The Ignorance Defence

[Scottsman]

How do you ex-c's respond to this. I was just hit with it.

 

Jesus said he came for the weak, the simple, the fishermen. The wise people will think they know better. Jesus didn't come for the wise, he came for the simple. The stupid. The wise think they know better than god.

 

I said it was a cop-out. That Jesus only targeted the simple and the weak because they were the ones he could fool. The wise see right through the charade. Its like they love being the ignorant ones. Blissful ignorance as it were. How do you counter?

 

[BrotherJosh]

Are the weak and the simple any better for donating to all of the televangelists? I guess the televangelists were just taking advantage of the weak, the sick, and the elderly. Jesus was, of course, different...right...

[Scottsman]

Jesus was a ****. He praised a widow for donating her last 2 pennies.

[♦ ficino ♦]

You could try asking that person for reasons why you should believe this.

[Scottsman]

She said you have to just have faith and believe. Apparently god is in everyone's hearts and I am willfully choosing not to believe. I said faith is intellectual bankruptcy. She circled back to no its not, you have to just believe!

[mymistake]

How do you ex-c's respond to this. I was just hit with it.

 

Jesus said he came for the weak, the simple, the fishermen. The wise people will think they know better. Jesus didn't come for the wise, he came for the simple. The stupid. The wise think they know better than god.

 

I said it was a cop-out. That Jesus only targeted the simple and the weak because they were the ones he could fool. The wise see right through the charade. Its like they love being the ignorant ones. Blissful ignorance as it were. How do you counter?

 

 

If somebody is using the premise that he isn't smart then persuading him through logic might be problematic.

[WarriorPoet]

 

 

Jesus said he came for the weak, the simple, the fishermen. The wise people will think they know better. Jesus didn't come for the wise, he came for the simple. The stupid. The wise think they know better than god.

If there was a god, the wise would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't know better than him.  An essential component of wisdom is knowing the limits of your wisdom.  It would be the utmost of arrogance to think that you know better than an omniscient deity.  This is why her argument falls apart.

 

The wise of Jesus' day would not have ignored any evidence that was shown to them.  Many would have been eager to investigate the claims of some of the amazing miracles he reportedly did.  If they would have found the evidence sufficient, anyone that was sufficiently wise and intellectually honest would have had no choice but to be convinced.

 

Wise people are not gullible.  Wise people are skeptical.  The wise don't think that they know more than god, they have concluded that based on the evidence that is present, there is no good reason to think a god exists, or that some wandering preacher that is claiming to be his son actually is.

[Wololo]

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

[BrotherJosh]

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

[Wololo]

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

 

 

Exactly, Wololo. How silly that such a simple message could be construed so much! It is certainly not the omnipresent, omniscient messenger who is at fault here. No, not at all. Surely, it is we faulty mortals who cannot understand or even practice such a Godly message! We are but filthy rags. 

[Wololo]

 

 

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

 

 

Exactly, Wololo. How silly that such a simple message could be construed so much! It is certainly not the omnipresent, omniscient messenger who is at fault here. No, not at all. Surely, it is we faulty mortals who cannot understand or even practice such a Godly message! We are but filthy rags. 

 

 

It's clear though, right? We fully understand that Jesus was focused on love for your fellow man. Right?

 

It's pretty clear to me...

[WarriorPoet]

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

Close, but no cigar. 

 

From wikipedia:

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

 

What I was saying does not fit this.  I would be willing to be convinced given evidence, I wouldn't consider anything that can be proven to be to incredible to exist.  If Superman was proven tomorrow, I would believe in him.  The only thing that we have regarding "proof" for a god are ancient holy books, filled with unsubstantiated claims.

 

What you should have gone after was what I wrote that could be construed as a false equivocation.  My earlier post could be read as to say "wise=atheist", and you touched on this a bit.  I wrote that specifically addressing the claims of the woman that Scottsman was speaking with.  And it is my bad that I didn't clarify it better.  I didn't mean to say that there aren't wise people that are christians, muslims or followers of any other faith you can think of.  I wrote that as a likely reasoning why a wise person would not be convinced by the claims portrayed in the gospels, or the bible in general.

[Wololo]

 

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

Close, but no cigar. 

 

From wikipedia:

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

 

What I was saying does not fit this.  I would be willing to be convinced given evidence, I wouldn't consider anything that can be proven to be to incredible to exist.  If Superman was proven tomorrow, I would believe in him.  The only thing that we have regarding "proof" for a god are ancient holy books, filled with unsubstantiated claims.

 

What you should have gone after was what I wrote that could be construed as a false equivocation.  My earlier post could be read as to say "wise=atheist", and you touched on this a bit.  I wrote that specifically addressing the claims of the woman that Scottsman was speaking with.  And it is my bad that I didn't clarify it better.  I didn't mean to say that there aren't wise people that are christians, muslims or followers of any other faith you can think of.  I wrote that as a likely reasoning why a wise person would not be convinced by the claims portrayed in the gospels, or the bible in general.

 

 

I said it sounds like one, I didn't say it was. Just saying you can't argue from your own opinion. An argument from personal incredulity is to be avoided.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I agree when the criticisms are addressed at the woman in question.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

 

 

Exactly, Wololo. How silly that such a simple message could be construed so much! It is certainly not the omnipresent, omniscient messenger who is at fault here. No, not at all. Surely, it is we faulty mortals who cannot understand or even practice such a Godly message! We are but filthy rags. 

 

 

It's clear though, right? We fully understand that Jesus was focused on love for your fellow man. Right?

 

It's pretty clear to me...

 

 

Whatever Jesus was focused on in the Gospels depends on what the Old Testament claimed he came to do.

 

I've explained this to you elsewhere, Wololo.

You can't talk about him in solely Gospel terms - in isolation from the rest of the Bible.  As if the Old Testament didn't exist.  As if the Book of Genesis didn't exist.  As if Eden, Adam and Eve's fall from grace, sin and death didn't exist.  

 

To make any reasonable case for what Jesus did or didn't do in the Gospels, you first have to establish the reason WHY he was born as a human.  And that reason hinges on the events in Eden.  It's Cause and Effect.  Establish the historicity of Genesis first (the Cause) and then use this as a basis for whatever you have to say about him in the Gospels (the Effect).

 

For example, the reported deeds and words of King Arthur can be discussed... as if ...they were historical.

But only if they are treated in isolation from the record of British history.  Once any attempt is made to integrate him into the British historical record, it immediately becomes obvious that he isn't a real person at all.  That he's the heroic figure in a romantic legend.  And so the act of discussing Arthur as a real person is shown to be false.

 

In a similar way, you treat the Gospel record of what Jesus said and did as true and historical, without attempting to integrate them and him into the rest of scripture.  This is a fatal flaw in your argument.  Your first order of business, BEFORE you focus on Jesus' words or deeds, is to establish the historicity of WHY God had to incarnate himself as a human being in the first place.  And to do this you need to go back to Eden and Genesis.

 

THAT is the foundation you need to make any kind of coherent argument about Jesus in the Gospels.

 

Please do this.

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

How do you ex-c's respond to this. I was just hit with it.

 

Jesus said he came for the weak, the simple, the fishermen. The wise people will think they know better. Jesus didn't come for the wise, he came for the simple. The stupid. The wise think they know better than god.

 

I said it was a cop-out. That Jesus only targeted the simple and the weak because they were the ones he could fool. The wise see right through the charade. Its like they love being the ignorant ones. Blissful ignorance as it were. How do you counter?

As the Poet said, the wise do not think they know better than God.

 

I doubt your Christian interlocutor applies this reasoning to other claims she encounters in life. Would she accept an alternative medicine, whose salesman used the pitch that she should not examine evidence about its effectiveness but should just believe and pay for it? Etc.

 

Your Christian interlocutor also does not offer a method for distinguishing among claims of different religions or different sects within a religion.

 

She goes against the NT itself, which seeks to give evidence that Jesus was the Messiah through:

-- claims that he fulfilled prophecy

-- claims that he did various signs and wonders

-- claims that what he said was so unique, not like what the scribes and Pharisees taught, that he must be from God

 

For what it's worth, her claim that God is in everyone's hearts relies on theistic premises, so it begs the question. She may not care about that.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

 

 

Exactly, Wololo. How silly that such a simple message could be construed so much! It is certainly not the omnipresent, omniscient messenger who is at fault here. No, not at all. Surely, it is we faulty mortals who cannot understand or even practice such a Godly message! We are but filthy rags. 

 

 

It's clear though, right? We fully understand that Jesus was focused on love for your fellow man. Right?

 

It's pretty clear to me...

 

 

 

Jesus loves us and he created hell just in case we don't love him back.

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

The focus of Jesus was on the downtrodden of society. We tend to put down and oppress the weak, the stupid, and the poor. During his life, Jesus was focused on taking care of them. His message was very simple and his actions should speak for themselves. The problem in this case is that the wise tend to oppress the stupid. The problem is not even that the wise tend to think themselves better than God. They tend to put their intellect before the needs of other people. It's a matter of exalting intellect above everything else. There is nothing wrong with wisdom itself, the problem is that we tend to treat it like it's all that matters, to the detriment of others.

 

You'd have to do better than "there is no good reason to think a god exists". That sounds like an argument from incredulity. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient for you, that's fine, but don't say that applies to 'the wise' in general or you're going to need to prove it.

 

Christian treatment of poor people and the downtrodden speaks otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, and that's a fault of the people, not the ideology. Jesus didn't tell us to treat the poor people and downtrodden badly. How good are we at being followers if we can't even listen to something so simple?

 

 

Exactly, Wololo. How silly that such a simple message could be construed so much! It is certainly not the omnipresent, omniscient messenger who is at fault here. No, not at all. Surely, it is we faulty mortals who cannot understand or even practice such a Godly message! We are but filthy rags. 

 

 

It's clear though, right? We fully understand that Jesus was focused on love for your fellow man. Right?

 

It's pretty clear to me...

 

 

Clear to all of us! I hear you, Wololo. It's almost like people are confusing Jesus' message which he never wrote down. 

[Roz]

Jesus coming for the poor?

 

Widow parting with her last coins that could've brought some comfort in the form of food or a blanket?  -no

 

And this gem from Matthew.  It reeks of tyrannical dick-tator:

Chapter 10:

³⁴ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

³⁵ For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

³⁶ And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

³⁷ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

EDIT:  seems exactly like RO's plan, have their own brand of religion become intertwined into every facet of life. 

[bornagainathiest]

Still waiting for you to establish the historicity of Genesis, Wololo!

[RipVanWinkle]

Wololo: If one writes a book trying to entice people into a bogus religion, and he knows it will appear foolish to the wise, because it is foolish, how does he  deal with that? Simple. He tells his readers that the wise will be fooled by the book, thinking that it is foolish, that this was god's plan.  bill

[Chikirin]

If there's a God, then he would have to be understandable by everyone, not just by the simple, and not just by the brilliant. If only the simple could see him then the smart shouldn't be penalized for that, and vice versa. 

[Scottsman]

Ive seen many TED presentations were extremely complex subjects are broken down o be understandable by everyone. I've also heard alex jones talk who is only understandable to crazy people like himself. If god was real he would create a message everyone would understand.

[Leo]

A very reductionist argument against God confounding the Wise:

- God created intelligence.

- God created the human brain.

- God created the ability to be skeptical (Paul states "We know those are not gods at all ..." when referring to meat sacrificed to an idol; Paul was as atheist as I am to those gods)

- God created reason. ("Come let us reason together ...")

So why would God despise the things that he himself in fact created?

I used to catch it from the older Pentecostal ladies, some kind of church doves, and their claim was 'god made you so wonderfully intelligent ..' (well I'm actually pretty average, no medals here), '.... but your intelligence is getting in the way ...'

Except: if she meant skepticism, how is that possible? Wasn't Elijah skeptical about the Baal competitor to Yahweh? I'll go so far as to say, sounds like he was making fun of that god in the same way we would now. It's not exactly in the Bible, but sounds like instead of saying 'relieving himself', he could have said, "Maybe your Baal is busy taking a big, meaty, shit!"

Christians think we are only atheistic to Christianity. What about those of us who apply skeptical arguments to the voodoo and other primitive practices? This starts to get impossible the more you consider it.

And, why would a god that created intelligence, created skepticism, created the concept of the difference engine, want everyone to rely on its opposite? That would be like a software developer creating a very pretty, constructive UI for you to use, one in which all tasks related to one another, and you could see things clearly after completion of one and then promotion and completion of the next, only to cause the program to fail unless you run in black and white command-line mode with no direction and no help?

The arguments for divine design end up falling down due to people who design and make things for a living.

Wololo, I'll admit, we should not oppress the less intelligent. But that is where a moral philosophy like humanism comes into play: the beautifully emergent properties that make us all human. Atheism is only an intellectual position relative to theism, and rational inquirty and skepticism are only tools. Most Christians don't know the difference between a skeptic and a cynic, though. Cynicism is not a tool, it's an emotional position, as is any form of faith.

The problem with the theistic faith argument is you can't derive it from rational inquiry. You can't make believe. Any Christian would be greatly insulted if I went around making believe I was a Christian. It's possible to do, you know, live the lifestyle, do all the right things, carry on, do as instructed. Many of us during the deconversion phase found ourselves in just that situation. We had already started finding the system unbelievable but were still doing the lifestyle. You as a Christian should technically find that idea of make believe way way worse than someone who claims to believe but doesn't live the lifestyle. After all, the Christian system is allegedly based on authentic belief. And that, son, you simply cannot manufacture, no matter how hard you try.

[ironhorse]

Still waiting for you to establish the historicity of Genesis, Wololo!

 

Here's something to read while you wait on a reply from Wololo.

 

Not a Christian site:

http://atheism.about.com/od/Bible-Study-Pentateuch/a/Book-Genesis-Intro.htm