Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2017, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2017 06:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(24-06-2017 09:27 PM)thereverent1 Wrote:  OK, I'm not disputing that. My argument as to why Jesus could not possibly have been the savior whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament authors is that they simply didn't believe anything Jesus taught.

The authors of the OT "predicted" nothing. Prophecy is not "prediction".
You are wallowing in and USING the SAME Fundamentalist mis-information they employ, and THAT is no less illegitimate.

Quote:Then let me restate it. Jesus could not have been divine-- because his most important prophecy, as recorded in Mark 13 and elsewhere, turned out to be false.

Nope.
1. See above.
2. In Hebrew culture, there were many "divine beings" (not just Yahweh). Your reason is irrelevant and WRONG.

Quote:Well, I won't dispute that it is possible for fairy tales to have some kernel of truth. But the creation story is wrong on every count. It's wrong as to the time of the creation, the duration of creation, the sequence of creation-- it's even wrong about what was created. That's about as wrong as it could possibly be.

It's *not even wrong*. Ancient literature used many lterary forms, including *mythology* which was every bit as legitimate as any other form of ancient literature. Mythology was how "truths" were conveyed. Taking a position that literature (which was NEVER intended to be literal) is inauthentic because it's not scientifically accurate, is the height of ignorance of ancient literature, and THE VERY SAME FUNDAMENTALIST error believers make.

Quote:That's not the full story. Chapter 12 of the book of Joshua lists 31 kings who were subjugated by the Israelites in their conquest of the promised land. All of those kings were killed, and all of the towns and cities over which they ruled were destroyed and were burned to the ground. Chapter 23 states specifically that God helped the Israelites at every step. That's the part that is propaganda. Jericho is especially interesting. The prostitute Rahab housed the 2 Israeli spies who went to Jericho to scope it out and gather intel. How did the 2 spies escape from a city that was on the lookout for any Israelis? The Bible tells us that Rahab's house was actually part of the wall of Jericho. So she just let a rope down from her window and the spies climbed down and made their getaway. So how did the walls of Jericho really fall down? The Bible says that they fell down at the moment that the Israeli army shouted, presumably because of the direct intervention of God. But a much more likely explanation is that the 2 spies just called up to Rahab's window and she threw down a rope for them to climb up, no doubt in the company of an elite strike force. It's the specific intervention of God that is propaganda, regardless of whether or not the Israelites actually conquered the city.

No. False. Jericho was felled by an earthquake. Archaeology has proven that. The VERY SAME "story" you tell is no more legitimate than the myth in the story, and BUILDING on a false notion, a different FALSE notion is still illegitimate. The ENTIRE time-line does not "fit" with ANYTHING science and history knows now about the kingdom of Israel and Judah. Making up other stories is no better than taking the first one literally. YOU are STILL a dishonest Fundamentalist, using ancient texts in ways they were not written, and never meant. You seem VERY INVESTED in your little quirks you find wrong in the ancient texts. The Hebrews had no word in their language for "history". Of course they are inaccurate, historically. You are using the texts in the SAME literal way they do, and THAT is literary ignorance, and just as illegitimate and dishonest.

This reasoning is called the "bad reasons fallacy". One can come to what appears to be a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/badreasn.html
"Argument A has a false premise. If an argument has a false premiss, then even if it is valid, it fails to prove its conclusion. However, this does not show that the conclusion is false, as it's possible to give false premisses for a true conclusion."

If the assumptions an argument are based on are false, the argument is unsound, even if it appears to come to a right conclusion.
"Two wrongs don't make a right".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2017, 08:14 AM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(24-06-2017 10:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU are STILL a dishonest Fundamentalist, using ancient texts in ways they were not written, and never meant. You seem VERY INVESTED in your little quirks you find wrong in the ancient texts. The Hebrews had no word in their language for "history". Of course they are inaccurate, historically. You are using the texts in the SAME literal way they do, and THAT is literary ignorance, and just as illegitimate and dishonest.

This reasoning is called the "bad reasons fallacy". One can come to what appears to be a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/badreasn.html
"Argument A has a false premise. If an argument has a false premiss, then even if it is valid, it fails to prove its conclusion. However, this does not show that the conclusion is false, as it's possible to give false premisses for a true conclusion."

If the assumptions an argument are based on are false, the argument is unsound, even if it appears to come to a right conclusion.
"Two wrongs don't make a right".

Maybe you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I'm an atheist, and I don't disagree with anything you have said about the archaeology and history of the region. I'm not arguing that the Bible's stories are literally accurate. I'm arguing that those who claim that the bible's stories are true and correct have a lot of explaining to do, just on the basis of what the Bible itself actually says. When you argue with a fundamentalist they generally don't care about or believe in any of the historical, archaeological, or scientific evidence about anything. I've found that rather than trying to argue from the point of view of known scientific facts, none of which they believe, it's generally more effective to argue on the basis of what the Bible actually says, because the Bible is the only thing they actually trust. When you show fundamentalist Christians that the Old Testament authors didn't believe anything Jesus actually taught, that's far more compelling to them than to state that archaeology has proved that the Hebrews had no word in their language for history. What you said about the Hebrew language is true, but in my experience that kind of argument doesn't work with fundamentalists. Same goes for fundamentalist Muslims or Mormons. Several times I have discussed religious matters with fundamentalist Christians and very often I've heard them say that science can't be trusted because the conclusions of science change from time to time. Of course that's because all scientific knowledge is contingent, but to them it's proof that science is not as reliable as their scriptures. That's why I've developed a set of arguments that are based strictly on the actual texts of the Bible (or the Koran, for Muslims). I haven't had the pleasure of discussing religion with a fundamentalist Jew or Hindu or Buddhist, but I suspect I would encounter similar attitudes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like thereverent1's post
25-06-2017, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2017 08:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(25-06-2017 08:14 AM)thereverent1 Wrote:  
(24-06-2017 10:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU are STILL a dishonest Fundamentalist, using ancient texts in ways they were not written, and never meant. You seem VERY INVESTED in your little quirks you find wrong in the ancient texts. The Hebrews had no word in their language for "history". Of course they are inaccurate, historically. You are using the texts in the SAME literal way they do, and THAT is literary ignorance, and just as illegitimate and dishonest.

This reasoning is called the "bad reasons fallacy". One can come to what appears to be a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/badreasn.html
"Argument A has a false premise. If an argument has a false premiss, then even if it is valid, it fails to prove its conclusion. However, this does not show that the conclusion is false, as it's possible to give false premisses for a true conclusion."

If the assumptions an argument are based on are false, the argument is unsound, even if it appears to come to a right conclusion.
"Two wrongs don't make a right".

Maybe you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I'm an atheist, and I don't disagree with anything you have said about the archaeology and history of the region. I'm not arguing that the Bible's stories are literally accurate. I'm arguing that those who claim that the bible's stories are true and correct have a lot of explaining to do, just on the basis of what the Bible itself actually says. When you argue with a fundamentalist they generally don't care about or believe in any of the historical, archaeological, or scientific evidence about anything. I've found that rather than trying to argue from the point of view of known scientific facts, none of which they believe, it's generally more effective to argue on the basis of what the Bible actually says, because the Bible is the only thing they actually trust. When you show fundamentalist Christians that the Old Testament authors didn't believe anything Jesus actually taught, that's far more compelling to them than to state that archaeology has proved that the Hebrews had no word in their language for history. What you said about the Hebrew language is true, but in my experience that kind of argument doesn't work with fundamentalists. Same goes for fundamentalist Muslims or Mormons. Several times I have discussed religious matters with fundamentalist Christians and very often I've heard them say that science can't be trusted because the conclusions of science change from time to time. Of course that's because all scientific knowledge is contingent, but to them it's proof that science is not as reliable as their scriptures. That's why I've developed a set of arguments that are based strictly on the actual texts of the Bible (or the Koran, for Muslims). I haven't had the pleasure of discussing religion with a fundamentalist Jew or Hindu or Buddhist, but I suspect I would encounter similar attitudes.

Good for you.
I know exactly where you're coming from. You're affirming their false assumptions.
Lowering oneself to the Fundamentalist ignorant level of someone one is having a discussion with, (agreeing with their false and ignorant assumptions about ancient literature), to obtain a "temporary win" is short sighted, and dishonest. Depends on what the motivations is. A gottcha moment , or slowly open the door to real scholarship. I don't argue with anyone, IRL. People don't "hear" anything, until they are ready, and then it's usually the result of self exploration. Deconversion is multi-factorial.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2017, 09:39 AM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(25-06-2017 08:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lowering oneself to the Fundamentalist ignorant level of someone one is having a discussion with, (agreeing with their false and ignorant assumptions about ancient literature), to obtain a "temporary win" is short sighted, and dishonest. Depends on what the motivations is. A gottcha moment , or slowly open the door to real scholarship.
I'm not going for a gotcha moment. When Mormon missionaries come to our door to sell their fundamentalist theology I confront them rather than just send them away because I think that it's good for them to hear a different point of view that I know they'll never hear from their Christian cohorts. I'm not expecting immediate conversions. I'm just hoping that the perspectives I introduce to them will give them reason to doubt some portion of their faith. Usually I have found that when I talk about what the Bible, fundamentalist Christians will listen respectfully because they generally think that they know the Bible far better than do I. But when I show them that the Bible says things they don't actually believe, then they start to wonder if maybe their entire belief system is on shaky footing. That's what I'm going for-- I'm sowing the seeds of doubt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes thereverent1's post
25-06-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
First you say that Fundamentalists are incapable of learning and won't accept anything. Then you say you are sewing seeds of doubt. How exactly do you know that ? If they are as incapable as you say, why are you talking to them at all ? From everything you've written here, you ARE going for small individual "gotcha" moments, and your use of THEIR same fallacies and mis-information is stooping to their level. We're never going to agree here. You play their game on their ignorant level. I'd rather go for the big picture, instead of individual gotcha moments.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
dont you not still understand that god doesnt want you to have evidence to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(25-06-2017 12:13 PM)socialistview Wrote:  dont you not still understand that god doesnt want you to have evidence to believe.

You still don't understand that god is nothing more than product of human imagination?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
25-06-2017, 12:49 PM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(25-06-2017 12:13 PM)socialistview Wrote:  dont you not still understand that god doesnt want you to have evidence to believe.

So your god created people and gave them the ability to reason but rewards only those who refuse to exercise that faculty? What a jackass.

Maybe you should consider that god hides himself to see who is so gullible that they'll believe anything and rewards those of us that do not believe. If so, you are fucked.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
25-06-2017, 01:22 PM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
What are you reasoning that you havent seen anything magical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2017, 02:59 PM
RE: Sorry for the last post wrong word but to ask is God actually a bad guy.
(25-06-2017 08:14 AM)thereverent1 Wrote:  
(24-06-2017 10:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU are STILL a dishonest Fundamentalist, using ancient texts in ways they were not written, and never meant. You seem VERY INVESTED in your little quirks you find wrong in the ancient texts. The Hebrews had no word in their language for "history". Of course they are inaccurate, historically. You are using the texts in the SAME literal way they do, and THAT is literary ignorance, and just as illegitimate and dishonest.

This reasoning is called the "bad reasons fallacy". One can come to what appears to be a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/badreasn.html
"Argument A has a false premise. If an argument has a false premiss, then even if it is valid, it fails to prove its conclusion. However, this does not show that the conclusion is false, as it's possible to give false premisses for a true conclusion."

If the assumptions an argument are based on are false, the argument is unsound, even if it appears to come to a right conclusion.
"Two wrongs don't make a right".

Maybe you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I'm an atheist, and I don't disagree with anything you have said about the archaeology and history of the region. I'm not arguing that the Bible's stories are literally accurate. I'm arguing that those who claim that the bible's stories are true and correct have a lot of explaining to do, just on the basis of what the Bible itself actually says. When you argue with a fundamentalist they generally don't care about or believe in any of the historical, archaeological, or scientific evidence about anything. I've found that rather than trying to argue from the point of view of known scientific facts, none of which they believe, it's generally more effective to argue on the basis of what the Bible actually says, because the Bible is the only thing they actually trust. When you show fundamentalist Christians that the Old Testament authors didn't believe anything Jesus actually taught, that's far more compelling to them than to state that archaeology has proved that the Hebrews had no word in their language for history. What you said about the Hebrew language is true, but in my experience that kind of argument doesn't work with fundamentalists. Same goes for fundamentalist Muslims or Mormons. Several times I have discussed religious matters with fundamentalist Christians and very often I've heard them say that science can't be trusted because the conclusions of science change from time to time. Of course that's because all scientific knowledge is contingent, but to them it's proof that science is not as reliable as their scriptures. That's why I've developed a set of arguments that are based strictly on the actual texts of the Bible (or the Koran, for Muslims). I haven't had the pleasure of discussing religion with a fundamentalist Jew or Hindu or Buddhist, but I suspect I would encounter similar attitudes.

Yes, sometimes you have to use the Bible against itself to demonstrate that even if you avoid science etc, it still doesn't work. Trying to kick start a wilfully ignorant person's mind is a frustrating process, and you have to get down to a level that works with that sort of critter.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: