Ray Comfort (AKA the Banana man) is up to his dirty tricks again. The master of straw man and bad science is back. This time...since his so-called banana spit (AKA “atheist nightmare”) didn’t made any blow against atheism, he is now hallucinating in giving atheists some kind of a spiritual test.

 

Yep! That’s right folks! Mr. Comfort is publishing propaganda leaflets entitled “The Atheist Test” – now on sale in your local Christian bookstores!

 

I really can’t make out the disturb mentality of an evangelical Christian fundy. It seems their sole purpose here in planet Earth is to eat, drink, sleep and spread rumors, gossips and false information. Wow! And just think what the Internet is doing to spread their idiocy to the whole wide world. The problem is that people buy these kinds of stuffs. Maybe Einstein was right when he said that there are two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity.

 

Nah, I’m not offended with Ray Comfort’s shaggy dog stories about the Bible and Jesus H. Christ. Actually there’s nothing wrong when Christians share their delusional beliefs...but please, don’t shove it on other people’s ass.

 

So for the sake of fun and wholesome entertainment, let’s take a look at Ray Comfort’s test.

 

Test 1 and 2

The first thing you will read in Ray Comfort’s test is his “banana argument”

Is shaped for human hand

Has non-slip surface

Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.

Has a tab for removal of wrapper

Is perforated on wrapper

Bio-degradable wrapper

Is shaped for human mouth

Has a point at top for ease of entry

Is pleasing to taste buds

Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

Notice his ignorance about the Musa paradisiaca sarpientum.

 

That’s what happened when the only banana you know came from the grocery shelf. I wonder why he didn’t include that those bananas have a small sticker that says “Dole”? The banana that Ray is talking about here is the banana that was already been tampered by human selective breading. That’s the banana that you see on supermarkets and groceries.

 

What! Those bananas are already mess about by humans? So unfortunately to Ray, the banana that he’s trying to promote is not...eh God designed. Wild bananas are quite different. They are small and they shape like plantains (Saging na saba in Tagalog.) Unlike Ray Comfort’s banana, they are not yellow in color and they have these large seeds all over the flesh. They got this hard flesh that you need to cook so it will become soft. Thanks to modern science of selective breeding, we now have Ray Comfort’s edible, yellow banana. I wonder why Ray Comfort’s god didn’t think about that before he created the banana. One thing is certain; I think Ray Comfort’s god is going bananas.

 

Now since he knows a banana from the grocery, his next sample is another type of grocery “wildlife”. Maybe Mr. Comfort should go to the libraries more often than the groceries.

 

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

 

Yes folks! He’s talking about Coca-Cola can.

 

 

Here’s a sample of what Mr. Comfort is good at...fallacies. And this fallacy is what we know as false analogy. We recognize that the Coca-Cola can was designed because we know that Coca-Cola cans do not occur naturally but are instead the product of purposeful design by human beings. We can even find out who were the actual designers of the can. However, the same cannot be said for the universe.

 

So another fallacious analogy is given by Mr. Christian Evangelist...Hmmmm should I call people such as Ray Comfort as “Fallavangelist”?...but if Ray will insist, then:

1.)    The can was created by finite humans, so does the universe created by a finite god?

2.)    The can was created by mortal men; does that mean the universe was created by mortal gods?

3.)    The raw materials that created the can were not created by humans; is that the same with the universe?

 

Also, Ray Comfort got the wrong idea on the word "creation". Remember, when we talk of something being created, we are referring to the making of one thing from the raw materials. It is an error of logic to apply the word "creation" to the raw materials themselves.  Coca-Cola can was created from different raw materials; we cannot say that aluminum, where the Coca-Cola can came from was created. That is an insult to someone’s intellect.

 

So Ray Comfort’s squabble, which is in a typical Christian idea, was inspired by a Holy Spirit, seems to be “canned”.

Test 3

A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO (None of the above)

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO (None of the above)

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO (none of the above)

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ____________________ (none of the above)

 

Do you know why I put “none of the above” as my answers? That’s because the above questions are not the atheist position. Well-established scientific laws and scientific cause-effect interactions are not accidents (nice going there Mr. Christian Evangelist).

Just look at the beautiful pattern of the snow flake. Do you think Nature needs a so-called “designer” to produce all those unique designs? Contrary to Mr. Evangelists claim, you don’t need a so-called intelligent mind to create them. The effects of water vapor to cold is not sentient, yet is still produce beautiful unique patterns of snow flakes.

Now Ray Comfort asked, what are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ” Well may I ask him, “What is the chance of an immaterial, disembodied entity to have an intelligent mind?” If he believes that a brainless being can become intelligent...well he can believe in anything...even falling oranges.

Bear in mind that a supernatural intervention and straw-man tactics are not explanations.

 

Test 4

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

 

But does declaring that “There is a god” is also an absolute statement? So for an absolute statement to be true, Ray Comfort must possessed absolute knowledge? Here’s the thing about people like Ray Comfort, they claim that atheists declare omniscience by saying god doesn’t exist yet they also claim omniscience by declare that god exists.

Let us use Ray Comfort’s own test question...but this time, with a little twist.

Here is another absolute statement: “There is gold in China.”

“C” is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say “There is God,” and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

So let’s turn the table a little...If Ray insist that god exist then an atheist can ask him if he is 100 sure of it. If he says yes, then he’s also making an absolute statement which unfortunately, according to Ray himself, that there is no such thing as “absolute knowledge”.

 

Ray Comfort pretends to know the atheist position. That’s the problem with made-up stories. Mr. Evangelist should bear in mind that an atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. However, if Ray Comfort insists that atheists state categorically that "there is no god." Well that means he has forgotten that absolutes require faith and only believers like him rely on such mentality.

 

Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

Here’s an example of how Christian evangelists like Ray Comfort love to twist words and ideas. Or maybe he just doesn’t know what the meaning of faith is?

According to the Christian definition of faith, it is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. So that means it is the belief of things that not yet come to pass represents evidence for it actuality. Let’s try fitting Ray Comfort’s way of thinking and use “faith” when we turn on the TV set. Hmmmm...Should I plug it first? Well I don’t know the use of the plug...wait a minute...there is no plug. I don’t even have the slightest idea what a plug is...wait a minute? I haven’t even seen a TV set in my entire life! Well Sony 22:14 says that TV sets exist, and II Zenith 21:16 says that it needs a plug to operate. I have read in RCA 17:12-25 that television waves makes a TV operate but TV waves are spirits...you can’t see them or touch them. But I believe they exist. I have faith in my TV Bible. Well I know that someday TV set will exists...I’m hoping to have a TV...I believe that a TV exists...Hmmmm maybe by praying hard I will have a sign that a TV exists and I can operate it...whatever that is .

 

We don’t use faith when we turn our TV on. We already know what will happen when we turn it on. If in doubt, we can ask technicians or electricians. With an aid of a TV repairman, you can ask him to open the TV and tell you how it operates. It can be explained. Come on, try it. Read the blue print if you have a copy of it. The problem lies that not every person who owns a TV set wants to know how it operate. That’s not faith, that’s just being lazy.

We cannot see radio waves and satellite signals as Ray Comfort suggest, yet we use apparatus to catch them like your TV antenna for instance. If you have cable TV, you know you’re getting cable because you can ask your friendly cable guy what those cables for.

I’m just thinking...maybe Ray Comfort thinks that to get some Playboy Channel on your cable, you got to have faith and pray to God. 

Or maybe Christians can have faith and pray to God so they can watch re-runs of Kirk Cameron’s defunct sitcom.

Faith is about unseen assumptions and assurances that believers use as evidences. Now turning a TV on is quite different from the belief that bread and wine turns to blood and flesh, that the Pope is infallible, that Allah is the only true god and Muhammad is his prophet, that Felix Manalo Sr. was the last prophet, that Eliseo Soriano knows everything about the Bible and that Jesus Christ was born in a virgin and he will return to judge the world. Now that takes faith.

 

If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2.000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God...as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Thank you for taking the time to read this booklet.

And now the test stops here. It’s time for Mr. Evangelist to use “scare tactics” to wipe his foaming mouth. Gosh how naïve!

 

So Mr. Christian Evangelist talks about sin. Believe me; sin is only applicable when you believe in the Christian god. Remember, the test was designed for atheists. So do you think an atheist will wet his pants if some Christian dork says that he sinned to God? Give me a break here! Hey Ray, this is not one of the episodes of “Growing Pains”.

 

So before you start yapping your mouth about guilt, Judgement Day (are you talking about The Terminator and Sky Net?), hell and heaven, sins and that dead Jew on the stick may I suggest that you straighten your act a little bit and go back to the basics?

 

PROVE TO US THAT YOUR GOD CONCEPT EXISTS.

 

Simple isn’t it?

 

Maybe Christian evangelists like Ray Comfort always lurks in the dark corners of ignorance, fallacies, supernaturalism, fear and superstition to win converts. Who can blame him, even Apostle Paul admitted this crime.

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.”

 

 

That finished this test...well with this kind of a test; atheists will always score an A+.

 

Test passed!

 

John the Athiest

 

Maybe it’s just human nature for believers to claim that their so-called holy books are advance. That’s natural and I can live with that. I really don’t care if you are just defending your religious belief; well it’s just belief anyway. The problem is when they claim that certain facts prove that...Hmmmmm, I think you get the picture.

 

Here’s an example. Eliseo (you know him?) wrote this article to prove that the Bible is an advance book. According to him, “The Bible is the one and only book on earth that carries with it an authority and authentication not coming from any human person, but from somebody whose knowledge is above nature and humans. This person is God. I will ask you some questions and try to answer them carefully and honestly.”

 

And so he answered it...but I doubt if it’s carefully and honestly.

 

Claim No.1 Advance in astronomy and earth science.

 

This belief that the earth is flat was shared even by powerful people up to the middle ages. It was only very recently that we have had physical evidences showing the picture of the earth caught from outer space by the cameras of the series of Apollo spaceships that were sent to the moon that proves that the earth is round and spherical in shape. This truth is already revealed in the Bible, less than 3000 years before it was seen by man. In the book of Isaiah 40:22 it says…

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…”

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

 

These informations are present in the Bible long before man has seen physical evidences with his eyes that the earth is round. This truth can not come from any human source, but from Somebody dictating to prophet Isaiah what to write. Just like the prophet Daniel, Isaiah may not know or have any idea of the physical reality of the truth he is writing, but it was written for us to realize that wisdom in the Bible came from a Supernatural Being.

 

This belief that the earth is flat was shared even by powerful people up to the middle ages. It was only very recently that we have had physical evidences showing the picture of the earth caught from outer space by the cameras of the series of Apollo spaceships that were sent to the moon that proves that the earth is round and spherical in shape. This truth is already revealed in the Bible, less than 3000 years before it was seen by man.

 

The problem of this claim: In discussing the spherical era of Earth's history, the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 6, 1978, pp. 1-3) explains that ancient astronomers determined that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses. The Egyptians and Greeks as far back as 2550 BCE (more than a thousand years before Moses) knew not only the earth's spherical shape but also its approximate size. The Grecian philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 BCE, defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon. If this information was generally known by educated Greeks and Egyptians before and during biblical times, how can anyone say with certitude that the writers of the Book of Isaiah couldn't have known about it?

 

So Eliseo’s claim is imaginary. Humans already know that before the Bible mentioned it on its pages.

 

Also, let’s take a good look at Isaiah 40:22. According to Eliseo, the word “the circle of the earth” confirms the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible and...What? Wait a minute...I thought he’ll answer this carefully and honestly?

 

Let’s look at Isaiah 40:22
²² It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

Have you noticed that this verse compared “the circle of the earth” to a tent and not a ball? Maybe you’re familiar with a tent. Isn't it nice to know that the heavens are spread out like a tent? All the tents I have seen were domed over a flat surface.  In Hebrew, the word used for “circle” is “khug”, and just think for once, a plate is also a circle, a coin is also a circle, yet they are not spheres.

 

I would like to thank Eliseo’s own article from providing us more information. This piece of article can be found on his own post...and according to him, it came from Reader’s Digest Library of Modern Knowledge book 1 p.14 which says, “The Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people of the first millennium B.C. pictured the Earth as a flat slab of land, which was rectangular or circular in shape and rimmed by sea, and which at some point met the sky. What happened on this horizon no one knew; the fear of reaching the edge of the world discouraged mariners from sailing far from coasts they knew.”

 

The article speaks about the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people of the first millennium B.C. That includes the ancient Hebrews. According to Isaiah 40:22 the Earth is like a dome where God sit upon it. The Hebrews copied this “cosmology” from more ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilization like Sumeria.

 

When the authors of Isaiah attempted to talk about Earth Science, their only source of knowledge was a chain of written history dating back to the Sumerian Civilization. The Sumerians were the first to invent writing—cuneiform—approximately 4000 BC or shortly thereafter.

 

The verse from Amos validated my claim.

 

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.”

 

Notice the word “vaulted dome”?

 

Claim No. 2 That the Bible has already prophesized that human knowledge will increase.

(Daniel 12:8-10, 4) “And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand…

“…But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

The prophet Daniel wrote these passages, but do not have the slightest idea of what a cell phone, a television, or a computer would look like when the fulfillment of the words “Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased…” come into reality. This further proves that there was Someone who has the capacity to see what will happen in the future, dictated Daniel what to write in his book of the Bible. There is no possibility whatsoever that these advance information, which the Bible calls ‘prophecies’, can come from human mind, but from Someone far more superior in humans in understanding and wisdom.

The Bible is the only book on earth that tells us things that will happen before they happen, many centuries ahead.

The problem of this claim:  I really don’t get this one. It seems that Eliseo is implying that in the time of the ancients, there were no increased of knowledge, that the world was filled with primitives, heathens, savages, dummies. Their intelligence matched their simple technologies; their languages were simple, their cultures were primitive, they were brutes. So do other ancient culture’s heads empty? It looks as if the idea that someday knowledge will increase were not dreamed by other culture.

 

To say that only the Bible has prophesied the increased of knowledge in the future is badly flawed. More ancient religions and sacred writing have already done that even before the Hebrews walk out of Egypt. Whether it is bad or good other ancient cultures have predicted the boosted of knowledge.  Here are some examples: 

 

The Hindu epic poem, Mahabharata, written between 300 BCE and 300 CE described what appears to be nuclear and also describe the effects of radioactive poisoning.

It states: "… a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of Vrishnis and Andhakas.

The corpses were so burnt they were no longer recognizable. Hair and nails fell out. Pottery broke without cause... Foodstuffs were poisoned. To escape, the warriors threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment.

The poem goes on to describe the devastation of this weapon which is similar to the destruction of the A-bomb. "A substance like fire has sprung into existence…blistering hills. Rivers, and trees. All… are being reduced to ashes."

Not only the Hindus but also the American Indian Hopi tribe has foreseen that men will invent a thermonuclear device. "The white brother will bring the symbol of the sun which makes a great explosion shaking the earth…

One of the most astounding prophecies of the American Indians, especially by the Hopi and the Aztec, was the coming of the white man, called Pahána, to the New World.

The Hopi said the white men would return with the sign of the cross and bring a holocaust upon the land through his inventions and lack of spirituality. Remember, the American Indians had no knowledge of Christianity.

As the American Indians prophesied, the new inhabitants of the land were great inventors. Ironically, many people from all different cultures prophesied of these new inventions before their times. This is in light of the fact that most people only knew of transportation by horses, asses, and boats.

 (Source: Hogue, John The Millennium Book of Prophecy © 1994 Harper-Collins)

Oh and one more thing, the ancients are really not that naive as Eliseo think they are. Have you ever read the works Zechariah Sitchin’s The 12^th Planet and Erich von Däniken’s Chariot of the Gods? You will notice that these books promote the advancements of science and technology from ancient culture such as Sumeria, Egypt, Babylonia and Mayan.

In 3100 BCE Menes, the founder of the 1st Dynasty writes The Secret Book of the Heart, describing 3 kinds of healers, the physician, the priest and the sorcerer. He already knew the role of the physician in healing ailments.

The Sumerians have invented the cylinder seal, the forerunner of the modern rotary press, the ziggurat, the kilt among others, all in the time of 3500 BCE.

In the Papyrus Ebers, the Ancient Egyptians were discovering things about how the human body worked and they knew that the heart, pulse rates, blood and air were important to the workings of the human body, "46 vessels go from the heart to every limb, if a doctor places his hand or fingers on the back of the head, hands, stomach, arms or feet then he hears the heart. The heart speaks out of every limb."

The papyrus continues:

"There are 4 vessels to his nostrils, 2 give mucus and 2 give blood; there are 4 vessels in his forehead; there are 6 vessels that lead to the arms; there are 6 vessels that lead to the feet; there are 2 vessels to his testicles (and) it is they which give semen; there are 2 vessels to the buttocks."

The document actually gives names to organs such as the spleen, the heart, the anus, the lungs etc so they must have known that these exist. One papyrus, the Edwin Smith Papyrus, has a detailed description of the brain in it so this organ was also well researched by the standards of the time. It is probable that this knowledge came as a result of the practice the Ancient Egyptians had of embalming dead bodies.

Claim No. 3 That only the Bible told us that it is good to cry and laughter is the best medicine.

 

Not only science, but also medical knowledge that man have learned very lately, and history, can attest to the authenticity of this one and only book.

The Bible tells us that it is good to cry.

(Ecclesiastes 7:2) “It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.”

(James 4:9) “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.”

Medical findings have proven that what the Bible says is true.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article24374 69.ece

Equally true is: We must not indulge in too much weariness and crying.

(1 Corinthians 7: 29-30) “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not…”

This will mean that we have to laugh also and be merry.

(Proverbs 17:22) “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”

There is no contradiction in the preceding verses that I have cited. We have to laugh. We have to cry. It depends upon the situation. It is natural. It is healthy. So, the Bible speaks the truth! Why the Bible? Think it over and over again.

 

The problem of this claim: Throughout history, spiritual traditions in China, Japan and India have revered the sacred strength of laughter. Lao-Tzu is always pictured smiling. Samurai are always laughing. “Laughter Yoga” was a practice of the ancient rishis of India over 5,000 years ago.

Hypocrites, in his medical treatise, stressed the importance of “a gay and cheerful mood on the part of the physician and patient fighting disease”.

In the Native American culture for example, “Nanabush” the trickster, a central figure in Chippewa (Ojibwa) storytelling, challenges the gods and cheats death by playing a trick on them: “During the year of the sickness, when I was the last one left, I saved myself by starting a story. Death could not get a word in edgewise, grew discouraged, and traveled on”. Nanapush demonstrates the power of Native American humor against sickness and death.

The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the "sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes "out of the blue" with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body's chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the "na'au" (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the "laughter of God" which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Claim No. 4 Historical claims

 

History and archeology also proves the authenticity of the Bible. Findings in archeology have proven so many times that what is recorded in the Bible are actual facts and truth. Roman coins found in Samaria authenticates the records in Matthew 22:17-21.

 

“And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

 

The discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings.

 

(2 Kings 20:20) “And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

 

The discovery of a limestone with the inscription that bares the name of Pontius Pilate is another proof of the Bible’s authenticity.

 

(John 19:6) “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”?

 

The problem of this claim: The claim is really non-sequitur. Eliseo is making a conclusion that since these structures and personality exists, that means the Bible history is authentic. Have you heard of a historical fiction? While there are some historical facts in the Bible, it represents a gross misrepresentation of the current state of archaeology to say that it has “never” contradicted the Bible. For example, archaeological research has demonstrated that the city of Ai, reported in Josh. 8 to have been conquered by Joshua, was a heap of ruins centuries before Joshua's time as discovered by Kathleen Kenyon.

 

Bear in mind that the Bible, as we know it today, is the end product of a long process of writing, editing and selecting of literature primarily concerned with the saga explaining how the nation Israel came to be, the development of the Jewish religious concepts, and its long literary history. It cannot be assumed that a group of men composed writings echoing what they thought God was dictating. The Bible reflects historical situations, human events, men's reactions to these happenings, and the belief that God was also involved in events.

 

The problem here is how you can distinguish history from legend. Sure England exists, but can you prove that King Arthur also exists. Montalban, Rizal and Mount Makiling are real places, but are Bernardo Carpio and Mariang Makiling also real people?

 

The story of Jose Rizal is a good example. If you’re familiar with your Rizaliana, you may find the story of Rizal throwing his slippers in Pasig, River as a legend, yet the whole Rizal story is factual and supported by documents. How about the story that George Washington chopped a cherry tree? Do you think historians already know that George Washington will become the first president of the United State of America and were already ready to record his biography when he was still a toddler?

 

One characteristic that helps to distinguish legend from history is the tendency of those who record legend to use terms to indicate the great age of the account without being specific as to when, precisely, the event occurred just like the samples above.

 

Another distinguishing feature lies in the tendency of historical writings to deal with matters of public importance, events that affect the political and public welfare of the group. In legend, the account centers on a person who may embody or dramatize the spirit of the group for whom the tale is recounted.

 

Example, although much of I and II Kings are historical, The dates of composition of these books are unknown, but although there are variants as to the actual number of editions the books went through, the consensus is that the language and outlook seems to point to a post exilic period (after 586 BCE) of composition. Saying that these books may contain some historical facts should in no way be confused with the claim that these books are accurate, or true, in all aspects. The same explanation can also be used in Matthew 22:17-21. If Pontius Pilate is an existing “Perfect of Judea" (not a “procurator” as Eliseo and Tacitus believed) in the suppose time of Jesus, the events narrated in Matthew 27:51-53 is too far-fetched to be considered as a historical event.

 

Remember, archaeological contributions provide no definite clues for determining whether or not the Bible is completely authentic and accurate in all its claims.

 

Claim No. 5 Tacitus
The same account was mentioned in the history of the Roman Empire (Annals 15:44)

 

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116): Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat…

Translated in English as:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:

 

The problem with this claim:

The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, occasionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense. (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993) (Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (Penguin Books, 1973)

Also bear in mind that the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after Jesus alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be hand-me-down stories.

Even in the book of Jewish antiquities, we can find this account:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 written by Flavius Josephus

 

The problem of this claim:

 

1. It is unlikely that Josephus, a Jew, would have called Jesus the Messiah.

 

2. The passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value.

 

3. From the fact that Josephus needed to distinguish this Jesus from other people in his book named Jesus, it does not follow that the phrase "called the Christ" was the most likely way Josephus could have identified Jesus. Josephus could have also said, "the one who was crucified by Pilate," since Josephus' earlier reference to Jesus did mention that point.

 

4. It is unlikely that Josephus would have written the other italicized phrases; Most scholars suspect there has been at least some tampering with the text on the basis of some or all of the italicized sections. Thus scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.

 

 

That’s the problem with claims. Most people seem to shy off from other explanations just to defend their contentions.  If you would like to respond questions, - questions like why we should believe in the BIBLE, - well carefully and honestly is not enough. You should answer it free from biases and historically accurate as possible.

 

Until next time,

John the Atheist

One of the most misunderstood yet most used Nietzsche‘s quote is “God is dead”. Christians claim that this quote signifies the emptiness of atheism. For example, Ravi Zacharias, the Hindu turned Christian apologist always quote Nietzsche and “God is dead!” as proof of atheism “emptiness”.

 

Christians thought that when they attacked Nietzsche they automatically attacked atheism. They seem to make Nietzsche the Jesus Christ of atheism. But in reality, attacking Nietzsche’s view is not the refutation of atheism. Nietzsche’s philosophy is not relevant to whether god exist or not.  Also, Nietzsche’s view in morality has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism does not logically entail any theory of ethics. An atheist can accept nihilism or not, it doesn’t matter. Remember, an atheist can agree to any secular theories of ethics like objectivism and relativism.

 

Is the death of a god what atheism really wants? Geeweez, how can something that doesn’t exist die? An atheist is not the mortician of the gods.

 

So what does Nietzsche meant when he said that “God is dead”?

 

Maybe it’s best that we read the story first before we analyzed and criticized it. The story of the “madman” can be found in Nietzsche’s work “The Gay Science” (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft), his last aphoristic work, first published in 1882. Section 108 (New Struggles), in section 125 (The Madman), and for a third time in section 343 (The Meaning of our Cheerfulness

 

[125] The Madman. Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly, “I seek God! I seek God!” As many of those who do not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Why? Did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

 

“Whither is God” he cried. I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from the sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as thought an infinite nothing? Do we feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festival of atonement, what sacted games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed: and whoever will be born after us – for the sake of this deed he will be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”

 

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners: and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground and it broke and went out. “I come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering – it has not yet reached the ears of man. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars --- and yet they have done it themselves.”

 

It has been related further that on the same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang his requiem aeternam deo. Let out and called to account, he is said to have replied each time, “What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

 

Christians claim that the story shows atheism according to Nietzsche, means hopelessness and meaningless of life. That is not the case. It also doesn’t mean that God is physically dead. God cannot die. Not because he is omnipotent or immortal. God will not die because a fiction does not die. Mythological bestiaries are not governed by the laws concerning life and death. The gods, as manufactured by mortals in their own image and likeness to make life bearable is an illusion. You cannot murder an illusion.

 

It is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of God is no longer able of giving us source of moral code or teleology. God is dead, then, in the sense that his existence is now irrelevant to the bulk of humanity. The same sentiments are found on John Shelby Spong’s Why Christianity Must Change or Die: “The God of our traditional past, who was the source of our values, the definer of our sense of right or wrong, was simply no more. We, like the Jews of the old, has been forcefully removed from all that had previously given life meaning. The God we once worshiped has been obliterated before our eyes. We no longer knew who God was or indeed who we were” (ibid p.40)

 

Nietzsche identifies the predicament which the death of God correspond to the existing moral considerations. According to Nietzsche, "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands.”

 

This is why in "The Madman"; the madman addresses the atheists (those who do not believe in God) about the problem to preserve any system of ethics in the absence of a divine order.

 

Nietzsche believes that Christian morality will not help us on the treat of nihilism and since we have “killed God” we are left with no epistemological or moral base from which we can derive absolute beliefs. He explained that Christian morality and pieties is incapable of providing men with real moral basis. We must go beyond the simple Christian idea of good and evil. Nietzsche also said that Christian morals are the morality of paltry people as the measure of all things. It is the morality of the herd, a slave morality. (Most of Nietzsche’s criticisms towards Christianity are found in his book, “Twilight of the Idols, published in 1888.)

 

The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. Out of the death of God come active nihilism and the rise of supermen. There will be wars such as there have never been on earth before (He was certainly right on nihilism but perhaps not about the “superman” who will inherit his concept – John the Atheist). Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize or refused to acknowledge this death out of deep-seated fear. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself—anything goes and all is permitted.

 

Today, we are now living in a nihilistic social order, a post-modern society where black and white is hard to distinguished. Nihilism took root on the shady area between the flagging Christian era and the post-Christian era. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality. Relativism due to different religious belief seems to take its toll.

 

The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas so being a Nietzschean means proposing alternative hypothesis. Nietzsche's remedy for nihilism is a revaluation of morals. He introduces transvaluation. This concept is beyond atheism. According to this concept atheism is not an end in itself. I even heard this reaction once in Luneta when a man asked me, “What’s the purpose of atheism if it’s just debates about the existence of god?” Do away with God, yes, but then what? Another morality, a new ethic, values never before thought of because it seems to be unthinkable? According to Nietzsche, this innovation is what makes it possible to arrive at atheism and to surpass it.

 

In Section 108 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche wrote, “God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.”

On Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I, Section XXII,3

'DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE SUPERMAN TO LIVE.'

 

Nietzsche believes in the rise of the Ubermensch (supermen). Men who desires through his will to power, which for him is just the will to live a higher, more productive state of being. He indicates that his superman is like Aristotle’s ethical ideal, the great-souled man.

 

I hope that this article have cleared this misconception.

Until next time,

 

John the Atheist

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sources: The Portable Nietzsche

               Edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann

               Atheist Manifesto – The case against Christianity, Judaism and Islam by Michael Onfrey

               Philosophy for Beginners by Richard Osborne

               Why Christianity Must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong

               Can Man Live Without God? By Ravi Zacharias

               A Shattered Visage: the Real face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias

And I notice that he was already typing large fonts in the computer and he was already throwing scandalous words. That’s what I get for having a friendly chat with a Christian. As an atheist, it’s too often for me to have such bad conversations with believers, not only with the Christian variety. In Luneta for example, every time I was in a dialogue with somebody, these “KSP’s” (KSP means “kulang sa pansin” or those lacking attention) often come out from their hole and enter the conversation. Their objection: To impress the masses.

I have known this fellow for almost 3 years now in the Luneta debate circle. Well, to protect the not so innocent, I’ll just call him Mr. W. Mr. W claim he is an English teacher and he’s a universalist. Hmmmm…not bad. Anyway, in those years that I have known him, it seems he is irritated with atheists like me. In Luneta, before I join the group, non-believers called themselves “Freethinkers” and I think I’m the only guy who called myself an atheist. The Canadian guy I was talking about in my earlier post says that the term atheist sounded a little “nasty”. Then Mr. W showed up and told me that I should change my label from being an “atheist” to “non-theist”. What? As I still recall, atheist and non-theist is synonymous.

I never really take Mr. W in a debate seriously, even if this guy claims to be good at it. I seen him on action and frankly speaking, I’m not impress. First he claims that atheism causes a person to become cynic. Now I asked him what a cynic is. He answered me that cynics are angry people who are not about sure of anything. Well…I really don’t get it if he thinks a cynic is a skeptic waking up with a bad hair day. There goes his English professor claim. Does he know that cynic doesn’t means being angry with the world? A cynic is someone who is critical of the motives of others. That doesn’t mean he wanted to obliterate the whole world and cynics doesn’t mean atheism. In atheism, you are talking about the existence of a god, not about trusting human motives. You don’t need to be an atheist to become cynical. In today’s modern world, cynic is a virtue.

Mr. W. loves to read books about paranormal