Authors@Google: Tim Keller DEBUNKED

Someone asked me to watch the video of Tim Keller’s speech, as an example of very plausible and sound argument for the existence of god… I wish I hadn’t done it because it made my brain hurt just counting the lies and fallacies this man manages to calmly profess as ‘proving’ anything…

I had warned the person that I would point out anything that is bullshit once I hear it… Which kind of resulted in an unexpected (and very lengthy!) debunk spree :). I also swore a lot because I started watching this after a tedious debate with the guy on FB wall of one of the groups – and he still wouldn’t listen, so my sleep deprivation and the lunacy of Tim Keller just made me :D.

Needless to say, it took me two hours to go through just first 28 minutes of the video because there was so much to write… I don’t want to see my efforts go to waste though, so here I present you the video, followed by my commentary which I did as I watched it (pausing it for typing, obviously). Note that since I initially was writing it all on Facebook, there is a lot of FULL CAPS – I use them for emphasis only, since bold/italics are not an option – and I also often forgo proper capitalization in messages because I’m lazy and I like e.e. cummings :). Enjoy!

soooo they guy had started a church… soooo he is making money… doesn’t sound good even at get-go…
right so on him saying faith is going UP in the world…
religious freaks are certainly more LOUD, because they have the internet etc etc, but statistics aren’t in his favor… seems largely unaffected by technological advances…

also, america is the most devoutly christian country – with the highest rates of crime, violent crime, std, teen pregnancies and rapes per capita IN THE WORLD… just saying…

africa has only recently gotten access to mass media and is no less fucked up economically and politically and socially than ages ago, and religious belief flourishes among the weakest.
as for why tolerance and respect are foul when directed at a wrong cause, i’ve written about it extensively here, so i won’t repeat myself.
supporting a group who thinks earth is flat wouldn’t occur to you as a moral obligation, would it? JUST BECAUSE it is a group in your society, in other words, doesn’t make it worthy of respect. there’s a huge number of criminals there too and con artists – hey, let’s praise them all! wtf is this logic of “because it IS a group, you need to be nice to them”??? no you fucking don’t. Nazis were also a GROUP in a society (and still are in some places).
Respect for PEOPLE isn’t also the same as respect for any dumbfuck ideas they may hold so no nice try but no. NO.
I can find it intellectually compelling when someone presents me with a well-reasoned argument of why I should invest my money into something. Then it turns out to be a sham… Is “intellectually compelling” a great point at all? Nope. dismissed… next…
“successful but still empty”… filling up emptiness with imaginary friends is “in” all of a sudden?…
aha so there are three reasons to believe or disbelieve in god, and OBJECTIVE FUCKING REALITY IS NOT one of them… should i listen any further?…
21 hours ago
Yes. Keep listening. There is more to it. You will like it. Keep listening.
Leah InShade
oh HEEELLLLLS no! ok this guy is getting worse!!! “you may have lost your belief because you wanted OTHER PEOPLE TO LIKE YOU”??? REALLY??? Is THAT what people do when they lose faith and find themselves cut from their family, friends, community, fully alone and even suicidal??? WOW. *facepalm*… if this is ‘better” then fucking hell…
Leah, patience. He is talking not about you in particular but about the various reasons why some people do not believe.
Leah InShade
i know. but “objective reality” wasn’t mentioned. and for most people who become atheists… for MOST people – it is DEFINITELY not cuz “oh i want others to like me!”
now, “if you were born in madagascar you won’t be a secular relativist”… full of shit. a person gets born into ANY faith anywhere in the world and with due amount of brain usage can easily come to disbelieve…

well yeah it’s inaccurate to say that… because we say “our position is based on reasoning and REALITY and yours on blind faith”, whatever reasons for THAT on are”…
But you have to admit that there are fewer atheists in some countries right? There has to be some cultural conditioning.,…right?
Leah InShade
SOME duh. but it’s also closely tied to economic situation, quality and access to education and a shitload of other stuff.

and now he deserves a slap on the face because he said “it takes as much FAITH to DISBELIEVE in god as to believe”…
i can’t even begin to count all levels on which he just said a fucking outright LIE, but to sum it up:1. NON-BELIEF takes NO FAITH. DUH.
he clearly confuses it with BELIEF THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD, which is a very specific case that requires some CONVICTION (NOT “FAITH”, for faith is defined as “belief in the absence and regardless of evidence”). DISBELIEF TAKES NO FAITH.

2. It takes a SHITLOAD of FAITH to believe in god and very little to even DISBELIEVE in one fully, because the faith it takes to believe in god has to somehow counter ALL THE FUCKING EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, while a conviction that there is no god (if we take the extreme case of “there certainly is no god” ) is actually the most plausible thing to consider in light of all evidence (of which of course he speaks NOT, so what a douche, anyway…) and follows rather smoothly from mere understanding of the universe, human brain, a few other key sciences etc…

and 3 – WHAT A FUCKING TWAT he is by inserting this claim into the speech!!!

more of a “leap of faith”?… i’m sorry i’m off to bed this guy just really REALLY lost any credibility right there at his “3 causes” and “faith” and “leap of faith” shit… wow…WOOOOW… and he scams people out of their money with selling them his book… there must be laws against it!
as for the “it takes conviction to get to certainty”… i HOPE to hell he means only ideological sense of “certainty” because NO amount of CONVICTION ever flattened the earth!!!!
can i skip ahead then? for real though, is this guy even serious spinning everything as much as he does (as nicely as he makes it sound, of course)
Well, you can do whatever you like of course but I thought the arguments were compelling.
Leah InShade
LMAO at “get a book” and “i’m saying it not as an author trying to sell the book but as a minister who’s trying to get a message across” – yeah… the message being “BELIEVE IN GOD, and yeah thanx for the cash!”… fucking twat…rrrr the nerve of it!
he SOUNDS nice and well-spoken but i’m afraid he’s just full of shit because, well, he’s LYING.

LOL. Come on. These are long arguments. It is not inappropriate to point to a larger argument right?
Leah InShade
(i’m sorry if someone’s starting with a PREMISE for further speech and the premise is a LIE then ahem since the argument is based on a LIE it can never dream of being compelling, let alone accurate, let alone worthy of consideration…won’t you agree? if i tell you earth is flat: let’s cut a piece off the edge – you’ll tell me to go fuck myself cuz earth is round)
)aaand it just got worse…
“all of the arguments that try to disprove god fall flat”COUGH…

1. BURDEN OF PROOF is clearly something he never heard of in his many years on earth and

2. I actually disproved god to myself in my own blog entry very effectively and fully and went from someone playing with deism to full on “there IS and CANNOT be any god” person so hmmm… Maybe he looked in all the wrong places :)

3. lastly, he never defines “god” (as many people move on to this “spiritual” shit and thus add to “believer” statistics but in fact are just nature-worshipers), but if we presume a christian or similar god or a personal god of any sorts then boom – i disproved it in one short blog entry with 3 videos.

i’ll watch the rest JUST because you consider what he says as “compelling”…

Ok, thanks for listening to it! And I do find it compelling. :)
well you’re gullible, i’m sorry. i truly am.
(got to him saying that arguments that christianity can’t be true fall flat… start thinking the guy was lining in the cave for the past 200 years or so… christianity CAN be way too easily proven false even on HIS OWN “3 reasons why people believe” premises, let alone HARDCORE EVIDENCE…(and i’m yet to hear that word…)
(p.s. i may find a sham investment proposal compelling, but the fucker’d get my money and run, remember? ;))
plus ever since when “christianity is/is not true” = “there is/is no god” in ANY combination?… these two concepts are actually fully unrelated. an ideology can be utterly false while its premises true, and vice versa, and cris-cross, too..)
Leah, have you always been an atheist?
Leah InShade
OOOKAY NOW i want a machine gun for the guy… inflatable – i’ll beat him on his dumb head…
because he just said THE MOST FUCKING INCREDIBLE PIECE OF BULLSHIT IN THE UNIVERSE. which is “if you can’t DISPROVE something, and it is THEREFORE REAL”…homework: YOU tell me what is so epically WRONG with this statement!

I went from believing in magic, to heavily deistic spiritualism to “god what a fuck was i thinking” :) (how does my personal experience relate to the video?)

arguments against god let’s see…

1st one “evil and suffering”… wrong baby – REASON AND EVIDENCE actually are what propel people out of faith – everything else they can comfortably loophole justify for themselves within their faith, whichever it may be…

It doesn’t really I guess. You just seem really passionate about these things and I was curious why? Have you had really bad experiences with Christians in the past?

Leah InShade
make it “believers” and yes – they screw up my world big time on a very large measurable scale in many intricate ways.

“there haven’t been any major PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS trying to disprove the existence of god”…

*takes a really deep breath and talks herself out of smashing her laptop because it has nothing to do with the video* (ONLY a metaphor, just f.y.i)

1. PROVING something’s existence has NOTHING AT ALL to do with PHILOSOPHY. NOTHING AT ALL. NOTHING. AT ALL.

2. PROVING something’s existence has to do with (you guessed it) DEMONSTRABLE, VERIFIABLE, CONSISTENT AND REPEATABLE SOLID EVIDENCE.

3. If we are going to the CONCEPT of god and philosophical DEBATE over its existence then we’re done talking about ACTUAL EXISTENCE of god and off talking in the theoretical realm. On which point – case closed, because we can philosophically debate god’s existence or not till we die. Except none of it has anything to do with PROOF of EXISTENCE.

(p.s. i’m passionately against IGNORANCE and blind faith – yes)

Leah, what do you mean “change that to believers”?

Leah InShade
I am against ANY blind belief, in whatever it is. nothing against specifically christians or what have you.


Well, Leah. It was nice talking to you. I have to go to bed. I will check out the videos you sent and get back to you. Thanks for watching my vid and I am sorry you didn’t like it.

Leah InShade
(in the meantime in the video… loopholes, loopholes…

“we can’t possibly understand reasons for suffering that god may have” uhuh… but we can possibly and just fine conceive of understanding EVERYTHING ELSE DIVINE: god’s INTENTION for us, rules, laws, purpose in life, celestial hierarchical organization (and btw if someone ever again calls christianity “monotheistic” slap them) etc… with that SAME brain of ours..

and willis, i LIKE the video – it’s a nicely told speech. me liking or disliking it, however, has nothing to do with the amount of fundamental BULLSHIT in it, and i’m not even half way through…

i can LIKE throwing stones at random strangers, but does it make it a good thing to do? I can LIKE some car, does it make it a GOOD, safe, efficient car?.. No. LIKING something never validates it in itself… I’ll finish watching, and commenting, but please don’t waste my efforts on discarding them as “oh i’m upset you didn’t LIKE it” ok? you sound dumb doing it and disrespectful of the time i waste on it.

re-watch the video yourself with my comments in front of you, pause where needed, THINK for crying out loud… okay?


“believers in god” is no more an argument (either for or against) actual EXISTENCE of god (it’s purely conceptual instead), and his point is the same as before, too so like “ok, point is?”…

“out of islam comes global terrorism”… niiiice, now we’re hastily generalizing AND fucking racist in one sentence!!!… nooo darling, “global terrorism” comes NOT out of islam, but out of the MOUTHS of POLITICIANS as a nice little nick-name for “Eastasia” with which we’ve”always been at war” (if you haven’t read Orwel’s 1984, demand it from someone as a x-mas gift this year, it’s mandatory reading for every human being who gives a slightest remote fuck about anything really…), because guess what? terrorism has been around WORLDWIDE (that makes it global, i presume) since time immemorial. terrorism simply means trying to convince someone into something by means of scaring the living shit out of them.

and back-tracking to “out of… arose..”… well belief systems were definitely a FACTOR, and in some cases indeed the main factor, but not always have they been the one and only cause, let alone of WWii and japanese involvement etc etc…

Correction: Stalin was a believer, so here we go lying again and creating poster-child analogies…
so “blah blah” in this bit is basically about “some people do good, some people do bad”… i don’t see any relevance at all to subject matter here, this is simply stating the obvious and besides he seems to just go off a theoretical tangent of his further away from question at hand…

another highly offensive stereotype… “if i can get away with xyz, i will do it” = atheist stance… i can get away with a lot of stuff, but my CONSIDERATION FOR MY FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR WELFARE is, trust me, a much stronger and more compelling and MORAL reason NOT to do something than “god said so”…
(did i mention this guy is a douche?… i mean, i think he honestly thinks he is correct, of course, except, well… he’s wrong on the FACTS, definitions and the whole understanding of what it means to PROVE the EXISTENCE of something…)

blind men and elephant… wow we’re down to “analogy is proof” now? for real? (bear in mind he keeps saying “proof AGAINST god”…which in and of itself is utter nonsense… do i need to PROVE to you there is no teapot orbiting jupiter right now for you to reasonably assume there ISN’T one there?)

here’s what is missing in the elephant story

1. if blind men were less of idiots, they’d simply grope and climb all over the elephant until collectively they can construct a damn good picture of what an elephant truly is, DUH. (in other words – ready for it? they can EXAMINE EXISTENT REALITY AND EVIDENCE, yay! because, well, the elephant actually IS there for examination, as in – physically present)

2. the whole fable is insulting of blind people – they can accomplish amazing stuff and here’s just one little quick example for you

3. now… our eyes and senses deceive us ALL THE TIME. eye-witness or sensations had never been PROOF of anything. EVER. so even a person who can SEE needs not know what an elephant is.

4. If i look at panda, i’ll be compelled to argue till i’m out of breath that it’s a BEAR. i can see it, i’ve seen other bears etc etc… EXCEPT… except panda is NOT a bear and nowhere even CLOSE to bears in its heritage…

5. all that aside – analogies never proved shit.

oh and to “blind men cannot know if they are blind unless a seeing person tells them so”… REALLY?????????????????…

because he implies that blind people can only touch one part of elephant and that’s it – they can’t move their hands around, walk around the elephant, touch it elsewhere… and only a seeing person can tell them what an elephant is… BULL-fucking-SHIT :)

on “how dare you”… ehm… same way they dare say “we DO” have knowledge?… he twists a claim that NO ONE can have knowledge (no one, just in case, implies the one who makes the claim – so there’s your humility) – INCLUDING no one in any religions. and he needs not add the second part to this (the “claiming for certain no religion has the truth is arrogant” thing – because frankly this is batshit crazy what he’s saying), because that 2nd part makes an otherwise reasonable statement get turned upon itself and twisted beyond belief and makes him sound ehm… let’s just say “irrational” for now (in other words, batshit crazy :))

and just an aside – there is no such thing as “universal truth”… there are universal FACTS (maybe), but “universal truth” is meaningless as a concept (that’s irrespective of the religious debate)

aha, we got to evidence… and again – FAIL.

“i cannot BELIEVE in god until one is PROVEN to exist” does NOT (burn this onto your forehead, mr. speaker) and never in the world meant or implied that something DOES NOT EXIST UNTIL PROVEN TO EXIST…

that’s so fucking ridiculous!!! until a few years ago no one saw quarks – did they NOT EXIST until that date???? until a couple of centuries ago no one PROVED BACTERIA – DID THEY NOT EXIST THEN????

WTF is he even trying to say by equating the two claims?

What instead “i can’t believe until proven” means (in, like, the rest of the sane world) is that anything is to be PRESUMED as NOT CONFIRMED AS EXISTING unless and until evidence suggest otherwise. simple as that.

as for “what makes you believe that god would be so inside the world that he would be provable” (wow this guy…)

ehm… omnipresence, anyone?… just for starters?

also, god is presumably very tuned in into the prayer twitter etc… so maybe he won’t show himSELF, but there are a million ways it should be possible to test for his existence… (in fact that’s what all the double-blind tests on prayer effectiveness (all of which btw failed… and oh they are usually conducted BY the religious folk…) were trying to do… so to call god “un-testable” in principle means, well, how does it differ in any way to “no god” then? )

shakespeare actually never wrote anything saying “yo here i am, nice to meet you – shakespeare! here’s everything and all that i am (include summary)” into any of his plays, so hamlet would have NO way of knowing either way anything at all about his author…
so we’re back to philosophical “proof” again without addressing evidence based proof in any manner that could be called ‘proper’ by any standard… oookay…(damn, why am i watching this?…)

moral convictions are NOT subject of being provable or not, just the same way as you are not required to “prove an idea”… any guesses as to why? morality is a COGNITIVE CONSTRUCT. DUH. So “proving” morality is a ridiculous demand!

We can prove, however, moral behavior in other species and see how moral behavior arose in humans and why – but none of this “proves” or needs to “prove” morality…

scaring us now… “if you live without a god it’s a risk”… of WHAT?…ah, of “TAKING YOUR LIFE INTO YOUR HANDS”. in other words, being grown-up and accepting full responsibility for your actions… and that’s, like, a BAD thing…?!!!!!!?!?!?!?! also, pascal’s wager, anyone?!!

Golf club… gimme a golf club…(counts to 10…)

“it makes more sense to believe in god than not” because god “makes everything simpler”… BIG GOLF CLUB please!!!

just HOW the fuck does it EVER make MORE sense to explain anything at all by laying over it something MORE COMPLEX AND MYSTERIOUS AND NON-SENSICAL THAN ANYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE??????????? if i drop a pen and it falls, does it make MORE sense and is it a SIMPLER explanation if i say “the special god of falling pens carries the pen downwards and determines how it would fall, how many times it will bounce and how far it would roll” OR, does it actually make more sense and make everything simpler by saying “well, gravity acts upon it”. done.

i dunno if you’re aware of it, but explaining something complex by something yet more complex leaves that something more complex in need of something YET MORE complex to explain THAT… ad infinitum…

in addition, we’re actually pretty equipped with the simple explanations of the universe, its origins etc – WITHOUT GOD – that ACTUALLY MAKE REAL SENSE.

lastly: ever since when “oh, this “MAKES SENSE” is = this “is true”/”exists”?????????????????????

It made a SHITLOAD of sense back in them days to believe that earth was flat and sun revolved around it, AND it explained PERFECTLY WELL the change of day into night…now… did it make it TRUE or ACTUALLY ACCURATE?…

“world is perfectly chosen for OUR HUMAN LIFE”… i’ll call a mafia mob on this guy – he deserves it :D

1. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. that we happen to live in this universe doesn’t mean it was MADE FOR US any more than if an animal happens to live in the jungle it would mean the jungle was planted there for the sole purpose of that animal. especially because we have only been in the universe for like 1 speck of its existence, and we’ll also soon die out as a species (by soon i mean by universe’s standards) and then again why have universe after that, right? but guess what – it’s continue to exist, so it’s NOT here for US – how fucking egocentric that is!

2. that we HAPPEN to be the self-aware life-form on this particular planet doesn’t MEAN or IMPLY anything. any difference in the chain of coincidences of our evolutionary process could make dolphins the smart asses and dominators of the world instead, building submarines and all… or crows… or some unimaginable to us species…

3. and he generally got it backwards altogether: it is BECAUSE this particular universe HAPPENS to have certain laws, a CERTAIN form of life (or any at all) came to be. However, the universe did NOT came to be with that set of laws IN ORDER TO have US in it. in other words, we are product of chance in terms of our current form and level of advancement. any other life form could be now here instead of us thinking just as egotistically that the whole damn universe is there for THEM (and maybe there are aliens out there doing it now (btw probability of alien life is pretty damn high, unlike that of a god))

i can’t even begin to say everything that is wrong with this point but i’m off to bed, i will try to watch 2nd half of this tomorrow and finish commenting but i’m just so upset that someone like this guy even gets the respect enough to get him on stage and have him LIE to people, SPIN everything, call mere rhetoric “proof” and suggest someone pays for his book…

and before i go on his point on “statistical improbability” so, like, explaining a highly unlikely scenario with an even less likely scenario (aka “god”), like, EXPLAINS something?…

so let’s say i win a lottery… and it’s pretty darn unlikely… but without invoking parallel universes, it happens by the odds of our own universe… now, am i explaining HOW i won the lottery by saying that a magical invisible fairy flew up to me once and suggested i buy a ticket on that and that day and bet on these numbers, or making the whole story much more complicated by including a fairy into the picture – a thing itself in need of a pretty darn good explanation to start with? or am i rather gonna be honest and explain that well, out of all people who pray and speak to their invisible friends or insert their loved ones’ birthdays or just randomly pick numbers out of a hat – that out of the multitude of betters i happen to win by, well, random chance?

see random chance is fine by us BEFORE anyone wins – we understand it, we expect it. we know that ANYONE who plays CAN potentially win.

then, ONE RANDOM PERSON wins, as chance dictates, and BOOM – we all of a sudden start attributing that chance to SOMETHING ELSE that “played the role”…note how this ONLY happens AFTER the fact of winning. ONLY in RETROSPECT. but for anything you can possibly think of that might’ve played the role, there are thousands of people who did the same exact thing and have the same exact qualities and DO NOT win… what about them? well nothing. god would have a LOT of explaining to do as to why any specific person is chosen for something like lottery win, but chance doesn’t at all – chance is SIMPLE. it MAKES SENSE. there is no judgment in chance.

same with “fine-tuned universe” well universe, frankly, is NOT very fine-tuned for humans… surprised? bah, go into the desert, into antarctica, or into outer space itself… you’ll soon die there, if alone. it’s INHOSPITABLE TO US – the universe. in fact the universe is MUUUUUCH more hospitable to – ready for it? – BACTERIA. boom, was universe MADE FOR bacteria then? and we’re just a by-product that allows bacteria to procreate and move around and survive?…

and if you say it’s ridiculous i’d say no – it’s MUCH more plausible that the universe as a whole was “fine-tuned” for bacteria than for us. bacteria survive in outer space, on other planets, in other galaxies… humans are a sorry ass thing that has only been around a few thousands of years and will soon die off.

GET OVER IT – the universe was NOT made FOR us.

Even the holy babble, by the way, agrees on how ‘special’ and ‘chosen’ we are to ‘god’…

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20: “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.”

(here’s where I went to bed… I didn’t want to finish watching this but hey well, I already started, right? So here’s the rest..(I keep full caps for emphasis for the sake of coherence))

Lovely little anecdote on violence in nature… Lovely but irrelevant.

Violence in nature is, indeed, linked to survival. However, one must notice that it is always the very minimal violence that allows for that survival – nothing vengeful, no killing for the fun of it only (except maybe a few rare cases and species). In most species, even in fights over territory, dominance and mate, as vicious as the fights may be, the defeated one upon gesturing defeat is let go and from then on knows their place, or summons more strength and takes over. The loser isn’t chased and killed just to make an example out of them for others, or to take out private rage.

Humans, on the contrary, extend their violent behaviors to multitudes of completely innocent people, animals, plants all over the place for really no good reason other than pure rage at times. If one is to look for exemplification of violent behavior – nature is peaceful, and us humans are the ultimate rage-filled heartless death-machine species.

His ‘nature favors the strong, humans favor the weak’ argument shows how close to nothing he knows on origins of moral behavior in social species. Nature still favors the strong – even in human beings, duh. However, we are an extremely complex social species, and the only way we can benefit the entire group is by altruistic behaviors. Additionally, ALL social animals exhibit altruistic behaviors, not just humans, so he’s totally off separating us from nature on ‘moral’ grounds… I will make a separate entry on morality some time soon, because the topic comes up too often.

His suggestion to ‘lobotomize us all to go to the natural state’ is obscene. ‘Natural’ to WHAT SPECIES?… We aren’t some fucking crickets who live a few days – we are an advanced social animal, and it actually IS the NATURAL state for US (and other social animals), to behave ALTRUISTICALLY. Good morning, reality!

“That’s how you got there: the strong eats the weak”… NOPE. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have gone too far from the caves.

Human rights… Well, reality check: human rights actually ARE a social construct. Except his ‘genocide by majority vote’ analogy is ridiculous. Our morals are vested naturally in the ‘minimal harm and pain’ principle of social co-existence (and I mentioned earlier how ‘well’ we do in this domain… You ever seen monkeys wage a slaughter campaign?… Genocide, maybe?… Thought so… ‘brutal nature’ my ass!), not in some supreme command.

To his lawyer, who probably never had a single human rights class in his life: human right’s are NOT ‘just there’. Human rights are an extremely flexible cognitive construct, interpreted in a billion different ways all over the world. The whole idea of human rights was actually non-existent in the times when the babble was written – did we have no morality? Well sure there was occasional slavery, slaughter, rape, child abuse, female abuse, stoning and rampage every here and there… How come, if morals are ABSOLUTE and GIVEN, that our moral preferences changed so drastically over time? NO absolute morality can undergo such a RADICAL facelift!!! We went from the life of a slave (and/or woman and/or child and/or criminal) having no more value than that of cattle to ‘every human being is to be treated equally before the law’… HOW??? Answer is, through our growing understanding and inter dependency, we realize that such actions as enslavement etc are not beneficial for the society. We equally realize that shall we permit such actions to occur anywhere in the world, we automatically justify the same action to be taken upon OURSELVES. Moral behavior is in our own very selfish very best self-interest, and the notion of what constitutes it has accordingly changed over time.

And then he’s back to his whole ‘human rights make less sense without a god’… Actually, quite the contrary. Human rights make perfect sense as an evolutionary adaptation. We have mechanisms of empathy, mirror neurons so forth to make sure that we protect OURSELVES from harm by not suggesting to anyone that such harm is permitted without punishment to be done onto OURSELVES by exerting it on others.

When you throw ‘god’ into the picture, however, then we’re back to battling with the confusion over why in some places moral standards seem to be so strongly opposite to other places, why they change so drastically over time and why in the beginning they were so savage. If his argument is to be taken seriously, then ANY human standard is permissible – because ALL of what EVER existed MUST have reflected the “ABSOLUTE” god’s standard of morality… Shall we then go ahead do us a lovely human sacrifice, anyone?…

(side note: ‘making sense’ proves nothing, and ‘feel it’s wrong’ is actually perfectly viable – our self-preservation mechanisms tell us that, shit, pain HURTS, duh! Thus we don’t want to be hurt. Thus we can’t really hurt others because if we do – they come back hurt US, and we don’t want that to begin with, so OF COURSE we feel that it’s wrong!)

Ehm his “fall of a cliff see a branch” analogy doesn’t work just as the elephant doesn’t… You see, in the REAL world we actually have enough prior knowledge and experience to KNOW for CERTAIN that upon falling off a cliff ANY branch must be grabbed. There is NO debate over it in anyone’s head, unless they’re committing suicide or base-jumping over “hmmm, should I try grab that branch? I wonder if it’d hold me hmmm, what are the chances, let’s calculate…” because they’d be flipping DEAD by “I wonder”! Branch is a REAL instrument for a REAL purpose – that of REAL salvation.

God, on the other hand, is a purely hypothetical branch of a purely hypothetical salvation from a purely hypothetical ‘danger’… It’s also purely irrelevant to our lives here on this planet… Also, Pascal’s Wager…

Personal commitment… Again – if you commit to employee (and don’t forget they also commit to employer), there is a two-way exchange in REAL TIME with REAL consequences in REAL TIME and IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK on the merits of this commitment. God?… FAIL.

Lonely detective story followed by “you know what a gospel is?” – yes: WORK OF FUCKING FICTION just like that detective story! Get over it. If A BOOK is now THE REALITY, then we all live in some wicked bibliophile matrix!!!! Is this guy even sane??! Note on ACTUAL REALITY: the book’s AUTHOR IS THE REALITY. And no amount of her writing herself into the book makes the BOOK any more REAL. IT IS A FUCKING BOOK.

Now, if detective magically materialized in front of the writer and then fell in love with her and they got married and lived happily ever after IN REAL LIFE, then that’d be pretty awesome. Wouldn’t prove god, however, any more than my school drawing…

See, I once drew a person for school assignment: it was a young woman, and I can’t really draw. I tried, but she turned out with disproportionately narrow shoulders. Not enough to re-draw, but too narrow. Long straight blond hair, oval face… Several years later i Frankfurt airport a young woman walked past me who looked EXACTLY like my drawing! I saw her and thought “whoa, that’s HER! I DREW HER!” – long blond straight hair and disproportionately narrow shoulders, too! Gift of foresight, you wanna tell? No. Out of all the people on the planet of all shapes and sizes, I was in fact very likely to one day see someone who in my mind’s eye would trigger the ‘recognition’ of the image I once drew. There are in fact many girls like her that could ‘fit’ – she was simply the first one I noticed.

“Watertight person Jesus Christ” was so ‘watertight’ that he most likely never even existed in history…

And here he goes quoting the babble on ‘god’s will’ and we all know where that one goes… (reminder: slavery, rape, forces abortions by violence, abuse and torture of fellow humans, child abuse, spouse abuse, human sacrifice, manslaughter and genocide, destruction of property – are ALL ‘god’s will’ in the babble, and here are just a few verses:

DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29 (If a woman is raped, she MUST marry her rapist): If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exodus 21:22-25: (Causing miscarriage (aka abortion by violence) is perfectly fine by god): When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Jeremiah 20:14-18 (aka ANY abortion is FINE by god – so you guys might wanna stop killing doctors and halting stem-cell research just about now): Cursed be the day I was born! the day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, “A son is born to you,” making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb for ever great.. Why did I come forth from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in shame?

Job 3:16-19: Or why was I not as a hidden untimely birth, as infants that never see the light? There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master.

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5: If a man begets a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but he does not enjoy life’s good things, and also has no burial, I say that an untimely birth is better off than he. For it comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it finds rest rather than he.

Exodus 21, 22, and 23 (aka hold slaves, kill witches and offer human sacrifice):

[21:2] “… When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.”

[21:7-8] “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.”

[21:26-27] “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye’s sake. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free for the tooth’s sake.”

[22:18, KJV] “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

[22:20] “He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

[22:29] … “The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”

Proverbs 23:13-14 (aka if you actually DO have a kid, feel free to beat the living crap out of it or kill it if it develops its own mind): Do not withhold discipline from a child. If you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Numbers 31:17, 40 (aka rape, slaughter, destroy): [Verse 17, Moses says:] “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

[Verse 40:] The persons [women who had not known man by lying with him] were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons.

I’m sorry but cherry-picking only the good stuff from the babble is no less delusional than the rest of his ‘arguments’…

On his ‘answer’ to human rights rebuttal (which is somewhat close to my own, except I didn’t talk about gene spreading, as our species is far beyond that, but rather about empathy, social interaction, safety from harm and so forth), he once again goes conceptual about ‘human rights ARE there’… No, aren’t just there, and also which ones of the human rights are we even talking about? Right to be spared cruel and unusual punishment and torture? Find me TWO people who agree on what that phrase means down to detail!

Baff! So now we went from ‘god dictates human rights’ to enlightenment is one path to human rights, Christianity is another? Super so I’m in for enlightenment full-time then and… why are we listening to this guy again?…

Then right away he goes to ‘individual rights are MORE IMPORTANT than those of community… WOW… I can write a whole essay on just THAT one sentence proving how fundamentally screwed up such logic is… I mean… WOW… He obviously knows nothing of human rights, and sounds like he equates INDIVIDUALISM with human rights and mixes those two up in a very weird way…

His arrogant self-righteous ass comment on “it’s pretty hard to see human rights grow out of any other religions” is egocentric bullshit… Crediting Christianity, out of them all, FOR emergence of human rights??? Oh don’t make me buy a ticket and come to your house and whoop your lying ass with thorny lashes!!! Human rights movement ONLY came out of enlightenment, you asshole!

USA CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay I AM buying a ticket… Learn your HISTORY, arrogant asshole!!! This is SUCH a common bull from apologetics I’m not going to even waste space on it, wow!!! WOW!!!! (NOW I’m mentally screaming!)

Compulsion to create… Nope, doesn’t come from god – it’s a by-product of our brain’s other functions and actually a continuum to insanity because creative process is literally a glitch in the proper workings of the brain… It has its advantages, which is why it flourished, but it’s a ‘mistake’ of nature so to say.

Jesus ‘argument’… ahem… Let’s even leave aside the fact that Jesus is most likely a fully fictional character to begin with, and his ‘miracles’ are a re-tell of something via a hear-say game of Chinese whispers over several generations recorded by non-eye-witnesses, etc, etc… There are people who are declared dead, put into morgues, then into coffins (all of this over a course of several days) and then actually come right back alive at the funeral service (if they’re lucky… And if not – 10 feet under ground… just like in Hitchcock’s short film on prison escape…) – let’s go ahead worship THEM? And if “no” is the answer, then why not? What if they live a remarkable life and actually heal people etc, too? Are they god?

NO. They are regular human beings with maybe one or more of the many extraordinary talents on this planet who happen to ‘resurrect’ and not gods, at least in our view… So how would Jesus’s presumed ‘resurrection’ (he could have just gone into a coma for a few days, DUH!) that allegedly happened 2000 years ago and of which there is absolutely no supporting evidence other than ONE fucking damned book would all of a sudden sound any more convincing? Well guess what – it doesn’t.

As to his point on Christianity being the ONLY religion where god talks to people directly… Oh, REEEEALLY???? Go read Greek ancient mythology, Egyptian ancient mythology – they all had gods who mingled daily with humans in all the possible ways imaginable!!!!! Does this guy know anything at all about other world religions?… Dang!

OOOKAY, finally this drivel is all over… I’m off to bed but seriously, if anyone in their right mind after a bit of thought and consideration and fact-checking can for some reason find anything that this guy’s talking about COMPELLING – then I am Michael Jackson’s incarnate and a ballerina at Bolshoy Ballet. I rest my case.

About in shade

A cocktail of personality traits hard to digest for some but ultimately soothing for those who can. I observe, enjoy, travel, interact, photograph, dance, contemplate, write and love my way through this life's countless occurrences. This blog is a way to share with the world and its people some of the treasures they give me every day.
This entry was posted in Controversial, Matters of faith, Random wisdom, Videos and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Authors@Google: Tim Keller DEBUNKED

  1. pegngary says:

    You watch this stuff so I don’t have to!

    • in shade says:

      Yeah well I did watch it… Unfortunately… You might wanna take a look though because it offers insight into the mind-tricks these people use to convince themselves of the impossible.

  2. ToucanChoo says:

    Looks like very few have read your crazed debunking. I feel sorry for you.

    • in shade says:

      Looks like you think I care :). I’m very sorry for you too!

      I wrote this when I was going through a “do something useless” escapism period of life. The purpose of the ‘debunking’ (which I actually find ridiculous because there was nothing in that shit-filled video that doesn’t stink poo for miles before you even hear it, let alone would be so actually, uhm…. NOT irrelevant/utterly insane as to need some sort of an explanation/debunking, for anyone with more than 1 brain cell should be able to see all that bullshit for the bullshit that it is before any sentence is finished…) was self-contained in the exercise of writing it. You know, like when people do something for the pleasure it gives them to actually go through the process, not with any additional goals in mind? That. So even if not a single soul ever read this – fuck if I care. This was my own thing written for my own purposes. I only put it into a blog in case I ever run into a discussion in which I can then, instead of having to waste time typing stuff over and over again, can just copy-paste things or the whole link for my own convenience. That, in fact, is the only reason for any anti-religious posts of mine: my own convenience. When I find myself making a point too often, I write a blog post and then save myself the time of always re-typing the same stuff.
      So save your pity for those who actually need it – the type of people who might think something that baboon says is actually truly worthy of a debunking effort ;).

  3. Thewatcher says:

    What was the point of this? If you aren’t a believer why did you go to such far lengths to “debunk” this?

    • in shade says:

      It was an exercise, first and foremost. going through some argument, whichever it is, and picking it apart is a good mental work-out. I don’t think this particular video, however, had arguments in any way better than the rest of the silly stuff people come up with, but it was at least a formal debate…
      Second, if people were only interested in things they thought were real/interesting, we’d still live in the trees. It is essential to advancement of human knowledge to venture out of one’s comfort zones, to look at topics that may be entirely ‘out there’.
      Third, and I’m sick and tired of repeating myself every time on this point: whether or not I believe or anyone else believes in a god is essentially irrelevant in and of itself. HOWEVER. Those people who DO believe in gods often do INCREDIBLY SCREWED UP SHIT TO EVERYONE – their own kids, themselves, and everyone else who is around them, including non-believers and those of other faiths. THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON MY LIFE. They are rich and loud and lobby for laws that make MY LIFE WORSE. And I live in one of the most atheist countries on the planet, so I’m safe and privileged. But I’m also privileged to travel and I therefore often end up in places where religious people through their warped up thinking modify the LAWS. Since any visitor is subject to the laws of the land they come to, I don’t like that the least bit.
      I don’t like it either that people get tortured psychologically and physically in the name of whatever imaginary friends someone has. It affects my quality of life to know this is going on – keeps me awake at nights. I want to sleep well. So I want all these horrors to end.
      I hope that is an encompassing enough answer.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Well aren’t you just a delicate little flower…you expect anyone to take your commentary serious?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Methinks thou dost protest to much

  6. The funniest part is how Tim Keller is vastly more intelligent than you are. Seriously, your writing style reminded my of the freshman papers I used to have to weed through back in my TA days at NYU. He also come across as nicer and more humble person. I was actually hoping for an intellectual response to Keller but alas, methinks this clearly not where to any such things.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Wow. Nothing but garbage. You didn’t address his point – that your beliefs are a faith, and so are religious beliefs, and it’s not unreasonable to believe in a God. In fact, it may be more reasonable to believe.

Share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s