Category Archives: Religion
Monica’s Longer Arguments No Better than the Tweets, part 2
Monica, who goes on Twitter as @Monicks, has thousands of followers. Why? Her arguments are even more vacuous than most. I think I got hooked into this for the same reason I follow @antitheistangie (Angie Jackson)–not for intellectual arguments or deep thinking, but because she’s really, really hot.
That said, let’s examine one of the remaining two commands of the Bible that no one follows. It’s interesting that I mentioned I’m following Angie because she’s super hot, since divorce (Mk 10:8-12) is today’s topic.
I agree that divorce is forbidden; so what? The people that God declares righteous in the Bible: were they perfect and without sin? No! Abraham lied numerous times. Jacob deceived his brother and his father to be the heir of promise. David slept with another man’s wife, then conspired to have the husband killed. Peter denied Jesus three times. Paul killed and tortured Christians to get them to renounce their faith in Jesus.
If we had to come before God with our works, we’d all be screwed. Especially me! I just admitted to a sin in the introduction of this post–looking at a woman besides my wife with lust! The righteous live by faith.
So, at the end of the day, the truth of Christianity doesn’t rise or fall on the actions of its practitioners. If it did, this religion would never have gotten off the ground.
But that’s getting away from the central issue of ignoring divorce. We’ll come back to the idea that the actions of Christians isn’t the arbiter of the truth of Christianity in a moment. First, let’s look at the parallel passage in Matthew 19:9, which reads, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (emphasis added). This is a twist on our story.
The translation “sexual immorality” really isn’t the best way to capture the Greek word that Matthew used. The NET Bible translates it simply “immorality.” The word is properly understood as separating parts from the whole or destroying the union or fellowship of [something]. I take this to mean that anything that destroys the fellowship of marriage (beating your wife, gazing with lust upon Angie Jackson, creating an unsafe home environment, physically or emotionally abusing your children) should be grounds for divorce. Sexual immorality is only the tip of the iceberg.
So, divorce is permissible if one of the partners destroys the solidarity of the marriage. Other passages confirm this (check 1 Cor 7:10-16).
Do I think that all Christian divorces are taking place because someone broke up the solidarity of the marriage? No! I’m not naive. I know that some Christian divorces occur for the same frivolous reasons as the unbelievers’ divorces: “We’re not compatible anymore;” “I didn’t know he snored that loud!” “She nags me everyday.”
That brings us full circle: the truth of Christianity doesn’t rely on the actions of its practitioners. If it did, this religion wouldn’t have survived for very long, because all of us are sinners–whether we lie about our marital status to save our own skin, deceive our closest family to wrongfully obtain an inheritance, or secretly wish Angie was wearing something skimpier in the latest video.
Tomorrow, we shall show that atheists truly don’t think very deeply about possible meanings of biblical texts. They read what is there and that’s it.
Monica’s Longer Arguments no Better than the Tweets!, part 1
Recently, I posted that Twitter user Monicks made a supremely ignorant statement about God and moral responsibility. In that post, I specifically mention the trouble with arguing via Twitter; namely, you get only 140 characters to make your point.
So I thought that, perhaps, Monica would argue better if she had unlimited characters to work with. And so I checked her blog, and read the most popular post on it.
So much for that idea. All unlimited words did for her was give her more rope with which to hang herself.
So let’s look at these 11 things that the Bible forbids, yet we do anyway. First, Monica intelligently anticipates the main objection that will be raised, to which she unintelligently replies:
As a final note, I know that nine of these 11 cite the Old Testament, which Christianity doesn’t necessarily adhere to as law.
To which I say: If you’re going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans about tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”) as irrefutable law?
But that’s me trying to introduce logic to religious fanaticism (or, at least, trying to counter some mix of ignorance, bigotry and narcissism with logic). And I should probably know better.
Why is this unintelligent? The short answer is in this video from Stand to Reason.
Long answer: Read the rest of this entry
The Textbook Example of Strawman Arguments
A strawman argument is basically arguing against something that’s easier to debunk than what your opponent actually said.
For example, John W. Loftus calls this one of the most asinine claims made by Christians:
It’s claimed that people like Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris don’t know enough to reject Christianity. How much should a person know about a religion or the various branches of it in order to reject it? Really. I’d like to know. (source)
If that’s the way that Christians actually articulate this objection, then yes, that’s asinine! However, I don’t think that anyone is saying this in spirit, even if they are in words.
What I think they are trying to get across is that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris don’t know enough about Christianity to adequately criticize it. Dawkins is the prime example–one of the arguments central to The God Delusion is the second grade retort, “Well, who made God then?” That’s pretty sad coming from a man of Dawkins’s caliber. He’s a decorated scholar and an eminent scientist; you’d think he’d realize that philosophy has long progressed past that point.
It’s undeniable learned scholars such as Dawkins venture into territory which they are not as familiar with as they should be before taking the plunge. Maybe they know enough to confidently reject Christianity–they probably know at least as much about Christianity as I do about Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Roman Catholicism and I reject all of those.
However, before I try to criticize something, I attempt to become familiar with what it actually argues. These guys don’t. They stick to surface-level arguments and barely take a nick out of those. Much of what they do is argue by outrage, which is the direct opposite of the rational inquiry that they always call for.
I have no doubt that, in a slip of many tongues, Christians have probably said that the New Atheists don’t know enough about Christianity to reject it. However, that isn’t correct. These men don’t know enough about it to criticize it. I have a feeling that, while the formulation may have been incorrect, the articles by my fellow apologists would clearly explain that these men have seriously misplaced criticisms due to profound misunderstanding of basic Christian doctrines, theology, or arguments.
And that makes this a strawman argument from John Loftus.
If Life Were Like a Game…
If real life were like Dungeons & Dragons, atheism wouldn’t be an option. Especially if you challenged a god by temple desecration and lynching followers.
Here’s a novel idea for an awesome web comic. Replace the Knights of the Dinner Table with the Four Horsemen. I bet it would look something like this:
When I’m Wrong, I’m Wrong
It appears as though I made a sweeping generalization in my last post that was unwarranted. I claimed that atheists lauded this idiot, who made a homeless person jump through hoops for his own amusement before he would give the needy man $20.
I found the video via ex-Christian.net. The comments section on ex-C.net contained things like this:
- Actually the film maker didn’t seem arrogant or particularly condescending to me. It did make the man uncomfortable (although not the woman to my eyes), but its never comfortable when our deepest held values and beliefs are up for public scrutiny by someone who disbelieves them. Maybe it will give him the impetus to do some self-examination. Certainly if someone had just given them $20 without the discussion, these parents would have seen it as “a gift from the Lard!” & “God’s provisioning!”
- Hey, if it’s OK to casually ask for money on the side of the road (and guilt people into donating using “God”), then what’s wrong with casually asking someone to cross out a word in exchange for money?
- The christbots still found and jumped through a loophole to get the money. I really wish the film maker had had ten thousand dollars in cash to really “test” their faith.
- Does anyone really believe that if he had a million bucks, as opposed to 20, that they wouldn’t have accepted? Please.
- Exactly! And if by some slim-to-none chance they wouldn’t have taken the million bucks, that alone would prove the extent of their brainwashing… or sheer stupidity.
- Sad, there they are living in an RV homeless and yet somehow think god is for them? So sad. Sadder even I used to be that stupid. Then I did what the guy in the video said, took accountability for my life. TADA!!!!! It worked! Well what do you know? Read the rest of this entry
The Moral Bankruptcy of Atheism
Let’s try this thought experiment:
On the side of the road is a man, his wife, and a child. They are holding up a sign that reads, “We lost our home. Help would be appreciated.”
Moved by their plight, I’m compelled to help them. I pull my car over to an out-of-the way place. I exit the vehicle and approach the family.
“Hi,” I call to them.
“Hello,” the man says. His wife and daughter remain silent, though his wife offers me a tenative smile.
“I feel for your plight, sir,” I say. “I’m going to give you $20.”
“Thank you,” the man says. His wife smiles more broadly this time, and she extends a hand to thank me.
“But first,” I say, dangling a twenty dollar bill from my fingertips, “I want you to do a little something.”
The woman drops her hand to her side. The man looks at me, while the woman raises a quizzical eyebrow.
Then I propose my deal. “I have a hula hoop, clown shoes, and a colored wig in my trunk. I want you to strip all of your clothes off–totally naked–and wear nothing but the wig and clown shoes. Then, I want you to spin the hula hoop as many times as you can while chanting, ‘I can’t provide for the basic needs of my family, so I’m begging people for money instead of looking for a job!'”
Awkward silence. I dangle the twenty dollar bill even closer to the man’s face. “I don’t think so,” the man growls.
“I’ll make it $50 if you do this at the busiest mall in town,” I say.
The man just shakes his head vigorously. His wife won’t look at me anymore.
In this example, I think that we can confidently conclude that I’m an asshole who should be shot. Making the homeless jump through hoops for my own amusement is reprehensible behavior. People who engage in it deserve the label “asshole.”
Well, what have we here:
Though no one would praise my actions in the itallicized example, folks on ex-Christian.net are applauding the actions of the maker of that video. Had the asshole done what I did above in the thought experiment, they (hopefully) would have universally condemned him. Yet, when he asks the homeless person to deny God for money, that somehow is awesome.
To recap:
- Make a homeless person jump through sadistic hoops for money = immoral.
- Make a homeless person deny his Creator for money = strong commentary on religion.
Conclusion: Atheists have little moral compass, especially when it comes to making religion look bad. Anything goes. This is so disgusting that I can’t even come up with words for it.
Remember, the spirit is more important than the flesh. Denying God has spiritual consequences greater than the physical consequences of turning down $20 from a complete asshole:
If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:4-11)
And:
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 10:29, 31-33)
Returning to the God is Imaginary Rewrite
It’s been a while, but I’m now returning to the rewrite of my refutation of God is Imaginary. After reading some of my original disproofs, I’m happy to be doing the rewrite because some of my original apologetics were terrible. I’ve grown as an apologist, I’m proud to say.
Like anything, it’s a learning curve.
I have no set schedule for completing the proofs. I hope to also tackle Why Won’t God Heal Amputees in the near future as well.
What I’ve done so far:
- Proof #3: Look at all the Historical Gods
- Proof #4: Think About Science
- Proof #8: Think About Near Death Experiences
- Proof #10: Watch the Offering Plate
- Proof #21: Examine Jesus’ Core Message
- Proof #28: Notice How Many Gods You Reject
- Proof #30: Examine God’s Sexism
- Proof #34: Examine Your Health Insurance Policy
- Proof #50: Ask Jesus to Appear
And, co-author Dr. Joshua Rasmussen has put up his first article:
I’m probably going to edit that article a bit this week, since Dr. Rasmussen makes some points that I would like to expand on.
So Far, I Remain Unimpressed
There are two basic classifications of atheist. The negative atheist simply remains unconvinced that God exists. The atheist doesn’t affirm the existence of any deity, but never explicitly denies the possibility one may exist somewhere.
Most folks I argue with here fall into the category of negative (sometimes called “weak”) atheist. It is often asserted that this is the default position in life and one should remain at this point until evidence is presented to the contrary. Of course, every weak atheist I encounter is absolutely unimpressed by any evidence affirming the existence of God. Such evidence is either believed to be faulty or denied outright as having any significance to judging the existence of God.
More interesting is positive (or “strong”) atheism, which is the explicit proposition that God doesn’t exist. As weak atheists remind us constantly, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Therefore, when the theist encounters a strong atheist, the burden of proof shifts and it is up to the strong atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Not surprisingly, there are few strong atheists. It’s an extremely difficult position to defend, since the strong atheist has given himself a nearly impossible burden of proof. However, I found Geoffrey Berg at my local library when browsing for another title; Berg attempts to defend strong atheism by formulating new and improved proofs that God is incompatible with logic. He published a book called The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God. I thought it would be interesting, so I picked it up. Read the rest of this entry
On Using Refuted Arguments
Many years ago, Dr. Laura made a comment on her radio program stating that the Bible declares homosexuality an abomination, and that should settle the matter. This was subsequently parodied in an episode of the West Wing, where the President pwns a Dr. Laura-like character by quoting chapter and verse from Leviticus several outmoded laws, asking her to clarify them for him. Eventually, the President’s list was expanded with other outmoded laws and circulated as Internet chain mail.
When all this first happened, J.P. Holding wrote an excellent refutation of it.
Anyone with a general understanding of how a Christian approaches law and grace already knows how ridiculous this argument (if you can even call it that) is. The Old Testament Law points to a morality far higher than it espouses; a morality written into the hearts of every person on this planet. Ultimately, if we let the Greatest Commandment and the Second Greatest Commandment together be our guides, then we will fulfill the Old Testament Law without having to dive into the minutiae of it. That morality that exists in conception and can exist in point of fact by the grace of God, is the morality we aspire to.
Because we understand that a higher morality exists, we therefore seek to achieve it. It hasn’t been realized yet, and so we keep trying. What it is, even between religions and societies, is fairly consistent. That’s why I say it is an object of conception–we know it when we see it, but we haven’t seen it yet. Even the most die-hard atheist can admit that society isn’t as moral is it should be, and knows deep down that we need to somehow fix the broken parts.
Despite the fact that the West Wing clip (and the letter it spawned) stands refuted (specifically by Holding and generally by a Theology 101 understanding of law and grace), atheists continue to circulate it on YouTube. The Blog for Why Won’t God Heal Amputees just posted it again.
Therefore, here’s my question to atheists: How many times do Christian apologists have to refute the same arguments before you’ll stop using them?
Back Rome Again 