Advertisements

Monthly Archives: July 2012

The Parable of the Year 4500 [PARODY]

A warning to the sarcastically impaired… this post is meant in jest, but it raises a valid point that bears addressing by atheists of OUR time. Before it’s even a question from speed readers or skimmers, I am not de-converting.

By Supportstorm (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

It has been horrid living under the Christian oppression for my entire life.  I was only a Christian because my family raised me so, and only remained so because it was easy in a primarily Christian society.

But I have, at last, thrown off the shackles of Christian oppression and joined the Brights of society, in knowing the truth that there is no God.

I now post my anti-testimony so that others may find the strength to resist the mindvirus of Christianity.  But let me start with a little history…

Christians in 4500 point to two incontrovertible “miracles” proving the existence of their god.  The first is the so-called Resurrection, when their zombie lord allegedly rose from the dead.

The second allegedly happened five days after an anonymous writer of what they used to call a “blog” wrote this:

If one evening, every star in the sky began to move in unison, and converge to form an illuminated three dimensional Latin Cross that filled the entire void, leaving the rest of the sky utterly black, devoid of any stars or planets; with Jesus’ face superimposed upon it, speaking in all languages at once its expectations of us, and for good measure it simultaneously rained human blood across the planet; and this all lasted for 24 hrs so that every person on Earth could view the event for themselves … I’d buy it.  I’d become the worlds greatest Christian.  Or if it were equally strong evidence of some other god being, I’d be first in line to at least apologize to it for my denial and happily sacrifice to it, grovel at its hooves, or otherwise demonstrate my reverence.. (source)

Five days after that, it happened.  Millions of eyewitnesses saw it, and thousands posted accounts online and newspapers carried stories and the media frenzy was born.

And so was Christian oppression.  Because who could argue with an actual appearance of God?

But I echo the arguments of many critics of this so-called “event” of mid-2012. I now do not believe it happened.  The facile replies of the Christian so-called apologists lack so much luster as to be incredible.  Even fanciful.

So, here are my questions. . .

First, Why did God wait so long?  Allegedly, your “savior” rose from the dead in the year 33.  Yet, this fictitious event didn’t occur until 2012 — almost 2000 years later.  It seems to me that if God truly cared about humanity, he would never let questions about his existence happen, since you go to hell if you don’t believe in him.

So he wouldn’t have waited.  He would have made the first great miracle, the Resurrection, more obvious.  The Resurrection, in fact, is all he should have needed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was.  People would believe then.

The fact that your god needed a second miracle proves he is inept and not worthy of worship.

Second, Where’s the video of this event?  Christian apologists claim that as a supernatural event, this couldn’t have been put on video.  Therefore, all of the video from the time that shows a typical, non-rearranged night sky is what we’d expect to see.

Well, it seems to me that if God expected this miracle to convince everyone of his existence, that he’d leave more than just a few eyewitnesses.  I know that it is claimed the “entire planet” saw this, but that isn’t good enough.  The Resurrection was supposedly seen by over 500 people who were still alive at the time of writing, but I can’t question them now, either.  Therefore, both miracles suffer from lack of adequate attestation.  Which leads us to …

Why do you expect me to take this on eyewitness testimony alone?  Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.  I can’t question any of these people today, and supposedly there’s no actual video of this event.  The hundreds of blog posts that still exist are no proof, since the Church could have put those together and claimed they were authentic.

I bet they even destroyed the counter-testimony, the people of the era who said this event never happened.  There was bound to be lots of those, as I understand atheist activism was popular on the Internet of 2012.  Where are all of the atheists who would have decried this obvious Christian propaganda?

Destroyed by the Church, that’s where.

So that’s my case.  That is why I now stand with the atheists.  Go ahead, theists.  Prove me wrong.

In other words, given the space of time, people will find old ways to disbelieve new miracles.  All of these arguments are repackaged versions of anti-Resurrection arguments.  Nice try, Atheist Camel.  Believe because of the Resurrection, or move along.  It is the only sign you’re getting.

Advertisements

Misguided Questions About Marriage

The Facebook page Liberal Logic 101 posted the meme at the right as a satirical point about how loose definitions sometimes become in the liberal camp.

For the record, I don’t know either person and I have no idea why they matter to this picture (beyond an educated guess).  Neither looks the race claimed, but I’m guessing each claims that race.

The idea, of course, is that the liberal has a loose sense of boundaries within a category.  Marriage and race both mean something, and the liberal (says the meme’s creator) is distorting these meanings.  One commenter summed it up nicely for the liberals who missed the point in the comments:

I think the point is that they are taking a set definition and turning it on its head. A dog is not a cat no matter how much you may want it to be. Words have definitions. You can create new words to describe things, but you cant change current definitions or they become meaningless. Imagine cops trying to find a criminal described as black when he is clearly caucasion [sic].

But, there’s a further problem with the mindset of the liberal as it pertains to marriage belied by the following questions, asked by a particular commenter:

Does the definition of marriage define the relationship between you and your spouse? How will it change your marriage if gays marry? Will you divorce your spouse if gays marry? Are you guided by hatred or by love?

A question of my own: What word appears in every single question?

Answer: Some form of “you.”

Yes, the focus for the commenter is how this affects you.

But marriage isn’t defined by how its redefinition would affect any specific individual.  Marriage is marriage, nothing more or less.  There is an ontology to “marriage;” it is the joining of a man and a woman so the two become one.  Each gender needs the complimentary characteristics of the other to be whole.

The commenter’s rhetorical questions were meant to show the conservative that he has nothing to fear by letting gays marry each other, for it won’t affect him an iota.  But this is the wrong way to think.

Marriage is a divine institution, ordained by God.  It isn’t our social construction to be played with as times change.  It is to be conformed to God’s expectations — not society’s.

Just like race has a clear and unarguable meaning (not something we can define as we please), so does marriage.  We cannot take anything that is ordered in a sense by its ontology and turn it into something that pleases us.  No matter how you try to define the words, a marriage will join the genders into one.  It cannot join members of the same sex.

Krauss’s Wager

Luke Nix of Faithful Thinkers ruminates on two of Lawrence Krauss’s recent statements:

Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):

“You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you’re going to be judged for it. I don’t want to be judged by god; that’s the bottom line.”
Earlier in the program Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense.

Absolutely: this is something that I’ve seen from atheists before.  It’s not that they don’t grant the possibility of God — it’s the judgment of God they would like to deny.

It’s not fair.

I’m just being me.

The second objection is true.  You are just being you: a sinful human being deserving of God’s judgment.  But the first statement is false.  God isn’t being unfair; he, too, is being him.

As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level.

And Luke unpacks all of that nicely in this post.

 

Didn’t see the ending coming. Really powerful stuff.