In Honor of Lion IRC

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tin-Man's picture
In Honor of Lion IRC

Howdy, gang. I know this may sound crazy, but I am starting this thread on behalf of our newest theist arrival (Mr. Lion) in an effort to promote better public relations among our visiting theists and we atheists. When Lion first arrived here earlier today in the "Why do Christians visit the AR?" thread, he made the following post...

Lion: "Hi All
I came to this forum to, firstly, defend theism.
Then to defend monotheism
Then biblical theism.
Then (Nicene) Christianity.
Then, lastly, my own religion - a personal relationship with Jesus.
Hope that's OK.
#Debate_Room"

A very honest and reasonable post, in my humble opinion. Naturally, though, that got me to wondering, "Hmmm... What have any of us here ever done to offend Lion's religion or his personal relationship with Jesus to such a degree he felt compelled to come here and defend his god and his belief?" And since Lion had made his post in the middle of an already cluttered thread, I took the liberty of making a totally new thread in order to give Lion a fresh slate on which to list and address any or all offenses/concerns that he feels the need to defend. Personally, I am genuinely intrigued, and I look forward to hearing any grievances Mr. Lion chooses to share with us.

**Note**: My first two posts on here will be my first couple of responses to Lion that I will transfer from the other thread. And there may be one or two of his own posts along with them for the sake of continuity.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Tin-Man's picture
@Lion IRC Re: Defending

(My initial response to Lion)

@Lion IRC Re: Defending theism

Welcome to the AR. Hope you enjoy your time here. Hope you don't mind, but I'm really curious about something since you made the claim you are defending the bible and Jesus...

Your god is supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing? Knows everything and can DO anything it wants, right? So, to me, that simply begs a couple of questions:

1. WHY would such an entity need you or anybody else to defend it?

2. From WHAT are you defending it?

Seems to me, any being able to create an entire universe should be more than capable of handling its own defense. Furthermore, that same being should not be the least bit concerned about anything you, me, or anybody else might say/think about it. The very THOUGHT of being so arrogant as to say you are "defending" such an all-knowing/all-powerful ETERNAL being is rather laughable, to be honest. Plus, it actually somewhat undermines you position of claiming your god is all-powerful. I can't help but picture a tiny little ant standing in front of an M1 Abrams tank yelling at all the other ants about how it has been "assigned" to defend/protect its tank-god. Because a tiny cluster of other ants that do not believe in its tank-god have armed themselves with spitballs and have planned to attack it. Just seems rather silly to me... *shrugging shoulders*...

Anyway, welcome again. Have fun.

Tin-Man's picture
(Lion IRC response)

(Lion IRC response)

Hi :)
1a. He doesn't *need* anything. 1b. I'm defending *my* position - not Him.
2. See post #102

Tin-Man's picture
(My response to Lion)

(My response to Lion)

@Lion Re: "I'm defending *my* position - not Him."

Ummm... Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. Well, in that case, why do you feel the need to defend YOUR position? Has somebody on here (or anywhere) challenged you in some way? And if you are truly confident and have full faith in your all-powerful/all-knowing god, then what would it matter even if you did get challenged? Do you not have enough faith that your Supreme God will take care of that matter for you? Or do you think your perfect god is not doing enough to protect you, so you feel you should take it upon yourself to confront others who believe in different gods or no gods at all? The way I see it, if I had such a powerful and intelligent person/being/entity as my own "personal bodyguard", I would not have a care in the world about what somebody might think or even say about me. Why would I care? There should be absolutely nothing to defend. But if you start getting defensive about your belief, then that is an indication you are possibly insecure about your own belief.

I can't speak for others here, but I personally do not care if you believe in your god. None of my business. Please feel free to worship and believe whatever you want. Therefore, you certainly do not have to defend yourself from me. To each his own, as far as I am concerned.... *shrugging shoulders*... However when you come into a public place and start spewing your beliefs for all to see, then you should be aware your beliefs are absolutely fair game for being critiqued and (if necessary) ridiculed. Just a fair warning.

Oh, and once again, if you intend to extend this discussion, please start a new thread. At the moment you are trying to pitch your sale on two seperate threads that are already getting lengthy. Not a good method for a productive exchange of ideas.

Cognostic's picture
@tin:

@tin:
WHAT A GROUP OF GREAT QUESTIONS:

"What are you defending?
From what are you defending it?
What makes you think an all powerful, all knowing, omnipotent being, needs defending?"

Well worth repeating over and over and over....

I am particularly interested in "What" you are defending. Can you demonstrate the existence of the thing you claim you are defending? If it does not exist, after all, why defend it? If it does exist.... um...... why defend it? This is very confusing. In either case, it requires no defense at all.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: To Lion - "Can you

@Cog Re: To Lion - "Can you demonstrate the existence of the thing you claim you are defending?"

Oh, in case you missed it, Lion said he was not here to defend his god. He claimed he was here to defend his own position as a theist. Get those banana peels off your eyeballs and learn to read, banana breath... *chuckle*... And pay attention! There may be a test later.

Edit to add: Oh, and I have no idea what he meant by "See post 102."
Another Edit: Speaking of "See post 102"... Hey, Lion, still waiting on your answer to my question about, "From what are you defending your position?"

Tin-Man's picture
@Lion Re: Post numbers

@Lion Re: Post numbers

Um, be advised, post numbers often change depending on the activity on the thread and where other people make posts within the thread. So using the post number as a reference is pretty much a waste of time. In other words, it is better to specifically state what you may have said in another post.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Dear Lion

Dear Lion

Inrespect of your lovely post
I came to this forum to, firstly, defend theism.
Then to defend monotheism
Then biblical theism.
Then (Nicene) Christianity.
Then, lastly, my own religion - a personal relationship with Jesus.
Hope that's OK.

why not go to my recent post where you will find some points to defend...if you can.
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/beliefs-without-found...

Post your "defense" here of course.

Lion IRC's picture
Cross post from your thread

Cross post from your thread back to this one??? YIKES.
OK. You don't think

"the synoptic gospels are all eye witness accounts..."

Who wrote them?
I take it you have some inside info about the identity of the authors. Do you have their names?
Because that would be a good start. You say THEY weren't there. Start by naming them so we can check secular historical sources to corroborate your claim that they didnt see the event(s) they describe.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lion

@ Lion

It helps if you put the @ plus the person you are addressing at the top of the post. It is also a good idea to include a line or two from their post as you did.

The claim is the authors of the gospels are (in historical order) Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The truth is no one knows who the authors actually were, whoever wrote them down admitted that they were merely ascribing authorship of the "memoirs" to the persons named. At best they are hearsay accounts, and, embellished, altered and interpolated in their present form.

Very nice try at reversing the burden of evidence but ...nope that's a fail. Don't try it again. Don't attempt to strawman me either, that's rude and self defeating.

If you have evidence to support the traditional claim that the gospels were in fact written by the named persons, well, please go for your life and display it.

If you think they are eye witness accounts, then evidence that as well.

Oh, please remember the texts are the CLAIM. You can't use them to evidence a claim somewhere else in the text.

Lion IRC's picture
You admit that you don't know

You admit that you don't know their identity.
I don't need to strawman you.
And there's no burden of proof on me to disprove your admission.

You don't know for a fact that none of the writers were eyewitnesses because according to your own claim, nobody knows who they were. Hence you can't know they weren't.

The only accounts in the Gospels which everyone agrees weren't directly witnessed are those where the event itself explicitly describes there being no one else present. Eg. Jesus alone in the wilderness with satan or praying in Gethsemene.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lion

@ Lion

Re: Gospels

"You admit that you don't know their identity.

I am saying NO ONE knows the identities of the claimed writers of the gospels.

And there's no burden of proof on me to disprove your admission

My OP which you answered was directed at all christians. Most of whom accept the "tradition" of authorship of the gospels.

Am I to assume from your answers that you do not accept the traditional view of authorship? And therefore one of that select band of honest christians? Not many of you about I must say.

You don't know for a fact that none of the writers were eyewitnesses because according to your own claim, nobody knows who they were. Hence you can't know they weren't.

Tortuous, but again my OP was about the generally accepted view held by most christians. If you are the exception, well , welcome to the world of honesty. If, on the other hand you are just being a fucking smartass, then be my guest. It doesn't play well.

The only accounts in the Gospels which everyone agrees weren't directly witnessed are those where the event itself explicitly describes there being no one else present. Eg. Jesus alone in the wilderness with satan or praying in Gethsemene

So not even the writers would know what was being said? Have I got you right? Jesus was alone, no one about so no one knows what was said? Ok. I can see that. It was a made up story...yes? An embellishment if you will rather than an eyewitness account?

(Edit for clarity)

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "everyone agrees "

Lion IRC "everyone agrees "

Nope, though it's amusing when theists make such obviously false claims. Did you poll "everyone", or did they let you know what they thought somehow?

As OMS's just explained, biblical claims cannot be evidence for those claims, this is a circular reasoning fallacy, that also sounds to me like an argument from assertion fallacy.

Lion IRC You don't know for a fact that none of the writers were eyewitnesses

I know for a fact no objective evidence has been demonstrated to support this biblical claim. That's sufficient for me to withhold belief, even if many of the claims were not directly refuted by known scientific facts, like people being resurrected from death after they'd been dead long enough to stink.

Lion IRC "according to your own claim, nobody knows who they were. Hence you can't know they weren't."

This is true, though irrelevant, as it's not a choice between knowing and not knowing, it's a choice between believing outlandish superstitious claims, from an epoch of ignorant and superstitious credulity, based on zero evidence, and from an unknown source, or remaining dubious. Do you generally believe unevidenced claims from unknown sources, that deny scientific facts, and outrage reason?

I saw a unicorn yesterday, I'll sell it to you if you pay me enough. I'll even pay the shipping once your payment is in my account.

You can't prove I didn't see one after all....

This is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, in informal logic.

The burden of proof always rests with the initial or larger claim.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"The only accounts in the Gospels which everyone agrees weren't directly witnessed are those where the event itself explicitly describes there being no one else present."

I do not agree.

Cognostic's picture
Another dumb fuck argument

Another dumb fuck argument from Lion IRC. "We don't know who wrote them so they must be eyewitnesses. Prove me wrong." How do you even dress yourself in the mornings?

Lion IRC's picture
Nope.

Nope.
I'm saying...
You don't know who wrote them so you are disqualified from pretending that YOU know stuff about them which nobody else knows - such as your certainty that they were not eye witnesses to any of the Gospel accounts.

You can't have it both ways. Their supposed 'anonymity' works against skeptics too.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"You don't know who wrote them so you are disqualified from pretending that YOU know stuff about them which nobody else knows - such as your certainty that they were not eye witnesses to any of the Gospel accounts."

And I can use the same argument that theists can not know if the bible is accurate. The bottom line is that barring naming known geographical features, there is almost nothing from the bible that can be authenticated.

But when you factor in the established fact that the bible was written over an unknown period of time, with unknown authors, and compiled different times by various organizations WITH an agenda, the bible's authenticity is definitely questionable.

Eye witnesses? That definitely can never be proven or disproven.

Personally my standard of evidence is similar to a court of law. If it will not be accepted in a court of law, why should anyone?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lyin

@ Lyin

such as your certainty that they were not eye witnesses to any of the Gospel accounts.

Actually we can be certain they are not eye-witness accounts. Apart from their own admissions in the text, the impossibilities of some of the stories there is textual analysis that would reveal to Blind Freddy that the earliest of these texts was not written until after 70CE.

A quick google search will help you out there.

Even the Catholic Church agrees categorically that they are at best hearsay accounts. Which is the consensus of all serious scholars of those texts.

Again a quick google search will bear me out and put your silly fucking strawman up your arse where it belongs. I NEVER pretended "to know stuff about them which nobody else knows" Another cheap shot from a numpty by the feel of it.

Dear oh dear,. I thought you were organising a defence? This looks like a retreat under fire.

So you have no evidence for the standard christian claim then? No...I expected that you would fizzle.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "Their supposed

Lion IRC "Their supposed 'anonymity' works against skeptics too."

Nonsense, how does the author's identity being unknown lend any credence to the veracity of the text exactly? Unless you are going to redefine scepticism, as you did with the word contradiction of course. In that case all bets are off.

There is no objective evidence that the any of the gospels were written by, or even quoted, eyewitnesses?

I am deeply sceptical of your claim they were, and the fact no one has any idea who wrote them doesn't make less sceptical, quite the opposite.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "Nope. I'm saying..

Lion IRC "Nope. I'm saying...You don't know who wrote them so you are disqualified from pretending that YOU know stuff about them"

That's a particularly stupid claim if I may say so. First by your own admission in the claim, we can state the authors are unknown. Secondly, and ipso facto we can know that the much used christian claim they are known is errant. Thirdly, we can know that the much used Christian claim the gospels represent eye witness accounts is nothing but hearsay, since again by your own admission the authorship is known.

The position of atheism is to disbelieve a deity exists, as an atheist I also disbelieve all biblical claims for which no, or insufficient, objective evidence can be demonstrated. I need not know these claims are wrong, it is epistemologically sufficient that I know there is no objective evidence to support them, and logically it is sufficient that no rationally consistent argument can justify them, since we know all of the supernatural claims are not only unevidenced but often contradict known scientific facts, and to put it bluntly outrage reason. Even theist's and apologist's reason would be outraged were such claims made in any other context, making their bias in favour of their core beliefs manifestly obvious.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that the authorship of the gospels being unknown is sufficient reason to admit you cannot claim they are eye witness accounts? Or are you going to continue to use argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to pretend believing they are eyewitnesses accounts is somehow as justified as not believing this?

Your reasoning is of course irrational, but can you really not see the desperate bias in your argument?

How many eyewitness accounts from unknown sources that claimed to have witnessed deities performing miracles do you accept from other religions?

It is the atheists here who are being objective, and setting an objective standard for what is epistemologically and rationally justifiable.

Lion IRC's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon
Obviously, I argue that there IS direct eye witness testimony in the Gospels and that we do know something of the identity of the people who provide that testimony.

But that's beside the point because my issue is with the ppl who simultaneously argue that;

a) The identity of the Gospel writers is completely unknown/anonymous.
b) We can be sufficiently sure about the identity of these writers to know they weren't anywhere close to the events they describe.

These two propositions are incompatible. You either don't know their identity and therefore cannot be sure whether or not they were there to witness the events they claim. OR you do know details of their identity and use that as the basis for your claim that they were never there to witness the events in question.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"a) The identity of the Gospel writers is completely unknown/anonymous.
b) We can be sufficiently sure about the identity of these writers to know they weren't anywhere close to the events they describe."

What if I claimed Shakespeare wrote the "The Iliad"?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

These two propositions are incompatible. You either don't know their identity and therefore cannot be sure whether or not they were there to witness the events they claim.

False argument. We know the writers are not the writers that "tradition" claims them to be.
No one knows the identity of the writes of the texts.
End of argument 1

Argument 2
Argument 1 does not affect the the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims made within the texts.
Through textual analysis we know that 90% of 'Matthew' and 60% plus of 'Luke' are copied verbatim from 'Mark'.
This shows that the writers were not present at the events described in 'Mark' and the other events they describe seem to embellishments of the story designed to appeal to a particular audience.
We know that Matthew corrected the errors of Jewish Custom and Law, so we know that "mark" could not have been present at those events.
Matthew invented stories like the resurrection of the "Saints: or "Holy Men" who wandered the streets of Jerusalem yet strangely this epic, terrifying event was not noticed by one chronicler of the time.....
We know that Mark was NOT written before 70CE so both Luke and Matthew were written sometime afterwords.
We know that early versions of both Luke and Matthew did not contain the birth narrative.

use that as the basis for your claim that they were never there to witness the events in question.
It is not used as a basis for any claim. The facts speak for themselves. your argument is a false dichotomy. Statement 2 is not dependent on statement 1 however many times you repeat it.

Lion IRC's picture
Its not about offending my

Its not about offending my religion.
It's about whether or not you welcome the AvT contest of ideas.

Atheist Republic wrote : "We encourage discussion about any and all topics".
That sounds very inviting to a non-atheist like me.

Atheist Republic wrote :
https://twitter.com/AtheistRepublic/status/1234565404594462720?s=20
https://twitter.com/AtheistRepublic/status/1234580504277651457?s=20

Sheldon's picture
@Lion IRC

@Lion IRC

Inviting anyone to debate any topic doesn't mean people won't deride laughable claims.

We are discussing it, we think your claims are a risible and fallacious attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for the existence of any deity, or anything supernatural?

That's as good a place to start as any...

NewSkeptic's picture
@Lyin.

@Lyin.

Here's how it usually works:

1. Theist presents idea
2. Atheists logically refute idea
3. Theist attempts to reverse burden of proof and commits a multitude of fallacies
4. Atheists refuse attempt to reverse burden of proof and logically point out the fallacious arguments used by theist
5. Theist hand waves away or ignores logical arguments, doubles down on fallacious or unfalsifiable claims
6. Theist is called out, atheists gloves are now off where lying will be called out and mocking is justified

You are following the script perfectly

Whitefire13's picture
@Lion. “ Then biblical theism

@Lion. “ Then biblical theism.”

Do you believe or support the claim that the bible is inerrant?

Lion IRC's picture
Yes.

Yes.
If I encountered a falsehood in the bible I would abandon the bible.

NewSkeptic's picture
@Lyin Re:"If I encountered a

@Lyin Re:"If I encountered a falsehood in the bible I would abandon the bible."

But you've encountered many and still hold to it.

Ah, I see what you did there, brilliant, it has to be limited to "a" falsehood, and since there are so many, you do not abandon it. Very slick on your part, I take back any mocking comments I may have made.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "Yes. If I

Lion IRC "Yes. If I encountered a falsehood in the bible I would abandon the bible."

I don't believe you, I'm pretty sure you'd deny it, and wave it away with another asinine rationalisation.

However you might want to have a read of Genesis, as humans were not created in their current form using magic and clay. Also despite decades of searching not one shred of archaeological evidence has been found that the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt, it's a myth.

Here are some details of falsehoods in Genesis.

In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31

Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7

God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19

That's enough for now...

Tin-Man's picture
@Lion

@Lion

Good morning, Leo. Oh, my... *reading through thread*... Looks like you've already been busy today.... *light cringe*... Ouch. And not getting off to a very good start, I see. Hey, don't sweat it, though... *waving hand in dismissal*... Sometimes it just takes a little bit to get the hang of things around here. You'll get better as you go along... *chuckle*... Anyway...

So, I know you have a lot coming at you right now, but I was hoping you might find a moment to answer a couple of my original questions. Namely...

1. From what are you defending your god/your position?

2. If you are fully comfortable/confident in your faith/position, why do you feel the need to "defend" it against strangers who have caused you no offense and (for the most part) do not even care what you believe?

Oh, and as a bonus question based on some of your other posts...

3. Do you believe everything in your bible is absolutely true and should be taken literally?

Okay, I know your plate is rather full at the moment, but if you could find a moment to address these it would be appreciated. Plus, I imagine others here would also like to hear your answers. Looking forward to your reply. Gracias.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.