A friend of mine recently posted this image on his facebook:
Someone, who shall remain nameless (I haz my reasons, please respect them – suffice that this person is very proud of their arguments in the context of a facebook post, but amazingly less proud when they’re broadcast to the world), came storming in with the following comment:
Wow! These two little sentences dismantles every atheist, philosophical argument against Christianity. Psalm 14:1, “A fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” Basically, an idiot would reject God, therefore I don’t do that thing.
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the Philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:20-21
Hey! Thanks for dropping by this amusing image to start a fight you can’t win. Let us indulge you.
Hahaha that’s funny. Out of context, it looks like he just called you a fool! You’re a literal genius getting a phd, so that’d be a really funny way to misread that.
Timothy Michael Eberhard
Holy misplaced diatribes, Batman!
Just gonna leave this here and assume that Psalm 14:1 is as scientifically sound and factually accurate as rabbits chewing their cud and bats being a type of bird. http://psr.sagepub.com/…/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266
And then cue the disingenuous equivocating once the believer is called out:
Nothing I said was intended to be a personal attack or comment It was just commenting on the statement by Dwight Schrute. There was no intent to demean Dwight. It was simply a discussion on the comment.
“Basically, an idiot would reject God.” That kind of feels like name calling to me. Is this not a personal an attack against people who don’t believe in God? I think if someone went on a Christian’s facebook page and said “Basically, an idiot would believe in God”, that would be rude. Is it different when a believer does the same thing?
The Bible does not say that only an idiot would reject God. I was only utilizing the verbage Dwight used in his statement.
Right, the Bible says ‘fool’. No need to equivocate, it’s an insulting thing to say either way. Kind of rude.
Yes, that is the word the Bible uses. It is somewhat like watching an NFL game and contending that since the Green Bay Packers are not one of the two teams playing they must not exist. What if I said David Drake does not exist. You would say I am a fool for making such a statement.
No, I would think you had completely lost touch with reality. Rather than insulting you, I would hope you found mental health. I wouldn’t troll your facebook header with passive aggressive quotes because I thought you were delusional. Insulting you wouldn’t help.
Now I have jousted with this man before. He’ll show up, get outwitted, then leave for a while and resurface. I decided to help nudge him back into silence.
Hi CHRISTIAN! Thought I’d chime in again.
You seem to be saying in your last comment that god’s existence is as obvious as David Drake’s. This seems patently absurd to me. I’ve spoken with David (in ways that everybody can hear). I have pictures taken with David. If I ask David for something, say, to find my keys, I can watch him do it (as opposed to asking god, finding them myself, and then giving god the credit).
So I think your analogy sucks. A lot.
But hey, here’s your chance to show this wayward atheist a good reason to believe god exists. Since only a fool would think otherwise, it shouldn’t be too hard for you.
Or you could just passive-aggressively insult me and then say that’s not what you did. That’s not really an argument, but it’s a great way to feel smug.
Timothy Michael Eberhard
Thanks for dropping by this humorous meme of a fictional character in a comedy TV series to remind us what fools we are, CHRISTIAN. That was classy and also necessary.
Not at all absurd. If God did not exist you as well would not exist. For the same reasons you say David Drake is real I say God is real.
Timothy Michael Eberhard
And for the same reason you say God is real, I say unicorns and leprechauns are real. And that’s just absurd.
But Tim what does my existence have to do with unicorns and leprechauns? That is a non sequitur as well as an unsubstantiated, naked assertion with absolutely no evidence to….ohhhhhhhhhh.
Timothy Michael Eberhard
Because I believe, like, really really hard.
God chose to reveal Himself through the family linage of Abraham. He said his decendants would be as abundant as the stars in the sky. There are some four billion people that claim some connection to Abraham on the earth today. You do not have to blindly believe as there is revealed truth. How did this happen? God also said He would send a Messiah. This was revealed through Moses and the prophets. God gave us the family lineage through King David, told us the place of birth and the time. The OT also tells us events in the life of Jesus that would occur and those thing happened. How does one send out a birth invitation hundreds of years before the birth if they are not God. Certainly Jesus could not control who his family would be or his birth date or place of birth if He was not God.
CHRISTIAN, are you aware of the difference between an assertion and evidence?
The whole idea of prophecy always gets me. It’s basically “in the future, at some point in time, someone will be born, do some stuff, then die. That person is god.” Oh. I get how it works.
JT, tomorrow, you will wake up at some point, eat something sometime, and eventually go to sleep. Fulfilling this prophecy is proof that I’m god
It was then that father got disgusted enough to jump in:
The Old Testament also said there was a world-wide flood for which we have absolutely no evidence. Floods leave evidence, and a world wide one would have left tons of evidence. We would have evidence of the flood–instead of against the flood—from chemistry, biology, physics, geology, ice cores, history–we have an unbroken string of WRITTEN records from that time by both Egyptian and Chinese dynasties for those in denial, as well as evidence from other sciences. Ergo, the Old Testament is B.S.
Oh, quite the contrary as there is tons of evidence for a global flood. All records were destroyed in the flood. Then suddenly we have what is known as recorded history. Oil, coal and natural gas is evidence for a global flood. These could not have formed without the process of a flood and the fact they are found around the world is proof of a global flood. Let’s say that man first walk upright 40,000 years ago and there were only two people. Consider was, famine, decease etc with a 1% growth rate and population you end up with a population of 10×86. Start with eight people at the flood and you end up with seven billion people.
“All records were destroyed in the flood. ” NO, they couldn’t have been. Inscriptions aren’t destroyed by being under water for a relatively short time. Of course oil and gas can form without a global flood, and did.
We don’t have to ASSUME 1% growth or anything else. We have unbroken WRITTEN records by live people who were not under water. Helloooo??? You cannot get around that with “assumptions” and empty claims.
Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn’t exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated habitat? The Flood would have destroyed the food and shelter which most species need to survive.
Host-specific diseases which don’t kill their host generally can’t survive long, since the host’s immune system eliminates them. (This doesn’t apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can’t last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 [Keeling & Grenfell, 1997] because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood.
A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. That evidence does not exist.
The marsh dwelling amphibians would have been made extinct when the marshes were destroyed.
Mount Everest, the highest point of land on earth, recorded a height of 29,035 feet in 1999. It would have had to have rained 725 feet (not inches!) a day for 40 days to cover Mt. Everest at its present height. That is 8700 inches per day. The most rainfall in a single day in recorded history is a paltry 73.62 inches.
The earth’s atmosphere is a closed system. We don’t get moisture from outer space, and we don’t dump huge quantities of water into outer space. Where would enough water to cover the earth to a depth of 29,035 feet come from…..and where would it go when it receded?
Had there been a worldwide flood, archeologists would have found Pompeii type cities everywhere that were under water but not destroyed. They have found…..none. Zero. Nada. Zip.
There is a 9,550 year old tree in Sweden. Had there been a flood, it could not exist. It does exist.
Will father get a response? Nope! Our noble Christian will just go on as if nothing ever happened:
Bible and Science both agree at one time there was only one land mass. There was a dramatic shift during the flood. If you planed all land surfaces into the ocean there is enough watch to have a global ocean one mile deep. I don’t have time to answer all of the other issues. So many times in archelogy and history things have been said to undermine the Bible, but new discoveries are made and history and science books are rewritten, but the Bible stays the same.
“…new discoveries are made and history and science books are rewritten, but the Bible stays the same.”
The first part of that is what makes science superior – the willingness (desire, even) to test and retest every hypothesis and claim made; and to make appropriate changes when and where it is necessary. It’s called growth. It’s called reason and intellect. The ability to think critically is something that sets us apart from other animals.
The last part of your comment is the inherent problem with your religion – and every other religion – the refusal to change. The unwillingness to question, to doubt, to test.
Socrates elevated the man who is willing to be refuted. For he loved to be refuted and to refute; but he regarded the former as the most important.
The Bible is God authored. He does not need to test something and make changes. That is why He is God. He got it right the first time.
Wow. Narrow-minded to the last.
Yep! It is His House. He makes the rules. John 17:17, Thy word is truth. You are abiding by His rules even if you don’t like it. We would all be in a bad situation if He changed his mind about gravity.
And here is where I decided to jump back in:
It takes some real hubris to say that science agrees with accounts of people rising from the dead (biologists might be shocked to hear that), walking on water (physicists would be baffled to hear they support such a claim – there goes our knowledge of surface tension), historians would be shocked to learn that Egypt’s 6th dynasty was eliminated by a global flood (while somehow managing to leave uninterrupted records of their civilization), a global flood (this is refuted in every inch of the peer-reviewed scientific literature), etc. Talking snakes? Earth coming before the stars? Claiming that science supports these things takes either tremendous hubris or tremendous delusion (or both).
You are right to acknowledge that in an age defined by science that the bible mustn’t conflict with science in order to be true. You are wrong, absolutely and embarrassingly wrong, to think the bible gels with science. The problem is you don’t have the integrity to change your mind when it doesn’t.
You say the bible is god-authored, funny how many of the books are named after the people (not gods) who wrote them. People wrote those words, and about the only way to think god talked to people who wrote of talking snakes and killing people for working on the wrong day is indoctrination at an age when Santa Claus seems legit. The bible was written by people ignorant of the same science you enjoy in the 21st century to live a life of comfort and of knowledge past generations could only dream of. And you express your gratitude by throwing science away in favor of people who scarcely knew enough to wash their hands after taking a shit – and you call others fools for not emulating you.
And then you have the temerity to say that’s not what you’ve done, that ancient nomads knew the science better than the sum of today’s scientific bodies. And on top of it all, while undoubtedly basking in your own self-assessed humility on account of your religion, you somehow think you come off as more noble, as better, than everybody else in this thread. That, sir, is a form of self-deception rivaled only by believing a man rose from the dead and speaks with you 2,000 years later.
Our Christian responded with a single other assertion that is absolutely false on its face:
You mention the issue of hand washing. This is an example of the inspiration by God of the Bible. There are many OT laws which protect people from illness. Science did no discover these things until the 19th century, but God had revealed them to Moses thousands of years earlier. ie You touch a dead body you go out from the camp and wash seven times.
Yeah, like the cure for leprosy. That was a real winner.
You did not respond to most of what I wrote (and the one thing you singled out was met with a bare assertion with zero supporting evidence). This is not surprising by this point because you have a long history of not rebutting anybody who responds to you, CHRISTIAN. You just throw out more assertions that you do not support. This is not how adults discuss things.
And then when people decide they don’t want to put up with your disingenuous behavior anymore, you likely (like your son used to do) crow about your victory, of how they stopped talking to you because your debate style was just so damn good. It should be noted that this is what pre-schoolers do when their interlocutors decide that indulging someone calling them a poopy head isn’t a productive use of their time. It is in this way that you and countless other religious people inoculate yourselves against any outside influence.
And it’s also a big part of why your religion is losing the culture war – because more and more people are becoming disgusted with people like you and your refusal to do anything other than what amounts to saying “yeah huh” over and over and over, even as your opponents pay you the de facto respect of answering your points and offering up arguments of their own.
Mostly we just shake our heads watching you treat shame like treasure.
By the way, CHRISTIAN, the next time you think about swinging by something that had zero to do with your religion and call other people fools, maybe you should first ask yourself if an idiot would do that.
People like this should have their words broadcast until other Christians start helping to police their own of this behavior.