The bible

[Into the Night]

Where do you make this stuff up from?

I have made nothing up. You are trying to redefine words. You are not an atheist nor an agnostic. You believe in the Church of No God.

Do you think that just because you imagined something it makes it real?

True Scotsman fallacy.

Now you are just making up things about atheism.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. You cannot get away with projecting YOUR problems on me.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. NOT EVEN. Read Huxley.

Huxley did not define 'atheist' nor 'agnostic'. False authority fallacy.

You have a vivid imagination.

Discard of philosophy.

To explain:
The circular argument, or Argument of Faith, is an argument the uses it's own conclusion as a predicate. It is NOT a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument True or False produces the fallacy.
To define 'religion', one must look at the common characteristics of religion in it's simplest terms. If you examine religions, both organized and unorganized, they all share a common trait. They are all based on some initial circular argument and have arguments extending from that.

In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Christ exists and that He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God. ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial argument. Every religion also has supporting evidence. In the case of Christianity, it is the Bible itself, and the teachings within it. It is also the presence of Earth, life on Earth, and even just the existence of believers itself. ALL of these are supporting evidence. Evidence is not a proof. Do not mistake it for such. It is not possible to prove that God exists, but evidence DOES exist for it, such as what I just listed.

In the Church of No God, which is your religion, the initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist. ALL of your arguments stem from that initial circular argument (or Argument of Faith). It is not possible to prove that no god or gods exist.

ANY attempt to try to prove ANY circular argument is the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. This is what you are trying to do, which I called you on.

Another word for your posts is "trash".

Bulverism fallacy.

I wholly agree with you on this. There is no way to prove ANYTHING outside of mathematics.

Wrong. Proofs are available in ANY closed functional system. They are NOT available in any open functional system, such as religion. Two commonly use closed functional systems are mathematics and logic.

You claim to have studied logic. It is obvious that you never learned it. You are making too many logic errors (which are called fallacies). You claim to have studied philosophy. It is obvious you never learned it. You cannot present an argument and the reasoning for it. You attempt to conduct a proof using cut and paste. You use nonabsolute words as if they were absolute. You have already denied several branches of philosophy.

You claim to understand where words come from. It is obvious you have no clue. Your lack of understanding on this and upon history is appalling. You have several times already referenced made up shit as 'history'.

Your continued use of the argument of the Stone fallacy, false and void authority fallacies, insult fallacies, instances of compositional errors and even bigotry, and lately the bulverism fallacy only show that you are desperate to try to prove something you aren't. You are a pretender.

You claim that there is no god or gods, then try to condemn anyone that disagrees with you. You cannot prove this. It is not possible. It is YOU saying 'fuck off' now. You have wandered into kettle logic, and you are approaching closer and closer to locking yourself into paradoxes.

This is not imagination. Logic is not imagination. Philosophy is not imagination.

Certainly empiricism and science agree that there is no such thing as "proof" of a thing's existence.

Science is not logic. Observation is not logic. Neither disagree with logic, however. I am beginning to see that you do not know what science is either, and probably never studied it.
Again, you show you have never studied logic. The Proof of Identity is axiomatic in logic. If an object exists, it exists. ?A->A.

And the presence of "evidence" would be nice for a change from your side. But that's hard to come by.

The evidence has already been presented to you by me and by PostmodernProphet. You cannot make it go away by denying it. Asking for it AGAIN mindlessly like this is a fallacy in it's own right...the repetition fallacy, or chanting. This is why you are seeing me point this out with RQAA (Repetitive Question Already Answered). Stop mindlessly asking the same question over and over. It's been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

No you don't. You GUESS you do.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for me. You only get to speak for yourself.

You have FAITH that you do. But you don't really.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for me.

Look, I'm not begrudging you your faith whatever it is.

Yes you are.

If you are a Christian I'm more than happy to discuss Christianity.

You do not understand Christianity and discard scripture and the existence of any god or gods. You have nothing to discuss.

If you can't do that then I assume you are some other religion. Whatever floats your boat.

Attempted proof by void fallacy.

You do, however, need the other members of the Trinity.

I already do acknowledge the third member of the Trinity.

While I am more than familiar with the Johanine Comma (maybe added in sometime in the Middle ages) which establishes the Trinity and I am more than well acquainted with the Nicene Creed and its establishment of the homooisiousness of Christ with God, it still is kinda more than one. Just people SAYING 3=1 is one thing, 3 actually equalling one is quite another.

Fiction. Like God and Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is also from before the world and will exist after this world is gone.

Glad you got your "Statement of Faith" out of the way.

Too bad you haven't.

It isn't YOUR time I was complaining about being wasted.

Yes it is. Do not deny your own posts. ANYONE can go back and read them. Denial of self argument fallacy.

No, it's 100% your posts. You fill the air with meaningless shit.

Bulverism fallacy.

Nope. No matter how many times you personally try to redefine all the words in the language you are still not correct.

I have redefined no word. YOU attempt to do so though. Inversion fallacy.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Never said you did. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I have proven myself more than capable in this discussion.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void.

Unlike you I don't have to LIE about my bona fides as I claim none.

Denial of self argument. You are now locked in paradox. You are being irrational.

But I DO KNOW that I know more about Christianity and theology than YOU do.

Attempted proof by void. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

I also know you are inherently dishonest.
That's how I know you for what you are. I know the type of "tree" you are by your fruits. Your fruits are rotten, my friend. I suggest you tend to your orchard.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I have proven myself more than capable in this discussion.

dude, you have pablum on your chin.....

 

[Into the Night]

It's not just the fundamentalists in Christianity who have a concept of "hell" as eternal torment.

Never said there was.

I wish you'd stop making shit up.

So, according to you, I am not allowed to write music, write a book, build a house or a computer, design a garden, or any other creative task. Who are YOU to tell me this???

Or maybe if you just read with some ability to understand it would help.

I understand you perfectly well. You are now making a void argument fallacy.

So when your fellow Christians tell people to "fuck off" you make excuses for them and make up more things that aren't related to reality?

True Scotsman fallacy. Inversion fallacy. I am not making excuses for anybody.

You will have to take that up with your fellow Christian who said it.

Why? He is responsible for his posts, just as you are, though you deny your own posts.

 

[Cypress]

irrelevant....you didn't say ut was pseuedegrapha......you said it had NEVER BEEN ATTRIBUTED.......that is an obvious lie......even the point you just quoted makes it a lie.....



in addition, this is still nothing more than atheist propaganda......



the only ones who don't believe he wrote it are the atheists......

Nope.

I said it was unattributed when written. Have you actually read the Gospels? The writers don't actually identify themselves, and the titles of John , Mark, Mathew, Luke were added later in the Second century.

What kind of bible school did you go to that doesn't teach this stuff?

I guarantee you that PhD-level religious scholars from Yale, Harvard, Cambridge, etc are aware of these debates concerning the authorship of the gospels

Although the authorship of the Johannine works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle,[12] only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[13] and most conclude that he wrote none of them.[12][14][15] - Wikipedia, John the Evangelist

Pseudepigrapha by definition are false attribution. Several of Paul's letters are pseudepigrapha falsely attributed to Paul by anonymous authors
.

 

[Cypress]

Although the authorship of the Johannine works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle,[12] only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[13] and most conclude that he wrote none of them.[12][14][15] - Wikipedia, John the Evangelist

Gospel of John is linguistically and philosophically complex, and you have to wonder how a fisherman from the backwater province of Galilee who mostly likely only spoke Aramaic, was able to articulate and compose a sophisticated piece of literature in classic Greek.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

dude, you have pablum on your chin.....

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (5 guesses where that quote comes from. Oh, don't worry, you won't be familiar with this particular book...I keep forgetting what you are.)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope.

I said it was unattributed when written.
.

exactly.....that is the lie I am referring to.....

What kind of bible school did you go to that doesn't teach this stuff?

???..dude, we studied it......that's why I know you're lying......they were attributed to their authors from the day the first copies were shared from church to church.....

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So, according to you, I am not allowed to write music, write a book, build a house or a computer, design a garden, or any other creative task. Who are YOU to tell me this???

Oh so now you think you are "creative" as well? LOL. I bet.

Pull my other leg, loser.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (5 guesses where that quote comes from. Oh, don't worry, you won't be familiar with this particular book...I keep forgetting what you are.)

apparently you've overlooked the first verse of that chapter.......

 

[Cypress]

exactly.....that is the lie I am referring to.....



???..dude, we studied it......that's why I know you're lying......they were attributed to their authors from the day the first copies were shared from church to church.....

So the bible school you went to didn't actually teach you the history of Christianity, they taught you conservative Protestant dogma.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So the bible school you went to didn't actually teach you the history of Christianity, they taught you conservative Protestant dogma.

wrong....the "bible school" you didn't go to failed to teach you the risks of believing the atheist crap that you find on the internet......

 

[Cypress]

wrong....the "bible school" you didn't go to failed to teach you the risks of believing the atheist crap that you find on the internet......

So the bible school you went to actually threatened you
with eternal damnation unless you accepted conservative Protestant dogma?

Wow.

Here are the scholars I have learned from, and they apply the genuine standards of scholarship and literary criticism to attain better understanding and appreciation of the bible:

Luke T. Johnson, PhD (he is a Catholic Benedictine monk)
Bart Ehrman PhD (he is a self identified agnostic)
Phillip Carey, PhD (Protestant theologian)
Shai Cherry, PhD (Jewish Old Testament scholar)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So the bible school you went to actually threatened you
with eternal damnation unless you accepted conservative Protestant dogma?

as usual you descend to idiotic comments upon losing a debate.....

Here are the scholars I have learned from, and they apply the genuine standards of scholarship and literary criticism to attain better understanding and appreciation of the bible:

Luke T. Johnson, PhD (he is a Catholic Benedictine monk)
Bart Ehrman PhD (he is a self identified agnostic)
Phillip Carey, PhD (Protestant theologian)
Shai Cherry, PhD (Jewish Old Testament scholar)

to which of them do you attribute the lies about gospel attribution?.....

 

[Cypress]

as usual you descend to idiotic comments upon losing a debate.....



to which of them do you attribute the lies about gospel attribution?.....

All the non Jewish ones.

For your next degree, you might consider going to a real seminary or divinity school.

Far from turning me into a rabid atheist, the genuine scholars of religion I learn from have given me a deeper and more nuanced appreciation of the role of Judeo-Christianity in western historical, philosophical, and moral development.

You do not have to literally accept that an Aramaic speaking pleasant fisherman wrote the Gospel of John in sophisticated Hellenistic Greek to have an appreciation for the pivotal role, both good and bad, religion played in Western civilization. And you don't need to convince yourself of the historical accuracy of the Jewish prophets to appreciate the moral wisdom in the prophetic writings.

 

[ExpressLane]

Fuck you.

I'd much rather stay here and argue with people who use what is closer to fairytales than history books...for their history.

If you do not like it...tough.

In any case, most religious discussions have taken place with people being tortured and killed...so making a big deal of a bit of vulgarity is just more bullshit from you.

More profanity in the religious section. Its time for you to turn to God Frank you are very old you are going to die soon it's time to turn to God before it is too late for you.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Gospel of John is linguistically and philosophically complex, and you have to wonder how a fisherman from the backwater province of Galilee who mostly likely only spoke Aramaic, was able to articulate and compose a sophisticated piece of literature in classic Greek.

The Jesus Project just about destroyed the Gospel of John. There is almost nothing in that Gospel that the Project supposes to actually be the words of Jesus.

 

[ExpressLane]

The Jesus Project just about destroyed the Gospel of John. There is almost nothing in that Gospel that the Project supposes to actually be the words of Jesus.

 

[Ross Dolan]

More profanity in the religious section. Its time for you to turn to God Frank you are very old you are going to die soon it's time to turn to God before it is too late for you.

Fuck you, EL. And that is not profanity...except to the ignorant. It is a vulgarity...which is to say, it is in the language of the people. Nothing wrong with that.