Posts filed under ‘Phil Stilwell’

Bringing the argument home to the apologists

The good news is that today’s apologists find their own core belief indefensible. This is leading to an attempt to draw the debate away from the many core logical absurdities found in the “gospel”, and to a focus on arguments absent from what has lead most of them to their faith. These are just a decoy. Any proposal of a spherical cube of gold can be immediately dismissed due to the impossibility of a spherical cube, evidence of gold not withstanding. In like manner, any proposal of the logically impossible Christian god can be dismissed based on the impossibility of that god, in spite of proffered evidence of “changed lives” or “fine tuning” or perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory or the need for “objective purpose”. Whatever gods may exist, the logically impossible god of the Bible is disqualified as a candidate due to his logical incoherence. Let’s avoid the intentional distractors, and bring the argument home to the apologists, smack-dab in their incoherent backyard of redemption.

20130427-181107.jpg

April 27, 2013 at 5:11 am 14 comments

The Candidate

An Allegory

You’ve been lied to before. But never with the audacity of this candidate for top office Richard Supreme who is again campaigning for your vote. His promises are bold. He invokes the highest authority. He emotionally tugs at your insecurities to ensure your allegiance.

Just last week he unequivocally stated “If you ask me to do something, I will do it.”1 He added no qualifiers. There were no stipulations. It was the ultimate campaign promise. And that is not the first time he’s made it.

He has also previously stated…

Again, I’m not joking! If any two of you agree about anything they ask for, it will be done.2

He gave no conditions. Again there were no stipulations. Unquestionably a great way to win votes.

But Richard does not stop there. He actually suggests that even the most minuscule amount of confidence in him would be enough for him to mount a major public works project if you merely asked him to. Here is his clear statement.

If you had even an ounce of confidence in me, I would have an entire mountain removed for you if you’d only ask.3

Again there are no qualifiers or stipulations attached to his promise.

This is where Richard’s press agent James Spinner stepped in a couple days ago to make a “clarification”.

You ask Richard for something and don’t get it only because you’re selfish and merely want to satisfy your own desires.4

Hold on there, James! Did Richard make a promise or did he not? This is not a clarification; it is at best a distortion, and at worse insulting our intelligence. If James is claiming to be a spokesperson for Richard, then Richard is reneging on his unconditional promise. The promises were made in an official speech with plenty of opportunity for Richard to insert his own conditions. He did not.

What is James afraid of? Is James afraid that Richard cannot come through on his promises? So it seems.

There have been countless numbers of cases in which genuinely needy constituents within Richard’s district have petitioned him for help, and there has been absolutely nothing done. In these cases, James is always there suggesting the broken promises of Richard are merely apparent, and that the petition was invalidated due to the petitioner’s selfishness, even in cases where a mother is simply asking for the medical attention that will save her dying child’s life. Who here is the most despicable? Richard for making promises he cannot keep, or James for the audacity in claiming the petition was selfish?

The facts are clear. Richard Supreme is a liar and either can not or chooses not to deliver as promised, and James Spinner is his unscrupulous apologist attempting to place the blame for failed promises on the motives of the earnest constituents.

And James Spinner is not the only defender of the lies of Richard. Substantial pockets of supporters swear Richard keeps his promises. When pressed to supply evidence that constituents loyal to Richard receive any superior intervention in their lives, they offer merely anecdotal accounts that cannot be validated with either statistics or other tools of scientific validation. They simply repeat over and over “Richard would never lie” and “Richard has just a mysterious way of keeping his promises.” No “evidence” they offer can be traced to the signature of Richard, but rather maps precisely to what probabilities would have us expect. These supporters actually then accuse those who take Richard’s statements at face-value of distorting truth or suggest they are incapable of “properly” understanding uncomplicated statements such as “If you ask me to do something, I will do it.

It must be noted that Richard Supreme also promises to eternally torture anyone who might claim he is a mendacious breaker of campaign promises. I’d like to suggest that this may be a contributing factor to the loyal base of supporters he currently enjoys.

Have the courage and integrity to vote “NO” wherever you see this promise-breaking and fear-mongering Richard Supreme on the ballot.


Words of Jesus
 

1. John 14:14
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

2. Matthew 18:19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

3. Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Words of James

4. James 4:3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


November 20, 2010 at 4:01 am 2 comments

Squinting At Sperm

In the 17th century, Nicolaas Hartsoeker, after squinting though his microscope at ejaculate, became so convinced that each sperm was actually a little man (homunculus), he produced detailed drawings as shown on the right.

When his imaginative drawings were brought into question by those suggesting that such a notion leads to an infinite regress as each little man himself must possess sperm that also held other smaller little men ad infinitum, bible believers defended the drawings by invoking scripture. The sin nature was able to pass from Adam to all humans since all humans once swung in the testes of Adam.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. —Romans 5:12-14

Incredibly, scientists today have rejected the theory of Mr. Hoarsoeker. Scientist now claim that sperm do not at all resemble little men. But the track record of biblical insight into natural phenomena has suffered very few setbacks as fundamentalist will attest. It was simply a misunderstanding or misapplication of scripture they will inform you. They’ll get it right next time.
(more…)

September 1, 2010 at 6:24 am 26 comments

Jehovah’s Linguistic Land Grab

Is your god patient?

Not if he’s the god of the bible. According to the theology of most Evangelicals, Jehovah’s wrath is so intense over the first offense of any human that he immediately deems the offender deserving of eternal torture. No joke. One offense by any offender is sufficient to incur a divine wrath so terrible that “there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth” for eternity awaiting that offender when they die.

“Can’t god do what he wants?” you may ask.

Sure. There is nothing illogical about a malicious god. God can be as mean-spirited as he wants to be. But in addition to being malicious, the god of the bible is then also a liar since he claims to love the very humans he damns to hell-fire over a single offense. This god of the bible unequivocally claims in 1 Corinthians 13:4 that love (agape) is patient. If god loses his temper over the first offense, and deems eternal torture the only thing that will appease his anger, just how much space is left over for patience?

Normally when we think about patience and impatience we think of 2 extremes with a soft delineation somewhere in the middle such as is shown in the following image.

Here patience and impatience fall on a normal continuum. Because words belong to human convention, the standard for the extremes ought to reflect human sentiments about patience and impatience. For example, (more…)

May 14, 2010 at 3:42 am 187 comments

Your Golden Square Triangle

It seems to me that the godless waste to much time debating Christians over the logical possibility of miracles, the nature of the singularity, or the historicity of Jesus. If someone is arguing that the square triangle in their pocket is golden, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that they do not have a golden square triangle in their pocket.

If the biblical god is logically incoherent, we can stop there. Let’s stop playing the silly games that Christians attempt to employ to divert attention away from Jehovah’s inherent absurdities and towards issues such as an incomplete evolutionary theory as if that will somehow redeem an incoherent Jehovah.

I’ve just started a new blog called The Impossible God dedicated to arguments against the logical possibility of the bible and the biblical god. Here is one example.


P1: Christ paid the substitutionary price for our sins.
P2: Christ paid 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
P3: The price for our sins is 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death. (P1 & P2)
P4: Sinners can pay for their sins with 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
P5: Sinners remain damned even after 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
CONCLUSION: Jehovah cannot do math, is a liar, or is a myth. (P3 – P5)


Feel free to comment or offer additional ideas for arguments that cogently demonstrate the absurdities of the biblical god.

- Phil

March 9, 2010 at 10:47 pm 39 comments

Turtleism in the Age of Reason

These are dark days in which the forces of evil have besieged The Lord Turtle Almighty. Aturtleists the world over have risen up against the truth of the turtle upon which the world rides. It is high time for Turtleists to come out of their shells and defend the foundation of our faith.

In years past, our faith in Our Almighty Turtle was dismissed as a blind faith as if the number of Turtleists itself did not prove the existence of the Turtle. However, we are here to assert that our faith is based on real evidence, and it is the Aturtleists who are dependent on faith in science and a misguided logic. I, for one, don’t have enough faith to be an Aturtleist. Allow me to elaborate.

I have personally confronted Aturtleists in many universities across the globe, and have asked them one simple question. “What does the Earth sit on?” Scientists have demonstrated that gravity pulls down. Therefore, we stand firmly on our front porch. Our front porch stands firmly on the cement, the cement on a substrate of clay, the clay on bedrock, and so on. What is the first foundation that supports all that is? Aturtleists have yet to give me a coherent response. However, we Turtleists know this foundation. And we know this foundation personally. It is the wonderfully shelled back of The Lord Turtle Almighty.

Some Aturtleists have actually suggested that there is no foundation needed. How incredibly ignorant! Nowhere in this world will you find anything of substance that does not rest upon something. And that something will be found resting upon another something. Now here is the interesting thing. Scientists have recently told us that this Earth is finite. Logically then, there is a point at which something that is not the Earth is the foundation. This is logical common sense! How can there be no ultimate foundation? The Aturtleists have no answer. But those of us who have a personal relationship with the Lord Turtle Almighty have an answer that daily comforts us since we know that our world does not precariously hang in the air.

Other Aturtleists ignorantly ask, “What is then the foundation of your turtle?” It is true that former Turtleists had, at one time, suggested that there was another turtle supporting the turtle that supported the Earth. And another turtle supporting that one, and so on. We modern Turtleists reject such silly notions. This is called “an infinite regress”. There cannot be turtles all the way down.

For this reason, our particular faith has the doctrine of The Infinite Legs of Turtle Almighty. There is no need for other turtles. Our Almighty Turtle has infinitely long legs. It is this doctrine that makes the Aturtleists arguments looks so silly. The Earth must have a foundation, and we Turtleists have personal knowledge of this foundation. We all have our foundation on the eternal legs of Our Almighty Turtle.

You might hear some Aturtleists respond that the doctrine of Infinite Legs is logically incoherent, an ephemeral plug, and that we just made it all up. But the spirit of the Turtle bears witness with our spirits that all the Almighty Turtle says is true. Aturtleists who have not the spirit of the Turtle cannot discern the things of the Turtle. To them, Eternal Legs seem like foolishness, but for us, it is the foundation that they, in rebellion, deny is necessary. Only those who have submitted to the Turtle are privy to the mind of the Turtle.

It is sad to see that the bulk of the same scientists who have told us that the Earth is finite and that gravity pulls down, actually turn their backs on logic when it comes to the question of the ultimate foundation. But the Almighty Turtle has clearly told us why this is so. This is the work of the invisible evil crow who sets about to turn their minds away from the truth. The crow has many of them suggesting that Earth supports itself. I’ve never seen something support itself, and I don’t have enough faith to believe such silly theories. And I don’t need education to give me the common sense to know there must be a big turtle beneath this world. Would you want to live on an Earth that had no turtle foundation?

So you see, even in these dark days when many former Turtleists have rebelliously abandoned all notions of a foundation for our world, Turtle apologists have provided us with an arsenal full of the powers of both logic and scientific facts that will allow us to fearlessly affirm our Turtleism until the day we all have infinite legs.


-phil stilwell

February 13, 2010 at 7:25 am 9 comments

Salvaging Santa

This year has been a bit disappointing for Santa believers. Fewer and fewer souls seem to be taking the Santa story seriously. Anti-santaists have been enticing young minds away from the Christmas magic that has been essential in the maintenance of a healthy society. They ridicule Santa as a myth, along with all the accompanying concepts that have given us warmth and comfort for all these years. They actually suggest that the notion of a Santa rewarding only “good” children is not necessary to rearing well-behaved children. They are constantly asking for evidence of our Santa, not understanding that there would be no magic if Santa was subject to scientific scrutiny.

If we are to save our Santa culture from this insidious secularism that makes mockery of our faith, we need to acknowledge our weaknesses, and adapt to the changing cultural climate. Here are a few suggestions.

  1. Place Santa out of the reach of science.
    Some point to what they consider the absurdity of a voluminous man descending a narrow chimney and other mysterious aspects of Santa. Here are a few ways to deal with this form of persecution.

    • Announce that Santa’s magic is far above human understanding. Santa, in his infinite magic, can fatten flues at will, create chimneys where there are none, and leave everything intact as if he had never descended from the roof at all. Ask the secularists how they even dare with their puny minds to question the magic of our Santa.
    • Call problematic parts of the Santa story figurative. Suggest that the notion of “descending the chimney” is a metaphor of Santa’s intent. He actually may come through a window. What matters is that the presents are there in the morning. In doing this, never submit a standard for discerning between literal and figurative elements of the Santa story. That will make it convenient for you to choose which is which as aplogetics needs arise.
    • Remind non-believers that, if the Santa story could be tested and confirmed, we couldn’t employ the faith that feeds the magic. Accuse them of not listening to the clear voice of Santa that each of us carries deep in our hearts if we only listen with open minds.
    • Affirm the magic. Point out all the cases in which reindeer dung was found on roof tops. Suggest that any father who would simply throw dung on his roof in an attempt to create the illusion of a rangiferine landing would have to be either a lunatic or liar. The only sensible inference is that Santa’s sleigh had indeed visited your house.
    • Belittle science and its tools. Point out that science is often wrong and is therefore not an appropriate method to assess the magic of Santa. Claim that statistics are a silly invention, and strongly affirm the idea that anything can be “proven” through statistics. The stronger you affirm this, the more true it will become. In this way, reports that suggest poorer (not misbehaving) children receive fewer presents can be dismissed. If secularists suggest this is not logical, claim that Santa logic is not the same as secular logic, but don’t bother explaining how.
    • Suggest that science and magic fall into two non-overlapping domains. Declare that scientific methodology cannot assess the wonderment of magic. When asked about specific claims of Santaism that seem to fall within the reach of science, offer evasive permutations of the particular doctrine to make it impotent and thus unassailable. Fudging a bit on exegesis is forgivable if the net result is an increase in believers.
    • Disparage the notion of belief based on “evidence”. This is becoming one of the most troubling issues that has already led to the apostasy of thousands. You’ll hear secularists claim that the degree of confidence in an idea should match the degree of the evidence. Where is the magic in that? Evidence only goes so far and is largely linear. How can belief be linear? Choose a side! Unless we go beyond the evidence with faith, we would be left saying “I don’t yet know” on many questions, a wholly unacceptable option.
  2. (more…)

December 28, 2009 at 9:07 am 21 comments

Older Posts


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,018,383 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers