Religion is an initial circular argument.

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

You are right, I was wrong. I should not have implied Dio was dishonest. I APOLOGIZE to Dio for implying he was dishonest.

I was meaning to comment on how you are so sure of my dishonesty. Is it not possible that I am also 100% honest according to my lights? I have never tried to be dishonest on any post on this site. I may have been wrong, and I could have said things better many times. But I have never been intentionally dishonest.

It is a tenant of my faith that I should treat everyone with respect and dignity, even if they do not reciprocate. This command of respect and dignity for all is from the God I believe in, and is also my own personal policy. I fell short and I appreciate you calling me out, Thank You!

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

Jo,

You are right, I was wrong. I should not have implied Dio was dishonest. I APOLOGIZE to Dio for implying he was dishonest.

Don't sweat the small stuff. I've seen posters who were raging werewolves.

I don't know how long you've been posting on forums, but I've been doing it for about twenty years. My opinions about things have changed a lot because of being exposed to new views, and doing research has increased my knowledge. When people make comments about some things, I run through the search engines to get background information about the topics. In some cases, that shows that the other posters don't have a clue about what they are writing about.

For example, the classic case is when people talk about the Ten Commandments. They are full of shit because they have never read and comprehended the fairy tale for themselves. They just repeat the lie they have been taught all of their lives.

When the topics move into more complex subjects such as race and white supremacy, the historical record is filled with real events that can easily support conclusions. Now, while you can say that you disagree with those conclusions, you may not be able to augment your opinion with historical evidence.

Suppose we are discussing stars and I say that I know where there is a star the size of Earth that is a diamond. Now that may sound like pure bull shit because stars are supposed to be gigantic globes of fire and not solid objects like a diamond. But such an object does exist, according to astronomers. When people talk about diamond stars and diamond planets, they probably have evidence to back their claims while you are replying from ignorance.
https://www.space.com/26335-coldest-white-dwarf-star-diamond.html

When discussing racial topics, I can access many historical documents to support my opinions. The preponderance of the evidence is on my side. So you might find it difficult to refute my opinions, but you are free to disagree with how I phrase them.

In conclusion, it is always a good idea to do at least a quick internet search on a new topic to see what the literature says.

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

Thank you for you kind acceptance of my apology. I will do better.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio & Jo

@ Dio & Jo

See Jo,

This is one of the best comments you will see on this or any forum. Dogma or opinion is not important, your reaction to it is.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts
P.S. I should not have gotten defensive when you called me dishonest. It reflects poorly on me and betrays some insecurity. Maybe you said it just to call me a name, to try to intimidate me, maybe I said something that was dishonest, maybe you think a theist by definition is dishonest, or maybe that is the rules of this blog (guilty until proven innocent). Whatever the reason, I was wrong and I will try to do better.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I have never tried to be dishonest on any post on this site. I may have been wrong, and I could have said things better many times. But I have never been intentionally dishonest.

Then you do not understand the terms honesty and integrity.

It is a tenant of my faith that I should treat everyone with respect and dignity, even if they do not reciprocate. This command of respect and dignity for all is from the God I believe in, and is also my own personal policy.

It is a "tenet" of your faith so you allege. You are mistaken, not only in your spelling but also in your assertion.
Where you can show me in your gospels/bible that unbelievers should be shewn "respect and dignity" I can show you equal numbers of verses that deny your claim.

You are on another hiding to refutation Jo. When are you going to start living a life of truth? You have now admitted that This command of respect and dignity for all is from the God I believe in. So truth and facts have no bearing on your life......integrity Jo...

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Glad to have given you a good laugh. Theist are after all, good for something. :-).

Thanks for such a great example of an ad hominem fallacy.

You are OK with DIO committing a cherry picking fallacy, because Christians don't agree on interpretations of the Bible? Is that a moral equivalency fallacy?

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Get off my lawn's picture
As an anecdotal aside, I

As an anecdotal aside, I recently saw a TV documentary about the leader of the far right white supremacist Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) in South Africa and his henchmen, post apartheid. One of them explained how they justified white people being superior to coloured/blacks, and he cited a cherrypicked bible quote where one of the early descendants of Noah apparently had white skin. And then he said that people of other skin colours therefore did not descend from Noah, but alluded to (but did not say directly) them not descending from humans.

Link from Daily Fail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038508/Preparing-race-war-Sout...

As far as I understand now, they can be considered a branch of the Christian Identity movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity).

Diotrephes's picture
Get off my lawn,

delete

Peurii's picture
That is such contorted

That is such contorted reasoning to reach the desired outcome. There is literally nothing that is "white supremacist" in the things you quote there about the Bible. Maybe the bit about Ethiopians not being able to change their colour, there is an implicit claim that that is somehow bad. White supremacy and patriarchy are these fashionable that one can interpret into next to anything, if one so desires. Quite like intelligent design.

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

I am puzzled as to why no atheists have objected to anything you have said. Where are the rational, logical, unbiased, skeptical atheists? No atheists have any problems with anything Diotrephes has said? Let me highlight some of the more egregious statements Diotrephes has made on the subject of white supremacy in the Bible.

When I asked him to list a few good examples of verses in the Bible that support white supremacy. He cherry picked verses that have nothing to do with skin color or white supremacy. He made the false assumption that "chosen" in Bible means white supremacy.

When he tried to explain how Jews are white, one of the examples he gave was a YouTube video of a "White Chinese girl". Below the video someone clarified that the Chinese captions explained that" she belongs to the (tiny) Tatar (Turkic) minority (of Xinjiang). And, indeed, she starts off speaking (the Turkic) Tatar language."

More "evidence" that he gives for white supremacy in the Bible is the statement "The Islamic hadith describes the Jesus character as white with curly hair and medium height." He also gives this statement "The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest." To support white supremacy in the Bible he gives an Islamic view of Jesus being white and another of Jesus having a red complexion Does that in any way support his claim?

Here is another good one he gives to support his claim. "The Jewish Babylonian Talmud only considers Jews to be men (humans). All Gentiles, including whites, are animals. They base that view on Ezekiel 34:31 = https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2034:31." Jews are humans and gentiles, including whites, are animals. That is logical? Jews are humans but whites are animals, and that supports white supremacy in the Bible?

Here is another one of his statements "However, you can't discuss Judaism, Christianity, and Islam without considering the central role that race plays in them. They all support the idea of white supremacy and place Jews at the top of the heap." So Islam supports Jews being on top? Here is another similar one. "BTW, since the Bible is an ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale, don't you think they would have devised a story that made them special over everyone else? It worked. They got the whole world to believe in their line of bull shit." The whole world beleives it, even you Diotrephes? Do the Muslims and Chinese believe your claim?

Another irrational claim by Diotrephes. "When I speak of white supremacy, I am talking about how the Bible placed the Jews before everyone else. White people worship the Jew Jesus. Since Jesus was also a white guy but a different ethnicity (he was an Asian white and not a European white) the Europeans also gave themselves special status." What is "Asian white"? "White people worship the Jew Jesus." I know a lot of black people who worship the "Jew Jesus". I think some "non white Asians" do also. Did the Bible place the Jews before everyone else when it states that we are ALL created in the image of God? Or when it said that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? Diotrephes is making the claim that the Jews were chosen because of white supremacy and not because of their faith. Even though the Bible says it was because of their faith and obedience.

How about his conspiracy theory. "The whites in charge in America are white supremacists. They believe that they have the right to tell everyone in the world (except for the Jews) what to do. They think that because of their race."

This is the worst one of all of Diotrephes claims. "In today's world, Ashkenazis are usually considered to be the ethnic Jews who run things." Hmmm, "Jews who run things". Where have I heard that before? Is that a racists statement Diotrephes made?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Did I not say that some views held by Dio were "batshit crazy"? That is ONLY my opinion? Why are you trying to rally allies to your flag of OPINION?

Read my earlier post. Dio is an amazing man, learned, has a depth of knowledge of the Torah and Talmud, the Pentateuch and Lore as well as the Law that I have not met in another.

You have done moderately well in answering his post but your appeal for a pitchfork waving mob with torches to burn down Dio's personal castle of quiet insanity is pure nonsense.

Your robes are threadbare, your prejudices shine through.

You should ask Calli for some lessons in replying logically, consistently and without giving offence.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

I accept that Dio is a learned and amazing man in those areas.

I was not trying to rally allies. I am not so delusional to think I could rally some atheist to side with me, against an atheist who is saying something negative about the Bible. My intent was to show bias. I think some people believe so strongly in Dio's claim, that the Bible supports white supremacy, they end up supporting fallacies arguments. They are not looking at the evidence or the arguments. Their prejudices are shining through.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Dio was not saying anything negative about the bible but was, in his verses, trying to interpret the bible to suit his own viewpoint. Something christians do every day and twice on Sundays.
Your own views are not supported by a dispassionate read of the bible books.

Your own prejudices and confirmation bias shows everytime you post, the fact that you have been proven wrong so many times in these forums and that your own book can be interpreted to mean whatever another person (batshit crazy or not) wants it to mean just shows that to "live your life by biblical standards" is a nonsense.

There is no truth in what you have been saying on these forums, anymore than there is in Dio's ravings. But the lesson is there for you if you recognise it.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

How was Dio "not saying anything negative about the Bible", when he said it supported white supremacy? His quotes from the Bible were designed to show racism. How are either of those not saying anything negative? Is white supremacy and racism not a negative accusation?

You say that "your own book can be interpreted to mean whatever another person (batshit crazy or not) wants it to mean." How does that reconcile with your claim that it is racist? Are you also guilty of interpreting it to mean what you want? This claim you have made does not square with a your reference to "a dispassionate read of the bible books." That suggest a correct interpretation.

Wasn't I saying the truth about "Dio's ravings"?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

The bible itself is a jewish supremacy anthology. Undeniably so.

As I said, the fact that Dio could pull verses from the same book that you read, to prove his point about White Supremacy, should give you pause for thought.
Dio was doing exactly what every christian does to to make their point, i.e cherry pick verses in or out of context to support their position, batshit crazy or not.

How does that reconcile with your claim that it is racist? Are you also guilty of interpreting it to mean what you want?

If you mean about my comment that the bible as an anthology is about jewish (historical) supremacy, anyone reading the bible dispassionately would agree with me. There is no need to 'interpret' it. It is there, prima facie. You should read the thing occasionally.

I do not know why your buttons are pressed when others quote bible verses to prove their point, I am sure you have been guilty of exactly the same behaviour.
If asked I can give you whole chapters of jewish supremacist malarkey. I am sure you can find them just as quickly. It is not an insult to describe the bible as racist when it clearly and unequivocally and even proudly has it within its pages, there for anyone to see.

The bible is also misogynistic, homophobic and full of murder, mayhem, infanticide and genocide. If that analysis rattles your emotional cage then you have not, indeed, read the horrible thing.
Or you are living a palpable lie.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

You said "Dio was doing exactly what every christian does to to make their point, i.e cherry pick verses in or out of context to support their position, batshit crazy or not."
I am glad that you recognize that atheists can also cherry pick and take Bible verses out of context, to prove there point. That is exactly what I am saying. Was Dio reading the Bible dispassionately? Are only atheists capable of reading the Bible dispassionately?

You said" I do not know why your buttons are pressed when others quote bible verses to prove their point, I am sure you have been guilty of exactly the same behaviour."
I think it is wonderful when people use the Bible to prove their point, when the Bible actually does support their point. When the Bible does not support their point, are they being logical? If someone uses the Bible to support a falsehood, should I not point that out? Isn't that the honest thing to do?

Please explain what you mean by a"jewish supremacy anthology" and "the bible as an anthology is about jewish (historical) supremacy."

Let's start with one verse that you think best evidences your claim that the Bible is racist. I will read it dispassionately and consider your argument.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo! "You do not get to

@Jo! "You do not get to assert "Out of context" when someone else is defining the context. Just because you don't agree and have your own silly version and your own cherry picked verses does not mean anyone else doing the exact same thing is "out of context." Biblical scholars can not agree on "context." No one has died and made you the king of "context."

How do you not see that the bible is an anthology of Jewish supremacy. God is on their side in all the wars. They win the wars because of their god. God punishes all the nations around them who are opposed to them and their gods. How is this not completely obvious?

Bigoted is probably a better word than racist. Race is probably not as big a factor... though it certainly is a factor...... as bigotry. Jesus commands his disciples to not preach to the gentiles. Any city that will not listen to their preaching will be destroyed. Jesus specifically tell the disciples not to preach to the Sumerians. This is prejudicial and bigoted. It does not matter how you try to cherry pick or alter context. Jesus was in fact a bigot and the early Jews were in fact a jingoistic tribe of racists. "You can take your slaves from neighboring countries," after all.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo
Oh dear you are in for a slapping here dear Jo....Once again your assertions only match your wishful thinking. I am going to start with your NT...too many examples in the Pentateuch. I will allow Dio the pleasure of puncturing your bubble on that one.

Let's start with one verse that you think best evidences your claim that the Bible is racist. I will read it dispassionately and consider your argument.

Read the following verses, and try not to interpret them to fit your wishes. Read the words.

Romans 15:8
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs,

Matt 10:5
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

Matthew 15:24
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Now, in this verse I know you will say "but, but, he took pity on the woman of Canaan"...he did, but only after calling her a dog and humiliating her...Racist behaviour much?

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

When you read the verse before and the one after, it is evident that Rom 15:8 is speaking AGAINST racism, and is promoting harmony.
"7 Therefore, accept each other just as Christ has accepted you so that God will be given glory. 8 Remember that Christ came as a servant to the Jews to show that God is true to the promises he made to their ancestors. 9 He also came so that the Gentiles might give glory to God for his mercies to them. That is what the psalmist meant when he wrote:
For this, I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing praises to your name.”

You claim Jesus sent his disciples only to the Jew because of racism. They went to them first and then to the gentiles. The Jews had been sometimes following God, so he went to them first. Here is what Jesus said on the subject.
"Luke 24:47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’
Matt 28:19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations (all peoples) baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

By his actions in regards to the Canaanite women, he demonstrated that he did not limit himself only to the lost sheep of Israel. He granted her wish after testing her. It was also an example to his followers that it is faith, and not favoritism of any race, that is the reason he blesses people.

In all three examples you gave, a dispassionate reading of the actual words, and what actually happens, shows the opposite of what you claimed. What are some other verses you would like to claim show a "racist anthology"?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

So once again you use a far fetched apologist website to justify appalling racism. The words are there in Matthew, you cannot deny them.
Jesus also called the Canaanite woman (Greek in Luke) a dog and humiliated her until she begged for her daughter's life.

That scenario, if carried out in front of you with a Vietnamese, Native Indian, Guatemalan woman or any other race apart from your apologetic protected jesus, would be construed as immediately racist.

But this is your problem is it not Jo? You didn't come here for questions, or to live in truth, you came here to practice apologetics, aka lies.

Thank you for proving my point, jo, that your bible is utterly unreliable as a moral guide or historical account when diametrically opposed portions can be used to prove opposite views.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Why did you think I used some apologist website? I only quoted the Bible and no website.

I noticed you skipped over the other verses you gave that I addressed.

I quoted the words in Matthew so why do say I am denying them?

In the scenario you gave, yes I would assume racism. But after knowing the intent and outcome, I should revisit it to see if my initial assumption was correct. How can it be racism if her request was granted? Doesn't that prove he was not racist? If he had not granted her wish because of her race, that would be racism. Sometimes it may look like one thing but be another. Can there only be one possible reason?

If the preponderance of the evidence points towards something other than racism, must it still be racism? You think the Bible is a racist anthology, and so you see racism behind every tree. You are not looking at it objectively and dispassionately.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

You obviously have a huge problem in reading the text as it is written. You wish to, as is common with theists, introduce other verses, claim a different intent, use a different translation. Anything but actually read the bald text as it is on the page.

Every assertion you have made has been thoroughly debunked with links to videos, sources and even bible quotes that prove you unutterably wrong. You miss and gloss over points that you don't like and repeat points like the Women of Canaan (or Greece according to Mark), then you make several other woefully incorrect assertions instead of, as a normal, rational human would do, is admit their mistake and ask for more information.

As I said in an earlier post, the woman of Canaan/Greece was first called a dog, then humiliated, she begged and grovelled and only then did your peerless prophet save her daughter. As I said before if you had someone come to you and ask for something but first you made them kneel, with head bowed while you you called them a gook, or spic, or maggot, or the n word, then made them crawl on their belly and apologise for their ethnicity...then and only then did you help them...that would be racist .
If you dont fucking see that then there is no help for you. You lack empathy and the capability of rational thought. I have bolded the actual racist comments for you, in case your jesus blinkers block them out.

Just to help you here is the story from Matthew: And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, j“Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

The verses I used as examples of racism you have still failed to refute, instead bringing in other verses from different texts...just proving my position that anyone can make any argument using verses from the bible. Thus the collection of stories is worthless as a moral guide. And you are still not trying to "live in truth" but rather defend your cognitive dissonance.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

You said "Based on my reading of the Bible and historical literature, the Bible supports the idea of white supremacy. People throughout history have believed that and they created their policies on that belief."
Based on your logic there is a God, because people have historically used the Bible to support the idea of a God.
People have used the Bible to support their idea that there is a heaven. Does that mean there is?
People have used the Bible to support their idea that Jesus was the messiah. Does that mean he is?

How many more appeals to authority are you going to include in your posts? Maybe a few more YouTube videos will make your claim valid (sarcasm).

Yes I am familiar with Ex 14:1-2. It says nothing about every Jew ending up with 2,800 gentile slaves. It says nothing about ethnic superiority either. Here is what it says:
"But the Lord will have mercy on the descendants of Jacob. He will choose Israel as his special people once again. He will bring them back to settle once again in their own land. And people from many different nations will come and join them there and unite with the people of Israel.[a] 2 The nations of the world will help the people of Israel to return, and those who come to live in the Lord’s land will serve them. Those who captured Israel will themselves be captured, and Israel will rule over its enemies."

Your claim of the Bible preaching white supremacy is unsupported and illogical. Your claim is so bizarre and irrational that your are actually agreeing with the white supremacist "Christians".

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

"To save time, I will include some links to essays that discuss how people have used the Bible to promote white
supremacy. You may not believe it, but they did, and that is what counts."

I completely agree with you that some people have used the Bible to promote white supremacy. I have been addressing your claims that the Bible supports white supremacy. You use one fallacious claim (white supremacy) to support your own fallacious claim, that the Bible supports white supremacy. You have given lots of good evidence that some use the Bible to support their racist views, but that has never been the issue I am addressing.

" In reality, some Jews regard white people as their primary enemy and have been working to destroy the white countries."
You claim the Jews (who you claim are white) are trying to destroy the white people? Wow, that is really illogical, and conspiratorial, and RACIST. That is the second overtly racist statement you have made.

You claim the Jews are white but then you say "Remember, the Bible does not generally offer any significant physical descriptions of the characters." So the Bible doesn't say they were white, but you somehow know they were?

When I asked about your statement "Jews who run things", you said "That is right out of their mouths." Can you give me the reference?

You topped of you last post with another racist conspiratorial claim
"BTW, have you ever noticed that "Ashkenazis" includes the word "nazi"? Think about that."
The "is" just makes it plural. The "n" may not even belong there. Here is what wiki says.
"Biblical Ashkenaz is usually derived from Assyrian Aškūza (cuneiform Aškuzai/Iškuzai), a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates,[37] whose name is usually associated with the name of the Scythians.[38][39] The intrusive n in the Biblical name is likely due to a scribal error confusing a vav ו with a nun.
There were about nine millions Askenazi Jews living in Europe before WWII. The Nazi's murdered six million of them. Don't you see the irony and irrationality of what you are saying?

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

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.