Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Sunday, January 23, 2011

This is why they don't believe in God???

My facebook page sees fit for the last two days to choose as "top news" that some comedian-cum-philosopher won a "cultural humanism" lifetime achievement award. Good for him. I have no problems with groups I'm not aligned with choosing any character they want to honor, though I am mystified that FB thinks it's so important TO ME. But in looking into the deal (which I almost always end up regretting) I found this little ditty on why Christianity should be rejected.

Arguments Against Christianity
There are at least eight insurmountable problems within the extant evidence that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:

Jesus' endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;

Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment" in the "eternal fire" of Hell;

Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;

Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent return;

Jesus' failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness;

Jesus' failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Jesus' failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine;

Jesus' failure to recruit anyone from his family,
any acquaintance from before his baptism,
a majority of Palestinian Jews, and even
some of those who heard his words and witnessed his alleged miracles.

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

Okay, all my Christian followers should stop laughing now, and let's go through this.
1. WTF is the "murderous immorality of Yahweh"? Are we referring to the wars fought to remove the Canaanites, I assume? Yes, God could have overcome that and chose not to. Why? #1, the people Israel were at a stage that it had to be proven to them that they could not get right with God on their own. They had to be given concrete rules, and find out that they (not God) were incapable of keeping them. Since they proved that they were generally incompetent even as they waited for said laws to make it down the mountain to them, it became obvious that they would never survive even the influence of the ridiculous pagan religions around them. The Canaanites were an exceptionally, ridiculously depraved lot. God ordered a strict separation, and yes, even extermination, of them. This becomes "murderous " in the eyes of those who attack the faith. But if you believe in a sovereign, perfectly Holy God, you see that 1) Paul said that all nature shows the manifest presence of God, so the Canaanites, like all of us, were without excuse. 2) They had been judged by a Holy God whom they rejected, and found wanting. If you recognize that God exists, and that He is the creator, then He has the right to judgement, and that is neither murderous nor, if Jesus is the manifest Word of this God, does it require refutation on His part.

2. Here is the humanist problem- if they're wrong, they go to Hell. No matter their "ethics" or "moral code based on reason and the good of mankind", etc. If Jesus would condemn them to perdition, he must be evil. The basic sin of Satan in the past and the Anti-Christ in the future- making oneself god. If God is creating a people unto Himself, and this people are not to be robots, and thus have to have a choice, there has to be a consequence for the wrong choice.

3. Another WTF. What could be more clear than John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM".

4.Mathew 24:36 clearly states that only the Father knows the day and time. And if the 13 billion years that scientists ascribe from the big bang to now can be 7 days in the eyes of a God who is the maker of, and thus beyond, time, how does the arguer (one Brian Holtz) propose to define "imminent"?

5. Here I can only challenge that "competently" is defined in terms of the author's own prejudices and desires. Otherwise I can only assume his trolley has chugged on around the bend, because, once again, Jesus' doctrines seem pretty clear to me.

6. How about water into wine at Cana? Or two rounds of loaves and fishes? Or, for that matter, walking around alive after His brutal death- something witness by over 500 people?

7. Christianity only became widespread after Constantine in the 300s AD. And most "contemporary" historians would have considered it an insignificant offshoot of Judaism, and likely lumped the two together. Reason would tell us this; but he who first cried for reason is often the last to apply it.

8. a) His mother was at His side at His death and at His grave at the Resurrection morning. Two brothers wrote epistles in the Christian cannon, and James His brother was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Mr. Holtz should go a little deeper into the Word than just the dust jacket.
b) First, His ministry BEGAN at His baptism, and second, the Gospels never mention ANY such acquaintances, so how does one know? We do have the mention of the synagogue at Nazareth, but if you read the whole passage, you'll see why that is the exception that proves the rule. If you use reason, that is.
c)The Word of God constantly talks about "the remnant" being saved. The Jews were prophesied BY GOD to reject Jesus. This dog don't hunt.
d)And now, in a crated world in which His manifestations are clearly evident so that people are without excuse, still many reject Him. What's your point?

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

The key word in the above quote is "would". In actuality, this should be "could", because "would" implies that the knowledge forces corrective action. the truth is, while God is certainly capable of this corrective action, He chooses not to because it does not fit His plan. Plus, even if you take this whole thing as an exercise in debative literature, Holtz is guilty of so many lack-reads, mis-reads, and inserting his own prejudices into his interpretations that this whole thing has the structure of Swiss cheese and the smell of Limburger. One would think a philosopher with a background in computer science like Holtz would have a grasp on one thing leading logically to another, like a program. Unfortunately his reasoning is more on the GIGO theorem.

Mark, ch. 4, New International Version

11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’


  1. I'm not here for a long drawn out conversation like the one's that we've had before (Although that's not to say that I'm opposed to one. Debate sharpens the mind.).
    I'm just here to point out that none of the points that you listed are actual points that a serious atheist would make.
    All the reasons against Christianity that you listed are one's that someone would make if they took the bible as a credible source (which most atheist don't).

    Here is a great example of the type of argument that an actual atheist would make.

  2. CWM:
    That was a good post...

    And makes a great case as to WHY I probably won't ever have a FB page...LOL.
    Even as a former SS teacher, I tend to shy from the athesist debates.
    Reminds me of talking to a liberal as to WHY spending MORE mone (one does not have) is SAVING anyone anything at all.

    I would say that if atheists are so set against ANY form of 'God" then I'd be more than willing to relieve them of all that NASTY "In God We Trust" currency they possess.

    Just a thought.

    Stay safe out there.

  3. In Response to Bob G.
    Seeing as you're a former SS teacher I shouldn't really have to point this out to you

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - The First Amendment 1787
    "In God We Trust" - Official US Motto 1956

    Maybe I'm just not very good at math, but could you point out which one came first?

  4. Government never ESTABLISHED ANY religion...period.

    But apparently, ALL those GOD-fearing and biblically-scholared FOUNDERS of our nation already knew that dog wasn't gonna hunt.

    But, it IS curious to note that those same founders made NO provision as to NOT having or establishing a NATIONAL MOTTO...

    A MOTTO is a "motivational "pledge"...a MAXIM...a PHRASE, just like that PLEDGE to OUR FLAG (a symbol of our country).

    Besides, it states "in God we TRUST"...not "in GOD this nation will be run totally by christian, bible-thumping zealots who hate non-believers".

    Hope that clears things up a tad.

    Always willing to help.

  5. In Response to Bob G.

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your horribly misinformed comment the result of a misguided education and not because of some sort of lack of intelligence.

    A. In the context of the first amendment the wording is meant that the government shall not favor one specific set of beliefs over another set of beliefs. If you actually believe that the phrase "In God We Trust" doesn't do that then you are in fact a moron.

    B. You are just plain wrong if you think that the founding fathers were all "biblically-scholared" and "God-fearing". I believe that I addressed this point in an earlier post, but I'll happily go over it again.

    "I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."
    Thomas Jefferson

    "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
    Thomas Paine

    "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
    John Adams

    "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
    James Madison

    "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
    Benjamin Franklin

    I am in no way arguing that the majority of the founding fathers were anything other than believers of the Christian religion, but instead that the most influential of them were not and even if they were they clearly wanted a secular society

    C. I'm going to make this as clear as I feel that I possibly can. I don't give a shit if it's a National Motto, or a fucking bumper sticker. If the United States government is endorsing it and it's favoring on set of beliefs to the exclusion of all others, then it's a violation of the first amendment. I'd have the same problem if the motto was "In Allah We Trust", or "In Thor We Trust", or "In Vishnu We Trust"

  6. CWM:
    Ahhhhh...another case of AWI on our hands here.
    (oh, well)

    I feel SO good to be in the presence of such an OMNISCIENT being (yawn)

    I'll trust in can trust in whatever YOU want..that's YOUR choice.

    And any further reasonable "debate" with you would be like shooting an UNARMED person, so forgive me if I respectfully DECLINE the "invitation".

    Have a nice life.

    (Sorry to detract from YOUR blog, CWM)

  7. And this would be the reason why I hate having debates with some Christians. The moment that someone starts to say anything that goes against their point of view they run away and act like arrogant little assholes (And I thought atheists were suppose to be the arrogant ones)

    If you want to point out flaws in my reasoning go ahead. Trust me, I won't be offended because unlike some people I'm not so set in my ways as to be offended when someone contradicts my viewpoint. I've said this in earlier post. If you can make a reasonable case backed up by acceptable evidence then I'm am absolutely willing to take a look at my beliefs and make any adjustments that are required.

    But then again. If you want to cry about your hurt feelings and refuse to have a civilized conversation (realizing that this is the internet, so you're probably going to have to put up with a bit of name calling) then you can go right ahead. I have other people that I can debate with who won't run away at the first sign of a little resistance.

    Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but if you want to continue the debate then I welcome the "challange", if not then your previous comments were a wonderful insight into the close-minded branch of the Christian community.

    (I also don't understand why you're saying that we're detracting from CWM's blog. Discussion is what the comments section of a blog is built for. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't spend much time on the internet.)

  8. Does the phrase STFUS seem familiar to you?

    Because I'd bet good IN GOD WE TRUST money you hear that...a LOT!
    (must be that nasty O.D.D. you suffer from)

    I'll say a prayer for 'ya...fair enough?

    (thanks for the laugh today)

    PS: don't forget to get the LAST word.
    (knew that you would)

  9. Hey guys, canI get a word in here?

    To Joshua, I'm going to skip over old ground and get to this post. And that is, I'm glad that you agree that this Brian Holtz is not a good example of atheist thinking (or thinking in general). Nor did I say I was holding him up to be one. I merely found it while looking up other things and Found it both amusing and a perfect example of not having your shit together before you make your arguments. We've both been guilty of that in the past, but neither of us on such a gross scale.

    On the other stuff, I'll just say that in my opinion, the first amendment was meant to prevent a church that was directly supported by taxes and membership being a requirement for gov't advancement as the colonies were leaving behind in England. I do NOT nor will I ever believe that any of the founding fathers had in their wildest dreams the kind of things the ACLU et al are using it for. With the possible exception of Jefferson whose main problem with religion was the actions of some of their so-called followers. He had many valid points about man; very few valid points, though about God or Christ.

    To Bob, if you go back down the comments on last year's post "What government is for", you'll see I've been down the road before. I understand that short of a miracle that there are certain things that Joshua and I will never agree on. I hope we've learned to take each other with a grain of salt, and I just keep in mind that my part is only to throw the seed out.

    Guys, thanks for the entertainment!