Why Pray?

Today I came across a good question from someone, contemplating the necessity of prayer. Is prayer necessary? Does it even make sense to pray, according to the Bible. Are you wasting your time praying? 


Let us conduct a small experiment, everyone reading this text right now, say a small prayer. Specifically pray that  your internet will disconnect, and you will be forced to stop reading this post that has obviously been written by some devil child. 


Still here...?


I thought so. See folks prayer is imaginary, there is nothing real about you somehow talking to some ghost "high above". That ghost doesn't hear you, trust me. Anyways, on to the argument.


Let's assume (for the sake of debate) that all written within the Bible is correct, every last bit. Specifically for this post three things must be true:
1: There is a God.
2: He hears your prayers.
3: He answers them.  


Now back to our little experiment we conducted earlier. If you have gotten this far without your internet shutting off, then one of those three items must be false.


Either: 
1: There is no God.
2: He doesn't hear your prayer. 
3: He doesn't answer them.


Now according to the Bible, God hears and answers your prayers: 
Mark 11:24 "Therefore I tell you whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." 


Also, according to the Bible (and we all know this one) God is omniscient, meaning he knows all. 
Omniscient (Om`nis´cient) adj.

1.	Having universal knowledge; knowing all things; infinitely knowing or wise.

But something does add up! If God is omniscient, then why do I have to pray? He already knows what I'm going to pray about and he already knows the outcome of the situation I am going to pray about. It must be pointless to pray! Wait what?! Ugh.


Here's an example:
I am eating pizza right now, if I pray not to choke on this pizza and truly believe it with all my heart that God will hear this and answer this by allowing me to eat without choking, then I shouldn't choke right? If God already knew (because he's omniscient) that I wasn't going to choke then that prayer was pointless. Regardless of the prayer, I wasn't going to choke. But let's say I did choke, did God just refuse to answer me? Or maybe he doesn't care about me, or messed up. 


Folks, prayer is pointless. It will not change anything, even if all the crap in the Bible is true, God being omniscient cancels out the effect of prayer. This is a big flaw within the Bible and it brings about many issues.


I hope all of my reader's enjoyed this post.


Once again, anyone can comment. Go ahead and be the first one to start an ongoing conversation.


Until next time.. 

Debating a Christian: Part 2

Hey everyone,

This is part 2 of the "Debating a Christian" series of post and today I will be talking mostly about the "God is not human" tactic as I explained in part 1. (To read part 1 click here. )

How many times have you been in a discussion with a believer of God, and come to the point where you have stomped every last statement of denial out of them? It happens quite often, in fact almost as often as a believer will resort to circular reasoning and avoidance of a question. It is very annoying to deal with, because of the fact that you must divert time and energy into explaining how self negating this statement is, in order to move on and have at least some of the audience on your side.

This will be the main point of this topic and I will simply show you exactly what to say to put an end to this non sense.

Now I, myself, have been to the point in many discussions where the opposition has stated that God is not human, therefor some how backing up their argument that no human can ever understand why He does what He does or why He does it. Here is all you have to ask..

If it's beyond what anyone can comprehend then how did they comprehend it? How did they comprehend the fact that its beyond anybodies ability to comprehend? Isn't this a self negating statement? Yes it is people, and those questions right there will confuse and lose anyone willing to back up such a horrid Deity.

After you ask these simple questions the audience will understand how stupid the statement that "God is not a human" is. It will throw off your opponent and more importantly give you the support of the audience.

Please everyone comment, and also subscribe to my blog via email to catch the 3rd part of this series, you won't want to miss it. I will be talking about how to put together a successful debate against a believer, that way you walk away with your head a little higher. See you soon

Conversation with a Bible believer.

Hey everybody,

I would just like to post a conversation that I recently had with a fellow. I have provided him with numerous verses that are contradicting, including some that I have posted about. I have shown him with intricate detail how evolution works; how God is evil; how the Bible is faulted and the only things he can do at this point is use circular reasoning and call me names. This isn't the whole conversation, just a small portion at the end of our discussion, I quoted a famous quote from which I have not spent time to figure out the original author and well you'll see the rest. The fellow's name will be kept anonymous (***) for privacy.

Me: When we start teaching people HOW to think and not WHAT to think religion will be a thing of the past.

***: That's original

Me:

Either way I speak the truth my man.

***: History repeating itself every year with you young bucks. I still haven't forgotten about those apparent contradictions.

Me: I'm glad you just considered me a young buck, that's what they considered Aristotle when he first showed evidence that the earth was a sphere and not flat "young buck". Or what about Parmenides, Pythagoras (ever heard of the Pythagorean Theorem), Leucippus, Democritus? All scientist who provided undeniable evidence that the earth was round. Known as [to the world now] some of thee most intelligent men ever to step foot on our planet, yet were seen by others of there time as "wack jobs", "young bucks." Aristotle, turns out to be one of the most well known philosophers to this day.

My point, I am just providing evidence, no biased thought behind what I say, only fact, I will never claim something to be true because "God says so"; I don't need him to say so. I can prove my explanations with physical evidence. Humanity has been so brainwashed for the past 1000 years that most of us have forgot how to think rationally, we need to move on from the "religious era." It is old, irrational, scared to know the truth people, that hold us "young bucks" back. After all the most powerful religiously ruled era to date was coined the "Dark ages" hmm.. wonder why? But then again people still think Earth is less than 7,000 years old...

Debating a Christian: Part 1

Hey there,

I'm going to stray away from Bible verses [specifically] right now and discuss something that is currently on going. It involves me and a close friend, and of course the Bible. :) (You didn't think I'd go way off topic did you?). This will be a 3,4, maybe 5 part series depending on how much response it generates. Hopefully I will lend insight on how to successfully debate Christians, which will closely relate to debating creationist, but that is a whole different animal.

So, anyways what I wanted to talk about, in this first part, is a situation I am currently in, in an actual debate, and the usual tactics you can expect to face while debating a Christian. I will use the exact verse that the debate; or opinionated discussion if you will, is centered around; Deuteronomy 23:1, which states:

"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

A little bit of background on the verse:

This section of "The Fifth Book of Moses; Deuteronomy" is classified as the 3rd sermon, which contains the Deuteronomic Code. The sermon is given by Moses and he specifies a series of mitzvot (in Hebrew; the plural for mitzvah, meaning: commands) given by the Lord, to the Israelites.

Now it is not necessarily the specific verse that has meaning to what I want to talk about, rather the use of "context error" that [most] followers of the bible [whilst involved in a debate] use to avoid being seen as wrong. While it is a clever tactic, which is intended to make the listeners believe the user and throw you off as the opposition, I myself have learned to spot it, immediately, and expose it at it's worst.

I will explain to you how to spot this while debating and what you can do to turn the tables quickly and use this elementary technique to your advantage.

Now it isn't hard to spot when somebody uses this against you because most of the times they will say something like: "you're not looking at the context" or "you have to pay attention to the context of the verse". Either way, most of the time they will use the word context; and in the rare case your are speaking with a well educated Bible scholar, you might hear the phrase "frame of reference" HA! give me a break.

Moving onto turning the tables on your opponent; it is very simple might I add. I will use an example of the debate I am currently in. Let us refer to myself as person A and my friend, person B. The discussion is about a very obvious contradiction in the bible. God says that he is a loving caring God who cannot sin, yet He is willing to kill His own creations? and deny them access to His Kingdom for ridiculous reasons. (Read my post "Deuteronomy 23:1" for a more detailed description on this specific verse.)

A- Deuteronomy 23:1 states: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." How is God a loving deity if He is willing to kill His own children for such ridiculous reasons?

B- You are not understanding the context of the verse. Moses is speaking to the Israelites not everybody else.

Okay, lets break this down. I stated the verse and asked a simple question. Now regardless of what the answer really is (God is not a loving deity!) he avoided the question and through the "context" word out there. Now a listener will naturally follow person B because he avoided the question and put the pressure on person A. Everyone in the audience has most likely forgot about person A's original question and is now expecting person A to rethink his position.

A- I completely understand the context; Moses was given commands by God to tell the Israelites the laws that structure the promised land. Moses spoke to the Israelites, and explained the laws word for word as God had instructed him. Therefor Deut 23:1 is the Word of God. Now I will ask this question again that you failed to answer. How is God a loving deity if He is willing to kill His own children for such ridiculous reasons?

B- He was talking to the Israelites! No human will know why God does what He does because he is God.

Once again person B avoided the question, but since person A completely described the context of the verse and pointed out that person B dodged the question the audience is now on person A's side and should expect and answer from person B. As you can see person B was not expecting such a detailed, witty response and has fumbled his opportunity to gain the edge which in turn has given person A the advantage.

So in a few easy steps:

1- Make sure you ask powerful questions. Things like why has God done"___" when earlier in the Bible he says "___". Bible scholars hate this question and almost immediately use the next most famous tactic; the "God is not a human" tactic, which will be discussed in part 2.

2- As soon as they use the context tactic exploit it by explaining in detail to the audience what the context of the subject matter is. This will bring the audience to your side of the debate.

3- Lastly if your opponent dodges your questions (which is almost a guarantee) call them out on it. Tell the audience they have not answered your question yet, your opponent will feel stupid and it will put him/her on the spot.

That, is really all you have to do to turn the tables on someone who has used the "context" tactic. As you can see person B followed up with the "God is not human" tactic which will be discussed in part 2 of this series. As always, make sure you study up, and know your stuff before getting into a debate with somebody. Your best weapon is your brain so make sure you use it.

Subscribe to my blog and follow along for part 2 of this series "Debating a Christian".