A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism.
Today I read an interesting, relaxing, and fun-to-read little book. “The Loser Letters,” by Mary Eberstadt.
Here is what Amazon says of the book.
A wickedly witty satire, The Loser Letters chronicles the conversion of a young adult Christian to atheism. With modern humor rivaling that of the media lampooning Onion, found on college campuses all over America, A. F. Christian’s open letters to the “spokesmen of the New Atheism” explain her reasons for rejecting God and the logical consequences of that choice. Along the way she offers pithy advice to famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, in the hope of helping them win over more Christians.
“Of course we score big time with the young guys who aren’t responsible for anything, and don’t really care about anything besides spending most of their time in the basement playing video games and texting girls,” A.F. Christian points out. But what about all those serious, thoughtful people who are Christian believers? If the New Atheism is to make real headway, she argues, its advocates must do more to persuade intelligent theists living meaningful and fulfilling lives.
Amid the many current books arguing for or against religion, social critic and writer Mary Eberstadt’s The Loser Letters is truly unique: a black comedy about theism and atheism that is simultaneously a rollicking defense of Christianity.
Echoing C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters and Dante’s Divine Comedy, Eberstadt takes aim at bestsellers like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great with the sexual libertinism their authors advocate. In her loveable and articulate tragic-comic heroine, A.F. Christian, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the other “Brights” have met their match.
NONVIOLENT CHRISTIANS 
Wow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ah, always great to see christians have nothing more than bearing false witness about others and ignoring their bible when they find it convenient. it’s always grand fun to see a poor wannabee bully trying to claim lies are just “joking”. Alas, this god supposedly says that its followers should never lie, not even if they want to claim it is *for* this god. Do read Romans 3 to know what your bible actually says.
It’s so sweet to see someone try so very hard to pretend that atheism should be capitalized, in her need to pretend that atheism is somehow like her religion. Alas, atheism is simply a noun, never a proper noun. And the poor dear is truly an atheist, as every theist is, sure that every god but theirs doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
You may be right, perhaps we are all called atheists.
In 155 AD, when Polycarp was to be executed by the Romans in the Smyrna arena, the proconsul said, “Swear by the divinity of Ceasar and I will let you go.”
Polycarp refused.
Many Romans considered Christians atheists because they did not worship the Roman gods.
The proconsul said, “Well, then, simply shout ‘Away with the atheists and that will be sufficient”
Polycarp yelled, “Away with the atheists.”
The proconsul knew from the reaction of the crowd that he dare not release Polycarp yet.
“Curse Jesus,” he demanded.
Polycarp replied calmly, “For 86 years I’ve served Jesus, and he has never wronged me in any way. How, then, can I possibly curse my very King and Savior?”
Polycarp was executed.
“Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up,” by David W. Bercot, page 2.
LikeLike
Yep, all theists are atheists. So when theist make amusing threats about atheists, they do shoot themselves in the proverbial foot.
and one would think if there was a Jesus it wouldn’t care if someone lied to those about to kill them so they might live. This magical being supposedly knows what is really in your heart, right?
LikeLike
Vel,
You make some interesting observations.
Jesus as Son of God does not lie. Jesus died so that we can live. He had 10,000 angles to save him if he had so desired.
C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were friends and discussed the deep magic. “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Chronicles of Narnia” demonstrate that deep magic. Tim Allen in “The Santa Claus,” Star Trek, and “Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” all demonstrate that deep magic if only we have eyes to see.
“The rocks will clap their hands” or Gene Rodenberry and Stephen Hawking will demonstrate the deep magic, even when they try to reason that God does not exist. “What Star Trek Got Right About Jesus“. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=JTwKRpk02_8
While I was reading “A Brief History of Time,” I kept thinking what Hawking was saying was amazing and proof of God’s existence. What a surprise when at the end of the book I found out Hawking was an atheist!
Paul says that we are liars in Romans 3 “Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.” Yes, every human (except Jesus) is a liar. And Psychologists agree. Jordan Peterson says we even deceive ourselves. Peterson said we must always attempt to tell the truth when we are speaking to others, but especially to ourselves.
The best we can do is to make sure we do not intentionally lie. We all have a limited understanding of the world. We sometimes do not even know we are lying. If we want to live happy and good lives, Peterson says we should refrain from lying. If we know it is a lie, we should not say it or think it. As we practice telling the truth we begin to see our own lies about ourselves and can change our thinking to truth.
William Dever, an archeologist, and an agnostic said, “I am not an atheist, I think that’s an arrogant position.”
I disagree with Dever. I do not think that a person’s worldview determines whether they are arrogant or not. People with an atheist worldview, an agnostic world view or a christian worldview can be arrogant.
People with these views can just as easily be humble. Other atheists seem so angry. I know Christians who are also angry. We cannot rightly judge a worldview based on the personality type of a small number of people who hold that worldview.
No one likes evidence that counters their worldview, but if we have open minds and we have a logically consistent worldview, we can understand ideas contrary to our world view and we will not be shaken.
I have been reading bits and pieces of your blog as time allows and reading and listening to other atheists. I have found several reasons why I cannot be an atheist. Perhaps you can provide logical arguments to counter my objections?
1. One gentleman who I was listening to said there is no evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. I am aware of a great deal of evidence. If I were to become an atheist, what would I do with this evidence? If there were no evidence for the Resurrection, I could not be a Christian.
2. Many atheists claim that only the material world exists. When I presented evidence from near-death experiences of a spiritual or parallel universe you said everyone who testified or studied this area were liar. Really? I cannot reject this evidence just because you think near-death investigators are liars.
3. When I began looking into atheism when I was young, I told my Dad about it. I told him I was trying to keep an open mind. He said, “Don’t let your brains fall out.”
When I have kept an open mind and listened to atheists or held discussions with them it has always strengthened my faith. If we have a scientifically and philosophically sound faith in our worldview, we can hear the arguments of anyone. Do you have arguments that logically demonstrate that a creator God does not exist?
4. Most atheists seem to avoid discussing the God of Christianity. I cannot believe in any of the following gods.
a. Bertrand Russell compared God of Christianity to a teapot. If God were a teapot, I could not be a Christian.
b. Some atheists compare God of Christianity to the Greek or Roman god’s. If God were a puny part of the universe, I could not be a
Christian.
c. Some atheists compare the God of Christianity to nature worship. For example, Sun, Gaea or mother nature. If any of these were God I
could not be a Christian.
5. Some atheists claim that Science is compatible with only atheism. Science easily is compatible with many world views. These world views include atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Perhaps also Buddhism. Because science demonstrates that the big bang occured, science does not seem compatible with Hinduism.
Because christianity and atheism are both compatible with science, we must use philosophy to determine which is most likely to be true.
Because the universe exists and because we exist, we have circumstantial evidence God exists.
Atheism is without evidence and is a blind faith that God does not exist.
6. Richard Dawkins seems to be a “fundamentalist” atheist. He blames Christianity for Christian violence. I would agree with him that the violence of many Christians is totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Some Christians do not follow Jesus concerning violence. Some Christians are not violent.
Dawkins claims that if Religion were eliminated violence would be eliminated. Dawkins does not think the violence of atheists such as Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler are valid to tie to their atheistic world views. Dawkins does not exhibit such violence. Is Dawkins hypocritical?
Dawkins says with religion gone; such violence would fade away. I think violence is a natural part of human nature. Jesus came to free us from that violence.
I have great skepticism of the idea that without religion, violence would disappear.
7. Jesus changed my life for the better and I experienced miracles. If I were an atheist, what would I do with these experiences?
8. One atheist gentleman said if God would come down and demonstrate his existence, he would believe. What demonstrations would God be required to show to prove to him that God exists? Would he believe anything if he does not believe the evidence we already have available?
Could he experience free will if God forced him to believe? Would he want to spend eternity with God if God forced him to believe?
LikeLike
Jon,
I do indeed make some interesting observations.
Jesus Christ doesn’t exist so claiming it doesn’t lie is rather silly. It’s like claiming that the bible must be true since it claims it is. You wouldn’t accept that baseless claim from anyone else, just the set of books you *must* thoughtlessly accept without question.
There are no angels either. Per the bible’s story, this character had to die, no matter what, since this god created this rather idiotic plan from the beginning, to need to have a blood sacrifice of itself to itself to make itself happy, after causing the events in Eden. What makes this even funnier is that your god also had to have satan in on the plan since no betrayal, no blood sacrifice.
So, “deep magic”? Do define what you mean by that. Narnia was a poorly written christ analogy, and there is very little magic in LOTR, but again, just more resurrected hero nonsense, a common trope in many myths. There is no magic in Star Trek, and I do love that you seem to ignorant of that universe. It repeatedly shows that gods and magic are fraudulent. Same with Hawking’s book. No magic. All you are doing is being the typical Christian, trying to claim that everyone “really” agrees with you, when that is nothing more than the usual selfish lie.
I’ve seen many lies from Christians about how Star Trek, and Star Wars, “really” are speaking about their religion. That video is nothing new, just Christians wanting to claim that anything good is from their team. Rocks don’t clap, not per Roddenberry or Hawking.
Of course, you tried to claim that Hawking was really agreeing with you. That’s what Christians are desperate for, any evidence for their god since they have none. Muslims, Hindus, Wicca, etc all try the same lies.
In Romans 3, Paul is speaking about how Christians find they want to lie and claim they are lying *for* their god. He says this is wrong. Why did you choose to misrepresent what was said there? Here’s what it really says “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews[a] were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,“So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.”
5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!”
Jordan Peterson is a fraud too, playing the acceptable atheist for Christians. That’s a great way to make money. He doesn’t tell the truth at all. He is quite a notorious liar about atheists and what atheism is.
Christians repeatedly intentionally lie. You also try to excuse yourselves by insisting that you might not know it. If that is the case, then you can say nothing at all. As for always refraining from lying, that would have been a problem for Anne Frank, if no one lied for her.
Yep, people can be arrogant no matter what. It depends what they are arrogant about if their arrogance is to be consider acceptable or not. Dever, at one point, thought that being sure that there is no god is “arrogant”. There is nothing “arrogant” about accepting that no evidence indicates a very strong likelihood that there is no thing. I wouldn’t be considered “arrogant” if I said I don’t believe that there is a teapot circling Jupiter. The whine about arrogance only comes up with the nonsense of religion.
There is nothing “humble” about believing in something that has no support for it. If this were the case, then it would be “humble” to believe in Santa Claus.
Yep, you don’t like evidence that counters your worldview. No theist does, and no theist has any evidence for their myths. I can understand the desire to believe that some magical being agrees with you.
I do love that you try to corral how I can answer your points by saying “logical arguments”. Nice attempt to create an excuse before I even write a word. You will now just falsely claim that I’m not “logical” aka I don’t agree with you. But let’s take your questions.
“1. One gentleman who I was listening to said there is no evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. I am aware of a great deal of evidence. If I were to become an atheist, what would I do with this evidence? If there were no evidence for the Resurrection, I could not be a Christian.”
There is the problem: there is no “great deal of evidence”, for an atheist to do anything with. I invite you to give me the one bit of evidence you think is strongest. I’ll be happy to “do with it” as an atheist would. I also ask you to show evidence that there was one day that the sky darkened, there was a major earthquake, and the dead wandered around Jerusalem. All you have is the claim in the bible. A claim is not evidence for itself.
“2. Many atheists claim that only the material world exists. When I presented evidence from near-death experiences of a spiritual or parallel universe you said everyone who testified or studied this area were liar. Really? I cannot reject this evidence just because you think near-death investigators are liars.”
There is no evidence that anything but the material world exists. Claims of NDEs are not supported by evidence. All you again have are claims of subjective experiences. No evidence of a “spiritual” or “parallel” universe. I have no problem in saying everyone who makes the claim about NDEs being magical to be liars. They have no evidence and they make unsupported claims for their personal benefit. These claims cause harm since they end up in nothing more than blaming the victim. The idea that some god “saves” some people and returns them to life makes those who don’t return questioned. Who cares that you can’t reject baseless claims? That isn’t evidence of truth either.
“3. When I began looking into atheism when I was young, I told my Dad about it. I told him I was trying to keep an open mind. He said, “Don’t let your brains fall out.””
Gee, a baseless claim from Daddy. Not impressed. Yep, my dad said the same thing, “don’t keep your mind so open that it’s nothing different than a $5 whore”. Humans love to believe in things that make them feel good, like pretending that some magical powerful being agrees with them and only them. We have thousands of religions underlining that, and all of you are sure you are right for the same reasons. You are also sure that no one else is right and won’t accept those same reasons from a theist other than one that agrees with you.
You have not kept an open mind, when you make false claims about atheist and atheism. It is also not surprising that you repeatedly try the claim that any discussion always supposedly strengthens your faith. You don’t’ have a scientifically or philosophically sound faith at all, since science doesn’t support the claims of your religion. We can see that since Christianity has always changed to accommodate science, never the other way around. You may hear the arguments of anyone, you just don’t listen.
I don’t need a “logical” argument to show your god doesn’t exist. That’s a common dodge by a theist since you know that the mere lack of evidence for any of the essential events of the bible and the evidence entirely different things happened at any given time is enough. I have the evidence of absence and absence of evidence. Your problem is you can’t show a logical argument that your god does exist.
“4. Most atheists seem to avoid discussing the God of Christianity. I cannot believe in any of the following gods.
a. Bertrand Russell compared God of Christianity to a teapot. If God were a teapot, I could not be a Christian.
b. Some atheists compare God of Christianity to the Greek or Roman god’s. If God were a puny part of the universe, I could not be a
Christian.
c. Some atheists compare the God of Christianity to nature worship. For example, Sun, Gaea or mother nature. If any of these were God I
could not be a Christian.”
Nice lie there, Jon, since most atheists do not at all avoid discussing the god of Chrsitianity and all of its versions invented by each Christian. A. Russell didn’t compare this god to a teapot. He used the analogy to show that there is no more reason to believe that there is a god “somewhere” than there is to believe in a teapot in space. There is no evidence for either. B. The god of Chrsitianity is nothing different from the gods of other religions. There is nothing special about it. This god is indeed a part of the universe, per the bible itself. It is only a recent attempt to claim that this god is somehow different, being “outside” of the universe, which causes all sorts of problems like explaining how this god interacts with the universe then. C. Do point out these atheists who “compare the god of Christianity to nature worship”. And dear, this point is nothing different than the first two, you whining that your god is somehow different, when you can’t even show it exists.
“5. Some atheists claim that Science is compatible with only atheism. Science easily is compatible with many world views. These world views include atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Perhaps also Buddhism. Because science demonstrates that the big bang occured, science does not seem compatible with Hinduism.”
Science is not compatible with claims of magic, indemic to most if not all religions. Atheism is not a worldview, it is simply saying a certain god doesn’t exist. You are an atheist too, so your nonsense at attempting to equate atheism to Christianity is yet one more attempt to claim that everyone “really” agrees with you. Astrophysics show that there was a Big Bang, which you seem to have no clue about what that actually is. At this point, we don’t know what was before or if there was a before, and we do not see that any magical “outside of the universe” being needed. We’ve been looking at astrophysics for a couple of hundred years. We still find things new. Now compare that to the desperate search for evidence for some god over the last 2000+ years and that utter lack of evidence for it. No creation (nor agreement between theists on how that happened), no flood, no babel, no exodus, no battles fought with hundreds of thousands of combatants, no conquering of Palestine by Israelites, no fabulous palace or temples, no “wisest” man, no fellow wandering around with a Roman legion’s worth of men following him in Roman-occupied Palestine, no sky darkening/major earthquake/walking dead kind of day, no resurrection.
There is no circumstantial evidence your god exists, But heck, if you want to go with that, then we have circumstantial evidence that every god exists since each set of myths can be worked out to fit with science by using your magic decoder ring to make up that myths “really” mean science.
We don’t need baseless philosophy at all. Alas, you can’t show your god so atheism is just fine as a conclusion.
“6. Richard Dawkins seems to be a “fundamentalist” atheist. He blames Christianity for Christian violence. I would agree with him that the violence of many Christians is totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Some Christians do not follow Jesus concerning violence. Some Christians are not violent.
Dawkins claims that if Religion were eliminated violence would be eliminated. Dawkins does not think the violence of atheists such as Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler are valid to tie to their atheistic world views. Dawkins does not exhibit such violence. Is Dawkins hypocritical?
Dawkins says with religion gone; such violence would fade away. I think violence is a natural part of human nature. Jesus came to free us from that violence.
I have great skepticism of the idea that without religion, violence would disappear.”
I couldn’t careless what Dawkins or any other atheist says. Christians like you seem to think we all follow someone like you follow your pastors and priests.
Christians are responsible for the violence they cause thanks to their violent hateful religion. The teachings of Jesus are just as violent and hateful, requiring anyone who doesn’t agree with it to be killed or eternally tortured. I’ve read the bible so I know when a Christian tries to trot out the loving, pacifisist jesus, they are either ignorant of their own religion or are lying. Yep, some Christians aren’t violent, some are; a great bit of evidence your religion is worthless when it comes to the actions of humans.
You appear to be misrepresenting what Dawkins has said about religion and violence. He has not said that if religion were eliminated that violence would be eliminated. He has said that religion can and has motivated violence. Now, why would you choose to misrepresent someone’s words, Jon?
You also try to claim that atheism is to be directly blamed for what Stalin, et al did. Now, since you cannot show that all atheists want genocide, etc, your claim fails. What we can show to be the cause of what Stalin, et al did is megalomania, not the disbelief that a god exists. Indeed, if atheism causes something horrible, you are just as responsible as you want to claim that I am. You, again, are an atheist.
“7. Jesus changed my life for the better and I experienced miracles. If I were an atheist, what would I do with these experiences?”
Hmm, so since other theists of other religions make the same claims as you do, their gods exist. Right?
If I were an atheist and experienced an event that happened by magic, then I would consider it as possible evidence for something. I would then follow the evidence to see where it led.
“8. One atheist gentleman said if God would come down and demonstrate his existence, he would believe. What would demonstrations would God be required to show to prove to him that God exists? Would he believe anything if he does not believe the evidence we already have available?
Could he experience free will if God forced him to believe? Would he want to spend eternity with God if God forced him to believe?”
All of these mysterious atheists that say things, Jon. So, if your god came down and demonstrated its existence, yep ,I’d probably believe too. I still wouldn’t worship such a nasty thing. This god, by definition, would know what I needed to believe in it. I personally would be happy with a chatty burning bush. But for all of the prayers I said when I was losing my faith, I got no evidence for this god at all. IF this god really wants ever “sheep” to be found, then it would have done something. When I point this out to Chrsitians like you, you invent all sorts of excuses for your god’s failure.
Well, considering that there perhaps one mention of free will in the bible, and the rest claims that this god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it, damning the others for no fault of their own, free will isn’t important to your god at all. This god repeatedly forces its will on humans, murdering them, causes them to act differently than they would, etc. So you argument fails right off. This god *does* force people to believe in it.
Per your own bible, this god’s mere appearance doesn’t get people to automatically believe in it, so no problem there. If the apostles were as stupid as presented, miracles won’t work either.
LikeLike
Vel,
How do we gain knowledge? Here is what I think:
1. Empirical evidence. We gain knowledge by observation and experimentation. We ultimately use our senses to observe empirical information.
2. Testimony of others. We learn facts about reality through the testimony of others.
There are problems with both. I disagree with some things David Hume has written, but he also wrote things that made sense. He asked if we can trust our senses. I can look outside and see that my pickup is blue. However, what if my senses are deceiving me. I would agree with Hume that we need to verify that our senses are accurate.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
How accurate is the empirical evidence I think I see? Perhaps I made a mistake in my scientific experiments. Perhaps my instruments are improperly calibrated. Perhaps the testimony of other scientists I believe is inaccurate. Perhaps I misinterpreted the evidence. This is why we need a good philosophy of science.
TESTIMONY OF OTHERS
When it comes to testimony of others, another layer of validation is required to believe.
For example: My wife tells me she loves me. She has demonstrated in many ways that she loves me. She has been demonstrating her love for me for 37 years. There is a high probability that she is telling me the truth.
Another example: I may believe that Socrates, Aristotle and Plato existed because of the evidence of manuscripts.
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
This brings us to the resurrection of Jesus. We have the testimony of the New Testament that Jesus rose from the dead. Is that testimony reliable and valid?
From my studies I think that the testimony is reliable and valid.
The New Testament has been proven to contain extremely reliable documents. The Didache was written within a few years of the resurrection and supports the teaching of the New Testament. Most of the books of the books of the Bible were written within 30 to 40 years of the resurrection.
I quite clearly remember events 30, 40 and 50 years ago. I am sure something as memorable as the resurrection will be remembered by these writers.
The disciples of Jesus were willing to die to follow Jesus. This reinforces the reliability of their testimony. Even after 50 years of suffering, many Christians who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, continued to testify to that belief. This further validates their testimony.
After my study I think the evidence of the testimony of others concerning the evidence for the resurrection is persuasive. I think the evidence validates the resurrection as a fact.
You do not think this testimony is persuasive.
My world view includes the belief that God does exist.
Your world view includes the belief that God does not exist.
You have a great deal of evidence that you feel validates your position. I do not at this point find the evidence I have read in favor of atheism persuasive.
Even if you were to persuade me that the evidence for resurrection is not valid, I could not become an atheist.
I would need to evaluate my position. Perhaps I would become an agnostic, however I could not believe with any certainty the God does not exist.
Why do you think the evidence for the resurrection is invalid?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, there is empirical evidence. That is strikingly missing for your claims about your religion. All you have is testimony, both from known and unknown sources.
Testimony cannot stand on its own. If there is nothing to support it, is no more than a baseless story.
Can we trust our senses? Yep, unless something is wrong with them; that’s how we exist and manuever in the real world. Many theists try to claim that we can’t trust our senses so therefore their god must exist. And since all of you make the same claim, then surprise we have a lot of gods existing now.We can indeed verify if our senses are accurate, that’s what science is for. Reproducible results by another human are a great check to see if our senses are right.
You can’t reproduce anything about your religion at all. There is no need for a “philosophy” of science.
Now we get to the claims about the testimony of others. You have quite a problem in that since Christians themselves can’t agree on what or who was Jesus Christ, nor about what it wants, you have to come up with evidence for your particular version. None of you can and there is no evidence to back up your baseless claims; no mention by contemporaries, no evidence that the essential events happened, etc. And if testimony is to be taken equally with empirical evidence, then you have to accept that any claim by any theist is as good as yours.
So, now you have the resurrection of Jesus. You have nothing more than testimony from unknown sources. The NT has not been shown to “contain extremely reliable documents”. That is a baseless claim with nothing to support it at all. No surprise you cannot give one single instance of this. We see no confirmation that JC even existed, much less any of the events claimed happened. No legion’s worth of men wandering around Roman-occupied Palestine following a guy. No dead wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. No miraculous healings. No major earthquake on a day where the sky mysteriously darkened.
Yep, the didache was written within a few years of a date that was claimed to be for the resurrection. It also doesn’t mention the resurrection of Jesus, and has a “eucharist” that doesn’t mention blood nor body. So, for you to try to claim it supports the teaching of the NT is notably false. It seems that these early Christians didn’t’ remember the resurrection at all.
Plenty of humans are willing to die to follow lots of false things. There is no evidence that the apostles existed or died as martyrs. And after them, all you have are people dying for what they were told was true, not that they knew it to be. If dying stupidly is evidence for your god, then Islam is just as true as Christianity.
All of your study was for naught. You also do not find similar from other theists testimony persuasive, because like yours, it has no evidence backing it up. I find none of your testimony persuasive since not one of you can show your claims to be true.
I do indeed have a great deal of evidence to support my position. You do not, as we have seen above.
I know you couldn’t’ become an atheist. Thinking you are special and have a god as a best friend is quite an intoxicant.
Now for all you have avoided:
“So, “deep magic”? Do define what you mean by that.”
“I invite you to give me the one bit of evidence you think is strongest.”
“Hmm, so since other theists of other religions make the same claims as you do, their gods exist. Right?”
and you were caught in many false claims like that Star Trek somehow supports your claims and that Dawkins said something he did not. Do you wish to double down or admit that you were wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We do not seem to be making progress convincing each other. I do not find your arguments convincing and you do not find my arguments convincing. I will continue to read your blog because I find it interesting and I may comment from time to time. I appreciate that you take time answer my comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and unsurprisingly Jon still can’t answer questions put to him. You have no arguments, Jon. You have no evidence for your claims.
“Now for all you have avoided:
“So, “deep magic”? Do define what you mean by that.”
“I invite you to give me the one bit of evidence you think is strongest.”
“Hmm, so since other theists of other religions make the same claims as you do, their gods exist. Right?”
and you were caught in many false claims like that Star Trek somehow supports your claims and that Dawkins said something he did not. Do you wish to double down or admit that you were wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person