Friday, April 6, 2012

Some tips for theists


After having participated in hundreds of discussions with Christian believers, there are several things that I thought you all should know. In this post I am not trying to come off as sarcastic or mocking in any way, I just want you to be aware of some facts regarding debating atheists such as myself. 

The first thing you need to know is that although you might consider the bible as the word of your god, and its authors as inspired by said God; we don’t. That’s right; we don’t consider the bible any more valid as truth than the many Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Syrian, Roman, and Greek works that preceded it. To an atheist these works, including your bible all fall under the same classification of myth.

After the above shocking revelation, it follows to reason that arguing from the bible is pointless. Using the scriptures as evidence for example of the divinity of Christ is a waste of time, since most of the texts that you cite as prophecies of Christ are actually Old Testament texts taken out of context to conform with your beliefs.

The beauty of myth is that it can always be transformed and reshaped to whatever one chooses it to be. It can be interpreted in such a way as to confirm every presupposition you may harbor in your brain beforehand. Best of all is that when confronted with contradictory evidence the myth can be reinterpreted to enable you to embrace that new knowledge and fit it into your mythical beliefs. The best modern example of this is the big bang and the theory of evolution. After proving that the world is in fact at least 4.5 billion years old as opposed to 7,000 years old as interpreted by many literalist of the bible, Christians have found a way to reinterpret their beliefs in light of the evidence by creating their version of evolution; intelligent design.  They incorporated God into the science in order to cling to their beliefs despite its contradictory nature when faced with scientific facts and evidences.

Another important piece of advice for theists seeking to justify their insane beliefs; don’t cite scientific facts unless you are well acquainted with what you are trying to use as a defense or in some cases trying to dispel as evidence. I have seen many a Christian try to refute the theory of evolution for example by making statements about evolution that are obviously incorrect and clearly demonstrate the believers unfamiliarity with the theory itself. If you don’t know what evolution actually is don’t try to dispel it by using incorrect knowledge about it. It is a waste of time and makes you look like an ignoramus. 

Here is a tip for everyone that I think both atheists and theists alike need to know: You can’t reconcile scientific facts with faith! I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this but it just can’t be done.  The two systems utilize two very different methodologies to arrive at their conclusions. Science uses the scientific method which consists of observation, experimentation, and peer review before it is even considered as a viable answer to an unknown question. Christianity uses faith in ancient texts written by anonymous authors in a prescientific age. The same goes for the delusion otherwise known as divine revelation. There is no such thing!

Circular reasoning will get you nowhere my Christian friend! An atheist will see right through that and expose you for the incoherent babbling mess that you are. The best example of this is the age old argument that goes something like this: “How do you know that the bible is the word of God?” Answer: “Because its authors were holy men inspired by God.” Question: “And how do you know that they were inspired by God?” Reply: “Because it says so right here in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and 2 Peter 1:21.” Remember what I said about using the scriptures as evidence? This is what is called circular reasoning. Whenever you feel the urge to do this sing this ditty to yourself. “Jesus loves me this I know, because the bible tells me so.” After you realize what you have done do us all a favor and stop it!

Last but not least don’t come to me with wild unfounded new theologies based on a combination of both bad science and even worst theology. A commenter recommended that I familiarize myself with the works of a Dr. Mike Jarvis who in a description of a book entitled ‘God By Evolution’ states in the first line: ‘Reconciling the Big Bang Universe and evolution with belief in the Creator.’ I am of the opinion that this simply cannot be done. You can’t reconcile science with myth no matter how you twist the facts to fit your theology.

20 comments:

  1. Yeah, I come across ones who like to quote the Buybull every so often. I tell them I consider it less valid a source than MAD magazine and will quote other "holy" books back at them - including the Flying Spaghetti Monster one and also Atheist books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Chatpilot for all your work keeping this site alive. I enjoy visiting when I can. I like reading your views and perspectives, which you always put forth with warmth and tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Anon for understanding my goals and supporting my efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You stated in your article that the world is at least 4.5 billion years old...one thing that puzzles me, if the earth is that old where are all the people? If the earth was only 6 or 7000 years old the current population seems more in line with the young earth theory. That is one of the arguments christians give and I tend to agree that there should be more people than currently inhabit planet earth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. cici459, I have not stumbled upon such an arguement before, and as a scientist I'm somewhat puzzled by the question. With all sincerity, if one accepts 4.5 billion as a workable estimate of the age of the earth, and one understands the basic concept associated with evolutionary timeframes, then why would one think that our species ought to have a larger population? Should butterflies, horses, tuna, kangaroos, worms, triceratops, and crinoids all have larger populations than exist? Would you offer a hypothesis, or a model, that could estimate what numbers we ought to be seeing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. cici459 that is a great observation but you are looking at it the wrong way. Remember that evolution teaches that life evolved from the simplest forms to more complex forms and species. Humans according to evolutionary theory are believed to be approximately 100,000 years old. You must also take into account a number of factors such as morality rates and the propensity for disease and famine in a prescientific age. This link will provide you with a hominid family tree and some further information regarding the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/o.html copy and paste to your browser and read on. Also, you can check out talkorigins.org for more up to date information on evolutionary theory and its findings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Chatpilot. You obviously have much more experience dealing with these type of questions than I do. I was dumbfounded and didn't know what to say, but thought something ought to be said. I hope cici459, and all people looking for information, can become more knowledgeable on evolution and your link may help.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Chatpilot and Anon for your replies and the links to study further. It was a question that a christian threw at me and I didn't have a good response.

      Delete
  7. That's what we are here for cici459 to learn from each other.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The existence of God can be neither proven or disproved. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is spiritual. And how do you explain the Eucharistic miracles and the incorruptible. These are scientifically proven miracles. And frankly, science can't prove what is in heaven, but it can and did prove these miracles. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous, that fact that the belief in gods and in this case the biblical God stem from ancient mythology is evidence enough that God does not exist. He is as I like to say a creation of the fertile imagination of man. What do you mean that science has proven the Eucharistic miracles be more specific please?

    "And frankly, science can't prove what is in heaven, but it can and did prove these miracles. Amen." You just contradicted yourself all in one sentence! Way to go!

    ReplyDelete
  10. First of all, What!! God is not science He, is faith. There are so many Eucharistic miracles, there's no where to even start. But here's a link to one. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html.

    And no, I did not contradict myself, but I will rephrase myself. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of heaven, but the Eucharistic miracles have been proven.

    ReplyDelete
  11. who do you say that Jesus was?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Anonymous, faith is voluntary ignorance and is not a reliable means of obtaining knowledge of anything other than ones own delusions. Also, that link you posted does not work, and finally I don't believe in a historical Jesus. In other words I don't believe that he ever existed was crucified or even rose from the dead. If you read my blog series my road to atheism we wouldn't have to go through this nonsense you would know all of this about me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, it does work, my brother. Please, try it again. and i am sorry that you think this way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I try your alleged link of a Eucharistic miracle I get 404 Error: Page not found. Hmmmm maybe it's the devil making it malfunction so I don't find this evidence and fall to my knees in humble obeisance and recognize your imaginary guy in the sky and his imaginary son as my God and Lord and savior. Lmfao!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe you must remove the period off of the end. Here is it again, sorry about that.

    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No answer, that's what I thought, to hard to accept is it. Hmmmm.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous, really? It's not that I have a hard time accepting it. It's that there is a lot wrong with that story. For one it supposedly happened in the 8th century. Second, who was this monk that conducted this mass when this alleged miracle happened? Yes, this is an important question. Next since then it was the Church that was investigating the case (self promotion, it's like the vacuum cleaner salesman telling you that he is selling you the best vacuum on the planet all in order to get you to buy it. Finally, this mysterious "eminent scientist" Odoardo Linoli and his assistant Ruggero Berteli are ghosts. There is not much information about either of them that is not tied to the case. Look up the chain of custody in google referring to how dna evidence is handled in any criminal case. There is no real chain of custody relevant to your case and so forgery is high in this case. Lastly that fact that the blood was tied into the Shroud of Turin makes it highly suspect. The Shroud is most obviously a fake. Also, let's not forget that the church in general especially the Catholic church is know for forging documents and all sorts of things that they use to so called verify the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I did not reply because I thought the article was stupid and completely unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete