Are you a Christian hyper-skeptic?

Busy day today so here is an older one.


According to Bill Pratt at Tough Questions Answered, a hyper-skeptic is someone who will not ever consider any evidences, arguments, or reasoning given for Christianity.

In case you are wondering if you are a hyper-skeptic, here are a few of the warning signs.

· You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).

· You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.

· You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.

· You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.

· When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.

· You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.

· You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.

· You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects. more

From Tough Questions Answered via The Woodshed

*I’m not sure who made the cartoon, found it online a while ago.


Categories: Atheism, Christianity

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

24 replies

  1. “You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.”

    Well…the jury is out. I don’t really think it matters since even if you grant that he existed, that doesn’t say anything about whether he was divine or not.

    “· You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).”

    This is a mistake. You should always challenge your own thinking, whether you’re an atheist or a Christian.

    “You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.”

    Pretty much true though. Both are unsubstantiated claims. One is just modern and the other obscured by time. One is culturally acceptable to believe in while the other is thought to be ridiculous.

    Better to use examples of one of the thousands of other gods though. I’ll give you that.


    • Godless,

      The jury is not out concerning the fact that Jesus was a real, historical figure.

      Western Civilization is both evidence and proof that Jesus lived, was crucified under Pontius Pilot, etc.

      The ridiculous fundamental dogma of atheism, that everything just happened all by itself, is what explains the atheist inability to comprehend proofs and evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If you say so. Historians and scholars would disagree with you. Civilization is evidence of civilization. Not of divinity. Muslims could say the same thing with the same amount of authority as you just did. Hindus the same.


        • Godless,

          Sorry, but leftists and their storm troopers, the atheists, don’t get to rewrite history.

          The importance of Christianity to the formation of Western Civilization is indisputable.


          That’s just you hallucinating again, because you have no argument against reality.

          Liked by 1 person

          • “Sorry, but leftists and their storm troopers, the atheists, don’t get to rewrite history.”

            I didn’t rewrite history. I said the jury is out. You are the one saying it’s proven.

            “The importance of Christianity to the formation of Western Civilization is indisputable.”

            And the Muslims would say the same, and the Hindus would say the same, and the Romans would have said the same, and the Greeks would have said the same, and the Azteks and so on.

            “That’s just you hallucinating again, because you have no argument against reality.”

            I don’t know where you get this hallucinating from. I’m wondering if you even know what it means because you use it all the time and it doesn’t fit what you’re talking about a lot of the time.


          • Godless,

            You saying that, “the jury is still out,” is in fact the rewrite of history, which before the fascist, totalitarian atheist left was indisputable.

            That Jesus lived has been indisputable for centuries and has only been strengthened by mainstream, modern historians.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Lol. Ridiculous. Lmao! So funny.


          • Godless,

            The reckless, willful ignorance of the atheist is no laughing matter.

            Liked by 1 person

      • “..leftists and their storm troopers, the atheists…”

        Oh, dear, am I a storm trooper now?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The complete lack of morals, the complete lack of reason and rational thinking, make the atheist an ideal storm trooper for the forces of tyranny.”

        I think you misunderstood. I was asking if *I* am a storm trooper? Me. Now.

        If so, I’d better get on the list for the cool white armor before GC snaps it all up.


      • Oh, and as long as I’m a storm trooper, I guess I also have a “complete lack of morals, and a complete lack of reason and rational thinking,” too?

        Just checking to see what I am these days.


      • Hi SOM the foundation of Western Civilization is the Greek and Roman pre-Christian values more than Christianity. Once the Roman empire became Christian in the 5th century the western world experienced almost 1,000 years of little or nor progress. It was only as the heavy shackles of Christian thought and superstition started to be pushed aside that the civilization moved forward again.


        • Peter,

          Greco-Roman philosophy was incorporated in Christianity by such luminaries as Saint Augustine at the end of Antiquity and Saint Thomas Aquinas during the Middle Ages.

          Pope Francis of today is the first pope in Church history to sever Christianity’s ties to the Greco-Roman way of thought.

          I understand that to be a sign that Western Civilization is over and that we must start building Western Civilization 2.0.


        • I’d love to make a time machine and drop you into a 1st century Mediterranean city to see just how “Western” it was.
          You would witness a world in which religion and public life were not just intertwined as in the medieval world, but identical: no concept of “church” and “state”, religion and public life were one fused reality to the point that even something simple as a business lunch was also an outdoor animal sacrifice, or an evening at the theater a liturgy.
          Among the upper classes pedophilia was not only common and tolerated, but celebrated.
          Among the lower classes spells, potions, hexes, and amulets were common to the point of being normal.
          You would have some typically western institutions like stadiums, law courts, senates, and standing armies (the Roman world was a military dictatorship); you would never have something resembling a university or a hospital.
          You would see slaves carrying out utterly pointless menial tasks like grinding grain or carrying wood, because nobody ever imagined labor saving devices like watermills or wheelbarrows (medieval inventions), because nobody cared: labor was seen as an evil to be passed off onto slaves and not taken seriously.
          People did not have a typically western concept of history: linear and moving somewhere, for better or worse, but a cyclical one.
          Technology was impressive, but also stagnant: an early Roman aqueduct and a late one are identical. A Greek trireme from the 3rd century BC was the same as a Roman trireme from the 5th century AD. There is no reason to suppose ancient technology would have progressed had it lasted, because it in fact did not.
          In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages people’s caloric intake actually went up compared to the ancient world thanks to labor saving devices and improved crop rotation and thousands of acres of European forest and swamp which the Romans never touched being cleared, drained, and put under the plow. 1000 to 1300 were years of great innovation and development on all fronts: Universities were founded, new architectural forms experimented with, new forms of law, like our own Common Law and equity courts, were started for new situations.
          Certain Greco-Roman ideas like republics, mathematics and theater have filtered down to us. Other ideas, like the joys of raping children and the importance of spells and potions were filtered out of Western culture by Christians. We have also inherited medieval ideas like limited warfare, universities, the inherent value of labor, technological innovation, and romantic love. In fact, “Europe” as we understand it is almost entirely medieval: it is not a geographical reality but a cultural one consisting of all the nations Christianized b the year 1000.
          Now, I’m not saying one time is inherently better than another, but that you have a romantic and superficial idea of history which is simply false.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. Hey, SOM, did you make parole, already?


  3. I wonder if someone would do a ‘reversal’ post of this one so james might see the other side of the coin? we as Christians are often irrational in our rejection of arguments and evidence from ‘the other side’ of the conversation. SOM is, in my opinion, an example of just such reticence to hear, consider and understand (much less tolerate) anything that calls into question or offers possible contradiction our Christian POV, whether they are on Core Beliefs or smaller ‘minutia’ positions.
    I’m sorry SOM, you are proving that Christians can be ‘hyper skeptical’ too.
    any takers to write the ‘reversal post’ response to this one on their blogs?


    • Mike,

      Postmodern Christians who “are often irrational” in their “rejection of arguments and evidence,” are just as intellectually and morally debilitated as atheists.

      The Christian who really reads and understands the Bible, understands that man’s ability to reason is what makes him created in the image of God.

      Your kind of Christian and the atheist reject that which makes man, human.


  4. thx SOM for your opinion of ‘my kind of Christian’. I’m reasonably sure we have never met or spent time conversing nearly enough to know what ‘my kind of Christian’ actually is, but thx for the response. once again, it proves my point that we as Christians can also be as intolerant, irrational and ‘hyper skeptical’ as some of us (myself not included) think the atheists are.


  5. Those things are not a sign of skepticism so much as superficiality.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: