Wednesday, August 8, 2007

An Imaginary Friend

This is the conclusion to the god debate. All italicized quotes are Bnonn's words from our previous debate.............

When agreeing to enter a debate on any topic where the authors will be “emotionally” tied to their argument, one needs to remember that there will be no winner. The debate will simply be an exchange of ideas. For example in the preceding debate on the “existence of a god” or “whether or not we can know a god exist” between Bnonn and myself, one would have to wonder how to determine “a winner.” I am certain that the atheist will look at the debate and say “Nice job putting this guy in his place angelsdepart” and Christians will look at it and say “you defended Christianity valiantly Bnonn.”

The truth is, that since neither side can actually be proven, this discourse was about nothing other than winning a debate. No lives will be saved, no minds will be changed, and no one will be enlightened. Certainly from an atheistic or agnostic worldview this is no big deal. Religions and their inferior ideologies tend to be so weak that they hunger for more and more converts in order for them to feel that their beliefs are justified. In the past they often had the power to kill anyone who spoke out against their belief systems. interestingly enough Christians love to bring up John Calvin.

John Calvin of course was a cold blooded killer. Please click the above link for the whole story. If we are to have any sort of respect for a Christian apologist then we need to somewhat call his life into question. If he was mean at times or stole a candy bar when he was a kid then that would seem forgivable. If he was so unsure about his beliefs that he needed to kill anyone who disagreed then we can assume something entirely different about said source.

Since the power of the Christian ideology is beginning to wane, they do not have the luxury of destroying dissenters. This has led to an avalanche of free thinkers and an immense progression of civilization in general. In the present day Christians simply tend to create rhetoric and false dilemmas that do not allow for any other worldview to be considered.

It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth………………. I am indeed saying that to prove my viewpoint all I have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview.

the difference is that reality is unintelligible and impossible if there is no God.

Although Bnonn appears at many times to be acting intelligently his antics are equivalent to a child pounding his/her fist and stomping his/her feet screaming “I’m right because I say so.”

So even if it is the case that revelationism (sic) does not establish the truth of Christianity automatically, you should still recant your previous agnosticism and earnestly try to determine which revelation is true. I say this only to remind you that your agnosticism has been soundly refuted and you have therefore lost the debate

Bnonn began the debate with immaturity and arrogance. He uses name calling and ad hominem attacks with full understanding of how damaging this was to his argument and how insecure it made him appear.

yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown)

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate.

After being called out on his immaturity Bnonn surprisingly had the grace to admit his mistake and apologize, although the result was his insults being more subdued and clever

permit me to apologize now for any irrelevant ad hominem in my previous post.

Anytime a point was made during this debate that Bnonn could not answer he attempted to save face by saying it was nonsensical or that it ignored the actual argument at hand. These tactics were used even if the arguments were essential.

Now, you say of war and atrocities that, "The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior." Again, let me remind you that, even if it does, this is irrelevant to its truth.

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence?

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense

so to focus on the flood is really to ignore the far more fundamental disagreements which we face.

What I found really interesting in this debate though is that Bnonn’s whole premise seemed to rest on the idea that empirical proof was not sound. Bnonn feels that we cannot “know” anything through testing but only through the divine revelation of god. Of course god’s divine revelation is revealed through our ability to test things over and over again so not only is it circular logic but the difference between the two is negligible. Regardless Bnonn can’t seem to make up his mind on the topic.

without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims

So far, you have offered numerous reasons for doubting the truth of Christianity. These reasons have basically been empirical in nature, one way or the other.

Empiricism is founded upon logical fallacies, and therefore cannot produce justified claims to knowledge

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances.

Bnonn seems to take the lead from the Bible itself when it comes to contradicting himself

From an ethical standpoint it should go without saying that I deny that the Bible approves atrocities whatsoever

God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

It seems that Bnonn's belief that all knowledge is divinely inspired has taken away his ability to seek knowledge on his own and think for himself. As a matter of fact Bnonn asserts that in order for something to be disproven one must be able to prove all of the potential alternative explanations for the given event.

That is to say, if you claim to know that the Flood did not occur (and here is why I concede no point at all regarding it), then you must also claim to know all the other things, including philosophical ones, upon which this alleged knowledge is based.

Of course this is obviously false. We can know that many things are not true without knowing all of the possible outcomes. Such nonsense could only come from one who believes that knowledge can only be gained through communication with a magical creature in the sky.

If there is a god, I want to know him/her. I want someone to present proof. I am more than ready to believe in a god but I will not believe in or worship a god that wants me to accept him/her without any evidence for his/her existence. I spent 22 years being indoctrinated in religion, I led a very successful ministry and led many people to Christ. I knew all along that something was fishy with the whole system but I accepted, on faith, that everything I saw going on around me was a part of god’s divine plan. Faith is not sufficient. Faith is a fancy way of saying that you will be punished if you seek knowledge and truth.

Only in humanism do we really have the tools to enjoy and value life. To a Christian, this life is just a step. If someone is murdered or taken in a natural disaster or sent to war and blown to bits, the Christian believes that they have simply moved on to heaven. Death is not a sad occasion in the Christian worldview but a joyous one. Their loved ones have simply gone to be with Jesus in paradise. It is only through the shedding of these primitive belief systems that we can truly understand what is most valuable. This life is short. It is precious. When it is over there is nothing more. So believe what you are going to believe, but humor me on one thing. Take a walk. Stare at the stars. Make someone smile. Be nice for no reason. Do what you can to make the world a better place regardless of what you believe, because all we have in life is each other.


angelsdepart said...

Posted below is the last paragraph from Bnonn’s final statement. I think it sums up the fear tactics used by most Christians quite well.

All that remains for me now is to remind you of the consequences of this: that, having been clearly shown the truth of the Bible, you are left without excuse if you ignore its command to repent, and to believe in the salvation offered through Christ Jesus. Since the Bible is necessarily true, it follows that you are indeed a sinner who is justly condemned to an eternal hell if you refuse the forgiveness available through faith. I therefore urge you, exhort you, and implore you, to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. For the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31).

Is this guy serious? Well…….. Yes he is! LOL

tina said...

Not sure where I watched a video of young christian people saying what would happen to nonbelievers if they didn't repent. One said, take your hand and hold it over a burner,the fire would sear your nerve endings but in hell that won't happen, your nerve endings would not sear, and you will feel that for eternity.

I'm beginning to automatically shut out a religious persons comments on any religious content. It sounds so creepy and nonsensical!

Only Jesus Savs said...

If someone is murdered or taken in a natural disaster or sent to war and blown to bits, the Christian believes that they have simply moved on to heaven. Death is not a sad occasion in the Christian worldview but a joyous one. Their loved ones have simply gone to be with Jesus in paradise.

This is truly a strong refutation of Christianity. Couple of months ago a very close friend of mind went to the US to continue his studies (I am in Indonesia). I know (after among other things some statistical consideration) that most likely he would be back and we will see each other again. However, I still feel the pain not because I think that he will never come back but the fact of separation itself. Yet, on the other hand I have a hope that we will see each other again. But it does not diminish the fact the pain I feel.

Anyway, you are very rational an atheist

Only Jesus Savs said...

Sorry for the typos and improper English

Reg Golb said...

Death IS a sad occasion for the Christian. It is also a joyous one. We feel the pain of seperation, the loss of fellowship, but we rejoice in their reward. We rejoice in their life. This is not a refutation. This is a departure from the world's view of death. There may be joyful memories, but after the mints, coffee and cake, there is a long drive home and loneliness.

angelsdepart said...

This statement was not meant to be a refutation of Christianity but rather a criticism of the Christian worldview. After all when all else is said and done all that matters is how we treated each other.

Only Jesus Savs said...

"This statement was not meant to be a refutation of Christianity but rather a criticism of the Christian worldview"

Then it is a very strong criticism of it. Oh, well!