I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.
Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever!
Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?
Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15264
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Post #121
[Replying to post 119 by alexxcJRO]
Thus it is for this reason that I sort the wheat out from the chaff in relation to goodness. It doesn't matter to me even if Jesus is a fictional character. I am interested in the goodness of the character. So for me at least, your argument is pointless. If you want to argue that Jesus was a real character but was actually a bad personality which others somehow decided to dress up in fictional goodness, it doesn't actually make any difference to me personally. Such argument is irrelevant to my agenda.
It also seems irrelevant to the OP subject...I don't know of any atheists who would want me to stop pursuing goodness, wherever that may be found. If I ever meet any, I will point them to the door.
I did not said you say "it's all a pack of lies."I did not said it’s all a pack of lies.
I don't. Do you? If so, please share the evidence. Otherwise I suggest we take the story as it is presented and focus on how best to deal with the contradictions as presented.Q: How do you know it’s not backwards, that Christians tried to make Jesus look more good? Eh?
What way would that be?To escape the contradiction one can go the other way also.
Well my cherry picking re Jesus and goodness isn't about anything other than getting goodness from where it resides. I am equally fond of goodness coming from other famous icons. I am equally fond of goodness coming from ordinary folk. Goodness attracts me.To totally dismiss this possibility for no reason just because one has preconceived ideas about Jesus is illogical: confirmation bias fallacy, cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence.
Thus it is for this reason that I sort the wheat out from the chaff in relation to goodness. It doesn't matter to me even if Jesus is a fictional character. I am interested in the goodness of the character. So for me at least, your argument is pointless. If you want to argue that Jesus was a real character but was actually a bad personality which others somehow decided to dress up in fictional goodness, it doesn't actually make any difference to me personally. Such argument is irrelevant to my agenda.
It also seems irrelevant to the OP subject...I don't know of any atheists who would want me to stop pursuing goodness, wherever that may be found. If I ever meet any, I will point them to the door.
-
alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Post #122
Q: Why ignore this ?:)))William wrote: [Replying to post 119 by alexxcJRO]
I don't. Do you? If so, please share the evidence. Otherwise I suggest we take the story as it is presented and focus on how best to deal with the contradictions as presented.Q: How do you know it’s not backwards, that Christians tried to make Jesus look more good? Eh?
We well know there are things that were added in support of Jesus not the other way around.
http://conversationalatheist.com/christ ... the-bible/
We all know that throughout history the Talmud was banned, burned and censored by the Church and Christians.
http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=147
William wrote: [Replying to post 119 by alexxcJRO]What way would that be?To escape the contradiction one can go the other way also.
For example because of this:
We well know there are things that were added in support of Jesus not the other way around.
http://conversationalatheist.com/christ ... the-bible/
We all know that throughout history the Talmud was banned, burned and censored by the Church and Christians.
http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=147
This is what i was talking about. You cherry pick in order to fit something to your preconceived ides. You cherry pick to fit Jesus with your favorite kind of guy.William wrote: Well my cherry picking re Jesus and goodness isn't about anything other than getting goodness from where it resides. I am equally fond of goodness coming from other famous icons. I am equally fond of goodness coming from ordinary folk. Goodness attracts me.
It doesn't matter to me even if Jesus is a fictional character. I am interested in the goodness of the character. So for me at least, your argument is pointless. If you want to argue that Jesus was a real character but was actually a bad personality which others somehow decided to dress up in fictional goodness, it doesn't actually make any difference to me personally. Such argument is irrelevant to my agenda.
Then you are not interested in honest truth.
You will distort and ignore things because you have an agenda.
Nice confession.
This is a common theistic apologetic tactic..
They are not interested in the Truth but in furthering their agendas.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
-
Realworldjack
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #123
[Replying to post 107 by alexxcJRO]
As we know, Moses is said to have broken the first tablets, and then in Deuteronomy Chapter 10, starting in verse one it says,
At any rate, this is all really irrelevant, because the main thing we a discussing at this point is,
In other words, I was posing an argument against the fact that you were attempting to blame the passage for those who were murdered. You now, have clearly demonstrated, that this is exactly what you were arguing, and yet you accuse me of a "straw man."
It makes one wonder if there are those who simply throw this accusation out there, in hopes that it will stick, in order to attempt to avoid having to refute certain points. Or, that it is the fact that the one who throws this accusation out there continually, really does not understand exactly what a "straw man" is.
The thing is, since you were clearly attempting to blame the passage, (and continue to), and since this is exactly what I was arguing against, the honorable thing to do is to retract the accusation. But, I highly doubt that will happen.
Next, there is really no way to know at all, if these folks would have been murdered. In other words, if there were those who did not like the practice of witchcraft, then they could very well find other reasons to commit these murders. The only thing we can say for certain is, if these commands were not given to the Israelites, then folks such as yourself could not place the blame upon these commands. But this does not in any way necesitate that they would not have been murdered for other reasons.
But the main thing here is, this argument you are attempting to present is a very sad, and pathetic argument. In other words, you seem to acknowledge, or realize, the fact that you cannot make the argument that these commands were intended for anyone else outside the Israelites, because you understand that you could not possibly win the argument. If you could attempt to make such an argument, I am confident that you would.
However, since you still would like to somehow place the blame on this passage, you ask the above question, pleading for a simple yes, or no answer, which sort of demonstrates that you are looking for simple answers. Moreover, it sort of seems to demonstrates one who is really not all that interested in the truth, but rather has an agenda, and will attempt to do what ever it takes to protect that agenda. This is what most folks are doing when they insist on a "yes or no answer."
The facts are, if this passage had not been written, the only fact we can know is, folks like yourself, would not be able to blame the passage. What we cannot know is, if these folks would have been murdered without the passage.
But again, it is absolutely pathetic for one to acknowledge that this passage was only intended for a specific audience, and then go on to attempt to blame the passage, rather than those who took the passage out of it's intended context.
And again, it goes back to the analogy of the letter addressed to my wife. In other words, I could make the same argument. I could attempt to argue, that if my wife's boss had not written that letter, then I would have not been under the impression that I would receive the 100 dollars promised. I could also go on to rant, and rave about how promises are never kept, and all other such nonsense.
Now, if I were to do such a thing, would you be at my defense, and blame the letter that my wife's boss had written? Or, would you attempt to explain to me how stupid I am for reading a letter that was clearly not intended for me, as if it was?
The point is, how in the world could you attempt to blame the passage, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage was never intended for those who used it to murder these women?
Allow me to explain why you do this in this case. It is because this is what you want to do, because you believe it helps your case. It also explains why you want a simple, "yes or no answer."
It most certainly is! There are many commands listed in the Old Testament but there are only ten that are said to have been written on the tablets to be placed in the Ark, which are considered to be the ten commandments.This is getting beyond ridiculous.
As we know, Moses is said to have broken the first tablets, and then in Deuteronomy Chapter 10, starting in verse one it says,
So, as we can clearly see, what is said to have been written on the second set of tablets, is the same as was written on the first. With this being the case, when you go back to chapter 5, you will clearly see what was said to have been written on the first set of tablets, and the command, "do not cook a young goat in it's mothers milk" is not to be found.“At that time the Lord said to me, ‘Cut out for yourself two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to Me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood for yourself. 2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark.’ 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood and cut out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up on the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 He wrote on the tablets, like the former writing, the Ten Commandments which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me.
At any rate, this is all really irrelevant, because the main thing we a discussing at this point is,
Frist, you are clearly, and beyond doubt attempting to blame the passage, as opposed to those who clearly took the passage out of it's intended context. This clearly demonstrates that your accusation that I was presenting a "straw man" argument was completely, and utterly unfounded.Here a question for you:
Q: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)
In other words, I was posing an argument against the fact that you were attempting to blame the passage for those who were murdered. You now, have clearly demonstrated, that this is exactly what you were arguing, and yet you accuse me of a "straw man."
It makes one wonder if there are those who simply throw this accusation out there, in hopes that it will stick, in order to attempt to avoid having to refute certain points. Or, that it is the fact that the one who throws this accusation out there continually, really does not understand exactly what a "straw man" is.
The thing is, since you were clearly attempting to blame the passage, (and continue to), and since this is exactly what I was arguing against, the honorable thing to do is to retract the accusation. But, I highly doubt that will happen.
Next, there is really no way to know at all, if these folks would have been murdered. In other words, if there were those who did not like the practice of witchcraft, then they could very well find other reasons to commit these murders. The only thing we can say for certain is, if these commands were not given to the Israelites, then folks such as yourself could not place the blame upon these commands. But this does not in any way necesitate that they would not have been murdered for other reasons.
But the main thing here is, this argument you are attempting to present is a very sad, and pathetic argument. In other words, you seem to acknowledge, or realize, the fact that you cannot make the argument that these commands were intended for anyone else outside the Israelites, because you understand that you could not possibly win the argument. If you could attempt to make such an argument, I am confident that you would.
However, since you still would like to somehow place the blame on this passage, you ask the above question, pleading for a simple yes, or no answer, which sort of demonstrates that you are looking for simple answers. Moreover, it sort of seems to demonstrates one who is really not all that interested in the truth, but rather has an agenda, and will attempt to do what ever it takes to protect that agenda. This is what most folks are doing when they insist on a "yes or no answer."
The facts are, if this passage had not been written, the only fact we can know is, folks like yourself, would not be able to blame the passage. What we cannot know is, if these folks would have been murdered without the passage.
But again, it is absolutely pathetic for one to acknowledge that this passage was only intended for a specific audience, and then go on to attempt to blame the passage, rather than those who took the passage out of it's intended context.
And again, it goes back to the analogy of the letter addressed to my wife. In other words, I could make the same argument. I could attempt to argue, that if my wife's boss had not written that letter, then I would have not been under the impression that I would receive the 100 dollars promised. I could also go on to rant, and rave about how promises are never kept, and all other such nonsense.
Now, if I were to do such a thing, would you be at my defense, and blame the letter that my wife's boss had written? Or, would you attempt to explain to me how stupid I am for reading a letter that was clearly not intended for me, as if it was?
The point is, how in the world could you attempt to blame the passage, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage was never intended for those who used it to murder these women?
Allow me to explain why you do this in this case. It is because this is what you want to do, because you believe it helps your case. It also explains why you want a simple, "yes or no answer."
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #124
Moderator CommentalexxcJRO wrote: .................
Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
Dear sir you can’t stop but straw manning me.
.......................
You yourself said you cherry pick and ignore stories that show Jesus as not being so peaceful and loving.
You have no logical reasons for rejecting the stories that put Jesus in a bad spot and just accept those that look good.
Q: Care to explain why you reject the bad and only accept the good?
Please be aware that addressing the writer of a post, rather than the content of it, may be perceived as personally insulting. Try to avoid that.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15264
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Post #125
[Replying to post 122 by alexxcJRO]
Right now though, your argument appears to be nothing more than psychological projection.
I don't exist for that purpose.
I suggest that if you want to continue interacting with me, you change your approach.
Well my cherry picking re Jesus and goodness isn't about anything other than getting goodness from where it resides. I am equally fond of goodness coming from other famous icons. I am equally fond of goodness coming from ordinary folk. Goodness attracts me.
It doesn't matter to me even if Jesus is a fictional character. I am interested in the goodness of the character. So for me at least, your argument is pointless. If you want to argue that Jesus was a real character but was actually a bad personality which others somehow decided to dress up in fictional goodness, it doesn't actually make any difference to me personally. Such argument is irrelevant to my agenda.
The idea I speak about re my agenda is not 'preconceived'. It is a learned thing built up over years of experience and observation.This is what i was talking about. You cherry pick in order to fit something to your preconceived ides.
You ignored my reason for doing so, even that it was mentioned at least twice - if not 3 times. If you are going to ignore what i say re my reasons, then you are trying to fit me into your ideas of what is unacceptable to you in order that you can pass judgement on that. I don't consider such behavior good, so am likely to withdraw from interaction with you if you choose to continue in this fashion. At present you don't appear to be anything like my 'favorite kind of guy'.You cherry pick to fit Jesus with your favorite kind of guy.
Explain to me succinctly, what is the 'honest truth.'Then you are not interested in honest truth.
My agenda - and furthering that agenda - involves looking for and supporting goodness in all things. If the universe were absolutely evil, then perhaps your point would be relevant, and thus honest.You will distort and ignore things because you have an agenda.
Right now though, your argument appears to be nothing more than psychological projection.
I don't exist for that purpose.
I suggest that if you want to continue interacting with me, you change your approach.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #126
I never said that an atheist can study deities in relation to the universe. I said, an atheist can take a position related to the views of a theist, as the OP did. An astronomer who does not believe in black holes can have positions on the concept of black holes. A geologist that does not believe in tectonic plates can have positions regarding the forming of earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trenches based on tectonic plate theory. One does not have to believe in an area of study to have a position with regard to that area of study, as has the OP.alexxcJRO wrote:
Firstly,
Q: Dear sir do you understand that an atheist cannot study a non-existing God relation to the universe?
It’s illogical to say an atheist studies the God's relation to the world when he does not believe God exists.
It’s like saying an astronomer studies the interaction of black holes with the universe but he does not believe in the existence of the black holes or a geologist studies the forming of earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench occur along tectonic plate boundaries but yet he does not believe in tectonic plates existence.
Yes, those are some theological positions. However, those who opposes any or all of those positions are taking at least one theological position. It is a position in opposition to them.Secondly,
Here a few examples of theological positions:
http://www.mst.edu.au/theological-position/
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/bcbsrth.html
The examples go along with the definitions and support my argument.
No, to be a theist one must accept the existence of a deity or deities. As the definition you quotes states, theology is that which is related to the existence of a deity or deities. Therefore, any position related to the existence of a deity or deities is a theological position. The OP asserts that all theism is at opposition to science, critical thinking, and true morality.Thirdly,
Theology is more then philosophy.
Philosophizing whether a god concept is possible to logically exist is not theology for this questions the existence of God. To be theology one must accept God existence. And since an atheist does not believe. He cannot be making theology.
Therefore an atheist cannot have a theological position.
Are you arguing that there is non-theistic religion? I was working on the presumption that when the OP was talking about religion, that was talking about theism. If that presumption was correct, that statement is actually saying that as theism declines; science, critical thinking and true morality can increase. That is not just the failure to accept theism, it is a specific position with regard to theology.Straw man.bluethread wrote: If that is the case then deities can not be in opposition to science, critical thinking, and true morality, because they does not exist.
The op does not say that.
The op says: “As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase�.
-
alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Post #127
bluethread wrote: I never said that an atheist can study deities in relation to the universe. I said, an atheist can take a position related to the views of a theist, as the OP did. An astronomer who does not believe in black holes can have positions on the concept of black holes. A geologist that does not believe in tectonic plates can have positions regarding the forming of earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trenches based on tectonic plate theory. One does not have to believe in an area of study to have a position with regard to that area of study, as has the OP.
But if an atheist cannot study God's relation to the world, universe then he is not doing theology because theology means studying God's relation to the world, universe. If it’s not doing theology, then he cannot have a theological position because theological mean relating to theology.
Q: How is this so hard to comprehend? 😊))
bluethread wrote: theology is that which is related to the existence of a deity or deities.
Distortion. Not accurate. It’s about the study of God and of God's relation to the world, universe like biology it’s about the study of life and living organisms.
Theology:
“The study of God and of God's relation to the world� Webster Dictionary
“The field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe.� Dictionary.com
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theology
bluethread wrote: Yes, those are some theological positions. However, those who opposes any or all of those positions are taking at least one theological position. It is a position in opposition to them
If I am in opposition to a theological position how can I have a theological position? 😊)))))
Correctly would be that I have an anti-theological position, anti-theist. Ring a bell?!
It’s like saying an anti-theist is a theist.
It’s moronic, illogical.
No.bluethread wrote:
Are you arguing that there is non-theistic religion? I was working on the presumption that when the OP was talking about religion, that was talking about theism. If that presumption was correct, that statement is actually saying that as theism declines; science, critical thinking and true morality can increase. That is not just the failure to accept theism, it is a specific position with regard to theology.
I just corrected you by saying that Jagella did not say that deities are in opposition science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase but “As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase�.
There is a distinction there. I hope you notice.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
-
alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Post #128
Realworldjack wrote: It most certainly is! There are many commands listed in the Old Testament but there are only ten that are said to have been written on the tablets to be placed in the Ark, which are considered to be the ten commandments.
As we know, Moses is said to have broken the first tablets, and then in Deuteronomy Chapter 10, starting in verse one it says,
So, as we can clearly see, what is said to have been written on the second set of tablets, is the same as was written on the first. With this being the case, when you go back to chapter 5, you will clearly see what was said to have been written on the first set of tablets, and the command, "do not cook a young goat in it's mothers milk" is not to be found.
At any rate, this is all really irrelevant, because the main thing we a discussing at this point is,
Dear sir,
The ones you are referring to were not written down on tablets. Were only spoken by Yahweh.
Here is a short video that explains it rather well:
Realworldjack wrote: But the main thing here is, this argument you are attempting to present is a very sad, and pathetic argument.
which sort of demonstrates that you are looking for simple answers. Moreover, it sort of seems to demonstrates one who is really not all that interested in the truth, but rather has an agenda, and will attempt to do what ever it takes to protect that agenda. This is what most folks are doing when they insist on a "yes or no answer."
it is absolutely pathetic for one to acknowledge that this passage was only intended for a specific audience, and then go on to attempt to blame the passage, rather than those who took the passage out of it's intended context.
Allow me to explain why you do this in this case. It is because this is what you want to do, because you believe it helps your case. It also explains why you want a simple, "yes or no answer."
Please do not talk about my character, motive, or other attribute of me.
Stop with add hominem.
“Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
So you are saying that the context is that the passage was intended only to Israelites.Realworldjack wrote: But the main thing here is, this argument you are attempting to present is a very sad, and pathetic argument. In other words, you seem to acknowledge, or realize, the fact that you cannot make the argument that these commands were intended for anyone else outside the Israelites, because you understand that you could not possibly win the argument. If you could attempt to make such an argument, I am confident that you would.
Frist, you are clearly, and beyond doubt attempting to blame the passage, as opposed to those who clearly took the passage out of it's intended context. This clearly demonstrates that your accusation that I was presenting a "straw man" argument was completely, and utterly unfounded.
But again, it is absolutely pathetic for one to acknowledge that this passage was only intended for a specific audience, and then go on to attempt to blame the passage, rather than those who took the passage out of it's intended context.
So what are you saying is that if the Israelites instead would have burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousands of women after being accused of witchcraft that would have been k.
Q: You don’t see how bad that sounds?:-s
It’s like this: an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God set out this directive: “You shall not let a sorcerer live�.
But man people have died killed by other humans because the latter, they thought their omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God ordered them to do this.
Nah it was only intended to Israelites.
Q: You don’t have a problem with God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide? How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise God?
Also an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God who can’t transmit a clear massage to humans it’s an illogical concept.
Dear sir you yourself are doing the thing you are complaining about. You believe the 10 directives (thou shall not steal, kill, commit adultery, and so one) were not address to Israelites but to Christians also.Realworldjack wrote: And again, it goes back to the analogy of the letter addressed to my wife. In other words, I could make the same argument. I could attempt to argue, that if my wife's boss had not written that letter, then I would have not been under the impression that I would receive the 100 dollars promised. I could also go on to rant, and rave about how promises are never kept, and all other such nonsense.
Now, if I were to do such a thing, would you be at my defense, and blame the letter that my wife's boss had written? Or, would you attempt to explain to me how stupid I am for reading a letter that was clearly not intended for me, as if it was?
Apparently you are allowed to take thinks out of context.
Q: Double standard much?
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
-
alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Post #129
William wrote: You ignored my reason for doing so, even that it was mentioned at least twice - if not 3 times. If you are going to ignore what i say re my reasons, then you are trying to fit me into your ideas of what is unacceptable to you in order that you can pass judgement on that. I don't consider such behavior good, so am likely to withdraw from interaction with you if you choose to continue in this fashion. At present you don't appear to be anything like my 'favorite kind of guy'.
Explain to me succinctly, what is the 'honest truth.'
My agenda - and furthering that agenda - involves looking for and supporting goodness in all things. If the universe were absolutely evil, then perhaps your point would be relevant, and thus honest.
Right now though, your argument appears to be nothing more than psychological projection.
Cherry picking is cherry picking nor matter the reason. It is still fallacious to do it. Mostly in debate.
“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Also if you were interested in honest truth you would not be cheery picking and suppressing, ignoring evidence just because you like to see good guys in the world.
Evidence:
We well know there are things that were added in support of Jesus not the other way around.
http://conversationalatheist.com/christ ... the-bible/
We all know that throughout history the Talmud was banned, burned and censored by the Church and Christians.
http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=147
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15264
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Cherry Picking
Post #130[Replying to post 129 by alexxcJRO]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
I think you are cherry picking yourself alexxcJRO ...but lets see if that is actually the case.
Member DI also chooses what he thinks aligns with his own beliefs on the matter of Jesus and what the bible says about him...
...DI has this to say on the subject;
Let us know what your thoughts are re this.
You ignored my reason for doing so, even that it was mentioned at least twice - if not 3 times. If you are going to ignore what i say re my reasons, then you are trying to fit me into your ideas of what is unacceptable to you in order that you can pass judgement on that. I don't consider such behavior good, so am likely to withdraw from interaction with you if you choose to continue in this fashion. At present you don't appear to be anything like my 'favorite kind of guy'.
Explain to me succinctly, what is the 'honest truth.'
My agenda - and furthering that agenda - involves looking for and supporting goodness in all things. If the universe were absolutely evil, then perhaps your point would be relevant, and thus honest.
Right now though, your argument appears to be nothing more than psychological projection.
“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.�Cherry picking is cherry picking nor matter the reason. It is still fallacious to do it. Mostly in debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
I think you are cherry picking yourself alexxcJRO ...but lets see if that is actually the case.
Member DI also chooses what he thinks aligns with his own beliefs on the matter of Jesus and what the bible says about him...
...DI has this to say on the subject;
And that's just part of it. You can view the whole post here.Well, here's my view of a possible "historical Jesus".
To begin with he has absolutely nothing to do with any God named Yahweh. He was just a mortal man like the rest of us. Secondly, from the Gospel rumors it appears to me that Jesus was missing from this society for close something like 15-20 years. He started arguing with religious authorities when he was as young as 12 years old. Then disappeared and wasn't mentioned again until he was around 30.
Also based on the larger historical picture of what was going on in the world at that time it appears to me that Jesus most likely left his home society and went out, probably toward the east, and encountered Mahayana Buddhists. The reason this makes sense historically is because Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at that particular time in history. And far more importantly, everything that Jesus taught was far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism than it was with the Hebrew Torah of Yahweh.
So for me, Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist. He taught the principle of Mahayana Buddhism, and NOT the principles of the Torah. In fact, even the Gospels have Jesus referring to the teachings in the Torah as "Your Law" when speaking with the Jewish Chief Priests. He doesn't refer to it as "God's Law".
Let us know what your thoughts are re this.
