Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Please Prove Me Wrong

with 20 comments

Well there are a number of cats who visited this site over the weekend who have made a lot of unnecessary noise. 

First of all I am not even trying to make Atheits believe in God.  If you have made up your mind that God is a delusion you are entitled to your opinion and no words can change your mind.

I am not an intellectual but practical individiual, I believe that the only way to meet God is through Jesus.  I believe that the only reason why Atheist have not met God is that sin has partioned them from God.

The good news is that Jesus has died for our sins on the cross and we can now meet God and have a relationship with him.  Obviously this is the first time some of you have heard this but we can very easily test its validity.

If you want to prove me wrong,  I invite you to shut you eyes and say this “Dawkinswatch has invited me to meet you God. I ask you now to come by your Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus” I invite you to stay in that position for five minutes to ten minutes.

That was so simple, why have you not tried that before?


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

February 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/6-16.htm
    Whatever it is you follow, it wouldn’t seem to be the Bible. Is it possible you’re mistaken about Christianity, and that it is possible to be a Christian and accept evolution?

    Alun

    February 18, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  2. “I believe that the only reason why Atheist have not met God is that sin has partitioned them from God”
    (Spelling on partioned corrected in quote{How hard is it to use a spell checker anyway?})
    Oh My God!
    Atheists have not met god, yet he appears to Ted Haggard, and a whole slew of catholic priests who gave a whole new meaning to the phrase” Let the children come! unto me”, etc.
    Also strange how he never appeared to the false paragon of holiness, Theresa.

    Stublore

    February 18, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  3. It is in the bible you know?

    You see what do you mean christian? If you believe in Evolution you are deceived and the last time I lloked deception was a sin.

    dawkinswatch

    February 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  4. By far, the most accurate statement that you made in this post is “I am not an intellectual.”

    J. Frantz

    February 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  5. I certainly don’t need to do your little test. I was a christian for quite some time and am well aware of the mindset. I just came to my senses.

    So, you may want to consider that I was what you are and thus understand you. I moved on to something you have never been and thus have more understanding. You, of course, will not admit that.

    I am currently bracing myself for a “No True Scotsman!” claim.

    Mike

    February 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  6. Dawkinswatch, by a Christian I mean someone that believes that the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus and various prophets.

    You are clearly not a Christian. The Bible repeatedly states, in both testaments, that you shouldn’t put God to the test. That link was to translations of Deuteronomy 6:16. You may also want to look at Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12. Unless God has authorised you to write the book The Bits Jesus Got Wrong then you clearly aren’t following God’s word. By claiming to have a valid test you are actively working against the Bible. That shows that your test is not valid.

    I have, as you requested, proved you wrong.

    It also means whatever you are preaching it’s not Christianity.

    I’ve not bothered discussing the science here, because that’s clearly beyond you. It’s now obvious you have either contempt for, or ignorance of, your own holy book as well. You’ll find that many atheists have read the Bible. You may find it helpful to do the same.

    Alun

    February 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  7. Alun,

    I think I can see where you’re coming from, but how is inviting Jesus into your life a test for God? Can you please clarify. I’m trying to put myself in your shoes and the only reason that I can see that you’d say that is because Dawkinswatch said the word “test”. Which is quite common for unbelievers to do. They take a sentence out of the bible and say “See!!! The bible contradicts itself!” yet they take the verse out of context, the same way, you have taken Dawkinswatch’s wording out of context.

    If God said not to test Him, why would He say in Malachi 3:8-12: “Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. 9″You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! 10″Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. 11Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes” says the Lord of hosts.

    This is the only area of the bible I know where God says to test Him.. in our finances.

    I have no doubt that a handful of atheists have read the bible… but that’s all it is… reading… they are missing the understanding part.

    Can I ask? Were you a Christian or a Catholic? I’d be really interested in knowing.

    Pete

    February 19, 2008 at 11:07 am

  8. J farancis by saying I am not an intellectual I meant I am not a gnostic, I donot belileve intellect will make man into a superhuman.

    dawkinswatch

    February 19, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  9. Pete you speak the truth sir, this is not testing God but rather taking him on his word.

    dawkinswatch

    February 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  10. What, exactly, am I, an Atheist, supposed to feel by doing this?

    Travis Bedford

    February 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  11. […] I Ask Jesus to Come to Me “Please Prove Me Wrong” says “Dawkinswatch“. […]

  12. splendidelles

    February 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  13. Certainly Pete. My own background was non-religious in a village where you either went to the Catholic or Protestant school. It’s one of the reasons why I’d be sensitive of saying Christian or Catholic, because Catholics would argue they are Christian. Similarly from a Greek Orthodox perspective both sides are going to hell. I went to school in the next village where periodically we’d still get preached at on a weekly basis by someone from the local church.

    This is my biggest concern. Creationism has no effect on reality, but it is a tool used by various Christian sects to dominate each other. You may or may not support Creationist teaching, but if you do which form would you support? One of the many Protestant forms of creationism? Catholic creationism? Muslim creationism? Whichever form you choose to proclaim as science will open it up as a test.

    Now, in the case of the post above, it’s not just one word, ‘test’ is it?

    Obviously this is the first time some of you have heard this but we can very easily test its validity.I don’t mean this sarcastically, but that’s a whole sentence. That’s important because it encapsulates a whole thought and it would be helpful if we could work out what the thought expressed was. I can divide it into two halves.

    Obviously this is the first time some of you have heard this… That’s an interesting statement. Whether or not you believe in one of the forms of Christianity it’s fairly obvious that if you live in an Anglophonic country then you will have been hugely exposed to Christianity more then you would, say, Shinto or the Inuit Sea Woman. It could be that Dawkinswatch is being sarcastic, but elsewhere in this weblog he’s suggesting that he has access to information that others lack. If we assume Dawkinswatch is is sincere, and his willingness to leave up comments which disagree with him suggests he is, then he seems to be suggesting that he thinks his news of Jesus dying on the cross is in some significant way different from the many other times we have heard it elsewhere.

    The conclusion of the sentence is but we can very easily test its validity. This doesn’t just use the concept test, it also uses the concept validity. What is valid?

    Valid in logical terms means that the conclusion may logically be derived from the premises. You can be quiet therefore the Christian God exists doesn’t work as a valid argument because the act of being quiet does not necessarily mean that any specific God exists. Clearly valid is not meant in a formal logical sense.

    Valid can also mean producing the desired results. This would match the sense of the word test, but it would also mean that when Dawkinswatch used the word test he meant it as a test. If we set up these conditions then these result will follow. That would seem to be the case because of that word but. He’s implying that the actions in the second half of the sentence are wills somehow reveal the information he alludes to in the first half.

    Ok let’s look at the next sentence If you want to prove me wrong, I invite you to shut you eyes and say this Dawkinswatch has invited me to meet you God. Following from I invite you too… Dawkinswatch appears to be setting up the conditions from which his valid if undefined results will come from. Now look at the first half of this sentence. If you want to prove me wrong in what way is he using the word prove? Prove is also derived from test or trial, though it’s somewhat archaic to say when we were proving something we’re testing it. In its archaic sense it can be about finding the limits of something, It’s also used in Modern English as the examination of evidence, but again this only makes sense in the scenario of a test.

    It’s a very bad test, all it shows is that someone can be quiet and it works just as well for Mithras, but hopefully I’ve shown that I’m not picking words, but in fact whole sentences. Now put this in the wider context of this weblog. Dawkinswatch believes that evolution is not science. I’m not sure why business would find research that doesn’t get results, but that’s another matter. Elsewhere you will read about tests and evidence. In the context of this whole blog he seems to be saying that God is a testable proposition. All he has done here is provide an experiment.

    To conclude that Dawkinswatch is not proposing an experiment would, I think, require ignoring the context of the sentences and the weblog.

    That doesn’t mean I’m right about the Bible, so lets examine that.

    You say that I could be pulling quotes from out of context, so lets examine the context. Malachi 3:8-12 is part of a wider dialogue between God and the Israelites. The test does not come from nowhere. The book of Malachi is about the conditions that the God is setting for the redemption of Israel. This is said to be necessary because of a number of lapses, or which the failure to give tithes Malachi 3:8-9 is a part. Now what does this mean for the test. Malachi 3:10-12 is the God saying what the fulfillment of those conditions will achieve. There are two major concerns regarding context here. One is that test may not be the best translation. The KJV uses prove and the both Young’s Literal Translation and the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh use ‘try Me’. The other important feature, and this is a big one, is that it is the God making the offer.

    I’ll concentrate on Matthew 4:7 to avoid duplication. Matthew 4 is a book about the temptation of Jesus, the Spirit having led him into the wilderness for a test. Now initially this looks an open and shut case of testing Jesus, but note that it’s the God that is setting the ground rules for the test. Matthew 4 is a book about testing and in it crucially God is not the entity being tested. Matthew 5-7 is the second temptation of Christ, the first being passed when Jesus placed the God’s word above his hunger. The second tempation is fairly simple Satan says in verse 6, if your God is who he claims to be then if you jump then the result will be proof of God. In contrast to Malachi 3:10-12 it is not the God making the offer. This is a key point because if you look through Deuteronomy especially 6:16 you’ll see that tests in God are the preserve of God.

    Certainly there elements of the Bible which contradict each other, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 being the most famous, but in this instance Malachi 3:10-12 does not contradict Matthew 4:7 and there’s supporting evidence that when Jesus said experimenting on God was a bad idea, that he was accurately portraying the God’s opinion. If you want examples of contradictions of this then you should look at Judges 6:36-40, Gideon and the fleece and 1 Kings 18:36-39, Elijah and the fire.

    As you say it’s not just a matter of reading the Bible, it’s a matter of understanding it and to do that you need to place it in its historical and social context. To do that means reading around ancient religion beyond what you choose to believe.

    So given that Dawkinswatch is proposing a test and that the Bible is generally against testing God, especially the new testament, in what sense is Dawkinswatch proposing a Christian idea? It could be that Dawkinswatch is the agent of the antichrist, or perhaps he’s just a bit muddled. I’ll go with the latter. The Bible may or may not be inerrant, but Dawkinswatch would be hugely arrogant to assume if he assumed he infallible in his reading of it. Matthew 7:1 is a cliché here, and often used a code for ‘shut-up I don’t want to listen.’ At the same time he may want to practice a bit more humility before declaring who is and who isn’t a Christian.

    Alternatively I could be wrong and Dawkinswatch may believe Creationism is a science, in which case we should presumably be funding experiments to disprove God the same way we currently fund experiments trying to find the bits of evolution, relativity or atomic chemistry which don’t work.

    Alun

    February 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  14. Daaaaaaamn! That was long! lol. Alun, can I ask? Are you atheist? Religious? If so, which one? I’m confused where you stand. You seem to know the bible a little, but you’re arguing against the author of this blog. You’re either a really strong Christian who disagrees with what Dawkinswatch is saying because its not biblical or you’re a religious scholar of some sort.

    I’m reading your 14th paragraph that starts with “I’ll concentrate on Matthew 4:7…” over and over again trying to understand it. Are you saying that in Matthew 4 where Jesus is tested that God isn’t the one being tested? And in Malachi, God is to be tested?

    Can you please clarify this, I think you may have done a spelling mistake or something, “This is a key point because if you look through Deuteronomy especially 6:16 you’ll see that tests in God are the preserve of God.” I don’t get what you mean by “tests in God are the PRESERVE of God”. Did you mean another word? Cause that isn’t making sense to me sorry.

    “In contrast to Malachi 3:10-12 it is not the God making the offer”. So you’re saying that in Matthew, He was making the offer to test Him? But Malachi He isn’t?

    Can you please clarify, my head is spinning in circles trying to figure this out, lol.

    Pete

    February 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

  15. dawkinswatch:|
    “You see what do you mean christian? If you believe in Evolution you are deceived and the last time I lloked deception was a sin”
    You seem to saying that IF YOU are deceived, you have committed a sin. (Can you show where this is laid out?)So your god punishes stupid and gullible people merely for being deceived? Your Heaven must be a pretty empty place then!

    Stublore

    February 20, 2008 at 10:22 am

  16. Alun

    I said meet God, not test God.

    There is a big difference, prove me wrong not prove God wrong.

    dawkinswatch

    February 20, 2008 at 6:08 pm

  17. I can’t prove god wrong for the same reason I can’t prove batman wrong.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 21, 2008 at 5:06 am

  18. dawkinswatch: This is question which has always bothered me when it comes to a person talking about their religion being the only way to meet God. Why, in this case, Christianity? Why not Judaism, or Islam, Or Hinduism, or Rastafarianism, or any of the many religions of the world.

    I mean the age of universe is roughly 13.7 billion years. The earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of the first living creatures is 3.4 billion years old. Anatomically correct humans evolved roughly 160,000 years ago. Human civilisation only truly began perhaps in 9,500 BCE.

    And yet the writings about a man, believed to have lived only 2,000 years ago, are supposed to be definitive in how mankind is to reach for the almighty creator of everything? Why did it take so long? And why choose such a young religion like Christianity? Why not a far older belief system like Hinduism?

    Another question about a different part of your post. You believe God and Jesus are the same right? (Correct me if I am wrong). So God sent Jesus (who is actually himself) to earth, to die for humanitys’ sins, so that God can forgive mankind for its sins? So he had to kill himself before he could forgive humanity? Why would an all powerful being have to do that? Couldn’t he have just forgiven mankind, especially as it was he who defined the sin and chose the punishment?

    Anyway, I think that’s enough questions. I would genuinely be interested in hearing your answers.

    Many thanks,
    Xander G

    XanderG

    February 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  19. Hey Xander,

    I can answer two of your many questions with the below. Those two questions are:

    1. Why is Christianity the only way, why not other religions?
    2. Why did God have to become finite and die for our sins

    Ok… where do I start. Ok, first thing we all have to understand is that God is perfect. Meaning, He is perfect in every aspect of perfection, ie, perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfect love, perfect goodness, perfect… etc. He cannot compromise His perfection.

    I’m going to use goodness as the example. If God is perfect goodness, He would only expect everything else to be perfect goodness (think of yourself as a perfectionist, would you accept anything that is imperfect? if you did, you wouldn’t be a perfectionist). Now which is better? To do good or not to do good? Therefore, if not doing good is worse than doing good, then you have just fallen short of God’s perfect standards. The fact that you can do good but don’t, you have just sinned. Romans 3:23 says ‘for all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory’. So to meet with God’s perfect standards of goodness, you need to be able to do all the good that you can do, which is basically impossible for one. But say you can do all the good that you can do to meet up with God’s standards, the moment you sin once, what have you to make up for your sin? The Muslims believe that you can cover your sin by your good deeds. But if God is perfect, how is doing good covering your sin? Because you’re already doing all the good you can do to meet with God’s standards, therefore, what else have you got to make up for that one sin? You can’t…

    James 4:17 says ‘Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin’. Damn! God’s Law is harsh! But that’s why His grace is so great =) Let me give you a story:

    Two boys who grew up as best friends together, one day, went different ways. One boy became a judge and the other became a thief. One day, the judge was handing down judgement on thieves. As he was handing down judgements, to his suprise, his BEST friend was next in line. The judge saw him and felt sorry for him. Now the judge could have condemned his best friend for his crime and given him the proper judgement as the law says BUT would he be showing his friend any mercy? Ok, so he can let his friend off, BUT, would that be just for letting his best friend go for the same crime other people did before him who got condemned? So the judge is in a bit of a dilemma right? What can the judge do to show both compassion but be just at the same time? This is what the judge did. He condemned his best friend for the crime he did. He told his friend the fine that he had to pay. THEN he got up, took out his wallet and paid the fine himself.

    In the same way, because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, sin seperated us from God. But, God had a plan from the very beginning to reconcile that relationship that He originally had with Adam and Eve back to us. Genesis 3:15 says ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” The only way for us to be saved from Hell was for God to pay the sin Himself. NOTICE: Satan will be bruised on the head (meaning, its a killing blow), but Jesus would be bruised on the heel (yeah, Jesus suffered, but a blow on the heel is not a killing blow).

    1. It would be wrong to send a son or anyone sinless, for that matter, to take up the punishment of the world; it would be unfair on that person, because what did he/she do?
    2. God had to become finite because someone that is infinite cannot have anything taken away from them. Think of a bucket full of replenishing water. The moment you take water from it, it fills back up. Obviously, not losing anything. God had to become finite to die for our sins.

    Thinking back to the story, God condemned us to Hell for our sins but paid for our sins on the cross because it was the ONLY way to save us. There is no other way that I can think of that is both justful and merciful, or any other way that would not compromise his perfect nature.

    Why is Christianity the only way? Because its faith-based. If it is works-based, we are all screwed as can be seen from the above. Islam is all works-based. Bhuddism at its core doesn’t believe in a God. Judaism is still waiting for their saviour and is once again works-based.

    Ephesians 2:8-9 says ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast’

    Hope that answers your question.

    Pete

    March 3, 2008 at 10:04 am

  20. Hello webmaster
    I would like to share with you a link to your site
    write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

    Alexwebmaster

    March 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: