Questions Theists Can’t Answer, the Atonement
I was recently directed to a Reddit thread where the atheists were proposing questions that theists can’t answer. Surprise, surprise, we can answer them, and in many cases have answered them (just not the satisfaction of the atheist). Of course, personal satisfaction isn’t a prerequisite for truth.
That said, what follows are questions from that thread that center on the Atonement. Read the rest of this entry
CA: Cory’s April Fool’s Day Post
Guest Post by Tom Scanlon
At first, I was a tad upset by Cory’s April Fool’s Day post, much like everyone else. But that’s just a knee-jerk reaction to being called a name. I thought about what Cory’s insult really means in the grand scheme of things.
See, I don’t believe in Cory’s God. Or any other god. I think that Cory is delusional for believing in such nonsense. The Bible is filled with fairy tales, mythology, and stacks of propaganda for the little Yahweh cult started during King Josiah’s reign. If I really believe that the Bible is no authority of any kind, then I’m not a fool for saying, “There is no God,” whether I say it in my heart or in my head. Cory can re-post the text of any Psalm he wants, and it shouldn’t make a lick of difference.
For those atheists that got mad at Cory for posting that garbage, it looks like hearing the words of the Scripture convicted your conscience. As if you’re suppressing the knowledge of God and when reading his word against you, you lash out. Lashing out means you know the Scripture is true and you’re just trying to stifle those who try to proclaim it. That way, you don’t have to keep hearing it and get that pang of conscience that goes along with suppressing the truth.
Like when the murderer trying to convince the police of his innocence sits in the police interrogation room, and the detectives lay out piece of evidence after piece of evidence. He knows he’s guilty, but it’s getting more difficult by the piece of evidence to deny. So he lashes out at the detective questioning him. He gets angry and shoves all of the evidence away from him. He doesn’t want to hear it. He doesn’t want to see it. He wants to keep denying he committed the crime, but he can’t because the truth is right in front of him.
So that’s why I’m taking it calmly. Getting fired up is to be an inconsistent atheist, which I am not. Getting fired up makes us look guilty of a sin. We all know there’s no sin to be guilty of, so why let it get to us? Right?
CA: How Atheism Cost Me my Marriage
Guest Post by Tom Scanlon
So we understand each other, atheism itself didn’t cost me my marriage. That would be ridiculous. But the methodology I used to embrace atheism did cost me my marriage!
As a Christian, I believed in the Resurrection. But I realized that the Resurrection left no evidence, except for numerous stories from eyewitnesses. We all know that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. I can’t rely on eyewitness testimony, even the staggering number of people that claimed to see Jesus after his death (Paul said it was north of 500), because you just can’t rely on eyewitnesses! It’s too subjective.
Realizing the subjectivity of eyewitness accounts, and realizing that there was nothing I could forensically touch or taste that would lead me to the truth, I have to side with the fact that never have I seen a body three-days dead get up and walk. It should take more than inherently unreliable eyewitness testimony for anyone to believe that.
Eyewitness testimony is bad!
So, to be consistent, I started applying that to my everyday life. When Laura, my wife, told me that it was raining outside, unless she was drenched when she walked in the door, I’d go check for myself. She’s an eyewitness, after all. She could be biased towards rain that day since the weatherman had predicted it, and thus be mistaken. She could have just wanted it to rain and believed she saw rain. Or, she could be lying to me to further an unseen agenda.
Either way, the only way to ascertain the truth would be to see it with my own eyes. If Laura announced dinner was ready, I wouldn’t believe her until I smelled the food or saw it on the table. If she told me a story about her past, I would try to empirically verify it, either from her old yearbooks or by looking at her scrapbooks. Not her journals (that’s still eyewitness testimony); only pictures would do!
I started doing that at work, too. I never believed what I was told, only what I could see with my own eyes. There were lots of whispers, and no one wanted to work with me. But I continued to verify every story someone told me, regardless of how mundane. If I couldn’t forensically verify it, I didn’t believe it.
When Laura, or someone acting on her behalf, told me that she was staying late at work or visiting my in-laws, I never believed that outright. If Laura were having an affair, that is exactly the sort of thing they’d tell me to keep it a secret. So I always drove by her office or my in-laws on the way home to see if her car was there.
Laura started to get this crazy idea that I didn’t trust her. “Honey,” I’d reassure her, “it’s not you. I trust you. I just don’t trust any eyewitness testimony. Period. Unless I can get forensic evidence to back it up, then I just won’t accept it on someone’s word!”
I thought she’d understand, but she filed for divorce only six months after I started this. She also filed for an order of protection. Since I was constantly driving by her alleged whereabouts, she got this crazy idea that I was stalking her.
What ticked me off most is that she had no forensic evidence to back up her claim: no tire tracks, no paint chips from my car, nor any surveillance tapes showing my car checking up on her. Nothing like that. Just three eyewitnesses. The judge accepted the eyewitness testimony and granted the order! Can you believe that? How insulting. Not to mention a bit ironic.
Happy National Atheists’ Day!
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD?
There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.
You would shame the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge.
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.
–Psalm 14
Best J.P. Holding Quote EVER
J.P. Holding was one of my inspirations for entering apologetics ministry. Before I saw his site, I had no idea that Christians even did things like that. I love writing, I love arguing my point, and I love teaching people things. Apologetics seemed to offer that, and an opportunity to serve God while doing it.
I was in.
I’ve seen an evolution in Holding. He used to be extremely sarcastic and derisive toward anyone who disagreed with him, including creating a Screwball of the Month Award for atheists who used the dumbest/most ignorant arguments against Christianity. Though he still does much of that, his main site has had most of that material expunged or edited for Christian charity. Mostly, he keeps the sarcasm at bay.
He’d never admit it, but I think he finally started listening to the other side and realized that Christian charity is most important when dealing with outsiders. They know we’re supposed to “turn the other cheek,” and they basically expect us to be doormats on account of that command. Let’s give them what they expect–and more. And, above all, “so far as it depends on you [the Christian], live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18).
In certain places, however, the sarcasm flies freely. Though J.P. has said a lot of sarcastic gems in the past, this has to be the best retort hands down:
God as a constant fixer-upper is the contrivance of a lazy and ignorant generation that thinks the whole purpose of being omnipotent is to be able to create rational beings and then entertain them. (source)
I laughed for 5 minutes straight. I still chuckle reading back over for the hundredth time. Thank you, J.P., and keep fighting the good fight!
What Type of Evidence is Required to Believe Extraordinary Claims?
How many of us have said, “I’ve been meaning to do [something], but [this] got in the way.” I’ve been guilty of that many times, especially around the house. I keep “meaning to,” but something else happens.
Wives are pretty forgiving here–or at least mine is. Provided that [this] is reasonable, and not, “I just had to beat my high score at Yahtzee, and after 10 hours of rolling those dice, I finally did it!”
Supervisors at work are much less forgiving, even if [this] is extremely reasonable. “I meant to get that paperwork faxed over, but four people called off for lunch rush and of the people that showed up, no one knew how to run the drive-thru register except for me!” Those who have worked in fast food know that what I just said is a very legitimate reason for missing office work, but they also know that no district manager would actually accept that excuse.
In the world of blogging, “I’ve been meaning to write a post on [something], but [this] got in the way” has far less severe consequences than it does in the corporate world. Usually, another blogger ends up writing the post, generally making the exact points that you would have raised. Then comes the inevitable internal groan, “Why didn’t I just write the post sooner?”
Today, as I read over the usual blogs, I discover that the post I’ve been meaning to write on the so-stupid-it-burns talking point that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” has already been written by Dr. Randal Rauser. Although I’ve disagreed with Dr. Rauser in the past, in this particular post he is 110% spot on. This paragraph sums up my own points to people about this claim:
The problem starts with this: who decides what is “extraordinary”? Without an absolute, objective standard this principle collapses into “Anything that appears really implausible to me requires extraordinary evidence” and that in turn collapses into “No evidence will be good enough to convince me of something I find really implausible”. In other words, this is a recipe for an irrational dismissal of any evidence counter to what one already accepts.
Literally, all the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” talking point ever does is allow the atheist to dismiss with a simple hand wave anything that he doesn’t want to believe–the existence of God, the Resurrection, any miracle in the Bible, or whatever else they don’t want in their worldview. All they need to do is class whatever their opponent says as “extraordinary,” and whatever evidence or argument offered in support as “not extraordinary.” BAM! Case dismissed faster than a pothead’s lawsuit on Judge Judy.
All that is required to believe any claim, extraordinary or not, is sufficient evidence. Period.
Questions Theists Can’t Answer: God and Rest
“On the seventh day, he rested.”
So many thing wrong with that one statement, who would a god need to rest?
I don’t need to drink Pepsi, but I do. I don’t need to blog, but I do. I don’t need to pain miniatures, but I do. I don’t need to watch The People’s Court everyday, but I do. Shall I go on?
No where in the Bible does it say God needs to rest. It says that he does rest. Big difference.
A day is a measure of time on Earth, who did not exist.
It does now. What’s your point?
If he worked for 5 days on one planet, thats pretty damn slow, at that the rest of the universe would take a lot longer that 14 billion years.
Actually, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth is there now, formless and void. So everything–the universe, the earth, etc–existed before Genesis 1:2 continues the narrative. Verses 3-31 show God ordering what already exists.
We can prove that the solar system took billions of years to form and used only 2 things, gravity and time.
Okay. So no matter or energy involved there? Just gravity? That’s an amazingly dense statement.
With that in mind, why would a god, any god make things by just waiting around for gravity to do what it does naturally? And theists will just say, “oh well god made gravity and put the wheels in motion”, ok well thats not how it says he does shit in the bible, so one of them must be wrong.
The Bible describes God as active in nature and using nature to achieve his ends. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit, which represents the active hand of God moving in the world around us. The book of Colossians describes it best:
He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (1:15-20, emphasis added)
Preeminence and sovereignty don’t always imply an active hand in every single detail that transpires, but it does imply that God worked everything to create what he desired. In him, it all hold together. It’s possible that both the people who say God set it in motion and the Bible which describes God as active are both correct.
And thats essentially the first thing in the bible, how can they assume anything else to be true after that?
Begging the question.
I told you this was lame.
Convincing Skeptics to Believe
John W. Loftus discussed what it would take to convince him to believe. The discussion was prompted when Jayman, a Christian, asked Loftus if he witnessed a bona fide miracle, would he then believe in God? Let’s look at the hubris displayed in the answer:
I have said that it would take a personal miracle for me to believe. I didn’t say what kind of miracle nor did I comment on the other things that would have to accompany that miracle. Let me do so now. . . .
Let’s say the miracle was an anonymous one, like the resurrection of my cousin Steve Strawser, who died at 58 alone in the woods of a massive heart attack, or the skeptic Ken Pulliam who died in October. I would believe in a supernatural reality, yes, but an anonymous one. I don’t think I could conclude anything different. But it would be an anonymous god who did it. I could not conclude much about this god other than that he could raise the dead. (emphasis added)
Once telling us that a miracle would convince him, he qualifies that by saying that a miracle is only evidence of a supernatural entity, but the identity of said entity is still open for conjecture. Then he backtracks:
So I would need more than a miracle, even though that scenario is already far fetched to begin with. (emphasis added)
After the miracle, Loftus wants God to take credit for it, by making a personal appearance (of course). Loftus further considers that proposition:
But let’s say that along with such a miracle I am told by this deity to believe exactly the way Jayman does about Christianity. That presumes even more than that a miracle occurred, since there are so many brands of Christianity around, some accusing the others of heresy. Would I believe then?
Assuming that the miracle came, the worker of the miracle has shown himself and taken credit, then he tells Loftus to believe exactly as a specific Christian believes. Meaning God’s power has been demonstrated, and then asserts his authority. Does Loftus submit?
So, if I experienced a personal miracle I would require more than just that to believe in Jayman’s god. I have so many objections to the Bible and the biblical god I would have to reconcile what I know with what this deity told me to believe. I cannot even understand why any god would require me to believe in the first place! At that point I would be forced to chose between Jayman’s god and a trickster conception of god, and the trickster god would have to be my choice given what I know. (emphasis added)
Wow. Don’t miss Loftus’s this:
- An incontrovertible miracle occurs.
- God himself appears to Loftus and takes credit.
- God tells Loftus which Christian denomination is correct in all doctrinal points.
- However, Loftus doesn’t think that any branch of Christianity is correct.
- Loftus assumes that the deity who appeared and worked the miracle is now tricking him.
In conclusion:
If I was convinced Christianity is true and Jesus arose from the grave, and if I must believe in such a barbaric God, I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God. I would fear such a Supreme Being, since he has such great power, but I’d still view him as a thug, a despicable tyrant, a devil in disguise; unless Christianity was revised. (source, emphasis added)
This is quite educational. My conclusion: John W. Loftus is an arrogant and unrelenting narcissist who has put himself in place of God. In his own words, Loftus has said, “Even if God himself proved his existence beyond a reasonable doubt and told me that Christianity is true, I’ll believe it but I’m still not going to worship God.”
Literally, John Loftus has just told us that he knows better than God. Only on the Internet can you witness egos this big first hand. And, this proves that no one is in hell kicking, screaming, and crying to be let out (as I’ve frequently argued). Loftus would rather be there then to bow down and worship God.
I don’t think I can add anything further. This speaks for itself.
Consistent Atheist: Meet Tom
Guest Post by Tom Scanlon
All right, I’m new to blogging so you’re going to have to give me some room. My name is Tom Scanlon, and I’m an atheist. But I feel like I’m different than most atheists in a very important way. I consistently apply the attitudes and methodologies that led me to atheism to all areas of my life.
My life is pretty messed up because of that, but I don’t care. I’m actually happy because I’m 100% consistent in all of my conclusions about life–no matter how weird they are. In the coming weeks, I’m going to post about that, so you’ll see just how messed up things are.
Cory and I used to go to school together and we reconnected through Facebook. I saw Cory had a blog and I talked to him about how to start one, since I was thinking about doing one about how consistent my atheism has become. When I heard that you have to update blogs fairly regularly to get traffic and build loyal readers, I balked because I don’t think I have that much to say, or that I’ll even post that often. So, being a gracious friend, Cory agreed to let me post every now and again to his blog.
So, hi, everyone! I thought I’d start out with a brief introductory post and then maybe later this week or something I can put up a post about applying the methodology for rejecting Christianity to my personal life, and why it messed stuff up so badly.
All my posts will be under the Consistent Atheist category of the blog, so click on that to check me out. Also, I got my own page. All right, that’s it. Hopefully I’ll be back around Friday or so with my first post.
Back Rome Again 
Questions Theists Can’t Answer, the Bible
Mar 30
Posted by Cory Tucholski
Another question from that old Reddit thread that has questions designed to stump theists:
This is really two questions. First, Why does the word of God need to be interpreted? And second, Why don’t Christians adhere to the Old Testament Laws? Read the rest of this entry →
Posted in Apologetics, Theology, WWGHA
Leave a comment
Tags: Bible, Bible Commentary, Bible Translation, divine grace, faith, Jesus, Mosaic Law, Salvation, sanctification, Sermon on the Mount