One of the things that struck me when reading the Bible was how much Jesus started to look less like the peaceful, loving guy, and more like the stereotypical cult leader. Naturally, the religion has the usual promise of nasty things for unbelievers, tales of miracles and divine origins, and so on and so forth. Instead of that typical stuff, I thought I'd deal with some parts that seem to be ignored in my dealings with fundies.Let's take a look at some samples:
One of the trademarks of a cult is that they divide families. The family is an important source of support for most people. A cult wants its members to be vulnerable and dependent on the cult, so other means of support need to be cut off.
Matthew 8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.Jesus tells the disciple to value the religion more than closure with his father. I'm of the opinion that funerals are for the living so that they can come to terms with the loss and remember the good times with the dearly departed.
Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.Granted, cultural change tends to cause a lot of friction, but this passage just seems to relish in the idea of families tearing themselves limb from limb.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.The message is clear: God is possessive and needy. The cult is more important than your loved ones.
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?Jesus wouldn't even acknowledge his family when they wanted to talk to him.
Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.It's rather strange to hear him defend parents, but it looks like he's still supporting bloodlust as a means to resolve family conflict.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.There are a lot of cults that stress virginity and asexuality to the point of castration. I'm not sure, but I think this is often meant to target people with longstanding romantic troubles, to free them from the desires that cause them trouble.
Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.Abandon your family and your country for the cult, and the big man'll make it worth your while.
23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.Yeah, don't honor the guy who (I hope) raised you with love and care, honor the cult's idol instead.
And that's just the book of Matthew, only about warped family values. This was some of the early stuff that got me started on the road to atheism. Reading the Bible is usually one of the first steps towards deconversion.
134 comments:
Interesting. It never occurred to me to run the Bible past the Advanced Bonewitz Cult Danger Evaluation Frame. I'd be interested to see how it scores. Bonewitz constructed his framework based on controlling behavior, not on stated beliefs.
And Darwinism or Evolutionism is NOT a cult, right? The demand that you HAVE TO believe in man came from monkeys or that the world exploded into existence because if not, Your a Evil Religionist, right?
If you could only see the irony, THE IRONY!!!!
Gabriel has fun with his logical fallacies: A straw man made of smaller straw men.
When have I said anything like that, Gabe?
What are you talking about? I speak of Evolutionism as a whole, what YOU and your followers are blindly Following.
And see how the Irony Continues? You cant even accept it, You cant HANDLE the truth dude, you follow Darwinism, you HAVE TO accept Evolutionism else you are outside of the CULT.
Just as the evil religionist you accuse of doing "the same", REMEMBER?
Oh, you forgot that, only one way and one color, I forgot.
If you want to know what makes a person simultaneously evil and religious, read the list in this post.
The line about Creationism requiring a permissive attitude towards deception is mostly due to the fact that I've never met an honest Creationist: They'll bring up a straw man about evolution, and when told what evolution actually says, they'll repeat the straw man, now armed with the knowledge that what they're saying is false. In other words, they lie.
And I see the comment you posted while I was typing my previous one:
Where did I say anything like that, Gabe? Where? Come on.
Out of curiosity, would I be a Newtonist for believing in the dogma of gravity?
We "have to" believe that evolution has occurred, and is occurring, because multiple independent lines of evidence point to things like common descent and natural selection, and no competing explanation has supplanted them.
I mean, which aspect of evolution do you have an issue with? Is it the idea that one population could have its characteristics radically altered in a relatively short period of time? (Consider corn.) Is it the idea that sharing traits is indicative of genetic relatedness? (Consider mules.) I guess you said that your issue is saying that the human clade is part of the monkey clade (by way of, among other things, the ape clade). Quite frankly, proving that there's no cladistic relationship between humans and monkeys would be a momentous discovery. You should publish.
Of course, it is only "Creationist" that are Creationist for believing in the Bible, and they are "weirdos".
But people believing in Evolutionism are NOT Evolutionist/Darwinist, no no no, they are.. Different, special perhaps?
I'd say that they're ignorant of the world around them. In your case, willfully so. You can't even articulate my position on the issue, since everything you "know" about evolution sounds like it came out of The Uncanny X-Men. X-Men, of course, is NOT any sort of science text.
You know, it's interesting that Gabriel is completely and utterly ignoring Jesus's contempt for the family described in the main post. It's like he only reads titles.
If Creationists would admit that they worship Satan, I would have no problem with them. Their pretense of being Christian is my real problem with them.
Okay, I'm curious who this new anonymous commentator is. Please pick a pseudonym so that there won't be confusion.
I have a feeling things are going to get interesting if Gabriel takes notice.
Gabe, one thing you need to understand is that we believe that Darwin was, (mostly), right because he was able to back up his conclusions with a lot of evidence and much more supporting evidence has come to light since then.
From what you have written, I have to wonder if you've ever actually read something that doesn't just assert, but actually supports. Might I suggest some reading for you: Get a copy of _The Origin of Species_ and actually sit down and read it. If nothing else, it might give you an idea of what it is to back up ones arguments.
I wouldn't recommend something that outdated, but still, it'd be a hell of a lot better than letting him continue learning popular misconceptions about evolution from television. It's like he lives inside one, never bothering to learn what REAL people believe.
Yeah, that makes sense, Others are to look for the "proof" you claim exist, you do not need to Provide evidence for your claims.
100% behind you, the way of Evolutionism.
How Pathetic, why don't you just supply your missing links and end this debate? Show a CrocoDuck for example, there should be Millions of them, I mean, billions of years you got, where are they?
WEIRD!
You are so blind of the truth, that you are so weak minded that you cant think for yourself and realize the lies you been fed.
Why would I want to provide evidence for Creationism, Gabe? I've already implicitly challenged you to produce a Crocoduck, which you ignored.
Evolution says that a chimera like the Crocoduck is impossible or at best, absurdly unlikely, as it would require a bizarre genetic crossover between two very well separated branches. It would require that a crocodile or a duck would reverse large parts its evolution (in contradiction to the law of non-reversibility) and then somehow magically copy parts of the evolution of a very different branch of life.
Look at what I've previously said:
I wonder if he's got a cork board with a lot of pictures of my avatar pinned onto it with string tying the images to crop circle conspiracy theories, newspaper editorials about alleged crocoduck sightings being covered up by evolutionists, and other crazy new age crap like that.
and:
The hierarchy is based off groups formed by dividing ancestry, not some vague concept of "better." Depending on how you draw the tree, you have the common ancestor at one end, and all currently existing species on the other, including humans.
No currently living organism is "higher" than any other currently living organism in evolution.
The nesting comes from new branches, i.e. reptiles branching into the crocodile/alligator family as well as dinosaurs, who branched into therapods, who branched into birds. That's what the nested hierarchy is. Each species retains characteristics from the "higher" group it belongs to, and each group gets its characteristics from the next higher group it belongs to.
A crocoduck would require a crossover between the separated crocodile and bird branches, and thus, according to evolution, it's impossible.
So, Gabriel, either produce a Crocoduck or shut up.
As for evidence of evolution, try cracking open a science textbook or reading scientific journals. Heck, run some genetic algorithms. Hell, go to a farm. All our crops and farm animals are the result of the conscious use of artificial selection as a substitute for natural selection.
As for "missing links," define what you're talking about. Evolution is NOT a Great Chain of Being, hence it doesn't have "links" like a chain.
It's funny that Gabriel is essentially ridiculing science by ridiculing Creationism.
"Star Trek said this."
"X-Men said that."
"Ben 10 said something else."
Get a hint, Gabriel: Mainstream science is not based on space opera.
By ridiculing the Crocoduck, something that mainstream Creationism's "common designer, common design" fallacy says is possible, Gabriel is ridiculing mainstream Creationism and calling it "Evolutionism," as if the modern synthesis of evolution had anything to do with his beliefs.
Wow, you guys are truly deranged, I ask for evidence of CrocoDuck as you follow Evolutionism, you tell me (first thing) that I am to provide this silly thing (which none-existence proves Evolution to be false).
It is like I ask for any evidence you refuse to give it and then tell me I have to give you (the same) evidence for Creationism (???), kind of makes it clear that you have no evidence for your Evolutionism and its all faith.
The Lord said this would happen and I should continue to more open minded people as you are to closeminded and ignorant of the Truth, you Fear the Truth and thus me as the Icon of Truth and prophet of the Lord.
You continue spreading your ignorance, it is sad it is legal to indoctrinate and destroy childrens lives, which you will do and feel pride in doing, spreading hatred and ignorance sending people to Hell.
Good Luck in your Life of Evil.
Gabriel - Jesus Apostle
Evolution had principles that would prove the Crocoduck was impossible before it was even dreamed up, Gabriel. The Crocoduck is ONLY possible by Creationism and similarly absurd beliefs.
YOU are the deranged one, Gabriel. Mainstream Creationism is too "ridiculous" for you, which is why you lie and call it "Evolutionism." And when we call mainstream Creationism absurd, you pretend that we buddy up with mainstream Creationism instead of calling both you and mainstream Creationism absurd for the same reasons.
All forms of Creationism are absurd. Pointing out how mainstream Creationism is more absurd than yours will get you precisely zero points with us.
Oh, and it's funny to watch you ignore the pro-evolution evidence I brought up: Farms. Genetic Algorithms. Learn something.
Let's take a look at another mainstream Creationist absurdity: Dragons.
Cross a tetrapod land-bound reptile with a winged tetrapod pterosaur and add a heaping helping of divine witchcraft that is god's will, and somehow you get a hexapodal creature that walks on four legs and has two limbs to spare for wings.
Of course, since mainstream science tentatively rejects the existence of magic, we reject the idea that two tetrapods can produce genes for a hexapod. The HOX genes are highly conserved. Tinkering with those too much usually leads to death in the womb, or in the dragon's case, egg.
The only time you get a hexapod out of two tetrapods in the real world is through developmental error (NOT by mutation, as the gullible mainstream media typically reports), producing, essentially, highly overlapped conjoined twins. If these deformed creatures are fortunate enough to survive to mating age, they will produce tetrapod offspring because they still have tetrapod DNA.
So, Gabe, back on the topic of the Crocoduck, HOW could evolution possibly produce such an absurdity in direct conflict with so many of its laws. It's incredibly ironic that you've trapped yourself into disproving evolution by using evolution to explain a creature that doesn't exist.
HOW could a crocoduck evolve, given the current state of knowledge about bird and reptile evolution? By what mechanisms?
I doubt that we could even artificially engineer a crocoduck resembling the photoshop chimera without deliberate design of novel genes.
Given what we know about life on Earth, Intelligent Design by humans is the only explanation I can currently imagine for a hypothetical crocoduck, precisely because the crocoduck is impossible, according to the laws that govern evolution. But if you've got an evolutionary mechanism to explain how this absurdity could come about, I'll listen.
Sorry for being Anonymous before - you can call me Thomas. Creationists all claim that God is a liar; some of them openly admit that the creature they worship created false evidence to deceive peoples, Gabriel seems to be more dishonest than that, but the stink of Satan still leaks through when he breaks God's commandments by lying about what scientists (people who study the world that God made) say.
I look forward to what Gabriel has to say about you, Thomas.
I may not believe in Satan, but back when I was still a Christian, I left the church because I considered many fundamentalist beliefs to be inherently and purposelessly evil, or as I put it during those days, "Satanic." And, of course, at the time, I thought I had god backing me up in that assertion.
Gabriel is a textbook example of the people I considered "Satanic" back then.
My initial atheism before I embraced my current logical stance was kind of a weird mutual moral agreement, kind of like an author and a character "rebelling against the script": The god I believed in would rather not exist than condone evil. "God is good" was more vital to me than "God is a god."
Someone who believes in the moral nature of his god will naturally refuse to believe that god willingly commits or condones evil.
The reason I suggested Origins was that Darwin tended to present multiple lines of detailed evidence[1]. It was more for Gabe to see something that is evidence heavy than to see the current evidence. For current evidence there are a number of good popular works, not to mention the stuff at talkorigins.org.
Oh, and since you want a 'missing link' Gabe: Try Tiktaalik roseae, which is intermediary between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods and had been predicted long before it was found.
[1] There's a reason why it was decades before he published.
Let's have a little more fun. More evidence for evolution:
Evolution is why we were able to breed livestock and crops before we got into the modern "genetically engineered" crops. We were already genetically modifying crops by picking which seeds to plant.
What made Darwin stand out was that he got a blinding flash of the obvious and applied it: Nature was already doing essentially the same thing to living creatures that humans had been doing to crops, livestock, and pets for thousands of years.
For a simplified example, a finch that inherits a larger beak can crack larger nuts and seeds than its smaller beaked cousins, and thus has a food resource they cannot access. More food means a greater chance at survival and reproduction, and thus more chances that those offspring will inherit larger beaks.
Quite often, when I read about some aspect of evolution I didn't know about, my response is to smack myself on the forehead and wonder why I hadn't thought of or noticed it before.
Evolution is why we have bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics harm bacteria by interfering with certain metabolic processes. Bacteria that have mutated to use alternate processes in the place of the disrupted one have a greater ability to survive and reproduce in an environment where that particular antibiotic is common. Stop giving out that antibiotic like candy, and the non-resistant ones can survive with the vulnerable process because it's usually more energy efficient. Then they out-produce the resistant ones.
Modern chemotherapy has to compete with cancer's mutation rate and evolution: If one cancer cell mutates a feature that gives it resistance to one chemotherapy agent, it will survive to multiply and still cause problems for the patient if you don't adapt the chemotherapy regimen in anticipation of that evolutionary process.
Of course, the cancer can't know that its rapid reproduction may ultimately lead to the destruction of the patient (and with him, the environment it depends on for food and protection from the elements). That would require intelligent decisions instead of mutations best simulated as random.
Evolution is why the genetic algorithms I play with eventually produce longer-running vehicles, higher jumping block creatures, and so on. Genetic algorithms simulate evolution by using random mutations to the "genes" of the a-life organisms, and the selection criteria (the "environment") gives the fittest organisms more reproductive opportunities.
The reason we haven't developed a cure for the "common cold" is because evolution makes it a moving target: The common cold is a diverse family of viruses with a generally high mutation rate: It's a moving target, and even if you kill off one strain, another will likely evolve a branch of relatively similar viruses to fill in the void.
This is supposed to be common, everyday knowledge. It's ubiquitous in the US to the point that it becomes "invisible," just like cellphones have: Used to, people showed off their expensive cell phones by talking in public. Now that cell phones are common and often cheaper than land lines, no one pays attention to that act.
That's what evolution is like for observant people: It's an everyday event.
Gabe is following the script I outlined six years ago. I love being relevant!
So, let's use this as an object lesson, on the difference between prediction, and postdiction.
Prediction involves making statements about future events. A prediction may be false, because the information it's based on may be uncertain. Here, we see a successful prediction from Ryan.
Postdiction involves making statements about events that have already happened, in the context of some belief system. In other words, saying "I/Jesus/Nostradamus knew this would happen, and that shows how great I am/he is." Postdictions are essentially meaningless, because, rather than an idea about what might happen, they're a way to claim that you did know that something would happen, which, frankly, is not that useful after-the-fact.
While it's pretty obvious what our response would be, I think Gabe pulling out the pronouncements after-the-fact and attributing them to Jesus makes his actions qualify.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm curious what Jesus is telling Gabe about Bronze Dog's experiences. Here's someone who had a "relationship", and gave it up, at first because he didn't want to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god that would coexist with meaningless suffering, and later because he couldn't find any evidence against the idea of a world without a god. Just checking, I do have that right, right? I wrote that up from memory.
That's essentially correct, MW. The longer version:
I believed in a morally upstanding god who valued being good more than power. He was a humble god who wanted to do the right thing: He was willing to help out, but the suffering of the world suggested he was not able for some reason or another.
Either I had to let go of his morality by believing he chose inaction in the face of evil, or I had to give up his omnipotence to explain his inability to prevent evil.
I chose to maintain his morality at the cost of his power. The god I believed in was not arrogant, so would never choose to harm someone for doubting his power.
Eventually, I had to scale back god's power until he was, unfortunately, pretty much impotent. Essentially, I decided to give him a dignified death, rather than imagine him being so helpless.
After remaining "spiritual but not religious" for a while longer, I bumped into the Skeptics' Dictionary and the JREF forums and got to where I was today: Non-belief is the default until affirmative evidence comes in.
And these days, I've got people like Gabriel calling me "pedantic" in another thread when I suggested you need affirmative evidence to reach an affirmative conclusion, only to flip-flop back over here.
Watch this prediction, Gabe: I will politely point out a bit of dicey quote-mining on BD's part, and he will acknowledge that his representation of the passage might not be quite accurate, but the spirit of his thesis, evidence, and conclusions remains strong. (I, of course, agree that his thesis, evidence, and conclusions are strong, so I've got no beef there.)
BD: careful on the cherry-picking, so we don't fall into the same trap these exceptionally silly people do! If you read the rest of Matthew 12, it becomes relatively clear (despite what the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entertainingly snarks in the sidebar) that Jeezy-Poofs was using the moment more as a preaching opportunity than as a genuine rejection of his blood relations. I'm all for pointing out the astonishing misinformation, ridiculous contradictions and abhorrent morality inherent to Babble stories, but we've got to be careful not to just snip anything out that supports the opposing position (or they'll start hollering with legitimate claims instead of their usual baseless ones). I know you're not actually a hypocrite, but no reason to give them any ammunition.
By the way: great posts, of late. For some true hypocrisy of my own: it's awesome to see you writing again!
I confess I was a bit on the skimming side for the parts I read through. For much of the Bible, I usually find it on the surreal side, and easier to pay attention to certain details, rather than try to make sense out of the people involved.
All too often, they just don't act like any humans I know, real or fictional, so it's easier to simply look at small parts without their relation to other parts.
Wait, I forgot to make the point at the end that I meant to make: BD had a "relationship" and gave it up as a result of applying moral standards and later, evidence-based reasoning. What I was trying to say was, not only was Gabe's postdiction about how BD's statements said he secretly desired a relationship wrong, but it was precisely wrong, in that, before he started looking for evidence, he had a relationship and it ... looking for a verb... but what happened to it was solely a result of his own desire for morality.
Gabe, why didn't Jesus explain this to you?
(I, on the other hand, have no firm basis for my own speculations about Gabe, so I don't really care if they're wrong. But I didn't bring in ultimate authority to make those.)
Glazing over: a rational human's only natural defense against reading the bible. Totally understood.
And, to be fair to the fictional characters, it's hard to act like a human when you're written as a cypher. And poorly written, at that. (I laugh whenever folks insist that, whatever its shortcomings, the book is still "beautifully written." That claim in itself always makes it crystal clear that they haven't really read the thing.)
Side note: my prediction was fairly on target. And tools like Gabe will likely never understand why or how.
Yeah, I never understood how anyone could look at the Bible as an example of good literature. I do think it's culturally important to know something about it, but that's more about its ubiquity than its quality of writing.
"I laugh whenever folks insist that, whatever its shortcomings, the book is still "beautifully written." That claim in itself always makes it crystal clear that they haven't really read the thing."
Or that they haven't read enough of anything to know what quality in writing looks like... I've long argued that Biblical Literalism is a product of poor literacy, as literate people realise that reading is necessarily an interpretive act.
I've got to say, while it's less obviously insidious, Gabe's new "hotline to Jesus" shtick is kind of annoying.
Gabe, does The Lord Jesus, Son of God, consent to a simple test of His boundless knowledge? I am sure He can read all of the relevant details off the substance of my brain and/or soul. If He agrees, I will repeat them in public so that everyone else can hold me to them.
The good writing piece comes in if you look at Genesis, for example, as a mythology.
The first two chapters of Genesis use some very, very pretty poetic constructions, if you view Semitic poetry as being beautiful. Most of the rest of the book is a series of "Just So" stories that are uncommonly well-preserved. That's not even getting started on Proverbs, Psalms, Job, Ruth and Esther as stellar examples of particular literary styles.
To a Western eye, I can certainly see how it all looks quite awful, though.
Dweller:
Maybe in the original Hebrew it sounds like Shakespeare, but in English it's not at all like any poetry I've heard.
Any good poetry, that is.
Well, that you say, "sound" is indication enough that you don't know Semitic poetry - which is fine, most people don't.
Rather than using rhymes and internal rhythms, Semitic poetry uses on repetition of variations on a phrase and echoing structures.
I've yet to find a really good online resource that explains it, but given this environment, let's take the first chapter of Genesis as an example.
Each day is set up the same way: "And God said, "
This pattern is repeated up to the sixth day. There's a certain . . . symmetry to it that should be at least attractive, if not exactly poetic.
That is kind of the point though isn't it Dark? Assuming you are correct about viewing Genesis as a particular niche poetry form that most people are unfamiliar with, then it is quite disingenuous for people (unfamiliar with that niche) to describe it as a good read.
Additional: using the colloquialism "sound" to indicate knowledge (or lack there of) isn't indicative believing that rhyming is a necessary component of poetry.
Don't say stuff like this:
Well, that you say, "sound" is indication enough that you don't know Semitic poetry - which is fine, most people don't.
It makes you sound like a Hipster college freshman professing chapter three to us.
Wikinite basically spelled out what I was inferring, but let me make a musical analogy: sure, there are some who either pretend to or really do love songs played in a 13/8 time signature, but there's a reason they're not popular - they're attractive to a very niche population; something quite different from the general population whom BD and Dunc were referring to. I'm sure they otherwise would've stated they were specifically referring to fans of Semitic poetry.
Basically what I'm saying is, you're pretty close to arguing against a point no one has made.
I'm just not in a pithy mood right now.
Verification word, I shit you not is "squadoody".
Squadoody - what Geronimo's wife took every morning.
Yeah Wiki, I sometimes forget on the Nternetz people freak when you use generalities.
I can concede there may be some poetic value that gets lost in translation to English, but I can maintain that the storytelling aspect still strikes me as rather poor.
If we're talking about storytelling, yeah, it's rather all over the map. You start off with allegory, head over into history, then dip back into allegory, with dips into legalism and poetry. It's a mishmash, and that's before you get to the prophets.
Sorry, I don't mean to get professorial or sound snooty - I actually talk like this IRL and somehow the hand motions and goofy voice seem to make me sound like less of a twat. Honestly, I'd much rather someone get professorial with me about the article I linked to in another thread.
Sorry for the snark Dweller; being a professional artist I am often confronted by someone telling me I suck because I'm not aware of some other really obscure artist that really doesn't appeal to a lot of people.
It's like they enjoy having the knowledge of said artist's existence rather than the art said artist produces.
I also use a lot of irony/sarcasm IRL and it doesn't always come out over teh internetz.
Ryan, it's all good - while The Bible's certainly a mishmash, it's one I'm quite fond of in its individual parts, often at the expense of making myself clear.
Wikinite, while I agree that lack of familiarity with a particular type of literature is certainly a valid reason to dislike something, it seemed that some people were saying that The Bible fails to be a good version of the type of literature that it is, without knowing what type of literature it actually is. Sort of like saying that Doom is the worst tower defense game you've ever played. If I'm wrong there and it was only intended as a purely aesthetic evaluation, I apologize.
BD, at least, expanded that he finds it to be terrible storytelling, which is certainly true if you're looking for a story with a clear beginning, middle and end. For storytelling that is, at times, nearly prehistory and, in later parts, nearly post-classical, and has dozens, if not hundreds of authors, it's not too shabby, but it definitely lacks a coherent narrative.
Anyway, Dweller, I'll get to that article you linked tomorrow or the day after. My private life's been busy, so sorry about the delays.
I thought your private life revolved around Gabriel?
If it'd help, I could post something specious and intellectually dishonest. I draw the line at racist, though. Unlike some "religionists," I think I actually have a moral standard that's based on what has been shown to produce the greatest net benefit for humanity, not what I find comforting, convenient or popular.
Hahahhaa, unbelievable, almost one week and Dead, dead as a doornail.
Without me this place is worth nothing, there is no intelligent contribution, there is no one that dares to challenge you, your little blog just withers and dies.
I made a promise not to return, and this is what happens. But Jesus told me this would happen but told me that if I return, I may be able to save at least one condemned soul in this place.
So I came back for that, to save one of you, who knows, Jesus did not tell me who it is, perhaps Bronze himself, or one of his followers who read and see's the truth, and calmly steps backwards and join the real world. I know it is dangerous for Darwinist followers to leave as they get threatened and frozen from the only world they know, some may even get killed for joining the good force, wanting a Good World with Peace and Love, but its worth it, Truth is above fanatic Evil and Satans spawn is nothing more then that, Evil.
You know, it is quite funny, I was just reading over at a Christian Forum and a commie/evolutionist was posting about how he thought people who Love Jesus are bad because they want to prevent immigrants to come and destroy our society, he wanted the grey monkeys to flood the borders and this would be GOOD.
Interesting how "good" is so subjective amongst evolutionists. Murdering babies is "not evil" and something that Should happen, all woman should have the RIGHT to murder babies, but if you promote a good State with Freedom for its citizens and Protection from negros or spicks, do you know what they say? THEN they say that "no no, they should be allowed to run around and do whatever they want".
I hope one of you Darwinist/Evolutionist Commie moron read this, LEARN and join Jesus league.
Actually, if anyone FEELS, only a BIT, that perhaps following Satan is wrong, Mail me, let me talk to you, Jesus wants You, Jesus wants a GOOD WORLD, not the Evil world evolutionist want to create where abortion is free for all and negros roam the street raping children and murdering white woman.
As, obviously, you wouldn't be able to talk outloud amongst these people as you would be ostracised by the rest, Mail me, I won't say anything to the others, it would be private between You and Me, you would be SAFE and would not need to worry about the evolutionist here they wont find out and they cant harm you.
Mail me at gabriel@bestmail.us if you feel you want to get away from the Evil.
Gabriel
And Gabriel returns with nothing but red herrings and straw man fallacies in a desperate attempt to distract people from the issues and reinforce his indoctrination. What a surprise.
So, Gabe, why don't you avoid the tactics of desperation and take up my Dr Pepper challenge?
Why don't you try addressing the evidence for evolution that I mentioned?
Why aren't you hunting for a crocoduck to prove evolution wrong via Modus Tollens?
To spell it out for you Gabe: What does my lack of updating have to do with the modern synthesis of evolution, Creationism, the nature of morality, or race?
The only answer I can come up with is currently "Nothing."
I dunno, maybe he mixed up science and fairies, and thinks we haven't been clapping enough.
Gabriel, I put my own challenge to Jesus, with you acting as his mouthpiece. Since Jesus is omnipotent, he surely knows whether it is a fair challenge. Do you accept, decline, or run off with your tail between your legs? (Say nothing for the third option). If you explicitly decline, I'd like to know what Jesus's problem with the challenge is.
And the loudmouthed coward comes back to post much, but say little.
How about dealing with some of the many outstanding questions you have on your plate Gabe?
Dammit, I meant Jesus is omniscient.
Dammit, I'm supposed to be studying and reading and argh.
Gabriel, really, what use do you think your arrogance has in the service of Christ? Is this absolute certainty supposed to remind of how like Paul you are, who said that the more he learned about God, the more he realized how little he knew. Is your racism supposed to put us in mind of Paul, who said that there was no Jew, no Greek, not even man and woman in the body of Christ?
It is possible, even probable, to be a good and moral person absent a belief in God, just as it is possible, even probable, to commit immortal acts despite having a belief in God. You're taking a belief based on love, joy and peace and turning it into a sledgehammer. Stop it.
Now, what I've just written is laughable in the eyes of some of the people who're reading this. That's fine, I understand that, and I'm prepared to defend it, if necessary, but here's the key difference between you and I, in the end: I respect these people, and I will respond respectfully, understanding that where they get their ethos from is not the same as where I believe my ethos comes from.
An atheist doesn't fear God. They don't distrust God. They don't even hate God. They don't think that he exists. And, no, it's not that they're in denial about God's existence, it's that they really, really don't think that he exists. Stop acting like atheists are just ignorant, and take people where they are rather than where you perceive them to be.
Just for how much he's done it, I think Gabe's debating "strategy" deserves a name.
I'm thinking "Devotion of Python's Black Knight", because I'm feeling flowery, and I've actually managed to avoid or filter out Holy Grail references for years, so it seems just a little fresh.
I mean, I could be wrong, but they seem to be going about things in much the same fashion.
We could get all debate clubby and call it argumentum ad niger eques. Which has the added benefit of associating Gabe with one his most favouritist words ever.
Thing is, it's not even an argument. He's simply refusing to acknowledge how debate works.
Gabe, here's another question. You said you returned because Jesus told you that you may convert at least one of us. Did He say anything about how helpful it would be for Him to pass either my challenge (which I haven't revealed any details about, because, um, you know, omniscience) or Bronze's? (For the record, mine is easier. As such, it would prove less.)
Unless you give us a solid reason why passing those challenges would be ineffective in converting us, you are effectively being derelict in your evangelical duties. Shape up, man!
MW, I really wouldn't be too surprised if Comrade Gabriel asked us to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring.
There's a joke somewhere in here about people being turned into newts, but I find myself unequal to the opportunity.
Great, now I have to watch that movie again today. My deepest sympathies to anyone who has to interact with me afterwards.
I'm feeling so incredibly generous, I'll even link Gabe to some resources that should prove immensely helpful.
The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists
Be sure to read the followup, How Not to Convert an Atheist.
The overall contents are a list of kinds of evidence that would be conclusive, suggestive, and unhelpful, each in its own category. The followup is a list of tactics to avoid. Both are crucial to observe when trying to convert ones such as us.
JESUS WILL PROTECT ME FROM THE EVILS OF MAN! JESUS WILL KEEP ME STRONG!
That you try to destroy and persecute THE CHRISTIAN FAITH is a clear sign of your weakness and fear of God, Satan will not be able to beat God, GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE SUPREME LIGHT!
Your Fear and atheism and evolutionism will never win, you fail from the start, Jesus is in my Heart and I am one of his acolytes. Jesus have made me all knowing and Supreme, I am what you only dream of with your atheism thinking you are above God.
I am what you DREAM. I am part of Jesus plan and I am one of the Few True ones that will run the world until Jesus returns, When I get my orders from the Lord I am the one standing in the Center, you will see GABRIEL as the Christian Leader of the world trying to Help as many as possible sorting out the niggers and spicks making the world a GOOD place for the White Race.
You will say "oh, but thats Gabriel, why didn't we listen? Why where we so selfish and ignorant?", but then it is to late.
If you crawl for Gabriel Son of Man and Leader of the Human flesh and speaker of the Lord, you may have a chance, I may forgive you.
Gabriel - Angel of Jesus
Rant rant rant.
How about answering questions rather than hiding behind a spew of racist bilge.
Personally, I was mostly struck by the arrogance and hubris.
But anyway:
Informal fallacies: Argumentum ad Baculum and Consequentiam
It's also funny that Gabriel considers criticism, the exercise of our First Amendment freedom of speech (or analogous rights for non-US citizens who may be present), to be "persecution." He also considers the pursuit of truth through logical argument to be an attempt to "destroy" Christianity.
Here's a hint, Gabe: If you were confident in the truth of Christianity, you wouldn't be so afraid to respond to our challenges.
I'm sensing delusions of grandeur now. Comrade Gabriel has definitively moved to the "mental illness" side.
Just for how much he's done it, I think Gabe's debating "strategy" deserves a name.
It's already got one - it's called "trolling". The guys at 4chan can give you some pointers.
Hey, Gabriel - show us your tits or STFU!
Personally, I'm growing suspicious that the correct term might be "Poeing."
One of my more fundamentalist friends posted up on Facebook that he'd just completely pwned a whole threadful of atheists and provided a link.
That showed him essentially ranting and raving like a lunatic.
I'd withhold judgement.
Gabe, you know why we're not listening? Because you're not saying anything.
You have completely ignored two distinct chances to prove the power of your Lord. Why are you letting him down like that? Gabriel, you're refusing to properly represent the magnificent power of Jesus. Why do you hate Him like that?
You know what, TALK TO THE HAND, Jesus Loves me and you will burn in Hell for denying Reality, you are TERRIFIED of the real world and you see my Glory and I think you KNOW where you are going.
I think MOST of you know I am right and most of you REALIZE you will burn and instead of swallowing your pride and ask for forgiveness you continue to spout your jewish evolutionist propaganda.
I am PURE and I am GOOD, Jesus has taken ME into his life and I am one of the selected Few.
Your Jealoust is pathetic.
Your "Glory" is being a raging asshole?
Pass.
So, is this the real Gabriel, or someone parodying him? The 'talk to the hand' part doesn't sound quite like him.
Anyway, it's funny that he thinks pride is involved in believing in evolution. Pretty much all of science involves being humbled. Heliocentrism took away our place in the center of the universe, the discovery of other galaxies took away the Milky Way as another center, and evolution took away our perception as being inherently separate from other forms of life.
The scientific method inherently pushes for humility: If you think you've got a better theory than the current consensus, you have to work hard to prove it with hard data. You have to stand up against criticism in the form of peer review. You constantly think of mistakes you might have made and show that you did everything you reasonably could to prevent those mistakes.
With religion, all you need to do is claim that god(s) gave you a super special awesome sign of their favor and shout down anyone who tries to convince you of your inherent flawed humanity. From where I stand, faith is the ultimate act of pride.
After going back over the last few comments, I think someone's Poe-ing Gabe. I don't think he'd give out his email addy.
Just curious, Queer Eye the faggot show, are you in support of it, watching it looking up to the faggots?
Just curious, you are evolutionist after all, you would Agree with them, right?
Oh, neat, a blogger account! Hooray!
Now then, regardless of what before was you, and what might have been an impostor, the challenges stand.
Oh, um, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? I'm not really in the habit of watching TV. Except for the weekly showings at Anime Club, which usually don't feature American shows.
(Fun fact: did you know anime derives, stylistically, from the early works of Disney? It's true!)
Also, I'm not sure if it's technically possible for me to "look up to" a group to which I belong. Now, if we're talking trained interior decorators, that's a different story. *checks on state of mission-critical gorilla tape*
Wow. Gabe's melting down into increasing irrelevancy. It's going to be gay jokes from this point on, just like WoMI.
As for Queer Eye, I've never watched the show. I don't care about fashion.
But, of course, I do believe the people involved in the show have the right to make it, and the homosexual members have the right to exist and express themselves. The First Amendment is supposed to be a core American value, after all.
They are human beings and deserve every right heterosexuals have, despite what the fundies say.
So you think fagots have "the right" to exist and indoctrinate innocent children? To recruit them into their disgusting ways?
Says a lot about you Bronze.
Before I was a True Christian serving the Lord making the world good I had an encounter with fagots.
Their wanted me to join their "ways" and support their rights" to marry other guys and animals and all the things you want them to have the right to.
Before I got into it to deep the LORD found me and SAVED ME and showed me how wrong it is and now I fight against their Evils and make the world good protecting Children and our Society from Evil Spreading the word of the Lord Jesus Christ which speak to me.
So you see you have a chance as well, if he saved me from the Fagots why wouldn't he do it to you? You think you are damned and its to late but its not, You may still have a chance to get away from the evils of homosexuality, evolutionism and nigger love, you may still have a spot in Heaven.
Think About, don't be afraid.
Gabriel
Wow. Gabe must be back on the meth.
So you think fagots have "the right" to exist and indoctrinate innocent children? To recruit them into their disgusting ways?
Says a lot about you Bronze.
Fallacy: Straw Man.
I don't even believe it's possible for them to "indoctrinate" children into becoming homosexual. Sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Their wanted me to join their "ways" and support their rights" to marry other guys and animals and all the things you want them to have the right to.
And here you again make up shit.
1. All the homosexuals I've ever met just want to be treated as equals. They want legally recognized marriage so that they can live together like heterosexuals can. Why should I demand special privileges as a heterosexual?
2. Where, oh where, did you get this bullshit about bestiality? Animals aren't capable of informed consent, therefore it's a non-issue. The same is true of children. No consent means that they can't get married. You're just lying through your teeth and you know it.
3. This is an equal rights issue. This is a rule of law issue. Anti-GLBT people want to dismantle the rule of law just because they're easily offended by the mere thought that someone out there might like something they don't.
That last point is why I consider you anti-American, Gabriel.
You think you are damned and its to late but its not...
Bullshit, Gabriel. I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in heaven. I don't believe in any sort of afterlife. I'm a typical American atheist, a member of a group you apparently have no knowledge of. What part of this do you not understand?
You ARE aware that Satan is using fagots and fagot sex to spread his Evil, correct?
You DO KNOW that the more people he get to have fagot sex, bestiality and pedophilia the more minions he get to his army of hell?
So homosexuality is Evil by DEFAULT making people come away from the Lord.
I WAS SAVED, I was once in this Evil but THEN I SAW THE LIGHT and JESUS CAME TO ME, you need not be jealous of this, you should be Happy understanding that this means YOU may have a chance to, if you take it.
In Lord and Jesus name
Gabriel
Gabriel keeps showing his ignorance of what atheists like me believe:
You ARE aware that Satan is using fagots and fagot sex to spread his Evil, correct?
I don't believe Satan exists. I don't believe homosexuality is evil.
You DO KNOW that the more people he get to have fagot sex, bestiality and pedophilia the more minions he get to his army of hell?
I do not believe Satan exists. I do not believe that hell exists.
There is also a huge difference between consenting homosexual sex and non-consenting sex with animals and children.
Of course, I will not be surprised to one day hear you issue excuses and apologia for rape, since you ignore my point that consent as a factor in the topic.
So homosexuality is Evil by DEFAULT making people come away from the Lord.
Except:
1. I don't believe in this lord,
and
2. Divine command theory is too subjective and inconsistent for me to buy into as an ethical theory.
I WAS SAVED, I was once in this Evil but THEN I SAW THE LIGHT and JESUS CAME TO ME, you need not be jealous of this, you should be Happy understanding that this means YOU may have a chance to, if you take it.
There's no jealousy, Gabe. You make heaven look unattractive. I prefer my morals to strive for greater objectivity, and under my current moral system, you and your god are evil.
You know what's a fun fact about psychology? We adjust surprisingly well to circumstances that look horrible from the outside. Any one of us, given enough time, could adjust perfectly well to the kinds of torture hell is supposed to offer. It wouldn't even be hard; it would just take time, something that the afterlife is supposed to possess in some abundance.
In any case, we're all far more interested in some objective data, rather than subjective feelings. In the normal course of operation, my brain goes through all sorts of random contortions, so far as neurotransmitter levels go. I'd much rather have something that other people can look over, rather than "feelings". I mean, between that sentence and this one, I took a few minutes to induce an out-of-body experience. Should I take that as evidence that it's possible to project the "soul" out of the body, or something like that, or that I'm an amateur hypnotist?
Something I look forward to is how Gabriel will try to argue that my rejection of non-consenting sex will somehow magically lead to widespread acceptance of non-consenting sex (rape, pedophilia, etcetera).
Dear Edgar Allen:
You need to calm down a little; Gabriel tends to make slightly more sense than this.
Jesus has spoke to me and made it clear, Soon the world is damned and 99% of you will burn in Hell whiles I will joy Heaven.
Your false views, ignorance of the world and worship of evolutionism and satanism will condemn you, you are Happy now worshipping money believing Gold is Above God.
But when it ends it you see your ignorance, but do you really want to understand that you are wrong when its to late?
Is that not a bit pathetic? Why not stand up as a real man and FACE your faults and LEARN!
Or learning is to scary? Accepting facts? Educate yourself about Evolutionism and Atheism and you See its false, IF YOU DARE to educate yourself.
I was once part of believers in Evolution but after I STUDIED it and LEARNT, I left because I saw it was false. This is why I know so much more about evolutionism then you, because I STUDIED IT in DEPTH and truly learnt it, something you dare not to do, just accept blindly "dawkins is right" because he is famous and says so, oh, go buy his books.
Fagots try to spread their ways destroying the sanctity of marriage and make it legal to marry guys. Do not fall for the temptations and think fagots are good, they spread AIDS And sickness and condemn you to Hell, Accept JESUS and be with what you NATURALLY are to be WOMAN. Satan may try to tempt you but be strong, I AM STRONG and I got away from the temptations of Satan, I found a woman even if satan tried to make me be a fagot, its a disease it is not natural, its SATANS WAY TO DESTROY YOU, do not fall for it.
Jesus speaks to me because of my Strength and Intelligence, he sees the might I have and my Greatness and the ability I may have to HELP fallen souls like you, Accept REALITY do not be afraid.
The only thing you dare to do is to send one-liners with none-answers, this is fear, you are so afraid of thinking about what you believe that you cant even defend your stance, An explosion made everything mud became a man, You really believe this rather then the Evidence? The Holy Bible? READ IT, LEARN!
Gabriel - An Angel of God
Gabriel once again shows his delusions of divinity.
Jesus has spoke to me and made it clear, Soon the world is damned and 99% of you will burn in Hell whiles I will joy Heaven.
Do you seriously believe that you are inherently this super-special? Do you seriously believe that you are given the godlike gift of certainty?
You are not a god, Gabriel.
Your false views, ignorance of the world and worship of evolutionism and satanism will condemn you, you are Happy now worshipping money believing Gold is Above God.
I do not believe Satan exists, therefore I am not a Satanist. I have made this abundantly clear, and yet you choose to lie.
Second, you've demonstrated a complete ignorance of what the modern synthesis of evolution is. The "evolutionism" you describe is science fiction nonsense we ridiculed you for believing in when you first arrived.
Is that not a bit pathetic? Why not stand up as a real man and FACE your faults and LEARN!
Talk about irony. You're the one who thinks he is beyond human flaws. When we point out that vulnerability, and the need to put effort into counteracting natural human errors, you ask us to worship your sloth.
I was once part of believers in Evolution but after I STUDIED it and LEARNT, I left because I saw it was false. This is why I know so much more about evolutionism then you, because I STUDIED IT in DEPTH and truly learnt it, something you dare not to do, just accept blindly "dawkins is right" because he is famous and says so, oh, go buy his books.
And yet the knowledge you demonstrate is less than that of a high school student. You describe evolution as it's depicted in soft science fiction.
Also, when did any of us bring up Dawkins? He's not a part of this, so stop fetishizing him.
Fagots try to spread their ways destroying the sanctity of marriage and make it legal to marry guys.
Oh, right. Like a meat worshiper like you would know anything about real marriage. Marriage is about love, companionship, commitment, and wanting to share life's joys and burdens. Marriage is about what's in your head and (metaphorical, not literal) heart.
Anti-marriage people like you think that it's a license for sex, so long as that sex falls within the dictates of the sacred phallus rules. You think marriage is about genitals.
The only thing you dare to do is to send one-liners with none-answers...
The irony.
Says the coward who won't even commit to any stance.
Says the nihilist who thinks there is no such thing as morality.
Says the postmodernist who thinks there is no such thing as epistemology.
Says the liar who mass-produces straw men to make himself feel better about his inability to discuss what real people like me believe.
Says the self-proclaimed god who won't dare admit that he is a mere mortal like the rest of us.
Gabriel still hasn't responded to my Dr Pepper challenge or MWChase's unannounced challenge. I interpret that continued silence as a sign of weakness in Gabriel's faith.
He's not trying to convince us, he's trying to convince himself. And it looks like he's failing.
Oh, yeah. Fun fact, Gabriel: Heterosexuals also spread AIDS. Does that mean heterosexuality is immoral?
Gabriel has a comment that apparently got eaten. Here is its contents, from the email notification I received:
Your ignorance is amazing, I wanted to test you and I succeeded in showing your ignorance.
No one "spreads" AIDS, which stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome", people spread HIV that CAUSES AIDS.
But you will most likely say you went "along with it" (not mentioning it the first thing you could have done), and THATS why you said people spread AIDS, right?
Fagots spread HIV (stands for human immunodeficiency virus, its a VIRUS), some have given it to Heterosexuals but mainly Fagots spread it.
LEARN SOMETHING Bronze, or you still to afraid with all your "knowledge"?
Hahha, pathetic.
Pathetic, indeed, Gabriel. Yes, I know HIV is what gets spread and causes AIDS. Duh.
What's pathetic is that you consider such a trivial semantic quibble to be a victory instead of, you know, addressing the core point: Heterosexuals spread the virus, too.
If you want to claim that homosexuals are the primary spreaders, show me some relevant scientific data.
Oh, and double embarrassment for you, Gabe: Even if the virus was primarily spread through gay sex, there's one big contradiction you set yourself up for: Aside from abstinence, one of the safest ways of having sex is with a faithful, uninfected partner. In other words, pretty much what you're against letting gay people have: A marriage.
Hahahah, Bronze REMOVED my post? You looked like a fool and you felt you needed to remove it? OH MY GOD!!!
Says alot.
Well, Again thenm People do not SPREAD AIDS, which stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome, but they spread HIV (a virus) that CAUSES AIDS.
I wanted to see how ignorant you where, and you showed it.
AND you showed you to scared to let the post stand so you removed it..
HAHAHAHA, "Freedom" and "Truth" is not your things eh?
God is With Me
Gabriel
Gabriel makes up a paranoid story instead of facing the reality that computer programs can have bugs.
Certainly says a lot about his persecution complex and tendency towards believing in conspiracy.
What's funny is that Gabriel is still crying censorship even though every single time this event has happened, I have posted and addressed the contents without any fear whatsoever.
And he's got such a perverted set of priorities he's stupid enough to think that post constituted something I was afraid of.
Do you seriously think the world revolves around you, Gabriel?
Dumb question. Of course you believe that. You think that you're prophetic and immune to human flaws, which is why you want us to blindly worship you instead of asking hard questions.
Well, Jesus CHOSE ME!!!!
So clearly I am worth more then, oh I don't know, YOU?
You deny the Lord, you try to Destroy and Harm innocent people by turning them away from the Lord, making children condemned to Satan, I would find that rather Evil.
I Fight the good fight, make the world good and work only for the Lord Almighty and do Jesus bidding, ie, I am objectively Good.
Yes, I would say I am worth just a bit more then you in Gods Eyes as he chose me, and Jesus came to ME not you.
You are of course denial of all Truth, as accepting it would show you are wrong, would force you to ADMIT your faults and Errors and Evils, and you would never do that, thats against Evolution dogma, that YOU are a god and God is not God, he does not "exist", funny atheism indeed.
Gabriel shows his authoritarian colors:
Well, Jesus CHOSE ME!!!!
How do you know that? What evidence gives you confidence in that conclusion?
So clearly I am worth more then, oh I don't know, YOU?
Why exactly am I relevant to this? It doesn't matter who I am. Good science is about making the observer irrelevant to the value of the data. In other words, humility is important. Pride like yours has no place.
I Fight the good fight, make the world good and work only for the Lord Almighty and do Jesus bidding, ie, I am objectively Good.
"Objectively." Yeah, right. Do you seriously expect us to believe that you're immune to the subjectivity of normal humans, and thus there is no subjectivity in your interpretation? Do you think that you're a god-man, immune to mortal shortcomings?
You are of course denial of all Truth, as accepting it would show you are wrong, would force you to ADMIT your faults and Errors and Evils, and you would never do that, thats against Evolution dogma, that YOU are a god and God is not God, he does not "exist", funny atheism indeed.
Oh, the projection is thick, today. YOU are the one claiming infallible divine authority. YOU are the one who refuses to even admit to the possibility of error.
I am a mere human, and I've already issued a challenge to you that would show to a great degree of confidence if I was in error. And funny, thing: You chickened out, went silent for the week after, and you still refuse to even acknowledge my Dr. Pepper challenge.
Are you stalling in hopes that readers might forget?
Why don't you man up and ask God to conjure me some Longview cane sugar Dr. Peppers on Saturday, at 10AM, 2PM, and 4PM, US Central time?
Or is your faith too weak to accept a simple challenge?
Oh, and another funny thing: My religious landlady would most likely accuse you of consorting with demons, being corrupted by them into worshiping Satan.
What possible test could be performed to tell which one of you was right? Under your postmodernist epistemological nihilism, there is none. You'd just make a circular argument saying that your authority is based on your authority.
And, of course, I reject authority as a basis of epistemology. Too subjective and arbitrary.
How do you know that? What evidence gives you confidence in that conclusion?
Evidence? OH, you know, THAT JESUS SPEAKS TO ME EVERY DAY?
But that doesn't count, because for evolutionist they have to speak to Him, even if they deny Him.
Jesus speaking to me pretty much every day is quite clear evidence of his existence and truth thankyouery much.
You think YOUR DEMAND on THE LORD is worth anything? Are you SERIOUS? Kind of like "demanding" that (randomly) Albert Einstein proves his theory to YOU because you don't believe it, yeah, because you some unknown nobody laymen demands it he needs to Bow and Follow your demands, Right?
Think about it, then think about your "demand" that the Lord do, and perhaps you see how stupid it looks.
Gabriel - Perhaps the Angel of God
Gabriel goes loopy with circular logic:
Evidence? OH, you know, THAT JESUS SPEAKS TO ME EVERY DAY?
Then you should be able to ask him what MWChase's challenge is. That would be a good external test of your alleged connection. But you chickened out of that one, too.
And why haven't you considered the possibility that you're having command delusions that result from mental illness?
Also, why don't you consider the possibility that the voice might be Satan impersonating Jesus?
If you're too lazy and prideful to consider those possibilities to honestly prove it to yourself, how the hell can you expect me to bow down to your sloth and hubris?
If someone has a positive claim, especially one as earthshaking as yours, Gabe, they have to put in effort to get good evidence and independent, external confirmation. But you want us to make a special exception just because you say so. That's an awfully convenient arrangement you're asking for.
I notice you're still avoiding my Dr. Pepper challenge. Why is that, Gabe?
Are those cracks I'm seeing in the foundation of your belief?
In short, Gabe, you're more cowardly than all the psychics who claim to have a direct pipeline to supernatural knowledge and power. At least some of them are willing to put their faith to the test, even if they start making excuses after their failures.
You're nothing but a drug-addled crystal-waver to me, Gabe.
How convenient, its not true because you decided God does not exist so anything Gabe or anyone else says is False (if they do not agree, that is).
I don't know how its coward to point out the logic, maybe you missed it, but it shows either how stupid you are or ignorant, Ignorance can be cured so I hope its that.
Newton supplies his research and the world community is investigating, after years and years Newtons law is set, then Bronze Dog comes along, Bronze has no education in the field, but he decides that Newton is wrong, he says so, so its true, he calls Newton saying he has to Prove his research else its False.
Newton laughs and then goes silent, realizing Bronze is serious, he tells him that he can acquire all the research he needs down the Library, Bronze says No, thats not valid, he wants Newton to Show Him, using Bronze specific regulated rules, how his Law exist.
Newton says he does not got time, and why would he when Bronze can check himself?
Bronze declares himself the "winner" saying Newtons Law is False and Bronze is Right.
Think about it Bronze, thats your Demand.
And for the record, I am Immune to HIV, it turns out being an Aryan seems to be a Good Thing, I am one of few Immune to the Virus. Suck on that one, perhaps a SIGN OF THE LORD? No no, of course not, its Random Chance, right? Just like Evolution?
Gabriel
Gabriel lies:
How convenient, its not true because you decided God does not exist so anything Gabe or anyone else says is False (if they do not agree, that is).
It's not true because there's no good, external objective evidence. Touchy-feely subjective internal experience is not good evidence, no matter how many times you say it is.
I've already outlined some external, objective evidence that would convince me, and you deliberately ignore it. Ask your god to conjure up some Dr. Pepper for me. Or is he too impotent to do that little trick?
Since my challenge actually got acknowledged (though not by Gabe), I decided to prepare it. Once I've got some... not entirely unexpected technical issues out of the way, I'll begin it, since I've just finished preparing it.
Shouldn't take more than an hour, wouldn't be surprised if it's less.
Something like half an hour in, and I don't know how much longer. Learn from my mistakes, everyone. Do routine maintenance. I will get the ball rolling before this night is through, though.
Seriously? None of you questions the fact that perhaps demanding things for the Lord Almighty and not get a response does not magically make you right?
Seriously? Is this what the new age evolutionism is? Cheezes.
Like I said, no difference then saying the same about Einstein, why not Newton? Its not true because Bronze has not accepted it, he demands that Newton/Einstien/Jesus does THIS for him else not valid Bronze Wins...
Wow, in my time evolutionism was about Science, you guys truly walked far and wide, I guess this is the reason I know so much more then you about Science, evolution and pretty much everything.
Funny thing is, I remember OFFERING to educate you about these things, Help you, but you did not want, you wanted to be ignorant even when Jesus Prophet offers help.
It is truly amazing, and then you look up to morons like PZ Myers and Darwin and worship things like big bang, its sad and tragic indeed.
Gabriel - Word of Truth
You're the one claiming that a omnipotent god wants me to believe in him, therefore it seems reasonable to ask for a miracle.
Or are you going to change the nature of your god when it becomes inconvenient for you?
Einstein and Newton were scientists. The theories they proposed had falsifiable predictions and we use technology every day that puts them to the test, and they succeed. If Newtonian gravitation was wrong, NASA would be a failure. If Einstein was wrong, the Global Positioning System wouldn't work.
Newton and Einstein made falsifiable predictions which come true when we use their theories. They have good, objective, physical evidence on their side.
So I used your hypothesis of a omnipotent god who wants me to believe in him and responds to prayers to predict that he would be willing to provide a miracle.
What part of that isn't reasonable logic? Or did I get your belief wrong?
You've used every excuse and distraction you could think of to avoid discussion of the topic. Shouldn't Jesus be scolding you for trying to withhold that information for so long?
/sw/bin/openssl dgst -sha1 forgabe.zip
SHA1(forgabe.zip)= 4c45392355818d09f121aad50d84ff103cc39845
The clock is ticking.
By the way, if anybody else wants to try my challenge, they're welcome to. Please keep any discussion of anything beyond what I post here confined to private channels, however. It would be interesting, I think, to have a control group, but I don't want to bog Gabe down through public rehashing of stuff that he already knows.
Unfortunately, a positive result on this test does not preclude the possibility that I colluded with Gabe. I can only offer my strong personal, intellectual, and moral aversion to his worldview as evidence that nothing of the sort will happen. However, it will be impossible for me to hide a positive result. Anyone who understands my last comment can attest to that.
Another Gabriel comment gets eaten for some reason. Contents reproduced below:
Unfortunately, a positive result on this test does not preclude the possibility that I colluded with Gabe. I can only offer my strong personal, intellectual, and moral aversion to his worldview as evidence that nothing of the sort will happen. However, it will be impossible for me to hide a positive result. Anyone who understands my last comment can attest to that.
So it wouldn't even matter if I did care of your silly games, you would deny it giving excuses, HOW SURPRISING!
Like I said, Newton/Einstein are wrong, they didn't prove it to me, or Bronze or Anyone wanting to, so its "not true", just your deal, if the Lord does not do what You want, it's not Real.
Wow, Evolutionism in Action doing Science eh? Pathetic indeed.
Give up guys, get a life.
Newton and Einstein are right, and it's proven all the time by technology that's dependent on their accuracy.
A GPS receiver succeeds or fails based on relativistic correction to the atomic clocks on the satellites. If Einstein was wrong, those tools wouldn't work.
Technology is the practical application of science. But Gabriel lies and pretends that technology has nothing to do with science.
America's success in the space race is built on calculations made with Newtonian physics. But Gabriel probably thinks it was done by witchcraft or something equally silly.
To put my point even more simply:
Gabriel's whining that we actually care about measurable results.
A god who can't produce measurable results is impotent.
A god who can't produce repeatable results is indistinguishable from chaos.
Gabriel's faith keeps shrinking his god to nothing more than a cheerleader in his head.
One thing I've found amusing for some time is that most versions of Christian metaphysics result in it being impossible to trust any source of knowledge, including divine revelation!
Guess what Gabe, you're about to have another question on your plate:
Even assuming that someone is directly feeding you divine information, (what you describe as Jesus talking to you), how do you know it isn't Satan feeding you false information?
Note that consistency with earlier information, (either directly to you or via others), does not help because the same question applies to the earlier information. After all, immortals can play incredibly long cons from a human perspective.
Or, you know, you could stop cowardly hiding from the standing request for you to define 'white' in the context of your use of the term as a racial descriptor.
Gabe, I said that it would be impossible for me to hide a positive result. People would be able to tell. Did Jesus not bother to explain the basics of file hashing to you? Why not? (Why is this relevant? Because if you pass this test, it results in excellent odds on you being given perfect information. This is what is known as "extraordinary evidence".)
I'll say it again: as I designed this test, I can fake you being right. I cannot fake you being wrong.
So get to work, time is ticking.
Also, I put it to everyone that I would never have any reason to claim collusion with Gabe, and Gabe would only have reason to claim collusion if Jesus does not speak to him. Can anyone devise a contrary hypothetical?
Well then, if you SAY you would never have collusion or lie, then it must be true.
Then it is all cool, Good Science RIGHT THERE, he tol us we can trust him.
Hold on, Gabriel claiming something WITH evidence is not valid, but anyone else, here, can claim whatever they want and their Word is above evidence? Woah....
Extreme Science guys.. EXTREME Science, you keep at it.
Right afterwards, I asked if anyone here could think of a situation where I would claim collusion.
If I collude with you, that hurts my case, or my credibility. It's always a net loss to me.
And if Gabriel had any credibility, he'd also lose it by colluding. In other words, collusion would be a lose-lose situation for both of you, therefore it is extremely unlikely to happen.
Of course, Gabriel seems to be trying to bluff his way out of these challenges. His faith is too weak to go through with it. He thinks his god is too weak to do something that would convince us, so he won't even bother trying anything we ask.
Of course, he's also projecting his own inconsistency onto us. He changes his theories all the time, so he judges us by how he judges himself. The result is that he assumes we're going to play dirty pool with ad hoc hypotheses because he knows he'd do the same thing.
Of course, anyone who's bothered to follow any of us know that we've kept our standards of evidence the same.
Oh, and Gabriel: Your "evidence" is extremely poor quality for reasons we've outlined numerous times. Try looking at the bigger picture: Lots of insane people, cultists, psychics, and witch doctors also claim to have the subjects of their beliefs talk to them. And they all contradict each other, themselves, as well as the scientific evidence.
Try putting yourself in our position.
Would you trust some random internet person who claims to be receiving information from a voice in his head without testing their reliability with physical evidence?
Let's boil this down to a simple question, Gabe: Can your god do anything at all?
I'm not asking if he's omnipotent, I'm asking if he has even one power we can observe, even if it's a small, subtle one.
I guess not, I mean, he only created the Universe, right?
That's nothing for you guys, right.
In that case, is he capable of creating three 20oz. cans of Longview Dr. Pepper at precise times?
Of course, let me guess, you not only want the Lord Almigthy to do what You Want (God have to obey you), if he doesn't, he does not exist?
Makes sense, Science I guess.
Get real dude.
There is one scenario that doesn't account for, BD. If I unilaterally gave Gabe what he needed to pass my challenge, which is simple for me to do, he would have no choice in the matter. If I did so, the only sensible course of action for him would be to reveal my deception before the deadline passes.
In addition, I would only do that if I believed Gabe's claims, but wanted to discredit them. Gabe, I haven't sent you what you need, so think on that.
I just want to check: based on what I've posted, can anyone guess what the challenge might be? I'd like Gabe to take first crack, because it should be simple for Jesus to explain the rules to him. I've got the rules in a text document that's open right now; can Jesus read them off my screen?
Gabe, what we want is for a God that is supposed to be invested in saving us to prove his existence, in service of saving us, using methods that profit us little, but gain us our soul.
(By the way, sorry about commenting up to three times in a row, but imagine if you were in my position, anyone besides Gabe: I'm playing a game of Mao for my soul. It's epic, so I'm totally pumped.)
What if I promise I won't make any requests after he grants that set of three repeated miracles?
That would be convincing evidence of his existence, and that's what you're allegedly trying to prove.
It's not like I'm asking for a million dollars, just a small request for a bit of evidence worth about maybe $6 at an overpriced convenience store.
If that's too much, you can ask him conjure a specific type of worthless item, so long as we agree on what item that is before the request.
Either way, it'd be something Satan can't offer, since I have no reason to believe Satan offers anything at all.
Another idea, since Gabe already mentioned that Jesus can speak to him.
Can Jesus provide you with secret, useless trivia that isn't widely available on the internet?
No, I'm not asking for anything important like state secrets, just obscure trivia.
No Bronze Dog, you are perfectly right, God does not exist because he does not do what you tell Him to do.
I concede Bronze Dog, you are right, he can not exist if he does not obey you, You Win, your Atheist/Evolutionist Scinece is to much for me.
MWchase, Jesus already told me everything, I know and we do not care. Jesus said you are pathetic and weak, just as Bronze Dogs "demands" making no sense and just is pathetic, So no, you get nothing.
I'm not saying I'm right and that there are no gods, I'm trying to get you to take any steps whatsoever to prove yourself right.
So far, all you're effectively telling me is that god does nothing at all, except that through you, he's using a set of methods and arguments that many, many other people have tried to use to convince me of false gods.
How can I be sure your god isn't false like all those other gods?
Wait, there's a typo in the rules. It would have been telling if you'd mentioned that before I noticed just now. The challenge is temporarily suspended.
I'll try to have it ready in a few minutes.
My point simplified:
Your first opponent isn't me, it's all the other gods I've deemed false for a large variety of reasons. You have to prove your god is better than they are, even if it's in some tiny, tiny way.
/sw/bin/openssl dgst -sha1 forgabe.zip
SHA1(forgabe.zip)= 65af8a297f106bac8620dc3bd8b2545b62600606
Gabriel, it appears that your attempt to comply with Rule 3a boils down to "Psh, God and Jesus don't actually care about your salvation."
I shall keep that in mind.
That's usually what happens when the worshipers of false gods can't produce displays of power or insight.
The power and insight of a false god always seems limited to the ability and knowledge of the witchdoctors who claim to speak for the idol.
Heaven forbid that we ask for a supposedly almighty deity to do something humans and nature aren't known for doing.
Also, reading over it, I'm confused by the phrasing "you get nothing". From context, that seemed to be directed to me. So, Gabe, what was I asking for, that Jesus won't give me?
Gabe, you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between:
"If you do X, it would prove your claim."
and
"If you fail to do X, it would disprove your claim."
While these look similar, they are not the same thing, and it is quite possible for only one of them to be the case.
To give a classic example: Suppose that I were to claim that there are black swans. Looking into my back yard to see if there are any black swans there could prove that they exist, but it could not prove that they do not exist, (as there could be some black swans next door).
You are being asked for something that would prove your case, not something which the lack of disproves your case.
When it comes to hypothetical, hard to detect beings, it is actually very hard to come up with a disproof based on the lack of an observation. In general, you disprove such beings by either showing a logical inconsistency in the definition of the being, (e.g. a truly omniscient being with free will[1]), or by finding some observation which would be impossible give then being's existence, (e.g. an omnipotent being that before all else wants to utterly destroy humanity[2]).
That said, does your vision of god include the common traits of omnipotence, (all powerful), and omnibenevolence, (all good)?
[1]This is a contradiction because a universe where omniscience is possible is also a universe with total predestination, (and thus free will is an illusion).
[2]Given that there are humans to make the observation....
(By the way, for any outside observers wondering about my reference to "Rule 3a": for my challenge, I've laid out a number of RRRUUUUUUUUUURRRUs*, over half of which, for the record, do not limit Gabe in any fashion. I know them because I have them on my laptop, readily accessible. Gabe should know them by divine revelation.)
*I make no apologies for this reference.
Post a Comment