John Branyan can’t even count.

Hey, all.  I don’t usually post self-gratifying posts (zero until this one), nor do I try to pick on any one person in my main articles.  But this is just utterly ridiculous.  I’ll post the conversation:

  1. So, if I understand you correctly, your god is basically just an explanation for anything you can’t explain.

    You’re therefore explaining something with another thing that has no explanation. We understand egg with reference to chicken, but you’re saying egg with reference to “mystery”. All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.

    I’d also like to note that this definition of “god” is so watered down, so un-precise, it could potentially be anything. Using your definition, god could be the god of Christianity, or any of the Hindu gods, the Norse gods, Greek gods, aliens, an all-powerful evil wizard, or nature doing nothing supernatural whatsoever.

    Hell, I’ll show you Evolution, and it matches your definition of “god”. If you care to, I’d be happy to confirm your definition of god by doing just that.

    • John Branyan says:

      “All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.”
      Wrong. I explained it with “God”.
      How do you explain it without God?

      • Yes, you explained it with “god”, but you haven’t defined your god other than the thing that explains other stuff. Explaining something with an unknown is not explaining something, it’s deferring.

        You call yourself a Christian, I see, and yet you are avoiding defining “god” by any of the biblical attributes. You have deferred to an unknown, which as I already noted, is such a watered down definition that the Theory of Evolution fits your definition. And again, if the Theory of Evolution is your god, I’ll gladly concede.

        • John Branyan says:

          I did define God.
          You didn’t answer my question. How do you explain chickens and eggs without God? (Please remember the Theory of Evolution doesn’t address the origins of life.)

  2. Short answer, John? I don’t know.

    Longer answer, evolution explains how chickens as a species came into being from earlier reptiles. But if you’re asking about abiogenesis, there are some very interesting results that scientists have done in the lab.

    So between your god, any other gods, aliens, some other means, and abiogenesis, only one has any evidence. Is it the correct answer? I’m not sure. But it does account for your chicken.

  3. Oh, that’s easy. Because you’re claiming you are correct without any evidence at all. I’m claiming cautious interest but uncertainty with some evidence.

    I’m being uncertain. You’re being unjustifiably certain.

    • John Branyan says:

      Actually, I haven’t claimed anything with certainty.

      You, on the other hand, have stated with certainty that evolution explains chickens. There is no evidence that chickens evolved from reptiles.

  4. John, you liar. I claimed that evolution provides an account for chickens. You asked me to provide an account for chickens without god, and I did so.

    So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure, both could be wrong. How do we find out? Evidence.

    And I just spent the last hour reading most of your “evidences” that contain no evidence whatsoever.

    I’d say good try, but actually it was a pretty poor attempt. Then again, you said you would provide evidence for something for which there is no evidence. So…… you have that going against you.

    • John Branyan says:

      “So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure…”

      That is called a statement of certainty.
      I’m not the liar.

    • John Branyan says:

      I’m saying they can’t exist without an explanation.
      Neither chickens nor eggs are self-explanatory.

    • John Branyan says:

      Yes, Spartan, I’m following you. I explained that evolution doesn’t account for the origins of life. Are you following me?

  5. Completely. But we weren’t talking about the origins of life, we were talking about chickens.

    So, given two possible explanations for chickens, poofed or evolved, we indeed have two options, of which if one is correct, the other can not be correct. Still following?

    • John Branyan says:

      Restating your faulty “two options” doesn’t magically make it valid.
      Evolution is NOT an explanation for life OR chickens. Still following?

  6. John, I don’t care if you believe it or not, or if evolution is even true or not at this point. I have presented two possible explanations for chickens. One is god. The second is evolution. Can you agree I literally typed two things?

    • John Branyan says:

      Spartan, you have presented one possible explanation and one ridiculous statement. Evolution isn’t an explanation. Sorry if you don’t believe it.

    • John Branyan says:

      No. There is one proposition.
      The fact that you can’t come up with another is strong evidence for God.



Yes, John just said that.  I couldn’t have made this any easier.  And we all know he’s just “lyin’ for Jesus”, because if I proposed two propositions for any other thing he would have been fine saying there were two.  Car damaged from deer strike or Thor’s hammer?  Two propositions.  Food eaten by the kids or aliens?  Two propositions.  Someone got the job because well qualified or screwed the boss?  Two propositions.  I don’t care how ridiculous or unbelievable any of the propositions are, it’s a simple matter of adding one plus one.

John isn’t a complete moron, because he may have sensed that the next question I would have asked is “how can we determine which proposition is true?”  Naturally, his religiously suppressed brain did not allow him to even allow for the consideration of any proposition he didn’t like, so he literally had to say that 1 + 1 = 1!

This is what religion does to your brain.  Stay off religion, kids.  It makes you stupid.

The Spartan Atheist


20 thoughts on “John Branyan can’t even count.

  1. One thing a person has to say about JB … he’s a master at twisting words to deflect from answering a direct question.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Alas, the baffling refusal to answer the most basic of questions and the apparent inability to admit that 2+2=4 is typical among “the faithful”…. and continues to stifle material and moral progress everywhere. I just hope that what makes them blind, deaf, and stupid does not also make them evil. Peace.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Well the chicken/egg thing. We’re pretty certain birds are the ancestors of the dinosaurs. So the key question is, how did dinos end up male and female. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I gave up conversing with him a long time ago because of his dishonesty and arrogance. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

  5. When Branyan goes on these rants, just ask him was the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago (a bolide impact which ignited the biosphere and dramatically altered the environment, enabling the human evolutionary line) Yhwh’s work? Was the Great Oxygen Catastrophe 2.5 billion years ago which killed off virtually all life on earth, but created an oxygen-rich atmosphere which enabled multicellular life to take root Yhwh’s work? Were the Hox and ParaHox gene clusters Yhwh’s work?

    His game comes crashing down when you ask him to make Yhwh accountable for the bad, morally repugnant things. And the alternative thesis—that God is maximally good but thoroughly incompetent and has lost total control of his creation—is a proposition no theist will embrace.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. lol I’m not sure if Branyan believes that the history of our universe goes beyond 6500 years ago.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Dude, he can’t count to two, let alone 66 million!

      Liked by 3 people

  6. He loses me between sentences. There seems to be no earthly point to discuss anything with him unless your BP is too low, or you need practice typing. Beyond that, it’s a waste of time. He might as well have said that because we can’t explain Santa that means he exists too. We just don’t Santa hard enough.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. He actually has a Santa rant. I assume it was because I compared the two. It was an illogical mash of useless words.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. I don’t understand much of his line of reasoning, and I read his post he linked too in your other post! Well, I guess it’s deflect, deflect deflect for the true zealous believer! Then again, how on Earth have they decided God is 3 separate beings that are NOT each other, but also one entity simultaneously??? I propose some leap in divine quantum physics 😉

    Liked by 3 people

  8. I don’t understand his line of reasoning at all, and I read his post too! I guess it’s deflect, deflect, deflect for the true zealous believer! Then again, how on Earth did they decide God was 3 separate beings that were NOT each other, and also one entity simultaneously???

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Sorry if my comment went in twice… I guess the system flags comments with 2 links! The link is to the diagram of the trinity…


  10. Man, this dude’s HILARIOUS! The wit! The brilliance of his comedic timing when not even attempting to be outright humorous is magnificent to behold. He outta go into standup comedy. He’s got quite the gift.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Branyan comes across as a sociopath and is quite possibly borderline psychopath.
    He must get a hard-on every time he sees his name up in lights and tends to crow about how he gets mentioned and thus he reckons he must be doing something right to rile up those who are members of the atheist religion, dontcha know?

    In truth, the best thing to do is ignore him.
    It isn’t as is he has written anything even vaguely worthwhile to even bother engaging him on,not is it?
    To paraphrase one of their little sayings ….
    Some pigs aren’t even worth the effort of throwing offal

    Liked by 3 people

    1. typos …. hate them!

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I figured I’d throw a dose of reality on his blog. I don’t care about him, but someone reading might be influenced to think…

      Liked by 2 people

      1. On his blog? Don’t count on it.
        His groupies have to take their socks off if they need to count past ten.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. I just don’t understand what Branyan is saying here
    What he did with “god” is very similar to a mathematics question that goes along the lines of let x be the sum of this equation
    His definition of god is along the lines of
    the variable we give to the answer an unanswered question.

    1) Let god be the mechanism of the changes in seasons. Find god
    When scientist then answer this question. He moves to another question

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Exactly, which is why the best way to expose his nonsense is to point out the terrible things and ask whether that, too, is Yhwh’s work.

      His line of thought is as juvenile as William Paley’s, who wrote of nature: “A bee amongst the flowers in spring is one of the most cheerful objects that can be looked upon. Its life appears to be all enjoyment; so busy, and so pleased.” Reality: Under the microscope, the bee’s outer body is found to be infested with the ferocious varroa mite, their airways riddled with impatiently greedy acarine (tracheal) mites, their intestines ravaged by the veracious nosema apis, and their hives, where some degree of safety should at least be expected, is instead crowded with gluttonous bacillus larvae and the hideous Brood Disease.

      Liked by 2 people

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close