Atheist Tuesday: Fools! Fools! And More Fools!

102 CommentsAtheist Tuesday

Much has been made from our unbelieving friends on the use of the word “fool” by Christians in regard to atheists. Well, I thought it was time to do a little study on the word and see if indeed this description is applicable.

Bob Deffinbaugh has done an excellent work on this word from the book of Proverbs. Read for yourself to see if the word “fool” fits the Dawkins/Hitchens set.

Here’s a short excerpt to whet your appetite:

6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE. Try as you like, attempting to teach a fool is frustrating at best, and often painful. Whenever a fool is faced with wisdom and instruction, he will reject it.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction (1:7).

Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them (1:29-32).

Whenever the fool is disciplined, he resists it.

He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you (9:7-8).

The folly of a fool is deep-seated. No matter how hard one strives to rid the fool of his folly, such efforts end in failure. A fool and his folly are seemingly inseparable.

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him (27:22).

Read the whole study by clicking here.

Comments (102)

  1. Nohm

    Reply

    So, what’s your opinion on non-believers who later became Bible-believing Christians? They were obviously teachable, as per the article’s use of the word. Also, their folly obviously departed from them.

    So… I see some problems with the article.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Basically, my point is this:

      1. Either you can’t call someone a fool, because they might be teachable and become a Bible-believing Real True Christian, or

      2. No non-believer has ever become a Bible-believing Christian, in the entire history of the world.

      So, which is it?

      • carl

        I’m not sure if it has to be a conundrum or a paradox. Some peple are real fools which is different from someone acting like a fool from time to time.

      • Nohm

        Carl, I’m using the definition of “fool” as used in the article that Steve linked to, which I thought was appropriate for this discussion.

      • Nohm

        Steve S., which is it? Is a fool someone that could never be taught? Is a fool someone who could never become a Bible-believing Christian?

        How can you call anyone a fool when you have no idea whatsoever what God’s plan is for that person?

    • BathTub

      Reply

      In the previous thread Steve made it clear that really the definition of Fool is simply anyone who isn’t a True Christian like himself. The rest is just more chances to be insulting.

      • Nohm

        But how does that work out, Steve? The article clearly states that a fool is unteachable. Not “hard to teach”, but unteachable.

        Therefore, the consequence of that is that the article claims that a fool could NOT acknowledge there is a God.

        So, my question still stands: how can you can anyone a fool when you have no idea how the Holy Spirit will teach them?

        Please remember, Steve, that the article makes the following claim: “THE FOOL IS NOT CAPABLE OF OBTAINING WISDOM”. Therefore, it appears to me (but I’m willing to be shown otherwise), that the article claims that a fool could never acknowledge there is a God.

        Well, that, or maybe the writer of the article had no idea what he was talking about so he made stuff up without considering the consequences of his logic.

        I have my bet on one of those possible answers.

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        I have read the article. Please explain how that applies to my question.

        Thanks in advance.

  2. BathTub

    Reply

    It really just highlights your need to belittle others rather than work towards bringing them to Christ. Which I will assume is why you opted once again to not do the column on how effective your evangelism technique is at bringing the lost to Christ.

    I wonder if someone was to take a survey of the posts by people like carl, or the dog, to see if they were sincere attempts at reaching out to the lost or instead rather just simply more opportunities to belittle and degrade the lost, which do you think would win out?

    • BathTub

      Reply

      Ah I see a knew challenger has arrived, clearly Schrader should be on that list.

      That’s assuming it’s not another regular posting under a new name, as we’ve established Steve allows sock puppetry while calling Atheists childish for using pseudonyms.

      • Donald “The Dog” Allen

        “Stupid is as stupid does” –Forest Gump’s mama

        You have to be stupid to turn down the gift of salvation.

        Turn to Jesus for help and you will no longer be a fool. We want all the atheists to get saved and be in heaven with us.

      • Donald "The Dog" Allen

        Perdita,

        I don’t have a particular evangelism style.

      • perdita

        I wasn’t asking about your style. You’re some sort of dogged save-the-infidels type, right? Hence the name? Was that an example of your great compassion for the lost?

      • BathTub

        And once again, you find this an effective tool at bringing the fools to Christ?

      • perdita

        The Way of the Master never claims to be effective, only Biblical. Effectiveness is man-centered. Calling people fools and jack-asses because you have nothing else is Christ-centered.

      • Whateverman

        There’s another Proverb that says to answer a fool according to their folly

        You’re an idiot Steve

        What? I’m following Scripture…

        PS. this is another example of why no one takes you seriously.

    • carl

      Reply

      BathTub doesn’t like me.

      🙁

      (I don’t know how to make the emote with the dejected looking smiley face with the one tear)

      • BathTub

        If I have missed a instance of you sincerely reaching out to the lost please direct me to it.

      • Donald "The Dog" Allen

        Welcome to the club. BathTub doesn’t like me too.

      • carl

        BathTub,

        I am reaching out to you right now. I’m giving you a fist bump via my computer monitor. When you read this bump your monitor too.

        Bam! Can you feel the love?

        BTW how come you don’t like me?

      • Nohm

        Hi Donald,

        You wrote: “and hedonistic lifestyle of atheism.”

        I’ve asked you this before, without ever getting an answer: why do you think an atheist’s life is hedonistic? I’m having a very hard time seeing how anyone could say my lifestyle (of which you know absolutely nothing about) is “hedonistic” at all.

        Let’s start with this question: what does the word “hedonistic” mean to you, Donald?

      • BathTub

        carl, because you are one of the endless stream of Christians here who refuses to participate in any sort of discussion and only insults (and pats the backs of the others who insult) and then runs away.

        Again, like the actions of the Dog, if you were sincere I wouldn’t have to call you out like this, where you will pretend to be sincere for 1 post, then next posts you will go back to regular derogatory selves.

      • Donald "The Dog" Allen

        Nohm,

        Atheists live their lives in denial of God and without God. If you don’t live for God and do not live by God’s laws you are living for the flesh, which is hedonism.

      • Schmader

        The video on Youtube of Tony getting hit in the face with a burrito is typical atheist behavior. They don’t like what Tony has to say so they have to assult him. It reminds me of a PETA people dumping blood onto people who wear fur.

      • Whateverman

        The video on Youtube of Tony getting hit in the face with a burrito is typical atheist behavior

        How do you know it was thrown by an atheist, Schmader? How do you know it was typical of atheist behavior?

        For that matter, how can you know anything according to your worldview?

        PS. presupp is fun, I should do this more often…

  3. Ryk

    Reply

    I don’t mind when Christians call me a fool, I mean sticks and stones and whatnot. It just shows they have nothing of value to offer and must rely on name calling. Also one must consider the source. When some joker who thinks the world is less than 10000 years old, was spoken into existence in six days by his imaginary friend and that every animal in the world lived with in walking distance of some dudes house in the middle east, calls me a fool. I think I don’t need to value his opinion all that much.

  5. Quasar

    Reply

    Hah! I like the first one: 1. TO ASSOCIATE WITH FOOLS IS BOTH UNWISE AND UNPLEASANT.

    Yet people like Steve and Ray seem to revel in their discussions with us “fools”.

    I also like number 3: 3. FOOLISHNESS IS INHERENT IN CHILDREN AND THEREFORE PARENTS MUST KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH FOLLY WHEN IT OCCURS.

    They quote (Proverbs 22:15) for this one “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.”

    But wait… “Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

    Well I dunno about you guys, but I’m gonna take Jesus’ advice over the advice of the author of Proverbs. Aside from anything else, beating kids isn’t my thing.

    Hmm… •THE FOOL HAS NO DESIRE FOR WISDOM, AND WOULD REJECT IT EVEN IF HE COULD ACQUIRE IT BECAUSE HE HATES IT:

    Some part of me find it amusing that you deliberately sabotage your own evangelism attempts against skeptics because you presuppose we’re “fools”. If you’d just assume otherwise at the start of the conversation, we might actually get somewhere.

    It’s also funny, because the vast majority of the descriptors for “fool” only apply to atheists if you’re predisposed to assume that anyone who agree’s with you is wrong and evil and stupid. I’ve met christians who didn’t just go “oh you’re an atheist? You must be a fool”, and we actually get along quite well, even when we disagree.

    •THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED WITH HIS MONEY AND MATERIAL RESOURCES:

    … says the anti-environmentalist.

    There’s so much else that’s unintentionally hilarious in that article… I’d never be able to cover it all. Oh well, we all do the best we can with the time we’re given.

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      Steve’s an Anti-Environmentalist? I was unaware of this. Steve do you except man-made climate change? Or do you deny the countless charts, graphs, and visual imagery that show our polar ice cap is rapidly shrinking at an alarming rate because of the green house effect generated by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? I do understand that climate change is being monitored by those… foolish… scientists but visual imagery from NASA and other international, intergovernmental bodies is hard to fake, no?

      • Nohm

        Hi Schmader,

        You wrote: “Man-made climate change is a man-made myth.”

        For my own curiosity, what methodology did you use to arrive at this claim?

      • Bizzle

        I oppose MAN-MADE climate change, specifically the finding of the Kyoto Protocol, due in large part to the Oregon Petition. While I think it’s possible that Earth is warming, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus that it’s man-made and at least deserves more research.

      • vintango2k

        The only reason ‘there doesn’t seem to be a consensus’ is because there’s vested interest in keeping our current energy supply ‘as is’ and people not wanting to acknowledge this is happening. The vast majority of scientists in the fields of climate research concur that based on the evidence the conclusion for the the cause of climate change is excess CO2 and greenhouse gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. They’ve managed to eliminate cosmic radiation and solar activity as the culprits for the changes they’re observing. I do admit though, that the denialist campaign is strong if you’re siting the Oregon Petition as your reason for denying climate change, you can look up problems with the Oregon Petition if you’re interested it, duplicate names, difficult to verify identities, significant samples of signatures from scientists who were mislead into signing and would not sign it that day, people in unrelated fields, etc.

      • vintango2k

        Its sort of like DI’s “Scientific Descent from Darwinism” I think the NCSE schooled then pretty thoroughly. Its easy to do when the facts, information, research, and results are on your side.

      • Really?

        Why is it that fundamentalist Christians don’t “accept” climate change?

        Sincere question I actually don’t know the answer and would like to.

      • Bizzle

        I am asking so I can research more:

        What about the warming and cooling cycles throughout time? What about when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth? There were no SUVs then.

        I forget where I read this, but a volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gas than anything man does.

      • vintango2k

        Yes you’re right, climate changes all the time Bizzle, but there are always REASONS for why it changes, climate changes during previous eras have been explained, (given the information we’ve harvested from a variety of sources like tree ring and ice core data) as being caused by increase solar activity, volcanic erruption, asteroid impacts, etc. because of the evidence that is left behind and how we know that effects the climate. In the case of the current climate instability those alternatives to green house gas emissions have been explored and eliminated methodically which has lead to the current consensus on the cause of climate change in the modern era… green house gas emissions. These alternatives get crowed about all the time but they usually come from people who haven’t explored it any further or who are themselves ignorant on the subjects. If you want more information on the subject that isn’t too difficult to wrap your head around, the NCSE is a good place to start, they have a website and youtube channel where they address topics like Climate change and evolution.

  6. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Dear atheist friends,

    Sometimes it is necessary to use a stick as well as a carrot. I’ll be gentle as a dove and sometime use a whip. You may call this passive/agressive, but it all serves my greater attempt to get you to think “by all possible means.”

    The study for “fool” in this post is not meant to be insulting at all; I want you to see how you are viewed biblically. From now on, when I use this word, I will include a link to this post to remind you that your lack of perception that there is One higher than you, One who has a Moral Law, One who created you and everything in this world, desires to have you live and believe. If you cannot see Him through creation, well, then, you are a fool.

    As for my allowing the “jackass” comments through, you wouldn’t want me to censor them, now, would you? You’ve blasted me in the past for censoring your comments. Besides, these people were not being insulting. My daughters work with donkeys and boy, are they stubborn.

    Thanks for you undestanding. I truly do care about you, as do the the other believers on ths blog.

    • perdita

      Reply

      Neither sticks nor carrots are necessary. Evidence – that’s whats necessary.

      I want you to see how you are viewed biblically…

      Why should I care how I’m viewed biblically? Especially since there’s no evidence that the Bible or the view of Christianity you think the Bible espouses is true?

      As for my allowing the “jackass” comments through,..

      Was posting it an issue?

      I truly do care about you, as do the the other believers on ths blog.

      For the most part I don’t see that. I see a lot of lip-service about truly caring, but anything that comes across as genuine is very rare. It’s more, “I’ll pray for you jack-asses.”

    • BathTub

      Reply

      Remember how you compiled a list of question you considered great? And how you were going to answer them?

      Instead we get columns about how we are better liars, psychopaths and fools and childish cowards who hide behind pseudonyms, unlike the brave Christians like The Dog who in their Christian maturity and love of the holy spirit will mock you for your appearance and how you live with your parents (while others pat his back).

      Does any of that come across as effective evangelism technique for bringing the lost to Christ?

      Does any of that strike you as the actions of love?

      • Donald “The Dog” Allen

        I did not mock Jim for being overweight. I said if you remember, which you do, that I was concerned for his health in addition to his soul. Being overweight, playing with guns, riding motorcycles and setting small fires in your parent’s beautiful backyard can all be hazardous to longevity. You don’t think so? Let me break it down for you.

        Being overweight can lead to heart attack, hypertension, diabetes, depression and a lot of other problems that can shorter Jim’s lifespan. Playing with guns can lead to accidental death or serious injury. Riding motorcycles is dangerous because of bad drivers. A fender bender on a motorcycle can be a life ender. Finally setting fires in his parent’s backyard could get Jim kicked out of the basement or at the very least get his allowance suspended which I am sure you will agree would make him depressed. Depression can lead to a shorter lifespan. I care about Jim and so should you. I don’t want to see Jim die before he repents and turns his life over to Jesus.

        BathTub I find it hard to take your complaints seriously, so I won’t.

      • Steve Sanchez

        That was a very clear explanation on how Jim might want to assess his unhealthy and risky lifestyle before he ends up in a Sudden Death post.

      • Nohm

        Hi Donald,

        You wrote: “Finally setting fires in his parent’s backyard could get Jim kicked out of the basement or at the very least get his allowance suspended which I am sure you will agree would make him depressed.”

        As a person in a Chick tract would say, “HAW HAW HAW!!”

        You then wrote: “I care about Jim […]”

        Donald, exactly who do you expect to buy this?

      • carl

        LOL.

        Jim,

        You have to admit that you are into some rather risky enterprises.

      • carl

        Jim,

        You adverstise your real name.
        You burn Qu’rans on YouTube.
        You openly mock Scientologists.

        I hope your parents have a good security system! All I’m saying.

        🙂

        I’m going to pray for you brother.

      • BathTub

        Donald bringing attention to someone’s weight on a public forum when private methods exist is pure 100% mockery.

        And once again stop pretending you ever took anything we say seriously your actions betray your words.

      • Donald "The Dog" Allen

        BathTub,

        What private method exists? I don’t have Jim’s email. He is a big guy. I was stating the obvious. If he had red hair and I said he had red hair is that wrong?

      • Nohm

        Donald,

        I think it’s quite obvious that you’re being called out for the whole haw-haw-you-live-in-your-mom’s-basement stuff, and not “Jim is a big guy”.

        As I asked previously, exactly who do you think is buying this?

      • BathTub

        You could have contacted him through youtube, contacted him through wearesmrt, through twitter, facebook, Steve might even have been able to get you in contact with him. That’s just off the top of my head.

        If you had been sincere rather than just going for the opportunity to degrade him in a public forum

  7. Whateverman

    Reply

    The study for “fool” in this post is not meant to be insulting at all

    And yet, that is exactly how you use it.

    If a different person were to engage in this study, I’m pretty sure they’d be able to approach the topic Scripturally without being insulting. You, Steve, are unable to do this, because you hide behind Scripture to justify annoying the people who annoy you so frequently.

    “Fool”, in every context I can think of, is an insult. The Bible intended it as such, and so do you. Don’t pretend otherwise.

  9. BathTub

    Reply

    Not anyone who rejects the bible, anyone who rejects Steve’s special version of Christianity.

  10. Whateverman

    Reply

    Here’s the thing, Steve…

    I recognize your right to insult people who anger you. This is your blog, and there are people here who insult, demean and undermine your beliefs, and it’s only natural that you’d want to respond in kind. I’d expect you to insult us to one degree or another.

    The problem is that you claim you’re NOT insulting them, and trying to use Scripture to justify the words you use – as if following what’s written in a book means you’re not responsible for the actions you take

    Be a man, and admit to yourself at least that you insult us. Seriously. I don’t care whether you’re an atheist, Muslim or Christian: stop pretending you’re not reacting in anger or annoyance here.

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      Truly, the only insult I can be accused of, is agreeing with the Bible’s assesment of an atheist as a fool. I try hard NOT to insult atheists, because I understand where they are coming from and who is behind ther thoughts. If, on occasion, I sound a bit frustrated, it’s because there is nothing I can do to save you, apart from telling you what the bible says. I also understand tat if you are not chosen to believe, there is nothng I can do. Still, since I won’t know you aren’t chosen until you die and I don’t see you in Heaven, I will still try.

      If the occasional comment I make offends you, it’s for a purpose, to jar you out of your muddy thinking about who God is.

      As for the other Christians, or those who claim to be, I do censor a few really rude comments, but like the atheists comments, I let the vast majority through. Regardless, I will do a better job of being more gracious and polite and considerate. Still, there will be the occasional biting post that reflects the foolish ways of some atheists.

      Cheers!

      • vintango2k

        Hmmmm I think I’m starting to get this now, and correct me if I’m wrong.

        You are a Christian Conservative, so therefore you’ve married your religious ideology with you political ideology, (hence the passive aggressive mocking of “liberal Christians”) which seems to be of a vein similar to the Southern Baptist Convention. Because liberals and democrats tend to trust and listen to scientists and are convinced by conclusions based off of data uncovered in reality you have a dual mistrust of science as it contradicts the bible and is accepted by liberals more so than conservatives and think that it is, ‘of the devil’. You’ve demonstrated in the past that you don’t follow science, you don’t know much about science, you don’t read papers, articles, attend lectures, and seem rather incurious about subjects that you feel confident enough to disregard (even though this stuff is in reality, is part of reality, and thus is part of God’s creation and should at least… be acknowledged… by people who believe in the majesty of creation) , but yet you enjoy reaping the benefits of science (improved technology, improved medicine, improved communication) in an almost thankless manner. If you understood that men of science, many of whom were and are Christian were the ones to make discoveries pertaining to the age of the earth, the universe, etc. were faced with the intractable decision of choosing dogma over reality, in the end they had to compromise their dogma because to deny REALITY over a bronze age-book is truly the definition of FOOLISH.

      • Steve Sanchez

        I am going to copy and paste this to my original Atheist Q & A post to be answered in the future.

        Suffice it to say at this time that you are dead wrong on almost every count. I did enjoy your humorous assessment of me though. Very cute!

      • BathTub

        “I try hard NOT to insult atheists, ”

        You cannot in any way expect anyone who’s been here for more than a few minutes to believe that do you? You go out of your way to insult people. Recent examples would be my Mouldy Bathtub image, and the parade of clowns image. Just two examples of how you had to make an effort to be go out of your way to insulting.

        No wonder you can’t answer the question on Christian dishonesty straight up.

      • perdita

        I also understand tat if you are not chosen to believe, there is nothng I can do. Still, since I won’t know you aren’t chosen until you die and I don’t see you in Heaven, I will still try.

        This makes absolutely no sense. You’ve just stated that if we’re not chosen to believe there’s nothing you can do. If we are chosen to believe, then, also, there’s nothing you can do because supposedly your God takes care of that. So why the, “I will still try”?

      • Steve Sanchez

        Because I don’t know if you are chosen or not. You can still make a choice can’t you? “…whosoever believes in Him will not perish…” (Jn 3:16)

      • perdita

        If the occasional comment I make offends you, it’s for a purpose, to jar you out of your muddy thinking about who God is.

        Again, if you’re correct, then if we’re not chosen to believe, there’s nothing you can do and this is wasted. If we are chosen to believe then we’ll supposedly believe in God’s good time whether you ‘jar’ us or not.

        If we’re right, then ‘jarring’ us is a waste since it has nothing to do with evidence and reason.

      • Steve Sanchez

        The best answer for your question comes from Charles Spurgeon: “If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn’t I must preach “whosoever will” and when “whosoever” believes I know that he is one of the elect.”

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        I would be very interested to read your point of view on all of this, specifically the parts about your view of science, specifically evolution (which I mostly already know) and global warming.

      • perdita

        Because I don’t know if you are chosen or not.

        It doesn’t matter if you don’t know if I’m chosen or not. You say you preach because you are commanded to. Fine. You’ve also said it’s not your job to show me evidence. And that it’s not your job to convince me. And that only the Holy Spirit can lead someone to repentance. So what the heck are you talking about when you say, “I will still try”?

        You can’t mean preaching – you do that. You can’t mean bring me to Christ – it’s not your job. Maybe you mean pray to God to convince Him of something he’s already determined? That seems rather pointless.

        Same goes with your Spurgeon quote. (As if being one of the elect would save anyone from preaching.)

      • Bizzle

        Steve,

        These posts between you and Perdita lead me to believe you’re a Calvinist? Is that correct?

      • Steve Sanchez

        Nope. I’m a biblical Christian. I believe that all we do is 100% God, 100% man. God is sovereign, I am responsible!

        Thanks for asking!

      • Whateverman

        Nope. I’m a biblical Christian.
        Until you’re not. Then you’re just a Christian picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to adopt and which parts to ignore.

    • perdita

      Reply

      I believe that all we do is 100% God, 100% man.

      So besides logic and biology, math is another area

      • perdita

        lol – so much for my snarky comment. Probably better off un-said – feel free to not post either. (But really, 100% and 100%?)

  11. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Jim,

    I do know where you are coming from. As for me and my fellow Christians, we think that there is ample evidence, yes, even evidence from writers such as Strobel and McDowell. I’m not going to belabor this point over and over again. Romans chapter 1 says there is enough evidence as well.

    Amen?

    • Nohm

      Reply

      I think the problem here is this, Steve:

      Romans says there is enough evidence, but does not demonstrate that evidence.

      Strobel and McDowell have had it pointed out to them where they went wrong (and, let’s be clear, only McDowell presented evidence, faulty or otherwise), but have not (to my knowledge) responded to those claims.

      What would you say is the single best piece of evidence to support your beliefs?

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Ok, and what is it about the sky that you think is evidence for the existence of God? Why is it not evidence of, for example, emergent properties?

      Another question: although I understand that you agree with McDowell’s and Strobel’s conclusions, is it possible that they used flawed methodology to arrive at those conclusions?

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      No, most people believe in THEIR God, in modern times we just call it God, but of all the people I work with, each of them have their own interpretation of what God wants, what God is like, how he operates, what he demands, and how he works. None of them are the same, they’re all different, different enough that they can’t both be right. The whole reason we have science Steve is to resolve this conflict of superstition and assertions about reality. In other words to cut through the he says/she says of religion with conclusions based on evidence. The sky is a part of reality, we understand why its there and we have a working model of how it came to be. It was created in a day during a set of 7 that much we do know =)

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Steve,

      You wrote: “All smart people know that there is only One God!”

      Yet you’re not praying to Allah… hmmm.

      Anyways, I will ask the following again, hoping to get a response:

      Ok, and what is it about the sky that you think is evidence for the existence of God? Why is it not evidence of, for example, emergent properties?

      Another question: although I understand that you agree with McDowell’s and Strobel’s conclusions, is it possible that they used flawed methodology to arrive at those conclusions?

  12. Ryk

    Reply

    Actually there is no true God, but if there were it could not be yours as the Christian God has been proven false.

    • theB1ackSwan

      Reply

      “Proven” is a strong term that I don’t necessarily agree with. I prefer “Given the logical restraints we know and understand, the concept of the Christian God cannot be deduced/induced based on logical principles alone.”

      In other words, yes, classical logic shows a contradiction when it comes to a Christian deity. However, it isn’t to say it cannot exist, but we’d have to abandon all known logic to argue it.

      • ryk

        I agree with you in principle but not your definition of proof. Proof implies a methodology is in place, as it is, with formal logic, or scientific method. Now science does not prove the Christian God false, science does not deal in proof only evidence. Logic however does deal in proof and it has proven the christian God false.

        You are correct that if logic did not exist or were itself proven invalid then one could make a case for the christian God. However that has shifted the burden of proof to the God proponents to show that logic either does not exist or is invalid. Of course to do this they would have to use logic, thus proving that logic exists and if their case proved sound then they would by necessity have shown logic to be valid.

      • theB1ackSwan

        Ryk, I see your point and agree with it. I just like to make sure that proper terms are used, so I appreciate you expanding on your reasoning. 🙂

        Steve, what exactly are we denying? Your deity violates logic. A being, for one, cannot be transcendent and omnipresent at the same time.

  13. carl

    Reply

    Steve Sanchez is the real deal. He is a true Christian ™ All of you atheists should stop, collaborate and listen…

    • Whateverman

      Reply

      Steve Sanchez is the real deal. He is a true Christian
      He’s no more of a real Christian than Bill Donohue, Ray Comfort or Ted Haggard are. You’re all people who claim to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is the inspired or literal word of God – yet none of you agree about the details.

      The only ones claiming to be “Real Christians” are those whose faith is the least reliable.

    • perdita

      Reply

      Sorry, carl, but I have listened. I’m still waiting to hear something of value.

      I have not found anything in reality that supports your version of Christianity. I cannot believe things once they’re shown to be false.

  14. Ryk

    Reply

    Scmaeder

    Your insult that the burrito throwing is “typical atheist behavior” is no different than saying that lying, murdering, bombing, and child rape are typical Christian behaviors.

    So really a murdering child rapist has no room to criticize me for throwing burritos.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *