FMM throws Jesus under the bus

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:

Mung:

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.

1,207 thoughts on “FMM throws Jesus under the bus

  1. Charlie,

    You are a grown man who, when confronted with evidence that your Dear Leader is spouting nonsense about tomatoes, cannot bring himself to acknowledge that obvious fact.

    “The Dear Leader is wise, and I know so little about tomatoes. Who am I to question him?” you ask.

    What about the people who do study tomatoes? Do you think they’re on board with the Dear Leader’s claims?

    You’re a cultist, Charlie. You can’t bear to see the Dear Leader challenged or mocked, and you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge even the most obvious and ridiculous of his errors.

    Just like a Scientologist defending L. Ron Hubbard.

  2. And like most cultists, you heap scorn on other crackpots while ignoring the flaws of your own Dear Crackpot:

    L. Ron Hubbard was a fraud who would have been better sticking to science fiction.

  3. Woodbine:

    We are looking at the world and reasoning from our observations, Mung. There’s nothing a priori about it.

    Mung:

    No, it’s quite clear that you’re starting with the assumption that God is “omni-loving.” That’s a priori. You’re not arriving at that premise by looking at the world.

    We don’t believe in God, doofus. Of course we don’t think he’s loving.

    What we’re doing is testing the claim, made by Christians and other theists, that God is loving. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts that claim, as we’ve demonstrated. So we ask theists for a counterargument, and none of you can come up with one that isn’t easily refuted.

    There have been over a thousand comments in this thread. The theists have had their asses handed to them (except for J-Mac, who is still trying to locate his). What an embarrassment for believers.

    To believe in a loving God, when the evidence points in the opposite direction, is just plain stupid. When you tell people you’re a Christian, say it with shame. You’re revealing something very embarrassing about yourself.

  4. To any lurkers out there who are believers:

    You’ve seen the resident believers try, and fail, to defend the idea that God is both powerful and loving. Are you helpless like them, or can you actually defend that claim?

    If so, please delurk and make an argument. These guys need your help.

    If not, then ask yourself: Why do I still believe this when the evidence is overwhelmingly against it? When did I start fighting against the truth, and why?

    The challenge:

    A loving human would not even consider drowning the people he loves, driving them from their homes, and ruining their possessions. This is beyond obvious.

    If a loving human wouldn’t dream of doing those things, then why does your supposedly loving God do them again and again, year after year?

  5. Mung,

    So, make up stuff that doesn’t come from the bible … Is that step one in your strategy to confuse Christians?

    I don’t need to confuse Christians. They come pre-confused.

    And don’t be an idiot. Christians believe plenty of stuff that isn’t in the Bible. I don’t have to make it up.

  6. Christians,

    The Bible says that God is love. I asked Mung these questions earlier in the thread, but he was silent, so let me direct them to you:

    Does the following sentence make sense to you?

    God is love; therefore he slaughters children, drowns people (including those who love and worship him), and destroys their homes and possessions.

    Doesn’t that sentence cause just a wee bit of dissonance in your religion-addled brain[s]?

  7. GlenDavidson: Do you think that getting rid of all of the CO2 in the blood would be beneficial, since supposedly it’s a poison?

    Glen Davidson

    PeterP: Are you then of the opinion that CO2 is not a poison in the blood?

    If not then what is all this supposed to be about:

    “What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.

    From PubMed

    Carbon dioxide poisoning.
    Carbon dioxide is a physiologically important gas, produced by the body as a result of cellular metabolism. It is widely used in the food industry in the carbonation of beverages, in fire extinguishers as an ‘inerting’ agent and in the chemical industry. Its main mode of action is as an asphyxiant, although it also exerts toxic effects at cellular level. At low concentrations, gaseous carbon dioxide appears to have little toxicological effect. At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.

  8. Christians are the boy named Sue.

    Tough love. Whatever kills you gets you to heaven quicker. Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

    Or something like that.

  9. For CharlieM:

    Oxygen is a poison
    Oxygen, the gas vital to sustain life, can also destroy it. It may become toxic at an elevated partial pressure, which may be the result of a rise in inspired oxygen concentration, an increase in environmental pressure or a combination of both. The toxicity tends to express itself most recognizably in one of several forms including central nervous system manifestations, pulmonary signs and symptoms and ocular effects, especially in premature infants. Other forms of toxicity should be expected in severe exposure but are difficult to detect and hence are not often considered important limitations for the use of oxygen. The onset and degree of the toxicity vary with the concentration of the gas used and the duration of exposure. Marked variations in individual susceptibility are found. Prevention of its occurrence and early detection of toxicity are called for, the treatment being symptomatic.

    Med J Armed Forces India. 2001 Apr; 57(2): 131–133.

    Water is a poison
    Water intoxication can occur in a variety of different clinical settings but is generally not well recognised in the medical literature. The condition may go unrecognised in the early stages when the patient may have symptoms of confusion, disorientation, nausea, and vomiting, but also changes in mental state and psychotic symptoms. Early detection is crucial to prevent severe hyponatraemia, which can lead to seizures, coma, and death.

    J Clin Pathol. 2003 Oct; 56(10): 803–804.

    and what is probably the most important thing of all:

    “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.”

    Paracelsus

    said more simply “the dose makes the poison”

  10. PeterP: and what is probably the most important thing of all:

    “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.”

    Paracelsus

    Correct. Do you think I do not know this?

    So here are my questions to you. Does the oxygenated blood flowing to the bodily tissues deliver substances that are beneficial to the life of these tissues or not? Does the de-oxygenated blood flowing from the tissues to the lungs remove substances that, if they were not removed, would be detrimental to the life of these tissues?

    As I have said these things have to be taken in the context of their location within the body..

  11. CharlieM: Correct. Do you think I do not know this?

    So far I’m not so sure you do.

    So here are my questions to you. Does the oxygenated blood flowing to the bodily tissues deliver substances that are beneficial to the life of these tissues or not?

    Depends on what substances you are concerned with and their concentrations. For instance oxygen is both essential and potentially fatal to an organism. Again The dose makes the poison!

    The oxygenated blood can also deliver substances toxic to the organism equally well as it can deliver substances essential for life.

    Does the de-oxygenated blood flowing from the tissues to the lungs remove substances that, if they were not removed, would be detrimental to the life of these tissues?

    depends on what substances you think the lungs are removing from the blood. For example removing too much carbon dioxide can be fatal for a human via the disruption of the bicarbonate buffer as an example adverse outcome. Or remove too much carbon dioxide and disrupt the ability of hemoglobin to deliver oxygen to tissue. Again The dose makes the poison!

    As I have said these things have to be taken in the context of their location within the body..

    So far you haven’t done that.

    Carbon dioxide is a both a poison and essential
    Water is both a poison and essential
    Oxygen is both a poison and essential

  12. PeterP,

    We all know that under abnormal conditions and illness life building substances can become toxic. But under normal conditions as I sit here typing this my body is being supplied with oxygen and CO2 is being excreted as a waste product and it has to be this way if I am to stay alive. Do you deny this?

  13. CharlieM:
    PeterP,

    We all know that under abnormal conditions and illness life building substances can become toxic. But under normal conditions as I sit here typing this my body is being supplied with oxygen and CO2 is being excreted as a waste product and it has to be this way if I am to stay alive. Do you deny this?

    Homeostasis is quite important to the life of an individual. So far no one has denied this. All that does is take us back to this:

    “What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.”

    Which is false as you’ve agreed in previous posts. Now what?

  14. keiths: Christians believe plenty of stuff that isn’t in the Bible.

    Whoever thought otherwise? Many Christians believe Donald Trump is President of the United States. That’s not in the Bible. Unless you believe that nonsense about 666.

  15. keiths: I asked Mung these questions earlier in the thread, but he was silent, so let me direct them to you:

    keiths doesn’t answer questions that are put to him.

  16. keiths: The Bible says that God is love.

    As I said, you’re starting with an a priori concept of God. It’s bloody freaking obvious man. Why not just admit it?

  17. Charlie,

    Why are you afraid to acknowledge that Steiner was bullshitting about tomatoes? Is it because if you acknowledge that, you’ll have to consider the likelihood that he was bullshitting about other things that are more important to you?

  18. Why not look at the world and then from what is seen attempt to reason about what is unseen, rather than going about it the other way around?

    …asks Mung, who blindly believes the Bible when it says that God is love, instead of looking at the world and reasoning from what is seen.

  19. keiths: …asks Mung, who blindly believes the Bible when it says that God is love, instead of looking at the world and reasoning from what is seen.

    I see a lot of love and compassion and beauty and good and things that are awe-inspiring. I don’t see anything that would make me want to be an atheist.

  20. Mung,

    I repeat:

    Does the following sentence make sense to you?

    God is love; therefore he slaughters children, drowns people (including those who love and worship him), and destroys their homes and possessions.

    Doesn’t that sentence cause just a wee bit of dissonance in your religion-addled brain?

  21. phoodoo,

    I repeat:

    A big part of the problem is that you simply aren’t able to formulate a coherent argument. State your assumptions and then show us a chain of reasoning, in which each step follows from earlier ones or from your assumptions, leading to the conclusion that

    Therefore, a loving God must drown children in tsunamis.

  22. keiths: A big part of the problem is that you simply aren’t able to formulate a coherent argument. State your assumptions and then show us a chain of reasoning, in which each step follows from earlier ones or from your assumptions, leading to the conclusion

    Exactly!

  23. keiths fails to observe the world, and instead chooses to base his argument on an a priori assumption about what God ought to be like. He claims his argument is based on evidence, but nothing could be further from the truth.

  24. Mung,

    keiths fails to observe the world, and instead chooses to base his argument on an a priori assumption about what God ought to be like. He claims his argument is based on evidence, but nothing could be further from the truth.

    Derp.

    Read it again, Mung. For comprehension this time.

  25. keiths: Doesn’t that sentence cause just a wee bit of dissonance in your religion-addled brain?

    Nope.

    Now maybe keiths will answer questions. But probably not. Fear. Cowardice. Ignorance.

  26. PeterP: Homeostasis is quite important to the life of an individual.So far no one has denied this. All that does is take us back to this:

    “What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.”

    Which is false as you’ve agreed in previous posts.Now what?

    I have agreed to no such thing.

    What do we observe about blood flowing to and from the lungs? The blood flowing away from the lungs is a fresh vibrant red, it is a living substance. The blood returning to the lungs is becoming dark and dull which is the same as we would see in a pool of blood on the floor. It is losing it’s vital living force.

    We can see the same effect with a red rose which has been cut. As it loses the connection to the living forces of the plant it darkens and becomes dull over time.

    The only thing that prevents the blood returning to the lungs from suffering the same fate is that it is able to exchange gases in the lungs and thus reinvigorate itself in preparation for it’s return journey to the bodily tissues..

    Look at the effects of severe frostbite where the tissues are not being supplied with fresh oxygenated blood, the normal fresh living tissue becomes dark, dull and lifeless.

  27. CharlieM: I have agreed to no such thing.

    Then you must believe that CO2 is a poison in the living human since it ‘makes life continually perish’.

    What do we observe about blood flowing to and from the lungs? The blood flowing away from the lungs is a fresh vibrant red, it is a living substance. The blood returning to the lungs is becoming dark and dull which is the same as we would see in a pool of blood on the floor. It is losing it’s vital living force.

    Nonsense. I can readily tell that you’ve never actually seen a ‘pool of blood’ on a floor or anywhere else. If you had you would have surely noticed that it was a vibrant red color as the heme groups became saturated with oxygen upon exposure to the air. And it remains that way for many many hours. If you are hanging your hat on the spectral absorption properties of hemoglobin then how does blood exposed to CO stack up? Cherry red is the color of the blood and full of ‘vital’ force’ it must be.

    We can see the same effect with a red rose which has been cut. As it loses the connection to the living forces of the plant it darkens and becomes dull over time.

    You’ve never seen a pool of blood in the floor up close and personal have you?

    The only thing that prevents the blood returning to the lungs from suffering the same fate is that it is able to exchange gases in the lungs and thus reinvigorate itself in preparation for it’s return journey to the bodily tissues..

    Reinvigorate?

    Look at the effects of severe frostbite where the tissues are not being supplied with fresh oxygenated blood, the normal fresh living tissue becomes dark, dull and lifeless.

    So frozen tissue is not healthy tissue who could have ever guessed.

  28. Timothy:
    Phoodoo, what is your obsession with whipped cream about?

    Its not my obsession, its keiths. He wants a world where only good can happen to him, and everything tastes great. I guess that means only whipcream can satisfy him.

  29. PeterP: evidently. those poor anaerobes left w/o a vital force.

    Logic fail. No one ever said there was only one vital living force. CharlieM even specifically wrote of living forces.

  30. Mung: Logic fail. No one ever said there was only one vital living force. CharlieM even specifically wrote of living forces.

    How many living forces are there? Could/would you give us a list of them so we can discuss them?

    He also said It is losing it’s vital living force. so human blood must only have one then according to CharlieM. And it must be oxygen since that is what he is discussing when he talks about gas exchange at the lung.

    CharlieM also, apparently, believes that CO2 also ‘makes life continually perish’ do you agree with that as well?

  31. Mung: I see a lot of love and compassion and beauty and good and things that are awe-inspiring. I don’t see anything that would make me want to be an atheist.

    Even if keiths is right no need to ,some people like a God with a little more edge.

  32. Mung:

    I see a lot of love and compassion and beauty and good and things that are awe-inspiring. I don’t see anything that would make me want to be an atheist.

    keiths:

    Does the following sentence make sense to you?

    God is love; therefore he slaughters children, drowns people (including those who love and worship him), and destroys their homes and possessions.

    Doesn’t that sentence cause just a wee bit of dissonance in your religion-addled brain?

    newton:

    Even if keiths is right no need to ,some people like a God with a little more edge.

    But Mung wants to cling to this “God is love” crap, ’cause it says so in the Bible. He’s got a problem.

  33. PeterP: Then you must believe that CO2 is a poison in the living human since it ‘makes life continually perish’.

    I do not look at things in such a reductionist way. It is the property of the returning blood as a whole that is detrimental not carbon dioxide in isolation. Would you judge the toxicity of common salt by the properties of it’s constituent molecules?

    Nonsense.I can readily tell that you’ve never actually seen a ‘pool of blood’ on a floor or anywhere else.If you had you would have surely noticed that it was a vibrant red color as the heme groups became saturated with oxygen upon exposure to the air.And it remains that way for many many hours.

    And after those many hours have elapsed, what happens to it? Initially it has vitality but it is not sustainable. Would you say that blood returning to the lungs has a vibrant red colour?

    If you are hanging your hat on the spectral absorption properties of hemoglobin then how does blood exposed to CO stack up?Cherry red is the color of the blood and full of ‘vital’ force’ it must be.

    That is correct. The problem with CO poisoning is that the vital force remains stacked up in the blood and is not released to the tissues that need it.

    You’ve never seen a pool of blood in the floor up close and personal have you?

    Yes I have.

    Reinvigorate?

    Not sure why you are querying this

    So frozen tissue is not healthy tissue who could have ever guessed.

    And you can tell the difference between fresh, healthy living substance and substance that is past it’s prime and is beginning to decay, yes? When you buy fruit and veg I assume that you can judge which are the most fresh.

  34. Mung: Logic fail. No one ever said there was only one vital living force. CharlieM even specifically wrote of living forces.

    Yes, he is making the same mistake as John Harshman, in thinking that vital living force is equal to oxygen.

  35. keiths: But Mung wants to cling to this “God is love” crap, ’cause it says so in the Bible. He’s got a problem.

    No one but you even knows what you mean. So in that sense, what you’ve written is meaningless. Care to write something that makes sense and isn’t you just making stuff up?

  36. CharlieM: And you can tell the difference between fresh, healthy living substance and substance that is past it’s prime and is beginning to decay, yes? When you buy fruit and veg I assume that you can judge which are the most fresh.

    And everyone knows it’s better to eat fresh foods.

  37. CharlieM: Yes, he is making the same mistake as John Harshman, in thinking that vital living force is equal to oxygen.

    My confusion results from the fact that everything you have said so far about this vital living force applies to oxygen and to nothing else. What is the vital living force if it isn’t oxygen?

  38. CharlieM: I do not look at things in such a reductionist way. It is the property of the returning blood as a whole that is detrimental not carbon dioxide in isolation.

    What, if isn’t the 5% reduction of oxygen or the CO2, in the venous blood versus arterial blood is it that is detrimental to the organism and exchanged in the lungs?

    Would you judge the toxicity of common salt by the properties of it’s constituent molecules?

    Well, yes I would. The question is why you wouldn’t do the same? If someone consumed KCl (i.e., salt substitute) and presented with cardiac problems would you attribute the toxicity to the KCl, K, or Cl?

    And after those many hours have elapsed, what happens to it? Initially it has vitality but it is not sustainable. Would you say that blood returning to the lungs has a vibrant red colour?

    In open air glycolysis and lactic acid fermentation consume available stores of glucose in the erythrocyte.

    I could add some anticoagulant, a calcium chelator, a bit of adenine, and some glucose and store it frozen for over ten years. Do any of those components=vital force?

    Why is a vibrant red color indicative of well, anything outside of a reduction in oxygen bound to heme which is typically on the order of 5%.

    That is correct. The problem with CO poisoning is that the vital force remains stacked up in the blood and is not released to the tissues that need it.

    What is this vital force that CO is blocking from release to the tissue? I imagine you can’t put a name to this ‘vital force’ that is stacked up so I also wonder how you measure this ‘stacking up’ to make this determination that the ‘stacking up’ of the vital force is what iwould cause the toxicity?

    Yes I have.

    great! then there must be a great deal of loading of the ‘vital force’ during all those hours that the blood remains a vibrant red color.

    Not sure why you are querying this

    Because I don’t understand what you mean by your word usage.

    And you can tell the difference between fresh, healthy living substance and substance that is past it’s prime and is beginning to decay, yes? When you buy fruit and veg I assume that you can judge which are the most fresh.

    What is it about the process of canning that preserves the ‘vital force’ in food stuffs?

    Does freezing have an impact on the ‘vital force’? If yes, how does it achieve this?You are the expert in ‘vital forces’ so I’ll let you explain it.

  39. PeterP (to Mung): How many living forces are there?Could/would you give us a list of them so we can discuss them?

    You might as well ask, how many living beings are there? Can you list them?

    He also said It is losing it’s vital living force. so human blood must only have one then according to CharlieM.

    If I hold my breath, does that mean that I only have one breath?

    And it must be oxygen since that is what he is discussing when he talks about gas exchange at the lung.

    What must be oxygen? I could say that breathing is an observed process of human speech, so would it be meaningful to say that the spoken word is equal to exhaled breath?

    CharlieM also, apparently,believes that CO2 also ‘makes life continually perish’ do you agree with that as well?

    i do not believe this.

  40. phoodoo: Its not my obsession, its keiths. He wants a world where only good can happen to him, and everything tastes great. I guess that means only whipcream can satisfy him.

    I get that. Whipped cream just seems like an odd choice to make your point. Bacon would be better.

Leave a Reply