Response to “10 Reason Why I am Not a Christian”

Here is a response to a blog “10 Reasons Why I”‘m not a Christian”

This will be good for you to read and study. Here is a link to his blog: http://hessianwithteeth.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/10-reasons-why-im-not-a-christian/#commentsmonkey

The title of this blog is revelatory. Why, not ten reasons I’m not a pumpkin? Why Christianity? There are lots of other philosophies and religions to assail. The question isn’t what you aren’t or don’t want to be ,but what you are and a defense for that position. Definition requires terms outline what you believe. Maybe this is a document, a manifesto stating “I believe in Science” like Esceleto (Estaphan) in Nacho Libre.

It requires no reason to be prejudiced against Christianity…just say “I desire something else. “That is better than a series of poorly thought out excuses.

1) ID isn’t a closed case. Yes, many would like to close the issue but science can’t and does answer the question did God create or does he exist. It explains how things work through discovery. When they reach the end of what can be tested they make approximations of what things might be. Science quickly devolves to philosophy.

But they can not answer why things are as they are as they are. This isn’t a condemnation of science but recognition of its limitation. Read David Berlinski, “The Devil Delusion,” which demonstrates that science and it’s voices over state their case on the existence of God and are using science as a bully pulpit to promote a cause “atheism” which is out of their realm of expertise.

2) Contradiction? You are parroting. You haven’t studied and it shows. By the way, science is full of contradictions: string theory, relativity, quantum theory, Big Bang….cha cha cha. It isn’t a problem for me that there are. It is a journey of discovery, we expect this. But acting like they have proved something there isn’t a Creator is stretching it past the breaking point.

3) You have never seen an electron or a photon of light or a black hole or photosynthesis… So “if you haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist “is a poor argument.

You prefer the idea of there not being God, Christianity and the like and choose to hide behind science but the problem is that, I can see you naked Mother Science’s translucent skirt.

4) Science is always in disagreement…this is a funny article. In the church most agree on most things, especially on the main things…and yes there are differences in other areas which shows there is diversity and not some monolithic overlord in the temporal church; there is freedom of inquiry and thought.

5) Oh yes you do need God to be God good! If “you” define “good”, you will always be good even if you change your mind. Defining “good” is the problem. You aren’t good to a Muslim or potentially a conservative or liberal or pick any other culture or subgroup. It depends on who is defining good and judging. Now to be “God good” you need himfor the message, the forgiveness and power (I know I’m speaking outside your revelatio, but I’ll give this to you anyway)…yeah, you need God…Go try to live out Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and Mathew 25…good luck! It is easy to say you could do it and never try. I call bullshit! If you think you can without God, then “put up or shut up!”

6) This one is funny…I can tell that you are plagiarizing ideas. Are you a “Dawkins Man”? That is “ok” we are all plagiarizing to some degree. But it is still good to think. The idea of worthiness is irrelevant. If he exists you will worship.Here is a parable: A guy walks do a dark alley, 5 thugs come up with guns and knives kick the guy to the curb and beat him within an inch of his life. There will be reverence next time he walks their turf. It is about authority and power. You are no different, when faced by a real power, you know what to do, you acquiesce, your tail between your legs , roll to your side exposing your neck, trying not to pee and beg for mercy.

Or maybe you are some Rambo or a Navy Seal type character….I just think you haven’t thought much about this, but it is hard when basking in the glory of Dawkins chanting “I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy…

7) Again, you apparently have not thought deeply about this or studied much. Did you have a Comparative Religions course in college? It sounds like it. Here is a start to your studies. If we take each religion at face value, I mean we accept what they say about their origins we have the following: Three saw angels while alone with no corroborating evidence. One is from animism (they tried to figure it all out and came up with their ideas until they were generally accepted.)

One had a personal revelation. Christianity is a sect of Judaism, an extension of, verified by the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, executed by the mandate of Rome, in public. He was a well know figure. Those who followed him spread the message at great cost, even unto death proclaiming they had witnessed his resurrection as had been prophesied for thousands of years. Huh, not different.?..study, study, study…think, think, think…

8) The pride you condemn is ever present in your writing. People are people and when they think they are right they can get a little snarky. But this isn’t a proof. Your line of reasoning wouldn’t work in court. If you were a lawyer your client would be in trouble. “Your honor, the witness is cocky so what he says can not be believed as true!” oops…you would probably get a comedic laugh from the judge and jury.

9) It doesn’t matter what you think when dealing with the truth. It is what it is. It is like says “Ebola can’t be true because I do not like it!” That is simply ludicrous!

10) But have drawn a conclusion without much thought, great bias, it is emotional, illogical and inconclusive yet you stand where you are making a judgement about truth and have made your mind to repose in your position as if there are more consequences for believing than not.

This applies to science also. Scientists, or many, contrive a conclusion when they haven’ enough information to reject all possible solutions ID and a Creator. Actually much points toward this conclusion but much like yourself they do not like where it leads: submission to the Creator.

Again, this is not a good argument.

This is the schematic is simple 1) We all die 2) No one knows what will happen, if anything after death.3) Some say they know 4) Since we do not know we are stuck trusting someone. It seems you have rested your trust on a poorly thought out reasons and are resting on men/women without knowledge about this called scientists. They may be smart and they may possess knowledge of all sorts but the existence of God and they afterlife they know no more than you.

The bottom line is you like doing your thing without restrictions and if you can build a weak argument that will suffice to support you like a crutch till we see each other on the other side. Read The Venerators. Good luck!

The Devil Delusion http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions-ebook/dp/B005QRNZYK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414610627&sr=1-1&keywords=the+devil+delusion

The Venerators http://www.amazon.com/Venerators-Clifford-Williams-ebook/dp/B00DJFP41S/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414610688&sr=1-1&keywords=the+venerators


5 thoughts on “Response to “10 Reason Why I am Not a Christian”

    1. I was not trying to make him a Christian. I was getting him to think. It was abrupt but they think there ideas stand but reason is abrasive. If you aren’t accustomed to wit and candor, it could be a little tough for you. Thanks for you comment.

  1. “Why, not ten reasons I’m not a pumpkin? Why Christianity?”
    I’ve never had to justify to someone why I’m not a pumpkin before. The same cannot be said of why I’m not a Christian. Explaining why I’m not a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. is easy: I wasn’t raised to be one. I was raised to be Christian. Why would I write about anything else?
    “The question isn’t what you aren’t or don’t want to be, but what you are and a defence for that position.”
    I’ve already written about why I’m an atheist. Why would I keep beating that dead horse?
    “It requires no reason to be prejudiced against Christianity…just say ‘I desire something else.’ That is better than a series of poorly thought out excuses.”
    Oh right, I forgot: you poor Christians are being persecuted, aren’t you? My bad. How dare I take on the majority religion when I could pick on a smaller, less prevalent one? My “desires” are irrelevant. What matters is what’s true. Now, let me pick apart your poorly thought out arguments against my “poorly thought out excuses.”
    “1) ID isn’t a closed case. Yes, many would like to close the issue but science can’t and does answer the question did God create or does he exist. It explains how things work through discovery. When they reach the end of what can be tested they make approximations of what things might be. Science quickly devolves to philosophy.
    But they can not answer why things are as they are as they are. This isn’t a condemnation of science but recognition of its limitation. Read David Berlinski, ‘The Devil Delusion,’ which demonstrates that science and it’s voices over state their case on the existence of God and are using science as a bully pulpit to promote a cause ‘atheism’ which is out of their realm of expertise.”
    Actually, there is a reason why ID is not considered science:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html#.VFGYORYmioI
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist
    http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html
    http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists
    Does science have limitations? Of course. But that doesn’t mean you get to stick whatever you want into those spaces. ID is not the answer. And science is not atheism. Science may lead to someone becoming an atheist, but they are two very different things.
    These reviews don’t really make that book sound worth reading:
    https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/292844832
    http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-berlinski/
    “diwanna_1
    I had really high hopes for this book. #1 it comes highly regarded. #2 I’m always interested in hearing a different opinion than my own and this was quite promising. I loved the idea of a secular point of view stating a defense for religious thought and a rebuttal to arguments by Harris, Hitchens, and others. Well this booked seemed to be full of contextual biases and out of context statements. Add in a serious dose of “you can’t prove it, so you are wrong” and you’ve got the gist of this book. Case in point… In Chapter 3 he states Aquinas’ causation idea. You know “everything is caused, so what’s the first cause? The uncausable cause;i.e. God” Well Berlinski says basically that since Richard Dawkins argues against this point and can’t prove that God didn’t create everything, he needs to shut up. I really tried to get into this book and see this guy’s point of view, but I just felt that he was using the same type of argument he’s refuting.”
    http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/10/david-berlinskis-delusion.html
    (Though I have to say, as soon as I read “discovery institute” I wrote that book off)
    “2) Contradiction? You are parroting. You haven’t studied and it shows. By the way, science is full of contradictions: string theory, relativity, quantum theory, Big Bang….cha cha cha. It isn’t a problem for me that there are. It is a journey of discovery, we expect this. But acting like they have proved something there isn’t a Creator is stretching it past the breaking point.”
    How exactly are string theory, relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Big Bang contradictions? String theory is one theory within quantum physics. Is there a competing theory? Yes: M Theory. But these theories are not in contradiction because we do not have enough evidence to say which one is true yet. Relativity and quantum mechanics can’t both be true, however, we know that relativity is the one that’s wrong. Why do we still use it? Because it is not completely wrong. It is a useful starting point. Throwing it out would make no sense because it would force scientists to have to start all over again. The Big Bang Theory is one such theory that benefited from Relativity, however, it is not completely dependant on Relativity and is separate from those other theories (both quantum mechanics and string theory could be disproved and the Big Bang could still be fine).
    I think it’s funny that you say I’m parroting, given that so far you’ve been parroting lies that can only be found on fundamentalist Christian websites and in fundamentalist Christian books. Pot calling kettle much?
    “3) You have never seen an electron or a photon of light or a black hole or photosynthesis… So “if you haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist” is a poor argument.
    You prefer the idea of there not being God, Christianity and the like and choose to hide behind science but the problem is that, I can see you naked Mother Science’s translucent skirt.”
    I never said that the fact that I personal have never seen one is the only reason I disbelieve in miracles. I also mentioned the fact that miracles that others have claimed happened can be disproved. We have evidence of electrons and photons. There are pictures of black holes. Biologists have seen oxygen bubbles coming out of leaves that are actively photosynthesising. Have I personally seen it? No, but I can see the evidence that it happens. Where is the evidence for these supposed miracles? Do you actually believe that they hold water next to the evidence provided by science?
    “I can see you naked Mother Science’s translucent skirt.”
    Hold on a sec….hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, WTF is that?
    “4) Science is always in disagreement…this is a funny article. In the church most agree on most things, especially on the main things…and yes there are differences in other areas which shows there is diversity and not some monolithic overlord in the temporal church; there is freedom of inquiry and thought.”
    Really? So no churches disagree on whether the Eucharist is the literal body of Jesus or just a metaphor? No churches disagree about whether Jesus was God reincarnate or just his son? No churches disagree on the significance of Mary? No churches disagree abut whether the Bible is the literal word of God or a man-made document? Meanwhile at least 96% of Biologists accept Evolution. There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement there.
    “5) Oh yes you do need God to be God good! If ‘you’ define ‘good,’ you will always be good even if you change your mind. Defining ‘good’ is the problem. You aren’t good to a Muslim or potentially a conservative or liberal or pick any other culture or subgroup. It depends on who is defining good and judging. Now to be ‘God good’ you need him for the message, the forgiveness and power (I know I’m speaking outside your revelation, but I’ll give this to you anyway)…yeah, you need God…Go try to live out Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and Matthew 25…good luck! It is easy to say you could do it and never try. I call bullshit! If you think you can without God, then ‘put up or shut up!’”
    I think it’s time for you to put up: prove to me that I’m not moral. Otherwise, this rant is meaningless. Until you can provide evidence that your god exists, that morality can only come from this god, and that I am immoral, you’re just spewing meaningless rhetoric.
    “6) This one is funny…I can tell that you are plagiarizing ideas. Are you a ‘Dawkins Man’? That is ‘ok’ we are all plagiarizing to some degree. But it is still good to think. The idea of worthiness is irrelevant. If he exists you will worship. Here is a parable: A guy walks do a dark alley, 5 thugs come up with guns and knives kick the guy to the curb and beat him within an inch of his life. There will be reverence next time he walks their turf. It is about authority and power. You are no different, when faced by a real power, you know what to do, you acquiesce, your tail between your legs, roll to your side exposing your neck, trying not to pee and beg for mercy.
    Or maybe you are some Rambo or a Navy Seal type character….I just think you haven’t thought much about this, but it is hard when basking in the glory of Dawkins chanting ‘I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy…’”
    You can’t plagiarize ideas. Only words. When it comes to ideas, we’re all standing on the shoulder of giants. I didn’t get the idea that God isn’t worthy of worship from Dawkins (who, by the way, is not a person I care to consider, let alone worship), I got it from Hitchens. What does your “parable” have to do with anything?
    “7) Again, you apparently have not thought deeply about this or studied much. Did you have a Comparative Religions course in college? It sounds like it. Here is a start to your studies. If we take each religion at face value, I mean we accept what they say about their origins we have the following: Three saw angels while alone with no corroborating evidence. One is from animism (they tried to figure it all out and came up with their ideas until they were generally accepted).
    One had a personal revelation. Christianity is a sect of Judaism, an extension of, verified by the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, executed by the mandate of Rome, in public. He was a well know figure. Those who followed him spread the message at great cost, even unto death proclaiming they had witnessed his resurrection as had been prophesied for thousands of years. Huh, not different.?..study, study, study…think, think, think…”
    You think Christianity is the only religion with a revelation? That’s cute. But tell me: how would that make Christianity the only true religion even if it can be said to be the only religion with a revelation? How does the story of Jesus prove anything? Can you prove that the story is true?
    “8) The pride you condemn is ever present in your writing. People are people and when they think they are right they can get a little snarky. But this isn’t a proof. Your line of reasoning wouldn’t work in court. If you were a lawyer your client would be in trouble. ‘Your honour, the witness is cocky so what he says can not be believed as true!’ oops…you would probably get a comedic laugh from the judge and jury.”
    At what point in my post was I aiming to disprove Christianity? It straight up says “Why I’m Not A Christian” not “Why Christianity Is Wrong.” Do you see the difference?
    “9) It doesn’t matter what you think when dealing with the truth. It is what it is. It is like says ‘Ebola can’t be true because I do not like it!’ That is simply ludicrous!”
    Again, not about proof. If you want me to believe that hell is real, show me the evidence. Then explain why I should worship the god who would create such a place.
    “10) But have drawn a conclusion without much thought, great bias, it is emotional, illogical and inconclusive yet you stand where you are making a judgement about truth and have made your mind to repose in your position as if there are more consequences for believing than not.
    This applies to science also. Scientists, or many, contrive a conclusion when they haven’ enough information to reject all possible solutions ID and a Creator. Actually much points toward this conclusion but much like yourself they do not like where it leads: submission to the Creator.
    Again, this is not a good argument.
    This is the schematic is simple 1) We all die 2) No one knows what will happen, if anything after death.3) Some say they know 4) Since we do not know we are stuck trusting someone. It seems you have rested your trust on a poorly thought out reasons and are resting on men/women without knowledge about this called scientists. They may be smart and they may possess knowledge of all sorts but the existence of God and they afterlife they know no more than you.
    The bottom line is you like doing your thing without restrictions and if you can build a weak argument that will suffice to support you like a crutch till we see each other on the other side. Read The Venerators. Good luck!”
    If I told you fairies existed would you believe me? Why not (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here)? Does it have something to do with the fact that you’ve never seen a fairy? That there is no evidence of fairies? Given your logic, if I say there are fairies, you should believe me. If you don’t like this logic with fairies, why do you think it should be accepted for gods?
    I have in fact thought deeply about my position. But this seems to be another case of you projecting. Perhaps it is you you hasn’t thought very deeply.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s