Atheist debate techniques

by Rex B13 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Copernicus

  Copernincompoop

  My Rex, what a breathtaking display of wit!

  About your post:
  
  

  I wrote it, on the fly, after seeing Janboy Hoaglump's usual anti-God diatribe. . . My post was part serious and part tongue-in-cheek parody of Jan's latest diatribe

  Delalus noted:

  If your post was meant to be a parody, meant to be "tongue-in-cheek," it should have been at least somewhat funny. Instead, it seemed bitter and petty. You're not a very good humorist, nor a good satirist.

  Hmmmm. . . so much for your latest attempt to ingratiate yourself with someone here, huh? While I agree with his assessment, I’d distill it down further by just simply calling you a liar.

  Don't let the slander of the riff-raff give you any false assumptions.

  Riff-raff? Is that what happens to anyone who expresses a negative opinion of your character based on their past dealings with you? They are relegated to your personal slagheap of slanderers and riff-raff?

  I may not always feel comfortable with Alan’s head-on approach, or some of the things he says, but after reading his numerous essays on Osarif’s board I’d hardly qualify him as riff-raff. He’s too demonstrably intelligent. Do you have a similar body of work that I might investigate?

  When I post something that someone else has written it will have their name on it.

  You’ll have to excuse me here. The way you reel off bible quotes, while arrogating an unarguable, definitive understanding of them, led me to believe you’d do the same with any written material that suited your agenda.

  Alan asked:

  But let's try once more: How do you justify the Bible's teaching that the earth is flat and that the sun and stars orbit it?

  Yes, from my namesake, you might imagine I’d be interested in your answer to this one.

  Additionally, I’ll again posit a particular problem that I’ve always had with NT theology (which you ignored previously):

  The failure of the bulk of bible prophecy to find fulfillment in the first century (ie: the end did not come) is the failure of Christianity in toto. Everything else is just apologetics. Jesus said the good news would be preached, and then the end would come. Paul said it had been preached, but the end didn’t come. Hence, it is not coming. The fact that Paul, with his supposed supernatural knowledge did not realize the oxymoronic nature of his statement claiming to have filled the inhabited earth with the good news (when he hadn’t), is cause for some concern. Or so I think.

  Waiting. . .
• 

  patio34

  Alan,

  Will you please provide the reference for the Bible teaching that the sun and stars revolve around the earth. Is it where Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still?

  Thanks.

  Pat
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Pat,

  : Is it where Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still?

  Sure, but that's just one thing. I did a little bit of research and found the following scriptures:

  Job 38:6
  Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who laid its cornerstone.

  Psalm 102:25
  Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands.

  Proverbs 8:27-30
  27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth , 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker,

  Obviously things like socket pedestals, cornerstones and foundations are things of stability, i.e., are things that do not move. If the earth is founded upon things that do not move, then it does not move. Thus, the sun and stars must move around the fixed earth.

  Of course, these scriptures are only a smattering of what Christians have traditionally used to support the notions of geocentrism and flat-earthism. For a much more complete look at the scriptural basis for geocentrism, look here: http://www.hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml . I think you'll find the material enlightening.

  The interesting thing about the above notions is that while biblical apologists claim that the Bible is only being poetic when it talks about the earth's foundations and such, at other convenient times they claim that the Bible is being literal, even though the context strongly indicates a poetic nature of the passage.

  For example, Isaiah 40:22 speaks of "the circle of the earth". Doesn't that indicate a round earth? Well, sort of. The problem is the nature of the English word "round". It can describe a circle or a sphere. Clearly the earth is not a circle -- it is a sphere. But the Hebrew word translated "circle" is used in the Bible only in contexts that show that a literal circle -- like a pizza pie -- is what is being talked about. Thus, apologists like the Watchtower Society and certain young-earth creationist types claim that Isaiah 40:22 describes a spherical earth, whereas the actual Hebrew describes a circular earth -- perfectly in accord with geocentrism. In other words, these people are so dishonest that they will claim one thing when it's convenient, and precisely the opposite when it's convenient for their argument of the moment.

  Some words from the above-mentioned website are worth posting here, and they mirror my own views:

  o "Was the fourth day of creation twenty-four hours long?"
  "Yes, I believe that the days of creation were literal twenty-four-hour time periods." (37, 38)

  o "Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?"
  "No -- this false idea is not taught in Scripture!" [emphasis original] "Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." (16, 17)

  The message here is, I think, obvious. The Bible is the literal truth only when it's convenient and doesn't conflict with overwhelming evidence. In my view, this invalidates the core of the anti-evolutionary movement in its entirety. If the Bible is open to interpretation from time to time, then it is open to interpretation at any time. If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it is possibly poetic at any time -- even on the first page, even on the last page, even on every page.

  This simple fact -- that the Bible is poetic in various places -- entirely escapes the purview of JWs and YECs in that they pick and choose what they want to view as poetic without giving real thought to reality. Such fluidity renders the Bible valueless as a source of information about the physical world. Just as Catholic and Protestant theologians were forced by reality to give up on geocentrism after Galileo, so are modern Christians forced to give up on many traditional views -- if they're honest.

  Write me if you want some private views that I'm reserving for future discussions.

  AlanF
• 

  Marilyn

  3) Pretend that you are above everyone else in intelligence and knowledge.

  Dear Rex, This one is so untrue. I have always acknowledged my ignorance. :-0 I became an athiest at the same time as i realised the WTS was wrong. I am not university qualified but a mother and housewife. I just stopped believing in God - nothing clever or smart about it - it's just how I felt to the roots of my being. I have noted that some of the intellectual heavy weights here like AF, JH, Cygnus took a little longer to get to the point that I reached virtually over night.

  Some of your reasoning shows great ignorance of what it's like to reach the point of not believing.

  Marilyn
• 

  Copernicus

  . . . it's just how I felt to the roots of my being.

  Marilyn – I got a real chuckle out your post. I’ve often noticed myself how a brain can be a long winding roadblock compared to feelings. To much thinking, not enough intuition.

  Rex’s reasoning shows the desperate attempts of an intelligent, rational man who is forcing himself to justify and materialize the irrational. He’ll get over it. . . eventually. When he loses the need. Maybe he has a wife who can help him
• 

  joelbear

  I would say that my lack of belief in the biblical god also comes more from feelings than logic.

  The biblical concept of god along with its concepts of god's love, justice, etc, just don't feel like they are true.

  hugs

  Joel
• 

  Undecided

  Hi WW,

  I will try and answer your view of Atheist arguments:

  1. Intentionally twist any scripture to have less or more than it's intended meaning.(It has no meaning other than what some human has tried to impose on you.}

  2) Ignore dispensational exgesis and time tested methods of interpretation in favor of JW style single scripture exgesis.
  (I just ignore it, therefore I will never kill nations of people who don't agree with my interpretation of it.}

  3) Pretend that you are above everyone else in intelligence and knowledge.(I know nothing for sure, not like the intelligent theologies of the saved.}

  4) Pretend that your every statement is factual and there is no room for disagreement.(Sort of like,"You are going to hell if you don't accept Christ as savior."

  5) Intimidate your opponent by slander and insult.(Like you are a servant of the devil if you arn't a saved christian.)

  6) Use various 'logical' terms to make yourself sound well...logical!
  (Like there must be a God, where did all this physical stuff come from? Well, sort of like where did God come from.)

  7} Well, you get the picture, it's all just thoughts in the brain and no one has all the answers or any of the answers that we can't see and feel. It's all just conjecture.

  Just a few of my observations,

  Ken P.
• 

  Copernicus

  . . . it's all just thoughts in the brain and no one has all the answers or any of the answers that we can't see and feel.

  It seems you’ve grossly underestimated Rex’s own opinion of himself here. ROTFL
• 

  patio34

  Hi Alan,

  Thanks for the info and the site. It's a neat site I've bookmarked.

  Pat