God is real because he seems like he isn’t real, checkmate, you guys LOL!
I can’t decide whether or not this is a parody.
If it’s parody, it’s brilliant. If not, it’s clear evidence of a wasted and unexercised mind…
Okay, it’s parody. The fact that I wondered whether or not it was real is instructive of just how batshit science-denying Fundamentalist retards really are.
(h/t Pharyngula)
Regardless, I always find it funny that fundamentalist Christians use “Because the Bible says so” as their trump card, as if it means anything in the real world. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Bible contains truth or not, whether God exists or not, the argument “Because the Bible says so” isn’t a winner, it’s a cop-out, it’s something to hide behind. It says, “What I’m saying doesn’t make any sense in the real world, so I’m hiding behind this book.”
Anyway.
August 31, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I didn’t watch the video but I’d like to respond to your comments about Christians using ‘Because the Bible says so’ as a ‘trump card’. (For the record, I am a Christian!)
You must understand that when a Christian says ‘Because the Bible says so,’ they’re saying this from the perspective that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God; that is, that the Bible is the very words of God written down and preserved for us. It is God’s self-revelation of Himself. Therefore, because it is ‘God’s Word’ it is true and it is trustworthy. To put it another way, because God is true and trustworthy, his word is without error and without falsehood and we can be confident that what we read there is sound. That’s what’s going through a Christian’s mind when they say something like, ‘Because the Bible says so.’
So when you’re dealing with the Bible, you can NEVER leave aside the question of whether or not it is true or whether or not God exists, because behind the Bible is the God of the Bible, whose own character determines the trustworthiness of his book.
However, I agree that you probably hear that phrase without any qualifications as to why we can trust the Bible. You probably also hear it when a Christian is backed into a corner and doesn’t have all the answers. It may well be that they are ‘hiding behind’ the Bible, but they are doing so confident that the Bible is true.
I’d like to ask if you’ve read the Bible for yourself, or whether you have seriously investigated the claims of Christianity. I’d encourage you to do so if you haven’t. Even if you don’t believe yourself it may help you to understand those who do a little better.
I hope that this is a helpful response to your post!
http://wardman.wordpress.com
August 31, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Richard, I’m all too aware of why Christians say that. I was raised as a Conservative Evangelical. For a time I was a PCA Presbyterian. I know the arguments inside and out. Once I got out from under all that, though, I began to realize that I, myself, had made “because the Bible says so” arguments, and realized that they were meaningless.
I’m not, despite what some commenters here might believe, fundamentally anti-Christian, but I’m very much anti-believing insane things, especially from a public policy perspective, and using “well i think the Bible says it!” (because really, people using that argument don’t tend to be biblical experts…i mean, the commenters at OneNewsNow couldn’t get into Bible College, most likely, not to mention accredited universities.)
So my issue here, having seen both sides deeply, is that “Because the Bible says so” is only a good argument on a personal level, for explaining why you believe what you believe. It’s not a good argument for those who wish to impose their beliefs on others in the public square. To me, this is the difference between addressing things from a “real world” perspective and a “spiritual world” perspective. Each has its place, surely, but too often they get mixed up.
August 31, 2008 at 9:39 pm
And Richard, you should watch the video — it’s a prime example of the kind of fallacious Ray Comfort-style arguments that SOME Christians seem to think pass for intelligence in the greater world.
August 31, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Parody. Insulting. Strawman arguments. Wasted 10 minutes of my life. Such vitrol. You’re right about one thing Evan, definitely a wasted mind.
August 31, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I don’t think it’s parody, though…
August 31, 2008 at 11:53 pm
But funny none the less. Specially about the DNA thing…yeah…He didn’t leave his signature….
Except for you know…the DNA. You know, increddibly complex information…that uh…can decode itself and build a creature….you know…information can never come from a higher source of information…that’s impossible. Oh wait..no that’s how it has to happen 100% of the time. I don’t want to be all “intelligent design” but it’s a legit argument to me. If scientists could prove that no information could assemble in to increddibly complex information required to make the most basic functioning single celled organism that can replicate itself, then I would become an Atheist. I promise.
August 31, 2008 at 11:53 pm
It SO is. A Christian that stupid would never put “heaven is teh shit” in a video.
September 1, 2008 at 12:07 am
Dunno…I’m not sure I agree that a Christian would never put that. Lots of christians try desperately to be “trendy.”
Plus, the guy’s got lots of other YouTube videos…I should check them out real quick.
Oh, but as to the incredibly complex formation, I still don’t see how that proves or even suggests a god of any kind.
Considering the stunning length of time that has passed to get us to this stage of evolutionary development, there’s been more than enough time for things to assemble themselves. It doesn’t point away from God, but it doesn’t point toward God either.
September 1, 2008 at 12:08 am
Okay, yeah, it’s a parody.
And it’s brilliant.
September 1, 2008 at 12:17 am
Oh wow…yes, this is some of the most brilliant satire ever.
September 1, 2008 at 12:17 am
er
September 1, 2008 at 12:27 am
“Considering the stunning length of time that has passed to get us to this stage of evolutionary development, there’s been more than enough time for things to assemble themselves”
That is one of the most unscientific arguments I consistently hear. It’s completely unproven, untestable, unverifiable, and it’s not falsifiable. It’s unable to even be considered under the scientific method, but it’s the held up ‘just-so’ story of so many. It’s no better than saying “God did it, checkmate!”. No better than the Creation account in Genesis.
I think it’s a total cop out. Time or no time, information has to come from prior information, and it needs another system that can decode it, and another system that can ‘build it’, that develops all at the same time. It’s much stronger circumstantial evidence for creative power involved in life than not.
And…I TOLD you it was parody lol.
September 1, 2008 at 12:36 am
Man…that second video is even worse than the first. It’s not satire Evan. It’s just straw man arguments lol. Oh and it’s fantastically insulting to someone like me, let alone God, but He can take it. Let me ask…do people really read the Bible…or look at Christians and think “hey…that’s totally the God they believe in”?
The Ex Christian make the best and most vitrolic funnies…lol
September 1, 2008 at 12:40 am
Actually, the second video is much more obviously satire…
But it’s pretty much the way I see the traditional Biblical story, yes, absolutely.
That’s why it works so well as satire.
September 1, 2008 at 12:43 am
“That is one of the most unscientific arguments I consistently hear. It’s completely unproven, untestable, unverifiable, and it’s not falsifiable. It’s unable to even be considered under the scientific method, but it’s the held up ‘just-so’ story of so many.”
Actually, though, scientists can and do observe evolution and are able to deduce and infer the steps that came before.
Again, evolution isn’t based on “random chance,” as the science-deniers consistently preach. It’s a long, arduous process.
September 1, 2008 at 12:54 am
Want to go find quotations from science books that say it’s by ‘random chance mutation’ and then natural selection acts on it”? I have several of them at home that say that. It most certainly is how it works in theory, althought I think we’re missing some steps, and since we haven’t figured out epigenetics yet, we’ve still got a ways to go but sure.
And don’t mistake what I am saying Evan…I’m not saying they can’t observe forms of evolution…That’s not my argument.
I’m saying that if you say “well hey there’s enough time for ANYTHING!” then that is as unscientific as it gets man. If you think otherwise, I think you’re just being hard-headed about it. Think man…”oh I’m sure there was enough time for no information, no genetic material, to turn in to/”evolve in to” the ammount of information required to make the first organism, or even proto-organism, or even proto DNA/RNA…” Because…it’s irreducible complexity. You need information, plus a decoder system, plus a building system, or you don’t have life, let alone life that can replicate itself and evolve over generations.
That’s just magic dude. Pure magic. Storytelling. No one was there, you can infer all you want, but it’s more like guessing based on naturalistic bias. The problem I have with saying “time takes care of the problem” is that it’s not a falsifiable statement, to it fails the first test of scientific consideration. The other problems all spiral out of that. Untestable…unrepeatable…and not even close to empirical.
In case you can’t guess, I might believe in evolution, but I definitely don’t believe in abiogenesis. That was proven false 200+ years ago.
“The maggots! The just appear over time on the meat!!!”
Joe
September 1, 2008 at 12:58 am
PS, I don’t believe ’science = naturalism’
I do happen to believe that we can consider a designer or creator, or that life was coded by a higher source of information, and it still be ’scientific’. Most of our modern fields of science were founded by men and women with strong beliefs in a Creator, and used that as a foundation for their work. Very scientific, if you ask me.
I think smashing science in to the tiny pathetic box of stark naturalism is intellectual suicide and is the end of all human knowledge. Plus, it was never, until recently, what ’science’ was even about. But that’s just me.
Joe
September 1, 2008 at 1:04 am
Ok…I watched all of his videos…
It’s a pretty impressive lineup of satire, really. What I find the most funny though…is that the commenters seriously think he’s Christian. lol.
Man..he’s more insulting to Christians than John McCain is, and that’s saying a lot…considering he preyed on American’s fear of the antichrist by insinuating Barak Obama was him. lol
September 1, 2008 at 1:07 am
I really don’t think questions of God have any place in science, period, end of statement.
I don’t think children should be indoctrinated into one religion’s creation myth.
The fact that scientists also had “strong beliefs” is irrelevant to the discussion. People are raised/indoctrinated with strong beliefs. It says nothing of their intellect or lack thereof.
The fact is science shouldn’t be “considering” a creator at all until they figure out a way to test for a creator.
But abiogenesis wasn’t proven false — it’s just been slowly refined, and there are LOTS of theories out there for what might have been the first origin of life. What was disproven was the simplistic idea of spontaneous generation, which is different from abiogenesis, which can mean lots of things.
September 1, 2008 at 1:09 am
Joe, the commenters aren’t sure whether or not he’s Christian because much of what he says could be pulled directly out of Ray Comfort’s “ministry.”
September 1, 2008 at 1:17 am
Still don’t buy abiogenesis. Fairy tale. I’d rather believe in a Ark Dino Party, than blow my brains out thinking that we go from nothing to something all by itself. Yeah they have theories, but those, unlike evolution, are just theories. But not really even theories, cos…you can’t friggen test them dude! lol.
I’m saying you can test for a creator just like you can ‘test’ for abiogensis. Do you get it yet?
September 1, 2008 at 1:18 am
I’ve never seen comfort do anything that stupid. Maybe a little bit close to that…but never anything like “God tries really hard to not be detectable, therefore he exists!!!”
September 1, 2008 at 1:21 am
So do you buy abiogenesis as the origin of life as we know it?
September 1, 2008 at 1:22 am
Oh believe me, from a skeptic’s perspective, Comfort is equally ridiculous, if not more so, because we know he believes it.
As to hypothesizing about abiogenesis, it’s valid science because even if there IS a creator, he/she/it/they “used” whatever abiogenesis (because that can refer to lots of different possibilities) to do it just like he/she/it/they “used” evolution. And again, since science can’t even begin to show evidence for God, since there isn’t any, then it can’t hypothesize about God “being” said abiogenesis.
September 1, 2008 at 1:25 am
I don’t know that I “buy it” or don’t “buy it,” since I don’t look at science from the perspective of “belief.”
I’m much more inclined, the more I think, the more I study, to a Deist belief that says that whatever’s out there, it’s not paying attention to this universe anymore. The place is so vast, so unimaginable, that I’m quite sure we’re not alone — but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with spiritual beings with a “purpose” for us.
September 1, 2008 at 2:17 am
Right…but to someone who created something so vast…surely it stands to reason they’re caple of keeping tabs on it. Maybe that’s not what you’re implying though.
The current naturalistic origins of life, as proposed by scientists with many differing theories, is very much ‘belief’. Evan, many parts of science require ‘believing’, and even the dreaded ‘faith’, especially current origins theories. I find that to say otherwise seems very disingenuous and not very…logical?
So is there a purpose to life? I sure hope so. Otherwise I might as well do whatever the hell I want, if there’s no accountability ultimately. Dreadful thought. Maybe I’d rather be stupidly happy; ignorance is bliss in that case.
There’s got to be a purpose, but I can no more prove that than someone could prove abiogenesis. lawl.
Joe
September 1, 2008 at 2:17 am
(and that’s why it’s faith, and STILL is “science”!!)
September 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Ok, I watched the video. Whether it’s parody or not, the guy is wrong. God has not gone out of his way to make himself unknowable. (here comes the ‘because the Bible says so’ answer!) Romans 1:20 – “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
From this, I would say (from my Christian world-view, of course) that it is impossible to divorce questions of God’s existence and power from science. The universe is one big arrow that points to God. Therefore, all that makes up that universe, from the vast quantities of stars to the tiniest molecule, everything testifies to God’s awesome creative power.
Questions of our origins are not unique to scientific study. In fact, origins science is, as Joe C has pointed out, as much about believing in theories as Christianity is, except that what we believe in comes from an outside source who has revealed the truth to us, not only through what has been made, but more than anything through his Son (Heb 1:1-2).
All I can do is to point you to Jesus and impress upon just how serious our rebellion against God is: it’s so serious that he poured out his judgement for our sin onto his own Son. That’s pretty serious, and also amazingly loving.
Thanks for the helpful and challenging discussion!
September 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Okay, Richard, but that’s all your religious belief, and it has no bearing on the science.
Seriously, the two have nothing to do with each other. My personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with science.
But please, no proselytizing on this blog, it’s clearly prohibited in the commenting policy. One warning.
September 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Sorry Evan – I hadn’t read your commenting policy. Warning heeded!