A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2015, 12:13 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 03:46 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Just counter it with The greatest trick Loki has ever pulled is by fooling the world that him and the other gods don't exist.

It is every bit as valid as their claim.

...but that's not true. That's not really the greatest trick he ever pulled. It's still 2nd to the shapeshifting to be an old woman and not swearing to never harm Baulder then shifting into the mistletoe that will be thrown and end up killing him. Wink

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-05-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
For the sake of anyone perusing this thread, the bible asserts that Nimrod; the great-grandson of Noah, founded the cities of Babel, Erech, Akkad and Calneh.

Of course Akkad was founded by Sargon of Akkad, so we know the bible is making shit up again right away.

Akkad was founded around 2350 B.C.

Erech is probably Uruk, the earliest traces of Uruk were found to be around 5000 B.C. (encountering timeline problems already) Uruk was founded by King Enmerkar (Bible's playing loose with the facts again)

Babel seems to be to Babylon like Superman's city of Metropolis is to New York City. It's a pseudo city made up for the purposes of telling a story, it's not real, but it's reasonable to presume that just as Metropolis is a made-up city derived from New York City, that Babel would be derived from Babylon. So it's irrelevant who founded Babel, since it's not real.

Calneh may have been a reference meaning "all of them" and isn't considered a city.

So we're looking at time frames of 2350-5000 B.C. for Nimrod. That Nimrod was one healthy SOB, he apparently lived over 2650 years! Laughat

The bible seems to do two things consistently:

1. It flat out lies about things.
2. It wildly exaggerates things.

I've even seen one apologist try to say that Nimrod was the Babylonian Gilgamesh. Laugh out load

They're attempting to rid themselves of that embarrassing fact that the Gilgamesh flood myth predates the Noahtic flood myth. They REALLY want to claim that the Noah version of the myth is the true myth.Laugh out load

So if the Epic of Gilgamesh was an accurate depiction of a flood event that predates the myth of Noah by hundreds of years, how would that bolster the Noahtic flood?

Also, since Nimrod is supposedly the great-grandson of Noah, then the time between the flood and the Tower of Babel would have been, maybe 100 years, though many apologist sites put it at about 150 years after the flood.

So this brackets dates for the flood myth to around 2300-2450 B.C. which is; of course, after the pyramids were built. I don't see no ark, but we do see the pyramids standing to this day.

I don't think the pyramids would be around if the Noahtic flood was a real thing, also pyramids have Egyptian language in them, so there they are disproving the Noah myth and the Tower of Babel myth simply by existing.

[Image: 84535-004-F70A0BFA.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
09-05-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(02-03-2015 09:54 AM)claywise Wrote:  I hate this tack by Christians:

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

But in a way, it represents a classic mode of "argument" they like to use: The fact that we cannot/do not see something or evidence for something is powerful confirmation that it exists.

In other words, the fact that there is no evidence of a devil should frighten you into accepting that there is a devil.

I didn't get a chance to go through the whole thread--so someone may have mentioned this already in an earlier post, so sorry if I'm rehashing Smile . The quote you mention in your post comes from Charles Baudelaire, a poet: "The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist." So that particular quote isn't even biblical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
09-05-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
[Image: tumblr_inline_mfj5kpmChH1rambtp.gif]
[Image: tumblr_inline_mfj5qec7CA1rambtp.gif]
Gotcha.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
11-05-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 02:31 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  From memory--though I guess we could look in Genesis 11--Babel was somewhere on the plains of Shinar, which city's construction halted as the tower was stopped and people were scattered. Babylon may have been named after Babel.

Repeating, do you have archaeology of an unfinished tower in the region you feel is Babel? Because that would be case for the Bible's truth--or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation.

Of course, I would say that if you insist Babylon was named after Babel, you'd be making a case for the Bible as accurate (in that one instance).

As always, you fail to understand evidence presented to you or you are deliberately misconstruing it. I will spell it out in bright red letters for you:

There is abundant proof for languages that existed long before Babel, Babylon, the Babylonian empire, whatever.

Now bigger red fonts:

This falsifies the Tower of Babel myth.

You made a bold statement about archeological evidence never refuting the bible, you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of Babel wasn't Babylon? Why are you doing this? Are you running from falsifiability like you did in the Noah's flood thread? Explain...

Babylon was an empire, headed by a nation, Babylon. Babel was an unfinished city with an unfinished tower.

I can certainly accept that languages stem from one root prior to the inception of the Babylonian empire. Babel is the first/earliest city recorded in the Bible post-Flood.

I think the problem I'm having with your line of argumentation is that you are both insisting that Babylon takes its very name from the tower of Babel and that the tower of Babel itself is pure myth. Why would you make that argument?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(11-05-2015 10:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 02:31 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  As always, you fail to understand evidence presented to you or you are deliberately misconstruing it. I will spell it out in bright red letters for you:

There is abundant proof for languages that existed long before Babel, Babylon, the Babylonian empire, whatever.

Now bigger red fonts:

This falsifies the Tower of Babel myth.

You made a bold statement about archeological evidence never refuting the bible, you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of Babel wasn't Babylon? Why are you doing this? Are you running from falsifiability like you did in the Noah's flood thread? Explain...

Babylon was an empire, headed by a nation, Babylon. Babel was an unfinished city with an unfinished tower.

I can certainly accept that languages stem from one root prior to the inception of the Babylonian empire. Babel is the first/earliest city recorded in the Bible post-Flood.

I think the problem I'm having with your line of argumentation is that you are both insisting that Babylon takes its very name from the tower of Babel and that the tower of Babel itself is pure myth. Why would you make that argument?

You are the one suggesting that "Babylon may have been named after Babel." I'm not convinced that there is any connection at all between them, but if there is, it's more likely in the other direction, since Genesis, along with the rest of the Pentateuch, was probably not put into its present form until the time of the Babylonian captivity or thereabouts. A people that was politically and militarily at odds with Babylon might have an incentive to derisively name something after them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-05-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Quote:38-64"My sister, let Aratta fashion gold and silver skilfully on my behalf for Unug. Let them cut the flawless lapis lazuli from the blocks, let them ...... the translucence of the flawless lapis lazuli ....... ...... build a holy mountain in Unug. Let Aratta build a temple brought down from heaven -- your place of worship, the Shrine E-ana; let Aratta skilfully fashion the interior of the holy jipar, your abode; may I, the radiant youth, may I be embraced there by you. Let Aratta submit beneath the yoke for Unug on my behalf. Let the people of Aratta bring down for me the mountain stones from their mountain, build the great shrine for me, erect the great abode for me, make the great abode, the abode of the gods, famous for me, make my me prosper in Kulaba, make the abzu grow for me like a holy mountain, make Eridug gleam for me like the mountain range, cause the abzu shrine to shine forth for me like the silver in the lode. When in the abzu I utter praise, when I bring the me from Eridug, when, in lordship, I am adorned with the crown like a purified shrine, when I place on my head the holy crown in Unug Kulaba, then may the ...... of the great shrine bring me into the jipar, and may the ...... of the jipar bring me into the great shrine. May the people marvel admiringly, and may Utu witness it in joy."

Quote:134-155"Chant to him the holy song, the incantation sung in its chambers -- the incantation of Nudimmud: "On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival! At such a time, may the lands of Cubur and Hamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security -- the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings -- Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one."

Excerpts from Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1823.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
I have a hard time with the tower of babel story from the standpoint that if God intentionally scattered a unified people in order to "prevent evil" of some sort, then wouldn't it stand to reason that much more evil resulted because many reasons for warfare are because 1) we need something that this other group has, 2) this other group is culturally inferior to us and 3) our beliefs are better than their beliefs, so we have the right to conquer them to expand our beliefs and get their riches in order to use them in superior ways because we are indeed superior in every way?

Also, who are the "we" that is referred to in the Babel story? Is it God talking to his angels? Or is it a link to a polytheistic past? Because it seems like a lot of Genesis seems to imply that the writers believed that other gods existed and were every bit as real as Yaweh or El (depending on the source).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(11-05-2015 10:52 AM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  IAlso, who are the "we" that is referred to in the Babel story? Is it God talking to his angels? Or is it a link to a polytheistic past? Because it seems like a lot of Genesis seems to imply that the writers believed that other gods existed and were every bit as real as Yaweh or El (depending on the source).

I vote for "link to a polytheistic past". However, Catholics and other trinitarian Christians will tell you that this is evidence of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) -- you know, God with a multiple personality disorder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2015 02:48 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(11-05-2015 10:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 02:31 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  As always, you fail to understand evidence presented to you or you are deliberately misconstruing it. I will spell it out in bright red letters for you:

There is abundant proof for languages that existed long before Babel, Babylon, the Babylonian empire, whatever.

Now bigger red fonts:

This falsifies the Tower of Babel myth.

You made a bold statement about archeological evidence never refuting the bible, you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of Babel wasn't Babylon? Why are you doing this? Are you running from falsifiability like you did in the Noah's flood thread? Explain...

Babylon was an empire, headed by a nation, Babylon. Babel was an unfinished city with an unfinished tower.

I can certainly accept that languages stem from one root prior to the inception of the Babylonian empire. Babel is the first/earliest city recorded in the Bible post-Flood.

I think the problem I'm having with your line of argumentation is that you are both insisting that Babylon takes its very name from the tower of Babel and that the tower of Babel itself is pure myth. Why would you make that argument?

You put the Q in Qlueless, the Tower of Babel has no basis in reality, the myth writers attempted to use real cities as part of their story, just like a Spiderman comic uses New York City as it's location for Spiderman's adventures.
The story also asserts that Nimrod founded Akkad- wrong! It also asserted Nimrod founded Uruk -wrong! There is a discrepancy between the foundings of these cities of 2650 years, so did Nimrod live this long?

Also, are you applying your special sauce hermeneutics to dismiss the confusion of language at the Tower of Babel? Was this a metaphor and not an actual incident in your fantasy bible world?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: