Teeter Tottering on believing.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2011, 04:36 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2011 04:42 AM by Malleus.)
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
(14-12-2011 05:47 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Not yelling... emphasizing.

Aww, you're no fun when you're trying to fix it by playing adult.

Quote: And, God never told that generation that His promise would be fulfilled.

Yes he did. When god tells me "you need to take these lands, all the lands because you have too little as it is and those guys are pricks so get your shit together and go to war with them and I will be with you", I expect victory, not defeat and I expect to get the lands soon, not in 150 years. If god wants people who will live in 150 years to win the war, he should talk to them, not to me. It doesn't even make sense otherwise. Instead, god tells them "go win this shit cause I help you" and they couldn't do it... iron chariots and stuff. Mind you, it wasn't the usual stuff, like the Jews turning their face from god, worshiping some golden animals and stuff like that. The enemy had iron chariots and that was just too much.

Quote:Judah isn't a person. It's a tribe.
I know that, but not in this case:

"And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him." Judges 1:3

So it was Judah and Simeon, just like Deborah and Barak which are definitely not tribes. Yes, I know that Simeon can also be seen as a tribe, but check the wording: come with me, not with us. My lot, not our lot etc. It was commanders talking, not tribe names.

Quote:Besides, your arguments are getting silly. Just admit you're wrong and be done with it.

You're first argument was "God failed". debunked
Then you change your argument to "Canaanites weren't slain". debunked
Then you change it to "Deborah did it herself". debunked
Then you change it to "lulz gawd waited to do his promise so that makes it untrue". Which isn't even a valid argument.

Checkmate checkmate checkmate checkmate!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

You have to do better than that Big Grin


Oh, something else: god rarely ever promises anything in person, but when he does, I expect to take it for granted. I expect to win against all odds. *Everybody* can make a self-fulfilling prophecy and win some and lose some, but work towards bringing it to fruition until it happens eventually. That's called "motivation" and it works very well without a god involved in it.

You forgot to mention how you debunked that part.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 08:38 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
(15-12-2011 04:36 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Aww, you're no fun when you're trying to fix it by playing adult.

...really?

Quote: Yes he did. When god tells me "you need to take these lands, all the lands because you have too little as it is and those guys are pricks so get your shit together and go to war with them and I will be with you", I expect victory, not defeat and I expect to get the lands soon, not in 150 years. If god wants people who will live in 150 years to win the war, he should talk to them, not to me. It doesn't even make sense otherwise. Instead, god tells them "go win this shit cause I help you" and they couldn't do it... iron chariots and stuff. Mind you, it wasn't the usual stuff, like the Jews turning their face from god, worshiping some golden animals and stuff like that. The enemy had iron chariots and that was just too much.

I know that, but not in this case:

"And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him." Judges 1:3

So it was Judah and Simeon, just like Deborah and Barak which are definitely not tribes. Yes, I know that Simeon can also be seen as a tribe, but check the wording: come with me, not with us. My lot, not our lot etc. It was commanders talking, not tribe names.

And God promised His people. Just as He promised things to Abraham, which he never saw. Christ promised things to His disciples, which they never saw. You've ceased to start arguing what the Bible says, and you've been arguing the Bible.

This was an argument on what the Bible says. When I showed you that you were wrong in what you said it says, you changed your argument to the Bible itself and the workings of God.

Quote:Checkmate checkmate checkmate checkmate!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

You have to do better than that Big Grin

I can't watch Youtube here, tell me what the video says.

Quote:Oh, something else: god rarely ever promises anything in person, but when he does, I expect to take it for granted. I expect to win against all odds. *Everybody* can make a self-fulfilling prophecy and win some and lose some, but work towards bringing it to fruition until it happens eventually. That's called "motivation" and it works very well without a god involved in it.

You forgot to mention how you debunked that part.

Because you aren't arguing scripture and trying to turn this into an atheist vs theist argument when that's not what it's about. That's the only thing you can do because your original accusation was wrong about the scripture.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 08:48 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
I'll try to give a couple short ones to help ya on the teeter-totter thingy Smile

If it is a possibe that god exists then, of course, all other mystical beings we can imagine can possibly exist. A book that believers reference to was written by men. This book was assembled and written in various times by men who were less educated than my 10 year old son.

What reason would you have to believe in such a thing? Just because it sounds good? They pick out a few verses that appeals to your feelings?


On another part of this post I see "Please don't cherry pick verses" then I see an explanation that is said to not make sense.

I can cherry pick most of the bible, to include the bad parts, and it does paint the real picture. I hear this crap all the time -"You have to read the whole thing to fully understand." I do read the whole thing and it still doesn't change anything. We have an education where we are able to dissect sentences and understand them. Apparently the writers didn't know this.

Cherry picking as I saw it in this thread.

atheist: cherry picked - "verse"
Christian: cherry picked - "verse"
atheist: cherry picked - "verse"
Christian: cherry picked - "verse"
Christian: "Please stop cherry picking verses"
atheist: sigh!

Basically when the bad stuff comes out it is no longer ok to cherry pick. Double standard gone rampant.

I read the bible cover to cover a few times. Each time I read it the same thing came from it. People killed people because they said a god told them. They raped women, murdered babies, women, and men. They eradicated whole cities and/or civilizations. They mutilated a good many penis, sacrificed animals, and incest of course. They made some progressive rules to live in peace by. They then kill everyone off in a horrible way to go serve-worship someone forever or burn forever. That is just the short short version.

Now that's the short short summary of the whole book. Take it or leave it. Nothing changes the fact that it is what it is! I call it for what it is; an illiterates version of fairy tale history.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 09:00 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
Please tell me where I cherry picked verses. Please tell me where the verses were not applicable in context. I showed the promise that was made. I showed were Judah failed. I showed were God fulfilled His promise. How is this cherry picking? How is this not telling the whole story?

Also:
Quote:Now that's the short short summary of the whole book. Take it or leave it. Nothing changes the fact that it is what it is! I call it for what it is; an illiterates version of fairy tale history.

That fine and good. I know that's what atheists believe, but I don't think I can make this any clearer. This IS NOT what he was arguing when he made the accusation. He was arguing WHAT the scripture said; not the scripture itself. By default, if you are doing to take a theistic approach towards the Bible to start the argument, you can't flip it mid way and start arguing the Bible itself.

This argument has been destroyed many times, and atheists who take the time to actually try to argue what the scriptures say and not the scriptures themselves have adopted a theistic mindset when trying to disprove the Bible. You can't compare apples to oranges and that's what he's trying to do.

If you (an atheist) ever consider this route, then you should focus on the more morally ambiguous parts of the Bible; not one verse taken out of context that is explained in the book before it and a few chapters later.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 10:21 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
@ kingschosen:

Now now, who's ignoring my nicely (cherry)picked verses and talks from personal opinion? Who? Am I to understand that you agree that you were wrong to say that Judah and Simeon were tribe names and not captains who were promised victory and got defeat?

There's one thing I don't get. The bible says both what I pointed and what you pointed. Normally, before you call debunks, you should wait to see if I'm done arguing the problem and I admit to leave my position. But since I made you jump out of your shoes and start writing in huge bolds, I guess common courtesy is out of the question.

Also, who died and left you the ultimate authority on which verses mean what? My interpretation is just as valid as yours. You're just explaining what the bible really means when it says what it says and that is forcefully pulled out of your ass, just like my interpretation is pulled out of mine. The difference is that I don't really care. The bible says everything for everybody, but you know better what it really means just like all the Christians with opposing theories that are both based on the bible.

The youtube video was a joke, not an argument, I guess you had to see it.

Anyway, you started from a premise and i was starting from the opposing premise and we both argued with equally valid AND invalid reasoning. (to be honest, I would have won the theist versus atheist debate, but now we'll never know) I did it for old times' sake. We were supposed to spin in circles forever and ever till the end of time, like good ol' Christians do, but you're no fun. You get pissed and start calling debunks before I'm even close to being done opposing.

Bad kingschosen! Bad!

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 10:40 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
(15-12-2011 10:21 AM)Malleus Wrote:  @ kingschosen:

Now now, who's ignoring my nicely (cherry)picked verses and talks from personal opinion? Who? Am I to understand that you agree that you were wrong to say that Judah and Simeon were tribe names and not captains who were promised victory and got defeat?

There's one thing I don't get. The bible says both what I pointed and what you pointed. Normally, before you call debunks, you should wait to see if I'm done arguing the problem and I admit to leave my position. But since I made you jump out of your shoes and start writing in huge bolds, I guess common courtesy is out of the question.

Also, who died and left you the ultimate authority on which verses mean what? My interpretation is just as valid as yours. You're just explaining what the bible really means when it says what it says and that is forcefully pulled out of your ass, just like my interpretation is pulled out of mine. The difference is that I don't really care. The bible says everything for everybody, but you know better what it really means just like all the Christians with opposing theories that are both based on the bible.

The youtube video was a joke, not an argument, I guess you had to see it.

Anyway, you started from a premise and i was starting from the opposing premise and we both argued with equally valid AND invalid reasoning. (to be honest, I would have won the theist versus atheist debate, but now we'll never know) I did it for old times' sake. We were supposed to spin in circles forever and ever till the end of time, like good ol' Christians do, but you're no fun. You get pissed and start calling debunks before I'm even close to being done opposing.

Bad kingschosen! Bad!

Yes, I know the verse you said was about the actual sons of Joseph, but the promise for them wasn't just for them; it was for the entire tribe.

And my interpretation isn't based on interpretation at all. It's what the verses say.

So, yeah. We can keep going of you want to. Spinning in circles hasn't gotten old yet. It will; but not yet. Honestly, though, I think we're being rude and insensitive to Ferdy. We've derailed the topic which was about something completely different. She doesn't deserve that. People need to focus on it what the thread is about.

We could go elsewhere.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 10:51 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
Well, this thread has gone waaaaaay off track.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-12-2011, 10:52 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
(15-12-2011 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Well, this thread has gone waaaaaay off track.

Yeah, my fault, really. Sorry Ferdy.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 10:53 AM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
Nah, you're right, we are derailing the topic and we should stop. I don't see a good reason to take it to private or to a new topic, but none of us is going anywhere, we may meet again, and maybe that time we won't be hijacking the topic.

My hat's off to you for being worthy of the title of "Unoffendable"

Cheers

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 03:02 PM
RE: Teeter Tottering on believing.
(15-12-2011 10:53 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Nah, you're right, we are derailing the topic and we should stop. I don't see a good reason to take it to private or to a new topic, but none of us is going anywhere, we may meet again, and maybe that time we won't be hijacking the topic.

My hat's off to you for being worthy of the title of "Unoffendable"

Cheers

Indeed.

*tips hat*

Until we meet again.

[Image: val-620x643.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: