The following is my response to Dr. David Tee’s post titled Where is Their Evidence? Tee, who is neither a Tee nor a doctor, took issue with my post Understanding Religion from A Cost-Benefit Perspective. Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, refuses to mention me by name or properly link to this site, while, at the same time, using my copyrighted material as the main, and often only, source of material for his blog, Theology Archeology: A Site for the Glory of God. Quite frankly, without my writing, Thiessen would have little, if anything, to say. This boorish behavior has been going on for over three years.
It is tempting to ignore Theissen, writing him off as just another ill-bred Evangelical who is pathologically unable to play well with others — including Christians. Thiessen considers himself a “true Christian,” while evidencing behavior that suggests he is anything but. I choose to respond to him — as regular readers are well aware — because I don’t like people who piss in my corn flakes; people who misrepresent my views or attack me personally. Bullies such as Theissen must not be given a pass, though I try my best to only respond to him when a post of his is egregious or absurd. His latest post is both.
Now to my response:
Unbelievers make astounding statements about Christianity, God, Jesus, and the Bible. It is not their faith, yet they feel they have a right to criticize something they do not believe in or accept.
Thiessen seems to forget that I was a Christian for fifty years; that Evangelical Christianity made a very deep imprint on my life. I have as much right as anyone else to critique Evangelicalism. It was the religion of my tribe, one that I know well and continue to follow from a distance to this day.
Thiessen is a Fundamentalist; a cultist. His peculiar brand of religion causes harm, both psychologically and physically. Many ex-Evangelicals feel duty-bound to expose Fundamentalism for what it is — a pernicious cult. How could I possibly be silent while people are being harmed, knowing that telling my story and critiquing Evangelicalism might help them? Shall I stand by and do nothing while well-meaning, sincere people are drowning? Shall I say nothing while cultists such as Thiessen harm others? Sorry, but I cannot and will not be silent.
This criticism would not be so bad if they did not just want everyone else to take their word for it. That is all that it amounts to, their opposition to Christianity is just their rejection of the truth. If they had an argument, they could point to real, objective evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is in error.
I have written over 5,000 posts since 2014. Not one time have I ever told readers to “take my word for it.” Not-One-Time. Further, Thiessen knows that I have extensively explained why I am no longer a Christian. One need only read the posts on the Why page to know why I deconverted.
Thiessen believes the Bible (including translations) is inerrant and infallible. Every word is without error. Such a fantastical claim cannot be rationally sustained. It is absurd at face value. One need to only point to ONE error to bring the whole house of cards down. I could quote dozens and dozens of glaring errors, mistakes, and contradictions in the Bible, but doing so would be a waste of time. No amount of evidence will move Thiessen off his belief that the Bible is inerrant. As Evangelicals are wont to do, he will have an “explanation” — no matter how superficial and lame — for every error.
Typically, I ask people to read one or more of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books on the history and nature of the Bible. Don’t take my word for it. Read the words of an esteemed New Testament scholar. Thiessen, however, won’t do this. He has read articles and blog posts about Ehrman’s books, but I doubt he has actually read one of his books from cover to cover. No need, right? The Bible is inerrant and infallible, and Ehrman is an atheist. He has nothing to offer to this discussion. Never forget, you can’t argue with an inerrantist, presuppositionalist, or creationist — Thiessen is all three. Fundamentalist minds are shut off from anything that does not fit in their narrow worldview and beliefs.
Yet, all they point to is either their unbelief or made-up evidence created by them or their fellow unbelievers. Case in point:
Many of my fellow atheists and agnostics have a hard time understanding why, exactly, people are religious. In particular, many godless people are befuddled by Evangelicals.
How can anyone believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant; believe the earth was created in six twenty-four-hour days; believe the universe is 6,027 years old; believe Adam and Eve were the first human beings; believe the story of Noah and the Ark really happened; believe that millions of Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years, and believe a Jewish man named Jesus was a God-man who worked miracles, was executed on a Roman cross, and resurrected from the dead three days later.
I could add numerous other mythical, fanciful, incredulous Bible stories to this list, all of which sound nonsensical to skeptical, rational people. (BG website)
The first paragraph is easy to refute, the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe. Every Christian has experienced that attitude from unbelievers.
It remains foolishness to them because the unbeliever only experiences the here and now. Unfortunately, the unbeliever will reject any physical evidence presented to them. We have seen this done and experienced it ourselves. The best thing to do is to stop arguing with them and leave the unbeliever with the evidence we have.
The unbeliever wants physical evidence but will always find ways to reject the presented physical evidence. Some do as the late Phillip Davies did one time and just close their eyes and deny that the evidence proves anything.
Thiessen says unbelievers live for the here and now (how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?) and are averse to any evidence presented to them by Evangelicals. Thiessen uses his own subjective experiences with non-Christians as proof that unbelievers will reject any evidence shown to them by true Christians. He never bothers to consider that maybe, just maybe, the real issue is the quality of evidence being presented to unbelievers; that quoting Bible verses is not evidence. The Bible says — according to how Evangelicals interpret the Bible — that the universe was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. This is a claim, as is the earth being 6,027 years old. Claims are not evidence, science is, and science overwhelmingly says that Thiessen’s claims are wrong. Thiessen, who fancies himself as an author, rejects much of what science has to say about the world (even though he has no substantive science training). He has the B-i-b-l-e, and that’s all he needs. In Thiessen’s world, whatever the Bible says is true, and if what it says conflicts with science, science is wrong.
In other words, a majority of unbelievers do not believe because they do not want to believe. No matter what evidence you present, it will never be good enough to convince them. The question really is not about unbelievers being amazed at why Christians believe in God and the Bible, the question is with all the supporting evidence, Christians are amazed at why unbelievers do not believe.
I am open to evidence for the central claims of Christianity. I am open to evidence that supports the claim that the Bible is inerrant. Unlike Thissen, I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But saying, “Bruce, you are wrong, the Bible says __________, is not evidence. Those are assertions, assertions for which Thiessen has yet to provide empirical evidence.
Thiessen seems unaware that only a small percentage of earthlings are “true Christians”; that the overwhelming majority of people are unbelievers, and that a minuscule number of people — mainly Evangelicals — believe the Bible is without error and infallible. Yet, Thiessen arrogantly thinks he is right and 7+ billion people are wrong. There’s not much you can say to a person who thinks like this. The first step to intellectual honesty is to admit that you could be wrong. It wasn’t until I gave space for the possibility of being wrong that I was able to consider whether the central claims of Christianity are true.
There is a wealth of physical evidence proving the Bible true. Noah’s flood alone has more evidence supporting it than any other biblical event. Just read Noah’s Flood Did Take Place to get a lot of that evidence.
Wealth of physical evidence? Really? Want to know about this so-called evidence? Read Thiessen’s 122-page “best-selling” book, Noah’s Flood Did Take Place. Theissen left off the rest of his title: An Examination of the Non-Scientific Evidence. Thiessen says there is a wealth of evidence proving young earth creationism is true, but his book says that this evidence is non-scientific.
Theissen says this about his book:
“Scientific evidence is not always the best field of research to use to know if an event, etc. took place in the past. This book goes outside of evidence to bring to the discussion all the evidence that is not talked about today and show that Noah’s Flood was real.”
As for creation, it is more rational to believe that God had the power and did create in 6- 24 hours days than it is to believe a theory that is statistically impossible to do. It is also more logical and rational to believe in a supernatural creation than it is to believe that the universe came from a small pinpoint and expanded to a size no telescope can see the edges.
Or be filled with different elements that were created by matter crashing into each other, especially when every attempt to crash things together destroys the two objects not combine them into a set of planets and stars that miraculously creates gravity, a force that even science cannot figure out how it operates.
It is also more rational and logical to believe in a super being that has the power to do all of this than some unknown entity no one can touch, feel, or experience. All that evolutionary scientists can do is study the supposed results of evolution. They cannot study the process itself nor can they put it in a test tube and examine it.
All they can do is make faulty predictions, which are not 100% correct, and ruin their theory anyway, and then declare ‘evolution did it and is true’ even though every one of their experiments is not exclusive. Any process can produce the same results.
Again, Christians scratch their heads and wonder how can unbelievers in Jesus believe such fairy tales and nonsense? There is no evidence for the alleged original conditions that started and developed life, there are no transitional life forms, and there is nothing to support the theory of evolution except some fallible human’s word.
Sigh. I will leave it to readers with science backgrounds to challenge Thiessen’s so-called “rational” assertions. I know what I know, and most importantly, I know what I don’t know.
In every case, the unbeliever presents no evidence to support their views of Christianity. Take these words for an example:
Here we are living in 2024 — an age driven by technology and science — yet millions of Evangelicals and other conservative Christians flock to Kentucky to tour Ken Ham’s monuments to ignorance: the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum…Why is it that Evangelicals continue to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? (BG website, we left out his anti-Trump remark)
….
To answer the question posed in BG’s quote, we believe because Jesus and the Bible are both real and true. There is nothing the unbeliever can say or do to change that fact. We have eyewitness testimony, we have physical evidence and both come from the believing and unbelieving sides of the world.
Thiessen provides no physical evidence for his claims, and quite frankly, none is needed. Thiessen’s claims are based on faith, not facts. Faith needs no evidence — just belief. I have argued with, debated, and talked with scores of Evangelicals over the past seven years. Without fail, “faith” is always the final answer. And once someone runs to the house of faith, no further discussion can be had. Facts do not need faith. Evidence does not need faith. Faith allows people to believe things that are not true.
Thiessen claims he has eyewitness testimony that proves that “Jesus and the Bible are both real and true.” Wikipedia says, “The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.”
The alleged eyewitness accounts in the Bible are claims, not evidence. If Thiessen wants to me to accept his claims, he must provide evidence that supports his claims. Just because a book says something doesn’t mean what it says is true. I will await Thiessen’s empirical evidence for his claims, especially his fanatical claim that the gospels are eyewitness testimonies. I have been studying theology for most of my sixty-six years on earth. I have yet to see any evidence that supports Thiessen’s Fundamentalist claims. If he has it, he needs to cough it up.
So here’s my offer to Thiessen: write a guest post that provides evidence for your claim that the Bible is eyewitness testimony, and I will post it unedited to this site. Actual evidence, Derrick, especially that “unbelieving” evidence you speak of (which is hilarious since you reject “unbelieving” evidence any time it challenges or contradicts your narrowminded Fundamentalist worldview). You have my email address, Derrick. I look forward to reading your scathing defense of eyewitness testimony in the Bible. Who knows, your post might convince me to reconsider the claims of Christianity.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
So I can’t criticise something I don’t believe in or accept? Do I really need to say anything more, such as I don’t believe in Nazism, yet I feel justified in calling out the Holocaust? Good grief, is this Tee character real, or is he just a spoof that’s been created to try and show how low ignorance and stupidity can sink?
His claim to use non scientific evidence is an oxymoron. The proper use of evidence is such that it may be strong or it may be weak, but it’s never such that it can prove things without a shadow of doubt’. That’s not the real world. Only mathematical proofs can achieve that level of certainty (even they are based on axioms), and anyone using the phrase raises the suspicion that they aren’t well based in evidential techniques. Evidence is almost always cumulative and, in science, has to be structured so as to ensure that one piece of evidence builds on the next. If it doesn’t then it brings into question the earlier evidence and that is where hypotheses need to be reconsidered. Any evidence, in any field of human endeavour, whether it be biology, history, theology, law, literature, etc, must follow this ‘scientific’ principle. There are no exceptions. We don’t convict someone of a crime if all the evidence says they didn’t do it, just because the lead detective has a ‘hunch’. Tee is seriously intellectually challenged. He won’t take up your offer because he knows, deep down, that he’s incapable of interacting with people who have some basis in rational thinking.
Interesting. Yes, points you make here are part of the reason why I’d rather be in any Barnes & Noble bookstore or independent, locally owned bookstore over any Christian bookstore, though some Christian bookstores are better than other Christian bookstores. But none of them compare to just a normal bookstore. As to refutation of eyewitness accounts alleged in the gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, yes, that might well have been written for communities later, but maybe it doesn’t mean it’s not pointing to something handed down as a witness prior to its writing, my way of saying this. I’m a person of faith, but I think all the human strivings of faith and religion on earth have a common source, if a god exists. And what’s genuine or at least goodness in such which can be acknowledged by all (and we need to acknowledge the same good in atheists, etc.) is a love of neighbor which extends to enemies and is satisfied with nothing less than a justice grounded in accountability and love. Whatever of religion whether in Evangelical Fundamentalism or whatever else contradicts love of neighbor ought to be summarily rejected. Well just my ramblings here. But always appreciate your thoughts, Bruce. I am sad to say that if I know someone is a Christian my first instinct is to run and hide (unless they’re already friends or relatives- at least for the most part). But if they’re just a normal human being, even though I’m not really that outgoing, I am open to their company. Thanks for your sharing here. I certainly would not be comfortable one iota with David Tee, sad to say. Considered lost. If they have any what I would call true religion (like what James 1 at the end of that chapter talks about, caring for orphans and widows, anyone in need) it’s in spite of so much of what they hold to which not only gets in the way, but ends up being toxic. More than enough of my rambling.
There is no point in trying to have a conversation with Dr. Tee. I have one point to make. The Higgs boson explains a lot about gravity.
What Tee says about gravity is a straw man argument at best and simply specious at worst. Whether or not science can explain what causes gravity, we know it exists because we see it working. Moreover, we have seen what happens in environments where there is less of it (e.g., the moon). Finally,
it can be demonstrated. On the other hand, invoking “God’s will “ or “the hand of God” to explain what one can’t explain is simplistic or dishonest (depending on who is claiming it and their motives) because not everyone has seen, or can see it, and it cannot be replicated.
As always, he demonstrates his ignorance, and little else. Anyone is free to critique anything; is he so arrogant as to presume to tell others what they can and can’t talk about?
Does Mr. Neither-a-doctor-nor-a-tee criticize other religions he doesn’t believe in? Like Islam, or Hinduism, or progressive liberal Christianity?
Hi, DDT! (waves at poisonous pompous preacher) Not LGBTQIA+? Then, according to your twisted logic, you don’t have the right to criticize them. Not a non-believer? Not a word out of you. Not a peep. Not a candidate for Bruce’s Black Collar Crimes series? Not…
(frowns) …Hmm… Let me get back to you on that one. 😀
Really don’t like to over criticize folks, even this guy. But he keeps begging to get his butt kicked. Picture could be titled, “Cult leader and his myrmidons.”
Thiessen responds: https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2024/01/31/god-is-right/
Summary: Bruce Gerencser is a narcissistic liar. Everything I said in this post is a lie.
He even called my readers dogs🐕. 🤣🤣
Thiessen says I am lying about his doctorate. Fine, he can clear up this issue by answering a few questions:
What institution granted you a doctorate?
Was this institution accredited?
What was the subject of your dissertation? How many words/pages? Single spaced, double spaced? Footnoted? Indexed? References?
Who was your faculty adviser?
Where can the public read your dissertation?
As of this date, Thiessen has refused to answer any of these questions, saying “God knows,” and that is all that matters. I know a lot of people who have earned doctorates. I don’t know of anyone unwilling to say where they earned their degree. Most are proud to do so. What an accomplishment, right?
If per chance Thiessen actually has a doctorate, my money is on the degree being issued by a unaccredited institution — most likely a Christian diploma mill. Thiessen says he had a 4.0 grade average. Keep in mind unaccredited Christian colleges — especially diploma mills — can and do offer doctorates. Typically, there is no dissertation requirement, or the candidate is required to write a thesis or report. “Dr.” Kent Hovind’s — Dr. Dino — doctorate comes from one such institution.
Thiessen can clear all of this up, but he won’t. Doing so would expose his grift.
I am still waiting for Thiessen’s guest post refuting my claims about Bible inerrancy and infallibility — especially his claims of possessing non-Biblical evidence for his claims. Does anyone think he will actually cough up all the evidence he allegedly has? The Ravens have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl on February 11 than Thiessen actually providing empirical evidence for his claims. Of course, all I need to do is show one error or contradiction to burn Thiessen’s inerrancy house to the ground. That’s the problem with claiming a literary work is without error. It only takes one error or contradiction to refute such an absurd claim. Keep in mind that Thiessen is arguing that Bible translations — one, some, all? — are without error. This claim is even easier to refute.
Thiessen will say I’m lying. I speak with 🍴 keyboard. 🤣🤣
If he answers any of these questions in an open, transparent manner that doesn’t involve hiding and concealment, I’ll be amazed.
Me too, and if he does, I’ll publicly eat my words — with ketchup, mustard, and relish. 🤣🤣
Tee says
“ Actually, we are both and we have been waiting for someone to ask us about using the name Tee but no one ever has.”
The reference here to both refers also to his fake claim to having a doctorate, but this you cover in your comment. I’m wondering how exactly one asks him about his name when he does not allow comments.
Ben Goldacre succeeded in obtaining a degree in nutrition for his cat, Hettie, (mentioning the cat’s name always makes it more amusing!) from the same institution as awarded a leading TV so called dietician its degree, at a cost of $60. I doubt it even cost Tee that much for his fake piece of paper.
“ While investigating McKeith’s membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, Goldacre obtained a professional membership on behalf of his late cat, Henrietta, from the same institution for $60” (Wikipedia). Wikipedia is reliable incidentally, provided read with discernment, something Tee lacks.
His use of Dr. Tee comes from his college days. I have in my possession a college publication that uses this nickname of his. He has no reason to not use his real name — especially on his books — unless he has something to hide.