Atheist Tuesday: Seek the Lord!

Apr 5, 2011Steve Sanchez71 CommentsAtheist Tuesday

Periodically, in my daily reading of Charles Spurgeon’s devotional called “Morning and Evening,” I’ll come across one penned especially for the unbeliever. I read this on April 1 but thought it appropriate to post now as an encouragement to the non-born-again who visit here. I hope you enjoy it.

“It is time to seek the Lord.”
Hosea 10:12

This month of April is said to derive its name from the Latin verb aperio, which signifies to open, because all the buds and blossoms are now opening, and we have arrived at the gates of the flowery year. Reader, if you are yet unsaved, may your heart, in accord with the universal awakening of nature, be opened to receive the Lord.

Every blossoming flower warns you that it is time to seek the Lord; be not out of tune with nature, but let your heart bud and bloom with holy desires. Do you tell me that the warm blood of youth leaps in your veins? then, I entreat you, give your vigour to the Lord. It was my unspeakable happiness to be called in early youth, and I could fain praise the Lord every day for it. Salvation is priceless, let it come when it may, but oh! an early salvation has a double value in it.

Young men and maidens, since you may perish ere you reach your prime, “It is time to seek the Lord.”

Ye who feel the first signs of decay, quicken your pace: that hollow cough, that hectic flush, are warnings which you must not trifle with; with you it is indeed time to seek the Lord.

Did I observe a little grey mingled with your once luxurious tresses? Years are stealing on apace, and death is drawing nearer by hasty marches, let each return of spring arouse you to set your house in order. Dear reader, if you are now advanced in life, let me entreat and implore you to delay no longer. There is a day of grace for you now—be thankful for that, but it is a limited season and grows shorter every time that clock ticks.

Here in this silent chamber, on this first night of another month, I speak to you as best I can by paper and ink, and from my inmost soul, as God’s servant, I lay before you this warning, “It is time to seek the Lord.” Slight not that work, it may be your last call from destruction, the final syllable from the lip of grace.

Comments (71)

Hugo
April 5, 2011
Reply
Here’s one thing I will never understand about preachers like you Steve.
On the one hand, if I ask you why you are so afraid of death and/or hell, you reply that you are not, because you are saved. However, at the same time, you implore others to turn toward God to be saved.
This, to me, appears as a contradiction, be it a very subtle one. The idea is that you can pretend as much as you want that you are not afraid, but the fact that you project that fear onto others tell a lot more about you then you think.
It also shows another thing: you do not understand that a person can, sincerely, honestly, genuinely, have absolutely no fear of spending eternity in hell, for the simple reason that this person does not believe such a place exists.
To you, atheists appear as people who only ‘pretend’ to not believe in God, but to me, you are someone who not only pretend, but explicitly shows, that he does not believe atheists, especially strong atheists, exist.
It’s weird because one is immaterial and impossible to both prove/disprove, while the other wrote the words you just read.
- Steve Sanchez
  April 5, 2011
  Reply
  Hugo,
  That’s correct; we believers do not fear Hell because the penalty for our sin has been paid. And yes, you are also correct that we implore others to be saved from Hell. We do this for at least 2 reasons:
  1. God commands us to do that (Mark 16:15 and elsewhere)
  2. We care about unbelievers. We don’t want you t o go to Hell.
  I do believe that you don’t fear Hell and that you believe it doesn’t exist; nevertheless, I’ll still warn you. See my appropriate analogy to explain why I warn you here.
  The reason that we believe that you know abut God is because Scripture explicitly says you do in Romans 1:18-28.
  And here’s the reason I won’t/can’t/shouldn’t give you proof.
  Thanks.
perdita
April 5, 2011
Reply
Meh. Blatant emotional appeals without substance don’t really do anything for me.
BathTub
April 5, 2011
Reply
Careful Steve, or you’ll start to obsess over Dawkins like Ray does.
- Steve Sanchez
  April 5, 2011
  Reply
  Obsess? Can’t you see that Spurgeon is pleading with him and Hitchens to repent? And you, too?
Garrett
April 5, 2011
Reply
Steve, you have to understand that you are requesting a lifestyle change but, for whatever reason, cannot give evidence of why we should acquiesce. That might work on noncommittal types that have a vague belief in a god, but it will not work on someone that either doesn’t believe in a god or demands evidence to switch over.
Change your approach, or stop approaching us. It’s insulting to think doing this over and over is going to a different outcome than the other dozen appeals to fear you’ve tried on us. In fact, I think that’s the definition of insanity, isn’t it…
vintango2k
April 5, 2011
Reply
I ponder how Spurgeon’s message would be any different if he was calling non-believers to believe in any other religion, like say Islam or Hinduism. Did anyone watch Ray Comfort on the Atheist Experience, you can see it on Youtube, its pretty interesting. Poor Ray, they were trying to reach him but he just wouldn’t listen….
Nohm
April 5, 2011
Reply
Shorter Spurgeon:
“Are you, like me, afraid of death? If not, then let me see if I can get you to that fear, because I’ve… got a deal… for you!”
- Steve Sanchez
  April 5, 2011
  Reply
  Nohm,
  Fail!
Robert Moss
April 5, 2011
Reply
Hey Steve,
I took one of your past challenges to place a Gospel tract in a unique place. I videoed it on you tube and it is on my facebook profile. I did it in a public Bathroom stall.
Nohm
April 5, 2011
Reply
Correct, Spurgeon did fail in getting an emotional reaction out of me.
Fear-mongering is, fortunately, ineffectual on me.
Vagon
April 6, 2011
Reply
Generally if you want to make an argument you should post the opposite and make conclusions based off it. this will help you to think clearer and reach an understanding so that you might achieve your goals. Lets see if your thinking was clear:
—
This month of April is said to derive its name from the Latin verb aperio, which signifies to open, because all the buds and blossoms are now opening, and we have arrived at the gates of the flowery year. Reader, if you are yet unaware, may your brain, in accord with the earthly awakening of nature, become more active.
Every blossoming flower warns you that it is time to understand evolution; be not out of tune with nature, but let your brain comprehend reproduction with variation. Do you tell me that the warm blood of youth leaps in your veins? then, I entreat you, give your vigour to thought. It was my unspeakable happiness to be called in early youth, and I could fain praise the education system every day for it. Knowledge is priceless, let it come when it may, but oh! an early understanding has a double value in it.
Young men and maidens, since you may perish ere you reach your prime, it is time you stop wasting one seventh of it.
Ye who feel the first signs of decay, quicken your pace: that hollow cough, that hectic flush, are warnings which you must not trifle with; with you it is indeed time to to stop wasting one seventh of it.
Did I observe a little grey mingled with your once luxurious tresses? Years are stealing on apace, and death is drawing nearer by hasty marches, let each return of spring arouse you to set your house in order. Dear reader, if you are now advanced in life, let me entreat and implore you to worship no longer. There is an extra day for you now—be thankful for that, but it is a limited season and grows shorter every time that clock ticks.
Here in this silent chamber, on this first night of another month, I speak to you as best I can by paper and ink, and from my inmost thought, as a free man, I lay before you this warning, its time to stop wasting your life. Slight not that work, it may be your last call from misapplication, the final syllable from the lip of truth.
—
Have you renounced your faith and decided to not waste your time on arbitrary imaginings Steve? If not you have failed to think clearly before posting.
- Steve Sanchez
  April 6, 2011
  Reply
  Nohm, Thanks for the clarification. I can accept that Spurgeon failed to evoke an emotional response from you.
  Vagon, Very interesting rewrite. You may want to consider writing your own meditations for unbelieving evolutionists. Title: “The Devil’s Devotional”
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Nohm, Truth seems to have the same effect on you.
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn, I’ll let you know its effect when you present some.
Or, in other words, “same to you, buddy”.
(Glenn, your “Truth” isn’t reality simply because you assert it to be. I can make the same silly assertion towards you, and it means just as much: absolutely nothing.)
- Steve Sanchez
  April 6, 2011
  Reply
  Good job researching this you guys.
  Nohm, were you one of the “naughty kids” that went to the school? 🙂
Garrett
April 6, 2011
Reply
His argument in tatters, Steve resorts to childish name-calling.
Will he ever follow up an argument with persuasive retorts? Find out next week on “As the Preacher Gets Stoned.”
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Nohm, evidence of God’s existence is everywhere. You fail to see the plot of the greatest novel ever written because you’re consumed with all the possible meanings of every word. Put down your dictionary and just read the book.
perdita
April 6, 2011
Reply
Garrett – Steve’s comment makes more sense under the ‘student forbidden to share faith post’. It actually is just a joke.
Lark
April 6, 2011
Reply
Do I fear death? For myself, not at all. As a Christian, my eternity is secured by the Blood of the Savior, Jesus Christ. My sins are covered by His sacrifice and my name is written in His Book of Life.
Do I fear death? For the fool who says in his heart “there is no God”, yes. As an atheist who sincerely believes there is nothing after death, you are in for a rude awakening on that day when you realize all your hubris brought you to despair. You were wrong in your strong belief.
What I feel concerning your fate isn’t really fear – rather it is a certain dread for you, like watching a train wreck in slow motion on TV in some other area of the country. I know that train wreck isn’t going to affect my personal life, it probably won’t even affect my friends and extended family in any personal way, but my heart hurts for all the people who are caught in that calamity, knowing that their world has been shattered and many have lost their lives.
You are like a person who stands on the train tracks, refusing to believe there in the existence of trains, insisting there will never be a train coming along, let alone a train wreck. We are the people telling you there’s a train coming for certain and you should get off the track. What is more, you are like the person who refuses to believe there ever was a train, even when you can hear the hum of the tracks as it approaches. Even when the conductor blows the horn, you refuse to believe the evidence before you that says “THERE’S A TRAIN, GET OFF THE TRACKS NOW”. Soon, it is too late, because that train didn’t stop for you. You are without excuse.
The Judgment of God is coming on this world like a massive train. The unsaved are still milling about on the track. If you will not consider your own peril with fear and trembling, we have no recourse but to leave you to your fate. But we will not do so with a smile and a wave saying “what ever you believe is fine with us. Go on your way, and be happy”. Let it never be said you weren’t warned.
It really doesn’t matter how much you don’t believe in God. He could manifest a physical body before you, perform miracles of every sort, heal the sick, raise the dead, give a home to every homeless child, declare Himself to you in every possible way, and you will still not believe – because you do not want to believe. He knows your heart and He has already given you ever proof necessary for belief and faith. When you refuse Him unto death, when you die with the stain of your sin still upon you, you will have no excuse.
We urge you to turn away from your sin, believe in Christ, whom God raised from the dead, and receive salvation from the wrath that is coming. You are not assured of the next hour, let alone tomorrow. Do it while there is still time. If you don’t, you will die in your sin and receive the full penalty for it.
Hugo
April 6, 2011
Reply
@Glenn
– I believe I exist
– I believe you exist
– We both have unique minds that are able to think
– Using some communication mechanism, like the internet, we are able to share thoughts that we have in our minds
– We do this in this thing we call ‘reality’, the real world, where we can agree on certain things that are independant of us and our minds
Now, if you agree with these basic principles, can you please name and explain some of these “evidence of God’s existence” that are “everywhere” in the REAL world we share? Where in your ‘book’ I call reality do you find these evidence?
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Hugo,
Pardon me, I am not sure we do live in the same reality. The evidence is called “nature”. It’s called everything you’ve ever thought, seen, felt, tasted, smelled, and heard. It’s called the neurons and synapses in your mind that let you blaspheme God’s name. For short, you can just call it Hugo.
Garrett
April 6, 2011
Reply
Oh, thanks Perdita. I haven’t been following that post. Sorry to jump the gun, Steve.
perdita
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn, but how is it evidence for any god? How is it evidence for your particular God and not some other? Why should we consider this evidence for your particular brand of Christianity and not any other?
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
“Nohm, were you one of the “naughty kids” that went to the school?”
Heh, like I said, I was in the same school district. No, I did not go to that school (Gateway East… I’ve never heard about it until now, and I’m guessing it didn’t even exist back when I was in high school), nor did I ever get suspended/expelled/whatever.
I was a total nerd in high school with my nose always stuck in a book; I don’t think I ever got it any trouble in school.
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote:
“Nohm, evidence of God’s existence is everywhere.”
You have not substantiated this. You are simply asserting it. Therefore, it is not persuasive. What you see as “evidence of God’s existence” I see as emergent properties.
Why should I accept your assertion over my conclusion?
If I said that the evidence that the Quran is the one and only holy book inspired by God is everywhere, would that be persuasive to you?
If your answer is “no”, then why would you expect the equivalent to be persuasive to a non-Christian?
It’s one thing to assert that the evidence is everywhere, and it’s a very different thing to demonstrate it. Until you do the latter, it is difficult for me to take your assertion seriously.
“You fail to see the plot of the greatest novel ever written”
I disagree. I see the plot, I just don’t think (1) it matches with reality and (2) it’s a well-written plot. I also don’t think the Bible is anywhere close to “the greatest novel ever written”, but then I’m not a Christian.
“because you’re consumed”
Mind-reading again. Goodness. I simply don’t understand why, after failure upon failure at trying to do this, you would continue.
You don’t have mind-reading powers, Glenn. You’re not Professor X.
“with all the possible meanings of every word.”
As opposed to… what, exactly?
“Put down your dictionary and just read the book.”
Been there, done that. It’s one of the main reasons I lost my faith in the first place.
Let me clarify that: As a Christian, it was the study of the Bible that was a major part in my loss of faith.
Christopher
April 6, 2011
Reply
Hi Lark
You wrote “As a Christian, my eternity is secured by the Blood of the Savior, Jesus Christ. My sins are covered by His sacrifice and my name is written in His Book of Life.”
Ah but you see Glenn and Steve are not like you. They do NOT worship Christ they worship their own egos. For example they refuse to admit that they can be wrong about their interpretation of scripture.
Which would make them infallible. What else is that but ego worship?
Christopher
April 6, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
You wrote “The evidence is called “nature”. It’s called everything you’ve ever thought, seen, felt, tasted, smelled, and heard. It’s called the neurons and synapses in your mind that let you blaspheme God’s name. For short, you can just call it Hugo.”
God created Hugo? I thought Mr. & Mrs. Hugo senior did that.
Oh and as to your interpretation of nature can you be wrong about that Glenn? Can you be in error? Or do you STILL worship your ego?
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Lark wrote:
“As an atheist who sincerely believes there is nothing after death, you are in for a rude awakening on that day when you realize all your hubris brought you to despair. You were wrong in your strong belief.”
1. “Sincerely” has nothing to do with it.
2. You assume hubris… please provide evidence, or admit to failed mind-reading.
3. “Strong” also has nothing to do with it.
4. Are you just going to assert your beliefs, or attempt to demonstrate that they are true? It appears that you are just doing the former.
Lark wrote:
“He could manifest a physical body before you, perform miracles of every sort, heal the sick, raise the dead, give a home to every homeless child, declare Himself to you in every possible way, and you will still not believe – because you do not want to believe.”
(Emphasis added)
Failed mind-reading AGAIN!!! What is with you guys?! Why do you do this? That statement of yours makes NO SENSE. Who cares whether or not I want to believe? Does what I want have any effect on reality?
No, it does not.
If God did any of the things you presented, I would believe.
He has not.
Posts such as yours are extremely dispersuasive; I come away from them even more sure that, if God existed, He would not pick someone such as yourself to be an ambassador.
“We urge you to turn away from your sin, believe in Christ, whom God raised from the dead, and receive salvation from the wrath that is coming. ”
But…
1. You give no evidence that “sin” exists, except to point to your holy book. Muslims can point to their holy book to support their assertions, but that doesn’t convince you, correct?
2. You give no evidence that a “Christ” has ever existed, or that there is a good reason to believe in Him, except to point to your holy book. Muslims can point to their holy book to support their assertions, but that doesn’t convince you, correct?
3. You give no evidence that He was risen from the dead, except to point to your holy book. Muslims can point to their holy book to support their assertions, but that doesn’t convince you, correct?
4. You give no evidence that there is a “wrath” coming to get “salvation” from, except to point to your holy book. Muslims can point to their holy book to support their assertions, but that doesn’t convince you, correct?
Lark, if a Muslim told you that you’re standing on the train tracks, avoiding obeying the pillars of Islam, and you say that the train doesn’t exist, would that be persuasive to you?
Why, or why not?
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote: “<i.The evidence is called “nature”.”
Glenn, please support your claim that “nature” is evidence of a God. Currently, you’re just asserting it, and I don’t understand why you think I’d find that persuasive.
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Nohm,
Nature is not *proof* of God, just evidence of Him. You and I are *very* different from everything other species on this planet in myriad ways; not the least of these ways is I have never seen one dog trying to convince another of his opinion. You have asked for evidence. You have the evidence. It screams DESIGN in a 4×10^12 point font. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence does not diminish the evidence; nor is that the fault of the evidence.
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Christopher,
Wow. So you think 2 humans created Hugo? Hmmm. Do you think they can create another one exactly like him? What do you think are the chances? Have you thought about this at all? I suspect that you have never grieved over your own inability to produce a child, when the doctors could find no reason that you and your wife couldn’t? I suppose you also think that it’s within your own power to create life?
I wonder, Christopher, if you can locate anyone who can tell you how an oak tree comes out of an acorn? I don’t mean dazzle me with botany terms that humans have invented. I mean explain it.
Christopher, do you understand that I am not claiming that I have done anything? You are claiming to pronounce judgment on the concept of God. Whose ego is really doing the talking here?
Glenn Parker
April 6, 2011
Reply
Perdita,
How is it evidence for any god?
In the same way that this post I am typing is evidence for a human author. Could you be convinced that my 2 year old wrote this sentence? How about my dog? Even more ludicrous, how about if I filled a hat with letters, threw them in the air, and the letters fell in the form of this answer to your question? How about a bug in the WordPress PHP script inserted this randomly-generated post in Pastor Steve’s forum?
No. Those are all ludicrous. I couldn’t convince any sane person that the faces on Mount Rushmore came about through erosion, and yet “learned” people believe that the people that those carvings are based on came about by chance?
As I was telling Nohm, there are innumerable differences between us and the “animals”. Can you find any animal that could not survive without making its own clothes? We couldn’t survive without parental care well into our teens. Do you really think that this sort of thing supports evolution? Can you find any animal that designs furniture to sit on? What about animals that have political systems? Ever seen an all-animal jury or some sort of trial taking place over alleged infractions? What about any animals who build schools so other animals can come and learn what all animals should know? No you can’t. It has nothing to do with “the distance of time” or any of the other nonsense coming from our pillars of learning. It is amazing to me that we have to have this discussion.
What you must understand is that this is not an intellectual matter. Very well-educated people exist on both sides of the theological fence.
How is it evidence for your particular God and not some other?
Why should we consider this evidence for your particular brand of Christianity and not any other?
If you were in a position to decide on which god, perhaps I would answer this. However, since you don’t believe in any god, I will wait for your response to the above.
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn,
1. I did not ask for “proof” of God, nor did I ever state that I thought you were providing proof. You said nature was evidence of God, and I simply asked you to demonstrate your claim.
I’m still waiting.
2. Every species can be viewed to be *very* different from every other species, if you focus on a part of them. You’re pointing out that humans are very intelligent and can use language. Well, birds fly without requiring technology, and we can’t do that. So, what’s the point?
3. Please show your work as to how you got “4×10^12”. Here’s the problem: I know where you got that number, and I know why the calculation of that number is horribly flawed. Do you know why people like myself think that calculation is flawed? (Hint: it rhymes with “strawnan”).
4. Again, you say “DESIGN”, I say “emergent properties”. Why should I accept your bare assertion over my conclusion?
5. Are you going to at least attempt to demonstrate the evidence, and how it’s evidence for the God that you believe in?
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
One last question, Glenn. How do you differentiate something that is designed from something that is not designed? Please detail the steps.
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
While this was written to Christopher, I’d like to weigh in with my responses also.
Glenn wrote:
“So you think 2 humans created Hugo?”
Yes, his parents. I’m hoping that you’re not going to try to equivocate on the word “created”.
“Hmmm.”
?
“Do you think they can create another one exactly like him?”
Of course not. Do you have any examples of this EVER happening?
“What do you think are the chances?”
I can’t even begin to calculate them, as there are so many variables involved.
Do you know anyone who is claiming the ability to create another human exactly like Hugo? Or is this a strawman?
“Have you thought about this at all?”
I can’t speak for Christopher, but I definitely have, starting in 1997.
“I suspect that you have never grieved over your own inability to produce a child,”
I’ve never gotten tested for sterility, nor have I ever attempted to have a child, so I can’t speak on this. I do have a friend who is unable to conceive, though.
“when the doctors could find no reason that you and your wife couldn’t?”
I would phrase this as “when the doctors could not yet find a reason that you and your wife couldn’t?”
Just because some doctors couldn’t find a reason, doesn’t mean (1) that no doctor can or (2) that there isn’t a reason.
In ancient times, people didn’t know the reason for the sun rising and setting, and so they made up all sorts of supernatural explanations.
1. Were any of them correct?
2. Because their explanations were incorrect, or for those who had no explanation at the time, does that mean that there was no explanation?
“I suppose you also think that it’s within your own power to create life?”
As long as I’m not sterile and I have a willing partner, yes. Just like your parents, Glenn.
(Again, I’m hoping that you’re not going to try some equivocation trickeration here, because that would be weak.)
“I wonder, Christopher, if you can locate anyone who can tell you how an oak tree comes out of an acorn?”
I would assume that he, like me, can. You’re basically asking, “how do plants grow from seeds?” Many textbooks can explain this.
“I don’t mean dazzle me with botany terms that humans have invented.”
Then what else were you looking for? Not just botany terms, but I know of people who can give you a step-by-step explanation. But if you wanted to know this information, you could easily research it. That you’re asking some guy named “Christopher” on an evangelism blog about it… seems strange.
“I mean explain it.”
It appears that your definition of “explain” is non-standard. What exactly are you asking here? What do you, Glenn, mean by explain? If I asked you to explain how objects fall to earth, but I say “I don’t mean dazzle me with physics terms that humans have invented”, isn’t that a bit disingenuous?
Christopher
April 6, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
You wrote “Christopher,
Wow. So you think 2 humans created Hugo? Hmmm.”
Yes Glenn it’s called reproduction. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
Glen then went on “Do you think they can create another one exactly like him? What do you think are the chances?”
Not just like him but very similar. Such a person would be known as a sibling. Didn’t your parents ever give you a talk about the birds and bees?
Glenn then rambled “Have you thought about this at all? I suspect that you have never grieved over your own inability to produce a child, when the doctors could find no reason that you and your wife couldn’t? I suppose you also think that it’s within your own power to create life?”
Two poibnt’s
1) We are talking about fertile human beings here as you well know. Or are you unable to comprehend that some humans are fertile and some infertile?
2) It’s within everyone’s power to create life. It’s called reproduction as I pointed out before.
Glenn then wrote “I wonder, Christopher, if you can locate anyone who can tell you how an oak tree comes out of an acorn? I don’t mean dazzle me with botany terms that humans have invented. I mean explain it.”
Yep. It’s called reproduction. I believe we’ve covered this. It’s just that plants don’t use the same means of reproduction as we do. Now that was easy wasn’t it?
Glenn concluded by writing “Christopher, do you understand that I am not claiming that I have done anything? You are claiming to pronounce judgment on the concept of God. Whose ego is really doing the talking here?”
Another two points:
1) I am NOT an atheist. I have pointed this out to you THREE times. When are you going to stop trying to deceive people over this? I am a zoroastrian! They believe in God!
2) When I was disagreeing with you in a previous thread you wrote that I was disagreeing with God. That would imply that you are God QED!
Care to tell some more whoppers?
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote:
“[“Nature” is evidence of God] In the same way that this post I am typing is evidence for a human author.”
How is your post in any possible way analogous to nature?
How do we analyze a blog comment in a way that is even remotely similar to how we analyze nature?
It’s my opinion that you’ve made a false analogy, because the only thing these two things (“nature” and your blog comment) supposedly have in common is the very conclusion you’re trying to reach.
It’s like me saying that a human and a rock are the same because neither is made by God. Persuasive to you? Of course not, and it shouldn’t be.
“I couldn’t convince any sane person that the faces on Mount Rushmore came about through erosion,”
Of course not, because, and I want to make a point of this, no one claims that the faces came about that way.
No one is arguing whether or not those faces were designed by a human. We have many examples of things made by humans, which is how we determine what is not designed. In the watchmaker argument, we notice the watch in the sand because it stands out from the natural objects around it.
While you haven’t answered my question as to how we determine design, I’ll answer it: we compare it to natural objects.
As I said, we have a lot of examples of human-designed objects. We don’t have any examples of Diety-designed objects.
When you have a method of determining whether or not something has been designed by a diety, please present the method.
“and yet “learned””
Har Har.
“people believe that the people that those carvings are based on came about by chance?”
NO, Glenn, NO. Take your strawman somewhere else, maybe put it with Ray’s “street version” of evolution, because they appear to be similar.
The theory of evolution does not claim that the presidents “came about by chance”. That’s your, and Steve’s, and Ray’s, and many other creationists’, silly obnoxious laughable mind-spinning he-can’t-be-serious no-researching pile-of-stinking-garbage imaginary version of the theory.
As I’ve said multiple times:
If I thought the theory of evolution is what you think the theory of evolution is? I’d also think it was a load of bunk.
Until you actually read what the theory is by the people claiming the theory (and ohhh I remember this conversation on your blog, Glenn), you’re basically asking the equivalent of, “But if Mary was God’s sister, then why was Moses able to split the moon?”
Makes no sense, right? Right.
Nohm
April 6, 2011
Reply
In my last comment to Glenn, I wrote:
“While you haven’t answered my question as to how we determine design”
While it wasn’t intended to be a jab, I understand that it can be read as such, especially given the context.
I also recognize that my question only got posted recently, and it’s entirely understandable that Glenn could have responded to it, and it just hasn’t gotten posted by the time I wrote my last comment.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Christopher
April 6, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
If you are really ignorant of plant reproduction I suggest you go to google and type in “Plant reproduction for kids”.
Lots of sites will come up that will explain, in general terms, how a tree is able to reproduce…yes Glenn, even an oak tree. 🙂
If you find such websites providing insufficient information I suggest you go to a botanical site and ask them your questions Glenn. I’m sure they can explain the process step by step without using any of those gosh darn scientific terms you find so meaningless.
Hows about them apples Glenn?
Now here’s a question for you? If human reproduction isn’t a human activity how is it that we can see it happening under a microscope?
Garrett
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn, of course we’re different in many ways from other species. That’s why we have the “species” category to begin with.
Vagon
April 6, 2011
Reply
Lark said:
“Do I fear death? For the fool who says in his heart “there is no God”, yes. As an atheist who sincerely believes there is nothing after death, you are in for a rude awakening on that day when you realize all your hubris brought you to despair. You were wrong in your strong belief.”
Read Matthew 5:22. Even if there was a possible way for your imagination to make hell a reality, I would still see you at the barbecue. Whoops.
Vagon
April 6, 2011
Reply
Thanks Steve.
I was thinking of calling it “A Short Account of Evangelists’ Imaginations with the Atheist Vagon” but your suggestion is catchier.
perdita
April 6, 2011
Reply
Glenn, basically, your saying that it must be a god (we haven’t gotten to God yet), because you can’t imagine it happening any other way. Is that about it?
Regarding your long list of us v animals, it seems that the differences are in degree rather than kind. While our political, judicial, and social systems are more developed than other animals, the things you suggest are seen in rudimentary forms in certain ape populations. Apes have leaders and allegiances. Apes have a sense of fairness and punish infractions. Apes learn from other apes.
Christopher
April 7, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
One more thing I thought I should comment on.
You wrote “You are claiming to pronounce judgment on the concept of God. Whose ego is really doing the talking here?””
I’m NOT pronouncing judgement on THE conception of God. I’m saying that YOUR conception of God is irrational. A HUGE difference there.
See Glenn you could be mistaken about God. That doesn’t mean that God is wrong just YOUR conception of God. The two are NOT the same!
Glenn and Steve are NOT Infallible and can make mistakes about God and even [shock, horro] about the bible and it’s correct interpretation.
To claim otherwise is nothing but an exercise in ego worship.
Now you might reply “well YOU can make mistakes as well”. Of course I can. I’m a human being. All human beings can make mistakes. Therefore I can make mistakes.
Can you agree that you can make mistakes as well Glenn? Or are you too far into Ego worship? How about you Steve? Can you agree that you can make mistakes? Or does the ego worship charge stand for you as well?
Christopher
April 7, 2011
Reply
In my comment to Glenn dated April 6, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I asked “If human reproduction isn’t a human activity how is it that we can see it happening under a microscope?”
I should rephrase that “If human reproduction isn’t a human activity how is it that we can see it happening under a microscope after a female’s egg has been fertilised by male sperm?”
Apologies to anyone who was confused.
Bizzle
April 7, 2011
Reply
It’s always a good morning when I wake up and read trickeration in a post. Thanks Nohm, you made my day.
perdita
April 7, 2011
Reply
Glenn, response to paragraph 1:
I don’t mistake you for a two-year-old, a dog, or a hat full of letters, because I have experience with communicating with adults, two-year-olds and dogs. I also have some experience with how hats full of letters work. I haven’t heard of any bugs that replicate human communication and I don’t think AE has yet been developed suficiently to pass as human. That doesn’t mean you aren’t artificial, just that it would be unlikely.
I don’t have any similar sort of experience for any sort of supernatural event or any god. I have found that what passes for supernatural experience is at odds with our understanding of how a casual universe works. I have also found that many ‘supernatural’ experiences can be replicated in natural ways or can be accounted for with mundane natural explanations.
perdita
April 7, 2011
Reply
(note to Steve. God was not capitalized because we are still talking generic hypothetical god and not your God.)
Nohm
April 7, 2011
Reply
Glad you enjoyed it, Bizzle. 🙂
To clarify, the reason why I talk about possible “trickeration” there is because it’s been my experience in having discussions with Muslims that, when they start bringing up the question of “can you create a human?” that the word “create” starts becoming a moving target until they get to the point where I have to answer “no”, at which point they do a “Gotcha! Only God can do that! Therefore, God exists!”
Which… doesn’t work.
Christopher
April 7, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn & Lark
Let’s define our terms first shall we?
When I am using the word create what I mean is “Cause to exist” [from The Encyclopedic Dictionary]. That would seem to include human reproduction. Don’t you agree?
Glenn Parker
April 7, 2011
Reply
Christopher,
Vocabulary is not understanding. I will simply paraphrase Richard Feynman:
You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.
Glenn Parker
April 7, 2011
Reply
Christopher,
Can we really cause anything to exist? I mean, sure, a man and a woman are required for a baby to come into being. But unless you are aware of some new science, there is certainly no guarantee. And you absolutely cannot determine what that life will look like if and when it does occur. So, I would have to say that although we can mix the ingredients in a bowl, until we have some control over what happens, we are not “causing” something to exist, in the strictest sense.
It would be analogous to putting a seed in the ground and watering it. Did we cause it to grow? Well, you could say we were the reason it ended up where it did, and we put water on it. However, there is a mystery that no human understands that takes place in that seed to make it grow.
Glenn Parker
April 7, 2011
Reply
perdita,
You said “I haven’t heard of any bugs that replicate human communication and I don’t think AE has yet been developed suficiently to pass as human. That doesn’t mean you aren’t artificial, just that it would be unlikely.”
So, would you say that a computer simulation, where a human DEFINES and controls every variable, should be able to demonstrate the principles of evolution? Yes, I suppose you agree, and so do scientists. And yet, they aren’t. Even the very scientists who write simulation programs, and who limit the “animal” to just a few parameters to keep it as easy to manage as possible, EVEN THOSE people cannot get it to work. To say that evolution is an attack on intelligence is putting it mildly.
You said “I have found that what passes for supernatural experience is at odds with our understanding of how a casual universe works”. Actually, that’s a good point. Why should the universe be uniform? If we really are created by randomness, why don’t some people live to be 500? Why doesn’t someone occasionally run a 1 minute mile? Why don’t people sometimes come back to life after dying? Why don’t people just randomly die for no apparent reason? Shouldn’t all these things happen in a universe that is not governed, or that propagates but “advances” in species? Further, a millisecond after someone dies, isn’t everything necessary for life still there? Where’s the life? Why can’t you go get a body that’s been dead for a few hours and make it live? What does it need to live? Even if you make the heart pump, why doesn’t the consciousness return?
I suppose you meant “causal” universe, right? In other words, cause precedes effect. That’s a good start. What caused the universe? Better yet, what caused life? Why do you exist? Why do you care what anyone else thinks? Why do you have an innate understanding that there is something greater than you? Why do you think that civil is better than war? Why do you cry when someone you care about dies? Do you honestly think you are just one big chemical reaction?
Garrett
April 7, 2011
Reply
Why are you so concerned about being a series of chemical reactions?
Does it scare you so much that you’ll buy into anything to take you away from such a reality?
perdita
April 7, 2011
Reply
Glenn – I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in paragraph 2.
Paragraph 3, You’re so way off I’m not sure how to real you back in.
I suppose you meant “causal” universe
Typo, yes. So I can just ignore paragraph 3? Good, because you were trippy.
Do you honestly think you are just one big chemical reaction?
You’re getting trippy again. Obviously, no. I understand that you feel better by answering those questions with “God.” To me, that just stops the questions rather than actually answering any of them.
Do you have a positive evidence for your God, or is this just “You can’t answer all the big questions, therefore God”?
perdita
April 7, 2011
Reply
err…. Meant to say, “Just a big chemical reaction? Obviously, no.
perdita
April 7, 2011
Reply
err. err. Of course, I also meant to close the italics after “just.”
Nohm
April 7, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote: “If we really are created by randomness,
I can’t speak for perdita, but I’m a determinist, so everything after and including this sentence is a strawman.
“What caused the universe?”
I don’t know.
“Better yet, what caused life?”
I don’t know.
“Why do you exist?”
Because my brain is functioning.
“Why do you care what anyone else thinks?”
Because I find what people think to be interesting, especially if they think differently than I do. If you want the meta-answer, then it’s because of the deterministic result of the emergent properties of neurons.
“Why do you have an innate understanding that there is something greater than you?”
Define “greater” in that context.
If your question is basically “Why do you have an innate understanding that there is a God?”, then my answer would be:
I don’t.
Christopher
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn
Sophist that you are you wrote “Vocabulary is not understanding.”
Correcrt as far as it goes. Scientific jargon is merely a shorthand way of describing a process. Instead of giving the same description of a process over and over again they use the scientific terms.
So what you wrote is just shere sophistry.
Try again.
Christopher
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glen obfuscated “Can we really cause anything to exist? I mean, sure, a man and a woman are required for a baby to come into being. But unless you are aware of some new science, there is certainly no guarantee. ”
You do not have to have a guarantee in order for me to correctly assert that a man and a woman create a child. The term “create” may be defined as bringing into existence. No guarantee necessary.
If you want it put out in plain langayge when a couple attempt reproduction and FAIL they have UNSUCCESSFULLY attempted to create a child. If they try and succeed they have SUCCESSFULLY attempted same.
You then tried to shift the goal posts by writing “And you absolutely cannot determine what that life will look like if and when it does occur.”
Irrelevant! A couple procreating are meeting the definition of creation. Anything hich meets the definition of a thing is that thing. Procreation meets one of the definitions of creation therefore it IS creation. Procreate and create are synonyms. Any other claim or assertion is shere sophistry.
Glenn tried to mislead us by asserting “So, I would have to say that although we can mix the ingredients in a bowl, until we have some control over what happens, we are not “causing” something to exist, in the strictest sense.”
What a load of rubbish. If I mix certain ingredients in a bowl I have created a cake. If I bring together sperm and egg and the result is the egg is fertilised I have created life.
Glenn then tried to muddy the issue by writing “It would be analogous to putting a seed in the ground and watering it. Did we cause it to grow?”
There is a big difference. See the sperm comes from ME the EGG from a woman. We may well come together with the intention of creating new life. According to you even if we succeed we’ve created NOTHING because Glenn has changed the definition of the word “create” to a whole new meaning.
I repeat the word “create” may be defined as to bring forth or produce. If a couple produce a child they have created that child by that definition.
If you disagree with the definition perhaps you should go and inform the writers of dictionaries. Tell them YOU can’t be wrong…your EGO tells you that you MUST be right so obviously you are. I’m sure they’ll agree. 🙂
Christopher
April 8, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
Let’s look at the dictionary definition shall we?
Synonyms (Grouped by Similarity of Meaning) of verb procreate
Sense 1:
reproduce, procreate, multiply
make, CREATE [my emphasis].
I don’t care if the great God Glenn thinks he can invent new words. I’ll stick with english thanks. and in the english language procreate and create are synonyms.
Now let’s look up the dictionary definition of a word which applies to you:
ar·ro·gant (r-gnt)
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others.
having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud an arrogant teacher an arrogant assumption
Tell me Glenn when was the last time your ego allowed you to admit you were wrong? Hmmm? Because from what I’ve seen anytime you’re shown to be wrong you just leave the discussion. No admission you just go and then sometime later make exactly the sqame claims all over again. Sounds like an exagerated opinion of the superiority of your own assumptions to me. And as we’ve just seen if a thing matches a description of a thing then it is that thing.
Now will you admit error? My guess is 1) you’ll leave the discussion or 2) you’ll ignore me or 3) you’ll use the tu quoque fallacy to try and cover up your blunder.
Show me I’m wrong Glenn. Show me you can admit to your mistakes.
Christopher
April 8, 2011
Reply
@ Everyone except Glenn
It seems we have a new entrant in the fundie word redefinition project.
In Glenglish the word “create” means “not only the origin of a process of reproduction but the absolute control over every stage of developement and total knowledge concerning the end result.”
While in the English language the word create may be defined as “to bring into being, cause to exist, produce”.
I think we have a winner here. Glenn has invented a whole new language all for himself. Hey Glenn I has a suggested definition:
Glenn’s ego in Glennglish may be defined as God. 🙂
perdita
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn, when you ask your ‘what causes’ questions, why should I consider supernatural over natural processes? Questions that used to be answered with supernatural explanations (like where does lightening come from) are now answered with natural explanations. What reason would I have to buck this trend?
perdita
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn, in one of my comments to you I mistyped “reel” as “real.” Are you going to make another trippy paragraph on that?
Glenn Parker
April 8, 2011
Reply
perdita,
Why should you consider supernatural over natural? Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the supernatural is always an option. I just hope that you won’t take that approach.
Here it is in a nutshell: God doesn’t just allow the motion of every molecule. He causes it. Without His constant upholding of this universe, it would cease to exist. Can you ignore that? For a short time. But eventually you will agree. For your own sake, it’s better if you figure it out now.
Jesus Christ doesn’t really care about your intellect or your prowess. He is willing to save you, but it will be on His terms instead of your own.
Glenn
April 8, 2011
Reply
Christopher,
Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating the truth of Jesus’ statements about the human heart.
Nohm
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote:
“Why should you consider supernatural over natural? Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the supernatural is always an option. I just hope that you won’t take that approach.”
When, in the history of man, has a supernatural explanation for something ever been the correct answer?
From my perspective, supernatural explanations have a .000 batting average.
For example, take explanations of the sun’s movement, or lightning, or rain, or earthquakes, or the stars, or an eclipse, or sandstorms, or the Aurora Borealis, or how the camel got his hump, or how the leopard got his spots… and so on.
Nohm
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote:
“God doesn’t just allow the motion of every molecule. He causes it.”
Please support this assertion.
“Without His constant upholding of this universe, it would cease to exist.”
Please support this assertion.
Christopher
April 8, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote “Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating the truth of Jesus’ statements about the human heart.”
I didn’t know that Jesus spoke about the worship of Ego. Because you did notice that you neither responded to My points nor admitted that you were wrong. You little ego worshipper you. 🙂
Then again when you consider what Jesus was declared to have said about the Pharisees He [Jesus] described ego worship very well. Perhaps you should read those verses and apply them to yourself Glenn. It might shock you out of your ego worship but I doubt it.
perdita
April 8, 2011
Reply
Evidence provided so far:
We can tell the difference between naturally shaped rocks and rocks sculpted by humans, therefore all rocks are created and there must be a creator.
Aren’t humans really unique?
You can’t answer the big questions.
God causes everything, therefore God exists.

Comments (71)

Leave a comment Cancel reply