Archive for category christian apologetics

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – July 5th 2012

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – a new show highlighting Pagan and Atheist news from around the globe. If you have a news article or would like to have something you’ve done highlighted email me at

Opposing Views – Video: Atheist John Wolff Files Complaint Against Restaurant’s Church-Goer Discount

LifeSiteNews – Dismantling the new atheism

BBC News – Casey Kearney killer ‘told pagan priestess of demon attack’

CNN – American Atheists Fly “Atheism is Patriotic” Banner Over NYC on July 4th

Huffington Post – Lose Your Illusions and Find Infinity: A Jewish Mystical Take on Atheism and God

TechDirt – UK Pensioner Could Face Arrest For Atheist Poster

News24 – It is really easy to be an atheist

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – Catholics and Atheists

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – a new show highlighting Pagan and Atheist news from around the globe. If you have a news article or would like to have something you’ve done highlighted email me at

Today’s news:

Tuscon Citizen – Atheism simple in concept difficult in practice.

Patheos [Catholic] – Why I’d Make a Bad Atheist

Fox News [Dallas/Fort Worth] – Latest atheist billboard targets Catholics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

An open letter to non-crazy Christians

This is a guest post/warning from someone I hold in high regard. His name is Jim Gardner and he writes the blog How good is that? he also co-hosts the Fundamentally-Flawed podcast. This letter comes on the heels of an issue that has stemmed between him and a very popular Christian Apologist by the name of Sye Ten Bruggencate. This issue may at first glance seem like an issue of Christian vs. Atheist, but in fact this boils down to an attempt by Sye to make money off of modified sound bites that he was expressly told he had no permission to use. I encourage you to read it and if you have ever considered buying any product pushed by Sye or Eric Hovind, I encourage you to reconsider and find a more honest person.

So without further adieu here’s Jim’s letter:

I wrote this as a forum posting for Justin Brierley’s Premier Christian Radio discussion forum, but there is a waiting time for membership approval, so I’m making it available here as well. Please pass it on. I realise it’s quite long winded, but it’s important we set the record straight regards an important matter and I’d like to think that this is something which those of us who are both non-religious and those who are not on the extremes of Christianity can help each other raise awareness of, in the interest of clarity and an open exchange of information.

I welcome your feedback in the comments section below, but can I also ask that if you are a member of that you post replies there as well, so as many people as possible can read and respond. Thanks!


Hello! I wanted to start by saying that I admire Justin’s evenhandedness on the podcast, and his willingness to engage with people who fundamentally disagree with him on issues which are clearly very important to him. I hope, as I learn more about other Christian contributors here, that he is not alone in this regard, and that we can have a civil and polite debate on a range of topics. Some internet forums, open to debate between atheists and the religious, tend to fall apart pretty quickly, but I hope to discover that this one stands in-line with the general theme of the radio show, and treats all points of view with respect, and intellectual honesty.

With that said, I hope what I’m about to say doesn’t cause any unnecessary ructions, because I would like to issue something of a warning about a scam which myself and some friends of mine, who produce the Fundamentally Flawed podcast together, have unearthed recently, which we worry might affect some Christians who aren’t aware of the backstory, which I’ll attempt to flesh-out here, as best I can.

The main reason I want to make it absolutely clear, before going any further, that my being non-religious has nothing whatsoever to do with my genuine concerns, is that the scam does involve some of the religious terminology used in Christian apologetics, which it is necessary for me to use in my analysis of the scam, and in order to explain the problem. This might be seen by some as rude, or disrespectful, given that I am an atheist and proud of it. But this is not my intention. I simply want to help honestly motivated, ordinary people who just so happen to be Christian, avoid being ripped off — and my views on Christianity, as a whole, are neither here nor there — at least for the time being.

Being that it is my main worry, that the vast majority of honest Christians might be victim to this scam, there is a lot of misinformation being put “out there” on my true position with regard certain types of apologetics, which the people who are responsible for this scam would dearly love for the wider Christian community to think me and my friends are “running scared from”, presumably out of some sort of worry that their argument (or lack thereof) might hold a degree of intellectual merit which we are incapable of exceeding to. To be clear, it doesn’t, and we aren’t. But with your kind indulgence, I would like to explain exactly why this is the case, as well as explain some of the possible reasons as to why some of these individuals are bearing false witness about us.

Chief among the possible explanations for this campaign of misinformation, is that the particular brand of presuppositional apologetics we believe people are being duped into accepting, rises and falls on a provable falsehood, which they would prefer ordinary Christians like you didn’t know about — least of all in the words of a “dirty atheist”.

I would like to think that the fact we refuse to go away quietly, having uncovered this scam, has begun to have an affect on the profit margins of those who propagate this lie. What’s rather more likely to be true, is that we have begun to affect the tone of emails which these scammers are starting to receive from other Christians — which might also go some way towards explaining the amount of lies and historical revisionism, which some of you might have seen in the blog-o-sphere and beyond, in relation to our involvement in this story, which these people are largely responsible for producing.

To clarify this once again, I can assure you, it is not the case that we disrespect, or “hate” anyone with genuine religious convictions. We are simply concerned that these people appear to be targeting emotionally vulnerable people in their recruiting program, and are clearly drawing them into a distinctly un-Christian type of cult, for which only other Christians can help their fellow believers avoid — hence this bipartisan appeal.

So, cut to the chase:

Several month ago now, when our little podcast was still finding its feet, we received an offer from a certain Eric Hovind, to debate him in a joint broadcast between our podcast and his ‘Creation Today’ radio show — which is a part of his multimillion dollar, tax free ‘ministry’, based in Pensacola, Florida. Some of you might be familiar with Eric’s father Kent Hovind, who was convicted on several counts of tax evasion in 2007, after leading a ministry which encouraged adherents of the predominantly rightwing homeschooling community to teach anti-science and young earth creationism to children, under the brand-name of ‘Dr. Dino’. It would later transpire that “Dr.” Hovind’s credentials as a dinosaur expert were purchased from a diploma mill, after the Wikileaks website published a copy of his doctoral dissertation, which was written in the first person, contained numerous spelling mistakes, and listed zero evidence-based citations.

Tentatively we agreed to debate Eric on the explicit understanding that none of our comments would be used out of context, or edited in such a way that we appeared to say something which we hadn’t said. This was stipulated after several bad experiences with Christian radio hosts far less honest than Justin, in the past, who had literally removed large sections of audio, from appearances I had made on their shows, so as to doctor what I had said to make is seem as if I was rather less well informed than I am on certain arguments.

It’s at this point I should clarify that for the first 17 years of my life, I was a born-again Christian, whose journey towards atheism began one day in church, when the sermon was given on Jesus throwing the money lenders from the temple, before the collection plate was passed around. I would later learn that this money was used to launder Mafia drug money through the Vatican bank. But I digress.

We were aware that Eric had attempted to distance himself from some of the things his father became infamous for preaching, and fully intended to take him on face value. But we were also aware that if we hadn’t made the stipulation that we would not mute anyone’s microphone, or edit their comments in post-production, he might seek to profit from our comments in a way which ran counter to our beliefs about open information, and a free exchange of ideas. In that vein, we also made it clear that we would be giving away a free complete audio recording of the debate, via our website, and did not seek to make any money from it in any other way, such as by placing Google adverts or other co-branding on our website. Eric seemed happy to go along with this at the time, as an off-air pre-show recording we have of him, which we did not (yet) publish, fully confirms.

When it came time to record the podcast, Eric introduced us to a friend of his named Sye ten Bruggencate. It turned out that Sye knew rather more about me than I knew about him, and that he had previously posted comments to numerous religious articles on my website. At the time I didn’t immediately connect his name to the same Sye who had used my blog, and it wasn’t until what unfolded next that I began to recall the particular type of aggressive tactics which he had used, when posting blog comments under the username SyeTenB.

The conversation quickly took a very bizarre turn, when Sye started asking a series of questions for which there were no right or wrong, affirmative or negative answers, while insisting that, in-fact, we must answer them with definite ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ replies. This was made doubly confusing when he also refused to acknowledge that, for this very reason, he was just as incapable of answering his own questions as we were, if these black or white criteria were imposed upon him as strictly as he insisted they were upon us.

Even stranger still, Sye seemed to believe that this constituted some kind of strength to his position, when to any dispassionate observer it was clear the opposite was true, and that all he had succeeded in doing was to confirm many of the “crazy Christian” stereotypes, which so many of the well intentioned religious have fought so hard to dispel over the years — which we have always fully acknowledged, and welcomed.

It’s was at this point in the recording, when their true modus operandi became apparent. Far from having any legitimate interest in knowing what we, as atheists, felt about “life, the universe and everything”, it became clear that all they were actually interested in doing, was capturing as much audio as they could, so as to do to others what they would not have done to themselves.

They began pressing us even further on meaningless psychobabble, such as “is it possible that everything you think you know could be wrong?”, and “how do you know that?”, whenever we made any statement which requires longer to explain than the 10 second window which was opened to us, before one or the other would close it again by interrupting us with the next line of their pre-rehearsed script — which seldom bore any relationship to what we had just said.

To these specific questions, I lost count of how many times I explained why answering ‘yes’ wouldn’t encompass my true position, anymore than answering ‘no’, but Sye pressed on regardless, seemingly oblivious to the fact that if I were to ask him the self-same questions he was asking me, his answering either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would paint no truer picture of his faith-based position, than it would of my evidence-based worldview — another of those awful “in-speak” phrases which Sye seems to believe means “assumption without evidence” when spoken by others, but “unquestionably true” when spoken by him.

Sye’s one and only response to this, was to repeatedly assert that his position is valid, regardless of his ability to adhere to his own arbitrary rules of engagement, because, as is it claimed, he has had it privately revealed to him that the bible is word-for-word true in a way which cannot be objectively demonstrated, but which he knows for certain to be unquestionably valid. When he was reminded that this “claim to know” is extrinsic and unfalsifiable, we were told that in our basic unwillingness to lower our standards of proof, merely to encompass his fundamentally self-contradictory worldview, that we risked being tortured in the fires of hell for all eternity. So much for peace, love and forgiveness.

No-one, dear friends, expects the Spanish Inquisition — least of all in what was fast becoming a distinctly one-sided conversation, in which he seemed to feel entitled to throw out every appeal to authority fallacy in the book, while we were mysteriously limited to his distorted view of what atheists (all of them, mind you) do and don’t “believe”. But the deception, and dark hilarity, didn’t end there.

Once the recording was published, we began to take feedback from our listeners, and discovered that the essential core of the method they had been using, was first proposed by Cornelius Van Til in his “doctrine of the ontological Trinity” — which was almost immediately rejected as meaningless by contemporary theologians and philosophers of the time, as being no more that a conclusion drawn from its own proposition. This was later clarified by the first Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists, in the early 1920′s, and the father of scientific falsification Karl Popper, who asserted that all metaphysical truth-claims are “essentially meaningless”, when they contradict the validity of that which is immediately observable — or, ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ to you and me.

Because of this syllogism at the heart of what is known as the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, it is a method of apologetics which has been largely abandoned by theologians of all persuasions for many decades — save for a very narrow band of Americanised evangelicals, renowned the world over for their particularly belligerent insistence that TAG is a rather more substantial argument than it actually is. If we had known this prior to “debating” Sye and Eric, the conversation might have turned out differently. But because we were completely unprepared to encounter someone so ready, willing and able to stoop to new lows in an already strong field of intellectual dishonesty, we had no choice but to notch it up as a “win” for them, and a much needed visit to the library for us.

What we would uncover, in that learning process, is that a band of anti-science activists, who are loosely affiliated with everything from supermodel-endorsed anti-vaccination, which has resulted in a ten-fold increase in cases of measles, mumps and rubella in some of the most developed nations in the world, to a type of global warming denial which is largely backed by the same oil and gas giants who fund the Republican party, are attempting to revive this type of presuppositional Christian apologetics, as part of their “war on atheism”.

But don’t let the ‘A’ word fool you. This is an all-out, politically motivated attack on rationalism, science, intellectual honesty, and everything which most ordinary people, Christian and non-Christian alike, would consider to be basic common sense. Moreover, Christians who see the problem with this type of non-reasoning, are just as much of a target for misinformation and ad hominem attack, as we non-religious are all too used to experiencing on a daily basis.

We had, in other words, inadvertently found ourselves on the receiving end of an elaborate set-up, architected by two of a small but vocal minority in American evangelicalism, who specialise in producing misinformation and propaganda against anyone who just so happens to hold themselves to higher standard of proof than belief for belief’s sake.

A few weeks after this first encounter, my podcast co-host Alex Botten, invited Sye back onto the show, to talk about what we had learned about the TAG argument in the intervening time. What followed was a piece by piece dismantling of Sye’s entire position. He simply couldn’t account for any of the things he had previously attempted to bully us into believing he could in-fact account for. At one point, in response to the fact that TAG is syllogistic and logically fallacious — precisely because it assumes the existence of Yahweh according to the same criteria which could be used to postulate the existence of myriad other gods (the existence of which Sye is as atheistic towards as we are towards Yahweh) — Sye simply began babbling even more incoherently than he had before.

The pace with which he went from being absolutely certain that he can “prove God exists”, to churning out every logical and informal fallacy in the book, was astounding. Here, before our very ears, was the man who runs a website called, falling apart like a Taiwanese Rolex on Boxing Day; literally tripping over his own tongue, and in relation to some of the most basic problems inherent to the very nature of his own truth-claim. He simply had nothing left. The mask had been removed.

This clearly irked Sye — for what happened next stands as clear an example as any I can think of, as to why legitimately motivated Christians such as you, the sexually attractive and might I say rather dashing reader, should be as cautious of, as we on the opposite benches had to find out the hard way, for ourselves.

We began to hear rumours that Sye and Hovind intended to break our agreement not to commercially exploit the audio recordings, of our conversations, and that they were planning to release a DVD of our “debate”. Sadly, we found out too late that there was a precedent for this, as they had also done a similar thing to another blogger / podcaster, who would later become a friend of mine, named Paul Baird.

When asked directly about this, both Sye and Eric simply remained silent. Days passed and no emails or twitter messages were replied to, or even acknowledged. This, against the backdrop of the story of what happened to Paul Baird, began to paint a very disconcerting picture, which we then had no choice but to respond to, in the absence of any contact from Sye and Eric, to either confirm or deny that these rumours were true.

Paul had found that a debate he recorded with Sye was being sold on Sye’s website for $19.95 a pop, and was disappointed to find that Sye had told Justin Brierley, who made this recording, that Paul had given his full permission for it to be made available as a commercial publication. In reality, Paul had made no such concession — he simply hadn’t been asked, and so Sye simply lied when Justin asked him if Paul had given his permission for the recording to be used.

Then an edit of our conversation with Eric and Sye appeared on YouTube. Bearing in mind that we had specifically said our comments were not to be edited or used out of context, alarm bells began to ring that Sye and Hovind might be planning on doing to us what they had done to Paul Baird. There’s some considerable disagreement at this point, as to why Eric posted this edited video to YouTube — with Eric claiming that it was simply to demonstrate that Alex Botten had said something which he later contradicted, despite that Alex was later able to show that Eric had indeed used these comments out of context.

Eric, in a later Skype conversation, was told in no uncertain terms, that if he planned on releasing any further edited recordings, featuring our comments out-of-context, we would take legal action. To date, and to the best of our knowledge, Hovind has not released any recordings which breach our verbal agreement to this affect.

Fast-forward several weeks. Sye had been told in a series of email exchanges that he would be welcome back onto the podcast, as and when he felt ready to explain the basic contradiction inherent to his own position — i.e., that he claims to have proof that Yahweh exists, while refusing to accept that this is either a fundamental contradiction of his insistence that he holds a faith-based position, or he simply doesn’t understand the basic definition of words like ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’.

Sye’s explanation for this basic contradiction, is to insist that he holds both positions in a way which is “virtuously circular” — an unintentionally amusing punchline to a bad joke first mooted by Greg Bahnsen, an influential Calvinist philosopher, and apologist, who wasn’t unaware of the logical inconsistency in claiming to hold two completely contradictory positions on Yahweh’s basic existence at the same time.

Sye now appeared ready to confront this problem head-on. From the very moment Sye’s Skype call to record his third appearance on the podcast began, he was reminded that we did not give our permission for any of the audio to be used in a commercial setting, or used in any other way, including in YouTube video clips which might accrue a share of Google’s Ad Revenue, or as part of any third party religious ministry. He was then asked directly if he was finally ready to present evidence of Yahweh’s basic existence — to which he replied, “I already have”.

Aware that this was more of the same “cart before the horse, abracadabra, proof of the bible is in the bible” playground nonsense which, remember, we had already told Sye we would not stand for, he was once again invited to present his claimed proof that Yahweh exists. Now, faced with the fact that he did not have our permission to commercially exploit the recording for his own financial gain, and that he had finally been held down to a very specific question with regard to his own basic truth-claim, he simply ran away — literally quitting Skype in a hissy fit, befitting a spoiled child.

Crown Rights Media

No-one has ever said that Christian organisations shouldn’t be entitled to produce media which presents their case for God. Indeed, some of the high production values in editing, computer animation and sound design, which many of these productions employ, is a clear indication that there is a great deal of money to be made from releasing these type of instructional videos and lecture series presentations.

What we do take great objection to, is when these videos are promoted on the back of comments which the producers have been specifically told they do not have permission to use for commercial purposes. So when a promotional video, for an upcoming DVD from Crown Rights Media appeared on YouTube, and posted to Sye ten Bruggencate’s channel, featured an edited portion of the very same recording in which he was specifically told he did not have our permission to use our comments for commercial purposes, you can imagine that we were distinctly unimpressed.

Sye appears to believe, that a recording in which he was held down to a very specific question relating to his own worldview, which he refused to answer and stormed off the recording session when pressed, somehow represents us “running scared” from his particularly nasty brand of pseudo-apologetics. Such is the down is up, up is down, through the looking glass nature of Sye’s entire worldview, one can only presume that by that same internal logic, a recording of us refusing to answer any of his questions, and storming off in a fit of anti-Christian hate speech, would constitute a “win” for the Richard Dawkins brigade — who think that “atheism” is best served by being as offensive towards people who don’t deserve it as possible.

This, dear reader, is not the type of non-believer we represent. Yes, we crack the occasional joke about priests and altar boys, and yes we make clear our disgust at the crystal danglers and homeopaths, but the “something out there” openminded religious, who don’t think that religious belief starts and stops at believing in things which are not true, and insisting that other people believe in this kind of nonsense too, simply aren’t on our radar — indeed we regularly complain about that narrow-minded type of atheist, who behave with disrespect towards the religious in this way, and knacker-up the whole deal for the rest of us.

Since being asked, repeatedly, to remove media which he does not have the right to use, from YouTube, Sye ten Bruggencate has consistently lied to Crown Rights, and their supporters, about the nature of our involvement in the promotional video which he produced against our specific permission to do so — to the point that, at one stage, he even appeared to deny that he had edited out the parts of the albeit very brief conversation, in which he was specifically told he could not edit our comments, or use them on YouTube, or use them in promotion of a commercial product.

Then, when the full unedited recording of him being told exactly this, was posted to Crown Rights Facebook page, a certain Marcus Pittman, of Crown Rights, removed the 70 plus-long comment thread which followed this unambiguous evidence that Sye ten Bruggencate had simply lied, exactly as he had with Paul Baird and the host of Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable’, Justin Brierley — saying, as a justification for this clear attempt to silence the facts, that I was “being annoying”.

Think about it. “Annoying” for proving that someone is lying to your face, but “virtuously circular” for claiming to have proof that Yahweh exists, while refusing to present any evidence of it.

These people, dear readers, are not your friends. They are not even your fellow Christian. They are scam artists, who for $20 a go, promise you everything and tell you nothing. Do not be deceived. Please do not do make the same mistake we did, and have anything at all to do with these provable liars. They will rip you off, they will lie to you, and they will lie about you if you have the simple temerity to question their motives. Please, be warned. They are far more of a threat to your image, true beliefs, and motives, than anything the vast majority of atheists like me would, or could seek to impose upon you.

Thank you for your time. Jim.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Evolution of Skepticism – Certainly we are Certain about Certainty

Today we talk about certainty and what it means to both a theist and an atheist.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Christian Apologists – Acting the Fool?

Christian Apologetics


This Screen shot was taken from the Facebook wall of Tommy Rodriguez where Sye and those like him decided to interact and contend with a few Atheists. The part that stood out for me was written by Aldo Gutierrez, and specifically where he says ” And like I’ve told the other Christian fellows here I’m not really wasting my time trying to reason with you since the point of presup apologetics is not to really convince you but to “answer the fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes”, and I’m confident this has been achieved already.”

Now this seems interesting to me because it seems like Aldo is saying that Christian Apologists are “acting the fool” as a means to “answer the fool”. While I am not about to start calling anybody a fool, I can say one thing, several Christian Apologists have quoted something else of intrigue to me. Which is:

Proverbs 26:4 – Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

So what this tells me, and if you think this is wrong I welcome comments to explain why, is that Christian Apologists are acting in direct opposition to this statement, which from what I have been told is acting in direct opposition to their God.

So maybe Aldo is wrong here? Maybe he didn’t quite think his comment through before posting it on Facebook and allowing the interested world to see it. Aldo is following this command, kinda (but we won’t get into how he is violating this), but he is pointing out that his Apologetic friends are following Proverbs 26:5 with blatant disregard to the passage right before it.

Let’s take a quick look at this, remember I have not read the complete bible, but I do know that Christian Apologists believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction, meaning A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

Proverbs 26:4 – Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Proverbs 26:5 – Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

So as a person that sits outside of the Theist/Atheist argument this seems kind of counter-intuitive, to say “don’t answer… according to his folly” then in the next line say “answer according to his folly…” is pretty confusing. Now mind you I took both of these passages from the NIV version of the bible, because it is commonly quoted by the Christian Presuppers, and as a non-Christian I have to rely on the use of the common argument to base my opinion off of.

So what is it Christians, do you answer according to his folly or not answer according to his folly? Having both statements back to back seems like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Today’s question comes from someone who calls himself Hezekiah Ahaz

Today’s question comes from someone who calls himself Hezekiah Ahaz.


This was written on a blog by another up and coming Theism Skeptic. The original question was written by our good Christian Apologist friend Hezekiah Ahaz, I like some of the ideas pvblivs comes up with to answer them.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

I am Hezekiah Ahaz’s Christian God

This is a tall claim I know, but hear me out.

I was doing some research on Christian Artifacts and came across the Shroud of Turin. This was supposed to be the linen that JC was wrapped in after his death. So, I figured I would do a little digging myself into the bible, and I found…. inconsistencies… big shocker there right? As you can see here, I wrote a post about these inconsistencies, because I felt that something so crucial as the death of JC, which so many Christians base their belief around, would have to have been clear and without question, an easy thing to account for right? Well it seems that concept was as far fetched as talking snakes. Now this post isn’t about rehashing the previous post, instead it was a little experiment that I decided to conduct in conjunction with this post.

Here’s my evidence that I am Hezekiah Ahaz’s god.

I am Hezekiah Ahaz's God

Here is 2 time stamps after posting, less than 3 minutes apart for each time.

For further proof I did decide to take a screen shot with a website open that showed the time in PDT (from Los Angeles) to show that I did not go back and write it again. The full prediction and proof is listed on the blogspot page, but I will also copy it over here for easier reading.

The important thing to keep in mind is that I often predict what this man is going to do prior to him doing it. If you wish to categorize it like this, I often compel his arguments to be the way I desire them to be and this makes for a much easier time when dealing with him.

With this I recommend anyone who does not subscribe to the Christian Apologist view points to band together and designate a “Non-Christian Apologist” day. Where if you are approached, whether it be on a blog or in person, you ignore their advocacy of their faith and instead just smile at them and dismiss them like the children they are. Most of these people are as easy to deal with as a child. So to further solidify my point I submit to you the posts that prove my claim without a doubt in not just my mind, both others that I have begun to share it with.

My claim:

My original post:

My informing Hezekiah and his response of “read the bible”:

My clarification that he was in fact responding to my post when he said “read the bible”:



I am Hezekiah Ahaz’s God

11:07 PM PDT

My wife says I am God.

I believe her.

Here is proof:

To date, I have been able to predict the actions of one Christian Apologist, Hezekiah Ahaz.

Today after writing this, I will publish a blog post at

This will be able the inconsistencies of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.

This will compel Hezekiah to post a response once made aware of this post.

He will refute stating that these inconsistencies are explained either in another book or through a philosophical explanation. I do not expect him to quote what Sye states, which is that he knows this through revelation. It may be a better argument in the end.

With this prediction, I am proving the rest of my wife’s claim, which is as follows:

I am a shaman.

BibleGod was a shaman leader of a warrior tribe that both knew people was able to manipulate his followers, resulting in “the victor writes history.”

Hezekiah claims to speak to BibleGod through prayer, Hezekiah speaks to me through the internet or “magic communication” in the time of the writings of the bible.

Hezekiah is compelled by the word of god, my writings compel him to respond, meaning he is compelled to do my will, as is shown by my writing of this, which dictates that I desire him to respond to my writing.

Posted by Derik Bernhardt at 11:07 PM

After reading these, you may say “well he said ‘read the bible’ not it is in [blank] book.”, but if you consider the fact that all Christians do agree on one thing, and that is the bible is a compilation of books, his assertion that I should read the bible would indicate that although these things are inconsistent the reality is that he is saying it is explained later, in a different book within the bible. I went on to clarify that he indeed was responding by asking him on a different post to describe BibleGod, this has been it’s own fun, but not the point of this post.

Come to your own conclusions, but I am now happy to be +1 worshiper in Hezekiah Ahaz, welcome to Polytheism my friend.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Inconsistently New Testament

So, I have been reading a lot and I mean A LOT of Christian Apologist sites lately. And an overarching theme has come up. This theme is that they claim there are no inconsistencies in the “New Testament” and those in the old can be explained by reading the new… Well, here I am pointing out a rather large inconsistency among the followers of JC. It deals not with what most decide to harp on, but instead, the way in which he was buried. I’ll let the passages speak for themselves.

Matthew 27:59-60

New International Version (NIV)

59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.


Mark 15:46

New International Version (NIV)

46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.


Luke 23:53

New International Version (NIV)

53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.


John 19:38-40

New International Version (NIV)

The Burial of Jesus

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away.

39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[a]

40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.


John 20:6-7

New International Version (NIV)

Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.


Ok, blaring inconsistency is whether it was a full piece or strips of linen he was buried in. Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention a full piece of linen, but John writes about strips of cloth and a separate piece being used for his head. He also writes that Apostle Peter finds the strips of linen and the separate piece for the head.

Another interesting one that I found in these was whether the burial chamber was cut out by Joseph or if it was already there, here’s the quotes that show another inconsistency.

Matthew 27:60

60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.


Mark 15:46

46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.


This is interesting that Joseph could have divined Jesus’ death early enough to have been able to carve out the tomb himself, or was that his job from the Roman’s? Was he in league with Judas? Oh and let’s not forgo the statements that he moved the damn stone by himself! He had to have been the size of an Ox!

One more inconsistency for posterity, and to think these were taken just from the burial of Christ, one of the last things that happened in his lifetime, aside from his resurrection. Who exactly took the body down?


Matthew 27:59

59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,


Luke 23:53

53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.


John 19:38

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away.


So which was it guys? Did Joseph take the body down or did Pilate? Here are three inconsistencies and what seems to be an inhuman exhibition of strength, all surrounding what I would imagine to be one of the most important pieces to get right, JC’s death.

So all you Christ Co. shoppers, what’s your take on this?

Feel free to leave a comment below.

, , , ,


Hezekiah vs. Derik / Christian Monotheism vs. Wiccan Polytheism

We hope you enjoy the exchange of World Views.


, , , , , ,


Debate Questions for the Hezekiah vs. Derik

Midnight EDT has come and gone.

Justin has decided on the 2 questions to be asked from Hezekiah due to his choice. [link]

Post a Comment On: Apologetics With A Hammer.

“This criticism of Kant on Empiricism and Rationalism was undoubtedly correct as faras his contention that the mind of man and the facts of the universe should never havebeen separated is concerned. But it is equally true that the more fundamental questionstill is whether the mind of man should ever have been thought of in separation from themind of God. How can the human mind know anything about any of the facts of theuniverse if these facts as well as the mind itself are not related upon the basis of a morefundamental unity in the plan of God? Yet it is exactly Kant’s contention that the humanmind does have a sphere of knowledge of its own apart from its relation to God and apartfrom the relation of the facts to God. And this position would not be tenable unless themind of man were independent of the divine mind in some essential respect. In reality itmatters not whether one says that man knows one fact or a thousand facts or all factsapart from God. In all cases he is equally antitheistic. Even to say that one fact isknowable to man directly apart from the relation of both fact and mind to the plan of Godis in effect to deny that God is absolutely self-conscious. It is in effect to deny that realitymust ultimately and exclusively be interpreted in eternal categories. Even to say that onefact can be known by man apart from God is to deny the representational character ofhuman thought. It would be to claim originality for human thought. As such it would be adenial of the creation of man by God.”

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 9:57 PM on May 1, 2012

1 – 2 of 2

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
not exactly sure why you needed to break such small posts into three parts… Just seems like a bunch of fluff really…

anyways… remember to go over and choose your two questions for the debate so I don’t have to have Justin or a third party choose them at midnight.

May 1, 2012 10:35 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Let justin pick.

May 1, 2012 10:42 PM

So, without further adieu here are the questions compiled for the debate:


1. What is your standard of truth?

2. Are the laws of rationality and logic absolute?

1. What is your Theism’s penultimate message to be delivered to those interested in knowing more?

2. Is it a crime against your theism to partake in cardinal pleasures?
Christopher Randolph

1. Have you held a conversation with your deity/deities? If not how do you know you are enacting their will?

1. What racial ethnicity is your deity?

2. Pants, should women wear them or not? Why? (Elaberate please?)
Jim from Fundamentally Flawed

1. Could you ask him to give you an example of when a faith based position is demonstrably weaker than one based upon objectively valid evidence? –
Spiritblaize / Blaize Rockett

1. If Jesus is God as portrayed by the trinity taught by Christians then why would he say My father says this.. My father says that.. in my Fathers house.. Father forgive them… Explain how you are not worshiping multiple Gods when you pray to a minimum of 2 separate entities in Jesus and God.

1. Why have Christians taken Heathen or Pagan holidays and turned them into Christian holy days? For example; Christmas is the celebration of the winter solstice and the new year, it’s Yuletide, NOT Christ’s birthday. All of the traditions you hold on this day, on Easter (Easter actually being the Anglicized name of a Goddess, Eostre, or Ostara) NOT the resurrection of Christ, on Valentine’s Day, May Day, Halloween, all are pre-Christian and rooted in Pagan holidays. The days of the week; Sunday (Sunna’s Day), Monday (Mani’s Day), Tuesday (Tyr’s Day), Wednesday (Odin’s Day), Thursday (Thor’s Day), Friday (Freyja’s Day), Saturday (Saturn’s Day)… I guess the real question is; Don’t you find it sinful to just go about your day to day life and celebrate your holidays?

We will start with Hezekiah’s questions, because he was the one offering the challenge I will also offer him the initiative on all questions.

If you are unaware of the guidelines set for this debate, you can go here to review them.


Blessed Be…

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: