Dan #fundie

Dan #fundie debunkingatheists.blogspot.com

Pretend with me for a moment.

Let's just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.

Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two and lived over 900 years, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions' den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?

Look at what Paul said about how he persuaded men about God: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1) Why didn't Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Bible scholars who have studied his letters tell us that he was extremely capable intellectually. First Corinthians 2:5 tells us why he deliberately stayed away from worldly wisdom: "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it whenever a respected scholar reports that 'the bones of Jesus" have been found. However if sinners are converted by "the power of God," they will be kept by the power of God. No intellectual argument will cause them to waver because they will know the life-changing reality of their conversion, and their faith will be secure in the eternally solid and secure Rock of Ages. (taken from WOTM)

tinyurl.com/Manintellect

40 comments

old comment by Passerby

Pretend with me for a moment.

Is there a moment you aren't playing pretend? Okay, I'll humour you.

Let's just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.

Well that's a bit of a stretch and pretty damned arrogant but okay. If you had something solid about any one of your claims I'd certainly be willing to...

If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it

... So what you're saying ever having to prove something means you've lost forever? That's... that's not a very good argument.

old comment by

"Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?" - No, we don't, actually. But you people keep insisting you can but never actually do so.

And let me tell you something, an anti-intellectualist is somebody I immensly look down on. Intellect and knowledge are some of the most valuable things there are. Some of the most valuable traits a human can have.
People like you, who are opposed to intelligence, don't count as sapient beings to me. You people are responsible for some of the worst things in our history. A 1000 years of advancment was lost because of people like you. People like you are opposed to the one thing that makes humans superior to every other organism on earth. Without our intellect, we might as well be flies.
People who vind ignorance and stupidity a virtue should not be allowed to be withing 50 light years from normal people, for fear of your ignorance infecting us. If you want to live as unintelligent savages without tools in the wild, then go do so, but don't bother us with it.

Besides, you're opposed to intellect, but use technology... You f*cking hypocrite.

old comment by Steven Mading

Yes, it's absolutely the case that a belief that you have because you thought it was supported by the evidence can be changed later if someone convinces you it is not supported by the evidence after all.

And yes it's absolutely the case that a belief that you have because you were convinced on faith alone doesn't work that way, and is harder to shake.

The problem is that the nutter who wrote this thinks that makes evidence-based belief *inferior* to faith-based belief, when in actuality its the best feature in favor of evidence-based belief.

There exist fundamentalists who think there is actual evidence of a Noah's flood, or of Jesus's resurrection, or of a 10,000 year-old Earth. At least one thing they've got going in their favor is that they aren't quite being as dishonest as those who pretending these assertions belong in the 'subjective' category in which evidence is irrelevant because it's all just faith. At least they recognize that they belong in the category of objective reality in which evidence is a requirement. That's a first step to being able to argue them out of it.

For someone who believes entirely on faith, their belief is immune to evidence and logic, and I find that more annoying in a lot of ways.

As dishonest as it may be to fabricate evidence of a global flood, or of jesus's resurrection and so on, at least they're honest enough to recognize the NEED to do these things if they want to be taken seriously. As opposed to pretending the evidence is not even relevant because it's supposedly a subjective issue when it emphatically isn't.

old comment by

Babble scholars have studied Paul and supposed he was intellectual? I tend to disagree. First...what babble scholars are those? Let me guess, fundementalist xians. Second, I say Paul was a psychopath. He swindled money from a church, exaggerated and lied about his position, told multiple stories of the same events (couldnt keep his story staight), changed his theology more than people change their underwear. Hell....Romans chapter 11, Paul changes his theology verse to verse. (eg, Are jews saved or condemned, and for what reason, and how do they relate to gentiles), and thought one of the most important theological issues of the time was whether you were circucised (a position that he changed a number of times).
So....I dont buy your diatribe. Your comments on Paul are completely off base, as I suspect the rest is.