Jesus is Alive! Article in The Scotsman

It is wonderful that this article is published in The Scotsman today. It is my response to Elton John’s claims about Jesus. I am delighted that we are able to testify in the national media that Jesus is alive! Tolle, Lege and pass it on!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/jesus-is-alive-with-joy-love-and-compassion-1-3494240

31 thoughts on “Jesus is Alive! Article in The Scotsman

  1. I was right with you David up until the point where you began prosletysing.

    I think you are wrong with what you say about Elton John and the church. I learn things from people who I meet on the comedy circuit who are gay all the time and they learn things from me from what I share of the bible in my comedy act. It never is a one way street on this.

    My fear is that underpinning the reason why your article has made it into the Scotsman has been with media desire to caricature Christianity. We are not in a privileged position and my concern is to what degree the article is beneficial for the gospel in Scotland and to what degree it is alienating to the gospel.

    Perhaps an example can be set with regard to celebrity influence in leading figures in the church being more concerned with delight in the Lord rather than the media spotlight (whether in the media spotlight or not) Otherwise the accusation of “hypocrite” is probably likely to be true and have impact.

      1. Clearly this is where we disagree David but that’s OK.

        You obviously didn’t like my comment but you read it. It is easy for me to argue that you have been inconsistent in doing so then giving advice to not read what you claim is you preaching if the Gospel if I don’t like it. However, rather than being tied up in a silly argument, I’d rather keep Christ as central.

        I fail to see what you have claimed, that “Elton John really has nothing to teach the Church”. That seems like prosletysing to me and little to do with the Gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ. Again I learn things from people who are gay all the time and people learn from me. That is my empirical reality.

        I could be wrong, and you could be right in what you say that you are preaching the Gospel. I’ll leave Jesus to be the judge on that.

  2. Hi David,

    You are truly fortunate that the Scotsman allows you not only a platform, but an uncritical, unchallenged platform at that!
    Your article has the facts backwards. Each Christian always constructs their own personal Jesus, for that is the ONLY way you can perceive him. Jesus / Yahweh exists only in your imaginations. There is no other way to detect any of the gods, except by imagination.
    When you say ‘Jesus is alive’, what you really mean is that you still imagine Jesus is real. That’s all.
    Moving on, this sentence staggers me. “Sir Elton would be shocked to discover that it is precisely because Jesus is loving and compassionate that he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
    A loving and compassionate person would not let a mere definition of a word be the cause of so much intolerance and bigotry. History will again be the judge of the current religious persecution of homosexuals in the same way as we we are disgusted by the American slave owners using the bible to justify their actions in the US civil war.
    But then, since you have your own personal Jesus, you can imagine that “loving and compassionate” means something different to what they mean to the rest of us. It seems that definitions of words aren’t really that important to you after all?

    best wishes,
    Linear C

    1. Hello “Linear C”,

      You made the claim that “Jesus / Yahweh exists only in your imaginations” for Christians. What evidence do you have for that?

      Kind regards

      Adam

      1. Hi Adam,
        I’d be delighted to provide evidence.
        For a start, religious philosophy provides no epistemological alternative to the imagination as a means of “knowing” its god. David will be quick to point out that his god cannot be detected empirically, but he cannot say exactly how his god CAN be detected.
        Let me ask you, by what means does anyone “know” the god they’re talking about, if not by means of imagination?
        Or if you wanted to demonstrate your god to me, how could I reliably distinguish what you describe as your god, from what you merely may be imagining?
        best wishes,
        Linear C

      2. After all that you said about not wanting to misrepresent – you then go and do it. David will NOt be quick to point out that his god cannot be detected empirically. And he can say how his god can be detected. As I said perhaps one day you will be able to discuss what we are actually saying, not the caricature that exists in your mind!

      3. Hi “Linear C”,

        Forgive me, I am not familiar with some of the terms you are using. From doing some looking up I understand the term you use “epistemological ” as being centred on propositional knowledge or what some may call “propositional truth”. If this is not your intended definition and usage them please define the term and your use of it in the context of the “evidence” you provide.

        You made the claim (refuted by David) that David would be “quick to point out that his god cannot be detected empirically”. There would be many who would argue that their empirical reality is the opposite of what you claim David would be quick to point out. Therefore such claim is debatable and not evidence of the truth of one proposition and the falsity of another.

        I have on a previous occasion quited the Oxford Professor John Lennox with the evidence he argues for the existence of God. However you have discounted such you will remember on the basis of your assertion that he is not a scientist. I would dispute your assertion if you were to make such again for reasons previously stated. What evidence would you need to convince you the of the validity of the existence of the Abrahamic God? If quoting an Oxford Professor cannot convince you that this is worth considering then how can this be done?

        As for talking of “god” (lowercase) biblically is only ever used to describe “the god of this world” i.e. Satan. This it not the Abrahamic God of Islam Judasim and Christianity of course. So if you wish to talk of someone who is a Satan worshiper and ask them for evidence of their “god” then please feel free. I am not a worshiper of Satan.

        So again what evidence can you provide for your claim that “Jesus / Yahweh exists only in your imaginations” for Christians. Clearly that hasn’t been established and I welcome your delight in providing any further “evidence” you may provide.

        Best Regards

        Adam

      4. Hi David,
        If I am wrong, please correct me! Tell me how your god can be detected empirically !!!
        But you can’t do it, can you?

        The caricatures are all yours with your fictitious ‘new fundie atheists’! Just like your own personal imaginary jesus.

        In seriousness, why not just just demonstrate your god exists? This would be the rational response to my objections. The fact that you never do simply demonstrates that I am right.

        best wishes,
        Linear C

      5. Happy to do so – and have done so many times. It is however very difficult to show someone something when they keep their eyes shut! If you want empirical evidence then I suggest you read my Magnificent Obsession for a start…and if you can’t be bothered, why bother coming on here to continually and repeatedly shout ‘I can’t see’….? It does get a wee bit boring and repetitive!

      6. Hi Adam,
        I’ll try to keep it simpler this time if you are having trouble with longer words!
        There is no other way for the theist to know their god except than to imagine it. This fact is the evidence for my claim. The only way you know of your god is as a character from a book, and you imagine it exists. There is no empirical way for you to detect or demonstrate your god exists. If there were, you would simply do so! But instead we get this dance.
        Here is the challenge that no theist has been able to answer: if you wanted to demonstrate your god to me, how could I reliably distinguish what you describe as your god, from what you merely may be imagining?
        I know this is uncomfortable for you, no one likes to be shown to be holding irrational beliefs. But this is why I post here, to hopefully help you think!
        best wishes,
        Linear C

      7. Hi David,
        I have repeatedly, and politely requested that you provide evidence for your claims in my posts here, and no once have you provided any. Not once !! For you now to say that you have done so many times is extremely puzzling! In fact what is boring and repetitive is my unanswered requests to backing for your assertions!!!
        But wait – empirical evidence is now available! Hooray! Oh hold on, it’s in a book, and I have to pay for it! Boo !
        Maybe this is why you won’t answer on the website, you want me to BUY the answer from you?!
        Sorry David, but my money will be staying in my pocket. If here really were empirical evidence for your god, it would be freely available (I could find it on the web just like I can look up any other empirical fact). More to the point, if there really were empirical evidence, you would be shouting it from the rooftops, not hiding it in a Christian apologetics book.
        Now if you offer to lend me a copy, I would be delighted to read it, and even offer you a written review for your website!
        best wishes,
        Linear C

      8. Thats the difference between you and me. I am quite happy to buy and read atheist books and the books of those who disagree with me. You are so closeminded and tightfisted that you cannot even contemplate such a thing! And I do shout it from the rooftops – and people are being convinced….its why the NFA’s are getting so upset…..

  3. I’m in agreement with you David, it is difficult to have a conversation with people whose minds are not open to differing views.

    “Linear C”. Can I ask you a question, would you be as ready to claim that Yaweh only exists in the imagination of Jews or Allah in the imagination of Muslims? Why have you made the focus on Jesus and Yaweh for Christians when there are other faiths that claim the existence of the Abrahamic God (uppercase) as their empirical reality?

    I’m looking forward to discussing anything further that you wish to talk of with regard to evidence that you would be delighted to provide of the “propositional truth” of Jesus / Yaweh existing only in people’s imaginations.

    Best wishes

    Adam

    1. Adam and David,
      Let me reply to you both.
      It’s a common theist tactic to claim that those of us who prefer reason and evidence to blind faith are somehow ‘closed minded’. I have encountered this before. But what on earth am I supposed to be closed minded about? You claim that a character from ancient mythology is actually real! Am I just supposed to accept this because you say so? No, that would be ludicrous! And have you given me any good reason why I should think your claim is true? No! You both claim that this being can be detected empirically, but you are both coy about telling what this empirical method is!! I am all ears, contrary to David’s assertion. If you have ANY good reason to think that Yahweh is real, PLEASE tell me. But neither of you will do so! Why not? Why not just provide it? That would surely shut me up, put me in my place, expose me as close minded as you claim. But neither of you will provide a single good reason to think Yahweh is real. I am very OPEN minded, but I’m not gullible !
      Adam, yes all gods are imaginary, not just yours!
      So to repeat my point, and I know this is very uncomfortable for you, but ignoring it won’t make it go away;
      There is no other way for the theist to know their god except than to imagine it.
      You can’t see your god;
      You can’t hear your god;
      You can’t touch your god;
      You can’t smell your god;
      You can’t taste your god;
      You can’t measure your god;
      You can’t detect your god;
      You can’t demonstrate your god;

      All you can do is IMAGINE your god. IMAGINE!

      This fact is the evidence for my claim. The only way you know of your god is as a character from a book, and you imagine it exists. There is no empirical way for you to detect or demonstrate your god exists.
      If I am wrong, I’d really love to know! – but the truth is that neither of you can do so because your god does not exist!
      If I am wrong, you would surely delight in showing me why! – but the truth is that neither of you can do so because your god does not exist!
      You may continue your evasion by claiming that you have already told me, but that would be a lie, or you could claim that I am close minded, but that is also a lie.
      If your god is real, why make all these false excuses? Why not just show I am wrong?
      So I challenge you; if you want to demonstrate your god to me, how could I reliably distinguish what you describe as your god, from what you merely may be imagining?
      Your silence is deafening gents, but that silence speaks volumes.
      Best wishes,
      Linear C

      1. “Linear C”,

        Thanks for replying – I like your passion.

        I could engage with what you say about empirical reality, but it would merely be to have a discussion with you along similar lines to that which you previously have dismissed with regard to John Lennox on the basis of your claim that he is not a scientist. For reasons previously given by both David and I, he is a scientist. It’s difficult to have a discussion with you on the basis of your rejecting claims made where there is disagreement on the validity of such claims. The answer to your question about Jesus existing as a person with any “good reason” is evident. If you reject what an Oxford Professor claims then what is is that will give you “good reason”? So therefore again, what evidence would it require you to receive to give consideration of the existence of Yaweh and Jesus?

        You made the claim that he exists only in the imaginations of some and then 8 “you can’t”. These are bold statements with no evidence to support them. where is the empirical reality in any of these and why should anyone consider what you claim to be propositional knowledge and truth and where others see things differently for their proposition to be false? Still seeing no evidence my friend.

        Again who is this “god” you talk of. As the biblical reference to the “god of this world is Satan”, then why are you asking David and I about this? You must know that we would go by a biblical definition and neither of us are Satan worshipers. why are you asking us and not a Satan worshiper? If you wish to talk about God that’s another things.

        Again I look forward to anything further you have to mention and to receiving the delight you have in providing evidence of the non existence of God / Jesus. We would all delight in sharing truth would we not?

        Best Regards

        Adam

  4. Hi David,
    Unfortunately you have provided no good reason to think that your imaginary god is real, nor any evidence to support any of your claims. That’s why it takes blind faith to assert that your god is real – because you have nothing else.
    Sloganeering may sound good from the pulpit, but to me you are sounding like a petulant child.
    Repeating lies like ‘it takes faith to be an atheist’ doesn’t make it true, no matter how often you say it. It may be effective propoganda for the faithful, but it doesn’t work on the rest of us.
    best wishes,
    Linear C

  5. Hi “Linear C”,

    If David has been petulant, lieing, exercising blind faith, imagining something that is not true, and proliferating propaganda then it would be a good thing to act with force against his conduct and to be corrective in the pursuit of appropriateness and truth.

    I’ve known David to be wrong and his conduct to be inappropriate and for him to apologise. I’ve known him to express here that he is open to correction and “of course” that he will admit it if that he is wrong.

    Your claim is that God is imaginary and being very open minded, preferring reason and evidence and would like it if provided with good reason to think otherwise.
    Again, good reason was provided to you with a discussion made by John Lennox that you rejected on the basis of the claim that you made that he is not a scientist.

    Why don’t you be the bigger man and admit that you were in error in saying that about John Lennox? If you wish evidence for him being scientist, and teaching science at university it can easily be provided. Perhaps then we could discuss further what would be good reason to consider the existence of Jesus and of Yaweh. It would be silly to do so with you and expect a different result without there being a change from how the conversation has gone previously.

    Again I would welcome your delight as a man with an open mind and someone who prefers reason and evidence to provide good reason for thinking otherwise, with your provision of evidence and appropriate representation of both your position nd the position of others who see things differently to you.

    One minor point. It’s interesting that you use the word “petulant” to describe David’s conduct. The same word was used to describe conduct on the Scottish Secular Society’s facebook website when there was a challenge made towards the welcoming of removal all religious components to religious observance in schools and what was being expressed about being for the abolition of denominational schools in spite of the claim SSS made of being proactive in equality of belief and non-belief. Are you involved with the Scottish Secular Society and secular activism?

    Best Regards

    Adam

  6. Hi Adam,
    It must be frustrating not being able to provide rational justification for your beliefs. I don’t know if nitpicking at my posts is much compensation? If it were me, I’d be feeling very uncomfortable by now.
    Lennox. You were making a fallacious argument from authority; Lennox is most qualified as a mathematician, not a scientist. But this is irrelevant. Call him a scientist if you wish, that doesn’t make his arguments any good, and that’s why I am unimpressed. Lennox makes arguments from ignorance, nothing more. And please note, I am not calling Lennox ignorant, I am describing the fallacy of his arguments. If you think Lennox has made any points of note, please describe here what you think is his strongest argument, and I will be happy to tell you why it fails badly. And just to emphasise the point, I don’t dismiss Lennox because of his qualifications, I dismiss Lennox’s arguments because they are fallacious.
    Imagination. Let me be clear, your god exists only in the imagination of every Christian, not just some. There is no other way for you to ‘know’ your god. None. If you think that me claiming that your god cannot be seen is a bold claim, then you have a very strange idea of what a bold claim is!! Far from a bold claim, it’s a plain mundane statement of fact. If evidence for your god was empirical, you can be sure Christians would be shouting it from the rooftops, not flaying about with philosophical nonsense like kalam, or ontological arguments! This fact alone is more than enough evidence to show the plain truth of what I say. This is what you insist on avoiding, but again I can understand that this is uncomfortable for you.
    You should also notice that I am careful to refer to ‘your god’ to distinguish your god from all the others that are sincerely believed in, (but of course not by you!) So I’m not sure why you are getting so upset about this? Remember, Yahweh, Satan, Jesus, whatever, are all figments of your imagination, not mine!
    I’ll challenge you for the third time; if you want to demonstrate your god (Yahweh) to me, how could I reliably distinguish what you describe as your god, from what you merely may be imagining? Still no answer? Don’t feel too bad, because no theologian has answered this question.
    But what does that say about the truth of your beliefs? I have a passion for the truth, whatever it may be, not just beliefs that make me feel good!
    I apologise if this message appears a little blunt, but I find the continual avoidance of plain facts by believers a bit tiresome. If your god was real, you would simply demonstrate it. The fact that no theologian ever does is pretty damning, wouldn’t you say?
    best wishes,
    Linear C

    1. Adam – welcome to the world of fundamentalist atheism! If JOhn Lennox agreed with Linear he would be a top class scientist making arguments from knowledge! Linear’s ‘passion for truth’ does not extend to truths that challenge his fundamental beliefs!

      1. David,
        Again, no response to any point I make. Your god remains as imaginary as ever……. Instead you prefer to simply demonise me as one of your mythical ‘fundamentalist atheists’, as if this somehow negates the uncomfortable facts I keep bringing to your attention.
        Are you even aware that you are failing to defend your position? Is it because deep down you know it’s indefensible?
        best wishes,
        Linear C

  7. I hear what you are saying David about “the world of fundamental atheism”. I also hear what you have mentioned in jest of maybe having to repent some day of calling some atheists fundies. I guess every family has their members that embarrass the rest of the family, and none of us are perfect. If that’s not material for amusement then I don’t know what is :). I know I get up to some silly things sometimes (don’t we all?) and being a comedian I regard it as “material” lol.

    Maybe you are right in saying that if “Linear C” agreed with John Lennox then he would be a top class scientist making arguments from knowledge maybe / maybe not. I don’t know if “Linear C” fits into the label of being a fundamental atheist or not but having conversations with people who are not open to differing views and who are fundamentalists whatever end of the atheist-religious spectrum are difficult to have, I would agree on that if they speak vociferously.

    “Linear C” you state that Lennox is a most qualified as mathematician not a scientist and claim that neither of this is relevant. OK he is a professor of Mathematics, I’ll give you that, but he is a Fellow in the Philosophy of Science and teaches science. So no we have that clear. The next thing you mention, that “this is irrelevant”. OK so if this is irrelevant as you claim then your previous rejection of what he posits on the basis of your claim before that he is not a scientist is also irrelevant. What can’t be relevant is what you are claiming is irrelevant now and your claim before about Lennox not being a scientist. Either one of your clam is is relevant and the other not or vice versa.

    You assert that “Lennox makes arguments from ignorance”. OK so if what you are saying is true then again, on what basis are you willing to consider arguments and not reject them, if not from an Oxfrord Professor?

    Again, what evidence can you provide to establish objectively and indefatigably that Jesus and Yaweh exists only in the imaginations of some?

    You also claim I am getting upset by you referring to the Abrahaminc God in lowercase. Have I communicated any kind of upset to you “linear c” (see what I did there?). If I have not communicated upset to you, by what means do you claim to have determined that? I thought you didn’t believe in the supernatural? How else would you be able to determine how someone is feeling from text if they haven’t communicated that to you? Also how does using “god” distinguish God from other gods? Does that make sense? Surely making a distinguish would be to use uppercase as I have just done would it not? Please enlighten me, maybe I’m missing a couple of things here.

    You have passions for truths, not just ones that take you fell good – that’s great, so do many Christians. Sometimes truth is unpleasant, perhaps you will agree? I’m happy to answer your “challenge” if you will define what will give you “good reason” to consider what is posited. Again, if an Oxford professor is a Fellow in the Philosophy of Science is someone who you regard to make arguments from ignorance, from whom and by what method would you regard anyhign that is posited worth considering?

    Best Regards

    Adam

  8. Hi Adam,
    You are floundering badly, I’m afraid. You are simply repeating the same mistakes over and over.
    You really have to understand the logical fallacies of the Argument from Authority and the Argument from Ignorance, because you are starting to look a bit silly by making the same error again and again!
    And as for your inability to comprehend that when I refer to ‘your god’, I clearly mean ‘Your god’ (did you see what I did there?), it does rather suggest you are a bit dim.
    While I have clearly described why Your god is imaginary, many times now, you have still to provide a single good reason to think that Your god might actually be real.
    No wonder you are upset!
    best wishes,
    Linear C
    PS my last reply to you (Aug 18th) didn’t make it through David’s moderation.

  9. Hello Linear, thanks for your comment.

    Sorry to hear that your last reply on 18th Aug did not make it through David’s moderation. I can see why you may be experiencing tiresomeness as you have described at that. Perhaps he found what you wrote tiresome and decided to do something about it.

    So, to understand where you are coming from. What you posit form your last comment is that I have “an inability to comprehend”, I am starting to look “a bit silly” and am “repeating same mistakes over and over” am “upset” and what I have done suggests I am a bit “dim” and have never provided “good reason” for the claim that David also makes in Jesus being alive.

    The comments are not mainly concerned with my feelings or any error in my approach. Such is experienced for all in whatever approach anyone takes at times (everyone has emotions and no-one is perfect) but over the reasoning and evidence that has been provided by me. Whether my actions are consistent with good reason and evidence, or whether my actions are a hindrance and damaging to such. Anyone reading this thread has the power to test and decide for themselves and correct me easily if they wish against which I am powerless if my words are an insult to reason. I invite such testing.

    If you were bringing your accusations because you know or believe me to be unreasonable then you would be bringing about the best conduct of someone with reason ensuring that truth is uppermost as well as rebuking one who is an obfuscator of truth. But if you have drummed up this charge over malice, you equally are exhibiting the worst example of an attempt to establish truth.

    Where shall I begin to engage with this? You cannot know for certain that I am guilty of not providing “good reason” as you claim I am. If you are acting on your own opinion, I can prove in two ways that you are wrong.

    First I cannot be committing offense to reason. Such action must involve attempts to halt the proper discourse of those providing evidence. This is impossible as no evidence can be brought about to substantiate such claim. But even supposing such action could have been taken, it would have been necessary to have exchanged communication to that effect. A significant and continuous account of such would be readily available and on record in above discussions. If anyone has something to say about such let them use the freedom of speech they have to articulate such. Those that buy into what you claim without question are untrustworthy; they do so to win your favour. Nor could I have by subversion enabled others (including David) to commit such acts on my behalf, as everyone sees the discussion and the fact there has been no such coercion is evident.

    What other motive could I have – power over discussion here? This is impossible in view of you courage, passion for truth, ability to argue, and control commensurate with your engagement in discussion. Power over others here or any reader of comments is also impossible. I could not seize such by persuasion or others would not hand it to me voluntarily. No one in their right mind in would choose to be under the dominance of any man, and prefer that to freedom of expression, the shadow of life, over the best of life. My motive could have been to look good in front of others. Exaltation comes to those that honour others, not to those that demean those they disagree with or make unsound claims. I already have such honour, from peers and recognition of achievement, something you and others benefit from. Safety could not have been my motive. Another motive could have been to help friends and injure enemies, but I would have been doing the reverse. The remaining possibility would be a wish to avoid distress. But if I were unreasonable as you claim, it would be to cause myself distress. I would lose honour and made things difficult for myself through loss of reputation. It is therefore evident and good reason that neither have I or would I act in the way accused.

    And so I now turn to comments you have made about yourself. You posit that you have “clearly described” why any belief is imaginary, that you have passions for truths (not just ones that make you feel good) and that your approach is consistent with what you prefer with reason and “good evidence”. So tell me “Linear C”, do you base your accusations on truth or opinion? If on truth, either this is your own or others. If it is your own, give exact reference of time, comment and method. If it is of others, produce your witnesses. It is your place to produce witnesses, not mine. No witness can be produced for what did not happen but for what did happen. It is easy and essential to produce witnesses. But you cannot produce even false witnesses.
    That you have no knowledge of your accusations is clear. Hence they must be opinion and your conduct is most misguided and vociferous – to bring such charges relying on opinion – which is a most unreliable thing – and not knowing truth. Opinion is open to all and everything and you are no wiser than anyone else in this. One must believe not in opinion but truth.

    You are claiming Lennox exhibits two opposites – ignorance and knowledge in positing “Lennox makes arguments from ignorance… [then] I am not calling Lennox ignorant”. Knowledge in that you are not calling him ignorant and ignorant in that you claim he argues from ignorance. It is ignorant to attempt what is impossible, disadvantageous, disgraceful, injurious to reason, helpful to deceit and therefore likely to make one’s life intolerable. How can one believe a man who in the same comment to the same audience says the exact opposite about Lennox and his claim that the most reasonable conclusion is the existence of Jesus based on what he says not about being a Christian but in being a scientist? Do you consider the knowledgeable to be ignorant or make propositions without sound reason? If with sound reason then people do not prefer ignorance to the reason they have. If he is knowledgeable, he has preferred reason, if he has preferred ignorance, he is not providing sound reason. Therefore you are proved a liar on both counts. this is in addition to what has already have been proven about you being al liar for claiming that Lennox is not a scientist.

    Furthermore your claiming whether Lennox is a scientist or not is invalid nullifies the case you have made for rejection of his views based on your lie about him not being a scientist. This in addition provides evidence that your reasoning on this has been unsound.

    I could bring counter-accusations, on claims you have made elsewhere but I will not. I could also make demeaning personal comments and caricature you and your beliefs but I will not. I would rather seek truth through sound reason than pointing out your error or treat you with disrespect.

    I would rather seek freedom and truth through my own virtue than your vices. I must now speak of myself in a way that would not be suitable except to one that is accused. I submit my past life to your testing. If I mention my good deed, I hope that no one will resent this. It is necessary that I refute serious charges with a true statement of merits that are known. In my past life, I served in the Air Force for ten years my conduct was exemplary and my discharge honourable. I am known as a hard worker, insightful and someone who is knowledgeable and brings balance and of good character. I claim to have been of benefit to others in offering of myself and my service in love and in the manner in which I am uniquely gifted and have talents. I mention these things to show that in devoting myself to such, I am endeavoured to abstain from anything that is deceitful and misguiding to others.

    Lastly I will speak of anyone who reads this comment to you. Empathy, and the petition of friends are useful when testing in pursuit of truth and knowing that no one person is perfect. Before you who are the most honourable in your endeavours I need not use any of these devices, only sound reason and truth. You must not heed opinion rather than truth, nor prefer accusations to proof nor regard a brief period as more instructive than a long one nor the making of misrepresentations and defamatory statements to damage one’s reputation more trustworthy than experience. Good men avoid wrong doing. Things can be put right by considerate forethought but wrong action cannot be righted by an afterthought. This is what happens when people are accused as is what is happening now. If words could bring the truth of deeds clearly and certainly before readers then judgment would be easy. Since this is not so, I ask for your patience, and await the passage of time and to pass your judgment with truth. You run the risk of your own reputation for injustice for good people, reputation is paramount.

    If you judge me unjustly, you will bear judgment from others as all deeds are seen. The responsibility for that will be yours, not my accusers because the issue is on your hands. There could be nothing worse for you if you are to judge wrongly a fellow human being when you can show not just cause for doing so – to insult reason and grieve justice in doing so.

    Here is where I conclude. A summary of a long comment is necessary for those of slow understanding but before those who have ears to hear it is uncalled for as is the challenge to pay attention to or remember what has been expressed.

    Best Regards

    Adam

  10. Hi Adam,
    I wish you no malice, nor intend any offence, but unfortunately it seems you are incapable of rational discourse, or even sensible adult conversation. This emotional diatribe serves only to prove that you cannot even comprehend my post let alone reply to it.
    Please research logical fallacies, in particular the ‘Argument from Ignorance’ and the ‘Argument from Authority’.
    Once you grasp the basics, I’d be happy to continue the dialog.
    best wishes,
    Linear C

  11. I’ll answer your other questions now “Linear C”.

    You write,“Jesus / Yahweh exists only in your imaginations [for Christians]… If I am wrong, I’d really love to know!… the truth is that neither of you can do so… [Yahweh] does not exist!.. Why not just show I am wrong?”

    I won’t engage this in the way I would have liked (by making a claim for the existence of Yahweh) as you either have been unwilling or unable to describe by whom and by what method you would consider sound reasoning and evidence (as is your preference) to provide that for you. This makes the work of providing such in a way that you would receive impossible. One alternative to providing sound reason for considering the existence of Yahweh is to discount your claim for his non-existence with sound reason. This shall be my approach which I shall do simply and easily.

    What I shall do is show you are wrong about your assertions of what you claim is truth both about the existence of Yahweh and with David and I not being able to demonstrate that you are wrong. The method I shall use is by first by proving your reasoning to be unsound in your claim for the non-existence of Yahweh. Second, I shall prove you to be lying in stating that you are making a fact (rather than it being an opinion) in this claim.

    First, anyone could turn the tables on you and make the claim that your non-belief in the existence of Yahweh exists only in your imagination and those whose non-belief is the same as yours. Both claims cannot coexist and be true, one must be true and one must be false. Yet both claims use the same method for reasoning. One claim that is concluded is not better than the other either. Assertions can be made for both more vociferously but without evidence still lack substance, it’s basing argument on unsound reason which is what you are doing.

    Second your claim that Yahweh / Jesus exists only in imaginations of Christians and any deity “does not exist!” is an opinion. Opinions stated as if they are a fact are misrepresentations. It is a lie to represent opinion as fact which is what you are doing with your claim. One must believe in truth not opinion of truth. In support of this I call on the witness of Richard Dawkins who prior to mocking monotheistic belief by likening Yahweh to Father Christmas declares that you can’t say there is definitely no God @ 1:00 in the clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSrSwRpBdHk

    As an aside, Dawkins is worthy of credit for saying in the same clip of the bus campaign that “it gets people to think”. Perhaps he even has done more than any Christian evangelists to enable people to think about Yahweh / Jesus. Has he not also encouraged people to read the bible? That’s great that people are thinking about the bible and Jesus and for the opportunity this opens up for dialogue.

    My dear “Linear C”, I am so very far from “floundering badly”. Humankind’s flaws cannot be judged on such a flippant assertion as that. Open your eyes, you lash out at the claim the Jesus is alive that disagree with but ignore the hideous nature of the world at large. There is a hunger my dear “Linear C”, hunger that is spreading from the deepest darkest pits of this worldly hellish human chasm. This conversation about Jesus being alive is a birth cry of a new era and when this revolution finally comes pity-full human examples such as yourself shall be among the first to be overwhelmed. The deed is done, weep for the claim you once had for the non-existence of Jesus. For it is but crumbs upon the sill of despair, soon to be swept away buy the righteous wind of change.

    As ever, best regards

    Adam

  12. “Linear C” I’ll engage with your request to consider “Argument from Ignorance’ and the ‘Argument from Authority’”.

    So with argument form authority and ignorance, the fallacy is in quoting someone in a position of authority, given that that they could be in error, not speaking from knowledge but of ignorance. Therefore it applies when someone in authority speaks in ignorance. If you were paying attention, then you will be aware of I have shown how you have lied about Lennox speaking from ignorance. This invalidates your claim that I have been doing either.

    I also have shown how you are wrong, form both showing how you have lied and your reasoning is unsound in how you went about trying to claiming the non-existence of Yaweh and that David and I not being able to demonstrate you are wrong.

    No wonder you find it tiresome to talk with Christians, these kind of conversations while having a passion for truth and preferring reason and evidence yet lying providing unsound reasoning and no evidence for your claims must be exhausting for you.

    Would you like to give it another go?

    Best regards

    Adam

  13. Hi Adam,

    You’re still struggling to grasp basic points of logic and rational discourse. So let me try this;
    Let’s say I tell you that the Flying Spagetti Monster is real. Would you accept that this was a reasonable belief? And if not, why not?
    You can’t prove 100% that the FSM doesn’t exist can you? Does that strengthen my case? (I’ll give you a hint, the answer is no!)

    best wishes,
    Linear C

  14. My dear “Linear C”,

    I am so far removed from your claims of my “struggling” with rational discourse. Nevertheless I support your freedom to make to make that claim, weak as it is without anything to substantiate it with evidence for your claims. Unsupported assertions make for weak arguments.

    I shall now identify for you why your arguments are weak by summarising them from the above conversation as ad hominem, straw man and the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

    Ad hominem – You write:
    “loving and compassionate” means something different to what they mean to the rest of us… It seems that definitions of words aren’t really that important to you after all?.. I’ll try to keep it simpler this time if you are having trouble with longer words!.. you imagine it exists…There is no empirical way for you to detect or demonstrate… If there were, you would simply do so! But instead we get this dance… holding irrational beliefs… neither of you will provide a single good reason to think… All you can do is IMAGINE … IMAGINE!.. Your silence is deafening gents, but that silence speaks volumes… Sloganeering may sound good from the pulpit, but to me you are sounding like a petulant child. Repeating lies … doesn’t make it true, no matter how often you say it. It may be effective propoganda for the faithful, but it doesn’t work on the rest of us…not being able to provide rational justification for your beliefs. I don’t know if nitpicking at my posts is much compensation?.. You were making a fallacious argument… you have a very strange idea of what a bold claim is!!… you insist on avoiding… why you are getting so upset… whatever, are all figments of your imagination… no response to any point I make… as imaginary as ever… you prefer to simply demonise … it’s indefensible… You are floundering badly, I’m afraid. You are simply repeating the same mistakes over and over… you are starting to look a bit silly by making the same error again and again! your inability to comprehend does rather suggest you are a bit dim… you have still to provide a single good reason… No wonder you are upset!.. it seems you are incapable of rational discourse, or even sensible adult conversation. you cannot even comprehend my post let alone reply to it…”

    These simply are all claims without any substance or relevance to back them up they do not distract for the central issue of the existence or nonexistence of Jesus / Yawheh.

    Straw man – you write:
    There is no other way to know… [Yahweh] except than to imagine… [Yahweh] exists only in the imagination of every Christian, There is no empirical way… to detect… [Yahweh] exists. Call [Lennox] a scientist… that doesn’t make his arguments any good… Lennox makes arguments from ignorance, nothing more… I am not calling Lennox ignorant. I find the continual avoidance… a bit tiresome. No theologian ever does [demonstrate Yahweh being real].

    It’s making claims about imagination, and demonstration ignorance avoidance of facts then doing the easier job of arguing against this caricature. It simply avoids addressing the essence of the issue of the existence or non-existence of Jesus / Yahweh.

    Even if it were true that Yahweh’s existence has never been determined by reason it is a logical fallacy to argue that it can’t be. That’s an argument from incredulity. you imagine Yahweh’s non existance as being a fact. It goes like this:

    – Minor premise: One can’t imagine (or have not imagined) how Yahweh’s existence can be determined by sound reason.

    – Major premise (unstated): If Yahweh’s existence can be determined by sound reasoning, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how this can be so.

    – Conclusion: Yahweh’s existence cannot be determined by sound reason.

    As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn’t follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn’t follow that no one will ever be able to.

    Anyone can see the evidence of this ad hominem / straw man / argument from incredulity approach you have taken is what is happening. That you have been doing so without demonstrating evidence either, of any way thinking through the arguments proposed. This empirical reality leads one reasonably to conclude (in spite of what you claim about wishing “no malice, nor intend any offence”) that you fit the definition of a troll, one who posts deliberately provocative comments with the intention of creating maximum disruption and argument. Well known wisdom on social media is “don’t feed the troll”. Therefore as long as your approach is as it is I shall not engage with your comments with you further. I’ll leave you to express what you would like about me and belief – fill your boots!

    Thankfully all any Christian needs to do when encountering such (because of their identity with Christ) is to turn to the words recorded of Christ for encouragement.

    “Blessed are you when people insult you… and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.”

    This is my empirical reality. My dear “Linear C” I have experienced different emotions but am so far removed from feeling “upset” on reading your comments in spite of what you have claimed on two occasions.You will also notice above that I had strong disagreement with what David says about Elton John having nothing to teach the church. He may think I am employing theology that he believes is in error. I am aware that I am not always David’s cup of tea. Yet we are able to peacefully coexist, thrive and agree to disagree by keeping Christ central. This is our empirical reality.

    I could easily and simply go on with engaging in your comments but rather than being caught up in a silly argument, I’m going to keep truth as central by the statement of a simple fact. In principle you could be right about Jesus / Yahweh not existing and I and David could be wrong. I shall leave truth and the evidence and reasoning that is empirically real in this conversation to be the judge on that. Deep down, I don’t think you want to cause disruption. I think inside you are kinda hoping this stuff is real. If you are open and ready to look for it with all your heart soul and mind, I’m pretty sure someone will be around to have a conversation about it.

    So say what you like about my approach Linear C. This shall be my last comment towards you as long as you take the unsubstantiated approach you have which for reasons clearly given and evidence includes lies, and unsound and fallacious reasoning.

    I shall address you through David, the “chair” of this forum from now on and until if/when your approach changes to one based on truth, sound reason and evidence in which I would be delighted to converse with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *