Religion Debates

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Savonarola wrote:
Darrel, quoting the Bible, wrote:"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
In a discussion with a believer a few weeks ago, I was informed that -- in this verse -- the correct word is not "deceived" but "persuaded." As far as I could tell, there seemed to be some scholarly support of that view. Thoughts?
Let's do some translation shopping and see what a preponderance of Bible scholars have chosen for this verse.

I was using the KJV, God's own personal favorite according to most fundies.

KJV: "deceived"

New American Standard Bible: "deceived"

NIV (fundie): "deceived" with "or persuaded" in the footnotes. (That's interesting. They usually put the lie in the text and the truth in the footnote)

English Standard Version: "deceived"

Douay-Rheims Bible: "deceived"

New King James (fundie): "persuaded"

Young's Literal: "persuaded"

New Revised Standard Version: "deceived" (Oxford annotation: "Almost blasphemously, Jeremiah accuses God of deceiving him and of exerting irresistible power of the him.")

God's Word Translation: "deceived"

American Standard Version: "persuaded"

Jewish study Bible: "enticed"

So, I usually go with the NRSV and it has some heavy weight support here. The fundie Bibles can pretty much be dismissed. But this is weakened by the opinion of the Jewish Study Bible (Oxford). So it is true that there is "some" scholarly support for an alternate to "deceived."

Shoot, now I find that site that provides a nice parallel look up:

***
New International Version (©1984)
O LORD, you deceived; me,

New Living Translation (©2007)
O LORD, you misled me,

English Standard Version (©2001)
O LORD, you have deceived me,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived;

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
O LORD, you have deceived me, and I was deceived.

King James Bible
O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived:

American King James Version
O LORD, you have deceived me, and I was deceived;

American Standard Version
O Jehovah, thou hast persuaded me, and I was persuaded;

Bible in Basic English
O Lord, you have been false to me, and I was tricked;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I am deceived:

Darby Bible Translation
Jehovah, thou hast enticed me, and I was enticed;

English Revised Version
O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived:

Webster's Bible Translation
O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived:

World English Bible
Yahweh, you have persuaded me, and I was persuaded;

Young's Literal Translation
Thou hast persuaded

Ten of the fifteen have "deceived." It's certainly not true that "the correct word is not "deceived" but "persuaded." But there is some scholarly support for the claim.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Savonarola »

Darrel wrote:So, I usually go with the NRSV and it has some heavy weight support here. The fundie Bibles can pretty much be dismissed. But this is weakened by the opinion of the Jewish Study Bible (Oxford).
Why not use Young's Literal as the first authority? Isn't it, well, literal?
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Savonarola wrote:Why not use Young's Literal as the first authority? Isn't it, well, literal?
Well, language and translation is much more ambiguous and contextual than that. So Mr. Young was guessing just like all the rest. And it's quite old, 1861. We've learned a few things since then.

As one Baptist apologist writes:
"The Hebrew word pittitani, “you have deceived me,” literally means “to entice, to deceive, to persuade.” When the Hebrew verb is used with the idea of enticement, the word appears in the context of a man seducing or raping a woman (Exodus 22:15). The words also can be used to warn an immature person not to be enticed by sinners (Proverbs 1:10)."
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Religion Debates

Post by L.Wood »

.
From Chuck's letter:
Renowned atheist, Harvard Professor Ernest Mayer
The scientist's name is Ernst Mayr.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Savonarola »

L.Wood wrote:From Chuck's letter:
Renowned atheist, Harvard Professor Ernest Mayer
The scientist's name is Ernst Mayr.
And, of course, he's not known for his beliefs about deities. He's known because he was a foremost authority on evolutionary biology.

Remember, though, that -- according to morons like Chuck -- evolution and atheism are exactly the same thing.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:
Darrel, quoting the Bible, wrote:"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
In a discussion with a believer a few weeks ago, I was informed that -- in this verse -- the correct word is not "deceived" but "persuaded." As far as I could tell, there seemed to be some scholarly support of that view. Thoughts?
DOUG
It could be translated that way. But it makes no difference.

A. If God persuades someone to believe a lie, that is as bad as lying. In fact, that is the definition of deception. So this move gains nothing for the believer. "X deceived me" v "X persuaded me to believe a lie." Is one really morally better than another?

B. The Hebrew word translated as "deceived" here is "pathah," Strong's Concordance number 1853. (Each word used in the Bible is numbered for scholarly reference.) Pathah is translated as:

1) to be spacious, be open, be wide
a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open

2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible

c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive

d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived


See here.

New International Version, ©2010 (NIV)
Jeremiah’s Complaint
7 You deceived me, LORD, and I was deceived;
you overpowered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me.


New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Jeremiah's Complaint
7O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived;
You have overcome me and prevailed
I have become a laughingstock all day long;
Everyone mocks me.


King James Version (KJV)
7O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Savonarola »

Doug wrote:It could be translated that way. But it makes no difference.

A. If God persuades someone to believe a lie, that is as bad as lying.
But that wouldn't be what it says. It would say, "you persuaded me, and I was persuaded." Once the reference to deception is changed to a reference to persuasion, where is the lie?
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

I've sent a note to my friend Y.A. who grew up in Israel and is an expert in biblical Hebrew. Maybe he'll pop by.

Update. He did, here is his response:
Now, what Strong's is saying, and what this guy is saying, shows the stupidity of pretending you know a language of which you have no inkling.

Jeremiah uses a conjugated derivative of the ROOT patah (פתה). Your friend looks it up in Strong's ridiculous concordance, which obviously has not been checked for accuracy in over a century.

The first definition from Strong is totally incorrect. There is a different root for open, spelled differently (פתח), which, to someone who does not know the language may look and sound similar, but is spelled differently from the word used in Jeremiah (פתה). Look and see the difference פתה פתח. They are not spelled the same and they are not pronounced the same either. Strong's makes a mistake and lumps them all as one word. That is as ridiculous as dumping the definitions for the English words see and sea into one definition, or the words know and no. Even worse, because in Hebrew, the words do not even sound the same. (Patah, Patakh).

The word Jeremiah uses does not derive from the root "to open". It derives from the root "to entice". Here is a listing from an Israeli site. (Note the second and third entries.)

http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q ... urce=milon

Here is another one:
http://milon.walla.co.il/ts.cgi?tsscrip ... elect=auto

ps and in the the bible it's actually pitah, not patah (the piel conjugation). In my explanation, I kept it in the raw root (pa'al), the way he mentioned it, to show the difference in pronunciation and spelling.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

And my Hebrew friend adds more (once you get him started...):

***
The Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, misappropriated by Christians. Jews see the book a bit differently that Christians do. Here are a couple of short paragraphs from a Hebrew website on the same verse.

פִּתִּיתַנִי, ה' - וָאֶפָּת, חֲזַקְתַּנִי - וַתּוּכָל, הָיִיתִי לִשְׂחוֹק כָּל הַיּוֹם, כֻּלֹּה לֹעֵג לִי (ירמיה כ' 7)
המשמעות בהקשר המקראי: שכנעת אותי, וזה גורם לי לבעיות.
הנביא ירמיהו מתלונן פעמים רבות על היחסים שבין ה' לבינו. במונולוג זה הוא מטיח בה' שהוא פיתה אותו למלא את תפקידו, וגרם לו בכך לעוגמת נפש רבה, כי בגלל נבואותיו כל החברה לועגת לו.

"You seduced me, Lord, and I was seduced. You were stronger than me, and prevailed". This means, in a Biblical context, "You persuaded me, and this cause me problems." The prophet Jeremiah is complaining often about the relationship between God and him. In this monologue, he reviles God because he seduced him to fulfill his role, and thus caused him great depression, for because of his prophecies all of society mocks him.

הנביא ירמיהו נמצא במצוקה קשה, וחש שה' מפעיל עליו לחץ כבד. כתוצאה מכך הוא מנבא נבואות זעם, ובשל אלה לועגים לו וכועסים עליו כל אנשי העיר. כך מרגיש הנביא שהוא נמצא בין הפטיש לסדן: "פִּתִּיתַנִי, ה' - וָאֶפָּת, חֲזַקְתַּנִי (גברת עלי) - וַתּוּכָל (וניצחת אותי), הָיִיתִי לִשְׂחוֹק (כולם צוחקים לי) כָּל הַיּוֹם, כֻּלֹּה (כולם) לֹעֵג לִי" (ירמיה כ' 7).

The propher Jeremiah is found in great distress, and feels that God is putting great pressure on him and as a result, he is prophecying wrathful prophecies, and because of these, all the people of the city mock him and are angry at him. Thus the prophet feels he is between a hammer and anvil. "You seduced me, Lord, and I was seduced. You were stronger than me and prevailed." I am a source a laughter all day long, and others mock me.

The site his here:

http://www.mikragesher.org.il/titles/ni ... htm?list=2

פיתיתני ה' ואפת | ניבים וביטויים מקרא גשר
www.mikragesher.org.il
אתר מקרא גשר האתר שלך ללימודי התנך, מבית גשר מפעלים חינוכיים אנציקלופדיה תנ

--Y.A.
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

I asked him: "So you would say that the translation "deceived" would be wrong?"

His answer:
Well, it can be. It is often used in a negative context. Consulting my more extensive Hebrew-only paper dictionary, I will translate the entry:

To coax, persuade, seduce, instigate. To speak to the heart of someone causing him to do something (especially something negative.)
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Savonarola »

To coax, persuade, seduce, instigate. To speak to the heart of someone causing him to do something (especially something negative.)
So it sounds like Jeremiah is expressing remorse at his acceptance of God's pushing Jeremiah into becoming a prophet, but not necessarily that God lied to Jeremiah about it. (If there are other verses saying that God denied that Jeremiah would be ridiculed, then I suppose that would be a lie, but that would be obvious regardless of word selection of this one verse.)
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:
To coax, persuade, seduce, instigate. To speak to the heart of someone causing him to do something (especially something negative.)
So it sounds like Jeremiah is expressing remorse at his acceptance of God's pushing Jeremiah into becoming a prophet, but not necessarily that God lied to Jeremiah about it. (If there are other verses saying that God denied that Jeremiah would be ridiculed, then I suppose that would be a lie, but that would be obvious regardless of word selection of this one verse.)
DOUG
Yes, that is the typical understanding of what Jeremiah would have meant. (Had he said any of this, which is doubtful, but that's another issue.)

God told Jeremiah that his enemies would not prevail against him.

Jer. 1:18-19: "For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.

And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee."

Well, Jeremiah was beaten, put in stocks, laughed at, derided daily, etc. So he figures God persuaded him to be a prophet under false pretences by lying to him about what would happen if he accepted the job.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Back to more HB roasts:

***
HB: "I don’t know how many ways God and Christ have to say how to get to heaven before you believe.">>

DAR
Apparently they said it way too many ways, hence the fact that we have 30,000+ denominations of Christianity, many of which cannot agree on what the proper "saving procedure" is. And there is good reason for this: The Book is terribly muddled and contradictory on this most important question.

My friend Doug lays this all out in this short exposition:

***
What Must We Do To Be Saved?

We find in verses such as Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Not just he who believeth, but he who believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. In another gospel Jesus says, in John 3:5: "...except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And "...this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also..." (1 Peter 3:21). So it would seem that to be saved one must believe and be baptized. Works are not mentioned, but baptism seems to be a necessary condition for salvation. OK. What's the problem?

The problem is that Paul wrote: "if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Here salvation requires some form of public proclamation in addition to one's belief. But here Paul did not mention baptism as a requirement. So it is not required? This contradicts what Jesus said.

Then again, Acts 16:30-31 tells us: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." So works, baptism, and public confession are superfluous? All you have to do is believe? Just faith is enough? Jesus himself seems to agree in John 6:47: "...He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." Well, what about baptism and public proclamation? Why isn't that required now? This is contradictory information!

It gets worse. Jesus elsewhere tells someone what he must do to be gain eternal life: "...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mat. 19:17). Of course, one can keep the commandments and not believe in Jesus, as many Jews did before and since Jesus, so the biblical requirements for salvation are as uncertain as ever. This is especially so because in this case Jesus, when asked which commandments needed to be obeyed for salvation, gave five standard ones and one from some other part of the Old Testament, so not all ten commandments were required! Interestingly, the commandment to have no other gods before YHWH was not needed for eternal life, according to Jesus.

This is hopelessly muddled. And it gets still worse!

The New Testament tells us that women have a much more difficult time attaining salvation than male xians. At 1 Tim. 2:15 we find that "women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." So a woman must not only have faith, she must conduct herself well, with love and holiness, and she must bear a child in order to be saved. Faith alone is clearly insufficient for salvation, since it is included as one of several requirements, but childbirth is made explicit as a necessary condition for a woman to be saved. And what of baptism for women? It is not mentioned.

And nowhere does the bible use the phrase "accept Jesus" or similar phrases to describe salvation. So don't try to tell a biblically informed friend that he must "accept Jesus."

Given the supposed importance of salvation, one cannot help but conclude that any god who makes the requirements for salvation so vague and contradictory is just irresponsible.

And surely not omnibenevolent, since if he was loving he'd make the requirements simple and consistent."

***

HB: "The self-control [for women] could have included... abortion.>>

There are at least 600 laws in the Hebrew scriptures but not one word condemning abortion. Jesus didn't bother to mention it either. Like the Jews who wrote it, the Bible does not consider a fetus a person and the Bible is pro-choice throughout. Instruction on how to conduct an abortion, by a priest, are given in Numbers chapter 5. This is just another issue that Christians are terribly misinformed about. We teach people the truth about this with our little tract:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

HB: "God does not lie.">>

I provided five verses from your book clearly showing he has, and has admitted it.

HB: "The Bible is inerrant">>

Standard mainstream Christian scholarship has for centuries acknowledged the Bible (obviously) has errors and contradictions. I wrote a book specifically on this issue. Educate yourself, bring your Bible knowledge into the 17th century:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml

Simple example:

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." Gen. 6:20

vs.

"Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female." Gen. 7:3

How many of the fowls was Noah to take on his boat HB, two, or seven?

HB: "Jesus... was sinless.">>

When Jesus said the following, he was not telling the truth:

"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20)

Is lying a sin HB? Have you found one of your moral absolutes yet or did you misplace all of them?

I am sorry you don't know how to respond to questions, interact with arguments made or construct a case for your positions. Pasting a bunch of verses in a row doesn't accomplish this for you. If you hadn't noticed, you're not in church.

D.
----
"Few intelligent Christians can still hold to the idea that the Bible is an infallible Book, that it contains no linguistic errors, no historical discrepancies, no antiquated scientific assumptions, not even bad ethical standards. Historical investigation and literary criticism have taken the magic out of the Bible and have made it a composite human book, written by many hands in different ages. The existence of thousands of variations of texts makes it impossible to hold the doctrine of a book verbally infallible. Some might claim for the original copies of the Bible an infallible character, but this view only begs the question and makes such Christian apologetics more ridiculous in the eyes of the sincere man."
--Elmer Homrighausen, former Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary. Christianity in America, p. 121, N.Y. Abbingdon Press (1936)

***
"Skeptic" wants to talk about abortion:

SKP: "show me in Numbers 5 where it gives us "Instruction on how to conduct an abortion, by a priest">>

All explained at link already provided:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

See #2.

SKP: "Bible most certainly considers the fetus a person.">>

No it doesn't and on several occasions it specifically shows that the fetus had no status. See link provided for several examples.

SKP "Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15)">>

A little snatch of poetry speaking of something in the past. Example: I could build a goathouse and thus "form a goathouse" in my shop. Then I could say to it: "did I not form you in my shop?" And the goathouse would say "yes, why yes you did."

But that doesn't mean it was a "goathouse" or has the status of "goathouse" before I finish forming it. So you are begging the question. Just because God could refer to forming something (or even knowing it), at any point in time, it doesn't follow that it has the status of personhood.

SKP: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.">>

Same thing. Since God knows all things, He can know you before the earth was formed or anything else. You made your God too powerful to help you here.

"My frame was not hidden"

Since nothing can be hidden from God, this doesn't accomplish anything for you. It doesn't mean a fetus has the status of personhood.

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)"

Right. So the body is irrelevant to God's knowledge of the past or future. And it is the status of the body that we are talking about.

SKP: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)">>

Already answered above. God's knowing is completely irrelevant to the actual status of the fetus so this verse doesn't help you.

Nice poetry though.

This tract is also quite good:

http://www.ffrf.org/publications/nontra ... -Abortion/

D.
---
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status." -The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 4, Abortion
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Mr D comes back for another shellacking. Good roast below.

Starts here (alpha cat is posting good stuff too).

***
MD: "You say you have not argued for atheism,>>

Right, no arguments put forward for atheism. Would you like to see some?

MD: "enormous amount of time and energy espousing... there is no God.">>

You should read more carefully. There probably is no God, oh well, boring. Next issue.

MD: "You are anti-Christian all the way.">>

Not at all. I think Christians are great. "Some of my best friends are Christian." But I don't agree with their theological assertions very much. That is allowed you know. Nothing personal.

MD; "criticise preachers for being money grabbers,>>

Never did. But that's pretty obviously true in a lot of cases. Do you have a TV?

MD: "religion as controling people by fear,>>

Bigtime.

MD: "What do you care what I believe?">>

When you post errors in a public forum that allows dissent, I offer my gentle corrections.

MD: "What's in it for you?">>

Truth and accuracy are important.

MD: "You say God is a liar...">>

Better than that, I cited scripture where he admitted to using deception.

MD: "you are too proud to admit that you could possibly be wrong about anything.">>

Much better than that, I will admit I could be wrong about EVERYTHING. But I would need to see very good reasons. And you don't have any of those.

ME: "About the chicken...>>

Just be honest and accurate with language. It's not useful to use false loaded language when discussing abortion.

MD: "Cutting toenails is not quite the same as [abortion].>>

And no one suggested it was.

MD: "The definition of when a baby becomes a person is man-made,">>

All definitions are man made.

More importantly, neither the Bible nor our modern society, define a fetus as a person or provide it the rights and protections of personhood. See reasons already given.

D.
***

MrD comes back for more and HB drops by to dust his feet before ducking away.

MD: "You don't have to state something in direct terms in order to get your point across.">>

Yes, but it helps.

MD: "taking scripture out of context is using deception,">>

If you can demonstrate an example of someone doing this, please do. I say, the more context the better. It usually makes your position worse. Try it and see.

MD; "do you use [God's] name in using swear words?">>

Good God no!

MD: "You question the content of the Bible because of its age.">>

Nope, never did. I question claims that are demonstrably false. Did you figure out how many of the fowls Noah was commanded to take on his boat? You have two choices (Gen. 6:20, vs. Gen 7:3).

Some people confuse the age of a document with it's authenticity. Paine had a good answer to this:

"It is not the antiquity of a tale that is any evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other." -Age of Reason, pg. 104

MD: "Your rebuttal is quite lame and somewhat juvenile">>

If this were true, you wouldn't need to state it, you could demonstrate it. That's what I do.

MD: "When you prove to me that a rock created itself from nothing">>

The process by which rocks are created is well understood. You can learn about this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_(ge...)

MD: "say Hi to Hitler,...">>

You really shouldn't judge your fellow Christians before the time comes. As shown above in this thread, Hitler and his Nazis were very adamant and forthright about their Christian beliefs. See the 24th principle of the Nazi Party for starters.

MD: "I will not be there [in hell] to enjoy them with you.">>

Of course not. You're special.

And then hbcark drops by to dust his feet off once more. Just how much dust can two feet hold?

Hey HB, have you found one of your "moral absolutes" yet? Have you figured out what one is yet?
***

MrD: "Wikipedia is really RELIABLE!">>

This is the genetic fallacy. Truth is independent of it's source. Best to avoid logical fallacies and instead respond to the information rather than smear the source. Wikipedia is a secondary source and you will find main claims well referenced in the footnotes. Rock formation isn't exactly "controversial."

With a touch of irony, see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabil...

MrD: "As to Hitler and Christianity...he was as anti-christian as he could be.">>

Actually, you are as misinformed as you could be. Here are a few additional examples:

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religious institution... He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church.

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of the r-wing today, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration... He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it."
--Free Inquiry

All SS members were required to say an oath to (your) God.

He wrote in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." His book is filled with biblical and Christian references.

He informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (never excommunicated)

Hitler specifically targeted the atheists:
"A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."
--AP, 2/23/1933

Hitler opposed secular schools:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people." (Hitler speech, April 26, 1933)

His Nazis were explicitly Christian, The 24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the Twenty Five Points (1920): "We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not
endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith."

I have lots more on this if you're interested. It's a bit of a specialty.

***

MrD: "I made a study of the Third Reich and Hitler.">>

Did Josh McDowell write a chapter on it? If you paid someone, you need to get your money back.

MrD: "Hitler could not have done the atrocities he did if he had any real belief...">>

Right, because history furnishes no examples of Christianity committing atrocities. Oops, here are a few hundred:

http://notachristian.org/christianatr...

Have you read the Hebrew scriptures? Slaughtering those who think differently is the theme. Same as the New Testament, except it gets them with eternal fire.

MrD: "you cannot name or point to one thing [Hitler] did that reflected the life of a Christian.">>

Just because you have some doctrinal disagreements, is it really necessary to judge him so harshly and throw your fellow Christian under the bus?

MrD: "If [no God] then you have no sense of responsibility to anyone but yourself.">>

Not unlike you. Imagining a moral system based upon a magical being, doesn't change the situation.

MrD: "If there is no God,... then there are no consequences for lying.">>

No, that doesn't follow. Non sequiter fallacy. Best to avoid logical fallacies. Actions resulting from lying have nothing to do with whether a God exists or not (and we already covered that bit about Him lying).

MrD: "Hitler hated the church...">>

Hitler hated people who didn't support him. But the German Christians very much supported him. He was one of them.

Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, on 12/8/93 notes:
"[The truth is that] six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated."

Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University:

"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler."

"Of about thirty-two Million German Catholics--fifteen and a half million of whom were men--only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians."

Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" notes: "Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long term [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time."

cont...

"It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian for the annihilation of their enemy." --Martin Neimoeller, a rare church leader who actually did stand up to Hitler.

"Susannah Heschel, professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals."

From the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church:
"Article 21. Catholic religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction, special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects."

After all, who knows how badly those Nazis might have acted had they not had a good religious moral code to lean upon.

This comment seems appropriate here:

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous...” --Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 180

***

MrD: "[Non-christians don't] know what a Christian is.">>

Thank goodness MrD is here to tell us what a "True Christian TM" is. Here is a useful definition:

CHRISTIAN, n.
"One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin."
-BIERCE, Ambrose

MrD: "Only a child of God can really know the substance of a Christian life.">>

Yes, and we only have 30,000 different versions of Christianity that "really know" what that is.

MrD: "Anyone who would argue that Hitler was a Christian is [insult]">>

I gave you at least a dozen lines of evidence showing Hitler, the nazis and Germany were at that time overwhelmingly Christian and quite zealous about it. It makes you furious that you have no response other than to throw insults.

The record in this thread has revealed that that you don't get "dirty" when you interact with informed secular folks, you get schooled.

MrD: "an utter fool, or a liar.">>

When you get a little more mature in your exchanges you may learn that such insults don't reveal anything about the person you are attempting to smear, they only reveal something about you.

Mrd: "those who say there is no God do not hesitate to quote scripture.">>

Who in this thread said there is no God? Careful readers will note how MrD keeps trying to draw the conversation into something about atheism. Someone might be a little insecure about that notion.

MrD: "How can God be a liar if there is no God?">>

You don't understand how a fictional character in a story could participate in lying? Have you ever read a novel MrD?

MrD: "you say that He is a liar.">>

No, I quote where He says it:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath
spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that
prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9 and 1 Kings 22:23

MrD: "It would seem that an... existence would be necessary [to] lie>>

It would seem you don't understand that characters in books can be said to lie, whether they exist in reality or not.

MrD: "how safe would you be if you were able to convince the whole world that there is no God?">>

Excellent question. The record shows that societies that are more secular and less religious, function much better and have superior moral results in that they are more successful at dealing with moral societal problems. This is true both internationally and when you look at the state by state level. Art Hobson had an excellent article about this which you can read here:

Currently about 1/2 of Europe is godless and we are tending strongly in that direction. It is easy to show how society is far more moral than it was a century or two centuries ago.

cont...

MrD: "Whose word is more reliable...someone like you, or a good, moral Christian person?">>

I think your record in this thread has already revealed this.

MrD: "Christians, do not fear death...>>

Sure they don't. They're so terrified they devote their entire lives to creating and sustaining an imaginary realm where they don't have to "really" die (even though it sure looks exactly like they do).

Mrd: "You are a [insult], [insult] [insult],...">>

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;” 1 Peter 3:15

MrD: "I am... ending any further comments with you...>>

If you ever find you can support your claims, don't hesitate to come back.

And one little note. You've gotten very sensitive, defensive and insulting when your shining errors are pointed out, but your charge that those who disagree with your fundamentalist beliefs are liars, anti-Christian, evil etc., are nonsense. I don't hold any beliefs regarding the Bible that are not supported by standard, mainstream, Christian scholarship taught in religious studies in every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary independent of fundamentalist financial pressure. You don't know this because your Bible scholarship is at least a century and a half out of date. You should do something about that. Perhaps start with a library card.

D.
------
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed." --Bertrand Russell

***

Don't Fear Fundamentalists thread on NWAonline
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

From a post over on the Arkansas Times (March 25).

This needs a good roasting:

***
But you have missed the mark on these: "Genesis is filled with Creation myths..."

Gen. chapter teaches what many would consider the big bang theory.
One example is the first event, the separation of light from darkness. This is an excellent description of an event astronomers refer to as the photon decoupling event. Prior to that event, say modern astronomers, the universe was opaque.
Light could not stream, helium atoms could not form. There was no material for building worlds, there was no light and darkness. After this event, light formed and streamed creating light and dark places in the universe.
Helium atoms could form and thus worlds were able to be formed. The photon decoupling event as described by astronomers matches Moses description of the separation of light from darkness.

Here are some other scientific Facts or Principles; the biblical references and the date of discovery by man:

Both man and woman possess the seed of life; Genesis 3:15; 17th Century
There is a place void of stars in the North; Job 26:7; 19th Century
Earth is held in place by invisible forces; Job 26:7; 1650
Taxonomic classification of matter; Genesis 1; 1735
The Earth is round; Isaiah 40:22; 15th Century
Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man; Leviticus 11; 16th Century
Early diagnosis of leprosy; Leviticus 13; 17th Century
Quarantine for disease control; Leviticus 13; 17th Century
Blood of animals carries diseases; Leviticus 17; 17th Century
Blood is necessary for life; Leviticus 17:11; 19th Century
Oceans have natural paths in them; Psalms 8:8; 1854
Earth was in nebular form initially; Genesis 1:2; 1911
Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3; Genesis 6; 1860
Light is a particle and has mass (a photon); Job 38:19; 1932
Radio astronomy (stars give off signals); Job 38:7; 1945
Oceans contain fresh water springs; Job 38:16; 1920
Snow has material value; Job 38:22; 1905, 1966
Infinite number of stars exist; Genesis 15:5; 1940
Dust is important to survival; Isaiah 40:12; 1935
Hubert Spencer's scientific principles; Genesis 1; 1820
Air has weight; Job 28:25; 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors; Job 38:24; 1650
Matter is made up of invisible particles; Romans 1:20; 20th Century
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food; Job 8:16; 1920
Arcturus and other stars move through space; Job 38:32; 19th Century
Water cycle; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 17th Century
Life originated in the sea; Genesis 1; 19th Century
Lightning and thunder are related; Job 38:25; 19th Century
Man was the last animal created; Genesis 1; 15th Century

And how about this one
Job 38v24:
By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
Can any one deny this?
White light from the sun comes to earth in several, (eight or nine), frequencies, and different elements in the atmosphere allow some frequencies to pass through while blocking other frequencies, thereby causing air masses to heat unevenly and turbulence, or wind to be the result."

--posted by stiffnecked
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Religion Debates

Post by kwlyon »

"White light from the sun comes to earth in several, (eight or nine), frequencies, and different elements in the atmosphere allow some frequencies to pass through while blocking other frequencies, thereby causing air masses to heat unevenly and turbulence, or wind to be the result."

I don't have time right now.... suffice it to say this is beyond wrong on every level.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Having some interesting round and round with some creationists on NWAonline. This fellow also claims he has given examples of fulfilled Bible prophecy to the Fayetteville Freethinkers.

LINK to thread.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Part 1 of 9 of Christian apologist William Lane Craig v Sam Harris on Secular Morality v Theistic morality.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15167

I think Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in science, or, in his most recent book, on brain functions, is doomed to failure. It's an easy target for anyone with a little bit of skill in philosophy and a background in the philosophical study of ethics.

Harris gets his ass kicked. No surprise. This is a job for a philosopher, not a scientist.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

I had a little exchange with Donald on his blog where he was going on about how the label "freethinker is stupid and shouldn't be used." I loathe arguments about semantics and labels and especially when someone goes on about "my label is better than your label" and "we should all do xyz." Pick your label and be happy, others will do likewise. People use words differently, language, labels and people evolve. I let people label themselves (within reason) and have no interest in what grunt or sound they prefer to use to describe themselves this week. Anyway, I posted a bit about it and apparently pissed of some borderline mental case Calvanist fundie twit who looks to people like Alex Jones and George Noory for information. Oh, and he does exorcisms on the side and happens to be a member of another one of those "one true religions." Wonderful.

Image

He responded to my comment on his blog and posted a link on Donald's blog. I'll reproduce it here in total:
Darrel, an atheist said,

“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)

Me: “etc” meaning what? What does “etc” include Darrel? Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel? So if someone believes they have the truth they should always qualify it with, “But I could be wrong and you could be the one with the absolute truth, oh Darrel the atheist.” What with your double standards and insanity? So if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000″ they are insulting for stating it as a fact? Or far more complex equations that are flawless?

And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”

Do you know what a strawman is? Who thinks atheists eats babies? How is that not insulting to say to those who disapprove of atheism or think that they are wicked? And hypocrite, they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese, aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders and those that went along with their “progress” and “evolution” or the atheists that supported the DDT ban and who continue to spread myths about DDT and all kinds of other lies that rob people of their health, wealth and life.

And Don the atheist, whom Darrel was replying to, said at the bottom of his blog (pretending that they were how theists would respond to being told that the person they are talking to is an atheist):

# They do not believe in God.
# Outrageous! How can this be! I’ve never met someone who didn’t believe in God before.

Don what Christian (not living in desperate poverty or far from a city who lacks an education) has never met an atheist or been informed that there are many of them? Oh the two-year old ones right unfunny, genius joker? Ever heard of the Internet either? Oh yeah no one ever meets an atheist on the Internet… So I shouldn’t think atheists are very dumb (at times), because? Though up until I read that part this post was unusually insightful for one made by an atheist. I found it by typing in that I thought the term freethinker stupid and insulting to Christians.

It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years, and which is in our faces every day, that many people consider atheists baby-eaters. You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil. You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever. Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies, and it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth, only Darrel’s fundamentalist, only what atheists believe is true. Just because atheists are offended, doesn’t mean the ones who offended should change their behavior beliefs or words, or now is “offense” the standard for truth, what offends atheists? Aren’t you blind and arrogant? Who made you God or our gods? How is it you don’t see design anywhere? Since you don’t see the obvious, it’s obvious you will have trouble seeing your own hypocrisy either.
My response:

***
I'll respond to Knight's comments and questions:

I had said:
“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)
KNI: “etc” meaning what?">>
DAR: Etc., meaning any of the other hundreds of Christian cults that believe they are the one true religion.
KNI: "What does “etc” include Darrel?">>
DAR
All of the hundreds of Christian cults that believe they are the one true religion.
KNI: "Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel?">>
I didn't say "absolutely insulting." The JW's and the C of C, believe they have the one true version of Christianity (of about 33,000 divisions) and that all of the other variants (including yours) are in cahoots with the Devil. In comparison to the rather innocuous title of freethinker, which makes no such similar assumption, it is insultingly arrogant and foolish. I see you have on your site:

"Churches of the Reformation (which make up the true church)"

So you are one of these loons.
KNI: "What with your double standards and insanity?">>
You provide no example of double standard or insanity.
KNI: "if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000″ they are insulting for stating it as a fact?">>
No, because in math we actually have such things as "proofs." In the faith based realm of "my spook is bigger than your spook" or "our group is loved by Jesus but your's isn't" there are no "facts" and nothing beyond mere assertion.
KNI: "And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it [atheism] with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”>>
Do you know what a strawman is?">>
Yes. In fact you provide an example: when a person pretends atheism assertions something about abortion, pro-choice or anti-choice, and then proceeds to attack that, they are committing this fallacy. That would be you. I was just using the comment as a short hand example of how some on your team view atheists. It's a standard well worn joke. Observe:

http://paddyk.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/atheism2.jpg
KNI: "Who thinks atheists eats babies?">>
It's a joke knuckle head.
KNI: "And hypocrite,...">>
Oh, I've made Mr. Knight very angry. Good.
KNI: "they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese,">>
Atheists force abortions on the Chinese?
KNI: "aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.">>
Oh, that sounds rough. How about when your God aborts babies? You do know your Bible is pro-choice from start to finish and that the Bible doesn't consider a fetus a person right? You do know your God gives instruction how to perform an abortion right? Did your pastor forget to tell you about that? You can learn about this in a little tract I've put together here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
KNI: "That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders">>
Look grasshopper, the word atheist only does one thing: "not" "theist." That's it. Everything else you would like to attribute to it, is made up and a product of your bottom. While millions have been killed in the name of God, and especially your God (I bet you are so stupid you include your Christian Hitler as an atheist), no one has been killed in the name of "atheism."
KNI: "the atheists that supported the DDT ban">>
You're hilarious (oh, I forgot, you are conspiracy nut too).
KNI: "It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years,>>
You have shown hypocrisy. Gross immorality? I understand you are angry and confused, but you really aren't making any sense. Maybe time for some more Alex Jones?
KNI: "that many people consider atheists baby-eaters.">>
Why it was just a few moments ago you were complaining about me mentioning the atheist penchant for the taste of baby. Tsk tsk.
KNI: "You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil.">>
I am beginning to think you are against abortion. Too bad your Bible doesn't care about the fetus. If you would like to talk about abortion (which has nothing to do with atheism), then perhaps you should try making an argument for your position. I recently had an extensive debate with a Christian on the topic. If you think you have a good argument, you might first try seeing how it gets roasted here:

http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... 142#p24142
KNI: "You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever.">>
Yes, because in a Christian understanding of fairness, even a momentary finite infraction deserves infinite punishment.
KNI: "Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies,">>
You've shown no lies. And you have "absolute truth?" But of course you do. Hey Knight, whenever Christians brag to me about their "absolute truths" I like to ask them for an example of one. What have you got?
KNI: "it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God">>
So you really don't believe in atheists. Why just a few moments ago your were saying... oh never mind.
KNI: "and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth,">>
Ah, you're the one pretending to have absolute truth. That's your game, not mine.

KNI: "only Darrel’s fundamentalist,">>

I love it when fundies come to grips with how much of an insult it is to be a fundie, that they actually try and take the focus away from the fact that they are they fundies, and they try and smear the other person with their fundiness. This reveals that they know being a fundie isn't a very good thing. You're the fundie Knight, not me.
KNI: "only what atheists believe is true.">>
Of course I never said that, and never would. Do you know what a strawman is Knight?
KNI: "Aren’t you blind and arrogant?">>
Not blind, certainly arrogant. But in my humble opinion, when you actually know what you are talking about, a little arrogance is fine and dandy.
KNI: "Who made you God or our gods?">>
A God? What's that?
KNI: "How is it you don’t see design anywhere?">>
Oh, I see lots of design. I see it in snowflakes and sand dunes, tornadoes and rainbows. Nature is full of symmetry. Why even look how all of the planets are round and none happen to be triangles or square. Why is that grasshopper? It must be a God doing that no doubt! Or perhaps, brute laws of nature and well understood natural processes (especially natural selection for self replicating systems) tend to produce objects that look designed. Yes, I think that's it. No God's required. Especially your silly one.

Well you've had your little wank. If you've got any kick, then come by our forum and I'll help you out a bit more. Although, after snooping around your site seems you probably are mentally ill (perhaps all of the scratching?) and or a teenage troll looking for attention.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by David Franks »

DH--

I don't know if Knight is a teenage troll, but if that is a picture of him, he's cute as a button. He'll be very popular in prison.

RE atheists and abortions: you appear to have forgotten to provide him with a link to "Abortions Highest Where Religion is Highest".
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
Post Reply