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.
keiths,
Were in agreement here but it does restrict you from arguing that Christianity is false except from the frogs perspective.
Yes, we’re kind of stuck judging from our perspectives. That said, we pretty much need to judge as best we can, rather than just believe a bunch of preconceptions, like the notion that complex functionality is a priori the truth.
Glen Davidson
keiths,
This is very hard claim to support given data is taken only from inside the well 🙂
I am just trying to get you to see that there are other possibilities than your interpretation of events. You speak as if you know the details of God’s involvement with every person that has suffered. How do you know that the view from your narrow perspective is the right one?
You’re not thinking straight. The bible was written by numerous authors over many years. If the character of God is fictional it’s an absolute mystery how all those authors agreed about God. And if they didn’t agree and gave conflicting accounts then you should have no problem admitting that the God of the bible is a conundrum for you. So why pretend otherwise? You simply cannot know whether God is loving or not, or if any two author are even speaking of the same God.
Think man!
Did God forgive Adam and Eve or not?
This is false. You’re ignoring the evidence that I provided. Why do you feel compelled to do that?
Because he is always right. 🙂
Not really, just seems irrelevant in the present context,seems like a silly argument on both sides whether I did or not
I have been hoping for someone else to comment on A&E ISSUE…
WELL NEXT TIME GOOD NIGHT
colewd,
If the bottom-of-the-well perspective prevents a frog from arguing that Christianity is false, then it also prevents its fellow frog from arguing that Christianity is true.
So if someone asks you whether Jesus is your Lord and Savior, are you willing to say “I have no idea. I’m not a Christian, because we’re just frogs at the bottom of a well who have no reason to pick Christianity over any other set of beliefs”?
If you’re not willing to say that — and I suspect you aren’t — then your argument is hypocritical.
And not only hypocritical, but bogus. We have access to a lot of information, and the information we have shows overwhelmingly that God is unloving. Could we be wrong about that? Of course. We could be wrong about anything we believe; see The Myth of Absolute Certainty.
Does that mean that all beliefs are equally doubtful? Not at all. We look at the evidence and judge some beliefs to be more plausible than others. We have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round and that God, if he exists, is not powerful and loving. We have extremely poor reasons for believing that the earth is flat and that Christianity is true. So rational people reject flat-earthism, Christianity, and the notion that God is powerful and loving.
Your frog-in-the-well argument is just another way of saying “ignore the evidence if it leads you where you don’t want to go.”
The hypocrisy is easy to see. If someone argues that daffodils get their energy from photosynthesis, you won’t be saying “But you don’t know that! We’re just frogs at the bottom of a well!” But as soon as your faith is questioned, out comes the frog argument.
It’s utterly transparent, Bill.
I answered your question, J-Mac. Why not respond to me?
newton,
Then just say that you don’t want to answer instead of playing passive-aggressive games.
Mung,
They don’t all agree. How could you read the Bible and not figure that out?
It’s not a conundrum. It makes perfect sense that the accounts clash with each other, because the accounts are fictional. When you get a bunch of different people writing about the same fictional character, you get different stories. It’s not a “conundrum” at all.
Now you have my interest , why do you care so much?
newton,
I was curious, so I asked the question.
The next time someone asks you that question, don’t say
…if you do mind answering. And don’t play passive-aggressive games generally.
This has
alwayslong puzzled me.keiths,
Looks like Newton is not going to get an answer. 🙂
It puzzles you that I would want to know what people believe about the topic I’m discussing with them?
You’re an odd bird, Alan.
That’s the point.
And yet you have perfect understanding of this fictional character they write about. Why not just admit that you don’t. Why not just say that given the contradictory, confusing, and incoherent picture of the fictional God painted by the different authors, that you couldn’t possibly know which God they were talking about? You can’t possible know what God is like.
Think man!
I mean Keiths threw out an assertion:
when I’d suggest most of the stuff attached to Christianity is unfalsifiable. It’s overkill, Keiths. I’m not saying I’m not impressed with your fervour but is it effective? And what do want to effect? Why do you care so much?
keiths,
See next comment.
Maybe it was the Jewish God who refused to forgive them. Maybe it was the Christian God who did forgive them. Maybe you just don’t have a clue. 🙂
Give me one real reason why I should respond to you?
Mung,
This isn’t difficult, Mung. Christians believe that God is supremely loving. The evidence, both Biblical and reality-based, shows that he isn’t. I follow the evidence where it leads. Christians, including you, fight against it.
J-Mac,
I showed you that God had already lied to Adam about the consequences of eating the fruit. Thus, he had already revealed himself to be a liar before Adam and Eve took their fateful bites.
Forgiving them would not have made God into a liar. He had already done that to himself. So why didn’t he forgive them, as a loving God would?
I mean, Jesus, going by his teachings (I know Anglicism is practically atheism but that’s the Sunday School I got) was pretty left wing. How have Bible-belt Christians been persuaded to get shafted by Republicans into voting for the most cynical exploiters of humanity?
OK that was a bit fervent but I still wonder!
Healthcare! What’s that about?
Alan,
That God is supremely loving is not just a peripheral doctrine of Christianity, Alan. It’s central. If God is not loving, then Christianity is false.
You’ve always been baffled, and seemingly frightened, by TSZ. It’s why you’ve never really fit in, and it’s why you’re constantly trying to transform TSZ into Alan’s Safe Space.
We’re skeptical of ID here at The Skeptical Zone, so we criticize it day after day, month after month, year after year. Why wouldn’t I do the same with Christianity, which is just as wrong as ID?
Why not?
You live in a fantasy world. Time to take off the VR headset. You’re not in the sentinel islands anymore!
I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly what the Bible says about God. Your vision of what God is like is pure fiction and you know it.
I think the standard excuse is God often uses the wicked for His ends. Which is basically a divine license to vote any old dickhead into the Whitehouse.
keiths:
J-Mac:
Because he had already made himself a liar by lying to Adam. If it was OK to lie then, why not lie again for a much better (and loving) reason?
Huh? Christians are still averse to voting atheists into public office.
That is just the sort of thing Uday Hussein would say about Norman Schwarzkopf.
One of the most misunderstood idioms in all scripture is the phrase “gnashing of teeth” that is associated with those damed to hell.
Many people think it’s has to do with the experience of pain but it’s really about frustrated anger.
Imagine someone so overcome with anger that they bite down hard and perhaps utter a primal growl “grrrr”.
Now imagine a situation like this with no possible remedy.
A being that you know is an evil tyrant has conquered all completely and forever and no one is left who will listen to you spell out your war crimes charges against him.
You know that if you could just get them to listen to reason they would join you in a war to remove the tyrant from power but only you are willing to “follow the evidence where it leads”.
No one can refute your logic but no one ever changes their mind no matter how many times you explain it to them.
You can just imagine how frustrating it must be
I think keiths is giving us a glimpse of what bitter tears and “gnashing of teeth” will look like…..
quote:
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. Luke 13:28
end quote:
peace
Honest atheists – ones who self-declare. Do you think Trump is any sort of Christian?
Fifth,
The “gnashing of teeth” is from your frustration at being unable to defend your God. You’re doing a terrible job, and it clearly bothers you.
Please, please give the URL of this thread to your pastor, so that he and your fellow congregants can see what happens when you go up against the atheists here.
keiths is so confused.
Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
– Romans 9:13
This is the Christian view of God. Not the silly view that keiths has of God.
Think! keiths
Well, OK. But money seems to play a rôle. Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah are interesting characters.
LOL I don’t know how many times I have to tell you I’m not defending God. God needs no defending.
That you think people are debating you when they repeatedly assure you that they are not not is another sign of the frustration you must have.
“look I totally defeat all comers yet no one ever changes their mind ……..Grrrr………”
peace
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
That’s the Christian view, keiths. Not the one you cling to.
You’re the expert. Seems a reasonable take on a distillation of New Testament readings.
Logically, maybe.
Thank you for explaining how I think and feel. It’s so much clearer now! :rolls eyes:
Doesn’t really answer the question, though. Why do you care so much? Why not allow others the freedom to think their own thoughts?
The Christian view:
Luke 19:27 (NIV) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Evidence keiths. All evidence which you ignore. You and your straw-god.
keiths’ view isn’t logical though.
fifth,
You are defending God and your faith, as anyone who’s been following the thread knows. But you’re failing badly, so you’d like to pretend that you’re not even trying.
It won’t work, fifth.
You and your fellow believers cannot defend the notion of a loving God. That’s shameful, and you’re rightly embarrassed. It’s a scandal for the entire Christian faith.
(Mung, meanwhile, seems to have gotten the crazy idea that if can show that the God of the Bible is an asshole, then the case for a loving God has been strengthened. Go figure.)
“Now Mung is also quoting scripture that proves that God is like I say he is but no one is changing their mind…… grrrrrrrr”
peace
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
#StrawGod
Depends what premises you start with, I guess.
LoL.
You have to wonder where keiths gets his ideas about what Christians ought to believe. He flat out admits his view about what Christians believe isn’t based on the bible.
“What is wrong with these people it’s almost like they don’t have a problem that God is not a cosmic tooth fairy……….grrr”
peace
Infinite love!