My atheist friends often have Psalm 14:1 lobbed at them as if the verse ends the conversation like a holy grenade! It says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God".

But the verse does not mean all atheists are fools. It means anyone who "says in his heart" there is no God is a fool. In other words, anyone who denies God for merely emotional reasons is foolish. An issue this profound is not to be determined by one's psychological state or emotional disposition.

The person who has genuine intellectual questions or objections concerning God's existence is not the biblical definition of a fool. God will honor and answer in the humble quest for truth. The honest inquirer is in a better position before God than the emotionally closed-minded.

Since I'm talking about the Hebraic-Christian Scriptures, they repeatedly say we must humble ourselves before God. Think about it. If God exists, humility is certainly in order in seeking Him. "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you". "Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God", etc.

This shouldn't be hard for the atheist intellectually. Most of my atheist friends agree that humility is in order in the quest for any truth. Don't you agree?

(On the other hand, I can see how horrible I would feel (at least at first) if, say, Islam was proven to me to be true. I would be forced intellectually and emotionally to acknowledge Allah and Muhammad. I would have to begrudgingly and reluctantly bow before them. That would suck! I would acknowledge Allah's existence, but probably continually resist any relationship or love for him until he smote me!

But I must say that my emotional resistance to Islam is mostly for intellectual reasons! Thankfully, I am confident there is nothing forthcoming in Islam that will serve as an adequate defeater of Christ's claims.)

BTW, I am aware of Christ's injunction against calling anyone a fool, yet he himself did. Keep in mind that Christ is forbidding unwarranted name-calling (literally "empty head") from people who are themselves often foolish!

Views: 1200

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The mythology of the cult of Yahweh is just that.  Failing any evidence for the existence of the mythological figure Yahwah, who is described in a wider range of mythologies than the one you have come here to assert as literal, there is no reason to describe the Biblical references to that character as anything other than mythology.

But there would be no evidence of a "mythological" figure other than it had the earmarks of mythology.

But Theism goes beyond literary or historical mythology. It examines whether ultimate cause of the universe was something of the order of matter, or something of the order of mind. Was it impersonal or personal?

If God exists, fallible humans with free will can produce mythologies surrounding God. That doesn't mean we can't distinguish between historical fact and fiction.

You are scrambling here, and veering away from the safe foundation of your William Lane Craig scripts.


A mythological character, like your Yahweh, begins in myth and remains in that state until proven to be real.  Rational minds do not require proof that Yahweh, Anu, Zeus, and Thor are myths - the outrageous claims of their abilities establish that clearly.  They remain mythological figures until there is proof to the contrary.


You are correct in asserting that theism goes beyond literary or historical mythology - it charges forth in leaps and bounds by making outlandish claims that those historical works of mythological literature are factual.  It does not in any way examine causality; on the contrary, it fabricates causality.


Yes, we fallible humans can fabricate mythologies surrounding the god-concept whether or not there is any reality to be discovered in it.  And you are also correct in asserting that we can distinguish between historical fact and the fiction of Yahweh.


You are assuming mythology. How do you think historians determine historical myth from historical fact?
They start by looking past the superstitious references to an invisible man who lived in the sky to see if there are any historical reference points establishing a time frame. We're not discussing the time frame however, we're talking about the superstitious references to the invisible man who lived in the sky.

There is no basis in reality to the assertion that an invisible man named Yahweh lived in the sky with his wife Asherah and multiple sons. Therefore, that part can only be interpreted as myth - no assumptions are necessary. You, however, claim to have proof that Yahweh actually exists, but you don't. Case closed.

On a side note, this is the 7th time you've hit this dead end. When are you going to just face the fact that Yahweh does not exist?
Faith is the evidence, Heather. Duh.
Heather, when we get past the straw "invisible man in the sky" contention (from you below), maybe we can look at mythology.

I've explicitly stated that I'm not interested in the mythology, Kevin.


I haven't created an invisible straw man at all; I have neither fabricated the concept nor stated that it is your argument.  In point of fact, it is you who injected the invisible man concept, call him Yahweh if you will, into this discussion and it is you alone who asserted that he exists.


If you don't believe Yahweh exists, then I apologize for having completely misunderstood everything that you've been saying.

Wow Keith. That is not a straw man. A straw man is a  misrepresentation of an opponent's position... To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition."

Her proposition is not just superficially equivalent. It is exactly equivalent. You would disagree that God is invisible? Perhaps he is not "in the sky" but rather floating around in some other dimension, or is occupying all space at once... the point is... he cannot be seen nor verified. That's important! She's attacking your proposition head on! No one here is going to assume the existence of an invisible supernatural being without some shred of tangible proof. And you have NONE. Spiritual experiences don't count because they cannot be verified, and are not repeatable. Although people have them across all religions and cultures.

Let's just call that brick wall #8. He has now gone from occasional collisions to banging his head against it repeatedly.

It always comes around to this, Kevin. We can prove that "Dr X" actually exists, though we may not all agree with whatever opinion she puts forth. We have the ability to challenge the experts.

The main problem is that no one can prove God exists. The Bible is written by men, and we don't even know who many of them are. Besides, being the author of scriptures does not necessarily make one the authority. Dr X has probably been peer reviewed; has probably gone to school and done research. The authors of the Bible did not have a formal education and claim their words cannot be challenged, which is not the stance even "the experts" take. In academia, authority can be questioned. We cannot assume an invisible being is the authority, especially when it is mute.

Saying something is a myth does not imply it has no historical grounds. Greek mythology often refers to places that actually exist[ed] and events that actually occurred. This fact, however, does not legitimize all of Greek mythology. Fiction writers often refer to real places, people, and events... but they offer up their own twist. What they create is an alternate reality. This is something very easy to accomplish, and quite common in the literary world. It is not impressive the Bible follows this pattern.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service