Jesus vs. The Mighty Redwood

You age has nothing at all to do with the fact that you seriously consider Christianity plausible. Walking trees would require a reevaluation of botany. If all of Christianity were true, it would be impossible, because it is internally contradictory. For a guy who came into the forum loudly crowing about his atheism, you've become a tired old Christian apologist.
I see that you still haven't even read my post.

You're letting your tired [and completely incorrect - as usual] old prejudices get in the way of the few functioning brain cells you may have.

"Christian apologist". That's so sad, it ain't even funny. Poor, sad little chap.
 
That's true to form, however, as when losing an argument to drkitten, the same epithet was cast.

DR

DrK a Christian apologist? That's funny.

When people call me a Christian apologist, I don't think it's a great description, but I have to admit it has the ring of truth. But DrK? That's just plain loopy.
 
And the slippery slope begins:

TA might be a Christian apologist today, but what will become of him tomorrow now that he's declared his true faith by putting forth his view that it's more likely that Jesus Christ was a super natural being than that redwood trees walked? Obviously no self respecting atheist will have anything to do with him again. And needless to say his membership in the atheist club will be revoked.

When we hear from him again will he be showing up at football games, wearing funny wigs, promoting biblical passages? Can anything be done to stop the slide? Maybe not, perhaps it's too late already. The mind boggles at the sadness of all this.

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/sermons/4.18.04.htm
 
And the slippery slope begins:

TA might be a Christian apologist today, but what will become of him tomorrow now that he's declared his true faith by putting forth his view that it's more likely that Jesus Christ was a super natural being than that redwood trees walked? Obviously no self respecting atheist will have anything to do with him again. And needless to say his membership in the atheist club will be revoked.
:dl:

Excellent!

(Just hope that it doesn't get out that I'm presently judging eight-word posts on a christian site. Then I would be in the crapper with the Atheist Overlords. Especially if anyone saw the entry which I presently have leading: "Atheists are used to making something into nothing".)
 
"Christian apologist". That's so sad, it ain't even funny. Poor, sad little chap.

Welcome to ImaginalDisc's imaginary club of unbelieving Christian apologists. You can take the empty barstool between me and drkitten.
 
I’m the crazy one? Hardly. Anyone who claims that a moving tree is less plausible than Christianity is a fool, a liar, or a Christian. No honest, well informed atheist would say that. In fact, very few Christians would say that either. By and large, only someone being flippantly contrarian or a Christian apologist would say such a thing. Christianity is full of hundreds of ordinarily implausible events, such as contradictions with historical events, extremely implausible events, such as contradictions to basic scientific facts, outright claims of miraculous deeds by saints, messengers, messiahs, and prophets alike, and is crowned with a logically impossible sky king. Moving trees are only a single unlikely and bizarre event. Christianity is a litany of the unlikely, the bizarre, the freakish, the impossible, and the appallingly horrific.

Was there a Roman census that required Joseph to travel back to his place of birth during the reign of King Herod? No. King Herod’s reign had ended six years before the alleged census, and there is no record of ever requiring people to travel dozens or even hundreds of miles back to their birthplaces simply to be counted. Did King Herod slay all the male infants in Bethlehem? Oddly, the historical record is strangely silent on this mass infanticide by a wildly unpopular monarch with no shortage of bold critics. Did Mary become pregnant while a virgin, a belief that is the cornerstone of the goddess-in-all-but-name “the Virgin Mary?” No. This entire belief is based on an unfortunate mistranslation. Was Jesus born in the winter, an event we celebrate annually on the 25th of December? No. Among other things, Israeli and Palestinian shepherds, to this day, do not keep their flocks outdoors during the winter. These are just a few of the ordinary historical inaccuracies that compose Christian belief, but granted they are less implausible than moving trees, which defy science.

Science, however, is not kind to the miracles that compose Christian belief. Is there any way for the sun to have stopped in the sky to prolong yet another pointless battle between barbarous tribes? No. Either the Earth would have had to abruptly stop rotating, and then suddenly restarted, or the sun would have had to move from its position and rotate about the Earth, which would be even more disastrous for the rest of the solar system. Was the world ever flooded all over during human history for a period of over one year, a time period given two mutually contradictory numbers? No. Ask any geologist, biologist, chemist, physicist or sane human being about this and they could point out numerous reasons why this is impossible, not the least of which are the continued existence of fresh and salt water fish, the mystery of the appearance and disappearance of all that water, and the continued existence of several fragile and ancient trees over 10,000 years old. Did Jesus resurrect Lazarus, a man who had been so long that he reeked of decay? Body tissues decayed in a hot environment for three days are useless even to modern medical technicians for the comparatively simply purposes of implantation, and no one has ever been resurrected from such advanced mortification. Did Jesus miraculously float away to Heaven after bodily resurrecting himself and walking out of his tomb? Again, no. However, considering the four approved gospels each tell amazingly different tales of the events of that particular weekend, the onus is on Christians to at least tell a consistent story before we examine it on its merits.

Above all of the confusing, impossible and irrational claims of Christianity is the god who is as savage and vain as he is impossible. He is omnipotent, until we ask why he will not cure amputees or raise up the unjustly slain. He is omniscient, until he goes looking for Adam and Eve, or judges us based on our choices which were in doubt. He is good, until we consider that he punishes people forever for the small crimes of their short lives and allows all manner of horrible atrocities, both of omission and commission to be perpetrated in his creation. As it is inarguable that evil exists, god cannot possibly be good, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet he is the very raison d'etre of Christianity, a revolutionary Jewish splinter sect. He slaughtered his only son, who was also himself, to force his omniscient self to forgive only some of us for crimes committed by ancestors who themselves were deceived. He allows evil, it is argued, because either he cannot make a world with free will absent of evil, a curious restriction on the power of an omnipotent being, or he allows it because it makes us better, again ignoring that he might have done a better job. Every impossible event and amoral act in the Bible is there because, allegedly, god caused it or allowed it through inaction. This monstrous creature is allegedly loving and wants us all be happy. This impossible figment is invoked at every opportunity by the faithful to prop up their beliefs.

Perhaps you, “TheAtheist,” Ceo, Dath Rotor and others, find the constancy of invoking an impossible god, with all his scriptural and dogmatic accouterments more plausible than the unlikely and rumored event of an ambulant tree? Shifting soil, hoaxsters, pranksters, or a strong wind could move a tree. Even if the entire moving tree story is a lie, only an idiot, a liar or a Christian would claim that is less implausible than all of Christianity. Believers in Christianity wear their belief in these unlikely and impossible events as a badge of pride, claiming that their virtuous faith derives from being so childish as to accept wild stories at face value. Or, Christians arbitrarily choose to believe in the impossible god and a few other select tenets, and discard the rest without rhyme or reason. The Resurrection? Plausible! The flood? Balderdash! There is no massive doctrine or scripture built around the walking tree. By weight of strangeness and impossibility alone, Christianity dwarfs rumors of flying pigs and invisible unicorns. Only liars, fools and believers can claim otherwise.
 
Last edited:
It seems, IllogicalDisc, that you have a strong dislike of people who hold an opinion despite the weight of evidence against it, as that would be irrational.

But you seem to suffer from irrationality yourself. Just one thing - I asked you to supply the evidence for the non-existence of the Apostle Paul and you replied vaguely that you had read a couple of things that determined your mind despite it being massively more likely that he existed.

Also, why such strong anger? Perhaps if you vent it enough on the internet it might help, maybe not.

I don't think you are a very good atheist. I respect atheists who are aware they might be wrong about things, have a respectful manner and who don't make such sweeping generalisations. I do not take the stories in the Bible at face value and I certainly do not wear "wear [my] belief in these unlikely and impossible events as a badge of pride".
 
It seems, IllogicalDisc, that you have a strong dislike of people who hold an opinion despite the weight of evidence against it, as that would be irrational.

But you seem to suffer from irrationality yourself. Just one thing - I asked you to supply the evidence for the non-existence of the Apostle Paul and you replied vaguely that you had read a couple of things that determined your mind despite it being massively more likely that he existed.
I'm not convinced that the Paul in letters and the Paul in Acts are the same person, as they hold wildly different opinions on many subjects, and the claims about Paul made in Acts are highly dubious.

Also, why such strong anger? Perhaps if you vent it enough on the internet it might help, maybe not.

I don't think you are a very good atheist. I respect atheists who are aware they might be wrong about things, have a respectful manner and who don't make such sweeping generalisations. I do not take the stories in the Bible at face value and I certainly do not wear "wear [my] belief in these unlikely and impossible events as a badge of pride".

Ah, then you must be the later category who "arbitrarily choose to believe in the impossible god and a few other select tenets, and discard the rest without rhyme or reason. The Resurrection? Plausible! The flood? Balderdash!" To be fair, there are self-professed Christians who merely believe in the value of Christianity while not believing any of its wild claims. There are also people who believe that believing in the value of Christianity is good, without believing in the value of Christianity nor in its claims.

It is perfectly fair to say that I am not a nice atheist. I have little patience for being nice to people who believe and/or promote impossible stories and lies, or for people who gently advise us to tolerate the intolerable acts of Christianity. If Christians and Christian apologists wish to promote their ideas in the marketplace of ideas, then they are as vulnerable to criticism as any other ideas. Religions are not exempt from criticism.

ETA: Since some yuk-yuks have apparently miseducated themselves about "Christian apologists," a Christian apologist is anyone who has taken up the systematic defense of Christianity. They can just as easily be an agnostic, Wiccan, Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist as a Christian. Claiming, "I am not a Christian" isn't relevant to being labeled a Christian apologist.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that the Paul in letters and the Paul in Acts are the same person, as they hold wildly different opinions on many subjects, and the claims about Paul made in Acts are highly dubious.
It is fair enough and interesting to point out and explore the differences between them but even good ol' Occams Razor suggests that there is only one. Atheist academics such as Robin Lane Fox think there is only one Paul and from my POV if an atheists thinks something about the Bible then that carries a good amount of weight.

Ah, then you must be the later category who "arbitrarily choose to believe in the impossible god and a few other select tenets, and discard the rest without rhyme or reason. The Resurrection? Plausible! The flood? Balderdash!" To be fair, there are self-professed Christians who merely believe in the value of Christianity while not believing any of its wild claims. There are also people who believe that believing in the value of Christianity is good, without believing in the value of Christianity nor in its claims.
You provide three categories here but neither describes me. The development of my thinking can not be dismissed as just arbitrary as I have done a lot of self-examination, thinking and study over the past 16 years. It is possible, though, that I might move to your second category in the future as there is truth and good to be found in Christianity.

It is perfectly fair to say that I am not a nice atheist. I have little patience for being nice to people who believe and/or promote impossible stories and lies, or for people who gently advise us to tolerate the intolerable acts of Christianity. If Christians and Christian apologists wish to promote their ideas in the marketplace of ideas, then they are as vulnerable to criticism as any other ideas. Religions are not exempt from criticism.
I agree that religions are not exempt from criticism.

Thing is, the strident atheism that attacks believers whoever they are seems to me to devalue humanity. Also, IMO you are too scathing and innaccurate and this does not draw people to your arguments. Fellow atheists are put off (an atheist tutor of mine was very fed up with Dawkins) and agnostics too!
 
I’m the crazy one? Hardly. Anyone who claims that a moving tree is less plausible than Christianity is a fool, a liar, or a Christian. No honest, well informed atheist would say that. In fact, very few Christians would say that either.
...snip...
There is no massive doctrine or scripture built around the walking tree. By weight of strangeness and impossibility alone, Christianity dwarfs rumors of flying pigs and invisible unicorns. Only liars, fools and believers can claim otherwise.
I take it there's a sale on straw men going on in your neck of the woods.

I'll give you one thing, Hippo-girl, you're funny. Turning on my computer this morning and reading your two posts as the first thing I did, it's taken me a good five minutes to stop laughing enough to type coherently.

What a lot of anger, little buddy. Have you thought about anger management classes? All that vitriol inside you is bound to be causing you some harm.

I actually feel quite sorry for you. If you carry on like this, I'm going to take less enjoyment out of destroying you and your pathetically warped and misguided excuses for arguments. Lift your game - you're posting like a 12 year old whose mommy just spanked his little tushy.
 
Welcome to ImaginalDisc's imaginary club of unbelieving Christian apologists. You can take the empty barstool between me and drkitten.

Wow, thanks! That's pretty exalted company for me, so I'll be in.

Beer? My round...
 
I take it there's a sale on straw men going on in your neck of the woods.

I'll give you one thing, Hippo-girl, you're funny. Turning on my computer this morning and reading your two posts as the first thing I did, it's taken me a good five minutes to stop laughing enough to type coherently.

What a lot of anger, little buddy. Have you thought about anger management classes? All that vitriol inside you is bound to be causing you some harm.

I actually feel quite sorry for you. If you carry on like this, I'm going to take less enjoyment out of destroying you and your pathetically warped and misguided excuses for arguments. Lift your game - you're posting like a 12 year old whose mommy just spanked his little tushy.

Your logical, fact-based, and content rich reply has greatly contributed to the conversation.
 
.... a lot more than your poorly-informed, irrelevant attack on a series of strawmen.

Correct.
 
Feel free to point out the specific errors.
Cheers!

From your post, I've highlighted the errors in red.

Thanks for being honest enough to ask about it.

I’m the crazy one? Hardly. Anyone who claims that a moving tree is less plausible than Christianity is a fool, a liar, or a Christian. No honest, well informed atheist would say that. In fact, very few Christians would say that either. By and large, only someone being flippantly contrarian or a Christian apologist would say such a thing. Christianity is full of hundreds of ordinarily implausible events, such as contradictions with historical events, extremely implausible events, such as contradictions to basic scientific facts, outright claims of miraculous deeds by saints, messengers, messiahs, and prophets alike, and is crowned with a logically impossible sky king. Moving trees are only a single unlikely and bizarre event. Christianity is a litany of the unlikely, the bizarre, the freakish, the impossible, and the appallingly horrific.

Was there a Roman census that required Joseph to travel back to his place of birth during the reign of King Herod? No. King Herod’s reign had ended six years before the alleged census, and there is no record of ever requiring people to travel dozens or even hundreds of miles back to their birthplaces simply to be counted. Did King Herod slay all the male infants in Bethlehem? Oddly, the historical record is strangely silent on this mass infanticide by a wildly unpopular monarch with no shortage of bold critics. Did Mary become pregnant while a virgin, a belief that is the cornerstone of the goddess-in-all-but-name “the Virgin Mary?” No. This entire belief is based on an unfortunate mistranslation. Was Jesus born in the winter, an event we celebrate annually on the 25th of December? No. Among other things, Israeli and Palestinian shepherds, to this day, do not keep their flocks outdoors during the winter. These are just a few of the ordinary historical inaccuracies that compose Christian belief, but granted they are less implausible than moving trees, which defy science.

Science, however, is not kind to the miracles that compose Christian belief. Is there any way for the sun to have stopped in the sky to prolong yet another pointless battle between barbarous tribes? No. Either the Earth would have had to abruptly stop rotating, and then suddenly restarted, or the sun would have had to move from its position and rotate about the Earth, which would be even more disastrous for the rest of the solar system. Was the world ever flooded all over during human history for a period of over one year, a time period given two mutually contradictory numbers? No. Ask any geologist, biologist, chemist, physicist or sane human being about this and they could point out numerous reasons why this is impossible, not the least of which are the continued existence of fresh and salt water fish, the mystery of the appearance and disappearance of all that water, and the continued existence of several fragile and ancient trees over 10,000 years old. Did Jesus resurrect Lazarus, a man who had been so long that he reeked of decay? Body tissues decayed in a hot environment for three days are useless even to modern medical technicians for the comparatively simply purposes of implantation, and no one has ever been resurrected from such advanced mortification. Did Jesus miraculously float away to Heaven after bodily resurrecting himself and walking out of his tomb? Again, no. However, considering the four approved gospels each tell amazingly different tales of the events of that particular weekend, the onus is on Christians to at least tell a consistent story before we examine it on its merits.

Above all of the confusing, impossible and irrational claims of Christianity is the god who is as savage and vain as he is impossible. He is omnipotent, until we ask why he will not cure amputees or raise up the unjustly slain. He is omniscient, until he goes looking for Adam and Eve, or judges us based on our choices which were in doubt. He is good, until we consider that he punishes people forever for the small crimes of their short lives and allows all manner of horrible atrocities, both of omission and commission to be perpetrated in his creation. As it is inarguable that evil exists, god cannot possibly be good, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet he is the very raison d'etre of Christianity, a revolutionary Jewish splinter sect. He slaughtered his only son, who was also himself, to force his omniscient self to forgive only some of us for crimes committed by ancestors who themselves were deceived. He allows evil, it is argued, because either he cannot make a world with free will absent of evil, a curious restriction on the power of an omnipotent being, or he allows it because it makes us better, again ignoring that he might have done a better job. Every impossible event and amoral act in the Bible is there because, allegedly, god caused it or allowed it through inaction. This monstrous creature is allegedly loving and wants us all be happy. This impossible figment is invoked at every opportunity by the faithful to prop up their beliefs.

Perhaps you, “TheAtheist,” Ceo, Dath Rotor and others, find the constancy of invoking an impossible god, with all his scriptural and dogmatic accouterments more plausible than the unlikely and rumored event of an ambulant tree? Shifting soil, hoaxsters, pranksters, or a strong wind could move a tree. Even if the entire moving tree story is a lie, only an idiot, a liar or a Christian would claim that is less implausible than all of Christianity. Believers in Christianity wear their belief in these unlikely and impossible events as a badge of pride, claiming that their virtuous faith derives from being so childish as to accept wild stories at face value. Or, Christians arbitrarily choose to believe in the impossible god and a few other select tenets, and discard the rest without rhyme or reason. The Resurrection? Plausible! The flood? Balderdash! There is no massive doctrine or scripture built around the walking tree. By weight of strangeness and impossibility alone, Christianity dwarfs rumors of flying pigs and invisible unicorns. Only liars, fools and believers can claim otherwise
.
 
Cheers!

From your post, I've highlighted the errors in red.

Thanks for being honest enough to ask about it.

Sophomoric. Are you actually trying to debate that science refutes the flood, for example? Or, are you just a tired old troll?
 
It seems reasonable to allow - in fact, I think it not inconsistent for the Christians to say - that the likelihood of the occurrence of the events of Christian dogma is lower than the likelihood of the occurrence of the events of the tree story. I speak, however, of a priori rather than a posteriori probability.

ID, you invoke many things that you either get wrong, or the role and significance of which in Christianity you misapprehend.

You appear to be still flogging the logical argument from evil, though it's been abandoned as flawed by most thinking atheists. You suggest that the entire belief in Mary's virginity is based on a mistranslation, although no scholarly consensus exists to the effect that the translation was a bad one, and certainly none to the effect that the entire belief necessarily proceeded from a translation of anything. You suggest that Christianity teaches that Jesus was born in the winter. And so forth.

You also succumb again to your chronic misunderstanding of what science is, does, and says. Science has an empirical position on whether it is possible (at least at present) for a body to be resurrected via natural physical processes. It is indifferent to the possibility or impossibility of a body being resurrected other than via natural physical processes. Which one is relevant to the discussion?

As a general observation, one underlying problem is that, as you've frequently demonstrated, the range of views consistent with being an "honest, well-informed atheist" is something of a closed mystery to you. You don't know what an honest, well-informed atheist would say about many things. You only know what you would say, which is a different proposition.
 

Back
Top Bottom