Dude please tell me you're making that into a flyer.

Maybe if you send it to one of those christian help sites.

43 reads and nobody's giving it a shot.

(hambydammit hums the jeopardy tune to himself)

(Picture me walking around my room doing the chicken dance and clucking maniacally)

Yeah, and I'm going to keep this damn thing at the top of the active threads anyway.

Oh... 49 reads and counting.

Ok, this is true, but I think judging by how fast a thread discussing, say, the nature of reality vs. the supernatural gets jumped on, we can safely assume that some Christians have read this.

Can't admins look at all the pages someone's been to if they're online?

(Not that I'd want to publicly point out if some of the more outspoken apologists had viewed this and didn't want to chime in... )

Anyway, I can keep this thing at the top of active posts for a long time.

Oh.. 59 reads.

I don't think a lot of people who post here are what you would call theist. You probably won't get a response till you start asking them directly.

Hambydammit,
I did a similar thing a few weeks ago. 170 views and not one response from a defending xian:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/question_for_our_christian_visitors

92 reads and counting. It's definitely slowed down. I think most of the outspoken apologists have read it and moved on to more fertile soil.

Adamgrant had a good go at the verse that says "let your yes be yes and your no no" on another thread. It is an argument most theists don't voice, whether they think about it or not. (The smarter ones don't voice it because they know it's a trap.)

Anyway, the argument is that the "yes, yes, no, no" verse is taken out of context and that Jesus has been speaking about oaths.

It is entirely true that Jesus has mentioned oaths before giving the instructions to let your yes be yes and your no, no. The kicker is that Jesus instructed Christians not to swear any oaths. Period. Since a legal document is a written oath, that means Christians cannot buy anything on credit, sign a lease, own a house, or get a passport to travel abroad.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and one could quite reasonably conclude that he was pointing out the evil of convoluting things, as that path leads to deception. So, the moral of the story is to speak clearly and simply, and they still can't answer my questions because of where it would lead.

(Also, it's fun to make the argument that Jesus told Christians to never swear oaths, and sucker the apologist into admitting that it's metaphorical. I wish I had done that beforehand so I could have gotten a Christian to tell me that Jesus was speaking of how Christians should answer directly without being convoluted. Next time, I'll let them bait their own hook before they bite it.)

Only count me for four or so of those reads. One or two anon I think.

These same examples have been raised multiple times on another message board that I frequent. It shuts the thread down for a few days but they eventually come back to it.

131

Victory by silence is hollow, because the silence means that in spite of the obvious conclusion that Christianity is shit, nobody who's read this is going to leave it. They're just going to ignore it and go on with the delusion.

I worry sometimes that the arguments here are a game for the Christians. Maybe it's about winning and losing -- not about whether or not there's a possibility of changing anyone's mind.

Sorry.

I did read it another couple of times...

And almost a week now.....

:: As soon as the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny weigh in!

That's true. Imagine if there were all kinds of repressive laws out there based on belief in the tooth fairy? Or if restaurants were only allowed to serve spaghetti on Fridays out of deference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

(261 reads, Sorry I'm not a xtain) In your quoted area of the laws in the bible I just want to say that these were laws at one time in the past for a reason. People were having sex with animals back then and men were marrying a woman and her mother, etc. It might go on today but I just wanted to note that these wouldn't have been made illegal if it wasn't going on. Right?

Another joke comes to mind... The English say it's the bloody peasants. The bloody peasants say it's the Irish. The Irish say it's the Scots. Well, fuck all of them! I say it's the sheep who are the sluts.

See, back in the bible days, people were a lot closer to nature than they are now. It got mighty cold out on the desert at night, and those tents just weren't as insulated as our lovely western style condominiums. If you happened to be out tending the sheep and got cold, how are you going to get warm? You're going to make friends with your favorite sheep. And (making lots of assumptions here... namely that marthasplatterhead is female, and likes men... sorry if I assume wrong) if you've ever slept with a man for more than two or three nights, you know we wake up with, um... certain... um... risen situations pretty damn often. Well, it's cold, you're cuddling, you're half asleep... that wool is so soft against your skin...

Ok... I'm creeping myself out. Watch. I'm finally going to get some theist on here to argue, but it's going to be because I made a joke about the ancient Hebrews screwing sheep.

More to your point, marthasplatterhead, yes, people were screwing animals, and their mother-in-laws, and their mother-in-laws' sisters, and their cousins, and those cute little boys with the firm thighs that hung out down near Lester's farm. Still do all of that in parts of Mississippi. Trust me. I've been there... I left as fast as I could.

Even more to the point, the primary reason for the draconian laws regarding sex in most parts of the ancient world (not just the middle east) was that the entire system was based on a man having absolute control over a woman. It had little or nothing to do with the "inherent goodness" of anything, including monogamy. (Notice that the more powerful men in the world have always been mainly polygamous, one way or another.) If you had two or more men who'd been "knowing" a woman, you ended up with two men fighting, and this was generally discouraged as bad for keeping the army together. It also messed up the distribution of wealth from father to son, and generally stunk of male weakness. After all, if you can't keep your woman barefoot and pregnant, what good are you as a man?

Ok. I'm going to finally get my argument, but it's going to be over sex, not my original, damn near infallible proof that God is a misogynistic, egomaniacal, abusive rat-bastard -- or that he doesn't exist.

Yeah, despite my best efforts, I find it difficult to argue with people who agree with me. That whole thing about me being correct and other people admitting it...

Seriously, I've tried very hard before to explain to people that the age of a moral standard has little or no bearing on its relevance as an ethical indicator. In fact, it can be said that with many moral standards, the older they are, the less likely they are to be relevant, since we've made significant strides in ethics in just the last century. Slavery, racism, sexism... these are things that have been condoned by many civilized cultures until very recently. If we believe that these things are wrong, why would we turn around and assume that old laws regarding sexual behavior would be sacrosanct because of their age?

Ok, for the record, I'm basically against having sex with sheep, but that's more a matter of asthetics...

Don't be surprised if it gets deleted - MySpace is owned by FAUX News, and I read they recently have strict rules on what they allow there.

That's because Atheism is to Jesus as Kryptonite is to Superman.

Seriously.

Somebody give them a stab?!

337 views, and nobody wants to touch this. Could it be that your religion is BULLSHIT?! Defend it!

Finally, some response. And it took an atheist to do it. Good job darth_josh at being a fine devil's advocate.

For me, there are no sides. All of humanity must one day face the fact of evolution or become extinct by their own ignorance. Expecting the sky-daddy to come and fix everything isn't a very proactive approach to solving the existing problems or potential future problems with our present world. We've got to build a bridge using science and get over the river of superstition. (Fucking metaphors. I hope y'all get the point.)

Anyway, back to pretend theism.

How would you see the reference to Matthew 5:34? I see it as a commandment that my answers are not god's answers. My reference to god's plan is simply that. I am but a child in the kingdom of god. The lord need not explain his actions to me in order to save me and allow his grace in heaven to reveal all to us at his chosen time. As a christian, I am given the scripture to learn how to interact with god and his embodied spirit in the form of jesus christ.

So many atheists see the good book as a rulebook instead of a guidebook. This is the tail end of the sermon on the mount. In order to place the answers of YES/NO in context then the choices offered by jesus in the form of the beattitudes must be considered. The fulfillment of the law was the teaching of these ways to all people.

jesus did the best that he could do with the disciples that he chose, in my opinion. Had jesus been sent primarily for the jews then his teachings would have been laid down the same way as the prophets of the old testaments were. jesus came to explain the methods by which to live by the law by preempting the emotions that caused man to commit sins. For instance, instead of 'don't kill your brother' jesus says, 'don't even get angry with your brother.' Instead of 'don't commit adultery', jesus says, 'don't even look at another woman in lust.' This is a very proactive approach to fulfilling the old testament laws.

god is unknowable to us mortals. However, when we die that piece of our being that holds our true self, the consciousness, passes from this world. I know that it may be hard for you to deal with the fact that science cannot answer the questions concerning the soul.

That is my best defense. The literal reading of the bible will make you fear god unless you open your mind to the awe of his power and then learn respect. I concede that some places in the bible make god appear to be cruel. However, sometimes it is important to punish children in order for them to grow. And obviously, we have grown in our understanding of why things are so. We do not have the same problems that the Israelites faced. Obviously, the world is under the plan of god to lift us up from ignorance into the knowledge of the unknowable.

Yes. Not for the reason that you might think though. To offer an alternative theory for you.... perhaps the Israelites were 'chosen' to be the example for the rest of the world rather than to be set above it. Certainly such a notion has crossed your mind. 'Chosen' people does not necessarily mean 'favored' people.

Yes. Actually I did see that question coming. The phrase 'growing in the spirit' would imply a sort of societal evolution wouldn't you say?

Those before and after jesus are judged by the same laws. However, I think that you would concede the point that it is much easier for us to follow those laws now by modern moral standards. And that those who would abandon, nay even rebuke, the laws of either the old or new testaments should face stiffer penalties in the hereafter because ignorance of god's laws is near impossible since the spread of the 'good news' to all of mankind.

I would cite Paul's metaphorical use of the word 'fruit' in his description of the fruits of the spirit in:
Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

When we speak of fruit, it implies that the fruit must grow on the tree. Certainly, no one can simply make fruit appear on the tree. It must grow and not only in size but until the fruit is ripe within.

I'll answer this twofold.
Exodus
20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

This is a commandment, not a suggestion. Disobeying this is in direct contention with the almighty.

Leviticus
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

I think he's serious. One question.... who judges the curse? Oh wait. The answer is in:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Now we understand that this is for the worst of the worst children. Imagine a child so completely obnoxious that his parents want him to die. Surely, you don't imagine that every child who backtalks his parents would be taken to the gates of the city and stoned. Israeli parents love their children as much as anyone else loves theirs. This is in fact a control measure. As a child, my grandmother often told me that spoiled children were sold to the gypsies. I learned proper manners in this way. In fact, the stories of gypsies and boogeymen seem quite less realistic than a god who would command the death of a 'bad seed'.

I hope that I explained this earlier.

Yes. How many other examples are there of unruly children in the bible?

Again. 'Chosen' isn't the same as 'favored'.

Would there be a reason not to place a control over the Israelite project in the form of ethnic separation? god wanted them to be kept separate in order for them to develop into the great nation of their time to give an example for the rest of the world to follow. They also later had to pay the price for contaminating themselves.

I think you're doing a wonderful job, Hambydamnit. These same arguments will come up countless times when pointing out the ridiculous idea surrounding the god yahweh. His brutality excused by bad parenting. His wrath explained by tutoring.
Truly the Randolph Churchill quote mentioned by Dawkins in The god delusion holds much truth for us.
"god, isn't god a shit." lol.

Here's an idea to try some time.
Find a church of christ. Ask to talk to the pastor. Refrain from any form of profanity while dicussing this with him. He'll give VERY similar answers to what I did. The absolute frustration of it all is that you and I both know that the biblical god does not exist and if he did then he really is a fucktard.

Y'know the worst part?
We've maintained too civil of a discussion anyways. lol. In past experiences, I would have seen this degenerate into an insult throwing, damnation speech by this post or one side simply repeating over and over and over. New information via tangential conversation will keep the flow of the convo going.

Sometimes you might have to let the initial point fall by the wayside until they dump the right answer on their own. To use another metaphor: Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

You're right about the problems concerning going to the bible for refutation. However, if they start the scripture quotin' then taking it back to them will cause them to use the god's plan argument. I don't know how many times it has to happen before that particular MO theory becomes Law.

You're initial point is still the strongest use of the bible to keep them honest that I've seen in years.

One thing that I can't mention enough is that when you're having an argument with a theist, christian or other, it's important to remember that the audience is the one that you're trying to convince that you're right not the theist. Some of them especially the ones that the squad gets here are almost beyond help. The moderates reading in the fringes are the ones who are looking for either affirmation or refutation. They're here and I feel that they wouldn't be here if their faith was truly blind.

Call it optimism, but that 44% that we hear Sam Harris or others speak about must contain a certain percentage of doubters that just haven't seen arguments that make that little theistic motor hum in their brains.

Way too many metaphors. I'm over my limit today already. lol.

Whoops... Hebrews 13:8. Typo there, dude. Sorry.

I want to make sure you're answering the right question. If you look at the beginning of the thread, I amended the question about the bears. I wrote "kill" when I should have written "maul." Are you still content with your answer, or would you like to change it based on my revision of the questions?

Do you mean to say that those actions are not loving, but are good?

Thanks for your clarifications!

God's prophet called down a curse, and god sent a bear, if you want to be nit-picky, and I'm guessing you do, since you somewhat sarcastically called me out on a typo.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that you understood the question and answered accordingly. Thanks.

So you admit that god isn't loving?

(picture me holding my breath waiting for the inevitable pseudo-intellectual hopscotch that's about to ensue, where someone tries to explain to me that loving for god isn't the same as loving for man, and god's laws are different than our laws, yada yada yada. I think I'm too bored to even respond to it.)

The really cool thing about this thread is that it's not here to win an argument, because there's no winning when you argue with a christian. It's here to illustrate the level of intellectual dishonesty necessary to believe in the god of the bible.

Anyway, I think my work here is done. When the inevitable argument arises, I will leave the picking apart to someone else with more energy than me.