Posts tagged christianity.

chakathemighty asked: As an atheist I feel like I can make the following critique. The vast majority of atheist/agnostic or skeptic critiques of "theism" are in actuality critiques of Judeo/Christianity. This is problematic for many reasons not the least of which is the lack of familiarity with the variety of religious experience the rest of the non-Abrahamic world is having. When people say "there is no god" what they usually mean is " Judeo/Christianity is bunk". Thanks, nice post.

You’re welcome and thank you.  By the way, it will be nice if you message me again and tell me which post you’re referring to; I put up too many to know which one you’re specifically referring to.  Thanks.  :)

#chakathemighty  #atheism  #christianity  #religion  
∞  May 25, 2013
4 notes

Conversation Does Not Reveal the Skeptic’s Pride

thelovelyrealm:

Me: There’s nothing there about priests finding him and taking him down. Just that they had bought the field.
Person: I just replied to your last message on my blog and highlighted the parts that say that “he is taken down and carted to the field” and that “he’s hoisted off the cart.”
Me: It doesn’t say anything about priests finding him and taking him down, He was taken to the field they bought with the silver for dead strangers.
Person: If you were an atheist, I would believe that you were replying to the attempt to reconcile the contradictions;
Me: Nowhere did I claim the priests found him and took him to the field. I have no idea how you got that from my post other than selective reading.
Person: It wasn’t selective reading; I quoted you directly. It’s not basic context clues and common sense; this is the common obduracy I face with Christians… How did the priests know where to find Judas’ body? That’s common sense; that’s critical thinking.
Me: Again, I don’t know why you’re so caught up with this, nowhere did I write priests found him. He was found and taken (the part you bolded) and taken to the field the priests bought for the dead…
Person: I’ll quote you again: “he is taken down and carted to the field” and “he’s hoisted off the cart.” …I’m making a big deal of this because this is demonstrative of how you think—demonstrative of your obduracy and an example of the obduracy that is so common among Christians. It’s a problem because it makes discussion impossible. Again, I just quoted you and you’re calling it selective reading; unfortunately, there’s not context that can salvage what you wrote.
Me: Yes, I know - “he is taken down and carted to the field” and “he’s hoisted off the cart.” from these two, where do you see anything about priests doing any of this?? help me if I’m not getting this, please. Where in any of this action do you see anything about priests except they bought a field to put dead people?
Person: Perhaps I wrote too fast, but at this point it doesn’t matter who carted him into the field. The fact that you think that has any explanatory power is my issue.
Me: Why did I want to know about your obsession with priests? That was your central argument in your reblog of my post.
Person: That wasn’t my central argument.
Person’s central argument reblog: All of this about his body hanging in the heat and being carted off by priests is nonsense. Since you seem to have written the story yourself, how did the priests know where to find him?
Rather than reading it religiously and concluding that it must be infallible, read the Bible like literature; you will find that harmonization is pointless and requires additional leaps of faith—and that most importantly, it ruins the literary intent of the authors. It’s ridiculous to maintain that the priests took down his body, carted him to the field, and threw him down leading to his intestines falling out.
Topic: How did Judas Iscariot die?

Perhaps I wrote too fast, but at this point it doesn’t matter who carted him into the field.

Pride doesn’t admit when it’s wrong—even if possibly.  I did write too fast, but your sentence structure can easily be blamed.  Going back to the original post, this is what you wrote:  “Eventually he is taken down and carted to the field the priests used the 30 pieces of silver on.”  One can see how that can be read as, “eventually he is taken down and carted to the field [by] the priests.”  The actual sentence makes sense upon reading it over, but it’s written awkwardly.  That’s the kind of constructive criticism perhaps an English professor would give you; don’t take it personal.

In any case, my main point was that harmonization is inadequate when quoting scripture and that this common attempt to harmonize the contradiction doesn’t work.  Let’s go back to what you quote above:

All of this about his body hanging in the heat and being carted off by priests is nonsense. Since you seem to have written the story yourself, how did the priests know where to find him?  Rather than reading it religiously and concluding that it must be infallible, read the Bible like literature; you will find that harmonization is pointless and requires additional leaps of faith—and that most importantly, it ruins the literary intent of the authors. It’s ridiculous to maintain that the priests took down his body, carted him to the field, and threw him down leading to his intestines falling out.

Talk about selective reading!  When reading my initial response to your post, one can easily see that I took issue with the entire attempt at harmonization—not just the priests.  I took issue with every phantom dot you attempted to connect.  I also mention harmonization directly.  Straw manning is fallacious; don’t do it.

Also, nice job at selectively quoting our private conversation; you wrote to me and then I replied to you, so unless you deleted the messages, you (unfortunately) have the copies of our conversation.  No matter, you left out some details and straw manned my central argument; my central argument (again) wasn’t that the priests carted him into the field.  My argument was against the use of harmonization when interpreting scripture—these passages in particular.  Also, it doesn’t matter who carted him off; whether you maintain that it was Mary and the women, the disciples, the priests, angels or the resurrected Jesus himself, the notion makes no sense whatsoever.  As previously stated, it is a dubious leap of faith.  Ultimately, harmonization is pointless—especially when considering that it doesn’t work (or better said, appear to work) more frequently.  For instance, consider Mark 16:4 (one man), Matthew 28:2-3 (one angel), Luke 24:4 (two men), and John 20:11-12 (two angels).  How would one harmonize those verses?  In doing so, one would be maintaining that there were three men and three angels at the empty tomb—a notion that makes no sense.  In providing more examples, anyone would be able to see why harmonization doesn’t work—and when it appears to work, it is only because it is selectively applied; however, even when selectively applied, harmonization requires one to connect phantom dots or in other words, it requires one to rely way too much on conjecture.
#atheism  #christianity  #apologetics  
∞  May 25, 2013
2 notes
via thelovelyrealm

The Usual Arrogance

thelovelyrealm:

The Deconversion Movement: Another Plagi-Apologist

deconversionmovement:

What’s a plagi-ApologistTM? A plagi-Apologist is a wannabe apologist who plagiarizes. Thelovelyrealm attempted to solve the contradiction of Judas’ death. How? Definitely not by being original or employing critical thinking. He simply read what apologist sites had to say and reworded it to make…

You know you’re doing something right when someone throws a tantrum on their blog about you

It’s not a tantrum and you’re not doing anything right.  In this response you’re being arrogant and overall, you’re being stubborn.  Your harmonization is typical and I’ve seen it before on all of those sites and more; it’s no doubt that you plagiarized from one of those sites.  Your thinking is unoriginal, uncritical and typical; you’re no different from the other obdurate fools I’ve debated with.  I know it’s hard to read emotions in text, but I’m not angry.  However, I think this is problematic; in other words, the fact that bullheaded Christians are so common is an issue that needs to be addressed.  Again, it’s that obduracy that is the engine of Christianity.  If not for the stubbornness of believers, Christianity would be considered mythology rather than religion.

#atheism  #christianity  
∞  May 24, 2013
9 notes
via deconversionmovement

Another Plagi-Apologist

What’s a plagi-ApologistTM?  A plagi-Apologist is a wannabe apologist who plagiarizes.  Thelovelyrealm attempted to solve the contradiction of Judas’ death.  How?  Definitely not by being original or employing critical thinking.  He simply read what apologist sites had to say and reworded it to make it seem original; then he had the nerve to message me and say that he wasn’t plagiarizing and that it shows that other Christians are thinking critically.  Read thelovelyrealm’s piece (read here) and then check out the following sources:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/25/contradictions-how-did-judas-die

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

Notice that this site calls it the standard explanation given by harmonists.  I told thelovelyrealm that he was harmonizing the verses and he flat out denied it.  Like I said, I know apologist tactics and I can spot them even in disguise.  There is no cover for ineptitude.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-did-judas-die-hanging-or-falling-down

Three different sites; the same harmonization.  Thelovelyrealm is unoriginal and the latest plagi-apoligst.

#atheism  #christianity  #apologetics  #thelovelyrealm  
∞  May 24, 2013
9 notes

thelovelyrealm asked: ...who said anything about priests finding his body, taking it down and carting it to the field????

Eventually he is taken down and carted to the field the priests used the 30 pieces of silver on, the Field of Blood. He’s hoisted off the cart and tossed into the field. His flesh, decomposing and rotted, bursts open and his intestines lump out of his body.

Do you read before posting or do you just post that which agrees with Christianity?  Don’t tell people to employ critical thinking if you can’t do it yourself.

#thelovelyrealm  #atheism  #christianity  
∞  May 24, 2013
2 notes

The Contradiction Stands

thelovelyrealm:

image

A skeptic cited this ‘contradiction’ in response to the Green Eggs and Ham example I put forward.

When you look at an article about the Boston marathon bombers and what happened in regards to their capture, you will read that the older brother (not even mentioning their names here) was shot dead by the police.

I hope you’re sitting down. They guy’s body didn’t just vanish and teleport over to the coroner’s office!….if you were reading the article, you would probably read a few lines down that his younger brother then ran over him with the SUV. Why, how can this be you may ask? Was he shot dead or run over? Contradiction?

Let’s look at Judas and the alleged ‘contradiction’:

Matthew 27 -

And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and [b]with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1 -


(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

So, some people want to claim there is a contradiction between these two scriptures. One saying he hanged himself, and the other saying he simply fell down and his intestines fell out….Perhaps in the skeptic’s mind, this happens every time someone falls down…

 

image

It’s absurd.

Let’s apply critical thinking skills here.

Judas hanged himself. He committed suicide. So there he hanged dead, his corpse hanging there in the middle eastern spring heat, rotting in the sun. His body going through the bloat and decay of soft tissue that happens immediately upon death. Bugs eating at the corpse.

Eventually he is taken down and carted to the field the priests used the 30 pieces of silver on, the Field of Blood. He’s hoisted off the cart and tossed into the field. His flesh, decomposing and rotted, bursts open and his intestines lump out of his body.

There is no contradiction here. Just like saying the guy in Boston was shot to death and then run over, Judas Iscariot hanged himself to dead and then his corpse was thrown in the field and his bloated, rotted torso ripped open and out spilled his insides.

Related:

http://thelovelyrealm.tumblr.com/post/50338080947/reading-comprehension-is-fun-bible-contradiction

This isn’t critical thinking.  This is mental gymnastics or what some may call harmonization.  It is a contradiction.  All of this about his body hanging in the heat and being carted off by priests is nonsense.  Since you seem to have written the story yourself, how did the priests know where to find him?  Before that, how did the pseudonymous writer of Matthew know that he went away to hang himself?  Ever heard of third person narrative or what is sometimes called omniscient point of view?  That’s what’s going on in Matthew from a literary perspective; that is the only reason why the pseudonymous author of Matthew purports to know that Judas went away with the intention of hanging himself.  Rather than reading it religiously and concluding that it must be infallible, read the Bible like literature; you will find that harmonization is pointless and requires additional leaps of faith—and that most importantly, it ruins the literary intent of the authors.  It’s ridiculous to maintain that the priests took down his body, carted him to the field, and threw him down leading to his intestines falling out.  Like I said yesterday, Christianity hasn’t survived because it’s true; it has survived because of the stubborn manner of its adherents.

#atheism  #christianity  
∞  May 24, 2013
8 notes
via thelovelyrealm
zoom
jesusinthebible: Challenge to Atheists? Here we have another pseudo-philosopher.  In answering 1, the ontology of morality is the human brain.  In other words, the existence of morality is contingent on the human brain; if humans ceased to exist, right and wrong would cease to exist.  Furthermore, it can be argued that an alternative ontology is language.  Morality is simply a word applied to some nominal or real independent reality; a lot can be said on the reality of morality—on whether it is actually real, nominal, or unreal.  However, in the interest of brevity and in the interest of staying on topic, I maintain that morality, like science and like so many other things human, is a developing system that was at some point codified as what we call law.  These codes are held up by social convention, which is not to be confused with majority rule.  Evolution may not be able to speak on the ontology of morality, but it is able to speak on the reason for its continuing existence and development.  In simple terms, morality is a way of protecting the individual and the people—and is thus, a survival mechanism; survival being the engine of a living organism, is also the reason we are moral beings—beings concerned with right and wrong.  Murder is morally wrong because it isn’t an action that is in the best interest of the individual or society; at one point, this wasn’t entirely true, but that echoes back to what I said earlier: morality is a developing system.  Morality, like science, is a fallible system; however, that doesn’t imply that truth can’t be derived from such systems.  That’s the beauty of morality: it doesn’t have to provide absolute truth(s).  In any case, them who consider morality man-made do not state that murder and stealing is morally right; to the contrary, we state that such actions are morally wrong though our reasons are clearly different from those of Christians and Muslims.  Ultimately, if you steal someone’s chickens or kill someone’s lizards, you are violating someone’s property and thus, you are in violation of social convention.  Even your Jesus believed in social convention; his simple reduction of the commandments was “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).  In other words, don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you; if you don’t like it when someone steals your valuables and kills your pets, don’t do it to someone else.  The fact that you don’t realize that on your own is rather scary; the fact that you need religion to be moral demonstrates that you aren’t thinking hard enough. Also, if the morality in the Bible is absolute truth, where did the cultures (see here) that predated the early Israelites get their moral codes from?  Why were their moral codes exactly like the moral codes that Yahweh supposedly passed down through Moses?  Why were their moral codes more elaborate and developed?  If the moral code in the Bible is absolutely true, why aren’t we stoning homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children?  Yes, I know, because of Jesus; but if the moral codes of the past were absolutely true, why did they change?  Philosophers think more than they speak and they think before they speak; that’s a nice way of telling you to shut up and to put some thought into your positions.

jesusinthebible:

Challenge to Atheists?

Here we have another pseudo-philosopher.  In answering 1, the ontology of morality is the human brain.  In other words, the existence of morality is contingent on the human brain; if humans ceased to exist, right and wrong would cease to exist.  Furthermore, it can be argued that an alternative ontology is language.  Morality is simply a word applied to some nominal or real independent reality; a lot can be said on the reality of morality—on whether it is actually real, nominal, or unreal.  However, in the interest of brevity and in the interest of staying on topic, I maintain that morality, like science and like so many other things human, is a developing system that was at some point codified as what we call law.  These codes are held up by social convention, which is not to be confused with majority rule.  Evolution may not be able to speak on the ontology of morality, but it is able to speak on the reason for its continuing existence and development.  In simple terms, morality is a way of protecting the individual and the people—and is thus, a survival mechanism; survival being the engine of a living organism, is also the reason we are moral beings—beings concerned with right and wrong. 

Murder is morally wrong because it isn’t an action that is in the best interest of the individual or society; at one point, this wasn’t entirely true, but that echoes back to what I said earlier: morality is a developing system.  Morality, like science, is a fallible system; however, that doesn’t imply that truth can’t be derived from such systems.  That’s the beauty of morality: it doesn’t have to provide absolute truth(s).  In any case, them who consider morality man-made do not state that murder and stealing is morally right; to the contrary, we state that such actions are morally wrong though our reasons are clearly different from those of Christians and Muslims.  Ultimately, if you steal someone’s chickens or kill someone’s lizards, you are violating someone’s property and thus, you are in violation of social convention.  Even your Jesus believed in social convention; his simple reduction of the commandments was “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).  In other words, don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you; if you don’t like it when someone steals your valuables and kills your pets, don’t do it to someone else.  The fact that you don’t realize that on your own is rather scary; the fact that you need religion to be moral demonstrates that you aren’t thinking hard enough.

Also, if the morality in the Bible is absolute truth, where did the cultures (see here) that predated the early Israelites get their moral codes from?  Why were their moral codes exactly like the moral codes that Yahweh supposedly passed down through Moses?  Why were their moral codes more elaborate and developed?  If the moral code in the Bible is absolutely true, why aren’t we stoning homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children?  Yes, I know, because of Jesus; but if the moral codes of the past were absolutely true, why did they change?  Philosophers think more than they speak and they think before they speak; that’s a nice way of telling you to shut up and to put some thought into your positions.

#atheism  #philosophy  #morality  #ethics  #christianity  
∞  May 24, 2013
23 notes
via jesusinthebible

On Muslims and Christians

oh-your-god:

deconversionmovement:

george-barter:

Do people seriously lack the understanding that Allah is a translated word for ‘God’? C’mon, people! Of course, I believe in Allah!

This only pretends to respond to my objections.  I am aware that Allah translates into English as god; however, I am also aware that the Muslim view of god and the Christian view of god are different.  So no, you don’t believe in Allah.  You don’t believe in a monotheistic deity; technically, you believe in a henotheistic deity because you believe in a triune god—a trinity (father, son and holy spirit).  You’re free to argue that Muslims believe in your god, but the onus is on you to prove that; in the interest of helping you not waste your time, I’ll tell you now: Muslims do not believe in your god; they do not believe in the divinity of your Jesus.  So, instead of being bullheaded, admit that a number of us have effectively responded to your nonsense and kindly move on.

According to the Quran, Muslims do believe in the same god as Christians and Jews.

The Cow, 6.26: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

That being said, george-barter has some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

That being quoted, Muslims have some serious cognitive dissonance going on too.  The Qur’an says one thing, but their actions say another.  They clearly do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and they have no equivalent for the holy spirit.  They don’t believe in the henotheistic god that Christians believe in; Allah, to them, is one rather than three in one.  He isn’t the same concept as the concept that sent his only begotten son to be slain as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who believe.

#atheism  #christianity  #islam  #theology  
∞  May 24, 2013
9 notes
via george-barter

My Own Philosophical Challenge

I challenge a Christian, any Christian, to come up with an original and new argument for god, theism and/or Christianity.  “All thinking men are atheists.”  At the moment, I don’t see a reason to disagree with that statement.  We atheists are freethinkers; Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. don’t think for us.  Show us that Craig, Licona, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc. don’t think for you; in other words, rather than rehash their old, tired, refuted-many-times-over arguments, present something original, new and most importantly, convincing.

My prediction: it can’t be done.  In any case, follow this one rule and you’ll be okay: don’t get sloppy; I am keen at noticing a rehashed, modified or blatantly plagiarized argument!

#atheism  #christianity  #christians  #jesus christ  #god  #apologetics  
∞  May 24, 2013
13 notes

serveonlythyself asked: What? A Christian with no argument removing all traces of said argument? Tell me where I've heard this one before... let me guess... he'll have a different blog name and/or be gone within weeks? :P

Haha.  It always happens and it never gets old.  Traces of his futile arguments are available everywhere he has been reblogged.  This is Tumblr; on here, there’s no escape from ineptitude.

#serveonlythyself  #atheism  #christianity  #george-barter  
∞  May 24, 2013
4 notes