Best Argument Against Biblical Fundamentalism

Page 2 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

DonQuoteme
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia

02 Jul 2012, 7:59 am

I have attempted to debate fundamentalists on several occasions. I've never gotten very far because they always fall back on the argument: "Who are we to question God? If you find scripture to be inconsistent, contradictory and immoral, it's because you lack sufficient faith for the Holy Spirit to reveal the true message to you." And they often add, "I will pray for you".

It seems that once they invest in the religious lie, they become brainwashed. When you believe that scripture is the literal word of God, you've pretty much said, "I lack the ability to think critically, rationally and logically".

If their beliefs did nobody any harm, I'd just leave them to their superstitions, but when you think like a fundamentalist you support a lot of evil in the world.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jul 2012, 11:07 am

Fundementalism fails because the bible consists mostly of non-facts and stuff made up by people. It is large a work of myth and fiction.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

02 Jul 2012, 3:34 pm

Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,034
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Jul 2012, 6:07 pm

greenheron wrote:
Later, there is Apocalypse, or Revelations, and read it! It is the jottings of a madman. Can you imagine what the learned Greeks thought when they came across this nonsense?

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. At worst Revelation is an expansion of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the little eschatology we get from the gospels. John is quite consistent for a madman if you think about it, and that isn't really what you expect from someone who is delusional or irrational.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

02 Jul 2012, 7:26 pm

AngelRho wrote:
greenheron wrote:
Later, there is Apocalypse, or Revelations, and read it! It is the jottings of a madman. Can you imagine what the learned Greeks thought when they came across this nonsense?

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. At worst Revelation is an expansion of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the little eschatology we get from the gospels. John is quite consistent for a madman if you think about it, and that isn't really what you expect from someone who is delusional or irrational.


Hitler was pretty consistent for a madman too. So was Edgar Allen Poe. That's the thing about madness - it's often very consistent. Doesn't mean it's not madness.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

02 Jul 2012, 7:57 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
greenheron wrote:
Later, there is Apocalypse, or Revelations, and read it! It is the jottings of a madman. Can you imagine what the learned Greeks thought when they came across this nonsense?

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. At worst Revelation is an expansion of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the little eschatology we get from the gospels. John is quite consistent for a madman if you think about it, and that isn't really what you expect from someone who is delusional or irrational.


Hitler was pretty consistent for a madman too. So was Edgar Allen Poe. That's the thing about madness - it's often very consistent. Doesn't mean it's not madness.


That's true but their is always a method to the maddness.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,034
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Jul 2012, 8:55 pm

Joker wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
greenheron wrote:
Later, there is Apocalypse, or Revelations, and read it! It is the jottings of a madman. Can you imagine what the learned Greeks thought when they came across this nonsense?

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. At worst Revelation is an expansion of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the little eschatology we get from the gospels. John is quite consistent for a madman if you think about it, and that isn't really what you expect from someone who is delusional or irrational.


Hitler was pretty consistent for a madman too. So was Edgar Allen Poe. That's the thing about madness - it's often very consistent. Doesn't mean it's not madness.


That's true but their is always a method to the maddness.

I don't mean self-consistent. I meant consistent with other writings.

Many people I know, for example, ask if I think John Lennon was smoking something when he composed "Revolution #9." I'd say, "probably, but that has nothing to do with it." Musique concrete and the tape medium had been around since the 1940s, well ahead of Lennon/Macca's active years. They were following in the footsteps of academics.

Same deal with John the Divine. He's following in the footsteps of ancient prophets. The symbols he used in writing Revelation were not all unique or even original symbols. The difference between John and the ancient prophets is the symbolism he used pointed to Jesus the Messiah. It is a completion of the work of Daniel and Ezekiel did centuries before with a Christological capstone.

The madman theory is a shaky one given that there is already a Judaic tradition of highly symbolic writing when discussing matters of eschatology. You have the two prophets, which establish an eschatological tradition. Then you have Jesus Himself discussing eschatology in the gospels. And then you have John, who plausibly could have been THE John who was one of the closest disciples to Jesus among the twelve, pastored the church at Ephesus, and wrote the gospel that bears his name--and also bear in mind that the gospel is not a Synoptic gospel like the other three AND places more emphasis on Jesus' theology rather than on witness accounts of what Jesus did (possibly presupposing at least the gospel of Mark and having thus been a later writing to fill in theological gaps).

At any rate, if the tradition exists, at worst it's just a copy/paste of Daniel/Ezekiel. But given what we can gather about John, assuming he is the apostle and the Ephesian leader, Revelation is hardly the work of a madman.



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

06 Jul 2012, 7:04 pm

Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

06 Jul 2012, 7:13 pm

Declension wrote:
Rocky wrote:
I am sure that you will acknowledge that in Iraq, a certain percentage of the perpetrators of I.E.D.'s are motivated by the desire to kill, or impose sharia law on the "infidels." If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we would be fighting those particular Jihadists in Afghanistan. Not all of the combatants are motivated by their religion, but some are.


Fascinating. You mean the jihadis who were hated and repressed by Saddam Hussein? Yes, I can see why you would want to topple the Hussein regime to kill those guys.


As I understand it, they arrived after the fall of Hussein. If they did arrive earlier, it would not be the first case of following the strategy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." At least until the US troops are gone. Then they fight amongst themselves.


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,034
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

06 Jul 2012, 7:37 pm

Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Jul 2012, 8:50 pm

Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article


Um no this is what's known as what the Bible says' about people losing their faith'.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Jul 2012, 8:51 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.


Yes that is what the Bible says.



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

07 Jul 2012, 11:59 am

AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.


Some people evolve, and some do not. Feel free to define the word however you like. What word would you give for someone who was born into a family which indoctrinated him into a belief system, and later learned enough and developed his critical thinking skills enough to see a bigger picture? "Ex-Christian" doesn't work, since that would mean he was a Christian at one point.


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Jul 2012, 12:37 pm

Rocky wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.


Some people evolve, and some do not. Feel free to define the word however you like. What word would you give for someone who was born into a family which indoctrinated him into a belief system, and later learned enough and developed his critical thinking skills enough to see a bigger picture? "Ex-Christian" doesn't work, since that would mean he was a Christian at one point.


Your not understanding our teachings. Once a Ex-Christian like richard dawkins foresakes their faith. God already knew they were never religious or a Christian to begin with. This is a teaching that the churches teaches to Christian. It is a passage in our holy book that talks about that. Their called a false witness.



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

07 Jul 2012, 1:14 pm

Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.


Some people evolve, and some do not. Feel free to define the word however you like. What word would you give for someone who was born into a family which indoctrinated him into a belief system, and later learned enough and developed his critical thinking skills enough to see a bigger picture? "Ex-Christian" doesn't work, since that would mean he was a Christian at one point.


Your not understanding our teachings. Once a Ex-Christian like richard dawkins foresakes their faith. God already knew they were never religious or a Christian to begin with. This is a teaching that the churches teaches to Christian. It is a passage in our holy book that talks about that. Their called a false witness.


What if a Christian becomes an atheist and then switches back and remains a Christian for the rest of his life? What if a lifelong Christian doubts for a moment? Etc.? This all seems very black and white. Reality is usually made up of shades of gray.

Your stance looks, to me, like a system designed to discourage questioning, critical thinking, logic, and testing.


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


Last edited by Rocky on 07 Jul 2012, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Jul 2012, 1:19 pm

Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
From the "Atheist Experience" TV show. Even just the first video is enough.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiw-ogmzeIM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkJT1p59To[/youtube]

Matt Dillahunty was a Christian for more than 20 years. He was studying to enter the Clergy. His studies led him to this conclusion. I think he is the most eloquent spokesman available to fill the shoes of Christopher Hitchens. What do you think?


He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.


This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.


Some people evolve, and some do not. Feel free to define the word however you like. What word would you give for someone who was born into a family which indoctrinated him into a belief system, and later learned enough and developed his critical thinking skills enough to see a bigger picture? "Ex-Christian" doesn't work, since that would mean he was a Christian at one point.


Your not understanding our teachings. Once a Ex-Christian like richard dawkins foresakes their faith. God already knew they were never religious or a Christian to begin with. This is a teaching that the churches teaches to Christian. It is a passage in our holy book that talks about that. Their called a false witness.


What if a Christian becomes an atheist and then switches back and remains a Christian for the rest of his life? What if a lifelong Christian doubts for a moment? Etc.? This all seems very black and white. Reality is usually made up of shades of gray.

This looks to me like a system designed to discourage questioning, critical thinking, logic, and testing.


When you have very strong faith in a religion and it's teachings their is no need to do those thing's. Because with Faith you can do everything Faith doesn't hold you back. We relie on God's understanding of the World and not of are own understanding. We depend on God an only God' it's how we Theists see thing's. Jesus is a shepard when the sheep leave the flow their mislead. But the bible teaches us that we all have time of dought. I do as well but that does not mean I don't have faith. It is human nature to dought even if you strongly believe something. I am sure some atheists dought their belifes just as theists do.