Rebuttal to aethist questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
(24-09-2012 04:00 PM)Jknight316 Wrote:  i see no fallacy as to his authorship,

Unfortunately, this sentence seems to sum up the bulk of what you've posted so far. You are not seeing the chronic use of logical fallacies in what you are writing.

A quick google search of "logical fallacies" may help you with your debate skills.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
24-09-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
I'll go one step further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...acies.aspx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
(24-09-2012 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-09-2012 03:27 PM)Jknight316 Wrote:  OK so i did makes some makes, correcting them, The book i read was about the Dead sea scrolls, i thought it said they were the original manuscripts, found. Well apparently the dead sea scrolls are only dated back to 200 BC, they are copies of copies, of original writings, so basically it comes down to this, do i trust that the priest accurately copied the original writing, yes because in Hebrew culture at the time, they could face serious consequences for changing the text, so since what we have today is an accurate translation of the what we found in the dead sea scrolls, i would say they are accurate, only thing that might have been messed up is things like, . , ;,

Quote:Sorry buddy. You got the wrong guy to tangle with here. The Judean Priests assembled Genesis in 550-575 BCE. The Moses myth was already in the myths. Moses wrote nothing. Do I need to prove that ? If so I can, easily. Job WAS written first. It proves NOTHING about Moses. "Most scholars" ???? PROVE IT ! Let's see your poll of scholars. And what University are YOU doing YOUR PhD in Biblical Studies at ?

Quote:where did you get that information, you have no solid that Moses was a myth, and since the oldest records of the torah is dead sea scrolls dated back to 200 B.C, you have no evidence that Judean priests wrote the book of genesis.

I'm sorry. You obviously have NO education in the Bible. I'm not going to waste my time here. Your education is your job. Where did I get that. Um...my Harvard professors ? Does that count ? You need to read about the dating and historical evidence for what there is, and how they know it is true. There are historical methods, (which you need to learn about ...,how historians work, how they infer what they know, and what textual and form criticism is all about), that are used to infer when a text was written, by whom, and why. We know that Genesis was written to support and affirm the political position of the Judean priests, because they were Yahwists, and gave primacy of importance to Abraham, (and his YAHWEH LOCATIONS), in the texts they wrote. The fact that you never heard about this stuff is a measure of your need for a LOT more information.

As I said before, read Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman's books in my first post. read Dr Shawna Dolansky's books. Read The Interpreter's Bible, (original 13 volumes), and it's update. Bultmann, Buber...jesus, the list is endless.

The Dead Sea Scrolls began to be written around 400 BCE, and that was only 150 years after the Genesis texts were assembled from at least 4 known sources. NO SCHOLAR disputes that. Learn about the Documentary Hypothesis. Do you know what that means ? The sordid story of the priest, (geographical locations), factions, fighting over their stuff, is WAY to long to explain here.

firs you said i have no edication in the bible, this a gross hyperbole, because if you read even a verse then have 1 verses education, so in your claim, i never opened the book

prove you go to Harvard, cause you lied several times in your previous posts as i pointed out you said Moses claimed to be the humblest man, i searched the entire bible in my PC study bible search engine no such verse exists, if you would lie about one thing you lie about anything to prove me wrong.

to extend that you don't go to Harvard, you live in California as your profile states, until you provide proof of your attendance there, you have no credibility in anything you say

what you are trying to act like you know about, is what i think is that some circles claim that because in some old manuscripts it reads Elohim created the earth, which is translate "GOD" in singular form, while others read Yahweh, which is god first name meaning Jehovah, or "god is salvation"

according to the bible, the name Jehovah was given to Moses, the use of Elohim, is used to refer the Trinity god the father god the sun, and god the holy spirit, in tri unity, GOD, while Jehovah is the personal name of the Father, these may have been a simple misunderstanding of copying the original texts by priests as to whether Moses was referring to God as Elohim or Jehovah.

this in no way even provides a logical basis to the idea that Judean priests wrote the book of genesis

to further my argument, the malicious intent of you statements, saying im ignorant and certain lies you provided, saying the bible has a verse where Moses claims to be the most humblest man on the earth, which it doesn't not contain any such verse remotely close to that, the word humblest doesnt even occur in the NKJV or NIV, means that you willing twist information for your own purpose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
Post #1
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
This is because the debate started with questions no one here actually asked. Known as strawman.

Post #14

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Burden of proof, because this is stemming from presuppositional argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fal..._fallacies
Specifically existential fallacy because your argument stems from the premise that because you're arguing from a source (the bible) and that if your bible is true, that if you can prove your bible to be true, that god must be true, which doesn't actually prove that any way. So the entire argument is falling on the authenticity of said document, which still sorts no relevance to a supernatural being actually being true.

Post #18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy
We're still looking at existential fallacy here. None of this actually proves anything. Documents exist, copies or copies or no copies or whatever, still don't prove anything. If it does, please provide evidence.

Harry potter is a book, the book exists, we still have no evidence that the characters exist or have any relevance to anything. Such is the case with the bible. What are you getting at, exactly?

Post #19
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Ad hominem attack. In the real world, people don't agree with you in an agreeable manner. Ignoring the relevance of the post in question is nothing more than a dismissal so that you don't have to actually deal with what they are questioning you about.

You have yet to address it. You won't get the most polite answers here since you've already provided many logical fallacies. Realistically, you should take what you can get.

Post #25
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Burden of proof, you have no evidence of anyone who actually wrote it in the first place. We could argue all day about who wrote it anyway, the burden of proof is on the believer. Even if you proved that the anonymous person who we can't even distinguish anyway wrote it, what does it do exactly? How does it prove the god being of the bible? This wouldn't do anything more than validate that a person wrote it, it still has yet to prove said god being.

Post #33
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Do I really need to break it down all the way? You have yet to show us your own credentials, attacking someone else's credentials is really skirting the point here. Relevance to the initial point is really what we need to be pointing at. Regardless of the credentials of the person questioning it, we're arguing about the initial source of said document anyway. Again, what is the point in question?

What about the credentials of the people who actually wrote the bible?

But again... even if we could prove the credentials of the people who wrote it, we have nothing still that still provides any evidence for said god being. We're still arguing over anonymous authors of an anonymous book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
24-09-2012, 04:29 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
(24-09-2012 03:32 PM)Logisch Wrote:  If you're going to come onto an atheist forum to debate, you could try not getting offended by the fact that you're going to get rather blunt, perhaps even offensive (at least to you) responses. Many of us simply respond simply and to the point, some people take that as offensive. Fact is, we've heard this stuff a million times and it's nothing we haven't heard before.

I would suggest before thinking you've come up with a bunch of "new stuff" we haven't heard, looking through already existing debates:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...th-Theists

And trust me... there's plenty.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...mmandments
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...o-big-bang
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...k-about-it
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-DISTURBED
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...f-of-Jesus

What you have proposed, in your initial opening post, is a lot of strawman arguments. No one here asked those questions, you asked them and then answered them. When you were responded to, you took offense and started telling people they don't know what they are talking about, and then used references to copies of the bible as your "proof" - this is known as presuppositional argument, which is, in essence... the argument of "How am I right? Because bible." and if that is your entire argument in a nutshell, you're wasting your time. People who argue that their proof is the "infallible word of god" still need to provide evidence (other than the bible) that it is the "infallible word of god", and circular arguments, strawman arguments and repeated attempts at presupposition provide nothing worth bothering to argue about. If we're going to talk presupposition, we may as well be arguing about zeus or ea or mypsa as well.

Want to make for an interesting argument that is provocative and something you'll actually have a debate about? Introduce some science. If you end up using anything to "prove" something, then cite your sources and their peer reviewed resources and research as well that blows modern day anything out of the water, and you'll have an audience. Believe me, most of us have read the bible, many times. Looked for evidence... many times. We aren't atheists because we haven't read the bible, quite the opposite, most of us think it's a bunch of bullshit and are atheists because we've read it time and time again and see nothing in it worth while. Good mythology, just like any other mythology, but nothing that has/will/does convince us otherwise.

But if you are going to start with: "Strawman example, strawman answer. AHA! Because bible. You're wrong!" then you've already started your entire introduction here full of logical fallacies, dishonest arguing and started off on the wrong foot. You'll put up walls not just between you and us, but also in allowing anyone to listen to you. You could prove that there was even characters in the bible that existed, and that they existed historically, but it still has yet to prove something very crucial to the stance of atheism: It still does not prove the existence of a god.

I strongly urge you to look at how you have put your foot in the door here, perhaps rethink it, before it gets slammed on your foot.

hmm another target, lets get started

first off did you actually read everything i said, or any of it, or did you just jump to the comment battle, i didnt read your links so i dont know if you actually read my orginal post

My purpose was not to prove God exist, or that the bible is infallible
that is impossible

it is also impossible to prove the opposite

how is it impossible to prove God exist? by the logic the bible implies

If i could come up with some proof, that made it so you KNOW god exist and did not have to believe it, to not have faith God existed, there would have be some sort of scientific evidence of him, on this premise if we could provide scientific of gods existence, not necessarily that he created the universe or that it was created by a god, but proof of the direct existence of a deity, then by nature of science something observer can be observed, more information would unravel, we would eventually come to point of knowing if this deity was the god of the bible through observation and increased interaction through the development of science. You would then Know if it was the God of the bible or not, but this is contradictory to the bible, the bible itself has established a system in which men go to hell unless they are redeemed and the only method of redemption, is by having faith that there is a god, he is the god of the bible, and that he sent his son jesus to die for us, and that by our faith in him we are redeemed, so if you could know that god existed, prove it, you would find out if he was the god of the bible by further observation and interaction, and thus it wouldn't require the faith bible has said it requires of us, so you would actually prove that god wasn't the god of the bible if you proved he existed, because then it wouldn't require faith

the logic of the bible is that in order for a faith based system to stay engaged, we cannot prove god exist, because it would lead to a break down of the redemption system that the bible has established.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:36 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
I did indeed read your initial post. Thus far, nothing provides any solid evidence of said god being. As your above posts suggests...If your entire argument is going to stem from: "You gotta have faith, since we can't prove god." then I think we're done here.

I have no reason to believe in the faith of the bible over any other religion. If you cannot prove to me that the god of the bible exists, or that it is any more relevant than any other god proposed in any other religion, what reason do I have to believe it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
LET me continue, i came here cause often what i see in the atheist community is constant misquotation of the bible, taking it out of context, and then saying it has contradictions that are not really contradictions, when i ended up on this site, on the homepage that list of contradictions that i was going through where posted there, so i wanted to make a rebuttal to all of them through the whole thing, because they are created with malicious intent from and opposing side and are not objective.

the fact that you sit there and give a bunch of argument fallacies to an argument i never made, means you didn't read my original post are simply trying to one up me thinking your smarter then me cause you can Google debate, good job, cause you just talked to a wall basically.

if you would like to make more comments about contradictions or inconsistencies of the bible, i will most certainly talk about it.

and my final point is this, trying to argue that god exist is a simple impasse, impossible win from both sides, other wise a win would have been accomplished by now and this forum would not exist.

Intelligence can decide both ways based on the knowledge presented to it and the environment it was established in, what really makes the original decision is the heart,

why you guys curse at me, and insult my intelligence, is because i represent the gospel, Christianity, and the message of Christianity insulting to you

your all probably somewhat smart, except a few of you lol, at least those ones tend not to show it, most of you probably dont do horrible things on a regular basis

the idea that your going to hell for the in your eyes "little things you have done" is insulting to you, then on top of it the idea that you need to change, and that your broken and need to fixed is a big blow to the one thing all of you have in common, your pride. originally it is a decision of the heart, you have created a wall to guard your decision through your intelligence but is your heart that will never accept the message, no matter how much proof i gave you, i cannot say i know all of you, but you may find what i say to be true, but i suspect none of you will be willing to admit it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:43 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
The Bible doesn't seem to have contradictions because it's "taken out of context". It seems to have contradictions because it does, and those contradictions exist because it was written by multiple authors writing at different times for different reasons, and edited by different people at different times for completely different reasons.

Why are there two seemingly contradictory creation stories in Genesis? Is it because one "clarifies" the other? Or is it because it's two different creation stories written by two different people who lived a hundred years and hundreds of miles apart that were later edited together and attributed to Moses?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
24-09-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
(24-09-2012 04:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The Bible doesn't seem to have contradictions because it's "taken out of context". It seems to have contradictions because it does, and those contradictions exist because it was written by multiple authors writing at different times for different reasons, and edited by different people at different times for completely different reasons.

Why are there two seemingly contradictory creation stories in Genesis? Is it because one "clarifies" the other? Or is it because it's two different creation stories written by two different people who lived a hundred years and hundreds of miles apart that were later edited together and attributed to Moses?

please read my initial post i already explained and addressed contradiction definitely
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 04:47 PM
RE: Rebuttal to aethist questions
If the argument of god is impossible to win, then why come here to argue about your god or your religion?

Let's say you come here to debate with things being taken out of context, and you correct a bunch of people. You try and make a good impression of your bible being taken out of context and "set those damn heathens straight" - what exactly do you accomplish in doing so and what exactly would it prove anyway? If it still doesn't make the case for said god being, and the stance of an atheist is the lack of belief in a god, and you say that it's an argument that can't be won.... what do you plan exactly on getting out of the debate?

I haven't cursed you in any way thus far, simply pointed out logical fallacies (which are valid, if you'd go back and read them) and tried to get you to really try and tell us what kind of point you're trying to make. You say it's an argument that you can't prove because you can't prove a god exists. Then you argue about things being taken out of context on the bible. There's thousands of religions and ideologies, so why are we arguing about Christianity and ONLY Christianity, and why should we be concerned with it anyway? There's a lot more gods to worry about than yahweh. You could make the same case for any god and any religion. Even if I take a literal (or interpreted) case for your bible, what makes it better than any other religious book?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: