Occasionally a theist makes an argument so amusingly stupid that it would be a shame not to share it with a larger audience. This is one of those occasions.
On another thread, we’ve been discussing the unloving way in which God — supposing that he exists at all — is treating the victims of Hurricane Harvey (and the soon-to-be victims of Hurricane Irma, unfortunately). In the course of that discussion, fifthmonarchyman — a Christian — made the following, er, memorable argument:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
– Isaiah 45:7
keiths:
Yes, and creating disaster for his children is exactly what every loving father sets out to do. Right, Mung?
Nothing says “I love you” like drowning someone or wiping out their possessions.
At that point fifthmonarchyman got the bright idea that he could defend God by arguing that God is not our father. He wrote:
quote:
the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him – since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? – Sura 6:101
and
and say: “All praise is due to God, who begets no offspring, and has no partner in His dominion, and has no weakness, and therefore no need of any aid” -and [thus] extol His limitless greatness. – Sura 17:111
end quote:
That’s right, folks. Fifthmonarchyman quoted the Quran to argue against the idea that God is our father — forgetting that the latter idea comes straight from Jesus. What are the first two words of the Lord’s Prayer? Our Father.
Seeing fifth — a Christian — use the Quran to argue (unwittingly) against Jesus is one of the stupidest moves I’ve seen in a long while. I therefore renominate fifth for the title of World’s Worst Apologist.
After posting his comment, fifth belatedly realized that he had just thrown Jesus under the bus. He tried to undo the damage:
Get it keiths ?
A loving father is not the default understanding of God. Not by a long shot.
To know him as Father you need to have met his Son. Once you have met his Son you are simply not dissuaded when bad things happen.
peace
It’s a bit too late to backpedal, fifth.
This is a good time to quote Augustine again, on the topic of Christians who make fools of themselves:
…we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The inanity goes even deeper. I’ll elaborate in the comments.
Was that a ‘yes’, phoodoo?
You’re actually claiming that God can’t create “a world with choices” without drowning people and destroying their homes?
Exceptions: World peace, an end to poverty, disease, hunger. Always consult your pastor. Always read the label.
keiths,
Dodging whilst demanding so many answers from others is really bad form keiths. If you don’t know what you mean by good, just say so, don’t be afraid.
Don’t you see why people don’t like having conversations with you-because you aren’t interested in dialogue?
Woodbine,
But keiths doesn’t want a world with doors. He doesn’t want a world with questions and a world with decisions. He just wants to lay in whip cream with Omagain. Isn’t that so much easier? Why can’t God give him THAT world?
phoodoo,
Don’t bother pretending. If you actually had good answers to my questions, you’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops. You don’t, and you’re ashamed of that. As you should be.
To believe in a loving God is the height of stupidity. Open your eyes. The contrary evidence is all around you.
keiths,
And with this, keiths once again hopes no one will notice his dodging.
They notice.
I’m still interested in the answer to this, phoodoo:
You brought up the “world with choices” issue. Why are you running away from it now?
keiths,
Until you can explain what good is, I guess you will never understand.
That is you.
Some readers might be thinking, “Well, sure, know-nothings like phoodoo, fifth, and Mung may not have good answers to your questions, but what about the pros? What about professional theologians and Christian philosophers?”
They don’t have good answers either. I’ve looked far and wide.
But if any of you think otherwise, feel free to quote your favorite theologian or philosopher on the subject and I’ll respond.
keiths,
Did you always hate choice, even when you were a child keiths (yesterday)?
I don’t hate choice, phoodoo.
Now, tell us: Are you actually claiming that God can’t create “a world with choices” without drowning people and destroying their homes?
keiths,
You even hate choosing what good means!
It’s interesting how Christians will
a) debase the concept of love in an attempt to rescue the notion that God is loving;
b) debase their morality in order to rescue the notion that God is moral; and
c) debase their concept of God himself in order to rescue the notion that the Bible is true and divinely inspired.
I pointed out to phoodoo that in 1000 years many of the sources of suffering will (hopefully) be dealt with. Disease, war, famine etc. All gone. I then asked him if his god will act to ensure that the level of suffering is maintained to ensure we have the current level of choices available to us or will it allow it to be reduced? During that exchange he also indicated “now you are getting it” or similar, implying that it’s our “job” to remove the suffering that his god has inflicted.
I then asked what good that did all the people who lived and died with no end to their suffering in sight. I’m sure you know what he then said. Nada.
He’s a very confused old man.
I think his Raskolnikov example illustrates the goofiness of this entire discussion.
If some one was to constantly bring up the moral character of Raskolnikov at a web site that was supposedly about science we would certainly wonder about their motivation and perhaps their emotional stability.
peace
fifth,
Not if they were debating a number of deluded individuals who actually thought that Raskolnikov was real, and whose delusion depended on obviously false beliefs about Raskolnikov’s moral character.
We’re showing that your delusions about God fail even on their own terms. God doesn’t exist, but even if we assume that he does exist, the evidence shows that he is not loving.
Either way, that means the Christian God does not exist.
Raskolnikov is not real, fifth.
I also like gardening and college football. Why is that relevant?
I have already granted repeatedly that from your perspective that is obviously the case. Just as the evidence from Uday Hussein’s perspective shows that Norman Schwarzkopf is not compassionate and loving. There is nothing controversial there
Why does that possibly follow??
The only reason I can possibly think of is that you have a jacked up idea of what Christians believe or Christianity teaches.
The fact is Christians expect Christians to think that God is unfair and mean I would be amazed if you thought anything else.
The reason Christians believe God is powerful and loving has absolutely noting to do with natural disasters or Old Testament passages. It has to do with our own personal experience with God. Since you don’t share this experience it’s no surprise that you don’t share our appraisal of God’s moral character.
what is a surprise is your obsession with these things
peace
Why do you feel the need to debate this with us? No one as far as I can tell is asking you to agree with us. The topic would never even come up here except you keep returning to it over and over and over
peace
Again that does not follow.
The Christian God fully expects you to think he is mean and unfair. His existence does not in anyway depend on your opinion of him.
That you think it would is just odd
peace
Feel the same about ID?
keiths:
fifth:
Because it is your goofy belief that we are discussing. You believe that the Christian God exists, so evidence that he doesn’t exist is a problem for you. Hence your ardent but failing apologetic efforts.
That same evidence is not a problem for Woodbine and me. We don’t believe in your silly God, so the evidence is no threat to us.
Simple and obvious.
keiths:
fifth:
It isn’t just from my perspective. Even Christians know that it isn’t loving to drown people and destroy their homes. It’s just that some believers, including you, try to make excuses for God when he does it.
That’s what I was referring to above when I talked about how Christians debase the concept of love:
keiths:
fifth:
You still don’t get it?
A core tenet of Christianity is that God is powerful and loving. The evidence shows that God, if he exists, is not powerful and loving. Therefore, Christianity is false.
fifth,
That’s right. Some Christians simply ignore the evidence they don’t like, just as you do. They just pretend the evidence isn’t there. It’s childish and irrational.
Rational people look at the evidence and seek the truth. Some Christians, including you, ignore the evidence and fight the truth tooth and nail. Other Christians acknowledge the evidence but then, instead of following the evidence where it leads, they declare it a “mystery” and cling to their discredited beliefs anyway. They fight the truth, but in a different way.
To be a Christian is truly a badge of intellectual shame.
keiths:
fifth:
That’s pathetic, fifth. You know perfectly well that I’m not arguing that God’s existence depends on my opinion of him.
Look, I know you’re frustrated. You’ve had a bad couple of days. It must be humiliating to be unable to defend your faith, and disconcerting that you can’t even defend one of its most essential tenets. And Jesus certainly isn’t helping you. You keep getting defeated by mere atheists.
All of that clearly puts you in a bad mood. But that’s no reason to attribute such a stupid argument to me, when you know perfectly well that I’m not making it. You only discredit yourself with that kind of dishonesty.
My actual position, as anyone can see, is that the evidence shows that the Christian God does not exist, not that my opinion zaps him out of existence.
And what if losing your possessions or even dying was the best thing that could happen to you in the long run? Warning people about a future that is inevitable could be seen as a cruel thing to do. Would it not be better if we were told, “do not worry about the future, it cannot be avoided, but I will be by your side every step of the way.
Consider for a moment that Christ actually did appear on earth as witnessed in the New Testament. As God he is capable of not going through this experience. But He chose this path and he chose to allow humans to have power over His fate. Maybe you believe that this makes Him omnipotent in potential. But does this mean that He retains His omnipotence in practice?
Anyway, I think that here we are speculating on meanings that are of little importance. Our speculations do not change reality.
To feel alone and abandoned by the Divine is a necessary step in returning to the Divine. This return must be through our own acts freely given without any coercion.
The latter is what they are concentrating on for obvious reasons.
This comment is worth repeating, because it shows how fifth simply ignores the evidence that he doesn’t like, and why that’s such a serious mistake:
fifth:
And we have established that loving people don’t set out to drown the people they love or destroy their homes and possessions — even if they think those people will go on to have eternal life in heaven. They don’t want to destroy those people. Why? It’s obvious. They love those people. Destruction is something that people visit on those they hate, not on those they love.
Yet God is busy right now inflicting horrible suffering on people in the Caribbean and in Florida. Including believing Christians. You claim that believing Christians are his sheep, who are precious to him. Why is he tormenting them, then? It makes no sense for a loving God to do that. You know that it makes no sense. Yet you go on believing in a loving God. Why? Pure emotion.
The evidence is telling you something you don’t want to hear, so you get angry and say “Fuck the evidence, and fuck the truth. I don’t want the truth, I want Jesus.”
Go ahead and throw your temper tantrum, but when it’s over, ask yourself: Do I really want to be fighting the truth all the time? Am I really such a child that I can’t face reality without the crutch of Christianity? Especially when I can clearly see that Christianity is false?
God, if he exists at all, is clearly not the loving God you imagine him to be. He’s drowning people, destroying homes, ruining lives — including those of believing Christians. It couldn’t be more obvious: Christianity is false.
Time to put aside childish things, fifth. Let go of the security blanket and face the truth.
Another example of fifth ignoring evidence that he doesn’t like:
Note how irrational this is. The evidence of natural disasters is incontrovertible and independently verifiable, while the idea of salvation is just a promise in a book. A goofy book that also includes a talking snake and battles won by keeping one’s hands in the air.
So what does fifth do? He ignores the solid evidence altogether, and embraces the flimsy promise from the talking snake book.
It’s exactly the opposite of what a rational person would do. But fifth doesn’t want the truth — he wants Jesus.
fmm,
How convenient for those who want to improve their own lives based on your suffering. Promising them that after a lifetime of slavery heaven awaits is but one tactic to suppress a population.
And of course, such thinking can lead to disaster in other ways: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-murdered-children-go-to-heaven-indiana-amber-pasztor-a7357751.html
fifth,
There are lots of reasons, but perhaps the most obvious is this:
This is The Skeptical Zone. You have a goofy idea that God is powerful and loving. I’m skeptical of it.
I’ve explained at length why your goofy idea doesn’t fit the evidence. Neither you nor your fellow Christians can refute me and defend your faith.
One more dumb idea has been discredited. It’s all good. 🙂
The reason Woodbine gave is pretty good too:
Actually no, what you have done is hide and claim victory. Its your usual pattern.
You can’t justify what you mean by good and bad, so you just deflect and run scared. Bad form and bad self-awareness.
There are many reasons why we suffer and it is not for us to judge the suffering of others. The only thing we can do is to adopt the default position of doing as much as we can to prevent the suffering of others or if we cannot help them to avoid their suffering to help them through it.
Obviously suffering at the hands of others is not the same as suffering through one’s own actions. And some people even enjoy suffering (as in the masochistic tendencies of Christians and ID supporters here). 🙂
Through the testimony of others Christ relieves suffering, Christ does not exist, Christ is a hypocrite. Who to believe?
I have on occasion taken pain killers but I try to avoid them as much as possible.
phoodoo,
Not only have you been running from my questions — the same questions that your fellow believers can’t answer — you’re even running away from a topic that you brought up:
phoodoo:
I asked a simple question, and suddenly you lost all interest in the topic:
Are you still afraid to answer?
CharlieM,
I notice that you quoted my question but didn’t answer it. Let me try again:
Yes or no?
Here is the context:
I wrote:
You replied:
So again, are you seriously, and with a straight face, arguing that God doesn’t warn people about hurricanes because if he did, he would be preventing their salvation?
keiths,
Why can’t keiths have infinite whipcream baths? keiths never ending quest for an answer.
CharlieM:
Do you seriously think that everyone who died in the hurricane, everyone who lost a home or their possessions, just happened to receive exactly what was best for them in the long run? That all the people who “needed” this treatment just happened to be clustered in the same part of the world at the same time, so that God could conveniently send a single hurricane to do the job?
That is utterly stupid, Charlie.
No! Warning you could save your life, your children’s lives, your pets’ lives! It could allow you to move your possessions to safety, and to put sandbags around your house.
Of course, the poor hurricane victims got neither the warning nor the reassurance. That’s some God you worship, Charlie.
keiths:
phoodoo:
Still afraid, I see.
newton,
In case you missed it:
No.
CharlieM,
So then why doesn’t he warn them?
I did, thanks
Why do you say that the God you do not believe in sent the hurricane? Why don’t you say that the Devil you don’t believe in sent the hurricane?
I’m afraid that we all “need” treatment as you put it. Out of all the people who have lost their houses in these hurricanes the people who are affected least are those who put little value on personal possessions.
How do you know the circumstances of each and every hurricane victim to know that none of them got any warning or reassurance?
CharlieM,
Because I’m arguing against the goofy Christian notion of God as powerful and loving. Most Christians believe that God is more powerful than the Devil. If the Devil sent the hurricane, then God did nothing to prevent it, despite being able to. Not very loving.
ETA: If you’re willing to believe that God is weaker than the Devil, then you can get him off the hook for being unloving. Here’s how I put it earlier in the thread:
CharlieM:
keiths:
CharlieM:
Then God is screwing up badly, because we’re not all getting it. Only the “lucky” few get to die or lose their houses and possessions to hurricanes.
CharlieM:
keiths:
CharlieM:
Are you arguing that only a few got the warning? Doesn’t God love the others?
If a bunch of them had gotten a credible warning from God, well ahead of the forecasts, it would have been huge news, and there would have been mass preparations and an exodus. Lives and property would have been saved.
Why no such warning from God?
Charlie,
I get the impression that you are fumbling around, picking things up randomly, and throwing them at the wall to see if they stick.
Why not take some time and think this through before responding again?
Maybe hurricanes are good.
Can’t you tell from reading keiths’ posts that it is Christians who are supposed to be the ones to say what loving means. Keiths appears to mean that “loving” means like what a father would do. Except what some fathers would do can hardly be called loving. Go figure.