Comments (41)

      • Nigel

        I wish there were more atheists like Rich in the world.

        Too bad many atheists are like Chris.

      • Nohm

        What do you base that on, Nigel? How many atheists do you run into on a daily basis? How often do you respectfully discuss religious issues with them?

        Those are not snarky questions; I’m seriously asking.

      • Nohm

        By the way, Nigel, Chris is not an atheist. I have no idea why you jumped to *that* conclusion.

      • Nohm

        Nigel,

        Sorry, let me correct myself. I implied that you jumped to the conclusion that Chris was an atheist. If I was correct in that, then I take back nothing.

        On the other hand, if you were stating that you think Chris is not nice, and you think “many atheists” (which I still object to) are not nice, while recognizing that Chris is not an atheist, but simply a subject of comparison, then I take back a bit of what I said.

        I still think that saying “Too bad many atheists are like Chris” is painting with a broad brush (assuming that I think Chris is not nice, and I don’t think that).

        Hope that clears everything up on my side.

      • Nohm

        Nigel wrote:

        “Too many atheists, IMO, are like Chris.”

        Hi Nigel. Two questions:

        1. What do you mean by “like Chris”? What, in your opinion, makes Chris like “too many atheists”?

        2. Exactly how many atheists have you dealt with, and where, to come to this conclusion? What are you basing “too many atheists” on? This blog? Youtube comments?

        Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

      • Nigel

        @Nohm

        “Like Chris” means just that “like Chris”. I don’t know how many atheists I have met in my life but many are just like Chris and a few are like Rich.

        You might be more like Rich.

  3. carl

    Reply

    It is ATHEIST TUESDAY!

    LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE… against Satan for the souls of our atheist friends.

    • BathTub

      Reply

      By which you mean passive aggressive trolling following by running away and refusing to answer any serious questions? The Way of the Master. Super Effective Evangelism.

      • Steve Sanchez

        Uh, okay. If you say so….

        BathTub,

        I take the serious questions a week at a time. Did I not answer your questions with a civil demeanor and speak the truth in love in the post from a few weeks ago here?

        If not, please tell me how I may respond more graciously next time.

        Thanks a lot!

        Steve

      • carl

        Steve, I think BathTub’s comment was directed towards me. He doesn’t like me very much.

      • carl

        Jim

        There is no credibility issue here. If Steve or Richard wants to say that 180 is the hottest movie on the Internet they are expressing an opinion that they are entitled to make.

      • vintango2k

        Myth = an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

        If that’s the definition that you’re going with when you say Myth then you’re simply incorrect, there are mountains of evidence and proof for evolution. Right now this very moment, you are fully capable to running a search on the subject in your search engines, that can send you to research papers, proof of concept articles, explanations of the process, the evidence we have for it in the fields of genetics, paleontology, and biology, and how it all fits together so wonderfully with every other proven field of science that many of you accept because it doesn’t clash with your version of reality.

        It may be Steve’s belief that evolution is a myth and that is a correct statement about Steve’s belief but I’ve seen videos where he dismisses evolution as a myth and chides others for teaching that ‘crazy myth’, that’s going beyond merely stating what you believe, its passive aggressively dismissing proven science and arrogantly proposing your own position as fact, while simultaneously ignoring what’s been proven to be true (evolution) over what you personally believe that has been dis-proven (creationism).

        We strive to correct you Steve, and anyone else who posts along a similar vein because its human nature to correct someone who is mistaken. Its logical to do so because if ignorance or incorrect statements are tolerated it makes having a discussion extremely difficult.

        We can send you some text books on the subject of evolution Steve if you want, it might be rather thought provoking, you could even teach your kids a thing or two about science when you’re done.

      • vintango2k

        The question really is Steve is would you read one and take it into serious consideration?

      • BathTub

        Yes Steve that was a reply to Carl, I’ll take your response as a sign that your conscience is getting to you.

        No you didn’t answer the questions, you flat out refused to answer the first part because I didn’t include specific examples when you know I can give dozens of examples at any time.

        Shall I start rattling off examples now then?

        Why would a certain street preacher claim he earns an average wage when public figures show that he earns a very generous 6 figure salary?

        Why would that same preacher then go on to say he was completely unpaid?

        Why would staff from a certain ministry say they didn’t release a certain ‘hot’ movie early because it was ‘unfinished’ when the ‘hot’ movie they eventually release was unchanged from the ‘unfinished’ version?

        Why would staff from that same ministry then state that the leak was intentional then threaten legal action to stop it?

        Do you need me to keep giving specifics or is that enough for you to be able to answer the question?

        And you (and carl) hide a very uncivil demeanour behind joking and kidding around “Hey your a worthless stupid moron, just kidding, lighten up!” Oh and then run away.

        As for the evolution discussion….

        I have no issue with people not accepting science and it’s various claims, but it’s also a great example of people lying about what it is in the first place.

        I’m happy to have the discussion as long as the creationists show they actually know what Biology says rather than ‘Creationists pretend biology says…’

        Quote mining would be another great example of dishonesty.

        Oh of course that leads into another great example of wilfully and blatant lying by a certain preacher when he discusses the topic, he knowingly tells lies and just hides behind the excuse of calling it ‘street evolution’.

      • nigel

        @BathTub

        Your porcelain is cracking. I think you need to stop your obsession about a “certain preacher”.

      • perdita

        Please, please send me a bunch of textbooks. I’d love that.

        Don’t you have a public library? I’m sure we could come up with a short list of recommendations.

      • BathTub

        Steve demands specific examples to answer the question, Steve gets specific examples. Steve runs away, but is happy to allow joyful loving fruit of the spirit comments from others.

        Thank you for sharing the fruit of the spirit with us Nigel.

  4. Chris

    Reply

    I’m not an atheist but I’ll give you my shot. To do that we’ll examine Ray’s silly “Good Person test”.

    Me: Have you lied Steve?

    Steve Sure. Everyone has.

    Me: That would make you a liar wouldn’t it?

    Steve: Yes.

    Me: And we don’t trust liars because they lie.

    Me: Now since, according to you, everyone lies that must include the people who wrote the bible. Right? And we can’t trust them because they are liars and might be lying.

    Steve: God wrote the bible not man.

    Me: According to who? You? But you’re a liar and we can’t trust liars. Or according to the men who wrote the bible? But why should we trust them? After all everyone lies, according to you, and we can’t trust liars.

    Steve: Everyone lies including you.

    Me: According to you! But you’re a liar [you said so yourself] and we can’t trust liars.

    Unless you lied about all this.

    Steve the good person test is the best argument against fundie Christianity ever created.

    Now an easy way out of this puzzle is just to admit that the good person test, and your interpretation of scripture [not scripture itself] is wrong. But to do that you’d have to abandon the worship of your ego, something you’ll never do. So you’ll continue to twist the scriptures to your own destruction [2 Peter 3:16] and reject the truth in all unrighteousness [Rom 1: 18].

      • Chris

        Point out where I said anything against Christ Nigel. Or are you and Steve so addicted to ego worship you’re now confusing the two?

        What I was doing was showing the worthlessness of the Good Person test argument. In fact it is THE best argument against fundie Christianity bar none.

        To repeat “Now an easy way out of this puzzle is just to admit that the good person test, and your interpretation of scripture [not scripture itself] is wrong. But to do that you’d have to abandon the worship of your ego, something you’ll never do. So you’ll continue to twist the scriptures to your own destruction [2 Peter 3:16] and reject the truth in all unrighteousness [Rom 1: 18].”

        Congrats Nigel I think you just proved my point.

      • Nigel

        Chris the point of your comment is that you lack understanding about the Bible. You can’t understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit.

      • Chris

        Sad that your idea of a true Christian is everyone who agrees with you. Yet all you seem to do is twist scripture and support Steve in doing the same. Why is that Nigel? Why are you suppressing the truth in all unrighteousness?

      • vintango2k

        The Chris and Nigel argument or… the reason why there are thousands of different sects in Protestantism.

        You could more than likely point out how you both could be right when talking about interpretation of scripture but you’re merely giving into the human need to correct someone when you think they’re wrong. This problem is compounded by the fact that if there is contradictory or an open ended interpretation to what you’re debating then you’ll never reach an accord, and your own mental preference whether it be more conservative or liberal takes over.

        Worse, these kinds of arguments can lead to a profound lack of understanding or empathy, or simply just a general inability to understand why a person believes what they do, and how they came to believe it, there’s almost always an explanation. In the case of my young earth creationist co-worker, the more I learn about him the more I realize how he’s arrived at the position he holds to today (isolated churches, no friends or peers, strong reinforcement from family, Christian chick tract propaganda, lack of science education, home schooling, etc. etc.)

      • Nameless Cynic

        Nigel,

        You can’t understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit.

        Uh, no. I understand the Bible just fine. What you probably mean to say is “You can’t understand that the Bible is the complete and holy story that explains everything without believing in the Holy Spirit.”

        But, of course, that’s pretty circular logic right there, isn’t it?

  5. vintango2k

    Reply

    He might have made your responsibility easy as pie, but how do you expect him to believe you Steve when you present no compelling evidence for your arguments? I mean how many times can you state the people says this and then offer no concrete evidence for the veracity of the bible’s text to the man? Clearly he’s an atheist because its ‘intellectually honest’ why not confront his intellect instead of trying to go around it, why else would you chose to preach on a college campus if you weren’t interested in having an intellectual discussion?

    • Glenn Parker

      Reply

      “No compelling evidence” == “I remain happy in my favorite sin. Don’t bother me with accountability”

      “Intellectual” == “I have a high opinion of myself and you should too”

      • Chris

        Glenn can you accept even the possibility that you could be wrong and someone else could be correct?

        If your answer is yes then perhaps you would do better to consider what they are arguing rather than airily dismiss it.

        If your answer is no then you are truly lost in the worship of your own ego.

      • Nohm

        “What Glenn Parker tells people (he doesn’t know) what they think” == “Failed mind-reading”

        Glenn, “no compelling evidence” means that he has not been presented evidence that he finds compelling. You may question what his standard of “compelling” is, but the right way to do that is to ask him, and not to tell him what he thinks. There is nothing more discompelling than telling someone what they think (and being far off-base when doing so).

        “Intellectual” does not just mean “high opinion” or “snobbery” or “elitism”; in the context of a discussion, it means “appealing to or engaging the intellect”.

        He used it as an adjective but you appear to have used it as a noun (but I might have misunderstood you there).

        Why not ask him what he means by “no compelling evidence” and “intellectual”?

        On a different note, as I’ve mentioned many times, I find this idea of my lack of belief having anything to do with accountability. Glenn, do you think I am so stupid to think that simply because I don’t believe a cop exists or a cop can’t see me, that I can therefore get away with a crime?

        Or let’s make this more realistic. Do you think I am so idiotic to think that just because my boss isn’t nagging me about a missed deadline, that that isn’t going to come around and get me at some point? Such as, in my review?

        So why would I lack belief, or even actively disbelieve in something simply because “I don’t want to be accountable”? How stupid do you think I am? If what you believe is true, I’m accountable REGARDLESS of what I want to believe.

        Do you think that what you want to believe has any effect on what reality is?

        I pose that as a serious question, Glenn.

        (Lastly, I’d be fascinated to hear your guesses as to the particular “favorite sin” of each Non-True Christian that posts here on Steve’s blog.)

      • vintango2k

        You made some spelling mistakes in your post Glenn, please allow me to correct you.

        “No compelling evidence” == “If you have evidence for a claim please demonstrate it so my brain can accept it as a fact, if you’re not presenting it, then its not compelling and is simply special pleading.”

        “Intellectual” == “Someone who takes the time to study a subject, learn its history, its progress, its applications, and how they can contribute to it to further its advance, while at the same time can maintain a cool level head when being confronted by someone who wears ignorance like a badge of honor and is arrogantly and smugly dismissive of their position and life’s work without a shred of humility or respect to that fact.”

    • Logical

      Reply

      Vintango, its hard to confront intellectual honesty with unfounded claims of divinity, miracles, and narrow mindedness that is so prevalent in today’s Christianity. On the other hand it is MUCH easier for them to try and scare people into belief with THREATS of eternal damnation for things we humans do because we are in fact human.

  6. Richard Chavarria

    Reply

    It is very interesting to see that Rich starts with God, to build his case against God!!

    I believe that one has to start with God also because without God you can’t make sense of ANYTHING.

    I pray that that small seed that Pastor Steve planted…that seed the size of a mustard seed will flourish and became great in the kingdom of God.

    Repent and believe the Gospel.

    • theB1ackSwan

      Reply

      So, you suggest that in order to argue against the existence of something, one may not refer to it?

      I know that you’ve never had to prove anything in your life.

Leave a comment

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