Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 10:58 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Christianity is a low-budget bootleg version of older Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek and Crete myths.

Umm, hmmm, well...those "myths" are polytheistic. Christianity is monothestic.

That was rather easy. Oh, Genetic Fallacy as well...

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Sold to the masses with lies, pseudepigrapha, parables, whimsical allegorical stories, fiction, fantasy and forgery called the bible...and the ever present exploitation of fear as the little engine that could.

Non sequitur.

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  BELIEVE OR SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL! Denounce your religion for ours or die (holy wars strike a bell?, inquisition? Christians torturing Jews in the 14th century and burning them alive because they thought they caused the black plague...you know, all those good Christian values.)

Fallacy of hasty generalization.

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Now that Xtians have enjoyed being the establishment for the last hundred or so years they are screaming about their mythical "war on Christianity" BS...because their numbers are plummeting as people embrace education, reason, and logic...uhoh.

Think so?

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Zero evidence is still zero evidence.

All major miraculous stories of bible solidly debunked....flood, exodus etc

Debunked by whom?

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No one who wrote of jesus knew him...no one....ever.

Non sequitur.

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Xtianity infectious growth was due to Emperor Constantine, Bishop Augustine, and campaigns like the holy wars.

Christianity had spread all the way to Turkey (from Jerusalem) 200 years before Constantine.

This is just a prime example of an unbeliever spewing the tyical inaccurate quip of
"It is because of Constantine that Christians X, Y and Z"...or "If it wasn't for Constantine, Christianity wouldn't be X, Y, and Z".

That kind of spewage is just that, spewage. It just is historically inaccurate.

(17-11-2015 09:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Fast forward to modern days, those infected with faith under the name of xtianity have spent lots of time going to ignorant, uneducated third world countries handing out a bowl of rice, or building a well while simultaneously giving them fictional books like bibles and setting up brain washing sessions where at the end of the lecture you get a bowl of soggy rice or a tshirt. Big surprise, people will do anything for a bowl of rice when they are starving. If the fat white man in the funny outfit wants the scrawny, ignorant, uneducated 3rd world citizen to "pray" and play along with his babbling about some super sky genie and they get a bowl of rice or a chicken leg thereafter then they are in for the win.

Genetic fallacy.

Rolleyes

This is why you continue to get your ass handed to you in every debate you enter, you know little, bloviate a lot about your opinion, and are unable or unwilling to accept facts to refute your child-like embracing of the fairy tale of the magical man who walked on water. It is like trying to explain to a 6yo how calculus works and his answer is "nu-unhhh you are wrong because spongebob is yellow!" Unsure

As I have recommended to you many times, as I have dragged you around the schoolyard over and over, seek knowledge, take a few theological classes...read a fucking book, and no, the bible doesn't count.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Sad attempt for a comparison. We have Abraham Lincoln's writings, personal affects, home, pictures of him, his speeches, people who wrote about him who ....wait for it....knew him, met him, listened to him, and wrote down what he said.....and....get this...they were ALIVE at the time WITH Abraham.

How do you know they were alive at the time WITH Abraham? Do you know, or are you going by what you were told?

The latter.

It is much easier to believe in hearsay if there are no supernatural implications stapled to the message, isn't it?

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  To compare that with a fabricated super hero who was born of a god and a mortal, just like ALL other hero-god stories from Horus in 3000 BCE, all the way to jesus and beyond...same recipe

Well I will put it to you this way; as ridiculous as your rendition of what theists have believed over the centuries...in my opinion, that is still better than the notion that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk and think.

Either way, something happened...something that is beyond normal everyday protocol.

Now, you can either believe that a personal agent caused the whole shebang , or you can believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing and that inanimate matter eventually came to life.

Any theistic position is better than that.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  .....where not one single word was ever written AT THE TIME

Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  by someone who actually knew him, met him, or witnessed his Benny Hinn show...not one.

Yet despite that, the majority of all historians accept Jesus as a historical figure..and also despite all of that, Christianity spread and grew to be the world's #1 religion in terms of total followers.

Not bad, considering the entire religion is based upon a guy that no one "actually knew, met him, or witnessed his Benny Hinn show...not one."

In other words, your criterion as to what it should be just doesn't really matter in terms of overall significance and influence.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  One would think...I know you don't do that often, but one would think if zombies were bursting out of the ground

It said "out of their tombs".

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  earth went dark

The whole earth, or the local earth?

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and jesus flew up into the sky

Someone could be ascending into heaven right now in Cleveland, but I don't know, because I am here...and the person is there.

Catch my drift?

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  SOMEONE would have thought that noteworthy....nope.

Someone did...Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Philo of Alexandria recorded events of the day to great detail and lived and traveled the area...not....one....word of jesus....perhaps Justus who lived in Galilee...nope, not one word.....so you are trying to compare someone who was an ordinary man, where there is a plethora of tangible, empirical evidence for his existence and actions, with a fairy tale with zero evidence.......surely you can do better than that...oh wait, I remember now....you can't.

*pats on head* now now now, my little pet...you are arguing from silence. In philosophical circles this would be called a "logical fallacy".

And usually, those type of things can be dismissed without further ado. Such is the case hereBig Grin

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No, in reference to John, biblical experts, and those who have spent their lives studying the historicity of jesus....know John didn't write john.

And the majority of those same Biblical experts also believe in the historicity of Jesus..in other words, Jesus is a historical figure. As far as who wrote John, look, arguments can be made on both sides...and I've always emphasized that even if John himself didn't write it, someone close to him wrote it, in other words; the context of the the book came from him, regardless a damn if he actually wrote the words.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Only dipshits like you and Ken Ham believe in the fairy tale in its literal form, while the vats majority of the educated world who study theology know otherwise based on facts.....

If you want to believe that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk, think, etc..then I will leave you to your absurdities.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  All four gospels are anonymous.

Thanks for telling me that, Captain Obvious.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  John identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle).

You are erronously making it seem as if just because it is "tradition", as if that somehow negates the true value of what is being applied. Traditions could actually be derived from true events.

If your great-great-great grandfather started a tradition in your family at which every third Thursday of September, he went deer hunting...now imagine if this is still prevelent in your family today...only to have some asshole decades later deny that your grandfather began the tradition, that the tradition began because your great-great-great auntie disliked deers because one day they trampled through her garden, and she disliked them ever since and began to hunt them down, thus, the tradition began.

You may be able to make a strong case that John didn't actually write the book, but what you can't make a case for is whether or not the core material of the book came from John, the Apostle. You just don't know, and it is disingenuous and even more foolish to come on here claiming as if your knowledge of this stuff is so damn complete and you have all of the answers, because face it, you don't.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John

If the traditions can be traced to John, that would mean that John existed, right? That would also mean that Jesus existed, right?

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process. The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth

Sources:

Anderson 2007, p. 19."These facts pose a major problem for the traditional view of John's authorship, and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it."

Lindars, 1990, p. 20."It is thus important to see the reasons why the traditional identification is regarded by most scholars as untenable."

The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. p. 362 "Presently, few commentators would argue that a disciple of Jesus actually wrote the Fourth Gospel,..."

Marilyn Mellowes The Gospel of John From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus' World. PBS 2010-11-3. "Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion;..."

D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan; 2 New edition. 2005. Pg 233 “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”

"To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely." "John, Gospel of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005


Someday when you actually learn to read, research, and utilize comprehension skills, you can join the rest of the adults in the conversation about mythology.

We all have our sources, don't we? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 01:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Rolleyes

This is why you continue to get your ass handed to you in every debate you enter, you know little, bloviate a lot about your opinion, and are unable or unwilling to accept facts to refute your child-like embracing of the fairy tale of the magical man who walked on water. It is like trying to explain to a 6yo how calculus works and his answer is "nu-unhhh you are wrong because spongebob is yellow!" Unsure

As I have recommended to you many times, as I have dragged you around the schoolyard over and over, seek knowledge, take a few theological classes...read a fucking book, and no, the bible doesn't count.

You just can't win, GWOG. I don't know how well you've done against other Christian Apologists....but against me, you are in a no-winning situation. All of your reading and education goes out of the window against me, because no amount of reading, education, and sources is enough when you go against the truth.

There is just something about the truth that can't be rebutted, or refuted. So my advice to you is just to go back in your little rat hole until your wounds heal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 11:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is not. It is an explanation of the spread of the belief, not the truth value of the belief.

If the belief is the truth, then all of this stuff about how/why it spread becomes quite meaningless, doesn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 11:12 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Well the arguments were "designed" 6,000 - 10,000 years ago and haven't evolved much since then.

Neither have organisms Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(17-11-2015 11:33 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Considering you are incapable of citing the five pillars of Islam, their three sacred sites in order of importance and why, what their population is made off or the site of their eldest mosques without going to wikipedia for a quick search, I would say you are ignorant on that subject and would require a class. Considering that you don't know the name of the suprem deity of the Hindu pantheon, any of their mythic cycle or even the name of their eldest holy scripture. I would say you are ignorant of those people too. I am sorry to hurt you bubb, but you don't know anything on a lot of subject on which I know a lot. Since you can't prevent yourself from talking about subject on which you are ignorant, it wouldn't hurt you to sound less stupid on these pages from time to time.

You got an excellent knowledge of Christian scriptures and probably know a lot more about Christian theological schools then me, but you consistently display a very naïve if not downright caricatural knowledge of everything else. You should take the offer for more knowledge with more enthusiasme. Islam being at the center of a recent social and political uprising, you would be wise to learn more about them.

Christianity is the world's largest religion in terms of followers. That was my original point, and that is the MAIN point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(18-11-2015 09:46 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 11:33 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Considering you are incapable of citing the five pillars of Islam, their three sacred sites in order of importance and why, what their population is made off or the site of their eldest mosques without going to wikipedia for a quick search, I would say you are ignorant on that subject and would require a class. Considering that you don't know the name of the suprem deity of the Hindu pantheon, any of their mythic cycle or even the name of their eldest holy scripture. I would say you are ignorant of those people too. I am sorry to hurt you bubb, but you don't know anything on a lot of subject on which I know a lot. Since you can't prevent yourself from talking about subject on which you are ignorant, it wouldn't hurt you to sound less stupid on these pages from time to time.

You got an excellent knowledge of Christian scriptures and probably know a lot more about Christian theological schools then me, but you consistently display a very naïve if not downright caricatural knowledge of everything else. You should take the offer for more knowledge with more enthusiasme. Islam being at the center of a recent social and political uprising, you would be wise to learn more about them.

Christianity is the world's largest religion in terms of followers. That was my original point, and that is the MAIN point.

And the relevence of that to a thread about Creationists using the same arguments repeatedly is...?

It's been attempted to be explained to you. Do you still not know what the difference of creationism and Christianity is? To clarify it in a swift way again, main accepted doctrine believing Catholics aren't creationists.

"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
18-11-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(18-11-2015 09:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And the relevence of that to a thread about Creationists using the same arguments repeatedly is...?

I dunno.

(18-11-2015 09:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's been attempted to be explained to you. Do you still not know what the difference of creationism and Christianity is? To clarify it in a swift way again, main accepted doctrine believing Catholics aren't creationists.

Semantics *sigh*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(18-11-2015 09:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 11:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is not. It is an explanation of the spread of the belief, not the truth value of the belief.

If the belief is the truth, then all of this stuff about how/why it spread becomes quite meaningless, doesn't it?

Truth? Seriously? Since you have no evidence, declaring it the truth just makes you an idiot. Drinking Beverage

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
18-11-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(18-11-2015 11:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 09:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And the relevence of that to a thread about Creationists using the same arguments repeatedly is...?

I dunno.

(18-11-2015 09:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's been attempted to be explained to you. Do you still not know what the difference of creationism and Christianity is? To clarify it in a swift way again, main accepted doctrine believing Catholics aren't creationists.

Semantics *sigh*

It's a completely different view of the concept of the world...

There is more to life than believing or not believing in God. Plenty of people who are even described to themselves as something like anti-theist are much more fine with people who are "Christians" but understand evolution and the origins of life. They are not happy though with Creationists who refuse to invest in protecting the world's limited resources and ranges of complexity because they refuse to take anything not in a holy text as explaining the objective world.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: