And the only reason why you wouldn't sell her into slavery is because you broke her hymen, and hence she is worthless, which would make you a dishonest salesman.
That's the reason why I despise christians so much! Because of their dishonesty, falsehoods, and manipulation. They hate anything that's truthful (unless it supports their case) because truth is a stumbling block to their satanic religion. These worshipers of the Devil are nothing but scandalous criminals!
ANd it's true, too! I'll make you an image of it to print at a t-shirt printing place. I'll do it for $15, make a btn for ya to pay me and email it today! msg me!
In fact, a better slogan might be a pic of the Bible and under it it says: The Christian's Worst Nightmare
14 And it shall be if thou do not delight in her, thou shalt send her out free; and she shall not by any means be sold for money, thou shalt not treat her contemptuously, because thou hast humbled her.
IOW, if you didn't get turned on by her after a while, you couldn't just sell her off for profit. Had to just let her go. No "if she wishes" about it.
Sad. Theologica37 goes translation shopping to find the least barbaric wording and even IT doesn't help his cause. The woman can only go free AFTER her husband finds no pleasure in her but really, that's not how it worked. If the husband decided to boot her out, she was GONE, bro. King Solomon had what, 300 wives? hahaha Women were little more than cattle to those barbarians who's progeny are perpetuating the dark ages even today.
haha ^^ funny how he's pointing fingers at a deist and calling you a "fundamentalist atheist"...
my advice for people like him: put a few more words of this kind in front of the word atheist, like: "you're a fundamentalist, militant, extrimist, fanatic dyed-in-the-wool [etc. etc.] atheist"! That'll surely help in a debate! =)
I suppose you found it clever to make another ignorant video like this and then not pose it as a response-- as if to avoid me nailing you down again. .. Needless you've failed.
"madness". This from someone who believes that blood sacrifice on a cross makes everything better.
Video #2 will shoot TAG full of even more holes, putting aside the circular reasoning and the immorality of the biblical god (already dealt with).
Video #3 will deal with your non sequitur of "oh yeah, well what about YOUR beliefs". It's kind of beside the point but I've been meaning to restart my Deism FAQ series anyway.
Your mistakes when speakin of Christian Ethics were broad; So fundamentally flawed as to not even qualify as an attempted refutation, and I sincerely mean that.
Remove these errors in your reasoning.
Your dodge and weave style of apologetics is hardly persuasive. Ignoring all rational discussion, calling the other person a liar, and then running away--- might as well be a tacit intellectual submission.
If you expect to be taken seriously, I recommend really thinking through your next video.
Mr. Armstrong is correct. Your position is circular reasoning in the context of moral perfection. All it appears to boil down to is saying God is moral perfection, because He's God.
This is fallacious, unless you can give a more robust explication.
...and he also needs to explain why the biblical god can be described as moral in spite of the rape, genocide, injustice, slavery and personal acts of evil as described in his book. This time, without lying.
Remember, your argument for why I am "lying" is due to your own ignorance. It would be in your best interest to stop embarassing yourself. I am a Catholic who always quotes the NAB-- check my previous videos.
Not only have your points been addressed, but I also took your position and analyzed in in the light of your assertions. Needless to say you have immediate contradictions with what you call "god". You have lied, not me. You said you would address the latter points-- and didn't.
It wasn't your choice of translation. It was the quote mining. That's what makes you a liar.
Now you're lying about why you got busted for lying.
And your questions about my belief system are beside the point (i.e. "Oh yeah, well how about what YOU believe, huh, huh?") but I will address them in video #3.
John, I always quote the NAB. Go check another one of my videos. I am a Catholic-- OF COURSE biblegateway (a protestant engine) does not have the text. Are you that dim?
You have the nerve to claim Mr.Armstrong is embarrassing himself? You? The same person who claims the Laws of Mathematics have ontological priority to the spatio-temporal, which is an embarrassingly fallacious statement that commits the fallacy of hypostatization.
Theo-illogica: only a few hundred years ago your fellow Catholics would have burned you at the stake for reading a Bible. Apparently it was God's will that you should live now and not then. Lucky you.
It seems to me that John has effectively demolished any and all of your arguments. As a theist you can't accept that and will always repeat that your erroneous claims are "not answered".
No matter how much comfort it gives Christians, atheism in not a belief or religion.
If he had any ability to recognize that he'd just had his butt handed to him, he would have quit after I did my "rape in the Bible" video. Instead, he continues to dig himself in deeper and deeper. It's rather pitiful actually.
Oh, 43, I forgot to warn you. Theo insists that atheism is properly defined as a positive denial of God's existence. Any atheist who says otherwise, that it's a lack of a belief, (like, say Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris) is just some blogger who doesn't know anything about atheism.
And yes, I have warned you about quoting bloggers and not using academic sources. It would seem that your arguments from Deuteronomy 20 and 21 are perfect examples of the problems that arise from this type of shotty research.
If you are going to make an argument, make it. You're embarassing yourself.
O come on theo, this is such a stupid comment, for you to have typed it out and thought it was smart, blos my mind.
Maybe he posted it as a response to his own video, very much in a way someone posts a 2nd part of a video to part 1 and not to the video they're replying to, most of the time. So you can stop acting like he was trying to hide it.
Theologica37's apologetic, to explain away a moral problem, by leaving out words, phrases, or context are so common among Christian apologists of all stripes - whether layperson or professional theologian. I guess their beliefs don't impart any sense of integrity.
Amazing. I have to admit, before I started watching christian vids on youtube, and becomming more aware of how they debate with atheists, I had NEVER REALIZED the prevalence of OUTRIGHT LYING among believers.
They simply have NO PROBLEM explicitly and purposefully lying...for da lawd.
I was tempted to agree with you but the reality is that unless you fight these people, they will just keep lying until they find other people that aren't capable of resisting the lies. So unfortunately this is a fight that must be fought if we are to preserve rational thought and honest debate from charlatans.
Highwind, that debate is the US is still raging with 76% of the US population identifying themselves as Christians. Up to 85% in the South. They set a highly intrusive agenda through political and social intervention, and an ongoing "culture war".
Perhaps their power and numbers are waning, but until they reach European percentages, nobody can, or should, ignore them.
Your point about the wholesale importation of Muslims into Western Europe is well taken. The disaster of official "multiculturalism"! But Europe, just like the US, is not homogeneous. Catholic percentages in the US stayed fairly constant despite a major drop in your area. The reason: migration of Mexicans into the SouthWest.
I find secular Europe a breath of fresh air, but they may well turn into Islamic republics over time.
Hence my point about eternal vigilance. I would be saddened if the secular paradise of Europe were lost to a different form of religious Dark Age.
And Catholics are, these days anyway, a cool groove in comparison to the Protestants. Most of the religious nuts here that make the news are in the latter camp. Obviously, I prefer the non-religious but if I were somehow forced to be Christian, I'd be a Catholic.
Perhaps Catholics are Christian "Light" in some Western areas, but this is mostly due to some very bad PR events, and the rejection by the flock of the Vatican edicts.
In less developed areas, such as Africa, the church imposes their morals, preaches against condoms and played a major role in the Rwanda massacres.
Wish we could hear more of those liberal voices, because the major Catholic resources like Catholic Answers, EWTN, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all run by people who sing the party line. The major lesson I get from these groups is if you're Catholic and you lie, steal, or rape, you'll be told that those are bad things, but no one will question your religious sincerity. It's only when you support contraceptives or declare yourself pro-choice you'll be called a "Catholic-in-name-only."
I do not disagree with you, but we're often dealing with people who have been brainwashed since early childhood. They have completely internalized religious garbage. It has the same effect as crack cocaine. In religion we are dealing with mass co-dependency.
Education is a tool, but we are dealing with a religious environment of re-enforcement and very effective social inclusion.
The good news is that religious attrition can be very rapid. In Quebec and Europe it took a couple of decades.
Agreed on the beheading. Burning at the stake was meant to be a prolonged torture/death. The History Channel has done a program covering the intent of burning at the stake. Christians don't want you to die ...they want to enjoy the spectacle of prolonged inevitable death. But torture/death is not just reserved for the heretic but Jesus as well "Passion of the Christ" exploits the same masochism. Just had to throw my 2cents in. KUDOS DEISTPALADIN!
Thanks to, "multiculturalism", European politicians in power, and Muslim apologists, will always try to frame anti-Islamic statements as racist rather than anti-religious. Even in Europe religion is still politically untouchable.
Same in the US. Notice Bush always always referred to Islam as a "great religion". Obama is no better as per his unsightly fawning to the Middle Eastern theofascists.
When push comes to shove, Christians and Muslims will quickly forget their differences and ban together to maintain the current taboos against criticizing religious belief. "Those infidels/heathens follow a false god" quickly turns into "I'm OK, you're OK" when those big bad atheists come round.
It's already happening. The latest polls show that "no religious affiliation" is the most rapidly growing group in the US.
My theory is that the social programs in Europe, making life comfortable for everybody and not just the very rich, contributed to the demise of religion.
I'd like to hear Theologica defend his use of the new whatever Bible he used that includes parts that aren't in previous translations. Does he read Hebrew, and can he point out where it says "if she wishes it" in the original document?
But when you consider that the rest of the verse involves invading, looting, killing all the men and shaving the women's heads and forcing them to marry you, letting her go isn't exactly a heroic thing to do at that point.
Ok. I think I know what the ontological arguements is. {Argument from design], but what is TAG? I've no idea, could someone enlighten me, please?
Also, when talking about how moral Yahweh is, we need to consider everything. So keeping people against their will as sex slaves is morally wrong. So if Yahweh says it's okay, Yahweh is immoral. Also, who is WLC? Do you mean William Lane Craig? Dang, I feel out of the loop with all these acronyms! lol.
The argument from design is the Teleological argument, which actually is persuasive for me, though I wouldn't use the term "proof" as much as "indication"
The Ontological argument states that God is the greatest thing that can be conceived, a being that exists is greater than one that doesn't and so therefore, God exists.
The Transcendental Argument states that morality and Logic can't exist without God, that these things exist and so therefore God exists.
Whoops. I figured I had gotten them confused. In my first philosophy class, our professor demonstrated the Ontological argument by having us write as list of things we thought God should have. Then he "beat" us by including that God "exists". I still am not sure how people think that existance, wether real or hypthetical makes something better.
John, as a freethinker, I'm curious as to why you consider the teleological argument persuasive. It always seemed to me to be a variant of the argument from ignorance (here, "I can't see how this could have occurred except by design, therefore there is a designer"), a fallacy you viciously attack (and rightfully so) when it emerges in Christianist arguments. The observation that it's a favorite of Ray "Banana Man" Comfort is enough to take me aback when I see *you* claim it to be "persuasive".
The problem with Ray Comfort's use of the watchmaker argument is that he leaps to the assumption that it's the Christian god who must be the First Cause (I have a video on that). Additionally, I won't go so far as to say it's decisive proof, as in a reason someone else should believe, but sufficient for the purpose of personal philosophy. There was, after all, a dramatic Creation billions of years ago with some fine tuning involved. The nature of the First Cause remains a mystery.
John, glad to hear that your wife is doing well! As a Canadian I had to chuckle about your health care reference. Good luck on that one!
Christianity is based on lies and the current crowd is following a long tradition. It seems to spill over in other areas, as there is lying about public health care, WMD's, President Obama's citizenship, etc, etc.
While lying is an obvious sin, the rational may be that lying for Jesus is fine. Coming to the defense of God may score you points!
Ray makes the argument that creation says there was a creator. He goes on to assume it's Yahweh, but the argument is the same ol' teleological argument that you said is convincing. Hence the dilemma: Reconciling your obviously learned opinion with an identical position from the pillar of ignorance that is the Banana Man.
I'd be happy to discuss the "fine tuning" and First Cause arguments in more detail via PM if you'd like. Although I'm not an authority on this, I'm a physicist by training.
With all respect, I think you're committing guilt by association here. Just because I may agree with an idiot on one detail doesn't put me in his camp.
Having slept on it, and re-reading my remarks, I can understand why they would come across as hostile. Apologies, that wasn't my intent.
It's also possible your use of the terms is different from the conventions that I'm used to dealing with - on my campus, there's a small cluster of atheists/agnostics, and a ludicrously large group of evangelist Christians, but very few (if any) deists to speak to, so a misunderstanding on my part is perhaps more likely than I initially estimated.
Oh no, I didn't take it as hostile but as a misunderstanding, one fostered by apologists like Ray Comfort. The "new argument" he presented on Nightline was a rehashing (or more accurately, hijacking) of classic deist thinking about the First Cause (namely the clock maker argument).
HAHAHAHA. Theologica37 is the prototype theist con man. When confronted by people that actually know what they are talking about, rather then mindless drones that are unable to think for themselves, he gets his ass handed to him. Hilarious.
TAG? I hate that argument. It's nothing more than a confusing philosophical smokescreen claiming that man couldn't have logic & reason if not for the gnomes in my sock drawer.
Fuck, not TAG again. Got to be one of the most dishonest bullshit sophist "arguments" for god I've ever heard save for the ontological "argument". How about some fucking EVIDENCE for your sky fairy!
I'll never forget my reaction when I heard them being discussed on one freethought forum. Even as a deist, these arguments sounded so laughably lame that I thought surely the poster made the classic mistake of reading from a parody site and thinking it was a serious argument.
TAG and the Ontological argument have a sort of Landover Baptist quality to them, don't you thnk?
Another lying theist *gasp* didn't see that one kidding. Why are those creationists so cool? Always breaking the law, lying and getting sent to jail. We're so lame :(
very true. If you look at some of my videos, you can see a whole bunch of pompous responses I get there. It's like they think they win an argument by brow beating me.
I think the correct word is "hypocrite", when you accuse and demean someone else of doing precisely what you're doing in the first place.
The "liar" part is covered in his false explanation of the passage, where he knowingly misrepresents the verse to prove his point.
It also makes him a blasphemer and a heretic, so we all know where he's doing according to his belief system (but not according to his beliefs, obviously).
It's true. I was working out regularly and on a strict diet when we met. Working out after work is so much easier when you don't have someone to come home to. My diet has also unraveled since she moved in. I think it's also fair to say I don't feel as much pressure to look great for the ladies and certain gentlemen any longer.
Dt. 21:14 (NAB) - "However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Even the NAB's reading make as a condition of her freedom, the master's whim. When I was in majoring in the Bible, you would lose massive amounts of credit if you based an argument on one unique reading of a certain translation. Sucks to be him.
Dang John, why do you even bother with people like this? Theologica37 just isn't willing to admit that the authors of the Bible lived in a primitive time and they projected their beliefs onto their deity. Nothing will get through to him.
I'm just curious, but how come you've never done any videos on VenomfangX? I know he's been gone for months, but I'm surprised you've pretty much ignored him. Did you think he's too easy a target?
Others, far better than myself (Thunderfoot comes to mind), took care of the PCS pwnage.
And you're right, it's starting to look like beating up on school children here but he really asked for it. I did say I'm done and this video was the finishing blow.
In the next two I'm going to move onto a more broad discussion of the TAG argument and answer some questions about my own concepts of God and morality.
If there is a condition (that the man is not pleased with the captive woman) which says that the man must release the captive woman and not treat her as a slave or sell her, would that not therefore mean that she is *not* a sex-slave?
Tell you what, Mig. You agree to come work for me under forced labor conditions and if I arbitrarily decide that I'm not happy with your work, then you can be let go without being sold. You wouldn't call that "slavery" would you?
Of course they aren't sex slaves. Sex slaves are more specialized. An arranged marriage is more like a cleaning, working, sex, and child-bearing slave. Still isn't a good thing. I mean, your trading your daughter for money, where are the differences here?
Theologica obviously isn't that intelligent or he would choose his lies with greater care. The art of a religious apologist is not to win an argument but to survive it without people laughing or being disgusted and repelled by your dishonesty. Theo ain't that good.
Not surpising, most christian apologists are intentionally dishonest and deceptive people, and one who doesn't bother to dig deep into their claims to realize they are full of crap will easily be mislead by them.
you gotta give theologica points for trying. lol. I love these apologists...they remind me of badly programmed computers. Shit goes in...thus shit comes out. The only difference being that when they run out of shit...they invent their own.
Theologica, believes in a made up fairy tale. The bible is a shit book, and he's making shut arguments. Let him debate that. I think deep down he knows it.
Theologica is such a prick. His entire "The failure of secular ethics" series is a joke. What a moron.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
And the only reason why you wouldn't sell her into slavery is because you broke her hymen, and hence she is worthless, which would make you a dishonest salesman.
That part of the verse is important, too.
SSJ3Ulcer 2 years ago
That's the reason why I despise christians so much! Because of their dishonesty, falsehoods, and manipulation. They hate anything that's truthful (unless it supports their case) because truth is a stumbling block to their satanic religion. These worshipers of the Devil are nothing but scandalous criminals!
armelix73 2 years ago
Kick ASSSSS!!!!!
grinder73 2 years ago
very powerful stuff man
kgyantixbc 2 years ago
Nicely done.
timeofwonder2009 2 years ago
Excellent work. Well done!
ristinraccoon 2 years ago
Ironically enough, he's now lying about why he got busted for lying.
I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time on a compulsive liar.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Mister Paladin:
You rock my face off.
End of comment.
thesaxist02 2 years ago
You've got to suspect a translation committee when they come up with a translation that
A) alters the clear meaning of the text
B) is different in meaning than ANY of the other common translations
C) inserts/deletes words in ORDER to alter the meaning
NIV does this on many occasions. The Bible is the Christian's worst enemy.
TruthSurge 2 years ago 2
"The Bible is the Christian's worst enemy"
That's a great slogan. I want a Tshirt with that one!
4312ton 2 years ago 2
ANd it's true, too! I'll make you an image of it to print at a t-shirt printing place. I'll do it for $15, make a btn for ya to pay me and email it today! msg me!
In fact, a better slogan might be a pic of the Bible and under it it says: The Christian's Worst Nightmare
HEHEHEHHE
TruthSurge 2 years ago 2
Jewish counter-apologetics ranks up there as well. It's a distant second place but a point of embarressment nonetheless.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Even the translators of the Septuagint (ca 200BCE) knew what the Hebrew text said.
Deut 21:14 (LXX translated into English)
14 And it shall be if thou do not delight in her, thou shalt send her out free; and she shall not by any means be sold for money, thou shalt not treat her contemptuously, because thou hast humbled her.
IOW, if you didn't get turned on by her after a while, you couldn't just sell her off for profit. Had to just let her go. No "if she wishes" about it.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Sad. Theologica37 goes translation shopping to find the least barbaric wording and even IT doesn't help his cause. The woman can only go free AFTER her husband finds no pleasure in her but really, that's not how it worked. If the husband decided to boot her out, she was GONE, bro. King Solomon had what, 300 wives? hahaha Women were little more than cattle to those barbarians who's progeny are perpetuating the dark ages even today.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Great job as always DeistPaladin.
5/5
fegu 2 years ago
haha ^^ funny how he's pointing fingers at a deist and calling you a "fundamentalist atheist"...
my advice for people like him: put a few more words of this kind in front of the word atheist, like: "you're a fundamentalist, militant, extrimist, fanatic dyed-in-the-wool [etc. etc.] atheist"! That'll surely help in a debate! =)
HubertCumberdale22 2 years ago
Oh dear.. will your madness ever cease?
Are you ever going to address the arguments?
I suppose you found it clever to make another ignorant video like this and then not pose it as a response-- as if to avoid me nailing you down again. .. Needless you've failed.
Theologica37 2 years ago
"madness". This from someone who believes that blood sacrifice on a cross makes everything better.
Video #2 will shoot TAG full of even more holes, putting aside the circular reasoning and the immorality of the biblical god (already dealt with).
Video #3 will deal with your non sequitur of "oh yeah, well what about YOUR beliefs". It's kind of beside the point but I've been meaning to restart my Deism FAQ series anyway.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Your mistakes when speakin of Christian Ethics were broad; So fundamentally flawed as to not even qualify as an attempted refutation, and I sincerely mean that.
Remove these errors in your reasoning.
Your dodge and weave style of apologetics is hardly persuasive. Ignoring all rational discussion, calling the other person a liar, and then running away--- might as well be a tacit intellectual submission.
If you expect to be taken seriously, I recommend really thinking through your next video.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theo37
Mr. Armstrong is correct. Your position is circular reasoning in the context of moral perfection. All it appears to boil down to is saying God is moral perfection, because He's God.
This is fallacious, unless you can give a more robust explication.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
...and he also needs to explain why the biblical god can be described as moral in spite of the rape, genocide, injustice, slavery and personal acts of evil as described in his book. This time, without lying.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Remember, your argument for why I am "lying" is due to your own ignorance. It would be in your best interest to stop embarassing yourself. I am a Catholic who always quotes the NAB-- check my previous videos.
Not only have your points been addressed, but I also took your position and analyzed in in the light of your assertions. Needless to say you have immediate contradictions with what you call "god". You have lied, not me. You said you would address the latter points-- and didn't.
Theologica37 2 years ago
It wasn't your choice of translation. It was the quote mining. That's what makes you a liar.
Now you're lying about why you got busted for lying.
And your questions about my belief system are beside the point (i.e. "Oh yeah, well how about what YOU believe, huh, huh?") but I will address them in video #3.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
The slippery slope continues.
John, I always quote the NAB. Go check another one of my videos. I am a Catholic-- OF COURSE biblegateway (a protestant engine) does not have the text. Are you that dim?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Quit embarassing yourself.
Theologica37 2 years ago
It wasn't your choice of the NAB.
It was your quote mining.
Clear?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@Theologica37
You have the nerve to claim Mr.Armstrong is embarrassing himself? You? The same person who claims the Laws of Mathematics have ontological priority to the spatio-temporal, which is an embarrassingly fallacious statement that commits the fallacy of hypostatization.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Theo-illogica: only a few hundred years ago your fellow Catholics would have burned you at the stake for reading a Bible. Apparently it was God's will that you should live now and not then. Lucky you.
4312ton 2 years ago
Liar
jdnmlm 2 years ago
"Christian Ethics"
Best oxymoron I ever heard.
4312ton 2 years ago
It seems to me that John has effectively demolished any and all of your arguments. As a theist you can't accept that and will always repeat that your erroneous claims are "not answered".
No matter how much comfort it gives Christians, atheism in not a belief or religion.
4312ton 2 years ago
If he had any ability to recognize that he'd just had his butt handed to him, he would have quit after I did my "rape in the Bible" video. Instead, he continues to dig himself in deeper and deeper. It's rather pitiful actually.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Oh, 43, I forgot to warn you. Theo insists that atheism is properly defined as a positive denial of God's existence. Any atheist who says otherwise, that it's a lack of a belief, (like, say Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris) is just some blogger who doesn't know anything about atheism.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I would not describe atheism in that manner.
And yes, I have warned you about quoting bloggers and not using academic sources. It would seem that your arguments from Deuteronomy 20 and 21 are perfect examples of the problems that arise from this type of shotty research.
If you are going to make an argument, make it. You're embarassing yourself.
Theologica37 2 years ago
You not only would but in fact you did describe atheism in this manner. When I tried to correct you, you stubbornly refused to budge.
And the word is "shoddy".
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
O come on theo, this is such a stupid comment, for you to have typed it out and thought it was smart, blos my mind.
Maybe he posted it as a response to his own video, very much in a way someone posts a 2nd part of a video to part 1 and not to the video they're replying to, most of the time. So you can stop acting like he was trying to hide it.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
Born on the day of the passover? Dude SHHHH your making our side look dumb.
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
Theologica37's apologetic, to explain away a moral problem, by leaving out words, phrases, or context are so common among Christian apologists of all stripes - whether layperson or professional theologian. I guess their beliefs don't impart any sense of integrity.
alphacause 2 years ago 2
How can anyone be honest with others if they spend so much time lying to themselves?
What was it Shakespeare said, "to thine own self be true"?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Amazing. I have to admit, before I started watching christian vids on youtube, and becomming more aware of how they debate with atheists, I had NEVER REALIZED the prevalence of OUTRIGHT LYING among believers.
They simply have NO PROBLEM explicitly and purposefully lying...for da lawd.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
@Highwind
I was tempted to agree with you but the reality is that unless you fight these people, they will just keep lying until they find other people that aren't capable of resisting the lies. So unfortunately this is a fight that must be fought if we are to preserve rational thought and honest debate from charlatans.
kmg501 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
Highwind, that debate is the US is still raging with 76% of the US population identifying themselves as Christians. Up to 85% in the South. They set a highly intrusive agenda through political and social intervention, and an ongoing "culture war".
Perhaps their power and numbers are waning, but until they reach European percentages, nobody can, or should, ignore them.
4312ton 2 years ago
Even when they get to European levels, ignore them at your own peril. Sometimes a new religion moves in to take the place of the old (like Islam).
As bad as things are here, I don't envy the Europeans.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Your point about the wholesale importation of Muslims into Western Europe is well taken. The disaster of official "multiculturalism"! But Europe, just like the US, is not homogeneous. Catholic percentages in the US stayed fairly constant despite a major drop in your area. The reason: migration of Mexicans into the SouthWest.
I find secular Europe a breath of fresh air, but they may well turn into Islamic republics over time.
4312ton 2 years ago
Hence my point about eternal vigilance. I would be saddened if the secular paradise of Europe were lost to a different form of religious Dark Age.
And Catholics are, these days anyway, a cool groove in comparison to the Protestants. Most of the religious nuts here that make the news are in the latter camp. Obviously, I prefer the non-religious but if I were somehow forced to be Christian, I'd be a Catholic.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Perhaps Catholics are Christian "Light" in some Western areas, but this is mostly due to some very bad PR events, and the rejection by the flock of the Vatican edicts.
In less developed areas, such as Africa, the church imposes their morals, preaches against condoms and played a major role in the Rwanda massacres.
4312ton 2 years ago
Point well taken. American Catholics are very liberal in comparison to the Protestants here.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Wish we could hear more of those liberal voices, because the major Catholic resources like Catholic Answers, EWTN, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all run by people who sing the party line. The major lesson I get from these groups is if you're Catholic and you lie, steal, or rape, you'll be told that those are bad things, but no one will question your religious sincerity. It's only when you support contraceptives or declare yourself pro-choice you'll be called a "Catholic-in-name-only."
GuineaPigDan 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
I do not disagree with you, but we're often dealing with people who have been brainwashed since early childhood. They have completely internalized religious garbage. It has the same effect as crack cocaine. In religion we are dealing with mass co-dependency.
Education is a tool, but we are dealing with a religious environment of re-enforcement and very effective social inclusion.
The good news is that religious attrition can be very rapid. In Quebec and Europe it took a couple of decades.
4312ton 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
Right, so the proceeding question is how do we replicate those effects here in the U.S. to trigger the needed social change?
AntidoteY 2 years ago
Also, how to we reproduce these effects among Muslims, both in Europe and elsewhere to bring about this deconversion?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
The Muslims play hardball. The prescribed penalty for apostasy is death.
4312ton 2 years ago
The Christians used to be the same way. They used to burn heretics at the stake (which is arguably far more gruesome than an Islamic style beheading).
The key is to dump political correctness now! Islam isn't a "race".
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Agreed on the beheading. Burning at the stake was meant to be a prolonged torture/death. The History Channel has done a program covering the intent of burning at the stake. Christians don't want you to die ...they want to enjoy the spectacle of prolonged inevitable death. But torture/death is not just reserved for the heretic but Jesus as well "Passion of the Christ" exploits the same masochism. Just had to throw my 2cents in. KUDOS DEISTPALADIN!
2EZEE 2 years ago
Thanks to, "multiculturalism", European politicians in power, and Muslim apologists, will always try to frame anti-Islamic statements as racist rather than anti-religious. Even in Europe religion is still politically untouchable.
Same in the US. Notice Bush always always referred to Islam as a "great religion". Obama is no better as per his unsightly fawning to the Middle Eastern theofascists.
4312ton 2 years ago
When push comes to shove, Christians and Muslims will quickly forget their differences and ban together to maintain the current taboos against criticizing religious belief. "Those infidels/heathens follow a false god" quickly turns into "I'm OK, you're OK" when those big bad atheists come round.
It's not hard to figure out why.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Exactly, there have been numerous times when they bury the hatchet and form a united front. Their motto: any religion is better than no religion!
4312ton 2 years ago
It's already happening. The latest polls show that "no religious affiliation" is the most rapidly growing group in the US.
My theory is that the social programs in Europe, making life comfortable for everybody and not just the very rich, contributed to the demise of religion.
4312ton 2 years ago
I'd like to hear Theologica defend his use of the new whatever Bible he used that includes parts that aren't in previous translations. Does he read Hebrew, and can he point out where it says "if she wishes it" in the original document?
But when you consider that the rest of the verse involves invading, looting, killing all the men and shaving the women's heads and forcing them to marry you, letting her go isn't exactly a heroic thing to do at that point.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
Ok. I think I know what the ontological arguements is. {Argument from design], but what is TAG? I've no idea, could someone enlighten me, please?
Also, when talking about how moral Yahweh is, we need to consider everything. So keeping people against their will as sex slaves is morally wrong. So if Yahweh says it's okay, Yahweh is immoral. Also, who is WLC? Do you mean William Lane Craig? Dang, I feel out of the loop with all these acronyms! lol.
gustjorodedheo 2 years ago
The argument from design is the Teleological argument, which actually is persuasive for me, though I wouldn't use the term "proof" as much as "indication"
The Ontological argument states that God is the greatest thing that can be conceived, a being that exists is greater than one that doesn't and so therefore, God exists.
The Transcendental Argument states that morality and Logic can't exist without God, that these things exist and so therefore God exists.
And yes, WLC is Craig.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Whoops. I figured I had gotten them confused. In my first philosophy class, our professor demonstrated the Ontological argument by having us write as list of things we thought God should have. Then he "beat" us by including that God "exists". I still am not sure how people think that existance, wether real or hypthetical makes something better.
gustjorodedheo 2 years ago
John, as a freethinker, I'm curious as to why you consider the teleological argument persuasive. It always seemed to me to be a variant of the argument from ignorance (here, "I can't see how this could have occurred except by design, therefore there is a designer"), a fallacy you viciously attack (and rightfully so) when it emerges in Christianist arguments. The observation that it's a favorite of Ray "Banana Man" Comfort is enough to take me aback when I see *you* claim it to be "persuasive".
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
The problem with Ray Comfort's use of the watchmaker argument is that he leaps to the assumption that it's the Christian god who must be the First Cause (I have a video on that). Additionally, I won't go so far as to say it's decisive proof, as in a reason someone else should believe, but sufficient for the purpose of personal philosophy. There was, after all, a dramatic Creation billions of years ago with some fine tuning involved. The nature of the First Cause remains a mystery.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
John, glad to hear that your wife is doing well! As a Canadian I had to chuckle about your health care reference. Good luck on that one!
Christianity is based on lies and the current crowd is following a long tradition. It seems to spill over in other areas, as there is lying about public health care, WMD's, President Obama's citizenship, etc, etc.
While lying is an obvious sin, the rational may be that lying for Jesus is fine. Coming to the defense of God may score you points!
4312ton 2 years ago
Ray makes the argument that creation says there was a creator. He goes on to assume it's Yahweh, but the argument is the same ol' teleological argument that you said is convincing. Hence the dilemma: Reconciling your obviously learned opinion with an identical position from the pillar of ignorance that is the Banana Man.
I'd be happy to discuss the "fine tuning" and First Cause arguments in more detail via PM if you'd like. Although I'm not an authority on this, I'm a physicist by training.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
With all respect, I think you're committing guilt by association here. Just because I may agree with an idiot on one detail doesn't put me in his camp.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Having slept on it, and re-reading my remarks, I can understand why they would come across as hostile. Apologies, that wasn't my intent.
It's also possible your use of the terms is different from the conventions that I'm used to dealing with - on my campus, there's a small cluster of atheists/agnostics, and a ludicrously large group of evangelist Christians, but very few (if any) deists to speak to, so a misunderstanding on my part is perhaps more likely than I initially estimated.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
Oh no, I didn't take it as hostile but as a misunderstanding, one fostered by apologists like Ray Comfort. The "new argument" he presented on Nightline was a rehashing (or more accurately, hijacking) of classic deist thinking about the First Cause (namely the clock maker argument).
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA. Theologica37 is the prototype theist con man. When confronted by people that actually know what they are talking about, rather then mindless drones that are unable to think for themselves, he gets his ass handed to him. Hilarious.
SkullVodka 2 years ago
TAG? I hate that argument. It's nothing more than a confusing philosophical smokescreen claiming that man couldn't have logic & reason if not for the gnomes in my sock drawer.
/Iamninja
"I will enjoy watching you kill TAG soon!"
Holammer 2 years ago
Fuck, not TAG again. Got to be one of the most dishonest bullshit sophist "arguments" for god I've ever heard save for the ontological "argument". How about some fucking EVIDENCE for your sky fairy!
agnosticman77 2 years ago
I'll never forget my reaction when I heard them being discussed on one freethought forum. Even as a deist, these arguments sounded so laughably lame that I thought surely the poster made the classic mistake of reading from a parody site and thinking it was a serious argument.
TAG and the Ontological argument have a sort of Landover Baptist quality to them, don't you thnk?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Another lying theist *gasp* didn't see that one kidding. Why are those creationists so cool? Always breaking the law, lying and getting sent to jail. We're so lame :(
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
Wow. As if quote mining genuine science is not enough, quote mining from your own book has to be the pits.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago 3
Another dishonest theist, what a surprise.
slipcurve 2 years ago
"Another dishonest theist"
Don't forget condescending.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
Something I've learned from my exchanges on the internet:
There are people who think that putting on a pompous demeanor makes them look smart.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
very true. If you look at some of my videos, you can see a whole bunch of pompous responses I get there. It's like they think they win an argument by brow beating me.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
Your going to put down TAG in a single video, but its full of so many holes! That is a channels worth if you do it right.
rarrmonkey 2 years ago
typical christian... willing to lie and deceive in order to make the bible he worships sound just a bit more moral than the pile of dung that it is.
Well done video!
exodus21v20 2 years ago 5
Good
Steadno 2 years ago
Strangely, in an event unproven by science, Theologica's pants burst into flames.
Good name for the guy. "Theologica" = "Theist Logic" = Lies.
Rationalific 2 years ago
P.S. Sorry, I meant "unexplained by science"...
Rationalific 2 years ago
I think the correct word is "hypocrite", when you accuse and demean someone else of doing precisely what you're doing in the first place.
The "liar" part is covered in his false explanation of the passage, where he knowingly misrepresents the verse to prove his point.
It also makes him a blasphemer and a heretic, so we all know where he's doing according to his belief system (but not according to his beliefs, obviously).
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
haha theologica is too much.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Can't wait for the next video :"D
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago 2
Why does it NOT surprise me that he would have taken such an obviously deceitful tactic? Oh yeah, because that is all he ever does.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Indeed.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That is comment seems a little tongue in check there 'prof'.
Care to cite a single instance where this is the case? I eagerly await whatever you can come up with.
Make sure to message me.
Theologica37 2 years ago
Nicely done.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH
What's up "Prof Meth"? (Just kidding)
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Yeah get back to work Prof.We need more Bible Blunders man =D
lipoicacid 2 years ago 4
"You get back to work Prof. We need more Bible Blunders man."
LOL.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
John, you look fatter since you got married.
grassmaster180 2 years ago
@grassmaster180
Must mean she's a good cook! (Just kidding)
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I think he looks better that way though. right?
amberview30 2 years ago
It's true. I was working out regularly and on a strict diet when we met. Working out after work is so much easier when you don't have someone to come home to. My diet has also unraveled since she moved in. I think it's also fair to say I don't feel as much pressure to look great for the ladies and certain gentlemen any longer.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Great work -5 stars.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Get some R-Lipoic Acid and Vanadyl Sulfate.You'll be alright =D
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Owned.
Xilmwa 2 years ago
Dt. 21:14 (NAB) - "However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Even the NAB's reading make as a condition of her freedom, the master's whim. When I was in majoring in the Bible, you would lose massive amounts of credit if you based an argument on one unique reading of a certain translation. Sucks to be him.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago 2
Dang John, why do you even bother with people like this? Theologica37 just isn't willing to admit that the authors of the Bible lived in a primitive time and they projected their beliefs onto their deity. Nothing will get through to him.
I'm just curious, but how come you've never done any videos on VenomfangX? I know he's been gone for months, but I'm surprised you've pretty much ignored him. Did you think he's too easy a target?
GuineaPigDan 2 years ago
Others, far better than myself (Thunderfoot comes to mind), took care of the PCS pwnage.
And you're right, it's starting to look like beating up on school children here but he really asked for it. I did say I'm done and this video was the finishing blow.
In the next two I'm going to move onto a more broad discussion of the TAG argument and answer some questions about my own concepts of God and morality.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I look foward to you having a crack at William Craig.I would- but I can't even look at his mug =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
great vid DeistPaladin!
torpol 2 years ago
If there is a condition (that the man is not pleased with the captive woman) which says that the man must release the captive woman and not treat her as a slave or sell her, would that not therefore mean that she is *not* a sex-slave?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Tell you what, Mig. You agree to come work for me under forced labor conditions and if I arbitrarily decide that I'm not happy with your work, then you can be let go without being sold. You wouldn't call that "slavery" would you?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
"under forced labor conditions..."
serious question: are people in arranged marriages sex slaves?
"You wouldn't call that "slavery" would you?"
I'd call it statism. hehehehe.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Of course they aren't sex slaves. Sex slaves are more specialized. An arranged marriage is more like a cleaning, working, sex, and child-bearing slave. Still isn't a good thing. I mean, your trading your daughter for money, where are the differences here?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago 2
Theologica obviously isn't that intelligent or he would choose his lies with greater care. The art of a religious apologist is not to win an argument but to survive it without people laughing or being disgusted and repelled by your dishonesty. Theo ain't that good.
philhellenes 2 years ago 7
Not surpising, most christian apologists are intentionally dishonest and deceptive people, and one who doesn't bother to dig deep into their claims to realize they are full of crap will easily be mislead by them.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
*****!
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
Very Good Video!
You nailed that Christian Apologist's ass to the barn door.
Jesus needs his followers to lie for him because the Bible is a fraud.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Isn't it laughable how far an apologist will go to find a reason to justify the bible? Lol
5 stars for tearing that attempt apart :)
musicgeniusno1 2 years ago
you gotta give theologica points for trying. lol. I love these apologists...they remind me of badly programmed computers. Shit goes in...thus shit comes out. The only difference being that when they run out of shit...they invent their own.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Well done!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
pathetic...
theologica...you're just a sad human being... =-(
Zentz29 2 years ago
PWN SAUCE!
ericpao81 2 years ago
Did you expect anything more honest from a Christian apologist?
JaMoond 2 years ago 2
Once again DeistPaladin pwns Theologica! Lol.
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
Once again, well done John.
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
Theologica, believes in a made up fairy tale. The bible is a shit book, and he's making shut arguments. Let him debate that. I think deep down he knows it.
iDeist 2 years ago 4
Thats hardly a defensible position to take, iDeist-- I expect better from you.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
What is wrong with you Theo?
Lowes is not a word in the context of your usage. It's a U.S. based home improvement and appliance chain.
It should have been low's, not Lowes. Hahaha!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Pwned!
wimvandenberghe 2 years ago