Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

If Christians Don't Want To Be Called Stupid...

R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

Then they shouldn't be stupid.


From Post 16 in the thread about Biblical View on Women and Gays. I want to respond to Rob's post.


Neon, in sinning we oppose their god. That, in and of itself, makes it taboo--from a Christian perspective. For that reason, the rest of your argument just floats above their consciousness and totally passes them by. So we can't even talk with them about the things that are important. Had my prof not acted so childish I wouldn't know this. At least I know now not to look to Christians anymore for answers. This prof had been the one person who had kept me from being anti-Christian.


I think that's the crux of the matter. When I first left the church (Fundy/Pentecostal), I was really angry, and used to seek out bible thumpers and attempt to debate them with my own bible in my hand, but it was always a waste of time. No matter how logical and reasoned your arguments, they can't persuade someone who has traded reason for faith. It's like two people shouting at one another in different languages. Christians may pretend to be learned and intellectual, but when their backs are against the wall, they fall back on scriptures, and even if you can use scripture to clearly contradict the stand they're taking, they can use other scripture to defend not listening to you!


I was taught from the pulpit that the Devil knows his scripture. That's the Christian's way out, when all else fails. That, and "Confusion is not of the Lord." That's useful for when someone with common sense and reasoned arguments is getting through. Of course they feel confused! That's what happens when someone builds a belief system from a house of cards, and somebody in the room farts.





I didn't bother using the Bible. I just wrote a reasoned defense for atheism and a solid argument for why we shouldn't depend on the unsupported authority of the Bible. I was at a liberal school, after all, and they taught me to think and support my arguments. I was critiquing a fundamentalist theologian of the 1800s and he did not support his arguments for taking the Bible's arguments at face value. I proved that he arbitrarily chose his authority with nothing to back him up and I critiqued him mercilessly for it. Then I proved that Darwin, who lived at the same time, was not so bold. Darwin self-critiqued and cross-referenced his work. So I figured the fundy could have known better, too.


That's what got my Christian prof's goat. He DISCOUNTED Darwin's research, experimentation, and cross-referencing, and claimed the only thing Darwin had going for him was a single trip around the world on the Beagle. He preached at me about the argument from faith! Apparently it was stonger than all the science behind Darwin--that I tried telling him about but he wouldn't listen. I think he believes in evolution. What he couldn't handle was my argument against unsupported authority.


Rob, you're right. He had his back up against a wall and he knew it. I had taken away all his defenses and he hadn't a single item left. All he could do was "introduce" me to faith (as though I hadn't left it for a reason), and trip me up with fancy terminology. And you're right again, he wasn't listening to me! I had read Darwin's Origin of the Species and listed it in the Bibliography. I listed the online link so that he could have read it, too, if he wanted to. In that book, Darwin describes all his experimentation and research--at least all that I know about. But stupid prof wouldn't listen to me. Prof had taught me to read for detail between the lines like this and I did. That I came to a rational conclusion rather than a faitful one is not exactly my fault.


So he pretends to be learned and intellectual. He is learned and he is intellectual--most of the time. But boy-oh-boy! get his back up against a wall and his real colours show. This hypocrisy of teaching students how to use intellectual tools, then blasting them for using them and arriving at other conclusions than his own--THAT rankles me no end. It violates the cardinal rule of academia. Had he not discounted Darwin's research, the argument could be made that he was simply testing the strength of my position. The fact that he discounted all those hard facts and data out of hand--that tells me he was fighting for real.


But we all know it's the atheists who are taking over the country and who are mocking the Christians and calling them stupid, etc. Ever since my deconversion he's been charging me of that. No wonder...poor kid hasn't a leg to stand on in the face of reason and he knows it. But he can't afford to deconvert because religion is his livelihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.