Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – that ol’ “sophisticated theology” again

Haven’t seen one of these for a while. This is a classic “sophisticated theology” nattering by Rev. Garrick Sinclair Beckett.

 Here’s my response.  Nothing much new.  Memes at the bottom.

“The atheistic characterization of Christians’ belief in God as faith in “an invisible sky daddy”—or “invisible sky wizard with magical powers” as I recently heard it—is not only a gross oversimplification but also an intellectually dishonest representation of the nuanced and deeply rooted theological understanding held by Christians. This caricature fails to engage with the intellectual rigor, philosophical depth, and historical context that underpin the Christian conception of God.”

Nope, it isn’t a “gross simplification” at all, since all your claims reduce down to baseless claims for your imaginary friend’s existence.  There is no “intellectual rigor” applied to your god.  All you have is a common protest from Christians that their “sophisticated theology” isn’t addressed by non-Christians.  That you have no evidence for your claims means that no one must believe the many, many versions of Christianity that Christians have invented.  There is no way to determine which of you has the “right” version, if any. 

We can see how this works since Christians do not agree about their god, what it wants when it comes to morality, what it does, etc.  You all make up what you desire, nothing more.  Claims that you have been around for hundred of years is no more than a appeal to tradition fallacy, and many, if not all, religions/cults make the exact same claim as you.  Aquinas, Lewis, etc all  have arguments that fail miserably.   But do cite what you think is the best and I can show you why no one needs to consider it valid at all.

“Moreover, dismissing Christian beliefs as mere superstition overlooks the historical and empirical basis of Christianity. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to the Christian faith, and these events are rooted in historical claims—even in extra-biblical documents (e.g., Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and others)—that have been subjected to extensive scrutiny and debate. The resurrection, for instance, is not presented as a mythological event but as a historical occurrence witnessed by over 500 individuals, documented in early texts, and transformative in the lives of the early Christian community. For more on this subject and for your own edification, I strongly recommend you pick up the books Christian Apologetics by Douglas Groothuis, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, and The Genuine Jesus: Fresh Evidence from History and Archaeology by Paul L. Maier.”

No evidence for any jesus, being it the possible delusional jewish fellow or the magic man/god. Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, do not mention jesus, they mention christians and what they believed, not that what they believed was true. The Talmud describes an entirely different character. These claims have indeed been subjective to intense scrutiny and debate and they hvae failed miserably. That’s why I, as a former christian, am now an atheist.

There are no 500 witnesses, only the claim that there were, and surprise, not a single one of htem ever shows back up out of Paul’s baseless nonsense. All of those apologists are frauds, with such ridiculous claims as you have already tried. Mentions of christians doesn’t mean your god is real. No one noticed any of the supposed events claimed in the bible.

“The phrase also dismisses the testimonies of those who have not only experienced profound moral, spiritual, and personal changes through their faith in God but also—and especially—those who’ve been brutally murdered for their faith, both past and present, often as public displays for entertainment.”

Personal testimony can come from any cultist, so no reason to believe yours over anyone else’s. And yep, people have been martyred and killed themselves over many stupid things. That is also no evidence your nonsense is true.

“Furthermore, this portrayal fails to acknowledge the philosophical and existential questions Christianity addresses. Questions about the origin of the universe, the basis of moral values, human existentialism, and the problem of suffering are deeply explored within Christian thought, which one would easily know if they picked up any books outside their echo chamber. These are not trivial concerns but are central to the human experience, and Christianity offers comprehensive and thoughtful responses to these fundamental issues.”

The problem here is that you have no answers to any of these questions, just baseless claims. Curious how Christians can’t agree about creationism, can’t agree on what morals their god wants, anything about humanity, and always fail about the question of suffering, with each of you making up something different to excuse your imaginary god’s not doing anything at all. I’ve read all of your apologetics. Have you read any counter apologetics? It seems not. Every religion claims they are “central to the human experience” and happily, no human needs them at all.

“In summary, the atheistic notion that Christians believe in “an invisible sky daddy/wizard with magical powers” is an intellectually dishonest statement that misrepresents and trivializes the profound and well-reasoned beliefs held by Christians. It displays a profound hypocrisy on their part as they demand respect for their beliefs but are unwilling to extend that same respect to Christians. It ignores the rich theological tradition, the historical basis of Christian claims, and the thoughtful engagement with existential questions that even the earliest Christians struggled with (hence the church councils) that characterize the Christian faith. To foster genuine dialogue and understanding, it is essential to engage with the actual beliefs and arguments of others rather than resorting to simplistic, misleading caricatures. Yet I suppose that if they truly were interested in honest, respectful dialogue, they wouldn’t resort to such vacuous statements.”

Unsurprisingly, you’ve managed to make false claims about atheists and failed to show your “sophisticated theology” to be any better than any other theology. You have no “profound” ideas nor do you have well-reasoned beliefs. Your hateful ignorant nonsense deserves no respect. No one need to respect a religion that depends on claiming that anyone who doesn’t join the cult will be eternally tortured. Of course, Christians can’t even agree on that either.

Your actual beliefs and arguments *are* addressed. You have simply avoided those discussions. I recommend going to websites such Internet Infidels to see the counter-apologetics they have in their online library. They dismantle the supposed “sophisticated theology” that you claim exists. That “sophisticated theology” is all built on presuppositions that Christians cannot show to be true; and the house of cards collapses.

BTW, it’s always fun to see a Christian try yet again to claim atheists who dare not agree with them are not honest.

Here are the memes. Many thanks for those who invented them.