Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ David
John cleverly sidetracked the "conversation" almost immediately as he certainly doesn't want his belief questioned: i.e that the gospels were and are an unbroken line of story from the eye witnessing of the alleged Jesus life to his present bible.
John has read enough posts here to know that for him to essay any foray into the la la land of apologetics would have his arguments debunked in very short order.
So I sits and reads and laughs at the twists and dodges and red herrings and terminological inexactitudes that the Breezy One excels in displaying for the communities edification. Even when handed his arse on a platter he then demands one defines anus....at least he is entertaining in a weird kind of way.
Where have I sidetracked the conversation? Greensnake argued that Scripture isn't good for lack of things like an index. I argued that it's hard to suggest it could be any more effective than it already is, given that it's outlived many other religions, and has a quarter of the population convinced.
When people (you included) accused me of an ad populum fallacy, I had to stop and defend against it. When David said my defense is invalid because of the difference between science and belief, I had to defend against that too. Now that you accused me of sidetracking, here's my defense of that. I'll continue to defend against all the illogical rebuttals that are brought up, so long as they keep being brought up.
You don't even participate in discussions. The least you can do is keep track.
@ Breezy
"Where have I sidetracked the conversation? "
I answered your claim that the errors in the gospels were solely due to "eye witness contradictions" as if it proved their provenance.
Rather than answer and defend your claim when it was pointed out that it was impossible to claim that as fact you proceeded to other items. This is your usual pattern.
Perhaps if you answered without your usual larding of thinly veiled insults and smart ass obfuscations we would have a reasonable exchange of views.
Please continue the debate with Greensnake and Sheldon, I know I am not alone in enjoying it immensely.
Lol so I sidetracked the conversation on page three, by not responding to your comment on page one. Nice.
@ Breezy
"Lol so I sidetracked the conversation on page three, by not responding to your comment on page one"
I did not pin point when you sidetracked, avoided or obfuscated. But seeing you do it again right here speaks volumes for your ability to duck, cover and an inability to confront unpalatable or hard conversations.
But, as I said, don't let me distract from your exercises in discombobulation, prevarication and contumacious argument, I have no wish to chase you around the mulberry tree in search for a straight answer.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
David,
How is that a problem. The most objective of truths can always be criticized and denied; wherever this occurs a defense can and should be mounted.
"Now, I do think you have a very idealistic view of science, because undoubtedly scientists do bring in their beliefs, their biases, and preconceived ideas to work. "
--------------------------------------------------------------
If only the scientific method had some way of removing such bias, oh wait a minute...perhaps they could learn objectivity from the religious? Oh the hilarity
The real irony of your hilarious claim is the bias of you singling out the one scientific fact that destroys the creation myth of your religion. So just to be clear John, are you saying species evolution is based on individual bias, and not on objective evidence? Only it's odd how the entire scientific world seems to think the evidence validates it, and you are twisting that into nonsense about individual bias? Whilst ironically ignoring the obvious bias of you singling out just one scientific fact to deny, because it refutes part of your religious beliefs.
Unless you'd care to finally answer my question of course, and list maybe half a dozen scientific facts you think "scientists do bring in their beliefs, their biases, and preconceived ideas to work" on, but that don't in any way refute any part of your beliefs of course? Or do "scientists bring in their beliefs, their biases, and preconceived ideas to work" only on the one single scientific fact that you conveniently dislike because it refutes part of your religious beliefs?
I've always said you're funny John, but this is truly fucking hilarious, fair play to you.
John 61X (Dodge the Issue) Breezy,
[Logically, I've studied all the ways in which reason and judgment goes wrong, and where intelligent people fail. - Breezy]
It's a shame that you are unable to apply all that knowledge to your own cognitive processes. Learning to recognize one's own rationalizations is the first step in searching for truth.
[That's why ad populum is a fallacy. Consensus doesn't determine truth, not in isolation, not in combination. - Breezy]
Should we then throw away all those medical newsletters put out by major medical centers like the Mayo Clinic? Should we ignore a major consensus by doctors regarding the use of some medical procedure? I think you have gotten lost studying the bark of a tree and have missed the forest!
[The question I'm concerned with, is if Scripture is effective. - Breezy]
As I have said before, the Bible is not what recruits Christians. How many people actually read the Bible from cover to cover and, on that basis, leap into Christianity? What actually happens is that Christians lean on the Bible AFTER becoming Christians. However, there is some documentation showing that the Bible is effective at turning Christians into atheists!
Do you even know what you are advocating anymore? If you are saying that the Bible is an icon then I think we are all in agreement. If you're saying that the Bible is central to winning over new Christians because of the way it was written, then you have your head in the sand. We part company when you claim that the Bible shows divine input.
"Should we ignore a major consensus by doctors regarding the use of some medical procedure?"
No; it means don't be surprised if in a few years today's consensus is viewed no different from bloodletting, trepanation, and prefrontal lobotomies.
@ Breezy
I will leave you to accept you Masters in Equivocation...and false equivalency..
"That's not how "ad populum" arguments work; when Sheldon says evolution is true because so many scientists believe it, thats an "ad populum" argument."
Firstly I never said the consensus made evolution true *ON ITS OWN, but hey what's one more lie from you. A scientific consensus indicates something is supported by a sufficient amount of objective evidence, thus indicating that the consensus is not a *BARE appeal to numbers, and therefore cannot be argumentum ad populum.
------------------------------
"Thu, 06/14/2018 - 06:38 (Reply to #52)
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ 2.5 billion Christians today; it's hard to argue something is poorly written when it's got a quarter of the world's population convinced."
So you are claiming the number of people who believe it is evidence for something, without of course offering any evidence to support the claim, thus your claim is the very definition of argumentum ad populum.
Dear oh dear John, it's impressive to see the superstitious mind resort to Orwellian doublethink, where a scientific consensus is proclaimed glibly as argumentum ad populum ignoring the evidence that produces that consensus, and the expert knowledge of the scientists, while the nonsense (hogwash means nonsense) contained in your religion's superstitious tome is lauded as "well written" because of the number of people who believe it.
Priceless, fair play to you.
John 61X (Dodge the Issue) Breezy,
So, are you saying that if a vast majority of dentists recommend some procedure they believe in we cannot take it seriously because it's an "ad populum" argument? I guess all those popular medical newsletters, from major medical centers, can just fold! According to Mr. Breezy, they have nothing of value--just popular opinions. And, we know that truth doesn't depend on a popularity poll. Right?
"2.5 billion Christians today; it's hard to argue something is poorly written when it's got a quarter of the world's population convinced."
Argumentum ad populum. Theists do love their logical fallacies. Do you think the world was once actually flat when nearly every human believed it to be so?
@John 61X Breezy: it's hard to argue something is poorly written when it's got a quarter of the world's population convinced.
What percentage of that "convinced" population of 2.5 billion would you attribute to the Bible, compared with accidents of birth, such as being born in Spain or Brazil rather than Algeria or Japan, for example?
I think most Xtians believe not in the Bible, but in interpretations of the Bible by authority figures, such as priests, parents, teachers, and pastors.
I think accidents of birth can be ruled out, otherwise nobody born in any country outside of the middle east would be Christian. Clearly we're looking at a religion which has grown and expanded across nations and cultures.
You would have to show there's a complete disconnect between authority figures and the bible, which there isn't.
So you don't believe a persons birthplace has a massive influence on which religion they follow? It's a fact that even in the modern age where cultures are far more likely to mix, and religious ideas can be shared as never before, that people are still overwhelmingly likely to stick to the religion that they're raised in, and that predominates in their culture. Most Indians are likely to be raised Hindus, and most Saudi Arabians are likely to be raised Muslims, and most Brazilians are likely to be raised christians. There are many factors at pllay but geography and parenting are clearly massive influences and always have been.
John 61X (Dodge the Issue) Breezy,
Nobody would be a Christian who was born in Kansas? Did you say that right? Perhaps you should do a survey and tally up the percentage of religious people whose religion is the same as their community. I think you will find there is a strong correlation there. You could also use a course or two in world history. Perhaps you are not aware that Europe practically colonized the entire world, leaving its Christianity everywhere. Islam has also grown and expanded across cultures. I think it is the fastest growing religion today!
John 61X (dodge the issues) Breezy,
Why wouldn't God add useful features that any intelligent earthing would have used to make a work more useful, including spacing between words? Of course, vowels would be out since adding them would be confusing to the Hebrews who did not use them. The question is much more serious than you let on! Was God trying to make reading his book difficult? Is that what you are telling me?
It seems that you are not particularly anxious to reason with me! You certainly find a lot of amusing excuses! lol. Well, I don't blame you. Digging into that formidable mountain of material is not your cup of tea. You would rather just flip the post off in your usual, lazy style. Earlier, you flipped off any attempt to address the fossil record--and you fled that thread so quickly that we couldn't even get a peep about vestigial structures and atavisms!
Who do you think you are fooling with this behavior? Certainly none of us atheist members. We all know your record of dodging the issues. Is it possible that believers on this forum are so dense that they miss the fact that you aren't answering anything? Why are you even here?
These are obvious subjective issues in my opinion. If you find blond women attractive but not brunettes, how am I supposed to convince you to be attracted to brunettes? Likewise, if the absence of an index is an issue for you, then so be it. All I can say is that for me, that hardly qualifies as a reasonable objection.
We can argue about evidence and its interpretations, but I can't dictate what threshold of evidence is sufficient for you, nor what things are a deal-breaker for you.
John 61X (dodge the issues) Breezy,
Let the readers decide if an objection is reasonable, if the evidence is sufficient. Isn't it your job to explain to the readers why something is unreasonable or insufficient? This is a debate forum! If you think something is totally irrelevant, you are certainly free to make your case. Cutting and running is not the answer.
We're not talking about blondes and brunettes, John. We're talking about a construct that demonstrably makes a book easier to use. You could probably even test that claim in your psychology lab! You are certainly free to touch on it and then proceed to any number of other points I've brought up. You've cut the discussion off at the roots! Why?
One doesn't need a crystal ball to answer that question. I've brought up a formidable mountain of reasons for rejecting the Bible as God's book. Thoroughly addressing strong arguments has never been your cup of tea. You prefer the lazy, slick, flip-off. Instead of inventing more odd excuses for abandoning the field, why don't you engage and let the readers of this thread decide what is reasonable? Isn't that what debate is all about?
How about the idea an omniscient deity wouldn't know how old the earth was, the chronology of the formation of our solar system, or that all life has evolved (get over it) slowly over time from less complex life. How about an omniscient deity implying we lived in a geocentric universe, or that all humans came from one couple when modern genetics has unequivocally evidenced that the genetic diversity in modern humans could never have come from a population bottleneck this small. Or the completely false claims of a global flood that "miraculously" (irony intended) left no geological evidence. Or the decades of mass captivity in Egypt that left no archaeological evidence. and on and on it goes....I'd settle for getting the basics right as a bare minimum for a message from an omniscient and maybe something - anything that unequivocally couldn't just have been myths created by ancient humans.
Greensnake,
"Anyone who thinks the Bible was written by an advanced being, let alone an omniscient god, is so deep into denial that a rational argument with that person is probably impossible."
You've made some good points.
The Bible was originally written by a committee. Most subsequent versions were also written by committees that used a variety of earlier editions in their version. It's safe to say that most of the biblical stories are BS as history or even as common sense. But that's not their real purpose.
All of the biblical stories illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 34:11-28. The miracles are based on Exodus 34:10. Most of the stories illustrate the First Commandment because the most important ideas expressed in the Bible are total and complete obedience and loyalty to the Boss even if it costs you unbearable personal harm or even your life.
If the Boss tells you to invade a town and to kill everyone that's what you are supposed to do without a second thought. You are not supposed to show mercy like Saul did because it will piss off the Boss. If you are told not to eat pork then you are to endure all kinds of horrific torture and death like the mother and her seven sons in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees7&version=CEB.
If you are told to die for the cause then you are expected to take a beating and die like Yeshua. In effect everyone is expected to do as instructed and not to turn tail when the going gets tough. It's like a military code of honor for everyone. Remember, Yahweh is also God of the armies.
If you are a soldier and you are ordered to charge a machine nest then that's what you do. You don't hold a debate over the merits of it although you are almost 100% sure that you will get killed. If you are on a ship that's in danger of sinking and you are told to close the hatch on yourself and a dozen other guys that's what you do. It's complete obedience and loyalty at the cost of your life. And that's really what the biblical stories are about. They teach obedience and loyalty to the Boss (Yahweh, Yeshua, the President, your parents, the gang leader, your work supervisor, your husband - if you're a woman).
You can review any biblical story and you will see those things in it.
The Aztecs believed that they were in the period of the fifth sun, with the four previous suns having been destroyed by jaguars, hurricanes, raining fire and a great flood, respectively. The god who sacrificed himself to become this fifth sun was called Nanahuatzin, or ‘the pimply or scabby one.’ He jumped into the sacrificial bonfire and was blown into place by Ehecatl, the god of the wind.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
The Bible was written by an advanced being, an omniscient God. That's how we found out the world was round. "In the beginning was the Earth and it was good and it was round. As round as god's one good eye."
If it were not for the bible and the word of god Alabama and Arkansas would be incest free. So, who in the hell would I date? God works in mysterious ways. All his creations are special, even uncle Jo-bob who has three left hands.
@Cog
I thought you told me that Jo-bob was your uncle-daddy?
Edit to add: Oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was Billy-Jo-Bob who was your uncle-daddy. My bad.
The bible letted me handle serpant an one leg grew longer as god/s mirrocal. Bibl is the word of god.
Without the bible women would not know that they were supposed to dress modestly or that men were their superiors.
Without the bible we would not know that the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
Pages