Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsThe God Who Wasn’t There, was too.
Posted by chevas | Leave a comment at the end of this post.I recently heard about this documentary called The God Who Wasn’t There. It’s basic premise is to rip apart Christianity. I really want to see this documentary so I can refute it. For now, here’s what I had to say about the talking points:
- …irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed.
The existence and stories of Jesus has been proven to stand up in a court of law according to Harvard Law better than any case based on witness accounts. Most historians, atheists, and people who generally hate Christianity are not stupid enough to claim he didn’t exist. There is way too much evidence for him.
- The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus.
The early founders never comprehended Jesus might actually be divine. They knew he was “The Christ”, but they were wholly unaware that he was God until after his death and resurrection. Oh wait, faith critics will reject this point because they don’t believe the resurrection actually happened, or that he existed, and therefore they have to draw conclusions ONLY based on these assumptions.
- The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan savior cults
Ancient figureheads and pagan savior cults notoriously ripped off Jewish History. Christianity was born out of Judaism with Christ the Messiah (Jesus) replacing fulfilling the Torah (the Law) [Edited - See Comments]. Judaism still holds the messiah notion, but he has not yet been revealed. The Jewish tradition is what first brought on the messiah notion and these pagan cultures stole from the Jews. There is a whole lot of evidence that explores how much the Jewish tradition was mined for stories, meaning, ideas, rituals, etc. For this documentary to say Christianity rips off of pagan cults would be similar to an author who had his work stolen and then altered through gossip and then that author’s son later on in life is told he’s crazy for trying to set the record straight about his father.
- Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion.
I think a lot of people of all faiths are largely ignorant of the origins of their religions. Atheists usually are very intimate with their beliefs because it’s largely a faith based on responding to religion than it is wholly its own framework of being.
- Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes.
This statement assumes that everyone should accept it to be “alarming” that even 1 person believes Jesus will return to the earth. Why? Why Why Why should THIS be more alarming than any of this crazy talk: Muslims believe they will be rewarded with 77 virgins in paradise, Buddhists believe they will achieve nothingness? Hindu believe they may become a tree or an animal, or if they are lucky a cow! They also over spiritualize everything and constantly worship everything as 1000s of gods litter the cities in India. Atheism: There is no god, you just end. All of these beliefs say something central to their faith:
- Muslims: Over obsessed with male dominance, patriarchy, sex, and submission
- Buddhists: Everything in life is a distraction and nothing has value
- Hindu: You will never rest in this religion as you are distracted to worship anything and everything and when you die it keeps going.
- Atheism: You just end, that’s it? This is just pride. It’s too humbling to say “well there might be a God and if so I should probably believe in Him”
- Christianity: We are humans, not perfect, and therefore need a savior to come back and help us.
Christianity cannot possibly be any more alarming than these notions, regardless of what you believe.
Wow! Can’t believe how quickly you put good stuff out. Look forward to seeing the movie myself. Look forward to your full rebuttal and analysis.
I personally think its a damn good thing to be able to expose yourself to non-belief. From my perspective it seems to me a lot of Christians are afraid of unbelief and when confronted with it they have no idea how to respond at all so they go out of their way to avoid it at all costs. The Jesus/Pagan myth/never existed schtick has been around for a while and in fact it was a big part of that inane Zeitgeist movie that continues to makes its way around YouTube. I’ve spent a lot of time reading material put out by atheists and I’ve watched a lot of videos put out by some pretty outspoken atheists on sites like YouTube and it didn’t make me lose my faith. It actually helped me to get to the point where I’m not afraid at all of being confronted by unbelief and its helped me confront my doubts as well. If I’m being honest I tend to be naturally skeptical and its definitely been a challenge to remain a Christian at times. Thanks for the post!
Peace
Jesus rebuked his disciples for their unbelief quite a bit and this is probably why many Christians have unfortunately resorted to fearing unbelief. I actually believe many atheists have good points and their beliefs follow good logic. When you trace the logic far enough on either side of the coin of faith / no faith, I think what is revealed are the core values of a person. I tend to disagree with the core values of most atheists. I’m with you, though, I don’t see a need to distance myself from others unbelief, but to instead learn from it.
Good post Chev.as
I try to avoid religious confrontation at all cost to save those around the general argument. Religion should be left to the individual seeking enlightenment or to be nothingness…..:)
The basis for american religion is based on some very interesting quaker beliefs and the melting pot that this country is does not allow for quaker beliefs to dominate, thank goodness and the hawaiians want compensation for 150 years of quaker beliefs…least they can surf again…
look forward to more from you Chev.as
I am personally trying to figure out how apologetics is supposed to fit into the Christian life. We are supposed to live according to God’s word, and our lifestyles are meant to reflect God’s character represented by Jesus in the Bible. Jesus argued with the pharisees and defended well on every point that was thrown at him and backed it up with scripture. In the end Jesus defends both me and himself very well.
2 Corinthians 10:4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,– (I believe this like most things is both spiritual and physical)
“give a defense to anyone who asks you to give an answer for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
We have the power and authority to demolish whatever sets itself up against and/or higher than God, and if someone were to question me about what I believe I would answer to the best of my ability which will grow as I grow in knowledge of the Bible; thus the knowledge of God and of myself.
I’ve only found when to answer/argue a non Christian biblically is in defense and am wondering the other “whens” and “hows” of apologetics.
Just to clear up one point and argue another, you already know my views for the most part anyway.
Firstly, atheists do not have faith in their beliefs. Faith is defined as a belief in another person or thing or a belief that is not based on proof. The very definition of atheism is a lack of believing in something not based on proof, the very antithesis of the meaning of faith. It is convenient (and honestly very annoying) to be put into the category of a religion that makes no sense. Further, I think it is unfair to sum up complex, deep, ancient religions in a summary. Kind of like the treatment of Native American’s religions in pre-college (and some college) history books. I mean, if you sum Christianity up with that sort of bias lens, you end up with something like, “The Christians believe that they are all going to hell unless they drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus Christ, their god figure.” It makes it sound like nearly a retarded belief system, and ignores the complexities and beauty in the religion.
Secondly, I just wanted to clear up why atheists say that they are alarmed by the number of people who think Jesus will return in their lifetime. The reason is because the return of Jesus also comes along with the end of the world. Many believers look forward to the end of the world, which could cause them to either not stop it, or directly cause the end of the world as this is a mainstream view held by many of the people who have the ability to launch nukes and wage wars. For someone who doesn’t believe in god, this is essentially viewed as being extremely dangerous.
To close up, don’t waste your time with this film. I don’t know why so many idiot atheist groups got behind it, it frankly isn’t that well done and doesn’t fairly represent atheism. It’s like the drivel you find on youtube with a higher production budget (barely) and you can buy it on dvd, rather than stream the crap for free when you are bored, drunk and not ready to go to bed yet.
Hey Dan, I always appreciate your comments. Regarding faith, religion, and atheism, I would argue that atheism is not the antithesis of faith because to *hold* that there is no God, or to simply reject all matters of belief in God is not founded on proof either. A person cannot prove there is no God, therefore, by faith this is how they choose to believe. I would argue there is a difference between faith and belief.
I admit it is unfair to sum up complex religions in a summary. I was attempting to focus on afterlife and eschatology in the summaries, but also their statement regarding the “alarming fact that 44% of Americans believe Jesus will return in their lifetimes” is itself a summary statement pulled out of context that is unfair to those who believe this point of eschatology. I used the same tool and treated several religions unfairly to minimize the effectiveness of this statement’s approach.
You make a good point about why certain atheists would be alarmed based on the danger of all the havoc that comes with Jesus returning. “Perhaps one of these believers who are a little off their rocker might actually try and propel us into the tribulation.” That is a fair reason to be alarmed, but the statement made by the creators of the movie did not make this clear and my suspicion is that their alarm was not based on someone trying to jump start the end, but more likely on how apparently “silly” and/or “crazy” the notion appears.
Regarding your comments about seeing the film: LOL good to know.
Yo Chev!
I am so happy to realize this is the site you were telling me about many months ago and I hadnt realized it. All these guys are very articulate, I will just apologize ahead of time, that I lack the skills in grammar or ability communicating clearly what I think in written form. Spelling will be horrible.
Anyway, I want to read through all of your posts, but so far this is the only one I read. I am impressed by the way you approach this video. I like what you wrote, though I havent seen the video. I would suggest one thought in regard to your response to the “ripe off” statement by the video. “Christianity” did not REPLACE anything, in my humble understanding, He (Christ)dramatically “fullfilled” prophetic scriptures in the Torah written of the messiah that met the description, bloodline, and requirements of the TORAH (Judaism/Yahwhism). It did replace the “Old Covenant” with the “New Covenant” as foretold by Jeremiah 31 (and many other scriptures), and I would also submit that He came not to separate or replace the LAW, but he came to fullfill and establish it in our inner man through the Holy Spirit which wasnt possible under the Old Covenant ritual.
I have no idea what your thoughts are in regard to that one statement, but for some reason, It stuck out to me and here you go… let me know if I was totally off in how I read it or misunderstood the context. I just felt like I better write something because all these other guys wrote interesting stuff…. haha
I agree with you in regards to Christ coming to fulfill the law. When I wrote the word “replace” I was imagining a diagram in a Judaism class I took in which Christ was moved in the place of where the law resided. From a non-believing Jewish perspective, this is how it appears, but I’m with you in your assessment.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew 5:16-18
Seriously? Either you believe in science or you don’t. If you want to say sentences to me like “God made the earth 29 years ago out of Billy Graham’s stool” or “Every time you take the morning-after pill, Satan has two orgasms,” then go ahead and stay away from Dr. Syringey O’Medicine, MD, from here on out. Because you know that pill that made your strep throat go away? Science invented that. For you. Hey, why don’t you just pray for God to take care of that root canal? I’ll tell you why: Because God didn’t go to dental school, because dental schools don’t admit people who DON’T EXIST.
Yawn, you are assigning a great extreme to believers. While some actually think and operate as you describe (and end up in the news for abusing their children), such is not the case with me nor most believers.
God does not contend with science, but has established its authority over the natural world. Part of the mandate for man is to rule creation as good stewards (not abusing it). This includes using resources efficiently, caring for creation, and discovering unknowns. I believe God is delighted when we discover new areas in Science just as a parent would celebrate their child finding a hidden easter egg:
It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out. - Proverbs 25:2
The entire debate regarding evolution and creation science does not have to have bearing on one’s belief in God and creation. I actually discuss how creation science is used to abuse people in a previous post:
http://faithfoundry.com/2009/01/rogue-gospels/
Science is the established authority over creation (by God), but God is the authority over all. Jesus quotes Deuteronomy by saying “Man does not live on bread alone”, but the natural order of things is still to eat. Likewise, so is medicine and Paul in the New Testament even tells Timothy to drink wine to help with a sick stomach from too much contaminated water.
To ignore the natural order of creation is folly. I go to the Doctor and I am blessed. Prayer is helpful alongside medicine and it also submits to the Truth that God is sovereign. A heart surgeon in Florida had an 800% higher success rate than anyone else in the field so he was asked to share his techniques. He explained that he prayed. Was he also a well trained and highly skilled heart surgeon? Absolutely. Could it have been simply his gift? Perhaps so. But statistics prove that prayer increases recovery success significantly (not just Christian prayer either, which is a whole other topic of discussion).
Science has procured many solutions to health problems and should not be ignored. This does not contend with God. The next question might be “If God exists, why doesn’t he just remove all sickness?” This is a great question I’d love to answer and I just might in a future post.
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Yawn:
As an atheist I can flat out say these types of posts serve a single purpose. To amuse yourself. Chevas is a good friend of mine, and I challenge anyone I know to match philosophical knowledge and insight with him as well as the other posters on this blog. I know the response you got from Chevas was insightful as well as very respectful, as he does strive to emulate Christ in everything he does. You and I can agree that God probably exists, and on some level we probably both think the belief in a god or religion seems silly to us.
I would first like to reference a man many consider the figurehead of atheism, RIchard Dawkins. You will notice a few things about his style. First and foremost, he makes rational, logical arguments that do not limit their extent to, “Ha ha, I made you say penis.” Secondly, and probably more importantly he shares what I think is the mainstream atheist viewpoint, there is no such thing as a true atheists. I can argue with a Christian until I am blue in the face that I do not have fait, because my view is based on observations made by mine and other’s five sentences that presents itself as current scientific view. However, even those of us who are limited to understanding to our five physical senses are not stupid, nor arrogant enough to say a person who believes in God is an idiot, just because we cannot prove the existence of God right now. Any person who has limited access to the whole of the universe, such as we humans do, would be arrogant and stupid to say that there cannot possibly be a god.
I don’t know how familiar you are with astrophysics, but projects like SCERN’s hydron collider as well as countless other programs soul purpose is to explain all that we do not know about creation. There are gapping holes in the big bang theory (as well as universe creation theories) that are most easily filled with God. This is why many of the smartest scientists in the world to some degree believe in a higher power. Mankind has not come up with a way to explain away the “God” element, so to speak. There are many tenants to the Christian faith that don’t seem to jive with one another, countless contradictions etc… but to be fair, we are talking about an ancient book that no one can fairly say how many times it has been altered. We can fairly safely say that the Torah or first four (correct me if I am wrong on this someone) books of the Christian bible have managed to remain unchanged for thousands of years. I think they have authenticated the current version as being an exact copy of a version from more than 1,600 years ago.
Now to your direct post. Your arguments are little more than comedic antidotes that first don’t really address any tenants of the Christian faith. Those still obsessed with refusing medical treatment in lieu of God taking care of it for them are known as Scientologist… who , as it turns out are not Christians at all. You may also have some fringe groups that are encompassed under the giant Christian bubble who also pray for healing only, rather than will seek out medical attention for their health problems. To say praying for wellness is malarky… well science has time and time again proven that the mind’s belief in recovery or as an extension of that idea, prayer, has been shown to be an important, if not required aspect in medical recovery. There have been studies on recovery rates of people who have been prayed for vs. people who are not been prayed for which seem to suggest about a 50 / 50 split going either way. What those who have set up the studies will tell you is that it is impossible to get good numbers. You are not taking into account family members who pray for them anyway as well as the mindset of a person who firmly believes in the treatment. This is why drug tests always include a placebo run. Further, if an all knowing god did exist, he would know more about dentistry than any dentist on the earth today, and his recommendation would probably be to be seen by a dentist… Since God can’t exactly make medical house calls.
Next on my list is your claim that Science and God are like two different “religions” who are diametrically opposed to one another. What a load of crap. If there were a god, who wanted to watch his / her children grow, wouldn’t it make sense that God would delight in the achievements of his / her children? Kind of like how your parents would be proud of you for winning a science contest at school? If there were a God, God would therefore have set up natural rules of how the universe works, so when his “kids” figure this stuff out, he would most likely be driving his God-Mobile into the office with a brand new sticker that reads something like, “My honor student kicks ass!”
So far I have only been defending my friends on this site who are Christian and who are very receptive and polite about my differing views as theirs. Now it is time to tell you why your style of “argument” hurts you as well as every other atheist out there. Atheism is not a religion, it is an observational based philosophy that makes the most sense to us. As an atheist, I do not belong to some sort of club, and neither do you. We do not recruit new members, we don’t care about making anyone see things the same way we do. We are the MOST oppressed minority in this country, however. And when you post, not trying to be overly offensive, but some of the most retarded, non-sensical drivel I have read coming from an “atheist” the only thing you accomplish is further tarnishing the reputation of good people who simply are not in the majority when it comes to the existence of a higher power. You hurt you and you hurt me. It is just like when the Muslim and Christian blowhard idiots toot their horn of nothing to show how better they are than everyone else, because of the “club” they belong to. They see it as a club, not as a philosophical perspective to better their lives and the lives of those around them.
DId you know that in polls done recently, a gay man has a higher chance of being elected President of this country than an Atheist? We are by far the most hated minority in this country, and we aren’t going to change that until blow-hards like you don’t get it through your heads that the civil rights movement was not won by blacks telling whites they were stupid for being blacks. They won that movement by showing that black people and white people are just people. I call myself an Atheist, even though the title carries negative shock value to it, because I want to be able to fight that fight, be seen as being just as good or valid a person as anyone who believes in god in this country.
In closing, I know I have been hard on you, but if you take anything out of what I have said here… try to take this out of it. People hate us. The looks of hate and disgust I see on people’s faces when they find out I am an atheist chills me to the core sometimes. This website is a safe place for that. This website could be a great place for you to make some great arguments and show how compassionate and human atheists are, too. We aren’t tying to make anyone else be an atheist, we aren’t a religion who tries to convert other people. We think people should be happy because of what they believe. Sometimes it is hard to be happy when people tell you that you should be killed because you don’t think the same way you do. Sometimes it is hard to feel compassion toward Christians, because the ones who talk to you on the street are assholes who sometimes will actually spit in your face. I understand the desire to make fun of them right back, because humans should NOT treat other humans like that. Especially humans who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and to love they neighbor as thyself. Jesus said that the first amongst you without sin can throw the first stone. And yeah man, we totally don’t get that. But REMEMBER Jesus and REMEMER Ghandi. They DID turn the other cheek, and that is what caused the change. If you want fewer people to think you are a complete douche for not believing in a god, show them that you are not a complete douche. This is such an easy place. You will notice that I will come out and say that I completely disagree with the Christians on this blog. You will also notice it is always responded to with love and compassion. These are good people, and I would like you to not spit in their faces. I want to live to see an atheist become president someday, just like we got to see Barack Obama become president in our lifetimes. If you want to see that happen, people like YOU yawn have to show the world what atheism is really about. We don’t believe, but we also don’t have the right to judge another person who we can’t understand. This is how wars get started. This is how millions of people have lost their mother’s, father’s, wives, husbands, brothers and sisters. Never demonize another human begin, that will never bring anything but pain.
and by we can agree God exists, I mean we can agree God does NOT exist. Typing fail!
if you are going to reject the SCIENCE that christ the son of god did not exist on earth, which is what the movie you are discussing is really about, you should also reject the science of everything else. your god is a jealous and vengeful god, don’t you worry that by going to the doctor and having heart surgery you are interfering with his will? didn’t god give you heart disease so he could call you home? aren’t you fucking with his shit by participating in medicine at all?
i suppose one shouldn’t be surprised by the duality of christians picking and choosing which science they want to listen to; you’ve been selectively choosing bible verses to follow or ignore for as long as there have been bible verses to do so with.
according to Exodus 21-7 you can sell your daughter into sex slavery and 31-15 instructs the faithful to kill anyone who works on the sabbath. i’m willing to bet you probably have a verse selected as a RETORT, something where jesus says “nah, it’s cool, do whatever.” but the foundation of your arguments fall apart under even the most casual scrutiny. it’s too bad superstition prevents you all from the glimmer of self-awareness necessary to notice for yourselves.
>if you are going to reject the SCIENCE that christ the son of god did not exist on earth
It is literally impossible to reject something that does not exist. Your predicate statement is unprovable. It is also self-referentially incoherent, because science does not actually prove anything either.
(Only math proves things, and even math requires predicate axiomatic belief)
All science continues to be is a framework for evaluating what one can sense with the five senses and observe with tools that augment those senses. It also provides a way of thinking about the reliably observable. You can choose to believe in only what you can reliably observe, but that, by definition, cannot negate the unreliably observable or the unobservable.
And, here, we meet our impasse. Good day to you, sir.
Yawn, there is nothing wrong with being selective. How many countless articles in the precious “Nature” magazine have been overturned and updated due to newer developments in science. Can you blame people for not believing everything they read? (It’s usually a great magazine btw).
Setting all faith aside, I simply believe the science that purports Jesus didn’t exist at all is junk science and even an atheist here has already said the same. I have no obligation to accept the science in this movie in order to maintain credibility, (except with you) and neither is this being dualistic.
The doctor and medicine thing again? Have you read my first reply?
Your casual scrutiny of your casual Bible reading reveals either a casual understanding of these verses, or you yanked them out of context purposefully to make your point. These verses have specific meaning in their historical context and deeper meaning with the current context of the “law” being fulfilled. Your casual scrutiny strips this away.
You know not of the level of my self-awareness, but you set yourself up as a person who thinks they can see my heart. You don’t know the depth of my journey in this life, the darkness I’ve seen, my walking away from everything Christian and anger towards Christians for years, the pruning, the stretching, the growing, and so on. You speak foolishly.
Let us assume Yawn is right.
What made the concept of Jesus exist? Someone’s imagination?
What made that person’s imagination? What made that brain? What made that DNA that makes up the brain? What made the amino acids? What made the bing bang?
It is far more attractive for me to want to be more like a lepton particle here but, I find that I must enter into a bit of the strong interaction going on here.
Yawn, seriously? In reading your comments, I am confident that you are not even a bit serious. Don’t take it personally but your comments remind me (and probably most people that read them) of the man in the Monty Python’s “The Argument Clinic who states: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. Check it out, here’s the link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html.
I find your intent to “offend” rather obvious and quite frankly you surely understand that one does not establish a logical or reasoned argument by simply using gross metaphors. What exactly is your scientific proposition? Are you advocating a theory that God does not exist? Are you attempting to “prove” that God does not exist by suggesting that science says so? What? Which selective science theories are you relying on in support of your hostile position?
I am always fascinated when I come across someone who pretends to be an atheist while exuding such ire towards those who believe. One time I had a discussion with someone who you reminded me of. Within a short period of time he was ranting and raving and spewing all kinds of insults and anger while apparently trying to “prove” to me that God did not exist. in actuality he was just trying to justify his own mental, emotional, and spiritual confusion and convince himself. The discussion ended abruptly when he walked away after screaming at me, “Go to Hell!” Kind of ironic, eh? So, ask yourself, what’s up with the ugly ire bud?
By the way, you’re not going to like this either but it is true. If you really aspire to enter into intelligent arguments with Christians you are going to have to invest a whole lot of time in understanding the material. By your own words you have revealed a child-like miscomprehension and misunderstanding of the Bible. In any event, how does your quotes of Exodus support your proposition?
Yawn, the next time you actually attempt to convince someone of anything you might want to remember a couple of points. You never attack without arrows in the quill and spend less time in the “Argument Clinic” and more time studying syllogistic thought.
God luck with your next stop.
in time, faith (not just christianity) will be properly diagnosed as what it is: a mental illness impacting the brain’s ability to reason. the responses above could be cut and paste into textbooks as examples of twisted circular logic caused by this disorder.
as a believer you are mentally handicapped, just like someone with schitzophrenia or social anxiety disorder, only your mental illness is much more sinister in that a huge part of it’s payload is convincing you that you are not mentally ill.
imagine if the virus that causes aids also managed to convince people that 1) they didn’t have aids, 2) that people who try to tell them they have aids are all crazy liars, and 3) the most important thing you can do on earth is have unprotected sex with as many people as possible. this is what faith has done to your minds.
Hi Yawn, you have made a number of statements to which I and other readers have replied, but you have not addressed any of our replies. Instead you have ignored our replies and made new accusations and statements. It doesn’t appear that you’re interested in meaningful discussion, and that’s okay if you’re not. However, I’m letting you know now that meaningful discussion is the intention of this blog.
If you want a platform to say whatever you want, I suggest starting your own blog. You are more than welcome to disagree with any and all points in your replies , but if your next reply does not respectfully address one of our replies, I will delete yours.
If I see you have good intention to actually discuss issues, then perhaps we will make our way to your most recent statements regarding mental illness. However, until earlier topics are addressed, I’m ignoring this most recent set of topics.
Conclusory statement after conclusory statement! This is sheer demagoguery with no SCIENCE or proof to back up your claims. You may be skeptical, cynical or otherwise, but your argumentation is defective in substance and in form.
In short, you rant, and not that well.
When you state generically, that the “responses above could be cut and paste [sic] into textbooks as examples of twisted circular logic caused by this disorder,” I am curious to know where the circularity is. No one is begging the question, except you, because you use the “substance” of your assertions as proof of those assertions. Circularity ensues.
Meanwhile, the other responses have pointed out either the flaws in the persuasiveness of your posts or the logic. For example, my own pointing out that your assertions were disprovable reductio ad absurdum (disproved by contradiction) are ones that you call “examples of twisted circular logic.” Actually, it is quite the opposite.
There is no proof on my part (or on the part of the others) that deity exists, merely that your so-called proof that it doesn’t is no proof at all.
To remediate, I suggest you enroll in a curriculum of theoretical mathematics. There, you will not be corrupted by the inherent politics in philosophy, and it will provide better training, innately, than formal logic.
Start with Aristotle’s axiom of reflexivity. By the time you master inductive proof [when F(n) holds, proving F(n+1) also holds generically], we will be able to speak together more pedagogically on the subject (or any other subject) again.
At the very least, enroll in law school where you will gain experience in arguing without much to back up your claim.
recently i watched ben stein’s documentary expelled. i have wanted to follow up that film with religulous, bill maher’s documentary, but simply haven’t had the time. the thing i find unfortunate about the modern documentary style is that they forcefully direct the narrative rather than simply letting the story tell itself. in the case of documentaries regarding religious belief (particularly christianity) the story tellers are too invested in their own presuppositions to bother with accurate representation. the end result is a caricature of belief, which in turn only appeals to people who have their mind made up. it seems that most public debate on issues (from politics to faith) takes place at the extremes. makes me long for a time when we can might echo solomon’s words, and come reason together.
How does using one’s brain to come to a scientific conclusion imply some sort of mental illness?
I really would like to know what can create a big bang. If it’s something in the universe that is tangible and not supernatural, well, then I’d like to get my hands on one.