At least she was honest

Kathy Griffin's Bravo show "My life on the D-List" won some type of D-list Emmy this past Sunday. In her acceptance speech, the self-described "complete militant atheist" decided to take a few shots at an award's show tradition. "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," said Griffin. She then concluded by saying "Suck it Jesus! This is my god now!"

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is calling for action and saying that like other celebrities who offend, Griffin should "pay a similar price." Donohue said if the comment had referenced Muhammad "there would have been a very different reaction from the crowd and from the media who covered this event. To say nothing of the Muslim reaction.” But isn't that the point - that we aren't part of the perpetually offended.

We should not follow in any manner the Muslim tradition of intimidating anyone who dare speaks ill of our God. I don't believe we should demand that Kathy Griffin should pay some price for offending Christians. (Besides, isn't being Kathy Griffin enough of a punishment?) She doesn't know Jesus and she's acting like it, why is that surprising and offensive?

Besides, I'd much rather have a celebrity follow in Griffin's footsteps than have them thank Jesus for blessing their latest effort which is less than Christ-affirming.

Comments

[Louis]

This is my god now!

So she's worshiping golden idols? How crass.

I must say I don't much like her vulgarity and manifest stupidity. Though I don't worship Jesus as God, I do admire him and what he tried to accomplish. And, what was the purpose of her comments, anyway? If she doesn't want to thank a god, then don't. I, too, dislike the current trend of sports figures and celebrities making a big show of their faith on tv, but this is just as bad.

[Cineaste]

Good for Kathy. Her comments illustrate that there is no need to credit Jesus for her Emmy. Therefore, Jesus can "suck it." "This is my God now!" is added sarcasm. She is not disrespecting the teachings of Jesus the man. She is disrespecting the notion of Jesus the God who takes a hand in rewarding athletes, actors, etc. with success. I'm glad she shows no undue respect for a supernatural belief that deserves no respect.

[seeker]

She is disrespecting the notion of Jesus the God who takes a hand in rewarding athletes, actors, etc. with success. I'm glad she shows no undue respect for a supernatural belief that deserves no respect.

Christians have long complained that many of these actors and musicians that "thank Jesus" for rewarding them for their often ungodly or uncouth performances, not to mention worldly and often ungodly lifestyles, are silly, if not misleading and hypocritical.

Less egregious, but still silly, is to thank Jesus for something that you earned. While you may thank God for certain opportunities, we should also take credit for our own effort - that's not pride, that's just a realistic appraisal.

But this artist's mockery is merely the banter of fools who mock about things they are ignorant of. Perhaps they are mocking the imperfect followers of Christ, but if they are mocking belief in such things in general, I'd say that they are ignorant fools, and so would scripture, very clearly (The Fool's Heart). But you've already heard that, and sit in the scoffer's seat (Psalm 1:1). Not much one can do for a person when they get that far gone except say a quick prayer and move on.

[Cineaste]

You go, Kathy! Suck it Jesus!

[Louis]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, this strategy of the bible-writers of calling unbelievers or scoffers "fools" is little more than an ad hominem attack. It's just more evidence that they cannot meet criticism with a real response. One could as easily dismiss bible-believers as fools. How does that feel?

[seeker]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, this strategy of the bible-writers of calling unbelievers or scoffers "fools" is little more than an ad hominem attack.

And I disagree. It's just the same as saying "those who have unprotected promiscuous sex" are fools. There are real consequences, and despite the evidence, fools continue to ignore reality and take stoopid chances.

There are conditions under which the moniker of fool is earned, and the scriptures declare that the creation and our own baseline consciences give ample evidence to the reality of God, and of objective morality. But fools ignore evidence.

So while such accusations may be wielded as ad hominems, if the shoe fits, it is an accurate description, not an ad hominem. "I pity the fool" who doesn't get this.

[seeker]

One could as easily dismiss bible-believers as fools. How does that feel?

Actually, if you want to stick to your principles, there are no conditions under which you could legitimately make such an accusation, since you seem to see it merely as an ad hominem. But don't tell Harris, Dennett, or the other atheist fool such things, they enjoy their ad hominems ;)

[Cineaste]

Therefore, Jesus can suck it.

[Louis]

Using your own criteria, I think you are a fool, seeker.

[seeker]

Louis, you may like to make that accusation if you think I am ignoring evidence, or believing without evidence, or think my evidence insufficient.

But if I was using your logic, I would say that you are merely making an ad hominem attack. But consistent with my own logic, you may feel logically and ethically consistent in calling me or others foolish if they ignore evidence. Now, if they act without sufficient evidence, I'm not so sure you can call that foolish.

[Cineaste]

"I think you are a fool, seeker."

Agreed! And, a religious fanatic.

[seeker]

So I am not allowed to whine "ad hominem" like you? Why do I argue with people who can't hold a meaningful intellectual discussion about foolishness? I am a fool for arguing with such.

[Cineaste]

"So I am not allowed to whine "ad hominem" like you?"

You're the one who started it, genius.

[Louis]

seeker wrote:

...the scriptures declare that the creation and our own baseline consciences give ample evidence to the reality of God, and of objective morality.

Please provide evidence for the existence of the xian god and an "objective morality" based on xian scriptures. Also, please provide evidence that the xian holy book is an objective and accurate description of reality. Since the bible proclaims anyone who will not believe these assertions a fool, I think it is making an ad hominem attack, consistent with its strategy of intimidation and threats against anyone who won't kow-tow to its authority.

[Aaron]

Well, you ask for a lot, but on the surface I can say that the cartoon that Cineaste linked to was "foolish" or at the very least ignorant, since it claims that the only evidence for Jesus' existence is in the Bible.

You would also have to ignore Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Julius Africanus, Origen, Pliny the Younger and other extra-biblical sources. Atheist would do so much better if they didn't try to exaggerate and go into an area where they prove their ignorance.

Cineate, I don't know if you linked that cartoon and approved of everything it said or just the general thoughts behind it, but it really hurts your side when anyone can easily disprove a statement with fact.

[Louis]

Yes, Jesus may very well have existed, but nothing you have said proves that his exploits as described in the Bible really happened. Nor does mention in other sources prove he was God or God's son, or that God, as described in the Bible, exists, or that the Bible is inerrant and true in its description of God. I'm open to all this but I have yet to see anything which one can describe as evidence - quite the opposite, in fact.

[Cineaste]

Josephus, Origen, et al...

Disputed References

I see the words of successful creationists such as TV host Sherri Shepherd and I just can't help but think that creationists are completely ignorant.

[Aaron]

Louis, you are correct that does not prove much of anything, but it just establishes a foundation to build on - the existence of a man named Jesus during that time period. We can't discuss anything more if everyone doesn't accept his existence.

Cineaste, what you linked to is a Wikipedia entry on one of the Josephus passages being disputed. Most scholars believe that part of that has been corrupted and other information added (not that I am a scholar, but that's the position that I hold based on my readings), but the other reference in Josephus is not in question and neither are those of the other writers.

I don't want to be so blunt, but since you are "going there" in relation to creationists, you are must be "completely ignorant" of the facts if you are honestly going to try to dispute whether Jesus is a historically documented person or not. If we argue over that issue then historically speaking nothing is certain about anyone.

[Aaron]

I just watched the video you linked. I have no idea who Shepherd is, but clearly she is not used to answering questions about her beliefs on that issue.

But honestly I'm surprised that the quote even registered with you Cineate since you equate someone believing in a flat earth (which to be fair, Shepherd never said she believed in it, she just said she never thought about it) with someone who doesn't believe in evolution. For you those two issues display basically the same level of ignorance so why would this be a big deal?

I will answer for you then you can respond. The reason this is (was) a big deal is that the earth is demonstrably round. We can test this theory and repeat it over and over again and always get the same answer. This is not true simply because the majority of scientist say it is but because it is a testable truth which has been verified. That is different from macroevolution for all the ways and reasons we have went over and over here.

[Cineaste]

Over a year on this site and you and Seeker continue to brick walls. Jesus may have been a real person, maybe not. What I dispute is that a divine Jesus ever lived or that there is such a thing as the divine at all. I'll point you once again to what I said about Kathy Griffen's remarks...

"Her comments illustrate that there is no need to credit Jesus for her Emmy. Therefore, Jesus can "suck it." "This is my God now!" is added sarcasm. She is not disrespecting the teachings of Jesus the man. She is disrespecting the notion of Jesus the God who takes a hand in rewarding athletes, actors, etc. with success. I'm glad she shows no undue respect for a supernatural belief that deserves no respect."

Belief in fairies and Gods are equally ignorant. There's nothing to differentiate them. See the Atheist Eve comic I posted. Think about it.

Jesus, can Suck it. You, Sherri Sheppard, and Seeker can remain "fools" (Seeker's own criteria).

[seeker]

Please provide evidence for the existence of the xian god and an "objective morality" based on xian scriptures.

The proof is not in the scriptures themselves, but rather, the scriptures state that the proof is in the created world. So when you see the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of the natural world, that is the evidence that GOD exists - not necessarily the bible's God, but God.

Now, I know that the existence of such "counter" evidence as sickness, suffering, and death might make you think there is no God, or at least no loving God, but scripture does provide answers for such problems - not that you will find them sufficient, but at least it does not ignore such difficulties.

And despite these difficulties, the amazing level of order and design in nature is still staring us in the face.

As far as objective morality is concerned, the bible says that every person is given a conscience that bears witness to the truth - so when we steal or lie, we know it is wrong. Now, scripture has much more to say about the conscience, including that it can be warped by

(1) training it to feel guilty for things that are not wrong
(2) training it to NOT feel guilty about things that are wrong
(3) "searing" it so that it feels nothing

So while the conscience is not in itself a sure guide to what is right and wrong, scripture indicates, and so does our experience, that we do understand a sense of right and wrong (have you ever met a child that did not understand tit for tat?), and that the existence of this understanding and need for justice proves that such justice is right. Hence the validity of at least some moral objective principles.

[Cineaste]

"So when you see the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of the natural world, that is the evidence that GOD exists - not necessarily the bible's God, but God."

Is a fart designed? Couldn't answer that one, huh?

[seeker]

Farts may be part of the curse of the fall - maybe they smelled like roses before... sorry for deleting, but it had an html error, and I am too tired to parse (inane) comments ;)

[Cineaste]

"Farts may be part of the curse of the fall - maybe they smelled like roses before..."

You didn't answer the question. The question is, are farts designed?

[Cineaste]

There is a point to this question, which I think you see. Hence, your avoidance and "accidental" deletions of my comments.

[seeker]

I dunno, what's your argument? All biological functions are either
- working as designed
- working poorly because of degradation of the design

Does it matter? What argument are you holding in your hand ready to spring on me when I answer? I'd say number 2 above. But I suspect I've got plenty of wiggle room for whatever accusation you make ;)

[Cineaste]

So Seeker, what is your answer? Did God design farts, yes or no?

[seeker]

Belief in fairies and Gods are equally ignorant. There's nothing to differentiate them. See the Atheist Eve comic I posted. Think about it.

I think I have addressed this logical error previously in The Sins of the Church II - Creeds, doctrines, and dogma

Materialist secularists and anti-authoritarian thinkers hate dogma because it is just begging for abuse. "If you can't empirically prove your claims, yet claim that they are authoritative, anyone can claim anything as true!" they might object. However, this narrow view of dogma is similar to the the atheist's caricature of faith - it assumes a faith without reason, when in truth, dogma, and in essence, healthy faith, is faith supported by reason.

But just because empirical evidence and logic are not taken as the supreme authority in such matters does not mean that all dogmas are equal, nor does it mean that reason and evidence do not help eliminate pretenders.

For example, Christians contend that The Book of Mormon does not stand up to historical and archaeological scrutiny, and as such, should probably NOT be considered spiritually authoritative. In the same fashion, Christians point to the overwhelming support that these disciplines lend to the Bible. Similar Christian arguments have been made in debunking the authority of the Koran.

There are other logical tools one can use to eliminate dogmatic pretenders, though you might not use such to eliminate all. But the point is, dogma is necessary, even in science, since foundational assumptions exist at the base of all inquiries into truth. But bad dogma can be identified and dismissed with logic and empirical evidence, as long as we realize that these tools can never tell the entire story of reality, and have limits in what they can affirm, even if they can disprove some dogmatic claims.

[Cineaste]

Seeker? Did God design farts, yes or no?

[seeker]

I refuse to answer until you expose your purpose for asking and your cunningly crafted attacks for when I answer. Why play cat and mouse if your arguments stack up. Two can play at this "have you stopped beating your wife" game.

I can live my whole life never answering that question and feeling that my faith is secure ;)

[seeker]

And if you read my last post, I already answered. I suspect that they are part of the original design, but perhaps made inefficient by sin, death, degradation of their original function, or perhaps, they reflect a still PERFECT design, but they indicate that our diet sucks.

There you go, Mr. Christian hunter. Fire your trap!

[Cineaste]

"I refuse to answer until you expose your purpose for asking and your cunningly crafted attacks for when I answer."

ROFL!!

It's a simple yes or no answer. God designed everything right? Farts fall under the category of everything. So your answer is "Yes, farts are designed by God." Am I correct?

[seeker]

For the sake of argument alone, I will pretend that my argument is a simple YES.

Glad you laughed at that, I think this whole topic is humorous - it might even inspire a satirical essay on my part.

So, can I go home now?

[Cineaste]

Okay, so you say farts are designed by God. Now, what do you base this on? Do farts follow your argument from design, "...the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of [the fart], that is the evidence that GOD exists?"

[Louis]

I think that the existence of farts means that God has a wicked sense of humor. Of course, one could sat the same thing about xians...

[Aaron]

Cineaste as we play this silly game, what would you do if you didn't fart. The gas has to come out some way. Do you really want it stuck inside you? It may be the best possible way to expel gas from the body.

Optimal design is an interesting question. We can go back and forth about why something isn't designed this way or that, but we honestly don't know what would happen if it were different. Would it be cool, even useful, if humans could fly? Sure, but it may limit other functionalities that humans need. It would be great if we had better night vision, but that in turn would limit our day vision, which we need more.

Jesus may have been a real person, maybe not.
That shows you dance around questions and proof even more than what you accuse seeker and I. First you link something that denies the existence of Jesus period. Then I point you to numerous examples of extra-biblical references to Jesus. You dismiss them all by bringing one example of one possibility of a text corruption, that I freely admit is most likely the case. I point out that your dismissal doesn't address all of the instances and yet you still conclude "maybe not." It appears you are the one who has the thickest blinders on. It is simply atheistic delusions to deny the historical fact that Jesus did exist.

[seeker]

Actually, as an evolutionist, you might say that those that did not develop the ability to fart expired (exploded?), and were selected against.

And what if the fart was designed by God? Who are you to think it disgusting? It works.

BTW, our sense of disgust may also be designed in, to keep us from, for instance, eating feces (or having anal sex ;).

At worst, farts were corrupted as part of the fall - if we ate the right foods, and had bodies that were not degraded in functionality, perhaps farts would be rare and sweet.

[Cineaste]

"First you link something that denies the existence of Jesus period."

Aaron, you have this wrong. Read the comic carefully.

The theist says, "I know that Jesus is the son of God." Atheist Eve replies to her assertion that Jesus is the son of God with, "Even though there's no evidence, outside of bible stories that Jesus even lived?" To what Jesus is atheist Eve referring to? Atheist Eve is referring to Jesus as the son of God, a divine Jesus. How do we know this? Because the theist is speaking about Jesus as "the son of God." Who is Eve replying to? She's replying to the theist.

So, what atheist Eve says is true, "there's no evidence, outside of bible stories that Jesus even lived?" once again, keep in mind she is referring to a divine Jesus. If you think otherwise, show me by quoting your non-biblical sources.

"The gas has to come out some way. Do you really want it stuck inside you? It may be the best possible way to expel gas from the body."

So, we have established farts follow Seeker's argument from design, "...the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of [the fart]" is evidence that GOD exists. So, lets take this to it's logical conclusion. Now, when Christians contemplate the obvious beauty, the amazing complexity, the obvious integration of the divinely designed fart are they not actually contemplating God's handiwork? For all those people thinking about converting to Christianity, all they need to do is smell their own farts and they will smell evidence of God. Next time you are asked, "does God exist?" all you need to do is fart and explain the evidence.

You may think my words are offensive, funny, or a little of both. I can assure you though, I'm just following the logic of Seeker's argument from design through to illustrate to you how absurd it really is. I've clearly shown why the argument from design stinks.

[Aaron]

Cineaste, if I'm wrong I apologize, but I don't think you are following seeker's logic. I think you heard the joke online or from an evolutionist friend and thought it sounded funny and proved a point. That's why you have tried to goad him into an answer, so you could come back when the pre-planned lines. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

You can argue that from an optimal design standpoint human beings (and animals?) shouldn't fart? But what do you propose to replace that bodily function?

I honestly have no idea if stinky farts are part of the initial design or part of the fall, but it is simply silly to think that you can disprove intelligent design by saying "farts stink." That's the level of a third grader and you are much more intelligent (no pun intended) than that.

As to the cartoon, you have to read something that's not there to get to her talking about a divine Jesus because that's not what she said and it's not what you said either at the beginning of this. It's not what the atheists in that dreadful ABC debate with Kirk Cameron said either. Numerous atheists make that claim, but they do so out of ignorance.

As to evidence for a divine Jesus outside the NT, well there is the early church writings, but I'm sure you will not accept that because they are Christians. There is much that can be learned about Jesus from secular historians of the time, such as:
1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occured when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

All of that information comes from accepted historical accounts by non-Christians writers. Do any of these say that Jesus was God? No, but that is where the problem lies. The minute one says that Jesus is God, then you lump them in the untrustworthy category - in that you refer to their writings as biased. In that way you give me an impossible task - find a non-Christian that believed Christian theology and wrote it down.

That's like saying find an atheist that wrote a book about how they believe in God. At that point they cease to be an atheist. As soon as a writer says that Jesus is God, you lump them in with Christians and ignore their testimony. Not much I can do to really change your mind on that one is there?

[Louis]

I'm not so worried about the fart (although I got a good laugh out of Cin's mini-essay). Actually, I kind of like farts because they make for such great jokes and they remind us that we should quit putting on such absurd airs because we're basically animals. What bothers me about seeker's argument about how great nature and the universe is, how beautiful and inspiring, etc., is that it is deeply sentimental. For instance, it ignores the reality of the brutality, the terror, and the suffering that is an integral part of nature. All living things seem to live off the sufferings of others, mainly by killing and eating them (sometimes eating them without killing them). And, of course, there's the entities like Ebola and the Black Plague: terrifying diseases which are a part of the natural world. Sometimes I like to contemplate a God who would create, or allow to develop, these bacteria and viruses, and I don't come up with the "loving Father" of xianity.

Now, I'm sure that Aaron would object that these faults in God's design are all our fault because Adam ate a forbidden fruit or something, but I find this rather weak. It is simply a strategy to let God off the hook and blame humans for everything (as usual). God is the creator and is ultimately responsible. Besides, He's allowing it to go on. Why not simply make them disappear? And, another thing, I think the punishment far outweighs the crime. Why should all humanity (not to mention the animal kingdom) for all time have to suffer because of what one man and one woman did 6,000 years ago? To call it unjust is understating the matter entirely.

No, for me, the idea of nature illustrating a good and merciful God just doesn't hold water - a demon perhaps, or a cosmic practical joker, but not the God of xianity. Better to dismiss the whole idea and go with evolution.

[Cineaste]

"I think you heard the joke online or from an evolutionist friend and thought it sounded funny and proved a point. That's why you have tried to goad him into an answer, so you could come back when the pre-planned lines."

No. This is my own simple response to Seeker's post about the argument from design. I demonstrate how absurd his argument from design is.

Both of you admit farts follow the argument from design. In Seeker's words, "...the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of [the fart]" is evidence that GOD exists.

Both of you admit farts are divinely designed by a perfect God by citing the argument from design.

So I say...

...when Christians contemplate the obvious beauty, the amazing complexity, the obvious integration of the divinely designed fart are they not actually contemplating God's handiwork? For all those people thinking about converting to Christianity, all they need to do is smell their own farts and they will smell evidence of God. Next time you are asked, "does God exist?" all you need to do is fart and explain the evidence.

I feel I've made your brain short circuit. You agree farts are evidence of God's handiwork but you cant bring yourself to use farts as evidence because of how absurd your argument from design sounds. The argument from design stinks.

"Do any of these say that Jesus was God? No..."

We'll leave it there.

[seeker]

I think i understand the secularist's argument. They are not arguing that the man Jesus did not exist, but that the supernatural claims require more than documentary evidence. Without observable, empirical evidence, supernatural claims are a big leap, esp. since such things are rarely, if ever, observed today.

But this is where I see faith stepping in. You see, a reasoned faith looks at the other claims of scripture, the historically verifiable ones, as well as the examination of internal logic, documentary evidences, and the psychological arguments like the willing martyrdom of the apostles (who would hardly give their lives for a farce).

Further, a reasoned faith examines the spiritual claims of scripture and tests them out in the personal laboratory of one's own life, including the experiential realm of attempting to experience God.

Such "reason in search of faith" leads many past the self-limiting and careful/fearful demands of the materialist who MUST have extraordinary evidence, and who in effect, refuses to live by faith.

I don't suppose I blame them, since they can not manufacture or fake faith, and because in part, they are dependent on God to give them the gift of faith in order to cross that bridge.

But such a crossing is not anti-reason, it merely takes the person beyond where reason can navigate. Reason can get us to the door of a valid faith, but it can't get us across. Faith forces us to rely on more than just our minds, but our hearts, our intuition, in fact, our spirits. And not that reason ceases to operate once faith begins - but rather, it follows faith to confirm, refine, or refute various faith ideas and experiences. But it no longer leads.

Secularists are right to be wary of pretenders and charlatans, since there are so many out there. In sad fact, many people retreat to rationalism's narrow hallways because there are too many charlatans.

That's why we have to prove our faith through good works, through patience, through forebearance, and do what Jesus did - "who, while we were yet sinners, loved us and died for us."

It is not that the scriptures are untrustworthy, nor is it that historical and just about every other kind of evidence there is fails to support their authenticity.

The problem is that NO amount of historical data is enough to support supernatural claims, and to cross that bridge of "belief without empirical evidence" is too much for the natural man to do without the help of God, and without the courage to risk all in finding out. May God help the searching secularist to believe.

[Cineaste]

...or a cosmic practical joker

Yes! Louis, I think you might like this...

L'Animateur - The Animator - Der Trickzeichner

[seeker]

For all those people thinking about converting to Christianity, all they need to do is smell their own farts and they will smell evidence of God. Next time you are asked, "does God exist?" all you need to do is fart and explain the evidence.

This, of course, is not real logical reasoning, but pejorative sarcasm masquerading as logic. Christianity does not teach design in the low-brow manner in which that paragraph does - it's basically a straw man with no rhetorical value or weight at all. Anyone who makes up their mind on the existence of God by smelling their farts is an idiot, and so are those who think such arguments are compelling.

If you are trying to illustrate a valid point, it is lost in your example - a profoundly poor example if you are trying to get a valid point across.

I have alluded to at least two possible, very logical reasons to explain to you why farts fit into the design paradigm of reality with no difficulty at all. But you don't hear such, nor do you address such.

As I suspected early on, you had a pre-canned answer you wanted to spring on us, as if you had caught us in some logical error. But no error existed, except in your original premises, and your inability to engage our arguments, because you have your own suppositions about what our arguments are - that is, you are only prepared to interact with your straw man and win.

It amazes me that those lacking faith can rely on such pathetic excuses for reason and logic, and go away satisfied that they are right and acting and thinking reasonably.

But the deceptive nature of sin explains it - it's why we must continue to logically defend, live, and preach the gospel. Some will yield their paper tiger arguments when they realize that they aren't resisting men, but God himself, while others will go their graves, dead fools believing their own deceptions.

Cin, when you provide such arguments against design or God, I sleep so much better at night knowing that you have nothing truly challenging to offer this day.

[Cineaste]

Hi, my name is Seeker. I believe Farts are designed by God (See my agreement above). Farts demonstrate, "the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design" of God (See my argument from design in my post above).

Next time you are asked, "does God exist?" all you need to do is fart and the evidence should be "obvious" to you. Does my argument sound absurd? Well, it is. Butt, I can't admit that to myself because I'm a religious fundamentalist and also I can't allow Cineaste to end on such a blasphemous note. Therefore, I am compelled to respond to this post with the following rhetoric...

[seeker]

Very nice straw man. It's amazing how you can do this gymnastic and think you are being logical

1. Seeker does not agree with my point, so he must therefore agree with the polar opposite.

2. Now that I have established what he believes, I can explain it in a way that sounds outlandish.

3. Now I have proved that he is wrong.

Have you been drinking? Usually you are much more cogent.

[Cineaste]

Seeker, did you cut the cheese? Oh my, that's evidence for God's existence. That fart MUST have been designed! ROFL!

[seeker]

Yeah, it smells like... cheese! I love cheese. Therefore, it is designed. LOL.

[Cineaste]

That's your argument. Absurd, isn't it?

[Aaron]

I'm out. This is ridiculous. Cineaste, you ignored everything anyone talked about (explanations of your absurd question as well as my pointing to extra-biblical sources with explanations as to why you wouldn't accept any writing that concluded Jesus was God) and you continue to spout third grade humor talking points. You want to go with silly humor - this is what you reminded me of.

I'm with seeker, usually you are much better than this, but this conversation is less than worthless.

[Louis]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far I haven't seen such proof here or elsewhere. You want a leap of faith, but offer no reason to take it. It seems to me that God could offer us something better than the wishful thinking and fear of death one sees in the religious.

There are spiritual traditions which don't require such absurd leaps.

[seeker]

Louis,

I do not entirely agree with your aphorism regarding extraordinary claims. You use that to exclude all but the type of evidence you will accept. However, I did post the comment above discussing the merits and limits of this approach.

I think your summary of Christianity shows a misunderstanding of the Christian gospel - your redux is taking some secondary but real features of the Christian gospel, and proposing those as the central emphases and tenets. I wouldn't believe in the Xianity you espouse either - good thing that's not the real thing.

There are spiritual traditions which don't require such absurd leaps.

You mean like Buddhism, which requires you to believe that there is some magical mechanism by which our souls are repackaged into a next life based on our karma?

There are lots of nice ethical systems out there to choose from. But when it comes to truly spiritual, that is, trying to answer the questions that science can not - what it God like, what is man like, what is the problem, what is the solution, what about justice for those who get away with murder, what happens after death, there is NO religion that can offer answers to these questions without requiring faith.

[Louis]

You mean like Buddhism, which requires you to believe that there is some magical mechanism by which our souls are repackaged into a next life based on our karma?

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the supernatural accretions to Buddhist thought. However, I will say that the idea of karma and how one's actions now affect one's future life or lives makes a whole lot more sense that the Abrahamic religion's dogma of one life and then you're out. I, personally, take the idea of karma metaphorically, as a guide to behavior now.

Also, Zen Buddhism doesn't require any belief in supernatural phenomena.

...there is NO religion that can offer answers to these questions without requiring faith.

Yes, my precise point. And what is faith but belief without evidence? Zen Buddhism puts all these questions aside and concentrates on transforming the mind, clearing it of false ideas and beliefs which get in the way of clear sight. It's actually more psychological than religious, leaving ultimate beliefs to the individual and his existential experience.

[Cineaste]

"...but this conversation is less than worthless."

Exactly, Aaron. That's the argument from design in action. It's completely absurd. You apply the argument from design to things you feel are worthy like mountains or stars. But, when it's applied to other things like farts it falls apart. If you believe the argument from design does not fall apart with farts, then why don't you use farts as "evidence" for God's existence along with the other "beautiful" things in the universe?

As I said before, I feel I've made your brain, and Seeker's, short circuit. You agree farts are evidence of God's handiwork but you cant bring yourself to use farts as evidence because of how absurd your argument from design sounds. The argument from design stinks.

I've frustrated you and Seeker once more which is what usually happens when you guys try to debate me on anything.

[seeker]

But, when it's applied to other things like farts it falls apart. If you believe the argument from design does not fall apart with farts, then why don't you use farts as "evidence" for God's existence along with the other "beautiful" things in the universe?

It did not fall apart at all - you created a straw man and said it falls apart. Actually, the biblical view of a corrupted design fits the facts perfectly, down to the existence of farts, burps, and atheists.

What is laughable is that you think you've actually succeeded in making some kind of point for your view, but in fact, you've shown the ridiculousness of it, not to mention some of the poorest debating we've seen here.

[Cineaste]

"It did not fall apart at all..."

There you go then. You say farts are evidence for God's existence because of the "beauty" of the fart's design. I say this is absurd. You think designer farts make perfect sense. Yet, though you believe farts to be evidence of God's existence you are embarrassed to use it as an example of design, preferring instead to go with "majestic mountains" and the like. Be consistent.

[seeker]

Like I said, the intelligent debater Cineaste has gone away and been replaced by his troll twin. Why must you revert to either/or thinking, presenting your straw man of what my disagreement with you is, and focusing on minutiae as if they represent the whole picture?

Please move on, you are embarrassing yourself, and stop obsessing over fart smelling.

[Cineaste]

Sticks and stones Seeker. You haven't addressed the point...

"You say farts are evidence for God's existence because of the "beauty" of the fart's design. I say this is absurd. You think designer farts make perfect sense. Yet, though you believe farts to be evidence of God's existence you are embarrassed to use it as an example of design, preferring instead to go with "majestic mountains" and the like. Be consistent."

[seeker]

The fact that you entirely missed my brief answer in the comments above, and your focused insistence on such trivia tells me that you have no interest in the answer, which is already there in nascent form.

Here's my final answer, I hope. Unless you can engage the arguments in a meaningful manner.

1. The creation itself, in its totality and grandeur, proves that God exists. That's what Romans 1:19-20 is trying to say.

2. It can be argued that even every small part of creation - from the insane complexity of a single-celled organism to the integration of the fart into larger complex living systems may be viewed as evidence for design. However, no one would argue that focusing on such minutae would prove God's existence - it is the magnificent WHOLE that is compelling.

Choosing the humorous nature of bodily functions as an example is a pathetic device of trickery - it attempts to make the subject itself seem silly, and confuses the issue. Even worse, while a Christian might argue that farts have a clear function which is well integrated into the body, they would not argue that this one small data point proves that God exists - the argument is that the whole of creation together is compelling, not just one data point.

And if you properly understand the design argument, you know that the crux of it is that it is the irreducably complex systems, as well as the amazingly complex integrated whole, that argue for design. The fart is not a system in itself, but part of one, so no one is really making an argument from design based on the fart.

That's just your juvenile attempt at mocking obfuscation - and that's not an ad hominem. This approach is way beneath the level of argument you've presented in other matters, and both Aaron and I are amazed that you would persist along these lines.

3. A simple argument for the design of the fart would be - how would YOU design the body to deal with bodily gases? The fart is an essential function, that, if absent, might lead to death. The fact that it is highly functional and even critical to survival indicates that it might not be accidental.

But again, focusing on such a small sub-part of the larger system is a deception in trying to debunk the design argument - it shows a misunderstanding (purposeful or not) of the design argument, as well as the argumetn being made in Romans 1:19-20, which is where this all started.

CONCLUSION

You see, when the scriptures declare that atheists are fools, it is not because it is slinging ad hominems, but it is sticking to the strict definition - someone who IGNORES OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THEIR OWN HURT. The scriptures declare that the grandeur of creation, as well as the baseline conscience that all men are born with, are more than enough evidence to convince the rational soul that God exists. Those who ignore this evidence are quite plainly fools because the evidence is sufficient, according to the bible.

And BTW, the scriptures don't say that if you fail to believe in the Christian God, you are a fool (though you may be), but that many of the attributes of the Christian God, two of which are mentioned in the passage above - his intelligent, great and eternal power in creating so much, and his authority over his creation, which includes mankind.

As an atheist, of course you disagree with such evaluations. You can do no other without incriminating yourself. Fine, you may hold that opinion and disagree. But your requirements for some direct empirical evidence will never be met, and if that is what you require, then go on your way, rather than trying to shut down everyone who disagrees with you. Your crusade to rid the world of all that can be empirically validated is not about science v. supertition, it's about the hubris to think our puny minds can reduce all of life down to material things and limited rational understanding.

Reason can keep us from gross error in such things, but it can not confirm a negative, nor can it explain all of life. It must live in balance with faith or remain the cruel opponent of those who want more than human intellect can provide.

And choosing the example you did proves NOT that you are a smart feller, but a fart smeller. And your arguments smell as well.

[Cineaste]

"1. The creation itself, in its totality and grandeur [which includes farts], proves that God exists."

Therefore, according to your logic fart design proves God.

2. "The fart is not a system in itself, but part of one, so no one is really making an argument from design based on the fart."

Actually, you are making an argument from design with farts. You said so yourself when I asked you if God designed farts. You said He did.

"3. The fart is an essential function, that, if absent, might lead to death."

Yes. That's why you contend God designed farts. That's your evidence for God's handiwork. So Seeker, Next time you are asked, "does God exist?" all you need to do is fart and explain the evidence.

Point to how wonderfully integrated your farts are to the design of our bodies. According to you, for all those people thinking about converting to Christianity, all they need to do is smell their own farts and they will smell evidence of God.

[seeker]

I am amazed that you have not really engaged the argument at all, and have not demonstrated any understanding of my argument, but instead, have merely repeated your nonsense.

I am glad this argument played out in public for others to see how poor atheistic logic and argumentation often are. No, all of your restatements and conclusions are not correct, but are straw men and non-sequiturs. That's my conclusion and opinion.

[Cineaste]

Again, sticks and stones Seeker.

Fact: You believe farts follow the argument from design, that farts are so perfect in design that they can only be designed by a God.

Fact: Because of the "beauty" of the fart's design, you believe farts are evidence for God's existence.

Fact: As an example of the argument from design, farts can be used as empirical evidence of God with just as much validity as an eye or flagellum can.

Your fart argument is completely absurd and you just make it worse by trying to defend it. I'm enjoying watching you try though. Keep it up for as long as you can! :)

[Cineaste]

"...as well as my pointing to extra-biblical sources with explanations as to why you wouldn't accept any writing that concluded Jesus was God"

A message for Aaron...

Hello Angry Christians

[seeker]

FACT: It's YOUR fart argument, not mine.

FACT: YOU are making the argument from design using farts, not me, and I explained to you why I would not make that argument even if I think that farts are part of the design and function of the body.

FACT: You are obsessing and being obtuse, and everyone reading this discussion can see it.

FACT: Christians have a right to be angry when idiotic arguments like yours get paraded around as meaningful.

[seeker]

"1. The creation itself, in its totality and grandeur [which includes farts], proves that God exists."

Therefore, according to your logic fart design proves God.

Can you not see the logical error you are making here? Your syllogism is false, which goes like this:

1. The design obvious in the totality of creation proves there is a god
2. Farts are part of the design
3. Therefore, farts prove there is a God.

I don't know why I bother, except to say that such logical non-sequiturs are obviously not true, nor does the opening statement include the second one.

[Aaron]

Unfortunately, I am unable to avoid debating even with someone who insists on using sophomoric and infantile tactics and rhetoric, so here I am again.

Cineaste, let me see if I can explain this to you - not in order that you will renounce all faith in evolutionary science, but that you could at least understand why we (from our worldview) think your argument is so weak and silly. It's not really frustrating to us that we can't answer your objections, but simply that you refuse to recognize our answers beyond continuing to repeat "farts stink."

Just imagine for a second that God does exists and that somehow you are God. It is the beginning of time and you are about to create human beings. You, being God, understand that you must balance all the needs, strengths and weaknesses together to make this creature. In all your infinite wisdom, how do you, as God, decide to deal with gas in a human?

That's why we see your argument as so worthless - we haven't seen you give a better way to expel gas from the body. As I said it goes with the concept of optimal design - that every thing deals with from computers to cars to humans. One area is sacrificed to make another area better, like the example I gave earlier about night vision versus day vision.

You keep asking us to use "farts" as evidence for God's design. That's like us asking you to argue that since both human butts and monkey butts smell then they must have evolved together. Sure you may can come up with some evolutionary explanation as to why they both smell and that points to evolution, but the argument is silly and sophomoric so you stick to other areas that are much more worthy to talk about and much more compelling.

As to the video you linked, I'll ignore a good bit of it because he talks about angry Christians thankful that he is going to burn in hell. I don't think I'm an angry person on the net or in real life and I pretty sure I've never said that I was glad anyone (much less anyone I've ever talked to) was going to hell. If anything I weep and mourn over that, but to the point I think you were trying to make - his dismissal of the evidence for Jesus.

His approach (from ignorance I would contend) is much different than the one you have been making here. He is arguing from the legend standpoint, which again is one you have yet to raise, but I will attempt to answer it now as quickly as I can and link to other things I have written that are much more extensive.

I am assuming that he is arguing that the Gospels were written years after the fact by non-eyewitnesses. There is evidence very much to the contrary, such as the book of Acts ending with the main character (Paul) still alive in Rome. If Paul had been dead when the book was written, Luke would have mentioned it. So that puts a cap on the book of Acts before the mid 60's, which pushes Luke's Gospel before that. So we have at least one Gospel (actually it moves the others forward to, but we won't get into that) within at the very most 30 years of Jesus' death. Is that really long after the fact written by people who had never heard Jesus?

You can also take the creed that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15. That teaches about Jesus death for our sins and resurrection and it was given to Paul only a few years after Jesus death.

Writings by early Christians quote the books in the NT, which prove beyond any doubt that all of them were written before AD 100, which blows the whole two or three generations removed out of the water.

All of the non-biblical writings come from shortly after Jesus death and describe what the early church believe from the beginning. It was not a legend that developed over time. It was something that was accepted from the start. Now you can argue that they were all deluded or whatever, but you can't make the statement the YouTube guy did that all of this stuff was simply added generations later. It simply cannot be the case - factually.

Here are the long versions of the argument:
Jesus outside Christian writings
Jesus within early Christian writings
Was the resurrection a legend?

[Cineaste]

"Can you not see the logical error you are making here? Your syllogism is false"

I'm glad you agree with me. It's not my syllogism; this is your argument from design.

1. The design obvious in the totality of creation proves there is a god
2. [Flagellum] are part of the design
3. Therefore, [flagellum] prove there is a God.

I just replaced what creationists usually use, the flagellum, with farts, which you admit, are also designed by God. It's still the same faulty, absurd, idiotic argument. Think about it.

"That's why we see your argument as so worthless"

Again, it's not my argument. It's the argument from design. I only replaced "flagellum" or "eye" with fart. It's the stupidest argument creationists employ and I'm overjoyed you both admit it now.

"There is evidence very much to the contrary, such as the book of Acts ending with the main character (Paul) still alive in Rome."

Is this the Bible? Remember, we are looking for non biblical sources. Whenever you mention something from the Bible it just supports the "Atheist Eve" contention that all the supposed "evidence" for a divine Jesus comes from the Bible. We were talking about Josephus whose work was edited by Christians.

Think of it like this Aaron, where is the documentation of these momentous miracles outside of Christianity? Wouldn't the Egyptians have documented all the stuff that Moses did to them?

[Aaron]

That's what I was saying with your argument being different from the one in the video you linked to - he was questioning the Gospels by implying that they are legendary material written generations after the facts. I was answering your "message for Aaron." It was distinctly different from saying talk about Jesus outside of the Gospels.

But if we get back to my points about non-biblical evidence, I have already given you 12 points about the life of Jesus and the first church's thoughts about Him that can be learned from non-Christian sources with information that is not in question (like one of Josephus' passages).

But again, you dodge my explanation to you as to why you ask for an impossibility when you ask me to prove a divine Jesus outside of Christian writing.

Anything that claims Jesus was divine will almost always be written by a Christian because only Christians believe that Jesus was divine. But you want non-Christian sources for out-right divinity. You're not going to get those and even those that do appear (like Josephus' contended passage) is automatically assumed to have been tampered with.

What if I asked you for testimony about why unguided evolution is true from someone who believes in creation? And then when you could not produce that, I claimed that my disbelief must be right because you can't find what I'm asking you to find. It's the same exact thing you're asking me for - testimony of a divine Jesus from people who believed he was not divine.

But what you can get is support for the Biblical account by looking at all the evidence from non-Christian sources and from archeology. That's all anyone is ever going to have. I understand that you don't find that compelling, but that does not prove anything except what you find compelling - not any of the facts of the situation. Nothing I have said has been disproved or really even questioned.

As to your continual "fart" argument, you continue to ignore any attempt at actual dialogue on that issue because you have set in your mind what you think we are saying that fits in with your preconceived ideas. You have done nothing but destroy your own straw men and preconceptions really well. I hope that was fun.

If you are going to respond to this, please actually read what I have written here and before and respond to each point raised. Don't cherry pick things that can be fit into the "narrative" you are trying to tell. When I respond to you, they are usually rather lengthy because I want to answer each objection and question you raise. I'm not asking for a book, but thoughtful responses to answers given by seeker and myself.

[Cineaste]

...he was questioning the Gospels by implying that they are legendary material written generations after the facts.

He's talking about both the gospels and records outside the gospels. Atheist Eve is talking about what's outside the Gospels.

"I have already given you 12 points..."

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar. This says nothing about his divinity.
2. He lived a virtuous life. So what, many do?
3. He was a wonder-worker. Only according to the bible.
4. He had a brother named James. I have a brother named Brian. This says nothing about his divinity or mine.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah. Only by Christian sources like the Bible.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Lots of others were too.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover. December?
8. Darkness and an earthquake occured when he died. Source from the Bible?
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead. Naturally, that's the legend.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief So? Monks set themselves on fire for theirs.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome. Islam spread even faster.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. Isn't that expected? So did Muhammad's followers.

"But again, you dodge my explanation to you as to why you ask for an impossibility when you ask me to prove a divine Jesus outside of Christian writing."

It's not impossible:P Wouldn't the Egyptians have documented all the stuff that Moses did to them? Like, part the Red Sea, destroy their army and kill their Pharaoh? The Japanese have documentation of Hiroshima and so do we.

"As to your continual "fart" argument, you continue to ignore any attempt at actual dialogue on that issue because you have set in your mind what you think we are saying that fits in with your preconceived ideas."

Aaron, the argument from design in a nutshell...

A painting [fart] was obviously painted [designed], therefore a painting [fart] is evidence of a painter [designer God].

Do you get it yet? It's absurd.

[seeker]

I am not yet good enough at deconstructing syllogisms, but let me say that

1. This is not my argument, but your construction, entirely.

2. There is an obvious error with that syllogism.

It assumes that you can use a part of the evidence to conclusively prove what the entirety of the evidence proves.

It assumes that having only part of the picture is just as convincing as having the whole. And THAT is an invalid argument.

This is why I do not make that argument, yet you want me to, and so you create such straw men.

This is why I wrote my satirical piece about how you say that the lack of design in farts PROVES there is no God.

What's crazy is, that seems to be what you are saying, and you don't deny it. I deny saying that the importance of farts in the bigger design proves definitively that God is.

You are either very confused, have had a recent brain damage event, or are being purposely obtuse and unintellectual. I suspect the last.

[Cineaste]

"It assumes that you can use a part of the evidence to conclusively prove what the entirety of the evidence proves."

A painting [fart] was obviously painted [designed], therefore a painting [fart] is evidence of a painter [designer God].

According to the argument from design, just part of the painting, like the face of the Mona Lisa would still be considered evidence of a painter.

"It assumes that having only part of the picture is just as convincing as having the whole. And THAT is an invalid argument."

Amen! It's really stupid, isn't it Seeker? That's the argument from design in action.

[Aaron]

You have to remember what I said about the facts. I didn't say they proved the Jesus was divine. I said this was information you could learn about Jesus from outside the Bible. All of the information supports the Biblical accounts and destroys any silly argument that Jesus never existed.

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar. This says nothing about his divinity.
This is just outside support for details in the Bible. Do you work at all within history and archeology? This is how you build up the credibility of an ancient book or story - by showing that outside sources corroborate the facts.
2. He lived a virtuous life. So what, many do?
Again, see above.
3. He was a wonder-worker. Only according to the bible.
Actually, no I remind you all of these are from non-Christian sources. The Jewish Talmud says that he "practiced sorcery" which in their terms means he did miracles that they credited to demonic power. Phlegon said He correctly predicted the future. The Acts of Pontius Pilate record miracles being performed. (A later version of this document circulated in the 5th and 6th century, but the first accurate version was known to all Roman officials and early Christians.)
4. He had a brother named James. I have a brother named Brian. This says nothing about his divinity or mine.
Again, see #1
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah. Only by Christian sources like the Bible.
This points out that he was believed to be the Messiah before legend could have crept in. Second century Greek writer Lucian spoke (derisively) of many Christian beliefs that developed early - Jesus was worshiped as God, Christian believe in eternal life, follow Jesus' teachings, don't worry about death, and others. Christians were already being punished for belief in Jesus as a God and not following Roman gods according to Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. This is also referenced by Roman official Suetonius. Pliny the Younger talks about how early Christians worshiped on a set day, sang songs together, worshiped Jesus as God and took oaths to live virtuous lives. Pliny lived from AD 61-112. This again illustrates the absurdly short amount of time that people must believe incredulous legend has overtaken fact and caused people to die for a myth that could have been easily disproved by people who were alive during all the actual events.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Lots of others were too.
Again, use outside sources to point to the credibility of the Gospel accounts.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover. December?
Passover is in the Spring, it coincides with Easter, again as recorded in the Bible and non-Christian sources.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died. Source from the Bible?
Nope this is from Thallus a secular historian, quoted by Julius Africanus about an unnatural eclipse that happened during the same period as Jesus' death. This was also mentioned in the writings of Phlegon, he mentions both the earthquake and eclipse.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead. Naturally, that's the legend.
As I have pointed out with these secular historians, it could not have developed as a legend because you have eye witnesses still alive when the belief became accepted. This is not a belief that rose up hundreds of years later. This is a belief that has been part of Christianity since the beginning.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief So? Monks set themselves on fire for theirs.
I agree, but the saying goes: Men will die for the truth. Some men will die for a lie that they believe to be the truth. No man will die for a lie that he knows is a lie. The early disciples would have known that what they believed was a lie, why would they die to keep up the lie - what benefit could it have gotten them?
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome. Islam spread even faster.
Within a few decades of Jesus' death the religion became entrenched in Rome according to Tacitus, the preeminent Roman historian. It's a lot easier to spread when you conquer territories and force convert. The crusades may have been a time of great "conversions" to Christianity, but they weren't real and it was not how the first church spread. But again the history of Tacitus supports the accounts in the Bible.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. Isn't that expected? So did Muhammad's followers.
Again according to Tacitus, first century Christians believed strongly enough that Jesus was God that they died for their faith. Take note that they didn't kill for their faith (to spread it like Islam), they died for it.

As to why we don't have Egyptians records of the Red Sea, I can think of several explanations for that, but I'm sure you'll dismiss them. 1. They wrote it down but it has since been lost. 2. They didn't write it down because it was embarrassing to them to have been defeated by their former slaves. They could have ignored it to keep their power reputation in tact. 3. Many historians only included positive information about their kingdom's since they worked for the rulers - that could have them fired/killed.

The whole point of this is that the writings in the New Testament are supported by non-Christians sources and archeology. The only real issue that you have left is your refusal to accept anything miraculous. That is why you cannot accept anything within Christianity or the Bible because of the supernatural claims. You are a modernists and a naturalist. That's not a slam, that's just who you are, but that's how you view the world that only natural, "rational" things are possible and you won't believe anything outside of your set parameters.

Do you agree with that? Basically, you won't believe a miracle until you see one or you at least have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that one happened. Is that a correct assessment? Because that preconception is going to color everything. Just as my preconception that the supernatural is possible is going to color how I view the world and evidences that are presented to me.

I'm just going to leave the "fart" thing alone because you seem set on being argumentative and sophomoric for no reason but to attempt to annoy.

[seeker]

The crusades may have been a time of great "conversions" to Christianity, but they weren't real and it was not how the first church spread.

Actually, this is a misunderstanding of the Crusades. While Islam purposely conquers other peoples to spread the faith, Christianity never has.

The purpose of the Crusades was NOT to spread the faith, but to retake land back after 400 years of Muslim aggression and subjugation. Chrisitianization was not the goal of the Crusades. See The Real History of the Crusades.

Regarding the rate of spread, when an idea spreads quickly without force, it is often due to the fact that it is a beneficial idea.

When it spreads quickly by force, such as Islam or atheistic Communism, you are talking about evil.

[Louis]

This is just false. Christians spread the faith by force in the new world.

[Cineaste]

"All of the information supports the Biblical accounts and destroys any silly argument that Jesus never existed."

Aaron, I read all 12 of your points and rebuttals and I don't see how they are any more valid than such accounts that exist for the Greek Gods, or Islam, and others. Here's the thing, if the Jesus of the Gospels was historical fact, Christianity would be considered a religion, it would be considered common knowledge. But, it's not. Belief in Jesus remains a matter of faith not common knowledge. You are confusing what you believe with what you know.

"As to why we don't have Egyptians records of the Red Sea, I can think of several explanations for that..."

These are explanations you just made up. You pulled them out of your...

"The whole point of this is that the writings in the New Testament are supported by non-Christians sources and archeology."

No. If they were supported then Jesus would have become a historical figure like Napoleon or Alexander the Great. Instead, Jesus is a mythical figure in history to everyone but Christians. No one really disagrees that Alexander the Great existed even though he was born before Jesus, but Jesus is certainly disputed.

"You are a modernists and a naturalist."

I'm a naturalist but isn't "modernist" an architecture term?

"...that's how you view the world that only natural, "rational" things are possible and you won't believe anything outside of your set parameters."

Aaron, what's within those parameters is known as reality. Anything outside is imagination. I do have an imagination but I know the difference between what's imagination and what's reality. Because you have been programmed to believe in Christianity, you don't have this luxury concerning Christian matters. To you, the supernatural is not imagination, but reality. People who believe leprechauns really exist have the same view.

"I'm just going to leave the "fart" thing alone because you seem set on being argumentative and sophomoric"

Aaron, the "fart" argument is not mine. It's your argument from design. I just replaced the word "painting" with the word "fart." If you believe the argument is sophomoric and absurd, then I recommend that you ditch the argument from design. It's a worthless argument.

[Cineaste]

"Christianity would be considered a religion..." that should be "wouldn't."

[seeker]

No one really disagrees that Alexander the Great existed even though he was born before Jesus, but Jesus is certainly disputed.

I would wager to guess that there is more evidence that Jesus existed then Alexander, based on historical evidence. The preponderance of evidence supporting both the NT and the existence of Jesus is pretty significant.

[Cineaste]

Seeker, you have been remiss in defending your argument that God designed farts...

A painting [fart] was obviously painted [designed], therefore a painting [fart] is evidence of a painter [designer God].

You can use anything in place of the word "painting" since everything is designed by God. For example, one could use a watch, an eye, a flagellum, a beautiful mountain, whatever one thinks is designed by God can be used in the argument from design. Here is an example of creationists using a banana.
Unfortunately, for Ray and Kirk's argument from design, not only does the banana fit into their hand, it also fits in their butt. The argument is absurd.

Why don't you make your own syllogism for the argument from design if you don't like William Paley's? I'd enjoy demonstrating it's failure to you.

[Cineaste]

For Aaron: NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF JESUS Edited By Hugh Fogelman & John Stone

[Aaron]

Cineaste, I called you a modernist as opposed to a post-modernist. Post-moderns have moved away from truth claims and away from scientific dogma. They believe in the supernatural or at least the possibility of miracles, etc. You (and Louis) still hold to the modernistic view of life. One is not any better or worse, but just a way of illustrating from where a person comes in their discussions.

The reason why Jesus is discounted at all (like the silly book you linked to), is because He demanded something of people. It doesn't matter to me or you or anyone else alive today if Alexander the Great was real or a myth. It has no relevance to our lives today, so no one disputes his life.

If Jesus was a real person it opens the door for His teachings and the NT. People would rather stay away from that as much as possible, so you have crazy books like the one you linked to arguing that He never existed (btw, you seem to bounce back and forth when I press you on whether Jesus was an actual historical person or not. You link to stuff that argues that He never lived, yet you step back and say you are talking about a divine Jesus. Which is it?) If we cannot establish that Jesus existed as a historical person, then we pretty much have to discount all of ancient history.

One more try at getting you to understand the Christian perspective and why your "fart" analogy is off. You could insert the word cancer and say that Christians believe cancer is evidence of intelligent design. But you ignore half of what Christians believe about creation at that point. Christians believe that God created, but also that the creation was damaged when man sinned. As man became fallen, so did creation. Many things like sickness, disease, etc. entered the world at the point - God didn't create them, they were the result of the fall.

That's why seeker and I both went back and forth about answering whether God created "farts" or not. That's why you can't say (as you did) that you can substitute anything and say that it is evidence for God's design. In terms of Christian theology, "farts" could have been the result of the fall or it is possible that they are the best possible way for gas to exit the body. We don't know, so its hard to argue that. But I'm sure you don't really care, because it doesn't sound good in a sound bite, blog comment, so you'll just ignore that and keep saying "farts are smelly."

[Cineaste]

"You (and Louis) still hold to the modernistic view of life."

I'm only familiar with this term as it relates to architecture. Are you trying to say that Louis and I hold to reality because we don't believe in supernatural entities like fairies?

"One is not any better or worse..."

I disagree. I think reality is a better way of looking at the world.

"The reason why Jesus is discounted at all (like the silly book you linked to), is because He demanded something of people."

Actually, Jesus is discounted in history because as the Atheist Eve comic said, there is no historical evidence Jesus (the way you think of Jesus) ever existed.

"It doesn't matter to me or you or anyone else alive today if Alexander the Great was real or a myth. It has no relevance to our lives today, so no one disputes his life."

Alexander the Great has no relevance? You must have gotten an "F" in world history. Think about it.

"You link to stuff that argues that He never lived, yet you step back and say you are talking about a divine Jesus. Which is it?"

Maybe a man named Jesus lived, maybe not. It's possible. But there is no historical evidence outside the bible, for the existence of Jesus the way Christians think, as the son of God. I've shown that. Listen Aaron, if you want to believe in your myth, that's fine with me. Muslims believe in theirs as well and that's fine. Christianity is just another religion. Just don't confuse what you believe with what you know. You have faith in the divinity of Jesus but you don't know it. You have faith in talking snakes but you don't know it.

"As man became fallen, so did creation. Many things like sickness, disease, etc. entered the world at the point - God didn't create them, they were the result of the fall."

Are you for real? If God didn't design farts, who did? Satan?

[Aaron]

I disagree. I think reality is a better way of looking at the world.

I agree. I'm not arguing for a postmodern view of the world. I think both the postmodern and modern views have holes in them. I'm just trying to explain to you the differences.

Culture is moving from a modern perspective to a postmodern one, which grants the possibility of the supernatural (not your derisive ideas of "fairies" and such), while denying any claims of exclusive truth. Postmoderns believe that opposite things can be true at the same time. The whole "true for me, but not for you" thing. Of course there are some things that I find encouraging about postmodernism and somethings where I believe it goes the wrong way.

Alexander the Great has no relevance? You must have gotten an "F" in world history. Think about it.

Think about what I said. When I wake up in the morning, my daily life is not determined by whether Alexander the Great did in fact exist and if he was undefeated as a military leader. Sure that has impact of how history has progressed and a million other things, but not how I live on a day to day basis. But if Jesus was real and He was God then that means something a bit more.

Belief that Alexander existed requires nothing of me. He existed and won some battles - that's fantastic and I can live exactly like I want to live. If Jesus existed and the things He said were true - well then I have to evaluate the way I live because He made some demands on how I live my life.

Those who seek to deny His existence want to place one more layer of "protection" between them and any of the demands Jesus' made or the choices we face.

Again, Cineaste if you ever move outside your current circle, I would drop the "Jesus may not have existed" thing because that is honestly the most ludicrous of all lines - only hardcore, rabid atheists will believe that and even consider that. So many things have to be ignored for that to be true. Even in the ABC debate with Comfort and Cameron and the atheists. When the atheists trotted out the "Jesus may not have ever lived" line, the audience audibly groaned. That audience was pretty hostile toward the creationists, but even they rolled their eyes at that.

I find what I believe to best explain life, history and everything else. I don't find it to be myth at all, unless we are talking about Lewis' True Myth - then I accept that. ;)

Are you for real? If God didn't design farts, who did? Satan?

You keep asking for it, so I will say it again for you - I don't know. This is an area where I have no idea. In Christian theology it could be an either/or thing. I can see how it could be the best possible way for the body to expel gas. I can also see how it could be one of the many things that happened as the result of the fall. I don't know. That's why I said you can't plug anything into the design argument because some things were the result of the fall.

I know you don't believe all that, but that is basic Christian theology and that is why seeker and I found this whole line of thinking and questioning to be so bizarre. We don't know the answer and the answer really is of no importance - it doesn't matter either way.

[Cineaste]

"...which grants the possibility of the supernatural (not your derisive ideas of "fairies" and such)"

Fairies and Gods, there is no real difference between them that you can demonstrate.

"Think about what I said. When I wake up in the morning, my daily life is not determined by whether Alexander the Great did in fact exist and if he was undefeated as a military leader."

So you did get an "F" in history. No Alexander the Great, No Western Civilization as we know it today, No America, No Aaron. As far as your Jesus, he means as much to me as Allah or Zeus.

"I would drop the "Jesus may not have existed" thing because that is honestly the most ludicrous of all lines - only hardcore, rabid atheists will believe that and even consider that."

Maybe Jesus existed as a man, maybe not. But there is no historical evidence that Jesus was divine. Only Christians believe Jesus was divine. That belief is faith based. Don't confuse what you believe with what you know, Aaron. Those who believe Jesus (Your Jesus) existed are a minority to non-Christians. It's just a fact.

"I find what I believe to best explain life, history and everything else."

So, you are a post modern? The whole "true for me, but not for you" thing.

"You keep asking for it, so I will say it again for you - I don't know. This is an area where I have no idea."

Then don't assert that everything was designed by God if you really don't know.

[seeker]

Fairies and Gods, there is no real difference between them that you can demonstrate.

I already have, but with proofs that are more indirect than you would like. The FSM has never interacted with history nor provided wisdom in any prophets, etc.

As far as your Jesus, he means as much to me as Allah or Zeus.

I think it can be easily argued that the life and teachings of Jesus have influenced history, including our modern times, more than Alexander. A hundred fold. I would argue that Christianity, whose followers produced the ideas and grounding of modern science, the printing press, abolition, and American government and jurisprudence, to name a few things, makes Alexander look small.

You may argue that Christianity did not accomplish these things alone, but was influenced by other ideologies - but even given that, without the considerable and obvious influence of Judeo Christian ideas, we might still be in darkness of subjectivism and paganism.

But there is no historical evidence that Jesus was divine. Only Christians believe Jesus was divine. That belief is faith based. Don't confuse what you believe with what you know, Aaron.

There is SOME evidence that Jesus was divine, you just don't find it sufficient. The fact that his followers who knew him thought so is evidence, even if you don't find it compelling. The changed lives of millions of people is evidence, even if you think it totally subjective. The argument from internal consistency of Jesus' teaching (i.e. which conclusion regarding his teachings fits best - liar, lunatic, legend, or lord?) is evidence of his possible divinity.

Again, such things ARE evidence, just not the direct empirical kind you demand. Is such evidence enough? Perhaps not. But to say there is NONE is to limit one's self to direct observation.

I understand that extraordinary claims require similar evidence, and that such evidence quite honestly does not exist, and therefore, to some extent, faith must be part of the equation. But to say that no evidence exists is really a white lie, imo.

I don't know... about farts

It really does not matter if farts are designed or not. As I explained repeatedly to your darkened and rebellious mind (you avoided and ignored my argument), the argument from design says that you can only assert design when you have a SYSTEM that is irreducibly complex. And the biblical argument for God is not "since you can see or assume design in some small thing like a fart, therefore God exists." The plain argument is that when we look at the WHOLE of what is created, we are idiots if we think there is no God in such an amazingly complex, integrated, and beautiful system (though it is marred by sin and death, and so "imperfect").

Your whole fart argument is NOT my argument, it is, again, a straw man that YOUR are trying to force on my argument based on your false syllogism and your purposeful misunderstanding of my argument.

YOUR argument about the design of farts is ridiculous, and as Aaron points out, you can not really KNOW whether such minutae are designed or not, though you could assume it based on the idea that all of creation is designed. But that does not mean that you would be foolish enough to argue that, since all things are designed, that the existence of any small part is proof that God is - when you make a case, you use all of the evidence, because out of context, individual pieces of evidence mean little.

YOUR poor and deceptive twisting of the argument from design would be thrown out of any first year philosophy class for it's obvious flaw. Though perhaps not obvious enough since you seem to be so enamored of it.

[Cineaste]

Sticks and stones, Seeker.

"you can not really KNOW whether such minutae are designed or not"

Oh contraire!
Seeker's view on farts and God: "Yes, farts are designed by God."

"Your whole fart argument is NOT my argument, it is, again, a straw man that YOUR are trying to force on my argument based on your false syllogism and your purposeful misunderstanding of my argument."

Seeker's argument from design: When you see the beauty, the order, the amazing complexity and obvious integrated design of the natural world (which includes farts: see Seeker's statement above), that is the evidence that GOD exists.

Therefore, according to Seeker, farts are evidence for God.

Sorry Seeker, you can't worm your way out of this but I'm glad you keep trying :)

"Mountain Man: I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!
Bobby: Weee!
Mountain Man: Weeeeeeee!
Bobby: Weee!"

- Deliverance

[Cineaste]

"The FSM has never interacted with history nor provided wisdom in any prophets, etc."

You can't demonstrate that. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually the father of Jesus. You just can't tell. Do you see now? That's the problem with believing in supernatural stuff.

I'm sorry, but you are reading conclusions into my argument that I flatly do not make. YOUR assumptions lead to that claim, but mine do not. You are being illogical.

And again, YOU ARE QUOTING YOUR INTERPRETATION