Not So Polite Conversation – “Catholic of Honor” tries to refute a post of mine, hilarity to follow

This is a long slog, so fair warning. Not much here is that new when it comes to counter apologetics. I just was amusing myself in responding.

Always good to see a Catholic who has decided to respond to my posts. He didn’t bother reading anything else on my blog, including my introduction. So he thinks I’m called “club schadenfreude”. Really, dear? Tsk. I’m pretty sure I told him I was Vel, when I commented on the false claims on his blog, which of course he banned me from, rather than showing I was wrong. Alas, the self-proclaimed “Catholic of Honor” shows he isn’t so honorable, when he claims I wasn’t being honest or contributing to dialogue. He claims that showing that his claims, and other claims are false is “harassment”. But that is typical for most Christians. If he didn’t like to do ban people, as he claims, no one forced him. It’s always good to see a Catholic trying to blame others for their actions.

Anyway, let’s look at what this “honorable Catholic” has to say. You can also see it here. as a pdf housed here on my blog. He has preloaded his excuses here so he can pretend that no one can hold him accountable for his claims: “Why should you listen to me? I am not a priest, nor saint, nor theologian, nor angelic doctor. I am only a man with a desire to spread the gospel. A member of the laity wit a passion. A sinner trying to fight the good fight. A Catholic of Honor.” There is no reason to listen to him and his baseless opinions at all. But we can indeed counter them.

CoH (Christian of Honor) quotes a fellow Catholic, who makes the claim that a god named Moloch exists, and that abortion has something to do with it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for Moloch, much the same that there is no evidence for CoH’s version of the Christian god. This fellow Christian, Kristor, who I’m sure some of you are familiar with, makes predictions that, surprise, never occur. “Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.”

Oh darn one more failed claim and a Christian who is sure other gods exist. How embarrassing! Then CoH says he agrees, but now it’s just a “metaphor “I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense.” Surprise, Christians don’t agree, not even Catholics.

I wrote this to respond to poor Kristor: “No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god”

CoH doesn’t like this. “Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.”

CoH is upset that I point out how apologetics fail and says I shouldn’t show that they are wrong. He claims “intellectual virtue”, something he’s made up so he can whine about how dare anyone shows that his fellow Chrsitians lie, and says that bluntly, supported by evidence. Yep, one can point lies on the spot and ridicule lies on the spot too. Oh dear, I was “impolite”, aka the typical Chrsitian who has yet to realize that no one has to be polite when it comes to their harmful and baseless lies. The dear ol’ “Mother Church” hasn’t come to terms that they aren’t in power anymore.
Then, we have CoH upset that I pointed out that the only humans who are happy with human sacrifice are humans. I said “Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.”

He wrote “I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.”

That he can’t tell simply is that he doesn’t want to admit that I am quite certainly using the term “literally” literally. Then he claims that somehow Jews and Muslims are happy with human sacrifice. They do indeed, if they accept that story about Jephtha’s daughter. I do like how CoH claims that Jews and Muslims worship demons, a lovely baseless and typically bigoted claim by a Christian. That’s quite a lovely “whataboutism” that ricocheted on CoH.

Well, let’s look at the next bit from CoH. “But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. “

Hmmm, the bible never says this. We have this god wanting the humans it chose to be on the city of heaven on earth; only 144,000 virgin Jews go to heaven.

“It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.”

This is the typical morality of Christians, might equals right. We see that CoH has no problem with human sacrifice when it comes to the story of Jephtha’s daughter. Then we have the baseless claim from a Christian and Catholic, making the claim that the children this god murders “go to heaven”. If this is an excuse, abortion would be a sacrament to Catholics, evidently guaranteeing that they automatically go to heaven. This is the excuse used by various people who have killed their children, murdered to “save” them from sin. This is from “Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention” SUSAN HATTERS FRIEDMAN1 and PHILLIP J RESNICK1

“Resnick’s review of the world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide (11) found filicidal mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Maternal filicide perpetrators have five major motives: a) in an altruistic filicide, a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child’s best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death); b) in an acutely psychotic filicide, a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill); c) when fatal maltreatment filicide occurs, death is usually not the anticipated outcome; it results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; d) in an unwanted child filicide, a mother thinks of her child as a hindrance; e) the most rare, spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child’s father.”

We also have that “church fathers” say that unbaptized Children go to hell, not passing god, not collecting $200. “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)”

Funny how a Catholic just ignores what he wants. Then he is offended that I mentioned how the Catholic Church doesn’t treat stillborns like children. He claims I take it “out of context” but does not show how. The catholic church is indeed hypocritical if it claims that fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs are children and then says still borns aren’t. If fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs are independently “alive” even if they can’t survive without the woman’s body without which they would immediately die, a stillborn fetus is just as “alive”. It is telling that CoH can only think of serial killers killing children. “As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved.” Well, per Auggie above, there is no reason to trust this god at all.

Unsurprisingly, CoH tries to claim my points aren’t “entirely accurate. They are, and CoH does admit that Catholics don’t agree yet on more things. “I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo.” Aka we just make nonsense up.

Alas, per CoH’s own arguments, he and the RCC (something that poor CoH can’t evidently figure out) do need to start baptizing fertilized eggs. He doesn’t like that conclusion, and tries this excuse: “The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.”

Surely it would be fine with a god that demands “children” be baptized to not send them to hell. Right? Or does CoH admit that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses aren’t children at all? Seems he is.

Science doesn’t show that fetuses are “independent organisms” at all. Again, until we do have the science to have an artificial womb, this potential human being needs another.

I do appreciate that CoH admits that Catholicism and Protestants have different, and contradictory, versions of Christianity, and not one of them can show their nonsense true. “As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything.” He, as usual, tries the baseless claim that only his version of Chrsitianity, and indeed Catholicism, is the only right one. Alas for him, every single Christian claims that they and they alone have “teaching authority”.

CoH kindly lists all of the Christians who don’t agree with him and like him, can’t show that he is even a real Christian, unable to do what the bible has JC promising. He tries to claim that only he has the right “understanding” and dismisses anyone who disagrees with his version. How not new or impressive. “I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere).” Aka, don’t hold me to account for making a baseless claim and calling you liars.”

“I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.”

So, another baseless claim, and attempting to deny that if no chrsitain can show that they have some “right” answer, there is no reason to doubt them all. At best, CoH could argue that there is a right answer, but since he can’t do what the bible promises, he admits his version, and the versions of every other Christians, is wrong.

CoH also mentions the term “bulverism” a term made up by the liar C.S. Lewis, a famous apologist. Bulverism is defined as “The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” “ Alas, CoH accuses me of this but has no evidence I have done this. What I have done is research the claims of CoH and other Christians, no presupposition, and then have presented evidence that they are wrong. From CoH’s own claims, my point ““As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.”” Is demonstrated as true since even CoH admits that Christians make up what they want, insisting that their personal interpretation is the only right one, contradicting their fellow Christians. They make up their god and their religion in their own image, show their internal desires and hates.

Now, if we do want to see someone perform “bulverism”, Christians are great examples, since each presupposes the other Christians are wrong, and then they try to show how. CoH is quite right here “It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.” And he does it repeatedly in his attacks on other versions of Christianity. Here’s an example from CoH’s typing fingers “When Luther first proposed Sola Scriptura, the idea seemed simple enough, but doctrinal controversy seemed to be sprouting all around from its very roots.” You can see the rest here.

Happily, I didn’t try psychoanalysis, I only compared the bible to a method of psychoanalysis. What I have shown is that there are many contradictions in Chrsitainty, and CoH has helped in showing how he is sure that only his version is the right one, which literally (yes, dear I mean that literally, ROFL), contradictions other Christianities.

CoH tries the excuse that I can’t point out contradictions since humans aren’t “infallible gods”. I’m not even thinking that. But gee, poor CoH claims to have a infallible god, and it fails hilariously since it can’t make itself understood, evidently. If there is some truth, an omnipotent, and omniscient, and supposedly good, infallible god must, by definition, be able to make itself clear, and not have to have its followers blame themselves for being at fault.

“we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.”

No need to be charitable to people who can be demonstrated as liars. This is again the Christian begging everyone to not show that their emperor has no clothes.

So what has CoH’s post taught us?

“So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics.”

He has nothing to support his claims and demands “charity” when none is deserved.

“Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization.”

CoH still has nothing to support his claims, and tries to lie that I haven’t done research and have shown that his “system of faith” is no different than those versions of Christianity and other religions he attacks. If he is the one TrueChristain™, he knows, from his bible how he can show this to be true. Unsurprisingly, he can’t do what it promises.

“Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.

Oh dear, an appeal to popularity logical fallacy is all he has. There is nothing historically intellectual about Catholicism, it depends on the same demonstrably baseless claims as any other version of Christianity.

“Bonum Certamen Certemus “which means “We’re sure it’s a good fight.” (translation courtesy of google.) Unfortunately, he’s wrong. And if you are a Christian who likes to claim that Catholics aren’t Chrsitians, your version isn’t any better.

Kitten update next!

at least Catholics generally know not to promises prayers for me since they know they always fail.

most likely CoH will complain that I post this. Sorry, I’ll bring this up every time some Christian tries to insist that their god has better morals than human beings.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Catholics want new cathedral to celebrate overthrow of Roe v. Wade, not to help children or women

As the title says, there is a movement in the RCC to make a “huge beautiful church” to their goddess stand-in Mary for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade. Few things go to show how Catholics have no interest in actually helping children than this. Nothing like wanting to spend millions on pleasing an imaginary character and ignoring real kids and families.

This is literally how disgusting these people are:

if the temple cost anything less than  million dollars i say if people really are are contrite for their involvement in this murder on an industrial demonic scale then we should have at least one dollar per baby whose life was snuffed out by man’s malice

why not spend million dollars on offering practical help to mothers who are pregnant? a wise man once said to someone that the poor you will always have with you but me you will not always have

To see the entire transcript (from the auto transcript function on Youtube), i have it here.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – aw, another Christian sure that he has a question “no atheist can answer”

oh my. It’s always great when a theist makes yet *another* claim about a supposed question that atheists can’t answer.  Poor Trent, so sure that his Christianity version (Catholicism) is the right one, and he can’t even convince other Christians, much less an atheist.

Now, out of all of this talking, it *seems* that the speaker’s question is “what would prove god exists”. It’s hard to know for sure. He goes on… and on… about why the responses by atheists aren’t evidently good enough for him, and argues that those events offered by atheists could happen because of “undiscovered or unknown natural explanation”.  He even admits that he himself and other christains wouldn’t believe that the events were caused by some god. 

Which causes a problem since Christianity is based on the evidently unbelievable claims in the bible.  JC, per the bible, says that those unbelievable events are the only thing that supports his claims.  So, if those can’t be trusted, even by believers, what use where they? 

The god of the gaps argument is not quite what the speaker says.  It is an argument, offered by theists, that if we do not currently know something, then their god must have been the cause.  And atheists have noted that the gaps close constantly since we keep discovering new things.  The “god of the gaps” argument is dependent on the demand that we cease thinking and looking for information. 

Yep, Christians shouldn’t act like fellow Christian Bill O’Reilly in his nonsense about tides, but they do and their religion is built on the presupposition that their god must exist. 

Our speaker doesn’t have to worry at all about atheists leaning “too much” into the god of the gaps argument at all.  Your lack of evidence is what supports our conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. You offer an unfalsifiable god in your excuses for why no one can find this god. 

The answers given to the question “what would prove god exists” are based on the claims of Christians and their bible.  This god is nicely defined in the bible and there are quite the set of promises made there.  So, there is no reason why this god shouldn’t be able to heal amputees, burn victims, etc, via the methods described in the bible. There should be no reason why it can’t move the stars, them being only lights on a surface per the bible, and not enormous spheres of hydrogen undergoing fusion billions of miles away from us.  There should be no reason that it can’t use DNA to send a message, or write on a wall or cause the offering on a soaked altar to catch fire.   

This is the answer to “why would these particular things convince you god exists”.  It’s because your bible says so, and you do say it is right, don’t you?  It is not the reasoning that we don’t know what would cause a limb to be healed, etc.  If your god was the cause, we could see that, couldn’t we?  It wouldn’t be mistakable for anything else, would it?  If it could be, then the theist has the problem, not the atheist.  If they can’t show that their god is anything more than physics or slight of hand, then this god isn’t what they worship.

Yes, there could be another unknown reason that such events happened, but the bible says that this god would be the reason, and thus we can assume that such an event would be evidence for this particular god. 

It’s more telling that our speaker is upset that his philosophical arguments aren’t considered true by an atheist.  It’s rather notable that he knows that his god can’t do anything like it is shown to in the bible at all.  All of those arguments can be posed for any god, not just Trent’s, and that is why I, and other atheists, just laugh at them when they are claimed as “real evidence”, since they all depend on a presupposition that a god must exist and that has not been shown to be the case at all.  “Classical arguments” aren’t true just because someone whines that they are “classical”.  That’s just the logical fallacy of the argument from tradition. 

As for the universe coming into existence from nothing being evidence for this god, well, we have a perfectly fine explanation on how that can happen without a god.  There’s also the problem again with “which god?”  It seems that Trent wants to claim yet again that since we don’t know exactly how the universe came about, it was his god, aka the god of the gaps argument.  We know how a limb would regrow, seeing it in other animals, so if god gets busy, we’ll know how it did it.  Now, the Christian will claim “But but this is just expecting this god to be within natural occurrences”.  Yep, that’s what Christians claim until they find that it doesn’t work.  They claim that this god is what tis behind material effects and forces, but when science doesn’t agree with that claim, then they must claim “nonoverlapping magisterial”.   God magically becomes only findable with baseless claims, aka philosophy.

Oh, and Trent, the existence of minds is easy, since not one can be shown to exist without a brain.  If these minds are free floating, but can interact with a electrochemical organ, then we should be able to sense them with other electrochemical devices.  But i’m sure you’ll try the “dragon in my garage” arguments.  As for moral truths, funny how Christians can’t even agree on them. 
And, as for the claims of this god knowing what would convince an atheist, yep, it’s a valid argument *if* your god really does want everyone to follow it.  So are you saying it isn’t true about your god?  I can get behind that since your god, per the bible, intentionally keeps some people from accepting it, destroying free will. 

No, a person can’t rationally believe in a being that has no evidence for it.  Can a person rationally believe in fairies?  If you say no, you have a problem, and your philosophical arguments that fairies must exist are just like this:“so you’re never going to get a hundred percent consensus on these philosophical questions”  Yep, since they are no more than baseless opinion.

Oh, here’s another question for us atheists “what is the best argument for the existence of god and what’s wrong with it or what is the least problematic argument for god and what’s specifically wrong with it”

so, the idea of “best” is subjective, and then the theist will whine it really isn’t the “best”.  And you must define what “God” is since even Christians can’t agree.  But if we should go with Catholic Christianity, I would say that the best argument is “first cause” and then it fails since nothing can show that the particular god claimed exists.  At best you have a vague “force”.  And don’t waste your time with Blackwell, or Swinburn or Aquinas, et al since they offer nothing more than has been offered here. All Trent is doing is using a logical fallacy of appeal to authority; authorities no one cares about but him and his fellow Catholics. Alas, there’s an army of other TrueChristians(tm) that claim he’s wrong.

Such a bunch of frauds.

Unsurprisingly, an atheist can again answer the question that a theist is ever so sure can’t be answered.  At best, Trent has an argument for some vague god.  That’s not what he worships. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – my favorite dead horse to beat on: free will and predetermination

Christians often want their free will but to also claim that everything is their god’s will and that predestination is in play.  We can start off with the common definitions of both terms.

Free will: “is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded”

Predestination:  equivalent to predeterminism: “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes”  – both definitions from Wikipedia.

One can of course try to use philosophical nonsense to try to split hairs but I find these to be quite universal.


Christians claim that Christians are corrupted and their version of their god is the only source of salvation.  Verses often cited for each are: 1.  Psalm 53:3; Romans 3:12; Ecclesiastes 7:29.  And 2. John 6:44; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:19

To set the stage we need to examine these two claims.  Both types of Christians claim that humans are “corrupted” and need “saved”.   Corrupted by what or who?  Saved by what and how?

The bible has that a snake was in the garden, a garden that this god claimed was perfect.  This indicates that either the snake was considered necessary aka perfect or that this god wasn’t telling the truth.  Some Christians claim it was satan, some don’t, claiming a literal animal.  We also have Jews having their own opinions and these even nuttier folks, Noahides, which are either Jews who think that their god gave just Noah a certain set of laws or Gentiles who need an excuse feel extra special and to ignore the laws in the bible they find inconvenient but who find JC as a failure since there is no evidence for the character.  Always leave it to humans to find a smaller pond to imagine they are a big fish in.

We have this god insisting that humans not find about good or evil, threatening death on the day that they would eat the fruit.  Not death in the far future, death was, essentially, immediate.   The snake/satan countered this claim with what was evidently the truth, since neither Adam nor Eve died that day.  Eve, with the knowledge of good and evil *equivalent* to that of this god, decided that it was a good thing to give the fruit to Adam, who, having no reason to doubt her, accepted it and ate it.  Per some Christians, the knowledge of good and evil corrupted Adam and Eve in some manner.  If it didn’t corrupt this god, why would it corrupt them?

We also have the problem that this god, rather than forgiving Adam and Eve right then, starts a several millennium process of pain and misery for no reason.  It is for no reason since many, if not most, Christians, claim how forgiving their god is.

Then this god tries to correct things and fails repeatedly, an odd thing for a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent god.  It is only after millennia that this god decides it needs a blood sacrifice, like any other Bronze Age god.  It is only by a very poor attempt at “reinterpreting” the bible that we get that this god had any idea of doing this sacrifice early on.

It’s honest of some Christians that they admit that Christians don’t agree on some very basic things.  They directly contradict each other and since none of them can show that they have the one “truth”, and they cannot do what their bible promises they can do, there is no reason to accept the apologetics from either side for their supposed “truth” and attacks on each other.  All they have is baseless opinion that they all claim is supported by their god and told to them by the “holy spirit”.  This includes the vastly diverging ideas of free will and predestination.

If this god is picking and choosing which humans can accept it and then damning those it doesn’t choose for no fault of their own, then there is no free will.  A controlling force, especially an omnipotent one, eliminates free will, no matter what contradictory nonsence the bible says in other places.

Some Christians, in their attempt to make believe that these contradictory claims are not, illustrate what apologetics is all about, lying and trying to make sense out of nonsense.  It is trying to make up excuses why we shouldn’t take the bible as it is written but to try to assign some other intent that we have no evidence for.  It is built on presupposition that this god is real and *must* make sense, no matter how much the believer has to add to the mythos, and to differ from his fellow Christians.

Of course, when it is pointed out that this god damns people left and right, then the Christian claims that since the bible says that this god wants “everyone” to come to it, well, that part must be true too!  They can’t ignore one part over another since they’ve been told that *all* of the bible is their god’s word, so somehow, they have to make them work together.  They can’t accept that the bible is just a set of books by people who didn’t believe in the same things.

The verse cited from 2 Peter 3, arguing for a god that wants everyone to come to it, is problematic for our Christians, either the free will or predestination sides.  It’s a great excuse why this god hasn’t returned yet, to try to claim that this god “really” wants to give people all of the time they need to “come to repentance”.   The entire passage reads as such: “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,[b] not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”

As I’ve pointed out before, Christians usually only cite verse 9 and do their darndest to ignore the rest, intentionally leaving out the important context.  This causes all sorts of issues with how Christians want to claim the bible is literal in some parts but not in others.  How does this match up with the Genesis claims of a seven-day week of creation?  How does this work with JC’s claim that he’ll be back within the lives of people he is speaking to?  Well, it doesn’t since it flatly contradicts those claims.  This god should have been back long ago if days are literally 24 hours periods, but as we know, Christians don’t agree on that either.  If this god counts a millennium as a day in its experience, then seven days would have been 7,000 years, and if JC meant he’d be back in the number of millennia that the days of a human generation would be (around 20-30 years) that would be, conservatively, 7,300 days or 7,300 millennia aka 7,300,000 years.   This is the very silly number one gets when apologists want to pick and choose what they want words to mean.

Another common verse used as an excuse is from John 12, which causes more problems with its gnostic claims of a “ruler of the earth” which directly contradicts with Christians who claim that everything is their god’s will here on earth.  Either this god is responsible for everything or not.  Christians can’t cherry pick their way to having their cake and eating it too.

So, having established this background, we go on to the claim that predestination and free will can work together.

If this god is responsible for everything *and* wants every person to be saved, then an omnipotent being can have anything it wants.  If this god needs this, it can have everything it needs by definition.  If this god picks and chooses, then this god has what it wants and needs.  Free will has no place in the bible.  A god would have no reason to deny itself.  Indeed, it kills people repeatedly because it wants it to happen because an omnipotent god would not need anything.  It literally can’t fail at a task unless it chooses to.

There are a couple of verses in the bible that contradict completely free will.  They are in Romans 9 and Matthew 13.  Both state that this god prevents some people from accepting it before we were even born.  Full stop.  No exceptions at all.  Some Christians accept these verses as stated, some try to claim they mean something else than what is literally written.  JC and Paul, if they existed, say that this god needs to show off, so it damns some people so it has something to hurt as an example to the people it chose to allow to accept it.  Which makes sense how?  Why would anyone need an example made of others if it was so obvious about this god?

The Christians who don’t like such an authoritarian god try to add things to their bible so they can invent a god that is more in their image.  They insist that the context is “incomplete”, which is rather embarrassing for a “perfect” god and its supposed words.  They insist on ignoring the parts of the bible that don’t work with their new god. The parts about election and predestination are suddenly declared not true, though no where in the bible does it say that somehow those parts are null and void if you just don’t happen to like them.  All it has is contradictory verses that each Christian picks and chooses to determine their very own “truth”.

We have the following which says that predestination, not free will is what goes:

11 In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, 12 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this] is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.” – Ephesians (predestined/predetermined to accept/praise this god)

15 For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?) Romans 9  (the classic might equals right morality, that no one can question this god for abusing others to impress those he chose from their creation).

This god does not allow people to do what they want and then accept them for what they’ve done, it chooses them before they’ve done anything.  And this choice, commonly called “grace” by Christians, isn’t something that people earn.  Thus there is no free will, no action that will determine what will happen.  And when we go back to the definitions of free will and predestination at the top, we see that there is no free will allowed “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes”  aka this god.

Some Christians try their hardest to pretend that if their god knows who we will become out of free will, then his choice of us to allow us to accept him is free will.  However, this doesn’t work as soon as this god interferes in what we do.  As we see, this god made the choice before we existed to make choices, not the other way around, that this god made his choice after we existed.  That would be free will, and this god’s choice being dependent on *whatever* we did with no interference.

Again, predestination: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Free will: is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded

The argument of the Christian only works if the bible is full of lies and this god never interferes.

“I believe that predestination and free will work together in ways that are both glorious and mysterious.”

Unsurprisingly, the Christian will claim that it’s “mysterious” at the end of it all. This is the default excuse when Christian fails.

What the Boss Likes – Vel video chats with a theist

Now you too can see Vel and Robert chat about Christianity and atheism.  For those of you who don’t know the history of this, I found Robert’s blog post on WordPress and countered his claims that he can prove that his version of his god exists.  Then we decided to chat live about it.  I think we both had a good time.  We’re also both fans of fantasy and science fiction.

He’s edited it some and I haven’t watched it completely yet.  Hopefully it keeps intact my parts.  If you notice anything out of character or a missing chunk of argument that you know I’d offer, let me know.  He is a Catholic with some differences from some of the dogma. (robert, if that isn’t quite correct, let me know).

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – yep, one more abuse scandal – here in PA

Unsurprisingly, we have yet ONE MORE investigation that shows that the Roman Catholic Church has aided and abetted the rape and abuse of children. This is now in the diocese about an hour’s drive from the state capitol Harrisburg.

There are many excuses given for the church, that it isn’t at fault. The church has hid these crimes intentionally again and again. They have lied again and again and destroyed lives again and again. The claims that these crimes are a “Cancer in the church” misses the point; the church is the cancer. The church as an entity controlled by its leaders has intentionally done nearly everything possible (awful to think what it could have done) to hide its complicity.

My spouse asked: Why no RICO prosecution? Well, it’s evidently because there is no singular entity that represents the Catholic Church in the US, though the RCC claims that they are all one happy family ruled by one man. So, yep, we get to see that the RCC uses the same dodges as any good mafia don. Now doesn’t this sound familiar “An archetype [of a racket] is the protection racket, wherein a person or group indicates that they could protect a store from potential damage, damage that the same person or group would otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the more direct act of extortion.” –    Hmmm, nice soul we told you that you have, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it… The claim has been also made that the RCC isn’t in the “business” of harming children, but funny how it uses its resources to hide this action, just like any “honest businessman”.

I know some of my readers are Catholics. I have some questions for you:

Why does this god do nothing at all?

Do you really think that the children weren’t praying?

Where is the holy smiting that this god used to do without any care for “free will”?

What about the free will of the children?

(of course these questions can apply to any religion that has its leaders abusing others.  I’m sure Catholic bashing Christians will be ever so sure that their nonsense is so much better, happily ignorant of what their fellows do.)

One could make the argument that the priests prayed to see if this god was okay with this, and since this god does absolutely nothing, decided that this was their god giving its tacit approval, as many Christians do when wanting to do something that they aren’t sure if their god will approve of.

I wonder, where does Senator Pat Toomey (a Roman Catholic) stands on prosecuting the RCC with his sponsorship of a sex offender law? Well, he is all about removing sexual predators from public schools, but it’s striking that he doesn’t mention religious institutions at all. Indeed, read this excerpt from Toomey’s own website “The Toomey-Manchin legislation provides that any state receiving federal education funds must perform criminal background checks on all school employees who have unsupervised access to children. This includes substitute teachers and coaches, who are often hired as contractors.

The bill forbids schools from hiring a teacher who has committed certain crimes, including any violent or sexual crime against a child. Moreover, the bipartisan legislation bans the horrible practice of a school helping a child molester obtain a new teaching job at another school-a practice so common that it has its own moniker, “passing the trash.”

Sounds familiar, eh?

Now when will believers cease excusing their religion and their god?



Not particularly on topic but isn’t this great

trump sheep

What the Boss Likes – Some straight out evidence that religious leaders don’t believe what they tell the masses

bush-and-cardinalsIn a rather absurd display of supposed democracy, we have cardinals voting for the next pope.  Now, if this god of theirs wanted a certain person, surely it could be more clear about it?  We had burning bushes, prophets, who were supposedly accurate,  guided right to the correct person, etc in the bible, but here in 21st century Earth, we have a bunch of old men casting ballots. Seems a bit of a letdown.  Unsuprising in this age of people not accepting claims of nonsense so readily.

I can just imagine if someone stood up in front of the conclave and said “I’m it. God chose me.”  The cardinals would never believe it.  And that shows that they don’t believe in their religion at all.  What they do profess to believe is just for convenience.

Lest my other theist readers assume I find them any less silly, they  accept those who claim to be prophets and pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, etc from people who just say they know what a certain god really means, no divine indication necessary either.  It’s not a shock their leaders fail just as badly.

Postscript: Fascinating new version of the gospel from Coptic Source:

Shape-shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text.