@shockofgod hello rich allen. you are an idiot and a liar. u claim that the atheist experience are running scared of your question, but they aren't. they answered your question multiple times and even your yahoo question. your the one who is scared. your the one who blocks comments on your videos.
philhellenes told me the actual definition of "racism." racism means to hold your race above other races. the bible is racist as hell is hot, in that sense.
the bible shouldnt have modern values imposed upon it in the first place. and if you did research it you would find how mistranslated it is. id like to thank Evidence for that, or "the professor" i guess.
The Israelites did indeed survive, but they didn't 'fuck everything up'; they proceeded to change the world, as God intended that they should. And they are still at the very core of human history, as God means them to be. Which for them has been both a blessing and a curse, as the Bible clearly and emphatically states that it would be (Deuteronomy 28). Deep waters ShwaNerd, stop floating and dive in!
Israel is PART of human history. They are no more the "core" of human history than any other culture nation and civilizations in the world.
BTW why are Israelites so important to god in the OT? Why is there no mention of Africans, Asians, Nordics and anyone else who lived other places besides the middle east? This is more evidence that the bible is a man made collection of local scripts written by men completely ignorant of anything else but their own existence in their own local geography.
Dude, you need to do some serious historical study. The Jews have been at the core of most of the really important historical events, as God intended. And it is the God who first spoke to them, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose Name now fills the earth. The Hebrew monotheistic tradition has had more of an impact on human civilisation than any other set of ideas in history. In my opinion because it rests upon divine foundations.
That depends on what YOU choose to focus on. If you consider the bible as historically singular and prominent then you won't give a rat's ass about other nations and cultures. Yes I know the OT is Israel-centric. It was believed Israelites were the god of Abraham's chosen people and not for anyone else.
The NT obviously deviates from this but do not discount the rich historical contributions of many other great nations and cultures. The Greeks, chinese, Druids, nordics and many others.
Aaron, why bother? These people have already made up their minds and will use any excuse in the book to rationalize their bigotry and their close-mindedness. They are not interested in discussion but are only interested in ridicule. I bet you anything that when this comment gets posted, I will get people who will flag me and tell that I'm an idiot and believe that I'm stupid, thus only proving my point.
You forget that the comments posted here are in RESPONSE to aaronk and his email to Shwanerd which was full of immature and smarmy comments of ridicule to Shwanerd. It was certainly not a model of open mindedness".
The close-mindedness and "bigotry" is all on your side.
Atheists don't damn the human race as evil and depraved nature. Atheists don't threaten to torture for eternity those who don't believe as they do.
*laughs* man...is it me or is he saying that were ignoring the context of their history....but thats our point, the genocide, homophobia, lack of real history, and other things are consitent with the idea they are produced by people no more advanced then anyone ELSE at the time. If there truly was a god, or even the god of the new testement helping them you would expect them to behave and be alot better.
What, are we rid of AaronK now??? He's quitting, just like VenomtardX Aaah, that would be SO fantastic!!! Every time a theist retard leaves YouTube, the average IQ of Youtube rises a lttle, the debates' levels rise! Hehe, I'm joking a bit now. : )
The first paragraph is such typical hypocrisy. I will fix it:
What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose IT ON western, 21st century values?
what the fuck...... hahahah..... i went to aaron's page and just read his channel text... did anyone else catch this???
"I find it funny that some atheists say that 90% of scientists are atheists, and saying that statistic somehow debunks Christianity. Even though science is a completely irrelevant field.
The majority of people in relevant fields are Christians."
Swanard quick thing about the fist quetion...you didn't answer the question.
why do YOU take 21st Century values and place them on the bible...it's completely irrelevent to the question to say that AaronK does the same thing...i'm not sure if you have sibligs, but it would be like if your mother said Swanard why did you eat that cookie, and you said well my brother did it, or well you ate a cookie too. it doesn't answer the question. so why do you apply 20th century interpritation to old text?
There is a difference in regards to what we do with the bible. Aaron tries to impose Bronze Age mythology as moral teaching that is applicable in the 21st century. The advantage comes from saying we use our morality (which has improved with 2000 years of experience) to go back and judge the morality of the old testament to be inferior to modern-day society. We can't impose our morality on those people; they've been dead for thousands of years.
"My view is right, and you can't change it," he says of you.. after he just finished saying, essentially, "anything God does is definitionally right, I accept this, and you can't change it."
He seems at first to be defending cultural relativism; odd for a fundie. Except that it quickly becomes obvious he's advocating for divine command theory. Because that's not kowtowing to authoritarianism. Might makes right, eh?
So whatever God commands is always right. And if you disagree, you're always wrong. "And article X from 'scholarship' PROVES you wrong."
He cannot conceive or will not admit that anyone could legitimately hold to an ethical position in opposition to the Bible. And even if he'd grant that possibility, he ultimately doesn't care, because his view is unchangeable.
In short, his message is "agree with me, or stfu"--blatant hypocrisy given his alleged platform.
He says he follows the Bible's teachings, such as questioning everything and looking for evidence. --Wow. Also, bullshit.
You don't "question" the Bible after you've already accepted it as true. You're engaged in dissonance management, nothing more.
And as to evidence?
Evidence requires falsifiability; and his God is definitionally unfalsifiable. So, even if He exists, evidence so attestant cannot exist. Thus faith. /facepalm
ShwaNerd's "argument" presupposes the existence of god for the sake of it, so I don't have to provide evidence that he exists before I respond to the actual argument.
ShwaNerd's argument aside, what is your response to wspol624's comment "in general" for a lack of better wording? I'm genuinely curious.
Seeing it laid out in such an "ABC, 123--black and white" format so even a semi-retarded 5-year-old cound understand it; how can you still mindfully align yourself with such a disdaining group of people?
actually his argument is, "Okay lets assume for a second your god exists, does the bible fit what we would expect from the god Christians claim to worship? Answer is no, it's as you said a part of the culture and time, nothing from some god, certainly not the Jesus you guys believe in.
"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO LIVE MY LIFE BY THIS BOOK!!!!!I will not follow anything I find to be crap...what was god word then is gods word now isnt?
>"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
An even more pertinent question is "why are you using a 1000+ year-old, multiply re-translated book of ancient barbaric goatherder myths in place of 21st century values."
If you want to live like its the Bronze Age Palestine....move to Palestine.
This whole thing was addressed by Stephen Fry in the Intelligence Squared debate. If religion, claiming to be the origin of objective morality, cannot condemn slavery, genocide, etc. because "those practices were OK at the time," then what is religion for?
That is the argument at its most base. If through human progress our civilizations are able to move past those terrors, yet religious apologists accept them, then religion is bankrupt--absolutely and completely.
That pretty much sums it up. The only other point I'd add is what Matt Dillahunty from The Atheist Experience commonly touches upon: That is the story of abraham being asked by god to kill his own child. This being "a test of faith" or not, he goes on to say that if you know killing your child is wrong, and yet god asks you to, how are you not morally superior to this twisted "god"? And obviously, how can anyone use an inferior god as their source of morals to apply as the standard?
@pokerslut530 I like Dillahunty, but I prefer Hitchens' take on that incident. "If I were told by god to sacrifice my son to show my faith, I'd say, 'No. Fuck you.'" Much more profound, in my opinion. lol
It is profound because it is profane.People wish god to be pious, but such a reply casts him in the appropriate light.If an evil person asks you to do an evil thing, the only appropriate response is to tell him to fuck off.Let your own son be crucified, fine, but don't ask me to gut mine.
Well it's the old euphathro *sp* Dilema, is something good because god commands it, in wich case anything even rape/killing/torture is good if god commands it, or god commands it because it's good in wich case we don't need god to know whats good.
Before even watching this video, let me just say: You might as well just debate the kid on what cement is made of, because you'll get as far as I know you did in the same amount of time I know it took.
Hey ShwaNerd, here is one you can ask aaronk1994 -- what is his justification for God ordering the Israelites to slit the bellies open of pregnant women and the dashing of infants? Those horrible babies deserved it, right aaronk? Evil nation, evil bellies, evil babies?
I'm sorry, aaronk, if I am applying my 21st century North American logic to the to the wise and enlightened Iron Age. I just don't think dashing babies is a good thing to do, even for god.
-Well, most of us arent sheep. Atheists are not a set group, every one has their own outlook on life. I dissagree on certain points made by Shwanerd, just like I dissagree with Tf00t and AronRa on certain things. When atheists get together, the relationship is actually more or less similar to what you find in a video game or trekkie convention.
But you know, if you like to talk about sheep, atheists dont tell you to give you money if you dont want to go to hell.
I guess my disguise works like a charm. I'm wearing sheep clothing tonight!
In any case, there is no amount of apologetic papers/people, scholars etc. that will convince me that there is a god.
I'm not going to argue what the difference is between the imaginary Santa and the one in the mall. It's useless.. Oh and to quote Radionhead "Don't get sentimental, it will always ends up drivel."
I agree. For the vast majority of Christians the belief comes first and the rationalizations to justify it come second. I know of no Christian who started off using a scholarly approach to study all belief systems in depth; ...then after thoughtful inquiry concluded the most likely and believable system was Christianity. It just doesn't work that way. I wish they would go back to holding their Christian belief as a matter of faith, it was a lot more honest.
Indeed, a non-existing biological entity describes something to existing biological entities, that a spicific body of land will be invaded by fellow biological entities in which the non-existing biological entity made in his own image. A body of land which this non-existing entity has created as well.
Nice parent, this god character is, chosing one child above another. Is this how discrimination, racism and favoritism is born?
A great many biblical scholars would disagree with you. Many hold that the executions and mass murder were commandments from god. Context is a word you use to rationalize away these atrocities. Because you are an ardent believer, you are not impartial. You simply want to believe that your god is loving and benevolent. So you go out of your way to make scripture say what you want it to say by inserting your own context --- interpretations that hold Yahweh in great esteem.
So, you must ignore any evil of any person no matter how heinous if he has ever done a good thing. Your biblical god murders, and tells others to also murder any and all that either oppose or disbelieve in him. But he did some good things in the bible so we must ignore all the bad and concentrate on the good.
An arsonist sets a fire that kills 14 people, but he helped an old lady cross the street yesterday so I guess we can forget the whole murdering innocent people thing, right?
@ aaronk1994 No, I am making fun of Christian logic. And you, like all christian apologists, have never used a logical ,or even intelligently believable, argument. You rely on bad science, questionable history, illogical philosophy and presuppositions based on beliefs with the lowest standards of evidence imaginable. In short, you are F.U.B.A.R.
You always claim to have evidence, so how about giving some.
Provide evidence that apologists have never used a rational argument. I'm not just going to let you say that without any backup.
And what reason do you have to automatically dismiss someone just because they are an apologist?
We are ALL apologists. You are, too. An apologist is simply one who defends his beliefs. If you want to dismiss all apologists, you may as well just throw the question of god out the window.
Anyway, I don't see how you can make absolute statements like "NO apologist has EVER used a rational argument".
If I said, "NO atheist has EVER used a rational argument", that would be incorrect. I have seen atheists (not many on YouTube) use good arguments. But even if I hadn't known that, I still couldn't make that statement, since I have not heard every single atheist arguments.
Don't make absolute statements if you're not prepared to back them up.
You made the positive statement that no argument put forward by any apologist were rational. I don't have to prove that wrong, you have to prove it right.
Um, the argument from Christ's resurrection, perhaps?
You seem to think that I am acting with some kind of sane and rational argumentative nature, but I am acting with a christians argumentative nature, in other words, irrational and logically flawed. So since you make the positive claim that your apologetics are correct you must prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. C-mon now ,a feisty little christian like you should be able to give the bible thumping morons something to cheer about.
@ thunderbolt94 Yes I actually do. But if you have read my comments you will see that I have been using the tactics of fundies and apologists. You see, the problem with apologetics is that every argument I have encountered boils down to the statement " The bible is true because it says its true and I believe it because it tells me to believe it so you should believe it too." all arguments I have heard starts with the assumption that the bible is true. That, in and of itself, is fallacious.
"Is my imitation of a christians logic annoying you?"
First of all, you have no grounds that a christian's logic is irrational, for you seem to have no understanding of how critical thinking works (based on my observations).
Second of all, you making the statement "you can't be a theist and think logically" is a cleverly disguised ad hominen attack and makes absolutely no sense in terms of logic.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's coming from a Christian perspective.
@aaronk1994 Anyone who is a theist and rationalizes genocide and infanticide by saying, "Well god commanded it," is illogical. If such a view is held by anyone, regardless of their credentials, they are utterly stupid. They could today find a cure for cancer and tomorrow make an asinine apologetic remark for genocide, and I would forever hold the opinion that they are only two steps removed from Sarah Palin's down syndrome baby.
@ aaronk1994 It is still considered illogical to hold a belief of something with no credible or sufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that atheists don't hold any irrational beliefs. But ours are usually inconsequential to our interactions in society. However, a belief that acted upon with such fundamental fervency as to cause harm to others ie. stifling scientific progress( the dark ages), hampering the education of children or inspires murder, now thats different.
And what justification would you have for the genocide Jesus commanded in the old testement? you say these other groups were evil, hardly seem to be more more evil then the jews are portrayed, and I would think the god of the entire world have better ways of handling things. The fact you can sit there and openly claim Jesus was justified in all those killings is disturbing.
I'm sorry, aaron, but trying to use context in a way to defend such things is one reason why I left your faith. How can you claim the context will make it all ok? Those people killed the people of that nation.
God WAS telling them to do it. I heard the passage not a week ago and if you read it, it has god telling them to go into that land and slay them all.
I'm sorry here, aaron, but the way you defend this act is just...well...evil.
Provide an analysis and exegeses of this passage, read it in context, and describe in depth the conditions of the situation.
I havent actually looked at the verse in a while, but an atheist did bring up the verse that talks about dashing the children to pieces and ripping open the pregnant women. I was remembering the response I gave which know one has ever responded to.
I did read it in context, I don't know it off hand, but perhaps you should relook at it, because I remeber talking to some of my friends about it, when they brought it up and one of them was showing off his version of the new american bible.
Also, how can you claim such things about it, when you haven't looked at it in awhile?
I'm just saying, that god did tell them to do these acts.
"I'm just saying, that god did tell them to do these acts."
Yes, you are right. In my experience most Christians (who have an opinion on the matter) do admit these were commandments from god. Even the apologetics folk hero - William Lane Craig admits such things were commandments from god but justifies it on the grounds that these nations were all wicked and deserved extermination. To condone murder and genocide so as not to find fault with the bible is something I find very disturbing.
Ahhh excuse me Aaron, but I hope its not me you are talking about. I clearly responded to your comment on my video, "F%&* Context" and I re-issued the video challenge, which you ignored. So please clear this up....were you talking about me and your comment response to my video?
I am sooooooooooooooooo fuckin SICK of the fundie atheist remarks. Ya, people like James, and Me, and Matt from TAE, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc are just like fundies such as Becky Fischer, Ken ham, Kent hovind, Fred Phelps, Ray comfort, etc. We are exactly like them *Sardonic* We are nothing like those retarded, delusional, lying, bigoted, offensively illogical morons, who fail in every aspect of ANY rational debate.
As for Aaronk being a fundie, do I need to say it? You use scholars to prove your point, just like muslims who use scholars to prove the koran. Not evidence, not logical, and I bet you will special plead. Your a hypocrite, you seem to think every atheist who speaks out is a fundie, which is stupid, because as fundie theist is someone who takes a book seriously, and makes absurd statements such as slavery is okay, and genocide is acceptable. FUNDIE, FUNDIE, FUNDIE!
Where has Shwanerd EVER sounded similar to a fundie??? I demand you tell me! I want a example of 1.Absurd statement, not based on any evidence, or any rationality. 2. Bigoted notion. 3.Anything else a fundie would say, or do. Iv never ever seen Shwanerd make any absurd statements. Foul language and insults at a specific person or brand is not fundie. it isnt bigotry. So please, I demand, please I want examples.
I have a challenge for anyone reading these comments and watching this video.
Post up all the Biblical atrocities caused or commanded by god in the Bible, so that we can show this petulant, self-deluded, piss-ant Aaronk exactly what kind of a god he puts his faith in.
Won't do anything dude. Wouldn't be worth a thing. The kid calls everyone ignorant (even me at one point) with ear muffs on (if you get the shitty metaphor).
Aaron needs to watch Cannibal holocaust [a movie that is full of rape, murder, real life animal murder, nudity, and fake genocide.] Kids from NYC rape and kill a tribe of cannibals to exploit as a edited documentary, and are brutally killed by the tribe. Very last part of the film ends with a question....who are the real savages? The cannibal tribe, or the sadistic sociopath New Yorkers???
In the film, the tribes have rituals such as raping a women to death with a rock because she committed adultery, it also has a scene where the tribe put to death a women for being raped by New york sociopaths. Also a forced abortion scene. The new yorkers, from a civilized society come to the amazon, set fire to huts, film it. Rape a tribe women, laugh as they see her dead body, and at the end of the documentary, the producer is like I want this film burned immediately. Its immoral aaronk!
Cannibal holocaust is a brilliant film, one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, it has real animals being killed, and the premise of the film is fucked up, but the message is brilliant, and it shows me just how immoral your argument truly is. Its immoral, its sick, its despicable, and its no different then the new york sociopaths in the film.
"Killing is a form of mercy because it rectifies the person. Sometimes a person cannot be reformed unless he is cut up and burnt....You must kill, burn and lock up those in opposition." ~ Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian Islamic religious leader, Feb. 3, 1984
This is exactly the same horrific & barbaric mindset right out of the Iron age that's to be found in the damaged minds of Xtian fundies such as Aaronk.
The onus is on Aaron to demonstrate that such vast collective punishment can ever be a reasonable act. When have we ever seen an entire neighborhood made up of *only* horrible people, let alone an entire nation.
Unfortunately - if the christian believes in such things as resurrections - it's all too easy for them to just claim. 'yep - entire nation - all evil and deserving of the worst. I believe it'.
"God was not immoral in righteously punishing horrible nations for their evil."
I would assume he would say that god was not immoral in killing all the first born of Egypt or ordering Abraham to give up his son Isaac as a human sacrifice. *Tisk* Tisk* Aaronk
Christians love divine punishment in the form of genocide. lol
^ This. What about the prophet Elisha? Some children mocked him for being bald, he cursed them in the name of the lord, and god sent in two bears that tore 42 children to pieces in punishment. Tell me this is moral.
the irony is that while he is upset at you for judging the OT, he then goes on to make sweeping statements about cultures and peoples in the bible that god doesn't like. really, that bullshit is nothing more then propaganda and the Canaanites and others where no worse then any other people at that time.
Oh, more than that! Why can't we take the bible and apply today's values to it?
...why CAN'T we? It's supposed to be the perfect word of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent deity! If it doesn't apply to today, why hasn't this deity provided a THIRD revelation to shore up the obsolete info? Or why wasn't the original perfect in the first place?
Either the bible is full of crap and god isn't real...or god's an incompetent chowdermonkey. Make aaronk1994 pick one!
heh I've used this counterargument alot too when they spout, "Well you have to see it from the culture."
best they seem to come up with is, "Well god couldn't completly change them he had to do it gradually." as if some omnipotent god couldn't do it, mind you he couldn't keep the isrealites interest for more then 20 minutes.
"Sure you gave us Palastine, sure you freed us from egypt ,sure you helped us kill all those people, but what you do for us this week?"
Another OTHER thing; if christians are going to bitch and whine whenever we use their own book against them, and insist that we stop "picking a bible verse out of nowhere and yelling about it", then christians should do the same and just say "fuck it, no scripture in the debate". Otherwise you are all just being that much more HYPOCRITICAL.
One more thing, if god was enough of a prick to kill an entire nation of people without discriminating the "righteous" and "wicked" people, then he is anything but just. It looks to me like he doesn't give a shit what collateral damage he leaves in his wake of jealous rage. That makes him a psychopathic MASS MURDERER.
Yeah, gee, why would anyone be morally conscious enough to hold a religious text to modern standards of morality? (rolleyes) Talk about fucking cherry-picking, what a stupid, double-standard HYPOCRITE.
"People" set the standard for what is moral, if you are still going by the standard that was "popular" 2.000 years ago, hey guess what, YOU ARE IMMORAL!
If you do not meet the burden of proof, there's no reason to change ones mind.
How can someone still follow the bible if they are supposed to question it? isn't there some serious "cognitive dissonance" going on?
The latest buzz word among butt hurt theists out there seems to be "fundie atheist"
"God was not immoral in righteously punishing horrible nations for their evil."
Really? So it would have been right and proper, just and moral for God to have righteously punished the horrible nation of Germany for their evil crimes of WW2? Surely Aaronk's god should have demanded every man woman child babe ass & goat in germany, be hacked to pieces, smashed against rocks and left to rot.
What evil could a biblical nation have done to deserve such punishment while germany was given a pass.
Any book or belief system that requires a life time of study by dedicated scholars to confirm it's veracity can not, surely, ever be considered 'the true Word of God'. A real 'personal' god such as the christian god is said to be, would present to mankind a book that was readable and understandable by all without need for translation or scholarly interpretation. The 'Truth' of such a book would be somehow miraculously self evident to each & every reader. The bible? Doesn't meet the standard.
Gotta love the "immorally ripping another culture apart" bit. Isn't this exactly what he's doing when he's flatly declaring those nations whose civilians (including children) he's righteously defending the murder of to be "horrible" and "evil"?
The double standards just grow deeper the more I read.
Honestly, there's no decent argument for genocide but Aaron isn't even trying. I'm sure he could climb over his breathtaking arrogance for long enough to fashion something better.
True. "righteously killing nations" is racism to the highest degree. This is the perfect context for a Reductio ad Hitlerum that isn't at all hyperbolic.
"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
Great point! The irony is delicious: We cannot impose our 21st century values in the passing of judgement on an ancient text, but they can use that ancient text to dictate to us how we may live our lives.
I hadn't thought of it that way until I saw your post. Great stuff!
Atheism is madness
shockofgod 1 year ago
@shockofgod hello rich allen. you are an idiot and a liar. u claim that the atheist experience are running scared of your question, but they aren't. they answered your question multiple times and even your yahoo question. your the one who is scared. your the one who blocks comments on your videos.
ironchariot131138 1 year ago
@shockofgod religion is self-deception
Jaegar19Ultima 8 months ago
philhellenes told me the actual definition of "racism." racism means to hold your race above other races. the bible is racist as hell is hot, in that sense.
StaulkHolm 1 year ago
the bible shouldnt have modern values imposed upon it in the first place. and if you did research it you would find how mistranslated it is. id like to thank Evidence for that, or "the professor" i guess.
StaulkHolm 1 year ago
Here's a video with Aaronk's name written all over it!
/watch?v=AIasNuUpsgI
The Cult of Dusty RULES!
JoeyDiphard 2 years ago
The Israelites did indeed survive, but they didn't 'fuck everything up'; they proceeded to change the world, as God intended that they should. And they are still at the very core of human history, as God means them to be. Which for them has been both a blessing and a curse, as the Bible clearly and emphatically states that it would be (Deuteronomy 28). Deep waters ShwaNerd, stop floating and dive in!
atticana 2 years ago
Israel is PART of human history. They are no more the "core" of human history than any other culture nation and civilizations in the world.
BTW why are Israelites so important to god in the OT? Why is there no mention of Africans, Asians, Nordics and anyone else who lived other places besides the middle east? This is more evidence that the bible is a man made collection of local scripts written by men completely ignorant of anything else but their own existence in their own local geography.
socksumi 2 years ago
Dude, you need to do some serious historical study. The Jews have been at the core of most of the really important historical events, as God intended. And it is the God who first spoke to them, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose Name now fills the earth. The Hebrew monotheistic tradition has had more of an impact on human civilisation than any other set of ideas in history. In my opinion because it rests upon divine foundations.
atticana 2 years ago
That depends on what YOU choose to focus on. If you consider the bible as historically singular and prominent then you won't give a rat's ass about other nations and cultures. Yes I know the OT is Israel-centric. It was believed Israelites were the god of Abraham's chosen people and not for anyone else.
The NT obviously deviates from this but do not discount the rich historical contributions of many other great nations and cultures. The Greeks, chinese, Druids, nordics and many others.
socksumi 2 years ago
Aaron, why bother? These people have already made up their minds and will use any excuse in the book to rationalize their bigotry and their close-mindedness. They are not interested in discussion but are only interested in ridicule. I bet you anything that when this comment gets posted, I will get people who will flag me and tell that I'm an idiot and believe that I'm stupid, thus only proving my point.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
You forget that the comments posted here are in RESPONSE to aaronk and his email to Shwanerd which was full of immature and smarmy comments of ridicule to Shwanerd. It was certainly not a model of open mindedness".
The close-mindedness and "bigotry" is all on your side.
Atheists don't damn the human race as evil and depraved nature. Atheists don't threaten to torture for eternity those who don't believe as they do.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 3
*laughs* man...is it me or is he saying that were ignoring the context of their history....but thats our point, the genocide, homophobia, lack of real history, and other things are consitent with the idea they are produced by people no more advanced then anyone ELSE at the time. If there truly was a god, or even the god of the new testement helping them you would expect them to behave and be alot better.
wolfwing1 2 years ago 2
Thant text was so ignorant that it hurt...
Peonardon 2 years ago 2
What, are we rid of AaronK now??? He's quitting, just like VenomtardX Aaah, that would be SO fantastic!!! Every time a theist retard leaves YouTube, the average IQ of Youtube rises a lttle, the debates' levels rise! Hehe, I'm joking a bit now. : )
winterstellar 2 years ago 4
I'm not quitting.
Sorry to disappoint you.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Aaah darn, did you not say you would?
MrFacet 2 years ago
@MrFacet
I said I would quit responding to ShwaNerd, not close my account.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
@aaronk1994 Hehe, I was just joking. Cheers, mate! : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
The first paragraph is such typical hypocrisy. I will fix it:
What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose IT ON western, 21st century values?
markio44 2 years ago
And to comment about aaron's response:
what he's doing is what Freud would call "projecting".
TheSkepticalArtist 2 years ago 2
Oh wow, I completely forgot about that aaron kid O.O
TheSkepticalArtist 2 years ago 2
what the fuck...... hahahah..... i went to aaron's page and just read his channel text... did anyone else catch this???
"I find it funny that some atheists say that 90% of scientists are atheists, and saying that statistic somehow debunks Christianity. Even though science is a completely irrelevant field.
The majority of people in relevant fields are Christians."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?
pokerslut530 2 years ago 3
Swanard quick thing about the fist quetion...you didn't answer the question.
why do YOU take 21st Century values and place them on the bible...it's completely irrelevent to the question to say that AaronK does the same thing...i'm not sure if you have sibligs, but it would be like if your mother said Swanard why did you eat that cookie, and you said well my brother did it, or well you ate a cookie too. it doesn't answer the question. so why do you apply 20th century interpritation to old text?
Graffight 2 years ago
There is a difference in regards to what we do with the bible. Aaron tries to impose Bronze Age mythology as moral teaching that is applicable in the 21st century. The advantage comes from saying we use our morality (which has improved with 2000 years of experience) to go back and judge the morality of the old testament to be inferior to modern-day society. We can't impose our morality on those people; they've been dead for thousands of years.
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
how exactly has morality changed since the new testament? what are these great improvements? in what ways were their morals inferior?
Graffight 2 years ago
Wow. Aaron is a massive hypocrite.
"My view is right, and you can't change it," he says of you.. after he just finished saying, essentially, "anything God does is definitionally right, I accept this, and you can't change it."
He seems at first to be defending cultural relativism; odd for a fundie. Except that it quickly becomes obvious he's advocating for divine command theory. Because that's not kowtowing to authoritarianism. Might makes right, eh?
Whuppee 2 years ago 2
So whatever God commands is always right. And if you disagree, you're always wrong. "And article X from 'scholarship' PROVES you wrong."
He cannot conceive or will not admit that anyone could legitimately hold to an ethical position in opposition to the Bible. And even if he'd grant that possibility, he ultimately doesn't care, because his view is unchangeable.
In short, his message is "agree with me, or stfu"--blatant hypocrisy given his alleged platform.
Whuppee 2 years ago 3
And regarding that platform..
He says he follows the Bible's teachings, such as questioning everything and looking for evidence. --Wow. Also, bullshit.
You don't "question" the Bible after you've already accepted it as true. You're engaged in dissonance management, nothing more.
And as to evidence?
Evidence requires falsifiability; and his God is definitionally unfalsifiable. So, even if He exists, evidence so attestant cannot exist. Thus faith. /facepalm
Yet he wrote a book? wut
Whuppee 2 years ago
ShwaNerd's "argument" presupposes the existence of god for the sake of it, so I don't have to provide evidence that he exists before I respond to the actual argument.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
ShwaNerd's argument aside, what is your response to wspol624's comment "in general" for a lack of better wording? I'm genuinely curious.
Seeing it laid out in such an "ABC, 123--black and white" format so even a semi-retarded 5-year-old cound understand it; how can you still mindfully align yourself with such a disdaining group of people?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
actually his argument is, "Okay lets assume for a second your god exists, does the bible fit what we would expect from the god Christians claim to worship? Answer is no, it's as you said a part of the culture and time, nothing from some god, certainly not the Jesus you guys believe in.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
That's one beautifully written email. I'm somewhat shocked Aaron composed it.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Yes, I really did.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
@Aaron
It took you that long to answer my simple question? Good job on the email anyway.
It was very impressive.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Thanks.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Aaron is just really disturbed... It's kinda sad actually.
Queequel 2 years ago 4
aaronk1994 will never get laid.
abaddon5 2 years ago 4
Scholarship = apologetics. You hit that one on the head.
geminyo 2 years ago 4
"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO LIVE MY LIFE BY THIS BOOK!!!!!I will not follow anything I find to be crap...what was god word then is gods word now isnt?
mnewf2002 2 years ago
>"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
An even more pertinent question is "why are you using a 1000+ year-old, multiply re-translated book of ancient barbaric goatherder myths in place of 21st century values."
If you want to live like its the Bronze Age Palestine....move to Palestine.
LordCustos3 2 years ago 4
This whole thing was addressed by Stephen Fry in the Intelligence Squared debate. If religion, claiming to be the origin of objective morality, cannot condemn slavery, genocide, etc. because "those practices were OK at the time," then what is religion for?
That is the argument at its most base. If through human progress our civilizations are able to move past those terrors, yet religious apologists accept them, then religion is bankrupt--absolutely and completely.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago 8
That's it, isn't it? If the bible is not universal in its reason, how can we follow it as an eternal guide to morality?
Nimnoms 2 years ago 2
That pretty much sums it up. The only other point I'd add is what Matt Dillahunty from The Atheist Experience commonly touches upon: That is the story of abraham being asked by god to kill his own child. This being "a test of faith" or not, he goes on to say that if you know killing your child is wrong, and yet god asks you to, how are you not morally superior to this twisted "god"? And obviously, how can anyone use an inferior god as their source of morals to apply as the standard?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530 I like Dillahunty, but I prefer Hitchens' take on that incident. "If I were told by god to sacrifice my son to show my faith, I'd say, 'No. Fuck you.'" Much more profound, in my opinion. lol
It is profound because it is profane.People wish god to be pious, but such a reply casts him in the appropriate light.If an evil person asks you to do an evil thing, the only appropriate response is to tell him to fuck off.Let your own son be crucified, fine, but don't ask me to gut mine.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago
Well it's the old euphathro *sp* Dilema, is something good because god commands it, in wich case anything even rape/killing/torture is good if god commands it, or god commands it because it's good in wich case we don't need god to know whats good.
Aaron seems to be more of the first kind.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
"I follow the Bible's teachings, such as questioning everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and looking for evidence. (Acts 17)
" This part made me laugh so hard! I've watched his videos. He questions nothing about Christianity or anything meaningful.
Put simply, Aaron is a FOOL.
Fools like Aaron should be ignored.
Or maybe laughed at for being fools.
OHsneakerluvr73 2 years ago 3
Before even watching this video, let me just say: You might as well just debate the kid on what cement is made of, because you'll get as far as I know you did in the same amount of time I know it took.
ManicRevelation 2 years ago
Hey ShwaNerd, here is one you can ask aaronk1994 -- what is his justification for God ordering the Israelites to slit the bellies open of pregnant women and the dashing of infants? Those horrible babies deserved it, right aaronk? Evil nation, evil bellies, evil babies?
I'm sorry, aaronk, if I am applying my 21st century North American logic to the to the wise and enlightened Iron Age. I just don't think dashing babies is a good thing to do, even for god.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 5
Nice one.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's a little thing called CONTEXT.
God was describing a time when Israel would be invaded, not telling them to do those things.
Way to fail.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Guess the message really wasn't sincere then... should I expect a response as well?
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
I meant I was no longer responding to YOU.
Not your sheep.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
"Sheep?" this coming from Kabane's ass leech.
Vulgargore 2 years ago 7
"Not your sheep."
-
-Well, most of us arent sheep. Atheists are not a set group, every one has their own outlook on life. I dissagree on certain points made by Shwanerd, just like I dissagree with Tf00t and AronRa on certain things. When atheists get together, the relationship is actually more or less similar to what you find in a video game or trekkie convention.
But you know, if you like to talk about sheep, atheists dont tell you to give you money if you dont want to go to hell.
boonw 2 years ago 4
I guess my disguise works like a charm. I'm wearing sheep clothing tonight!
In any case, there is no amount of apologetic papers/people, scholars etc. that will convince me that there is a god.
I'm not going to argue what the difference is between the imaginary Santa and the one in the mall. It's useless.. Oh and to quote Radionhead "Don't get sentimental, it will always ends up drivel."
Drynae 2 years ago
I agree. For the vast majority of Christians the belief comes first and the rationalizations to justify it come second. I know of no Christian who started off using a scholarly approach to study all belief systems in depth; ...then after thoughtful inquiry concluded the most likely and believable system was Christianity. It just doesn't work that way. I wish they would go back to holding their Christian belief as a matter of faith, it was a lot more honest.
socksumi 2 years ago
Well... looks like you just responded.
lulz
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
@aaronk1994
Did you really write that email? It was so eloquent and beautifully written.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Indeed, a non-existing biological entity describes something to existing biological entities, that a spicific body of land will be invaded by fellow biological entities in which the non-existing biological entity made in his own image. A body of land which this non-existing entity has created as well.
Nice parent, this god character is, chosing one child above another. Is this how discrimination, racism and favoritism is born?
Drynae 2 years ago
A great many biblical scholars would disagree with you. Many hold that the executions and mass murder were commandments from god. Context is a word you use to rationalize away these atrocities. Because you are an ardent believer, you are not impartial. You simply want to believe that your god is loving and benevolent. So you go out of your way to make scripture say what you want it to say by inserting your own context --- interpretations that hold Yahweh in great esteem.
socksumi 2 years ago
@ aaronk199
So, you must ignore any evil of any person no matter how heinous if he has ever done a good thing. Your biblical god murders, and tells others to also murder any and all that either oppose or disbelieve in him. But he did some good things in the bible so we must ignore all the bad and concentrate on the good.
An arsonist sets a fire that kills 14 people, but he helped an old lady cross the street yesterday so I guess we can forget the whole murdering innocent people thing, right?
alianchild 2 years ago
@alianchild
Again, you're just appealing to moral outrage.
You have not even attempted to respond to my arguments against this accusation.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
@ aaronk1994 No, I am making fun of Christian logic. And you, like all christian apologists, have never used a logical ,or even intelligently believable, argument. You rely on bad science, questionable history, illogical philosophy and presuppositions based on beliefs with the lowest standards of evidence imaginable. In short, you are F.U.B.A.R.
alianchild 2 years ago
You always claim to have evidence, so how about giving some.
Provide evidence that apologists have never used a rational argument. I'm not just going to let you say that without any backup.
And what reason do you have to automatically dismiss someone just because they are an apologist?
We are ALL apologists. You are, too. An apologist is simply one who defends his beliefs. If you want to dismiss all apologists, you may as well just throw the question of god out the window.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Anyway, I don't see how you can make absolute statements like "NO apologist has EVER used a rational argument".
If I said, "NO atheist has EVER used a rational argument", that would be incorrect. I have seen atheists (not many on YouTube) use good arguments. But even if I hadn't known that, I still couldn't make that statement, since I have not heard every single atheist arguments.
Don't make absolute statements if you're not prepared to back them up.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Give me one argument that does not rely on the stated requirements and I will retract the statement. I wont be holding my breath.
alianchild 2 years ago
Excuse me, you have the burden of proof.
You made the positive statement that no argument put forward by any apologist were rational. I don't have to prove that wrong, you have to prove it right.
Um, the argument from Christ's resurrection, perhaps?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You seem to think that I am acting with some kind of sane and rational argumentative nature, but I am acting with a christians argumentative nature, in other words, irrational and logically flawed. So since you make the positive claim that your apologetics are correct you must prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. C-mon now ,a feisty little christian like you should be able to give the bible thumping morons something to cheer about.
Give it a shot.
alianchild 2 years ago
Alianchild, you would fail a logic class.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Only if I thought like a theist.
alianchild 2 years ago
No. Being a theist or an atheist has nothing to do with whether or not you would pass a logic class or critical thinking class.
You can still be an atheist and think illogically.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
True. But you cant be a theist and think logically.
alianchild 2 years ago
"But you cant be a theist and think logically."
That statement alone is illogical.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
If I was a critical thinking teacher, I would mark off points on your test score for statements like that.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
You're not a critically thinking human, who the fuck are you trying to fool?!?!?
alianchild 2 years ago
it's such a shame that alianchild does not know how to make a logical argument, and instead resorts to logical fallacies.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
@ thunderbolt94 Yes I actually do. But if you have read my comments you will see that I have been using the tactics of fundies and apologists. You see, the problem with apologetics is that every argument I have encountered boils down to the statement " The bible is true because it says its true and I believe it because it tells me to believe it so you should believe it too." all arguments I have heard starts with the assumption that the bible is true. That, in and of itself, is fallacious.
alianchild 2 years ago
Is my imitation of a christians logic annoying you?
alianchild 2 years ago
"Is my imitation of a christians logic annoying you?"
First of all, you have no grounds that a christian's logic is irrational, for you seem to have no understanding of how critical thinking works (based on my observations).
Second of all, you making the statement "you can't be a theist and think logically" is a cleverly disguised ad hominen attack and makes absolutely no sense in terms of logic.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's coming from a Christian perspective.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
So in other words, you're saying that if ANYONE is a theist, that makes him or her illogical?
How about saying that to the face of credentialed scholars?
I'll say it again, Christianity is not an urban-myth.
It is still debated in the scholarly community. It is not a fringe idea.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
@aaronk1994 Anyone who is a theist and rationalizes genocide and infanticide by saying, "Well god commanded it," is illogical. If such a view is held by anyone, regardless of their credentials, they are utterly stupid. They could today find a cure for cancer and tomorrow make an asinine apologetic remark for genocide, and I would forever hold the opinion that they are only two steps removed from Sarah Palin's down syndrome baby.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago
@ aaronk1994 It is still considered illogical to hold a belief of something with no credible or sufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that atheists don't hold any irrational beliefs. But ours are usually inconsequential to our interactions in society. However, a belief that acted upon with such fundamental fervency as to cause harm to others ie. stifling scientific progress( the dark ages), hampering the education of children or inspires murder, now thats different.
alianchild 2 years ago
and a critical thinking class with the statements you make.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
No doubt.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
And what justification would you have for the genocide Jesus commanded in the old testement? you say these other groups were evil, hardly seem to be more more evil then the jews are portrayed, and I would think the god of the entire world have better ways of handling things. The fact you can sit there and openly claim Jesus was justified in all those killings is disturbing.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
I'm sorry, aaron, but trying to use context in a way to defend such things is one reason why I left your faith. How can you claim the context will make it all ok? Those people killed the people of that nation.
God WAS telling them to do it. I heard the passage not a week ago and if you read it, it has god telling them to go into that land and slay them all.
I'm sorry here, aaron, but the way you defend this act is just...well...evil.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago 3
Provide an analysis and exegeses of this passage, read it in context, and describe in depth the conditions of the situation.
I havent actually looked at the verse in a while, but an atheist did bring up the verse that talks about dashing the children to pieces and ripping open the pregnant women. I was remembering the response I gave which know one has ever responded to.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I did read it in context, I don't know it off hand, but perhaps you should relook at it, because I remeber talking to some of my friends about it, when they brought it up and one of them was showing off his version of the new american bible.
Also, how can you claim such things about it, when you haven't looked at it in awhile?
I'm just saying, that god did tell them to do these acts.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
"I'm just saying, that god did tell them to do these acts."
Yes, you are right. In my experience most Christians (who have an opinion on the matter) do admit these were commandments from god. Even the apologetics folk hero - William Lane Craig admits such things were commandments from god but justifies it on the grounds that these nations were all wicked and deserved extermination. To condone murder and genocide so as not to find fault with the bible is something I find very disturbing.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
Ahhh excuse me Aaron, but I hope its not me you are talking about. I clearly responded to your comment on my video, "F%&* Context" and I re-issued the video challenge, which you ignored. So please clear this up....were you talking about me and your comment response to my video?
djosephallen 2 years ago
I am sooooooooooooooooo fuckin SICK of the fundie atheist remarks. Ya, people like James, and Me, and Matt from TAE, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc are just like fundies such as Becky Fischer, Ken ham, Kent hovind, Fred Phelps, Ray comfort, etc. We are exactly like them *Sardonic* We are nothing like those retarded, delusional, lying, bigoted, offensively illogical morons, who fail in every aspect of ANY rational debate.
jay666KJ 2 years ago 2
As for Aaronk being a fundie, do I need to say it? You use scholars to prove your point, just like muslims who use scholars to prove the koran. Not evidence, not logical, and I bet you will special plead. Your a hypocrite, you seem to think every atheist who speaks out is a fundie, which is stupid, because as fundie theist is someone who takes a book seriously, and makes absurd statements such as slavery is okay, and genocide is acceptable. FUNDIE, FUNDIE, FUNDIE!
jay666KJ 2 years ago 3
Where has Shwanerd EVER sounded similar to a fundie??? I demand you tell me! I want a example of 1.Absurd statement, not based on any evidence, or any rationality. 2. Bigoted notion. 3.Anything else a fundie would say, or do. Iv never ever seen Shwanerd make any absurd statements. Foul language and insults at a specific person or brand is not fundie. it isnt bigotry. So please, I demand, please I want examples.
jay666KJ 2 years ago 2
I have a challenge for anyone reading these comments and watching this video.
Post up all the Biblical atrocities caused or commanded by god in the Bible, so that we can show this petulant, self-deluded, piss-ant Aaronk exactly what kind of a god he puts his faith in.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
Won't do anything dude. Wouldn't be worth a thing. The kid calls everyone ignorant (even me at one point) with ear muffs on (if you get the shitty metaphor).
ManicRevelation 2 years ago
Aaron needs to watch Cannibal holocaust [a movie that is full of rape, murder, real life animal murder, nudity, and fake genocide.] Kids from NYC rape and kill a tribe of cannibals to exploit as a edited documentary, and are brutally killed by the tribe. Very last part of the film ends with a question....who are the real savages? The cannibal tribe, or the sadistic sociopath New Yorkers???
jay666KJ 2 years ago
In the film, the tribes have rituals such as raping a women to death with a rock because she committed adultery, it also has a scene where the tribe put to death a women for being raped by New york sociopaths. Also a forced abortion scene. The new yorkers, from a civilized society come to the amazon, set fire to huts, film it. Rape a tribe women, laugh as they see her dead body, and at the end of the documentary, the producer is like I want this film burned immediately. Its immoral aaronk!
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Cannibal holocaust is a brilliant film, one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, it has real animals being killed, and the premise of the film is fucked up, but the message is brilliant, and it shows me just how immoral your argument truly is. Its immoral, its sick, its despicable, and its no different then the new york sociopaths in the film.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
"Killing is a form of mercy because it rectifies the person. Sometimes a person cannot be reformed unless he is cut up and burnt....You must kill, burn and lock up those in opposition." ~ Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian Islamic religious leader, Feb. 3, 1984
This is exactly the same horrific & barbaric mindset right out of the Iron age that's to be found in the damaged minds of Xtian fundies such as Aaronk.
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago 4
either you do not know jack about the bible or know of its contents but will not show what it really says about this issue.
In the meantime watch this: /watch?v=LK72NdZjW9A
As you can see the Bible makes it very clear that sexual slavery was fully permitted and that soldiers had the right to capture slaves in war.
flammamancer 2 years ago 3
"righteously punishing horrible nations"
The onus is on Aaron to demonstrate that such vast collective punishment can ever be a reasonable act. When have we ever seen an entire neighborhood made up of *only* horrible people, let alone an entire nation.
Unfortunately - if the christian believes in such things as resurrections - it's all too easy for them to just claim. 'yep - entire nation - all evil and deserving of the worst. I believe it'.
neuronstorm 2 years ago 2
"God was not immoral in righteously punishing horrible nations for their evil."
I would assume he would say that god was not immoral in killing all the first born of Egypt or ordering Abraham to give up his son Isaac as a human sacrifice. *Tisk* Tisk* Aaronk
Christians love divine punishment in the form of genocide. lol
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
^ This. What about the prophet Elisha? Some children mocked him for being bald, he cursed them in the name of the lord, and god sent in two bears that tore 42 children to pieces in punishment. Tell me this is moral.
naejimba 2 years ago 2
I've seen reenactment videos of one person getting mauled by a bear let alone two bears mauling 42 children. That's pretty gruesome!
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
the irony is that while he is upset at you for judging the OT, he then goes on to make sweeping statements about cultures and peoples in the bible that god doesn't like. really, that bullshit is nothing more then propaganda and the Canaanites and others where no worse then any other people at that time.
tooltime9901 2 years ago 4
I'm not going to argue about magic. End of story.
Sarahon06 2 years ago 2
Oh, more than that! Why can't we take the bible and apply today's values to it?
...why CAN'T we? It's supposed to be the perfect word of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent deity! If it doesn't apply to today, why hasn't this deity provided a THIRD revelation to shore up the obsolete info? Or why wasn't the original perfect in the first place?
Either the bible is full of crap and god isn't real...or god's an incompetent chowdermonkey. Make aaronk1994 pick one!
BionicDance 2 years ago 3
I love you BionicDance, you make me laugh and smile.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
Aww, shucks. :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
heh I've used this counterargument alot too when they spout, "Well you have to see it from the culture."
best they seem to come up with is, "Well god couldn't completly change them he had to do it gradually." as if some omnipotent god couldn't do it, mind you he couldn't keep the isrealites interest for more then 20 minutes.
"Sure you gave us Palastine, sure you freed us from egypt ,sure you helped us kill all those people, but what you do for us this week?"
wolfwing1 2 years ago
Another OTHER thing; if christians are going to bitch and whine whenever we use their own book against them, and insist that we stop "picking a bible verse out of nowhere and yelling about it", then christians should do the same and just say "fuck it, no scripture in the debate". Otherwise you are all just being that much more HYPOCRITICAL.
338dmac 2 years ago
One more thing, if god was enough of a prick to kill an entire nation of people without discriminating the "righteous" and "wicked" people, then he is anything but just. It looks to me like he doesn't give a shit what collateral damage he leaves in his wake of jealous rage. That makes him a psychopathic MASS MURDERER.
338dmac 2 years ago
Yeah, gee, why would anyone be morally conscious enough to hold a religious text to modern standards of morality? (rolleyes) Talk about fucking cherry-picking, what a stupid, double-standard HYPOCRITE.
338dmac 2 years ago
What a whiny little cunt!
(not Schwanerd)
"People" set the standard for what is moral, if you are still going by the standard that was "popular" 2.000 years ago, hey guess what, YOU ARE IMMORAL!
If you do not meet the burden of proof, there's no reason to change ones mind.
How can someone still follow the bible if they are supposed to question it? isn't there some serious "cognitive dissonance" going on?
The latest buzz word among butt hurt theists out there seems to be "fundie atheist"
Avatra1 2 years ago 3
also what makes me a diffrent aaron k from 1994 is my balls drop a while back and im agnostic haha
themightydumbass 2 years ago
im sad my name is aaron k and i was born in 1994 *no im not him!*even though hes a dumbass apparentally haha
themightydumbass 2 years ago
"God was not immoral in righteously punishing horrible nations for their evil."
Really? So it would have been right and proper, just and moral for God to have righteously punished the horrible nation of Germany for their evil crimes of WW2? Surely Aaronk's god should have demanded every man woman child babe ass & goat in germany, be hacked to pieces, smashed against rocks and left to rot.
What evil could a biblical nation have done to deserve such punishment while germany was given a pass.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
One of them probably stubbed their toe and said God's name in vain a few times, which is of course a much bigger deal than one little holocaust.
BrianTheGoldfish 2 years ago
Not to mention the Jews for murdering Jesus, something that was thaught to my father in catholic school by the way (the murdering Jesus part that is)
wasneeplus 2 years ago
LOL Aaron is one hell of a sociopathic moron. He'll end up shooting someone one day
gingergreek 2 years ago
Any book or belief system that requires a life time of study by dedicated scholars to confirm it's veracity can not, surely, ever be considered 'the true Word of God'. A real 'personal' god such as the christian god is said to be, would present to mankind a book that was readable and understandable by all without need for translation or scholarly interpretation. The 'Truth' of such a book would be somehow miraculously self evident to each & every reader. The bible? Doesn't meet the standard.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 2
Wow, didn't see that comin. LOL
hey did you ever want to finish that convo about the soul and reality?
320iguy 2 years ago
Gotta love the "immorally ripping another culture apart" bit. Isn't this exactly what he's doing when he's flatly declaring those nations whose civilians (including children) he's righteously defending the murder of to be "horrible" and "evil"?
The double standards just grow deeper the more I read.
Honestly, there's no decent argument for genocide but Aaron isn't even trying. I'm sure he could climb over his breathtaking arrogance for long enough to fashion something better.
BrianTheGoldfish 2 years ago 3
Yeah Schwanerd, stop being a poopy head and become a rational skeptic!
Jermbot15 2 years ago 4
True. "righteously killing nations" is racism to the highest degree. This is the perfect context for a Reductio ad Hitlerum that isn't at all hyperbolic.
ubergossen 2 years ago 5
I tried REALLY hard to not just openly say that aaronk sounded like HItler with that statement!
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
Agreed. One of the few times it's perfectly applicable.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
"What makes you think that you can take a text thousands of years old, in a different culture, context, and language, and impose western, 21st century values on it?"
Oh, the fucking irony!
unixhead101 2 years ago 3
Great point! The irony is delicious: We cannot impose our 21st century values in the passing of judgement on an ancient text, but they can use that ancient text to dictate to us how we may live our lives.
I hadn't thought of it that way until I saw your post. Great stuff!
ls1z28chris 2 years ago
Shouldn't the title have been "A Plea to Superstition" ??
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
me commenting on simply the first 2 paragraphs. there is so much wrong with what Aaron says even right there.
GearsofFate101 2 years ago 2
The kid's probably not really going to stop.
The0d0r1c 2 years ago 6
He is funny.
CJCA915 2 years ago 3
good vid.
ghostdog564 2 years ago