More Biblical Struggling By A Village Atheist

Village Atheists are known for cherry picking, as the following example shows:

Bible says Moses was lying. Ever consider that? < Arkangel_Michael > 2020-02-16 02:57

Moses claimed spirit of God wrote in stone tablets, spoke to him via a burning bush.
2 Corinthians 3:3 says spirit of God doesn't write ink or stone tablets.. only flesh tablets.

WRONG: The Atheist is making an assumption. Nowhere does the verse claim that God doesn't write on stone tablets. The verse is simply a comparison in support of the New Covenant in Christ.

1 John 4:12 says no man has ever heard or seen god at any time.

Misused and misinterpreted verse. The verse also doesn't mention hearing. Moses never beheld God's face. In fact, Moses covered his head when he went into the Holy of Holies, because no one can look at God's face and live.

Did Moses give you some bread?

John 6:32 says the bread that Moses gave you was NOT from heaven.

WRONG. The verse is being used out of context. Verse 32 is in reference verse 31, which refers to manna as a gift from the Father. 

Matthew 16:12 says doctrine is bread... Moses did give you some doctrine

Matthew 16:12 doesn't refer to manna.

Is you understood the Hebrew word "Satan" means "Adversary" or "Accuser" in English..


John 5:45 "there is one that accuses you to father, Moses"

Quoted out of context, especially since the Atheist didn't post the entire verse. It doesn't refer to Satan.

Jude 1:9 "Michael dared not accuse Satan"

By accusing Satan, I would be a Satan.. DUH

This is pure pretzel logic. The verse in Jude refers to judgement, aka REBUKE, not accusation.

I know you're confused because red pajamas
not my problem you preferred to get your info from Bug's Bunny instead of the source/book

Maybe Bugs Bunny is Arkangel Michael's bible teacher. That would explain his silly argument.

Word Salad From American Atheists: What Is Atheism?

From the American Atheists website:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

So, according to American Atheists, what is Atheism?

"To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

It seems like a distinction without a difference. If you were to ask any Atheist if they believe in the supernatural, he or she will express their DISBELIEF.

"Lack of belief" implies ignorance. Are American Atheists claiming they are ignorant? That would lean more towards Agnosticism, which claims God is unknown or can't be known. This can't be the case with American Atheists, who flat out deny the existence of gods.

If a Christian  witnesses about Jesus to an Atheist, and the Atheist doesn't find the testimony compelling, that Atheist has made a concious decision not to believe, period.

 The blog post starts out with this premise:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes."

Later, the writer of the post claims:

"Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."

NOW Atheism is about belief. Hmmmm....

American Atheists is one of the largest Atheism advocacy organizations in the US, yet their site is chock full of pseudo scholarship and intellectual dishonesty. 

"Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced."

Once again, that is disbelief, not a lack of it. That is a concious decision.

"Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting."

Once again, it's not a belief system but its about what you believe? 

It's time somebody at American Atheists read a book or two on Philosophy or Logic.

Village Atheist claims "no morals"

An atheist posted this in a Craigslist forum:

Religion = Autistic delusion < granpa > 2020-02-11 06:35

There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior (and therefore no such thing as sin). There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is. (Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

Wrong.  A society's laws are also reflective of its morals. On top of that, "civilized behavior" is purely subjective. For example some cultures believe it's more civilized to eat with forks and spoons vs eating with your hands. Look at the various degress of murder a person can be found guilty of. Those aren't practical applications but moral ones.

 
Religion is how autistic people (strictly speaking hyper-empirical people) see civilization. They see all authority figures as priests.

Nope, I don't see Donald Trump or my local cops as priests. Nice try.

Fascists paradoxically promote violence and war as actions that create positive transformation in society.

So are Liberal Democratic activists also Fascists? Look at how they harrass innocent bystanders all in the name of social change.

It is well known that Fascists occupy the far right of the political spectrum. But, as bizarre as it seems, Fascist bigots see themselves as liberals. They see themselves as innocent victims fighting against an oppressive establishment of pedophile priests that are trying to take away their freedom.

https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=304176055

This poor guy's post is all over the map. What started as an argument against moral behavior turned into a political rant against conservative Republicans. And none of it makes his point.

Next time, try staying on topic, buddy.

Atheists just refuse to "get it"

Posted in the Craigslist Religion Forum:

Reading the Bible vs Studying the Bible..... < slots-and-guitars > 2020-02-09 11:38

Why aren't people allowed to simply read the Bible like any other book? It seems that is the purpose it was written for.

Who says people aren't allowed to read the Bible as literature? What stops one from doing so?

Well, here are two reasons :
1. Religious leaders want to control people by telling the followers what the Bible "Really" means. They claim to have special "Spiritual Knowledge" and special "Relationship with God (s)".

This guy is descibing a cult. I would never attend a church that doesn't encouarge me to study the Scriptures on my own, as the Bereans did, checking up on the preacher's theology. Only groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses demand that their interpretation is infallible and unquestionable.

2. I you simply read the Bible like any other book, you see that it is full of mythology, superstition, outdated science, fables, legends, lies, poetry, and overall is not well written, informative or entertaining.

This is just the kind of bigoted comment I've come to expect from Village Atheists, and yet they claim to be the open minded ones. Brights don't even read the Bible. They depend on other Atheists on the internet for their understanding of its contents. 

Read the Bible like you would Darwin's Origin of Species, And Bible based religions like Catholicism, Islam, JWs, Judaism would lose all their power and authority.

https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=304140449

In comparing The Bible to Darwin is this guy suggesting that Origin of the Species is filled with lies, outdated science, and fables? That it's not even well written or informative?

The best advice I can give Village Atheists is to try thinking before they make fools of themselves online.

'Nuff said 

A Crash Course in Jehovah's Witness Atheism

This post on the Atheist Alliance International website claims to teach you how to debate religion in just a 900 word essay.

You can read the article here:

 https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/debating-believers-a-masterclass-in-under-900-words/

I'll focus on the main points of this "master class" in philosophy:


"After thousands of years, no one has developed a successful argument for the existence of ANY god, despite many smart people trying hard to do so."

This is purely a prejudiced opinion. Billions of religious believers across the planet prove this opinion is dead wrong.


"The second thing to remember is the believer is the one with a belief—you are simply wondering why they have the belief."

WRONG. Since the Atheist cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural, Atheism is based on the BELIEF that gods don't exist. Hiding behind the "Atheism is the default position" argument doesn't change this. Atheists cannot accept the fact that they live in a faith-based reality.


"The believer has the burden of proof—hold them to it. And avoid saying anything that will transfer the burden to you."

You mean, like telling the Believer he or she is wrong and that gods don't exist? That burden always exists for the Atheist, because Atheism is based on a truth claim. This argument from Atheism is just sophistry.


"Avoiding the burden of proof is not cowardice—it’s efficiency."

Unless its the believer avoiding the burden of proof, which is why Atheists avoid taking on that burden in nearly all their arguments.

Further along, the author wrote this:


"Seeking to agree to disagree

Have none of it. In this type of discussion, one person is right and one is wrong. You will have wasted your time if you don’t pin down who is right and who is wrong. Persevere until it’s blindingly obvious."

In other words, until it's "blindingly obvious" that the Atheist is right. This is not a discussion, this is simply a totalitarian attempt to shove the non-believer's opinions down the Believer's throat and then walk away with some mock victory. The Atheist's premise from the beginning is that the Believer is wrong and there is no proof required from the Atheist to support this.

The Author of the post, Bill Flavell, makes some decent points about arguing, but Tip #8 is kind of funny:


"Learn when not to argue. Some people are so delusional or so lacking in their understanding of logic that a coherent discussion is impossible. When you encounter such people it’s best to find another way to spend your evening—make an excuse and leave."

Mr Flavell's logic hasn't impressed me much so far. His article makes several mistakes that anybody with a basic understanding in Philosophy wouldn't have made.


"It takes calmness, patience, and persistence to knock down believer’s arguments. I think if you use these tips you’ll enjoy your discussions more and you are more likely to find onlookers benefit from them, even if your opponents just retire to religious websites to lick their wounds and see if they can do better next time."

Aye, there's the rub! The real intention is to assume a position of superiority and humiliate an opponent using Mr. Flavell's tips. However, he forgot one very important suggestion:

The Atheist must be sure to limit debates to laymen or new believers. Don't attempt to debate with a pastor, seminary student, or philosophy major. These people are prepared to defend their beliefs in a scholarly fashion, and a poorly equipped Atheist will be the one walking off, licking wounds and sputtering obscenities. The Atheist must pick their fights with only the low hanging fruit.

A great example of this are the debates betweeen John Lennox and Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was clearly in over his head and Lennox proved it.

Flavell made one point I agree with:

"The problem is we have to learn how to reason with religious people and few of us know how to do it." This includes Bill Flavell.

Finally, I'd like to point out that although Bill Flavell states that religious people aren't stupid, his article and the condescension it contains really say the opposite. Perhaps Bill Flavell should better prepare himself for debating before advising others.

'Nuff said.