It would be interesting (and surprising) if you got a response, but I’d sure like to see it

Hey Les,

Just wondering, do you think you are contradicting yourself here?

“There is no Jesus Christ to give me his love. The man most likely never existed in the first place and even if he did he’s long since dead and gone and isn’t coming back no matter how many thousands of years you continue to pray to him.“

It just seems that you are claiming two things.  At first you adamantly disavow his existence then you admit that he may have existed.  Which is it?

I don’t think Les is contradicting himself at all. The statement “There is no Jesus Christ to give me his love” can be true whether the man existed or not… because as Les said after “The man most likely never existed” was that “even if he did he’s long since dead and gone”.

Either way… if Jesus is dead and gone… or if he never existed at all… in both cases it leaves no Jesus Christ currently available to Les to receive love from, get it?

Very eloquent.

Ah Les, your conversion technique is sorely lacking. You’re asking the other person to do all the hard work of thinking on their own! Conversion works by the promise of NOT having to do that stuff yourself once you decide that the messenger looks like a fine chap and can be trusted with your soul and your purse strings.

You gotta learn man, if you wanna play that game.

Duckhugger- you beat me to it.  Unless bowdwn5 is assuming the case that Jesus did live, and Les is contradicting himself by saying “there is no Jesus Christ” because there are still some pieces of Jesus’ bones somewhere, which is a rather strained interpretation of “is” when referring to a person, there’s no contradiction in Les’ statement.

ingolfson- what you said.  In addition, Les forgot to mention the perks.  Now, atheism doesn’t offer pie in the sky when you die, but it does offer a life full of hedonistic pleasure, unsullied by the agenbite of inwit suffered by Godfearers.  At least, my life is full of hedonistic pleasure.  Well, sort of.

I’m surprised at the lack of repartee, but as a rule the mailbag posts don’t seem to attract many True Believers™...

Apropos contradictions… Didn’t this strike anybody else as odd:

How is Dr. James Kennedy any different than you in what he espoused except he was on the side of God and you obviously aren’t?

My Bible condemns all the lifestyles you embrace.

In other words: Even if you’re a nice chap, the Bible condemns your lifestyle unless you’re on the godly side?

I only wish this form of proselytization would work. Alas, believing in something usually involves abdicating reason these days.

I so very rarely get the true whackmeisters.  Obscurity is peaceful.

I hold no illusions that my reply holds any hope of converting the person who sent me the original email, but sometimes it’s just satisfying to give them a small taste of their own medicine.

I doubt I’ll get a reply. This one doesn’t have the usual level of… enthusiasm… as the ones that tend to reply back.

I always found it funny that Christians seem very judgmental. Never made much sense to me.

Surprise! They actually responded and it’s pretty much what you’d expect:

Sir,

It takes greater faith to believe what you believe than my belief in Jesus Christ.  History shows that Jesus did exist. I guess you one who believes that the earth just formed magically. Unbelievable! I’ll pray for you every night with the hope you find the our Savior. God bless you Les.

My reply:

Sir or Madam, This reply from you just demonstrates my point. You’re so deluded that you think it takes faith to be an atheist when exactly the opposite is true. You also assume, again incorrectly, that I think the Earth just “formed magically” when I’ve never said any such thing. How about actually finding out what I believe instead of just assuming you know? History does not show us that Jesus existed. There’s only a couple of references to Jesus outside of the Bible and none of those are first-hand accounts. Not even the Bible offers first-hand accounts, but was written by men “inspired” by God. As for being a historical document the Bible is sorely lacking. His existence is entirely debatable based on the available evidence. Feel free to pray for me all you want. You join a long list of people who are praying for me which has, so far, had little effect. Though if you really want to make a positive change in the world I’d recommend that you take the time you’d waste praying for me and put it to good use by helping the needy. You know, like Jesus supposedly did once upon a time? Sincerely, Les Jenkins

Let’s see if they reply again.

Duckhugger,

If Jesus potentially existed, then he must also potentially possesses the ability to give love today.  Let me persuade you.

I disagree with your interpretation because your answer conveniently ignores something that Les has admitted before. 

God may exist.  This a broad statement that opens the door for all sorts of possibilities.

For example, divine capabilities must also potentially exist.  Among these possible capabilities, the ability to love in perpetuity regardless of death or physical presence.  Additionally, the ability to impart divine capabilities on human subjects (Jesus).

If God potentially existed, then it is possible that divine capabilities were imparted to humans. 

In effect, the statement:

“There is no Jesus Christ to give me his love”

Must then assert that,

a. Even if he existed, he could not possibly possess the ability to give love after death.

Or that,

b. Jesus never existed and therefore cannot give me his love.

Possibility “a” is already contradicted above in Les’ implicit acknowledgement of potential divine capabilities.

Possibility “b” is contradicted with the following statement:

“The man most likely never existed”

With both possibilities contradicted, Les’ overall statement appears contradictory to me.  If Jesus potentially existed, then he potentially possesses the ability to give love today.

Les laid out two conditions:

1. The man most likely never existed in the first place
2. even if he did he’s long since dead

The conditions exclude each other but it is a distinction without a difference because the outcome is the same either way: no Jesus now. 

Comical that you could waste so much time trying to weave a contradiction out of that.

What DOF said. Tortured logic and quite mining, oh my.

There’s also a difference between a philosophical argument that admits an infinitesimally small probability of some ill-defined god’s existence and a pragmatic statement about a man-made religion.

bowdwn5, While Les may have made the statement before that there MAY be a God (on par with making the statement “there MAY be pink unicorns hiding on the moon”)... in this particular instance Les said straight out:

“There is no God looking down upon you and intervening on your behalf. It’s all nothing but wishful thinking on your part.“

I think for this moment… in this instance, based on all the evidence and lack thereof, Les is pretty much asserting a God-less world where… regardless if a Jesus ever lived or didn’t… he’s no longer around now for he would have been just as human (and fleeting) as the rest of us!

What Duckhugger just said.

bowdwn5- simple test.  Substitute ‘Magical Pink Unicorn’ for ‘Jesus’.  If the statement still holds true for ‘PMU’ then it doesn’t support Christianity originally.

“There wasno Pink Magical Unicorn 2000 years ago.  Even if there was, it is dead now, so there is no PMU love now” A perfectly true statement.

Several have made similar critiques.  Each seems to suggest that even if Jesus existed, he’s dead now so therefore he can’t love us now.  I think that some are not grasping the full implications that result from acknowledging the possibility of God.  If God is a possibility then both Jesus and divine capability are also possible.  As a consequence, Jesus ability to love us now, despite his death, is also a possibility. 

Last Hussar,

I disagree with your “true” statement.  If God possibly existed, then it’s also possible that God imparted the ability for the PMU to love us either after its resurection or during its presence in the spirit world. 

Duckhugger,

You’ve actually provided solid evidence for my point.  Les is claiming two very different things.  He admits God’s possible existence then says he doesn’t exist.  Which is it?

As a result, I disagree and don’t think that Les is “ASSERTING” a Godless world.  Hypothesizing, maybe.  Regardless, he seems to be leaving the door open on account of the limitations of human knowledge. 

Elwedriddsche,

I’m interested in your argument for how my logic is tortured.  Seriously, let’s hear it.

To an extent I can appreciate your distinction between a philisophical statement and one of pragmatism.  But given the religious nature of the topic, it’s hard to agree that his comment was devoid of philosophic influence.  As a result the distinction becomes murky.  But if Les wants to acknowledge that his statement was merely pragmatic then I can contextualize the contradition with less indegestion as pragmatisms are contradiction prone. 

DOF,

Think of the implications involved when one admits the possible existence of God.  Your distinction without a difference doesn’t hold true.  If God is possible then both Jesus and divine capability are also possible.  As such, divine capability could make it possible for Jesus to love us right now.

Les is claiming two very different things.  He admits God’s possible existence then says he doesn’t exist.  Which is it?

bowdwn5: this is the problem with trying to mix formal logic with a scientific viewpoint (which is what Les is expounding).  The nonexistence of something can only be strictly proven within systems of formal logic such as mathematics, where the existence or nonexistence follows as a matter of definition.

In the real world, it’s a different matter.  No one can prove the nonexistence of a teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, for instance.  But if you say that my claim “there is no teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter” contradicts my standpoint that it’s impossible, strictly speaking, to prove the nonexistence of anything in the world, then we might as well give up talking, because any negative claim can be ignored as being contradictory.  And you must admit the possibility that not only is there a teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, but also that this teapot is the Son of God, brewed tea for our sins, and loves us with all its teabags.

Now, you might well stick to your guns and claim that this is merely the “pragmatic” and not the “philosophical” viewpoint.  But we materialists tend to be pragmatic, so as not to waste time pondering the gazillions of possibilities the “philosophical” viewpoint would force us to admit.  Given the fact that there’s no evidence for the teapot, or for God,  it’s pragmatic, and not a contradiction in any useful sense of the word, to dismiss them, until such time as evidence forces us to reevaluate our stance.

Zilch,

You make an excellent point.  I admit my failure to distinguish between Les’ sometimes “scientific” and sometimes “formal logic” approaches.  It is problematic to mix the two epistemologies.  I no longer see any contradiction.

Think of the implications involved when one admits the possible existence of God. Your distinction without a difference doesn’t hold true. If God is possible then both Jesus and divine capability are also possible. As such, divine capability could make it possible for Jesus to love us right now.

I didn’t say god was impossible and it’s safe to say I have given that possibility full consideration.  Changes nothing.  What matters is probability.

If Jesus potentially existed, then he potentially possesses the ability to give love today.

It is also possible that Jesus “potentially existed” and does not have the ability to give love today.

God may exist.  This a broad statement that opens the door for all sorts of possibilities.

For example, divine capabilities must also potentially exist.

“God may exist” => “divine capabilities must also exist.“ That does not follow.

Sorry, but god does not have divine capabilities, assuming it exists at all. Please feel free to disprove my statement with any documented, repeatable evidence. “Jesus on Grilled Cheese” doesn’t count.

DOF,

What matters is probability.

Sure, probability can lead someone to make an informed guess.  But because this point has already been made, I have to wonder if you know why probability is what matters?