17 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ existence”

    1. So he didn’t answer your question? Gotta pin that down like a bug. I dearly want to believe in Lightsabers- can I haz one? 😉

    2. Resurrection of the body from the grave – complete with the sling- and arrow- wounds of outrageous fortune, or reincarnation in a new (or at least, less damaged) body?
      Seeing how the Egyptians cut up their bodies in the mummification procedure … it’s quite an important point.

  2. How about if another god told you that the god you believe in doesn’t exist? However while that god did demonstrate it did exist and its power, it does not care about you, and considered humans generally annoying (like contaminants in a larger experiment). So worshipping or praying to it was more likely to result in a lightning strike than any positive effects. (“Stop bothering me while I’m working!”)

  4. Clever comic. It’s surprising how quickly the question “could you be wrong?” turns into “could God be wrong?” in the minds of people convinced that believing in God is a sign of humility and an exercise in self-abasement.

    “Are you God?”
    “No.”
    “So could you be wrong about whether God exists or not?”
    “God is never wrong.”
    “Are you God?” … and so forth.

  5. I entered Seminary in 1968. With each passing year the theological enterprise becomes ever more of a roundabout to me, an endless maze. Can’t speak for others, but 56 years in the business could possibly drive a person to atheism.

    1. I have heard it said that if you get all the way through Seminary, and still believe in God, you weren’t paying attention.

  7. Reminds me of the old classic:
    I am a Christian. You can ridicule me, you can torture me, you can kill me, but you cannot change my mind.
    I am an atheist. You can ridicule me, you can torture me, you can kill me, but you don’t have to! Because you can change my mind, with EVIDENCE.

    1. Being an atheist doesn’t mean you can change your mind. It just means you did change it once, on one topic, (or perhaps never if you were brought up by atheist parents) and have never encountered evidence to change it back. (I agree you probably won’t, ever.) Lots of atheists believe ideological things with the same unshakeable conviction that religious believers do. Their sacred truths are just earthly, rather than divine. They may be cognitively even more wedded to their beliefs because they “know” they were arrived at rationally and not by superstition or indoctrination. At least the believer could have a conversion of opinion about, say, Canada’s claim to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago, that he might ascribe to divine revelation.

      Neither group is likely to change their minds about the (non-)existence of God, though.

      1. No, I suppose being an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you can change your mind, if you are not willing or able to alter your views when presented with legitimate and substantial evidence that contradicts those views. If you are saying that belief in evidence is still just an “ideological” belief system that suffers no challenge, well I can only say that I see a qualitative difference and that the comparison seems inapt.

        Anyway, the simple point here is just that atheists are more likely to be willing to change their minds, as the decision to become one in the first place (to the extent that a decision is made) is usually due to a complete lack of serious evidence in support of religious claims. Matters would change should such (verifiable) evidence appear, though I agree that most atheists are fairly comfortable with their view that it will not.

        But of course religious believers do not demand such evidence, claiming faith without evidence as a point of pride, and indeed as a matter of necessity. A bridge much too far for me.

        1. I’m not objecting or disagreeing, just exploring. Belief in evidence is not an ideological belief system, no, and there should be no reason to take pride in believing something on faith. “I can’t help it,” would suffice. But there are atheists who hold ideological viewpoints who will not change their minds in the face of what neutral observers, who don’t hold a contradicting ideological viewpoint, would regard as evidence against. If the neutral person, still in equipoise himself, asks them, “Don’t you think this evidence at least casts doubt on the rationality of your view?”, the ideologue will say, “No.” Then they, being rational atheists — most of them are, I presume, — will, with no faith to fall back on, dismiss the evidence we cited as “junk science” or “fraud” or “published in a right-wing Christian capitalist forum and therefore not trustworthy”. We see this all the time from the transgender activists. Theirs is an ideological position, fundamentally. Why they hold it, I don’t know. But they didn’t argue themselves into it. It’s an idea that appealed to them and they ran with it.

          Conversely, believers (at least those who read more than one perfect Book) can argue secular evidence just as convincingly as atheists, with the Jesuits being the archetype. Ideally, in a debate you can’t tell if either (or neither) is a believer because neither will appeal to God as to why his argument should prevail.

          I’m thinking the River to the Sea crowd, that fraction that isn’t Muslim of course, is probably atheist and committed to a cause they believe in that they didn’t arrive at by detailed study of the history of the Middle East and comparing evidence by different historians. Rather, they were influenced by someone, most likely someone they found fetching and hoped to ingratiate themselves with, and felt the warm glow of affirmation as a result.

          I just don’t think there is anything special in the cognitive processes of atheists as a group. (Obviously some are smarter than others.) In the absence of evidence we just come down on a different side from the believers. Many years ago I used to think that a world run (and lived in) by atheists would make better decisions than one run by the “better” (i.e., more tolerant) religions. But it doesn’t, not as a rule. It may be more satisfying not to have religiosity in the public space — it’s normal to enjoy having one’s views affirmed — but it doesn’t make us better off unless religion contaminated the law. On ideological questions on worldly matters, an atheist is no more likely to reach the “right” (by my lights) moral conclusion than a believer. No less likely, but no more either. (Some atheist movements have done horrible things, as have some religious movements.)

        2. Steven,
          What you are describing is not biblical faith. God does not ask people to take an existential leap into the Twighlight zone. Christians, along with everyone else, are to have faith in what He has clearly revealed to them. I have been a Christian for over thirty years, if such evidence did not exist, I would not be a Christian for five minutes, simple as that. Here’s a free eBook that proves the existence of God (the Christian God). It takes about 7 minutes to read. See for yourself. https://www.amazon.com/That-Can-Gods-Existence-Proven-ebook/dp/B09TJPJGQS

          1. There is no convincing evidence for God except for those who WANT to be convinced. If you think there is evidence, then give it here and don’t make us read e-books. And let me know why the God who exists must be the Christian god and not the Muslim or Hebrew god and, god forbid, the panoply of Hindu gods. Oh, and you have to adduce evidence for Christ and the Biblical stuff, too. That’s a LOT of evidence you’re adducing, and it cannot be “it’s all in the Bible,” because the Bible is not independent evidence.

            So put your cards on the table.

Comments are closed.