Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 06:27 AM)Stephen Charchuk Wrote:  As to how Mormonism was madeup I still can't believe that they still believed "John Smith" even after they had proven he was a fraud. For Christians these ones are epically gulible. It should be called Moronism instead.

It's a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem) to attack the messenger rather than the message. Just because John Smith committed fraud doesn't mean that everything out of his mouth was untrue (fallacy of composition). It may cast doubt on his message, but it's not a good reason to dismiss everything he said offhand.

If you honestly can't believe that people wouldn't get rid of previous beliefs once given reasons to dismiss hose beliefs, you should learn a few things about cognitive dissonance. We all fall prey to it, and then rationalize or justify our past beliefs to relieve it. That makes it very difficult to change one's mind once it has been set.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(09-06-2013 11:35 PM)GuiltyAngel Wrote:  I have noticed that most of the criticisms atheists does are only on the Old Testament. I can only count a few criticisms against the New Testament. Always, a Christian would say that Jesus was a symbol of grace and mercy that is why his harsh punishments have already changed in the NT. And that is their biggest argument. Some would also say that it's affected too by the culture in the old times. Today, it's no longer applicable that's why we don't obey anymore the harsh treatments to women, children etc like stoning to death, beating and the likes.

So if you were to critic the NT, how would you "burn" it and the Christians who defend it?

With petrol and a box of matches.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
12-06-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:44 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 06:27 AM)Stephen Charchuk Wrote:  As to how Mormonism was madeup I still can't believe that they still believed "John Smith" even after they had proven he was a fraud. For Christians these ones are epically gulible. It should be called Moronism instead.

It's a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem) to attack the messenger rather than the message. Just because John Smith committed fraud doesn't mean that everything out of his mouth was untrue (fallacy of composition). It may cast doubt on his message, but it's not a good reason to dismiss everything he said offhand.

If you honestly can't believe that people wouldn't get rid of previous beliefs once given reasons to dismiss hose beliefs, you should learn a few things about cognitive dissonance. We all fall prey to it, and then rationalize or justify our past beliefs to relieve it. That makes it very difficult to change one's mind once it has been set.

John Smith's conviction of fraud is actually relevant to defining his character so it is not a fallacy to bring it up. It also means his story would require more proof not less. The entire circumstances around the founding of the Mormon church leads one to see it is nothing but a new con by a convicted conman. Had the Mormon Bible not been composed by that single author then yes you could make a case but in this instance it is all too relevant.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
12-06-2013, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 01:42 PM by Stephen Charchuk.)
Re: RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:44 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem) to attack the messenger rather than the message. Just because John Smith committed fraud doesn't mean that everything out of his mouth was untrue (fallacy of composition). It may cast doubt on his message, but it's not a good reason to dismiss everything he said offhand.

If you honestly can't believe that people wouldn't get rid of previous beliefs once given reasons to dismiss hose beliefs, you should learn a few things about cognitive dissonance. We all fall prey to it, and then rationalize or justify our past beliefs to relieve it. That makes it very difficult to change one's mind once it has been set.

Yes, epically guilible.. Rolleyes This entire forum is basically proving the messenger a fraud and he was proven a fraud by his own people and they still believed him after. That alone is enough for me to question their intelligence. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.." He wasn't lying about cheating on his taxes, he was lying about his religion early on. i.e. David Koresh and the final results of that. It's not an Ad Hominen when it's true. What you are doing is the fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem. This makes me think that there is more to your reply than what you wrote and to suspect what you say from now on. Remember, "Fool me once....."

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
This idea is so easy to refute:

Jesus, if he existed, as described in unreliable, ancient texts, at all, was evil; he preached that not only should people abandon their families to love him but that if they didn't, and if they didn't like the barbaric and gruesome torture and human sacrifice of himself to himself, then they deserve to be burned alive forever.

But hey, no need to worry because there is zero evidence that any of his claims are true.

Game over. Drinking Beverage

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MrAttacus's post
12-06-2013, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 04:26 PM by JAH.)
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
I would suggest that those who wish to know more about the mormons read "American Massacre" by Sally Denton. The book is about an attack by mormons on a peaceful wagon train moving through southwestern Utah. The early part of the book (say 1/3) chronicles the early history of the church. Joseph Smith was obviously a con man and the story of the creation of the book of mormon should confirm that for any thinking person. They got forced out of the midwest not by religious persecution but because they were screwing the local non-mormons and the non-mormons finally fought back. They landed in Utah because the only people there were Ute's and you know how successful native americans were at resisting white settlers when they arrived in mass.

I lived in Gallup NM for about a year and heard stories about how mormon missionaries would literally bribe families on the Navaho reservations to send their children to boarding schools in Utah. This was at the time when non-whites even if they were mormon were second class, at best, people. Whenever a mormon missionary approaches me I will announce loudly that I spent some time in north west New Mexico, your religion is evil, that gets rid of them in a hurry.

Yes attacking the messenger can be a poor debating technique. When the messenger is a con man whose con has adversely affected millions of humans world wide for over 100 years, attack may be allowed.

Oh and by the way "The Book of mormon" musical is correct. Except for their general youth one cannot differentiate mormon missionaries from FBI agents by their dress.

My apologies for contributing to thread drift.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JAH's post
12-06-2013, 04:43 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Remember that episode of Southpark when they showed the story of how Mormonism got started? Althroughout the show they had a message on the bottom of the screen that said that they weren't making this stuff up. Exclamation

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 04:48 PM
Re: RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  With petrol and a box of matches.

Remember as tempting as that is they do loving a moro... I mean a martyr..... Angel

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 06:05 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  John Smith's conviction of fraud is actually relevant to defining his character so it is not a fallacy to bring it up. It also means his story would require more proof not less. The entire circumstances around the founding of the Mormon church leads one to see it is nothing but a new con by a convicted conman. Had the Mormon Bible not been composed by that single author then yes you could make a case but in this instance it is all too relevant.

One's character is irrelevant to whether one's argument is actually true. Consider the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. At the end of the story, the villagers allow the sheep to get eaten because they make the same mistake that you are, that the boy's credibility is important in determining whether the wolf is real or not -- and they make the wrong call.

I didn't make up the fallacy of Ad Hominem -- it's a fallacy whether or not you like it, and whether or not you are biased towards the person making the claim. To be fair, John Smith's credibility isn't a non-issue, but it only becomes relevant when he asks you to "take his word for it"... an argument from authority is undermined by a lack of credibility.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 06:12 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 01:36 PM)Stephen Charchuk Wrote:  Yes, epically guilible.. Rolleyes This entire forum is basically proving the messenger a fraud and he was proven a fraud by his own people and they still believed him after. That alone is enough for me to question their intelligence. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.." He wasn't lying about cheating on his taxes, he was lying about his religion early on. i.e. David Koresh and the final results of that. It's not an Ad Hominen when it's true. What you are doing is the fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem. This makes me think that there is more to your reply than what you wrote and to suspect what you say from now on. Remember, "Fool me once....."

Ad Hominem is not dependent on whether the claim made about someone's credibility is true or not. Even if it was literally true that everything you've ever said in your life up to this point was a lie, that wouldn't necessarily make your next statement a lie, too. "Fool me once..." is a cliche, not a logical deduction, and I'd be careful about throwing around accusations of logical fallacies -- you accused me of arguing that you're wrong because of your bias, but I was arguing that you were wrong because your logic was fallacious. The reason that I say "be careful" is because it appears that you're hypocritically making the same fallacy that you accused me of when you say "this makes me think that there is more to your reply than what you wrote and to suspect what you say from now on". Are you implying that I have a pro-Mormon bias? I'm an atheist, too, which is easily checked by looking at my former posts.

I'm not defending John Smith, but rather defending rationality by pointing out your irrational post. If you want to make the best arguments that you can, clean up your mistakes instead of self-justifying and attacking those who correct you.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: