Degenerating Atheists

When I first started doing apologetics online in the late 1990s, I had a policy of taking on even some of the most obscure atheists then known to mankind, on request. A few years ago, I changed that policy and announced that I wouldn't take on anyone online by request as a paid research project. A recent reader request illustrates why.

I was directed to a mindless little blurbfest by some non-entity who calls himself "Terra Firma". In turn, Terra was mindlessly repeating some stuff he had picked up from a former fundy (now atheist) who calls himself "Southern Skeptic". This Southern Skeptic had come up with seven reasons why the Bible was not divinely inspired, which impressed Terra mightily. Among them was this sewer gem:


(If the Bible were inspired) It would be easy to understand.
To some extent, this goes back to 1 and 2. The Bible is cryptic and open to roughly 41,000 interpretations — that we know of.


Oh, really. Let's see now.

1) We have an artificial and contrived equation between "inspired" and "easy to understand". No such correspondence exists in reality. It is simply made up. It is a product of the bawling malcontentedness of the modern and uneducated person who thinks serious education was unachievable prior to the Internet.

2) The link regarding "41,000 interpretations"...oh, that argument. The one that was stale when the number was 30,000:

This is a pretty good example of why my focus in this regard has shifted from voluntary to mercenary. The up and coming Internet atheists are just regurgitating the same bile that's been out there for years. Only the stats have changed. There's absolutely no effort to seek responses, analyze the argument carefully, or refine it based on new data.

So, I'm off to do some work for hire. Oh, and one last thing. Hey Joe, need something to write about next week? Here you go:

If God Exists Outside of Time, Then He Doesn’t Exist

I can't have ALL the fun. 





Joe Hinman said…
Needless to say good answers, JP, you went or the cartoon went way beyond the call of duty in answering a stupid,one. the original internet atheists drew upon failed 19th century pundits, the new net atheists draw upon those who drew upon the failed pundits.
im-skeptical said…
Just so we understand this argument ...

There are ACTUALLY fewer than 41000 versions of Christianity that are doctrinally different from one another. Therefore, this doctrinal disunity doesn't exist. The religious rodent says so, and it goes without saying the rodent is much wiser than any dumb atheist (because he's religious), so that settles it. Great parody of a logical argument.
Joe Hinman said…
talk about Mississippi the point
J. P Holding said…
Of course Joe, IMS is a parody of a dumb fundy atheist. A very good parody too.
Joe Hinman said…
brilliant parody
im-skeptical said…
Not so brilliant post on "Degenerating Atheists".

And as for missing the point, JP doesn't seem to understand that if God wanted to communicate with people, he wouldn't have requires them to get a "serious education" to be able to decipher what he says. Even the "seriously educated" interpret his words in many different ways. And that fact may not account for all of the 41000 varieties of Christianity, but it DOES account for some of them.

And THAT's the point. A point that JP has miserably failed to address.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity