Biblical Bullshit, God in a laboratory and the Skeptic’s Dilemma

Biblical Bullshit, God in a laboratory and the Skeptic’s Dilemma


The Angry Skeptic

Offensive title, I know. I was surfing the word press reader when I stumbled across the Blog titled “Biblical Bullshit” and as usual it turned out to be nothing more but a ventilation shaft for someone who despised religion.

I think, calling vile names to Bible and God, seem attractive and cool to atheists. They probably enjoy having the upper hand in intelligence or at least they hope to. But they forget that in all of this they are in no way any different that than the religious crowd who also calls them a lot of bad things.

Hypocrisy seldom sells so I am afraid that these atheists are somewhat a disgrace to atheism itself. Most atheists even consider Sam Harris to be a disgrace to atheism but that is no more different than calling out the Pope as a disgrace to Christianity. Does any of it helps? No.

The only hint of an interesting thing I found was a line which said:

“Give me some absolute proof of God’s existence that can be retested and proven positive under laboratory conditions, and I’ll change my mind. Until then, I don’t believe.”

How sad, really. I mean If I ask you to prove to me that Alexander the great once existed, using nothing but your mommy’s kitchen equipment, would that make it any more fairer or logical than your question?

I ask atheists/agnostics often what kind of evidence they need to believe. The usual answer is, If I can see God or that we can find God under a microscope, yeah then we may think about it. But to be honest most atheists and agnostics do not even know what kind of evidence they are looking for.

If an atheist sees heavens opened and God calling his name, he is most likely to run to a psychiatrist to get his head checked.

The problem is we all carry our presuppositions and in this case of a divine encounter it won’t work for the atheist at all. Even if God does ever communicate to you, you will most likely not recognize it. That is what is a dilemma for a lot of people. Faith does require a leap, and its not a small leap as some like to put it. Do not get me wrong. I believe there are plenty of intellectual reasons why faith is a more logical outcome than the lack of it but I also think that faith has a last step and that it is to believe in the unseen with your heart, taking in all the evidence as best as you can.

That of course does not mean that faith is blind, I hesitate in using this blanket term. Mostly because I think its not a good term at all. Blind faith means to go in believing whatever you want and hoping without doubt its the only true reality there is but this is far from what Faith in Christ is.  Faith in Christ is unseen, but not without evidence. I have sufficient reason to believe that the evidence points to a creator. Some may disagree, I respect that but sadly most atheists do not.

In the end I always believe that we should be intellectually honest to ourselves at least, and then let the chips fall where they may but that does not mean we use the concept of free speech and turn it into hate speech.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Biblical Bullshit, God in a laboratory and the Skeptic’s Dilemma

  1. Great post! It is amazing how many atheist blogs/Facebook pages have offensive titles just for the sake of being offensive. It is evidence of such lack of creativity, respect, and even intelligence, in my opinion. That is not to say that those people are not intelligent, but that they do not demonstrate it.

    I would like to ask people like you mentioned above if they can see love under a microscope, in a lab, or verify it in an experiment. History cannot be scientifically treated because events in time are not repeatable. But, really, evidence has never been the problem – they are unwilling to consider the evidence because of their presuppositions, as you said.

    But while they get angry when people have faith, those with real Christian faith only get sad when we encounter those who lack it. We know the joy and peace they are missing, and have a heartfelt desire that they would receive it.

    Thank for another thoughtful post!

  2. If the presence of a mathematically precise, life sustaining, moral and material universe that came into being out of literally nothing material is not enough evidence that a Creator God exists, then nothing will ever be enough.

    1. ‘Things’ are mathematically precise because…that’s how our world happens to work. This is in no way indicative of design. To be fair, it’s not indicative of a lack of design either. It just happens to be the parameters that allowed our earth, us, and the materials we’re made of to come into existence.

      “…that came into being out of literally nothing…”

      We don’t really know that. Yet.

      “The Big Bang” does not postulate how the universe came into existence. It simply postulates how the current disposition of our universe came to be. There is obviously a lot to still learn and research in this field (abiogenesis and multiverse theory come to mind).

  3. Thank you for reading it too 🙂

    Great point, it reminds me of a question in the novel 1984; does the past exist somewhere concrete or just memories?

    When I started this blog I was pretty angry at the atheists, I wrote somewhat offensively as well, but I soon ran out of it because I didn’t have that kind of hatred in me.

    Evidence is not always a problem, you are right about that, some people just do not like the idea of there being a God. But there are also people, atheists/agnostics who do listen to reason and logic and gospel and sometimes they do change.

    1. I am open to the idea of a god. Especially in an uninvolved, deistic sense. I don’t bother worshiping such a deity because, if he is indeed a prime mover and nothing more, he is unconcerned with my worship.

      I think the problem for many atheists, or at least for me, is that many ideas in theism regarding the natural world (beginning of the universe, etc) are great for demonstrating a deistic god but do little to make the leap to the God of Abraham.

      1. I would partially agree, that yes, from an evolutionary point of view that is exactly what one would feel, hence the incline towards deism seems pretty sensible.

        One point to ponder is this, is it because we have always been given a picture of a God who is at odds with this. May be we were miscommunicated. I find this a valid observation. I think we were given a description of a god who just never let bad things happen and so when they do, the god even if he exists, becomes a god in a deistic sense for that alone justifies it. But I also think that this is partly because Christian faith has been defined as just comfort and love in the west. (which I disagree with). I always call it the Sunday school faith, its not very mature in its teaching because it only emphasizes on the good; partly because in the west religious persecution has ended, which is a great thing indeed. Nonetheless the most common rendition of the gospel message has been softened.

        Overtime this poses an image of God which is just ill-defined. therefore the obvious gap between impersonal god and the personal one. Because we can not co-relate the reality with our supposed version of God. This cuts both ways for Christians and atheists alike.

  4. I like referring to Descartes in these cases.. if you are going to be a true skeptic, all you can prove is your own existance…but living requires not PROOF but acceptance of “substantial evidence”, of which Christ has more than enough…

    1. yeah, though I would say its very tricky, most atheists do not often understand what kind of philosophy they are using to make their case, and most often they just give yo blank stares or start insulting you. On the off-chance I have though seen some atheists who actually know what they are talking about. Its nice to talk to such people even if you disagree.

  5. Your title did catch my attention. Bravo. I find general forums in which there is a lack of respect between Christians and atheist to be a nauseating merry-go-round which everyone wants off, but no one will until the other does. “Keep it intellectual.” <Something intellectual is said. "You're intentionally going over my head, .” “Keep it intellectual.”…

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s