up when Christians try to make this argument.

      • DanD

        Be careful with the place name argument. The correlation between modern place names and biblical ones typically has more to do with wishful medieval through 18th century thinking than historical fact. And even then, a few miles might still be “the territory of a city state”

        More to the point, I’m not sure that there is any place in the general area that could support 2000 pigs. That is a freaking huge herd before modern intensive farming, and while pasturing pigs is a thing, it requires an environment that is high in nuts, legumes, and/or small animals and insects. Protein sources. Not something that is real common in the largely desert shores of the sea of Galilee. Yes, they could have been gleaning fields or similar, but that’s more likely to involve a herd of 20 than 2000.

        Otherwise, don’t forget that even the other gospels fail to mention the dead rising from their tombs like Matthew does.

        • Greg G.

          but that’s more likely to involve a herd of 20 than 2000.

          Maybe more likely but still extremely unlikely. It is not uncommon for Greek authors to base stories on the masters. Mark has many scenes that come from the works of Homer. Mark often takes characters from other sources and dresses them with Hebrew scripture. Legion is Polyphemus, the Cyclops from The Odyssey with allusions to Psalm 107:10 and Isaiah 65:4 for the chains and the swine. That may have linked back to Circe, who turned Odysseus’ men into pigs, where the Cyclops raised sheep. The name “Polyphemus” means “famous” but, literally, it means “many speak about”, which you can see in the roots of “polygon” and “blasphemy”. The Latin “Legio” suggests “many soldiers” but it looks like the Greek word “lego” for “speak”. The “for we are many” uses “polys” for “many”. “Lego” and “Legio” are side by side in the Greek text, so the Greek readers would have got it. It is no wonder that Matthew and Luke dropped the name of Legio from their versions of the story.

        • Greg G.

          Otherwise, don’t forget that even the other gospels fail to mention the dead rising from their tombs like Matthew does.

          Matthew must have thought Ezekiel 37:7-13 was a contemporary account.

      • The other issue about the census is that it makes no sense to send people anywhere else, let alone where some random ancestor lived 1000 years earlier. The point of a census is to know what stuff you have where you live so that the tax man can come and get his share.

        • Greg G.

          But if a person owned property in several cities, he might have to talk to each tax census taker at each place. If the census couldn’t determine who should be taxed, the property would probably be confiscated. Luke was trying to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. His reason to get Jesus’ parents there doesn’t make sense but people still might have traveled for business interests.

        • That would’ve made for a more sensible story. I suppose, though, that “Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem for business” wouldn’t have gotten his pregnant wife there. Better: they were living in Jerusalem, where Joe was a respected member of the community because of his ancestry to King David. After Jesus was born, they moved to Nazareth.

        • crackerMF

          that’s what i love about matthew and luke. they both have extremely concise genealogies of joseph which don’t agree with each other. and nowhere is the genealogy of mary even mentioned. (and there is a glaring transcription error in luke that never gets mentioned either).

          and they both insist that joseph was NOT the biological father of jesus.

          so where do christians get the idea that jesus was of the line of jewish kings and fulfilled an ancient prophesy?

          joseph maybe fulfilled it, any half brothers jesus may have had fulfilled it, but jesus? not according to the book itself.

          it’s why they have to come up with the insane “fully human, fully god” stuff showing masterful mastery of christian math.

      • Greg G.

        Josephus wasn’t quite a contemporary with Herod but Matthew seems to have used Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 2.9.2-3 and 17.2.4 as sources for his story. Matthew appears to model the narrative on Josephus’ account of Moses’ birth. There si the pregnant wife and a dream as in AQ 2.9.3. The Slaughter of the Innocents follows AQ 2.9.2 and the Wise Men with Foreknowledge come from AQ 17.2.4:

        These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras’s wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children.

        Also from AQ 17.2.4 is a scene where Herod was provoked to mass murder, including his own family:

        so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold;

        I reckon that Luke rejected Matthew’s story as he didn’t think God would save Jesus while allowing babies to dies because of it. Luke probably went to AQ 18 and used the first story in it, which happened to be about the census.

        I addressed the Legion story in reply to DanD’s response to your post HERE.

      • Greg G.

        Yeah. And why do they claim “historically accurate place/event names” but overlook all of the inaccurate history (and science) facts?

        I think it is funny when Luke is called a good historian because Luke and Acts are compatible with Josephus. Luke used Josephus as a source for stories. Most of the names and places in Luke are known from Josephus and most of those are known only from Josephus. Many of the characters play no role in Luke’s accounts but appear to be thrown in just because the name was in his source.

  • SJ

    I had enough of atheist circle jerk logic. We come from apes but are logical…..

    Atheists Respond:
    1. “I use logic and I am an Atheist.” Why this is not a valid response: The Atheist makes our point but does not supply a solution to the Atheist’s logic problem. The reason that the Atheist can reason is because God gave him a mind and gives him access to reason. God’s rain falls on the just and the unjust. Using logic, or any other form of reasoning, does not require belief in the source of logic or reason. God is the source of reason, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, but God shines His Light on every person. Some people misuse this Light, but God is merciful.

    2. “Logic is a set of conventions created by humanity.” Why this is not a valid response: If this were true, any group of people could, at any time, change the laws of logic within their group. In fact, one person could be a group of one. Logic will tell you that it is a bad thing to step into the path of a moving bus. This is a testable. If logic were indeed just a set of conventions, it would not be testable. Life would be arbitrary, and there would be no universal rules of logic. It may be true that Post Modernism is heading in this direction of claiming that life is totally random, but no one can live his or her life this way.

    3. “Logic is a set of rules that are material existing in the mind, which is the brain.” Why this is not a valid response: First, this assumes that the mind is the brain which can only be argued using circular reasoning. The revelation of the Bible says that the mind is the soul and that human beings have a spirit, a soul, and a body. Second, if the laws of logic are in the brain, then they only apply in the brain today. There is nothing to say that they existed in the human brain thousands of years ago. There is nothing to say that they would exist where human beings do not live. There is nothing to say they could not change tomorrow. In addition, there would be nothing to say that people haven’t “just evolved” to believe that they are being logical when in fact they are not. In that case, logic could not be used to prove anything. It would be hard to explain, were logic hard-wired into the brain, why there would not be a wide range of competing and evolving “logics,” especially among various groups of people. Think of this in terms of the logic that might be used for designing and building an airplane. Think of this in terms of the law of non-contradiction. Among some people, you could be both here and also not here at the same time. But no matter where we go, you cannot be both here and not here at the same time. You are either here or you are not here at any given time.

    4. “Logic is a set of rules that were developed through the random processes that led to evolution, which eventually evolved into man.” Why this is not a valid response: If logic was developed by random processes, why should we think that it is anything other than random? If random processes created the universe, humanity, and the logic residing in the human mind, how could we know that this logic would be able to understand the universe? How would science be possible if this Atheist’s response is true? And, once again, why wouldn’t there be a wide range of competing and evolving “logics,” especially among various groups of people. Again, think of this in terms of the logic that might be used for designing and building an airplane. Think of this in terms of the law of non-contradiction. For building real things and leading a real life, there is a set of rules that always apply.

    5. “Logic works, so we use it.” Why this is not a valid response: That is not the question. Reminder: the quest is this; if, for a moment, we assume the Atheistic worldview were a valid worldview, consistent with itself, then why does logic work?

    6. “Why don’t you believe in logic? Logic is obvious.” Why this is not a valid response: That is not the question. It makes sense for Christians to believe in logic since we believe in the Almighty God of the Bible Who is logical and orderly in all that He says and does.

    7. “Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe.” Why this is not a valid response: This unbelieving response runs into the same problem as #2, #3, and #4 above.

    Christians understand that logic is under the control of God, but God is not bound by every rule of every logical system. God goes outside of the constraints of His creation at will. These are the events that we call miracles. In addition, we, as humans, only understand a small portion of the mind of God. The logic that God gave us gives us some insight into how God works and thinks, but God is infinite and we are finite.

    8. “I believe that logic is not material.” Why this is not a valid response: This does not answer the question. If logic is not material, then how does it fit into the Atheistic worldview? Why do these laws of logic exist? Where did these laws come from? How do the laws of logic interact with the physical world? Why does the physical world follow the laws of logic if the laws of logic are not material? If you are able to admit that logic is not material, then why are you so opposed to God? Why is the obvious answer so abhorant to the you? The answer to this final question reaches the root of the problem, doesn’t it?

    9. “You have not convinced me that there is a God.” Why this is not a valid response: This is just one examples of the types of distractions that can be introduced when an unbeliever does not want to face the question. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, but it is the Atheist’s responsibility to find God. God gave every person that responsibility with this promise: “If you seek Me, you will find Me.” You, as a Christian, have no requirement from God to convince the Atheist of anything. Your requirement is to be a faithful witness of the things that God is doing in your life. If necessary, you can give part of this witness using words.

    The Atheist will try to draw you into the impossible game of “How about… ” “Ya but…” This is where you try to explain and they try not to understand. Guess who wins that game?

    The Atheist will try to convince you that the only way two people can discuss anything in a meaningful way is by structuring statements as logical arguments.

    These tactics have the purpose of not facing the obvious, that Athiesm is self-refuting. You can read more about the futility of using logical argument to convince Atheists that there is a God here. Atheists can argue forever. They know God exists and they know enough about Him to know that they hate Him. Only the Holy Spirit can turn an unbeliever to Christ.

    10. “Logic is a set of rules that were developed through natural selection, which is not a random process, and logic has survival value so it led to evolution of lower forms of life and eventually resulted in man.” Why this is not a valid response: Since this is a variation of a response that was already answered, let’s deal with the part that says: “… natural selection, which is not a random process…” Natural selection adds nothing to the argument. This answer presupposes that logic is not intangible but that it is material. That means that it is material added to the cell in the form of information. It is true that natural selection (actually should be called natural elimination) is not a random process, but it is also not a process that can produce new information in the cell. It cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that it is capable of resulting in new information being added to cells. There is no mechanism by which new information, perhaps learned information, would be created in the cells and passed on to the next generation. The idea is that plants and animals make choices. Some of those choices result in death, eliminating the plants and animals that make bad choices. The ones that are left pass on the ability to use proper logic when making choices. Those who inherit this enhanced logic also make even better choices and live to pass on their newly enhanced ability to their children. How is this information added? Information does not create itself. That problem is never discussed. When using the term, natural selection, selection is quite an overstatement of what is happening. The misnomer, natural selection, refers to an elimination process, not an evolutionary process. Natural Elimination would be a less deceptive term. Natural Elimination provides no means for adding information. Mutations+time+chance+elimination does not equal evolution in any sense. If there were a cycle of mutations+time+chance+learn, then that would not prove evolution, but it would at least give a basis for a story that would make sense. We can observe natural selection (elimination) but we can’t observe information being added to cells. We can observe change and speciation but we cannot observe one kind of living thing turning into another kind of living thing. Adaptation is a physical trait or behavior due to an inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment. If a person stakes their entire validity on logic and observation and has a story that cannot be supported by logic and observation, then why would they be so certain that their story is factual?

    With all of the arguments mentioned above, it really comes down to this: “Who are you going to believe?” All the arguments against God fail. They are, in fact, silly. They are only convincing to those who hate God. To those who seek God, these lies may be bewildering, hard to dissect, and difficult or impossible to disprove. However, God never asked His people to disprove the lies of the Atheists. He has asked us to know Him directly and to walk in Him and to experience the flow of His love through ourselves and out toward the entire creation around us.

    Ungodly people are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions. These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions. They are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God’s version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, “I can’t understand it.” They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don’t what to know the Creator. They don’t want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.

    • Pofarmer

      Dude, you’re a moron. That is all. Get over yourself.

      • SJ

        Yes, dear. How’s the marriage hanging together?

        • Dys

          And now the true colours come out. You’re an arrogant piece of shit.

          I get it, you’re upset that you’re an utter failure in defending your views and the best thing you could come up with was a copy/paste job from an underwhelming apologetics website that you don’t actually understand. That’s got to be frustrating.

          Do yourself a favour, run away and find a nice echo chamber to hang out in so you don’t ever have to back up any of the assertions you make. Because all you’re doing here is trolling.

          EDIT: This comment was in reply to a personal attack from SJ to Pofarmer that went beyond name-calling. SJ’s comments have since been deleted.

        • Pofarmer

          Stay classy dick.

        • SJ

          Thank you sugar bear. 😉

        • Dys

          And the trend I’ve noticed continues – every presuppositional apologist I’ve encountered is an arrogant, egotistical asshole that prefers to run in circles than engage in honest conversation.

    • Dys

      Nice copy/paste job. What’s really funny is that you don’t understand it at all, you just foolishly think it hasn’t been refuted and that it’ll shut us up. You already admitted you’re shit at logic (and you’ve definitely backed that up).

      I had enough of atheist circle jerk logic.

      You simply don’t have the first clue as to what you’re talking about, and you don’t have the intellectual honesty to engage in a real conversation. You want to dictate, not discuss.

      A presuppositionalist accusing atheists of using “circle jerk” logic is an absolute joke.

      Hopefully this was your pathetic version of a parthian shot, because you’ve failed miserably at defending your views in any way, shape, or form.

      • SJ

        That’s why I am the ultimate evidence for revelation and you can’t disprove me.

        I exist…I’m not,logical yet I know God and I can explain his perspective.

        God exists….You better pray he gives you the gift of faith.

        • Dys

          That’s why I am the ultimate evidence for revelation and you can’t disprove me.

          You only count as evidence to yourself. I don’t need to disprove you, because you’re not evidence of god. You don’t seem to have a clue as to how the whole concept of evidence actually works.

          yet I know God and I can explain his perspective.

          No, you can’t. Even if God actually existed, given the characteristics that are typically assigned to the Christian god, there’s no way to do such a thing. You’ve no point of reference. It’s like saying people can comprehend eternity – we can conceptualize it, but there’s no way to comprehend it.

          God exists….

          Prove it. Oh, you can’t? Can’t say I’m surprised.

          You better pray he gives you the gift of faith.

          After all this, you still don’t grasp how incredibly stupid it is of you to tell someone they need to pray to a god they don’t believe in for faith to believe in a god they don’t believe in?

          No wonder you didn’t get into apologetics school.

          Oh, and here’s a nice counter to your copy/paste job. You’re welcome.

        • Greg G.

          That’s why I am the ultimate evidence for revelation and you can’t disprove me.

          If “ultimate evidence” is not unambiguous evidence, then it is not evidence for revelation. You ultimate evidence is better evidence that you are a religious nut.

        • InDogITrust

          That’s why I am the ultimate evidence for revelation
          Congratulations, you have won a Lifetime Achievement Award for WhatTheFuckery.
          Your arrogance is so dense it’s affecting gravity.

    • Quoting something is fine (though this was too long), but it’s good form to give the source. Otherwise, when people look it up, they wonder if you were trying to claim it as your own.

    • Translation: Atheists say, “Logic is just part of reality, and we humans discover and follow the rules,” but that’s not right because God.

      Therefore, the atheist is wrong. QED

      • MR

        This is just a 10-point bullshit justification designed to allow believers to cling to their faith. It’s like listening to a child make up some convoluted excuse as to why there are no cookies in the cookie jar. Mm-hmm, keep talking. Keep digging that well.

        You’d think that God would be powerful enough to be able to use logic to reach even us atheists. Strange that it seems to straight jacket him so.

        • You’d think that God would be powerful enough to be able to use logic to reach even us atheists.

          Especially since, as SJ reports, atheists respect logic a lot.

    • thatguy88
  • SJ

    Arguing religion is irrational….You don’t argue over the most personal thing in the world if you do you can’t establish a relationship.

    You guys need counseling bad.

    Please try to resolve your interpersonal trust issues.

    Yes call me a douche if you like….but seriously how do you establish trust by fighting?

    Peace out.

    • Dys

      Arguing religion is irrational

      No, but making religious assertions you can’t actually defend certainly is.

      You guys need counseling bad.

      You’re not qualified to make any such determination.

      Please try to resolve your interpersonal trust issues.

      You really are a sanctimonious twit. Not accepting your unsubstantiated claims about god does not entail having interpersonal trust issues. That’s a non sequitur…you know, the kind of thing you claimed to be able to identify but obviously can’t?

      Yes call me a douch if you like.

      When it’s an accurate description of your behaviour, it’s appropriate.

      but seriously how do you establish trust by fighting?

      We’re willing to have a conversation. You wanted to dictate your religious beliefs to us, and repeatedly ducked out on backing them up. That’s not a conversation.

      Here’s a bit of helpful advice: stop pretending you’re a victim of the mean old atheists. You didn’t want to back up your claims, that’s fine. But that’s also when you should have stopped posting comments.

      • SJ

        No arguing religion really is irrational….it’s just competitiveness out of whack…maybe you have too much testosterone on the brain….testosterone makes people competitive…

        I’ve always been a competitive woman probably because I was born with Jesus so I have a strong yang streak.

        But no I am not a presuppositionalist….i have my own style and men can’t follow female intuitive arguments very well…not with all that testosterone gumming up the works…you probably need a shot of estorgen….lol.

        • Dys

          No arguing religion really is irrational….it’s just competitiveness out of whack

          No, it’s an argument/debate. There’s nothing irrational about having those about religion. What is irrational is expecting people to just accept your assertions when the only thing you do is constantly repeat them without providing an actual reason to accept them.

          But no I am not a presuppositionalist

          Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck…

          men can’t follow female intuitive arguments very well

          You haven’t presented an argument.

        • Kodie

          Hey, remember you threatening me physically? Your terrible new argument that men just don’t get it is weak shit, you crazy lunatic. It doesn’t make sense to sane people.

        • Wicked Red

          That argument makes me ashamed to share a gender with you. Don’t use female intuition bullshit as a reason for your arguments failing.

      • SJ

        You’re a dumbass looking for a debate. I came to help and change your outlook and your odds of survival and tried to show you the way to do that and alll iI got was an argument when I,said I didn ‘t come to argue.

        Theology isn’t a philosophy. It is. a chance to imprint God’s true identity. Some people call scripture a mirror.

        Identity isn’t argued or analyzed….it is iimprinted over a code. We have Jesus blood then we study to assimilate God’s nature.

        • Dys

          You’re a dumbass looking for a debate.

          Nope, I’m not a dumbass. In fact, I’ve been pointing out the many, many errors you’ve been making.

          I came to help and change your outlook and your odds of survival and tried to show you the way to do that

          But you refused to back any of your assertions up. Atheists are not going to just blindly accept your religion. That’s why you were continually asked for evidence. You can’t honestly believe you’re the first Christian to wander into an atheist forum trying to preach at us about how we “need to get right with God” or get saved, or need to develop a “special relationship with Jesus”, can you?

          We’ve no desire to be preached at – if you want to have a discussion, fine. If you don’t, leave. Proselytizing about things we don’t believe in is a waste of your time and ours, because you will be asked to substantiate it. Coming up with excuses for why you can’t and repeating the same type of stuff as before is a dodge.

          You couldn’t even get past the simple fact that atheists don’t believe in God. Nor did you seem to grasp that coming here and essentially bragging about your supposed qualifications to correct us on God-thought are not going to simply be granted on your own authority. And as for changing our outlook – if you can’t demonstrate that your outlook is correct or that ours is wrong, why would you expect to be taken seriously?

        • Kodie

          We’ve had a lot of Christians trying to “help” and none have been successful, and you’re just the least credible of all of them. You’re terrible at whatever you believe you’re doing, because you sound like you have too much internet time at the asylum. Sorry your life went down the tubes and you had to transfer your addiction to Jesus. You have no faith, and you wasted your life on this nonsense. Not my fault, not anyone’s fault but your own. Sorry nobody in real life wants to listen to your horseshit that you have to resort to bothering people on the internet, but we’ve been as patient with you as you deserve. You have been severed from reality and it has probably cost you a lot, and you are trying to salvage what you can, but you’re a terrible person, and you’re terrible at being a Christian. You’re terrible at apologetics, and you’ve shown terrible social skills. You’re terrible at telling the truth, and you’re terrible at selling whatever bullshit you heartily delude yourself into thinking is your mission on earth. Your mission is a terrible mission, and you are terrible at it.

          What other point can you possibly make? You hate logic, and you hate people, you demonstrate the worst possible qualities a person can have in this world, which is lack of consideration, and you’re a terrible listener. You have a massive ego and make everything about whatever you want. If you think you’re being selfless, fuck you, you’re the most selfish person I’ve seen for a long time. All you want is to serve some kind of purpose, and there are millions of things you could find to do that, and you choose to bother people with childish nonsense. You think I”m a demon? You physically threaten me? You think that’s your purpose? Where do you get off? I have never heard any version of Christianity that relates to whatever you’re talking about. Not the nice kind, not the cruel kind, not the kind that believes in talking snakes. You are the tops of cuckoo Christians that there can be. You want your persecution badge, here’s your persecution badge. There’s your verbal abuse that you’ve been waiting for. How can someone suck so much as you do? How can someone on this earth be so fooled and probably spent all your money on learning this stuff through what, correspondence school? You’re not even smart enough to get into a shitty college that doesn’t care if you’re this crazy. Pathetic, weak, lame, terrible – you are terrible at whatever you think you’re doing.

        • MNb

          “I came to help”
          I didn’t ask you for help, don’t want it, don’t need it and don’t appreciate it. You want met to get out of the frying pan to push me into the fire.
          So fuck off.

          “and change your outlook”
          You’re a miserable failure.

          “and your odds of survival”
          On the long term they were zero, are zero and always will be zero; there is nothing you can do to raise them Plus on the long term I don’t want to survive.

        • Greg G.

          I came to help and change your outlook

          You came to preach, possibly hoping that you could get someone else to fall for your fantasies to alleviate your own internal doubts about your fantasies.

          Don’t try to fight those doubts. They are your link to reality.

      • TheNuszAbides

        We’re willing to have a conversation. You wanted to dictate your religious beliefs to us, and repeatedly ducked out on backing them up. That’s not a conversation.

        or what i shall coin (or find out someone else already coined) “all back and no forth”.

    • You don’t argue over the most personal thing in the world if you do you can’t establish a relationship.

      You don’t liken what you’ve got a “relationship” if the very existence of the other party is in question.

    • MNb

      “Arguing religion is irrational….You don’t argue over …..”
      Then why you’re here?

      “You guys need counseling bad.”
      We don’t have a relationship with an imaginary sky daddy like you claim to have, so we are not the ones who need counseling, but you. Counseling only make sense if you have a relationship.

      “Please try to resolve your interpersonal trust issues.”
      God is not a person, so I don’t have interpersonal trust issues with him.

  • Cognissive Disco Dance

    God wouldn’t even have to be all powerful or all good or see the future to get the universe we have. Him/her would just need sufficiently enough magical poof power. So anyone claiming that they know God is omni-whatever is kinda being a blockhead who has no idea what they are talking about, to put it bluntly lol. A blockhead who when cornered will inevitably [1] equivocate between “knowing” and “believing” so’s they can look all cool and clever and weasel themselves out of the corner. In fact my not specifying the exact precise (and yet obvious) definition of “believing” up there in the previous sentence is already enough equivocation bait for equivocating the freaking up and down the river all the freaking ding dong day long.

    [1] Yes I can predict the future.