Sunday, August 31, 2008

Edward Current is Awesome...

Edward Current is a musician and comedian who rolls out video after hilarious video satirizing the most popular pro-God arguments on the internet. While a small part of me burns at the realization that this guy is far funnier than I am, I've decided to add a link to his Youtube channel to the sidebar. Seriously, this guy is great. Plus his delivery is so perfect that lots of folks mistake him for a real internet evangelist. Head over to his channel and watch a few of his videos - you'll be glad you did.


Unknown said...

Have you ever considered that your inability to fully comprehend God and his purposes is more a product of your own limited cognitive powers than God's desire to remain "invisible?" It should be taken for granted that a human cannot, by definition, fully comprehend or even perceive a multi-dimensional being such as God. In light of the claims made by God himself and those who wrote about him, it would seem to me that one would want to have God walk up next to them (or even see God in a Polaroid picture) about as much as you want to witness a nuclear explosion at ground zero. Likewise, one would want to have a daily incarnation/revelation of God in front of you about as much as you would want a daily epileptic seizure (check out the bood of Daniel and others regarding the effect of a multidimensional appearance on a human physical body). If God really is the intelligence and energy from which all creation emanates, are you really in a position to dictate the parameters of his activities and priority structure? Certainly, you are free to believe what you will. Could it be, however, that what you will becomes your reality. Even according to the Bible, Jesus never healed a single person that did not first have faith that such healing could take place. Could it be that one must believe first in order to see?

Jay said...

Why do you believe?

Unknown said...

1. The scope and complexity of creation (i.e. the "divine watchmaker" reason).
2. Biblical prophecy.
3. Personal revelation.

Do you believe in God?
If not, why not?

Skippy the Skeptic said...

Well Steve, as with your HAARP claims, you're the one making the positive statements here and thus the burden of proof lies with you. That being said, you've given us an ultra-brief little bullet list of why you believe, but I'm forced to ask why you happen to believe in one of the Christian religions.

There are countless other religions floating around out there and in the fact that majority of people in the world are not Christians. What is it about Christianity that is so uniquely appealing to you, and what gives you the discernment to know that the experiences that you've had regarding Christianity are more "real" than equally "compelling" experiences that other have had with, say, Islam, Hinduism, or even Scientology?

What makes your holy book so compelling that you can claim that its authorship is divine, or at the very least that what it writes about God is actually true? On what basis do you judge it? What makes it more compelling than the Koran, for example? I can easily link you to any number of websites that loudly proclaim the prophetic accuracy of the Koran, so what makes those prophecies less compelling than those of the Bible?

When someone makes a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with them. With extraordinary claims, the burden of proof becomes extraordinary as well. When someone makes a claim such as "I am personally aware of the pre-existing and omnipotent creator of the universe and that creator is also personally aware of and takes an interest in me", the burden of proof is extremely high indeed.

Electing not to buy into something for which their is insufficient evidence is not remotely the same as becoming a diehard believer based on insufficient evidence.

Jay said...

I'm best described as agnostic.

1) The scope and complexity of "creation" is largely well-defined by physics, which drives chemsitry, which drives biology. You'll no doubt counter with a statement along the lines of "well what created the universe, then?", which leads to what's called an infinte regression. In other words, if you're going to assert that something you call "God" is uncaused, you've got to explain why the universe can't be.

2) Biblical prophecy is, frankly, an unconvincing load of crap. I challenge you to provide an example of Biblical prophecy that can't adequately be explained by one of the following:
a) writing the so-called prophecy after the fact (e.g. pretty much the entire Book of Daniel that takes place before ca. 160 BCE).
b) something that could reasonably be expected to take place anyway. (e.g. the eventual downfall of Babylon.)
c) something so vague that it could apply just about anywhere (compare Ezekiel, Daniel, Mark's "Little Apocalypse", and Revelation).
d) being just flat wrong (e.g. Jesus' predictions that he would return within the lifetimes of his audience).

3) What personal revelation have you received that you couldn't ascribe to your own thoughts? Many people claim personal revelations that are in actuality indistinguishable from normal emotional and psychological responses. If those feelings and/or knowledge can be explained through mundane means, why would you need to ascribe supernatural origin to them?

Vis-a-vis #1: it's very important to consider that just because you don't know the answer to a question (e.g. how life originated on Earth) doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a pretty good idea. What you're espousing there is what's known as an argument from ignorance.

Vis-a-vis #2: prophecy is basically doctrine trying to masquerade as history. The first thing you need to do is acquaint yourself with the actual history of the Ancient Near-East over the last several thousand years. The Biblical record is correct on some points, close on others, and laughably wrong on many others. (It's also interesting that absolutely no Biblical prophecy deals with anything that wasn't relevant to the circumstances of the authors' own times and places. There is no Biblical prophecy addressing events in, say, 20th Century Canada. Or early 21st Century New York. Biblical prophecy is overwhelmingly Levant-centric in both subject matter and location.)

Vis-a-vis #3: personal revelation is an example of pareidolia. In a nutshell, how can you distinguish between supernatural revelation and your subconscious simply telling you what you want to hear?

Your evidence isn't strong enough to convict someone of jaywalking.

Skippy the Skeptic said...

Lucky he listed the same three reasons as everyone else.