God's Gift of Freewill

Okay…this is hard for me to say, but here goes; the time has come for me to accept God and quit fighting Him. I have resisted Him long enough in this fist-shaking charade called atheism. It’s time for me to go back to my Lord and Savior. I have decided to re-convert because the powerful arguments of the Christians who visit Debunking Christianity have persuaded me that freewill does indeed exist, and this alleviates God from his responsibilities of running a universe in what the average critical mind would consider a piss-poor and most miserable fashion.

I am hereby re-converted to Christ! I now know that it is wrong to deny freewill. God would have violated his own will to not allow freewill, and that is why the world is such a bad, terrible, filthy, stinky, rotten, putrid, vile, revolting, wretched, and horrifying place—but none of that is God’s fault because God thought it was worth it to allow perverts in trench coats to rob children of their innocence in public restrooms with the lure of pornography.

You atheists may be smart, but you’re not smarter than God. Yes, you are very intelligent. This is seen by the systematic rigidity of your breaking down and handling of the freewill debate, but in your debating, you aren’t considering the “God’s gift” aspect of freewill. Freewill is a gift from God, and God does nothing in vain, which means moral or immoral, when human beings use the wonderful gift of freewill, it should be seen as a good thing—no matter the ghastly outcome. Freewill is a great gift and we must be thankful that God has given mankind the ability to exercise it.

I am thankful to God for murderers, for those who take life callously and unjustly. I admit; it’s hard to appreciate murderers, men like Jimmie Reed Jr. (31) of Pontiac, Michigan, who shot his wife as she slept, and then doused their baby with gasoline, burning the child alive as he rested on his mother’s corpse. It’s so easy to get sidetracked feeling for the victims, thinking about how sad the families of the deceased will be to go through each Thanksgiving and Christmas without their loved ones. Yes, it brings a tear to one’s eye to think of the sadness and the loss of the families as they are forced to relive the nightmare of the deceased’s murder through long, drawn-out courtroom trials and sentencing phases of the offenders in hopes to finally see some justice done. I know, it doesn’t sound fair or justifiable at all, but that is selfish thinking. Murder happens all the time, and when it does, we must remember that the freewill of the murderer had to be preserved. God has so decreed! Praise God for freewill and praise God for murderers!

I am thankful to God for prostitutes, for rapists, and for all sexual deviants/predators. Morally, this crowd may go a different route than I, but they are exercising their freewill. And freewill, as we have seen, is a gift from God. This is very hard for me to accept. I must regularly ask God for strength on this matter because I keep seeing horrified faces of raped women, of traumatized children, bleeding orifices, multiple contusions, and unsightly facial bruising, and my instinct is to blame God for these horrible deeds. But what I have to remember is that it would be wrong to blame God! I feel so sorry for the victims that I want to lash out at the human scum who made them victims. Then I recall God’s wonderful gift of freewill and my mind is eased. Thank God for freewill and thank God for sexual predators!

I am thankful to God for wife-beaters, substance abusers, thieves, and for violent street thugs. Yes, they may go a different route than I go when it comes to human values, but they are exercising freewill—God’s greatest gift to mankind. And tell me something, atheists: If mankind doesn’t use the gift of freewill, how can they ever come to need the gracious gift of salvation??? A part of me really wants to feel sorry for beaten wives who must seek solace from their husbands in battered women’s shelters to save their own lives. I want to sympathize with businesses that take terrible financial hits annually because of valueless thieves, and I even want to stop them if I can. But then I remember how I am not commanded to judge anyone. God gave abusive husbands and conniving thieves a gift – the gift of freewill – and they are using it as they see fit. How can I find fault with those who walk by God’s plan?

I am thankful to God for ambitious men, dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. These wayfaring men have taken so much flack from believers and atheists alike. Well, it’s time to set the record straight. Most of us don’t approve of these leaders’ actions at all, but who can deny that they were most ingenious and unorthodox in their usage of freewill? No one can deny that. Depending on the figures you consult, Hitler killed six million Jews while Stalin killed as many as sixty million. Zedong killed perhaps thirty million people. While a part of me wants to look at these men as blood-bathing, murdering tyrants, I also want to personally hand out to each of them freewill trophies. We have freedom of speech awards—why not freewill or freedom of action awards? Praise the Lord for freewill and praise the Lord for bloodthirsty despots!

In any case, the conclusion of the matter is this: No matter what our personal views are, and no matter what we believe about morality, we can’t force that morality on others because that would be to deny others their freewill. This means that we must never intervene in the actions of someone else—if God’s not going to stop a murderer, rapist, thief, thug, or despot, why should we? Thank God for his glorious gift of freewill! Oh thank Him!

(JH)

*** P.S. Now that I have repented, I want everyone to know that I am celebrating my re-conversion to Christ by selling autographed pictures of Jesus for love gifts of $100 U.S. or more. Contact me for more details.

34 comments:

Daemon said...

I love this post, Joe, but I was wondering if you'd ever considered the possibility that God is not all good, and that's what makes for all this insanity. As you may know, this viewpoint is called "dystheism," and I'm leaning towards it more and more every day. After decades of study, I do think there is some sort of Creative Force, and that spirit is the source of matter. But the spirit is definitely not "all good," as shown very succinctly by your article.

zilch said...

I like the idea of "dystheism" too- it certainly puts the kibosh on the "problem of evil". But then again, so does the idea that we are just the Science Fair project of some pimply kid of an unimaginably advanced alien race. How can I decide which is more likely?

Daemon said...

Well, I, for some reason, am obsessed with finding out what the hell the actual deal is. So I just keep researching, asking questions, observing "reality," and trying to make sense of what, oftentimes, doesn't seem to make too much sense. And how can one really know if one's hunches are right? Syllogisms help. If God is perfect, then S/he cannot have creations that are less than perfect. Therefore, God ain't perfect! But that doesn't rule out the "pimply kid" theory :%J.

Brother Crow said...

Joe, I love the post. Reconversion sounds like a great money-making idea! Those pics of Jesus autographed? Wow!

My thoughts cantanker like this...up in the first comment, daemon suggests dystheism as a possibility. The problem with that is whose definition of good is good? H.P. Lovecraft had it right...this earth is a speck of dirt in an endless universe. Our values, morality, philosophies are meaningless in it and to it. Joe describes the planet as a pretty nasty place...but that is only the perspective of a reasoning organism who one day will not exist. Our planet is what it is, we are animals at the core, there is no such thing as good and bad.

Satan made me say all that, by the way.

bpr said...

Beautiful straw man you set up there. Pity you beat the tar out of it.

K. Szklenski said...

I was originally going to write up an email/essay on free will and send it to John for hopeful publication here, but I did some more research and a lot of people have said stuff that was very similar, so I thought it a wasted effort. A quick overview though:

If god is omniscient and/or "outside of time", then god knows what we're going to do every time we make a decision. Ergo, if free will exists, then that specific god does not exist. Some people argue against this by claiming that, "Knowledge of the action does not entail causation of the action." Well duh, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the future is knowable perfectly, then when it comes time to make a decision, we cannot contradict the decision that was "foreseen". It doesn't matter even HOW the knowledge of the future is gotten - it only matters that it can be done.

To get a little more on topic, as for dystheism, if two possible outcomes appear to be equivalent in every way, then what's the difference? The difference between a possibly evil or indifferent god and nature is quite minimal - and if you're going to make claims about "spirit", you better define your terms so that the rest of us can actually at least try to grasp what you're talking about.

All around, I liked this post. I would ask again: What's the difference between a god who does nothing that is observable and nothing? Shrugs.

Jim Jordan said...

Do you believe in the Second Amendment, Joe? If so, then you can go shoot someone. Just pick anyone you might see on the street and shoot them. But no, you wouldn't because that would be an abuse of your gift of free will. You said as much in your post. You are following a law and you are far from being alone.

For every 1,000 Americans in the year 2000, 0.042802 were murdered. Your "Goodbye Cruel World" philosophy of Weltschmerz doesn't hold water [the Spanish saying is "se ahoga en un vaso de agua" - you drown in a glass of water]. You should be more curious as to why 99.957% of Americans escape murder each year.

To make a point based on a measly 0.04%, one would have only one type of proof at their disposal, that of pure psychology.

I did like what you wrote above the "Read More" link. Good stuff that. :-)

Daemon said...

k. wrote: as for dystheism, if two possible outcomes appear to be equivalent in every way, then what's the difference? The difference between a possibly evil or indifferent god and nature is quite minimal

How could you know that? I think an evil god would be quite diabolical, whereas nature itself doesn't seem to plot and scheme to satisfy its weird urges - it just tries to survive and thrive (e. g., animals killing).

K. wrote: - and if you're going to make claims about "spirit," you'd better define your terms

What is spirit - good question! The dictionary wasn't particularly helpful. I've been studying it for so long, I just take the term for granted. It's the animating force or energy behind matter, completely non-physical. That's the short version :-J.

GordonBlood said...

"If evil exists, whence God? But if God does not exist, whence good?" -Boethius

badger3k said...

Joe, I think you forget - Christians have been trying to impose their "morality" on other people for centuries, and even today want their beliefs put into law. So, it is prefectly Christians to want to force others to use their free will to choose to do what you want them to do. After all, what is the threat of Hell but an exercise in Free Will? If you freely choose to be tortured forever, isn't that still a free (no pressure) choice?

Joe E. Holman said...

bpr said...

"Beautiful straw man you set up there. Pity you beat the tar out of it."


My reply...

lol...yeah, every inch of your Jesus-mounting libido wishes this were a straw man!

Fact is, every word of this article comes from Christians verbatim. I refuse to believe that you are stupid enough to have missed that. So please, try and say something meaningful next time!

(JH)

bpr said...

>Fact is, every word of this article comes from Christians verbatim.

When you string together the worst of all the arguments you've ever heard, it is a straw man.

If you can find a single person that is not certifiably loony saying what you said, go ahead and cite it for me. But other than some weird little cult that may exist out there, I doubt you'll find anything close.

Straw man.

Daemon said...

Actually, what Joe has laid out is the biggest and best argument against Christianity - the problem of evil. How does a majorly messed up race come from a perfect God? Can't happen. But it makes sense if the non-perfect Creator created us in his or her image - parts of him are great and other parts are quite depraved, just like any individual person.

I tend to believe in a Prime Mover because of the beauty and cohesiveness of the world and universe around me. If we came from a non-intelligent source, I think things would be chaotic. You couldn't count on matter to behave consistently (e. g., planets staying their course).

Sorkhan Vuh said...

Excellent Staw Man, Joe.

Grade: A-

Carry on!

J.L. Hinman said...

as as you aren't being sarcastic.

btw I know this is off topic, but there doesn't seem to be a place to put this other than here. You guys should make a sort of catch all comment box for Christians to issue challenges.

Here is my gauntlet cast down at Hector Avaols's feet.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/

K. Szklenski said...

A response to daemon:
"If we came from a non-intelligent source, I think things would be chaotic. You couldn't count on matter to behave consistently (e. g., planets staying their course)."

This is demonstrably false, although by no means is what I present a conclusive case against yours.

Consider a piece of cardboard with a strong-ish magnet underneath it. If you start shaking the cardboard gently and pour iron filings on top of it, the iron filings will spread out into a pretty awesome pattern.

Unless you can somehow justify believing that a "prime mover" is causing the magnet to put out its magnetic field, then that experiment should show that non-conscious causes can indeed lead to splendid patterns. Of course, there are numerous other patterns that we can find in nature without needing to posit a prime mover, such as the shapes of leaves and pine cones. The above experiment also doesn't really suffer from the claim, "But in that case, YOU are the prime mover." Such a thing as the above happens in nature as well, with no reason to claim that there's any intervention by god, nor any reason to believe that a god caused it to turn out that way. Victor Stenger has a lot of writing on this, so I would suggest looking him up.

Aside from that, the human mind is a pattern-finding fiend. It finds patterns where there aren't any, even. It tries to force patterns onto every perception we have, in order to determine whether a "fight" or "flight" response is more appropriate, because we are still fundamentally animals.

The simplest refutation to your claim that the world is beautiful and cohesive is: I disagree. I don't see those patterns of goodness. I see the patterns of evil that Joe Holman pointed out much more clearly. If you can provide evidence that gives me reason to believe in some kind of a prime mover, fine, but until then, I think naturalism wins out.

Joe E. Holman said...

bpr said...

"When you string together the worst of all the arguments you've ever heard, it is a straw man.

If you can find a single person that is not certifiably loony saying what you said, go ahead and cite it for me. But other than some weird little cult that may exist out there, I doubt you'll find anything close.

Straw man."


My reply...

Are you seriously this stupid?

The ENTIRE ARTICLE is not literally from direct Christian quotes, but the buzzwords most definitely are (and they make up most of the article)...

"Freewill is a gift of God," "God would violate his own will to not allow freewill", and "You're not smarter than God," are the core components of this article and always what we hear from Christians. It's the same old garbage you guys can't shut up about.

The real issue here is, I wrote a damningly witty article pointing to the absurdities of pro-Jesus dribble and you hate that I hit your funny bone. Admit it.

And I needn't cite even a handful of apologists and Christian voices who use these lines because they come from every non-Calvinist evangelical out there.

You need to be hit on the head with a tac hammer if you can't think of some names right off the bat who have affirmed the core components I am attacking here.

And no, simple person. A strawman is NOT "stringing together the worst of all arguments." It is erecting an argument which your oponent has not made and then attacking it. I've done just the opposite here.

You'd know that if you didn't have the impetuous thinking of a ninth-grade school boy. Go to school, school boy.

(JH)

Joe E. Holman said...

Sorkhan Vuh said...

Excellent Staw Man, Joe.

Grade: A-

Carry on!


My reply...

Aw, come on! That's an A+, man! The last time I made anything under an A+ Metallica was a new band!

Care to tell me exactly where and how I made a strawman??? Just one exampe will do.

Aw, you can't do it, can you??

On the bright side, I see that bpr fellow made a new friend.

(JH)

zilch said...

"If evil exists, whence God? But if God does not exist, whence good?" -Boethius

"If God exists, whence God?" -Zilch

Now, I'm willing to forgive Boethius a great deal, since he gave us valuable information about the performance of early medieval music (a hobby horse of mine), but concocting syllogisms (or asking rhetorical questions) about such slippery concepts as God and good is not going to get you very far in the real world. You just end up, as much philosophy and most theology does, setting words merrily chasing their own tails. Lots of fun, but not particularly edifying.

Steven Bently said...

Thanks Joe, it was because of this article that I have re-converted back to Christianity. May we all continue to view the daily news and watch with joy the continued blessings of God's gift of free-will to all of mankind.

BTW, are the photos of Jesus, signed in red ink, if not, I would presume them to be fake.

Joe E. Holman said...

Steven Bently said...

Thanks Joe, it was because of this article that I have re-converted back to Christianity. May we all continue to view the daily news and watch with joy the continued blessings of God's gift of free-will to all of mankind.

BTW, are the photos of Jesus, signed in red ink, if not, I would presume them to be fake.

My reply...

Thanks, Steve. It's good ole' Jesus boys like us who are going to get to be with Jesus in heaven, unlike the unsaved atheist trash around here!

And yes, the photos are signed by Jesus in red ink-- with the holy blood which comes from the Savior's veins no less! I watched Jesus sign them myself! Honestly! I guarantee it!

Just a note...for a love gift of $500 U.S. or more, I'll throw in a signed copy with a huge splotch of spilt blood near the bottom of the pic! Give as you have received!

Have a blessed day!

(JH)

bpr said...

>Are you seriously this stupid?
The ENTIRE ARTICLE is not literally from direct Christian quotes, but the buzzwords most definitely are (and they make up most of the article)...

Merriam-Webster:
straw man
One entry found.

straw man
Function:
noun
Date:
1886
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

You said:
"The ENTIRE ARTICLE is not literally from direct Christian quotes, but the buzzwords most definitely are "
Check to part one (combining multiple arguments from multiple sources hardly constitutes a single argument--that is an imaginary opposition).

Part 2: can be easily confuted

Well of course it can, because it is made of multiple arguments from multiple sources. No one would expect that to be coherent.

You set up a straw man with "buzzwords," not any person's argument, and then beat it down with satire.

I went to school. Had you gone to school you would have refrained from combining an ad hominem with a straw man. Even if your point was valid no reasonable person would listen to it.


bpr

the dank said...

bpr:

Even if your charge of strawman is warranted, the fact remains that "God's gift of free will" is a HUGE part of most apologetics. Joe's satire was not intended to appeal to logic, but to show the absurdity of "God's gift" once you find out what it actually entails.

Michael Ejercito said...

So you hate freewill?

I guess your ideal societies include Nazi Germany, the USSR, militarist Japan, Cuba, and North Korea.

Scott said...

So you hate freewill?

I've always found these dualistic kinds of associations by theists confusing. We do not hate freewill. We're simply pointing out what we see as obvious double-talk regarding responsibility vs. God's omnipotent and omniscient creation of human beings.

The idea that God deserves the all the credit when we do good things, but he washes his hands of us when when we don't, simply doesn't add up.

Clearly, if humans and the universe exist solely because the actions of a "intelligent" being, either our actions are exactly what God intended or God really isn't that intelligent after all and has painted himself into a corner.

And If one really did have their own thoughts imposed on them from some external source, they would be unaware they were being controlled. You couldn't have any other opinion of your situation than what you were forced to have. Perhaps that's our situation right now?

I guess your ideal societies include Nazi Germany, the USSR, militarist Japan, Cuba, and North Korea.

While I'm certainly not advocating these societies, the people who live in them can personally hold beliefs that are contrary to the state. In fact, many activists have chosen to die rather than give in to the demands of the state. Would you not conceder this a exercise in freewill?

Joe E. Holman said...

bpr said...

“Merriam-Webster:

straw man”

My reply…

Oh, look out! Schoolboy is back, as expected, and true to form, he brought a dictionary and gave us a definition like a good schoolboy would!

At this point, I feel like me and bpr are in a cartoon saloon where he’s the little feisty old man, taking swings at me, and I’m the big, tall mad dog dude who just puts my hand on his forehead and keeps him back as I laugh.

I’m a gonna have me some fun!

OK, schoolboy, let’s go to school!



Bpr said…

“One entry found.

straw man
Function:
noun
Date:
1886

1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted”

My reply…

You didn’t even absorb the meaning of the definition you cited. Notice the word “imaginary” in there? That means in a strawman argument the position represented is not an accurate position to be attacked. Let me give you an example...

A Christian and an atheist are debating. The Christian gets up to the podeum and says “Monkeys are not our ancestors.” He then proceeds to give what he thinks is evidence of that. But that’s a strawman he’s attacking. Why? Because that’s not what evolutionists believe. We believe that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that modern apes are our ancestors. See? Maybe you can think of other examples now.

Just as your definition says, a strawman is a weak or a false argument represented as the truth of an opponent. Make sense? Maybe just a little???



Bpr said…

“Check to part one (combining multiple arguments from multiple sources hardly constitutes a single argument--that is an imaginary opposition).

Part 2: can be easily confuted

Well of course it can, because it is made of multiple arguments from multiple sources. No one would expect that to be coherent.”

My reply…

Where and how did your small mind come to the conclusion that multiple arguments being addressed makes a strawman??

You mean to tell me, before I can write a satire piece to attack Christian beliefs, I can’t make reference to more than one statement or quote at a time?? You may know how to read a dictionary, but your reasoning just plain sucks, pal!

If what you are saying is true here, then NO piece of satire can EVER be written, theist-based or atheist-based, because all satire capitalizes on the axaggeration of any set of beliefs. Have you considered that at all??



Bpr said…

You set up a straw man with "buzzwords," not any person's argument, and then beat it down with satire.

My reply…

So, anytime I employ statements (“buzzwords” or “buzz-phrases”) that Christian apologists themselves make and use all the time, that makes me guilty of building a strawman argument?? You're a dumb little fellow, and like most ambitious little wannabe academics, you have no true sense or understanding of the academic references you make.

Man, I just don’t think you’ve thought this one through; think about it; if you choose to use quotes from Sagan or Asimov on the improbability of evolution happening (as many Christians do and have done) and then make it into satire, you wouldn’t be making a strawman. You’d be writing satire or…say, writing an apologetics tract, or book, or whatever the project might be. I would only accuse you of making a strawman if you took something we patently don’t believe and then painted a picture based on that as though we believe it.

If I have made a strawman, perhaps you can tell me which statements I have gotten wrong (presuming, of course, you aren’t a Calvinist and reject the notion of freewill)…

- Freewill is a gift from God – Yes? No?
- For God to not allow freewill would be contrary to the nature of God – Yes? No?
- God thought it was worth it to allow evil – Yes? No?
- The freewill of murderers and vile offenders must be preserved. God has so decreed – Yes? No?

I await your answers. Thing is, I have a feeling you don’t disagree. It just irks you no end that the conclusions I draw from these convictions and the picture I paint with words isn’t to your liking.

Hey, fried chicken can be called “fried chicken” or it can be called “a murdered animal”, right? Maybe you like the one and not the other, yes? If so, you’re only human. And like the rest of us, you hate getting your ass handed to you. That’s why you hate this article.



bpr said…

“I went to school. Had you gone to school you would have refrained from combining an ad hominem with a straw man."

My reply…

Yeah, you did go to school. We’ve already seen your big dictionary. Ad hominem? Oh, no. I am matching you in the attitude you came here with. You come here and act like some college freshmen who’s seeking to set the world on fire, and that sickens me. I am being almost as respectful to you as you are to me...maybe just a little less, but who the hell cares, right?


bpr said…

“Even if your point was valid no reasonable person would listen to it.”

My reply…

Really? Then why have you made two efforts thus far to argue with me? If I’m just a waste of time, why are you here, making a fool of yourself further? I am almost on the floor at this point, seriously!

(JH)

bpr said...

>Really? Then why have you made two efforts thus far to argue with me? If I’m just a waste of time, why are you here, making a fool of yourself further? I am almost on the floor at this point, seriously!

I'm just trying to help you rationally think through an argument instead of trying to use some perceived power of intimidation to win. If you think that last post hurt my feelings, yeah, no, it didn't. The first post you tell me that I am so dumb I must not have gone to school. I back up what I say with reference material (unlike you in your arguments), and then you make fun of me for being little college boy.

Satire is generally a straw-man setup. That isn't necessarily bad, I was just pointing out the fact that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who spouts off all that crap that you did. You are the one who got all upset and defensive about it.

Go ahead and laugh. That is a common reaction when you don't know what is going on.

Joe E. Holman said...

bpr said...

"I'm just trying to help you rationally think through an argument instead of trying to use some perceived power of intimidation to win."

My reply...

Oh yes! YOU are gonna be the one to set me strait! NOT me, not another atheist, not even a moderate believer, who, unlike you, possesses a sense of humor. It's gonna be YOU!

Why is it that all the juvenile minds take such an interest in correcting everyone?? Anyone know??

As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself!" You might start there before you get to me!



bpr...

"If you think that last post hurt my feelings, yeah, no, it didn't."

My reply...

So which is it? "yeah" or "no"???


bpr...

"The first post you tell me that I am so dumb I must not have gone to school. I back up what I say with reference material (unlike you in your arguments), and then you make fun of me for being little college boy."

My reply...

Oh stop it! I insulted you (lightly) because that works with arrogant hotheads who think they've got some monopoly on knowledge and the ability to correct others. And you, my friend, are ripe for the picking!

And for your information, I use reference materials when they are called for. This was an instance when they weren't. But this tendency only confirms my initial statements--young, zealous, half-cocked minds love to run off with quotes and references because they think they are on their way towards intellectual invisibility. You fit this mold perfectly.



bpr...

"Satire is generally a straw-man setup. That isn't necessarily bad, I was just pointing out the fact that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who spouts off all that crap that you did."

My reply...

That's my point: No, it's not! Satire does NOT have to consist of the strawman fallacy--not if it is based on facts, like mine certainly WAS.

Having gone through puberty only a few years ago, you just don't know the difference yet. If the facts upon which my satire was based were inaccurate and not representative of what the vast majority of Christians believe, THEN you would be justified in accusing me of employing a strawman fallacy. But you have not shown me that the facts upon which my article was based are incorrect, so my point stands.



bpr said...

"You are the one who got all upset and defensive about it.

Go ahead and laugh. That is a common reaction when you don't know what is going on."

My reply...

Oh buddy, listen here...I am sitting, propped up in bed, eating peanut butter candy cars and enjoying this unchallenging head-butting competition. I haven't been upset or defensive since...I don't know..last week? I forget now.

Anyways, I'm having fun. I don't often debate like this, but I wanted to this time because it was interesting to see a well-developed article of mine lost on someone because of shear idiocy and short-sightedness. So I wanted to see how easily you crack.

As far as me laughing, guilty as charged. But even here, you are wrong. When people laugh in debate, it usually means they are getting peeved because they are losing by failing to make the better points. They don't laugh because they "don't know what is going on."

But just about anyone reading this exchange can certainly tell that it is not I but YOU who have failed to make the better points. You come out swinging and throwing dictionaries, without aim or perspective.

Really, you're like a drunken guy with bad breath at a bar who tries to tell someone off but can't quite get the words out of his mouth in a coherent fashion, so everyone around him just starts to laugh. And so am I.

And can you blame me??

(JH)

akakiwibear said...

Joe, you could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you had not made this post.

An example; you said
1) "Fact is, every word of this article comes from Christians verbatim" now that you even thought it was bad enough, that you tried to pass it off as true was silly.

then you said
2) "The ENTIRE ARTICLE is not literally from direct Christian quotes, but the buzzwords most definitely are (and they make up most of the article)" which was a big backdown, but no more silly - since when does stringing together buzzwords even suggest that their original meaning has been preserved.

Now this was just a silly attempt (won't even upgrade it to straw man status) to misrepresent a group's views in order to discredit the group - I trust you were not proud of it.

Thank God for atheists more rational than you to debate.

Peace

Michael Ejercito said...


The idea that God deserves the all the credit when we do good things, but he washes his hands of us when when we don't, simply doesn't add up.

God does not deserve credit for any of our actions. We are free moral agents, so our righteousness is credited upon us, and our wickedness is held against us.

Joe E. Holman said...

To akakiwibear, yes. You are right. I misspoke. The two statements I made are indeed contradictory, and you are right to call me out on it. I stand corrected.

What I MEANT to say and qualified with the second statement (clarification to bpr) is that the core components of the article (which I have already mentioned to bpr) are verbatim from Christians. I should have been more careful in my wording. I appreciate your calling my (and our) attention to it. Good job, and congrats on being an astute reader.

But...

Beyond that, you're as wrong as bpr. How have I "misrepresented a group's views in order to discredit the group"???

Just like I asked bpr, I ask you: exactly which of the core statements I made in the article are misrepresentations of freewill-believing Christians?

I await your reply. But remember, if you can't show me, then you are just as deluded bpr.

You said: "I trust you were not proud of it."

My reply...

My slip-up? No.
My article? Yes!

You should at least be able to step back and appreciate good satire when you see it, buddy. You've already scored some points with me, but you'll quickly lose them by allowing your pro-Christian stance to rob you of your objectivity in acknowledging a nice piece of writing just because YOU don't like the content.

Like I told bpr, it hurts to get your ass handed to you. I understand.

(JH)

ZAROVE said...

So, Basically, a Disengenious post about Reconverting to CHrist after creating ridiculosu statements abotu ow pooly the Universe runs is consiered a true assessment of the debate?

What about those Christians who don't beleive in Free Will? ( It seems many here assume all Christians beleive in it.)

What about the other explanaitosn for Theodicy?

Noen seem to be considered.

Instead, Joe simply issues a list of bad htings that happen, and somehow this proves God is not in contorle, or else Free Will doens't exist. ( OK, I confess, I didnt read the whole thign , but its a bit incoherant at the start in what it trues to actulaly prove.)


This isn't a real argument, its just a cheap attemot at creatign a mockery of Christians, and pretendign to be an argument.

Sort of like Dan Barkers "Dear Theologian".

Its also drivel since it doesn't relaly engag ein a serious way in any of the actual arguments presented for DFree Will, or consideration for thse CHristians he mocks that don't beleive in it anyway.

Anonymous said...

Free Will In Heaven??
In many arguments attempting to refute the argument from evil, I hear many arguments for free will, and how it is a gift from god. This "gift" is somehow responsible for evil (suffering) in the world. They never address natural evil (ie tsaunamis, earthquakes etc) but I digress. However, I have yet to hear anyone provide a relavent answer to free will in heaven. If there is no sin in heaven does god take away free will upon receiving the "golden ticket"? Can heaven be so great without free will? Perhaps we have free will in heaven but always make the correct choice? If the latter is your argument, then surely a "god" which is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnicient could and SHOULD only let sperm and egg unite which yields a being that has free will but makes a "correct" decision every time. Any takers????

Aylin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.