Christians who try to sound intelligent, but fail miserably...

"If we were to look at a beautiful painting and exclaim over how such a masterpiece just formed on its own, we would be called fools. Yet many would say that the eye, which sees it and possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses that travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain, was just an accidental formation. Ps. 14:1 "The fool has said, "There is no God."

This is a post that my uncle put on facebook.

He is a critical, judgmental, hypocrite of a christian, who loves to point out other people's faults while acting like he is perfect. He also prides himself in being intelligent and witty, and looks down on people who don't fit into his view of how a person should act according to the bible. I want to post something back, but I don't really know what to put. Any suggestions???

Tags: arguments, christian, fool, god, hypocrite, reasonings, stupid

Views: 38

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ignorant people always act like they are the smartest people in the room. He may have a great deal of native intelligence, but what good does that do if it is locked in a box?
Its hard to even try to talk to someone such as this. My uncle in somewhat the same. But his isn't religion based, its political.
I have tried to explain to them how they present themselves by using the Tarot card 'The Fool'. And each time they immediately dub what I say satanic in nature and evil.
Its obvious just how added in that verse is in the bible.
Those who were not convinced, were called fools. Or Burned.
Why? Cause god is the Omnipotent Crouton of Societies Salad!
But I think he is the most Egotistical god head ever created out of mankind's mind. Giving the
perfect reflection of gods creator. God is in the image of man. Mans perfection syndrome.

Really all you can use is: An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.

The Conscience has 3 places to it. The Visual(our vanity), The Ego(our pride), & The Shadow( our place to throw the problems we don't want to deal with). With the shadow everyone knows that its like a landfill.
It will eventually get so full it over flows and that's when things like anger and hate, nervous breakdowns and such mess our lives up.


It sounds like your uncle is a self centered person, whom will never be able to use his own mind.
He tests people because his shadow is over flowing and he has not learned how to use those skills threw
his own mind to clean it out. This is what occurs in organized religion. The wall. Gotta love Pink Floyde. People are afraid of their own minds.
And to empower it is told to them to be a sin.
That's why we have so many medications, therapists, and crazy wards to lock down or up our own ability to deal with our being.
Hopefully someday someone will give him a taste of his own medicine. Because even Christians turn on their fellow followers. Because they have the same problems he has.

They have allowed an idea, to envelope their lives. And in this they have given all control to it.
Remember they live by an ideal that calls seeking knowledge outside of their bible. Evil!
He is scared. You are not. Just keep that in your mind when you have to listen to his crap.
I absolutely LOOOOOVVVVEEEEEE this quote - "Cause god is the Omnipotent Crouton of Societies Salad!"
thanks it just came out. i thought it was fitting. for the god complex lol.
I have a suggestion! Richard Dawkins addresses the "complexity" argument beautifully in his book, The God Delusion. Morgan posted some of his lecture on the home page on this site. I've copied the part that might be of interest to you below:

"Improbabilities
I want to end by returning to science. It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic.

At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents.

I suspect the reason is that most people, though not belonging to the "know-nothing" party, nevertheless have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution.

I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.

The great beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution is that it explains how complex, difficult to understand things could have arisen step by plausible step, from simple, easy to understand beginnings. We start our explanation from almost infinitely simple beginnings: pure hydrogen and a huge amount of energy. Our scientific, Darwinian explanations carry us through a series of well-understood gradual steps to all the spectacular beauty and complexity of life.

The alternative hypothesis, that it was all started by a supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low probability--a very improbable being indeed.

Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and we don't need it to), it still wouldn't help because it raises a bigger mystery than it solves."

Not that there is truly any arguing with people who aren't open to considering any other possibilities...
If a fool speaks the truth, is it not still the truth?

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service