HOME | DD

uncledon In reply to DesertFox088 [2019-03-24 15:40:29 +0000 UTC]

Yes thank you for your useless sermon entitled ‘I’m right because I believe in an ancient magical mythology and I say that I am’.

Quoting magical incantations from your ancient, primitive, barbaric book of mythology means only that you are rather delusional in thinking that without showing your alleged ‘god’ really exists this means anything at all in reality.

A yes the pretense of ‘that’s out of context’ used so frequently by apologists to try and claim that clearly stated material taken from a book they have already proclaimed to be the direct, perfect, unchanging ‘word of god’ such as Exodus 21:17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” repeated again in Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” doesn’t really mean what it says because of some unstated ‘context’.

So what is the greater context for any of these clear and direct contradictions other than you telling me effectively to ‘go to hell I’ll do as I please regardless of your wishes in your own house because I’m a true believer in magic’?

“This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent as The Bible being God's Word or not is irrelevant to it containing contradictions or not.”

No it is directly relevant as you are in fact declaring in this very sentence that it is “God's Word” upon which you are basing your entire argument or should I say sermon. The logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent is only valid if and when the antecedent have been accepted as being valid which I do not accept along with two-thirds of the human race. As you are in fact basing your entire ideas solely on the construct that it is an established fact that your ‘god’ exists and was the ‘author’ of said book this pretext is invalid.

“This is the Fallacy of Cherry Picking as you blatantly deny any Christian sight when you're making claims against Christianity...that in itself is a contradiction and fallacious argument of Cherry Picking sources.”

I allow people like you to post their personal opinions and ‘arguments’ regarding my own but if they must rely on outside sources that are almost entirely propaganda mills seeking financial support to preach what I consider to be irrational, ancient mythology then no I am not interested in having them link to a patent medicine sermon begging for donations.

Here you are trying to play a variant of the ‘christian persecution complex ploy’ using a flawed version of a logical fallacy. The ‘cherry picking’ fallacy applies, as you likely understand, to ignoring valid data simply because it either refutes the conclusion being promoted or to foster an otherwise erroneous one. As you are asserting without justification that your beliefs are valid as are those christian apologetics sources I dismiss this is not a logical fallacy as I am rejecting invalid and unsupported materials from the equitation as they are irrelevant. When you or they can demonstrate their claims in reality with objective, verifiable evidence and not merely the same type of pandering propaganda that you both are trying to present then they will be acceptable.

Do those apologetic sources, or you for that matter, accept materials or sources that hold to differing interpretations of their mythological ideology or from other religious sources? In point of fact the vast majority of them do not allow any commentary at all in order to prevent any and all disagreement so as to present only the illusion of ‘perfect harmony’.

“To further drive this point home, all proposed Bible contradictions have already been answered and explained away, so my rebuttal to not only these is this sight and if you reject it as a source, then you're arguing from a fallacious position.”

As you have made various flawed claims attempting to in fact assert without any effort to support your position that this mythology you cling to is real as well as effectively telling me both that you are ‘right because you believe in magic’ as documented in a ridiculous book of myths not to mention ignoring my ‘rules of conduct’ for such replies merely to preach your pathetic sermon of ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, I say so, we’re done’.

And yes we are!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

uncledon In reply to virtualfairyqueen [2018-05-17 18:07:58 +0000 UTC]

“I know the Bible can be a little frustrating to those who haven't read it a ton, and even those who do on a daily basis, since its different translations and in-text references can go over our head.”

Yet here you are implying that you have managed to rise above all that to become some sort of expert on scripture through what? Belief in an ancient mythology no doubt that seem to make you think that you can tell others that you interpretations are correct and theirs are in error.

“But! As one of those people who reads the Bible often, I think I can be of help!”

I see this as an implication that you are asserting that I have not done so and that your views are superior to my own. That is a very pretentious and flawed remark by which you appear to also be implying that perhaps you possess ‘superpowers’ enabling you to reach across space and time to determine what others have done. Yes slightly sarcastic but then your assertion that you can ‘correct my views’ is slightly offensive.

Your remarks regarding 2 Kings 2:11 does not alter the fact that in place this passage is contradicted.

Ah yes the common christian ploy of ‘that’s out of context’ ignoring that fact that the vague and ambiguous language in which scripture is written allows almost any interpretation to be put forth. You are also implying that because you disagree with my view on the matter that you are free to assert that I have not in fact done exactly what you say therefore implying that your views are superior to mine.

“He's essentially saying, "Don't take my word for it--listen to what all these people have to say about me!" which since the only other source of ‘those people’ is that very same book what you are declaring is the ‘correct view’ is nothing more than a clear case of circular reasoning. Trying to use the thing you are trying to validate as the evidence for it which is irrational and illogical.

“After all, if you defended yourself in court without anyone else witnessing on your behalf, it wouldn't be credible, would it?” That is hardly a valid contention as eyewitness testimony is the single worse form of evidence in court and anywhere else and has been refuted time and again by forensic evidence and more recently by CCTV evidence. That does not even take into account that other than the ‘gospels’ none of those alleged people are named or otherwise identified and no external records of them or their accounts exist making this claim little more than a self-supporting fiction.

“Asking if Jesus has any power "on his own" is kind of an impossible question.”

What is more impossible is the unjustified assertion without presenting clear, objective, verifiable evidence that either of these supernatural beings actually exist instead relying on personal belief in an ancient, primitive, often barbaric book of mythology that reality contradicts and makes false at almost every turn. For case examples I suggest that you compare the fables relating to the ‘creation of the universe and man’ compared with objective and verifiable reality relating to those issues for starters.

Your remarks regarding Mark 11 and Matthew 21 in no way demonstrates that one states that the ‘jesus’ character did curse a tree for not bearing fruit out of season while the did not exactly as I have stated they report. This is in fact precisely the type of internal contradiction which occurs throughout that book. Whether or not one passage adds ‘more detail’ is not relevant as they clearly state conflicting tales.

Regarding to Luke 23 you have pointed out an error on my part as I should have stated that John 19 makes no mention of that claim or any other.

Would you care to take a stab at the fact that Matthew, Mark and Luke all assert that there was three hours of darkness while Matthew goes on to claim that the ‘graves opened and the dead walked the streets’ yet no other record of these events exist anywhere in the world?

“Hope my explanations helped!”

Not really as for the most part I see them merely as apologetics trying to paint scripture as ‘perfect’ when it is anything but.

“I'm not a Pastor or anything, but I like to think my knowledge and analysis skills are adequate to assist people who are confused by Bible verses.”

In other words people you see as daring to hold ideas regarding your beliefs that you dislike or do not wish to see go unchallenged. The real ‘confusion’ is in failing to see what is clearly stated instead relying on such apologetics as ‘out of context’ to try and avoid clearly stated ideas.

Would you care to try to explain in rational terms exactly how Deuteronomy 22:20-21 which sates “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you” is ‘out of context’? or better still why that is not a barbaric abomination?

By the way I have very little tolerance for manufactured claims regarding such ideas as ‘well that’s just how it was back then’ or ‘god’s will’ especially when you are unlikely to provide any demonstration that such a creature in fact exists.

But I could be wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

virtualfairyqueen In reply to uncledon [2018-05-18 15:38:13 +0000 UTC]

I can see you're very passionate about all of this. After all, if you felt the need to make posts on Deviantart about your disbelief and general dislike for the Bible, how could you not? (This isn't to say there's anything wrong with think like that--you're allowed to do what you want--but I digress.) 

But anyways, I don't appreciate you jumping to conclusions by calling me pretentious, and implying I think of myself as "holier than thou." (I know you didn't use that exact phrase--I'm just summarizing.) Either way, whether it was intended or not, I think your wording was a little rude.

I also find it rude that you don't take anything I say regarding the Biblical passages seriously. Granted, I am just a random person on the internet, but that doesn't mean my interpretation and beliefs of the Bible are completely uncredible. Just like any other belief/lifestyle, Christianity can be hard to understand if you yourself aren't a believer. The next best thing is having someone who believes in it to explain it to you, but even that won't do a thing if you yourself aren't open and willing to listen. I understand that you probably won't believe that, and might make you even more angry, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. For example, if someone slapped some Calculus problems in front of me and told me to explain it by myself, I would only get so far, right? I would have to have a professor or Calculus student help me out, because they've already learned about and understand the material.

I'm sorry if this wasn't the response you're looking for, or if you also interpret what I've said as pretentious again. I seriously don't mean it to come across that way.

And I know you presented more questions in your response to my previous comment, but if I actually continued with the discussion like that, this comment section would turn into a literal novel. It's not that I couldn't answer them--it's just that it takes time to write long responses. But briefly, regarding Deuteronomy 22: 20-21; that was the law--which was later defeated by Jesus' death. This site explains it fairly well: christianityshines.com/atheist… .

I encourage you to not give up on researching Jesus and the Bible, consulting different sources from all different viewpoints, and to have an open mind.

I recommend looking into The Case for Christ (originally a book, also a movie). It is written by a Christian man, however, he wasn't like that originally. He used his skills as a reporter to prove Jesus/the Bible to be uncredible, but came to a different conclusion after gathering the evidence. The information in is solid, so I hope you ask that you don't turn it down as a possibility just because the author is a Christian. 

I wish you the best.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

uncledon In reply to virtualfairyqueen [2018-05-18 19:05:39 +0000 UTC]

First of all I direct your attention to the remarks posted along with this work indicating that I welcome any comments regarding how it might be in error. I accepted the one point where I found that I was incorrect and changed it but the rest of your remarks are in my view little more than an attempt to spin scripture to mean what you want it to mean rather than what it says.

“But anyways, I don't appreciate you jumping to conclusions by calling me pretentious, and implying I think of myself as "holier than thou." (I know you didn't use that exact phrase--I'm just summarizing.) Either way, whether it was intended or not, I think your wording was a little rude.”

Well I don’t appreciate people like you walking up to tell me that I’m wrong just because they say so while implying that they are some sort of biblical scholar whose interpretations though vague are the penultimate ones.

Pretention is defined as attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines pretentious as “1 characterized by pretension: such as a: making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) or b: expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature; 2 making demands on one's skill, ability, or means”.

You came out of the gate stating “Not here to start a fight, just here to drop my 2 cents to clear up confusion. I know the Bible can be a little frustrating to those who haven't read it a ton, and even those who do on a daily basis, since its different translations and in-text references can go over our head. But! As one of those people who reads the Bible often, I think I can be of help!” That was a clear and direct implication that you are a self-proclaimed ‘biblical authority here to ‘set the record straight’ by ‘correcting’ those whose views regarding scripture do not coincide with your own. You also pretenitiously implied that your level of skill in this area is far superior to mine merely because you believe in the doctrine of that mythology which is also rather pompous and self-serving.

As to ‘rudeness’ you can view it in any manner that you care too but since my tone was no different than yours, I used no taunts or slurs nor did I demean or denigrate you I really don’t care whether or not you wish to play the christian ‘I’m offended’ card because you don’t like others expressing their distaste for your mythology.

“I also find it rude that you don't take anything I say regarding the Biblical passages seriously.”

That is merely another apparent attempt on your part to assert that you can determine what other people are doing by some type of superpower. You can have such an opinion but I did review your comments fully yet I simply do not accept them as being valid but rather an attempt to spin scripture in your favor. From my point of view what you are saying is in effect that I didn’t swallow your assertions that your views are the correct ones and that bothers you.

‘Well frankly Scarlet I don’t give a damn’.

“Granted, I am just a random person on the internet, but that doesn't mean my interpretation and beliefs of the Bible are completely uncredible.”

That is something I never said in any manner I merely did not accept your views. Additionally, since as I have stated scripture is written for the most part in such vague and ambiguous language it can be and has been reinterpreted by almost every person to mean what they want it to mean therefore your views are nothing special to anyone other than yourself. At the same time mine are equally as valid even if they don’t sit well with you though I think you had best get used to this as the christian faith in the US continues to decline as it has for the past few decades while the ‘nones’ is the fastest growing segment of the population regarding religious views.

If you have the courage you might review www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/no… or www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/… as well as other such reports like news.nationalgeographic.com/20…   . Another well researched study was “The MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins: the Belief Gap” authored by Eugena Lee, Max Tegmark and Meia Chita-Tegmark. These are balanced research as they surveyed people of every age, region, belief and so on to gain a real understanding of the current states of the issue and not merely staying within the closed loop of the one ideological circle they want to sell but I cover that below min more detail.

“Just like any other belief/lifestyle, Christianity can be hard to understand if you yourself aren't a believer.”

First of all that is an irrational concept used by christians to try and claim some obtuse ‘special knowledge or point of view’ that blindly accepting the myths, fables and doctrines in the ideology grants as well as being equally used and applicable to all other faiths something you likely ignore. What it boils down to is ‘if you’d just believe all the irrational, absurd, barbaric, contradictory, magical ideas we do the unsubstantiated nonsense will all make perfect sense through delusion’. Next there is nothing “hard to understand” when reason and skepticism are applied to any such material particularly when it makes statements that are directly shown to be in conflict with observable and verifiable reality such as the entire creation myth.

“The next best thing is having someone who believes in it to explain it to you, but even that won't do a thing if you yourself aren't open and willing to listen.”

What you are saying is that in order to understand that slavery, murdering unruly children or adulterers, committing genocide on one’s neighbors but sparing their underage daughters for unstated but obviously immoral purposes and a host of other abominations are not in fact repugnant, barbaric and evil you need to have a ‘spin doctor’ standing by to distort what is clearly written into what they want you to see. Sorry but that is called propaganda and indoctrination in case those terms slipped by you.

I would ask, though I doubt that you’ll answer clearly, if you consider certain passages from the Qur’an to be ‘evil’ or immoral and if you had someone from that faith present when you were exposed to them or if you sought one out after the fact or more to the point if you believed in that faith when you read those passages? If the answer to any or all of those questions is ‘no’ then you have just demolished your own attempt to ‘logic’ by demonstrating that while you insist on those conditions with regard to your preferred mythology you ignore them with regard to all others yet render judgment on them anyway.

That is the problem with ‘christian logic’, it only applies to them while they blind themselves to how it equally does to all others or none at all.

“I understand that you probably won't believe that, and might make you even more angry, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.”

First of all you are not only being pretentious again asserting that even though I have made all of my remarks in a reasonable manner that because I reject your ideas and fail to kowtow to your attempts to sway me into accepting your mythology I am being ‘angry’. Sadly that is a very common christian tactic that comes under the heading of the ‘christian persecution complex’ [CPC] wherein any discord, failure to accept without question the ideas they present or rational opposition is seen as hostility when it is nothing of the kind.

So please stop pretending that you are being ‘abused’ when you are not. You stated “Not here to start a fight” when what you came here to do in my opinion was to preach as you are doing now.

“For example, if someone slapped some Calculus problems in front of me and told me to explain it by myself, I would only get so far, right? I would have to have a professor or Calculus student help me out, because they've already learned about and understand the material.”

The comparison is not merely invalid but asinine as in Calculus one must already have a grasp of other mathematical concepts built up gradually and incrementally over a period of study in the field that in fact does generally require a teacher although many people have merely picked up a textbook and taught themselves but that would not support your contention so you again ignore it.

One needs only to be able to read and comprehend the language reasonably well to understand that when scripture states as it does in Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” that this is an irrational idea as magic and therefore witches are not real and that it is a proclamation to commit murder because of that erroneous idea. Do you need moral guidance from a third party arbitrator to understand that when it says in Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” this is abominable regardless of what you might think of the act? When it says in Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” are you actually trying to suggest that are rational person cannot determine for themselves that this is a barbaric idea stating that speaking angrily to a parent is a capital crime without being manipulated by a ‘believer’?

That is precisely what you have stated and one of the reasons that I and so many other find the entire idea of christian apologetics to be little more that propaganda. If you think that only with someone to manipulate your mind to believe that when the words are “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him” or “So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin” that is not repugnant, immoral and evil than I fear that you have lost nearly all ability to think for yourself and reason rationally.

“I'm sorry if this wasn't the response you're looking for, or if you also interpret what I've said as pretentious again. I seriously don't mean it to come across that way.”

Most likely you did not but it does from where I stand due to your use of the CPC and asserting that I am ‘angry’ when there is nothing to support that claim other than I did not bow to your assertions.

“But briefly, regarding Deuteronomy 22: 20-21; that was the law--which was later defeated by Jesus' death. This site explains it fairly well: christianityshines.com/atheist… .”

Sorry but linking to a christian apologetic website is meaningless and a waste of time as I am not interested in listening to their sales pitch any more than any other.

This is little more than part of the truly ridiculous attempt to distance yourself from the horrors of the old testament by asserting that ‘well jesus changed all that’ while still clinging to the parts that aren’t grossly evil and barbaric. I would wager that while you have tried to set aside the ‘bad bits’ you’d likely try to make a case for the ten commandments by trying to pretend that ‘it is not also the law’ that you have just made a blanket statement to refute once again showing that ‘christian logic’ is no such thing.

It also conveniently ignores new testament scripture in an attempt to wave this apologetic in the air as stated very clearly in Matthew 5:17-19 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Now you can try to spin that to mean something else but the words that are alleged to have come from this jesus character clearly state that he is in fact requiring obedience to every ‘jot and tittle of the law’ which at that time was the Torah i.e., the old testament.

I find it rather telling that while you play the ‘sorry no OT for me thank you’ gambit, or at least a version of it, you dared not touch the problems regarding what the gospels say in reference to the ‘resurrection’. Why is that I wonder? Could it be that you haven’t found an apologist able to spin their differences convincingly or is it that you know that you can’t use the OT is out ploy there? Perhaps it is that you understand that since there is nothing that supports those absurd ideas your only possible ploy is to try and claim metaphor but doing so would cast serious doubt on the entire fable or as you have done merely pretend it doesn’t exist.

“I encourage you to not give up on researching Jesus and the Bible, consulting different sources from all different viewpoints, and to have an open mind.”

Once more you are asserting without justification that I do not have an open mind as well as that I have not actually researched your book and the mythical concept that a first century CE itinerate rabbi was both a magician and a demi-god merely because I have not succumbed to your mythological ideology. The facts are that I have read you book from cover to cover more than once and find it absurd in its entirety as well as without any rational external validation. I have also read the Qur’an, several of the Hindu Vedas, the Tao te Ching, the Analects of Buddha and other such texts but would never make the type of self-serving implications regarding my knowledge of these as you have implied regarding your book.

“I recommend looking into The Case for Christ (originally a book, also a movie). It is written by a Christian man, however, he wasn't like that originally. He used his skills as a reporter to prove Jesus/the Bible to be uncredible, but came to a different conclusion after gathering the evidence. The information in is solid, so I hope you ask that you don't turn it down as a possibility just because the author is a Christian.”

Lee Strobel’s book is little more than a biased attempt to distort reality in order to assert that he has sound evidence to promote his faith when all that he really has in the skewed opinions of fellow believers whose arguments do not lead where they say that they do.. The book summarizes his interviews with thirteen evangelical Christian scholars; Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, John McRay, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, Gary Collins, D. A. Carson, Louis Lapides, Alexander Metherell, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and J. P. Moreland; in which they defend their views regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament which is evidence of the inherent bias. A balanced and reasonable case would have been to present an equal number of people on both sides of the issue then rationally point out the logical errors, invalid assertions and other flaws that each make but Strobel does what every other christian apologist does which is present only the ideas, material and ‘experts’ that support his case then declaring that it’s all real because they all agree with him.

That is not scholarly research that is manufacturing propaganda to feed to the flock of believers.

I suggest that you step outside the closed sphere of faith that you seem to have locked yourself inside and perhaps look at what other people equally educated and skilled but not totally reliant on an ancient mythology for their every thought have to say on various topics. Review their ideas, evaluate them for yourself without someone standing over your shoulder to tell you what to think and decide for yourself. That is something you will almost never heard from a christian because they understand the thinking for oneself leads to question and often question they cannot answer. This is what you have clearly referenced with the idea that only by being led by the nose can anyone understand the bible.

To that ridiculous notion I call BULLSHIT and say that is nothing more than a desperate attempt to validate indoctrination or brain-washing. If your book and its doctrine cannot stand up to what any reasonable person might think of them but needs another to spin it into something else than there really isn’t any value to it at all.

I also suggest that you either make an evidence based argument as to why what appears on this work is in error or consider that you have offered your sermon and call it a day as I have clearly stated that I have very little patience with those who, as you clearly appear to be doing, come here to preach that your mythology is real because you say that it is. If you want to convince me then do what no other christian zealot has ever managed to do which is present a clear, objective, rational, verifiable demonstration that your book is in fact based in reality, that magic in fact does exist and that your alleged deity is in fact real instead of pretending that rhetorical arguments are enough when they do not conform to those conditions and can be equally applied to every other religious construct ever manufactured.

A point that Strobel and his gang of like-minded apologists ignore if not flee in fear from as they understand it very well but don’t want the congregation they too are preaching to to know it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0