Sketches on Atheism

Look, hear the smell!

Posted on by 64 Comments

ApologeticsTruth_slide1x_365_y_273

Apologetics is the rather ambitious attempt to defend the claim that the bible is the inerrant word of an infallible, omnipotent god. By extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity. Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognisable to all sentient creatures regardless of locale or epoch, and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omnipotent, no mind-set at all.

Now here comes that awkward moment for the bible-wielding fundamentalist. If this claim were in way true there wouldn’t be apologists practicing apologetics. It’s as simple as that.

64 thoughts on “Look, hear the smell!”

  2. I think that it is strange
    And I think that it is odd
    That you think it’s strange
    That I defend the word of god

    The bible is the inerrant word
    Of an omnipotent being
    It states it without ambiguity
    And that’s what you’re not seeing

    It contains not one absurdity
    No conflict or oversight
    No bias or prejudice
    Indeed it’s all just right

    There is no awkward moment
    In the apologetics that I claim
    And my simple mind will keep doing it
    If to you it’s all the same

    Like

    Reply

  3. no brother, the bible is inerrant! You are reading it wrongly. Forget the apologists for they know not what they are doing 😀
    You say a lot in few words, I think am going to have to come for lessons on brevity!

    Like

    Reply

  4. Indeed, that has always puzzled me about the Bible. If it was even close to being the word of god, let’s say the transcommunicated via an angel, via a fallible human being, it would still be heads and shoulders above anything written in its day, and perhaps our own. The fact that it doesn’t say nothing that wasn’t already said in that day and age by philosophers and lawgivers is a strike through its heart.

    Carl Sagan said it best. If God was really God, he’d know the skepticism that was coming given scientific advances the human mind was keenly capable of coming in the future, and he would have put facts in there, even if they didn’t understand it. Pi to 16 digits, the law of convservation of energy, planets went around the sun. It didn’t matter if those goat-herders didnt understand it, God said it, so keep reproducing it and one day it will make sense. Who is a mortal to omit something that God said to keep propagating. That a man, Carl Sagan, can outwit God is all the proof you need that God, as written down in religion, existed not.

    Like

    Reply

  8. But John, you have to be wrong, because the Bible is right. See logic isn’t so hard. This reminds me of when I was a teacher and my colleagues would blame the students for not learning when it was our job to teach them. If you don’t see the inerrancy of the Bible, you are in error. If you don’t understand, it’s because no one can understand the mind of their god. But they are sure, mind you, that “he” has a plan for you; let’s see it’s right here, under “s,” uh I can’t find superstitiousnakedape in the Bible but I am sure it is there. If you don’t find it, you made a mistake.

    Like

    Reply

    • The escape clauses Christocons come up with to excuse these errors are impressive, and that’s putting it mildly. Even this slice of logical pie will be dismissed as something fallacious despite only having pointed out the clear contradiction in the very existence of apologetics.

      1+1 = 6 if you’re retarded enough.

      Were you the kind of Chem teacher who blew things up? I bet you were 😉

      Like

      Reply

  12. “Such an entity should be instantly recognizable to all sentient creatures regardless of locale or epoch, and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omnipotent, no mind-set at all.”

    You have got to be kidding, right? This is ‘God’ we are talking about here and to my knowledge only two things have ever met such stringent criteria: Mohammed Ali in his prime and a Coca Cola bottle.
    So if you are pushing for a god, then I’ll plump for the latter….if it’s all the same with you, that is?

    Like

    Reply

  14. Pingback: How’d We Get to This Point? | Woodgate's View

Leave a comment